¶ … decision Erickson should recommend, whether to develop a healthy Progresso soup line internally, or collaborating with Weight Watchers in the development. General Mills has been successful at developing other light foods, such as yogurt, so they could probably develop their own brand of light soups for the Progresso brand. However, collaborating with a well-known and respected brand such as Weight Watchers could allow them to be more creative and innovative with their soups, because Weight Watchers is a known brand, and they have developed their own successful line of Weight Watcher food items, so they have much more experience.
General Mills might choose to develop their light soups on their own, because they have their own development department with years of experience, and they have developed light products in the past that have become successful. Since Progresso is so successful, they might want to keep the makeup of the soup proprietary and not share them with a collaborator. It could also weaken the brand if the collaborator does not develop a distinctive product. The evidence in the case illustrates that General Mills has a large development department, and they successfully develop dozens of products every year, even light products, so it seems that in many ways, General Mills could be successful developing the product internally.
However, that being said, there are numerous advantages to collaborating with a partner for General Mills. Since Weight Watchers is experienced in developing successful healthy foods for consumers, it would make sense to partner with them. That would allow General Mills to develop the line at a faster rate, and achieve a light soup alternative quicker and easier. It could also reduce development and research costs, and allow both companies more flexibility in the research and development process, giving them both the ability to work on other products and solutions at the same time.
General Mills could also learn techniques and strategies from Weight Watchers that they could use to develop future light products in other product lines, so the collaboration could create more knowledge and awareness that they could use in the future. On the other hand, if the collaboration is successful, they could continue to collaborate on other product lines, which would be cost effective and beneficial to both parties.
There are many different types of collaboration, and choosing the right one could make or break the project. First, there are Strategic Alliances, which are either formal or informal agreements between organizations to cooperate in some form. Joint Ventures are partnerships that result in investing equity and often result in new companies or ventures. Licensing allows one company to use another's product or advertising, and Outsourcing is sending all production and development off site or even out of the country. Collective Research organizes a group of firms to collaborate together. In General Mills case, a strategic alliance would probably be the most successful type of alliance, because both are well-known and respected brands, and sharing the credit could bring them support not only from those loyal to the Progresso brand, but those loyal to Weight Watchers, as well.
Innovation has been a big part of General Mills' history, and they have developed from a flour mill to a food giant during their years in business. In fact, Progresso, the soup to be developed, was the first canned, ready-to-eat soup in history, so it already shows a history of innovation, (even though it was acquired through Pillsbury). That the company wanted to continue that tradition of innovation is clear. However, GM CEO Kendall Powell created a "G-WIN" team that identified external sources of innovation and technology, so he clearly saw a need for outside assistance inside the company. In addition, this would be the first light ready-to-eat soup, so success meant developing flavors and tastes that consumers would enjoy, while lightening up the fat, calories, and salt. Weight Watchers has been doing this for years with their products, so it seems as if it would be a good fit for them to work together. In addition, it would reduce costs for both companies if they collaborated out the work and development, and they could reach two focus groups at the same time, doubling their input and giving them more data to analyze before they bring their products to the public.
You’re 78% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.