For years, innovation in food and beverage has been tethered to the notion of the new. If not new to the world or the industry, then at least new to the company. But this preoccupation with novelty can distort how organizations assess ideas. Instead of evaluating opportunities purely on their potential, many teams unconsciously filter them through a different lens: has anything like this been tried (here) before?

If the answer is yes—even vaguely so—the idea often gets dismissed or deprioritized. Cue the familiar refrain: “We tried that before, and it didn’t work.”

Ironically, this posture isn’t creative at all. It’s defensive. It shuts down exploration rather than fuels it. And in doing so, it can cause companies to miss some of their most promising opportunities.

The Logic Flaws in “We Tried That Already”

The tendency to disqualify ideas based on past attempts rests on a shaky foundation. It assumes three things:

1. That conditions haven’t changed. Consumer preferences, supply landscapes, ingredient and production technologies and even competitive dynamics evolve constantly. An idea that felt off-trend or technically implausible five years ago might now be perfectly timed.
2. That the idea is identical. In reality, “similar” efforts often differ in execution, positioning, or even core attributes. What failed before may not have been the same concept at all, but can still prove to be critical impetus for the next big idea.
3. That the execution was flawless. Many past efforts could have been hampered by factors like resource constraints, misaligned marketing support, or premature timing—not by the idea itself.

In other words, rejecting an idea simply because it resembles a prior ‘failed’ attempt is like ruling out a recipe because you once overbaked it.

Why Starting from Scratch Isn’t Always Smarter

When novelty becomes the main criterion, companies spend disproportionate time championing “different enough” ideas instead of the best ones. That bias increases risk. Starting from scratch means higher investment, longer lead times, and fewer built-in learnings to draw from.

And in an industry where the odds are already stacked against new products, that risk is real. Studies suggest that 70-90% of new food and beverage products fail in the market. Even more conservative estimates peg consumer goods launch failure rates at 30-45%.

Either way, the majority of new ideas don’t fully succeed. Against that backdrop, treating prior initiatives as off-limits isn’t just wasteful—it’s strategically ignorant.

The Hidden Goldmine in Abandoned Ideas

Over time, most companies accumulate a library of past efforts: concepts that were explored to some degree but ultimately shelved. These “idea starters” often have untapped value.

Unlike brand-new concepts, they’ve already been battle-tested in some fashion. They may have early-stage consumer feedback, pilot results, or at least some organizational memory attached. This means they are partially de-risked and, in many cases, easier to accelerate.

The problem? Few companies treat this archive as a strategic resource. More often, it sits scattered across old PowerPoint decks, forgotten testing results, or the memories of team members who may have since moved on.

Barriers—and Practical Fixes

So how can organizations tap into this latent stockpile of opportunity? There are a few common challenges, but each has a workable solution:

1. Lack of organized records.

Past projects are often not cataloged in a way that makes them easy to revisit.

• Solution: Build a structured “immersion” step at the start of major innovation pushes. Interview legacy team members, identify and review old files, and capture institutional knowledge. Looking ahead, companies can even use emerging AI tools to tag and track each innovation effort—including why it was paused or ended—so future teams can more easily find and learn from them.

2. Difficulty assessing relevance today.

Even when past ideas resurface, it’s not obvious which are worth reconsidering.

• Solution: Develop a quick (i.e. timebound) but structured diligence framework. Screen archived ideas against current consumer insights, market or supply realities, and brand strategy in a two-stage process. The first “cut” cleaves off anything that is clearly not relevant or viable today, while the second prioritizes the remaining options based on their current potential. Doing this efficiently filters for those that could better resonate now, while discarding those that still lack sufficient viability.

By turning these barriers into systematized practices, companies can create a pipeline of “renovation-ready” idea-starters to complement their pursuit of “fresh” innovation options.

From Innovation to Renovation

Call it a shift from innovation to renovation. Renovation doesn’t mean "scheduled maintenance" of existing products or simply recycling old ideas for the sake of efficiency. It means recognizing that past efforts exist, understanding they were born in a different context, and intentionally revisiting them with fresh perspective to harvest their current value.

In fact, one could argue that true creativity lies not only in conjuring what’s never been imagined, but in recognizing hidden potential in what’s already there.

Why Intent Is Everything

The real unlock is intent. Without a conscious effort to keep past initiatives visible and accessible, they remain buried. With intent, companies open up a new set of possibilities—ones that may be faster to market, less risky, and more relevant given the evolution of consumer needs and market conditions.

And in an increasingly volatile packaged food and beverage landscape, where performance and margins appear to be under unrelenting pressure, finding more reliable, efficient ways to achieve growth goals through innovation—no matter the original source—seems to be worth the effort.