Semiotics of innovation

“How to think, create and promote innovation? The contribution of semiotics to social innovation and brand innovation”

I had the pleasure to participate to a round table on innovation and digital in Paris. Here is a small overview of my key ideas from my analysis. 

INNOVATION: a semantics placed under the sign of modernity

Let’s begin with the semiolinguistic analysis of the term “innovation”.

The word analysis and its uses in our society and in the digital worlds appears to be really enriching. We can learn 4 lessons here:  

First lesson: By analysing the definition of the word, we realize that it’s important to make the difference between innovation as a ‘process’ and innovation as ‘results’, products… The distinction between the dynamics and the processes turns out to be essential before any analysis of an innovative project or practice.

Second lesson: As shown in the diagram below, I was able to identify a triangulation of three characteristic terms of the semantics of innovation: “novelty”, “inventiveness”, “change”.  The whys and wherefores of innovation are clear here: innovation as a process creates brand-new and ingeniousness processes and innovations that surprise by their singularity and change things radically. In other words, new or innovative content makes sense regarding the underlying standards. 

Third lesson: In terms of innovation linguistic imaginaries, we can note that the question of technology is central, if not crucial and tremendous. Looking at the facts, we notice a semantics reduction, a shortcut that reduces the innovation to technological novelty and leads to a progress idea. The term technology then takes over. However, even if the question of technology is often the backbone of innovation, we can’t possibly generalise that aspect. From a comprehension point of view, innovation cannot be reduced to technology.

Fourth lesson: While reading ‘classic’ and ‘digital’ documents, we quickly realise that the uses of the term ‘innovation’ are not specific to the digital world. There exists a general way of talking about innovation.

Please consider the below schema:

Let’s look further the question of the meaning of the term ‘innovation’ with a contextual analysis (advertising and corporate communications). Thus, we notice two facts that highlights the social value of this notion:

1- Advertising meaning: the word ‘innovation’ works as a label, like ‘new’ or ‘novelty’. That sounds like an appeal to the desire of the consumer and its role is just to draw consumer’s attention. And it is not much different on the digital.

2- Corporate meaning: in that case, the word ‘innovation’ is linked to the expression of leadership. The brand tries to raise the feeling of membership with its stakeholders. Talking about innovation is a positive way to present the brand dynamics, its vitality and its growth, in other words: its potentials and its successful future. The digital doesn’t change the story on that point.

After all, even if there is no big surprise with these analyses, we have now a better understanding of that word and its social value. Let’s change our point of view.

INNOVATION OF PROCESSES: towards a semiological typology

‘Innovation’ is not just a word: it’s first and foremost a social practice, secondly an entrepreneurial process.

Close to other social theories, the semiological definition of innovation considers that innovation is a new solution that hadn’t been previously formulated in the same way. In other words, the process of innovation invents the answer at the same time as it creates the question: thus, we discover both a new problem and its solution.

This paradoxical definition leads to the crucial question of the gap and of the unexpected experience. I think that the notion of ‘paradox’ is the best way to question and to analyse what innovation is (and to look at all the problems the brand will have to face in its communication).

Innovation is a very specific kind of novelty. One could compare it to poetry: the poetic language is a deviation from the norm that manages to reinvent the norm! This deviation is far more thn a simple novelty, it’s not only a question of difference from the competitors or from similar projects: it creates a surprising and unexpected experience. The surprise comes from the fact that innovation plays on categories, on paradigms, more than on content. The key lesson is simple: we should analyse every innovation by first considering this twisted paradigm…

I use the word ‘paradox’ for a reason: even if it’s new, innovation doesn’t last, it will normalise, it will become the standard.

As such, thanks to the semioliguistic analysis and to the semiological definition of innovation, I propose a semiotic typology of the different forms of innovation :

1.     Technological innovation: rarely perceptible, discreet, intrinsic.

2.     Device innovation: media, interface, brand.

3.     Social innovation (called ‘non-technological innovation’): a differentiated approach of the needs and of the interactions, a reorganisation of the knowledge and of the way of acting.

Please consider the below schema:

As you will note, there is a tension between the basic values (functionality) and the values of use. We have two completely different points of view: we have a balance between ‘performance’ (I should add - increased performance) and ‘competence’ (skills, savoir-faire, know how…).

Between these two positions, we notice also another change: the relationship to reality is ‘discrete’ in the case of technological innovation and the real is ‘restructured’ in the case of social innovation.

Of course, a typology is not an end in itself: it is a way to arm oneself to analyse a heterogeneity of documents and practices (digital, technological or social). It enables us to better understand and to better explain how each innovation produces meaning and signification.

Now we are ready to face the one and only question that is truly exciting: what about innovation in the digital realm?

The digital world focuses on use values, social using. It’s not a truism to emphasise the social focus of social networks: it is such an emphatic element that we have to reverse the approach. And that’s why I think there is a whole survey to do with the aim of questioning both innovation in the digital world and digital innovation.

Concretely, to analyse innovative digital projects, the key word is not ‘technology’, but ‘use’. We should question the technology from that point, not directly and take into consideration the user. Thos means we must overturn the centrality of technology when we analyse digital innovation: that would be a journey from use to device, from device to technology, and then, back from technology to use.

In a few words, thanks to a wide range of examples, I identify three general advantages of digital for innovation that should be systematically analysed:

·       Time (responsiveness),

·       Space (an anchor),

·       Organisational factors (the crossover) that allow ownership and involvement .

And what difficulties?

SEMIOLOGICAL INNOVATION: what speech to advise? 

At the crossover of linguistics and anthropology, the meaning of innovation is a question that shouldn’t be neglected because its contribution is essential, both to talk about innovation and to promote it: digital innovation – and more generally innovation, in the digital sphere and in Society – produces meaning and tells stories that require specific explanations.

There are some difficulties to solve. 

In the same way that real luxury never uses the word ‘luxury’, a truly innovative brand that invents solutions to new questions shouldn’t use the word 'innovation’ in the digital communication.

In terms of communication, the challenge of digital  innovation is different and we can identify some possible semiotic routes:

·       Learning pedagogy as a key in the discourse : conceptual learning classes involved must guide the keynote address . Remains to identify paradigms involved, question the media belief and membership.

·       A change in rhetoric approach with a focus on the user (versus on the product): it is important first to consider needs, then motivations and desire so as to explain the action, and not only the ‘novelty’.

·       In parallel to the innovation process, a focus on innovation consumption: it is important to stay tuned to ownership to adjust the speech and the device when the innovation becomes normalised.

To conclude, the theme of innovation, apparently undermined, is truly an exciting one: the choice of words, rhetoric and tone of voice must derive from the idea that innovation is as an object of sense. And therefore, to be effective and ensure the value of the project, there is nothing more relevant and operational than a semiotic expertise of the brand project.