Commemities (3): Benefits of Defining Innovation as ‘Introduction of New Narrative’
In this series I present a proposal for narrative-centered analytics that may automatically adapt to the unpredictable changes that drive the innovation economy, and that might be a formula for zero-assumption analytics. It builds on the idea that people connect memes and memes connect people. A commemity is defined as {community + shared memes} or, equivalently, memes and people holding each other together in a cluster.
In this series:
1. Narrative-Centric Analytics
2. Defining Narrative-Centric Innovation
3. Benefits of Defining Innovation as ‘Introduction of New Narrative’
4. Analyzing Trends in an Innovation Economy
to be continued…..
When a company works on an innovative product or service, this needs to be in place:
- A Name, Definition and Narrative: This idea is the very heart of language-centered analytics, you can read about it in my first commemities post. The name and definitions are practical necessities, the narrative is what makes customers relate, identify and choose to become a part of the story.
- Technology enabling the narrative.
- Business sustaining the narrative.
As I explained in the second commemities post, an innovation always means the introduction of a new narrative and we might even define innovation this way, eve if not all new narratives are innovations. But what I’m suggesting here — a language-centric definition of innovation — is an innovation, a narrative-innovation at this stage, because there is no business or technology in it.
The narrative-centric definition is useful for hands on purposes, even when the goal is not to deal with narrative as such, but to make technology, business and policy decisions. It is fully compatible with business- or technology-centric innovation world-views, it’s a reframing. That said, it’s a different way of thinking that may lead to different choices of strategy. For example, let’s take the two strategic questions from my first post — they are a practical mindtool for CEOs and other leaders in charge of marketing and branding:
- How will my narrative become their narrative?
- How will it remain mine, once it’s theirs?
Finding the best answer to these two questions involve constructing business models and technologies. They are the tools, the desired outcome is to own the narrative. Design and marketing typically address the first question. Intellectual property and branding typically the second one. But it’s difficult to draw strict lines, they can all address both questions more or less.
Pros and Cons of ‘Narrative-Centric’ Innovation
PROs:
- It addresses all innovation: An innovation need not always introduce new technology, a new business model or a new market. But it must introduce a new narrative, a new way of relating;
- It is more human: The human mind is narrative-centric;
- It is good for analyzing disruptive innovation: Disruptive innovation is when an old narrative is rendered irrelevant by a new narrative.
CONs:
- It is ambiguous: A narrative is more subjective than technology or business. It comes with a freedom of interpretation and will contain more ambiguity. It can mean different things to different stakeholders.
- There are few, if any, methods or tools: There are not well developed computerized language-centric innovation models or analytics;
- There is little connection with contemporary economics
The Innovation Economy is More Narrative-Centric
Business always depended on innovation in the long run and selling more of the same in the short run. In a market where people replace a consumed product with another one of the same, selling ‘more-of-the-same’ drives the business while innovation prepares the future. But the future comes ever closer, because companies will compete to innovate and product and service life cycles shrink. When the speed of innovation reaches the point that people never buy the same product twice, innovation drives the business. When innovation goes so fast that people will buy a product on the promise of what the next product will do, innovation IS the business.
A traditional market trading more of the same is completely different from a market trading innovation. In the market trading more of the same, innovation is for the experts behind the scenes. They can trade visions using complicated language. But when the visions themselves are traded, storytelling and simple language are key. Complicated language is bad for salespeople. There will still be complicated language for innovation behind the scenes because much that has potential value does not have a simple language. But the innovation market demands simpler language and compelling stories earlier on in the innovation process.
In short, in a winning innovation economy, customers are always ready to relate in new ways, buying into new narratives — and the stakeholders behind the innovations are good at presenting new narratives that people want to be part in.
Here is a table with a language-centric comparison of the more-of-the-same economy and the innovation economy, They are very different!
This table was made for the Innovation Journalism Center at Stanford. The idea behind the center, and the at-the-time novel concept of ‘Innovation Journalism’ (InJo) — journalism covering innovation ecosystems and processes — was that journalism could play a key constructive role in an innovation economy by catalyzing common language for innovation across the stakeholder groups. Why is this a good idea? Because today, when technology and business develop super quick, a large part of what holds us back is the sluggishness of developing new common language between ourselves. We need great storytellers to introduce us to the new possible ways of relating, and we need to share a common language so that we can talk about it with each other.
If you are interested, the story of Innovation Journalism and the innovative ideas going on at my center at Stanford is available online.
Next post: Analyzing Trends In an Innovation Economy
