Client interest in this subject got me thinking:  Has innovation become a component in the consumer value equation?  Is this why brands are so interested in owning this association?

The value equation has evolved over the years.  At its core remains three components:  quality, time and price.  But if innovation is an element which is becoming more central to consumer-perceived value, what is it exactly?

Here are my thoughts.  Innovation requires three things:

1. Initially, its “newness” must be tangible or something understood.  (If something’s too esoteric, consumers may have trouble connecting with the product or service.)
2. It needs to be something used (frequently) or easily integrated into a consumer’s life/lifestyle.  (Interaction is key to believing there’s added value; a consumer needs to notice their life is better/different day-to-day.)
3. It needs to be available or accessible to the market it’s targeting.  However, for a brand to get high marks for innovation, it needs to get there first.

Does a brand need to “invent” in order to “innovate”?  No.  Apple is the classic case history for this.  It didn’t invent the MP3 player or the cell phone or the tablet computer.  But clearly, Apple innovated technologies based on a belief that it could create a better user experience coupled with its “rebel with a cause,” anti-establishment attitude.

Google has been an innovator (and some might say inventor) from the start.  But lately I’m hearing the most about Google Apps and the new Google Droid cell phones – innovation not invention.  Along the way, it has become a more mainstream consumer brand (vs. a mere verb for finding things on the Web).

Nike has a history of “inventing” new technologies, borrowed heavily from other industry applications, and building them into its shoes and other gear.  Between its sports endorsements (don’t celebrities always want to wear the latest and greatest?) and selling at somewhat of a higher price for the newer models, it is most often viewed as the most innovative in its category.

Dell had an innovative selling model at the beginning:  they built each computer to order using high-quality components.  At one time, that innovation had value; a computer was a significant purchase.  As computer costs came down, and more known/mainstream/trusted players entered the market, the uniqueness of its selling model became something of an impediment.  So Dell took its products to retail.  An established name, but a brand I no longer consider an innovator in its field.  (They are doing a good job leveraging social media as a selling tool, however.)

While innovation may be playing a larger role in the consumer value equation, my caution is this:  innovation without brand loyalty is meaningless.  What a brand doesn’t want is to  have the cool, hot, innovative product or service of the moment, only to have early adopters flock to another brand who offers the next level in innovation.  How far a brand pushes with innovation should be consistent with its branding, its place in the competitive marketplace, and the short- and long-term dividends that innovations will pay – both to the bottom line and with consumers.

The last paragraph really caught my attention as I had just participated in a creativity session last week.

“Science historian George Dyson believes the Internet’s flood of information has altered the process of creativity: what once required ‘collecting all available fragments of information to assemble a framework of knowledge’ now requires ‘removing or ignoring unnecessary information to reveal the shape of knowledge hidden within.’ Creativity by destruction rather than assembly.”

The image I got from this was of “sculpting knowledge.” As a qualitative researcher, identifying consumer insights has always been about sculpting knowledge.

What does this have to do with my brain online? Well, my brain has been overwhelmed lately. I had some downtime over the holidays and I signed up for even more newsletters and feeds. I now need to cut back. I need time to think. The Internet is causing, as Evgeny Morozov said in the same article, “the disappearance of retrospection and reminiscence.”

It’s like a swimmer’s lung capacity: a swimmer might be able to hold their breath for a long time, but they still have to come up for air. I need a breath – to sculpt, process, digest – whatever your metaphor.

So is the Web changing how I think? No, at best it’s impacting how I problem solve (as I’m able to seek out so much more information in this new way). It provides me with more to think about.

Creativity is an iterative, infinite process: from inspiration to output and back again. It’s likely we’ve always been “assembling” and “destroying.” Said another way, when we seek the “knowledge hidden within,” it’s always through the prism of our “framework of knowledge.”

What are your thoughts?