There's a recurring confusion when we talk about communication and marketing in innovation: both are treated as synonyms or, in some cases, marketing simply isn't included in the equation.
This scenario creates a direct effect. The institution communicates what it does, publishes its results, shares its technologies, but still finds it difficult to connect with companies, initiate conversations, or move forward on concrete opportunities. And this doesn't happen by chance.
Over time, I've seen that part of this misalignment comes precisely from how these two fronts are understood. Communication and marketing are not the same thing, and in innovation, understanding this difference impacts the quality of ICT's exposure to the market.
Communication
When I talk about communication, I'm talking about the ability to make technology understandable, explain what the institution does, provide visibility into what is being produced, and build perception and strengthen reputation.
It is communication that helps transform technology, often described in technical-scientific language, into something that can be understood outside the academic environment. It organizes discourse, brings different audiences closer, and in many cases, contributes to the very construction of an internal innovation culture.
Without communication, what exists tends not to be perceived. But perception alone does not guarantee connection. This is where marketing comes in.
Marketing
While communication works on understanding, marketing works on direction. It organizes how this perception will be converted into opportunity. It helps define which audiences are priorities, which sectors make the most sense, which companies might be interested in a certain type of technology. Marketing structures the path between “being understood” and “being relevant to someone.”.
This means thinking about questions that go beyond institutional communication: who are the organizations that most adhere to this portfolio? Who are the people within those organizations? How does this technology connect with a real business problem? What kind of material helps to start this conversation?
This reflection is still uncommon in many innovation environments. What I often see is a great effort in communication—posts, news, event promotion, internal recognition—but with little structure geared towards market connection. As if communicating were enough for everything else to happen, but it's not.
The Power of Combining Communication and Marketing
Communicating that a technology exists is not the same as making it relevant to the market. And it is precisely at this point that the absence of marketing begins to weigh.
Without this layer, the institution may gain visibility, but it struggles to transform that visibility into progress. Technologies are seen, but not necessarily understood as opportunities. The portfolio exists, but it is not organized to facilitate external decision-making. Interest may even arise, but it finds no continuity.
On the other hand, I also see situations where there's an attempt to operate with marketing without a solid communication foundation. And this generates another type of problem: targeting without clarity.
When technology isn't well explained, narratives aren't structured, and portfolios aren't organized, marketing loses its strength. It becomes difficult to identify audiences, build approaches, and sustain conversations. In other words, it's not a choice between communication or marketing, but a combination that needs to be intentional.
In many ICTs, the first step is precisely to recognize that these two fronts exist and that they need to be structured, even if initially. Not necessarily with large teams or complex structures, but with clarity of roles.
This change begins with some simple but under-explored questions: what do we want the market to understand about our institution? What assets make the most sense to communicate at this time? Who is this relevant to? What kind of connection do we want to generate?
These responses help organize both communication and marketing. When this starts to happen, the change is noticeable. Communication ceases to be reactive and begins to build a narrative. Marketing starts to guide connection. The portfolio is no longer restricted to a set of scattered assets and begins to function as a relationship tool.
And perhaps most importantly: the institution gains more clarity on how it wants to be perceived and with whom it wants to connect.
Throughout my work with ICTs at Sabiá, and also when I was the director of Unicamp's Innovation Agency, I saw that this is one of the points that most unlocks the advancement of innovation towards the market. Not because it solves all challenges, after all, the context is complex, but because it organizes what is under the institution's control. And this is already a relevant step.
Is your institution just communicating what it does, or is it also structuring how that connects with the market?
If you wish to delve deeper into this topic, we have developed a manual with a more structured view on communication and marketing in innovation, with examples and possible paths for ICTs and NITs.
