When talking about communication and marketing for TTOs and Innovation Hubs that are still in the early stages of these fronts, it is common to think that, to do it well, a large structure is required. A dedicated team, multiple channels, constant production, robust campaigns. But this ends up stalling the beginning, because while the ideal structure does not exist, communication does not get organized either.
The starting point for effective communication is not structure, but clarity on what needs to be communicated, to whom, with what objective, and how often. Without this, even larger teams tend to fall into a familiar pattern: reactive, scattered communication with little impact on market connection.
On the other hand, when these definitions begin to organize themselves, even lean structures are able to generate more consistent results. And this involves a relatively simple model, but one that requires intention.
1. Start with the institutional objectives
Innovation communication cannot function as a parallel layer. It needs to be connected to what the institution wants to strengthen. This means moving away from a “let's communicate more” logic and toward a “what are we communicating for” logic. A few questions help structure this beginning:
- Does the institution want to strengthen partnerships with companies?
- Do you need to give visibility to the technology portfolio?
- Is the focus on institutional reputation?
- Is there an interest in attracting investors or entrepreneurs?
- Is there a need to strengthen the internal culture of innovation?
When communication connects to these objectives, it ceases to be operational and becomes strategic.
2. Define priority messages
One of the biggest challenges I see in ICTs is the excess of topics. There are too many projects, too many technologies, too many fronts. And trying to communicate everything ends up generating the opposite effect: dispersion. Strategic communication involves choosing and defining priority axes over time and delving into them. For example:
- Strengthening of the technology portfolio;
- Recognition of spin-off companies;
- Promotion of professors and researchers who are champions of culture;
- Connection with specific industry sectors;
- Valuation of innovation cases with social impact.
This selection does not limit the institution. On the contrary, it allows for consistency. And consistency, in this context, is more valuable than volume.
3. Organize communication by audience
Another point that often generates friction is treating all audiences in the same way. But, in reality, the same institution interacts with very different profiles:
- Researchers and internal community;
- Companies and external partners;
- Press;
- Society;
- Policymakers
Each of these audiences demands a distinct approach. Language, channel, format, and objective change. The common mistake is to assume that a single piece, on the same channel and with the same language, will handle everything. It won't.
Organizing communication by audience does not mean multiplying work in an uncontrolled way, but rather making what is already being done more efficient.
4. Structure the portfolio as a connection tool
In many science and technology institutions, the technology portfolio exists, but it functions more as a registry than as a tool for outreach. The shift here is subtle, but important. A strategic portfolio is not limited to a list of technologies; it helps initiate conversations and bridges the gap between technology and the market. This involves:
- Clarity on application;
- Accessible language;
- Organization by areas or problems;
- Constant update
5. Translate, do not simplify
There is a common fear of “oversimplifying” technology. But the point is not to simplify, it is to translate. And translating means making it understandable without losing rigor, moving away from a description centered on academic logic and bringing technology closer to an application logic. And that involves answering questions like:
- What problem does this technology solve?
- In what context does it make sense?
- Who is it relevant to?
Without this translation layer, the technology might even be seen, but it will hardly be understood.
6. Choose channels rationally
Another common mistake is trying to “be everywhere.” Acting this way dilutes effort. It is better to have a consistent presence on a few channels than an irregular presence on many. The choice of channels should consider:
- Where are the priority audiences?;
- What type of content makes sense on each channel;
- Real ability to maintain consistency
7. Plan rhythm, not just pieces
More important than producing one-off content is building cadence. A well-defined campaign, a clear calendar, and a few foundational materials tend to generate more impact than isolated actions.
When there is rhythm, communication ceases to depend on specific moments and begins to build presence over time. And presence, in this context, is what sustains perception.
What does this change in practice
When these elements begin to organize themselves, communication ceases to be a fragmented effort and begins to function as a system that:
- Ensures clarity in what the institution wants to communicate;
- Organize the portfolio more strategically;
- Brings the right audience technology closer;
- Maintains relationship with the market.
This does not eliminate the structural challenges of innovation in Brazil. But it significantly improves the way the institution positions itself within this scenario.
In what direction is this communication being built? It is not volume that brings technology closer to the market, but the way it is organized, translated, and presented.
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.
Vanessa Sensato
Director of Strategy and Innovation at Sabiá
