economies experienced exceptional growth. The latter was closely linked to the rise in labor productivity, which led to a fall in the real price of many products. By way of illustration, the price of a bicycle, expressed in terms of the working time of a laborer without professional qualifications, fell from 800 work-hours in 1900 to 110 work-hours in 1955 and 46 work-hours in 1972 [FOU 05, p. 486]. The price of a 2CV car fell from 3,088 work-hours in 1949 to 908 work-hours in 1983 [FOU 05, p. 476]. The fall in real prices was reflected in a significant increase in purchasing power and a clear evolution of the level of household equipment (see Figure 1.2).
Figure 1.2. Trends in household appliance possession between 1968 and 2016 [DUR 18]. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/chouteau/innovation.zip
This was precisely where the problem lay. Indeed, at the end of World War II, households entered into an equipment race with durable goods that improved their comfort and freed up their time, such as small electrical appliances.
Figure 1.3. Moulinex and Hotpoint advertising from the 1950s. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/chouteau/innovation.zip
The corollary of this equipment race was an acceleration in the diffusion of innovations in society. For example, while it took almost a century for the telephone to be adopted by about 95% of the population, it took just 30 years for television to reach 50% of the population (Figure 1.4)7.
Figure 1.4. Technology adoption [BRI 97]. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/chouteau/innovation.zip
The equipment race also led to saturation in certain markets that were becoming renewal markets, such as that for television sets. Indeed, the latter, a victim of its own success, has many times been a saturated market. To boost sales, TV brands have been competing for decades to renew demand and offer increasingly sophisticated devices. This is a far cry from the first black and white TVs, where the picture was not always perfect (sometimes there was snow on the screen) and the user had to get up to change channels. Today, we surf with our remote control on the many channels of digital TV; we have replaced the cathode ray tubes by flatter plasma, LCD and OLED screens; the quality of the image and colors is constantly improving; QLED technology, the latest innovation in this field from Samsung, offers the brightest and sharpest image ever obtained to date, etc.
But one thing is clear: market saturation, coupled with increased competition, is now forcing many companies to simply innovate to maintain their positions. This is an example of the famous paradox of the Red Queen8 by biologist Leigh Van Valen. Transposed to the scale of companies, the Red Queen paradox helps us understand how competition forces companies to innovate constantly in order to stand out and gain a competitive advantage over competitors who, at the same time, adopt the same behavior so as not to see their own market position deteriorate.
The race for innovation that Samsung (Galaxy) and Apple (iPhone) have been engaged in for years is emblematic of this paradox, which is itself largely maintained by hard-hitting advertising campaigns. We remember, for example, the 2013 Samsung ad which “trolled” the size of the 4-inch screen of the iPhone 5 and 5S. This led Apple to respond in 2014 with a 4.7-inch model. In 2016, Apple again had to give in to competitive pressure by making its iPhone 7 waterproof following Samsung’s 2015 advertising campaign featuring an iPhone 6 user plunging his smartphone into a bowl of rice in an attempt to save it because, unlike Samsung’s Galaxy line, it was not waterproof!
The above example is instructive because it helps us to understand that innovation, whatever its nature, has changed its status over time. In the majority of cases, it is no longer a goal in itself but a question and a means of survival that leads to a “massification of the production” of incremental innovations9 with a return on investment which is often disappointing:
Red Queen competition describes competitive rivalry in which firms must increase their investment in order to maintain their existing market position while at the same time failing to earn returns that are commensurate with higher investments [LAM 05, p. 4].
To put it another way, innovation, in the majority of cases, is no longer considered a project in the service of the society but as an end in itself intended to anticipate the offers of potential or existing competitors. But this statement does not end with the case of renewal markets. The relationship established between innovation and growth has over time brought to the forefront the strategic meaning of innovation for the company, leaving in the shadows the question of the meaning and that of the relationship we have with these innovations.
We are indeed witnessing a shift from a reflection on the meaning of innovation to a reflection on the meaning of innovation for the company, which is quite different. To put it another way, “innovation does not tie technological inventions and organizational rationalization to a social and moral purpose, as was done in the theme of progress” [MEN 11, p. 17]. It is in the same spirit that the words of the philosopher Eric Sadin should be heard when he accuses the President of the Republic of “bowing and scraping” before the CEO of Withings, a company at the cutting edge of connected objects [KYR 16]. The author criticizes in hollow that the economic imperative takes precedence over the meaning of these connected objects. He believes, for example, that the use of connected wrist devices or scales, as well as Big Data, generates behaviors that deserve to be analyzed for what they say about our relationship to the body (ongoing measurement, etc.) or to our free will. This statement is all the more worrying since the shift from thinking about the meaning of innovation to thinking about the meaning of innovation for the company seems to go hand in hand with the idea that everything that is new would necessarily be profitable for us!
1.2.2.2. The paradox of happiness
The illusion of the meaning of innovation is also noticeable on the consumer side. The consumption of innovation has now become a routine. Indeed, while innovation used to be exceptional, it is now expected and has become a “mass product”. The MediaCom study of September 10, 2015 reveals that 73% of French people make innovation a real purchasing criterion [MED 15]10, and underlines that innovation is desired by more than one target group11. Innovation attracts the vast majority of French people, regardless of their age (16–24 years: 91%, 50–65 years: 76%), sex (men: 82%, women: 81%) or socio-professional (CSP) status (inactive: 78%, CSP+: 85%).
This appetite for innovation is related to the fact that innovation is spontaneously associated with expected benefits, whether these benefits are
– functional: the innovation simplifies daily life, saves time, etc.;
– hedonistic: the innovation contributes to immediate satisfaction; it gives new magic to daily life by giving us new personal experiences;
– symbolic: the innovation contributes to making visible my identity, my belonging to communities, etc.
