Innovation by different means: exploring perceived firm-innovativeness archetypes

Purpose By integrating four innovation signals (changes in the offering, social innovation, digital innovation, and marketing communications) into a unified framework, this study explores how different combinations of these signals shape customers' innovativeness perceptions in the service sector. Design/methodology/approach This exploratory study uses a large-scale dataset (N = 18,000) from the 2025 Spanish Innovation Index and employs a multi-stage design. First, we use regression analyses to examine the proposed relationships and identify each driver's relative importance. Second, we conduct a k-means cluster analysis to identify strategic archetypes. Finally, we utilize an interpretive analysis of “deviant cases” to illustrate cluster-specific managerial implications. Findings At the aggregate level, social innovation emerges as the most relevant driver of customers perceived firm innovativeness (PFI). Digital innovation is the second most important driver, followed by changes in offerings and marketing communication. Our analysis identifies four PFI archetypes: digital and technology-led innovators, social and close-touch innovators, core-offering-led innovators with a social-digital balance, and social-led innovators. Finally, it provides insights into the success factors of PFI and the barriers faced by deviant cases (the highest and lowest performers) within the same archetype. Practical implications The study suggests the need to move beyond generic benchmarking. Managers can identify their companies' strategic archetypes and begin to benchmark against their respective clusters. High PFI depends on consistent signals. Therefore, managers can use marketing communications to align the company's efforts with value-in-use narratives. Originality/value This study shifts the focus from isolated antecedents to a broader, pattern-based view of PFI by integrating four innovation signals into a unified framework. It offers an empirical contribution by combining these four antecedents and deriving clusters of firms, thereby suggesting an alternative perspective to the traditional rankings provided by innovation indexes.