THE ANATOMY OF AN EMOJI

 

The Anatomy of an Emoji: Unpacking the Selection Process by the Unicode Consortium

Introduction: The Ubiquity and Standardization of Emojis

Emojis have rapidly evolved from simple emoticons to become an indispensable and pervasive element of modern digital communication. They serve as a universal visual language, capable of conveying nuance, emotion, and cultural context across diverse platforms, languages, and demographics. Their widespread adoption underscores their profound impact on how individuals interact and express themselves in the digital realm, transcending linguistic barriers and enriching digital conversations.¹

The seamless exchange of emojis across different devices, operating systems, and applications is not a matter of chance; it is the direct result of a rigorous and meticulously managed standardization process. Without a common set of rules, an emoji sent from an Apple device could appear as a broken character, an incorrect symbol, or an entirely different image on a Google or Samsung device, severely hindering effective communication. This standardization ensures that a specific emoji concept, such as a "grinning face," is universally recognized and rendered consistently (though with platform-specific artistic variations) across the globe, irrespective of the device used.¹ The Unicode Standard's success in unifying character sets has led to its widespread adoption in software internationalization and localization, making global digital communication possible.³

The ability for users to view emojis sent from one device to another "no matter the brand" is a direct consequence of an underlying, universal standard. This points to the existence of an "invisible infrastructure" that underpins all digital text and emoji communication. The "choice" of an emoji is therefore not merely an artistic or cultural decision but fundamentally a technical one, integrated into a broader system designed for global character representation. Emojis are assigned unique numerical identities, known as code points (e.g., U+1F603 for a grinning face), which allow diverse systems to agree on what a character represents, even if they depict it visually differently.² The success and ubiquity of emojis are thus deeply reliant on this robust, behind-the-scenes technical standardization that ensures interoperability. This foundational technical infrastructure enables complex and dynamic forms of digital expression that billions rely upon daily.

The Architects of Digital Expression: The Unicode Consortium and UTC

The central authority responsible for character encoding and emoji standardization is the Unicode Consortium, legally known as Unicode, Inc. This 501(c)(3) non-profit organization was incorporated in California on January 3, 1991.¹ Its core mission, as articulated by co-founder Mark Davis, extends far beyond emojis: it aims "to make sure that all of the text on computers for every language in the world is represented".³ While emojis capture significant public attention, they represent only a fraction of the Consortium's comprehensive work in maintaining and publishing the Unicode Standard, which was developed to replace limited existing character encoding schemes.³ Major technology brands, including Apple, Google, and Samsung, adhere to the Consortium's standards, ensuring that emojis sent from one device can be viewed consistently on another, regardless of the brand.¹ Beyond emojis, the Consortium also maintains other critical standards like the Common Locale Data Repository (CLDR) and collaborates on initiatives such as Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA).³

Technical decisions relating to the Unicode Standard, including the encoding of new characters and emojis, are primarily made by the Unicode Technical Committee (UTC).³ The UTC convenes quarterly, and a quorum, requiring at least half of the Consortium's full members, must be present for decisions to be made.³ As of May 2024, the nine full members with voting power are Adobe, Airbnb, Apple, Google, Meta, Microsoft, Netflix, Salesforce, and Translated.³ These entities represent a significant cross-section of the global technology industry. While the UTC generally prefers to operate by consensus, votes may be necessary for particularly contentious issues.³ Although UTC meetings are held behind closed doors, a public statement is released after each meeting detailing the proposals considered.³ Given the high volume of proposals, various subcommittees, such as the Emoji Subcommittee, exist to provide recommendations to the full UTC, which, in practice, usually heeds these recommendations.³

The process appears open, with "any organization or individual" able to submit proposals.² This suggests a democratic and accessible system. However, the ultimate decision-making body, the UTC, is explicitly composed of "representatives from major tech companies" who are "full members".³ These same companies (Apple, Google, Meta, Microsoft, etc.) are the primary entities responsible for

designing and implementing the visual representations of approved emojis on their platforms.² Furthermore, the Consortium "filters new emoji proposals by anticipated adoption rates," specifically aiming for ideas "likely to be picked up by the leading platform vendors".² This establishes a powerful feedback loop where the entities with the most significant implementation capabilities also hold substantial influence in the selection process. This structure can lead to prioritizing emojis that align with their commercial interests or perceived user base over purely public-driven demands. This dynamic suggests that while the Unicode Consortium operates as a non-profit standard-bearer, the practical realities of global digital communication necessitate a pragmatic approach where the buy-in and commitment of major technology companies are paramount. The "choice" of an emoji is therefore a negotiation between public desire, technical feasibility, and corporate willingness to implement.

Mark Davis's statement that the primary goal is "to make sure that all of the text on computers for every language in the world is represented" ³ highlights a core technical, universalist objective. Yet, he acknowledges the disproportionate attention emojis receive ³, which are inherently tied to cultural and social expression, reflecting diversity, inclusion, and global trends.⁴ The UTC's practice of ruling on

both emoji and script proposals at the same meeting ³ further underscores this. This indicates that a single technical body is tasked with overseeing two fundamentally different types of "characters": abstract linguistic symbols and culturally resonant pictorial representations. The Unicode Consortium constantly navigates a complex dual mandate: maintaining a robust technical standard for global text encoding while simultaneously acting as a gatekeeper for a rapidly evolving visual language that reflects dynamic societal shifts. This balancing act means that technical criteria (like uniqueness and encoding principles) must be weighed against subjective cultural criteria (like diversity, inclusion, and global appeal), leading to intricate deliberations that necessitate the "behind closed doors" meetings ³ to achieve consensus among powerful stakeholders.

The full members of the Unicode Technical Committee (UTC) as of May 2024, who hold significant decision-making power in the emoji selection process, are listed below:

Company Name
Adobe
Airbnb
Apple
Google
Meta
Microsoft
Netflix
Salesforce
Translated

The Journey from Idea to Icon: A Step-by-Step Proposal Process

The transformation of a new emoji idea into a widely available icon is a "detailed and meticulous process, involving multiple steps from the initial concept to the final approval".⁴ This comprehensive journey can be lengthy, often taking "up to two years to find out if a proposal is approved, and then several more months for it to appear on devices".² The submission window for new proposals is typically open for a defined period each year, for instance, from April 2 to July 31, 2024.⁶

1. Conceptualization and Preparation

The process commences with an initial idea for a new emoji. This idea can be sparked by various factors, including observable "cultural trends, identified gaps in the current emoji offerings, or direct user demands".⁴ Once an idea is conceived, the proposer must undertake thorough research to substantiate the necessity and relevance of the proposed emoji. This preparatory phase includes diligent checks to determine if a similar emoji already exists or is under consideration, an analysis of the potential frequency of use for the proposed emoji in digital communication, and ensuring the concept aligns with Unicode's established inclusion criteria.⁴ Proposers are specifically advised to scan the "Emoji Requests" list to avoid submitting concepts already "approved or 'under consideration'" or those "declined within the last four years".⁶ Furthermore, familiarization with the "Criteria for Inclusion," including reviewing "recently successful proposals" and the "Emoji Submission FAQ," is strongly recommended.⁶

2. Proposal Submission

A detailed proposal document must be drafted in strict adherence to the "Guidelines for Submitting Unicode® Emoji Proposals".⁴ The proposal typically requires a brief overview of the concept, sample images (historically in black and white and color, and now required to be included directly within the PDF document), suggested names and keywords for the emoji, a compelling argument for its necessity supported by robust research and data, and empirical evidence demonstrating its potential frequency and contexts of use.⁴ It is critical that all fields in the submission form are completed accurately, providing comprehensive empirical evidence and addressing all specified questions.⁶ Importantly, all images included must be non-copyrighted.⁶ The complete proposal, comprising the filled form, acceptance of the Emoji Proposal Agreement & License, and the proposal PDF, is then submitted via the Unicode Emoji Submission Form.⁶

3. Initial Review and Feedback

Upon submission, the Unicode Consortium, specifically through its Emoji Standard and Research Working Group (ESC), conducts an initial review of the proposal.⁴ This review assesses the proposal's completeness, the soundness of its rationale, and its alignment with Unicode's predefined selection factors, which include compatibility, expected usage level, image distinctiveness, and overall completeness.⁴ If the proposal is found to be lacking in any area, Unicode may provide specific feedback to the proposer, offering an opportunity to revise and resubmit the document.⁴

4. Committee Deliberations

Following the initial review, Unicode proceeds to evaluate the proposal in greater detail during committee deliberations.⁴ During this stage, various critical factors are considered, such as "diversity, inclusion, and the potential for misinterpretation" of the emoji.⁴ Global usage patterns are also meticulously examined to ensure that the proposed emoji is not "overly specific to one region or culture" and possesses broad international appeal.⁴ After a thorough and comprehensive evaluation, Unicode members vote on whether to recommend the proposal to the Unicode Technical Committee (UTC). This recommendation is accompanied by a detailed report that highlights both the proposal’s strengths and weaknesses.⁴

5. Final Decision by the Unicode Technical Committee (UTC)

The Unicode Technical Committee (UTC), composed of representatives from major tech companies and other stakeholders, undertakes the final review of Unicode’s recommendations.³ The proposal is extensively discussed during UTC meetings, taking into account Unicode’s detailed report and any additional feedback or considerations.⁴ Finally, the UTC members cast their votes on whether to formally approve the new emoji. If a majority approves, the emoji is officially added to the Unicode Standard.⁴ While the UTC is not strictly obligated to follow the recommendations from subcommittees like the Emoji Subcommittee, in practice, they typically do.³

The process is consistently described as "detailed and meticulous" ⁴, involving multiple stages of review, specific formatting requirements (PDF, non-copyrighted images, mandatory fields), and a strong emphasis on empirical evidence.⁶ The multi-stage review, feedback loops, and committee deliberations culminating in a UTC vote illustrate a highly formalized structure. The stated timeline of "up to two years" ⁵ further underscores the significant time investment required. This is clearly not an informal or casual process. The inherent complexity and length of the emoji selection process serve as a critical safeguard. This rigor is necessary to ensure the stability, universality, and long-term viability of the Unicode Standard. It acts as a barrier against arbitrary or ill-conceived additions, ensuring that new emojis are truly globally relevant, technically sound, and possess enduring communicative value. This level of scrutiny reflects the high stakes involved in maintaining a standard used by billions worldwide.

The consistent demand for "thorough research," "strong argument supported by research and data," and "empirical evidence" ⁴ highlights a commitment to data-driven decision-making. A significant update in the guidelines explicitly details a change to "required sources for frequency data," stating that "Google & Bing Search are no longer valid" and recommending "Google Books and Google Ngram Viewer statistics".⁶ This change is not trivial. This shift in data requirements indicates a move towards more robust, historically stable, and less volatile measures of concept frequency. Google Books and Ngram Viewer provide a longitudinal, corpus-based view of language and concept use, which is less susceptible to fleeting internet trends or search engine biases compared to real-time search queries. This suggests that the Consortium is adopting a more academically rigorous and historically informed approach to assessing the long-term utility and relevance of proposed emojis, ensuring they represent enduring communicative needs rather than momentary fads. This also demonstrates the Consortium's adaptability in refining its evaluation methodologies as digital data landscapes evolve.

The following table provides a consolidated overview of the key stages and approximate timelines for an emoji's journey from initial concept to widespread availability on user devices:

Stage	Approximate Duration/Timeline	Key Activities/Outcomes
Conceptualization & Preparation	Ongoing	Idea formation, thorough research to support necessity and relevance, checking existing emojis, aligning with inclusion criteria.
Proposal Submission	Annual Window (e.g., April 2 - July 31)	Detailed proposal drafted according to guidelines, including images, names, keywords, arguments, and empirical evidence; submitted to Unicode Consortium.
Initial Review & Feedback	Weeks/Months	Unicode's Emoji Standard and Research Working Group (ESC) assesses completeness, rationale, and alignment with selection factors; feedback provided for revisions if needed.
Committee Deliberations	Weeks/Months	In-depth evaluation by Unicode, considering diversity, inclusion, potential misinterpretation, and global usage patterns; recommendation to UTC with detailed report.
Final UTC Decision	Quarterly Meeting	Unicode Technical Committee (UTC) reviews recommendations, discusses proposal, and votes on approval; if approved, emoji is added to Unicode Standard.
Vendor Design & Implementation	6-12 Months	Tech companies (Apple, Google, etc.) design platform-specific visual styles for the approved emoji concept; additions to fonts, enhancements to input methods, and library updates occur.
Software Release & User Availability	Via OS/App Updates (can take additional months)	New emojis become available to users worldwide through normal software release cycles from various vendors, depending on release timing relative to Unicode updates.

The Blueprint for Approval: Key Criteria and Limitations

The Unicode Consortium evaluates emoji proposals against a stringent set of criteria to ensure their suitability for global adoption and longevity within the Unicode Standard.

• Global Appeal (Think globally): New emojis must possess broad international appeal and be easily understood by diverse populations across various countries and cultures, such as the U.S. and Japan.⁵ The Consortium specifically examines "global usage patterns" during deliberations to ensure an emoji is not "overly specific to one region or culture".⁴

• Uniqueness (Do your homework): With over 3,600 existing emojis, a proposed emoji must offer a unique communicative value. Concepts that are already adequately represented by existing emojis, or those that can be conveyed through a combination of current symbols (e.g., handwashing with water droplets, soap, and hands), are generally not considered necessary.⁵ Proposers are required to check if their concept is "already approved or 'under consideration'" to avoid redundant submissions.⁶

• Diversity and Inclusion (Design for diversity): A significant and increasingly emphasized criterion is the representation of "people and cultures that aren't represented" in the current emoji set.⁵ Unicode has actively worked in recent years to make new symbols more inclusive, evident in the introduction of a range of skin colors in 2015, a woman wearing a hijab in 2017, and the first emojis representing people with disabilities in 2019.⁵ Keith Broni of Emojipedia highlights this by stating, "People really want to see themselves reflected in the people and objects on their emoji keyboard".⁵

• Compatibility: The proposed emoji must align seamlessly with existing technical standards and be technically feasible for integration into the Unicode Standard.⁴

• Expected Usage Level: Proposals are rigorously filtered based on "anticipated adoption rates," with a strong preference for ideas deemed "likely to be used by millions of people" and subsequently picked up by leading platform vendors like Google, Apple, and Microsoft.²

• Image Distinctiveness: The visual design of the proposed emoji must be clear, unambiguous, and distinct from any existing emojis to avoid confusion.⁴

• Limitations/Rejections ("Don'ts"): Certain types of proposals are consistently declined. These include flags, company logos, user interface (UI) icons, specific real people, fictional characters, or specific buildings (even those from books or movies).⁵ Designs that incorporate text are also generally excluded.⁶ Furthermore, emojis that have been officially declined within the last four years are not eligible for re-review.⁶ While advocating for an emoji on behalf of an important social cause is noted by the Consortium, a proposal "will not be advanced because of it" alone, though it may be considered if "other factors are compelling".⁶

Empirical evidence is paramount in the proposal process. Proposers are required to provide robust "frequency citations" and "empirical evidence" to support the necessity and potential widespread use of their proposed emoji.⁶ The Emoji Standard and Research Working Group (ESC) has recently updated its requirements for frequency data sources. Previously accepted Google & Bing Search data are "no longer valid" due to changes in their query quantification mechanisms. Moving forward, submissions must rely on more stable, corpus-based sources such as Google Books and Google Ngram Viewer statistics.⁶ This change signifies a preference for long-term, academically rigorous indicators of concept usage over potentially fleeting or less reliable real-time search trends.

There is a clear and commendable push for "diversity" and "inclusion" in emoji selection ⁴, reflecting a growing societal demand for representation in digital tools. However, this is carefully balanced by the overarching need for "global appeal" and the avoidance of concepts "overly specific to one region or culture".⁴ The explicit rejection of specific people, brands, or flags ⁵ and the de-prioritization of "cause" arguments alone ⁶ further underscore a pragmatic stance. The Consortium's goal is to ensure broad, enduring utility rather than catering to niche or transient representations. This delicate balance suggests that while cultural relevance and representation are vital considerations, they are filtered through a lens of universal applicability and long-term communicative value. The Unicode Consortium acts as a global curator, ensuring that emojis serve as a truly universal visual language rather than becoming fragmented by highly specific cultural references or commercial interests. This approach is critical for maintaining the standard's integrity and its widespread, consistent adoption across diverse global users.

The Unicode Standard was originally conceived for encoding "text on computers for every language" ³, primarily dealing with abstract linguistic characters. Emojis, while technically "just another character" with a "code point" ², are fundamentally pictorial and carry significant cultural and emotional weight. The criteria for their inclusion—global appeal, uniqueness, diversity, avoiding specific people/brands, and requiring empirical frequency data ⁵—are vastly different from those applied to, for example, a new letter in an alphabet. The recent shift in preferred frequency data sources ⁶ further highlights this, as it seeks to quantify cultural relevance and long-term usage rather than just linguistic occurrence. The rigorous and evolving process of choosing emojis reveals a profound shift in what constitutes a "character" in digital communication. It's no longer solely about abstract symbols for language but also about universally recognizable visual shorthand that embodies complex cultural meaning. The Consortium's detailed criteria and adaptable methodologies reflect an ongoing effort to define and manage this new category of "character," balancing its technical encoding with its complex social, cultural, and expressive functions. This implies a continuous adaptation of standardization principles to the dynamic and expanding nature of digital expression.

From Standard to Screen: Implementation and Widespread Availability

Once an emoji proposal receives final approval from the Unicode Technical Committee (UTC), the emoji is formally added to the Unicode Standard. This critical step involves defining the new emoji within Unicode coding charts.⁴ Each approved emoji is assigned a unique "code point," which is a hexadecimal number (e.g., U+1F063) that universally represents that specific emoji concept.² This code point acts as the standardized identifier, ensuring that all devices worldwide can agree on the underlying character, even if their visual rendering differs.²

The Unicode Consortium's role is to standardize the concept of an emoji and assign its unique code point; it "only provides suggested new emoji concepts and their assigned code points".² The responsibility for the actual visual representation then falls to individual software producers and platform vendors. "Each software producer develops their own visual style for the concept".² This explains why the same emoji concept (identified by its Unicode code point) can appear differently across various platforms—for instance, Apple often designs graphics aiming for realism with gradients, while HTC and Twitter might opt for a more "cartoony 'flat art' style".² A notable example is Google's redesign of its beer glass emoji, which previously featured a partially empty glass with "magical, gravity-defying froth".² While these platform vendors (including Google, Apple, Twitter, Facebook, and Windows) are members of the Unicode Consortium and contribute to emoji selection, the Consortium "does not require software creators to comply with suggested emoji updates".² However, the Consortium does filter new emoji proposals based on their "anticipated adoption rates," specifically aiming for ideas "likely to be used by millions of people" and picked up by these leading vendors.²

The integration of new emoji characters into user devices is a complex technical undertaking. Supporting new emojis involves several key steps within platform software: "additions to fonts" that contain the new emoji glyphs, "enhancements to emoji input methods (keyboards or palettes)" to allow users to easily select them, and often "updates to libraries that determine character properties and behavior".² Ultimately, new emojis become available to users worldwide "through software updates from various vendors".⁴ These updates are typically released as part of "normal software release cycles," during which platform vendors decide which new Unicode characters to support in their latest software versions.²

The entire process, from the initial proposal to an emoji's widespread appearance on user devices, can be quite lengthy. After the Unicode Consortium announces which new emoji concepts it has accepted, it may take "about a year" for these characters to appear on phones and other platforms.² More broadly, the full journey from submitting a proposal to seeing it available to users can take "up to two years to find out if a proposal is approved, and then several more months for it to appear on devices".⁵ The precise timing depends significantly on the "length of the release cycle and its timing relative to a Unicode release" for each individual software vendor.²

While the Unicode Consortium standardizes the concept of an emoji (its code point), the visual representation is deliberately left to individual vendors.² This explains the observed differences in how the same emoji appears across platforms.² Crucially, the Consortium "does not require software creators to comply with suggested emoji updates" ², even though they filter proposals based on "anticipated adoption rates" by these same vendors.² This creates a critical gap: standardization provides the blueprint, but the real-world manifestation and availability of an emoji depend entirely on the commercial interests, development priorities, and release cycles of major tech companies. The significant delay from approval to widespread availability ⁵ is a direct consequence of this implementation phase. This gap highlights that a "chosen" emoji isn't truly chosen until major platforms commit to designing and integrating it. It underscores that while the Unicode Standard ensures interoperability at a technical level, the actual user experience of emojis is heavily influenced by market forces and vendor-specific decisions. This can lead to subtle inconsistencies in visual communication and delays in the adoption of new expressive tools, despite the best efforts of the standardization body.

The integration of new emojis is not a simple task; it requires fundamental software changes, including "additions to fonts, enhancements to emoji input methods... and often updates to libraries".² This indicates that emojis are deeply embedded within a device's core operating system and software architecture. The observation that "browsers and computer operating systems tend to have more emoji compatibility problems than mobile applications do" ² further suggests that updating these more complex, foundational systems presents greater challenges, potentially leading to fragmentation in emoji display across different computing environments. Emojis, far from being a trivial add-on, are a significant and continuous driver of complex software updates and a persistent challenge for maintaining seamless interoperability across the vast digital ecosystem. The need for constant font and system library updates to support new code points means that the "language" of emojis is perpetually evolving, demanding that users and developers regularly update their software to ensure consistent and effective communication. This continuous update cycle is a direct consequence of the dynamic nature of emoji selection and implementation, making it a living standard that requires ongoing maintenance.

Conclusion: The Evolving Language of Emojis

The selection of new emojis is far from an arbitrary process; it is a highly structured, multi-stage, and meticulously governed endeavor overseen by the Unicode Consortium and its influential Unicode Technical Committee. This rigorous system involves an open proposal process accessible to individuals and organizations worldwide, followed by detailed reviews and in-depth deliberations conducted by a committee largely composed of representatives from major technology companies. The process is characterized by its meticulous nature, demanding strong empirical evidence and strict adherence to criteria such as global appeal, uniqueness, and diversity, thereby balancing cultural relevance with technical practicality. This complex, collaborative effort, involving a non-profit standards body, industry giants, and public contributors, is fundamental to ensuring the integrity, universality, and consistent interpretation of the emoji language across the digital landscape.

The continuous cycle of emoji proposals, stringent reviews, and subsequent software updates reflects that emojis are a "living language"—a dynamic form of communication that constantly adapts to evolving global communication needs and cultural shifts. The recent refinement in data requirements, favoring stable sources like Google Ngram Viewer over real-time search trends, indicates an ongoing, adaptive approach to assessing the long-term relevance and utility of proposed emojis. Furthermore, the sustained focus on diversity and inclusion within the selection criteria underscores a clear commitment to making emojis a truly representative and universally accessible form of global digital expression. As digital communication continues its rapid evolution, so too will the processes and the very nature of the characters that define our shared online language, ensuring emojis remain a vital and adaptable tool for human connection.

The entire emoji selection process—from a public idea, through a non-profit's rigorous review, to a final decision by a committee of powerful corporations, and ultimately to implementation by those corporations—serves as a compelling case study in how global digital standards are governed. It represents a unique blend of open participation, expert oversight, and concentrated corporate power. The inherent tension between broad public demand (e.g., for specific cause-related emojis) and the Consortium's pragmatic criteria (global appeal, long-term utility) highlights the complexities involved in governing a global digital common good that impacts billions. This process is more than just about choosing icons; it is a microcosm of the broader challenges and compromises inherent in creating and maintaining universal digital tools that must serve diverse global populations while remaining technically feasible and commercially viable. This multi-stakeholder model of governance, while complex and not without its tensions, has been instrumental in enabling the widespread success and interoperability of emojis.

Despite the breakneck pace of technological advancement and the fluidity of cultural trends, the fundamental need for standardization, as exemplified by the Unicode Consortium's work, remains paramount. The Consortium's demonstrated ability to adapt its criteria (e.g., the shift in frequency data sources) and its organizational structure (e.g., the creation of subcommittees to manage proposal volume) showcases its resilience and ongoing relevance. Without this centralized, albeit complex, process, emoji communication would inevitably devolve into a fragmented, incompatible, and ultimately unusable mess. The remarkable success and global adoption of emojis vividly underscore the enduring value of robust, adaptable standardization bodies in an increasingly interconnected and rapidly evolving digital world. It highlights that even in seemingly informal and organic forms of digital communication, underlying technical and governance structures are absolutely essential for maintaining interoperability, fostering universal understanding, and enabling seamless global interaction. The future of digital expression, including new forms beyond current emojis, will undoubtedly continue to rely on similar meticulous and collaborative standardization efforts.