How New Emoji Are Created: Inside the Unicode Proposal Process

From Idea to Keyboard: The Journey of an Emoji

Have you ever looked at your emoji keyboard and wondered how all those symbols got there? Why is there a 🗿 moyai statue but no hedgehog until 2017? Who decided we needed 😶‍🌫️ a face in clouds but not a face in rain? And why, for the love of Unicode, is there no tortilla emoji?

The answers lie in one of the most fascinating and genuinely democratic processes in tech: the Unicode emoji proposal system. The journey from "someone has an idea" to "billions of people can use it" takes roughly 18-24 months, involves a surprising amount of bureaucracy, and is open to literally anyone willing to do the homework.

The Unicode Consortium: Who Decides

The Unicode Consortium is a non-profit organization based in Mountain View, California, that maintains the Unicode Standard — the universal text encoding system that makes it possible for computers worldwide to display text in every language. Emoji are just one part of what Unicode does, but they have become by far the most publicly visible part.

The Consortium's membership includes major technology companies — Apple, Google, Microsoft, Meta, Netflix, and others — along with governments (India's Ministry of Electronics, the government of Oman), academic institutions, and individuals. Full voting membership costs $18,000/year; individual "Liaison" membership is free but non-voting. These members fund the organization and participate in its decision-making processes.

Within the Consortium, the Unicode Emoji Subcommittee (formerly the Emoji Subcommittee of the Unicode Technical Committee) is specifically responsible for evaluating emoji proposals, making recommendations, and managing the emoji standard. This group meets regularly to review proposals and decide which new emoji will be recommended for inclusion in future Unicode versions.

One thing people often miss: the Consortium does not design the emoji you see on your phone. They define *which* emoji exist and provide reference descriptions plus minimal black-and-white reference glyphs. Apple, Google, Samsung, and others create their own visual interpretations — which is why the same 😬 can look pained on one platform and cheerful on another. (We have a whole article on iPhone vs Android differences if you want the gory details.)

The Proposal Process Step by Step

Anyone can propose a new emoji. That is not a figure of speech — a teenager in Argentina or a retiree in Finland can submit a proposal alongside Google and Apple. Here is how it works.

Step One: The Idea

It starts with someone identifying a gap in the emoji set. Maybe they notice there is no emoji for a specific animal, food, activity, or concept that people frequently want to express. Or maybe they see demand on social media for a particular symbol.

The idea itself is the easy part. The challenge is demonstrating that the idea meets the Consortium's criteria and preparing a compelling case. Many great emoji ideas fail not because they are bad ideas but because their proposals are weak.

Step Two: Research and Preparation

Before writing a formal proposal, a prospective proposer needs to do serious homework. This includes researching whether the emoji has been proposed before (many popular ideas have been submitted and rejected multiple times), understanding the selection criteria, and gathering evidence that supports the case.

Key evidence includes data on how frequently the concept is searched for online, how often people request the emoji on social media, how the concept would be used distinctly from existing emoji, and whether the concept has broad global relevance rather than being limited to a single culture or region.

Step Three: Writing the Proposal

The formal proposal document follows a specific template provided by Unicode. It must include several mandatory sections.

The identification section specifies the proposed emoji name, keywords, and category. The images section provides sample color and black-and-white images showing how the emoji might look. The sort location section suggests where in the emoji keyboard the new emoji should appear.

The selection factors section is the heart of the proposal. Here, the proposer must argue why the emoji should exist based on Unicode's specific criteria. These include compatibility (is this emoji already in use on some platforms?), expected usage level (will lots of people use it?), image distinctiveness (is it visually distinguishable at small sizes?), completeness (does it fill an obvious gap in an existing category?), and frequently requested status (do people already ask for it?).

The proposer must also address exclusion factors — reasons that would argue against inclusion. These include being overly specific (a particular brand or specific person), being redundant with existing emoji, not being usable as emoji (too complex to be recognizable at small sizes), or being a transient fad rather than an enduring concept.

Step Four: Submission

Proposals are submitted electronically to the Unicode Consortium. There is no fee for submission, making the process accessible to anyone with the time and dedication to prepare a solid proposal.

Submissions are accepted on a rolling basis, but the Consortium reviews them in batches aligned with their release schedule. This means a proposal submitted today might not be reviewed for months.

Step Five: Review

The Emoji Subcommittee reviews each proposal against the selection and exclusion criteria. This review is thorough and can involve multiple rounds of discussion. Committee members consider the quality of the evidence presented, the distinctiveness of the proposed emoji, and the overall balance and coherence of the emoji set.

Proposals may be accepted, rejected, or returned to the proposer with requests for additional information or modifications. Some proposals go through multiple revision cycles before reaching a final decision.

Step Six: Approval and Assignment

If a proposal is approved, the emoji is assigned a Unicode code point — a unique numerical identifier in the Unicode Standard. It is then included in the next emoji release, which typically happens once per year. (The Consortium slowed from two releases per year to one starting with Emoji 14.0 in 2021, partly because the design burden on platform vendors was becoming unmanageable.)

Step Seven: Implementation

After approval, platform vendors — Apple, Google, Microsoft, Samsung, and others — design their own versions of the new emoji and include them in operating system updates. This implementation phase typically takes 6-12 months after Unicode approval. Apple usually ships new emoji in an iOS point release in the fall; Google follows with an Android update. This is why there is always a gap between the announcement ("31 new emoji approved!") and actually being able to use them.

The Selection Criteria in Detail

Understanding the selection criteria is important for anyone who wants to propose an emoji or simply understand why certain emoji exist while others do not.

Expected Usage Level

This is the most important criterion. The Consortium wants to add emoji that will be widely used by many people, not niche symbols that only a small group would appreciate. Evidence of expected usage includes Google Trends data showing search volume, social media analysis showing demand, and comparison with usage levels of existing similar emoji.

The "Bing search" test is commonly referenced: if you search for the concept on Bing and get a high volume of image results, it suggests visual salience and public interest. Similarly, high Google Trends data for phrases like "[concept] emoji" suggests genuine demand.

Image Distinctiveness

An emoji must be recognizable and distinguishable at very small sizes — typically 18 by 18 pixels or even smaller. Concepts that require fine detail or are too similar to existing emoji are poor candidates. This is why proposals for specific dog breeds often fail — a Labrador and a Golden Retriever are too similar at emoji scale.

Completeness

Some emoji are approved not because of massive individual demand but because they fill an obvious gap in an existing category. If there are emoji for most planets but not Mars, Mars might be approved for completeness. If most major world foods are represented but a staple food of a billion people is missing, that gap argues for inclusion.

Frequently Requested

The Consortium maintains awareness of which emoji are most frequently requested through various channels. Emoji that consistently appear on "most wanted" lists have an advantage in the review process.

Broad Applicability

An emoji should be usable in many contexts, not just one. A heart emoji works for romance, friendship, appreciation, passion, and more. An emoji that only makes sense in one specific context is less valuable to the universal set.

Exclusion Factors

Certain characteristics will almost certainly sink a proposal.

Overly Specific

Proposals for specific brands, logos, celebrities, or deities of specific religions are rejected. Emoji must be generic enough for universal use. You will never see a Nike swoosh emoji or a Taylor Swift emoji in the Unicode standard. (Someone does propose brand emoji every year. They are rejected every year.)

Transient

If the concept is a passing fad rather than an enduring part of human culture, it does not belong in the permanent Unicode standard. Once a character enters Unicode, it stays forever — there is no mechanism for removing code points. (The Unicode Standard has a stability policy that explicitly prohibits removing assigned characters.) The fidget spinner craze came and went without producing an emoji. The ice bucket challenge didn't get one either. Good calls both times.

Redundant

If existing emoji already adequately cover the concept, a new one is unnecessary. Proposals often fail because the proposer does not convincingly demonstrate how their emoji is distinct from what already exists.

Not Representable as Emoji

Some concepts are too abstract, too complex, or too similar to other emoji to work at typical emoji display sizes. An emoji needs to communicate its meaning clearly as a tiny image. If it requires a paragraph of explanation, it is not a good emoji candidate.

Famous Proposal Success Stories

Some of the most interesting emoji have fascinating proposal histories.

The Dumpling Emoji 🥟

The 🥟 dumpling emoji, added in Unicode 10.0 (2017), was proposed by Yiying Lu — the same designer who created Twitter's famous Fail Whale. Her proposal (L2/16-024) made a compelling case: dumplings are one of the most universal foods in world cuisine — jiaozi in China, gyoza in Japan, pierogi in Poland, empanadas in Latin America, momo) in Nepal. The proposal gathered over 30,000 petition signatures and was accompanied by Google Trends data showing consistent global search interest. Jennifer 8. Lee of Emojination co-authored it.

The Interracial Couple Emoji

Tinder and Emojination proposed emoji representing interracial couples, arguing that existing couple emoji only showed same-race pairings. The proposal generated major media coverage and was approved in Emoji 12.0 (2019), adding multi-skin-tone couple sequences — technically implemented as ZWJ sequences with individual skin tone modifiers on each person. The math is staggering: 25 skin tone combinations × multiple couple types = hundreds of new sequences from a single proposal.

The Flat Shoe Emoji 🥿

The 🥿 flat shoe emoji was proposed by Florie Hutchinson after she noticed that the existing shoe emoji were predominantly high heels (👠, 👡), presenting a limited and gendered view of footwear. Her proposal included data showing that flat shoes outsell heels globally, plus arguments about gender representation. Approved in Unicode 11.0 (2018) as the "flat shoe" or ballet flat emoji.

The Transgender Flag 🏳️‍⚧️

The 🏳️‍⚧️ transgender flag emoji was proposed with support from organizations including GLAAD and individual advocates worldwide. It is technically a ZWJ sequence: 🏳️ white flag + ZWJ + ⚧️ transgender symbol. Approved in Emoji 13.0 (2020), it represented an important case of emoji as identity infrastructure — not just decoration, but a way for people to signal and affirm who they are.

Common Reasons Proposals Fail

Understanding why proposals are rejected is as instructive as understanding why they succeed.

Many proposals fail because they lack sufficient evidence. A proposer might feel strongly that an emoji is needed but provide no data to support that feeling. Others fail because the proposed emoji is too similar to existing ones — the proposer has not clearly articulated the distinction.

Some proposals are rejected for technical reasons. If the concept cannot be clearly represented at 18 by 18 pixels, it does not work as emoji regardless of how popular it might be. Detailed scenes, text-heavy concepts, and subtle visual distinctions all fail this test.

Regional or cultural specificity can also sink proposals. While cultural representation matters, an emoji that is meaningful only in a single country faces an uphill battle compared to one with global recognition. Proposals that work around this challenge often emphasize the universal aspects of a culturally specific concept.

How You Can Propose an Emoji

If you have an idea for an emoji and want to pursue it, here is my practical advice.

Start by searching the Unicode Consortium's document registry for prior proposals related to your concept. If it has been proposed and rejected before, you need to understand why and address those concerns.

Gather strong quantitative evidence. Google Trends data, Bing search results, social media mentions, and comparable data from existing emoji all strengthen your case. The more data-driven your proposal, the better.

Create sample images that demonstrate the emoji works at small sizes. If you are not a designer, collaborate with one. The visual test matters — if your concept does not read clearly as a tiny image, reconsider.

Write your proposal following the official template strictly. Address every criterion and every potential exclusion factor honestly. Proposals that ignore obvious weaknesses are less credible than those that acknowledge and address them.

Finally, build public support. While the Consortium's decision is based on criteria rather than popularity contests, evidence of broad demand strengthens any proposal. Social media campaigns, petitions, and media coverage all contribute to demonstrating that a proposed emoji meets the "expected usage" criterion.

Why This Process Matters

The emoji proposal process reveals something interesting about how standards evolve in the digital age. The communication symbols used by over 5 billion smartphone users are determined through a structured, evidence-based process open to public participation. It's not perfect — the $18,000/year voting membership gives large tech companies disproportionate influence, and the Emoji Subcommittee can only review so many proposals per cycle — but it is far more democratic than most people assume. You don't need to be Google to get an emoji approved. You need to be persistent.

Every emoji on your keyboard got there because someone cared enough to research, write, and advocate for it. The 🥟 dumpling exists because Yiying Lu spent months on a proposal. The 🥿 flat shoe exists because Florie Hutchinson noticed a gap. The 🦩 flamingo, the 🪃 boomerang, the 🫠 melting face — every single one has a story. And if you see a gap in our digital vocabulary, the proposal form is waiting.