The Literal Insanity of ‘Brand Archetypes’
Do You Like Your Sacred Cows Rare or Well Done?
Before anyone gets heated over this article, a few words of background might be appropriate. I’ve had what one might conservatively call an extraordinary career in marketing and advertising for close to 40 years. I’ve been a senior executive and principal of several of the world’s largest Madison Avenue ‘Mad Men’ level advertising agencies. I’ve been a strategic consultant to dozens of the largest brands on the planet, and I’m a recognized expert in the subject of brand positioning and competitive advantage science and strategy. Google the phrase “brand positioning platform”, and after the paid ads, you might find my website, MasterPositioning.com, selected for Google’s ‘Featured Snippet’, and there’s a reason for this.
I don’t say any of this to brag; simply to confirm that the opinion expressed in this article is based on decades of experience leading and creating the strategic planning for hundreds of billions of dollars in ecom revenue for dozens of category-leading enterprise brands.
So let me start off by being as direct as I can possibly be: Brand Archetypes are bullsh*t. Complete. Utter. Nonsense.
They don’t work, and they almost always lead brands to build marketing and communications strategies that are destined to fail. If your brand’s marketing platform is based on the methodology of Brand Archetypes, you’ve already lost, and you just don’t know it yet.
If teaching Brand Archetypes is your business, you’re the modern-day equivalent of a storefront fortune teller. Saying “Your brand is the (fill in the blank) archetype, so your brand voice should be such and so” is the equivalent of telling a hapless lovelorn soul that “The love of your life is right around the corner. Now pay me.”
One of the hottest topics being talked about and taught by ‘brand and branding experts’ and being gobbled up like M&Ms (just one of dozens of former clients) by students of brand strategy and brand positioning, is Brand’ ‘Archetypes.
Marketers, brand owners, brand strategy consultants and even top marketing agencies are obsessed with understanding and using ‘archetypes’ to map the future of their brands and their clients’ brands, to figure out how to create the right ‘brand personas’ and ‘brand stories’… to narrow down exactly the right ‘brand voice’ to communicate a brand’s USP (another masterful piece of utter trash I’m going to destroy in a future article) for their ideal target customers.
If you’ve been on vacation for the last decade and haven’t heard about brand archetypes, here’s a short tuition for you:
Generally attributed to early work by Carl Jung, a German psychologist, psychiatrist, and self-admittedly completely insane nut-bar, and a huge supporter of the works of Sigmund Freud, Jung originally detailed what he believed were four primary ‘archetypes’ that stemmed from the “collective human unconscious”, and thus that control our behavior:
1. The ‘Self’: used by Jung to describe the experience of “unity within experience”. Jung saw the ‘Self’ archetype as embodying the ultimate aim of every individual to achieve a state of self-actualization; to become what one can become.
2. The ‘Shadow’: Jung said that the ‘Shadow’ archetype represented the primal, animalistic side of our personality, and was the source of both our creative as well as our destructive behaviors. Jung believed that the ‘Shadow’ archetype was borne from our need for safety and survival.
3. The ‘Animus’: Jung, who was always vying for popularity with the sexually-obsessed Sigmund Freud, just had to have his own theory of sexualization-driven behavior, and the ‘Animus’ archetype represents the ‘other’ side to our biological sex. Jung said that every male has feminine tendencies, and that every woman has masculine tendencies.
4. And last, we have the ‘Persona’ archetype, meaning the ‘mask’ everyone wears to face the outside world. To Jung, everyone wants to be either more than they are or different in the eyes of others, and so they create a ‘Persona’ to represent what they want others to think of them.
For a while (in the late 1940s to mid-1950s), the topic of archetypes was quite a popular subject. Jung and Freud were major names influencing almost every aspect of society, medicine, and the study of human psychology, and they were always in the news and headlines.
And guess what was also a hugely popular and quickly evolving subject at the exact same time that was focused almost entirely on the study (and control) of human psychology? Advertising.
See where this is going?
Never ones to let a marketing opportunity slip by, marketers, advertisers, agencies and ‘marketing consultants’ of the ‘Golden Age of Advertising’ (did you hear someone say ‘snake oil’?), saw an amazing opportunity to capitalize on the hot topic of archetypes, and expand the original four, from our friend Jung, into 12, and to refine them to define the personalities not of people, but of brands.
Fast forward to today.
Almost every marketer is aware that there are officially 12 Brand Archetypes, each representing a unique personality, aspiration, and a set of characteristics that a brand can or does possess… and thus build a marketing and communications and advertising campaign around. Sounds groovy, no? Pick one, light your incense, and, voila, your brand’s personality pops out of the ether, ready to promote. Like an Easy-Bake Oven, but for brands.
Here’s the problem: it sounds awesome, it makes a very interesting story, the details of each of the 12 Brand Archetypes are intensely mapped out to the finest of details, and each one is ascribed a set of powerful attributes… but it just doesn’t work.
In fact, it’s downright dangerous.
Before I explain not only why Brand Archetypes don’t work, and show you instead what actually does work, we need to go back in time and take a bit of a closer look at the foundation and origins of the entire concept of archetypes, because as you’ve surely heard, “garbage in, garbage out”.
While developing his original theory of archetypes (the ‘garbage in’ part) that resulted in today’s 12 Brand Archetypes (the ‘garbage out’ part), Jung can be quoted from his own book, “The Archetypes and The Collective Unconscious”, Volume 9, Part 1, 1954.
He said (and this is a direct quote) he felt he was “living in an insane asylum of his own making, with all these fantastic figures: centaurs, nymphs, satyrs, gods, and goddesses as though they were patients, and I was analyzing them.”
So, let’s stop for a quick moment to recap.
The entire concept of archetypes was created in an imaginary insane asylum, out of images primarily related to the libido, and influenced by nymphs, goddesses and centaurs, and a deep belief in invisible spirits. Exactly the foundation to build a successful brand on, right?
Let’s continue:
The 12 Brand Archetypes being taught today are not founded out of any scientific study or on the back of any rational scientific (or marketing) foundation. They aren’t the result of the work of dozens of the top marketing minds in the world, based on the case studies of hundreds of leading successful brands, and the reactions and buying behaviors of tens of thousands or millions of consumers.
Archetypes were created in the mind of a disturbed hallucinator, obsessed with visions of sex, myths, alchemy and religious symbolism. There is zero actual science, and zero marketing science involved in the creation of the original four archetypes of Jung, or the 12 magical Brand Archetypes. It’s hokum. It’s marketing snake oil. Building your brand message on a Ouija Board would give you a better chance of getting it right.
The theory and practice (as well-developed as it is, and as beautifully packaged as it is) of Brand Archetypes is literally ‘new age mysticism for brands’.
If your company were incorporated on April 16, for example, would its astrological sign be Aries? Would it be, like a true Aries personality is said to be, a confident leader with a cheerful disposition and relentless determination? Or maybe it’s on the Aries-Taurus cusp, and it’s a real firecracker; a major force to be reckoned with?
Wagering your brand’s entire marketing and communication and advertising strategy on picking one of 12 Brand Archetypes makes even less sense than basing your marketing strategy on the zodiac sign of the date your business was incorporated.
And why are there only 12 Brand Archetypes to choose from? Why not 34? Or 19? Actually, there’s an answer! Ready?
How many ‘days of Christmas’ are there? 12. How many Apostles did Jesus have? 12. How many astrological signs are there? 12. How many products are sold by the dozen? Thousands.
There were 12 Olympian gods on the Ancient Greek pantheon. Hercules had to perform 12 labors. There were 12 Tribes of Israel. Eastern Orthodoxy celebrates 12 Great Feasts. Hindu’s Lord Shiva has 12 Lingas. The chief Norse god, Odin, had 12 sons. There are typically 12 jurors in a jury trial, originating from the goddess Athena who summoned 12 citizens to sit in judgement in the play Eumenides. There are 12 lunar months. King Arthur has 12 knights of the Round Table.
In other words, 12 is an arbitrary number that shows up in a multitude of mythological and historical and religious references.
And the number 12 actually makes a lot of sense when you think about things like months, growing seasons, harvests, planetary rotations, and menstrual cycles. Just not in any science related to marketing.
Any research methodology or process based on picking the right one out of a limited choice of only 12 options has no more credibility for brand marketing than deciding that wearing sapphires brings you wisdom, or that your brand is really a Virgo, not an Aries after all.
And here’s the real kicker: I am categorically NOT saying that the 12 Brand Archetypes have zero value; of course they have some. They apply to 12 different types of brand personalities. BUT NOT TO ALL.
And certainly, it is patently insane to believe that all brands need to (or even can) fit into one of the 12.
Further, you absolutely, definitely, positively do NOT want your brand to have multiple personality disorder.
Crafted properly, you have defined your target audience precisely, you have figured out what their pain points, or need, or desires are, and you have analyzed what your direct competitors are promising to the exact audience that you want to win.
Schizophrenic brands, with one personality for one target market, and a different personality for another target market are confusing; their marketing messages are diluted and fuzzy, and hundreds of billions of dollars of research and testing by the world’s largest and most successful brands and agencies have proven this over more than 50 years.
Here’s where Brand Archetypes do have value: for creating internal discussions that lead to identifying certain characteristics that can help achieve what really matters: a brand’s competitive advantage positioning and de-positioning.
Brand Archetypes are a rough, blunt instrument, meant for initial rough planning only, and they suffer from the most fatal of all marketing mistakes: they are all about your brand, and not at all about how your brand solves your consumers’ problems or pain points, in ways that your competitors don’t or can’t.
Here’s one more look at why this matters so very much for marketers.
The 12 widely used brand archetypes are virtually all uni-dimensional. ‘Hero’ brands look like this and talk like this, and stand for this; and ‘Jester’ brands look like that, and talk like that, and stand for that; and ‘Ruler’ brands look like that other thing, and talk like that other thing, and stand for those other things. And so on.
But category-leading and category-disrupting brands are not uni-dimensional.
Sophisticated and successful brands can often, but certainly not always, stand on one primary purpose or personality trait, but this narrows their audience instead of expanding it. Uh-oh. I just hinted at yet another sacred marketing cow I’m going to grill extra well done: ‘niching down’, probably one of my favorite pieces of marketing trash, but alas, that’s for another article.
If a brand’s marketing is based on the Brand Archetype of the ‘Outlaw’, for example, what happens when the brand aligns with a charity for a worthy social cause? Does that conflict with being an ‘Outlaw’?
In fact, the classic example of the ‘Outlaw’ Brand Archetype is Harley-Davidson, exemplified (and not entirely incorrectly) by images of outlaw bikers, speeding down the open road, giving fearless individuals the opportunity to do things ‘their way’, trouble and the law be damned.
But being part of a motorcycle club, buying Harley-Davidson merchandise, getting biker-favorite tattoos, sharing motorcycle club rules and rituals, having the camaraderie of many others who also enjoy the biker lifestyle makes one think of the characteristic of ‘belonging’, exactly the antithesis of an independent ‘outlaw’. And for those who know, ML&R.
The point is that JUST LIKE PEOPLE, brands are multi-dimensional and highly nuanced… and THAT is what makes them ‘real’ and ‘relatable’. The problem is that being real and relatable isn’t enough to drive sales or achieve competitive advantage.
So you need something else (and it ISN’T a Brand Archetype).
What you need is actually broken into 4 related but distinct elements:
A ‘meaningful benefit statement’: a short statement describing your specific target customer, and the specific pain point, problem, or desire that your proposition promises to fix, solve or fulfill.
The element of ‘provability’: a reason for your target customer to actually believe your meaningful benefit statement is legit.
A dimension of ‘differentiation’ (not ‘difference’): how your brand, product or service creates an entirely new playing field, not just a ‘better mousetrap’, compared with your competitors.
A ‘de-positioning component’: inarguably the single most important element of all, this is the reason why your target consumers should NOT consider your competitors as viable options to solve their problems or fulfill their desires.
When these 4 elements are properly created and woven into what is called a brand positioning platform, then, and ONLY THEN, does a brand have the foundation for creating a multichannel marketing and communications program to get your customers to make your brand a true category leader.
Because YOU don’t build your brand. Your customers do.
But only if you create, message and come to own your brand positioning AND convincingly and compellingly control how your target consumers perceive that ONLY your brand, product or service can solve their problem or pain point, or fulfill their needs or desires, and that your competitors can’t, won’t or don’t.
I’ll leave you with these last two thoughts: you must think of brands as you would think of powerful and successful people. While they may have a ‘primary’ characteristic or personality trait that seems to overpower any others, no one, and no brand, is a single dimensional entity. You definitely aren’t, and your favorite products aren’t either.
And lastly, consumers really don’t care at all what YOU think your brand is or means, or what YOU say it stands for… they only care about what it does for them.
If your brand, product or service really really truly truly does solve your targets’ needs better than your competitors can, they won’t care if your brand personality is that of Mother Teresa or Genghis Khan.
Marty Marion
CEO
Master Positioning, LLC