1,758
21
Essay, 13 pages (3500 words)

Brand archetype vs human archetype study internet websites marketing essay

Purpose- The purpose of the paper is to understand the inclination of a person with a particular dominant archetype towards a specific brand archetype. A person’s affinity towards a specific dominant archetype forms the basis of the research.

Design/methodology/approach- The research was done in three stages. The first stage was focused group discussion which was done to determine and select the characteristics that defines a Human Archetypes. The second stage and third stage was the quantitative survey of 110 people comprised of students and employees of a company.

Findings- Post-research, few aspects of the hypothesis are proved whereas reasons of the deviations have also been identified.

Practical Implication- This paper gives a clear understanding of human archetype vs. brand archetype. The research done in the paper shows that if the consumer archetype is known then it would be easier for the companies to mould its brand based on the archetype.

Paper type- Research paper

Introduction

According to Mark and Pearson (2001, Hero and the outlaw), “ archetypes are the heartbeat of the brand because they convey meaning that makes consumers relate to a product as if it actually were alive in some way. They have a relationship with it. They care about it.”

Similar to brands, consumers also have different personalities, characteristics and emotions. This study is done to understand various factors that impact the inclination of a consumer towards a specific brand. How do brand archetypes impact the consumer behaviour.

This paper will discuss Jungian archetypes making references to the work of Mark and Pearson (2001). The paper will also critically analyse the various concepts related to brand archetypes such as brand personality, Maslow’s hierarchy and relation between internet, brands and Perception & Personality.

The later part of the paper will focus on methodology of the research. The research will be done in three stages comprised of focused group discussion and quantitative survey for both human and brand archetypes. After interpreting the results of the survey, appropriate recommendation and conclusion will be drawn.

Literature review

Before getting into the analysis of my research, it is necessary to throw some light on few perspectives. To have a better understanding of the subject I have discussed few important concepts like brand personality, Maslow’s Hierarchy, brand archetypes in a detailed manner.

Brand Archetypes

Brand these days are so phenomenal that they become an iconic figure which is admired by everyone around the world. But there are only few who succeed in doing so and the rest end up paying millions of dollar in advertising and marketing for nothing.

When the soul of the brand and ways to express it are recognized then it not only gives a brand meaning but companies shares prices also shoots up. This can be only done by a better understanding of brand archetypes.

According to archetype is “ forms or images of a collective nature which occur practically all over the earth as constituents of myths and at the same time as individual products of unconscious origin” (C. G Jung (1919), cited in J. Antonian, 2006, Using the power of archetype as qualitative research). C. G Jung didn’t observe people behaviour neither did he ask questions to the people. He studied what the people felt and fantasized. Another remarkable psychologist

Anthony Stevens, who wrote an excellent book on the subject, ‘ Archetype, A Natural History Of The Self’, defines archetypes as “ innate psychic centres possessing the capacity to initiate, control and mediate the common behavioural characteristics and typical experiences of all human beings, irrespective of race, culture or creed” (pg 296).

To put it simply archetype is “ a universally familiar character or situation that transcends time, place, culture, gender and age. It represents an eternal truth”. (Jon Howard-Spink, Mustoe Merriman Lev, 2002). And just as our physical make-up expects our environment to be a certain type of place – with the right temperature, air to breathe and food to eat, archetypes also expect the world to be a particular type of place providing emotional warmth, care and nurturance. The archetypes holds meaning to people for example bull in Merrill Lynch logo represents strength, as the bull in ancient times was a symbol for power. Few other examples such as Nike’s reflection of victory goddess and Starbucks logo’s expression of explorer archetype through the symbol of sea show how the companies have used archetypes to put a soul in their brands. (K. Hegmann, 2007).

According to few critics there are few problems that accompany archetypal research. “ Archetypal research is problematic in that the metaphors it produces are limited in the extent of their accuracy. Metaphors are easily misunderstood and stretched beyond credibility when they are not supported with a thorough familiarity with the deeper psychological dynamics that give them their true power.” (Anonymous, The Hero and the Outlaw – Problems with Archetypal Research for Business, available at: http://irregulartimes. com/heroandoutlaw. Html)

Margaret Mark and Carol S. Pearson (2001) have explored the archetypal basis of the winning brands in their book ‘ The Hero and the Outlaw’. They have described 12 major archetypes expressed most often in the commercial activity today.

ARCHETYPES

Characteristics

BRAND EXAMPLE

Creator

Passion for self-expression in material form

Williams-Sonama

Caregiver

Care for Others

AT&T

Ruler

Exert Control and create a prosperous community

American Express

Jester

Have a good time

Miller Lite

Regular guy/gal

Be OK just as they are

Wendy’s

Lover

Find and give lover

Hallmark

Hero

Act courageously

Nike

Outlaw

Break the rules

Harley-Davidson

Magician

Affect Transformation

Calgon

Innocent

Retain and Renew Faith

Ivory

Explorer

Simple desire to hit the open road and to be in the wild

Levi’s

Sage

Understand the world

Oprah’s Book Club

Source: – Margaret Mark and Carol S. Pearson (2001)

Maslow’s Hierarchy (Mullins J., 2005)

Archetypes are based on motivation which relates to Maslow’s theory therefore Hierarchy of archetypes can be understood better by looking at Abraham Maslow’s (1954) hierarchy of five levels of basic needs.

Physiological Needs -These are biological needs. They consist of needs for oxygen, food, water, and a relatively constant body temperature.

Safety Needs- Security of body, health employment, family etc. Children often display the signs of insecurity and the need to be safe.

Needs of Love, Affection and Belongingness – involves both giving and receiving love, affection and the sense of belonging.

Needs for Esteem- Humans have a need for a stable, firmly based, high level of self-respect, and respect from others.

Needs for Self-Actualization- as a person’s need to be and do that which the person was “ born to do

Archetype Tools

Many in the field have organized their theories about personality and archetypes, and done significant work. Meyers-Briggs Type Inventory and the Enneagram theory of personality are the two most popular tools to determine the archetypes of an individual

Archetype and Marketing

The link between consumer motivation and product sales has come up only recently and is beginning to be understood. Archetypes serve the purpose by signalling the fulfilment of basic human desires and motivations and release of deep emotions and yearning.

If the mind filters out the extra information such as advertising messages and images, then the advertising should be appealing enough to talk to the subconscious mind to retain its effect. The understanding and relation to the Jungian archetypes is the way by which the consumer advertising can make their brand effective towards its target audience. (Crowely S., 2007)

Brand Personality

Brand personality is an important term while determining the brand archetype. It is defined as “ the set of human characteristics associated with the band”. (J. L. Aaker, 1997, pg 347-356) The relationship between a brand and human provides a different perspective on how brand personality might work. According to Aaker’s (1996) relationship building model, two elements affect the relationship between a brand and a consumer. The first one is the relationship between the brand and the consumer and the second one is the type of person that the brand represents i. e. the personality.

But Max Blackston (2000) gives an interesting theory. According to him the brands perspective of the person is really important to understand brand-customer relationship. Blackston illustrates this approach with a doctor-patient example. A doctor is considered to be professional and caring by all but if the doctor thinks that the person sitting in front of him is boring then it would be impossible to predict the resulting negative relationship based only upon perception of the Doctor’s personality.

Therefore it is really important to look at both the sides before predicting the reasons for the negative or positive relation between a brand and a customer.

Personality, Perception and Internet

According to Hoffman (2000), the consumers have a primary control over the internet market in contrast to the traditional media. Due to this the personality and perception of the brand becomes important. People are becoming internet savvy and want to do business with the web companies that they trust. Thus the factors responsible for brand perception such as word of mouth, quality of information comes into play. (Hong-Youl Ha, 2004)

Personality of internet brands is also very important factor in determining its success. Rubin (1993) described the absence of personality in understanding internet usage, as a missing piece of the whole equation. Okazaki (2006) says that there are five dimensions to brand personality stimuli- excitement, sophistication, affection, popularity, and competence. His research and the multiple regression done by him proves that there are relation between his ‘ personality dimensions’ and online communication.

There is limited research exploring the relationship between internet usage and individual differences. Personality may explain how and why individuals use the web. “ The individual and computer function as one; the machine allowing the individual to reinvent himself online” (stone (1995), cited in Z. Papacharissi and A. M. Rubin, Predictors of Internet Use). But research did by Orchard and Fullwood (2009) shows that even though internet allows individuals to play with their identities, the online behaviours always shows some similarity with the offline behaviour of an individual.

Research Methodology

The research is conducted in three Stages:

4. 1) Stage 1

Focus group discussion

This was done to determine the characteristics that defines a Human Archetypes and to select the most relevant characteristics for the brand archetype questionnaire.

Research Design

Sampling Universe:

– Students of Brunel University

Sampling Technique:

– Convenience Sampling

Sampling Unit:

– Group (6-8 students)

– No of FGD’s- 1

An in-depth explanation of archetypes was given to all the participants beforehand with the help of examples from Margaret Mark and Carol S. Pearson’s (2000)- The Hero and The Outlaw. Then the participants were asked to write few sentences to explain the archetypes. Their explanation formed the basis for the selection of the characteristics that were shortlisted for the archetypes.

4. 2) Stage 2

Quantitative Survey for the Human archetype

This stage was aimed at understanding the human archetypes of respondents based on a set of questions

Research Design

Sampling Universe

Students of Brunel University and employees of Hollister and Co who are familiar with internet. The both samples are exposed to internet which is extremely necessary for the research.

Sampling Technique and Sampling Unit

Random Sampling and Individual

Sample Size: 110

4. 3) Stage 3:

Quantitative Survey for the Brand Archetype

This stage was done to determine the archetype of the favourite internet brand of the respondents interviewed in stage 2.

Sample Design is similar to stage 2

4. 4) Data Analysis

According to the stage 1, the characteristics were shortlisted and again sub-divided among various archetypes

Creator

Inventive, Innovative, Imaginative, Originality, A creative artist

Caregiver

Caregiver, Genuine, Giving, Family person, Sympathetic, Help others

Ruler

In control, Leadership, Authorities, Status Quo, Competitive

Jester

Outgoing and fun, Party, Humorous, Entertainer, Relaxed

Regular Guy/Gal

Average, Self confident, Respect for everyone, Value for money, Honest, Modest

Lover

In fashion, Warm, Passionate, Sultry, Get along well with others

Hero

Brave, Determined, Loyal, Dedicated, Can do spirit, Selfless, Focused

Outlaw

Cunning, Law breaker, Uninhibited, Wild and crazy, Cut loose

Magician

Delightful, doing the impossible, Initiator, Miracle worker

Innocent

Integrity, Protected, Health, Honest

Explorer

Conviction, Perseverance, Creativity, Curiosity, Resilience, Risk taking, Independence, A sense of higher purpose

Sage

Experienced, Quality, Take advantage, Mentor, Competent

12 archetypes adapted from Margaret Mark and Carol S. Pearson (2001)

Final Findings

The respondents with the similar archetypes were grouped together and were asked a set of questions about their favourite internet brands. The responses of the respondents were then analysed to find out the inclination of a particular human archetypes to the different brand archetypes.

Magician

As expected the Magicians were inclined towards Magician archetype. According to Granrose(1996), the characteristics of a magician archetype is to do impossible miracles and entertain people therefore there is inclination towards the internet brand with the same characteristics.

Innocent

As Mark and Pearson (2000) says innocent is about simplicity and kindness, they show an inclination towards the Regular gal/guy, innocent and caregiver.

Explorer

There are no surprises here even though the explorers don’t show inclination towards any specific archetype. “ This is because explorer is driven to seek new experiences. And is often on a question for individuality and uniqueness and is often restless and ambitious.” (Polinski S., available at: http://spinninggoldmarketing. com/2010/ 09 /per sonal-archetypes/)

Regular Guy/gal

Respondents with Regular Guy/Gal archetype were inclined towards internet brands with regular guy/gal archetype. The brands were similar to the characteristics for the Regular Guy/gal archetype.

Caregiver

“ The Caregiver archetype is altruistic – motivated by a desire to help others and protect them from harm.” (Purkiss & Lee, 2008, available at: http://www. partnersinflo w. com/downloads/brandyou. pdf). They preferred brands with Caregiver, Regular Guy/Gal and Innocent archetypes with softer characteristics like vibrant and warm, unpretentious and genuine concern for others.

Ruler

The graph clearly shows that the rulers shows inclination towards brands with Hero, Ruler and Creator archetype as they like to take control, creating order out of chaos, stay focused and be inventive and original.

Creator

Respondents with creator archetype were inclined towards internet brands with creator archetype. They prefer websites like YouTube and blogs. “ The Creator archetype is often seen in writers, artists, composers, inventors and entrepreneurs. He or she has daydreams and flashes of inspiration which they translate into reality. (2008, available at: http://www. partn ersinflow. com/downloads/brandyou. pdf)

Jestor

Jestors didn’t show inclination to a particular brand archetype. According to the graph it preferred regular guy/gal, innocent, creator and caregiver. This may be because of the characteristic of the Jestor which clearly suggests that they try to get along with everyone at any time.

Sage

Sage’s are the more mature lot and preferred Sage, Caregiver and Regular Guy/Gal archetype. They are more informed and believe in the application of their learning in the real life. The Times of India was one such preferred brand.

Lover

Lover has intuition and the artist’s creative impulse; he is empathetic, compassionate and passionate. (Munafo R. P., 1996, http://mrob. com/pub/std/archetypes. html) They referred brands with lover, creator and caregiver.

Hero

Heroes preferred ruler, hero and explorer archetypes. All these archetypes have several characteristics in common like aggression; will to stay independent, risk-takers etc. That’s why the heroes are inclined towards these archetypes.

Outlaw

The outcome was different but the characteristics of the outlaws are to potray a completely different image than what they really are.

Conclusion

Present day marketers understand the concept of brand archetype but have not used it in sync with the consumer archetypes. As a result, areas where profile based segmentation could have been done; they end up spending huge amount of money in targeting the wrong consumer.

“ Far from being meaningless, archetypes are the bridge between the manner in which we express our conscious thought and a primordial way of expression” (Munteanu A. et. al, 2010) and they should be associated with the brands to add soul in it.

The outcome of the research was as expected with few surprises. The inclination of outlaw towards regular guy/gal was unexpected. Most of the beliefs like innocent and caregiver towards regular guy/gal, caregiver was restored.

6. 1) Limitation of the Research

It was difficult to find all the types of archetypes to get accurate results. Jester type archetype in particular was difficult to find. In order to have a statistically correct number I interviewed more and more people but encountered people who were Innocent, Regular Guy/Gal or Caregiver. Therefore, the distribution of respondents among these archetypes is uneven.

Several questionnaires had to be rejected due to incomplete information like name, Sex, Age, etc. Due to constraint of time the sample size was only 110, which can be higher in future researches to get more accurate results

6. 2) Future of the study

Brands were once sold on the basis of their USP’s but today it needs a lot more than the unique selling point. It is easy for the brand managers to position and communicate their brand if the archetype of the target audience is known. This survey can be used by various advertising agencies like W+K, WPP etc. to focus their communication campaign in the right direction and save huge amount of money.

The scope of study can be increased since this paper deals only with the internet brands. The future studies can be done with larger sample universe which would in return give more accurate results.

References

Books

Aaker, D. A., 1991, Managing Brand Equity. New York: Free Press.

Aaker, D. A., 1996, Building Strong Brands. New York: Free Press.

Bolen J. S, M. D. Harper and Row, 1989, Gods in Everyman: A New Psychology of Men’s Lives and Loves, San Francisco

Cowden T. D., LaFever C., Viders S., 2000, The Complete Writer’s Guide to Heroes and Heroines, Lone Eagle Publishing

Grant W. H, Thompson M., Clarke T. E., 1983, From Image to Likeness: A Jungian Path in the Gospel Journey, Paulist Press

Kapferer J. N., 1997, Strategic Brand Management: Creating and Sustaining Brand Equity Long Term, London: Kogan Page.

Kiersey D. and Bates M., 1978, Please Understand Me: An Essay on Temperament Styles, Prometheus Nemesis Books

Lawrence G (1979), People Types and Tiger Stripes: A Practical Guide to Learning Styles, Center for Application of Psychological Type, Inc.

Mark M, and Pearson C. S, 2000 and 2001, The Hero and The Outlaw: Building extra-ordinary brands through the power of archetypes, McGraw Hill.

Michael C. P. and Norrisey M. C., Prayer and Temperament: Different Prayer Forms for Different Personality Types

Michael J., 2006, Brand Prototyping: Developing Meaningful Brands, Kluwer Amsterdam.

Mullins L. J., 2005, Management and organizational behaviour, Financial Times Prentice Hall

Myers I. B. and Myers P., 1980, Gifts Differing, Consulting Psychologists Press.

Myers I. B, 1980, Introduction to Type, Consulting Psychologists Press.

Palmer H., Harper and Row, 1983, The Enneagram, Psychological Processes, Inc.

Shinoda Bolen J. S., M. D. Harper and Row, Gods in Every Woman, Publisher unknown, date unknown

Journals

Aaker J. L, 1997, Dimensions of Brand Personality, Journal of Marketing Research, American Marketing Association, Vol. 34, No. 3 (Aug., 1997), pp. 347-356

Blackston M., 2000, Observations: Building Brand Equity by Managing the Brand’s Relationships. Journal of Advertising Research, 40, pp 101-105

Hoffman L. D., Novak T. P., 2000, How to acquire customers on the Web, Harvard Business Review.

Okazaki S., 2006, Excitement or sophistication? A preliminary exploration of online brand personality, International Marketing Review, Vol. 23 Iss: 3, pp. 279 – 303

Rubin, A. M., 1993, The effect of locus of control on communication motivation, anxiety and satisfaction, Communication Quarterly, 41(Spring), 161-171.

Websites and blogs

Anonymous, date unknown, The Hero and the Outlaw – Problems with Archetypal Research for Business, – Irregular Times, available at: http://irregulartimes. com/heroandoutlaw. html, accessed on 3rd January 2011.

Anonymous, date unknown, Brand Personality: Reprinted from Building Strong Brands, Group Web Sites, Available at: http://groups. haas. berkeley. edu/marketing /papers/aaker/books/building/brand_personality. html, accessed on 6th January 2011

Antonian J.,, 2006, Using the power of archetype as qualitative research tools, Marketing Research: Lieberman Research Worldwide , Available at: http://www. lrwonline. com/about-news_detail. asp? news_IDPage= 9, accessed on 5th Jan. 2011.

Crowely S., 2007, Cut through Advertising Clutter with Archetypes, Printingforless. com, available at: http://www. creativepro. com/article/cut-through-advertising-clutter-with-archetypes, accessed on: 10th January 2011

Hoffman D. L, Novak T. P., Schlosser A., 2000, Consumer Control in Online Environments, eLab Owen Graduate School of Management Vanderbilt University, available at http://www. bus. umich. edu/Faculty Research/Research Centers/ centers/Yaffe/ downloads /Complete List_of_Working_Papers/consumer. pdf, accessed on: 3rd January 2011.

Howard S., Levy M. M, 2002, Using archetypes to build stronger brands, ADMAP- world advertising research Centre, available at: http://www. livingbrands. co. uk/A ssests/Articles/Brand%20Archetyping%20(Admap%20article%201). pdf, accessed on 12th January 2011.

Granrose J., 1996, The Archetype of the Magician, Diploma Thesis – C. G. Jung Institute, available at: http://www. voidspace. org. uk/psychology/wizard_archetype. shtml, accessed on: 20th January 2011.

Hegmann K., 2007, The hero within- building brand meaning through archetype, available at: http://karenhegmann. typepad. com/tellingthestory/2007/08/the-hero-within. html, accessed on 5th January, 2011.

Lisa J. Orchard, Chris Fullwood, 2010, Current Perspectives on Personality and Internet Use, Social Science Computer Review, vol. 28 no. 2 155-169

Munteanu A. et. al, 2010, Entering in the essences of personality – studies over archetypes, Available online at www. sciencedirect. com, accessed on 21 January 2011

Munafo R. P., 1996, Periodic Table of Literary Archetypes, available at: http://mrob . com/pub/ std/archetypes. html, accessed on: 21 January 2011

Polinski S., date unknown, Unlock Your Personal Potential with Archetypes, Spinning gold, available at: http://spinninggoldmarketing. com/2010/ 09/personal-archetypes/)

Papacharissi Z., Rubin A. M., date unknown, Predictors of Internet, Questia – The Online Library of Books and Journals, available at: http://www. questia. com/PM. qst? a= o&d= 5001756440, accessed on 14th January 2011

Purkiss J. & Lee D. R., 2008, Brand You, available at: http://www. partnersinflo w. com/do wnloads /brandyou. pdf, accessed on: 21 January 2011

Thank's for Your Vote!
Brand archetype vs human archetype study internet websites marketing essay. Page 1
Brand archetype vs human archetype study internet websites marketing essay. Page 2
Brand archetype vs human archetype study internet websites marketing essay. Page 3
Brand archetype vs human archetype study internet websites marketing essay. Page 4
Brand archetype vs human archetype study internet websites marketing essay. Page 5
Brand archetype vs human archetype study internet websites marketing essay. Page 6
Brand archetype vs human archetype study internet websites marketing essay. Page 7
Brand archetype vs human archetype study internet websites marketing essay. Page 8
Brand archetype vs human archetype study internet websites marketing essay. Page 9

This work, titled "Brand archetype vs human archetype study internet websites marketing essay" was written and willingly shared by a fellow student. This sample can be utilized as a research and reference resource to aid in the writing of your own work. Any use of the work that does not include an appropriate citation is banned.

If you are the owner of this work and don’t want it to be published on AssignBuster, request its removal.

Request Removal
Cite this Essay

References

AssignBuster. (2022) 'Brand archetype vs human archetype study internet websites marketing essay'. 10 January.

Reference

AssignBuster. (2022, January 10). Brand archetype vs human archetype study internet websites marketing essay. Retrieved from https://assignbuster.com/brand-archetype-vs-human-archetype-study-internet-websites-marketing-essay/

References

AssignBuster. 2022. "Brand archetype vs human archetype study internet websites marketing essay." January 10, 2022. https://assignbuster.com/brand-archetype-vs-human-archetype-study-internet-websites-marketing-essay/.

1. AssignBuster. "Brand archetype vs human archetype study internet websites marketing essay." January 10, 2022. https://assignbuster.com/brand-archetype-vs-human-archetype-study-internet-websites-marketing-essay/.


Bibliography


AssignBuster. "Brand archetype vs human archetype study internet websites marketing essay." January 10, 2022. https://assignbuster.com/brand-archetype-vs-human-archetype-study-internet-websites-marketing-essay/.

Work Cited

"Brand archetype vs human archetype study internet websites marketing essay." AssignBuster, 10 Jan. 2022, assignbuster.com/brand-archetype-vs-human-archetype-study-internet-websites-marketing-essay/.

Get in Touch

Please, let us know if you have any ideas on improving Brand archetype vs human archetype study internet websites marketing essay, or our service. We will be happy to hear what you think: [email protected]