BRAND STRATEGY

October 2002 Admap 1© World Advertising Research Center 2002

‘PART ART, part science,“brand” is the differencebetween a bottle of soda and

a bottle of Coke, the intangibleyet visceral impact of a person’ssubjective experience with theproduct – the personal memories and cultural associations thatorbit around it (1)

The curse of the pharaohsWe all know why we needbrands.We know the physicalproperties of the products wework with, the functionalbenefits that stem from these,and how they might be trans-lated into communicationpropositions.We will also beaware that most other prod-ucts in the market will havesimilar functionality. A spinmust be developed for ouroffering to create its marketpositioning, but what hap-pens if someone else comesand sits nearby?

Recognising that the mostpotent consumer needs areoften emotional rather thanfunctional, we look to intangible quali-ties to provide differentiation.We build abrand. Easy isn’t it? Unfortunately not.Though the development and manage-ment of brands is central andfundamental to everything we do, arethe tools we use up to the job? Or dothey do more harm than good?

Brands are complex, abstract and dif-ficult to pin down. However, inendeavouring to define them we oftenforget this. With techniques such asbrand pyramids, we take something wildand untamed and attempt to constrainand control it. Rather than trying to

understand brands in their natural habi-tat, we put them in a zoo.

I recognise that pyramids, onions andsimilar techniques can be useful internaldisciplines. But do they really help definethe unchanging core values of a brand?We spend weeks debating the nuances ofsynonyms, performing semantic gym-nastics to prove that Brand X is differentfrom Brand Y, and agonising overwhether something is an EmotionalBenefit or a Brand Value – a distinctionwe struggle to understand in the firstplace. At the end of the day, what doesthis get us? More often than not, a pile of

disconnected words thatlooks like nothing less than anexplosion in a bombed the-saurus factory.

Unfortunately, having builtour pyramid and agreed thatour brand is contemporary,stylish, relevant, inclusive andother usual suspects, we fallinto the trap of thinking ourjob is finished. Usuallythough, we are no closer toarticulating ‘core essence’than when we began – even ifthat particular box has beenfilled in.What should be rich,complex and, by definition,hard to articulate ends upneutered and subjected todeath by a thousand adjec-tives. Ironically, our supposedunchanging brand templateis reduced to a fluid selectionof meaningless or undifferen-tiating words that even thoseclose to the process interpretin different ways.

The result, to quote Shake-speare, is a brand which is'...a walking shadow; a poor

player, that struts and frets his hourupon the stage, and then is heard nomore: a tale told by an idiot, full ofsound and fury, signifying nothing'.Youmay feel this is harsh, but ask yourselfhow many walking shadows there areout there, and if we struggle to findmeaning, think how consumers feel.Nature abhors a vacuum, and wheremeaning is unclear consumers imposetheir own. Our brands become subjectto the vagaries of personal experience,resulting in fragmentation and inconsis-tency. ‘My’ brand becomes different to‘your’ brand, which may be terribly post-

Using archetypes to build stronger brands

Jon Howard-Spink, Mustoe Merriman Levy, sets out an approach to understanding and developing firmly-grounded brands

’

BRAND STRATEGY

2 Admap October 2002© World Advertising Research Center 2002

modern, but isn't great for effectivebrand management.Where brands arepoorly defined we lose control.

Obviously, this isn’t always the case. Ithappens often enough though – with thenegative consequences frequently goingunnoticed – for an alternative approachto be considered. If current tools andmodels aren’t good enough, what is thealternative? Is there a better way to get togrips with the intangible characteristicsof a brand?

‘A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away’‘It will be no longer enough to produce a use-ful product.A story or legend must be builtinto it; a story that embodies values beyondutility.What is happening is that the storyshapes our feelings about a product,and hasbecome an enormous part of what we buywhen we buy a product’ (2)

There is a book I haven’t read calledThe Complete Writer’s Guide to Heroes and Heroines (3).As the title suggests, itspurpose is to help writers of romanticfiction in character development. It isbuilt around the premise that there arecertain identifiable characters youshould use (16 to be precise), like theswashbuckler or the librarian.

Apart from generating amusement inplanning departments, and games of‘who’s who?’ around the agency, there isan important truth here.This is the truthof archetypes: that there are certain basiccharacters and storylines that appearregularly in myth, fairytale, literature andfilm; archetypes that represent coreaspects of the human condition, and tapdeep into our motivations and sense ofmeaning.

When we encounter these, they res-onate in powerful ways that transcendculture and demographics.This is why,when penning the original Star Warstrilogy, George Lucas turned to JosephCampbell, author of The Hero With aThousand Faces, to help him understandthe archetypal narrative structure and

characters found in these mythic stories,and why these three films enjoy suchstrong and enduring appeal. WhetherLuke Skywalker, The Man With NoName, Red Riding Hood, Harry Potter,or real people such as JFK, PrincessDiana or Marilyn Monroe, there issomething primal in archetypal charac-ters and situations that stirs ouremotions, stimulates our memory andsometimes changes lives.

In developing and managing brands,are we really so different from GeorgeLucas or a budding Barbara Cartland?Ironically, in this postmodern age whenpeople are supposedly no longer inter-ested in meta-narratives with commonunderstanding, brand development isnothing short of creating a story thatpeople want to be part of; a characterwith values that have deep resonancewhich our target audience want to emu-

late or be associated with.This is why a Harley-Davidson mar-

keter can say:‘what we sell is the ability for a 43-year-

old accountant to dress in black leather, ridethrough small towns and have people beafraid of him’ (4)

Or why Scott Bedbury, in his timehead of marketing at Nike and Star-bucks, believes that:

‘a brand is a metaphorical story that …connects with something very deep — a fun-damental human appreciation of mythology … Companies that manifest thissensibility … invoke something verypowerful’ (5)

As an approach, this is nothing new. Itis precisely what the Ancient Greeks andRomans did with abstractions.They per-sonalised them and used story and ritualto bring them to life in a way that wentfar beyond our use of flabby personalitydescriptors. Similarly, using the samearchetypes, we can personalise ourbrands today, using story and ritual tobring them to life.

The reality is that many of us will bedoing this unconsciously already – that’s

the whole point. But how much morepowerful might our brands be, if werecognised this truth and pursued it sys-tematically?

This might seem counter-intuitive.Wespend most of our time endeavouring tomake brands unique, so why root themin an archetype if someone else could dothe same? Won’t this minimise differen-tiation? Only if you believe that thepyramid of adjectives currently mas-querading as firm and distinctivefoundations is better, and only if youconfuse an archetype with a stereotype,as they are in no way synonymous.

You say stereotype, I say archetype

‘He’s just a stereotype.He drinks his age in pints.He has girls every night.But he doesn’t really exist’(‘Stereotype’,The Specials)

A stereotype is culturally, and often tem-porally, specific, usually complete with aheap of negative connotations. All cul-tures and times have stereotypicalcharacters, but they don’t travel well.They tend to be rigid, simplistic andone-dimensional. Unfortunately, mostalso carry some grain of truth, which iswhy they are easy to slip into and hard toshake off. They are ten-a-penny in sit-coms and just as prevalent inadvertising, which can be one reasonwhy brands become undifferentiated,moribund and in need of reinvention.Stereotypes embody surly teenagers,lazy students, arrogant stockbrokers,bumbling vicars, hen-pecked husbandsand bad women drivers.

In comparison, an archetype is a uni-versally familiar character or situation thattranscends time, place, culture, genderand age. It represents an eternal truthmore than just a (stereotypical) manifes-tation; a start point more than thefinishing line and a brand’s bedrock morethan the characters in its advertising. So,whereas a stereotype can be expressed inonly one shallow, inflexible way, arche-types can be manifested – and oftencombined – in a multitude of distinctways, each of which taps into primalneeds and motivations whilst retainingthe freedom and flexibility to changeexternal trappings with the times.

Take a very obvious archetype, the

‘An archetype is a universally familiar characteror situation that transcends time, place, culture,gender and age. It represents an eternal truth’

October 2002

Champion. This character is foundthroughout myth, history and popularculture. Manifestations and nuancesmay be different, but we all recognise acharacter who (usually but not always)fights for truth in defence of the weak(whether people or ideals).The Cham-pion is Joan of Arc, Martin Luther Kingand Aragorn, William Wallace, RobinHood and the Magnificent Seven. Itprotects, empowers and champions theunderdog; it challenges unjust systems,fights the bully and rescues people indistress.

When it comes to brands, the Cham-pion archetype can be seen in the likes ofDomestos, Which? or Virgin. No onewould say these brands are interchange-able or undifferentiated. Quite thereverse. They all have a clear, distinctpositioning in their markets, and thesepositionings are consistent and potent.These brands all tap into the samerecognisable archetype, but this actual-ly frees them to be different and avoidsthe descent into undifferentiated stereo-typing that comes when a brand lacksstrong foundations (Figure 1).

The Champion is just one of manyarchetypes. These are also potentiallylimitless if you look to specific charactermanifestations – for example ‘my brand

BRAND STRATEGY

is Indiana Jones’ ‘my brand is Peter Pan’.It isn’t enough to combine these witheverything else on the brand pyramid orcreative brief.Tapping into the power ofarchetypes isn’t about mouthing thewords, it is about being a living manifes-tation of that archetype to yourconsumers.

Alternatively, to create structure, somehave attempted to identify key masterarchetypes that exist in most cultures –notably Carol Pearson, author of Awak-en The Heroes Within and The Hero andThe Outlaw (6).The danger is that thiscan tend to the stereotypical if usedinsensitively. However, as a start point itstops you lurching into debates aboutthe relative merits of obscure charactersfrom mythology and folklore (7).

Here’s one I prepared earlierHow does it work? Consider a householdcleaning product.You might start by dis-cussing whether your brand is a herofighting against dirt and germs,an innocent promising a return to thenatural simplicity of Eden, or a caregivernurturing and protecting your family.

Having decided that the archetype youwant is the caregiver, you may then fleshout particular nuances. There may besecondary archetypes that are part of thebrand – while Richard Branson and Vir-gin embody the Hero archetype, there isalso a bit of the Outlaw as well. Or theremay be particular examples of care-givers, real or fictitious, that mightcapture how you want to be seen – areyou an earth mother or Mother Teresa;Florence Nightingale or Princess Diana?

It then becomes much easier to useconventional techniques such as brandpyramids. If everyone agrees that thebrand is a caregiver as manifested by anearth mother, you find that the words inthe boxes suddenly become more mean-ingful and interconnected.

It also becomes easier to judgewhether an execution is right for thebrand – we may have different

interpretations of adjectives, but we allunderstand archetypes in the same way.

And they all lived happily ever after…It may be because I fritter away myearnings on comics, and sub-Tolkienfantasy novels, but I find it more excit-ing to think of myself as the author ofeternal brand stories than as someonewho writes strategy documents andbrand pyramids.

Obviously,putting theory into practiceis never easy. From my personal experi-ence, and a quick web surf, it becomesclear that this isn’t broadly held as a wayof viewing brands or brand management.Apart from Dublin-based brand consul-tancy Alexander Dunlop, and CarolPearson’s rather disappointing The Heroand The Outlaw, little work has been donein this area.Words and adjectives remainthe norm. Unfortunately, people tend tofeel comfortable with convention, even ifit doesn’t deliver.

It is easy to do things the accepted way.More often than not, I do it.There is areal danger of looking like a mad hippy(another good stereotype) if you startlikening your client’s brand to charactersin fairytales. None the less, in true hero’sjourney fashion, having received my call,I plan to throw caution to the wind, setoff down this path,and see what happens.

1. N Hawley: ‘Brand Defined’. Business 2.0,June 2000.2. R Jensen: The Dream Society. McGraw-Hill,1999.3. See www.tamicowden.com/archetypes.htm.4.As quoted by Tom Peters at Tompeters.com.5. S Bedbury: ‘What Great Brands Do’. Fast-company, August 1997.6. See www.herowithin.com.7. See the Encyclopaedia Mythica at www.pantheon.org.

Jon Howard-Spink iscurrently planningdirector at MustoeMerriman Levy. Hehas written five IPAEffectiveness Awardspapers, three of themwinners, and hasspoken at the MRSconference.

jon.h@mustoes.co.uk

Brands as stereotype and archetypeFIGURE 1

‘Manifestations and nuances may be different, but we all recognise a character

[the champion] who fights for truth indefence of the weak’