Brand Archetypes: Popular, Prevalent, and Fundamentally Flawed

Brand archetypes have become a popular tool for consultants and marketers in recent years, but are they as effective and useful as many people believe? Or just a bunch of twaddle, as some industry experts have alluded to? Brandality's Adam Arnold gives his view.

Brand archetypes originated from the work of Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Carl Jung. Jung introduced the concept of archetypes in 1919 as universal patterns or symbols deeply ingrained in the human psyche. Whilst Jung primarily explored archetypes in the context of psychology and mythology, their application to marketing and branding emerged much later, with consultants adopting it as a framework for developing brand personalities.

On LinkedIn, I once shared a post from marketing professor Mark Ritson. In it, he beautifully described brand archetypes as "total bollocks but incredibly prevalent," placing them second on his table of 'The All-Time Marketing BS Index' (https://www.marketingweek.com/ritson-ultimate-marketing-bs-top-10/). My own comment echoed his sentiment, calling them "esoteric nonsense that only fulfils the ego of the facilitator."

Unsurprisingly, my post drew criticism. Several 'experts' slid into my inbox defending brand archetypes as a "valuable tool." - valuable to whom I wonder?

Why People Use Brand Archetypes

Before pulling them apart, it's only fair to understand why archetypes remain so popular.

They offer an easy shortcut. For many, they simplify the daunting task of defining brand personality. Archetypes provide a ready-made framework that helps teams rally around a shared idea - a useful tool for facilitating workshops, building consensus, and making abstract ideas feel more tangible.

They also carry a certain intellectual appeal. Rooted in Jungian psychology, archetypes lend branding a psychological sheen that can impress stakeholders. They feel strategic. They look good in a pitch deck. They make the process seem weightier than it often is.

In internal meetings, the language of archetypes can also help non-creatives engage. It's easier to say "We're the Explorer" than to define a nuanced, bespoke personality from the ground up.

But ease and engagement are not the same as effectiveness. Which leads us to...

Why Brand Archetypes Are Fundamentally Flawed

I've seen brand archetypes in action from both sides of the fence: as a consultant facilitating them and as a client on the receiving end. There's no denying they're engaging on the surface. Participants grasp the idea quickly and enjoy picking their archetype. It feels like progress.

But it's not long before the cracks begin to show. Once the initial buzz wears off, reality creeps in. Suddenly, teams are faced with the challenge of explaining to the wider business that the brand is now aligned with a concept like the "Sage" or "Explorer". Try doing that across multiple departments or regions, especially in non-English speaking countries.

I remember one workshop where a participant asked, "Wouldn't it be clearer and easier to simply share our brand's traits and values, rather than align to an archetype that no one else outside of this room is going to understand?" It was a fair question. And I recall fumbling for a response that didn't even convince me.

Limiting, Ambiguous, and Just Nonsense

Here's the core issue: brand archetypes claim to provide clarity, but they often do the opposite. They're ambiguous enough to mean different things to different people, yet rigid enough to box a brand into a narrow expression. They create the illusion of differentiation, but within a category, everyone ends up choosing the same archetype.

Take healthcare. Most brands in this space will choose the Caregiver or Sage archetype - look at CVS Health (Caregiver), Johnson & Johnson (Caregiver), or the Mayo Clinic (Sage). Not much room for standout there. And whilst some might argue that the ambiguity of archetypes allows room for interpretation, that only fuels inconsistency and weakens brand cohesion.

And then there's Harley-Davidson – the clichéd 'Rebel'. But does every single piece of communication need to scream rebellion? Is nuance no longer allowed? Brands, like people, are more than one note.

Archetypes also lean too far into internal aspiration over external insight. They often reflect what the company wants to be, not what the customer needs it to be. That misalignment can lead to brand expression that feels out of touch or contrived. As Marty Neumeier said: "A brand is not what you say it is. It's what they say it is."

When Archetypes Misguide Customer Understanding

More recently, I've seen archetypes being applied not just to define the brand's personality, but the customer's. This is where things get especially muddy.

Imagine a mid-size travel company running a branding workshop. The group collectively agrees that their brand is the "Explorer" archetype. It seems to fit - they sell experiences, travel, adventure. But then someone suggests, "Our customers are Explorers too, that's why they book with us."

Marketing starts addressing the audience as if they are free-spirited, backpack-wielding nomads with an insatiable thirst for the unknown. Messaging becomes filled with rugged imagery, solo travel stories, and a call to discover uncharted lands.

The problem? Their actual customer base is made up largely of middle-aged professionals booking a two-week guided tour in Tuscany. They want comfort, curated itineraries, and the assurance that everything is taken care of.

This is what happens when you replace real customer insight with character labels. The team starts marketing to an idea of who they think the customer is, rather than who they actually are and what they really need. That kind of misalignment doesn't just confuse the audience, it erodes trust and relevance.

What to Do Instead

Look outward, your audience should be the inspiration. Understand their beliefs, behaviours, frustrations, and needs. Sociographic profiling and customer insight should shape your brand's tone and personality. This creates a brand expression that resonates with the people you're trying to engage, not a vague mythological character.

Also, do the groundwork. Analyse the competitive landscape to see where everyone else is playing. Look for opportunities to own a space others are ignoring. This is where true differentiation lives.

The False Science Behind Archetypes

Here's where things get really problematic. Proponents love to claim there's "science" behind brand archetypes, dropping names like Freud and Jung to add psychological weight. But this is where the house of cards really tumbles down.

Yes, Carl Jung developed the concept of archetypes - but he never created the 12 brand archetypes that consultants peddle today. Those came from a single business book, "The Hero and the Outlaw," published in 2001. Meanwhile, modern psychology has largely moved beyond early psychoanalytic theory like Freud's work on the subconscious. We're not dealing with established psychology here - we're dealing with marketing concepts dressed up in psychological clothing.

It's like claiming your diet plan is "scientifically proven" because it mentions vitamins, then basing the whole thing on a cookbook from 1950.

The Consistency Paradox

There's also a fundamental contradiction at the heart of archetype thinking. Advocates claim archetypes provide consistency, but in practice, they create the opposite. The supposed "clarity" of being the "Sage" or "Explorer" actually generates confusion when teams try to implement it practically.

I've watched marketing teams argue for months about whether a particular campaign idea fits their chosen archetype. Is this social media post "Hero" enough? Does this packaging design capture our "Innocent" personality? The archetype becomes a creative straightjacket rather than a creative springboard.

Meanwhile, the ambiguity I mentioned earlier means different team members interpret the same archetype differently. Your London team's version of "Explorer" looks nothing like your New York team's version. So much for consistency.

Not Just My Opinion

I'm not alone in this view. Mark Ritson's not the only voice questioning archetypes. Brand strategist Byron Sharp has criticized them as oversimplified thinking that ignores the complexity of consumer behavior. Marketing consultant Tom Goodwin has described them as "branding astrology" – compelling, perhaps, but lacking substance. Other industry figures like Helen Edwards (Marketing Week columnist) argue that brands are inherently multidimensional and trying to reduce them to a single archetype diminishes that richness.

In Carl Jung's own words from his seminal work "The Archetypes and The Collective Unconscious" (1959):

"Those who do not realise the special feeling tone of the archetype end with nothing more than a jumble of mythological concepts, which can be strung together to show that everything means anything – or nothing at all."

Exactly.