JKR

Archetype: the original pattern or model of which all things of the same type are representations or copies.

Doesn’t sound like a template for a distinctive or epic design does it?

Nevertheless, the use of archetypes as a way of defining a brand’s personality is now common practice. Steve Jobs is often held up as a living breathing brand archetype: The Wizard (of Oz) – disappearing behind his curtain then popping back with his latest piece of magic. The burgeoning industry of brand strategy which acts as a comforting tier between marketing and creative briefs makes much play on Jung’s archetype philosophies etc. etc.

Personally I’m not too sure it goes much deeper than the “If I were a car, what type of car would I be?” type of approach for most of us. I find archetypes reasonably helpful in briefings, but just as effective (without the smoke and mirrors) are simple personifications – we were recently briefed to create a logo that was “like Roy Keene” and all the designers got what that meant visually without recourse to an induction in archetypes.

If you find the approach valuable, fantastic. But stumbling across the recent print above by illustrator Tom Gauld prompted me to think that beyond the limited spectrum of archetypes we are typically given to consider (see below), there is a rich cast of more quirky but just as immediate characters. Is it possible that archetyping reduces and shorthands the potential depth of personality that can be imbued into a brand, rather than enriching it?

I’m sure fans of the process would counter “only if you don’t understand and use it properly” but that’s the issue really – few of us presented with it in brainstorms etc. will be students of Jung and the like, so our use of it as a tool is likely to be a bit shallow. And at the end of the day, do such systems spark imaginative interpretation, or can they risk smothering it in process?