Content uploaded by Duarte Xara-Brasil
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Duarte Xara-Brasil on Jun 06, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Duarte Xara-Brasil
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Duarte Xara-Brasil on Jun 05, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Kavita Hamza
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kavita Hamza on May 22, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Revista de Gestão
The meaning of a brand? An archetypal approach
Duarte Xara-Brasil, Kavita Miadaira Hamza, Percy Marquina,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Duarte Xara-Brasil, Kavita Miadaira Hamza, Percy Marquina, (2018) "The meaning of a brand?
An archetypal approach", Revista de Gestão, Vol. 25 Issue: 2, pp.142-159, https://doi.org/10.1108/
REGE-02-2018-0029
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/REGE-02-2018-0029
Downloaded on: 05 June 2018, At: 09:42 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 51 other documents.
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 142 times since 2018*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by All users group
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by INSTITUTO POLITECNICO DE SETUBAL At 09:42 05 June 2018 (PT)
The meaning of a brand? An
archetypal approach
Duarte Xara-Brasil
Department of Marketing and Logistics, Instituto Politecnico de Setubal,
Setubal, Portugal
Kavita Miadaira Hamza
Department of Business Administration, Universidade de Sao Paulo,
Sao Paulo, Brazil, and
Percy Marquina
Centrum, Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru, Lima, Peru
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to analyze customers’perceptions about brand personality in
different cultural environments, checking if the archetypal framework of Mark and Pearson (2001) applies
to different brands across countries.
Design/methodology/approach –The authors measured consumers’perceptions in different cultural
contexts through a survey, and received 537 valid questionnaires from Portugal, Brazil, Colombia and
Peru, countries that have some similar indicators of cultural proximity. The authors wanted to verify if the
words and sentences that respondents related to each brand were coherent with the archetype/brand, and the
homogeneity of the results in different cultural contexts.
Findings –Empirical evidence shows that there is proximity between the literature review and the
associations –words and sentences –that consumers from different countries make with those brands.
This consistency of results is significantly higher for word associations.
Originality/value –Regardless of the results, the perceptions of consumers expressed through the selected
words were often diverse and heterogeneous among countries. This could possibly indicate insufficient
efforts from global brands toward a coherent brand personality/global-archetypal approach. Therefore,
managing brand personality deserves more attention and marketers must understand consumer behavior
patterns in different markets.
Keywords Brand personality, Brand, Brand identity, Archetypes, Costumer perception
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Consumers identify themselves with specific brands, not for their promises, but rather for the
purpose that the brand embodies (Adi et al., 2015). Strong brands are much more than a product
or service, are a unique set of companies’promises and customers’perceptions, interactions
and experiences, which affect long-term relationships. Large corporations must focus on
brand reputation and the legitimacy of the purpose they serve (Crisan and Bortjun, 2017).
And brand managers must track the impact of increased brand interactions and experiences
across consumers, cultures and countries on customers’brand perceptions, especially those that
relate to brand identity and personality, since consumers may not necessarily notice brand
personality as intended (Malär et al.,2012).
A strong brand identity comprises the conceptualization and operationalization of a very
sophisticated brand strategy that meets the challenges of the different environments where
Revista de Gestão
Vol. 25 No. 2, 2018
pp. 142-159
Emerald Publishing Limited
2177-8736
DOI 10.1108/REGE-02-2018-0029
Received 6 February 2018
Revised 20 February 2018
Accepted 21 February 2018
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2177-8736.htm
© Duarte Xara-Brasil, Kavita Miadaira Hamza and Percy Marquina. Published in the Revista de Gestão.
Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative
works of this article ( for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to
the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creative
commons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
142
REGE
25,2
Downloaded by INSTITUTO POLITECNICO DE SETUBAL At 09:42 05 June 2018 (PT)
brands are present, particularly global brands. The approaches to define identity consider
the personality traits of a brand, similar to those of a “person,”as one of its components
(Aaker, 1990), or as “Brand Identity Prism”(Kapferer, 1995).
Brand archetypes are part of brand personality. Marketing managers may use an
archetypal approach to brand personality in order to define what a brand is, what it stands
for, and the relationship with its consumers, thus providing a real meaning associated with
their customers’desires and motivations (Mirzaee and George, 2016; Mark and Pearson, 2001).
In an archetypal approach, the focus is on the customer’s brand experience and brand
meaning, and the products are merely secondary means to achieve the expected
brand meaning (Högström et al., 2015). Consumers’individual brand perceptions are
influenced not only by their exposure to a marketer’s brand stories, and to the media and pop
culture, but also by personal experiences and word of mouth (Adi et al., 2015). These external
influences lead to different consumers’perceptions across cultures.
We conducted a quantitative research to examine brand archetype perceptions of three
global brands –Facebook, Apple and Amazon –in four countries –Portugal, Brazil,
Colombia and Peru. We analyzed: if consumers’perceptions of the archetypes
of international brands are homogeneous in different countries; if the characterization of
brands through words and archetypes is homogeneous and accepted by consumers; and
whether the existing brand/archetype designations in the literature are still accurate, given
the degree of innovation and growth of these brands and consumers’perceptions across
countries. To reach these objectives we checked the words and sentences that respondents
related to each brand, as well as the coherence of the associations with the archetype/brand
and the homogeneity of the results in different cultural contexts. This analysis has a clear
managerial and academic contribution, in the research areas of brand identity and brand
personality, leading managers and researchers to a deeper understanding of consumer
behavior patterns through brand archetypes, to a more effective marketing strategy and to
new research tools. The study of consumers’perceptions of brand personality is a major
research topic (Lam et al., 2013; Sichtmann and Diamantopoulos, 2013).
Literature review
A brand is not just a product or a company name, but rather a complex entity that shows the
organization’s commitment to the customer. It is the promise that a company makes to the
customer, regarding what the product will provide and how it will fit into the consumer’s
business (Campell, 2002). A company’s products should have a unique identity. In the eyes of
consumers, brands communicate their own identities to society, to specific groups and/or to
individuals (Strizhakova et al., 2008). Consumers may associate them with different meanings
–such as perceived quality, self-identity, group identity, values, family traditions, national
traditions –, which may affect their functional, experiential and symbolic benefits (Siamagka
et al., 2015). Not all brands develop a symbolic approach and try to tell a story. Consumers
unconsciously prefer to tell and to hear stories, as they give life to others’experience or to their
experience with the brand (Woodside, 2006). Compelling stories raise expectations about the
brand, which will likely increase the positive emotion when trying it, especially if the
relationship between the brand and the stories seems authentic (Hwang, 2017).
International firms may have a portfolio of local, international or global brands: local
brands are present in just one country or region, international brands have global elements
of their marketing strategy or mix, and global brands use the same marketing strategy or
mix in all target markets (Schuiling and Kapferer, 2004). Although a global brand approach
has important potential advantages –such as economies of scale, of communication costs
and speed of new products’innovations –the use of centralized marketing strategies may
lead to less intimate relationships with local markets, with the local competitive
environment and with specific customers’needs (Schuiling, 2001).
143
An archetypal
approach
Downloaded by INSTITUTO POLITECNICO DE SETUBAL At 09:42 05 June 2018 (PT)
Brands can be a source of organizational differentiation and value creation for companies
and customers. Regarding competitive advantage, a company can develop a consistent brand
strategy, making sure that the brand keeps the promise, due to the relationship established
with the customers. A successful brand provides a unique added value that meets customers’
needs, such as familiarity, reliability, risk reduction and personality (Strizhakova et al., 2008).
Added value provides intangible benefits, such as feelings, ideas and effects to the
brands (Rodrigues, 2008). Brands are an important attribute of consumers’culture, not
only for the utility value of the commodity, but also for its symbolic strength. It helps
consumers to sustain their identity projects and symbolic meaning (Bengtsson, 2006;
Elliott and Wattanasuwan, 1998).
The consumer-brand relationship involves processes of brand identification and
product categorization, as well as sensorial, affective and cognitive experiences.
These inputs will integrate the brand concept through individual and cultural signaling,
and develop an attitude and a relationship (Schmitt, 2012). In addition, the centralization
of organizational efforts and marketing teams is also important to reach a greater
consensus and create synergies within the organization (Ceballos and Juliana, 2014).
Therefore, archetypes mediate between products and customers’motivation, providing an
intangible meaningful experience.
A company develops its brand identity from different assets and competencies, which
leads to the creation of brand value through customers’unique experiences, and the creation
of a brand-specific meaning. Ideally, brand identity is a valuable and unique experience that
competitors cannot imitate. Therefore, brand can become a competitive advantage and the
expression of an intention (Urde, 1999).
Brand identity is a central issue in marketing research, with two major approaches:
Aaker (1991) proposed a preliminary approach that analyzes it under four different
perspectives: the brand as a human, a product, a symbol and an organization. Kapferer
(1995) claimed that the essence of brand identity is the organizational answer to central
questions regarding brand’s individuality, consistence, values and signs. This allows
companies to specify their brands’meanings (Louis and Lombart, 2010).
Brand personality and brand archetypes
Brand personality is one of the main components of brand identity frameworks, and it is
mandatory for brand managers to develop a systematic process to manage this central
brand identity dimension. Although Aaker’s brand personality scale has been successfully
used in many studies, it has some relevant limitations in an international context and in
some industries (Escobar-Farfán et al., 2016). In Chile, Rojas-Méndez et al. (2004) could not
validate this scale in the automobile industry, and Ahmad and Thyagaraj (2014) called
attention to validation problems of certain dimensions, in some countries. This led to the
development of brand personality scales in local markets, such as in France (Ferrandi et al.,
2000), USA (Austin et al., 2003), Germany (Hieronimus, 2003), and Russia (Supphellen and
Grønhaug, 2003), among others.
As an alternative to Aaker’s (1997) brand personality scale, some brand and marketing
executives adopted the platform of archetypes to represent brands. In a marketing
perspective, we use archetypes to interact with consumers’deepest motivations
and give meaning to the products and brands associated with their conscious and
unconscious desires (Mark and Pearson, 2001). The unconscious is divided in personal
unconscious –images and impulses from an individual’s life experiences –,anda
collective unconscious that includes a big variety of shared cultural images and impulses,
known as archetypes (Zehnder and Calvert, 2004). Marketing will further advance by
understanding the collective unconscious, and how it affects consumers’perceptions and
actions (Dominici et al., 2016).
144
REGE
25,2
Downloaded by INSTITUTO POLITECNICO DE SETUBAL At 09:42 05 June 2018 (PT)
Archetypes are universal topics of human existence, which are evident in the common
traits of characters and storylines in myths, fairy tales, novels and films (Faber and Mayer,
2009; McPeek, 2008). Societies do not exist without communication and representation and, to
a certain extent, they share their cultural archetypal articulations (Zehnder and Calvert, 2004).
Many brands are representations of “modern myths,”containing cognitive elements,
emotional elements, and unconscious processes. Brand archetypes and myths are
considered allegories that support the construction of brand-consumer relationships
(Muniz and Woodside, 2015). In this context, specific brands may play a pivotal role in
enabling consumers to achieve the proper pleasures that facilitate an implicit brand
recognition and consumer-brand relationships and experiences (Woodside et al., 2008).
The growing interest in archetypes indicates a major transformation in the attitudes of
marketing professionals with respect to the unknown regions of the unconscious, and
the search for increasingly sophisticated ways to attract, retain and remain relevant to the
brand community.
To access these patterns, we examined the verbal vehicles that consumers use to
communicate this archetypal theme: their own stories. Brands can capture the essential
meaning of the category to which they belong and communicate their messages in subtle
and refined manners (Mark and Pearson, 2001). Thus, consumers’memories associated to
brands often materialize into stories through which patterns of archetypes can be identified.
The use of archetypes allows creating a spiritual and mystical identity for brands,
helping to establish a deeper and more significant connection with consumers regarding
their unconscious aspirations (Siraj and Kumari, 2011). Archetypes mediate between
products and customer motivations, providing an intangible experience of meaning.
Mark and Pearson (2001) used Carl Jung’s archetypal model and proposed a business
application (Figure 1) that is frequently used. In their model, 12 archetypes are classified
into four human main drivers: “belonging and enjoyment,”“independence and fulfillment,”
“stability and control”and “risk and mystery.”According to Bosley (2017), Mark and
Pearson’s research is the groundbreaking work that links archetypes to brands (Table I).
Although each archetype is autonomous in terms of personality traits, Mark and
Pearson (2001) proposed a two-axis framework to group archetypes into clusters.
The framework considers their common attributes, according to the four major human
drivers (see Figure 1): the x-axis links the need to belong and enjoy with independence and
fulfillment; the y-axis links the need for stability and control with risk/mystery.
These motivations are deep, and pull customers in different directions, so they should be
included in marketing and brand strategies.
Independence and
Fulfillment
Innocent
Explorer
Sage
Stability and Control
Creator, Caregiver, Ruler
Belonging and
Enjoyment
Lover
Jester
Everyman
Risk and Mastery
Hero, Outlaw, Magician
Source: Adapted from Mark and Pearson (2001)
Figure 1.
Major human drives
and brand archetypes
145
An archetypal
approach
Downloaded by INSTITUTO POLITECNICO DE SETUBAL At 09:42 05 June 2018 (PT)
Archetype Description Characteristic
Examples of
brands
Caregiver They want to protect others from harm,
to help, to take care
Caring, compassion and generosity.
Protective, devoted, sacrificing and
maternal/parental. Benevolent, friendly,
helping and trusting
Nivea
Regular
guy
They have the basic desire of connection
with others; want to belong, to fit in
Working class or common person, the
neighbor, ordered, sometimes fatalistic
and self-depreciative, realistic, and
disappointed humanist. Having the
basic desire of connection with others,
want to belong, to fit in
GAP, Visa
Innocent Desire for simple purity, goodness,
happiness, faith and optimism
Pure, faithful, naive, child-like character;
humble, tranquil, looking for happiness
and simplicity
Coke,
Disney
Explorer Desire to be free, to find out who they
are by exploring the world. Long to
experience a better, more authentic and
rewarding life
Independent, adventurer. Seeks
discovery and fulfillment. Often solitary
and indomitable. They want to discover
who they are, seeking to explore the
world and have an authentic and
fulfilling life
Amazon,
Starbucks
Sage They want to find the truth. Use their
intelligence and analysis to understand
the world
Value enlightening and knowledge, truth
and understanding; a bit pretentious.
They use their intelligence to understand
the world, to discover the truth
McKinsey,
Harvard
Hero They want to prove their own worth
through courageous and difficult action.
Aim to exercise mastery to improve the
world
Courageous, impetuous, rescuer, crusader.
Wants to prove his/her own value through
courageous and tough action. Triumphs
over adversities. Their skills are
persistence, strength, determination,
discipline, challenge and ability
Nike
Outlaw Their basic desire is revenge or
revolution: They want to destroy what
does not work for them or to society
Represented by the rebellious iconoclast,
the survivor and a rule-breaker.
Can be wild, destructive and
a struggler. Revolutionary
Harley
Davidson,
Apple
Magician They want to know the fundamental
laws and functioning of the world or the
universe and realize dreams
The visionary, the alchemist. Focused
on natural forces, transformations and
metamorphoses. They want to know
how the world works and influence
its transformation
Vanish,
Pantene
Lover They want to achieve intimacy and
experience sensual pleasure. Aim to
maintain a relationship with people
Intimate, romantic, sensual and
especially passionate. Seductive,
delighted, tempestuous and whimsical.
Warm, playful, erotic and
enthusiastic partner
Victoria’s
Secret,
Godiva
Creator They want to create something valuable
and lasting, participate in forming a
vision
Represented as innovative, artistic,
self-driven, inventive, a dreamer.
Often non-social. Focused on quality
LEGO
Jester They want to live in the present with full
joy and entertain the world
Living for fun. Usually ironic and
mirthful. Sometimes irresponsible.
Live in the moment
Pepsi,
Burger King
Ruler They want to control, raise a family,
and/or build a successful company
or community
Represented by a strong sense of power
and control. The leader, the boss, and
the judge. Influential and stubborn.
High level of dominance
American
Express,
Microsoft
Sources: Adapted from Mark and Pearson (2001), Faber and Mayer (2009)
Table I.
Mark and Pearson’s
(2001) archetypes
146
REGE
25,2
Downloaded by INSTITUTO POLITECNICO DE SETUBAL At 09:42 05 June 2018 (PT)
The creator, caregiver and ruler archetypes are associated to those who intend to organize
the world, helping individuals to feel more secure. These people’s main concerns regard
financial aspects, health and loss of control.
The lover, jester and regular guy archetypes refer to the need to connect to others and to
be accepted, to belong, but not to change the world. These archetypes focus on people who
relate to others and on love/community. Their concerns are exile, orphaning, abandonment,
and engulfment (submission/destruction).
The hero, outlaw and magician archetypes represent those who want to change and
improve the world, make dreams come true. These are brave protagonists, capable of facing
challenges, taking risks, breaking the rules, and changing their realities. They fear
impotence, powerlessness and ineffectiveness (the disinterest of others).
The innocent, explorer and sage archetypes relate to the pursuit of happiness.
They focus on independence and autonomy, rather than belonging. These archetypes help
people to pursuit happiness, mainly dealing with the fear of entrapment, conformity,
and inner emptiness.
A systematic and strong management of all the components and related items for
different stakeholders is mandatory, in order to build a strong brand identity. Companies
must monitor stakeholders’insights on how the brand is sensed in their perspective,
whether or not they are customers (Urde, 2016).
The perceived brand archetype, and how it relates to the desired brand identity, is a
relevant topic to study across market segments and countries: individual perceptions and
purchasing patterns are partly determined by the collective values of the local community,
including Hofstede’s indicators of cultural proximity (Hofstede Centre, 2017). Furthermore,
usage patterns and motivations may vary across countries and affect customer’s
perceptions (Pentina et al., 2016). According to Chau et al. (2002), we may expect that people
with different cultural backgrounds will respond differently to a global generic website.
Methodology and field research
The empirical research focused on the analysis of customers’perceptions regarding three
leading global brands –Facebook, Apple and Amazon –, which are among the largest
brands, with high growth rates (Interbrand, 2015) in the four countries. We measured the
intensity of the brand-archetype associations by identifying the sentence and number of
words that the respondents mentioned, among the three that describe each archetype, and to
which they associated the brand. We used the software SPSS 21 to analyze data.
There is theoretical support for associating the three brands to specific archetypes and
clusters. Apple is included in the creator archetype and the “stability and control”cluster
(Haddad et al., 2015; Muniz and Woodside, 2015); Facebook can be included in the “Regular
Guy“archetype and in the “belonging and enjoyment”cluster (Roberts, 2010); and Amazon
can be included in the explorer archetype and the “independence and fulfillment”cluster
(Mark and Pearson, 2001; Hwang, 2017). For each archetype, it is possible to associate
specific sentences and words. We did not assign words to the “risk and mastery”cluster
because we did not use any brand previously included in that cluster. Nevertheless, we kept
the corresponding sentences, as detailed in Table II.
In relation to each archetype specifications, Mark and Pearson (2001) proposed a major
sentence, as detailed in Table II. They also highlighted a list of major attributes, closely
related to each archetype. In this study, we chose to use multiple items (three words for each
archetype) to represent these theoretical concepts, as a means to reduce measurement errors
and get a better concept estimation (Hair et al., 2009). Based on an extensive bibliographical
research, including a detailed analysis of Mark and Pearson’s (2001) framework, three
academic researchers with multi-cultural backgrounds carried out autonomous analyses of
the different archetypes, and proposed a list of words/personality traits to characterize each
147
An archetypal
approach
Downloaded by INSTITUTO POLITECNICO DE SETUBAL At 09:42 05 June 2018 (PT)
archetype. These lists were shared and debated, in order to achieve a final 27-item scale to
apply in a multi-cultural survey, where participants were asked to make a link between the
brand and each word. For each personality trait, respondents had to say if it was related
(Yes or No) to each brand: we used three brands, each one included in a different cluster of
three archetypes: 3 brands ×3 clusters ×3 archetypes ¼27 words.
We measured consumers’perceptions in the different cultural contexts through a
survey conducted in two Spanish-speaking countries, namely, Colombia (CO) and
Peru (PE), and two Portuguese-speaking countries, Brazil (BR) and Portugal (PT).
According to the Hofstede Centre (2017), these countries have very similar indicators of
cultural proximity in terms of power distance and uncertainty avoidance, but indicators
such as individualism and indulgence show very different results (see Figure 2).
It seemed relevant to study how three brands with a global approach behave in this
diverse cultural contexts.
We conducted an online survey between March and May 2016, with a young population,
mostly undergraduates. There were 537 valid questionnaires, from participants between
Archetype Sentence Word Cluster
Sage “The truth will set you free”Learning, Expert, Credibility Independence
and Fulfillment
Innocent “Free to be you and me”Optimism, Simplicity, Goodness
Explorer “Don’t fence me in”Freedom, Adventure, Independence
Ruler “Power isn’t everything. It’s the
only thing”
Power, Control, Authority Stability and
Control
Creator “If it can be imagined, it can be created”Creativity, Innovation, Vision
Caregiver “We live to serve”Friend, Care, Protection
Regular
Guy
“Love they neighbor as yourself”Democracy, Regular, Empathy Belonging and
enjoyment
Lover “I only have eyes for you”Sensuality, Pleasure, Intimacy
Jester “A life without fun is a life half-lived”Enjoyment, Humour, Relaxation
Hero “Where there’s a will, there’s a way”Not considered Risk and Mastery
Magician “It can be done!”
Outlaw “Rules are meant to be broken”
Source: Adapted from Mark and Pearson (2001)
Table II.
Archetypes-related
sentences and words
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Power
Distance
Individualism Masculinity Uncertainty
avoidance
Long Term
Orientation
Indulgence
PT BR PE CO
Source: Adapted from Hofstede (2017)
Figure 2.
Cultural proximity
indexes
148
REGE
25,2
Downloaded by INSTITUTO POLITECNICO DE SETUBAL At 09:42 05 June 2018 (PT)
17 and 40 years old, with an average value of 27.2 years, and 41 percent were women.
The distribution among countries was 116 valid questionnaires in Portugal, 130 in Brazil,
190 in Peru and 101 in Colombia.
Results from apple
Apple was founded in 1976 and its predominant archetype nowadays is the “Creator.”
According to their corporative statement “Apple designs the best personal computers in the
world […] leads the digital music revolution […] reinvented the mobile phone and is
defining the future of mobile media and computing devices”(Apple, 2013). For this brand,
we observed a significant coherence regarding the archetype mentioned in the literature
(creator) and consumers’perceptions, through words and sentences. As shown in Table III,
the most commonly words used in all countries were associated with the creator archetype.
The word Innovation is the most cited (between 85 and 95 percent along the countries),
followed by creativity and vision. By analyzing the words that respondents associated with
the Apple brand, the dominant archetype was creator (22 percent of all words mentioned),
followed by Sage (15 percent) and Ruler (13 percent). On average, respondents associated
2.58 (out of 3) of these words with the Apple brand; among the countries, we confirmed that
Brazil is the one where the association of the brand with the Creator archetype was more
evident: 80 percent of the respondents mentioned the three words.
Answers regarding the sentences associated with the Apple brand were also very
consistent: 61 percent of the respondents associated it to the sentence “If it can be imagined,
it can be created.”The second most mentioned sentence was associated with the Ruler
archetype, which belongs to the same cluster and received only 8 percent of the answers.
We conducted a χ
2
test to analyze the independence of the observation of archetypes
(sentences and words), with respect to the countries of origin. We concluded that in
the case of the most present archetypes for this brand –Creator (p-value ¼0.000) and Sage
(p-value ¼0.000) –, consumers’perceptions were not independent of the country of data
collection, with a significance level of 0.05. However, considering only South American
countries, the most present archetype for this brand (Creator) reached a p-value ¼0.025.
That is, in these three countries, individuals’perceptions toward Apple are independent of
their place of origin, as observed in Table IV.
The analysis of the chosen words showed that the most relevant clusters of archetypes
are Stability and Control (44 percent), Independence and Fulfillment (30 percent) and
Belonging and Enjoyment (26 percent), as shown in Table V.
By analyzing the results from the literature review and respondents’associations,
expressed through words and sentences, we concluded that all associations are very clearly
related to the reference cluster (Stability and Control), which is consistent with the literature.
No. Word
Portugal
(%)
Brazil
(%)
Peru
(%)
Colombia
(%)
Total
(%) Archetype Cluster
1 Innovation 95 95 85 93 91 Creator Stability and control
2 Creativity 85 90 82 92 87 Creator Stability and control
3 Vision 64 85 75 73 75 Creator Stability and control
4 Expert 72 70 63 71 68 Sage Independence and Fulfillment
5 Power 76 72 58 56 65 Ruler Stability and control
6 Credibility 49 76 57 68 62 Sage Independence and Fulfillment
7 Enjoyment 53 44 44 49 47 Jester Belonging and enjoyment
8 Optimism 50 53 47 34 47 Innocent Independence and Fulfillment
9 Pleasure 40 55 40 51 46 Lover Belonging and enjoyment
10 Independence 37 43 43 36 40 Explorer Independence and Fulfillment
Table III.
Apple ‒the ten most
mentioned words
149
An archetypal
approach
Downloaded by INSTITUTO POLITECNICO DE SETUBAL At 09:42 05 June 2018 (PT)
As shown in Figure 3, most of the sentences are associated with the Stability and Control
cluster (72 percent). The same happens with the words (46 percent), although, in this case, the
dispersion is larger, especially in the cluster of Independence and Fulfillment (33 percent).
Results from Facebook
Facebook was associated to the words Enjoyment, Friend and Humor, which belong to the
Jester and Caregiver archetypes (see Table VI).
The analysis of the words that respondents associated with the Facebook brand shows
that the Jester archetype is the most relevant: 64 percent of the respondents associated at
least two of the words, and 34 percent associated all three words with this archetype.
Then, the Regular Guy (41 percent) and Ruler (38 percent) archetypes were associated with
PT BR CO PE BR CO PE PT BR Words global archetype share
Archetype 4 countries 3 countries 2 countries
Creator 0.000 0.025 0.000 22
Sage 0.001 0.001 0.651 15
Ruler 0.013 0.013 0.725 13
Caregiver 0.000 0.001 0.960 9
Lover 0.004 0.079 0.107 9
Innocent 0.013 0.324 0.001 9
Explorer 0.342 0.173 0.878 8
Jester 0.046 0.026 0.905 8
Regular guy 0.013 0.187 0.107 5
Note: The significance level used for italic values was 0.05
Table IV.
Apple χ
2
test in
the countries –
three words
Stability and control
Belonging and
enjoyment
Risk and Mastery
Independence
and fulfillment
Sentences
Words
Figure 3.
Scatter diagram:
Apple
Portugal (%) Brazil (%) Peru (%) Colombia (%) Total (%)
Stability and control 45 47 45 46 46
Independence and fulfillment 35 32 33 31 33
Belonging and enjoyment 20 21 22 24 22
Table V.
Apple ‒association
of words to the cluster
of archetypes
150
REGE
25,2
Downloaded by INSTITUTO POLITECNICO DE SETUBAL At 09:42 05 June 2018 (PT)
two and three words, respectively; on average, the respondents associated 1.83 of the words
of the Jester archetype with Facebook brand, 1.22 words of the Regular Guy archetype
and 1.21 of the Ruler archetype.
Aχ
2
test analyzed the independence of the most relevant archetypes from the countries of
origin, as shown in Table VII. We concluded that the observations were independent of the
country of origin for the Regular Guy archetype ( p-value ¼0.059), for all countries. For the
Jester archetype, this independence did not occur in any of the analyses ( p-value ¼0.000).
Moreover, in the Ruler case, it happened only among the respondents of Portugal and Brazil
(p-value ¼0.522). The analysis of the independence of the archetypes in relation to gender
generated high p-values (greater than 0.1), thus confirming this independence.
The analysis of the Facebook brand affiliation to clusters of archetypes, made through word
associations, showed a clear predominance of the Belonging and Enjoyment cluster, as stated
in the literature, in all countries, especially in Peru. The most relevant archetype cluster is
Independence and Fulfillment, and there are important differences in consumers’perceptions
among the countries, especially in the Belonging and Enjoyment cluster, where Portugal and
Brazil present a level of perception very different from Peru and Colombia (see Table VIII).
No. Word (%)
Portugal
(%)
Brazil
(%)
Peru
(%)
Colombia
(%)
Total
(%) Archetype Cluster
1 Enjoyment 62 79 82 67 74 Jester Stability and control
2 Friend 79 53 76 61 68 Caregiver Stability and control
3 Humour 76 60 68 50 65 Jester Stability and control
4 Power 53 58 48 52 53 Ruler Independence and Fulfillment
5 Pleasure 51 55 57 42 52 Lover Stability and control
6 Control 49 67 41 46 50 Ruler Independence and Fulfillment
7 Regular 48 40 49 54 48 Regular guy Belonging and enjoyment
8 Relaxation 53 16 71 35 47 Jester Independence and Fulfillment
9 Freedom 47 52 50 32 46 Explorer Belonging and enjoyment
10 Empathy 28 40 51 36 40 Regular guy Independence and Fulfillment
Table VI.
Facebook ‒the ten
most mentioned words
PT BR CO PE BR CO PE PT BR
Archetype 4 countries 3 countries 2 countries Words global archetype share (%)
Jester 0.000 0.000 0.000 18
Regular guy 0.059 0.031 0.333 13
Ruler 0.002 0.001 0.522 12
Explorer 0.000 0.001 0.056 11
Creator 0.228 0.675 0.038 11
Lover 0.002 0.000 0.333 10
Caregiver 0.000 0.015 0.000 10
Innocent 0.008 0.139 0.030 8
Sage 0.002 0.004 0.602 7
Note: The significance level used for italic values was 0.05
Table VII.
Facebook ‒χ
2
test
along countries and
clusters of countries –
three words
Portugal (%) Brazil (%) Peru (%) Colombia (%) Total (%)
Stability and control 33 34 30 35 32
Independence and fulfillment 29 27 27 24 27
Belonging and enjoyment 38 39 44 41 41
Table VIII.
Facebook –
association of
words to clusters
of archetypes
151
An archetypal
approach
Downloaded by INSTITUTO POLITECNICO DE SETUBAL At 09:42 05 June 2018 (PT)
By comparing the results of the literature with the answers, the words clearly relate to the
Belonging and Enjoyment cluster. Furthermore, the chosen sentences were more dispersed,
with a slight predominance of references to the Jester archetype and the cluster
Independence and Fulfillment (see Figure 4).
In the case of Facebook, there is a relevant homogeneity with respect to the words and
clusters of the archetype present in the literature, even though some relevant disparities are
apparent regarding the mentioned sentences and the depth of the associated words. The
word/archetype associations are more dispersed regarding the Facebook brand, and there is
less independence in the countries.
Results from Amazon
Although Amazon does not have a specific webpage, nor stores and offices in Portugal, Peru
or Colombia, native consumers use the international webpage with local delivery for several
categories of products.
The words associated to Amazon brand were Credibility, Expert and Learning, that is,
all of the Sage archetypes belonging to the Independence and Fulfillment cluster. The Sage
archetype was the most mentioned in all countries, although its relative importance ranged
from 38 percent in Portugal to 55 percent in Colombia.
Amazon’s associations with the words for Caregiver, Creator and Ruler archetypes
belonging to the Stability and Control cluster are also very important. Hence, in global
terms, these two clusters are very significant (see Table IX). On the other hand, the
literature associates Amazon with the Explorer archetype, while in our study it was not
often mentioned.
The collected data supported the conclusion that Sage archetype is the most relevant for
Amazon brand: of the four words more often mentioned, the three defined words were
among them. In total, 61 percent of the respondents associated the Amazon brand with at
least two words of the Sage archetype. The second most relevant archetype (Creator) had a
much lower association rate (36 percent), and the Ruler and Caregiver archetypes achieved a
level of association (two or more words) of 33 and 32 percent, respectively. In terms of
clustering, Independence and Fulfillment was also prominent, but Stability and Control had
a very close result (see Table X).
The most selected sentences relate Amazon brand to the Caregiver archetype “We live to
serve”(29 percent) and the Hero archetype “Where there’s a will, there’s a way”(21 percent).
There was no consistence between the words and sentences, in terms of the archetypes and
Stability and control
Risk and Mastery
Independence
and fulfillment
Sentences
Words
Belonging and
enjoyment
Figure 4.
Scatter diagram:
Facebook
152
REGE
25,2
Downloaded by INSTITUTO POLITECNICO DE SETUBAL At 09:42 05 June 2018 (PT)
clusters, of the chosen archetypes. As shown in Figure 5, there is a predominance of word
associations regarding the Independence and Fulfillment cluster (as indicated in the
literature review), followed by the Stability and Control cluster, whereas in the case of
sentences, there is some emphasis on the Risk and Mastery cluster.
Aχ
2
test led to the conclusion of interdependence between the Sage archetype ( p-value
¼0.001) and the Creator archetype (p-value ¼0.001) in the countries. When we analyzed
the three South American countries, we got p-values from 0.04 for Sage and 0.343 for
Creator (see Table XI). For both archetypes, we noticed independence from gender
observations (all p-values registered values above 0.005).
We concluded that Amazon closely relates to the Sage archetype, especially in
South American countries. However, no alignment exists regarding consumers’
perceptions in the four countries, probably due to different insights about the brand
value or communication strategy.
No. Word
Portugal
(%)
Brazil
(%)
Peru
(%)
Colombia
(%)
Total
(%) Archetype Cluster
1 Credibility 47 77 55 63 67 Sage Independence and Fulfillment
2 Expert 34 48 49 55 45 Sage Independence and Fulfillment
3 Vision 22 51 36 46 42 Creator Stability and control
4 Learning 32 46 42 47 42 Sage Independence and Fulfillment
5 Care 39 36 38 27 37 Caregiver Stability and control
6 Independence 33 39 32 35 36 Explorer Independence and Fulfillment
7 Innovation 20 43 32 38 36 Creator Stability and control
8 Simplicity 40 32 33 24 34 Innocent Independence and Fulfillment
9 Control 34 30 46 41 34 Ruler Stability and control
10 Pleasure 29 39 20 34 33 Lover Stability and control
Table IX.
Amazon –the ten
most mentioned words
Portugal (%) Brazil (%) Peru (%) Colombia (%) Total (%)
Stability and control 32 36 41 40 38
Independence and fulfillment 42 41 41 40 41
Belonging and enjoyment 26 24 18 19 21
Table X.
Amazon ‒associated
words
Stability and control
Belonging and
enjoyment
Risk and Mastery
Independence and
fulfillment
Sentences
Words Figure 5.
Scatter diagram ‒
Amazon
153
An archetypal
approach
Downloaded by INSTITUTO POLITECNICO DE SETUBAL At 09:42 05 June 2018 (PT)
Discussion and conclusions
The extensive literature review highlighted the importance of customers’perceptions,
interactions and experiences, and their consequences regarding sensorial, affective and
cognitive relations with a specific brand. In this context, brand managers must focus on
developing and monitoring an appropriate brand identity framework, managing customers’
brand perceptions, especially the ones related to their identity and personality, across
countries and cultures. Brand personality can be achieved through a platform of archetypes,
which was developed by Swiss psychologist Carl Jung in the 1940s, and applied to brand
management by Mark and Pearson (2001).
The overall analysis of consumers’associations relating to Apple, Facebook and Amazon
brands supports the conclusion that there is a proximity between the associations observed
in the literature and those of consumers of different countries about these three brands.
This proximity is much more relevant in the case of clusters, as shown in Table XII.
We also showed that the consistency of results in the analyzed brands is significantly
higher for word associations –that is, archetypes are more similar –, than in the sentences
which Mark and Pearson (2001) used to characterize the different archetypes. We found the
biggest differences in Facebook and Amazon brands, while for Apple the consistence of
perceptions is significant (see Table XII).
These three brands are very recent and have a global approach or at least important global
elements in their marketing strategy. Moreover, most of these brands do not have a direct
presence (offices) in some of the chosen markets (except in Brazil, for some of them).
The centralized and global approach may lead to a less accurate monitoring of local customers’
brand perceptions, due to different cultural and value traits, consumer behavior patterns, brand
experiences and social influences ( social groups, social networks, word of mouth).
PT BR CO PE BR CO PE PT BR
4 countries 3 countries 2 countries Words global archetype share (%)
Regular guy 0.352 0.294 0.845 19
Creator 0.001 0.340 0.000 27
Sage 0.001 0.040 0.000 41
Jester 0.000 0.000 0.181 13
Ruler 0.352 0.074 0.824 25
Caregiver 0.171 0.204 0.926 28
Explorer 0.134 0.057 0.031 24
Lover 0.033 0.024 0.524 13
Innocent 0.007 0.324 0.195 22
Note: The significance level used for italic values was 0.05
Table XI.
Amazon ‒χ
2
test
in the countries and
clusters of countries –
three words
Literature review Words (2 or more words) Sentences
Archetypes Cluster Archetypes Cluster Archetypes Cluster
Apple Creator Stability and
Control
Creator (89%)
Sage (63%)
Stability and
Control
Creator(61%)
Ruler (8%)
Stability and
Control
Facebook Regular
guy
Belonging and
Enjoyment
Jester (64%)
Regular
guy (41%)
Belonging and
Enjoyment
(Both)
Innocent (27%)
Jester (23%)
Independence and
Fulfillment and
Belonging and
Enjoyment
Amazon Explorer Independence
and
Fulfillment
Sage (61%)
Creator (36%)
Independence
and
Fulfillment
Caregiver (32%)
Hero (26%)
Stability and
Control and Risk
and Mastery
Table XII.
Brands and
archetypes –
literature review
and empirical study
154
REGE
25,2
Downloaded by INSTITUTO POLITECNICO DE SETUBAL At 09:42 05 June 2018 (PT)
Although global brands have a global strategy and positioning, they can foster
consumers’experiences and expectations locally. For example, in South American
countries, technological products (Apple) are very exclusive and expensive, due to local
taxes and lower average salaries. Companies’portfolios may vary across countries, and so
do the perceptions of consumers: in some markets, Amazon mostly sells books and
technology, but in others, they also sell new products and services, as FMCG, Convenience
Stores (AmazonGo), and even new categories, as Amazon Alexa. In addition, social
networks, such as Facebook, may offer different uses, according to specific cultural items,
such as indulgence.
In our research –andalignedwithInterbrandReport–we concluded that
the three brands are very relevant in these countries: they all have a high level of brand
awareness and brand associations. We also found that consumers’perceptions differ
substantially, at least for the two most recent brands: Facebook and Amazon.
The reason for these differences relates to the specific local usage patterns and
motivations, cultural and social issues, and possibly a lack of marketing research on
specific programs for each country. The consolidation of perceptions can be a slow
process, unless there is a focus of brand owners on subjects related to the perceptions of
brand personality in these countries.
By comparing our results with the literature, we noticed a clear coherence of the Apple
brand in all countries (Creator Archetype); as for Facebook, literature places it into the
Regular Guy archetype, but our results showed a prior allocation in the Jester, followed
by the Regular Guy (both archetypes belongs to Independence and Fulfillment cluster). In
the case of Amazon, literature allocates the brand in the Explorer archetype, and
empirical results placed it in Sage (both archetypes belong to the Independence and
Fulfillment cluster). For all brands, the χ
2
test did not show significant differences in the
results of the four countries. We also noticed that the classification of brands by words
and sentences is homogeneous, given the χ
2
test results and the “word scores”in Tables
III, VI and IX. Respondents’acceptance of the words is a fact, observed by the high
number of fully answered questionnaires, in all countries.
The study has a significant theoretical contribution, mainly about the importance of
using multiple variables for each dimension in order to perform a more accurate analysis
–instead of a single sentence –, for measuring consumers’perceptions of brand
archetypes. This conclusion matches the concepts of Hair et al. (2009) toward a more
accurate analysis and the possibility to use exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis.
To develop and test a list of words that characterize each archetype is another significant
theoretical contribution to the study of brand archetypes. The majority of related studies
focus on intended brand archetype ( from the perspective of the brand manager),
while ours deals with customers’perceptions regarding major global brands in distinct
countries. The differences found in consumers’resultsprovetheimportanceof
this methodology.
This study has also a significant practical contribution. Marketing managers must
carefully analyze the existence of such different costumers’perceptions regarding brand
archetype. We provide a tool for monitoring brand performance, in domestic and
international markets, through the application of surveys and other research tools.
Implications for academics, brand managers and future research
The theory of brand archetypes describes the value of implementing a specific brand
personality approach to brands. The model suggests a monitoring system of consumers’
perceptions of brand archetypes in various countries. In fact, from literature review, we
conclude that this area was not appropriately studied, especially regarding global brands
and international comparisons.
155
An archetypal
approach
Downloaded by INSTITUTO POLITECNICO DE SETUBAL At 09:42 05 June 2018 (PT)
We tested the methodology developed by Mark and Pearson (2001), and we extended
its scope in order to include the observed variables along with the proposed sentences;
hence, we carried out a deeper measurement of consumers’perceptions to include
local attributes.
Most of the research on brand archetypes is based on semiotic and content analysis of
the brand communication (the sender’s perspective.). In this study, we measured consumers’
perceptions of brand archetypes in different countries, affected by all brand communication,
experimentation and contact with other consumers, and through cultural, competitive and
personal aspects, which are most relevant under the impact of social networks and brand
storytelling (word of mouth). This research is the first step of a larger process that focuses
on the development of better branding tools, that may include brands from different size
industries, in different locations, with different cultural approaches.
For future research, we suggest applying other methodological alternatives for cultural
and industrial diversification. This might bring more knowledge about the brand
personality component and better methodologies and tools for academics and marketers.
From a methodology standpoint, future research studies should use sophisticated
quantitative methods with a numerical scale (Likert-type scales). This would allow a
stronger data analysis with exploratory and confirmatory tests and scale validation.
Similarly, researchers may link this issue to a deeper perspective of global branding
systems, thus providing better understanding and monitoring systems.
By knowing consumers’perceptions of individual brands in different countries,
managers may create more sophisticated or effective marketing strategies for their brands.
They could make decisions regarding their brand personality traits, according to the
similarities between countries and their specifications. Monitoring consumers’associations
related to brand personality traits might help in the evaluation of marketing and brand
strategies and their local and global performance.
Frequently, companies do not use a brand personality systematic methodology to allocate
their brands to these archetypal brand identity components, which is critical for establishing
emotional associations of consumers with a brand. An archetype can be an appropriate choice
in many situations. In fact, this research shows how consumers’perceptions vary across
countries, even for top brands, and how important it is to monitor them.
References
Aaker, D. (1990), Building Strong Brands, Free Press, New York, NY.
Aaker, D. (1991), Managing Brand Equity, Free Press, New York, NY.
Aaker, J.L. (1997), “Dimensions of brand personality”,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 No. 3,
pp. 347-356.
Adi, A., Crisan, C. and Dinca, R. (2015), “Stories, heroes and commercials: spreading the message across
with a new type of responsibility”,Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, Vol. 3
No. 4, pp. 749-764.
Ahmad, A. and Thyagaraj, K. (2014), “Applicability of brand personality dimensions across
cultures and product categories: a review”,Global Journal of Finance and Management, Vol. 6
No. 1, pp. 9-18.
Apple (2013), “Apple introduces next generation iWork and iLife apps for OS X and iOS”, available at:
www.apple.com/newsroom/2013/10/23Apple-Introduces-Next-Generation-iWork-and-iLife-
Apps-for-OS-X-and-iOS/ (accessed October 27, 2017).
Austin, J., Siguaw, J. and Matila, A. (2003), “A re-examination of the generalizability of the Aaker
brand personality measurement framework”,Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 2,
pp. 77-92.
156
REGE
25,2
Downloaded by INSTITUTO POLITECNICO DE SETUBAL At 09:42 05 June 2018 (PT)
Bengtsson, A. (2006), “A brand literacy: consumers’sense making of brand management”,
American Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 33, pp. 375-380.
Bosley, L. (2017), “A tale of twin cities: using brand personality to differentiate Minneapolis and
St Paul”, thesis, University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy, Minneapolis, FL.
Campell, M. (2002), “Building brand equity”,International Journal of Medical Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 3,
pp. 208-218.
Ceballos, L. and Juliana, G. (2014), “El uso de los arquetipos en la industria de la moda en Colombia (Use
of archetypes in the Colombian fashion industry)”,Estudios Gerenciales, Vol. 30 No. 130,
pp. 48-54.
Chau, P.Y., Cole, M., Massey, A.P., Montoya-Weiss, M. and O’Keefe, R.M. (2002), “Cultural differences in
the online behavior of consumers”,Proceedings of the ACM, Vol. 45 No. 10, pp. 138-143.
Crisan, C. and Bortjun, D. (2017), “Digital storytelling and employer Branding. An exploratory
connection”,Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 273-287.
Dominici, G., Tullio, V., Siino, G. and Tani, M. (2016), “Marketing archetypes: applying Jungian
psychology to marketing research”,Journal of Organisational Transformation & Social Change,
Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 109-122.
Elliott, R. and Wattanasuwan, K. (1998), “Brands as symbolic resources for the construction of
identity”,International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 131-144.
Escobar-Farfán, M., Mateluna, C. and Araya, L. (2016), “Evolución y descripción de los modelos de
personalidad de marca en Latinoamérica (Evolution and description of brand personality
models in Latin America)”,Dimensión Empresarial, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 91-113.
Faber, M. and Mayer, J. (2009), “Resonance to archetypes in media: there’s some accounting for taste”,
Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 307-322.
Ferrandi, J.M., Valette-Florence, P. and Fine-Falcy, S. (2000), “Aaker’s brand personality scale in a
French context: a replication and a preliminary test of its validity”,Developments in Marketing
Science, Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23, pp. 7-13.
Haddad, L., Hamza, K.M. and Xara-Brasil, D. (2015), “Archetypes and brand image: an international
comparison”,Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, Vol. 9 No. 34, pp. 22-31.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B. and Anderson, R. (2009), Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice Hall, London.
Hieronimus, F. (2003), An Empirical Study on The Measurement, Perception and Impact of Brand
Personality, Peter Lang, Frankfurt.
Hofstede Centre (2017), “Portugal in comparison with Brazil”, available at: http://geert-hofstede.com/
portugal.html (accessed October 10, 2017).
Högström, C., Gustafsson, A. and Tronvoll, B. (2015), “Strategic brand management: archetypes
for managing brands through paradoxes”,Journal of Business Research,Vol.68No.2,
pp. 391-404.
Hwang, S. (2017), “Storytelling in branding: the difference in brand archetypes between Western and
Asian Tech brands-based on Carl Jung’s 12 Archetypes Model”, master’s thesis, Aalto
University, Electronic Theses and Dissertations database, Espoo.
Interbrand (2015), “Interbrand’s 15th annual best global brands report, 2014”, New York, NY, available
at: http://interbrand.com/en/newsroom/15/interbrands-th-annual-best-global-brands-report
(accessed October 27, 2017).
Kapferer, J.N. (1995), Strategic Brand Management, Kogan Page, London.
Lam, S.K., Ahearne, M., Mullins, R., Hayati, B. and Schillewaert, N. (2013), “Exploring the dynamics of
antecedents to consumer-brand identification with a new brand”,Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 234-252.
Louis, D. and Lombart, C. (2010), “Impact of brand personality on three major relational consequences
(trust, attachment, and commitment to the brand)”,Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 114-130.
157
An archetypal
approach
Downloaded by INSTITUTO POLITECNICO DE SETUBAL At 09:42 05 June 2018 (PT)
Mcpeek, R. (2008), “The Pearson-Marr archetype indicator and psychological type”,Journal of
Psychological Type, Vol. 68 No. 7, pp. 52-66.
Malär, L., Nyffenegger, B., Krohmer, H. and Hoyer, W. (2012), “Implementing an intended brand
personality: a dyadic perspective”,Journal of the Academy of Marketing. Science, Vol. 40 No. 5,
pp. 728-744.
Mark, M. and Pearson, C. (2001), Building Extraordinary Brands Through the Power of Archetypes,
McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
Mirzaee, S. and George, B. (2016), “Brand archetypes: an experiment with the ‘demeter’”,Journal of
Applied Economics and Business Research, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 93-105.
Muniz, C. and Woodside, A. (2015), “Consumer storytelling of brand archetypes encatchment”,
International Journal of Tourism Anthropology, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 67-88.
Pentina, I., Basmanova, O. and Zhang, L. (2016), “A cross-national study of twitter users’
motivations and continuance intentions”,Journal of Marketing Communications,Vol.22
No. 1, pp. 36-55.
Roberts, C. (2010), “Exploring brand personality through archetypes”,master’s thesis/doctoral
dissertation, East Tennessee State University, Electronic Theses and Dissertations database,
Johnson City.
Rodrigues, P. (2008), Capital de Marca Baseado no Consumidor: Mensuração e Modelos de Equações
Estruturais para Marcas de Vestuário, University of Porto, Porto.
Rojas-Mendez, J., Erunchen, I. and Silva, E. (2004), “The ford brand personality in Chile”,Corporate
Reputation Review, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 232-251.
Schmitt, B. (2012), “The consumer psychology of brands”,Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 22
No. 1, pp. 7-17.
Schuiling, I. (2001), “Think local-act local: is it time to slow down the accelerated move to global
marketing?”,Symphonya Emerging Issues in Management, Vol. 1, pp. 83-87.
Schuiling, I. and Kapferer, J. (2004), “Executive insights: real differences between local and
international brands: strategic implications for international marketers”,Journal of International
Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 97-112.
Siamagka, N.-T., Christodoulides, G. and Michaelidou, N. (2015), “The impact of comparative affective
states on online brand perceptions: a five-country study”,International Marketing Review,
Vol. 32 No. 32, pp. 438-454.
Sichtmann, C. and Diamantopoulos, A. (2013), “The impact of perceived brand globalness, brand origin
image, and brand origin-extension fit on brand extension success”,Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 567-585.
Siraj, S. and Kumari, S. (2011), “Archetyping the brand: strategy to connect”,The IUP Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 47-59.
Strizhakova, Y., Coulter, R. and Price, L. (2008), “Branded products as a passport to global citizenship:
perspectives from developed and developing countries”,Journal of International Marketing,
Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 57-85.
Supphellen, M. and Grønhaug, K. (2003), “Building foreign brand personalities in Russia:
the moderating effect of consumer ethnocentrism”,International Journal of Advertising,
Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 203-226.
Urde, M. (1999), “Brand orientation: a mindset for building brands into strategic resources”,Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 15 Nos 1-3, pp. 117-133.
Urde, M. (2016), “The brand core and its management over time”,Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 26-42.
Woodside, A. (2006), “CABS: Consumer archetype brand storytelling”,Annual Meeting of The Society
For Marketing Advances, Vol. 11, pp. 66-72.
158
REGE
25,2
Downloaded by INSTITUTO POLITECNICO DE SETUBAL At 09:42 05 June 2018 (PT)
Woodside, A., Sood, S. and Miller, K. (2008), “When consumers and brands talk: Storytelling theory
and research in psychology and marketing”,Psychology and Marketing,Vol.25No.2,
pp. 97-145.
Zehnder, S. and Calvert, S. (2004), “Between the hero and the shadow: developmental differences in
adolescents’perceptions and understanding of mythic themes in film”,Journal of
Communication Inquiry, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 122-137.
Further reading
Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring, managing customer-based brand equity”,The Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Corresponding author
Kavita Miadaira Hamza can be contacted at: kavita@usp.br
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
159
An archetypal
approach
Downloaded by INSTITUTO POLITECNICO DE SETUBAL At 09:42 05 June 2018 (PT)