The thing you can't bottle : the movement of symbolic meaning through brand adoption by dissociative reference groups.

(1)

The thing you can’t

bottle

The movement of symbolic brand meaning through brand adoption

by dissociative reference groups

-‐Master Thesis-‐ Student: E.S. Broos University of Amsterdam Student number: 5777542 Faculty of Economics and Business 1st_Supervisor: _{MSc.
J.
Labadie}

(2)

Acknowledgements

The following people I would like to thank for their valuable guidance, insights, extensive knowledge and support:

MSc. J. Labadie

MBM R.E.W. Pruppers

My parents, family and friends The IDP 2013

Christa Ketting & Maria Ketting

(3)

Abstract

Aim-‐ The aim of this study was to investigate the movement of symbolic brand meaning

through brand adoption by dissociative in-‐ and out-‐groups

.

Furthermore, this study investigated if this effect is equal for all type of symbolic brands or differences may exist among them.

Methodology-‐ To test the hypotheses, the main test consisted of a 4 (brand archetype

positioning: belonging, independence, stability or risk) x 3 (dissociative reference group threat: absent, out-‐group, in-‐group) between group design.

Results-‐ In general, brand adoption by dissociative in-‐ and out-‐groups negatively impact

brand evaluations, but not self-‐brand connections. In addition, no support was found for the notion that this negative effect differs between the brand archetype quadrants.

Implications-‐ This study contributes to relatively unexplored field of brand archetypes as well

as to the field of consumer psychology.

(4)

6.4 Stimuli development 48 6.5 Research design 48 6.6 Measurements 49 6.6.1 Independent variables 49 6.6.2 Dependent variables 50 6.6.3 Control variables 50 6.6.4 Manipulation checks 51 7. Results 53 7.1. Sample characteristics 53 7.2 Preliminary statistics 54 7.2.1 Reliability checks 54 7.2.2 Manipulation checks 56

(6)

7.2.2.2 Dissociative out-‐group 58

7.2.2.3 Dissociative in-‐group 60

7.3 Control variables 61

7.3.1 Brand community 61

7.3.2 Brand familiarity 62

7.4 Dissociative out-‐group effect 64

7.4.1 Testing H1 64

7.5 Moderating effect of brand archetype positioning 67

7.5.1 Testing H2b 68

7.6 Dissociative in-‐group effect 71

7.6.1 Testing H4 71

7.7 Moderating effect of brand archetype positioning 74

7.7.1 Testing H5a 75

7.8 Additional analysis 83

7.9 Summary of the findings 85

8. Discussion 88

8.1 Introduction 88

8.2 Brand archetype positioning 88

8.3 Dissociative out-‐group brand adoption 89

8.4 Dissociative in-‐group brand adoption 91

8.5 Moderating effect of brand archetype orientation 92

9. Conclusion 94

9.1 Summary 94

9.2 Implications 96

9.2.1 Theoretical implications 96

9.2.2 Managerial implications 97

9.3 Limitations and directions for further research 98 References 100

(7)

Appendix C – Questionnaires 109

Appendix D – Platforms 125

Appendix E – Descriptive statistics 130 Appendix F – Archetype statistics 135

(8)

List of figures and tables

List of figures

Figure 1.1 Apple Buzz Scores 18-‐35 versus 35+ 10 Figure 1.2 Brand personality framework 14 Figure 2.1 Pattern and idea 19 Figure 2.2 Pattern and idea Mercedes Benz 20 Figure 2.3 Gucci advertisement 21 Figure 2.4 Gucci bag sign 21 Figure 2.5 Coca-‐Cola advertisement 22 Figure 3.1 The twelve archetypes 26 Figure 5.1 Conceptual framework 45 Figure 7.1 Means plot (H2b) 71 Figure 7.2 Means plot (H5a) 78 Figure 7.3 Means plot (H5b) 80 Figure 7.4 Means plot (H6b) 83 Figure 7.5 Means plot (additional analysis) 85 Figure E.1 Gender descriptive 130

E.1.1 BMW 130

E.1.2 Harley Davidson 130

E.1.3 Land Rover 130

E.1.4 Volkswagen 130 Figure E.2 Education descriptive 131

E.2.1 BMW 131

E.2.2 Harley Davidson 131

E.2.3 Land Rover 132

E.2.4 Volkswagen 132 Figure E.3 Nationality descriptive 133

E.3.1 BMW 133

(9)

E.3.3 Land Rover 134 E.3.4 Volkswagen 134 List of tables

Table 6.1 Research design 47 Table 6.2 Selected brands 47 Table 6.3 Selected dissociative groups 48 Table 7.1 Scale reliability 55 Table 7.2 Descriptive analyses of brand archetype positioning 56 Table 7.3 Results of one-‐way ANOVA for Outlaw archetype 58 Table 7.5 Results of one-‐sample T-‐tests on dissociative in-‐group score 59 Table 7.4 Results of one-‐sample T-‐tests on dissociative out-‐group score 61 Table 7.6 Results of one-‐sample T-‐tests on brand community score 62 Table 7.7 Results of one-‐sample T-‐tests on brand familiarity 64 Table 7.8 Results of Independent T-‐tests on self-‐brand connections 66 Table 7.9 Results of Independent T-‐tests on brand evaluations 67 Table 7.10 two-‐way ANOVA results (H2b) 70 Table 7.11 Results of Independent T-‐tests on self-‐brand connections 73 Table 7.12 Results of Independent T-‐tests on brand evaluations 74 Table 7.13 Two-‐way ANOVA results (H5a) 77 Table 7.14 Two-‐way ANOVA results (H5b) 79 Table 7.15 Two-‐way ANOVA results (H6b) 82 Table 7.16 Two-‐way ANOVA results (additional analysis) 84 Table 7.17 Overview of the findings 86 Table 7.17 Overview of the findings continued 87 Table E.1 Age descriptive 130 Table F.1 Results paired sample t-‐tests BMW 135 Table F.2 Results paired sample t-‐tests Harley Davidson 135 Table F.3 Results paired sample t-‐tests Land Rover 136 Table F.4 Results paired sample t-‐tests Volkswagen 136

(10)

1. Introduction

1.1 General introduction

At the beginning of 2013, something strange happened. On January 23, 2013 Apple

‘announced the financial results for its 13-‐week fiscal 2013 first quarter ended December 29, 2012. The company posted record quarterly revenue of $54.5 billion and record quarterly net profit of $13.1 billion, or $13.81 per diluted share’ (‘Apple Reports Record Results’, 2013: §1). Furthermore, Apple reported a new all-‐time record for the iPhone and iPad sales.

Despite these impressive record sales and profit, analysts were disappointed, leading to a dramatic drop of 12 % (representing 60 billion dollar) in the Apple stock market price the

next day.

This drop seems to reflect the changing brand perception of Apple. For many years the Apple brand image was considered as cool, artistic and innovative. However, since mid-‐2012 this image is slightly changing, Apple’s fan base is going grey. According to UK demographics firm YouGov, Apple’s brand perception is now best among their 35+ consumers, see figure 1.1 (Marzilli, 2012). In addition, findings of research conducted by the Buzz Marketing Group show that American teenagers do not consider Apple as cool anymore. ‘On the slide scale of coolness, teens place most adults firmly on the uncool side. It goes without saying that no teen wants to show up dressed identically as the science teacher’ (Faw, 2013, § 1).

Unfortunately this logic now seems to apply to Apple as well.

Figure 1.1 Apple Buzz Scores 18-‐35 versus 35+

(11)

Of course the changing user image is just one possible explanation of the decline in Apple’s brand perception. Analysts are also expressing major concerns with Apple’s ability to

innovate on a radical basis in the future. Still, the changing user image may be an interesting starting point. Customers have the tendency to distinguish themselves from other people by abandoning or rejecting a brand if they feel that too many people or groups of people they don’t want to be associated with adopt the brand (Berger & Heath, 2007). Apple would not be the first company that has been so successful establishing a certain brand image, it attracts consumers that are exactly the opposite, leading the original target group to avoid the brand.

For example, Lacoste came close to filing for bankruptcy when three decades ago Asian-‐ manufactured ‘fakes’ began swapping the market. Lacoste, a high-‐end lifestyle brand that originally targeted golf and tennis players, didn’t almost go bankrupt because the original target group decided to buy the fakes. It almost went bankrupt because the ‘mob’, missing the glance of elegance and sophistication associated with the original buyers, now could afford the brand as well, leading to a huge decline in the brand perception (Lindstorm, 2012). Also ‘Shanghai residents stopped purchasing Volkswagen Santanas when nouveau riche suburbanites started buying them, and rich Brits abandoned Burberry caps once they caught on among soccer hooligans’ (Berger & Heath, 2008: p. 593). In addition, the US fashion retailer Abercrombie & Fitch offered to pay Jersey Shore’s cast members cash, if they would promise not to wear their brand anymore. Abercrombie & Fitch feared that being associated with sex, alcohol, bragging and bad behaviour had the potential to seriously damage their preppy ‘aspirational’ brand image (Sweney, 2011). Unfortunately, money doesn’t buy everything, as Abercrombie & Fitch recently found out the hard way through ‘Fitch the Homeless’, a virtual guerrilla initiative that tried to readjust the Abercrombie & Fitch brand image by asking people to donate their old Abercrombie and Fitch clothes to homeless people.1

1_{For
more
information
see
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O95DBxnXiSo.
It
must
be
noted
that
the}

(12)

1.2 Research gap

Brands play an important role in our everyday life. Brands are almost everywhere and almost everything can be branded. A brand can be defined as ‘a name, term, sign, symbol, design or a combination of them which is intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competitors’ (Kotler, 1991 as cited in Keller, 1993: p. 2). In today’s highly competitive market, companies are increasingly trying to attract customers by creating a brand with strong, favourable and unique brand

associations (Keller, 1993). It is assumed that a distinctive brand image will lead to higher levels of customer-‐based brand equity, which in turn leads to higher degrees of customer loyalty and increase company financial performance (Keller, 1993).

Consumers often chose brands that have an image consistent either with their actual self-‐ image (i.e. how I perceive myself) or with a desired self-‐image (i.e. how I would like to perceive myself) (Escalas & Bettman, 2003). In addition, consumers may also explicitly decide not to buy something because the brand image resembles an undesired-‐self (i.e. how I would not like to perceive myself) (Banister & Hogg, 2004). Thus, ‘to achieve their identity goals, people use products and brands to create and represent self-‐images and to present these images to others or to themselves. As a result of this process, a link bridges the brand and the self’ (Escalas & Bettman, 2003: p. 340).

A brand image is defined as ‘the perceptions about a brand as reflected by brand

associations held in memory. Brand associations are the other informational nodes linked to the brand node in memory and contain the meaning of the brand to consumers’ (Keller, 1993: p. 3). Thus, the brand image is defined from the consumer’s perspective. In order to provide managers and marketers with guidelines on brand development, a number of conceptual models and theoretical frameworks have been developed to simplify brand complexity (Grace & O’Cass, 2002). As these models are directed to managers, they emphasize to a large extend on elements of the brand that are under the control of the company, such as brand personality.

Just like humans, brands can have personality traits. A brand personality can be defined as ‘the set of human characteristics associated with a brand’ (Aaker, 1997: p. 347). For

(13)

example, the Body Shop brand personified can be described as honest, friendly and feminine, whereas the Virgin brand can be described as rebellious. In a society that highly values both individualism and consumption, it is not surprising to find a considerable amount of literature devoted to understanding how individuals define themselves through the use of symbolic meaning derived from the consumption of products (Dolich, 1969; Schenk & Holman, 1980; Sirgy, 1982; Reingen, Foster, Brown, & Seidman, 1984; Sirgy, 1985; Belk, 1988; Graeff, 1996; Aaker, Benet-‐Martinez, & Garolera 2001; Jamal & Goode, 2001; Kessmann et al., 2006; Bosnjak & Rudolph, 2008; Malär, Krohmer, Hoyer, & Nyffenegger, 2011).

Despite early efforts, the conceptual understanding of brand personality and the symbolic use of brands remained limited till the mid 1990’s due to a lack of consensus on what a brand personality really is. Drawing on the ‘Big Five’ human personality structure

(Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness), Aaker (1997) has addressed this limitation by developing a theoretical framework of brand personality dimensions. Based on data that included 631 participants, 114 personality facets and 37 U.S. brands, Aaker (1997) has identified five dimensions of brand personality with 15 corresponding facets and 42 underlying traits, an overview can be found in figure 1.2. Note that some brands score high on only one dimension (e.g. Harley Davidson on ‘Ruggedness’), others tend to be strong on multiple dimensions (e.g. HEMA on ‘Sincerity’ and

‘Sophistication’) and some score poorly on all dimensions (e.g. MCI) (Keller, Apéria, & Georgson, 2008).

(14)

Figure 1.2 Brand personality framework

Aaker’s brand personality framework has been widely applied within the field of marketing and branding, but has not remained without criticism. Sweeney and Brandon (2006) have pointed out that although Aaker’s scale might be useful to assess positive brand attributes, clearly not all brands are so wholesome and therefore potentially negative traits should be included as well. Furthermore, it has been argued that Aaker’s brand personality scale describes traits and facets of the brand’s identity that go beyond personality, such as upper class, original and up-‐to-‐date (Sweeney & Brandon, 2006). In response to these limitations, the archetype paradigm has attracted increasing attention from branding scholars, including Mark and Pearson (2001), Wertime (2002), Holt (2003), among others. Most remarkably, TNS, one of the biggest marketing consulting agencies of world, uses a brand-‐positioning tool (i.e. the Needscope model) that is mainly based on the archetype spectrum. Therefore, this thesis will build on the brand archetype spectrum.

It is important to note that brand personality is often confused with brand image. ‘Personality means the sum of all the ways a company chooses to identify itself to all its public (…) image on the other hand is the perception of the company by these publics (Marguiles, 1977 as cited in: Meenaghan, 1995: p.24). Personality is sent and therefore

(15)

variety of ways, for example by logo, price, packing or advertising. Image, on the other hand, is received and therefore less under the control of the company.

In absence of objective reality, human beings have the tendency to evaluate and define themselves in relation to others. Therefore, the creation of strong favourable and unique brand associations is not just a result of managerial practice. For example, if a lot of young independent women buy Marlies Dekkers bras because they identify with the young and independent brand personality, then the brand Marlies Dekkers may become a cultural signal of a feminine independent identity. However, adoption by outsiders can change this signal; if for example housewives start wearing Marlies Dekkers in an attempt to be

independent, the signal may lose its meaning or signal different characteristics (wannabe independent) even though the brand personality of the Marlies Dekkers brand didn’t

change. Thus, brand meaning, just as cultural meaning ‘flows continually between its several locations in the social world, aided by the collective and individual efforts of marketers, producers, advertisers and consumers’ (McCracken, 1986: p.71). As such, brand meaning arises from the bidirectional relationship between a brand’s personality and its cultural and social environment. This relationship is not well understood.

In this thesis we will therefore take a postmodern view on the consumer. Postmodernism rejects the modernistic notion that the consumer is a passive subject of image marketing. Instead, the postmodern consumer takes the marketing offer and adopts or subverts the sign according to his own experiences that result from interaction with his social

environment. (Brown, 1993). Given the importance of the postmodern discourse in the intellectual milieu, it is surprising to find that the concept has received little attention in the marketing literature (Brown, 1993). This may be due to the fact that statements like the rejection of a general truth and the denial of rationality seem quite alien and inapplicable to many marketing scholars. For example, Baurdillard’s suggestion that the Gulf War did not take place except on television seems quite insensitive and questionable at least when real bombs are dropped and innocent civilians are killed (Brown, 1993). In addition, it might not help that postmodern philosophers have a strong tendency to depict the marketer as the black sheep of our contemporary society. Reading Barthes, one of the most influential thinkers of postmodernism, it becomes clear that he perceives marketers as manipulative

(16)

salespersons whose only goal is to use the ‘common people’ as cash cows. However, as we will see, we do not necessarily have to agree with them in order to make use of their concepts.

1.3 Research Questions

The aim of this thesis is to get a better understanding of the bidirectional relationship between a brand and its environment and its influence on the symbolic-‐meaning creation of the brand by the consumer. Given the complexity, this thesis will focus on only one element of environment, namely reference groups. This thesis will focus on why people tend to abandon brands if too many people or the ‘wrong’ type of people adopt them, by building on the brand archetype spectrum. Since no other research has been conducted on this subject, the nature of this research will be exploratory. The following research question has been formed:

How does the symbolic meaning of brands change through the adoption by dissociative reference groups?

The following sub-‐questions have been formed: - What is symbolic brand meaning?

- How can symbolic brand meaning be measured?

- What are dissociative reference groups?

- Can symbolic brand meaning change?

1.4 Academic contribution

As mentioned before, a considerable amount of research has been conducted on the

creation of favourable, strong and unique brand associations from a managerial perspective. However, it is not well understood how brand meaning can be altered in the social

environment. Although the social and cultural environment is less under the control of the company, it does not mean that an understanding of its influence is therefore useless. By investigating one construct of the social environment, namely reference groups, I hope to contribute to a better understanding of the bidirectional relationship between a brand and its environment.

(17)

1.5 Structure

This thesis is structured as follows; chapter two, three and four will contain an extensive literature review addressing semiotic theory, the brand archetype spectrum and reference groups. Building on the research gaps as identified in the literature review; the fifth chapter present the hypotheses. The method will be covered in chapter six. The results will be discussed in the seventh chapter. The thesis will conclude with a discussion of the main implications of results, the limitations of the research and finally propose suggestions for future research.

(18)

2. How brands mean

2.1 Introduction

Before exploring what a brand means, this chapter will focus on how it means, by building on semiotic theory. In the simplest way, semiotics can be defined as ‘the study of signs’ (Chandler, 2007: p.1). As denoted by Howells and Negreiros (2012) most people (myself included) find semiotic theory difficult to understand. This is mainly due to the fact that most essays on semiotic theory are written in almost poetic kind of way. However, semiotics try to explain something what we actually already know, at least intuitively. By drawing on authors (Leezenberg & Vries, de., 2001; Chandler, 2007; Howells & Negreiros, 2012) who already simplified the theory, this chapter will explore semiotics and explain how a brand means, building on the theories of Ferdinand de Saussure and Ronald Barthes.

2.2 The Saussure Model

The term semiotics was first denoted by Ferdinand de Saussure in 1983 in his investigation on the relation between language and meaning. ‘Saussure showed that language was a system of signs or signals which enabled people to communicate with each other’ (Howells & Negreiros, 2012: p. 113). A sign is the whole that consists of a signifier and a signified. A signifier is a sound or written pattern that refers to something else. The signified is the concept; mental image, idea or physical reality the signifier stands for (Chandler, 2007). For example, in English ‘C-‐O-‐W’ stands for a black and white muddled animal that eats grass and lives on a farm. In this case, the signifier is the combination of the three letters ‘C-‐O-‐W’; the signified is the idea that we get from reading or hearing those three letters. The sign is thus the recognizable combination of ‘C-‐O-‐W’ and the idea of a black and white muddled animal that eats grass and lives on a farm, see figure 2.1. Many signifiers can stand for the same signified (Chandler, 2007), for example in Dutch language we would use the world ‘K-‐O-‐E’ to refer to the idea of a black and white muddled animal that eats grass and lives on a farm (the signified).

(19)

Figure 2.1 Pattern and idea

In order to be meaningful, a sign must have both a signifier and a signified. For example the signifier ‘K-‐H-‐F’ doesn’t refer to anything and therefore is useless. To be meaningful, more than one person must agree upon the relationship between the signified and the signifier. As such, the relationship is purely conventional and therefore the sign is arbitrary. If not, there would only be one language (Howells & Negreiros, 2012).

2.3 Mythologies

Ronald Barthes (1915-‐1980) extended the Saussure model by applying semiotics to the analysis of expressions of visual and popular culture. As such, he demonstrated that semiotics are not exclusive to language, but could be applied to logos, advertising, movies, photography etc. as well. Basically anything can be a sign; figure 2.2 gives an example of Mercedes Benz logo as a sign. In addition, Barthes argued that ‘semiotics do not only reveal the text but also expose the underlying ideological assumptions of the society in which it was created’ (Howells & Negreiros, 2012: p. 115). Things are empty vessels and therefore do not convey meaning in themselves, but are imbued with meaning by cultures and societies. Meaning attached to things is purely conventional, because the relationship between signifier and signified can change over time (Howells & Negreiros, 2012).

C-‐O-‐W

Signifier

Signified

Sign

(20)

Figure 2.2 Pattern and idea Mercedes Benz

Furthermore, Barthes extended the Saussure model through what he calls ‘myths’. The sign, the recognizable combination of the signifier and the signified, can by itself become a signifier of something else. Mythologies can be regarded as a sort of second order of the semiotics. According to Barthes, a myth is a stereotype that falsely represents a cultural phenomenon as natural given. A myth is a ‘meta-‐language’ that according to Barthes presents ‘the language of the mass culture’. Unlike the ‘original’ sign, the mythical sign is never arbitrary; it is always (partly) motivated. However, through presenting the myth as a normal sign that is arbitrary, it appears as a natural fact (Leezenberg & Vries, de., 2001). However of course, it’s not; the myth is artificial. The major purpose of myth is to transform a meaning into a form (Howells & Negreiros, 2012). The job of someone investigating mythologies is to analyse how these myths function, by that means one can detect the underlying ideology. ‘Barthes goes on to describe some characteristics of the myth. The relationship between the form of a myth and the concept is unequal. The form is the poorer of the two (…), thousand images would have done the same job’ (Howells & Negreiros, 2012: p. 119). Barthes’ notion of myths becomes clear through applying it to advertising. Branding is actually a way of myth making. Take the example of the Gucci bag advertisement as can been seen in figure 2.3.

Signifier

Signified

(21)

Figure 2.3 Gucci advertisement

Applying the first order of Barthes semiotics, the advertisement tells us something about the product; the bag is pink and manufactured by Gucci, you can carry it around your shoulder and it’s made of leather, leading to a sign scheme as can be found in the upper part of figure 2.4.

Figure 2.4 Gucci bag sign

A glamorous sophisticated lifestyle

Myth

Signifier

Signified

Sign

A pink leather bag that is

manufactured by Gucci and

can be carried around the

shoulder

(22)

However, that is not all the advertisement tells us. If we look further, we see that what this advertisement is really selling is a glamorous sophisticated lifestyle and it suggests that by buying this bag we can obtain such a lifestyle too. Now it becomes clear what Barthes refers to as ‘myth’, it is the association between the glamorous sophisticated lifestyle and the Gucci bag. The signifier that is the Gucci bag has now become a signifier of a lifestyle idyll, as can be seen in figure 2.4. The marketers behind this advertisement thus created a myth, by presenting the association between the Gucci bag and a glamorous sophisticated lifestyle as a natural connection, as something that ‘goes without saying’. However of course, it’s not, it’s cultivated.

According to Holt (2003) iconic brands, such as Nike, Coca-‐Cola and Harley Davidson, became iconic not because they provide the best service, the newest technologies or the best designs; they become icons because they enable consumers to experience powerful myths. The most powerful brand myths are those who tap into the tension between the consumer’s everyday life reality and the national ideology. The creation of myths is not limited to luxury goods, think for example of Coca-‐Cola (see figure 2.5); they are no longer focussing on the dark brown soda, rather they are selling good feelings.

Figure 2.5 Coca-‐Cola advertisement

(23)

3.What brands mean: intended meaning

3.1 Introduction

This section will focus on brand meaning that results from managerial practice. Recall that according to Barthes brand signs can take two orders. A first order sign refers to the relationship between a signifier and a signified. A brand as a sign can refer to the

relationship for example between a brand logo and a product. Furthermore, this sign might also become the signifier of another concept. That is what Barthes calls a mythology. In light of branding, the brand can become a signifier of a lifestyle mythology. This chapter will explain how those lifestyle mythologies can be distinguished into twelve archetypes.

3.2 Archetype theory

The concept of archetype can be broadly defined as the universal unconsciousness and was first proposed by the psychiatrist Carl Gustav Jung (1875-‐ 1961). According to Jung, the human psyche can be divided into three parts: the ego, the personal unconsciousness and the public unconsciousness. First is the ego, which contains all conscious feelings, memories and experiences that can be easily retrieved from memory (Batey, 2008). The second part of the human psyche is the personal unconsciousness. The personal unconsciousness, as was first proposed by Sigmund Freud, includes memories, experiences and feelings ‘which have at one time been conscious but which have disappeared from consciousness through having been forgotten or repressed’ (Jung, 1936: p. 99). In addition to the personal layer of

unconsciousness, Jung suggests that there is also a deeper layer, which he called the ‘collective unconsciousness’ (Carr, 2002). The collective consciousness contents ‘the idea structures that formed a template for material reality’ (Mark & Pearson, 2001: p. 11). These imprints are what Plato referred to as ‘elemental forms’ and what Jung called ‘archetypes’. Archetypes, Jung claimed, are preconscious psychological constructs that enable us to react in a human way; they are imprinted in our human nature and shared across all cultures and periods of time (Batey, 2008). An archetype can be regarded as an unconscious and

instinctive tendency to experience the world around us in a certain manner, thereby functioning as an organizing principle. The universal unconscious is only made up out of a

(24)

few basic archetypes, such as the mother, the anima, the father, the child. However, in fact all historical and social images lead back to them. No archetype is either good or bad, rather they are a way of organizing the human experiences (Tsai, 2006). ‘Jungian archetype theory is traceable to his psychoanalytic interpretation of dreams and myths. A dream is a private myth and a myth is a social dream (...) that arises from the universal unconscious that we all share’ (Tsai, 2006: p. 649). It is no coincidence that the notion of myths is central to both Barthes and Jung, as it is by mythologies that cultures, both Western and Eastern, express dreams, desires, fears and social values (Howells & Negreiros, 2012).

3.3 Brand archetypes

Archetypal representations can be found in mythologies, personalities, movies, films and art. Think for example of the Dalai Lama, as the archetypal representation of wisdom and peace, or Jesus Christ, as the archetypal representation of altruism and compassion. Archetypes, embodied in brands, can form a bridge between products and customer motivation by identifying with deeper emotions and providing a source of intangible meaning (Mark & Pearson, 2001). As such, archetypal association as a brand strategy brings the advantage of activating a story that is already present in our subconscious; it does not need to be

invented. Consequently, the main task of the brand manager is to activate the story by consistent articulated cues. If executed properly, consumers will become emotionally attached, resulting in brand loyalty (Grutzner, 2011).

Archetypes tap into the universal unconscious layers of human motivation. As such, every human being potentially has access to all them. Humans are multifaceted, meaning that to which archetype we are attracted depends on our needs and wants at any point of time and can vary across situations. In contrast, strong brands are typically associated with only one archetype. Therefore, the brand, not the consumer, is the source of archetypal meaning (Batey, 2008).

Archetypes transcend product category boundaries. Different archetypes can be found within the same product category. For example, Pepsi and Coca-‐Cola are selling a nearly identical product but what differentiates them is the emotional level they tap into. Coca-‐ Cola taps into the Innocent archetype (as will be discussed in paragraph 3.3.1.1) whereas

(25)

Pepsi embodies the Jester archetypal story (as will be discussed in paragraph 3.3.2.3). On the other hand, products in totally different product categories can embody the same

archetype. For example, BNN and Harley Davidson both embody the Outlaw archetype (as will be discussed in paragraph 3.3.3.2). However, those brands remain completely

differentiated in the mind of the consumer, not only because of the different product categories they are in, but also because they embody different manifestations (respectively the rebel and the revolutionary) of the Outlaw archetype (Batey, 2008).

Following Mark and Pearson, the brand archetype spectrum consists of twelve archetypes that can be plotted along two axes: Belonging/Social versus Independence/Ego and

Stability/Order versus Risk/Freedom’ (Mark & Pearson, 2001). Figure 3.1 gives an overview of these four quadrants and the twelve archetypes. Each archetype consists of several layers. It should be noted that every archetype has a positive side and a shadow side. The shadow side dominates the brand image when the positive equivalent becomes too

aggressive associated with the brand (Mark & Pearson, 2001). For example, Sage brands that too explicit associate themselves with wisdom (the positive characteristic), may be perceived as cocky or arrogant (the Shadow side). The next paragraphs will shortly discuss each of the archetypes.

(26)

Figure 3.1 The twelve archetypes (Pearson, 1991)2

3.3.1 Independent – oriented archetypes

The Innocent, Explorer and Sage favour independence over interdependence and the self over others. The underlying promise of these archetypes is that Paradise can be reached by finding oneself. As will be explained below, brands that tap into one of these three

independent-‐oriented archetypes enable their customers to activate feelings of self-‐ actualization (Mark & Pearson, 2001).

3.3.1.1 The Innocent

The Innocent seeks happiness and simplicity in an almost naïve kind of way. Innocents feel that Paradise can be found in the here and now. They highly value both honesty and

2_{Note
that
figure
3.1
dates
back
to
Pearson’s
first
concretization
of
the
archetype
spectrum
in
1991.
The
exact}

position of each archetype was modified in 2001, of which a picture is unfortunately missing. Therefore the exact position of some archetypes as discussed in paragraph 3.3 may differ from their position as depicted in

(27)

authenticity and believe everybody must be free to be who they are. The Innocent brand taps into the consumer’s desire of being rescued from the imperfect world by providing simple pleasures (Mark & Pearson, 2001). Examples of Innocent brands include, Coca-‐Cola (an example of the happiness campaign can be found in figure 7), McDonald’s and HEMA.

At a lower level, the Innocent consumer just wants to find happiness without the hard work. They like brands they can trust and that provide predictability, so they can stick to it. At higher levels of the archetype, Innocents are searching for brands that can provide the promise of eternal Paradise and they are willing to sacrifice the feeling of belongingness to the dominant society. The Innocent tends to dislike anything that reminds him of the

negative potential of life. Their shadow side of depression can take the upper hand when the aimless wondering for Paradise becomes too extreme (Mark & Pearson 2001).

3.3.1.2 The Explorer

Just like the Innocent archetype, the Explorer has a desire to enter Paradise. However, whereas Innocents expect Paradise to come to them, Explorers go out and actively seek for it. The Explorer archetype emphasize on individualism and freedom. Also, they are curious and adventurous by nature; ‘the Explorer has the simple desire to hit the open road and to be in the wild, wide-‐open spaces of nature, to experience the joy of discovery’ (Mark & Pearson, 2001: p. 72). The Explorer archetype might provide a good identity for pioneering brands that value authenticity and novelty, such as the Body Shop and Land Rover. However, The Explorer must prevent becoming trapped in aimless wondering (Mark & Pearson, 2001).

3.3.1.3 The Sage

The Sage represents the universal image of wisdom, advice and heritage. The Sage has a high need for autonomy to form their own opinions. As consumers have the tendency to seek advice from those who are more experienced when they try something new, experts, doctors and scientific researchers are frequently asked brand endorsers. Since Sage

endorsers are associated with high credibility, their personal guarantee will make consumers more confident in their purchase (Wertime, 2002).

The thing you can't bottle : the movement of symbolic meaning through brand adoption by dissociative reference groups.