|UFDC Home||myUFDC Home | Help|
This item has the following downloads:
1 ARCHETYPE AND BRAND CONGRUENCY IN ADVERTISING By TAYLOR ULMAN A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ADVERTISING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009
2 2009 Taylor Ulman
3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I want to thank my family, for their continued love, patience, support, encouragement and money throughout 6 years of college. Beyond my family, I want to thank: My WG friends, for reminding me that I am not smarter than them because I have a masters degree since they all have big kid jobs and I do not. My fantastic new graduate school friends, many of who finished their theses long before me, for showing me it is p ossible to actually get it done. Cameron, for giving me a place to live rent free in Gainesville so I could finish my thesis and for opening the door to a new opportunity I look forward to sharing with him. My coworkers, both superior and more superior, at Turner & Hodge for believing me when I said I was at the library conducting research for my thesis and for being a home away from home during the almost 5 years I worked for them. And finally, my professors and thesis chair, for their help outside clas s hours, for answering my hearty amounts of emails and for facilitating an interesting and fun learning experience.
4 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................3 page LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................6 ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................................................7 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................8 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ........................................................................................11 Attitude and Identity Theory ..................................................................................................11 Match Up Hypothesis .............................................................................................................11 Archetypal Branding ...............................................................................................................12 History .............................................................................................................................14 Specific Examples of Brand Archetypes .........................................................................16 Previous Research ...........................................................................................................19 Need for Present Research ......................................................................................................23 Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................25 3 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................27 Design .....................................................................................................................................27 Research Method .............................................................................................................27 Independent and Dependent Variables ............................................................................27 Selection of Brands ..........................................................................................................30 Participants .............................................................................................................................31 Materials .................................................................................................................................32 Procedure ................................................................................................................................33 4 RESULTS ...............................................................................................................................34 Sampl e Demographics ............................................................................................................34 Perceptions of Brand User: Hypothesis Testing .....................................................................34 Hypothesis 1: Respondents considering archetypal brands will be more likely to endorse archetype relevant traits than non archetype relevant traits. ..........................34 Hypothesis 2: Respondents considering the Nike brand will be more likely to endorse archetype relevan t traits than non archetype relevant traits. ..........................36 Hypothesis 3: Respondents considering the Harley Davidson brand will be more likely to endorse archetype relevant traits than non archetype relevant traits. ............37 Hypothesis 4: Respondents considering the Tiffany & Co. brand will be more likely to endorse archetype relevant traits than nonarchetype relevant traits. ......................38
5 Hypothesis 5: Respondents considering the Jeep brand will be more likely to endorse archetype relevant traits than non archetype relevant traits. ..........................39 Purchase Intentions of Various Archetype/Non Archetype Combinations ............................40 Research Question: Is perception of the brand user of each of the products in this study related to how likely the res pondent is to purchase the product? .......................40 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................................42 Summary of Results ................................................................................................................42 Hypothesis One ...............................................................................................................43 Hypothesis Two ...............................................................................................................43 Hypothesis Three .............................................................................................................44 Hypothesis Four ...............................................................................................................44 Hypothesis Five ...............................................................................................................45 Research Question ...........................................................................................................45 Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................46 Implications for Marketers .....................................................................................................47 Limitations ..............................................................................................................................48 Future Research ......................................................................................................................49 APPENDIX: INFORMED CONSENT AND QUESTIONNAIRE ..............................................51 LIST OF REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................62 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .........................................................................................................65
6 LIST OF TABLES Table page 11 Characteristics of the Twelve Archetypes .........................................................................26 41 Perceptions of Brand User in Averaged Archetype/Non Archetype Categories ...............35 42 Perceptions of Brand User in Athletic Sneaker Product Category ....................................36 43 Perceptions of Brand User in Motorcycle Category ..........................................................37 44 Perceptions of Brand User in Jewelers Product Category .................................................39 45 Perceptions of Brand User in SUV Product Category .......................................................40 46 Purchase Intentions for Archetypal Brands .......................................................................40 47 Purchase Intentions for Non Archetypal Brands ...............................................................41
7 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Advertising ARCHETYPE AND BRAND CONGRUENCY IN ADVERTISING By Taylor Ulman December 2009 Chair: Michael Weigold Major: Advertising Archetypes were defined in modern language by psychiatrist Carl Jung during r esearch he conducted concerning cultural mythologies (Jung, 1938). According to Tsai (2006, p. 649), archetypes are an organizing principle for things we see or do, or more specifically, an unlearned tendency to experience things in a certain way. Usi ng archetypes in branding has become a more common tactic, which contributes to the importance of this study. Cowen (2007) believes that archetypes can aid in branding because they can provide a lucid and distinguishing personality, as well as define the image your brand portrays and the story it tells. It has also been suggested that creating a personality and story for a brand by using archetypes creates an interaction with the consumer physically and mentally through symbols, myths and stories and emot ions are elicited based on these interactions (Maso Fleischman, 1997). This study explores whether consumers believe that users of products related to archetypes branding are seen as having the same archetypal relevant characteristics.
8 CHAPTER 1 INTROD UCTION Strategic storied advertising, or advertising that has a compelling story and a strategic focus is the best method by which to build and maintain a strong, enduring brand (Randazzo, 2006). Archetypes are relevant to this idea in the sense that they are part of universal stories, characters, and beliefs that exist within our cultures (Radazzo, 2006). Brand archetypes serve to provide consumers with symbolic meaning, which they then use to create brand identities that transcend cultural boundaries (M ark & Pearson, 2001) They are said to be capable of combining with fundamental human psychology for identity construction, so they can help to build and sustain consumer loyalty (Tsai, 2006, p. 649) Attitude in regards to advertising specifically deals with consumers feelings towards the characteristics of a product (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). This definition of attitude becomes relevant to this study in that reactions toward adjectives describing characteristics of specific archetypes used in branding products are being examined. Therefore, it is important to understand that the attitude of the consumer comes into play here. Additionally, the review of past studies dealing with archetypes in branding reveals multiple researchers who state that there is a discernible link between brand archetypes and brand marketing that involves an identityseeking agent theory (Veen, 1994; Randazzo, 1995; Brown, 1995; Hogg et al., 2000; Voase, 2002, etc.). This theory is linked with identity theory, which examines a n individuals perception of their role in social frameworks. In the identity seeking agent theory, consumption is a ritualistic endeavor guided by products that aid consumers in finding these roles in social frameworks (Veen, 1994a). Archetypes were def ined in modern language by psychiatrist Carl Jung during research he conducted concerning cultural mythologies (Jung, 1938). Jung states that archetypes exist in
9 the collective unconscious, outside the physical world, and can only be seen when portrayed t hrough physical media such as behavior, cultural myths and art, and advertisements. Using archetypes in branding has become an increasingly more common tactic, which contributes to the importance of this study. Babbie (2007) states that branding is an a ssortment of perceptions in the mind of the consumer and since archetypes have discernible characteristics, this study examined whether there was a fit between perceptions of product users and these characteristics. That is, if Harley Davidson uses the Re bel archetype in their branding efforts, and their advertising reflects the archetype in a physical medium, then are users of Harley Davidson products seen as having the characteristics of the same Rebel archetype. The rebellious attributes of the product contribute to attitudes toward the brand, consumers of the product may be buying and using it because they are identity seeking and wish to be or be seen as rebellious, and this would lead one to believe that Harley Davidson and the Rebel archetype have c ongruency. This current study explores this exact notion whether users of products that use archetypal branding are seen as having the same characteristics as the archetype. This study is important because the use of archetypal branding has gained pre valence in approaches to global branding because, in theory, if an archetype exists in multiple countries and cultures, then using that archetype to brand will make moving the brand or product into other areas a more seamless process. It is also important because experiential marketing is gaining in popularity and archetypes are linked to experiential marketing because archetypes interact with consumers physically and mentally through symbols, stories and myths. Chapter 2 consists of definitions of theor ies utilized in this study, summaries of previous literature concerning archetypal branding and studies that have been done regarding the topic.
10 Chapter 3 examines the methodology of the study. The research method used is a repeated measures experiment u tilizing a questionnaire as the dependent measures. Respondents were asked to rank on Likert scales how much they agree or disagree that certain archetypal characteristics identified by Michael Cowen were representative of users of certain products. ANOVAs were then conducted, and the results were presented in Chapter 4, using means of archetype/nonarchetype combinations. In theory, the mean of the archetype relevant traits and the archetypal brand combination (for example, the Rebel archetype and Harl ey Davidson) will be significantly higher than any other brandarchetype combination. Additionally, purchase intention was examined too see if respondents who were more likely to agree that certain archetypes represented certain products would be more likely to purchase those brands. So, if they were more likely to agree that the Rebel archetype was representative of Harley Davidson, were they more likely to say they would purchase Harley Davidson. After the findings were presented in Chapter 4, they wer e summarized and further analyzed in Chapter 5 and implications for marketers, limitations and suggestions for future research were discussed.
11 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERA TURE Attitude and Identity Theory A consumers feelings for or against the attrib utes of a product are known as their attitude (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Individuals develop these attitudes through a process comprised of three phases they think about the product (cognition), develop feelings for or against the product (affect) and fi nally develop behavior intentions (conation) (Babbie, 2007). Multiple studies (e.g., Lutz, 1975; MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986) have concluded that marketing techniques, specifically advertisements, influence perceptions of a brand in the mind of the consumer. In addition to attitude theory, which is relevant to this study because the characteristics of each archetype will be considered the attributes consumer opinions will be based on, identity theory must also be examined. Identity theory looks at the perceptions of an individual toward their role in various social frameworks as opposed to generalizations of social roles put in place by societies (Stryker & Burke, 2000). In the context of archetypal branding, consumers may identify with a brand or product more because its personality (provided by the archetype with which it is associated) reflects a role they wish to fulfill in their life. As Stryker & Burke (2000, p. 284) say, identity is parts of a self composed of the meanings that persons attach to the multiple roles they typically play in highly differentiated contemporary societies. Match Up Hypothesis Match up, congruency, or fit theory has to do with how well an endorser of a product meshes with the product based on the characteristics o f both (e.g., Aaker, 1997, Austin, et al. 2003). Although this study does not involve examining actual endorses of products, it does examine whether characteristics of the product user match characteristics of archetype used to
12 brand said product. In short, this study examines the congruency in archetypal branding between the archetype and the consumer, who may wish to possess these characteristics because they strive to be like that archetype (identity theory) i.e. while riding a Harley Davidson motorcyc le, they wish to feel like or be perceived as a rebel. The Match Up Hypothesis states that an appropriate fit between an endorser (in this case an archetype) and a product will result in the most effective campaign (Kahle & Homer; Kamins, 1989, 1990). However, while the theory is very often believed to be an important part of a consumers decision making process, a specific structure has never been completely developed that would examine the hypothesis. Consumers liking of, or identification with, an endorser has been used in various studies in order measure the construct (e.g. Aronson & Worchel, 1966; Kelman, 1961). This brings us back to identity theory, where an individuals identification with an endorser and/or the product they are endorsing (or identification with an archetype and/or the product it is helping to brand) can help fill the multiple role identities they may be striving to maintain (Stryker & Burke, 2000). Archetypal Branding Branding is an essential part of any marketers strategic p lan for a given product. No two definitions of branding are the same; however, Babbie (2007) describes the overall concept as an assortment of perceptions in the mind of the consumer. Michael Cowen (2007, p. 6) states, proactive branding companies view their brand as a strategic asset. He believes that fundamental branding practices have changed as the result of three major trends. First, the competitive environment has changed markets are globalizing at a rapid pace and channels are becoming increa singly diluted and multifunctional. Second, consumers are making more informed decisions information about companies, products and all other facets of society are readily available and can affect corporations instantaneously. Third, experiential market ing has become a key factor for consumers (Cowen, 2007). Experiential marketing refers to customers
13 having actual experiences with the brand or product in order to drive sales and increase brand image and awareness (Cowen, 2007). Experiential marketing i s linked to archetypal branding in that archetypes are said to elicit emotional responses and, in turn, create a poignant experience for the consumer that generates a bond between the consumer and the brand. According to Randazzo (2006), strategic storied advertising, or advertising that has a compelling story and a strategic focus is the best method by which to build and maintain a strong, enduring brand. Advertising with a compelling story and a strategic focus works to create meaning for the brand a nd give it an appealing identity and personality that in turn works to create an emotional connection with the consumer. (Randazzo, 2006, p. 11) Archetypes are relevant to this idea in the sense that they are part of universal stories, characters, and be liefs that exist within our cultures (Randazzo, 2006). Brand archetypes serve to provide consumers with symbolic meaning, which they then use to create brand identities that transcend cultural boundaries (Mark & Pearson, 2001). They are said to be capab le of combining with fundamental human psychology for identity construction, so they can help to build and sustain consumer loyalty (Tsai, 2006, p. 649). In Archetype Research for Advertising: A Spanishlanguage Example, Roberta Maso Fleischman discusse s how ethnographic interviews and archetype analysis can enable advertisers to promote a more enlightened dialogue and a smoother process toward the creation and/or completion of an advertising campaign (Maso Fleischman, 1997, p. 81). In particular, the 1996 California Milk Processor Board Campaign for Spanishlanguage Television is examined and the mother archetype used in the campaign is discussed. Maso Fleischman (1997) maintains that ethnographic interviews, in this case with Mexican American mother s, provide valuable insight into patterns of behavior, values and beliefs, and how a product fits into the lives of a consumer. Archetype analysis is done in order to investigate emotional responses to advertisements and discover whether there is a correl ation to an archetype.
14 When consumers are confronted with an archetypal symbol or myth, an emotional response is felt which is the most important aspect of using archetypes to build brands (MasoFleischman, 1997). MasoFleischman discusses three reasons why archetype analysis is important. The first lies with why and how much a symbol or a theme impacts viewers emotionally and that archetype analysis can help explain this phenomenon. The second is that this type of analysis expounds on why a symbol is culturally significant and finally, it can explain why a symbol is motivational to consumers (MasoFleischman, 1997, p. 83). Overall, the importance of archetype analysis is that it is directly related to exploring how the symbol is linked to the product and how the link benefits product usage (Maso Fleischman, 1997, p. 83). In the context of the campaign analyzed in the study, it is explained that, in the Mexican culture, milk is used in traditional recipes and the grandmother, or matriarch, is th e keeper of traditions (Maso Fleischman, 1997). So, by using this mother archetype, the California Milk Processor Board has managed to benefit their product in two ways. First, they have projected the positive, loving feelings associated with the mother archetype, one of the most important archetypes according to Maso Fleischman, onto the product itself. Second, they have motivated viewers to use milk in the same way the grandmother in the commercial is using the product. Using archetypes is useful in cr eating commercials for Hispanic viewers when there is a need to show the strategys emotional and motivational impact (Maso Fleischman, 1997, p. 84). History Archetypes have been investigated and understood for centuries by ancient philosophers, but we re defined in modern language by psychiatrist Carl Jung during research he conducted concerning cultural mythologies (Jung, 1938). Archetypes are an organizing principle for things we see or do, or more specifically, an unlearned tendency to experience things in a certain way (Tsai, 2006, p. 649). According to Jung (1938), archetypes provide the basis from
15 which basic themes of life are formed because they are universal psychological dispositions that are part of the collective unconscious. Carl Jung differentiated the collective unconscious, or experiences held by the entire human race, from the personal unconscious. Archetypes guide humans through stages of life and each stage is regulated by a different set of actions that must be completed accord ing to whichever archetype is most prevalent (Jung, 1938). Through these archetypal stages, individuals build their own experiences of life and develop unique psychological characteristics. It is important to note that archetypes, being part of the colle ctive unconscious, can only be seen indirectly in varying physical media such as behavior, cultural myths and art, etc. (Jung, 1938). They are inherent potentials that are only actualized when they enter the conscious world through images or behavior. Michael Cowen summarizes archetypal branding very well. He states that archetypes provide a subconscious structure and context for meaning and human behavior and motivation. This is where their power lies (Cowen, 2007, p. 26). He continues by explain ing that archetypes are reflected through symbols and concepts that are incorporated into our cultures, stories, myths and communications. Archetypes evoke powerful feelings within us because we are connected with these archetypes through our psyche. They permeate our being and reflect subconscious desires, meanings and truths that are projected outwards through our expression and behavior. Archetypes are authentic, genuine, compelling, credible, universal, and deeply moving. (Cowen, 2007, p. 26) Cowen (2007) believes that archetypes can aid in branding because they can provide a lucid and distinguishing personality, as well as define the image your brand portrays and the story it tells. Carl Jung summarized five core primary functions of the psyche that are themselves archetypes, or universal patterns of experience. They are the Persona (an identity we hold and which we present to the outside world), the Ego (our center of consciousness), the Shadow (an unconscious part of the Ego), the Anima (a node of unconscious beliefs and feelings in a mans
16 psyche relating to the opposite sex; the Animus refers to the corresponding complex in a womans psyche), and the Self (the totality of the entire psyche), but the number of archetypes throughout the globe found in varying societies is limitless (Jung, 1938). Archetypes can be found in every culture around the world and exist throughout human history in every era, pointing to the theory that archetypes play a vital role in the creation of the world and the human mind itself (Tsai, 2006, p. 649). Although Jung identified universal archetypes that exist among every culture, Veen (1994a, p. 332) notes that archetypes are collective as well as individual, objective as well as subjective. That is, archetypes exist within the unconscious from the time of birth, but the meaning of specific archetypes is customized to individual situations through creative imagination and cultural experiences (Campbell, 1988). Specific Examples of Brand Archetypes One of the mos t well recognized instances of archetypal images used in branding rests with the now banned Marlboro cowboy advertisements (Randazzo, 2006). The hero archetype is represented very clearly in this campaign by the image of the American cowboy in the western frontier. The mythic cowboyhero represents the mythosymbolic world of the American west, a world that still exists in the American psyche, a world whose values are freedom, rugged individualism, and the pioneering spirit. (Randazzo, 2006, p. 13) One of the most famous commercials of the campaign showed the Marlboro man carrying a calf across a creek, demonstrating the heros eagerness to help those in need (Mark & Pearson, 2001). Marlboro clothes the call to heroism in nostalgia, inviting readers to Marlboro Country and the mythic land and life of the cowboy (Mark & Pearson, 2001, p. 114). Despite the rarity of cowboys in modern society and regardless of the fact that real cowboys were far less Lone Ranger and much more blue collar, Marlb oro understood that the mythic, rather than the actual, image of what an American cowboy represents evoked more positive emotions in consumers
17 (Randazzo, 2006). Armed with this knowledge, they were able to create one of the most recognizable brands in advertising history. Another example of successful archetype branding is Subarus Crocodile Dundee Outback campaign. By embracing the explorer archetype aspect of Paul Hogans character Crocodile Dundee (and aided by the success of the Crocodile Dundee movi e), Subaru was able to create a story into which their product fit perfectly in the American consumers psyche (Randazzo, 2006). After the start of the campaign, consumers began to feel that Subaru was rugged, adventurous, and outdoorsy like Crocodile Dundee and the Outback (Randazzo, 2006, p. 17). Subarus archetypal imagery directly rivals their competitor Saturn. While Subaru has an adventurous, hero archetype aiding their brand personality, Saturn has positioned itself in the orphan archetype vei n. The name Saturn is that of a Roman god of agriculture, thus giving the car rural associations (Mark & Pearson, 2001, p. 174). Even the astrological meaning of the planet Saturn is associated with being sensible, practical, unhurried, and downto ear th (Mark & Pearson, 2001). Underlying this archetypal branding are the values Saturn possesses, those of hard work, honesty, and typical American principles. Using the archetypal system has given Saturn the means to convey their personality to consumers and has allowed Saturn to host events, such as their reunions of owners in Spring Hill, Tennessee, and create advertising that fits their brand identity (Mark & Pearson, 2001). Harley Davidson is another example of archetyping encouraging the ove rwhelming success of a brand. The rebel is the archetypal image used by this product, allowing riders to see Harleys as more than a motorcycle more like a whole set of attitudes, a lifestyle that is not just about freedom, but freedom from mainstream values and conventions (Mark & Pearson, 2001, p. 134). Unlike the regular girl/guy Saturn reunions, Harley consumers band together in
18 black leather, heavy boots, and chrome the outlaws of HOG (Harley Owner Groups). Even though most Harley owners are not outlaws in the literal sense of the word, associating Harley Davidsons brand personality with this archetype allows consumers to tap into their wild side and be the outlaw they have always idealized or envied (Mark & Pearson, 2001). The magician arch etype helps brands foster magical moments that make dreams come true (Mark & Pearson, 2001). According to Mark and Pearson (2001, p. 145), Over time, this campaign has so successfully connected MasterCard with such priceless moments that many ads no longer even contain anything you can really use the card to buy. MasterCard has embraced the archetypal image of the magician in their Priceless campaign to give consumers the ability to make their own dreams come true (Mark & Pearson, 2001). Though not on the list of twelve archetypes on which this study will focus, one final and interesting example of using archetypal branding lies with Apple computers. Apple has embraced the ancient archetypal myth of good versus evil in every part of the branding plan from their anti establishment attitude to their logo (Mark & Pearson, 2001). The apple logo, with a bite taken out of it, evokes images of the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve and leaving a world of blissful ignorance behind in favor of a world with free will and knowledge. The famous Apple advertisement with the young, athletic woman smashing the big brother IBM screen with a sledgehammer speaks to this idea of Apple being a different kind of company, with unique ideas. According to Mark and Pea rson (2001, p. 135), founder Steve Jobs put it this way: Think Different celebrates the soul of the Apple brand that creative people with passion can change the world for the better. Through the use of archetype branding, Apple has been able to acco mplish gaining the image of youth, creativity, and being unique they sought.
19 Previous Research Mark and Pearson (2001) conducted the qualitative research on archetypal branding discussed previously and then determined that quantitative analysis needed to be conducted in order to provide the most comprehensive information to their clients. They discovered a database known as the BrandAsset Valuator (BAV), developed by Young & Rubicam, which could be utilized to explore their theory that the worlds most successful brands use archetypes (Mark & Pearson, 2001). The BAV gives Young & Rubicam the ability to continually evaluate consumers attitudes to the over 13,000 brands they have in the system based on 75 investigations in 33 countries (Mark & Pearson, 2001). The BAV model evaluates each brands position in the context of an extensive cultural brandscape covering at least 100 categories of products and employing more than 55 measures per brand (Mark & Pearson, 2001, p. 26). As of 2001, when Mark and Pearson wrote The Hero and the Outlaw: Building Extraordinary Brands through the Power of Archetypes, over 120,000 consumers had been interviewed for the purposes of adding their responses to the BrandAsset Valuator system. Mark and Pearson (2001, p. 26) developed an algorithmic system for determining the extent to which consumers perceptions of brands are aligned with archetypal identity. Consumers give ratings to 48 descriptive characteristics, to which weights are assigned, and then each bran d is given a cumulative distribution score on each archetype (Mark & Pearson, 2001). According to Mark and Pearson (2001, p. 26), In this way, it can be determined whether a brand is strongly associated with any archetype and, if so, its primary archetypal identity, and so on. Mark and Pearson (2001), along with Ed LeBar and Paul Fox from Young & Rubicams BrandAsset Group formulated hypotheses concerning the archetypal identity of brands and then crossreferenced their hypotheses against the database. According to their data, the algorithm they created seemed to classify brands appropriately, suggesting that the hypotheses had a good
20 deal of face validity (Mark & Pearson, 2001, p. 27). The Young & Rubicam model allows the study of brands over time, which also allows researchers to perceive how the archetypal characters of brands have changed, or evolved, over time (Mark & Pearson, 2001). While studying the economic impact of associating brands with archetypes, the BAV researchers found that archety pal identities positively and profoundly influence the real asset value of companies (Mark & Pearson, 2001, p. 29). One example of the algorithm helping explain the validity of a successful archetype brand matchup is consumers viewing Coke as an Innocent archetype, which has the characteristics of being wholesome, simple, honest, authentic, nave, moral, nostalgic, etc. The innocence that consumers saw in Coke the brand helped explain why creative campaigns such as Mean Joe Green, Id Like to Teach the World to Sing and the playful Polar Bears were so highly successful while other edgier commercials were not (Mark & Pearson, 2001). By definition, the innocent archetype only wishes for the world to be a better, happier place. This match up also he lped explain the disastrous results of the New Coke campaign and the revolt by consumers at Coke attempting to change their original bottle design. After all, replacing the innocent is much more a violation or betrayal of trust than are other kinds of substitutions (Mark & Pearson, 2001, p. 27). Much of the existing research on using archetypes in the advertising industry concerns the hero archetype specifically. In The Consumption of Heroes and the Hero Hierarchy of Effects, Steve Vander Veen at tempts to show that all consumption is ritualistic, all rituals have heroes, and all consumption is the consumption of heroes (Veen, 1994b, p. 331). According to Veen (1994a, p. 332), the hero archetype actually reflects the archetype of the self; that is, the travails of the hero are the travails of the self. Veen goes on to discuss the ritualistic nature of
21 consumption and states that consumers, who are essentially seeking their role in life, use call finders (products and goods) to find these functions. A converse relationship between heroes and rituals is put forth that asserts, all rituals have heroes because heroes start them. The behavior of the hero himself is ritualistic he separates himself from existing social roles, enters unchart ed territory, conquers it and returns (Veen, 1994a, p. 333). According to Aziz (1990, p. 41), the hero returns because a hero does not shut one out from the world, but gathers the world to oneself. The common theme of consumers relating best to stori es in their lives is reiterated by Veen (1994a, p. 333), who summarizes his consumption theory by saying that no man is an island and that consumers best represent their identities narratively, and that versions of the story are told to oneself and to others. In a study of multiple theories of consumption behavior, Elizabeth Hirschman (1989) finds that the quest of the archetypal hero can be found in each. According to Hirschman (1989), the consumer, who acts as the central protagonist, searches for a product and, in the course of their quest, is altered by the process. At the start of the process, the consumer is in a state of equilibrium, but they are without the product. Once they come to this realization, their state changes to one of disequili brium and they set off on a quest containing elements of external search, internal search, or combinations of these activities (Hirschman, 1989, p. 644). Finally, the protagonist is transformed somehow at the conclusion of the heroic quest, whether through a change in their decision making process or a difference in emotional or psychological based purchase behavior (Hirschman, 1989). Although this study does not directly discuss archetypes used in the branding division of the advertising process, it does provide important insight into how deeply the concept of archetypes exists in the general marketing and advertising industry.
22 In a semiological and qualitative content analysis of television commercials aired during the 2000 Summer Olympics, Jungianbased concepts of heroism and gendered concepts of heroism were inspected (Goodman, Duke and Sutherland, 2002, p. 374). The researchers were interested in discovering how Olympic athletes were rendered as heroes in televisions advertising and then, whether or not there were gender differences in these depictions. This study gives important insight into the cultural impact archetype branding can have internationally, especially when examined in the context of a worldwide event such as the Olympics. Advert ising, as a mass media subset, is a powerful transmitter/reflector of cultural values. Through its use of popular sport figures, advertising creates a kind of consumers heroism, whereby heroic qualities are commodified through their association with pr oducts and services. (Goodman et al., 2002, p. 374) All six traditional versions of the hero archetype the innocent, the orphan, the martyr, the wanderer, the warrior, and the magician, were searched for, but the study found that almost all the advertis ements that used the hero archetype used the warrior version. More specifically, Goodman et al. (2002) examined differences in the portrayal of men and women as warriors. Their findings indicated that both genders were equally depicted, but that male at hletes were more likely to be portrayed as preparing for and doing battle successfully while female athletes were more likely to be celebrated for their athletic skills and achievements (Goodman et al., 2002, p. 387). In a study examining the consumer imagination theory, which aims to offer a means to determine whether a brand archetype will transform into an icon, and thereby achieve maximum effect, Shu pei Tsai (2006) came to the conclusion that brand archetyping should be included as part of a comp rehensive brand management philosophy. Tsai (2006) conducted in depth interviews with 810 Nike Air Jordan, associated with the hero archetype, customers in the Asian Pacific, Western European, and North American regions of the globe in order to generate
23 questions for future focus groups. The respondents perception of the brands association with the hero archetype was examined so that consumer loyalty in relation to the archetype icon transformation in brand marketing could thereby be further explored. In the analysis of the findings, Tsai (2006, p. 653) states that, in order for the marketing objective to be reached with the aid of brand archetyping, a logical match must exist between the archetypal representation of the brand created and the consumer s expectations of a brand icon. Tsai (2006) developed a transformation model that takes into account both mediated and lived experience of the consumer and that this total experience is structured by the consumers imagination to generate an archetypal depiction of the brand. Thompson (1995, 1990) and Mooy and Robben (2002) provide definitions of mediated and lived experiences. Mediated experiences are the result of word of mouth and media generated messages. Lived experiences are the result of practic al experiences and direct encounters in our everyday lives. Together, they make up the individuals total experiences, which, when combined with their imagination, help shape their view of what a specific archetype represents and, eventually, what a brand represents based on this archetype (Tsai, 2006). In summation, Tsai (2006, p. 660) found that, during the process of a brand archetype leading to a brand icon, research derived images matching the target audiences deep rooted desires, fantasies, dreams, and aspirations help to formulate an effective strategy to elevate the congruence between brand representation and consumer identity. Need for Present Research As stated above, experiential marketing is prevalent in todays society. Experiential marke ting builds direct relationships with consumers and elicits emotions through the use of interaction (Cowen, 2007). Similarly, archetypes interact with consumers physically and mentally through symbols, myths and stories and elicit emotions based on these interactions
24 (Maso Fleischman, 1997). With substantial growth occurring in the use of experiential marketing, it is important to examine archetypal branding as well. Additionally, the use of brand archetypes has gained importance and prevalence in compan ys marketing approaches to global branding (Tsai, 2006; Patterson, 2004). Despite the recent surge in the interest of brand archetypes, advertising has always used this concept even if agencies were not aware they were doing so (Mark & Pearson, 2001). M ark & Pearson (2001) give the Jolly Green Giant as an example. The Jolly Green Giant is, after all, the archetype of the Green Man, a figure associated with fertility and abundance (Mark & Pearson, 2001, p. 7). In retrospect, many iconic brands such as Jolly Green Giant are associated with some sort of archetype and advertisers have taken notice of this success. Advertisers have learned they can make their sales pitch more effective if they wrap their products in our dreams and fantasies not our individual dreams, but our collective dreams, Americas dreams, humanitys dreams. This is the realm of mythology. (Randazzo, 1993, p. 32) The value of using archetypes to build brands applied to advertising is that it not only shows how certain meanings are constructed in the human psyche, but it also provides an explanation of how meaning is associated with emotions (Maso Fleischman, 1997, p. 83). Although archetypes are not part of the sensory world, creative imagination acts as the catalyst for bringing archetypes in the unconscious to the conscious (Matthews, 2002). Therefore, advertising of brands has a logical link to archetypes creative images. Maso Fleischman (1997, p. 83) discusses several responses individuals can have to archetypal images. Th e first is that individuals respond emotionally when faced with a meaningful archetypal image. The next is that archetypal images bring to our consciousness dormant yearnings. Third, she states that the images put us in touch with our culture. Lastl y, archetypal images motivate us to act (Maso Fleischman, 1997).
25 Theory behind the link between brand archetypes and brand marketing lies with explanations of consumption behavior that deal with consumers attempting to uncover their role in life. Veen ( 1994), Randazzo (1995), Brown (1995), Hogg et al. (2000), and Voase (2002), among others, have put forth this identity seeking agent explanation of consumption behavior. Veen (1994a) views consumption as ritualistic behavior guided by call finders, or p roducts that aid consumers in discovering this role in life they seek much like a consumers perception of their role in a societal context as with identity theory. In the context of studying brand archetypes, this theoretical approach is relevant becau se the potential of the ritual to confer benefits is enhanced and perpetuated by myths, and archetypes are personifications of myths (Tsai, 2006, p. 650). Thus, the consumer relates to the archetype the brand is built on because it represents the role i n life they are striving to find. Conclusion Combining attitude theory, identity theory, congruency and the archetype characteristics identified by Michael Cowen (Table 11), the question arises of whether it is agreed that users of products using arc hetypal branding reflect the characteristics in the table (found on next page). So, the researcher states that the research question is: Q1: Do individuals believe that consumers of products that use archetypal branding reflect the characteristics of the archetype? The research will address this question by obtaining ratings of users with respect to both archetype relevant and nonarchetype relevant traits. Based on theory and a thorough examination of past literature on the subject, it would seem logic al that there will be archetype and brand congruency. The question will initially be researched on the most general level of examining archetype relevant and non archetype relevant traits as they apply to overall archetypal brands and non archetypal brands and, if results indicate that respondents are more
26 likely to agree that archetype relevant traits match with archetypal brands in general, then individual product categories will then be examined. Table 1 1. Characteristics of the Twelve Archetypes A rchetype Characteristics The Orphan Down to Earth, Virtuous, Focused on Others The Rebel Free, Innovative, Shocking, Unconventional, Independent, Rebellious The Explorer Inspirational, Experiencer of New Things, Individualistic, Rugged, Investigative T he Sage Contemplative, Academic, Scholarly, Knowledgeable, Self Reflective The Lover Sensual, Friendly, Physically and Emotionally Attractive, Loving, Affectionate The Caregiver Compassionate, Healing, Altruistic, Supportive, Selfless, Caring The Magici an Visionary, Inventive, a Charismatic Leader, a Catalyst The Jester Quick Witted, Versatile, Communicative, Funny, Entertaining, Amusing, Clever The Creator Creative, Imaginative, Inventive, Cultured, Artistic The Hero Courageous, Heroic, Winners, Team Players, Superhuman, Worthy The Master Responsible, Powerful, Aristocratic, In Control, Influential, Authoritative The Innocent Wholesome, Simple, Honest, Authentic, Nave, Moral, Nostalgic Therefore, the subsequent research will test the following hypotheses: H1: Respondents will be more likely to agree that archetype relevant traits pertain to archetypal brands than any other brandarchetype combination. H2: Respondents will be more likely to agree that archetype relevant traits (Hero traits) pert ain to the archetypal brand (Nike) than any other brand archetype combination. H3: Respondents will be more likely to agree that archetype relevant traits (Rebel) pertain to the archetypal brand (Harley) than any other brandarchetype combination. H4: Respondents will be more likely to agree that archetype relevant traits (Master) pertain to the archetypal brand (Tiffany) than any other brand archetype combination. H5: Respondents will be more likely to agree that archetype relevant traits (Explorer) pertain to the archetypal brand (Jeep) than any other brand archetype combination. The current study also attempts to answer the following question regarding perceptions of brand users and purchase intention: Q2: Is perception of the brand user of each of the brands in this study related to how likely the respondent is to purchase the brand?
27 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Design Research Method The research method used in this study is a repeated measures experiment using a questionnaire as the dependent measures (there are eight different questionnaire versions that will be distributed randomly to participants). A repeated measures design is a design in which a single sample of subjects is used for each treatment condition. The advantage of using this rep eated measures design is that it is more efficient than other experimental designs and keeps the validity of the results higher, while still allowing for smaller than usual subject groups. Normally, a disadvantage is that it may not be possible for all pa rticipants to be exposed to all the conditions of the experiment, but this was not true in the case of this study, as all participants were exposed to every condition in the questionnaire, just in varying orders so as to decrease fatigue. Independent a nd Dependent Variables Several independent variables were used in this study. The first independent variable was product category. Each of the four product categories motorcycles, jewelers, sport utility vehicles and athletic sneakers were presented to every participant. The archetypal brands in each of the product categories (Harley Davidson, Tiffany and Co., Jeep and Nike) determined the choosing of those particular categories. That is, because those brands were identified in previous literature as representative of certain archetypes, the product categories were picked because those are the product categories in which they exist. So, because Harley Davidson was identified as being representative of the Rebel archetype, the motorcycle category was examined. The second brand in each category that is meant to act as the nonarchetypal brand was chosen based
28 not on previous literature, as there was no literature that discussed nonarchetypal brands that the researcher could find, but based on the fa ct that it is a competitor of the archetypal brand in the same product category. Because this study was a repeated measures design where all of the respondents were exposed to the same conditions (in this case, all respondents were exposed to all the prod uct categories through advertisements), counterbalancing was used to decrease fatigue among the respondents. Counterbalancing, which acted as an additional independent variable, in this study simply means that the order of the product categories varied be tween subjects. Another independent variable was the order in which archetype versus nonarchetype product advertisements were presented. Within each product category, two advertisements were presented one for a product that represents the archetype i n question and one that does not. The advertisements were found online and chosen based on their similarity to one another. Every effort was made to make the ads within product categories comparable in the sense that they contained the same type of mater ial (for example, the ads for the motorcycle category both had people and some type of depiction of a motorcycle in them, along with a tagline). The two advertisements were always paired, but the order in which they were presented archetype first/non ar chetype second or nonarchetype first/archetype second varied between subjects, and this order also acted as an additional independent variable. The next independent variable was the archetype versus nonarchetype scales. After each advertisement, a set of Likert scales was presented (scales ranged from 3 = Strongly Agree to 3 = Strongly Disagree). Half of the scales used adjectives pertaining to the archetype in question for a product category, and half that used adjectives pertaining to an unrelated archetype. These scales varied between product categories, as each product category pertained to a different
29 archetype, but within each product category, the scales were identical for both of the advertisements. The scales can be seen in the appendix in the copy of the questionnaire. This study aimed to examine whether respondents agreed that the adjectives pertaining to the archetype in question were truly representative. It was expected that respondents considering the archetypal brand would be mor e likely to agree that archetype relevant traits were representative than nonarchetype relevant traits. It was also expected that respondents would not agree more or less, when the advertisement that represents the non archetypal brand within a product c ategory was shown, that those brandarchetype combinations were relevant. In short, the mean of the archetypal traits/archetypal brand should be significantly higher than the other combinations of archetypal traits/nonarchetypal brand, nonarchetypal tra its/archetypal brand and nonarchetypal traits/non archetypal brand and these last three combinations should not be significantly higher or lower than one another. The major dependent variable in this study was how the respondent views the users of the brands represented in the advertisements. This variable was measured using 10 Likert scales for each advertisement. As stated above, 10 scales utilizing adjectives representing two different archetypes followed each of the two advertisements within a product category. Five of the scales pertained to the archetype in question for that product category and five pertained to an archetype that is not in question for that product category. All of the independent and dependent variables were administered onli ne. The product categories, adjectives, and archetypes that were used in this study are as follows: Product Category: Motorcycles Archetype: Rebel (Rebellious, Unconventional, Free, Independent, Innovative) Non archetype: Sage (Academic, Contemplative, Self Reflective, Scholarly, Knowledgeable) Archetypal Brand: Harley Davidson Non archetypal Brand: Honda
30 Product Category: Sport Utility Vehicles Archetype: Explorer (Individualistic, Open to Experiencing New Things, Rugged, Investigative, Explorator y) Non archetype: Lover (Sensual, Friendly, Physically Attractive, Loving, Affectionate) Archetypal Brand: Jeep Non archetypal Brand: Mazda Product Category: Athletic Sneakers Archetype: Hero (Courageous, Like a Winner, Superhuman, Heroic, Worthy) No n archetype: Innocent (Wholesome, Simple, Honest, Nave, Moral) Archetypal Brand: Nike Non archetypal Brand: New Balance Product Category: Jewelers Archetype: Master (Aristocratic, Influential, Authoritative, Powerful, In Control) Non archetype: Jester (Quick Witted, Funny, Entertaining, Amusing, Clever) Archetypal Brand: Tiffany & Co. Non archetypal Brand: Zales Each Likert scale used the adjectives that are in parentheses after each archetype. The scales ranged from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree for each adjective. Respondents were asked to rate on the scales how much they agreed or disagreed that users of the product in question held that specific characteristic. For example, after respondents viewed the advertisement for Harley Davids on, they were asked to rate how much they agreed or disagreed that users are rebellious, in addition to nine other characteristics. Selection of Brands Four of the most commonly identified archetypes were examined in this study. For each of the four ar chetypes, one brand that exemplifies and one brand that does not exemplify that particular archetype was chosen from the same product category. This was done in order to be able to compare results and show the difference in emotional reactions toward a brand within a category using a certain archetype in its advertising and a brand within that same category not utilizing that archetype in its advertising. For the Rebel archetype, the representative brand was Harley Davidson and the nonrepresentative bran d was Honda Motorcycles. For the Master
31 archetype, the representative brand was Tiffany & Co. and the nonrepresentative brand was Zales. For the Explorer archetype, the representative brand was Jeep and the non representative brand was Mazda. For the H ero archetype, the representative brand was Nike and the nonrepresentative brand was New Balance. Harley Davidson, Tiffany & Co., Jeep and Nike are said to be highly representative of their respective archetypes by multiple resources, most notably Mark & Pearson (2001) and Cowen (2007), both of whom are referenced in the second chapter. The researcher has chosen the remaining nonarchetypal brands of Honda, Mazda, Zales and New Balance based on her knowledge of the brands, the advertising campaigns they utilize and an ability to assess a brands personality and because they are competitors of the archetypal brands in their respective product categories. Participants S tudents enrolled in a summer undergraduate advertising course served as respondents. As incentive to participate, students were offered three extra credit points in their course for completing the questionnaire. A total of 60 students completed the questionnaire and received the extra credit. They were chosen based on availability and will ingness of their professor to allow their participation. Because of time and money restraints, convenience sampling was used instead of a true random sample. Convenience sampling is a form of nonprobability sampling, which simply means it is a process no t based on probability theory (Babbie, 2007). Because classes of undergraduate students are the most readily available subjects, it is not uncommon to use them in convenience sampling done by university students. A convenience sample cannot be generalized to a larger population, but that is not necessary in this study, as the researcher only needs a large enough sample to acquire enough opinions from which to make an analysis.
32 Materials Due to the length of the dependent measures questionnaire, the order in which the brands were presented varied among different sets of respondents. This was done to prevent systematic error due to fatigue and apathy. That is, if the same brand is at the end of every questionnaire, there is a chance that participants wi ll not put in as much effort on those questions. Each of the variations had the same questions the only difference is the order in which the questions were presented. An informed consent document was provided to all subjects. It explained potential risks and benefits of the study and stated that participation is voluntary. Next, slips of paper containing web addresses for one of the eight dependent measures (questionnaire) variations were handed out randomly to students who wished to participate. S tudents took the questionnaire online at a time of their choosing, but were only given a week before the questionnaire closed. The questionnaire began with an introduction that welcomed participates and thanked them for their participation, as well as gave a guarantee of confidentiality and assurance that the questionnaire is part of legitimate thesis research. Clear and concise directions concerning how to answer questions were provided at the beginning of the questionnaire as well as before each set of Likert scales and before each demographic question. Respondents were directed to choose only one response for each question. This helped to ensure that participants not only completed the questionnaire in its entirety because there was minimal confusion, but also that it was completed correctly. The participants were shown a print advertisement for a specific brand and then asked to rank on the scale how they view users of that brand based on 10 adjectives. Five of the adjectives were testing the archet ype that the brand should be a representative or nonrepresentative of (based on which advertisement for a brand within the product category the respondent is viewing) and the
33 other five adjectives were for an unrelated archetype. At the end of the questi onnaire, demographic information was obtained in order to measure basic information about the sample. After the demographic questions, there was a closing statement thanking participants for their time and providing contact information for the researcher again. Procedure The questionnaire was conducted in May of 2009 at the University of Florida. The researcher gave an oral introduction and greeted participants. She then explained the purpose of her study and requested that all respondents give honest responses to each question and informed students that participation is completely voluntary and that they may withdraw from the study at any point. The researcher then informed subjects that their answers are confidential and would not be used outside of analysis for this current study and they will receive extra credit for participating, per the guidelines the professor had established previously. After the introduction, the researcher distributed informed consent sheets as well as slips of paper w ith her contact information and the web address for the questionnaire. Prior to distribution, the slips were placed in a random order of the eight different versions, and then passed out in no particular order. This was done to ensure that the different versions were distributed randomly, as the repeated measures design called for. After distribution, the researcher asked participants to read the informed consent form carefully and fully and then sign if they agreed to the terms. Participants completed the informed consent sheets and gave them back to the researcher. The researcher entered the classroom at the beginning of the class period, so after participants completed their informed consent sheets and were given a chance to ask questions, the resear cher exited the classroom.
34 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Sample Demographics A total of 60 students participated in the current study. 30 participants were male (50%) and 30 participants were female (50%). The majority of the respondents were white (53%), foll owed by black (20%), Hispanic (18%), Asian (6%) and finally other (1%). The majority of the respondents were between the ages of 18 and 23. Freshm e n accounted for 3% of the respondents, sophomores for 11%, juniors for 51% and seniors for 33%. Perceptio ns of Brand User: Hypothesis Testing Hypothesis 1: Respondents will be more likely to agree that archetype relevant traits pertain to archetypal brands than any other brandarchetype combination. In order to examine the most general level of respondents e ndorsements of traits, the means of the archetype relevant traits across all product categories were averaged, and then the means of the nonarchetype relevant traits across all product categories were averaged. That is, the means of the archetype relevan t traits for Nike, Harley Davidson, Tiffany & Co. and Jeep (the archetypal brands) were averaged and then the means of the non archetype relevant traits for the same brands were averaged. The same was done for New Balance, Honda, Zales and Mazda (the non archetypal brands). The means were averaged because, in theory, no one characteristic of an archetype is more important than the other. Then, a one way within subjects (repeated measures) ANOVA was conducted that compared 1) mean of the archetype relevan t traits for all archetypal brands against 2) mean of the non archetype relevant traits for all archetypal brands against 3) mean of the archetype relevant traits for all non archetypal brands against 4) mean of the non archetype relevant traits across all non archetypal brands. It is important to note that throughout the remainder of the study, negative means are a result of centering the Likert scales at zero. That is, because the scales ranged from 3 (Strongly Disagree) to 3 (Agree) and then
35 averaging was done, some means will be negative if respondents were in more disagreement than agreement on a particular scale. A repeated measures analysis of variance (Table 4 1) examined perceptions of brand users across averaged categories of archetypal t raits for all archetypal brands (Arch Brands Arch Traits in Table 4 1), non archetypal traits for all archetypal brands (Arch Brands Non Arch Traits in Table 4 1), archetypal traits for all non archetypal brands (Non Arch Brands Arch Traits in Table 4 1) and non archetypal traits for all non archetypal brands (Non Arch Brands Non Arch Traits in Table 4 1). Table 4 1. Perceptions of Brand User in Averaged Archetype/Non Archetype Categories Perception of Brand User Mean Std. Dev. Sample Size 95% Co nfidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Arch Brands Arch Traits 1.13 .73 60 .94 1.31 Arch Brands Non Arch Traits .27 .70 60 .46 .09 Non Arch Brands Arch Traits .38 .85 60 .16 .60 Non Arch Brands Non Arch Traits .16 .73 60 .02 .35 Wilks Lam bda = .29, F(3, 57) = 46.64, p < .05 Arch Brands Arch TraitsA Arch Brands Non Arch TraitsB Non Arch Brands Arch TraitsC Non Arch Brands Non Arch TraitsBC The superscripts above show the overlap of the means of each of the brandarchetype combinations. The most agreed upon brandarchetype combination was between archetype relevant traits and archetypal brands with a mean of 1.13. The next most agreed upon combination was archetype relevant traits and non archetypal brands with a mean of .38, followed by non archetype relevant traits and non archetypal brands with a mean of .16 and ending with non archetype relevant traits and archetypal brands with a mean of .27. Results indicated that it was significantly more agreed upon that archetype relevant traits f it archetypal brands than the other three brand archetype combinations. The results supported the hypothesis.
36 Hypothesis 2: Respondents will be more likely to agree that archetype relevant traits (Hero traits) pertain to the archetypal brand (Nike) than a ny other brandarchetype combination. For each product, the mean of the archetype relevant scales that ranged from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree (3 = Strongly Agree, 3 = Strongly Disagree) was calculated and the mean of the non archetype relevant scales was calculated. For example, in the athletic sneaker category, means were determined for Hero traits for Nike, Innocent traits for Nike, Hero traits for New Balance, and Innocent traits for New Balance. This pattern was then applied to the remaining product categories. Then, a one way within subjects (repeated measures) ANOVA was conducted within each product category that compared 1) mean of the archetype relevant adjectives for the archetypal brand against 2) mean of the archetype relevant adjecti ves for the non archetypal brand against 3) mean of the non archetype relevant adjectives for the archetypal brand and against 4) mean of the non archetype relevant adjectives for the non archetypal brand. The first repeated measures analysis of variance (Table 4 2) examined the product category of athletic sneakers containing Nike, representing the archetypal brand, and New Balance, representing the non archetypal brand. The archetypal relevant adjectives pertain to the Hero archetype and the non arc hetype relevant adjectives pertain to the Innocent archetype. Table 4 2. Perceptions of Brand User in Athletic Sneaker Product Category Perception of Brand User Mean Std. Deviation Sample Size 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Nike A rchetype .85 1.10 60 .56 1.13 New Balance Non Archetype .15 .92 60 .08 .39 Nike Non Archetype .08 .91 60 .16 .31 New Balance Archetype .02 .98 60 .23 .28 Wilks Lambda = .69, F(3, 57) = 8.70, p < .05 Nike ArchetypeA New Balance Non ArchetypeB Nike Non ArchetypeB New Balance ArchetypeB
37 The superscripts above show the overlap of the means of each of the brandarchetype combinations. The most agreed upon brandarchetype combination was between Nike and the Hero archetype with a mean of .85. This mean is well above the other brand archetype combinations, which are all relatively close to one another. The next most agreed upon combination was New Balance and the Innocent archetype with a mean of .15, followed by Nike and the Innocent archetype with a me an of .08 and ending with New Balance and the Hero archetype with a mean of .02. Results indicated that it was significantly more agreed upon that Nike fit the Hero archetype than the other three brandarchetype combinations. The results supported the hyp othesis. Hypothesis 3: Respondents will be more likely to agree that archetype relevant traits (Rebel) pertain to the archetypal brand (Harley) than any other brandarchetype combination. The second repeated measures analysis of variance (Table 4 3) exami ned the product category of motorcycles containing Harley Davidson, representing the archetypal brand, and Honda, representing the non archetypal brand. The archetypal relevant adjectives pertain to the Rebel archetype and the non archetype relevant adjectives pertain to the Sage archetype. Table 4 3. Perceptions of Brand User in Motorcycle Category Perception of Brand User Mean Std. Deviation Sample Size 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Harley Archetype 1.35 .79 60 1.15 1.55 Honda Archetype .84 1.06 60 .57 1.12 Honda Non Archetype .72 1.01 60 .46 .98 Harley Non Archetype .74 .99 60 1.00 .49 Wilks Lambda = .25, F(3, 57) = 57.65, p < .05 Harley ArchetypeA Honda ArchetypeB Honda Non ArchetypeB Harley Non Archetype C The supersc ripts above show the overlap of the means of each of the brandarchetype combinations. The most agreed upon brandarchetype combination was between Harley
38 Davidson and the Rebel archetype with a mean of 1.35. This mean is well above the other brandarche type combinations. The means for archetype relevant traits and non archetype relevant traits for Honda are relatively close together, but the mean for the non archetypal traits (representing the Sage archetype) for Harley Davidson is well below the other combinations. This could be attributed to Harley Davidson being considered so representative of the Rebel archetype that it has a polarizing effect when compared with other archetypes. The next most agreed upon combination was Honda and the Rebel archetype with a mean of .84, followed by Honda and the Sage archetype with a mean of .72 and ending with Harley Davidson and the Sage archetype with a mean of .74. Results indicated that it was significantly more agreed upon that Harley Davidson fit the Rebel a rchetype than the other three brandarchetype combinations. The results supported the hypothesis. Hypothesis 4: Respondents will be more likely to agree that archetype relevant traits (Master) pertain to the archetypal brand (Tiffany) than any other brandarchetype combination. The third repeated measures analysis of variance (Table 4 4) examined the product category of jewelers containing Tiffany & Co., representing the archetypal brand, and Zales, representing the non archetypal brand. The archetypal re levant adjectives pertain to the Master archetype and the nonarchetype relevant adjectives pertain to the Jester archetype. The superscripts below show the overlap of the means of each of the brandarchetype combinations. The most agreed upon brandarc hetype combination was between Tiffany and the Master archetype with a mean of .95. This mean is well above the other brand archetype combinations, which are all relatively close to one another. The next most agreed upon combination was Zales and the Mas ter archetype with a mean of .01, followed by Zales and the Jester archetype with a mean of .07 and ending with Tiffany and the Jester archetype with a mean of .21. Results indicated that it was significantly more agreed upon that Tiffany fit the
39 Master archetype than the other three brandarchetype combinations. The results supported the hypothesis. Table 4 4. Perceptions of Brand User in Jewelers Product Category Perception of Brand User Mean Std. Deviation Sample Size 95% Confidence Interval Low er Bound Upper Bound Tiffany Archetype .95 1.08 60 .67 1.23 Zales Archetype .01 1.15 60 .29 .31 Zales Non Archetype .07 1.17 60 .37 .23 Tiffany Non Archetype .21 1.15 60 .51 .09 Wilks Lambda = .50, F(3, 57) = 19.41, p < .05 Tiffany ArchetypeA Za les ArchetypeB Zales Non ArchetypeB Tiffany Non ArchetypeB Hypothesis 5: Respondents will be more likely to agree that archetype relevant traits (Explorer) pertain to the archetypal brand (Jeep) than any other brandarchetype combination. The fourth repea ted measures analysis of variance (Table 4 5) examined the product category of sport utility vehicles containing Jeep, representing the archetypal brand, and Mazda, representing the non archetypal brand. The archetypal relevant adjectives pertain to the E xplorer archetype and the non archetype relevant adjectives pertain to the Lover archetype. The superscripts below show the overlap of the means of each of the brandarchetype combinations. The most agreed upon brandarchetype combination was between Jeep and the Explorer archetype with a mean of 1.35. This mean is well above the other brandarchetype combinations. The next most agreed upon combination was Mazda and the Explorer archetype with a mean of .63, followed by Mazda and the Lover archetype wi th a mean of .15 and ending with Jeep and the Jester archetype with a mean of .22. Results indicated that it was significantly more agreed upon that Jeep fit the Explorer archetype than the other three brandarchetype combinations. The results supported the hypothesis.
40 Table 4 5. Perceptions of Brand User in SUV Product Category Perception of Brand User Mean Std. Deviation Sample Size 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Jeep Archetype 1.35 .91 60 1.12 1.59 Mazda Archetype .63 1.13 60 .33 .92 Mazda Non Archetype .15 .94 60 .39 .10 Jeep Non Archetype .22 .86 60 .44 .01 Wilks Lambda = .29, F(3, 57) = 46.83, p < .05 Jeep ArchetypeA Mazda ArchetypeB Mazda Non ArchetypeC Jeep Non ArchetypeC Purchase Intentions of Various Archetype/N on Archetype Combinations Research Question: Is perception of the brand user of each of the products in this study related to how likely the respondent is to purchase the product? To address this question, linear regression was used. The first linear reg ression (Table 4 6) examined the archetypal brands, where two independent variables (means of archetype relevant traits and means of non archetype relevant traits) were measured against the dependent variable, which was the mean of the purchase intention s cales for the archetypal brands that ranged from Very Likely to Purchase to Not at all Likely to Purchase (3 = Very Likely to Purchase). Table 4 6. Purchase Intentions for Archetypal Brands Traits B Beta t Sig. Constant .10 .44 .66 Archetypal .44 .32 2.51 .02 Non Archetypal .11 .18 .07 .56 R = .32, R2 = .10, F(2, 57) = 3.20, p < .05 The second linear regression (Table 4 7) examined the non archetypal brands, where two independent variables (means of archetype relevant traits and means of non archetype relevant traits) were measured against the dependent variable, which was the mean of the purchase intention scales for the non archetypal brands that ranged from Very Likely to Purchase to Not at all Likely to Purchase (3 = Very Likely to Purchase).
41 Table 4 7. Purchase Intentions for Non Archetypal Brands Traits B Beta t Sig. Constant .19 1.32 .20 Archetypal .05 .04 .27 .80 Non Archetypal .09 .06 .41 .68 R = .06, R2 = .00, F(2, 57) = .09, p > .05 The only statistically significan t independent variable among both regressions was the mean of the archetype relevant traits (p = .02). It also had the highest absolute value Beta score (.32), which means it is the most important independent variable in predicting the dependent variable. The multiple correlation coefficient (R) is .32, meaning that there is a weak correlation between the actual y value and the predicted yvalue. The R square value for archetypal brands is .10, meaning that 10% of the dependent variables variance is expl ained by the regression line. So, respondents who were more likely to associate archetype relevant traits with archetypal brands were more likely to purchase that brand.
42 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSI ONS Summary of Results A one way repeated measures an alysis of variance was performed to find the respondents attitudes and perceptions toward users of products that engage in archetypal branding. On the most general level, all of the archetypal brands (Nike, Harley Davidson, Tiffany & Co. and Jeep) were c ompared against all of the non archetypal brands (New Balance, Honda, Zales and Mazda). When the results of this initial ANOVA showed that respondents did agree at a significantly higher level that archetype relevant traits represent archetypal brands tha n any of the other brand archetype relationships, ANOVAs were conducted on a more specific level among product categories. For each of the product categories, the hypothesis could be supported on two levels. Most importantly, was it significantly more a greed upon than all other brandarchetype relationships that the archetypal brand fit the archetype? For each of the product categories athletic sneakers, motorcycles, SUVs, and jewelers it was significantly more agreed upon that the brand that was int ended to be representative of the archetype for that category was, in fact, representative of that archetype. It was significantly more agreed upon that: Nike represented the Hero archetype, Harley Davidson represented the Rebel archetype, Jeep represented the Explorer archetype and Tiffany & Co. represented the Master archetype. Additionally, when respondents were presented with the archetypal advertisement, do they agree that the traits pertaining to the archetype are representative and when they are pr esented with the non archetypal advertisement, do they agree that the adjectives pertaining to the archetype are not representative? Also, when presented with either advertisement, do respondents agree that the adjectives pertaining to the non archetype a re not representative? In short, it should not be significantly more or less agreed upon that these relationships are fits.
43 This aspect was supported fully in athletic sneakers and jewelers, but not in SUVs and motorcycles. Hypothesis One H1: Respondent s will be more likely to agree that archetype relevant traits pertain to archetypal brands than any other brandarchetype combination. In order to find the best general archetype/non archetype fit, a repeated measures analysis of variance was performed. It was significantly more agreed upon that archetype relevant traits fit the archetypal brands than the other relationships (non archetype relevant traits and archetypal brands, archetype relevant traits and non archetypal brands, and non archetype relevant traits and non archetypal brands). Because the results supported the hypothesis, further examination of the specific brands took place in order to assess whether this pattern continued throughout the various product categories. Hypothesis Two H2: Respo ndents will be more likely to agree that archetype relevant traits (Hero traits) pertain to the archetypal brand (Nike) than any other brand archetype combination. In order to find the best brandarchetype fit, a repeated measures analysis of variance was performed. Nike met the criteria of the hypothesis on the first level it was significantly more agreed upon that Nike fit the Hero archetype than the other brandarchetype relationships. Furthermore, the other relationships New Balance and the Innoc ent, Nike and the Innocent, and New Balance and the Hero were not significantly more or less agreed upon than each other (based on their mean scores). This supports the hypothesis on both levels. First, the Nike Hero fit is significantly higher. Secon d, the New BalanceInnocent fit, the Nike Innocent fit, and the New BalanceHero fit were not significantly higher or lower than each other.
44 Hypothesis Three H3: Respondents will be more likely to agree that archetype relevant traits (Rebel) pertain to the archetypal brand (Harley) than any other brand archetype combination. In order to find the best brandarchetype fit, a repeated measures analysis of variance was performed. Harley Davidson met the criteria of the hypothesis on the first level it was significantly more agreed upon that Harley Davidson fit the Rebel archetype than the other brandarchetype relationships. However, on the second level, the hypothesis was not met because the other product archetype relationships were significantly higher and lower than one another (based on their mean scores). There was no significant difference between the Honda Rebel fit and the Honda Sage fit, which supports the hypothesis, but the HarleySage fit was significantly lower than all of the other relation ships. This is not necessarily a great challenge to the hypothesis, as it is very possible that Harley Davidson is seen as so rebellious that it creates a polarizing effect. Hypothesis Four H4: Respondents will be more likely to agree that arche type relevant traits (Master) pertain to the archetypal brand (Tiffany) than any other brandarchetype combination. In order to find the best brandarchetype fit, a repeated measures analysis of variance was performed. It was significantly more agreed upon that Tiffany fit the Master archetype than the other brandarchetype relationships. Furthermore, the other relationships Tiffany and Jester, Zales and the Master and Zales and the Jester were not significantly more or less agreed upon than each oth er (based on their mean scores). This supports the hypothesis on both levels. First, the Tiffany Master fit is significantly higher. Second, the Tiffany Jester fit, the ZalesMaster fit, and the Zales Jester fit were not significantly higher or lower th an each other.
45 Hypothesis Five H5: Respondents will be more likely to agree that archetype relevant traits (Explorer) pertain to the archetypal brand (Jeep) than any other brandarchetype combination. In order to find the best brandarchetype fit, a rep eated measures analysis of variance was performed. Jeep met the criteria of the hypothesis on the first level it was significantly more agreed upon that Jeep fit the Explorer archetype than the other brandarchetype relationships. However, on the second level, the hypothesis was not met because the other brand archetype relationships were significantly higher and lower than one another (based on their mean scores). There was no significant difference between the Mazda Lover fit and the Jeep Lover fit, which supports the hypothesis, but the Mazda Explorer fit was significantly higher than both the Mazda Lover fit and the Jeep Lover fit. This is not necessarily a great challenge to the hypothesis, as the Jeep Explorer fit was still significantly higher than the Mazda Explorer fit, but it should be noted that Mazda users may be perceived as slightly more exploratory than originally thought. In fact, there may be an attempt on the part of Mazda to compete with Jeep in this arena. Research Question Q2: Is perception of the brand user of each of the products in this study related to how likely the respondent is to purchase the product? Two separate linear regressions one for the archetypal brands and one for the non archetypal brands were per formed in order to address this question. For the archetypal brands, the mean of their relevant purchase intention scales was taken and used as the dependent variable and the independent variables were the means of the archetype relevant traits and the no n archetype relevant traits. The results indicated that respondents that endorsed archetype relevant traits for archetypal brands more highly were more likely to purchase those brands. That is,
46 respondents that endorsed the Nike Hero, Harley DavidsonReb el, Tiffany & Co.Master and Jeep Explorer fits were more likely to purchase those brands. Furthermore, this was the only significant relationship (p = .02) and it also had the highest absolute value Beta score (.32), meaning it was the most important in dependent variable in predicting the dependent variable. None of the other relationships (non archetype relevant traits and archetypal brands, archetype relevant traits and non archetypal brands and non archetype relevant traits and archetypal brands) were significant, further suggesting that archetypal branding is an effective tool in a marketing plan as it seems to contribute to purchase intention. Conclusion In conclusion, as all five hypotheses associated with Q1 were supported, it appears that brand archetypes identified in prior literature were upheld. That is, users of the products branded using archetypes are seen as having those same characteristics that were identified by Michael Cowen. In addition to the study indicating that brand arch etype congruency does exist, research involving Q2 concerning purchase intentions on the part of respondents indicated that using archetypal branding might also be related to purchase of those brands. As this study is seemingly one of, if not, the first e mpirical take on archetypal branding (previous literature is mainly based in the realm of psychology and qualitative research as opposed to quantitative), many questions are left to researched and answered. However, because this study indicates that prope r use of archetypal branding could directly lead to purchase of products that utilize this manner of branding, further research would be beneficial for the marketing and advertising industries.
47 Implications for Marketers The major implication for marke ters lies with how to actually brand a product or overall brand using archetypes. Actually incorporating the archetype into branding efforts is not as complex as deciding which archetype is the best fit for a brand. Based on the advertising used by the brands in this study, once an archetype has been chosen, incorporating the relevant traits into branding efforts is not a task that is out of the ordinary in the advertising industry. The process could be as simple as Harley Davidson Corporate telling thei r creative staff to make sure a campaign reflects the Rebel archetypal traits of unconventional, independent, individualistic, etc. But again, how an archetype is chosen is the more complicated issue for marketers. How does it work? Consider a household cleaning product. You might start by discussing whether your brand is a hero fighting against dirt and germs, an innocent promising a return to the natural simplicity of Eden, or a caregiver nurturing and protecting your family. (HowardSpink, 2002, p. 3) The simplest answer to the question of how to choose an archetype to use in branding is to flesh out your brands personality, as Jon HowardSpink does above with the household cleaner. Before any type of marketing is done, the personality of the brand or product is decided upon in order to keep campaign efforts uniform so they can be most effective. Once an initial personality is developed, an archetype can be chosen that best exemplifies the traits of that personality. The key to successful archetypa l branding is to throw the brand whole heartedly into representing the archetype that has been chosen although the value of a brand is an intangible asset, when consumers have a clear notion of what a brand stands for and they have an emotional connection to that brand, it becomes invaluable. As demonstrated by the household cleaner example, archetypes can be used across product categories. The question arises of whether certain archetypes are better in certain product categories. For example, in the jewelers category in this study, the Master archetype has
48 traits of being powerful, aristocratic and influential. It might be safe to say that most highclass jewelers (such as Tiffany & Co.) wish to be perceived in this manner, but could other archetypes be used in branding within this product category that could be just as effective? Among each archetype, subtle differences can be found and used to differentiate one brand from another, but further research should be done concerning what happens when two bands within the same category attempt to use the same archetype in their branding efforts, as this was not addressed in this study. Marketers must also take into consideration the polarizing effect that was exemplified by Harley Davidson in this study. In this case, Harley Davidson was seen as so rebellious that it possessed no semblance of traits from the Sage archetype. Although respondents that made the Harley DavidsonRebel connection were more likely to purchase the brand, the question arises of whether certain consumers who may be in the target market are turned off from purchasing the brand because it is so polarized. Marketers must take into consideration whether an archetype can be taken so far that it deters certain consumers from purchase, but this is seemingly a risk taken with any branding efforts or advertising campaign. Limitations Although many of the findings in this study were significant, there were some limitations. Because of budget and time restraints, a convenience sampling of students was used instead of a true random sample. Because the results cannot be generalized to a larger population, validity of the study may be questioned. The convenience sampling of students was taken from one course within the same university again because of time and budget constraints, so the age range was relatively small, which is an additional limitation since this could have severely impacted various areas of the study, especially purchase intention scales. Another limitation was leavi ng out questions regarding brand familiarity. By not gauging how familiar the respondents were with
49 the brand, some of the data may have been skewed. However, nonresponse error was not a limitation of the study, as all of the Likertscaled questions wer e answered by every one of the respondents. The advertisements were also a limitation as they were not completely uniform and may have introduced some bias. Although great attempts were made to make sure advertisements within a product category were unif orm, there were some differences. Future Research Future research should further examine quantitatively studying brand archetyping. Much of the research to date has been qualitative and it was difficult to discern what exactly made a brand representativ e of a particular archetype. Perhaps certain behaviors of consumers of products said to be representative of certain archetypes should be identified so as to have something to measure the archetype with. For example, if a characteristic of being adventur ous is traveling to a certain number of foreign countries or participating in a certain amount of extreme sports, then it would be interesting and more reliable to measure Jeep consumers who engage in these activities against the Explorer archetype charact eristic of being adventurous. However, it is important to note that there may be some incongruence between physical behavior and perception of users. For example, the Rebel archetype has connotations of dangerous or even criminal behavior (especially whe n applied to Harley Davidson) and most Harley Davidson consumers are probably not criminals, but rebellious behaviors such as riding your Harley to the office while wearing your business suit could be just as measurable. Future research should also incl ude more indepth analysis of purchase intention. Further examination involving other factors such as price, value perception, etc. should be taken into account to see how much influence the archetypal branding has on purchase intention. Research should also include how archetypal branding adds value to the product. Is the consumer purchasing the product because they wish to be seen as someone possessing the characteristics of
50 the archetype used in branding that product or is it adding value in a differe nt manner? Finally, this study examined perceptions of brand users because actual consumers were not available. So, rather than using a convenience sample, either a true random sample should be used or actual consumers of the products in question should be used during research.
51 APPENDIX INFORMED CONSENT AND QUESTIONNAIRE Informed Consent Protocol Title: Archetype and Brand Congruency in Advertising Please read this document carefully before you decide to participate in this study. Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this study is to compare whether the intended response from using archetypal branding matches the actual response from study participants. What you will be asked to do in the study: You will be asked to complete a questionnair e online via surveymonkey.com. During the questionnaire, you will be asked to look at print advertisements for various brands and rate how you view the typical user of those brands. Time Required: Approximately 20-30 minutes. Risks and Benefits: There are no risks or benefits associated with taking part in this study. Compensation: Compensation will be provided in the form of extra credit. The amount of extra credit is at the discretion of your instructor but will not exceed 3% of your overall grade. Confidentiality: Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. The study will be completely anonymous. Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participat ing. You do not have to answer any question you do not wish to answer. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at any time without consequence. Whom to contact if you have any questions about the study: Taylor Ulma n, Graduate Student, College of Journalism and Communications, email@example.com Michael Weigold, PhD, College of Journalism and Communications, firstname.lastname@example.org Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 -2250; ph 3920443 Agreement: I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description. Participant: ____________________UFID: ____________ Date: ___________________ Principal Investigator: _____________________________ Date: ___________________
52 Introduction: During the course of this questionnaire you will be asked to examine print advertisements and then rate on s everal scales your impression of the users of the products represented in those advertisements. There are no right or wrong answers just be completely honest about your opinions and impressions of users. Following these questions will be scales measuri ng your likelihood of purchasing the products in the advertisements. Finally, there will be some basic demographic questions that will be used for statistical purposes only. Your identity will remain completely confidential. If you are an ADV3008 student, you must include your UFID number when asked so your professor can give you extra credit. Thank you for your time and participation.
53 After examining the print advertisement above, please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each statement as it applies to the typical Harley Davidson Motorcycle user. Choose only one response for each scale. The typical Harley Davidson Motorcycle user is: Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strong ly Agree Rebellious Academic Contemplative Unconventional Self Reflective Scholarly Free Independent Innovative Knowledg able
54 After examining the print advertisement above, please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each statement as it applies to the typical Honda Motorcycle user. Choose only one response for each scale. The typical Honda Motor cycle user is: Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree Rebellious Academic Contemplative Unconventional Self Reflective Scholarly Free Independent Innovative Knowledgable
55 After examining the print advertisement above, please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each statement as it applies to the typical Tiffany & Co. Jewelry user. Choose only one response for each scale. The typical Tiffany & Co. Jewelry user is: Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree Quic k witted Aristocratic Influential Funny Authoritative Entertaining Powerful Amusing In Control Clever
56 After examining the print advertisement above, please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each statement as it applies to the typical Zales Jewelry user. Choose only one response for each scale. The typical Zales Jewelry user is: Strongly Disa gree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree Quick witted Aristocratic Influential Funny Authoritative Entertaining Powerful Amusing In Control Clever
57 After examining the print advertisement above, please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each statement as it applies to the typical Mazda SUV us er. Choose only one response for each scale. The typical Mazda SUV user is: Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree Individualistic Sensual Open to Exper iencing New Things Friendly Rugged Investigative Physically Attractive Loving Exploratory Affectionate
58 After examining the print advertisement above, please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each statement as it applies to the typical Jeep SUV user. Choose only one response for each scale. The typical Jeep SUV user is: Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neit her Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree Individualistic Sensual Open to Experiencing New Things Friendly Rugged Investigative Physically Attractiv e Loving Exploratory Affectionate
59 After examining the print advertisement above, please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each statement as it applies to the typical New Balance Sne aker user. Choose only one response for each scale. The typical New Balance Sneaker user is: Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree Courageous Wholesome A Winner Simple Superhuman Honest Nave Heroic Moral Worthy
60 After examining the print advertisement above, please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each statement as it applies to the typical Nike Sneaker user. Choose only one response for each scale. The typical Nike Sneaker user is: Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree Courageous Wholesome A Winner Simple Superhuman Honest Nave Heroic Moral Worthy
61 On the following scales, please indicate how likely you would be to purchase each product. Very Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat Unlikely Neither Likely Nor Unlikely Somewhat Likely Likely Very Likely Harley Motorcycle Honda Motorcycle Nike Sneaker New Balance Sneaker Jeep SUV Mazda SUV Tiffany Jewelry Zales Jewelry The following questions are for statistical purposes only. Your identity will remain completely confidential. What is your gender? Male Female Please indicate your ethnicity. Asian or Pacific Islander Black, not Hispanic Hispanic, of any race White, not Hispanic Other What is your age? _____________________ What is your year of study? Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate Student Other What is your UF ID number (for extra credit purposes only)? _____________________
62 LIST OF REFERENCES Aaker, J.L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Jo urnal of Marketing Research, 34, 347357. Retrieved May 15, 2009 from Academic Search Premier database. Austin, J., Siguaw, J., & Mattila (2003). An assessment of the Aaker brand personality framework: Method, measurement and conceptual issues. Journal of Strategic Marketing. 11(2), 7792. Retreived May 15, 2009 from Academic Search Premier database. Aronson, E.A., & Worchel, P. (1966). Similarity versus liking as determinants of interpersonal attraction. Psychonomic Science, 5 (4), 157158. Aziz, R. (1990). C.G. Jungs Psychology of Religion and Synchronicity. New York: State University of New York Press. Babbie, E. (2007). The Practice of Social Research. Belmont, California: Thomson Wadsworth. Brown, S. (1995). Postmodern Marketing, London: Routledge. Campbell, J. (1988). The Power of Myth New York, New York: Doubleday. Cowen, M. (2007). Archetypal Branding. South Africa: e book, Context Branding. Davis, Joel J. (1997), Advertising Research: Theory and Practice. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Edmunds, H. (1999). The Focus Group Research Handbook Chicago: NTC Business Booke in conjunction with the American Marketing Association. Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley. Goodman, J., Duke, L., & Sutherland, J. (2002, Summer). Olympic athletes and heroism in advertising: gendered concepts of valor?. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 79(2), 374393. Retrieved November 7, 2007, from Academic Search Premier database. Hirschman, E. (1989). Consumer Behavior Theories as Heroic Quest. Advances in Consumer Research, 16 (1), 639646. Retrieved November 17, 2007, from Business Source Premier database. Hogg, M.K., Cox, A.J., & Kee ling, K. (2000). The impact of self monitoring on image congruence and product/brand evaluation. European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 Nos 5/6, pp. 64166. Jung, C.G. (1938). The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. Princeton, New Jersey: Boll ingen.
63 Kahle, L.R. & Homer, P.M. (1985). Physical attractiveness of celebrity endorser: A social adaptation perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 954961. Retrieved May 15, 2009 from Business Source Premier database. Kamins, M.A. (1989). Celebrity and noncelebrity advertising in a two sided context. Journal of Advertising Research, 29 (3), 3442. Kamins, M.A. (1990). An investigation into the matchuphypothesis celebrity advertising: When beauty be only skin deep. Journal of Advertising, 19( 1), 4 13. Kelman, H.C. (1961). Processes of opinions change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25, 5778. Kozinets, R. (2001, June). Utopian Enterprise: Articulating the Meanings of Star Treks Culture of Consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 67. R etrieved November 17, 2007, from Business Source Premier database. Lutz, R.J. (1975). Changing brand attitudes through modification of cognitive structure. Journal of Consumer Research, 1, 4959. Retrieved May 15, 2009. Mark, M. & Pearson, C. (2001). The Hero and the Outlaw: Building Extraordinary Brands through the Power of Archetypes. New York, New York: McGrawHill. Maso Fleischman, R. (1997, September). Archetype Research for Advertising: A Spanishlanguage Example. Journal of Advertising Resea rch 37(5), 8184. Retrieved November 7, 2007, from Business Source Premier database. Matthews, R. (2002). Competition archetypes and creative imagination. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(5), 461 476. Retrieved November 7, 2007, from AB I/INFORM Global Database. (Document ID: 250936541). Mooy, S.C. and Robben, H.S. (2002). Managing consumers product evaluations through direct product experience. Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 11 Nos 6/7, pp. 43246. Patterson, N. (2004, October 29). Which archetype could your brand be?. B&T Weekly 54(2495), 66. Retrieved November 8, 2007, from Business Source Premier database. Randazzo, S. (1993, November 8). Advertising as mythmaker; brands as gods and heroes Advertising Age 64(47) 32 32. Retrieved November 8, 2007, from Academic Search Premier database. Randazzo, S. (1995) The Mythmakers, Chicago: Probus.
64 Randazzo, S. (2006, March). Subaru: The Emotional Myths Behind the Brand's Growth. Journal of Advertising Research 46(1), 1117. Retrieved November 8, 2007, from Business Source Premier database. Stryker, S. & Burke, P.J. (2000). The past, present and future of identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 284297. Retrieved May 15, 2009. Thompson, J.B. (1990). Ideology and Modern Culture, Cambridge, MA: Polity. Thompson, J.B. (1995). The Media and Modernity: A Social Theory of the Media. Cambridge, MA: Polity. Tsai, S. (2006, June). Investigating archetype icon transformation in brand marketing. Marketing Intelligen ce & Planning, 24, 6. p.648663. Retrieved November 8, 2007, from General OneFile via Gale: http://find.galegroup.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/ips/start.do?prodId=IPS Veen, S. (1994a). The Consumption of Heroes and the Hero Hierarchy of Effects. Advances in Cons umer Research, 21(1), 332336. Retrieved November 7, 2007, from Business Source Premier database. Veen, S. (1994b). The Heroes of Consumption and the Consumption of Heroes. Advances in Consumer Research, 21 (1), 331331. Retrieved November 17, 2007, from Business Source Premier database. Voase, R. (2002). Rediscovering the imagination: investigating the active and passive visitor in the 21st century. International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 4, pp. 3919.
65 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH After gradua ting from West Orange High School (Winter Garden, FL) in May of 2003 (with honors), Taylor Ulman was accepted into University of Florida. She obtained her Bachelor of Science in Advertising in May of 2007 and immediately entered the Master of Advertising program. While living in Gainesville, she worked in a local law firm, Turner & Hodge, LLP for over 5 years to pay for school. She expects to complete her masters degree in 2009, whereupon she will begin a yearlong Americorps position with the Department of Homeland Security. After she completes her year of service, she hopes to gain a communications position in a non profit organization.