The 12 Archetypes According to Jung: What They Can and Can’t Do

This article was originally published on the Sortlist blog.

There are a few evergreen tropes in the world of marketing that come back year after year, often presented as colorful charts, popping up like a seasonal bouquet of wildflowers.

The reigning champ of these is undoubtedly the «12 archetypes of marketing». So let’s get into what they stand for, where they come from, and why they are problematic. And lastly, because they’re (admittedly) not all bad—some suggestions on how to use the model in a conscious and measured way.

Key Takeaways

1. Misconception of Origin: The widely-used 12 archetypes in marketing were not developed by Jung; that’s just a myth invented by marketers who couldn’t help but market. Jung’s original work only had four archetypes.
2. Critique of Archetypes in Marketing: Archetypes’ attribution to successful brands may be arbitrary, retrospective, and not reflective of the brands’ original intentions, resembling the fallibility of horoscopes.
3. Comparison to Astrology: The article draws parallels between the 12 archetypes and astrology, highlighting their vagueness, flexibility, and popularity in making the complex world more understandable.
4. Limited Usefulness: Despite criticisms, the article acknowledges potential uses for archetypes, such as challenging a brand’s self-image and providing inspiration, but warns against relying solely on them for brand work.
5. Caution in Application: While archetypes may have some utility, the article stresses that using them alone can be problematic. They do not replace the need for careful listening, asking the right questions, and understanding a brand’s unique voice and style.
6. Plausible Use Cases: Archetypes can be valuable in challenging existing brand self-images, breaking through industry stereotypes, and providing inspiration when used cautiously.
7. Acknowledgment of Imperfection: Closing with the acknowledgment that archetypes, like any model, have faults, the article quotes George Box, stating, «All models are wrong, but some are useful,» implying imperfect utility. 

12 archetypes of marketing:

• The Rebel: Rebellious, disruptive, combative.
• The Magician: Visionary, idealistic, magical.
• The Hero: Courageous, sincere, upright.
• The Lover: Passionate, sensual, soothing.
• The Jester: Playful, teasing, optimistic.
• The Everyman: Modest, friendly, authentic.
• The Caregiver: Caring, selfless, compassionate.
• The Ruler: Dominant, sophisticated, self-confident.
• The Creator: Inspiring, provocative, creative.
• The Innocent: Honest, unpretentious, humble.
• The Sage: Knowledgeable, guiding, empowering.
• The Explorer: Fearless, adventurous, independent. 

What archetypes are there?

Legend has it that the «12 archetypes» were developed (not to say discovered) by the Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Carl Gustav Jung. They are said to describe twelve character archetypes that we humans unconsciously associate with the same emotions and behaviors.

To put it more simply: the archetype is a role model that structures our history and has informed our cultural knowledge accordingly. Since fairy tales follow their model, children can understand the archetypes even if they couldn’t name them.

The list of the 12 archetypes generally looks like this:

The Rebel

The Rebel in three words:

• Rebellious
• Disruptive
• Combative

Be different! That is the rebel's motto. Their mission is to stir things up and go against established norms and conventions. It is not uncommon for someone to get offended in the process.

The Magician

The Magician in three words:

• Visionary
• Idealistic
• Magical

The Magician wants to transform and loves change. A changeable visionary and idealist.

The Hero

The Hero in 3 words:

• Courageous
• Sincere
• Upright

The Hero strives for power and honor. Combative in nature and bursting with resilience.

The Lover

The Lover in 3 words:

• Passionate
• Sensual
• Soothing

The Lover is a passionate enthusiast, a true romantic. Sensual and seductive, but also sensitive and emotional.

The Jester

The Jester in three words:

• Playful
• Teasing
• Optimistic

The Jester is all about one thing: having fun! Knows how to entertain and has a keen sense of humor—can be perceived as a bit childish.

The Everyman

The Everyman in three words:

• Modest
• Friendly
• Authentic

The Everyman is reserved and modest. Socially compatible and gets along well with everyone. However, their need for harmony can lead them to prioritize others' needs over their.

The Caregiver

The Caregiver in three words:

• Caring
• Selfless
• Compassionate

The Caregiver has a motherly nature. Selfless, self-sacrificing, and cares more about others than themself. Wants to protect others and provide security.

The Ruler

The Ruler in three words:

• Dominant
• Sophisticated
• Self-confident

The Ruler sees themselves as a classic leader. Sets the tone and shows the path to be followed.

The Creator

The Creator in three words:

• Inspiring
• Provocative
• Creative

The Creator focuses primarily on innovation. Their ideas are sometimes very daring and they are prepared to take risks. This often pays off, but sometimes it also causes them to stumble.

The Innocent

The Innocent in three words:

• Honest
• Unpretentious
• Humble

The Innocent sees the good in everything. Sincere and optimistic, but perhaps a little naive at times.

The Sage

The Sage in three words:

• Knowledgeable
• Guiding
• Empowering

The Sage is inquisitive and intelligent. Likes to share knowledge with others, but also strives to constantly learn new things.

The Explorer

The Explorer in three words:

• Fearless
• Adventurous
• Independent

The Explorer is very adventurous. They enjoy traveling and are always open to new things.

What are archetypes?

In contrast to stereotypes, which work from the outside in—so that the viewer's attributions create an image—the archetype works from the inside out: as an irrefutable constant of human storytelling. At least that's the story.

The supposed trick is to locate the personality of your own brand within an archetype. This would help to determine the tonality and attitude for your own brand communication.

And to make sure you don't get anything wrong, the same old examples are repeated for each archetype. Apple is the Creator, Chanel is the Lover, Nike is the Hero, Harley Davidson is the Rebel, Disney is the Magician, The North Face is the Explorer, and so on.

These examples suggest the relevance and validity of the twelve archetypes. Look, they say, even the biggest brands in the world fit in wonderfully! All you have to do is do the same—and your brand marketing is done.

And what is the problem?

The fallacy of the archetype can be wonderfully described using the brands that are repeatedly referenced. It starts with the fact that none of these brands ever thought about their archetype before establishing their brand. All of this archetype attribution takes place retrospectively. 

The archetypes that they’re assigned are inevitably snapshots that cannot take into account the way brand personalities develop. Apple, for example, was originally more of a rebel than a creator—but could also easily be described as an explorer or magician.

The problems for the 12 Archetypes arise at the origin of the model itself. The twelve archetypes are based neither on research nor on any reality. They are a myth, invented by marketers and passed on until they have become an unquestioned standard.

Used unsuspectingly, the superimposed archetype hinders constructive brand work and replaces it with semi-esoteric verbiage. But let's start from the beginning.

The founding legend of the twelve archetypes is, with respect, humbug. Carl Gustav Jung is undoubtedly a great poster boy: after all, he was a colleague of none other than Sigmund Freud and popularized psychoanalysis in the United States.

And indeed, he writes about «archetypes as primordial images», which he pinpoints somewhere between the intersection of mythology and dream interpretation. (Carl Gustav Jung, Man and his Symbols. Patmos Verlag 2012)

However, these are by no means the twelve characters from the world of marketing. Jung only describes four archetypes, namely ‹Anima/Animus›, ‹the Self›, ‹the Shadow› and ‹the Persona›.

Good luck finding your brand in those!

We don't know who reshaped these four horsemen of the apocalypse into the twelve ad-friendly clichés we know today. The fact that it has become a dozen, of all things, is significant. Because the only ‹branch of research› that the twelve archetypes are reminiscent of is astrology, with its twelve zodiac signs.

The horoscope of marketing

We all know our star sign; many people even know their ascendant. Even for the skeptics and agnostics, their own horoscope has an almost irresistible appeal. As the science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke is said to have said so beautifully:

«I don't believe in astrology. Sagittarians like me are skeptical in nature.»

Astrology—i.e. the identification and reading of worldly characteristics based on the orbit of the sun through the «signs of the zodiac»—seems to be the natural model for the twelve archetypes in many respects: Beginning with the perfect number of the dozen, which we also encounter in the apostles or King Arthur's Round Table.

From the vagueness and elasticity of the attributions (several equivalents can be found for almost every characteristic). All the way to the precisely calculated possible combinations: be it which zodiac signs supposedly go together or how a company should recruit based on its archetype.

What has made horoscopes successful for centuries is the way they create meaning, and make the complicated world comprehensible to us. To be fair, very few truly believe every single word that the astrologers deliver to their inboxes or apps every morning.

For most people, their horoscope is more of a meditation, motivation, or simply entertainment—not taken any more literally than the reading of fortune cookies.

And so, enough of the party-pooping. Yes, the twelve archetypes are an unscientific, popular invention, reminiscent of horoscopes. Nevertheless, they have endured over the decades. Yes, as a model, they are vague and simplistic—but as the saying goes:

«All models are wrong, but some are useful.»

This beautiful aphorism goes back to the statistician George Box, who first used it in a paper published in 1976.

So can the twelve archetypes also be useful? Can we find a suitable use case for them?

The missing instruction manual

A plausible use of the model might be to question a brand's existing self-image. After all, these often have more to do with the industry than with the brand itself.

A company in the medical sector will quickly see itself as a «Caregiver» or «Sage»; a start-up will readily identify as a «Rebel» or «Explorer». Ironically, the archetypes can help to recognize and break through these self-images to allow for new perspectives and narratives. 

Another constructive use of the twelve archetypes lies in providing an overview and inspiration. Despite its flaws, the model offers a quick view of many types of self-description and tones of voice. One could imagine how the juice brand innocent, inspired by this, decided to build its entire brand around the «Innocent» archetype—with considerable success.

Even then, innocent would at best be the exception that proves the rule. When simple models like the twelve archetypes (or the Limbic Map) have to bear the entire weight of brand work, it becomes problematic. Anyone wanting to help a company find its own voice and own style must first listen and ask the right questions. A superimposed archetype does not replace this work—it makes it more difficult.