Thanks to an earlier post by Seth Godin, John Winsor points us to Archetypes today. (It's about time someone in the Marketing world caught on to the secret lens into human behavior that is Jungian psychology.)

Here's some of what Seth had to say on the subject:

"All the marketing theory, insight and blather that I've read fails to explain some obvious phenonema. For example, why do some products seem to market themselves while others struggle? Why are some consumer behaviors so ingrained, while others disappear almost overnight?

So I think it's time to talk about Karl Jung.

Here's what the wikipedia says about Jung's theory of archetypes:
...the collective unconscious is composed of archetypes. In contrast to the objective material world, the subjective realm of archetypes can not be adequately understood through quantitative modes of research. Instead it can only begin to be revealed through an examination of the symbolic communications of the human psyche—in art, dreams, religion, myth, and the themes of human relational/behavioral patterns. Devoting his life to the task of exploring and understanding the collective unconscious, Jung discovered that certain symbolic themes exist across all cultures, all epochs, and in every individual.

Folks, if you really want to get a competitive edge on your fellow marketers, do yourselves a favor and get your hands on "He," by Robert Johnson. Johnson uses the archetypes found in the myth of the Holy Grail to completely crack open male psychology. The insights in this book weren't meant to be specific to Marketing, but guess what? The book is genius. Give it a shot.

Also check out Grant McCracken's "G. C. Rapaille and his Dartboard", where the subject of archetypes comes up again, only from a completely different angle (instead of using them to define, understand and predict consumer behavior, archetypes are used by Rapaille as surrogates for brands and products). Unforunately, Rapaille kind of comes across as... well, less than the sum of his professional parts. (Read the post to find out what I mean.) My favorite part though, is this clever little bit of blog prose:

"There is no code. There is just good marketing. Listen carefully. Identify the cultural meanings,the market conditions, and the economic constraints and inducements in place. Spot the opportunity. Sell the opportunity back in to the corporation. No theater. No fancy language. No professional Frenchman charisma. No glittering phrases. Just very clear insights that can be put into practice straight away."

(Grant, can I get a pass for the whole Frenchman charisma thing? Mine may be a bit more subtle than the good Doctor's.) ;D

One of the topics also covered by Grant in his post is Market Research, and he has this to say about it:

"Good market research, especially these days is bound by 3 rules that seem specially germane in a case like this one.

1) Research has to be bespoke. It has to come from the interviews in a particular way. It has to speak to the problem in a particular way. It has to be custom made. No Jungian dart boards. No prefab archetypes.

2) Good research should not be parading around in grand declamations and charismatic presentation. We are not branding an idea. We are reporting our findings. Good research is thoughtful, grounded, nuanced, and precise. It is after all social science, of a kind, and not theatre, of any kind.

3) It's not about us. The Fast Company records Rapaille's eagerness to claim the success of the PT Cruiser has his own. "I discover the code, and--bingo!--the car sells like crazy." The article also notes the unhappiness of Chrysler employees when they hear of this. Good research delivers new insight but this insight will come from the corporation as much as it does the researcher. The research is working collaboratively with the consumer and the client."

Yep. See, the whole thing about understanding archetypes is that it gives you the kind of insight into human behavior that borders on superpowers. (And as we all know, with great power comes great responsibility.) Jungian dartboards are never a good idea, and using archetypes to interpret market research should absolutely never, ever be attempted by anyone... under any circumstances. (Insight is not a quantitative tool.)

Also read what John Winsor has to say about G.C. Rapaille's work here.

Speaking of Market research, Bruce Fryer also has some pretty insightful things to share in his latest post:

"There are two types of market research. The first is environmental scanning. This is an ongoing process as part of the marketing conversation. Feedback is always important to make sure you are aware of what is going on.

The second type is used to validate your hypothesis before building a new product. This involves secondary research (what has been written) and primary research (talking to people). When I was teaching graduate students, the question was "How much is enough?' Which is important to know."

Read the rest here. Good stuff.

Today's other great reads:

Branding: Mary Schmidt's "Ouch! Branding Hurts."

Marketing to Women: Micele Miller's "Holly Buchanan on Dodge."

Product Placement 2.0: Nick Peterson's "Beyond Product Placement."

Marketing Zen: The BrandBuilder's "Confidence - Part II."

New Tools: Chris Carfi's "MySpace For The Office" and Toby Bloomberg's "AiMA April Event - New Media Trends".

Have a great Thursday, everyone. :)