I was disappointed by the lack of rigorous thinking in this book.
Sure, different companies have different personalities and personality is part of the brand. We could even create our own set of Jungian archetypical brand personalities, and go about attaching them to different brands.
But now for a test. Is Coca Cola a Creator -- helping inspire its users to do great bubbly things? Is it a Caregiver -- showing care for others? Maybe it's a Ruler -- a tough competitor and long the top dog in Cola Wars? How about a Jester -- always at the center of a good time? Or just it's just the drink for Regular Guys and Gals? Look at the ads -- maybe its a Lover or at least a drink for Lovers sharing a soda with two straws? Or, how about an almost Heroic presence, again from ads? Sometimes, it has a sort of Outlaw feel (with folks like Mean Joe Greene playing Robin Hood handing a Coke to a kid). In the old days Coca Cola ads praised it both for giving energy and a calming effect -- though there's no archetype for either of those. So, maybe it is more a Magician -- think of some of those magical ads past and animated present and its ability to give both energy and calm the soul. Given Coca Cola's global ubiquity and appeal, it might well be the drink of Explorers. It might even be (given the caffeine) the energy drink for yuppie Sages? Well, it turns out (according to the authors), that Coke is clearly so successful because it's an "Innocent." The toughest competitor in the Cola Wars, a mixture of caffeine, water, and sugar, almost wizened from a century of success -- yeah, it's clearly an Innocent and that explains everything.
My point is that the book lacks any sense of rigor, proof, or science-like basis in fact. The authors do a clever job of retrofitting achetypes to brands, and several of the cases are interesting, but the whole thing appears to work better in hindsight than proven principles for brand success. One could equally well, in this reviewers opinion, talk about aligning your brand with top-rated TV shows, Tarot cards, signs of the Zodiac, or (with at least a tiny bit of science) Myers-Briggs personality types --- "proving" the case with stories about how GE, Toyota, Google, etc. etc. all fit some stellar or personality pattern.
The kernel of truth in the book is that people like their brands, products, and companies to have a predicatable, attractive, and aspirational subtext. Creating an enduring and attractive personality makes sense, at least as long as the personality remains relevant.
Speaking of personalities, what's the Jungian archetype for the Maytag repair man? Is he a Regular Guy, sidekick to a Hero, or a Jester? Is the Ultimate Driving Machine (BMW) a Hero or an Explorer . . . with maybe the 3 Series for Regular Guys and Gals with higher aspirations than Honda and Toyota owners? No doubt the authors could tell us, though I doubt their hindsight would be of much value in predicting past or future business success.
What might be of value to some readers, especially those who think Jung had the last meaningful words on human decision making, is that some structure (almost any structure, even the Yellow Pages or TV guide) can be useful in brainstorming product and brand alternatives.