Skip to content
Academy
Marketing Academy · Field Work●Brand Strategy
All projects·From: Brand Archetypes (Jung's 12)
CoreAudit· 45 minutes

Auditing a Real Brand's Touchpoints for Archetype Consistency

Zomato

Objective: Given a set of real brand touchpoints, identify which archetype the brand is actually expressing at each one and flag the touchpoints that are off-archetype.

You're a new brand strategist reviewing Zomato's public touchpoints ahead of a rebrand pitch. Leadership wants to know if the brand's stated personality is actually being lived out.

Pull 5 real, current Zomato touchpoints (homepage copy, app store description, a recent social post, an ad, a customer support macro), determine what archetype each one is expressing, and flag mismatches.

Before you start

What you'll need

Free path (everything below is enough to finish)

Google Sheets
FreeLog and score each touchpoint

Free, sortable, easy to share with stakeholders

The process

2 steps

Step 01 of 02

Auditing touchpoints against a chosen archetype

Step 5 of the lesson's playbook has you read each touchpoint and ask 'does this sound like archetype X or a different one?'

You've pulled 5 real Zomato touchpoints. For each, which of the 12 archetypes' natural tone (per the lesson's reference table) does the copy actually match?

Google Sheets— Paste each touchpoint's text into its own row, add an 'archetype detected' column.

Procedure

  1. Paste the exact text of 5 touchpoints: homepage hero line, app store description, one recent Instagram/X caption, one ad headline, one support macro
  2. For each row, name the archetype whose natural tone (from the lesson's 12-archetype table) it most closely matches
  3. Note any row where the tone doesn't cleanly match any single archetype
  4. Count how many distinct archetypes appear across the 5 rows
Sample output
Touchpoint | Text (excerpt) | Archetype detected
Homepage hero | 'Order food & more' | Everyman (plain, no drama)
Instagram caption | witty meme about biryani cravings | Jester
Support macro | formal, scripted apology language | Ruler (unintentional)

3 distinct archetypes across 5 touchpoints

Healthy

1 archetype appears across at least 4 of 5 touchpoints, showing a dominant, consistent personality.

Unhealthy

3+ different archetypes across 5 touchpoints with no dominant pattern, evidence of the drift the lesson's Mistake 4 warns about.

What this means

The number of distinct archetypes detected is a direct measure of enforcement gap, not a matter of opinion.

So what do I do about it?

SymptomActionEffort
Support tone reads as Ruler while marketing reads as JesterFlag the support macro for a rewrite brief using the marketing team's voice words30 min
YouYou can do this yourself, no engineering access required.

Step 02 of 02

Detecting archetype blending as a symptom of drift

Mistake 2 in the lesson warns that blending two archetypes ('heroic AND caring') functions as a brand death sentence, only one archetype should govern major decisions.

Your audit found 3 distinct archetypes. Which one is closest to dominant, and what's the single guardrail you'd write to pull the other touchpoints back in line?

Google Sheets— Same sheet, add a verdict column.

Procedure

  1. Count occurrences of each detected archetype across the 5 rows
  2. Name the plurality archetype as the working dominant archetype
  3. Write one guardrail sentence that would have prevented the worst-mismatched touchpoint
  4. Recommend which touchpoint to fix first based on visibility and mismatch severity
Sample output
Dominant (by count): Everyman (2 of 5)
Worst mismatch: Support macro (Ruler tone in an Everyman brand)
Guardrail: 'We will never use formal, distancing language in support responses'
Fix first: Support macro — highest customer-facing frequency, most damaging mismatch

Healthy

The recommended fix targets the highest-frequency, highest-visibility mismatch first, not the easiest one to change.

Unhealthy

Recommending a fix to the lowest-traffic touchpoint because it's the fastest one to edit.

What this means

Prioritize by customer exposure times mismatch severity, not by editing convenience.

So what do I do about it?

SymptomActionEffort
Leadership asks where to start a brand voice cleanupHand them the frequency-ranked mismatch table, not a full rebrand brief30 min
YouYou can do this yourself, no engineering access required.

Final deliverable

A 5-row touchpoint audit sheet with detected archetype per row, a dominant-archetype verdict, and one prioritized fix recommendation.

See a reference example
Sample output
Klaviyo Touchpoint Audit (excerpt)

Homepage hero: 'Owned marketing, not rented reach' — Sage (precise, credible)
Support macro: warm, first-name, casual — Everyman
Verdict: Sage dominant (3 of 5), support macro is the outlier
Fix first: rewrite support macro to lead with a precise, credible line instead of casual small talk

Success criteria

You're done when you can:

  • All 5 touchpoints are assigned a specific archetype from the lesson's 12, not a vague description
  • Dominant archetype is identified by actual count, not assumption
  • Fix recommendation is prioritized by visibility and severity, not convenience