Consumer Motivations Toward A Luxury Fashion Brand
What is luxury? Can a fashion luxury brand influence consumer decision-making when choosing a brand? Why is brand image congruency vital for a brand's successful longevity in a luxury fashion market? I will attempt to research these questions in this article or at least try to evoke some rational assumptions on these salient questions for marketers in the fashion brand management field.
First, I would define a conceptual framework of “luxury.” What do we consider luxury? There have been numerous definitions of luxury, but the one that I find the most appropriate for this article is the one formed by Matthiese and Phau (2005), defining luxury as a means of “indulgence of the senses, regardless of cost, due to the rising demand for conspicuous and status goods.” Conspicuous and status consumption has been widely introduced in the literature, representing the symbolic nature of a consumer's purchasing preference for a brand. Mason (1981) defines status consumption as “the process of gaining status or social prestige from the acquisition and consumption of goods that the individual and significant others perceive to be high in status.” Veblen (1899, 1953) formulated the idea of conspicuous consumption, which refers to using products to signal social status aspirations to other consumers (Mason, 1981; Braun & Wicklund, 1989).
Status And Motivations
Scholars distinguish three different ways to acquire status in a social setting, and that is by (1) status by definition or assignment (e.g., royalty), (2) status by achievement (an individual has higher status if he/she does a better job compared to others in his/her line of work), and (3) status by consumption (Hayakawa, 1963; Brown, 1991). Our focus is on this final type of social status acquired through possession (Kwak & Sojka, 2010). Brands that represent status attributes give consumers a certain appeal to consume them. By consuming status-driven brands, consumers can fulfill their needs on two basic levels: (1) at a group level through shared social meanings, and (2) at the individual level through self-concepts (Wong & Ahuvia, 1998).
Research has been done on group affiliation and self-expression of consumer influences on the decision-making process in choosing a brand and/or expressing a brand preference. Group affiliation motivation inspires consumers to consume status-based brands. In contrast, self-expression consumers tend to base their brand preferences on brands that could extend self and perceived hedonism (seeking personal rewards and fulfillment) (Vigneron & Johnson, 2004). These two basic levels of brand consumption motivation correlate but are different if attempting to understand the distinctive consumer motives toward a brand and its perceived consumer value in creating and maintaining successful brand equity in a fashion luxury market.
A growing trend of aspirational consumer affluence mentioned by Prendergast and Wong in 2003 is sought to be a vital construct of a modern definition of a luxury brand, in that consumers aspire to belong to or associate with an elite class and show in a society. According to Bloch et al. (2003), the consumption of counterfeit branded products is based on the symbolic nature of brands. The desire to fit in, express yourself, and impress others are some of the social motives that drive consumers to purchase counterfeit brands. Consumers susceptible to societal feedback are inclined to purchase status-driven brands. To nurture customers’ desire to conform to affluent societal groups, brands reinforce their customer's desire to stay loyal to a brand and continue marinating long-term relationships (Vigneron & Johnson, 2004).
Brand Personality
The brand image indicates how strong and viable a brand is for its consumers. Brand image is an intangible construct that attempts to satisfy a consumer's psychological and/or social demands. This intangible brand aspect is directly linked with what consumers feel or think of a brand, which overpowers the functional value of a luxury fashion market product. For fashion luxury consumers, a brand is associated with human characteristics. Keller (2009) describes five brand personality dimensions:s sincerity (for example, down-to-earth, honest, wholesome, and cheerful), excitement (for example, daring, spirited, imaginative, and up-to-date), competence (for example, reliable, intelligent,t and successful), sophistication (for example upper class and charming) and ruggedness (for example outdoorsy and rugged). Anthropomorphizing a brand is another term that describes consumers' feelings toward a brand regarding human characteristics. Biel (2000) points out that attaching distinctive personal qualities to a brand affects consumers’ perceived credibility toward a brand. The research shows that products presented as human are evaluated much higher than those lacking human characteristics (Aggarwal & McGill, 2007).
Having a distinctive personality, a brand can assist consumers in expressing themselves in different aspects of their lives (Aaker, 1997; Belk, 1988; Escalas & Bettman, 2005; Johar, Sengupta, and Aaker, 2005). Fletcher et al. (1999) argue that exciting and sincere brands express warmth, validity, and status to a consumer perception. Furthermore, Bowlby (1969, 1980) suggests an “attachment theory” that is based on exciting and sincere brand personality characteristics and constructed of “anxiety” and “avoidance” dimensions. The “attachment theory” refers to a person’s childhood upbringing environment that will affect his/her adult relationships (Bowlby, 1969, 1980).
Consumer Behavior Factors
Whereas the “anxiety’ dimension (self-view) assesses the degree to which the self is perceived as being worthy or unworthy of love (or one’s lovability), and the “avoidance” dimension of attachment captures the individual’s view of others (Bowlby, 1969, 1980). Consumers with the “anxiety” attachment style emphases on a symbolic value of a brand, and hence choose a brand in accordance to what a brand represents in a social environment. Others highly influence this type of consumer, and consequently, they prefer an intangible brand value with a symbolic dominance to the brand’s functionality (Dion & Arnould, 2011). Consumers with the “avoidance” attachment style are characterized by a high degree of self-reliance and desire for autonomy (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003), which leads to purchasing brands that reflect the exciting personality trait. Building strong brand personality traits has practical implications in influencing consumers’ purchasing decision process, allowing them to facilitate their social interactions simultaneously and build strong brand connections and brand loyalty (Swaminathan et al., 2008).
The behavioral mimicry mechanism can influence consumers’ purchasing decision process. According to Chartrand et al. (2006), individuals automatically mimic multiple aspects of their interaction partners, including their postures, gestures, mannerisms, speech patterns, syntax, accents, facial expressions, and even moods and emotions. There are two paths to mimic: (1) The mimicking consumer path (consumer mimics other) relies on a consumer’s automatic mimicry of observed consumption behaviors, and (2) The mimicked consumer path (other mimics consumer) relies on prosocial emotions being generated in a consumer when an interaction partner mimics him or her. That partner mimics the consumer's behavior (Chartand et al., 2006). By staying consistent with the brand image, a company/brand builds strong consumer relationships. Consistently communicating the same brand message will yield high customer loyalty toward a brand (Matthiesen & Phau, 2005).
Wrapping Up
The literature shows that brand personality can influence consumers’ brand preferences and perceptions of a brand. Marketers know and fully understand their target consumers’ personal and societal motives, which is the base for building the company’s advertising and promotional activities. The psychological value (personal or society-driven) of a brand is undetachable from any other brand aspects, such as a brand logo, promotional activities, or advertising, in that it conforms to the success of a brand among its consumers. When a brand's psychological effect weakens in consumers’ minds, it loses its aspirational qualities to be consumed and vanishes into unknown brand territory.
References:
Keller, K. (2009). Managing the growth tradeoff: Challenges and opportunities in luxury branding. Journal of Brand Management, suppl. Special Issue: Luxury Brands 16. 5–6: 290–301.
Swaminathan, V., Stilley, K.M., Ahluwalia, R. (2009). When Brand Personality Matters: The Moderating Role of Attachment Styles. Journal of Consumer Research 35. 6: 985.
Wilcox, K., Kim, H., Min; Sen, S. (2009). Why Do Consumers Buy Counterfeit Luxury Brands? JMR, Journal of Marketing Research 46. 2: 247.
Tanner, R. J., Ferraro, R., Chartrand, T. L., Bettman, J. R; Baaren, R.V. (2008). Of Chameleons and Consumption: The Impact of Mimicry on Choice and Preferences. Journal of Consumer Research 34. 6: 754.
O'Cass, A., Frost, H. (2002). Status brands: Examining the effects of non-product-related brand associations on status and conspicuous consumption. The Journal of Product and Brand Management; 11, 2/3; ProQuest Central pg. 67.
Matthiesen, I., Phau, I. (2005). The 'HUGO BOSS' connection: Achieving global brand consistency across countries. Journal of Brand Management; 12, 5; ProQuest Central g. 325.
Eastman, J K., Goldsmith, R. E., Leisa R.F. (1999). Status consumption in consumer behavior: Scale development and validation. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice; 7, 3; ProQuest Central pg. 41.
Lynn E. K., Jane Z. S. (2010). If they could see me now: immigrants’ use of prestige brands to convey status. The School of Human and Consumer Science, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, USA, and College of Business Administration, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, USA. Journal of Consumer Marketing 27/4; 371–380, Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0736-3761] [DOI 10.1108/07363761011052404].
Dion, D., Arnould, E. (2011). Retail Luxury Strategy: Assembling Charisma through Art and Magic. Journal of Retailing 87. 4: 502-520.
Vigneron, F., Johnson, L.W. (2004). Measuring perceptions of brand luxury. Journal of Brand Management 11. 6 484-506.