An executive summary for
managers and executive
readers can be found at the
end of this article
Creating individual identity
JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 11 NO. 2 2002, pp. 67-88, # MCB UP LIMITED, 1061-0421, DOI 10.1108/10610420210423455
Status brands: examining the
effects of non-product-related
brand associations on status and
conspicuous consumption
Aron O'Cass
Senior Lecturer, School of Marketing and Management, Griffith
University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
Hmily Frost
Research Consultant, Colmar Brunton Research, Eight Miles Plains,
Queensland, Australia
Keywords Consumer behaviour, Status, Brands, Brand image
Abstract In seeking to expand our understanding of brands and their impact on consumer
behaviour, assesses the relationship between brand associations, which contribute to
consumption behaviour. A self-administered questionnaire was developed and
administered to a non-probabilistic convenience sample of 315 young consumers. The
findings of this research indicate that the status-conscious market is more likely to be
affected by the symbolic characteristics of a brand; feelings aroused by the brand; and by
the degree of congruency between the brand-user's self-image and the brand's image
itself. Results also indicate that the higher the symbolic characteristics, the stronger the
positive feelings, and the greater the congruency between the consumer and brand image,
the greater the likelihood of the brand being perceived as possessing high status elements.
The suspicion that status-laden brands would be chosen for status consumption and
conspicuous consumption was also confirmed. These findings broaden our understanding
of status-conscious consumers and their behaviour towards brands.
Introduction
Increasingly, brands are seen as important in creating individual identity, a
sense of achievement and individuality for consumers. It is also evident that
certain brand dimensions and associations lead to increased marketplace
recognition and economic success for brand owners, as a result of the value
consumers place on them. A company's economic superiority is frequently
implied by the strength of its brand name, giving it the ability to differentiate
itself and improve its competitiveness (Nykiel, 1997). This illustrates the
significance of brands and emphasises the need to understand how brands
gain a certain status, success and thus value. Recently attention has turned to
consumers and their consumption of status brands (see Bell et al., 1991;
Eastman et al., 1999; Miller, 1991; Ram, 1994; Underwood, 1994). Current
research promotes gaining a greater understanding of the relationship
between status brands and consumers, how consumers are most likely to use
status brands in their lives and the status that comes from displaying one's
self though brands, (see Eastman et al., 1999; Mason, 1992; Motameni and
Shahrokhi, 1998; O'Shaughnessy, 1992; Schitovsky, 1992).
This study seeks to contribute to the status literature by examining four key
brand associations in the context of status consumption and conspicuous
consumption tendencies. The brand associations used for this research
include: brand familiarity, brand symbolism, brand-aroused feelings and
The research register for this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregisters
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
67
 self-image brand-image. This study also focuses on whether brands are
identified as status brands and consequently used for status consumption and
conspicuous consumption purposes. The development of theory and
measures contributes to our understanding of individuals' unique
consumption behaviours and consumers' purchasing habits with brands in
the fashion apparel context.

Fashion
Fashion innovators Importantly, perhaps there is no single factor that dominates the modern
popular cultural psyche as much as fashion. Clothing theorists have devoted
considerable attention to understanding the motivations and behaviours of
fashion innovators (Goldsmith et al., 1999). This body of research has
focused on a wide range of topics such as values, attitudes and behaviours.
Clothing can fulfil a number of functions beyond mere functional
performance such as warmth or protection. It says how important an
individual is, tells others how much status an individual has, what the
individual is like (e.g. professional, sexy, casual). As such, how consumers
see their clothes and apparel provides a deeper understanding of the
dynamics of consumer behaviour and the nature and role of fashion clothing
in society.
Fashion clothing not only forms an important part of everyday consumption
decisions, but is implicitly a central component of almost all daily events,
influencing what we eat, how we dress, how we talk and even the very nature
of our thinking processes (O'Cass, 2000a). One view of fashion is that it is
not the creation of powerful persuaders, but a normal outcome of a dynamic
culture and common shifts in taste and preferences. In reality fashion
designers attempt to foresee the next change in consumer preferences
(Wasson, 1978), while retailers face the difficulties of adapting fashion lines
for each season in a short time-frame before the next season arrives. The
strategy that retailers use is to plan for two main seasons and two trans-
seasonal periods, and manipulate prices early in the season to accelerate
adoption and then later to clear remaining stock towards the end of a season.
The role and perception of fashion (and specific fashion brands) in
consumers' lives provide us with a perspective of the psyche of individuals
and also groups within society (O'Cass, 2001).

Status and conspicuous consumption of brands

Acquisition and Eastman et al. (1999, p. 310) specify the domain of status consumption as
consumption of goods ``the motivational process by which individuals strive to improve their social
standing through conspicuous consumption of consumer products that confer
or symbolize status for both the individual and surrounding others''. Within
the formal definition provided above, status consumption is based on
conspicuous consumption (among other contributions) and conspicuous
consumption is based on status portrayal (Veblen, 1934), which appears to
have considerable theoretical overlap. Where, for example, Marcoux et al.
(1997) describe social status demonstration as a dimension of conspicuous
consumption, ``Conspicuousness of product use, as well as products that rely
heavily on image, lend themselves most readily to self-concept
moderations'' and status portrayal (Mehta, 1999, p. 83). While conspicuous
consumption involves expenditures made for purposes of inflating the ego
(Veblen, 1934), coupled with the ostentatious display of wealth (Mason,
1981), status consumption is 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. Essentially, they both mean

68 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 11 NO. 2 2002

 the same thing and status consumption and conspicuous consumption have
often been treated interchangeably.
Social status Beyond Veblen's early work on conspicuous consumption, work by
demonstration Marcoux et al. (1997), although lacking a formal definition, states that social
status demonstration is a dimension of conspicuous consumption, arguing
that interpersonal influence and social status demonstration were the two
main variables from the meanings of the conspicuous consumption scale.
However, to some extent the literature appears to lack clarity and possesses
significant overlap in the definitions of status consumption and conspicuous
consumption. Beyond the contributions of Goldsmith et al. (1996a,b), few
have attempted to develop scales to measure status consumption. The
concept of status consumption is one where consumers are driven by the
desire for status in their lives and crave status symbols. Goldsmith et al.
(1996a, p. 309) assert that ``one important motivating force that influences a
wide range of consumer behaviour is the desire to gain status or social
prestige from the acquisition and consumption of goods.'' This notion is also
consistent with McCraken (1988), O'Shaughnessy (1992) and Bell et al.
(1991), who all acknowledge that ownership of specific products or brands,
as well as their particular mode of consumption, may denote status.
Inherently ``the more a consumer seeks status, the more he/she will engage in
behaviours, such as the consumption of status symbols, that increase their
status'' (Eastman et al., 1999, p. 3).
Maintain exclusivity Brands create value for the consumer through potential benefits of
recognition of significant others, create positive feelings, aid self-expression,
coupled with an overall feeling of having personal ``good taste'' in brand
choice (Langer, 1997). Status brands in particular have higher perceived
quality, luxury or prestige ascribed to them and their consumption. Status-
enhancing brands may be used as a means to an end, such as making a
desired impression on others via their symbolism. Just as value-expressive
brands assist consumers to communicate their values to others (Munson and
Spivey, 1981), brands positioned to maintain exclusivity communicate the
prestige, status and role position of the brand-user (Zinkhan and Prenshaw,
1994). Byrne (1999) highlights the perception that the acquisition of material
goods is one of the strongest measures of social success and status, indicating
that people will be more likely to purchase and display goods than services to
show off their success and status. For the consumer, status is essentially the
concept of possessions defining success, and the notion of ``having made it''
in society (Langer, 1997). On the other hand, for the marketer ``the
established status of a brand defines the basic stability of the brand'' and
equity in it (Motameni and Shahrokhi, 1998, p. 284). If marketers can endow
their brand with the right status image through effective packaging and
distribution, together with fine-tuned promotions to create a status symbol in
the marketplace, they can realistically charge premium prices without losing
demand (Eastman et al., 1999). In fact adopting a premium pricing strategy
can at times increase a product's ``upmarket'' or ``snob'' appeal (Grewal, D.
et al., 1998). Consumers derive status from specific attributes that give a
brand a certain appeal and individual identity.
Status products provide benefits to both consumer (e.g. hedonistic benefit,
increase in perceived status level by others) and producer (e.g. increase in
niche market share and profits). The importance and benefits of status cannot
be overemphasized; with the significant price premiums achieved and
economic value of status goods it is important for marketers to understand
how consumers create brand symbols and brand images that are status-

JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 11 NO. 2 2002 69

 oriented. Such understanding will allow status producers to increase market
share, income generation, improve returns on brand investment and a slice of
the billion dollar profits in the marketplace for status goods.
Pecuniary emulation Both Veblen (1934) and Mason (1981) imply that people express themselves
through consumption in a myriad ways. Products and brands have the ability
to communicate messages to others, in that product styles determine how
consumers who own particular products are perceived by others (Holman,
1981; Belk, 1978; Solomon, 1983). However, despite the pervasiveness of
the concept of conspicuous consumption, empirical research and theoretical
models on the nature and influences of conspicuous consumption have been
relatively scarce. Veblen (1899) was among the first writers of pecuniary
emulation, which consequently generated demand for conspicuous
consumption and for conspicuous leisure, arguing that consumer demand
was more social than utilitarian and that people aimed to secure social status
through conspicuous consumption. Keasbey (1903) also felt that the prestige
value of products was often central to consumption and purchase decisions.
Important social symbols Conspicuous consumption is undertaken or pursued in order to enhance
one's position in society, which can be achieved through signalling wealth,
public demonstration and communicating affluence to others. ``Veblen's
theory of conspicuous consumption is based on the premise that those who
put wealth in evidence are rewarded with preferential treatment by social
contacts . . . whereby Veblen effects depends upon a comparison of the
desirability of signalling through price, quantity or quality'' (Bagwell and
Bernheim, 1996, pp. 5-7). Displays of wealth essentially become important
social symbols, whereby evidence of affluence provides greater likelihood of
ascending the social status hierarchy. Therefore, there is the potential for
consumers to prefer using status products that symbolically represent a
prestigious (self-image) position within the status stratum.

Self-concept and self-image congruity

A multidimensional Self-concept is a multidimensional construct, related to the attitudes and
construct perceptions people have of themselves (Malhotra, 1981, 1988; Wilkie, 1994;
Rosenberg, 1979; Mehta, 1999; Solomon, 1994). The self is ``a
developmental formation in the psychological make-up of the individual
consisting of interrelated attitudes which are acquired in relation to body,
objects, family, persons, groups, social values and institutions'' (Ross, 1971,
p. 40). ``The basic purpose of all human activity is the protection,
maintenance and enhancement, not of the self but the self-concept or the
symbolic self'' (Onkvisit and Shaw, 1987, p. 15). Consumers form self-
concepts which navigate purchase decisions (Dolich, 1969) and dictate
specific behavioural patterns (Onkvisit and Shaw, 1987). Mehta (1999, p. 83)
argues that ``the impact of symbolic product meanings on consumer decision
making is mediated by self-concept.'' Self-concept is important, because
different perceptions of the self influence purchase behaviour and decisions,
how and why consumers provide status to a brand (Onkvisit and Shaw, 1987)
as well as product usage to communicate their image to others (Sirgy, 1982;
Belk, 1989). Wong and Ahuvia (1998, p. 429) have summarized self-concept
and its effects in Figure 1.
From Figure 1, the independent construal of the self or the inner self
(preferences, tastes, abilities, personal values) is said to be ``the most
significant in regulating behaviour . . . also people with an independent self-
concept who emphasize the importance of internal self should also
emphasize the importance of hedonic experience as a motivation for luxury

70 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 11 NO. 2 2002


An interactive process
Congruity and consistency
JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 11 NO. 2 2002
Figure 1.
consumption'' (Wong and Ahuvia, 1998, pp. 426-30). Focus on the internal
refers to one's own freedom of expressing one's inner values and tastes
above the concern of group needs. As opposed to the individual conforming
to a group or society as a whole, which is typically prevalent in Asian
cultures, group and society exist to meet the needs of the individual. This
model encapsulates self-concept, symbolism and the impact of others, which
are all relevant in shaping the way people perceive, desire and acquire status
goods and the extent to which they make their purchases conspicuous.
It has been argued that acquisition, possession and consumption are activities
that take place in a process of impressions creation or identity management,
which is, according to Belk (1978), an interactive process concerning both
the image of goods consumed and that of the individuals consuming them
(Marcoux et al., 1997). This explains how our possessions become a
reflection of who we are and/or how we want others to perceive us and that
people see their possessions as a part of or extension of themselves. Belk et
al. (1982, p. 4) clearly state that people will ``communicate non-verbally and
achieve satisfaction of self-expression through consumption.'' This view
suggests that a relationship exists between the types of products we use, our
self-image and how we communicate this to others around us. Kohli and
Thakor (1997, p. 207) highlight this with the following example, ``We don't
buy jeans ± we buy Levi's; we don't buy sun-glasses ± we buy Ray Ban and
we do not buy water ± we buy Perrier.'' The status-enhancing value of
possessions is ``abetted by promotions which emphasize that you are what
you wear (eat, drive, watch, think)'' (Bell et al., 1991, p. 245). This can
become a powerful tool for marketers, when the brand is perceived to be
congruent with the target market's self-image.
Congruity and consistency are important contributors in establishing the
relationship between brand image, self-concept and the resulting purchase
behaviour (Onkvisit and Shaw, 1987). Sirgy's self-congruity theory proposes
that consumer behaviour is, in part, determined by ``the congruence resulting
from a psychological comparison involving the product-user image and the
consumer's self-concept'' (Sirgy et al., 1997, p. 229). It is the notion of a
``cognitive match between product-user image and consumer self-concept''
(Sirgy et al., 1997). This theory is designed to ``predict consumer behaviour
variables such as product (brand or store) attitude, intention, behaviour and
loyalty'' (Sirgy et al., 1991, p. 363). In addition self-congruity appears to
affect consumer behaviour through self-concept motives such as needs for
self-consistency and self-esteem (Sirgy et al., 1997). Such views indicate
why consumers prefer products that have images, which enhance and/or
71
 boost self-esteem, and explain why consumers place importance on the
opinions and approval of others and form attachments to brands with
strongly symbolic associations.

Brand symbolism
Symbols of achievement Product symbolism is what the product means to consumers and the broad
spectrum of feelings they experience in purchasing and using it, such as
arousal, excitement or pleasure. It also refers to the image that a particular
item evokes in the minds of consumers. Leiss et al. (1986) describe products
as symbols, with connected meanings which define what is valued by the
consumer. Onkvisit and Shaw (1987) believed that consumers evaluate a
brand's image in terms of its symbolic meaning. It has been said that
individuals tend to consider certain expensive possessions as symbols of
their achievement (Bansanko, 1995) and evidence of their wealth. ``Some of
the meaning of products can be found in the status value they have as a result
of other people's estimation of the extent to which they express the status of
their owners'' (Eastman et al., 1999, p. 2), explaining why consumers give
meaning to certain brands through the perceived ``status value'' and refer to
these brands as ``status symbols''. ``The more a society focuses on economic
status differences, the more emphasis it will place on symbolic goods that
mark those differences'' (Wong and Ahuvia, 1998, p. 431). Brands possess
symbolic properties which are used by individuals to convey meaning on
three levels: broad cultural level; group level through shared social
meanings; and individual level through self-concepts.
Transition in brand value It is the group level and individual level that appear to be most appropriate to
study status consumption and conspicuous consumption, as they are the least
abstract and least complex issues to discuss as well as being the most
appropriate where symbolism is concerned. For brands to convey meanings
they must be symbolic in character and must be conspicuously consumed
(Ross, 1971). Belk (1988) states that in order to facilitate expression of the
self there must be a transition in brand value moving from instrumental to
symbolic. According to Dittmar (1992) the symbolic function of possessions
is construed to be socially shared symbols of identity, whereby identity is
significantly affected by an evaluation of the total symbolic significance of
one's own possessions. This shows the ability of select possessions to confer
symbolic meaning.

Brand familiarity
Subjective knowledge Brand familiarity, also referred to as subjective knowledge, is described in
terms of what a consumer thinks he/she knows about a product, brand or
object (Flynn and Goldsmith, 1999). Subjective knowledge is believed to be
a strong motivator and predictor of purchase-related behaviour (Selnes and
Gronhaug, 1986; Raju et al., 1995), which can be useful information to
marketers interested in developing strategies based on consumers' levels of
familiarity with their brand and their competitors' brands. This might include
creating catchy slogans and tunes that people can easily remember, whereby
the slogan, music or song is directly associated with the brand. For instance:
the young girl singing ``I like Aeroplane Jelly, Aeroplane Jelly for me'' or
``We're happy little Vegemite, as bright as bright can be.'' The effects of a
brand's advertising campaign for well-developed brands can be quite
enduring. If a consumer was told to ``Have a good weekend and don't forget
the _________'', most people would complete the sentence with
``Aerogard''. This advertising campaign has not been used for many years
now, yet most Australians would be quite familiar with the phrase. It must be

72 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 11 NO. 2 2002


Level of familiarity and
knowledge
Feelings and emotions
Consumption and cognitive
processes
JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 11 NO. 2 2002
highlighted that the phrase is synonymous with the brand because of the
portrayed brand image. Hence it can be said that Aerogard created a
successful and enduring advertising campaign, as consumers are familiar
with the phrase and the brand is stored in their memory bank (evoked set).
Consumers may also be familiar with the normal retail price, the type of
packaging and where their brand can be purchased. These images to a large
extent dictate how familiar one is with a particular brand and it is more likely
that a well-developed and well-defined brand would contribute to an
individual's level of familiarity and knowledge. Similarly, a lower level of
familiarity would exist for a brand that is less developed, that may be new in
the marketplace and that has not created a strong image, personality or
identity to which consumers can relate. This implies that brand personality
dimensions would be more consistent, in that a brand will only be perceived
to have an image and personality when people have knowledge of that brand.
In other words the reality of the image and feelings ascribed to a brand will
be dependent on an individual's level of knowledge. This becomes useful
because, when a consumer has a high level of brand familiarity, there will be
a greater likelihood of the brand acquiring a positive or negative personality
as well as positive or negative feelings toward the brand. As alluded to
earlier, if a positive and congruent brand personality results, it may directly
affect the way in which status consumption contributes to people's means of
expressing their self-image.
Brand feelings
Feelings and emotions are two prevalent aspects of consumption that have
been said to influence brand perceptions and purchase behaviour (Hirschman
and Holbrook, 1982; Levy, 1959). Feelings have been defined as ``a
phenomenological property of an individual's subjectivity perceived
affective state, which refers to the general, pervasive, affective states that are
transient and particularized to specific times and situations'' (Gardner, 1985,
p. 284). The role of feelings in understanding advertising affects, purchase
behaviour and consumer decision making has been the focus of many
consumer behaviour researchers (Lazarus, 1991; Edell and Burke, 1987; Yi,
1990; Larsen and Diener, 1987; Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982; Vaughn,
1980; Stayman and Aaker, 1988). Through the extensive research presented
thus far in the consumer behaviour and marketing literature, it has been
found that feelings uniquely contribute to attitude toward the brand, beliefs
about a brand's attributes and influence brand perceptions (Edell and Burke,
1987).
By gaining discernment of the relationship that both positive and negative
feelings have with other brand associations, it can be more accurately
determined how feelings influence attitudes, beliefs and behaviour towards a
brand. It has also been surmised that feelings or, as Erevelles (1992) labels it
``affect'', serve as a chief motivator of behaviour as well as providing a
richer comprehension of experiential aspects of consumption and cognitive
processes (Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982; Cohen and Areni, 1991). Taking
this further, consumer feelings and emotions have been said to be a
``mediating factor in the purchase process'' (Schiffman et al., 1997, p. 361).
Therefore it becomes clear that the feelings which are elicited by brands are
not merely ``another'' meaningless measure of consumption and purchase
behaviour, but rather represent an alternative yet significant dimension of
attitude and purchase intention (Edell and Burke, 1987).
73
 Feelings are an important area of research, as knowledge of consumers'
feelings can add power to purchasing and consumption behaviour
predictions. For example, positive feelings have also been found to have a
decided influence on extra money and time spent, number of items purchased
and unplanned spending by consumers (Schiffman et al., 1997).
Role of feelings Based on the research findings presented from the above literature and the fact
that, among other things, positive feelings reduce decision complexity and
produce shorter decision times (Isen et al., 1982), marketing managers and
consumer behaviour researchers should take an interest. For instance,
knowledge about how purchase and consumption behaviour of potential
customers can be influenced by both positive and negative feelings is therefore
of considerable strategic relevance. The aforementioned body of research
infers significant effects with respect to the role of feelings in understanding
consumption-related behaviour and the processes that contribute to it.
Although it is known that brands elicit feelings from consumers, yet to be
determined is the extent to which feelings account for, or contribute towards,
status consumption and conspicuous consumption tendencies.

Hypotheses
H1a. Young consumers' status consumption tendencies towards a brand
will be significantly affected by:
(a) their brand familiarity;
(b) the brand's symbolic characteristics;
(c) the degree of congruency between the product-user's self-image
and the brand's image;
(d) their feelings towards the brand (positive).
H1b. Young consumers' conspicuous consumption tendencies towards a
brand will be significantly affected by:
(a) their brand familiarity;
(b) the brand's symbolic characteristics;
(c) the degree of congruency between the product-user's self-image
and the brand's image;
(d) their feelings towards the brand.
Significant differences We also sought to examine the extent to which significant differences exist
between a brand's perceived status, its symbolic characteristics, the degree
of self- and brand-image congruency and brand-aroused feelings in different
product categories.
H2. Significant differences will exist between the perceived status of
specific clothing brands amd specific sun-glasses brands by:
(a) their symbolic characteristics;
(b) their degree of self- and brand-image congruency;
(c) their feelings towards the brand;
(d) familiarity.

Research design
The study was based on the development and administration of a self-
completed survey, that is part of a larger study of status branding. The survey

74 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 11 NO. 2 2002


Appropriate brands
``Young consumers''
JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 11 NO. 2 2002
tapped respondents' brand familiarity (Flynn and Goldsmith, 1999; O'Cass,
2000b), brand symbolism (Bhat and Reddy, 1998), self-image congruence
(Sirgy et al., 1997) and evaluation of brand status and desire to consume the
brand, conspicuously adapted from Eastman et al. (1999) and Marcoux et al.
(1997). The items were developed from the existing literature. These scales
were evaluated for content and face validity by a panel of expert judges in
marketing (academics), as recommended by Converse and Presser (1986)
and Zaichkowsky (1985). The instrument was then subject to a pre-test via
focus groups, which provided feedback on content, question order and item
repetitiveness, leading to development of the final version of the instrument
(Converse and Presser, 1986; Lim and O'Cass, 2001). All items were
measured on a strongly agree-strongly disagree scale.
Because the focus of the study was status and status brands in particular, we
needed to identify appropriate brands to use as stimuli. Status products were
generated via three focus groups, where participants contributed their ideas
of the most appropriate brands from product categories that were perceived
to be of high and low status. Fashion clothing and sun-glasses were chosen,
as both can be consumed visibly by individuals (Goldsmith et al., 1996a, b)
and have the ability to be used for higher-level needs such as conveying self-
image (Goldsmith et al., 1999; Kaiser, 1990; Morganosky and Vreeman,
1986) and status. For example, it has been said that ``Owning the latest styles
of clothing is one of the most common ways consumers have of gaining
prestige among their peers'' (Goldsmith et al., 1996b, p. 310; Gould and
Barak, 1988). Therefore, status-seeking consumers should show interest in
the latest, well-recognised and most fashionable brand names and
accessories in the clothing industry. The clothes people choose to wear in
public is one way of revealing how much status they have and what kind of
person they are inside (Lurie, 1981) and justifies the selection of fashion
apparel to represent a product class that appeals to young consumers. Brands
selected from the pre-test focus groups were Oakley and Calvin Klein, as
these brands were viewed as the most appropriate stimulus for young
consumers' high status brands. Polaroid and Target were the low status
brands chosen for this study.
Sample-subjects
This study maintains consistency with the literature on appropriate
categorisation of ``young consumers'' fitting into the 18-25-year-old age
bracket (Beaudoin et al., 1998; Pecotich et al., 1996). Data collection took
place in the form of a non-probabilistic convenience sample of 18-25-year-
old students. In total 315 surveys were completed by the respondents. Also,
as we were more interested in basic psychological processes than
generalisations, a student sample was appropriate (Grewal, R. et al., 2000;
O'Cass, 2000a).
Results
Initially all items were factor-analysed to examine the psychometric
properties of the measures, focusing on dimensionality and reliability. All
measures were uni-dimensional, with high internal reliability. For H1 we
focused on the extent of the relationship between brand familiarity, brand
symbolism, self-image and brand-image congruency, feelings aroused by a
brand and the status ascribed to a brand and desire to consume it
conspicuously. The hypothesis focuses, first on status consumption at the
specific brand level, then on conspicuous consumption.
75
 Initially we focused on the analysis of the status and desired conspicuousness
of consuming the identified brands. We initially analysed the data via factor
analysis to establish the dimensionality of the items at the brand level and as
shown in Table I.
Linear regression A linear regression was conducted to test the effect of brand familiarity,
symbolic characteristics, self- and brand-image congruency and brand
feelings on status consumption and conspicuous consumption. Table II
presents the results of the regression analysis for both status consumption
and conspicuous consumption at the specific brand level.
Table II indicates that symbolic characteristics, self-image brand-image
congruency and the strength of feelings towards the brand all have a
significant effect on both status consumption and conspicuous consumption
of a specific brand. The first regression results show symbolic characteristics
(beta = 0.408, t = 6.93) and self-image and brand-image congruency (beta =

Component loadings
Conspicuous Status Status
Standard consumption symbols interest
Mean deviation 1 2 3
Conspicuous consumption items
Gain respect 2.80 1.15 0.870
Popularity 2.70 1.14 0.851
Noticed by others 3.12 1.30 0.801
Show who I am 3.40 1.29 0.758
Presence of others 3.38 1.22 0.740
Variance explained: 33.6% Reliability of scale: 0.94
Status consumption items
Symbol of success 2.90 1.36 0.873
Symbol of prestige 2.94 1.41 0.879
Indicate wealth 2.76 1.37 0.880
Indicate achievement 2.54 1.16 0.794
Interested in status 4.22 1.16 0.796
Status is important to me 2.45 1.43 0.786
Status enhances my image 3.92 1.28 0.762
Variance explained: 51.0% Reliability of scale: 0.93
Total variance explained: 84.6% Total reliability of scale: 0.95

Table I. Factor structure of status consumption and conspicuous consumption at

the specific brand level

Regression Beta T-value P<

Status attributed to brands
Brand familiarity 0.04 1.04 ns
Symbolic characteristics 0.41 6.93 0.001
Self- and brand-image congruency 0.20 3.69 0.001
Feelings toward the brand 0.17 3.22 0.001
R 0.710; R2 0.505; F 78.22, (p < 0.001)
Conspicuous consumption of brands
Brand familiarity 0.07 1.36 ns
Symbolic characteristics 0.20 3.04 0.01
Self- and brand-image congruency 0.21 3.40 0.001
Feelings toward the brand 0.26 4.14 0.001
R 0.608; R2 0.370; F 44.98, (p < 0.001)

Table II. Test the impact of brand association variables on status consumption
and conspicuous consumption (specific brand level)

76 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 11 NO. 2 2002


Extent of differences
0.204, t = 3.69) as the strongest predictors of status consumption, followed
closely by feelings toward the brand. Results from the regression analysis
also indicated that 50.5 per cent of the variance in status consumption is
accounted for by brand symbolism, self-image brand-image congruency and
feelings. The same three variables of symbolic characteristics, self- and
brand-image congruency and feelings were also strong predictors for the
second regression analysing the effect on the dependent variable conspicuous
consumption with 37 per cent of the variance explained. The results indicate
that all variables besides brand familiarity had a significant effect (p < 0.01)
on both status (beta = 0.46, t = 1.037) and conspicuous consumption (beta =
0.069, t = 1.36) at the specific brand level. Nevertheless, the results provided
sufficient evidence to support H1a and H1b, with the exception of brand
familiarity.
The study also focused on examining the extent to which differences exist
between the brand's perceived status, the brand's symbolic characteristics,
the degree of self- and brand image congruency and brand feelings across
both product categories.
The difference between the perceived status of the brand and brand
associations such as the symbolic characteristics of the brand, self- and
brand-image congruency and feelings towards the brand was tested through
an independent samples t-test. The results of the t-test, including means,
t values and p values are presented below in Table III for H2.
To take this further, another paired samples t-test was conducted to examine
differences at the specific brand level. The results indicate that at the brand

T-test for equality of means

Status Significance
level Brands Mean t (two-tailed)
Symbolic characteristics High Calvin Klein 3.89 9.215 0.001
Low Target 2.39
High Oakley 3.21 4.80 0.001
Low Polaroid 2.37
Self-image congruency High Calvin Klein 3.05 3.85 0.001
Low Target 2.33
High Oakley 2.72 3.38 0.001
Low Polaroid 2.12
Brand feelings High Calvin Klein 2.88 3.671 0.001
Low Target 2.42
High Oakley 2.58 2.41 0.05
Low Polaroid 2.27
Brand familiarity High Calvin Klein 3.83 2.43 0.05
Low Target 3.38
High Oakley 3.20 3.03 0.005
Low Polaroid 2.60
Brand status High Calvin Klein 3.40 3.98 0.001
Low Target 2.06
High Oakley 2.96 4.81 0.001
Low Polaroid 2.17
Consume conspicuously High Calvin Klein 2.98 3.98 0.001
Low Target 2.26
High Oakley 2.69 2.34 0.05
Low Polaroid 2.23

Table III. Differences between brand associations across select high and low
status brands

JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 11 NO. 2 2002 77

 level status consumption (mean 2.54) and conspicuous consumption (mean
2.64) were significantly different (t = ±2.19, p < 0.05).
Higher perceived status The results indicate that significant differences exist (< 0.05) between the
status of the brand and the brand associations, which include the symbolic
characteristics of the brand, self- and brand-image congruency and feelings
towards the brand. H2 is supported by the test for differences and it can be
reported that differences exist between the brand's perceived level of status
and between the above brand associations. In each instance, the more brand
associations attached to the brands across both product categories indicated
the higher the perceived status of the brand. Based on the significant positive
results of the paired sample t-test, the higher the perceived symbolic
characteristics, the stronger the positive feelings towards the brand (Calvin
Klein, for example) and the greater the congruency between the brand's
image and the brand-user's image, the greater the perception of that brand
(CK) having status. This explains why Calvin Klein and Oakley were
perceived to have the highest status levels, as shown in Table III.

Discussion
Significant relationships The study initially examined the extent of positive relationships between
brand associations and the status ascribed to brands and the extent of
conspicuous consumption of the brands by young consumers. Significant
relationships were discovered, indicating that these relationships are
consistent with the literature (Bhat and Reddy, 1998; Sirgy, 1982; Edell and
Burke, 1987). From a closer examination of these relationships, symbolic
characteristics, self-image brand-image congruency and brand feelings were
undoubtedly the strongest predictors for both the status ascribed to a brand
and conspicuousness of consumption for specific brands. This finding
reveals important information to both practitioners and academics alike, in
understanding the key brand associations consumers perceive to be important
in the process of status consumption and conspicuous consumption. In
practical terms, if consumers do not consider a brand's symbolic
characteristics, self-image and brand-image congruency and brand feelings
to be important, then there is a strong likelihood that they will not perceive
such brands to possess status or to be suitable for conspicuous consumption
purposes.
Global evaluations However, the findings related to brand familiarity appear to indicate that
people do not have to be familiar with a brand in order to identify the brand
as a status brand and to desire or be willing to conspicuously consume it.
This would also imply that consumers may recognise the brand name and
image association but may not necessarily be familiar with or even consider
other aspects of a brand, and as such make global evaluations. This finding
suggests that, even though consumers may not have high levels of brand
familiarity, it will not affect their ability to identify specific brands that
would be conspicuously consumed because of their status-laden nature.
Therefore, despite the lack of subjective knowledge held by a consumer
towards a brand, if they find meaningful symbolic characteristics, if their
self-image is congruent with that of the brand's image and if they have
positive strong feelings towards the brand, then status attributed and
conspicuousness of consumption of the brand will not be affected. Also
brand familiarity can vary from recognising packaging, identifying with the
brand's image or personality, to knowing where the brand is sold, how much
it costs, how broad the range is and the overall quality and durability.

78 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 11 NO. 2 2002

 The findings would indicate that prior exposure to the brand will not affect
one's ability to conspicuously consume status-laden products when the other
three brand associations are present. This finding is comparable with Han's
(1989, 1990) research, which found that consumers use country-of-origin
information regardless of whether they are familiar with the product or not.
Although the obvious difference exists between using the country-of-origin
construct instead of status consumption and conspicuous consumption, Han's
result is not so incompatible with the result of this study. Similarly Edell and
Burke's (1987, p. 430) study ``used ads that had not been seen prior to their
study and were for brands that were unfamiliar''. These researchers found
that, when an ad constituted the subject's only source of information about
the brand and respondents had claimed to have no previous attitudes toward
the brand, positive and negative feelings would still be evoked. These
feelings alone then influenced beliefs about the brand and created their
attitude towards the brand presented in the ad, which would later lead to
greater predictions of purchase intentions (Edell and Burke, 1987). This
illustrates that brand familiarity was not the strongest predictor for Edell and
Burke (1987) and Han (1989, 1990), as is the case for this study. This does
not discredit the work of Flynn and Goldsmith (1999), Raju et al. (1995) or
Laroche et al. (1996) but merely highlights that the construct of brand
familiarity was not so strong a predictor for status consumption and
conspicuous consumption tendencies as the literature would have inferred.
Brand knowledge An alternative explanation was offered by Keller (1998) on the issue of
structures brand familiarity and its treatment via the types of brand associations such as
price, user and usage imagery, feelings, brand personality and benefits; this,
however, does not directly categorise brand familiarity as a brand
association. Instead Keller (1998, p. 87) acknowledged brand knowledge
structures as an antecedent or ``brand node in memory with brand
associations, varying in strength, connected to it''. This illustrates the
hierarchical structure and relationship of the linking functions (categories),
highlighting how the construct of brand familiarity (although labeled
differently by Keller) is not conceptualised as a brand association, but is the
point from which every brand category stems.
Conceptual research model Pecotich et al. (1996) in a similar manner to Keller treated brand familiarity
as separate from the category of brand associations; however, Pecotich et al.
present a different interpretation of its function. These researchers present a
conceptual research model showing that the relationships are mediated by
product class knowledge. Pecotich et al. (1996) measured perceived product
class knowledge via Smith and Park's (1992) scale, whereas this study used
that of Flynn and Goldsmith (1999). It could be that treating brand
familiarity as a brand association caused the insignificant result of it having
no impact on status consumption and conspicuous consumption. Rather, it is
probable that brand familiarity would impact on the brand associations, such
as brand feelings, self-image congruency and brand symbolism. (Refer to
Figure 2 for relationship diagram.)
In establishing an effect of the symbolic characteristics of the brand on both
status consumption and conspicuous consumption, this study identified the

Figure 2.

JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 11 NO. 2 2002 79

 extent to which one would effect the other, finding that the symbolic
characteristics of the brand had a significant positive affect on both status
and conspicuousness. Brands have been found to possess symbolic
properties, which are used by consumers to convey meanings or image to
others (Eastman et al., 1999); the findings here also support this notion.
Researchers have argued that consumers evaluate a brand's image in terms
of its symbolic meaning (Onkvisit and Shaw, 1987), whereby the
consumption of status goods depends more on their symbolic characteristics
than on their functional utility (Bell et al., 1991).
Brand attitudes and Further, the feelings ascribed to young (18-25) consumers were found to
evaluations have a significant positive effect on their perceptions of a brand's status and
their conspicuous consumption tendencies for specific brands. At a general
level Edell and Burke (1987) argued that feelings attached to certain brands
influence consumer beliefs about the brands, consequently affecting brand
attitudes and evaluations (Wilkie, 1994). Whilst these researchers focused on
feelings aroused through advertisements, it is not so incompatible with the
focus here, which was on the feelings aroused through thinking of a brand.
Specifically this study was interested in identifying the effect of feelings
ascribed to the brands and their effect on status consumption and
conspicuous consumption at the specific brand level.
Support was found for the belief that status ascribed to a brand and the
conspicuousness of its consumption are affected by the degree of congruency
between the user's image and the brand's perceived image. Based on the
findings of both this research and that of Sirgy et al. (1997), marketing
practice and consumer theory can make more accurate predictions of
purchase intentions, brand preference and consumer attitudes (Dolich, 1969;
Onkvisit and Shaw, 1987) via the measure of self-image and brand-image
congruency.
Motivating forces of Discovering self-image and brand-image congruency as a predictor of status
consumers consumption and conspicuous consumption tendencies gives valuable insight
into the motivating forces of consumers. These findings indicate that
marketers have an accurate tool to differentiate their market segments by
ascertaining the consumer's self-image and developing brands that are
consistent with the dominant consumer self-image. This means that
consumers prefer brands, which are more rather than less similar to their own
self-concept. This is consistent with that of Ross (1971), Malhotra (1988),
Sirgy (1985) and Onkvisit and Shaw (1987), who all surmised that, when a
unidimensional measure of self-concept is applied, it exerts a much stronger
influence on brand preference. Malhotra (1987) inferred that not all products
would be considered as being descriptive of the self; however, the product
category types selected for this study were in fact useful stimuli against
which to assess consumers' reactions and perceptions of self- and brand-
image congruency.
Significant differences Finally we sought to establish the extent to which significant differences
exist between the brand's perceived status, the brand's symbolic
characteristics, the degree of self- and brand-image congruency and brand
feelings across both product categories and status of brands and conspicuous
consumption potential. The analysis confirmed that the more the brand was
considered symbolic, the stronger the positive feelings, and the more the
brand was congruent with the respondent's self-image across both the
clothing apparel and sun-glasses categories, the greater the perception of that
brand as having high status. The symbolic characteristics of a brand and the
self- and brand-image/brand-image congruency have been strongly debated

80 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 11 NO. 2 2002

 by some researchers (Mehta, 1999; Onkvisit and Shaw, 1987) as two
strongly related, even intertwined constructs regarding status consumption.
Therefore the findings of this study are consistent with the literature,
showing that brand symbolism and self- and brand-image congruency
constructs have the greatest impact on perceived status levels.
Congruency between A plausible interpretation of the findings would be that: the higher the
images brand's symbolic characteristics, the greater the congruency between the
consumer's image and the brand's image; as well as the brand being able to
ignite positive feelings ± the greater likelihood of it being perceived as high
status. This insight is valuable to marketers to portray their status brand as
being able to fulfill the above requirements and emphasising the importance
of each in contributing to a brand's status value. Researchers have shown
that the desire for status is not exclusive to the wealthy (Miller, 1991;
Underwood, 1994; Ram, 1994; Mason, 1992). Outward symbols of status are
meaningful to both the wealthy and those of modest means (Bansanko,
1995). Belk (1988, p. 104) pointed out that ``even third-world countries are
often attracted to and indulge in aspects of conspicuous consumption before
they have secured adequate food, clothing and shelter'', implying that
consumers at every class level have desires to consume for social status.
Similarly, multi-millionaire fashion designer Tommy Hilfiger states that
``many of these people (kids from the ghettos and typical poverty areas)
would rather have a Rolex than a home'' (cited in Levine, 1997, p. 144). This
information is useful to marketers of status goods, not to limit their
promotional efforts to wealthy ``yuppies'', as this would rule out and
overlook a wider, potential market seeking status-laden products. In saying
this it must be recognised that status symbols vary depending on the class
bracket. In society different levels of the social stratum have different ideals
of status symbols. For example, for the upper class it may be to own a yacht,
an art collection and have a private chauffeur, whereas for the lower class a
car stereo system and cable TV might be the products that become status
symbols for them.
Status brands Despite the quintessential nature of marketing being as ever changing as the
consumer marketplace, we can take predictable approaches based on the
research findings presented here. For instance, knowing that young
consumers are driven by the desire to own and display status brands,
practitioners would benefit from instilling the core brand associations known
to promote conspicuous status behaviour. Marketing managers are more
equipped in developing the right mix of elements, such as creating symbolic
meanings relevant to their status-conscious target market. Communication
efforts should accentuate value-expressive appeals and concepts such as
status, luxury, prestige and the like, rather than simply focusing on the
brand's utilitarian functions. Brand owners and managers can also capitalise
on people's desire for status and audience by creating a distinct brand image
that aligns with their market's self-image and need for status.
Measure status It is also evident that certain brand dimensions and associations lead to
consumption increased marketplace recognition and economic success for brand owners as
a result of the status value consumers place on them. Beyond the
contributions of Goldsmith et al. (1996a, b), few have attempted to develop
scales to measure status consumption. Given the scales developed here and
the results, we are now in a position to better understand the nexus between
brand association and status. We can clearly see that ownership of certain
products and specific brands within product categories, as well as their
particular mode of consumption, denote status. If marketers can endow their

JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 11 NO. 2 2002 81

 brand with the right status image through effective packaging and
distribution, together with fine-tuned promotions to create a status symbol in
the marketplace, they can realistically charge premium prices without losing
demand and possess a significant competitive advantage.

Limitations and future research

Personality variables As the study was based on a small number of brands using a between-
subjects design, the findings should be approached with caution. Also, given
the focus on young people, generalisations beyond this age group should be
undertaken with some reservation. Based on these limitations future research
should extend this area of inquiry into older consumers, different types of
product categories and brands within them, and also focus on different
cultures. Focusing on consumer differences in relation to status and
conspicuous consumption of specific brands could also benefit by
incorporating personality variables to help understand such behaviour.

Conclusion
Motives and behaviours of This study has provided insight into the motives and behaviours of
consumers consumers who seek status and conspicuously consume status products and
brands. It has also shed light as to how managers can best utilise favourable
brand association elements to appeal to status consumers and develop status
value within their brand. Consequently it has been revealed that young
status-conscious consumers are more likely to be affected by a status brand's
symbolic characteristics, by feelings evoked by the brand and by the degree
of congruency between the brand-user's self-image and the brand's image.
The suspicion that status-laden brands would be chosen for status
consumption and conspicuous consumption was also confirmed. This insight
broadens the theorist's discernment of these consumers and their behaviour
towards status products and brands. These consumers are a prime target for a
plethora of products and brands, so long as they are inherently laden with the
ability to communicate status and prestige to others and/or are congruent
with the user's image. With this knowledge marketers are better equipped to
improve marketing strategies and accurately identify key variables which
will induce desire, purchase and possible conspicuous behaviour. Marketing
researchers and practitioners recognise the value of innovative and new
research in developing a brand's full potential and having strong market
presence. This study has provided the means by which these parties can
understand the (conspicuous) consumption of status products and brands, as
well as the dynamics behind the consumer associations and variables
attached to brands.

References
Bagwell, L.S. and Bernheim, B.D. (1996), ``Veblen effects in a theory of conspicuous
consumption'', The American Economic Review, Vol. 86 No. 3, June, p. 349.
Bansanko, D. (1995), ``The kinder, gentler, richer American'', American Demographics,
Vol. 17 No. 1, p. 46.
Beaudoin, P., Moore, M. and Goldsmith, R. (1998), ``Young fashion leaders' and followers'
attitudes toward American and imported apparel'', Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 193-207.
Belk, R.W. (1978), ``Assessing the effects of visible consumption patterns on impression
formation'', in Hunt, H.K. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 5, pp. 39-47.
Belk, R.W. (1988), ``Possessions and the extended self'', Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 2, September, pp. 139-68.
Belk, R.W. (1989), ``Extended self and extending paradigmatic perspective'', Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 16, June, pp. 129-32.

82 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 11 NO. 2 2002

 Belk, R.W., Bahn, K.D. and Mayer, R. (1982), ``Developmental recognition of consumption
symbolism'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 1, June.
Bell, S.S., Holbrook, M.B. and Solomon, M.R. (1991), ``Combining aesthetic and social value
to explain preferences for product styles with incorporation of personality and ensemble
effects'' ± To Have Possessions: A Handbook on Ownership and Pproperty, Journal of
Social Behaviour and Personality, Vol. 6 No. 6.
Bhat, S. and Reddy, S.K. (1998), ``Symbolic and functional positioning of brands'', Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 32-43.
Byrne, J. (1999), ``Health, wealth and honesty: perceptions of self-esteem'', Health Education,
No. 3, May.
Cohen, J.B. and Areni, C.S. (1991), ``Affect and consumer behaviour'', in Robertson, A. and
Kassarjian, H. (Eds), Handbook of Consumer Behavior, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ, pp. 183-240.
Converse, J. and Presser, S. (1986), Survey Questions: Handcrafting the Standardised
Questionnaire, Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social
Sciences, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
Dittmar, H. (1992), The Social Psychology of Material Possessions, Harvester Wheatsheaf,
Hemel Hempstead.
Dolich, I.J. (1969), ``Congruence relationships between self-images and product brands'',
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 6, February, pp. 80-4.
Eastman, J.K., Goldsmith, R.E. and Flynn, L.R. (1999), ``Status consumption in consumer
behaviour: scale development and validation'', Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 41-51.
Edell, J. and Burke, M. (1987), ``The power of feelings in understanding advertising effects'',
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14, December, pp. 421-33.
Erevelles, S. (1992), ``The role of affect in marketing'', Journal of Business Research, Vol. 42,
pp. 199-215.
Flynn, L.R. and Goldsmith, R.E. (1999), ``A short, reliable measure of subjective knowledge'',
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 46, pp. 57-66.
Gardner, M.P. (1985), ``Mood states and consumer behaviour: a critical review'', Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 12, December, pp. 281-300.
Goldsmith, R.E., Flynn, L.R. and Eastman, J.K. (1996b), ``Status consumption and fashion
behaviour: an exploratory study'', Association of Marketing Theory and Practice
Proceedings, pp. 309-16.
Goldsmith, R.E., Moore, M.A. and Beaudoin, P. (1999), ``Fashion innovativeness and self-
concept: a replication'', Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 8 No. 1,
pp. 7-18.
Goldsmith, R.E., Eastman, J.K., Calvert, S. and Flynn, L.R. (1996b), ``Status consumption and
self-image: a replication with Mexican consumers'', Association of Marketing Theory and
Practice Proceedings, pp. 317-23.
Gould, S. and Barak, B. (1988), ``Public self-consciousness and consumption behaviour'',
Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 128 No. 3, pp. 393-400.
Grewal, D., Krinshan, R., Baker, J. and Borin, B. (1998), ``The effect of store name, brand
name and price discounts on consumers' evaluations and purchase intentions'', Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 331-52.
Grewal, R., Mehta, R. and Kardes, F. (2000), ``The role of the social-identity function of
attitudes in consumer innovativeness and opinion leadership'', Journal of Economic
Psychology, Vol. 21, pp. 233-52.
Han, C.M. (1989), ``Country-image: halo or summary construct?'', Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 24, pp. 222-9.
Han, C.M. (1990), ``Testing the role of country image in consumer choice behaviour'',
European Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 41-54.
Hirschman, E.C. and Holbrook, M.B. (1982), ``Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts,
methods and propositions'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46, Summer, pp. 92-101.
Holman, R.M. (1981), ``Product use as communication: a fresh look at a venerable topic'', in
Enis, B.M. and Roering, K.J. (Eds), Review of Marketing, American Marketing
Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 106-19.

JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 11 NO. 2 2002 83

 Isen, A.M., Means and Patrick (1982), ``Positive affect, accessibility of material in memory
and behaviour: a cognitive loop?'', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 36,
pp. 1-12.
Kaiser, S.B. (1990), The Social Psychology of Apparel, 2nd ed., Macmillan, New York, NY.
Keasbey, L.M. (1903), ``Prestige value'', Journal of Economics, Vol. 17, May, pp. 456-75.
Keller, K.L. (1998), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring and Managing Brand
Equity, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Kohli, C. and Thakor, M. (1997), ``Branding consumer goods: insights from theory and
practice'', Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 206-19.
Langer, J. (1997), ``What consumers wish brand managers knew'', Journal of Advertising
Research, Vol. 37 No. 6, November/December, pp. 60-5.
Laroche, M., Kim, C. and Zhao, L. (1996), ``Brand familiarity and confidence as determinants
of purchase intention: an empirical test in a multiple brand context'', Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 37, pp. 115-20.
Larson, R.J. and Diener (1987), ``Affect intensity as an individual difference characteristic: a
review'', Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 21, pp. 1-39.
Lazarus, R.S. (1991), Emotion and Adaptation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Leiss, W., Kline, S. and Jhally, S. (1986), Social Communication in Advertising, Methuen,
Toronto.
Levine, J. (1997), ``Badass sells'', Forbes, 21 April.
Levy, S.J. (1959), ``Symbols for sale'', Harvard Business Review, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 117-24.
Lim, K. ad O'Cass, A. (2001), ``Consumer brand classifications: an assessment of culture-of-
origin versus country-of-origin'', Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 10
Nos 2/3, pp. 120-36.
Lurie, A. (1981), The Language of Clothes, Random House, New York, NY.
McCraken, G. (1988), Culture and Consumption, Indiana University Press, Bloomington and
Indianapolis, IN.
Malhotra, N.K. (1981), ``A scale to measure self-concepts, person concepts and products
concepts'', Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, November, pp. 456-64.
Malhotra, N.K. (1987), ``Validity and structural reliability of multi-dimensional scaling'',
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24, pp. 164-73.
Malhotra, N.K. (1988), ``Self-concept and product choice: an integrated perspective'', Journal
of Economic Psychology, Vol. 9, March, pp. 1-28.
Marcoux, J.S., Filiatrault, P. and Cheron, E. (1997), ``The attitudes underlying preferences of
young urban educated Polish consumers towards products made in western countries'',
Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 4.
Mason, R.S. (1981), Conspicuous Consumption: A Study of Exceptional Consumer Behavior,
St Martin's Press, New York, NY.
Mason, R.S. (1992), ``Modeling the demand for status goods'', Working Paper, Department of
Business and Management Studies, University of Salford, Salford.
Mehta, A. (1999), ``Using self-concept to assess advertising effectiveness'', Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 81-9.
Miller, C. (1991), ``Luxury goods still have strong market despite new tax'', Proceedings of the
International Association of Consumer Research.
Morganosky, M.A. and Vreeman, A.L. (1986), ``The involvement concept: relationships to the
apparel consumer'', unpublished manuscript.
Motameni, R. and Shahrokhi, M. (1998), ``Brand equity: a global perspective'', Journal of
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 275-90.
Munson, J.A. and Spivey, W.A. (1981), ``Product and brand-user stereotypes among social
classes'', Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 37-48.
Nykiel, R.A. (1997), ``Brand marketing paramount to success'', Journal of Hotel and Motel
Management, Vol. 212 No. 17, pp. 22-5.
O'Cass, A. (2000a), ``An assessment of consumers' product, purchase decision, advertising
and consumption involvement in fashion clothing'', Journal of Economic Psychology,
Vol. 21, pp. 545-76.
O'Cass, A. (2000b), ``A psychometric evaluation of a revised version of the Lennox and Wolfe
revised self-monitoring scale'', Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 397-419.

84 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 11 NO. 2 2002

 O'Cass, A. (2001), ``Consumer self-monitoring, materialism and involvement in fashion
clothing'', Australasian Marketing Journal.
Onkvisit, J. and Shaw, J. (1987), ``Self-concept and image congruence: some research and
managerial implications'', Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 13-23.
O'Shaughnessy, J. (1992), Explaining Buyer Behavior, Oxford University Press, New York,
NY.
Pecotich, A., Pressley, M. and Roth, D. (1996), ``The impact of country-of-origin in the retail
service context'', Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 213-24.
Raju, P.S., Lonial, S.C. and Mangold, W.G. (1995), ``Differential effects of subjective
knowledge, objective knowledge and usage experience on decision making: an exploratory
investigation'', Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 4, pp. 153-80.
Ram, J. (1994), ``Luxury goods firms find a haven in Asia'', Asian Business, Vol. 30, July,
pp. 52-3.
Rosenberg, M. (1979), Conceiving the Self, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Ross, I. (1971), ``Self-concept and brand preference'', Journal of Business, Vol. 44, pp. 38-50.
Schiffman, Bendall, Watson and Kanuk (1997), Consumer Behaviour, Prentice-Hall, Australia.
Schitovsky, T. (1992), The Joyless Economy, rev. ed., Oxford University Press, New York,
NY.
Selnes, F. and Gronhaug, K. (1986), ``Subjective and objective measures of product knowledge
contrasted'', in Lutz, R.J. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 13, Association for
Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 67-71.
Sirgy, M.J. (1982), ``Self-concept in consumer behaviour: a critical review'', Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 9, December, pp. 287-300.
Sirgy, M.J. (1985), ``Self-image/product image congruity and consumer decision making'',
International Journal of Management, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 49-63.
Sirgy, M.J., Johar, J.S., Samli, A.C. and Caiborne, C.B. (1991), ``Self-congruity versus
functional congruity: predictors of consumer behaviour'', Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 363-75.
Sirgy, M.J., Grewal, D., Mangleburg, T.F., Park, J., Chon, K., Claiborne, C.B., Johar, J.S. and
Berkman, H. (1997), ``Assessing the predictive validity of two methods of measuring
self-image congruence'', Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 3.
Smith, D.C. and Park, C.W. (1992), ``The effects of brand extensions on market share and
advertising efficiency'', Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 29, August, pp. 296-313.
Solomon, M.R. (1983), ``The role of products as social stimuli: a symbolic interactionism
perspective'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10, pp. 319-29.
Solomon, M.R. (1994), Consumer Behavior: Buying, Having and Being, 2nd ed., Allyn &
Bacon, Boston, MA.
Stayman, D.M. and Aaker, D.A. (1988), ``Are all the effects of ad-induced feelings mediated
by the ad?'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15, pp. 368-73.
Underwood, E. (1994), ``Luxury's tide turns'', Brandweek, Vol. 35, 7 March, pp. 18-22.
Vaughn, R. (1980), ``How advertising works: a planning model'', Journal of Advertising
Research, Vol. 20, pp. 27-33.
Veblen, T. (1899), The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions, Unwin
Books, London (reprinted Dover Publications (1994), New York, NY).
Veblen, T. (1934), The Theory of the Leisure Class, Random House, New York, NY.
Wasson, C.R. (1978), Dynamic Competitive Strategy & Product Life Cycles, Austin Press,
Austin, TX.
Wilkie, W.L. (1994), Consumer Behavior, 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Wong, N.Y. and Ahuvia, A.C. (1998), ``Personal taste and family face: luxury consumption in
Confucian and western societies'', Journal of Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 5,
pp. 423-41.
Yi, Y. (1990), ``Cognitive and affective priming effects of the context for print
advertisements'', Journal of Advertising, Vol. 19, pp. 40-8.
Zaichkowsky, J. (1985), ``Measuring the involvement construct'', Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 341-52.

JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 11 NO. 2 2002 85

 Zinkhan, G.M. and Prenshaw, P.J. (1994), ``Good life images and brand name associations:
evidence from Asia, America and Europe'', Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 21,
pp. 496-500.

Further reading
Barone, M.J., Shimp, T.A. and Sprott, D.E. (1999), ``Product ownership as a moderator of self-
congruity effects'', Marketing Letters, Vol. 10 No. 1, p. 75-85.
Belch, G.E. (1978), ``Belief system and the differential role of the self-concept'', in Hunt, H.K.
(Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 5.
de Chernatony, L. and Riley, F.D. (1997), ``Modelling the components of the brand'',
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 Nos 11/12, pp. 1074-90.
Dubois, B. and Duquesne, P. (1993), ``The market for luxury goods: income versus culture'',
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 35-45.
Eastman, J,K., Fredenberger, B., Campbell, D. and Calvert, S. (1997), ``The relationship
between status consumption and materialism: a cross-cultural comparison of Chinese,
Mexican and American students'', Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 5
No. 1.
Fairlamb, D. (1987), ``French luxury goods go global'', Business Month, Vol. 129, March,
pp. 32-5.
Gardner, B.B. and Levy, S.L. (1955), ``The product and the brand'', Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 33, April, pp. 33-9.
Hong, J.W. and Zinkhan, G.M. (1995), ``Self-concept and advertising effectiveness: the
influence of congruency, conspicuousness and response mode'', Psychology & Marketing,
Vol. 12 No. 1.
Keller, K.L. (1993), ``Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer-based brand
equity'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, pp. 1-22.
&

86 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 11 NO. 2 2002

 This summary has been
provided to allow managers
and executives a rapid
appreciation of the content
of this article. Those with a
particular interest in the
topic covered may then read
the article in toto to take
advantage of the more
comprehensive description
of the research undertaken
and its results to get the full
benefit of the material
present
JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 11 NO. 2 2002
Executive summary and implications for managers and
executives
How do I make a high status brand?
Historian Lisa Jardine, commenting on Crivelli's Annunciation with St
Emidius (1486), has this to say:
This virtuoso painting is every bit as much a visual celebration of conspicuous consumption
and trade as it is a tribute to the chastity of Christ's mother. Masonry, marble, fabric and
household goods are as carefully documented and as lovingly rendered as are the figures from
the Christian story (Jardine, 1996).
Conspicuous consumption ± and the related ``status consumption'' ± are as
old as the hills. Prehistoric war leaders had fancier swords and decorations,
food and drink were employed to provide ostentatious displays of a person's
wealth and influence and the best artisans ± painters, sculptors, designers ±
were employed to show the powerful as just that ± powerful. Status-oriented
consumption did not get invented in the 1930s when Veglen coined the
phrase ``conspicuous consumption'', not in the late nineteenth century when
Weber noted the trait. It is part of normal human behaviour ± we want to be
seen as important and to fit in with those around us.
There are those hair-shirted individuals who criticise ± who sneer at ±
conspicuous consumption. But, whether their motivation is political, social
or environmental, such people remain in a minority. The rest of us see our
purchases as a contribution to statements of status, association and
achievement.
The status brand ± a different strategy?
Status brands are recognised by the ordinary consumer. We do not need to
be especially familiar with the brand or product category to recognise a
status brand when we see one. This ± confirmed by O'Cass and Frost's
research ± raises some important questions for brand marketers:
. How do we make our brand a ``status'' brand?
. What are the cues or image, impression and quality that signal ``status''
to the consumer?
. If our brand is a status brand, how do we promote it?
Put simply, the marketer needs to know whether the brand strategy for a
status brand differs from the brand strategy for a non-status brand. The
traditional mix used in brand marketing may not be appropriate or else we
may use a similar approach but with an entirely different tactical nuance.
In terms of positioning the status brand sits in a category perhaps best
labelled ``exclusive''. Indeed, exclusivity is one of the main cues we use to
determine a brand's status. Partly this exclusivity derives from price ± more
expensive brands, by this very fact, exclude some consumers who might like
to buy them. But we do not drop the price, because that would undermine the
brand's exclusive status. Such concerns lie behind the actions of big brand
owners against the likes of Tesco, a UK supermarket. This action ±
preventing Tesco selling ``grey market'' product ± is not just about
maintaining the brand premium. It is also about limiting access to the brand
and thereby enhancing exclusivity. This latter aim does more to protect the
brand's premium than a simple focus on price. We do not want people to be
able to buy our high status brand in a supermarket because that is not the
right environment ± it is too mass-market, too cheap and cheerful.
87
 Another way to limit access and protect the exclusive status is to restrict the
number of outlets where the consumer can buy your brand. This control (very
unpopular with retailers who do not carry your brand, because you will not
let them) allows the right associations to be placed with the brand. We have
all seen the bags that say; ``London, Paris, New York, Monte Carlo''. This
sends out a message of exclusivity.
Up-market department store operator, Harvey Nicholls, thought very
carefully about opening a store outside London. They researched the market
intensively to identify the city centre that provided the best catchment in
terms of income and social outlook. They were also concerned about the
other retailers in the chosen centre ± there needed to be sufficient of a high
quality comparable with the status of Harvey Nicholls.
The status brand is affected by the circumstances in which the buyer
encounters the brand and, as a result, the brand owner should act with care
when selecting channels through which to sell and to promote the brand.

Celebrity endorsement and the status brand

When a celebrity is paid to endorse our brand, we get a benefit, since the
celebrity's endorsement encourages the ordinary consumer to associate with
that celebrity through the purchase of the brand in question. However,
unconscious endorsement is even better ± when a celebrity is snapped
wearing our jeans while she walks her dog, it represents, in many ways, a
stronger endorsement than if we had paid that celebrity to be photographed
in the same pair.
At the same time as we enhance our brand's status through advertising we
should also think about the public relations benefits of carefully targeted
celebrity endorsement, sponsorship or exhibition. We want our product to be
associated with the great and the good, since that provides it with a cachet
unattainable through mere advertising.
The tricky part here is to balance exclusivity with mundane marketing aims
such as market share (share of which market?), brand extension and sales
volume. Equally, a brand can acquire a certain status without being especially
hard to find or particularly expensive. But, as we all know, conspicuous
consumption is mostly about showing how successful we are and this means
that we expect the high status brand to cost more than the mundane brand.
Everything about a particular Ford may be identical to a particular Mercedes
± engine size and performance, finish, accessories, colour ± but the Mercedes
will still cost more because of what it represents. Anyone can buy a Ford. Only
the eÂlite can afford a Mercedes. These differences matter to the consumer ± it is
something those who rant about brands do not understand ± and brand
managers need to recognise how significant their brand is to the consumer in
terms of status and conspicuous consumption.

Reference
Jardine, L. (1996), Worldly Goods: A New History of the Renaissance, Macmillan,
Basingstoke, p. 8.

(A preÂcis of the article ``Status brands: examining the effects of non-product-

related brand associations on status and conspicuous consumption''.
Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)

88 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 11 NO. 2 2002