Themes of the Luxury Brand Meaning Dimensions

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER III: CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND

 Introduction

Companies are concerned with brand value and equity, whereas consumers deal with brand meanings. The meanings derived from brands help consumers to understand and give a shape to the world around them (Batey, 2008) by becoming part of consumer self-concept (Cova 1997; Escalas 2004) and by fostering brand communities (Schouten and McAlexander 1995; Muñiz and O’Guinn 2005; Bulmer and Buchanan-Oliver 2010). Brand meaning is, therefore, a central and fundamental construct in understanding how consumers perceive, evaluate, and experience brands, as brands are first and foremost bundles of meanings. As McCracken (2005) and others assert, were it not for these meanings “it would be impossible to talk about brand images, brand personalities, or brand positions” (McCracken, 2005 p.179). In the previous chapter, it was noted that the current literature on luxury brands provides limited insight into meanings that consumers themselves ascribe to luxury brands and the processes by which these meanings are formed. In this chapter, I examine recent advances in branding theory, and develop a conceptual model of brand meaning. The aim is to gain an insight into how consumers derive their personalised perceptions of brands that can aid qualitative data analyses of interview texts and their emerging themes undertaken during the empirical part of this study. The chapter will first discuss the conceptualisations of brands in the marketing literature, and explore the roles that brands play within consumer culture. Next it will examine the theoretical concept of brand meaning, and then continue to develop the conceptual dimensions of brand meaning: (1) the socio-cultural beliefs about brands, (2) brand uses and gratifications, (3) consumer experiences of brand meaning, and (4) the perceived characteristics of brands. The chapter will conclude with a discussion of how the developed conceptual model will be used to explore the meanings consumers ascribe to luxury brands, with findings from the participant interviews in the subsequent chapters.

The Concept of the Brand

Since we are dealing with approaches and perspectives to branding it is relevant to address what is meant by the term ‘brand’ and how this term has been used in the marketing literature. The American Marketing Association (AMA) formally defines brand as: A name, term, design, symbol, or any other feature that identifies one seller’s good or service as distinct from those of other sellers. The legal term for brand is trademark. A brand may identify one item, a family of items, or all items of that seller. If used for the firm as a whole, the preferred term is trade name (American Marketing Association, 2011). This definition of brand, adopted by many marketing textbooks, is underpinned by multiple theoretical perspectives that convey a broad and diverse range of principles and concepts that are used about brands (De Chernatony and Segal-Horn, 2003; Brodie, 2009). They include an information economic perspective which views brands as market signals (e.g., Erdem and Swait, 1998), a psychological perspective which underpins the theory of consumer brand knowledge (e.g., Keller 1993), and broader relational social, and cultural perspectives that go beyond “seeing the brand just functioning as an entity and also see it functioning as a process where it can take on other meanings” (Brodie, 2009, p. 108). These broader perspectives widen the scope of branding by drawing on social psychology, sociology, social anthropology and other relevant disciplines (Buchanan-Oliver et al., 2008) to include research on brand relationships (e.g., Fournier, 1998), brand communities (e.g., Muñiz and O’Guinn, 2001), cocreated brand experiences (e.g., Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004), and consumer consumption practices and brand culture (e.g., Arnould and Thompson, 2005; Schroeder, 2009).
The scope of branding is, therefore, extensive. There are many aspects to brands and multiple perspectives from which they can be studied. Over the past several decades, branding theory and practice have developed their own specialised language, producing so many definitions and brand concepts that the term “has become so overdefined that its meanings are variable” (Stern, 2006, p.216). For instance, Brodie (2009) identifies four general types of concepts that are used about brands – consumer-based brand concepts (e.g., identity, expressions, personality), organisational concepts (e.g., clusters of values; positioning), relationship concepts (e.g., promises, commitments, experiences), and financial concepts (i.e., brand equity– and calls for an integrative theory of branding within the ‘service brand’ perspective. Others approach the study of brands from different angles and propose alternative classification schemas addressing the components of brands and brand conceptualisations (e.g., Stern, 2006; Jevons, 2007; Merz et al., 2009). Moreover, the concepts of branding have been applied not only to goods and services, but also to entire companies, places, regions, universities, museums, artists, and even individuals (Montoya and Vandehey, 2005). With this diffusion of brands into all aspects of consumer lives, brands appear in a wide variety of ways. Some brands are more likely to be associated with physical products and logos, whereas others are perceived to be less tangible and signify processes and spaces (Bengtsson and Ostberg, 2006). In addition, branding does not involve only relationships between
companies and consumers, but includes many other stakeholders such as employees, communities, and even countries and regions (Hatch and Schultz, 2003; Jones, 2005; Cayla and Eckhardt, 2008). Consequently, brands are more than complex and require further attention both as devices that bring competitive advantages to their legal owners (Bengtsson and Ostberg, 2006) and as consumption practices that shape and reflect consumer culture (Arnould and Thompson, 2005; Kates, 2006; Schroeder, 2009). This section provides an overview of the brandling scholarship with particular emphasis on research into brands that has a consumer rather than a firm focus. It will first explore the conceptualisations of consumer brand perceptions that are evident in the branding literature, in order to uncover the dominant foundational concepts. This is followed by an analysis of
the consumer culture perspective to provide further insights into the multiple roles that brands play in consumers’ lives. Overall, this section highlights that while the research on branding is extensive, there are gaps in the literature in terms of understanding how consumers experience and construct brand meanings.

Brand Management Literature

Companies are increasingly recognizing that brands are amongst their most important assets (Madden et al. 2006; Merz et al., 2009). As a result, much of the existing research into consumer perceptions of brands has been conducted from a managerial perspective. These studies focus on understanding the dimensions of brand value and the brand value creation process (Bengtsson and Ostberg, 2006; Schroeder, 2009). Consequently, the marketing literature explores the influences impacting the recognition of a brand’s logo (Gardner and Levy, 1955; Reynolds and Gutman, 1984), the imaginary associated with the brand (Park et al., 1986; Roth, 1995), and more recently the relationships between companies, consumers and other stakeholders (Iansiti and Levien, 2004; Jones, 2005). Merz et al. (2009) offer a chronological summary of branding research and discuss the evolution of the branding theory in marketing thought and practice (Figure 2). As this and other studies suggest, the focus of the theory has been gradually moving from companies towards consumers, in seeking to understand brand value creation (Keller, 2003; Prahalad, 2004). There is broad agreement in the managerial literature that brands have functional, symbolic, experiential and relational dimensions (Jevons, 2007; Buchanan-Oliver et al., 2008).

Functional Brand Perspective

Brands were first considered in the marketing literature in the early 1900s (Stern, 2006; Merz et al., 2009). Early studies viewed brands as merely identifiers of companies’ products that assisted consumers in differentiating between competing offerings (Copeland, 1923; DiMingo, 1988). “The central notion was that brands constituted a way for customers to identify and recognize goods (and their manufacturer). Manufacturer-branded products had clear and distinct identities. Their distinctive packaging made them clearly identifiable on sight. As identifiers, brands allowed replication of purchase decisions” (Low and Fullerton, 1994, cited in Merz et al., 2009, p. 330). Increased attention to branding occurred when companies realised that brands offered more benefits than merely providing products with recognisable labels. A clearly positioned brand image could not only differentiate a brand from its competitors (DiMingo, 1988), but also add value to market offerings by enabling consumers to identify the needs satisfied by the brand (Park et al., 1986; Roth, 1995). The ‘functional benefits’ of the brand refers to consumer perceptions as to whether a brand satisfies their immediate and practical needs (Bhat and Reddy, 1998), and reduces perceived risk for consumers by preventing or solving their current and anticipated problems (Roth, 1995). With its reliance on economic theory and emphasis on rationality in buying behaviour, the functional perspective assumes that when consumers evaluate brands they are guided mainly by cognitive reasoning related to the brand’s practical benefits and efficiency (Gardner and Levy, 1955). For instance, Brown (1950) argues that functional attributes such as the physical characteristics of the brand, packaging, price, and warranties affect consumers’ brand choice. Similarly, Park et al. (1986) suggest that for brands with utilitarian concepts, the marketing mix elements should communicate the brand’s effective performance in solving consumption-related problems (e.g., getting dirty clothes white and bright, removing stains, tasting good etc.); andErdem and Swait (1998) noted that the clarity and credibility of brands as signals of product positions decreases perceived risk to consumers, and hence increases consumer expected utility. Therefore, the functional perspective perceives brands as identifiers of products and as differentiating devices that communicate and enhance the product’s perceived utilitarian benefits in the marketplace (Merz et al., 2009). Within this perspective, consumers make rational choices regarding their purchases of products based on information communicated by brands. As a result, brand value was perceived to be located in the characteristics of the brand that conveyed the utilitarian benefits of the product

Symbolic Brand Perspective

Under the influence of the behavioural sciences in the 1950s and 1960s (Meenagham, 1995), the marketing discipline came to realise that consumers purchase brands not only because of their functional attributes, but also for the symbolic meanings associated with them (Gardner and Levy, 1955; Levy, 1959; Padgett and Allen, 1997). This change in conception of brands was prompted by Gardner and Levy’s (1955, p. 34) call for a “greater awareness of the social and psychological nature of products”, and Levy (1959, p. 124) proposing that “products turn people’s thoughts and feelings toward symbolic implications”.
Since then, a number of studies have addressed the symbolic benefits of branding (Belk, 1988; Meenaghan, 1995; Bhat and Reddy, 1998). This body of research perceives brands as signifiers of meanings that are shared and used by consumers in social interactions (Solomon, 1983; Elliott, 1994; Richins, 1994; Elliott and Wattanasuwan, 1998). According to Park et al. (1986), the brand’s symbolic meanings satisfy consumers’ internally generated needs for selfconcept and social identification. People engage in consumption behaviour, in part at least, to construct and express their selfconcept and personal identity (Belk, 1988; Richins, 1994; Escalas and Bettman, 2003).
Brands offer symbolism that assists consumers in achieving these purposes. For instance, Escalas and Bettman (2003) found that consumers represent themselves through their brand choices based on the congruity between brand and user self-image associations, and Elliott and Wattanasuwan (1998) assert that brands are often used as symbolic resources for the construction and maintenance of personal identity. Chaplin and John (2005) demonstrate the power of brand’s symbolic meaning by showing how children and adolescents grow to develop self-brand connections that reflect their desired personality, characteristics, and reference group affiliation. In addition, a considerable amount of attention in the marketing literature was given to the construct of brand personality, which refers to the set of human characteristics associated with a brand (Aaker, 1997). Researchers found that imbuing brands with personality traits enabled consumers to relate brands to their selves (Fournier, 1998), by evoking images that prompt “a comparison process to determine whether the [branded] product and self-image are congruent” (Chaplin and John, 2005, p. 120). In other words, consumers search for brands that they perceived to match their personalities. According to Aaker (1997), as goods were becoming increasingly similar, brand personality provided a key way to differentiate a brand in a product category, and was considered to be a central driver of consumer preference and choice of brands. For instance, the personality traits associated with the Coke brand are cool, all-American, and real; these traits are memorable and differentiate the brand from its competitors (e.g., Pepsi is young, exciting, and hip; Dr Pepper is nonconforming, unique, and fun) (Plummer, 1985; Pendergast, 1993 cited in Aaker, 1997). Furthermore, brand symbolism provides consumers with resources for social identification and group membership affiliation (Muñiz and O’Guinn, 2001; O’Cass and Frost, 2002). Veblen (1899) was the first to report that people purchase and use products as social ‘badges’ that reflect their status within a community. Similarly, Byrne (1999) argued that the acquisition of material goods is one of the strongest signals of social success and status, and Zinkhan and Prenshaw (1994) found that brands with exclusive appeals communicate the prestige, status, and role-position of the brand user. Moreover, brands help consumers to obtain and express their affiliation with social groups (Schouten and McAlexander, 1995; Muñiz and O’Guinn, 2001; Holt, 2004) through fostering a sense of relational connection with other brand users, which arises as the result of shared attachments to a brand (Muñiz and O’Guinn, 2001; Kates, 2006). According to Kates (2006), these connections are most organised and prominent in brand configurations such as brand communities (Muñiz and O’Guinn, 2001), subcultures of consumption (Schouten and McAlexander, 1995) and cultures of consumption (Kozinets, 2001). For instance, Schouten and McAlexander (1995) show that in the case of the Harley Davidson subculture of consumption, consumers formed intergroup connections through the development and sharing of a set of common values and activities that were derived from meanings conveyed by this brand. Brand-related communities will be explored in more detail in the discussion of experiential and relational dimensions of brand, and again within the consumer culture perspective later in this chapter. Therefore, while the functional perspective viewed brands as differentiating devices that communicate utilitarian benefits about products, the symbolic perspective emphasised the importance of brand meanings in increasing the value of market offerings and influencing consumer brand choice (Park et al., 1986; Aaker, 1997). It viewed brands as signifiers of social meanings, and assumed that when consumers purchase brands, they purchase them for the meanings associated with these brands. Consequently, brand value was perceived to be found in brand meanings.

 Experiential and Relationship Brand Perspectives

The conceptualisations of functional and symbolic brand perspectives were developed under the influence of traditional company-centric views of markets (Merz et al., 2009), which assumed that firms acted autonomously in producing the value of their products and services (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004). Within this view, consumers were regarded as ‘targets’ for the firm’s offerings and it was argued that “the firm and the consumer had distinct roles of production and consumption, respectively” (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004, p.6). Thus, the functional and symbolic perspectives formerly assumed that brand value was entirely created within the firm, and the consumer role in this process was limited to simply deciding on whether to accept or reject the value proposition. Consequently, the early studies of branding focused on exploring the aspects of brand value, such as functional and symbolic benefits (e.g., Park et al., 1986), paying little attention to how consumers interact with brands (Merz et al., 2009). The company-centric view has gradually been replaced by the consumer-centric view that perceives consumers as the co-creators of value in marketing interactions. This now asserts that consumers are actively involved, and that they interact with their suppliers in every respect, from product design to product consumption (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004; Lusch and Vargo 2006; Payne et al., 2008). Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004, p.7) argue that “high-quality interactions that enable an individual customer to co-create unique experiences with the company are the key to unlocking new sources of competitive advantage”. In branding theory, this change in the dominant logic of marketing (Vargo and Lusch, 2004) has resulted in the “reconsideration of how branding ‘works’ and shifted attention from brand producers and products toward consumer response and services to understand brand value creation” (Schroeder, 2009, p.123). The consumer-centric view is evident in the conceptualisations of brands as consumer-based equity (Keller, 1993; Aaker 1997), as clusters of experiences (Pine and Gilmore, 1999; Berry, 2000; de Chernatony, 2006), and as relationships that emerge from consumer-brand interactions and from other stakeholders (Fournier, 1998; Prahalad, 2004; Thompson et al., 2006; Payne et al., 2009). A common theme in this body of research is that consumers do not passively follow the company’s idea of what a brand constitutes; instead, consumers experience brands and, as a result of these experiences, take an active role in co-creating brand value and meanings (Berry, 2000; Payne et al., 2009). The early models of consumer-based brand equity highlighted that brand value creation takes place in the minds of consumers rather than being pre-determined by the company (Merz et al., 2009). For instance, Keller (1993) developed a conceptual model of brand equity from the perspective of an individual consumer. This model theorised the effects of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of the brand, and implied the joint efforts of consumers and firms in co-creating brand equity and value. Similarly, Aaker (1996) defined brand equity as a set of drivers (i.e., brand awareness, perceived quality, brand loyalty and brand associations) which exist in consumers’ minds and which determine the relationship between consumers and the firm; while Brown and Dacin (1997) found that brand knowledge influences consumer beliefs about and attitudes toward new products produced by a company.
As consumers have increasingly been viewed less as rational decision makers whose brand choices lead to purchasing outcomes and more as individuals who have feelings, fantasies, and who respond emotionally to consumption situations (Holbrook, 2000), the idea of brands as experiences has become popular in the marketing literature. Marketing practitioners have come to realise that understanding how consumers experience brands is essential for Pane et al, 2009; Brakus et al., 2009). Schmitt (1999) proposed that companies can gain competitive advantage by getting consumers to “sense, think, feel, act, and relate” to their brands, while Pine and Gilmore (1999) called experiences the next step in the progression of economic value. They argued that companies must stage memorable events for their consumers, and that the experience itself is gradually becoming the product and the brand that consumers are seeking in their purchasing decisions. This view found considerable support in the consumer studies of retail and entertainment sectors such as the tourist experiences of Las Vegas (Firat, 2001) and the flagship brand stores of the ESPN zone in Chicago (Kozinets et al., 2004).
The concept of brand relationship experiences has gained a particular interest (Fournier, 1998; Muñiz and O’Guinn, 2001; Thompson et al., 2006; Payne et al., 2009). The notion that consumers engage in relationships with brands has originated from the studies of the symbolic benefits of branding and the construct of brand personality. According to Fournier (1998), imbuing brands with human characteristics not only provides consumers with resources for personal identification, but it also allows consumers to become relational partners with brands by forming bonds that are similar to interpersonal relationships. Similarly, Aggarwal (2004, p.88) noted that “since relationships are a sequence of interactions between parties where the probable course of future interactions between them is significantly different from that of strangers, consumer interactions with brands could also be characterized as relational”, and Thompson et al. (2006) argued that consumer-brand relationships can cultivate a high degree of consumer passion for the brand by demonstrating “an empathetic understanding of consumers’ inspirations, aspirations, life circumstances, and generating a warm feeling of community among brand users” (p.50). Recent studies show that successful consumer-brand relationships bring many potential advantages to companies, including reduced marketing costs, ease of access to consumers, improved acquisitions and retention of consumers, brand loyalty, and increased brand equity and profitability (Blackston, 2000; Dowling, 2002; Smit et al., 2007). These studies thus assert that brand value is co created through successful consumer-brand relationships and determined through direct (i.e., through brand usage or consumption) or indirect (i.e., through perception) consumer experiences with the brand (Merz et al., 2009). Consequently, strengthening relationships with consumers is increasingly regarded as “a central pillar of market differentiation and sustainable competitive advantage” (Thompson et al., 2006, p. 50), with the relationship perspective becoming the main theoretical lens for understanding consumer-brand interactions (Peelen, 2003; Smit et al., 2007; Swaminathan et al., 2007; Payne et al., 2009).

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
1.2. Problem Orientation
1.3. Research Objective
1.4. Research Approach
1.5. Potential Research Contributions
1.6. Conclusion
CHAPTER II: LUXURY BRANDS
2.1. Introduction
2.2. The Luxury Brand Industry
2.3. Trends Influencing Luxury Consumption
2.4. Previous Conceptualisations of Luxury Brands
2.5. Conclusion
CHAPTER III: CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND
3.1. Introduction
3.2. The Concept of the Brand
3.3. Conceptualising Brand Meaning
3.4. Conclusion
CHAPTER IV: METHODOLOGY
4.1. Introduction
4.2. Research Objectives and Questions
4.3. Research Approach
4.4. Procedure
4.5. Conclusion
CHAPTER V: ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
5.1. Introduction
5.2. Themes of the Luxury Brand Meaning Dimensions
5.3. Relationships of the Luxury Brand Meaning Dimensions
5.4. Consumer-perceived Luxury Brand Meaning
5.5. Conclusion
CHAPTER VI: DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION
6.1. Introduction
6.2. The Consumption of the Luxury Brand Meanings
6.3. Research Contributions
6.4. Limitations
6.5. Future Research
6.6. Conclusion
REFERENCES

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
Luxury Brands in Consumer Lives: Conceptualising and Exploring the Consumption of Luxury Brand Meanings