Signaling Status with Luxury Goods: The Role of Brand Prominence

Posted on by

Han, Y., Nunes, J. and Drèze, X. (2010). Signaling Status with Luxury Goods: The Role of Brand Prominence. Journal of Marketing, 74(4), pp.15-30.

Mots clés : 

Luxe, statut, branding, groupe de référence, articles de contrefaçon, importance de la marque, image de marque 

L’objectif de cet article est de comprendre et expliquer la relation entre l’image de marque, la notoriété de celle-ci et le statut social. 

Résumé : 

Cette étude permet d’identifier les consommateurs qui préfèrent les “versions voyantes” aux “versions discrètes” de produits de luxe et d’expliquer ces différences.

En effet, les “versions discrètes” servent moins la fonction sociale d’un produit de luxe. Les consommateurs préférants ou non les produits avec des logos voyants, souhaitent ou non s’associer avec un groupe de consommateurs. 

Les auteurs dégagent donc quatre groupes de consommateurs : 

  • Patriciens (de l’élite romaine), ils possèdent une richesse importante et préfèrent des produits de marque discrets envoyant des signaux aux autres patriciens. Ils préfèrent se séparer des autres groupes qui peuvent utiliser des signaux plus voyants. Ils ne consomment pas pour le prestige.
  • Parvenus (du latin atteindre, arriver). Ce groupe de personne possèdes beaucoup de richesse, mais ne saisit pas les codes de la subtilité. Ils ont donc les moyens d’acquérir des articles plus discrets, mais ils préfèrent montrer leur richesse
  • Poseurs, personne qui prétend être ce qu’elle n’est pas. Comme les parvenus, ils souhaitent consommer pour leur statut. Cependant, ils n’ont pas les moyens financiers pour s’offrir du luxe authentique. Ils s’associent à ceux qu’ils observent et s’éloignent des groupes ayant moins de moyens. Ils sont enclins à acheter des produits de contrefaçon.
  • Prolétaire, personnes ayant moins de moyen et ayant moins conscience de leur statut. Ils ne cherchent ni à s’associer aux classes supérieures ni à se dissocier des autres et ne favorisent ni ne rejettent le luxe voyant.

Quant au choix de produit, le prix n’est pas la caractéristique première lors du choix, mais plutôt le type de marque et quel type de consommateur celle-ci est associée. Les consommateurs sont influencés par leur propre groupe social. 

Références bibliographique : 

  1. Aaker, David A. (1992), “The Value of Brand Equity,” Journal of Business Strategy, 13 (4), 27–32. 
  2. Allen, Jodie T. and Michael Dimock (2007), “A Nation of ‘Haves’ and ‘Have-Nots’? Far More Americans Now See Their Country as Sharply Divided Along Economic Lines,” Pew Research Center Publications, (accessed August 18, 2008), [available at http://pewresearch.org/pubs/593/haves-have-nots]. 
  3. Aron, Arthur, Elaine N. Aron, and Danny Smollan (1992), “Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the Structure of Interpersonal Closeness,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63 (4), 596–612. 
  4. Bagwell, Laurie S. and B. Douglas Bernheim (1996), “Veblen Effects in a Theory of Conspicuous Consumption,” The American Economic Review, 86 (June), 349–73. 
  5. Bearden, William O. and Michael J. Etzel (1982), “Reference Group Influence on Product and Brand Purchase Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (September), 183–94. 
  6. Belk, Russell (1988) “Possessions and the Extended Self,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (2), 139–68
  7.  Kenneth D. Bahn, and Robert N. Mayer (1982), “Developmental Recognition of Consumption Symbolism,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (June), 4–17. 
  8. Berry, Christopher J. (1994), The Idea of Luxury: A Conceptual and Historical Investigation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, Pierre (1984), Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste, Richard Nice, trans. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 
  9. Burroughs, W. Jeffrey, David R. Drews, and William K. Hallman (1991), “Predicting Personality from Personal Possessions: A Self-Presentational Analysis,” Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6 (6), 147–63. 
  10. Charles, Kerwin Kofi, Erik Hurst, and Nikolai L. Roussanov (2007), “Conspicuous Consumption and Race,” NBER Working Paper No. W13392. 
  11. Coats, Susan, Eliot R. Smith, Heather M. Claypool, and Michele J. Banner (2000), “Overlapping Mental Representations of Self and In-Group: Reaction Time Evidence and Its Relationship with Explicit Measures of Group Identification,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36 (3), 304–315. 
  12. Commuri, Suraj (2009), “The Impact of Counterfeiting on GenuineItem Consumers’ Brand Relationships,” Journal of Marketing, 73 (May), 86–98. 
  13. De Botton, Alain (2004), Status Anxiety. New York: Pantheon Books.
  14. Dubois, Bernard and Patrick Duquesne (1993), “The Market for Luxury Goods: Income Versus Culture,” European Journal of Marketing, 27 (1), 35–44. ——— and 
  15. Gilles Laurent (1995), “Luxury Possessions and Practices, an Empirical Scale,” in European Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 2, Flemming Hansen, ed. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 69–77. 
  16. Eastman, Jacqueline K., Ronald E. Goldsmith, and Leisa R. Flynn (1999), “Status Consumption in Consumer Behavior: Scale Development and Validation,” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 7 (Summer), 41–52. 
  17. Escalas, Jennifer Edson and James R. Bettman (2003), “You Are What You Eat: The Influence of Reference Groups on Consumers’ Connections to Brands,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13 (3), 339–48.——— and ——— (2005), “Self-Construal, Reference Groups, and Brand Meaning,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (3), 378–89. 
  18. Feltovich, Nick, Richmond Harbaugh, and Ted To (2002), “Too Cool for School? Signaling and Countersignaling,” RAND Journal of Economics, 33 (4), 630–49. 
  19. Fournier, Susan and Marsha Richins (1991), “Some Theoretical and Popular Notions Concerning Materialism,” Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6 (6), 403–414. 
  20. Garfein, R.T. (1989), “Cross-Cultural Perspectives on the Dynamics of Prestige,” Journal of Services Marketing, 3 (3), 17–24. 
  21. Grossman, Gene M. and Carl Shapiro (1988), “Foreign Counterfeiting of Status Goods,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 103 (1), 79–100. 
  22. Gumbel, Peter (2007), “Luxury Goes Mass Market,” Fortune Magazine: The Business of Luxury, (accessed August 19, 2008), 
  23. Hall, Cecily (2008), “Bragging Rights: The Top 12 Handbag Brands Ranked by Familiarity Among Luxury Consumers,” Women’s Wear Daily, (November 8), 11. 
  24. Hass, Nancy (2008), “Coach on the Edge,” Portfolio.com, (March 17), (accessed February 24, 2010), 
  25. Interbrand (2009), “2008 Leading Luxury Brands,” (accessed November 3, 2009), [available at http://www.Interbrand.com]. 
  26. Kapferer, Jean-Noel (1992), Strategic Brand Management. London: Kogan Page. 
  27. Levy, Sidney (1959), “Symbols for Sale,” Harvard Business Review, 37 (July–August), 117–24. 
  28. McKendrick, Neil, John Brewer, and J.H. Plumb (1983), The Birth of a Consumer Society: The Commercialization of 18th Century England. London: Europa Publications. 
  29. Muniz, Albert M. and Thomas C. O’Guinn (2001), “Brand Community” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (March), 412–32. 
  30. O’Cass, Aron and Hmily Frost (2002), “Status Brands: Examining the Effects of Non-Product-Related Brand Associations on Status and Conspicuous Consumption,” Journal of Product and Brand Management, 11 (2), 67–88. 
  31. Pfanner, Eric (2008), “Vuitton Ads Venture onto Television,” The New York Times, (January 29), (accessed December 7, 2009). 
  32. Richins, Marsha (1994a), “Possessions and the Extended Self,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (2), 139–68.(1994b), “Special Possessions and the Expression of Material Values,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (December), 522–33. 
  33. Schubert, Thomas and Sabine Otten (2002), “Overlap of Self, Ingroup, and Outgroup: Pictorial Measures of Self-Categorization,” Self & Identity, (4), 535–76. 
  34. Sherman, Lauren (2008), “World’s Most Powerful Luxury Brands,” Forbes.com, (May 8), (accessed November 3, 2009), 
  35. Sirgy, M. Joseph (1982), “Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior: A Critical Review,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (3), 287–300. 
  36. Solomon, Michael R. (1983), “The Role of Products as Social Stimuli: A Symbolic Interactionism Perspective,” Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (December), 319–29. 
  37. Thomas, Dana (2007), Deluxe: How Luxury Lost Its Luster. New York: The Penguin Press. 
  38. Tropp, Linda R. and Stephen C. Wright (2001), “Ingroup Identification as the Inclusion of Ingroup in the Self,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27 (5), 585–600. 
  39. Veblen, Thorstein (1899), The Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Penguin. 
  40. Vella, Matt (2008), “A Volvo with a Lot More Attitude,” BusinessWeek, (March 17), 17. 
  41. Wee, Chow-Hou, Soo-Jiuan Tan, and Kim-Hong Cheok (1995), “Non-Price Determinants of Intention to Purchase Counterfeit Goods,” International Marketing Review, 12 (6), 19–46. 
  42. Wernerfelt, Birger (1990), “Advertising Content When Brand Choice Is a Signal,” Journal of Business, 63 (1), 91–98. 
  43. White, Katherine and Darren W. Dahl (2006), “To Be or Not Be? The Influence of Dissociative Reference Groups on Consumer Preferences,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16 (4), 404–413. ——— and ——— (2007), “Are All Out-Groups Created Equal? Consumer Identity and Dissociative Influence,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (December), 525–36. 
  44. Whittler, Tommy E. and Joan Scattone Spira (2002), “Model’s Race: A Peripheral Cue in Advertising Messages?” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12 (4), 291–301. 
  45. Wilcox, Keith, Hyeong Min Kim, and Sankar Sen, (2009), “Why Do Consumers Buy Counterfeit Luxury Brands,” Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (April), 247–59. 
  46. Wilson, Eric (2007), “Is This It for the It Bag?” The New York Times, (November 1), 10.