Advertisement

Marketing Letters

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 893–904 | Cite as

Visual art in advertising: The effects of utilitarian vs. hedonic product positioning and price information

  • Verena HuettlEmail author
  • Heribert Gierl
Article

Abstract

Recent research has reported that visual artwork used in advertisements or on product packaging affects perceptions of luxury and contributes positively to attitudes toward products. Thus, the use of visual artwork has been recommended to promote products. We investigated the effect of artwork on purchase intentions and identified a co-occurring negative effect via perceptions of expensiveness. Our research indicates that the sign of the overall effect of artwork depends on two moderators. The positive effect via perceptions of luxury exists only for hedonic products but not for utilitarian ones. The negative effect via perceptions of expensiveness only appears when information about the product’s price is not provided to the consumer. Based on our findings, we recommend using art only for hedonic products for which the prices are known.

Keywords

Visual art Hedonic and utilitarian products Perceptions of luxury Perceptions of expensiveness 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank two anonymous reviewers and the responsible co-editor Frank R. Kardes for providing helpful comments. Additionally, we thank Florian F. Kottmair for assisting us in designing the test stimuli and for helping us with pretesting.

References

  1. Amaldoss, W., & Jain, S. (2005). Conspicuous consumption and sophisticated thinking. Management Science, 51(10), 1449–1466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, N. H. (1971). Integration theory and attitude change. Psychological Review, 78(3), 171–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belke, B., Leder, H., Strobach, T., & Carbon, C. C. (2010). Cognitive fluency: high-level processing dynamics in art appreciation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4(4), 214–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berlyne, D. E. (1974). Hedonic tone and reward value of exposure to paintings. In D. E. Berlyne (Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: steps toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation (pp. 227–233). Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere.Google Scholar
  5. Bhat, S., & Reddy, S. K. (1998). Symbolic and functional positioning of brands. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 15(1), 32–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(1), 60–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hagtvedt, P., & Patrick, V. (2008). Art infusion: the influence of visual art on the perception and evaluation of consumer products. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(3), 379–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Higgins, E. T., Rholes, W. S., & Jones, C. R. (1977). Category accessibility and impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13(2), 141–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 92–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Joy, A., & Sherry, J. F. (2003). Speaking of art as embodied imagination: a multisensory approach to understanding aesthetic experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 259–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lynn, M. (1989). Scarcity effects on desirability: mediated by assumed expensiveness. Journal of Economic Psychology, 19(2), 257–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mandel, B. R. (2009). Art as an investment and conspicuous consumption good. American Economic Review, 99(4), 1653–1663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Margolin, V. (1992). Product appeal and the aura of art. In S. Vihma (Ed.), Objects and images: studies in design and advertising (pp. 194–209). Helsinki: University of Industrial Arts.Google Scholar
  14. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Slonim, R., & Garbarino, E. (1999). The effect of price history on demand as mediated by perceived price expensiveness. Journal of Business Research, 45(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Strahilevitz, M. A., & Myers, J. G. (1998). Donations to charity as purchase incentives: how well they work may depend on what you are trying to sell. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 434–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Venkatesh, A., & Meamber, L. A. (2006). Arts and aesthetics: marketing and cultural production. Marketing Theory, 6(11), 11–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Grohmann, B. (2003). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(3), 295–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Yeung, C. W. M., & Wyer, R. S., Jr. (2004). Affect, appraisal, and consumer judgment. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 412–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., Jr., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AugsburgAugsburgGermany

Personalised recommendations