Skip to main content

Hideous but worth it: Distinctive ugliness as a signal of luxury

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2022)Cite this article

Abstract

Long-standing wisdom and academic research consistently agree that consumers choose attractive products and avoid ugly ones. And yet, multiple luxury brands successfully sell distinctively ugly products. This research provides an explanation, identifying distinctive ugliness as a signal of luxury and examining its impact on consumer choice. We explore this in seven studies, including a field study, a market pricing analysis, and five controlled laboratory experiments, three with consequential behavioral measures, incorporating a variety of fashion products, brands, aesthetic manipulations, and audiences. When products are from a non-luxury brand, consumers choose the attractive option and avoid the ugly. However, when from a luxury brand, consumers choose distinctively ugly products as often as attractive ones, not despite their ugliness but due to their ugliness and resulting ability to signal luxury. As such, brand prominence offers a boundary condition, as both a loud logo and distinctive ugliness serve to signal. Implications for both luxury and non-luxury brands are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Notes

  1. Study 2 found a positive effect of ugliness for a luxury brand regardless of distinctiveness. However, given the overwhelming results from the other studies indicating the necessity of distinctiveness, we expect distinctiveness is necessary for the effect and caution brands from assuming ugliness without distinctiveness will have the same effect.

  2. We thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing us toward this example.

References

  • Bagwell, L. S., & Bernheim, B. D. (1996). Veblen effects in a theory of conspicuous consumption. The American Economic Review, 86(3), 349–373.

  • Bearden, W. O., & Etzel, M. J. (1982). Reference group influence on product and brand purchase decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 183–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, C. (1924). Art. 1914. Chatto and Windus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellezza, S., & Berger, J. (2020). Trickle-Round Signals: When Low Status Is Mixed with High. Journal of Consumer Research, 47(1), 100–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellezza, S., Gino, F., & Keinan, A. (2014). The red sneakers effect: Inferring status and competence from signals of nonconformity. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(1), 35–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellezza, S., Paharia, N., & Keinan, A. (2017). Conspicuous consumption of time: When busyness and lack of leisure time become a status symbol. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(1), 118–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, J., & Ward, M. (2010). Subtle signals of inconspicuous consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(4), 555–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berlyne, D. E. (1973). Aesthetics and psychobiology. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 31(4), 553–553.

  • Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., & Payne, J. W. (1998). Constructive consumer choice processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(3), 187–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biddle, J. E., & Hamermesh, D. S. (1998). Beauty, productivity, and discrimination: Lawyers’ looks and lucre. Journal of Labor Economics, 16(1), 172–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biondi, A. (2019). Maison Margiela renews John Galliano’s contract. Vogue Business (October 30). Retrieved from Business of Fashion (April 24). Retrieved from https://www.voguebusiness.com/fashion/otb-renews-contract-john-galliano-maison-margiela-creative-director-renzo-rosso. Accessed 15 Jan 2021

  • Bliege Bird, R., Smith, E., & Bird, D. W. (2001). The hunting handicap: Costly signaling in human foraging strategies. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 50(1), 9–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloch, P. H. (1995). Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response. Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 16–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloch, P. H., Brunel, F. F., & Arnold, T. J. (2003). Individual differences in the centrality of visual product aesthetics: Concept and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(4), 551–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BoF Team. (2018). The truth about Vetements. Business of Fashion (April 24). Retrieved from https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/retail/the-truth-about-vetements-and-fashions-hottest-brands-and-top-selling-products-in-q1. Accessed 15 Jan 2021

  • Calder, B. J., & Burnkrant, R. E. (1977). Interpersonal influence on consumer behavior: An attribution theory approach. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(1), 29–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cesareo, L, & Bellezza, S. (2022). When is Imitation Flattering? Knowledge and Consumer Reactions to Counterfeits, Working paper.

  • Cohen, A. (2019). Kant on the Possibility of Ugliness. British Journal of Aesthetics, 53(2), 199–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, G. (2017). Ugly fashion is big business. Business of Fashion (November 17). Retrieved from https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/retail/ugly-fashion-is-big-business Accessed 15 June 2020

  • Datta, R., Joshi, D., Li, J., & Wang, J. Z. (2006). Studying aesthetics in photographic images using a computational approach. In European Conference on Computer Vision (pp. 288–301). Springer.

  • Davis, D.-M. (2020). Louis Vuitton and Gucci are the only 2 luxury companies to consistently rank among the world's most valuable brands for the last 20 years. Here's how they grew to dominate the high-end retail sector. Business Insider (January 24). Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com/how-gucci-louis-vuitton-became-two-most-valuable-luxury-brands-2020-01#gucci-is-as-many-would-say-the-modern-day-example-of-camp-or-to-others-simply-ugly-fashion-30. Accessed 15 Jan 2021

  • Deloitte (2018). Global Powers of Luxury goods. Retrieved from https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/mx/Documents/consumer-business/2018/Global-Power-of-Luxury-Goods-2018.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2020

  • Dinwoodie, G. B. (1996). Reconceptualizing the inherent distinctiveness of product design trade dress. North Carolina Law Review, 75(2), 471–606.

  • Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24(3), 285–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du, R. Y., & Kamakura, W. A. (2011). Measuring contagion in the diffusion of consumer packaged goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(1), 28–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, D., Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). Super size me: Product size as a signal of status. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(6), 1047–1062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, B., Laurent, G., & Czellar, S. (2001). Consumer rapport to luxury: Analyzing complex and ambivalent attitudes (No. 736). HEC Paris.

  • Feltovich, N., Harbaugh, R., & To, T. (2002). Too cool for school? Signalling and countersignalling. RAND Journal of Economics, 33(4), 630–649.

  • Ferguson, C. J., & Negy, C. (2014). Development of a brief screening questionnaire for histrionic personality symptoms. Personality and Individual Differences, 66, 124–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiore, A. M. (2010). Understanding aesthetics for the merchandising and design professional. A&C Black.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, C., Prandelli, E., Schreier, M., & Dahl, D. W. (2013). All that is users might not be gold: How labeling products as user designed backfires in the context of luxury fashion brands. Journal of Marketing, 77(5), 75–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, J. (2022). The surprising shoe that is overtaking sneakers. In the minds of designers, anyway: Inside the rise of the slip-on, slipper-adjacent mule—from weekend-only to work-approved. The Wall Street Journal (July 19). Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/mules-crocs-hydro-mocs-birkenstock-11658170691. Accessed 22 July 2022

  • Gibney, F. Jr. & Luscombe, B. (2000). The Redesign of America. Time. Retrieved from: http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,40767,00.html. Accessed 27 Feb 2022

  • Grafen, A. (1990). Biological signals as handicaps. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 144(4), 517–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Sundie, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Miller, G. F., & Kenrick, D. T. (2007). Blatant benevolence and conspicuous consumption: When romantic motives elicit strategic costly signals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(1), 85–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., & Van den Bergh, B. (2010). Going green to be seen: Status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(3), 392–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, G. M., & Shapiro, C. (1988). Foreign counterfeiting of status goods. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 103(1), 79–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagtvedt, H. (2022). A brand (new) experience: Art, aesthetics, and sensory effects. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 50, 425–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, Y. J., Nunes, J. C., & Drèze, X. (2010). Signaling status with luxury goods: The role of brand prominence. Journal of Marketing, 74(4), 15–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoegg, J., & Alba, J. W. (2008). A role for aesthetics in consumer psychology. In C. P. Haugtvedt, P. M. Herr, & F. R. Kardes (Eds.), Handbook of consumer psychology (pp. 733–754). Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoegg, J., Alba, J. W., & Dahl, D. W. (2010). The good, the bad, and the ugly: Influence of aesthetics on product feature judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(4), 419–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, M., Dang, C., & Chintagunta, P. K. (2019). Search and learning at a daily deals website. Marketing Science, 38(4), 609–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang, J., & Park-Poaps, H. (2010). Hedonic and utilitarian shopping motivations of fashion leadership. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 14(2), 312–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapferer, J. N., & Bastien, V. (2012). The luxury strategy: Break the rules of marketing to build luxury brands. Kogan page publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khosla, A., Sarma, A.S., &, Hamid, R. (2014). What makes an image popular. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on World Wide Web, 867–876.

  • Kim, H. S., & Hong, H. (2011). Fashion leadership and hedonic shopping motivations of female consumers. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 29(4), 314–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kordes-de Vaal, J. H. (1996). Intention and the omission bias: Omissions perceived as nondecisions. Acta Psychologica, 93(1–3), 161–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreitler, S., & Kreitler, H. (1994). Motivational and cognitive determinants of exploration. In. Keller, H., Schneider, K., Henderson, B. (Eds) Curiosity and Exploration. Springer

  • Kronrod, A., Grinstein, A., & Wathieu, L. (2012). Go green! Should environmental messages be so assertive? Journal of Marketing, 76(1), 95–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell, T. E., & Parshall, P. F. (1961). The Perception of Social Class from Photographs. Sociology and Social Research, 45(4), 407–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., & Augustin, D. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95(4), 489–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madden, A. (2020). “Ugly” fashion isn’t just a passing trend. Who What Wear (March 30). Retrieve from https://www.whowhatwear.com/ugly-fashion-trends. Accessed 15 Jan 2021

  • McAndrew, F. T., & Perilloux, C. (2012). Is self-sacrificial competitive altruism primarily a male activity? Evolutionary Psychology, 10(1), 147470491201000100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAndrew, F.T. (2021). Costly Signaling Theory. In: Shackelford, T.K., Weekes-Shackelford, V.A. (Eds) Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science. Springer, Cham.

  • Miller, K. (2013). Hedonic customer responses to fast fashion and replicas. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 17(2), 160–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mobius, M. M., & Rosenblat, T. S. (2006). Why beauty matters. American Economic Review, 96(1), 222–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mookerjee, S., Cornil, Y., & Hoegg, J. (2021). From waste to taste: How “Ugly” labels can increase purchase of unattractive produce. Journal of Marketing, 85(3), 62–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelissen, R. M., & Meijers, M. H. (2011). Social benefits of luxury brands as costly signals of wealth and status. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32(5), 343–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Page, C., & Herr, P. M. (2002). An investigation of the processes by which product design and brand strength interact to determine initial affect and quality judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(2), 133–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patrick, V. M., & Peracchio, L. A. (2010). Curating’ the JCP special issue on aesthetics in consumer psychology: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(4), 393–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, L., Geng, C., Chung, Y., & Zheng, W. (2020). The Faces of Success: Beauty and Ugliness Premiums in e-Commerce Platforms. Journal of Marketing, 84(4), 67–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Postrel, V. (2003). The Substance of Style: How the Rise of Aesthetic Value is Remaking Commerce, Culture and Conscience. HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramachandran, V. S., & Hirstein, W. (1999). The science of art: A neurological theory of aesthetic experience. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(6–7), 15–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratner, R. K., & Kahn, B. E. (2002). The impact of private versus public consumption on variety-seeking behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(2), 246–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redies, C. (2008). A universal model of esthetic perception based on the sensory coding of natural stimuli. Spatial Vision, 21(1–2), 97–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reimann, M., Zaichkowsky, J., Neuhaus, C., Bender, T., & Weber, B. (2010). Aesthetic package design: A behavioral, neural, and psychological investigation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(4), 431–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinach, S. S. (2005). China and Italy: fast fashion versus Pret a Porter. Towards a new culture of fashion. Fashion Theory, 9(1), 43–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, B. H., & Simonson, A. (1997). Marketing aesthetics: The strategic management of brands, identity and image. Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sevilla, J., & Townsend, C. (2016). The space-to-product ratio effect: How interstitial space influences product aesthetic appeal, store perceptions, and product preference. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(5), 665–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simmel, G. (1957). Fashion. American Journal of Sociology, 62(6), 541–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, J. A., Gangestad, S. W., & Lerma, M. (1990). Perception of physical attractiveness: Mechanisms involved in the maintenance of romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1192–1201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Statista. (2021). Luxury good and service purchase frequency of U.S. and UK consumers 2019, by age. December 15. Retrieved from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1063812/luxury-good-and-service-purchase-frequency-by-age/. Accessed 27 Feb 2022

  • Teixeira, T., Picard, R., & El Kaliouby, R. (2014). Why, when, and how much to entertain consumers in advertisements? A web-based facial tracking field study. Marketing Science, 33(6), 809–827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Front Row. (2020). Why is Fashion so Ugly?. Medium (January 10). Retrieved from https://medium.com/@huangakil8/why-is-fashion-so-ugly-1fb67669dc6e. Accessed 15 Jan 2021

  • Tian, K. T., Bearden, W. O., & Hunter, G. L. (2001). Consumers’ need for uniqueness: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 50–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Townsend, C. (2017). The price of beauty: Differential effects of design elements with and without cost implications in nonprofit donor solicitations. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(4), 794–815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Townsend, C., & Shu, S. B. (2010). When and how aesthetics influences financial decisions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(4), 452–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Townsend, C., & Sood, S. (2016). The inherent primacy of aesthetic attribute processing. In: Batra, R., Seifert, C, Brei, D. (Eds). The Psychology of Design. Routledge.

  • Tractinsky, N., Katz, A. S., & Ikar, D. (2000). What is beautiful is usable. Interacting with Computers, 13(2), 127–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Simonson, I. (1993). Context-dependent preferences. Management Science, 39(10), 1179–1189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2018). United States Consumer Spending. Retrieved from https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/consumer-spending. Accessed 15 June 2020

  • VanVoorhis, C. W., & Morgan, B. L. (2007). Understanding power and rules of thumb for determining sample sizes. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 3(2), 43–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veblen, T. (1899). The theory of the leisure class: An economic study in the evolution of institutions. Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veryzer, R. W., Jr., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1998). The influence of unity and prototypicality on aesthetic responses to new product designs. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 374–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vigneron, F., & Johnson, L. W. (1999). A review and a conceptual framework of prestige-seeking consumer behavior. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 1(1), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y., & Griskevicius, V. (2014). Conspicuous consumption, relationships, and rivals: Women’s luxury products as signals to other women. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(5), 834–854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiedmann, K.-P., Hennigs, N., & Siebels, A. (2009). Value-based segmentation of luxury consumption behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 26(7), 625–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilcox, K., Kim, H. M., & Sen, S. (2009). Why do consumers buy counterfeit luxury brands? Journal of Marketing Research, 46(2), 247–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winterich, K. P., Nenkov, G. Y., & Gonzales, G. E. (2019). Knowing what it makes: How product transformation salience increases recycling. Journal of Marketing, 83(4), 21–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yamamoto, M., & Lambert, D. R. (1994). The impact of product aesthetics on the evaluation of industrial products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11(4), 309–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoganarasimhan, H. (2020). Search personalization using machine learning. Management Science, 66(3), 1045–1070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahavi, A. (1975). Mate selection—a selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 53(1), 205–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeki, S. (1999). Inner vision: An exploration of art and the brain. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors express their gratitude for the helpful comments and suggestions received from Patti Williams, Joseph Nunes, and Carter Morgan and appreciate the feedback received from the marketing departments of Indiana University, University of Houston, the Vanderbilt University marketing camp, the Lehigh University College of Business research retreat, as well as attendees at the Marketing Science and Association for Consumer Research conferences.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lehigh University, 421 Rauch Business Center, 621 Taylor Street, Bethlehem, PA, 18015, USA

    Ludovica Cesareo

  2. Miami Herbert Business School, 5250 University Drive, KE 507, P.O. Box 248147, Coral Gables, FL, 33124, USA

    Claudia Townsend

  3. Miami Herbert Business School, 5250 University Drive, KE 504, P.O. Box 248147, Coral Gables, FL, 33124, USA

    Eugene Pavlov

Authors
  1. Ludovica Cesareo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Claudia Townsend
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eugene Pavlov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ludovica Cesareo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Dipayan Biswas served as Area Editor for this article.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 726 KB)

Appendix 1: All study stimuli

Appendix 1: All study stimuli

figure a
figure b

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cesareo, L., Townsend, C. & Pavlov, E. Hideous but worth it: Distinctive ugliness as a signal of luxury. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-022-00913-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-022-00913-3

Keywords

  • Luxury
  • Aesthetics
  • Signaling
  • Distinctiveness
  • Conspicuous consumption