Skip to main content
Log in

Narrow, powerful, and public: the influence of brand breadth in the luxury market

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Brand Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although the current literature in brand extensions is replete with studies in both line and category extensions, the effect of brand breadth (magnitude of the category extensions) is still yet to be thoroughly examined. Few researchers have focused on brand breadth, to suggest when to choose a narrow (vs. broad) brand extension strategy. Accordingly, no theoretical explanations support the coexistence of both narrow brands (i.e., brands with extensions in similar categories) and broad brands (i.e., brands with extensions in dissimilar categories), particularly in the luxury market. In order to provide guidelines for luxury marketers to enhance overall brand equity, we investigate conditions under which narrow brands are more strongly preferred to broad brands in the luxury market, using a total of 389 respondents recruited via Amazon M-turks and 230 university volunteers in four experiments. Findings demonstrate that narrow brands are liked more than broad brands only with consumers who feel powerful and desire status, and especially when the consumption occurs in public. Highlighting the importance of brand breadth, the current research contributes to the literature in brand extensions and luxury branding by supplying theoretical guidelines to formulate successful brand extension strategies for luxury marketers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aaker, D.A., and K.L. Keller. 1990. Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing 54 (1): 27–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahluwalia, R. 2008. How far can a brand stretch? Understanding the role of self-construal. Journal of Marketing Research 45 (3): 337–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albrecht, C.-M., C. Backhaus, H. Gurzki, and D.M. Woisetschläger. 2013. Drivers of brand extension success: What really matters for luxury brands. Psychology and Marketing 30 (8): 647–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Bain & Company. 2012. Luxury update 2012. http://www.bain.com/about/press/press-releases/spring-luxury-update-2016.aspx. Accessed 2 Oct 2016.

  • Bain & Company. 2016. Spring luxury update 2016. http://www.bain.com/about/press/press-releases/spring-luxury-update-2016.aspx. Accessed 2 Oct 2016.

  • Belk, R.W. 1988. Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research 15 (2): 139–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, J., and C. Heath. 2007. Where consumers diverge from others: Identity signaling and product domains. Journal of Consumer Research 34 (2): 121–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhat, S., and S.K. Reddy. 2001. The impact of parent brand attribute associations and affect on brand extension evaluation. Journal of Business Research 53 (3): 111–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boush, D.M., and B. Loken. 1991. A process-tracing study of brand extension evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research 28 (1): 16–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broniarczyk, S.M., and J.W. Alba. 1994. The importance of the brand in brand extension. Journal of Marketing Research 31 (2): 214–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, W.Y., C.K.M. To, and W.C. Chu. 2015. Materialistic consumers who seek unique products: How does their need for status and their affective response facilitate the repurchase intention of luxury goods? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 27: 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charles, K.K., E. Hurst, and N. Roussanov. 2009. Conspicuous consumption and race. Quarterly Journal of Economics 124 (2): 425–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czellar, S. 2003. Consumer attitude toward brand extensions: An integrative model and research propositions. International Journal of Research in Marketing 20 (1): 97–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dacin, P.A., and D.C. Smith. 1994. The effect of brand portfolio characteristics on consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing Research 31 (2): 229–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dall’Olmo Riley, F., J.M. Pina, and R. Bravo. 2015. The role of perceived value in vertical brand extensions of luxury and premium brands. Journal of Marketing Management 31 (7–8): 881–913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Barnier, V., S. Falcy, and P. Valette-florence. 2012. Do consumers perceive three levels of luxury? A comparison of accessible, intermediate and inaccessible luxury brands. Journal of Brand Management 19 (7): 623–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deloitte. 2016. Global powers of luxury goods 2016: Disciplined innovation. New York: Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Domhoff, G.W. 1998. Who rules America? Power and politics in the year 2000. Houston: Mayfield Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, B., and P. Duquesne. 1993. The market for luxury goods: Income versus culture. European Journal of Marketing 27 (1): 35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, D., D.D. Rucker, and A.D. Galinsky. 2015. Social class, power, and selfishness: When and why upper and lower class individuals behave unethically. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 108 (3): 436–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dwivedi, A., B. Merrilees, and A. Sweeney. 2010. Brand extension feedback effects: A holistic framework. Journal of Brand Management 17 (5): 328–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galinsky, A.D., D.H. Gruenfeld, and J.C. Magee. 2003. From Power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85 (3): 453–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. New York, NY: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griskevicius, V., N.J. Goldstein, C.R. Mortensen, et al. 2009. Fear and loving in Las Vegas: Evolution, emotion, and persuasion. Journal of Marketing Research 46 (3): 384–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagtvedt, H., and V.M. Patrick. 2009. The broad embrace of luxury: Hedonic potential as a driver of brand extendibility. Journal of Consumer Psychology 19 (4): 608–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hem, L.E., L. de Chernatony, and N.M. Iversen. 2003. Factors influencing successful brand extensions. Journal of Marketing Management 19 (7–8): 781–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hennigs, N., K. Wiedmann, S. Behrens, and C. Klarmann. 2013. Unleashing the power of luxury: Antecedents of luxury brand perception and effects on luxury brand strength. Journal of Brand Management 20 (8): 705–715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henry, P.C. 2005. Social class, market situation, and consumers’ metaphors of (dis)empowerment. Journal of Consumer Research 31 (4): 766–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapferer, J.-N., and V. Bastien. 2009. The luxury strategy: Break the rules of marketing to build luxury brands. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapferer, J.-N., and P. Valette-Florence. 2016. Beyond rarity: The paths of luxury desire. How luxury brands grow yet remain desirable. Journal of Product and Brand Management 25 (2): 120–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kastanakis, M.N., and G. Balabanis. 2014. Explaining variation in conspicuous luxury consumption: An individual differences’ perspective. Journal of Business Research 67 (10): 2147–2154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, K.L. 2009. Managing the growth tradeoff: Challenges and opportunities in luxury branding. Journal of Brand Management 16 (5–6): 290–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, K.L. 2013. Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing brand equity. 4th edn. Pearson. https://www.pearsonhighered.com/program/Keller-Strategic-Brand-Management-4th-Edition/PGM152495.html.

  • Keller, K.L. 2016. Reflections on customer-based brand equity: Perspectives, progress, and priorities. AMS Review 6 (1–2): 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, K.L., and D.A. Aaker. 1992. The effects of sequential introduction of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing Research 29 (1): 35–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keltner, D., D.H. Gruenfeld, and C. Anderson. 2003. Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review 110 (2): 265–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, C.K., A.M. Lavack, and M. Smith. 2001. Consumer evaluation of vertical brand extensions and core brands. Journal of Business Research 52 (3): 211–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J., and H.-H. Lee. 2015. Impacts of U.S. affluent consumers’ luxury goods consumption beliefs on repeat purchases of luxury goods: Generational and gender comparison analyses. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing 6 (3): 207–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirmani, A., S. Sood, and S. Bridges. 1999. The ownership effect in consumer responses to brand line stretches. Journal of Marketing 63 (1): 88–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latter, C., I. Phau, and C. Marchegiani. 2010. The roles of consumers need for uniqueness and status consumption in haute couture luxury brands. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing 1 (4): 206–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, F., and L.Z. Tiedens. 2001. Is it lonely at the top? The independence and interdependence of power holders. Research in Organizational Behavior, An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews 23: 43–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liebenstein, H. 1950. Bandwagon, snob, and veblen effects in the theory of consumers’ demand. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 64 (2): 183–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, F., J. Li, D. Mizerski, et al. 2012. Self-congruity, brand attitude, and brand loyalty: A study on luxury brands. European Journal of Marketing 46 (7/8): 922–937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magee, J.C., and A.D. Galinsky. 2008. Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. The Academy of Management Annals 2 (1): 351–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandel, N., P.K. Petrova, and R.B. Cialdini. 2006. Images of success and the preference for luxury brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates) 16 (1): 57–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez, E., and J.M. Pina. 2010. Consumer responses to brand extensions: A comprehensive model. European Journal of Marketing 44 (7/8): 1182–1205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyvis, T., and C. Janiszewski. 2004. When are broader brands stronger brands? An accessibility perspective on the success of brand extensions. Journal of Consumer Research 31 (2): 346–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nueno, J.L., and J.A. Quelch. 1998. The mass marketing of luxury. Business Horizons 41 (6): 61–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunes, J.C., X. Drèze, and Y.J. Han. 2011. Conspicuous consumption in a recession: Toning it down or turning it up? Journal of Consumer Psychology 21 (2): 199–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ordabayeva, N., and P. Chandon. 2011. Getting ahead of the Joneses: When equality increases conspicuous consumption among bottom-tier consumers. Journal of Consumer Research 38 (1): 27–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, C.W., S. Milberg, and R. Lawson. 1991. Evaluation of brand extensions: The role of product feature similarity and brand concept consistency. Journal of Consumer Research 18 (2): 185–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitta, D.A., and L.P. Katsanis. 1995. Understanding brand equity for successful brand extension. The Journal of Consumer Marketing 12 (4): 51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reddy, M., and N. Terblanche. 2005. How not to extend your luxury brand. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2005/12/how-not-to-extend-your-luxury-brand. Accessed 31 Aug 2016.

  • Reddy, M., N. Terblanche, L. Pitt, and M. Parent. 2009. How far can luxury brands travel? Avoiding the pitfalls of luxury brand extension. Business Horizons 52 (2): 187–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reyneke, M., A. Sorokácová, and L. Pitt. 2012. Managing brands in times of economic downturn: How do luxury brands fare? Journal of Brand Management 19 (6): 457–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rucker, D.D., and A.D. Galinsky. 2008. Desire to acquire: Powerlessness and compensatory consumption. Journal of Consumer Research 35 (2): 257–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rucker, D.D., and A.D. Galinsky. 2009. Conspicuous consumption versus utilitarian ideals: How different levels of power shape consumer behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45 (3): 549–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rucker, D.D., and S. He. 2016. Psychological mindsets affect consumption: How different mindsets help (hurt) portion control. Appetite, Consumer psychology and portion size: Making smaller better 103: 425–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rucker, D.D., M. Hu, and A.D. Galinsky. 2014. The experience versus the expectations of power: A recipe for altering the effects of power on behavior. Journal of Consumer Research 41 (2): 381–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salinas, E.M., and J.M.P. Pérez. 2009. Modeling the brand extensions’ influence on brand image. Journal of Business Research 62 (1): 50–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, B.M. 1993. Managing brand extension. The Journal of Consumer Marketing 10 (3): 11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheinin, D.A., and B.H. Schmitt. 1994. Extending brands with new product concepts: The role of category attribute congruity, brand affect, and brand breadth. Journal of Business Research 31 (1): 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silverstein, M., and N. Fiske. 2003. Trading up: The new American luxury. Oklahoma: Portfolio.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stankeviciute, R., and J. Hoffmann. 2010. The impact of brand extension on the parent luxury fashion brand: The cases of Giorgio Armani, Calvin Klein and Jimmy Choo. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing 1 (2): 119–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veblen, T. 1899. Theory of the leisure class: An economic study of Institutions. New York: McMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Völckner, F., and H. Sattler. 2007. Empirical generalizability of consumer evaluations of brand extensions. International Journal of Research in Marketing 24 (2): 149–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y., and V. Griskevicius. 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 

  • White, K., and D.W. Dahl. 2006. To be or not be? The influence of dissociative reference groups on consumer preferences. Journal of Consumer Psychology (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates) 16 (4): 404–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, X., J.G. Lynch, and Q. Chen. 2010. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research 37 (2): 197–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zheng, C., K. Ma, Q. Duan, and H. Wang. 2015. Ineffective brand extensions and the Sisyphus Effect. Journal of Product and Brand Management 24 (2): 165–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimbardo, P.G., C. Haney, and C. Banks. 1974. The psychology of imprisonment: Privation, power, and pathology. In: Doing unto others: Explorations in social behavior, 61–73. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Youngseon Kim.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Appendices

Appendix 1

  1. 1.

    The below is the stimulus shown to the participants assigned to the condition of the narrow luxury brand. Instead of using terms “narrow luxury brand,” we explained what the term represents in order to ensure informed responses.

Please carefully read the following information about luxury brands. You will be asked to indicate your thoughts about them in the next page.

A company uses its established brand name to introduce a new product category. The new category to which a brand is extended can be related or unrelated to its original product category. This marketing initiative is called brand extension. Many luxury brands adopt the brand extension strategy as well. One type of brand extensions adopted by luxury brands is narrow brand extensions. Narrow brand extensions occur when a luxury brand extends its brand to product categories only similar or related to its original product category.

Please imagine a luxury brand whose original product category is a designer’s fashion clothing. It has decided to take a narrow brand extension strategy. Therefore, it offers bags, shoes, watches, jewelry, sunglasses, and fashion accessories under the same brand name. Its extension range is relatively small and its brand name is only found in a certain number of product categories.

What do you think about a luxury brand with narrow extensions?

  1. 2.

    The below is the stimulus shown to the participants assigned to the condition of the broad luxury brand. Instead of using terms “broad luxury brand,” we explained what the term represents in order to ensure informed responses.

A company uses its established brand name to introduce a new product category. The new category to which a brand is extended can be related or unrelated to its original product category. This marketing initiative is called brand extension. Many luxury brands adopt the brand extension strategy as well. One type of brand extensions adopted by luxury brands is broad brand extensions. Broad brand extensions occur when a luxury brand extends its brand to various kinds of product categories, either similar to or different from its original product category.

Please imagine a luxury brand original product category is a designer’s fashion clothing. It has decided to take a broad extension strategy. Therefore, it offers bags, shoes, watches, fashion accessories, home goods, and hotels under the same brand name. Its product range is relatively large and its brand name is found in diverse product categories.

What do you think about a luxury brand with broad extensions?

Appendix 2

  1. 1.

    Public Consumption

“By public consumption, we mean that people’s consumption behavior is identifiable; this is either because their behaviors will be viewed by other people when they are referred to repeatedly by name, or when they reveal personal information to other people. In the space below, please write down all your thoughts about public consumption.”

  1. 2.

    Private Consumption

“By private consumption, we mean that people’s consumption behavior is unidentifiable; this is either because their behaviors will not be viewed by other people, or their consumption is completely anonymous, or when their personal information is not revealed to other people. In the space below, please write down all your thoughts about private consumption.”

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, Y., Wingate, N. Narrow, powerful, and public: the influence of brand breadth in the luxury market. J Brand Manag 24, 453–466 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-017-0043-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-017-0043-7

Keywords

Navigation