Does Advertising Appeal Type Make a Difference? A New Sustainable Fashion Product by a Luxury and Mainstream Brand

  • Feray AdıgüzelEmail author
Part of the Sustainable Textiles: Production, Processing, Manufacturing & Chemistry book series (STPPMC)


Sustainability is not only at the forefront of the mainstream brands’ agenda. Luxury brands have also already engaged in sustainability actions, either launching sustainable versions of their products or develop “responsible luxury” strategies and policies. This chapter explores two types of advertising appeals for sustainable new products communications: those that deliver consumer benefit (i.e., self-benefit) and those that deliver societal benefit (i.e., others-benefit). Furthermore, this research investigates whether the advertising appeal types moderate the effect of brand types, namely, mainstream versus luxury, on consumers’ reactions toward new sustainable products. The results of the experiment indicate that consumers’ purchase intention increases when a new sustainable product is produced by a mainstream brand rather than a luxury one when advertising communicates self-benefits. When the message is focused on “others-benefit” instead of “self-benefit,” consumers’ attitude toward a new sustainable product increases for a luxury brand. On the other hand, consumers’ attitude toward a new sustainable product decreases when the message is “others-benefit” for a mainstream brand.


Sustainable new product Luxury brand Mainstream brand Self-benefit Others-benefit Sustainable consumption Responsible luxury 


  1. Achabou MA, Dekhili S (2013) Luxury and sustainable development: is there a match? J Bus Res 66(10):1896–1903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adıgüzel F, De Angelis M, Amatulli C (2018) Design similarity as a tool for sustainable new luxury product adoption: the role of luxury brand knowledge and product ephemerality. In: Gardetti M, Muthu S (eds) Sustainable luxury, entrepreneurship, and innovation. Environmental footprints and eco-design of products and processes. Springer, Singapore, pp 167–184Google Scholar
  3. Allen CT (1982) Self-perception strategies for stimulating energy conservation. J Consum Res 8(4):381–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ayadi N, Lapeyre A (2016) Consumer purchase intentions for green products: mediating role of WTP and moderating effects of framing. J Mark Commun 22(4):367–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Belk RW (1988) Possessions and the extended self. J Consum Res 15(2):139–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bezawada R, Pauwels K (2013) What is special about marketing organic products? How organic assortment, price, and promotions drive retailer performance. J Mark 77(1):31–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bodur HO, Gao T, Grohmann B (2014) The ethical attribute stigma: understanding when ethical attributes improve consumer responses to product evaluations. J Bus Ethics 122(1):167–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonini SM, Oppenheim JM (2008a) Helping “green” products grow. McKinsey Q 3(2):1–8Google Scholar
  9. Bonini SM, Oppenheim JM (2008b) Cultivating the green consumer. Stanf Soc Innov Rev 6(4):56–61Google Scholar
  10. Cervellon MC, Shammas L (2013) The value of sustainable luxury in mature markets: a customer-based approach. J Corp Citizsh 2013(52):90–101Google Scholar
  11. Chartrand TL, Huber J, Shiv B et al (2008) Nonconscious goals and consumer choice. J Consum Res 35(2):189–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dahl R (2010) Green washing: do you know what you’re buying? Environ Health Perspect 118(6):A246–A252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davis JJ (1994) Consumer response to corporate environmental advertising. J Consum Mark 11(2):25–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. De Angelis M, Adıgüzel F, Amatulli C (2017) The role of design similarity in consumers’ evaluation of new green products: an investigation of luxury fashion brands. J Clean Prod 141:1515–1527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dodds WB, Monroe K, Grewal D (1991) Effect of price, brand and store information on buyers’ product evaluations. J Mark Res 28(3):307–319Google Scholar
  16. Green T, Peloza J (2014) Finding the right shade of green: the effect of advertising appeal types on environmentally friendly consumption. J Advert 43(2):128–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Griskevicius V, Tybur JM, Van den Bergh B (2010) Going green to be seen: status, reputation and conspicuous conservation. J Pers Soc Psychol 98:343–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Han YJ, Nunes JC, Drèze X (2010) Signaling status with luxury goods: the role of brand prominence. J Mark 74:15–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haws KL, Winterich KP, Naylor RW (2014) Seeing the world through GREEN-tinted glasses: green consumption values and responses to environmentally friendly products. J Consum Psychol 24(3):336–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hayes AF (2018) Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. The Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Holmes JG, Miller DT, Lerner MJ (2002) Committing altruism under the cloak of self-interest: the exchange fiction. J Exp Soc Psychol 38(2):144–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hutton RB, Markley F (1991) The effects of incentives on environment-friendly behaviors: a case study. Adv Consum Res 18:697–702Google Scholar
  23. Janssen C, Vanhamme J, Leblanc S (2017) Should luxury brands say it out loud? Brand conspicuousness and consumer perceptions of responsible luxury. J Bus Res 77:167–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Joshi Y, Rahman Z (2016) Predictors of young consumer’s green purchase behaviour. Manag Environ Qual 27(4):452–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kapferer JN, Michaut-Denizeau A (2014) Is luxury compatible with sustainability? Luxury consumers’ viewpoint. J Brand Manag 21(1):1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kronrod A, Grinstein A, Wathieu L (2012) Go green! Should environmental messages be so assertive? J Mark 76(1):95–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lin Y, Chang CA (2012) Double standard: the role of environmental consciousness in green product usage. J Mark 76(5):125–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Luchs MG, Kumar M (2017) Yes, but this other one looks better/works better. How do consumers respond to trade-offs between sustainability and other valued attributes? J Bus Ethics 140(3):567–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Luchs MG, Brower J, Chitturi R (2012) Product choice and the importance of aesthetic design given the emotion-laden trade-off between sustainability and functional performance. J Prod Innov Manage 29(6):903–916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lundblad L, Davies IA (2016) The values and motivations behind sustainable fashion consumption. J Consum Behav 15:149–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Magnoni F, Roux E (2012) The impact of step-down line extension on consumer brand relationships: a risky strategy for luxury brands. J Brand Manag 19(7):595–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McNeill L, Moore R (2015) Sustainable fashion consumption and the fast fashion conundrum: fashionable consumers and attitudes to sustainability in clothing choice. Int J Consum Stud 39(3):212–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Naderi I, Strutton D (2015) I support sustainability but only when doing so reflects fabulously on me: can green narcissists be cultivated? J Macromark 35(1):70–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Olsen MC, Slotegraaf RJ, Chandukala SR (2014) Green claims and message frames: how green new products change brand attitude. J Mark 78(5):119–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Olson EL (2013) It’s not easy being green: the effects of attribute tradeoffs on green product preference and choice. J Acad Mark Sci 41(2):171–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Palmer A (2002) The role of selfishness in buyer-seller relationships. Mark Intell Plan 20(1):22–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Peattie K (2001) Towards sustainability: the third age of green marketing. Mark Rev 2:129–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Peloza J, White K, Shang J (2013) Good and guilt-free: the role of self-accountability in influencing preferences for products with ethical attributes. J Mark 77(1):104–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rothschild ML (1979) Marketing communications in nonbusiness situations or why it’s so hard to sell brotherhood like soap. J Mark 43:11–20Google Scholar
  40. Scarborough Research (2010) All about the super greenies. Accessed 24 July 2019
  41. Schuhwerk ME, Lefkoff-Hagius R (1995) Green or non-green? Does type of appeal matter when advertising a green product? J Advert 24(2):45–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sirgy MJ (1986) Self-congruity: toward a theory of personality and cybernetics. Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group, WestportGoogle Scholar
  43. Smith SM, Petty RE (1996) Message framing and persuasion: a message processing analysis. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 22(3):257–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Spears N, Singh SN (2004) Measuring attitude toward the brand and purchase intentions. J Curr Issues Res Advert 26(2):53–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Torelli CJ, Monga AB, Kaikati AM (2012) Doing poorly by doing good: corporate social responsibility and brand concepts. J Consum Res 38(5):948–963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Twenge JM (2006) Generation me: why today’s young Americans are more confident, assertive, entitled—and more miserable than ever before. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Van Doorn J, Verhoef PC (2011) Willingness to pay for organic products: differences between virtue and vice foods. Int J Res Mark 28(3):167–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wheeler S, Petty R, Bizer G (2005) Self-schema matching and attitude change: situational and dispositional determinants of message elaboration. J Consum Res 31(4):787–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. White K, Peloza J (2009) Self-benefit versus other-benefit marketing appeals: their effectiveness in generating charitable support. J Mark 73(4):109–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LUISS Guido Carli UniversityRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations