Submitted by Rawa Alagha (Student no 202000172)
Course: Business Research Methods (MAGT 612)
Article Critique
Signaling Status with Luxury Goods: The Role of Brand Prominence
The authors choose a good title for the study which gives clear hints of the context, although
they could have used figurative language to further motivate the readers. Also, they pick
multiple keywords to denote the most significant in this paper. However, I recommend
limiting them to the following: luxury goods, counterfeits, social status, and brand
prominence. Moving to the introduction, the article clearly sets the atmosphere by narrating
some historical background of how clothing has been a signal of social status and how this
tradition continues in our days – communicating luxury through brands. Having this article
published in 2010, it cites recent publications, such as the authors’ reference to Wilcox, Kim,
and Sen (2009) as an exception tackling the significance of brand prominence on selfexpression. Also, while referring to consumers’ classifications in different works, there is
originality in the research as they propose their own taxonomy of four groups for the purpose
of the study. Beyond, it proposes a new construct, i.e., “brand prominence”. As such, the
paper aims to investigate consumers’ buying decisions (quiet vs. loud branding marks) and
how this is reflected in their need for status, which seems to be the rationale of the study, thus
concluding with implications for marketers. I believe these are good questions to pose
because they can influence marketing strategies.
The paper relies on four studies that the authors conducted. Yet, it is not clear how the
sampling was conducted in Study 1. So, there could be bias in the research. Cooper and
Schindler (2013, p.359) state that “the ultimate test of a sample design is how well it
represents the characteristics of the population it purports to represent,” which is important
for the accuracy and precision of the study. In Study 3, the authors choose the multistage
cluster sampling type which makes the study cost- and time-effective (O’Gorman and
Maclntosh, 2015). Also, this technique allows researchers to control other factors such as
weather and fashion trends among other factors. Similar to Study 3, Study 4 follows the
multistage cluster sampling technique. In studies 3 and 4, 120 participants were selected in
each which is smaller than the recommended sample size of 200 to 300 participants for
1
Submitted by Rawa Alagha (Student no 202000172)
Course: Business Research Methods (MAGT 612)
statistical validity (O’Gorman and Maclntosh, 2015). However, Sreejesh, Mohapatra and
Anusree (2014, p.19) suggest that “a sample that is selected using probability sampling
techniques will be sufficient for getting effective results.” Nevertheless, I believe that the
sampling size should have a minimum value to represent the population. Meanwhile, the
authors refer to pretesting the descriptions of individuals in their taxonomy, which is useful to
refine the measuring instrument.
A strength of this research is investigating the correlation between price and brand
prominence within a single brand’s product line, thus emphasizing how to target two types of
consumers simultaneously. Also, the experiment technique is considered reliable (O’Gorman
and Maclntosh, 2015). However, the research did not include pilot testing which can reveal
errors in the research design (Cooper and Schindler, 2013). In Study 4, the authors choose the
survey method, which constitutes a strength in the research, due to its versatility. Also,
because it is conducted face to face, the interviewer can receive in-depth information and
details (Cooper and Schindler, 2013). However, O’Gorman and Maclntosh (2015) argue that
the researcher’s presence and behavior can indeed influence the participants’ responses,
which can be a research bias (Sreejesh, Mohapatra and Anusree, 2014). It is noteworthy,
however, that the internal validity of the survey can be achieved through a pilot study to
make sure that questions and the measurement types are appropriate (O’Gorman and
Maclntosh, 2015), which was the case. The chosen experiment method, however, might
suffer from extraneous variables that can be of threat to its internal validity, including
selection bias (Sreejesh, Mohapatra, and Anusree, 2014). In the case of this research paper,
this has been managed in studies 3 and 4. However, it is not clear how it was processed in
Study 1.
“Following classical statistics approach, we accept or reject a hypothesis on the basis of
sampling information alone… we must judge whether the differences are statistically
significant or insignificant,” (Cooper and Schindler, 2013, p. 452). Following from this quote,
I would argue that the data of the studies are well analyzed and interpreted to make them
comprehended by different levels of readers. As well, the graphs and tables that are used
deliver the messages clearly while supporting the text. To explain, in Study 1, the authors
represent the data in Table 1 using the results of statistical tests as probability values (p
2
Submitted by Rawa Alagha (Student no 202000172)
Course: Business Research Methods (MAGT 612)
values), concluding that brand prominence is negatively correlated with price. Cooper and
Schindler (2013) explain that in causal hypotheses the change in one variable leads to a
change in the other variable. The results in Table 1 also prove that material and surface play a
role in determining the price. Thus, I can conclude that, based on the target segment,
marketers and brands can craft products with the desirable material and brand prominence
marks to maximize profit. In Study 2, however, the results show that counterfeiters imitate
louder bags – apparently to appeal to the segment looking for status. Not only that but as
shown in Table 5, the prices of copied bags are set in harmony with the original
manufacturer’s product line. Based on this, I can expect that counterfeiters will continue their
practice to answer the needs of their target segment. Although this knockoff business exists,
no further recommendations will be presented out of ethics concerns.
Moving to Study 3, using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests, figure 5 illustrates that patricians
can recognize the brands and the prices of the bags even without brand prominence marks,
while non-patricians cannot. Accordingly, non-patricians might educate themselves on the
quiet brand cues once they know it communicates higher status. If this happens, I predict that
counterfeiters might chase this trend and start to copy the quiet products. Also, these findings
could help in crafting communication messages and advertising that appeal to the target
segment. On the other hand, the results of Study 4 show that patricians and proletarians (top
and bottom) are not in need of status. This is set in contrast with the results of Study 3, where
patricians can easily recognize the quiet brand cues, so it seems that their preference for
luxurious products spurs from their ability to purchase them while being more concerned
with the functionality of the offerings. However, as shown in Table 7, parvenus and poseurs
are reported to have a need for social status. This was reflected in the associative and
dissociative modes parvenus exhibit with other groups (i.e., their will to associate with the
haves and avoid the have-nots). Finally, it is noteworthy to mention that the scholars
eliminated a relatively small sample of participants because it is irrelevant for the sake of the
study.
Indeed, the results communicated in the paper can be useful when developing new products,
formulating marketing strategies, defining the market segments, and producing marketing and
communications campaigns and advertising. This paper investigates factors that influence the
3
Submitted by Rawa Alagha (Student no 202000172)
Course: Business Research Methods (MAGT 612)
buying decision of different consumer groups when it comes to luxury brands and how this
signals their associate/ dissociative preferences. For example, Study 1 results show that the
price correlates negatively with brand prominence as patricians prefer quieter products. This
is significant in contrast to the results of Study 2 which shows that counterfeiters copy loud
branded handbags. This comes as an answer to the social need of poseurs (have-nots) who
would like to associate themselves with parvenus (haves) who are more likely to buy the loud
original handbags. And although parvenus prefer loud products, this might set them aside
from patricians with whom they would like to associate, as Study 3 shows. This is because by
purchasing brand-prominent products, they signal they are not part of the top elite group.
Moreover, the results of Study 3 come in harmony with Study 1 outcome showing that the
top elite not only prefers quiet handbags but they can actually recognize subtle brand marks.
Finally, Study 4 concludes by reinforcing how consumers use products to signify their status
and express their social needs (associative and dissociative) which can be quite significant for
marketers when defining the target segment, developing the products, and determining the
prices. I believe this study can be positioned within the identity theory framework, which
focuses on “how consumers relate to brands and products as both expressions of their unique
selves and their affiliations with others,” (Identity Theory and Marketing, 2022). Chevalier
and Mazzalovo (2012, p.7) quote Pierre Bourdieu who argues that purchasing a luxury brand
is an expression of social status. They further explain that consumers tend to make their
buying decisions to fulfill their needs of belonging to a certain circle and to be rewarded by
this class for their choices. Yet, I would argue if there could be other motives for patricians’
preference for quiet products, like fear of envy.
Finally, every research has its limitations. As Cooper and Schindler (2013) state personal
interviewing can result in excessive interviewer bias. Also, because we are not sure how the
sampling was conducted in the first study, this indicates bias in the research. Also, the
sampling size of studies 3 and 4 is below the recommended value – thus affecting the studies’
statistical validity. As well, since the survey in Study 4 was conducted face to face, the
researcher’s presence can be a research bias. To add, the counterfeit data are based on Asian
producers and resellers’ offerings not from the US market. The study was also based on the
luxury brands’ offerings and not sales, and there could be discrepancies between the two.
4
Submitted by Rawa Alagha (Student no 202000172)
Course: Business Research Methods (MAGT 612)
Overall, however, the results of the studies are clearly presented, and they follow one another
– leading to understanding the landscape of brand prominence and counterfeits production
and how these reflect on associate/dissociative relationships within the community.
In conclusion, as stated before, while the research is promising, there could be bias in the
process. Along these lines, I believe it would be valuable to study how luxury brands
accommodate different consumer classes’ needs by offering affordable luxury products (such
as Versace producing Versus watches) and how this influences the associative/dissociative
relationships in society. Also, it would be significant to investigate if choices based on brand
prominence are affected by gender.
References
Chevalier, M. and Mazzalovo, G., 2012. Luxury Brand Management. 2nd ed. John Wiley &
Sons Singapore Pte. Ltd.
Cooper, D. and Schindler, P., 2013. Business Research Methods. New York, N.Y.: McGrawHill/Irwin.
MSI - Marketing Science Institute. 2022. Identity Theory and Marketing. [online] Available
at: <https://www.msi.org/expert-curations/identity-theory-and-marketing-insightsand-applications/> [Accessed 24 September 2022].
O'Gorman, K. and Maclntosh, R., 2015. Research Methods for Business and Management.
2nd ed. Goodfellow Publishers Limited.
Sreejesh, S., Mohapatra, S. and Anusree, M., 2014. Business Research Methods. Springer
5