Brand Prominence on Luxury Fashion Goods: The Preferences of Fashion Change

Agents versus Fashion Followers

Zoe Thwaites, Curtin University, Australia.
Graham Ferguson*, Curtin University, Australia. g.ferguson@curtin.edu.au
Keywords; Brand prominence, luxury, fashion, need for status.
Abstract
Brand prominence is an important part of branding luxury fashion goods. Some consumers
seek to display the brand name prominently and some do not. Research has begun to explore
this phenomenon however; no previous research has explored the preferences amongst
fashion change agents and fashion followers. The research found that need-for-status and
liking for the product was positively related to preference for brand prominence, which need
for uniqueness was not related to preference for brand prominence and that fashion change
agents and fashion followers did not differ in their preference for brand prominence. The
results help clarify the drivers of preference for brand prominence and have implications for
brand marketers attempting to understand consumer preferences for prominence on luxury
fashion products.
Introduction
The biggest brands in the luxury fashion industry are marketing some products with
prominent branding and other products without prominent branding. The underlying logic
appears to be that different levels of brand prominence appeal to different types of consumers
(Han, Nunes, and Drze, 2010; Berger and Ward, 2010). Luxury fashion goods are typically
expensive and exclusive and according to Husic (2009) consumers purchase them to satisfy
their appetite for social symbolic meaning. As well, purchase of luxury brands has become
more widespread as discretionary incomes and aspirations have grown amongst the middle
and lower-class consumers (Park, Rabolt, and Jeon, 2008). Today, anyone can own a purse,
a watch or a pair of shoes, but it is the specific brands that are the distinguishing feature for
certain groups of consumers. Further, it is not the purchase or consumption of these brands
alone that achieves the desired recognition, but the visible consumption of these goods that
makes it easier for others to formulate desired inferences (Berger and Ward, 2010). Therefore
it is not surprising that some consumers value brand prominence (the signature markings) on
luxury fashion goods as a means of communicating implied meanings to others.
Whilst a strong body of literature and research has been developed on the critical elements
that make up brands, including symbols and slogans (Aaker, 1992), only recently have studies
explored brand prominence (e.g. Berger and Ward, 2010; Han et al., 2010). Therefore, despite
its importance, little is yet known about why some consumers prefer prominently branded
luxury goods whilst others prefer non-prominently branded luxury goods.
Not all luxury fashion consumers are alike. Two key groups of fashion consumers are fashion
change agents who seek to be innovative and influence the opinions of others, and fashion
followers (Workman, 2011). Fashion change agents have been shown to have higher needs
for status (Workman, 2010; Workman and Lee, 2010) and uniqueness (Workman, 2000). As
well, status (Han et al., 2010) and uniqueness (Berger and Ward, 2010) have been linked to

preference for brand prominence. Therefore it is likely that fashion change agents would have
a higher preference for brand prominence.
The current study explored preference for brand prominence on luxury fashion goods amongst
fashion change agents and fashion followers. It also revisited the roles of need-for-status,
need-for-uniqueness and liking of the brand in determining preference for brand prominence.
The next section explores the relevant literature leading to the development of hypotheses,
methodology to test the hypotheses, results and implications.
Relevant Literature
Wilcox(2009) introduced the term brand conspicuousness in their work to describe the
variations in the degree to which a luxury brands emblem or logo is conspicuous, is easily
visible to the user and pertinent to social others. Brand prominence refers to the extents to
which a product has visible markings that help ensure observers recognise the brand (Han et
al., 2010, p. 16).
The concept of brand prominence has been closely aligned with signalling theory, acting as a
means of clarifying how the degree of prominence of a brands mark or logo on a product
reflects different signalling intentions. There is a strong body of literature that supports the
notion that possessions and behaviours have the ability to act as signals of identity (Berger,
2008; Holt, 1998; Wernerfelt, 1990). Thus consumption is not only driven by function of a
product but also the symbolic value that is attached to it (Levy, 1959). People use
consumption as a means of classifying themselves as well as communicating with others
(Holt, 1995). They also use consumption to form presumptions about other peoples social
identity, social class and preferences. As a result, consumption can act metaphorically as a
bridge, by providing access to social networks or groups, and a fence, by constructing and
maintaining symbolic margins between groups (Berger and Ward, 2010).
Brands assist the signalling process through visible logos and explicit patterning which
facilitates communication and allows others to make desired inferences about the owner. The
visibility aspect plays a key role in this process of communication. Berger and Ward (2010)
stated that the more visible consumption is, the easier it should be for others to make desired
inferences. Consistent with this suggestion, Belk (1988) and Berger (2008) agree that people
tend to use publicly visible domains to communicate identity. Therefore the prominence of a
brands markings on a product is capable of sending important messages to others.
According to Scitovsky (1992) belonging to groups is a necessary and psychologically
satisfying behaviour for humans. Within these groups individuals emulate each other in order
to be accepted as a group member but they also seek to be distinguished and recognised
within the group (Scitovsky, 1992). Need-for-status is the motivational processes by which
individuals strive to improve their social standing through conspicuous consumption of
consumer products that confer or symbolise status for both the individual and surrounding
others (Eastman et al, 1999a, p. 41). Consumption is used by consumers to cement and
improve their place in the social hierarchy and is a motivating force behind the purchase, use,
display and consumption of certain goods and services (Eastman et al, 1999b). Han et al
(2010) found a relationship between an individuals need-for-status and their preference for
brand prominence on luxury fashion goods. Therefore we proposed that:

H1: There is a positive relationship between an individuals need-for-status and their

preference for brand prominence on luxury fashion goods.
Need-for-uniqueness is the trait of pursuing differentness relative to others through the
acquisition, utilization, and disposition of consumer goods for the purpose of developing and
enhancing one's self-image and social image (Tian et al, 2001, p. 52). Berger and Ward
(2010) indicated that need-for-uniqueness was a potential influencer of consumer preference
for brand prominence. Therefore we proposed that:
H2: There is a positive relationship between an individuals need-for-uniqueness and their
preference for brand prominence on luxury fashion goods.
Finally, the fashion consumer behaviour literature has identified fashion consumer groups
based upon consumer opinion leadership and innovativeness (Workman, 2010). Fashion
change agents are defined by Workman (2011) as consumers who encourage fashion change
and include fashion innovators, opinion leaders and innovative communicators. Fashion
followers are defined as consumers who withhold buying or wearing new fashions until they
are well accepted or commonly worn among other consumers (Workman, 2011). Workman
(2000) found that fashion change agents are higher in their need for uniqueness than fashion
followers. Workman (2010) and Workman and Lee (2011) spoke of need for status indirectly
by determining that fashion change agents were higher in the concepts of materialism and
vanity than fashion followers. Therefore we proposed that:
H3a: Fashion change agents have higher level of need for status than fashion followers.
H3b: Fashion change agents have higher levels of need for uniqueness than fashion followers.
H3c: Fashion change agents prefer higher levels of brand prominence than fashion followers.
Method
A convenience sample of 195 students on one university campus completed a selfadministered questionnaire. Respondents were shown six pairs of fashion items and they were
instructed to rate their preference between the two products (see figure 1). This was consistent
with Han et al (2010) and Berger and Ward (2010) who also asked respondents to choose
between a loud (highly prominent) stimulus positioned at one end of the scale and a quiet
stimulus positioned at the other. Gucci was used as the brand for all images shown in the
stimulus as it is well known, reputed as a prestigious brand, and represents one of the three
top major conglomerates for the luxury scene among LVMH and Richemont (Husic, 2009).
The images of the products were selected from the Guccis current range. Images of designer
handbags were chosen for the questionnaire to be completed by female respondents and
images of designer belts were selected for male respondents. The pairs used in the study were
correctly rated as prominent/non-prominent by 100% of respondents in a pre-test (some pairs
were dropped). Two control pairs were also included and their brand prominence was
correctly rated as neutral by 90% of respondents in the pre-test. Several pairs were reverse
coded.
Fashion change agents were identified using Hirschman and Adcocks (1978) measure of
innovativeness and opinion leadership. The measure contains six items to measure how often
respondents engage in fashion innovativeness and fashion opinion leadership. Following past
use of the scales (e.g. Workman, 2011), respondents who were more than one standard

deviation above the mean on either dimension were classified as fashion change agents
otherwise as fashion followers.
Need-for-status was measured using Eastman et als (1999a) need-for-status scale. Knight and
Euns (2007) scale for need-for-uniqueness (derived from Tian et al., 2001) was used in the
study. The scale measures three dimensions: avoidance of similarity, unpopular choice, and
creative choice. A measure of liking-for-the-brand was included in the study as a potential
determinant of preference for brand prominence.
Figure 1: Example of Fashion Product Pairs Used to Rate Preference for Brand Prominence
Option 1

Strongly Preferred

Option 2

Neutral

Strongly Preferred

Findings and Discussion

After removal of incomplete responses, the sample consisted of 99 male students and 96
female students. 91% of the respondents were under 27 years of age and all were completing
either undergraduate or postgraduate degrees.
After factor analysis one of the five need-for-status items was removed from the scale due to
weak loading. The remaining items loaded on one factor with loadings greater than 0.734 and
explained 78.6% of the variance ( = 0.91). After deletion of items for low loadings and
cross-loading the seven remaining items in the need-for-uniqueness scale identified two
factors. The remaining items had loadings above 0.709 and explained 75.5% of the variance.
The first factor was an amalgamation of Knight and Euns (2007) unpopular choice and
creative choice factors and was entitled unpopular/creative choice ( = 0.86). The second
factor was titled need for differentiation in line with Knight and Eun (2007) ( = 0.85).
Liking-for-the-brand items loaded onto one factor with loadings above 0.838 and accounting
for 75.7% of the variance ( = 0.92).
Liking-for-the-brand, need-for-status and need-for-uniqueness accounted for 10.9% of the
variance in preference for brand prominence (F= 6.916, df= 4, sig= .000). As evident in table
1, need-for-status significantly influence preference for brand prominence, therefore H1 was
accepted. The positive relationship between need for status and preference for brand
prominence supports the findings of Han et al (2010) who determined that individuals who
are high in need for status prefer prominently branded luxury fashion goods. Whilst it is
unclear why no relationship was found between the need for uniqueness factors and
preference for brand prominence (H2 was rejected) it is likely that brand prominence would
represent uniqueness to some consumers (depending on their reference group) and lack of
uniqueness to others. Need for uniqueness remained non-significant when the regression was

re-run within the fashion leader and fashion follower groups. Therefore leader-follower
characteristics do not explain the role of need for uniqueness.

Table 1: Regression Results for Preference for Brand Prominence

Independent Variables
Need for Status
Uniqueness Factor 1
Uniqueness Factor 2
Liking for Brand

.180
-.019
.011
.255

t
2.249
-.232
.124
3.553

Sig.
.026
.817
.902
.000

Fifty respondents were classified as fashion change agents and 145 as fashion followers based
upon the Hirschman and Adcock (1978) measure. As expected fashion change agents needed
significantly higher levels of status and uniqueness than fashion followers (see table 2).
However there was no significant difference between the fashion consumer groups and their
preference for brand prominence on luxury fashion goods. Therefore, H3a and H3b were
accepted but H3c was rejected. The differences regarding need for uniqueness were in line
with the work of Workman (2000) who found that fashion change agents are higher in their
need for uniqueness than fashion followers. Fashion change leaders needing higher levels of
status support Workman (2010) and Workman and Lee (2010) who spoke of need for status
indirectly by determining that fashion change agents were higher in the concepts of
materialism and vanity than fashion followers.
Table 2: T- Test Results for Comparison between Fashion Change Agents and Fashion Followers

Dep. Variable
Brand
Prominence
Need for
Status
Unpopular/
Creative
Choice
Need for
Differentiation

Gp. Var.
FCA
FF
FCA
FF
FCA
FF

N
50
145
50
145
50
145

Mean
3.4400
3.4341
4.5150
3.5810
4.2333
3.6322

SD
1.64949
1.74586
1.66247
1.48572
1.47427
1.46709

SE
.23327
.14499
.23511
.12338
.30848
.12184

t
.056

Sig
.955

3.716

.000

2.495

.013

FCA
FF

50
145

5.0285
4.0867

1.00569
1.31018

.14223
.10880

4.630

.000

The current study used a student sample and therefore the results may be restricted to this type
of respondent. Despite being consistent with previous studies in the area (e.g. Berger and
Ward, 2010), student populations have been shown to provide satisfactory internal validity,
but their aptitude to provide externally valid results is debatable (Winer, 1999). When
splitting consumers into leaders and followers it will always be more difficult to obtain an
adequate sample of leaders as there are less of them. The current study could have benefited
from a larger sample in order to classify respondents by other potentially important criteria
such as gender and income. Although the stimuli items clearly represented prominently and
non-prominently branded luxury fashion goods across 4 separate pairs, the use of the Gucci
brand may have influenced the responses of the student sample. Future research could explore
more brand options or pre-test the brand for suitability. Subsequent research should also
explore the role of gender and cultural capital as potential influencers of preference for brand
prominence.

Conclusions
The recent uptake in brand prominence research in a luxury fashion context has stemmed
from the increased importance of the industry and a common observation that brands are
branding some products prominently and not prominently branding others. Prior research on
brand prominence in a luxury fashion context has predominately focused on the value of
brand prominence in fulfilling social goals (Wilcox, 2009), and the effect of status and wealth
on preference for brand prominence (Han et al., 2010). The current research contributes to the
research area by confirming that relationship between need-for-status and brand prominence,
rejecting need-for-uniqueness as an antecedent and rejecting the idea that fashion
innovativeness and opinion leadership could explain different preferences for brand
prominence.
Reference List
Aaker, D. (1992). The value of brand equity. The Journal of Business Strategy, 13(4), 27.
Belk, R. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. The Journal of Consumer Research,
15(2), 139-168.
Berger, J. (2008). Shifting signals to help health: Using identity signaling to reduce risky
health behaviors. The Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 509-518.
Berger, J., and Ward, M. (2010). Subtle signals of inconspicuous consumption. The Journal of
Consumer Research, 37(4), 555-569.
Eastman, J. K., Goldsmith, G. E., and Flynn, L. R. (1999a). Status consumption in consumer
behaviour: Scale development and validation. Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, 46, 41-50.
Eastman, J. K., Goldsmith, R. E., and Flynn, L. R. (1999b). A short, reliable measure of
subjective knowledge. Journal of Business Research, 46(1), 57-66.
Holt, D. (1995). How consumers consume: A typology of consumption practices. The Journal
of Consumer Research, 22(1), 1-16.
Han, Y. J., Nunes, J. C., and Drze, X. (2010). Signaling status with luxury goods: The role of
brand prominence. Journal of Marketing, 74(4), 15-30.
Hirschman, E. C., and Adcock, W. G. (1978). An examination of innovative communicators,
opinion leaders and innovators for mens fashion apparel. Advances in Consumer
Research, 5, 308-314.
Husic, M. (2009). Luxury consumption factors. Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management, 13(2), 231-245.
Knight, D. K., and Eun, Y. K. (2007). Japanese consumers need for uniqueness. Journal of
Fashion Marketing and Management, 11(2), 270-280.
Levy, S. (1959). Symbols for sale. Harvard Business Review, 37, 117-124.

Park, H. J., Rabolt, N. J., and Jeon, S. K. (2008). Purchasing global luxury brands among
young Korean consumers. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 12(2),
244-259.
Scitovsky, T. (1992). The Joyless Economy, revised edition. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Tian, K. T., Bearden, W. O., and Hunter, G. L. (2001). Consumers' need for uniqueness: Scale
development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 50-66.
Wernerfelt, B. (1990). Advertising content when brand choice is a signal. The journal of
Business, 63(1), 91-98.
Wilcox, K. (2009). Why do consumers buy counterfeit luxury brands? Journal of Marketing
Research, 46(2), 247-259.
Winer, R. S. (1999). Experimentation in the 21st century: The importance of external validity.
Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 27(3), 349-358.
Workman, J. E. (2000). Use of the need for uniqueness scale to characterize fashion consumer
groups. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 18(4), 227-236.
Workman, J. E. (2010). Fashion consumer groups, gender, and need for touch. Clothing and
Textiles Research Journal, 28(2), 126-139.
Workman, J. E. (2011). Materialism, fashion consumers and gender: A cross-cultural study
(Report). International Journal of Consumer Studies, 35(1), 50.
Workman, J. E., and Lee, S. H. (2011). Vanity and public self-consciousness: A comparison
of fashion consumer groups and gender. International Journal of Consumer Studies,
35(3), 307-315.