Masstige as a mediator of the relationship between a typical user's image and brand preference

Abstract

The primary research objective was to test the masstige model, which is a mechanism to explain the relationship between symbolic value associated with a brand and brand preference (purchase intention). Using an online individual interview method, respondents rated the masstige, preference, and symbolic characteristics perceived in the image of a typical brand user (TBU), identifying three generalized positive and four negative characteristics. The research was conducted on 20 different brands. The generalized results were analysed using the partial least squares structural equation modeling method. The present study, based on 393 interviews, found that the main TBU characteristics positively associated with brand masstige were two positive dimensions of Sophistication (e.g., elegant), Responsibility (e.g., solid), and one negative dimension of Boorishness (e.g., simpleton), which significantly reduced masstige. In addition, TBU brings the masstige independent part of the brand preference. The results confirm the theoretical relationship between symbolic brand value and masstige, and show that masstige is not the only determinant of brand purchase intention. The results allow for the development/strengthening of the masstige brand statute by targeting TBU characteristics associated with style or responsibility, and reducing associations with neglect, which may translate into increased sales.

Masstige buyers: Profile, perceived luxury values and purchase intentions

“…Moreover, we challenge the arguments that masstige is less associated with status and social recognition (Goyal, 2020; Ho et al, 2023) and that masstige buyers are inconspicuous consumers (Boisvert et al, 2023; Ho et al, 2023; Kassie & Bang, 2022; Park et al, 2022). We also share the perspective of Kolańska‐Stronka and Krasa (2023) and Hudders et al (2013), supporting the idea that masstige consumers generally exhibit a low inclination for self‐expression and deliberately shape their self‐image through their consumption decisions.…”

“…We further validated our brand classification by directly engaging a small convenience sample of 20 consumers through in‐person interviews (Boisvert et al, 2023; Kolańska‐Stronka & Krasa, 2023). We presented participants from various demographics and backgrounds with our list of brands and actively encouraged them to elaborate upon their agreement or disagreement with the classification of each brand as either premium luxury or masstige.…”

“…The existing literature offers diverging insights into the value of self-identification within masstige consumption. While some studies suggest that masstige consumers might display a relatively lower interest in self-expression and shaping their self-image through consumption choices (Hudders et al, 2013;Kola nska-Stronka & Krasa, 2023), Bae and Jo (2022) document a notable impact of a desirable identity on masstige purchase intentions, citing a distinct motivation to dissociate from an "old-age" group as a significant motivation for masstige buying, particularly in South Korea. Also, Das, Saha, Jebarajakirthy, et al (2022c) illustrate the role of cultural identity on individuals' perception of masstige brands.…”

“…The prevailing focus in the extant literature has predominantly revolved around specific antecedents and consequences of masstige without an explicit comparison to premium luxury. For example, Kolańska‐Stronka and Krasa (2023) examined the relationship between masstige's symbolic brand value and brand preference, underlining the multifaceted nature of masstige preferences but not offering any insights on how these values relate to premium luxury. Despite the significant strides in distinguishing premium luxury buyers from masstige buyers made by Ho et al (2023), Alić et al (2022), Katyal et al (2022), and Goyal (2020), the existing limitations and identified gaps in these studies serve as inspiration for the next contributions. We research the socio‐demographic profile of the four segments and the values they ascribe to luxury.…”

Five decades of self‐congruity in consumer behaviour research: A systematic review and future research agenda

“…Aaker (1997) explored brand symbolism as brand personality facets, which refers to the human characteristics associated with the brand. Also, stereotyped typical‐user personalities were referred to symbolize the brand (Kolańska‐Stronka & Krasa, 2023; Sirgy, 1982).…”