Negative brand events can significantly harm the brand, affecting consumer cognitions, emotions, and behavior, leading to negative brand evaluations, negative emotions, brand avoidance, and retaliation. Thus, it is critical for brands to design and implement strategies that promote consumer forgiveness to mitigate those negative consumer responses. Despite the growing literature on the determinant factors of consumer behavior in a brand failure context, there is still scarce evidence regarding the impact of brand type on consumer responses, including consumer forgiveness, following a negative brand event. Considering that consumers tend to react differently to a brand perceived as arrogant (making them feel inferior), as opposed to a brand they strongly identify with, this paper focuses on failures of equal vs. higher status brands and investigates their impact on consumer forgiveness. Following the above, we expect that differences in brand status can shape consumer behavior following a failure or transgression.

This research was conducted in order to examine the effect of brand status and brand crisis types on consumers’ forgiveness intention. In this research, we proposed and found that the favorable attitude toward the underdog referred as underdog effect (Paharia, Keinan, Avery, & Schor, 2011) would be diluted especially in relational-related failure. When relationship efforts and perceived warmth of the brand are particularly critical, service failure caused by highly identified underdog brand can be perceived to be more serious (Vandello, Goldschmied, & Richards, 2007). Four of the studies consistently demonstrated our assumption in that people expressed less forgiveness intention on underdog brands when the crisis is in a service failure (vs. product failure): study1 and 2, service process failure (vs. service outcome failure): study 3, and human service process failure (vs. non-human service process failure): 4. Further, the mechanism underlying this negative effect toward the underdog was revealed as perceived anger. These findings can give insights to marketers that the types of crisis and the way of brand positioning are very critical to influence customer’s forgiveness intention.

Despite important theoretical implications seldom research exist regarding the impact of luxury parent brand status signaling on the evaluation of horizontal line extension through the moderating role of extension authenticity, quality and fit. The luxury literature review revealed that despite important theoretical implications seldom research exist regarding the impact of luxury parent brand status signaling on the evaluation of horizontal line extension through the moderating role of extension authenticity, quality and fit. Research has examined how consumers use luxury goods to signal their status or relative position in social hierarchies (Berger & Ward 2010; Dubois et al., 2012; Geiger-Oneto et al., 2013; Kastanakis, & Balabanis, 2014) but until the current study the luxury literature could not support the extent to which status signaling impact line extension’s evaluation through the moderating role of extension authenticity (Spiggle, Nguyen, & Caravella, 2012; Beverland & Farrelly, 2010; Morhart et al., 2015; Guèvremont & Grohmann, 2016). Previous studies have found that authenticity can be to emotional attachment (Morhart et al., 2015), help pursue personal goals (Beverland & Farrelli, 2010), or relevant to brand identity, status and equity (Guevremont & Grohmann, 2016). Surprisingly, none of these studies has empirically tested this important relationship. This study’s contribution to the literature is important as it empirically confirms that in launching a new line extension, a luxury parent brand’s status signaling will directly impact the extension’s evaluation. In the process, the perceived authenticity of the extension proves to affect the evaluation significantly if the perceived quality and fit of the extension are taken into consideration in the measurement framework.

This study sets out to examine how status consumption and prominence of brand markings influence consumer’s desire to purchase luxury fashion goods. Significant findings include emotional value’s powerful influence over purchase intention of luxury goods, and the empirical differences observed between two levels of brand prominence.

Luxury industry is one of the fastest growing fields in marketing research in which many studies have examined how consumers' background affects their preference for luxury products and luxury brands. Classical theories focused on the affluent social classes and their tendency to consume luxury products to consciously or unconsciously signal their wealth. Other studies argued that the internalised culture developed during the socialisation years may influence one’s tastes and preferences for luxuries. Whereas, “costly signal theory” and “affirmation resource theory” suggest that luxury consumption extends beyond the traditional symbolic value of luxury brands and the habituated taste consumption drivers. Despite the wealth of current theoretical approaches, there is little research on the context of status rankings of luxuries and luxury brands. Thus, main objective of the present study is to develop and empirically test a conceptual framework that links consumption of at different rungs of the luxury brand ladder to a number of variables that may act as moderators which will be defined below. The key predictors are economic resources, cultural capital, perceived social status and desired status. The dependent variable is consumption of luxury brands at different rungs in the luxury ladder. A number of hypotheses are proposed and empirically tested. The dependent variable was measured by survey data collected from a sample of US consumers. The results confirm that the frequency of luxury brand purchases is significantly and positively related to consumers’ economic resources and desire for status. The hierarchy of luxury brands consumed is driven by consumers’ economic resources, cultural capital and desire for social status. Regardless of economic resources and perceived social status, consumers with high desire for social status are more likely to buy brands which represent high level of luxury. Likewise, people with higher cultural capital would buy higher luxury grading brands regardless of their economic capabilities. Moreover, results showed that perceived social status is negatively correlated with preferences for higher tier luxury brands of cars. In particular, desire for social status seems to moderates the effect of perceived social status on the hierarchy of brand of luxury car preferences. Desire for status combined with high perceived social status leads to higher preference for higher tier luxury products. It can be concluded that economic resources are responsible for the frequency people buy luxury brands, whereas cultural capital is responsible for the luxury hierarchy of the consumed brands. Frequent consumption of luxury brands reflects one’s economic status whereas the grade of luxury brands his/her cultural status. However, desire for status seems to be a key variable as it affects both frequency and the ranks of luxury brands purchased. This is an important variable as desire for status is not related with neither the actual social status (i.e., economic resources and cultural capital) nor perceived social status.