Wk 7 Discussion 1 Conformity

Accessible luxury fashion brand building via fat discrimination

Ulf Aagerup Department of Marketing, Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden

Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate if accessible luxury fashion brands discriminate overweight and obese consumers. Design/methodology/approach – The physical sizes of garments are surveyed in-store and compared to the body sizes of the population. A gap analysis is carried out in order to determine whether the supply of clothes match the demand of each market segment. Findings – The surveyed accessible luxury garments come in very small sizes compared to the individuals that make up the population. Research limitations/implications – The survey is limited to London stores but the garment sizes are compared to the British population. It is therefore possible that the discrepancies between assortments and the population are in part attributable to geographic and demographic factors. The study’s results are, however, so strikingly clear that even if some of the effects were due to extraneous variables, it would be hard to disregard the poor match between overweight and obese women and the clothes offered to them. Practical implications – For symbolic/expressive brands that are conspicuously consumed, that narrowly target distinct and homogenous groups of people in industries where elitist practices are acceptable, companies can build brands via customer rejection. Social implications – The results highlight ongoing discrimination of overweight and obese fashion consumers. Originality/value – The study is the first to provide quantitative evidence for brand building via customer rejection, and it delineates under which conditions this may occur. This extends the theory of typical user imagery. Keywords Fashion, Branding, Obesity, Assortments, Fat discrimination, Typical user imagery Paper type Research paper

Introduction Consumers tend to judge brands by their users; if consumers have a clear picture of what kind of person would use a specific brand in their minds, the brand takes on similar characteristics (Aaker, 1997; Keller, 2000; Hayes et al., 2008). The tendency to equate brand personality to the personality of the user is particularly pronounced, and particularly relevant for, symbolic offerings that relate to the consumer’s self-image (Sirgy et al., 2000). Fashion fulfills these criteria (Levy, 1959; McCracken, 1988) and this is the reason companies display attractive models alongside their products in ads (Vermeir and Sompel, 2014). However, user imagery is not just a result of advertising. It can also be formed through consumers’ observation of real-world users (Keller, 1993). From a marketing standpoint, it would therefore make sense, not just that companies would try to attract customers with desirable traits, but also that they would reject customers who display undesirable traits. While advertising imagery has received ample attention from scholars (e.g. Bower and Landreth, 2001; Steadman, 1969; Vermeir and Sompel, 2014), brand building via customer rejection has not. Historically, the emphasis on advertising imagery is understandable, because advertising has until now provided most brand imagery (Sotiropoulos, 2003), making it crucial to consumers’ brand perception. However, the

Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management Vol. 22 No. 1, 2018 pp. 2-16 © Emerald Publishing Limited 1361-2026 DOI 10.1108/JFMM-12-2016-0116

Received 20 December 2016 Revised 22 March 2017 Accepted 25 May 2017

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1361-2026.htm

The author would like to thank Inger Larsson for her invaluable help. Her anthropometric data gave the author the connection the author needed between the population and the clothing sizes. The author also owes a debt of gratitude to Maria Erlandsson and Elin Forslund, who helped the author acquire the garment size data that enabled the study.

2

JFMM 22,1

marketing environment is changing rapidly. The advent and growth of the Internet makes it increasingly easy for individuals to see what real-world brand users look like. The display of consumption is occurring on an unprecedented scale (Williams, 2003), and nowhere is typical user imagery more visible than on social media (Durayappah, 2011; Copeland, 2011). What is more, social media is becoming increasingly visual in character (DeMers, 2013), which further boosts the number of real-world users consumers are exposed to. The fashion industry is at the heart of this development. Fashion is self-expressive (McCracken, 1986), visual in character (Kawamura, 2007), and one of the most popular product categories to photograph and publicize on social media (Azuma and Fernie, 2003). The trend toward increased display of consumption through new channels of communication means that the study of real-world user imagery is becoming increasingly relevant, and fashion’s unique character makes it a suitable object of study.

To study brand building via customer rejection, I turn to overweight and obese fashion consumers. Body shape and fashion are interlinked, and heavier physiologies are universally regarded negatively (Demarest and Allen, 2000). Branding theory would therefore support the idea of rejecting overweight and obese fashion consumers to improve typical user imagery. Public opinion certainly supports the notion of fat discrimination in fashion. Although fashion companies will not admit to such practices (Gripenberg, 2004), many people are convinced that overweight people face difficulties when it comes to finding clothes because companies limit sizes in an effort to avoid the negative associations related to overweight. Opinions to that effect are found in the blogging community (e.g. Hilton, 2013), in mainstream media (e.g. Ritson, 2003) as well as in the political establishment (e.g. Kulturhuset Stockholm, 2006). There is however very little evidence for such practices. In the only generalizable study on this phenomenon to date, Aagerup (2010) examines the assortments of fast fashion companies, and contrary to popular belief, the examined companies do not discriminate larger consumers in favor of slimmer ones. The author however points out that purveyors of more expensive fashion may act differently. He therefore calls for further research. In response to this call, a study on accessible luxury fashion is carried out. In contrast to Aagerup’s study, the results reveal that the investigated accessible luxury fashion companies do reject overweight and obese consumers. The study provides quantitative evidence that companies control assortments to exclude undesirable users, and it delineates under which conditions this may occur. This extends the theory of typical user imagery. What is more, the results have social implications as they highlight ongoing discrimination.

Theoretical background and hypothesis development Brand image can be defined as the sum of all the subjective perceptions (functional and non-functional) of a brand in the minds of consumers (Fournier, 1998; Patterson, 1999; Sutherland et al., 2004; Stern, 2006). It is thus made up of consumers’ brand associations (Keller, 1993). Brand associations are in part shaped by a non-product related attribute called typical user imagery (Aaker, 1996).

Typical user imagery Typical user imagery is the stereotyped perception of the generalized user of a particular brand (Parker, 2005, p. 19). It is formed directly by a consumer’s contact with brand users (Keller, 1993). Sirgy (1982) formally defines the construct as the set of human characteristics associated with the brand user. In contrast to ideal users that are paid by companies to represent their brands, typical users wear the brand of their own volition without recompense (Aaker, 1996, p. 147). Typical users can for example be colleagues, friends, people in the street, real people in media, etc. Unlike advertising imagery, typical user imagery provides a straight observation of the type of person that uses a brand, and as

3

Accessible luxury fashion brand building

Silverman (2010) points out, observations constitute the purest and least distorted source of information available. It is therefore possible that the authenticity of typical user imagery increases the effect it has on brands, much like word-of-mouth does as compared to traditional marketing communications (Keller, 2003, p. 71). For companies, the importance of user imagery is that it affects brand personality (Keller, 2000; Hayes et al., 2008), and therefore the company’s ability to create customer satisfaction (Sirgy and Samli, 1985). User imagery is consequently directly linked to the customer value that a company provides, and thus to that which generates sales and profits (Kressmann et al., 2006). However, just because brands are shaped by typical user imagery, it is not clear that companies refuse to sell products to certain individuals because their patronage would affect their brands negatively. Turning down money goes against the raison d’être of most companies, and it is therefore reasonable to assume that it will only be done under certain conditions.

Brand building via customer rejection Typical user imagery informs potential consumers of who normally uses the brand, which is what allows the brand to act as a tool for self-expression. However, there are different types of symbolic brand value; status, esteem, ethics, and aesthetics (Holbrook, 2005). The type of symbolic value provided by the brand dictates which type of typical users will help brand image the most. High status users will for instance be beneficial to an exclusive high-end brand like Gucci, while an environmentally conscious brand like Patagonia will benefit most from typical users that are conspicuously ethical. The issue of user imagery type is thus a question of fit between typical users and the desired brand personality. Related to this, it is also important that the practice of customer rejection is congruent with the symbolic character of the brand. Exclusivity can be attractive (Barone and Roy, 2010), and for upscale fashion, customer rejection can even increase aspiring consumers’ desire for the brand (Ward and Dahl, 2014). For fast fashion on the other hand, the suspicion that some customers are being left out creates outrage, both from media (Jönsson, 2009; Moore, 2013) and consumers (Big Fat Blog, 2004; Thompson, 2013). For fast fashion, there is a reasonable expectation of egalitarianism. Fast fashion offers the most basic clothing available, which constitutes a physiological need (Maslow, 1970); something everyone needs in order to survive. For companies to limit the supply of products that satisfy a basic need is naturally more controversial than when the purveyors of luxury, which owes much of its allure to rarity (Catry, 2003), do the same.

As for the strength of typical user imagery, it will be greater if other people can easily observe the visual appearance of the brand’s customer base. Because there is little else to go on, visible cues can dominate the overall impression of a brand user (Johar and Sirgy, 1991). This in turn requires that consumption is easily observable, because if no one can tell who is consuming a brand, the public will not be able to form an opinion of the brand users, and this in turn means that they cannot judge the brand on its typical user imagery. Another consideration is how distinct the user imagery is. A goal in marketing is to build unique brand associations in the minds of consumers (Keller, 1993). If companies build brand associations in the minds of consumers by controlling who is allowed to become a customer, it would therefore stand to reason that unique typical user imagery should be a more effective brand-building tool than typical user imagery that is similar to that of other brands.

The type, favorability, strength, and uniqueness of typical user imagery may determine the extent to which typical user imagery shapes brands, but before attempting customer rejection as a brand-building strategy one must also consider whether it is feasible to do so. The first such consideration is whether the company can actually reject certain customers. For instance, even though the association to Premier League footballers may hurt a car

4

JFMM 22,1

brand aimed at gentlemen, it is difficult to stop footballers buying Bentleys (Hallett, 2013). Conversely, for fashion companies it is easy to reject overweight and obese customers; it is just a matter of limiting sizes so that no garments fit them. In addition to practicality, there is also a financial consideration; a company that builds brands via customer rejection must be able to afford to turn down business. It is for instance possible that fast fashion companies do not exclude overweight and obese customers to improve brand image because their low margin/high volume business model does not allow for it (Aagerup, 2010). This should be less of a concern for the accessible luxury fashion brands studied here.

Accessible luxury fashion companies vs fast fashion Fast fashion is marketed by large companies whose inexpensive products are oftentimes inspired by those of higher priced brands, and whose success is dependent on a high turnover rate. Brand image, product features, and communication styles are established by premium brands and are then copied by fast fashion brands (Bhardwaj and Fairhurst, 2009; Nellis, 2010; Waddell, 2004). Much of the allure for fast fashion consumers is thus the possibility to get nice clothes for less-to get a good deal. This cost/sacrifice approach to value (Smith and Colgate, 2007) is quite different from that of accessible luxury, whose value is largely symbolic (Berry, 1994). It is that symbolic meaning that allows companies to charge a premium for luxury products (Brioschi, 2006), and this is so pronounced that lower value-for-money can actually raise a product’s attractiveness (O’Cass and McEwen, 2004) because it boosts exclusivity (Catry, 2003). Luxury is often consumed for status (Tynan et al., 2010), and in order for consumption to bestow status on its user, it must be conspicuous, and not available to everyone (Veblen, 1899). A luxury brand is a reference of good taste, so if the “wrong” customers use it the brand will no longer be luxury and therefore no longer function as a reference of style or class (Kapferer, 1997). A prerequisite for this to happen is that other people can see who is using a brand, and publically consumed brands (e.g. fashion, cars, or restaurants) therefore tend to be influenced by user imagery to a greater degree than privately consumed brands (e.g. hygiene products, medicine, or internet providers) (Parker, 2009). Luxury comes in different forms (Vigneron and Johnson, 2004). There is accessible, intermediate, and inaccessible luxury (Chevalier et al., 2012). Inaccessible luxury comprises offerings like supercars and jewelry; intermediate luxury can be exemplified by expensive watches, while accessible luxury among other categories comprises premium brand fashion (De Barnier et al., 2012). For fashion, accessible luxury refers to a product tier that is more upscale than fast fashion, and that employs many of the same approaches to marketing as do genuine luxury brands. Accessible luxury however differs from traditional luxury by producing large quantities (Chevalier et al., 2012). Many consumers spend a large proportion of their income on luxury brands. This is true even for consumers who have a very low income (Hudders, 2012), and luxury has during the last decade become a concern for a large swath of the population (Kapferer and Bastien, 2009). Because it is the type of luxury that is most easily obtained for consumers of limited means, accessible luxury is the most relevant level of luxury to study from a perspective of social implications.

Overweight and obese typical user imagery and fashion As mentioned above, a brand’s image in the minds of consumers is influenced by consumers’ impression of the kind of person that would use it (Kressman et al., 2006). Interestingly, for self-expressive product categories, negative user stereotypes are considered particularly powerful (Banister and Hogg, 2004), and overweight is widely considered a negative characteristic. People who are overweight are regarded as weak-willed, lazy, stupid, selfish, ugly (Brownell, 2005, p. 285), unattractive (Wooley and Wooley, 1979), and morally inferior (Keys, 1955). Fashion is a high-involvement

5

Accessible luxury fashion brand building

product category, which is used to express the self through identification with brand traits (Banister and Hogg, 2004), and it is one of the most expressive product categories in existence (McCracken, 1988, p. 57). It is therefore important that a fashion brand’s user matches the consumer’s idea of what a woman ought to be like (Feiereisen et al., 2009). Since most people prefer thin female body shapes (Cohn and Adler, 1992; Demarest and Allen, 2000), the first hypothesis is:

H1. The number of well-fitting garments, in relation to the group’s relative market size, will be greatest for normal to underweight consumers.

Because of the negative view of overweight, it is reasonable to assume that the combination of fashion and overweight typical user imagery would be detrimental to brands, and that companies as a result would discriminate overweight individuals by not offering clothes that fit them. The second hypothesis for accessible luxury fashion is therefore:

H2. The number of well-fitting garments, in relation to the group’s relative market size, will be smaller for overweight consumers compared to that of normal to underweight consumers.

Further, while overweight has negative connotations (Janssen et al., 2002), obesity has much more severe consequences to both health (Fontaine et al., 2003) and social well-being (Harris et al., 1982). The resulting hypothesis for accessible luxury fashion is therefore:

H3. The number of well-fitting garments, in relation to the group’s relative market size, will be smaller for obese consumers compared to that of both normal to underweight consumers and overweight consumers.

Method The definition employed for discrimination is treating certain people differently, not because of their ability to pay, but because of other reasons. To test the hypotheses, it is necessary to measure if there is a discrepancy between the relative size of the overweight and obese market segments and the supply of clothes that is available to them. In other words, do overweight and obese consumers have less to choose from than what is motivated by their numbers? To this end, three brands were chosen: Brand 1, Brand 2, and Brand 3. They are all accessible luxury fashion brands. However, they have different owner structures, and they offer different styles, and this is the reason they were selected. While one should be careful to make generalizations based on the findings of a limited study such as this, the diversity of the chosen companies strengthens the validity of the claim that accessible luxury fashion companies build brands by fat discrimination, should the hypotheses be supported.

Sample of stores The chosen stores constitute a convenience sample. Two students visited six stores (one concept store from each brand, and three department stores where the brands are represented), all located in London. Concept stores and department stores are typical outlets for the studied brands, which should help claims of external validity.

Survey of garments Brands 1, 2, and 3 all offer intermediate luxury garments (see definition above). The surveyed garments are jeans and tops. The jeans are denim pants that are worn tight. Tops comprise shirts, t-shirts, tank tops, and sweaters. Although they vary as garments, their fit is similar. There are no skintight tops included, nor are there any unusually loose cuts. Jeans and tops are chosen because they constitute a considerable part of the garments

6

JFMM 22,1

that these companies sell. It is consequently reasonable to assume that the way the jeans and tops assortments are managed should be representative of how the companies manage assortments and sizes. What is more, tops and jeans are tailored to fit the body, thereby making sizes relevant to the consumers’ body shapes. In each store, every garment in the selected categories garments were tallied and their waist was measured in-store with a tape measure. The total number of garments was 1,454. The tape measure approach is necessary because clothes sizes are not standardized across markets and manufacturers, and one garment can therefore be larger or smaller than another of the same nominal size. Measuring the garments solves this issue.

Fit is another important consideration. The anthropometric measurements provide the actual body sizes of individuals in each BMI class, but for women’s tops, body size does not equal garment size. Tops are not worn skintight. I have after consulting with several sales clerks decided that the individuals’ actual waist measurement plus 15 centimeters is a reasonable waist size for a top. This will no doubt vary between garment models as well as between individuals. Some women like a loose fit while others prefer tighter tops. In total, 15 cm constitutes a rather loose fit. I however chose to err on the side of caution because I want to avoid any suspicion that I have manipulated the data to make it seem like overweight people are discriminated against more than they really are.

Jeans sizes are expressed in waist measurements. However, by waist, the manufacturers do not really mean waist in an anatomically correct way. Instead they mean the top edge of the jeans, which when the garment is worn can be found at the waist, but also riding on the hip or anywhere in between. I have chosen to look at a point in between the waist and hip referred to as the crista (the top line in the illustration below). For women’s intermediate luxury jeans, it is common to find the top edge at the crista (Figure 1).

Crista, upper border

Pelvic, max width

Sacroiliac joint, lower border

Acetabulum, upper border

Symphysis, upper border Symphysis, lower border

Source: Ingrid Larsson, Department of Body Composition and Metabolism, Sahlgrenska University Hospital

Figure 1. Illustration of measurement

points for jeans

7

Accessible luxury fashion brand building

Sample of population Body mass index (BMI) is used to determine the consumers’ body type. BMI is a function of a person’s height and weight ratio, and its relevance as an evaluative measure of individuals’ weight has attracted some criticism (Shah and Braverman, 2012). The BMI measurement was however not originally conceived as a diagnostic of individual weight, but as a means to measure the weight of a population, and for this use it is more relevant (Devlin, 2009). It is therefore a suitable operationalization of body shape for this study. BMI classes (NHS, 2015) are BMI 1 (underweight and normal weight; BMI below 25), BMI 2 (overweight; BMI between 25 and 30), and BMI 3 (obese; BMI above 30). The distribution of the British population over BMI classes is established in a report by the National Obesity Observatory (2011). Representative physical measurements of the individuals that make up each class were kindly provided to me by Clinical Nutritionist Ingrid Larsson with the Department of Body Composition and Metabolism at Sahlgrenska University Hospital in Gothenburg, Sweden. She published her doctoral thesis on the subject of body composition (Larsson, 2005) for which she physically measured 1,135 individuals and statistically related their size to BMI. Humans store fat similarly in Sweden and the UK, so once the distribution of individuals over BMI classes is determined, Larsson’s data provide the link needed between the findings of the National Obesity Observatory report and the data collected for this study. Thanks to Dr Larsson’s anthropometric data, we know not just the proportion of Brits in each BMI class, but also their physical sizes. This in turn allows a comparison of the sizes of garments in-store to the sizes of the individuals that make up the population to which the companies cater.

Reliability and validity The data collected from the stores are stock-keeping units (SKUs). Because the units of measurement consist of observations rather than attitudes, reliability is higher. External validity is high thanks to the realistic setting and the straight-forward units of measurement. As for the body measurement data to which the garment sizes are compared, reliability and validity is high. The bodies of a sufficient number of representative individuals were measured by a medical researcher, a method that is both repeatable and relevant for the study of body shapes.

Gap analysis It is now possible to compare the supply available in-store to the demand. There is a span of garment sizes that fit each BMI group, and each registered SKU can therefore be allocated to a BMI group. This allows the garments that fit one BMI group to be expressed as proportions of the total. These proportions can then be compared to the people who can wear the garments. This gap analysis allows us to see if any weight classes have more or less to choose from than is motivated by the relative size of their group.

Findings While previous research (Aagerup, 2010) shows that fast fashion companies do not discriminate overweight and obese consumers, the accessible luxury garments measured in this study come in very small sizes compared to the individuals that make up the general population. A comparison between the proportions of garments and individuals per BMI class is presented in Table I.

Test of hypotheses The objective of the statistical analysis is to determine whether the proportions of garments that are available to the members of each BMI class is significantly different than the

8

JFMM 22,1

proportions of people that make up each BMI class. To test the significance of the results, a z-test is carried out. The results show that all differences in proportions but one are significant at a 99 percent confidence interval:

H1. The number of well-fitting garments, in relation to the group’s relative market size, will be greatest for normal to underweight consumers.

Members of the BMI 1 class have a significantly greater proportion of the garments in-store available to them compared to their proportion of the population merits. This is true for both tops and jeans. H1 can therefore not be rejected:

H2. The number of well-fitting garments, in relation to the group’s relative market size, will be smaller for overweight consumers compared to that of normal to underweight consumers.

Members of the BMI 2 class have a significantly smaller proportion of jeans in-store available to them compared to their proportion of the population merits. The proportions of women and tops for the BMI 2 class (33 vs 35 percent) are not significantly different. However, for BMI class 1, they are 33 vs 35 percent, which means that in relation to the group’s relative market size, the proportion of tops is smaller for overweight consumers compared to that of normal to underweight consumers. Thus, H2 cannot be rejected:

H3. The number of well-fitting garments, in relation to the group’s relative market size, will be smaller for obese consumers compared to that of both normal to underweight consumers and overweight consumers.

There were no accessible luxury garments available in-store in sizes that fit obese consumers. Therefore, H3 cannot be rejected.

The findings can be summarized in the following way: members of the BMI 1 group are favored, BMI 2 is underrepresented, and BMI 3 is excluded from accessible luxury fashion. This is what Aagerup expected, but did not find in fast fashion. Another clear finding is that the mismatch between population and assortments is a lot more pronounced for jeans as compared to tops.

Discussion The findings of this study fit perfectly with the theory of user imagery. Overweight and obese user imagery would be detrimental for brands that are consumed for symbolic/ expressive benefits, and hence, the investigated accessible luxury fashion companies do not cater to obese consumers at all, and to overweight consumers only to a very limited extent. While it is possible that thin people take a greater interest in accessible luxury fashion, and that companies therefore adjust their assortments to reflect demand, the dearth of products for heavier women is so pronounced that it seems incredible that differing consumer preferences would be the only explanation for the composition of assortment of sizes. The study thus provides the first quantitative evidence of brand building via customer rejection.

Intermediary Luxury Survey, London % of women per

BMI class % tops per BMI class

(n ¼ 302) % of jeans per BMI class

(n ¼ 1,152) % of total garments per BMI

class (n ¼ 1,454)

BMI 1 43 65 99 82 BMI 2 33 35 1 18 BMI 3 24 0 0 0 Total 100 100 100 100

Table I. Distributions of individuals and garments

overweight classes

9

Accessible luxury fashion brand building

This study is a replication of a previous study (Aagerup, 2010). Both studies are similar except for the tier of fashion investigated (fast fashion vs accessible luxury fashion), and the results (no discrimination vs severe discrimination). Comparing the results of the two studies provides an opportunity to draw some general conclusions regarding under which criteria brand building via customer rejection is done, and when it is not (Table II).

Type of brand Although all offerings represent all types of value (Holbrook, 2005), luxury is consumed to a great degree because of what it means (Berry, 1994). It is therefore reasonable to assume that accessible luxury fashion would rely to a much greater extent on symbolic brand value than fast fashion does. However, fast fashion and accessible luxury fashion does not only differ in the degree of symbolism to which consumers attribute value, but also in character. Accessible luxury fashion is on the surface very similar to fast fashion. Companies in both tiers produce and sell clothes that are bought by consumers to protect and adorn themselves. There are however fundamental differences between the two types of fashion. Fast fashion retailers started out supplying the general public with basic garments at affordable prices (H&M, 2016; ZARA, 2016), and they have subsequently moved upward in quality and style mimicking the styles of high fashion (Waddell, 2004). Accessible luxury on the other hand draws on brand meanings and consumer motivations that originate in traditional luxury, but employ mass-market manufacturing and brand management methods to reach a price point that allows for larger audiences (Danziger, 2004; Silverstein and Fiske, 2003). Thus, fast fashion constitutes low-end fashion that tries to convince the consumer that the garments offered are fashionable despite their humble origin. Accessible luxury fashion conversely attempts to convince her that the garments offered are real luxury despite their affordable price. The value of luxury however still depends on a perception of rarity and exclusivity (Catry, 2003), and the so-called democratization of luxury (Shukla et al., 2016) is therefore democratic only in that it makes luxury accessible to more people, not because its character has changed to a more inclusive one. If there is a difference in brand ethos between fast fashion and accessible luxury fashion, the implication is that the former is expected to cater to all, while the latter is expected not to. This is borne out in the results of this paper.

Type of customers The uniqueness of typical user imagery will increase if typical users form a homogenous and distinct group. Since user imagery builds on generalizations of what someone who uses a particular brand is like, brand personality should be influenced to a higher degree if the users resemble each other. If they on the other hand are a diverse lot, the overall impression

Low probability of customer rejection: fast fashion

High probability of customer rejection: accessible luxury fashion

Type of brand Low symbolic value Egalitarian brand ethos

High symbolic value Elitist brand ethos

Type of customers

Indistinct types Heterogeneous group

Distinct types Homogenous group

Type of business

Weak visible link between typical users and brand Practically feasible to reject customers Financially unfeasible to reject customers

Strong visible link between typical users and brand Practically feasible to reject customers Financially feasible to reject customers

Table II. Criteria for brand building via customer rejection

10

JFMM 22,1

of the typical user imagery is less clear. If a brand has users that are distinctly different than those of other brands, typical user imagery should have a greater effect on the brand than if its users look like the customers of every other brand. The typical users’ distinctiveness can thus be related to the uniqueness of brand associations in Keller’s (1993) conceptualization of brand equity. Because accessible luxury fashion brands target more specific types of people with regards to taste and fit, their customers tend to form a more homogenous and distinct group than the people who buy fast fashion. The homogenous and distinct character of the customers thus enables typical user imagery to function as a brand personality influencer in accessible luxury fashion. Fast fashion on the other hand by definition addresses a majority of the population. Because they come from all walks of life, the typical users of fast fashion will therefore be heterogeneous and indistinct. It will as a consequence be very difficult for consumers to make any generalizations regarding the typical users of fast fashion brands, so if companies want to establish a brand personality via user imagery they have no choice but to employ ideal user imagery via traditional marketing communications.

Type of business At first glance, it would appear that fast fashion consumption and the consumption of accessible luxury fashion are equally conspicuous in nature. Consumers wear garments out in the open regardless of fashion type, and companies in both tiers use logos. Fast fashion garments are however generally not as attributable to a specific brand as high-end offerings. Their logos are less prominent, and the mainstream styles of fast fashion also make brand identification difficult. This means that if a consumer uses fast fashion to express herself the effect of her typical user imagery on other consumers’ perception of brand personality is lost because they cannot identify the particular brand.

The final consideration for deciding whether to discriminate customers because of their undesirable user imagery is feasibility. The first question is one of practical feasibility; if a company had a brand that was sensitive to typical user imagery, could it actually reject customers? Fashion manufacturers can avoid heavier customers by not providing garments that fit, so both fast and accessible luxury fulfills this requirement. When it comes to financial feasibility, the picture is less uniform. For fast fashion, the business model hinges on selling to the greatest number of people possible, so turning away customers is more problematic. In fact, the plus-size segment is the fastest growing apparel segment and offer brands and retailers substantial opportunity for market growth (Romeo and Lee, 2015). Fast fashion relies on large volumes at low margins, so it would be harder for this fashion tier to turn down any customer segment, especially a fast growing one.

In summation, the paper provides quantitative evidence that companies control assortments to exclude undesirable users, and it delineates under which conditions this may occur. This extends the theory of typical user imagery.

Implications The implication of this study for practitioners is that it is possible to build brands via customer rejection if the brand is symbolic/expressive, if it is conspicuously consumed, if it targets narrow groups of people that are homogenous and distinct from other brand’s customers, and if the company is active in an industry where elitist practices are acceptable, or even desirable. However, the practice still entails turning away business, with the associated opportunity costs. What is more, if a company erroneously believes it is a luxury brand, when in fact its customers view it as something else, turning away customers can result in a backlash. When consumers object to a company’s ethics, moral avoidance and lost sales can occur (Ward and Dahl, 2014). In addition to the business case, there is also an ethical case against customer rejection for brand building purposes. Rejecting customers with money in

11

Accessible luxury fashion brand building

hand because they are not attractive enough to buy a company’s products is ethically problematic, especially when the products are socially desirable. This is not lost on society. In addition to not offering garments in sizes that fit heavier physiques, fashion companies are widely criticized for offering overweight and obese consumers only unfashionable basic clothes (Scaraboto and Fischer, 2014), and this lack of fashionable clothes is a source of frustration for heavier consumers, especially those with an interest in fashion (Gurrieri and Cherrier, 2013). The types of brand value that thin and plus-size consumers derive from fashion are not the same. Expressive and aesthetic desires often go unfulfilled by the apparel that satisfies the functional needs of heavier consumers (Romeo and Lee, 2015). This leads to a situation where heavier consumers shop for convenience while thinner consumers shop for pleasure (Park et al., 2009). The results of this study would corroborate the notion of companies discriminating overweight consumers with regards to style. Aagerups’ (2010) findings in fast fashion do not show the same quantitative underrepresentation of garments for overweight and obese consumers. However, if his results are juxtaposed to those of this study, it becomes apparent that overweight and obese consumers are discriminated against, not for basic clothes, but for fashionable clothes.

Limitations and future research The study’s scope is limited, and one should therefore be cautious when generalizing its results to other product categories or countries. What is more, the study is a survey. As such, it is not strictly a causal study but one of correlation. It is therefore possible that the demonstrated correlation between garments’ sizes and their availability in-store is affected by confounding variables like BMI groups’ different levels of interest in fashion, by their different spending power, or by geographical variables (like an underrepresentation of overweight and obese women in London vs the countryside). It is also theoretically possible that the investigated companies are very bad at marketing, and therefore fail to realize that they have overlooked a large, and growing, market segment. The study’s results are however so strikingly clear that even if some of the effect were due to extraneous variables, it would be hard to disregard the poor match between overweight and obese women and the clothes offered to them. For future research, it would be of interest to build on the results of this exploration into brand building via customer rejection. Corroborating studies would strengthen the validity of the results presented here, and given the limited geographical and industrial scope of this study such validation would be welcome. The issue of brand building via customer rejection is poised to become a hot topic. As brand communications to an increasing extent moves out of the hands of business, and into the hands of individuals that communicate consumer-to-consumer via social media, companies may feel pressured into discriminatory practices. After all, if companies cannot control who is displayed as a brand user via advertising, they may resort to controlling who is allowed to use the brand in real life.

References

Aagerup, U. (2010), “To sell or not to sell: overweight users’ effect on fashion assortments”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 66-78.

Aaker, D.A. (1996), Building Strong Brands, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Aaker, J.L. (1997), “Dimensions of brand personality”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 347-356.

Azuma, N. and Fernie, J. (2003), “Fashion in the globalized world and the role of virtual networks in intrinsic fashion design”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 413-427.

12

JFMM 22,1

Banister, E.N. and Hogg, M.K. (2004), “Negative symbolic consumption and consumers’ drive for self-esteem”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38 No. 7, pp. 850-868.

Barone, M.J. and Roy, T. (2010), “Does exclusivity always pay off? Exclusive price promotions and consumer response”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 121-132.

Berry, C.J. (1994), The Idea of Luxury – A Conceptual and Historical Investigation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Bhardwaj, V. and Fairhurst, A. (2009), “Fast fashion: response to changes in the fashion industry”, The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 165-173.

Big Fat Blog (2004), “Karl Lagerfeld’s ignorance”, available at: www.bigfatblog.com/node/841 (accessed April 14, 2015).

Bower, A.B. and Landreth, S. (2001), “Is beauty best? Highly versus normally attractive models in advertising”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 1-12.

Brioschi, A. (2006), “Selling dreams – the role of advertising in shaping luxury brand meaning”, in Schroeder, J.E. and Salzer-Mörling, M. (Eds), Brand Culture, 1st ed., Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 198-210.

Brownell, K.D. (2005), Weight Bias: Nature, Consequences, and Remedies, Guilford Press, New York, NY.

Catry, B. (2003), “The great pretenders: the magic of luxury goods”, Business Strategy Review, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 10-17.

Chevalier, M., Gutsatz, M. and Schwedt, G. (2012), Luxury Retail Management: How the World’s Top Brands Provide Quality Product and Service Support, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.

Cohn, L.D. and Adler, N. (1992), “Female and male perceptions of ideal body shapes”, Psychology of Women Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 69-79.

Copeland, L. (2011), “The anti-social network”, Slate, available at: www.slate.com/articles/double_x/ doublex/2011/01/the_antisocial_network.html (accessed June 15, 2017).

Danziger, P. (2004), “Let them eat cake: marketing luxury to the masses – as well as the classes”, ProQuest Ebook Central, Dearborn Trade Publishing, Chicago, IL, February 15, 2016.

De Barnier, V., Falcy, S. and Valette-Florence, P. (2012), “Do consumers perceive three levels of luxury? A comparison of accessible, intermediate and inaccessible luxury brands”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 623-636.

Demarest, J. and Allen, R. (2000), “Body image: gender, ethnic, and age differences”, Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 140 No. 4, pp. 465-472.

DeMers, J. (2013), “The top 7 social media marketing trends that will dominate 2014”, September 24, available at: www.forbes.com/sites/jaysondemers/2013/09/24/the-top-7-social-media-marketing- trends-that-will-dominate-2014/ (accessed December 4, 2014).

Devlin, K. (2009), “Top 10 reasons why the BMI is bogus”, available at: www.npr.org/templates/story/ story.php?storyId=106268439 (accessed June 22, 2015).

Durayappah, A. (2011), “Facebook enhances self-esteem, study finds”, Psychology Today, available at: www.psychologytoday.com/blog/thriving101/201103/facebook-enhances-self-esteem-study- finds (accessed July 13, 2014).

Feiereisen, S., Broderick, A.J. and Douglas, S.P. (2009), “The effect and moderation of gender identity congruity: utilizing ‘real women’ advertising images”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 9, pp. 813-843.

Fontaine, K.R., Redden, D.T., Wang, C., Westfall, A.O. and Allison, D.B. (2003), “Years of life lost due to obesity”, Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 289 No. 2, pp. 187-193.

Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-373.

Gripenberg, P. (2004), “H&M för snobbigt för Lagerfeld”, DN Ekonomi, available at: www.dn.se/ ekonomi/hm-for-snobbigt-for-lagerfeld-1.327243 (accessed May 17, 2010).

13

Accessible luxury fashion brand building

Gurrieri, L. and Cherrier, H. (2013), “Queering beauty: fatshionistas in the fatosphere”, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 276-295.

H&M (2016), “Our history”, available at: http://about.hm.com/en/About/facts-about-hm/people-and- history/history.html (accessed May 30, 2016).

Hallett, E. (2013), “Do high-profile footballers help sell cars?”, BBC News, available at: www.bbc.com/ news/uk-england-21712657 (accessed May 24, 2016).

Harris, M.B., Harris, R.J. and Bochner, S. (1982), “Fat, four-eyed, and female: stereotypes of obesity, glasses, and gender”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 503-516.

Hayes, J.B., Alford, B.L. and Capella, L.M. (2008), “When the goal is creating a brand personality, focus on user imagery”, Allied Academies International Conference: Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Studies (AMS), Vol. 13, pp. 31-31.

Hilton, P. (2013), “Abercrombie & Fitch CEO doesn’t want overweight people wearing their clothes”, available at: http://perezhilton.com/cocoperez/2013-05-08-abercrombie-and-fitch-ceo-mike- jeffries-plus-size-clothing-ban/?from=post-.VSdrMrokp74 (accessed April 10, 2015).

Holbrook, M.B. (2005), “Customer value and autoethnography: subjective personal introspection and the meanings of a photograph collection”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 45-61.

Hudders, L. (2012), “Why the devil wears Prada: consumers’ purchase motives for luxuries”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 609-622.

Janssen, I., Katzmarzyk, P.T. and Ross, R. (2002), “Body mass index, waist circumference, and health risk”, Archives of Internal Medicine, Vol. 162 No. 18, pp. 2074-2079.

Johar, J.S. and Sirgy, M.J. (1991), “Value-expressive versus utilitarian advertising appeals: when and why to use which appeal”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 23-33.

Jönsson, O. (2009), “Lindex kollektion görs bara i S och M”, Aftonbladet, available at: www.aftonbladet. se/wendela/article6097669.ab (accessed November 10, 2009).

Kapferer, J.-N. (1997), “Managing luxury brands”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 251-260.

Kapferer, J.-N. and Bastien, V. (2009), “The specificity of luxury management: turning marketing upside down”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 16 Nos 5/6, pp. 311-322.

Kawamura, Y. (2007), Modeologi, Nordstedts Akademiska Förlag, Stockholm.

Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring, managing customer-based brand equity”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-22.

Keller, K.L. (2000), “The brand report card”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 3-10.

Keller, K.L. (2003), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity, Prentice Hall, Pearson Education Ltd, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Keys, A. (1955), “Obesity and heart disease”, Journal of Chronicle Diseases, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 456-460.

Kressmann, F., Sirgy, M.J., Herrmann, A., Huber, F., Huber, S. and Lee, D.-J. (2006), “Direct and indirect effects of self-image congruence on brand loyalty”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59 No. 9, pp. 955-964.

Kulturhuset Stockholm (2006), “Den förbjudna kroppen”, Kulturdepartementet (Ed.), Stockholm.

Larsson, I. (2005), Human Body Composition, Reference Data and Anthropometric Equations, The Metabolic Syndrome and Risk, University of Gothenburg.

Levy, S.J. (1959), “Symbols for sale”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 117-124.

McCracken, G. (1986), “Culture and consumption: a theoretical account of the structure and movement of the cultural meaning of consumer goods”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 71-84.

McCracken, G. (1988), Culture and Consumption – New Approaches to the Symbolic Character of Consumer Goods, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN.

Maslow, A.H. (1970), Motivation and Personality, Harper & Row, New York, NY.

14

JFMM 22,1

Moore, H. (2013), “Oprah faced not just fashion retail racism, but size bias too”, The Guardian, available at: www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/09/oprah-fashion-retail-racism- size-bias (accessed April 22, 2017).

National Obesity Observatory (2011), Adult Weight, June ed., NHS Solutions for Public Health, London.

Nellis, C. (2010), “Is it really ‘designer?’ From budget to couture, the lowdown on categories”, About.com, available at: http://fashion.about.com/cs/stylebasics/a/pricepoints.htm (accessed July 28, 2010).

NHS (2015), “BMI for adults”, NHS, London, available at: www.nhs.uk/Livewell/loseweight/Pages/ BodyMassIndex.aspx-people (accessed September 23, 2015).

O’Cass, A. and McEwen, H. (2004), “Exploring consumer status and conspicuous consumption”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 4 No. 1 pp. 25-39.

Park, J., Nam, Y., Choi, K.M., Lee, Y. and Lee, K.H. (2009), “Apparel consumers’ body type and their shopping characteristics”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3 pp. 372-393.

Parker, B.T. (2005), This Brand’s for Me: Brand Personality and User Imagery Based Self-Congruity, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Parker, B.T. (2009), “A comparison of brand personality and brand user-imagery congruence”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 3 pp. 175-184.

Patterson, M. (1999), “Re-appraising the concept of brand image”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 8 No. 6 pp. 409-426.

Ritson, M. (2003), “Fashion chains’ savvy strategy to squeeze out larger shoppers”, Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 3, p. 16.

Romeo, L.D. and Lee, Y.-A. (2015), “Exploring apparel purchase issues with plus-size female teens”, Journal of Fashion Marketing & Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 120-135.

Scaraboto, D. and Fischer, E. (2014), “Frustrated fatshionistas: an institutional theory perspective on consumer quests for greater choice in mainstream markets”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 183-206.

Shah, N.R. and Braverman, E.R. (2012), “Measuring adiposity in patients: the utility of body mass index (BMI), percent body fat, and leptin”, PLOS One, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 1-8.

Shukla, P., Banerjee, M. and Singh, J. (2016), “Customer commitment to luxury brands: antecedents and consequences”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 323-331.

Silverman, D. (2010), “David Silverman on qualitative research methods & natural data part”, youtube. com, available at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVnIO4vzXg8 (accessed June 15, 2012).

Silverstein, M.J. and Fiske, N. (2003), “Luxury for the masses”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 81 No. 4, pp. 48-57.

Sirgy, M.J. (1982), “Self concept in consumer behavior: a critical review”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 287-300.

Sirgy, M.J. and Samli, A.C. (1985), “A path analytic model of store loyalty involving self-concept, store image, geographic loyalty, and socioeconomic status”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 265-291.

Sirgy, M.J., Grewal, D. and Mangleburg, T. (2000), “Retail environment, self-congruity, and retail patronage: an integrative model and a research agenda”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 127-138.

Smith, J.B. and Colgate, M. (2007), “Customer value creation: a practical framework”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 7-23.

Sotiropoulos, V. (2003), “Luxury fashion brands: the impact of embodied imagery on brand responses”, master’s thesis, John Molson School of Business, Concordia University, Montreal.

Steadman, M. (1969), “How sexy illustrations affect brand recall”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 15-19.

Stern, B.B. (2006), “What does brand mean? historical-analysis method and construct definition”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 216-223.

15

Accessible luxury fashion brand building

Sutherland, J., Marshall, S. and Parker, B.T. (2004), “The real, ideal, and undesired self concepts and their effects on viewer preferences: who do you love?”, paper presented at the American Academy of Advertising, Baton Rouge, LA, March.

Thompson, P. (2013), “Abercrombie hit by a-list backlash over anti-fat ‘bias’: brand under fire again after chief executive’s comment that its clothes are for ‘cool kids’ is republished”, Daily Mail Online, April 14, available at: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2342851/Abercrombie-Fitch-hit- A-list-backlash-anti-fat-bias.html (accessed April 2, 2015).

Tynan, C., Mckechnie, S. and Chhuon, C. (2010), “Co-creating value for luxury brands”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63 No. 11, pp. 1156-1163.

Veblen, T. (1899), The Theory of the Leisure Class, Project Gutenberg. Vermeir, I. and Sompel, D. (2014), “Assessing the what is beautiful is good stereotype and the influence

of moderately attractive and less attractive advertising models on self-perception, ad attitudes, and purchase intentions of 8-13-year-old children”, Journal of Consumer Policy, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 205-233.

Vigneron, F. and Johnson, L.W. (2004), “Measuring perceptions of brand luxury”, Brand Management, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 484-506.

Waddell, G. (2004), How Fashion Works – Couture, Ready-To-Wear & Mass Production, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.

Ward, M.K. and Dahl, D.W. (2014), “Should the devil sell Prada? Retail rejection increases aspiring consumers’ desire for the brand”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 590-609.

Williams, P.J. (2003), “Straightedge subculture on the internet: a case-study on style display online”, Media International Australia Incorporating Culture and Policy Journal, Vol. 107, May, pp. 61-74.

Wooley, S.C. and Wooley, O.W. (1979), “Obesity and women: a closer look at the facts”, Women’s Studies International Quarterly, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 69-79.

ZARA (2016), “Our history”, available at: www.inditex.com/our_group/our_history (accessed May 30, 2016).

Corresponding author Ulf Aagerup can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected]

16

JFMM 22,1

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.