A semiotic analysis of the extendibility of luxury brands

Abstract

Purpose – Considering a long-term perspective and the discourse directly emitted by brands, the aim is to study how can brand extension potential be predicted through the analysis of brand contracts? Design/methodology/approach – Considering a long-term perspective and the discourse directly emitted by brands, the aim is to study how can brand extension potential be predicted through the analysis of brand contracts? Findings – Three groups of brands are identified: brands anchored in both determination and mastery contracts defined as open (high extendibility); brands anchored in a determination contract defined as open, as well as in a mastery contract defined as closed (low extendibility); brands anchored in a mastery contract defined as open as well as in a determination contract defined as not closed (high extendibility, but risks of diluting the brand value). Research limitations/implications – Compared with extensions actually developed by these brands, the results are discussed and strategies are proposed to maximize the long-term brand development when the brand extension potential is low. Only studied on products, it would be interesting to complete this analysis in services. Originality/value – The main contribution is the focus on brand narratives and contracts to predict the brand extensibility of luxury brands. Structural semiotics provides another original insight.

The spillover effect of downward line extensions on U.S. consumers’ evaluation of a French luxury parent brand: The role of branding strategies, authenticity, and fit

“…Sood and Keller () stated that branding strategies deserve greater attention in the study of parent brand spillover effects. In a study on extendibility of luxury brands, Veg‐Sala and Roux () reported in their research implications that, because of the potential damage an extension can cause to a luxury brand, the latter could develop a branding strategy by creating an independent/standalone brand, a sub‐brand, or an umbrella brand. The current study intends to close this gap in the literature, since the effect of branding strategy will be tested at varying levels for each type of extension.…”

Cross-gender extension potential of luxury brands: a semiotic analysis

“…Moreover, these articles use only consumer perceptions to analyse the success or failure of cross-gender extensions (Jung and Lee, 2006;Ulrich, 2013). But it has been shown that another approach can be used, based on the discourses directly produced by brands (Veg-Sala and Roux, 2014). This approach allows us to define brand extension potential (BEP) and has been especially developed for luxury brands.…”

“…Beyond this approach focused on consumer evaluations, the definition of brand extension potential (BEP) reflects a long-term approach to brand management. Brand extension potential defines how far a brand can be extended consistently and legitimately according to what it is (Veg-Sala and Roux, 2014). The BEP concept does not focus on consumer perceptions but on a more managerial approach based on the study of brand identity (Kapferer, 2004).…”

“…The concept of brand extension potential (BEP) has been used to analyse luxury brand extensions into new product categories (Veg-Sala and Roux, 2014 The focus on the luxury brands and cross-gender extension is particularly important because, while the use of extensions has become fundamental to the business model of most luxury brands, little research has been conducted on these strategies in the case of luxury brands (Hagtvedt and Patrick, 2009;Reddy et al, 2009;Monga and John, 2010;Magnoni and Roux, 2012). Yet researchers point out that the management of luxury brands is significantly different from other sectors.…”

Creative heritage: Overcoming tensions between innovation and tradition in the luxury industry

“…In this case, innovation kills tradition. In contrast, marketing can use tradition in the form of brand identity as a validation criterion for evaluating new designs proposed by designers (Spiggle, Nguyen, & Caravella, 2012; Veg‐Sala & Roux, 2014). Thus, marketing may be tempted to reject innovative designs as they constitute a threat to brand tradition.…”