Although there has been increasing body of literature on industrial and service brands, few of these studies have focus on a brand in the context of a particular company. At the same time even where previous studies were directed towards this direction, little or no attention have been placed on the social status of a brand. According to Fisk (1980), brands are simply a collection of perceptions held in the minds of the consumers. Branding in consumer’s market has been widely argued to improve on a company’s financial performance and long term competitive position (Aaker, 1992). According to Keller (1993), powerful brands create meaningful images both in the minds of consumers and the society. Elaborating on this, Aaker (1992) contends that, brand equity is a combination of assets such as loyalty, awareness, and perceived quality with brand associations (Aaker 1992).

Brands help customers interpret and process information about a product and are primary for customers purchase decision (Keller, 1992:2, Aaker 1992 p.29-33). At the level of the firm, brands improve the firm’s efficiency by reducing marketing costs and improving prices and margin, serve as an important point of differentiation for firms, assisting customers in their evaluation and choice processes (Aaker,.1992). In the remaining part of the paper, while I will first of all present the components of a brand, thereafter social connotation and the importance of a brand will be discussed and finally I will draw a conclusion.

Consequently, if stores can influence customers’ perception of the quality of their products, be it through price, advertising or the ability to meet their customers’ needs then they should be able to create loyalty according to the conceptual model. What is also good news for retailers is that Snyder (1992) found that in 30% of their 2,156 observations, consumers perceived the quality of the store brands to be the same as the national brands. Therefore those retailers who sell store brands/private labels such as Marks and Spencer and Vivid Imagination are able to better compete against the national brands because the increased positive store image halts defection. However this link should not be taken for granted because Keller and Ailawadi (2004) point out that ‘Empirical evidence of the relationship between private label use and store loyalty is not only sparse but mixed. .’The final piece in the creation of store image is the store as a brand. Using UK examples, Henderson and Mihas (2000) point out that there is a difference between retail brands such as The Gap, Zara and other own brand seller in creating a brand image for the store than there is for a multi-brand retailer such as that of Tesco or Selfridges.

Henderson and Mihas (2000) believe that for retail brands a powerful personality must be built through delivering the benefits that the retailer’s target market want, so as to gain a distinctive position in the market. This is important because the products that the retail brands stores sell become synonymous with the brand itself and therefore the marketing strategy must point towards increasing the image of the store and reap the benefits from this increase. Henderson and Mihas (2000) accentuate Abercrombie and Fitch’s success in becoming a ‘fun loving, independent and sexually un-inhibited brand.’ This image struck a cord with college students and teenagers because they could easily associate their emotions and lifestyles with the brand and ended up considering the retail brand as part of themselves. Abercrombie and Fitch’s success enabled them to increase their brand equity because their customer base had a greater perception of the intangibility of their brand over and above the value that they derived from Abercrombie and Fitch but also their competitors.

According to Keller (1993), powerful brands create meaningful images both in the minds of consumers and society as a whole. Elaborating on this, Aaker (1992) contends that, brand equity is a combination of assets such as loyalty, awareness, and perceived quality with brand associations. Literature on the symbolic function of products has a century-old history, documenting how consumers use products to communicate to others information about themselves such as social status or group membership (Veblen 1899; Bourdieu 1984). For example, in eighteenth century England, a family's status was not determined by monetary standards but rather the ability of the family to own the appropriate material objects such as furniture, cutlery, buildings, etc. (McCracken 1988,32). Furthermore, when these items showed signs of age (termed patina) a family’s claim of social status gained legitimacy because patina indicated that the family was from “old money” and therefore belonged to the upper class.

According to Keller (2003) the CBBE model approaches brand equity from the perspective of the consumer-whether it be an individual or organisation (Keller 2003). This model is built on the premise that, the power of a brand in the market is in “what customers have learned, felt, seen and heard about the brand due to their experiences over time” (Keller 2003:59). Keller (2003:60) defines CBBE as the “differentiated effect that brand knowledge has on consumer response to the marketing of that brand: brand awareness and brand image.

Figure 1 : Keller's Customer Based Brand Equaity Pyramid

The CBBE model suggests that four sequential steps are necessary in building a strong brand. As outlined in the model, these steps start from given an identity to the brand (who are you?), to marking a difference between the brand and other related brands. Thus for the situation of a retail outlet, emphasis will be focusing on a cost leadership strategy by promoting those brand related salient features (fresh merchandise, smart staff, easy access, displacement, total comfort etc).

In addition to satisfying an individual need for uniqueness, people often purchase elite brands for their symbolic value in order to express membership in a particular social group. Leibenstein (1950) called the effect that describes how consumers purchase elite brands to conform to a group standard the “bandwagon effect.” Consumers who engage in status consumption after the initial release of a product often do so in order to fit in with their current social group or to differentiate themselves from lower-status social groups (McCracken 1986; Solomon 1983, 1999).

Recent research on the relationship between television viewing and status consumption lends empirical support to social comparison theory. For example, O'Guinn and Shrum (1997) found that people often rely on television to learn about affluent lifestyles and to construct social reality. More specifically, individuals were more likely to purchase products and engage in activities associated with affluent lifestyles as their level of television exposure increased. Additionally, Hirschman (1988) found that television shows that depict affluent lifestyles influence viewers' preferences and orientation towards elite brands. Researchers concluded from both of these studies that individuals often compare themselves and their lifestyles to the images being portrayed on television and are motivated to make those comparisons more favorable by purchasing brands that confer more higher status (Hirshman 1988; O'Guinn and Shrum 1997). In conclusion, bandwagon consumers or followers purchase elite brands in order to capitalize on their social value or the impact these brands have on others.

The idea that you are what you buy - that possessions confer status - has long existed and guided some purchasing, as most notably observed by Thorstein Veblen (1899). However, as status became associated with specific brands, the next step historically became the marketing of brand imitations - in some cases, imitations of luxury items such as handbags and jewellery (d'Astous and Gargouri 2001).

The act of branding can be traced back to the early 1800's when cowboys would brand their cattle before driving them across the central plains of the United States (Rozin 2002). In order to identify which cattle belonged to each ranch a unique symbol was permanently burned onto the cow. These symbols, in addition to serving as a means of identification, provided a set of traditions and a social identity for the cowboys.

Today, companies use brands to distinguish themselves from their competition and to communicate unique qualities of their products (Aaker and Keller 1990; Low and Fullerton 1994). Once a brand is established, the brand name itself is thought to add value to the product in the minds of consumers. This added value is referred to as brand equity (Aaker 1991). Companies and designers often employ marketing strategies that capitalize on their brand equity and place a greater value on the shapes and labels of their products than the material from which they are made.

Such companies provide buyers with what are conventionally called elite brands, defined by Silverstein and Fiske (2003) as those brands that possess higher levels of quality, taste and aspiration than other brands in the product category. These products are often justifiably priced higher than other brands in order to make their brand seem exclusive and more prestigious. For example, elite designers are able to transform a 10 pound t-shirt into a $200 sought after treasure (Chatpaiboon 2004). Recently, Hermes reported that customers were placed on a two-year waiting list for their most popular Birkin bag, which retails for $6000 (Branch 2004). On EBay, women engaged in bidding wars over a blue Birkin bag for which the winner ultimately paid over $13,000 (Rose 2003).

Previous research has shown that consumers often use their existing perceptions of a brand to evaluate new offerings such a product or line extensions (Aaker and Keller 1990). Because it appears similar to the original brand, consumers will then transfer attributes of the original brand to the brand imitator, thereby affecting evaluations and purchase decisions. These attributions include, but are not limited to, product quality, performance, reliability, and origin (d' Astrous and Gargouri 1999). Francesca Sterlacci, a fashion designer, who heads the fashion design department at New York's Fashion Institute of Technology, says that copying is simply a way of life (Karr 2003). In a recent website interview Sterlacci admits that it is “expensive and risky to actually create new designs, and much cheaper and easier to simply knockoff a successful one” (Karr 2003).

While some consumers may purchase goods to signal membership in a higher status group, other consumers may conspicuously consume goods to avoid the appearance of being low-class. Status insecurity (Wu 2001) refers to the degree to which an individual is concerned with appearing low-class or experiences a feeling of uncertainty about his or her social standing. According to Eastman et al. (1999), the more an individual seeks status, the more he or she will engage in behaviors to increase status. It is logical, therefore, that status insecurity may influence one's behavior in the marketplace. For example, previous research has shown that individuals who are insecure about their social status are likely to compensate by purchasing products/brands which convey prestige to others. In other words, those individuals who are insecure about their social status are likely to avoid brands which may lead to being perceived as second-class and purchase those that convey the opposite signal.

The first component of study for customer equity is brand equity which is ‘The added value a brand name identity brings to a product or service beyond the functional benefits provided.’ This statement thus highlights the importance of brand equity for retailers in achieving customer equity because the added value can make customers more likely to buy a particular. As Court and Freeling, (1996) found in their research ‘Brands have real power to persuade customers to purchase one product rather than another’. Hence brand equity is important in achieving customer equity because it helps to build emotional ties that adds value to the consumer because they trust the products or services that are being offered and thus are likely to become more loyal to a company or shop. Achieving this loyalty can be a source of competitive advantage because this loyalty assists in accomplishing superior results over the competition.

Keller, et al, (2002) have typified the importance that brand equity can play in achieving customer equity and subsequently improve firm performance. They highlighted four key areas that brand equity can have a positive effect on. The four areas are:

1. The brands ability to acquire new customers for current offerings,
2. The brands ability to encourage cross-buying from current customers,
3. The brands ability to charge a price premium for its products and services, and
4. Reduce marketing costs

These four areas are significant in achieving superior performance because if the brand is able to acquire new customers then obviously the company can gain more sales and thus in theory increase their revenues and hence profits. In addition to that, if the brand can encourage cross-buying this will have the same effect as before because with the loyalty that customers display through cross-buying it shows an increase in their lifetime value and thus the profits gained by companies. Furthermore, if a retailer is able to charge a premium for its products or services it will have the same effect on revenues and consequently profits again.

This point is also commented on by Court and Freeling, (1996) that ‘on average, prices of the strongest brands (in terms of the brand's importance behind the decision to buy) were 19 percent higher than those of the weakest brands’.

Finally a brand can reduce marketing costs because if the brand name is able to acquire new customers, then there is not such a greater need in heavy promotion and advertisement to push your name and values to the customer because the brand name will signal these and thus pull the customer to the organisation.

From the foregoing caption and the literature examined above, some consumers purchase prestige products for their conspicuous nature, others prefer status products that are unique in nature. To these consumers, scarce products are valued more than those readily available to the public. According to optimal distinctiveness theory (Brewer 1991; Aaker 1992), individuals have two types of identities. First, individuals have a personal identity that is drawn upon during social situations in order to differentiate themselves from others within a given social context. Second, individuals also possess social identities that are categorizations of the self into a more inclusive social group (Aaker 1992). Optimal distinctiveness theory states that our social identity, or the categories of people we choose to associate with, is created to resolve the fundamental tension between needs for validation and similarity to others and a countervailing need for uniqueness and individuation (Brewer 1991). Although striving for uniqueness is universal, individuals may differ in the degree to which uniqueness is weighted against social approval; some individuals have a higher need for uniqueness than others (Snyder 1992).

Marketing researchers have recognized that consumers often equate uniqueness with high status because, by definition, if virtually everyone owned a brand or product it would not be perceived as elite (Vigneron and Johnson 1999). Therefore, it can be concluded that some individuals purchase scarce products to satisfy their need for uniqueness while gaining the status associated with owning a rare product/brand. Empirical studies have shown that individuals often place a higher economic value on rare or scarce products (Lynn 1991) and perceive scarce products as conferring higher status than products which are readily available (Verhallen and Robben 1994). These arguments are consistent with the economics literature that has examined diffusion patterns across populations.

1. Aaker, D. and Keller, K. (1990) Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing, 54(Jan.), 27-41.
2. Aaker, D. (1991) Managing Brand Equity. New York: Free Press.
3. Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
4. Chatpaiboon, P. (2004) Designer knockoffs. BT Magazine, Fall D’Astous, A. and Gargouri, E. (2001) Consumer evaluations of brand imitations. European Journal of Marketing, 35, 112, 153- 16.
5. Eastman, J., Goldman, R. and Flynn, L.R. (1999) Status consumption in consumer behavior: Scale development and validation. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Summer, 41-52.
6. Fisk, G. (1980) Taxonomic Classification of Macromarketing Theory. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University School of Management.
7. Karr, R. (2003) Fashion industry copes with designer knockoffs. National Public Radio, September 18,2003.
8. Keller, K. L., (2003). Strategic Brand Management. Building, Measuring and managing Brand equity 2nd Edt New Jersey. Prentice Hall.
9. Kotler, P. and Keller, K.L. (2007) A Framework for Marketing Management. 3^rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
10. Low, G. and Fullerton, R. (1994) Brands, brand management, and the brand manager system: A critical-historical evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (May), 173- 190.
11. Rose, J. (2003). Knockoffs-who is it? The Arizona Republic, January 15,2003.
12. Rozin, R. S. (2002) The branding iron: From cowboys to corporations. Journal of Brand Management, 10(1), 4-8.
13. Low, G. and Fullerton, R. (1994) Brands, brand management, and the brand manager system: A critical-historical evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (May), 173- 190.
14. McCracken, Grant (1988), Culture and Consumption. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
15. Snyder, C.R. (1992) Product scarcity by need for uniqueness interaction: A consumer Catch-22 carousel? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13, 9-24.
16. Silverstein, M. and Fiske, N. (2003). Trading Up. New York, NY: Penguin Group
17. Solomon, M. (1999) The value of status and the status of value in Holbrook, M.B. (Ed.), Consumer Value: A Framework for Analysis and Research. London: Routledge, 63-84.
18. Veblen, T. (1899) The Theory of the Leisure Class, New York: Mentor Book.
19. Verhallen, T. and Robben, H.S. (1994) Scarcity and preference: An experiment on unavailability and product evaluation. Journal of Economic Psychology, 15(June), 315-331.
20. Vigneron, F. and Johnson, L.W. (1999) A review and a conceptual framework of prestige-seeking consumer behavior
21. Academy of Marketing Science
, 4(1)
22. Thaler, T. (1985) Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 4(Summer), 199-214.
23. Train, K. (2004) Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. Wu, J. (2001). The impact of status insecurity on credit card spending. (working paper) University of Houston.