3 ms·
The very next sentences explain why this is about conspicuous consumption: > The authors of “Signalling status with luxury goods: the role of brand prominence”
by addcommitpush 3y ago
The very next sentences explain why this is about conspicuous consumption:
> The authors of “Signalling status with luxury goods: the role of brand prominence”, which appeared in the Journal of Marketing in 2010, do so by dividing the rich into two groups: “parvenus”, who want to associate themselves with other rich people and distinguish themselves from have-nots, and “patricians”, who want to signal to each other but not to the masses. They theorise that more expensive luxury goods, aimed at patricians, will have less obvious branding than cheaper ones. Sure enough, they found that Gucci and Louis Vuitton charge more for quieter handbags and Mercedes slaps bigger emblems on its cheaper cars. People who cannot afford luxury but want to look as if they can (“poseurs”) go for big logos: counterfeiters usually copy louder goods.
- arethuza 3y agoI think this point is made in Succession where Tom (who is, of course, the most social climbing member of the clan having married into the Roy family and is the only person in the show who actually makes a point that being rich is awesome) comments on the "ludicrously capacious" bag of the friend of his sidekick. What is deeply amusing is that the whole "ludicrously capacious" meme has taken off to the point where you can buy large bags with "ludicrously capacious" on them.