1 Introduction

In 2001, the creative director of Louis Vuitton (LV), Marc Jacobs, collaborated with American artist Stephen Sprouse to release the Graffiti collection. Following this successful integration of visual art with a luxury brand, LV continued to collaborate with modern artists the following year. The company invited Takashi Murakami, a prolific contemporary Japanese artist, to redesign LV’s famous Monogram Canvas, which led to the launching of the Monogram Multicolor, followed by the Monogram Cherry Blossom. Both of these new designs were extremely popular, selling out wherever they were available. Accordingly, an increasing number of luxury brands began to imitate this model, believing that art has the power to influence consumer perception. However, little research has been conducted on this issue. Hagtvedt & Patrick (2008a, b) took initial steps to examine the influence of visual art on consumer evaluations, but many related questions have yet to be examined, including whether consumers’ perceived prestige of luxury brands are enhanced by artwork and how one can effectively price products that include artwork.

Hagtvedt & Patrick (2008a) show that the presence of art has a positive influence on brand image and perceived extension fit, resulting in more favorable brand extension evaluations. Hagtvedt & Patrick (2008b) further propose the art infusion theory, demonstrating that the presence of art has a favorable influence on product evaluation through a content-independent spillover of the luxury perception of packaging, advertising, and product design. Both studies examine the art infusion effect on inexpensive and low-involvement products, such as soap dispensers, MP3 players, and a set of silverware. Expanding on their research, this study investigates the effects of visual art on luxury brands that are symbolic and are considered high involvement products, exploring whether visual art enhances the consumer-perceived prestige of luxury brands. Hagtvedt & Patrick (2008b) note that well-known artwork may have specific connotations that do not apply to artwork that is not equally famous. For this study, the artwork we used is less famous, familiar, or well-known to consumers, compared with artwork by Van Gogh or Picasso, to investigate whether the art infusion effect is consistent in the presence of lesser-known artworks. Finally, this research examines the impact of artwork interaction with product price on perceived prestige. This topic has not been previously studied but has important implications for managers. To further understand these important issues and fill gaps in the literature, this research examines the influence of art presence and the interaction of art presence and consumers’ price difference on perceived prestige.

2 Literature review and development of hypotheses

2.1 Consumer perceptions of art and art infusion theory

The definition of art has been a subject of a longstanding debate among experts. This study follows Hagtvedt & Patrick (2008b), who define art from a consumer-focused perspective as “that which viewers categorize as such,” for two reasons. First, this definition is particularly relevant because this study considers consumer (or viewer) perceptions. Second, this research focuses on examining a classic form of visual art, namely, paintings. To avoid prior impressions of artwork that had been used on wallets in the past, we preselected artwork that had never been used as a luxury brand wallet design.

According to the art infusion theory proposed by Hagtvedt & Patrick (2008b), art has two important effects. First, art exerts halo effects that form initial perceptions and subsequently influence later ones (Balzer & Sulsky 1992). Second, art has a contagion effect, a mechanism by which direct or indirect contact between two objects can lead to the permanent transfer of properties from one object to another (Argo et al. 2006; Morales & Fitzsimons 2007; Rozin et al. 1986). Based on the above-mentioned effects, the art infusion theory asserts that a special kind of spillover effect exists in which key properties of art are transferred to the associated product, thus influencing the valuation of the product (Hagtvedt & Patrick 2008b).

Hagtvedt & Patrick (2008b) also indicate that art infusion theory is driven by the generalized content-independent influence of art, which states that art is intrinsically tied to a heritage of high culture, with connotations of exclusivity, luxury, and sophistication (Hoffman 2002; Margolin 1992; Martorella 1996; Shrum 1996) that could transfer to and influence the perception and valuation of associated products. Based on this perspective, the art infusion effect is dependent on the artwork being perceived as art and on the effect being positive, regardless of any content-dependent influence of visual art. As a result, visual art transfers its properties of exclusivity, luxury, and sophistication to associated products and has favorable influences on product evaluations.

In addition, to examine neural responses to art, Lacey et al. (2011) performed an event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study. They demonstrated that art images activate reward circuitry, particularly the ventral striatum, simply by virtue of their status as art and independent of their content and particular style, which they controlled for by comparing responses to matched art and non-art images. Lacey et al. (2011) support the view that the neural basis of the art infusion effect is a content-independent activation of reward circuitry, deriving from the status of images as art, which presumably induces a more favorable evaluation of the product associated with the image.

Conversely, Hagtvedt & Patrick (2011) illustrate the limitation of the art infusion effect and demonstrate that the “specialness” of artworks may be diminished simply by contextualizing them or causing them to be processed concretely. They conclude that the influence of “artwork as art” is context independent, but the influence of “artwork as illustration” is context dependent. Furthermore, they theorize that a concrete mind-set leads to the salience of content and to the encoding of the artwork as a context relevant illustration, whereas an abstract mind-set leads to the salience of manner and to the encoding of the artwork as art.

2.2 Luxury brands and perceived prestige

A luxury brand is a symbol that represents personal and social identity (Vickers and Renand 2003). Nueno & Quelch (1998, p. 62) define luxury brands as those whose ratio of functionality to price is low, while the ratio of intangible and situational utility to price is high. Reviewing the relevant literature, Tynan et al. (2009) conceptualize brands and luxury brands in detail. They define the key identifiers of luxury brands as “high quality, expensive and non-essential products and services that appear to be rare, exclusive, prestigious, and authentic and offer high levels of symbolic and emotional/hedonic values through customer experiences” (Tynan et al. 2009, p.1,158).

Vigneron & Johnson (1999) indicate that three types of brands are categorized as prestigious: upmarket brands, premium brands, and luxury brands, respectively, in an increasing order of prestige. In this research, we refer to prestige brands when discussing the brand category, whereas we use “luxury” when relating to the extreme end of the prestige brand category. In addition, Vigneron & Johnson (1999; 2004) conceptualize five dimensions of perceived prestige: perceived conspicuous value, perceived unique value, perceived quality value, perceived hedonic value, and perceived extended self. Hagtvedt & Patrick (2009) contrast a luxury brand with a value brand and demonstrate that the luxury brand concept results in more favorable brand extension evaluations than the value brand due to its hedonic potential, although both brand concepts lead to equally favorable brand evaluations.

2.3 The integration effects of visual art and luxury brands

Many studies have indicated that art is associated with a heritage of culture, as it has connotations of refinement and luxury and represents a special kind of quest for excellence (Hoffman 2002; Margolin 1992; Martorella 1996). Art infusion theory further indicates that these general connotations of visual art automatically spillover onto products with which art is associated, regardless of the specific content of the artwork, and then favorably influence consumer evaluations of brand image (Hagtvedt & Patrick 2008b). Research indicates that art has the general properties that create the connotations of exclusivity, sophistication, culture, luxury, class, prestige (Hoffman 2002; Margolin 1992; Martorella 1996; Tansey & Kleiner 1996), and increased creativity and imagination (Dewey 1989; Dom 1998; Eisner 2002; Feldman 1992; Kreitler & Kreitler 1972).

Based on art’s properties, the effects of artwork on consumers’ prestige value can be described through the following five dimensions. First, because art’s connotations of luxury, class, and prestige can transfer to the product with which it is associated, perceived conspicuous value associated with social status and elevated perceptions (Vigneron & Johnson 1999) can be enhanced. Second, art’s properties of exclusiveness can enhance a product’s perceived unique value because the exclusive properties of art distinguish consumers of the product from others (Vigneron & Johnson 2004). Third, because art implies sophistication, luxury, and class, a luxury brand with artwork can strengthen the brand’s perceived quality value. Fourth, art’s connotations of luxury, class, and prestige can fulfill consumers’ emotional and self-reward needs for perceived hedonic value (Vigneron & Johnson 1999). Additionally, art as an experience can increase creativity and imagination and, therefore, the perceived hedonic value of the item. Finally, art’s connotations of luxury, class, and prestige can enhance consumers’ self-concept and replicate stereotypes of affluence for the perceived extended self (Vigneron & Johnson 1999); thus, it can enhance the perceived extended self.

In summary, a product with artwork on it could be perceived as having greater exclusivity, sophistication, culture, luxury, class, and prestige than a product without artwork. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed.

H1. Consumers’ perceived prestige will be higher for luxury brands with artwork than for those brands without artwork.

2.4 The interaction effects of price differences and art presence

Price is the sum or amount of money or equivalent that is paid to acquire a product or service (Kotler 2000). Each consumer has a range of price acceptance for each product category, and a higher reference price leads to a wider range of price acceptance (Kalyanaram & Little 1994). The range of acceptable prices has “upper” and “lower” price thresholds that define the region (Monroe 1971). Within this region, changes in price produce no change in perception (Raman & Bass 2002). However, when changes in price extend beyond this range, consumers’ perceptions may change.

Here, we discuss the interaction effects of price differences and art presence on perceived prestige. For products without art presence, we expect price to have a strong influence on consumers’ perceived prestige for the following reasons. First, price is a signal for the purchaser (Lichtenstein et al. 1993). When the price is high, it conveys customer prominence and status. Second, although consumers’ perceptions of price-quality relationships are rather mixed (Baumgartner 1995; Gerstner 1985; Rao & Monroe 1989; Tellis & Wernerfelt 1987), price is an important and useful cue that indicates quality for many consumers. When judging product quality, a high price implies high quality and thus positively influences consumers’ quality perceptions (Tellis & Gaeth 1990). Third, positioning a brand with a prestige pricing approach will reinforce a positive, even exclusive, brand image in the mind of the customer because a high price implies that few people own this product, thus creating the image of brand exclusivity (Groth & McDaniel 1993). Fourth, Jin et al. (2003) indicate that some consumers view a high price as a sign of their economic status and that value consciousness is positively related to hedonic shopping. Thus, a product with a high price is more likely to induce consumers’ hedonic shopping value, the emotional response associated with consumption, such as sensory pleasure, aesthetic beauty, or excitement (Vigneron & Johnson 1999). Finally, consumers’ extended self can be enhanced by using a luxury brand to distinguish themselves from others (Vigneron & Johnson 1999). When the luxury brand has both artwork on it and a high price, the symbolism of the luxury brand can be strengthened, thus enhancing the consumers’ self-concept. In summary, for products without art presence, a high price difference can enhance perceived prestige.

For products with artwork, however, we expect the influence of price difference to be weakened. As previously mentioned, perceived prestige increase with increased price. Perceived prestige is also enhanced by the presence of art, based on hypothesis 1. Therefore, the presence of artwork, which transfers connotations to products and weakens the effect of the price difference, will reduce the differences in perceived prestige. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis.

H2. Price difference and art presence have interacting effects on perceived prestige. In particular:

  1. (a)

    For products with artwork, price difference will have no influence on consumers’ perceived prestige.

  2. (b)

    For products without artwork, high-price difference will enhance consumers’ perceived prestige more than low-price difference.

3 Study 1: the effect of artwork on perceived prestige

3.1 Pretest

Forty-three participants took part in the first pretest and were asked to rate the brand awareness of seven luxury brands—Goyard (M = 2.74), Loewe (M = 6.09), Sonia Rykiel (M = 3.12), Mulberry (M = 3.72), Celine (M = 5.28), Shiatzy Chen (M = 6.40), and Louis Vuitton (M = 9.65)—on 10-point scales (1 = extremely low; 10 = extremely high). The results of the pretest indicated that LV had the highest score among all brands, confirming that LV is considered a very luxurious brand by the participants.

A second pretest was conducted to identify artwork that would be appealing to respondents. In total, 43 valid questionnaires (22 females; 27 respondents had experience buying luxury brands) were analyzed. The research consulted Louis Vuitton’s website and a book titled “Art, Fashion, and Architecture” to select artwork by five artists who collaborated with LV for commercial design (e.g., decorating, background design) but not for product design. The results of the pretest revealed that the artwork of artist Victor Reyes (code = B) (mean = 3.51 on a five-point scale; 1 = least preferred, 5 = most preferred) was the most preferred by the respondents. See Appendix A for the five selected pretest products.

3.2 Design and participants

We conducted a between-subjects experiment and manipulated art presence (art versus no art). The purchasing experience of luxury brands was controlled. Half of the participants were presented with a product with artwork on it (the artwork was predetermined by pretest), and the other half of the participants were presented with the same product without artwork. A wallet was selected as the experiment product because most wallets of the same design are suitable for both males and females. See Appendix B for the stimuli used.

A field experiment was conducted. Participants were recruited through snowball sampling. In total, 141 participants completed the paper-and-pencil questionnaire and were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions. After excluding five invalid questionnaires, 136 questionnaires (82 females; respondent ages between 16 and 65 years of age; 121 participants’ with an education level higher than a college degree) were analyzed. Among all participants, 62 had purchasing experience with luxury brands, while the rest had no experience.

3.3 Procedure and measures

All participants were asked to read the scenario and were shown a picture of the wallet (see Appendix B). After reading the scenario (see Appendix C), participants were asked to respond to a set of questions. First, participants reported their evaluations of the perceived prestige, which were developed from Vigneron & Johnson (2004) (see Appendix D). A seven-point semantic differential scale was used. The reliability of the 20 items for perceived prestige was high (Cronbach α = 0.94).

Furthermore, we assessed participants’ preference for both the wallet design and LV’s classic Monogram on a seven-point scale (1 = “not at all” and 7 = “extremely”). In addition, we asked participants about their familiarity with the artwork used in the experiment (1 = “extremely unfamiliar” and 7 = “extremely familiar”). Finally, we assessed participants’ self-assessed knowledge of the luxury brand, adapted from Meeds (2004) and Heine (2010), on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = “extremely disagree” and 7 = “extremely agree”).

3.4 Results

3.4.1 Manipulation checks on artwork

To determine whether the manipulation of artwork was successful, we asked participants to report on two items using a Likert seven-point scale (1 = “extremely disagree” and 7 = “extremely agree”): the extent to which they agreed that the wallet was designed by artists and the extent to which the wallet was a work of art. A t test showed that under the artwork condition, participants perceived the product to be a work of art to a greater degree than under the no artwork condition (M art = 5.10 versus M nonart = 3.64; F(1,134) = 55.74, p < 0.001, η = 0.29). The manipulation of artwork was confirmed.

In addition, we assessed participants’ preferences for the wallet design, LV’s classic Monogram, the LV brand and the familiarity with the luxury brand between the art and no art conditions. The result showed that participants’ preferences for the wallet design (M art = 4.40 versus M nonart = 4.36; F(1,134) = 0.02, p > 0.05, η = 0.01), LV’s classic Monogram (M art = 4.55 versus M nonart = 4.36; F(1,134) = 0.63, p > 0.05, η = 0.00), and the LV brand (M art = 4.05 versus M nonart = 3.77; F(1,134) = 1.26, p > 0.05, η = 0.01) were not different between the art and no art conditions. However, participants’ familiarity with the luxury brand differed significantly between the art and no art conditions (M art = 4.39 versus M nonart = 3.30; F(1,134) = 21.12, p < 0.001, η = 0.14). Thus, the following analysis controlled for participants’ familiarity with the luxury brand.

3.4.2 Effects of visual art presence

A one-way ANCOVA was conducted, and participants’ familiarity with the luxury brand was a covariant. The result indicated that art presence led to higher perceived prestige than art non-presence (M art = 4.30 versus M nonart = 3.79; F(1, 134) = 6.90, p < 0.05, η = 0.05; see Fig. 1). Accordingly, the main effects of artwork on perceived prestige supported hypothesis 1. Furthermore, the results revealed no difference in perceived prestige between the experienced group and the non-experienced group (F’s < 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Study 1: the main effect of artwork on perceived prestige

Full size image

It is noteworthy that the luxury brand with artwork enhanced consumers’ prestige values even though the participants’ preference for the artwork used in the experiment was medium (M = 4.45) and their familiarity with the artwork was low (M = 3.35).

4 Study 2: the interaction effects of price difference and art presence

4.1 Design and participants

A 2 (art presence, art versus no art) × 3 (price differences, control (i.e., NT$20,000) versus 125 % (i.e., NT$25,000) versus 150 % (i.e., NT$30,000)) between-subjects experiment was conducted. Previous experience with buying a luxury brand was also controlled in study 2. This study used LV’s wallet as the experimental product. LV’s wallet is normally priced at NT$20,000Footnote 1 in the marketplace.

A field experiment was conducted, and participants joined the experiment by responding to a web-based or paper-and-pencil questionnaire. Of the participants, 165 aged between 20 and 55 years completed the questionnaire for this study online; 126 of these 165 participants were female, and 144 of these 165 participants had an education level above college. The participants were provided with an image of the product and a scenario similar to study 1. The only difference was that the price of the products was provided in study 2. After reading the scenario, the participants were asked a set of questions, and they evaluated the product’s prestige value using the same perceived prestige (α = 0.93) from study 1.

4.2 Results

4.2.1 Manipulation checks

In study 2, the items used to check the manipulation of art presence were the same as in study 1. The result showed that the manipulation of art presence was successful. Participants’ perceived that the wallet in the art condition was an artwork rather than in the no art condition (M art = 4.12 versus M nonart = 3.78; F(1,163) = 4.61, p < 0.05, η = 0.03). Regarding the manipulation of the price difference, most participants’ correctly answered the question about the price of the wallet in the scenario (x 2 = 286.92, p < 0.001). Thus, the manipulations of both art presence and price were successful.

In addition, participants’ preferences for the LV brand were not significantly different between the art and no art conditions (M art = 4.15 versus M nonart = 3.95; F(1,163) = 0.99, p > 0.05, η = 0.01), and among different price conditions (M control = 3.77 versus M 125% = 4.16 versus M 150% = 4.04; F(2,162) = 1.32, p > 0.05, η = 0.02). Participants’ familiarity with the luxury brand also did not differ significantly between the art and no art conditions (M art = 3.71 versus M nonart = 3.70; F(1,163) = 0.002, p > 0.05, η = 0.00) and among the different price conditions (M control = 3.57 versus M 125% = 3.83 versus M 150% = 3.67; F(2,162) = 0.74, p > 0.05, η = 0.01). However, the preferences for the wallet design (M art = 4.49 versus M nonart = 3.84; F(1,163) = 9.18, p < 0.001, η = 0.05) and LV’s classic Monogram (M art = 4.67 versus M nonart = 4.03; F(1,163) = 9.19, p < 0.001, η = 0.05) differed significantly between the art and no art conditions. Furthermore, participants’ preferences for the wallet design (M control = 3.95 versus M 125% = 4.48 versus M 150% = 3.65; F(1,163) = 6.42, p < 0.05, η = 0.07) differed significantly among different price conditions, but not for LV’s classic Monogram (M control = 4.14 versus M 125% = 4.55 versus M 150% = 3.98; F(2,162) = 3.02, p > 0.05, η = 0.04). Thus, the preferences for the wallet design and LV’s classic Monogram will be covariants in the following ANCOVA test.

4.2.2 Results

An ANCOVA test was conducted, and the results again supported H1. For products with art presence, perceived prestige was significantly higher than without art presence (F(1,157) = 5.34, p < 0.05, η = 0.03). However, the price difference had no significant effect on perceived prestige (F(2,157) = 0.36, p > 0.05, η = 0.01).

The interaction effect between art presence and price difference on perceived prestige was significant (F(1,157) = 3.63, p < 0.05, η = 0.04). Thus, the results partially supported H2. Post hoc multiple comparisons among the three price differences based on art presence and non-presence were conducted. The results are shown in Fig. 2. These analyses revealed that for products with art presence, the price difference on perceived prestige was not significant (F(2,52) = 0.17, p > 0.05, η = 0.05). The result supported H2(a). For products without art presence, the price difference on perceived prestige was significantly different (F(2,107) = 5.31, p < 0.05, η = 0.08). Post hoc result comparisons revealed that the 125 % price difference condition led to a higher perceived prestige than the control condition (M control = 3.31 versus M 125% = 4.07, p < 0.05). However, the differences between the 150 % price difference condition and the control condition (M 150% = 3.75 versus M 125% = 4.07, p > 0.05) and between the 150 and 125 % price difference conditions (M control = 3.31 versus M 150% = 3.75, p > 0.05) had no significant impact on the perceived prestige. The result partially supported H2(b).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Study 2: the interaction effects of price difference and art presence on perceived prestige. Asterisk indicates that the two conditions are significantly different at α = 0.05

Full size image

5 General discussion, implications, and limitations

Although the presence of art on luxury brands is used extensively as a marketing tool, there exists no theoretical foundation to guide managerial decision-making in this regard. This research is an introductory attempt to investigate the integration of artwork and luxury brands. Study 1 demonstrated that the presence of art enhances consumers’ perceived prestige. This finding supports Hagtvedt & Patrick’s (2008b) art infusion theory, which indicates that the general connotations of art may spillover to associated products. Study 2 replicated study 1 to examine the effect of artwork, and the results again supported hypothesis 1. Furthermore, this research shows that even though the artwork used in the two experiments is not very well-known to consumers, the presence of the artwork still has a spillover effect in transferring the general connotations of the art to the associated products. Thus, incorporating artwork on luxury brand items is an effective way to enhance consumers’ perceived prestige. Wilcox et al. (2009) indicate that consumers’ desire for counterfeit luxury brands hinges on social motivations, and luxury brand marketers may curb the demand for counterfeits through product design. By incorporating artwork on luxury brands, luxury brands could help marketers appeal explicitly to the value-expressive motive rather than the social-adjustive motive for consuming luxury brands.

This study further investigated the interaction effects of price difference and art presence on perceived prestige. We found that, compared to the no art condition, art presence could strengthen the perceived prestige, no matter the price of the product. Thus, when the luxury brand was integrated with artwork, the price of the product could be priced 50 % higher than the regular price to enhance profits. On the other hand, for products without art presence, a moderate higher price difference (i.e., 125 % price difference) could enhance consumers’ perceived prestige more than a non-price-difference pricing strategy. However, when the price of a no art product is excessively high (i.e., 150 % price difference), consumers’ perceived prestige was no different from the value without a price difference. This result is contrary to our expectations, although the perceived prestige between 125 and 150 % price differences is not significantly different. The explanation for this result may be that the 150 % price difference is beyond consumers’ acceptable price range, which results in perceived prestige price values that do no increase with increased price. Therefore, it is worth noting that, based on our research, for products without artwork, the effect of the 125 % price difference on enhancing perceived prestige was greater than the effect of a strategy without a price difference. In conclusion, products could benefit from artwork to increase their price above their regular price, while no art products should be cautiously priced to avoid lowering perceived prestige.

Our findings suggest two directions for future research. First, one could examine other factors that might strengthen or lessen the effect of artwork on perceived prestige. For example, brand awareness (Rossiter & Percy 1987), product scarcity (Lynn 1991), country of origin (Han & Terpstra 1988), and the renown of the artwork (Hagtvedt & Patrick 2008b) could be examined. These factors may influence the effect of artwork on perceived prestige. Second, future research could examine other luxury products, such as handbags, baggage, or clothes, which are explicitly visible to others. Artwork integrated with a luxury brand with more visible characteristics may more effectively enhance perceived prestige. Finally, the artist used in this study is less well-known than other famous artists; future research could use a fictional artist to test the art infusion theory and compare results with our own and those of Hagtvedt & Patrick (2008b).