IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/popmgt/v32y2023i10p3227-3245.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Luxury brand licensing: Competition and reference group effects

Author

Listed:
  • Kenan Arifoğlu
  • Christopher S. Tang

Abstract

Theoretical research in marketing has traditionally focused on centralized brand‐extension strategies where a brand expands its product offerings by controlling the design, production, marketing, and sales of new products “in‐house.” However, luxury brands frequently use “brand licensing” as a decentralized brand‐extension strategy under which a brand licenses its brand name to an “external licensee” that designs, produces, and sells the new product. Licensing is a time‐efficient and cost‐effective brand‐extension strategy for luxury brands to reach out to their aspirational, low‐end consumers (“followers”) who value a brand more when more high‐end consumers (“snobs”) purchase the brand's primary product (i.e., “positive popularity effect”). On the other hand, over‐licensing might dilute the brand for snobs who value brand exclusivity (i.e., “negative popularity effect”). We develop a game‐theoretic model to study luxury brand licensing in a decentralized setting by incorporating these two countervailing forces. First, in the monopoly setting (a benchmark), we find that the monopoly brand should license only when the negative popularity effect is not too high, and it should prefer “royalty licensing” over “fixed‐fee licensing” when the negative popularity effect is intermediate. Second, to explicate our analysis, we study the duopoly setting under fixed‐fee contracts. In contrast to the monopoly setting, we find that fixed‐fee licensing can “soften” price competition between brands so that licensing is “always” profitable for both brands under competition. Interestingly, in equilibrium under fixed‐fee contracts, competing brands face a prisoner's dilemma and both brands prefer not to license in some cases, even though both would be better off if they could commit to fixed‐fee licensing. Finally, we expand our analysis of the duopoly model by incorporating royalty licensing in addition to fixed‐fee licensing. We find that, in contrast to fixed‐fee licensing, royalty licensing can “intensify” price competition so that both brands have to lower their prices. Consequently, when the positive popularity effect is sufficiently strong, fixed‐fee licensing “dominates” royalty licensing. We also show that, under competition, luxury brands should adopt royalty licensing contracts only when the follower market is large and positive and negative popularity effects are small enough.

Suggested Citation

  • Kenan Arifoğlu & Christopher S. Tang, 2023. "Luxury brand licensing: Competition and reference group effects," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(10), pages 3227-3245, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:popmgt:v:32:y:2023:i:10:p:3227-3245
    DOI: 10.1111/poms.14032
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.14032
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/poms.14032?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. K. Sridhar Moorthy, 1988. "Strategic Decentralization in Channels," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(4), pages 335-355.
    2. Morton I. Kamien & Yair Tauman, 1986. "Fees Versus Royalties and the Private Value of a Patent," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 101(3), pages 471-491.
    3. Luis M.B. Cabral, 2000. "Stretching Firm and Brand Reputation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 31(4), pages 658-673, Winter.
    4. Wilfred Amaldoss & Sanjay Jain, 2008. "—Trading Up: A Strategic Analysis of Reference Group Effects," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(5), pages 932-942, 09-10.
    5. Wilfred Amaldoss & Sanjay Jain, 2015. "Branding Conspicuous Goods: An Analysis of the Effects of Social Influence and Competition," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(9), pages 2064-2079, September.
    6. Wilfred Amaldoss & Sanjay Jain, 2005. "Conspicuous Consumption and Sophisticated Thinking," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(10), pages 1449-1466, October.
    7. Preyas Desai & Oded Koenigsberg & Devavrat Purohit, 2004. "Strategic Decentralization and Channel Coordination," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 5-22, March.
    8. Subramanian Balachander & Axel Stock, 2009. "Limited Edition Products: When and When Not to Offer Them," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 336-355, 03-04.
    9. Gérard P. Cachon & A. Gürhan Kök, 2010. "Competing Manufacturers in a Retail Supply Chain: On Contractual Form and Coordination," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(3), pages 571-589, March.
    10. Nancy T. Gallini & Brian D. Wright, 1990. "Technology Transfer under Asymmetric Information," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 147-160, Spring.
    11. Beggs, A. W., 1992. "The licensing of patents under asymmetric information," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 171-191, June.
    12. Timothy W. McGuire & Richard Staelin, 1983. "An Industry Equilibrium Analysis of Downstream Vertical Integration," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(2), pages 161-191.
    13. Corneo, Giacomo & Jeanne, Olivier, 1997. "Conspicuous consumption, snobbism and conformism," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 55-71, October.
    14. Bousquet, Alain & Cremer, Helmuth & Ivaldi, Marc & Wolkowicz, Michel, 1998. "Risk sharing in licensing," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 535-554, September.
    15. Gilles Laurent & Bernard Dubois, 1995. "Luxury Possessions and Practices: an Empirical Scale," Post-Print hal-00823922, HAL.
    16. Becker, Gary S, 1991. "A Note on Restaurant Pricing and Other Examples of Social Influences on Price," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 99(5), pages 1109-1116, October.
    17. Bearden, William O & Etzel, Michael J, 1982. "Reference Group Influence on Product and Brand Purchase Decisions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 9(2), pages 183-194, September.
    18. Kenan Arifoğlu & Sarang Deo & Seyed M. R. Iravani, 2020. "Markdowns in Seasonal Conspicuous Goods," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(5), pages 1016-1029, September.
    19. Choi, Jay Pil, 2001. "Technology transfer with moral hazard," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(1-2), pages 249-266, January.
    20. Park, C Whan & Milberg, Sandra & Lawson, Robert, 1991. "Evaluation of Brand Extensions: The Role of Product Feature Similarity and Brand Concept Consistency," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 18(2), pages 185-193, September.
    21. Rasa Stankeviciute & Jonas Hoffmann, 2010. "The Impact of Brand Extension on the Parent Luxury Fashion Brand: The Cases of Giorgio Armani, Calvin Klein and Jimmy Choo," Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(2), pages 119-128.
    22. Xuanming Su & Fuqiang Zhang, 2008. "Strategic Customer Behavior, Commitment, and Supply Chain Performance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(10), pages 1759-1773, October.
    23. Jean-Noël Kapferer & Vincent Bastien, 2009. "The Luxury Strategy: Break the Rules of Marketing to Build Luxury Brands," Post-Print hal-00786813, HAL.
    24. Kevin Lane Keller & Donald R. Lehmann, 2006. "Brands and Branding: Research Findings and Future Priorities," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 740-759, 11-12.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Raghunath Singh Rao & Richard Schaefer, 2013. "Conspicuous Consumption and Dynamic Pricing," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(5), pages 786-804, September.
    2. Wilfred Amaldoss & Sanjay Jain, 2015. "Branding Conspicuous Goods: An Analysis of the Effects of Social Influence and Competition," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(9), pages 2064-2079, September.
    3. Necati Tereyagoglu & Senthil Veeraraghavan, 2012. "Selling to Conspicuous Consumers: Pricing, Production, and Sourcing Decisions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(12), pages 2168-2189, December.
    4. Sen, Debapriya & Tauman, Yair, 2007. "General licensing schemes for a cost-reducing innovation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 163-186, April.
    5. Rafael Moner-Colonques & Jose J. Semperes-Monerris, 2012. "Liscensing Policies in North-South Technology Transfers," NCID Working Papers 12/2012, Navarra Center for International Development, University of Navarra.
    6. Sen, Debapriya, 2005. "On the coexistence of different licensing schemes," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 393-413.
    7. Schuett, Florian, 2012. "Field-of-use restrictions in licensing agreements," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 403-416.
    8. Sudipto Bhattacharya & Claude d’Aspremont & Sergei Guriev & Debapriya Sen & Yair Tauman, 2014. "Cooperation in R&D: Patenting, Licensing, and Contracting," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Kalyan Chatterjee & William Samuelson (ed.), Game Theory and Business Applications, edition 2, chapter 0, pages 265-286, Springer.
    9. Gurzki, Hannes & Woisetschläger, David M., 2017. "Mapping the luxury research landscape: A bibliometric citation analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 147-166.
    10. Amir, Rabah & Encaoua, David & Lefouili, Yassine, 2014. "Optimal licensing of uncertain patents in the shadow of litigation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 320-338.
    11. Arijit Mukherjee, 2010. "Technology licensing under convex costs," Discussion Papers 10/05, University of Nottingham, School of Economics.
    12. Mukherjee, Arijit, 2010. "Licensing a new product: Fee vs. royalty licensing with unionized labor market," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 735-742, August.
    13. Kenan Arifoğlu & Sarang Deo & Seyed M. R. Iravani, 2020. "Markdowns in Seasonal Conspicuous Goods," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(5), pages 1016-1029, September.
    14. Rabah Amir & David Encaoua & Yassine Lefouili, 2011. "Per-Unit Royalty vs Fixed Fee: The Case of Weak Patents," Working Papers halshs-00595493, HAL.
    15. Bagchi, Aniruddha & Mukherjee, Arijit, 2014. "Technology licensing in a differentiated oligopoly," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 455-465.
    16. Yoshihara, Rikuo & Matsubayashi, Nobuo, 2021. "Channel coordination between manufacturers and competing retailers with fairness concerns," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 290(2), pages 546-555.
    17. Stamatopoulos, Giorgos & Tauman, Yair, 2008. "Licensing of a quality-improving innovation," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 410-438, November.
    18. Fauli-Oller, Ramon & Sandonis, Joel, 2002. "Welfare reducing licensing," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 192-205, November.
    19. Chang Hwan Lee & Tsan‐Ming Choi & T. C. Edwin Cheng, 2021. "Operations strategies with snobbish and strategic consumers," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 68(3), pages 327-343, April.
    20. Sen, Debapriya, 2005. "Fee versus royalty reconsidered," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 141-147, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:popmgt:v:32:y:2023:i:10:p:3227-3245. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1937-5956 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.