The most successful brands have capitalized on consumer culture, homing in on individuality and identity as target characteristics. Balancing the uniqueness of a brand with the more commonly accepted cultural associations, brands position themselves as staples in their individual markets. In ever-changing societies, companies are tasked with keeping up with their core audience while finding ways to expand and grow, without the risk of losing their core or target consumers. The success of brands often depends on the degree to which they profoundly insinuate themselves into the lives of consumers (Hern 2008). Consumers are at the helm of all marketing and branding efforts, so they need to be on board with the message, with credibility and reputation at stake. Depending on the status, or reputation of a brand, different affordances are granted by the public in terms of creative brand strategy. Luxury brands, regardless of product type, are more boxed in and confined to preset parameters that fit into a “luxury” bucket; more flexibility is granted towards brands considered to be “modest” due to a broader base and less of the predisposed requirements of modest or standard products. Susman (1984) cleverly posited that self-production has always reflected the dominant economic and cultural interests of the time and that changes in culture mean changes in character. This also applies to modest brands, as brands are deemed the selves of companies, however, I believe that luxury brands endure culture changes, therefore do not undergo as many changes in character. Exploring these connections and concepts, I look to dive deeper into the luxury car brand Jaguar, and the well-known, but modest shoe brand New Balance.

Trapped in Luxury Branding

Especially important to all brands, differentiating from other brands is key to creating a base and an identity. To prevent an overwhelming feeling of dilution, blending, or mimicry, brands need to find ways to separate themselves from their competition, while also catering to the preset societal expectations, with some exceptions, as there will always be outliers that ignore these models and still succeed. People come to associate with the “uniqueness” of a brand, one that establishes a (corporate) self and continues to build off of that self, resonating with consumers. If brands, regardless of their luxury or modest status and appeal, stray too far from their perceived authentic selves, they risk losing their core consumer. Brands utilize their own historical legacy and makeup as anchors, with the recurring theme that brand marketing must remain “true to the original heritage and brand’s DNA” if it is to preserve consumer trust and equity (Blazquez et al. 2019). When marketing messaging is overly manipulated and strays too far from course, that misalignment can have negative consequences, weakening brand awareness, perceived quality, and loyalty, fracturing existing associations.

An aspect of luxury brand ownership, owner-based luxury value, can create a post-purchase self in the consumer, one that generates emotional satisfaction, self-congruity with luxury, status maintenance, and symbolic resonance with things deemed luxurious (Bachmann et. al 2019). Bachmann and colleagues discuss how owners see these luxury brands as part of their identity repertoire, weaving the brand with their self-narrative and social signalling. Any misalignment within the brand that contradicts prior symbolic associations can confuse the identity of the brand, which in turn can damage their consumer-base, reducing loyalty, reinterpreting their relationship, or even disassociating. That brand reputation, fit into a certain socioeconomic class, is essential to the consumer, which makes it even more essential to the brand. Especially important to luxury brands is the cliché, “consistency is key.”

A major draw to luxury brands is the exclusivity of owning their products. Luxury car brands are no exception. As brands become more accessible, leading to higher market penetration, the exclusivity signal weakens, degrading attractiveness; this phenomenon is coined “luxury dilution” (Elgebali & Zaazou 2023). When brands become readily accessible, the feeling of high status fades in the owners of their products. Luxury thrives off separation and the exclusivity of ownership. The rarity and scarcity of luxury products is how luxury brands maintain their prominence and appeal in the market. As the ability to purchase luxury products for everyday people increases, the rarity and scarcity of those luxury goods no longer hold power over consumers. In a classist manner, luxury brands are intended for a more upper-class consumer base, one that fits a certain mold. The separation that is desired by the originally intended, or now presupposed, Jaguar consumers is between them and those that cannot afford the cars or don’t fit the mold of luxury car owners. I posit that the last thing luxury owners want is to feel distant from the rest of the luxury-seeking community, an outcome of the “Copy Nothing” campaign by Jaguar. In the campaign, the company unintentionally distanced “usual” (past, current, and prospective) consumers from its luxury status by ignoring them in the rebranding. Relatably, Eva Illouz (2007) remarked, “remoteness does not set in because people have nothing in common, but because the things they have in common are, or have become, too common.”

It is especially important for upper-class (upper class in the financial sense) consumers to feel their brands best represent their high status lifestyle to maintain their reputations. This means that the marketing efforts of luxury brands are confined to the limitations of the status-driven assumptions of the upper-class consumers. The limited accessibility of the products in question go beyond just price tag, but flood into the type of person the brands are intended for. There is less room for negotiation and deliberation between brand and target consumer base in luxury brands because of this: if someone outside of the original mold is promoted as the audience, the brand reputation diminishes for the original consumer. If everybody was able or “supposed to” be Jaguar owners, the novelty and exclusivity of owning one of these cars disappears.

Unfortunately for some, living a life of luxury feels unattainable. Financially successful individuals are expected to shop designer fashion, prefer upscale dining, and drive luxurious vehicles. As previously mentioned, these individuals often enjoy the separation of privileges between themselves and lower and middle economic-class citizens. The classification of their financial successes matters for reputational purposes and privileges in society, especially important when interacting with other wealthy individuals. As Susman (1984) mentioned, “so much of our success in life depends on what others think of us.” This is resoundingly true in the network of rich people; as such, status symbols became a way of life, expressed through material possession and reputation. The cultural implications of high status through affordances it grants is essential for common, or frequent, luxury consumers, “the material brand is the ultimate image-commodity: a fetish object par excellence, pursued and paid for by consumers who wish to become a part of its fabricated world of purloined cultural meanings” (Hearn 2008). Anything that sways from the cultural norms of a brand can damage the image, which is felt by consumers. Consumers of luxury goods often come to create a self-image that affirms their sense of belonging to a category of luxuriousness and lavishness, in essence participating in their own branding. The consumers of luxury goods often come to create a self that believes they belong in a category of luxuriousness and lavishness, participating in a branding themselves. Alison Hearn (2008) calls the branded self a commodity sign, a working entity that strives to embody the values of its working environment. The work invested to brand oneself and achieve a somewhat authentic brand identity is disrupted when one’s associations are met with dissonance due to the fact that the self-branding involves an outer-directed process. In other words, when Jaguar completely shifted its brand identity, loyal customers who aligned with the original felt the rug get pulled out from under them, leaving their own self-branding muddled.

When Jaguar unveiled its “Copy Nothing” campaign in 2024, much of its consumer base was taken aback. Why was the company message not one of luxury but of artistic freedom? The commercial featured zero cars, but instead showcased bright popping colors with eclectic fashion choices worn by a diverse batch of individuals–diverse in terms of ethnicity and gender.. It truly felt like Jaguar was trying to promote a rebrand to a more artsy company participating in New York Fashion Week. What did this have to do with cars? Jaguar claimed it was being “bold and imaginative” with its reinvention, but many non-Jaguar-owners included, saw it as a disconnect between brand image and product reality (Surnit 2024). Jaguar was right: times are changing as are the people; but the rapid shift in messaging, which did not consider the audience and ignored the luxury assumptions and connotations, is where Jaguar missed. The company tried to expand to new audiences, risking its loyal base in the process. Due to the long-standing culture created by Jaguar, such a drastic change in brand representation has consequences.

In April 2025, Jaguar sold just 49 units, compared to the 1,961 sold in the same month the year prior (New York Post 2025). That is a whopping 97.5% drop in sales, something that many companies cannot withstand. People reasonably believe this drop in sales is due to the shocking rebrand that occurred in Fall 2024. Loyal customers and future customers alike had a distaste for the products that now has a skewed association with artsy chic and progressive expression. Luxury is often associated with conservative old-money, so the aggressive shift creates a massive cultural divide, partitioning the brand with its reputation of classy and, well, luxury. Jaguar, being as established as it is, and in the luxury market in which it has competed, created an expectation to maintain its image. As shared by late Erving Goffman in 1959, “the individual’s initial projection commits him to what he is proposing to be and requires him to drop all pretenses of being other things.” I believe this also implies that a company may be confined to that projection and cannot sway from it without losing credibility and potentially tarnishing its reputation; just as we expect people to stay in character and be consistent, we have the same expectations for luxury brands.

In the same work, Goffman speaks of audience segregation. It is very difficult to segregate audiences when using mass media as a form for communication. All parties, upper-class to lower-class, have the potential to receive the advertising shared by the brands that promote themselves on major platforms. It’s important to note that it is more likely for the majority of people to receive marketing efforts from New Balance than Jaguar, as Jaguar is more likely to target a more specific base across channels. Although there are opportunities to try to limit promotion to specific channels, social media sharing capabilities are easier than ever and spreadability happens like wildfire. Speaking of fires, Jaguar’s marketing rebrand backfired because it didn’t even seem to resonate with a new audience. The current consumer base was confused by the change in messaging and experimental branding, while the hoped-for expanded base found the act to be performative. This relates to Goffman’s mention that the “failure to regulate contact involves possible ritual contamination of the performer” (p. 67). The attempts to be authentic disrupted a long-standing relationship between Jaguar and high status and therefore impacted consumers’ view of the company. Instead of coming off as authentically creative and unique, leading to increased sales, Jaguar came off as gimmicky, shifting the company’s focus from sales to impression management. Something so concrete and set in stone, Jaguar’s brand took a major hit: “In short, the brand destroyed more equity than it built. By abandoning recognizable elements that consumers had emotional connections with, Jaguar created a vacuum that its abstract new positioning couldn’t fill” (May 2025). Jaguar may not have directly boxed itself into its branding position simply by how it initially showcased itself, but by its association with luxury brands it eliminated the ability to be more creative and try new things as a brand. Instead of spending Q1 of 2025 focusing on sales, Jaguar had to work on damage control. Shifting to impression management requires reconnecting with the audience and the authenticity of the brand. The struggle is that it needs to be accepted again or accept a new norm. Impression management, afterall, is a social process (boyd 2014).

Less-Confined Nature of Non-Luxury Branding

Ironically, modest brands have the luxury of being more creative. More progressive ideals are more tolerated around those holding modest positions. This may be a generalization considering this is not the case politically; but when we look at modesty as something that is not publicly deemed as “flashy,” then the picture becomes clearer. The allowance of modest brands to revamp themselves and go through changes is something that can be more easily accepted because they were never boxed in to begin with. If the price tag remains similar, bearing in mind variations due to inflation and other factors, the marketing message is more flexible to change. In the same 1959 book, Goffman notes that people can actually create desired impressions: “instead of allowing an impression of their activity to arise as an incidental byproduct of their activity, they can reorient their frame of reference and devote their efforts to the creation of desired impressions” (p. 250). I suggest that this strategy to reorient oneself is something that luxury brands cannot do, but more modest brands like New Balance can.

Many people who shop modest brands are not considered of high status or upper class. It is also true that many of these same people have desires to grow financially and become more successful. They have not yet achieved a desired level of success that they have come to aspire tenfold possibly due to stiff competition for media attention that is readily available for those already deemed successful. Mass media has made it possible, and captivating, to follow the lives of the rich and famous. The reference points to some of these success-models can create a yearning to one day achieve a similar level of success and status. To get there, people need to change their course of action, often rebranding who they are and how they operate as individuals in society and in the workforce. Rarely is this frowned upon by others, as it is a universal understanding to want to be successful and financially well-off. Once one achieves that status (and level of recognition that accompanies it), however, one is expected to act in accordance with it. This is why I believe affordances are granted towards those positioned in the modest market, where New Balance lives and thrives.

New Balance was long associated with a “dad shoe” image, maintaining relevance but also stagnancy. Considering its modest position in the fashion industry, the attempts to rebrand succeeded, as it was afforded room for change and growth. It was a very basic shoe after all, made for anyone who desired to wear it. New Balance redefined its shoes, flipping it into cultural relevance by leaning into nostalgia and going against what it eschewed: collaboration (McLaughlin 2022). Instead of entirely rebranding, the marketing direction involved capitalizing on the “uncool” heritage and nature of the brand and making a push towards fashion and pop culture territory. Youth Sports Business recounts New Balance’s shift from its “Endorsed by No One” posture to actively signing younger athletes, including NBA rookie Cooper Flagg. New Balance revenues quadrupled over a period of years from ~$1.8B in 2010 to $7.8B in 2024, with much of that growth tied to a youth-first approach. Modest brands have the opportunity to be more flexible personalities, a term Brian Holmes coined in 2001; they are granted the privilege and strategic grace to be perpetually active, willing to innovate and to change personal affiliations on a dime as shown by the transition in business plans.

The success of New Balance’s rebrand is one example of how consumers may be more forgiving, or even curiously receptive, when a brand transitions from humble or “uncool” status to fashion, culture status and relevance, especially if the brand leans into its past rather than erases it (McLaughlin 2022). When brands don’t lock themselves into a box or a boxed market, such as luxury goods, they have the ability to try new things in their marketing efforts, given their status and the consumers they target. For luxury brands, their status and image are everything; their sphere cannot be penetrated without experiencing negative consequences, without the personality value of them being destroyed (Simmel 1906). When quality takes a hit, regardless of consistent or modified marketing efforts, the consumers will respond negatively. However, consistency in marketing efforts matters less, in general, for modest brands.

We are more readily willing to accept changes when there is room for improvement or growth. Once one becomes the reference point, and becomes the symbol of status or success, one is expected to fit that mold and act accordingly. The irony is that to get there, for the most part, one needs to break the mold and do things out of the ordinary. The authenticity of a brand (personal brands included) is predetermined when that brand is deemed luxurious, and this is hard to escape considering the long-lasting relationship between money and status. Your authenticity as a brand is predetermined when you are deemed luxurious, and this is hard to escape considering the long-lasting relationship between money and status. Frugality aside, higher status often equates to demonstrations that exemplify that status. Frugality considered, it is hard to argue that purchasing a luxury vehicle is a frugal act. Compared within industry, purchasing a designer shoe versus purchasing a pair of New Balances is a demonstration of status or at least hope for a perceived status. People often create knockoff brands or fake designer clothing for a reason, but rarely do we see fake New Balances, at least not in western countries. Lastly, it is hard to fake high status. Does the car match the home, the outfit match the job, meal match the card that paid for it? We can only fake authenticity around our status as far as others will accept it. Those who fit into a life of luxury, actually, may be the people most bothered by people wearing knock-offs or trying to force themselves into a higher status. There is something admirable about earning it, but to earn it we need to undergo change and alter our internal rhythm, change our routine, and shift our pursuit of life. My view is that it is actually authentic to try and change, to want to improve, and not act in accordance with a previous version of ourselves when our surrounding community is not of high status, even if our goal is self-betterment and not one of achieving high status. In this area of modesty, rebrands are accepted and encouraged. This explains why Ferrari banned customers from additional purchases that modified their vehicles; the alterations damage the purity of its image, the supposed perception, and long-term recognition. Luxury brands present themselves as a privilege to own; therefore deviating from the norm sends shockwaves through the industry, mostly negatively impacting risk-taking brands that try to reinvent themselves in a rigid market of classism.

______________________________________________________________________

References

Bachmann, F., Walsh, G., & Hammes, E. K. (2019). Consumer perceptions of luxury brands: An owner-based perspective. European Management Journal, 37(3), 287–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2018.06.010

Blazquez, M., Mattich, K., Henninger, C. E., & Helberger, E. (2019). The effects of rebranding on customer-based brand equity within luxury fashion. International Journal of Business and Globalisation, 22(1), 91–109. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBG.2019.10020447

boyd, d. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. Yale University Press. https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300166439

Elgebali, M., & Zaazou, R. (2023). The Impact of Value Perception on Luxury Brand Consumption. Open Journal of Business and Management, 11, 2288–2309. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojbm.2023.115126

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books.

Hearn, A. (2008). “Meat, mask, burden”: Probing the contours of the branded self. In D. Hesmondhalgh & J. Toynbee (Eds.), The media and social theory (pp. 194–208).

Routledge.Holmes, D. (2001). Virtual globalization: Virtual spaces/tourist spaces. London, UK: Routledge.

Illouz, E. (2007). Cold intimacies: The making of emotional capitalism. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

May, T. (2025). What Jaguar’s controversial rebrand can teach us. Creative Boom. https://www.creativeboom.com/insight/why-the-jaguar-rebrand-failed-and-what-it-can-teach-us/

McLaughlin, A. (2022, July 12). How New Balance went from dad shoe to cool. Creative Review. Retrieved from https://www.creativereview.co.uk/new-balance-brand-creative/

New York Post. (2025, July 1). Jaguar sales plummet after botched rebrand, EV pivot. https://nypost.com/2025/07/01/business/jaguar-sales-plummet-after-botched-rebrand-ev-pivot/

Simmel, G. (1906). The sociology of secrecy and of secret societies. American Journal of Sociology, 11(4), 441–498. https://doi.org/10.1086/211418

Surnit, A. (2024, November 25). Jaguar’s “Copy Nothing” rebrand draws backlash as critics slam its “New Era.” DesignRush. https://www.designrush.com/news/jaguar-rebrand-draws-backlash-as-critics-slam-new-direction

Susman, W. I. (1984). Culture as history: The transformation of American society in the twentieth century. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

Youth Sports Business Report. (2025). How New Balance cracked the code on youth sports marketing (From dad shoes to draft night gold). https://youthsportsbusinessreport.com/how-new-balance-cracked-the-code-on-youth-sports-marketing-from-dad-shoes-to-draft-night-gold/