The luxury should be “high”: the effect of positioning in cobranding on luxury evaluation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study examines how the visual cues (i.e. positioning in cobranding advertising) influence the luxury evaluation. Design/methodology/approach Through four experiments in different contexts, this study investigates the effects of the positioning of two brands in cobranding on luxury evaluation, the moderating role of product category and the mediating role of benefit understanding. Findings This study finds that the positioning of two brands in cobranding affects luxury evaluation. Specifically, vertical positioning benefits consumers’ attitude toward luxury compared with horizontal positioning. Results also elucidate that such an effect depends on the product category; that is, the effect of positioning on luxury only exists when the cobranded product belongs to the core (vs non-core) category of luxury. The benefit understanding explains the effects of the positioning and product category on the luxury attitude. Research limitations/implications This study contributes to the literature on luxury and cobranding by exploring the visual cues at the marketing communication level influencing the evaluation of luxury brands. Practical implications The findings provide important managerial guidelines for enhancing luxury cobranding effectiveness. Originality/value This study proposes positioning in cobranding advertisements as one of the antecedents affecting luxury cobranding evaluation. Accordingly, this study adopts a new perspective on visual perception, based on conceptual metaphor theory, which advances the theoretical and empirical knowledge of luxury cobranding.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it