J Brand Manag (2018) 25:449–462
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-018-0092-6
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Visual communication of luxury fashion brands on social media:
effects of visual complexity and brand familiarity
Jung Eun Lee1 • Songyee Hur2 • Brandi Watkins3
Published online: 12 January 2018
 Macmillan Publishers Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018
Abstract Marketers of luxury brands have embraced new
strategies to convey their brands to consumers using visual
communication via social media. Although social media
posts have the potential to improve marketing efforts for
luxury brands, there is a dearth of research on the effect of
visual communication strategies on luxury brands. This
study investigated the effect of visual complexity of social
media images on consumers’ brand perceptions in a luxury
fashion context. Results of two experiments revealed that
when respondents were familiar with a classical style
luxury brand, their perception of luxury was greater for a
less than a more complex image. However, when the brand
was unfamiliar, they reported a greater perception of luxury
for the complex image than for the simple one. Further, the
results indicated sequential mediating effects of perceived
luxury and product attitude on the relationship between
visual complexity and behavioral intentions (i.e., purchase
intentions and intentions to share images). The results of
this study suggested that, to increase positive perceptions
of luxury brands, marketers should determine the visual
complexity of social media images they use by determining
consumers’ degree of familiarity with the brand first.
Keywords Social media
Visual complexity
Luxury
fashion
Visual communication
& Jung Eun Lee
eljung@vt.edu
1
Virginia Tech, 240 Wallace Hall, 295 W. Campus Drive,
Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA
2
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA
3
Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, USA
Introduction
Strong brands provide meaning and value for consumers.
These are important considerations for luxury brands as
they depend on consumers who ascribe a high value to their
products and are willing to pay price premiums (Hutton
1997). To establish a brand identity, brands should provide
consumers messages through advertising that communicate
the brand’s individuality and distinctiveness, and recently,
such advertising has expanded to social media (Hussain
and Ferdous 2014; Nandan 2005). One strategy to com-
municate brand identity is to provide visual brand identity
touch points. These are visual sensory cues, including
logos, colors, taglines, and slogans that provide consumers
with unique brand associations. These visual sensory cues
have been shown to differentiate products, allow compa-
nies to charge premium prices, and confer competitive
advantages (Hutton 1997; Schmitt and Simonson 1997),
thereby increasing the company’s financial performance by
building a stronger brand identity (Wallace 2001).
Social media represent a form of ‘‘owned’’ media that
allow organizations to create and distribute their own
content that features their brands and products (Leberecht
2009). Social media is an umbrella term and includes a
variety of digital platforms that provide marketers and
brand managers tools to meet specific branding goals. Over
the past decade, these platforms have evolved to include
social networking sites (e.g., Facebook), photosharing sites
(e.g., Instagram), video-sharing sites (e.g., YouTube),
professional networking sites (e.g., LinkedIn), microblog-
ging sites (e.g., Twitter), and Wiki sites (e.g., Wikipedia:
Dawley 2009; Mangold and Faulds 2009). Photosharing
sites, such as Instagram, Pinterest, and Snapchat, are
among the fastest growing social media sites (McNely
2012), thus demonstrating that visual content is a critical
450
feature of social media marketing and brand management
(Magrath and McCormick 2013).
Visual complexity is the level of complexity among
elements in an image (Berlyne 1971; Hall and Hanna
2004). Visual complexity can influence consumers’ pref-
erences and perceptions of brands and products; however,
research on the subject has yielded mixed results. For
example, some researchers have found a positive rela-
tionship—high visual complexity led consumers to prefer a
design (Chamblee et al. 1993; Peracchio and Meyers-Levy
2005)—while others have found a negative relationship—
low visual complexity induced greater preference than did
high complexity (Pieters et al. 2010; Karvonen 2000;
Michailidou et al. 2008; Tuch et al. 2009). Further, some
have found an inverted U-shape relationship—moderate
visual complexity was preferred to high or low complexity
(Berlyne 1971; Cox and Cox 2002; Mulken et al. 2014).
Thus, inconsistent results in previous research on visual
complexity and the lack of research on luxury brands
specifically raise the question: what degree of visual
complexity is appropriate for luxury advertisements?
In this research, we investigated visual complexity in
social media posts of luxury fashion brands. Specifically,
we examined the effect of visual complexity in a social
media post on perceived luxury of the products, as well as
product attitude and behavioral intentions (i.e., purchase
intentions and intentions to share images). In addition, we
examined the moderating role of brand familiarity on the
relationship between visual complexity and perceived
luxury, which provided insights about whether consumers
respond to the visual complexity differently with familiar
luxury brands compared to unknown brands. Therefore,
this study sought to extend research on the effectiveness of
visual social media content for luxury brands.
Theoretical framework
Luxury democratization and social media
The concept of luxury has transformed dramatically over
time (Vigneron and Johnson 2004; Yeoman 2011). In past
civilizations, luxury products were consumed only by the
privileged—royalty, nobles, and aristocrats—to flaunt their
superiority over ordinary citizens and maintain their dis-
tance (i.e., output of social stratification; Kapferer 2012).
However, since populations have become more mobile and
the middle classes’ purchasing power has increased, luxury
goods are no longer consumed only by the privileged.
Much like their upper-class counterparts, middle-class
consumers also use luxury products to indicate their wealth
and try to distinguish themselves from peers (i.e., con-
spicuous consumption; Veblen 1899). This has led luxury
J. E. Lee et al.
brands to extend to mass markets (Okonkwo 2009), which
is defined with terms such as democratization of luxury
(Kapferer 2012), mass affluence (Nunes et al. 2004), and
masstige luxuries (Silverstein and Fiske 2003).
Rambourg (2014, p. 44) developed the ‘‘Mass Lux
Pyramid’’ that showed the hierarchy of luxury brands based
on luxury purchasing volume driven by middle-class con-
sumers. Luxury fashion brands at the base of the pyramid
include ‘‘affordable luxury’’ brands, such as Coach; mid-
dle-class consumers do not purchase these brands fre-
quently, but occasionally instead. Some previous studies
have not considered these ‘‘affordable luxury’’ brands as
luxury brands, but have defined them rather as ‘‘masstige
brands’’ (e.g., Heine 2011, p. 53), those that target mass
markets and middle-class consumers by providing a large
volume of products at affordable prices. The next level is
referred to as the ‘‘accessible core,’’ which includes Louis
Vuitton, Prada, and Gucci. Middle-class consumers may
purchase these brands only a few times in their lives. The
next level is the ‘‘premium core,’’ including Hermes,
Cartier, and Rolex that middle-class consumers may or
may not purchase once or twice in their lifetimes. Because
of humans’ aspirational nature, consumers aspire continu-
ously to acquire the next level of luxury products. Ram-
bourg (2014) argued that middle-class consumers’
consumption of luxury goods will move vertically up the
mass lux pyramid by trading-up, although most luxury
consumers will remain the middle class. Consequently, it is
important for luxury brands, particularly brands in the
‘‘accessible core,’’ to develop marketing strategies to
advertise their brands to mass markets, while still com-
municating luxury values such as high quality and
exclusivity.
In the expansion of the boundaries from luxury to mass
markets, social media have become an important platform
that allows luxury brand management to reach middle-class
and mass consumers. In addition, exposure to social media
can increase awareness of luxury brands (Rambourg 2014),
which consumers are likely to recall when making pur-
chase decisions. Although there are numerous advantages
and potentials of social media for luxury brand marketing,
social media exposes luxury brands to mass markets,
thereby overriding the exclusivity and rarity that defines
them. Thus, luxury brands must accomplish two incom-
patible goals: targeting mass consumers to expand their
market share while not diluting the luxury values of
exclusivity and rarity (Kastanakis and Balabanis 2014).
Because visually appealing brand messages can be a vital
tool in eliciting perceptions of luxury and exclusivity, and
promoting consumers’ affinity with brands (e.g., Phan et al.
2011; Keller 2009), this study examined what type of
visual stimuli presented on social media are effective in
communicating luxury values to potential consumers.
Visual communication of luxury fashion brands on social media: effects of visual complexity…
Visual complexity and consumer perceptions
Scholars have long been interested in design principles,
such as complexity, unity, symmetry, and proportion (e.g.,
Berlyne 1971; Schmitt and Simonson 1997; Veryzer 1993;
Creusen et al. 2010). In particular, visual complexity is a
design principle that refers to the perceptual degree of
complexity of the visual characteristics, including the
number of elements, patterns, and symmetrical organiza-
tion of the image (Hall and Hanna 2004). Pieters et al.
(2010) suggested that an image’s visual complexity is a
function of (1) the number of objects; (2) the number of
irregularly shaped objects; (3) the dissimilarity of those
objects (e.g., shapes, textures, orientations, or colors); (4)
the amount of detail within objects (e.g., fine edges, intri-
cate textures, or color variations); (5) asymmetry in object
arrangement; and (6) the irregularity of object arrangement
(e.g., random).
Research on the effects of visual complexity on con-
sumer perceptions and attitudes has yielded inconsistent
results depending upon the product and consumer charac-
teristics. An early study of Berlyne’s (1971) found an
inverted U-shape relationship between attractiveness and
visual complexity, such that images that are perceived to be
very low or very high in complexity are considered less
attractive. Mulken et al. (2014) examined visual com-
plexity in advertising through visual metaphors, which
implies the commonalities between two different objects.
They found that images with moderate visual complexity
(i.e., moderate visual metaphor) were appreciated more
(i.e., purchase intentions for the product shown in the ad
and the ad’s attractiveness) than were those with low or
high visual complexity, which is consistent with Berlyne’s
(1971) findings. Cox and Cox (2002) also found the same
relationship, indicating that consumers preferred moderate
visual complexity in fashion design compared to very low
or high complexity.
In contrast, other studies have shown that consumers
evaluate images with low visual complexity positively.
Birkhoff (1932) developed a mathematical formula to
evaluate aesthetic value: M = O/C, where M is aesthetic
value, O is structural order (i.e., harmony and unity), and C
is complexity (i.e., multiplicity). The equation indicates
that more ordered and simpler objects have greater aes-
thetic value (Birkhoff 1932). Veryzer (1993) also found
that consumers’ aesthetic responses were more favorable
when product designs were proportional and unified.
Because proportion and unity can decrease visual com-
plexity, less visual complexity led to more favorable
evaluations of the product design in this case. Several other
studies considered visual complexity in website design and
also found that low visual complexity led consumers to feel
higher levels of trust (Karvonen 2000), and judge the
451
aesthetics of the website more positively (Michailidou
et al. 2008; Tuch et al. 2009). Low visual complexity is
considered superior because consumers have limited cog-
nitive ability, which in turn makes them prefer images that
are easier to process (Anderson and Jolson 1980; Percy and
Rossiter 1983; Wu et al. 2016).
Still other researchers have advocated a more positive
perception and evaluation of images with high visual
complexity, which they have indicated is preferred often
because of their rich content, which increases visual pro-
cessing, and thus facilitates effective communication
(Chamblee et al. 1993; Peracchio and Meyers-Levy 2005).
With respect to advertising, Pieters et al. (2010) found that
visual complexity increased consumers’ attention and
positive attitudes about an advertisement. From a product
design perspective, Creusen et al. (2010) found that a
product with high visual complexity was more attractive to
consumers who consider the functionality and quality of a
product as a priority in their purchase decisions.
Visual complexity has been investigated in a variety of
research contexts, including product design (Creusen et al.
2010), advertising (Pieters et al. 2002; Mulken et al. 2014),
and website design (Karvonen 2000; Michailidou et al.
2008; Tuch et al. 2009); however, previous studies have
focused on products in mass markets. To date, there is
limited research on visual complexity in images of luxury
brands, and whether or not the effects of such complexity
differ in luxury markets. Therefore, this paper extends the
research in this area by examining the effect of visual
complexity in social media posts for luxury fashion brands.
Hypothesis development
Effect of visual complexity on perceived luxury
The scarcity effect occurs when a product is perceived as
limited, unavailable, and/or rare, which thereby enhances
its perceived value and expensiveness (e.g., Brock 1968;
Lynn 1989,1991). A number of marketing practices use this
strategy, including limited edition products, distributing
products via exclusive retailers, and limiting the maximum
number of products available for purchase (Lynn
1989,1991). In the luxury advertising context, consumers’
perceptions of scarcity may be stronger when an image
contains fewer objects, which indicates low visual
complexity.
Further, in the area of advertising and visual merchan-
dising of luxury brands, less complex images are used
frequently to lead consumers to perceive that products and
brands have a high luxury value. For example, Zarzosa and
Luna-Nevarez (2011) analyzed luxury fashion advertise-
ments according to the perceptual dimensions of com-
plexity. They found that the majority of luxury fashion
452
advertisements were simple; from 1995 to 2000, 85% of
fashion advertisements had a simple visual style, while
53% of those from 2005 to 2010 were considered simple.
With respect to visual merchandising, Selfridges, a
worldwide department store, creates retail spaces with
uncluttered designs and simple window displays, and sta-
ted, ‘‘simplicity and serenity are the greatest luxuries’’
(Crewe 2015, p. 12); because advertising and visual dis-
plays also include visual communication (Potvin et al.
2009), simple images may signal consumers that a product
is exclusive.
Although previous studies have argued the effectiveness
of simple visuals on consumers’ perceived luxury of gen-
eral luxury brands, this study predicted that consumers’
positive responses to simple visuals are particularly effec-
tive for classical style luxury brands. Sixteenth- and sev-
enteenth-century art embodies classical and baroque styles
(Wölfflin 1915 cited in Mazzalovo 2012). Classical styles
feature symmetric balance, horizontal movement, and are
formed with independent objects that promote restful,
peaceful, and quiet moods. In contrast, baroque styles
create tension by using asymmetric balance and diagonal
movement. The baroque and classical styles are not limited
to visual art, as luxury brands also can be categorized as
having baroque and classical styles (Mazzalovo 2012). For
example, luxury brands, such as Jil Sander, Helmut Lang,
and Donna Karan, emphasize minimalist, classical styles,
while some luxury brands (e.g., Dolce and Gabbana and
Versace) use baroque styles that incorporate complex
decorations, asymmetric designs, and bold prints.
Previous research has shown that consumers process
information clearly and easily when different pieces of that
information show high congruity, for example, between the
shape and slogan of a package (Van Rompay et al. 2009).
When social media advertisements can transfer a congruent
message of brand image, consumers are expected to prefer
them more. Because classical style luxury brands typically
communicate minimalist, chic, and timeless brand images,
social media posts of images with low visual complexity
(i.e., simpler backgrounds and fewer products) would be
more congruent with perceptions of the luxury brand image
than would those with high visual complexity. Therefore,
we expected that less visual complexity in image posts of
classical style luxury brands would lead to higher percep-
tions of the brand’s luxury.
H1 For classical style luxury brands, consumers judge a
post of a luxury brand with low visual complexity to have
greater perceived luxury than with high visual complexity.
J. E. Lee et al.
Perceived luxury and product attitude as mediating
variables
Previous studies have shown that social media luxury
marketing influences consumers’ perceptions and behav-
ioral responses (e.g., Phan et al. 2011). Chu et al. (2013)
found that luxury advertisements on social media that the
consumer perceived positively resulted in positive behav-
ioral interest (e.g., click the link and seek more informa-
tion), and led subsequently to intentions to purchase the
products. When consumers are interested in the luxury
brand’s social media posts and are engaged in communi-
cation with the brand and peers, this increases their interest
in the brand’s product, and also reinforces purchase
intentions (Kim and Ko 2012; Wang et al. 2012). These
results showed clearly that social media marketing influ-
ences consumers’ attitudes and perceptions of luxury brand
products, which consequently affects their behavioral
responses.
As luxury advertisements on social media influence
consumers’ perceptions and behaviors, the visual elements
in social media advertisements are expected to influence
their perceptions and behavioral intentions as well. To our
knowledge, no research has shown the mediating effect of
perceived luxury on the relationship between visual com-
plexity and product perceptions/behavioral intentions.
However, several studies that focused on luxury marketing
revealed that perceived luxury played a mediating role
between visual stimuli and consumers’ product attitudes,
followed by behavioral intentions (Huettl and Gierl 2012;
Hagtvedt and Patrick 2008). For example, Huettl and Gierl
(2012) found that the visual component in advertisements
(i.e., presence of artwork) increased luxury perceptions,
and had a subsequent positive influence on attitudes about
the products and purchase intentions.
When consumers perceive the products shown in image
posts as luxurious, they are expected to have a more pos-
itive attitude about the product. Because consumers per-
ceive that the products are expensive, they are more likely
to perceive them as high quality (Monroe and Krishnan
1985) and unique (Parguel et al. 2016). Consequently,
perceptions of the expensiveness, uniqueness, and high
quality attributable to perceived luxury lead consumers to
have a positive attitude about the products. In turn, the
positive attitude about the product translates to a positive
behavioral response, as numerous empirical studies have
shown a positive relationship between attitudes and
behavioral intentions (e.g., Kim and Lennon 2008; Wang
et al. 2012). Therefore, we expected that increased per-
ceptions of luxury of the image post on social media lead
consumers to have a positive attitude about the luxury
product, followed by positive purchase intentions (see
Fig. 1).
Visual communication of luxury fashion brands on social media: effects of visual complexity…
Fig. 1 Research Model
Brand
Familiarity
H2 The effect of visual complexity on intention to pur-
chase a luxury brand is mediated by the (a) perceived
luxury, followed by (b) product attitude.
In addition to purchase intentions, we proposed that, in
the social media context, consumers’ intention to share
images of luxury brands are influenced by their visual
complexity, followed by perceived luxury and attitudes
about the brand. The advertising literature consistently has
found that when consumers have positive attitudes about an
advertisement, they are more likely to respond to it posi-
tively (e.g., Ducoffe 1996; Muehling and McCann 1993). A
positive attitude about luxury brand products seen on a
social media post will elicit a similar positive response,
including sharing the image within the users’ network.
Because intentions to share images are another type of
behavioral intention, we can assume that similar factors
and mediators also will affect intentions to share. Thus, this
model hypothesized that perceived luxury, followed by
product attitude, mediates the relationship between visual
complexity and intentions to share an image post.
H3 (a) Perceived luxury followed by (b) attitudes about
the luxury products mediates the relationship between
visual complexity and consumers’ intentions to share
image posts on social media.
Moderating effect of brand familiarity
Consumers use various information processing strategies to
analyze products and make purchase decisions. Previous
studies have categorized consumer information processing
in two ways: heuristic and systematic processing (Chaiken
1980; Petty and Cacioppo 1984). Systematic processing
indicates that consumers analyze information comprehen-
sively using cognitive resources to evaluate products. In
contrast, in heuristic processing, consumers use limited
information (i.e., heuristic cues) to evaluate products
(Chaiken 1980; Petty and Cacioppo 1984). Previous studies
have shown that consumers can use brand familiarity as a
heuristic cue to evaluate products through short cut pro-
cessing (Maheswaran et al. 1992; Schmitt 2012; Sheng
Goh et al. 2013).
453
Purchase
Intentions
Perceived Product
Luxury Attitudes
Share
Intentions
Brand familiarity indicates an individual’s level of
direct and indirect experiences with the brand (Alba and
Hutchinson 1987). Brand familiarity is considered a key
variable that can influence consumers’ information pro-
cessing, attitudes about the brand, and advertising recall
(Campbell and Keller 2003; Kent and Allen 1994). When
consumers receive stimuli associated with a familiar brand,
they assign a new stimulus to a category associated with
the brand that they defined previously, which allows them
to recall the category quickly and apply it to the stimulus
using heuristic processing (Fiske 1982). For example, when
consumers see a T-shirt with the Chanel logo, they assign it
automatically to a category associated with high price and
luxury without any further investigation of its quality.
Using a heuristic and category-based process, consumers
are likely to use less-intensive information processing and
update their knowledge about the familiar brand (Snyder
and Stukas 1999; Keller 1991; MacKenzie and Spreng
1992). Similarly, advertisements, or in this case social
media posts, that contain extensive information and images
that are inconsistent with previous knowledge for a clas-
sical style luxury brand, can disrupt consumers’ heuristic
processing, which results in a negative perception.
In contrast, when the brand is unfamiliar, consumers
require more information to analyze the product and use
systematic processing, which is consistent with previous
research that has found that individuals who are learning
about a new brand engage in more extensive information
processing (e.g., Sujan 1985). In this case, more informa-
tion is likely to help consumers scrutinize the product.
Cheng and Mugge (2015) found that consumers prefer a
visually complex appearance in product design when the
product is new. This is because a complex appearance
provides more resources and information to process the
image cognitively, which leads to a better understanding of
the new product. Similar to product design, visually com-
plex images associated with an unfamiliar brand provide
more resources and information with which consumers can
process and understand the brand, thereby resulting in more
favorable perceptions. Therefore, we proposed the fol-
lowing hypothesis:
454
H4 The effect of the visual complexity of an image post
on perceived luxury is attenuated when the brand is
familiar.
Overview of studies and stimuli development
As discussed previously, we can increase or decrease visual
complexity by manipulating various elements, such as the
arrangement and number of objects in the image (Pieters
et al. 2010). Study 1 tested visual complexity in this way,
while Study 2 examined visual complexity with respect to
the irregularity and dissimilarity of objects. Using the
context of classical style luxury fashion brands, Study 1
investigated the effect of visual complexity on consumers’
perceptions of luxury (H1). Further, we investigated the
sequential mediating effects of perceived luxury and pro-
duct attitude on the relationships between visual com-
plexity and behavioral intentions (H2: purchase intentions;
H3: intentions to share images on social media). In addi-
tion, we examined the luxury brand familiarity effect on
the relationship between visual complexity and consumers’
perceived luxury to test the moderating effect of brand
familiarity (H4). To strengthen the visual complexity
effects, Study 2 tested all four hypotheses using another
type of visual complexity based on adding or removing a
background.
Stimuli development and pretest
Pretest 1
We developed a total of 16 images to pretest the stimuli.
First, a pool of luxury fashion images was selected from
official Facebook pages of luxury fashion brands (i.e.,
brands A, B, and C). Five images were chosen that had a
high degree of visual complexity (i.e., highly complex
arrangement, a large number of, and/or complex objects).
Then, visual elements (e.g., background and/or objects)
were removed from the images to create the simple images.
All brand-related information, including the logo and brand
name, were removed from the images to prevent any
confounding effect.
The 16 images developed were pretested to select
stimuli appropriate for the main studies. Because the
stimuli were related only to women’s fashion products
(e.g., handbag and woman’s wallet), 244 female partici-
pants were recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk
(MTurk). Each participant was assigned randomly to two
images unassociated with the manipulation of visual
complexity. Then, to evaluate visual complexity, partici-
pants were asked, ‘‘Please rate your overall impression of
the image above’’: not complex—complex; not crowded—
J. E. Lee et al.
crowded; no variety—variety; simple—complicated; not
dense—dense; and not overwhelming—overwhelming
(Geissler et al. 2006; Jala Krishen et al. 2008). Participants
also indicated their attitudes about the images: bad—good;
unfavorable—favorable; and unpleasant—pleasant (Laf-
ferty and Goldsmith 1999) on 7-point semantic differential
scales.
Based on the pretests, we identified two sets of images
that met our criteria, in that their visual complexity differed
significantly, while the attitude about them did not. The
first set of images was women’s wallets, in which we
manipulated the number of the products and their
arrangement. Two images differed significantly in per-
ceived visual complexity (MSimplicity = 2.72, MComplex-
ity = 3.97, p = 0.003), while the attitude about the images
was not significantly different (MSimplicity = 4.64, MCom-
plexity = 4.11, p = 0.19). We used this set of images for the
manipulation in Study 1.
The second set of three images was manipulated by
modifying the number of models and the presence or
absence of a background. The same handbag was presented
in all three images. The set of images used were: one
including a model and fashion products with a plain
background (complexity 1), one including a model and
fashion products with a complex background (complexity
2), and one including two models and fashion products
with a complex background (complexity 3). The image of a
model with the complex background was significantly
higher in visual complexity than was the same image with a
plain background (MComplexity1 = 3.12, MComplexi-
ty2 = 4.00, p = 0.02). The visual complexity did not differ
significantly between one model with a background and
two models with a background (MComplexity2 = 4.00,
MComplexity3 = 4.03, p = 0.94). There also was no differ-
ence in attitude about the images across the level of
complexity (MComplexity1 = 4.45, MComplexity2 = 5.21,
MComplexity3 = 4.77, p = 0.18). We used the second set of
images in Study 2.
Pretest 2
Pretest 2 was conducted to identify classical style luxury
brands and test whether the products shown in the two
images selected had classical style features. There is no
measurement for baroque style and classical style in brand/
product design analysis; therefore, we developed nine
questions using nouns and adjectives that Mazzalovo
(2012) used to define luxury brands that express classical
and baroque styles. Forty female participants were recrui-
ted from MTurk and each was assigned three luxury
fashion brands associated with the images in Pretest 1.
They also were assigned two images selected in Pretest 1
that did not include any brand-related information.
Visual communication of luxury fashion brands on social media: effects of visual complexity…
Participants were instructed to answer the nine questions,
which used classical/baroque style expressions for each
brand and product design shown in two images on 7-point
Likert scale.
Because previous studies have not defined the constructs
of baroque and classical styles, we used exploratory factor
analysis (EFA) with Varimax rotation to assess the con-
structs. All factor loadings were over 0.53 and we found
two constructs: baroque style (designs using ornamenta-
tions, bold prints, curved lines, and asymmetric and com-
plicated designs) and classical style (designs using straight
lines, and clean cut, symmetric, and simple designs).
The results showed that brand B (Mbrand B = 4.31) had
significantly lower classical style expressions than did
brand A (Mbrand A = 5.09, p = 0.001) and brand C
(Mbrand C = 5.01, p = 0.009); the baroque style expres-
sions were stronger for brand B (Mbrand B = 4.44) than
brand A (Mbrand A = 3.64, p \ 0.001) and brand C
(Mbrand C = 4.00, p = 0.04). Although there was no sig-
nificant difference in baroque (p = 0.11) and classical style
expressions (p = 0.58) between brand A and C, brand A
had a higher mean value for classical style and lower mean
value for baroque style than did brand C. Moreover, the
two images selected in Pretest 1 were from brand A’s
advertisements. The products shown in the two images had
more classical (Mwallet = 4.54, Mhandbag = 5.12) than
baroque style features (Mwallet = 3.84, Mhandbag = 3.12).
Therefore, we selected brand A for the main study and
confirmed that the product images selected in Pretest 1 had
classical style expressions consistent with brand A.
Study 1
Methods
Study 1 employed an online experiment to examine the
proposed model and hypotheses. Two levels of visual
complexity (low vs. high) 9 brand familiarity (unfamiliar
vs. familiar brand A), between-subjects design was used,
resulting in four conditions. Based on the Pretest 1, we
selected two levels of visual complexity manipulated by
arrangement and number of products. The product used in
this study was a woman’s wallet in a classical style. The
images are shown in Appendix A.
Participants were assigned randomly to one of the four
groups. To collect responses relevant to the context of this
study, only female respondents who used Facebook were
able to participate. First, respondents were instructed to
assume that they found a fashion image on Facebook.
Then, they received one of the assigned images and were
asked to complete a questionnaire that captured the
dependent variables and manipulation check questions.
455
To measure perceived luxury of the products, three
semantic differential scales were adopted from Hagtvedt
and Patrick (2008) anchored by not luxurious–luxurious,
not prestigious–prestigious, and not high class–high class.
Six semantic differential scales developed by Cox and Cox
(2002) were used to measure product attitude, which
focused particularly on measuring the attitude about fash-
ion items, anchored by bad–good, unpleasant–pleasant, not
likable–likable, unflattering–flattering, unattractive–attrac-
tive, and not stylish–stylish. We measured participants’
purchase intentions using three semantic differential scales
(Lafferty and Goldsmith 1999). Three items measured the
intention to share the image on Facebook (So and Bolloju
2005). We also measured visual complexity, attitude about
images, and brand familiarity (Kent and Allen 1994) for
manipulation checks. The visual complexity and attitude
about the images were identical to the pretest measure-
ments. All scales were 7-point scales.
Preliminary analysis results
We recruited 207 online participants using MTurk. The
minimum cell size was 51 and the difference between cell
sizes was marginal. The participants were aged
19–68 years and the majority were between 26 and 35
(51%); Caucasian or white (78%), and had some college
education or were college graduates (70%). All were
female and lived in the USA.
Consistent with the pretest, participants’ perceived
visual complexity was significantly higher for the complex
than the simple image (MSimplicity = 3.11, MComplex-
ity = 4.10, F(1,205) = 32.39, p \ 0.001). The attitude about
the images did not differ significantly across the level of
visual complexity (MSimplicity = 4.56, MComplexity = 4.55,
F(1,205) = 0.001, p = 0.97). Further, familiarity with a
familiar luxury brand was significantly higher than that for
an unfamiliar luxury brand (MFamiliar brand = 4.60, MUnfa-
miliar brand = 2.08, F(1,205) = 176.18, p \ 0.001). The
results showed that the manipulation was successful.
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to assess
the measurement of the constructs of perceived luxury,
product attitudes, purchase intentions, and intentions to
share the images (Table 1). We confirmed convergent
validity based on the average variance extracted (AVE)
values, which exceeded the 0.80 recommended (Fornell
and Larcker 1981), and all factor loadings for the four
constructs were highly reliable ([ 0.80). We also con-
firmed discriminant validity, in that the AVE was larger
than the corresponding squared correlation coefficient
between factors (Fornell and Larcker 1981). The goodness
of fit statistics were: v2 = 149.81, df = 80, v2 /df = 1.87,
456 J. E. Lee et al.

Table 1 Confirmatory factor analysis

Factor loading AVE CR Correlation matrix
PL PA PI SI

Perceived luxury (PL) 0.85 0.94 0.92a

Luxurious 0.93
Prestigious 0.92
High class 0.92
Product attitudes(PA) 0.80 0.96 0.58 0.89a
Attractive 0.90
Good 0.82
Pleasant 0.92
Likable 0.95
Flattering 0.92
Stylish 0.84
Purchase intentions (PI) 0.91 0.97 0.36 0.76 0.95a
Likely 0.98
Probable 0.98
Possible 0.89
Share intentions (SI) 0.96 0.99 0.36 0.57 0.70 0.98a
I will share the photo above on my Facebook page 0.96
I intend to share the photo above on my Facebook page in the near future 0.99
All things considered, I expect to share the photo above on my Facebook page 0.99
a
Square root of AVE value for each construct

CFI = 0.98, and RMSEA = 0.06. The final CFA model fit
the data well (Hu and Bentler 1999).
Hypotheses testing
We analyzed the data for familiar and unfamiliar luxury
brands separately using analysis of variance (ANOVA). In
support of H1, for the group with a familiar luxury brand in
a classical style, participants perceived that the simple
image was more luxurious than was the complex image
(MSimplicity = 5.76, MComplexity = 4.62, p \ 0.001). In
contrast, for the group with the unfamiliar luxury brand, the
complex image had significantly higher perceived luxury
than did the simple image (MSimplicity = 3.57, MComplex-
ity = 4.26, p = 0.002). The results are shown in Table 2.
Next, we found support for H2 and H3. We conducted
PROCESS analyses with the bootstrap method (Preacher
and Hayes 2008) to analyze the effect of the two sequential
mediators (i.e., perceived luxury and product attitudes) on
the relationship between visual complexity and behavioral
intentions. For the familiar luxury brand, the effect of
visual complexity on purchase intentions was mediated by
perceived luxury, followed by product attitudes (bootstrap
95% confidence interval (CI): - 1.20 \ CI \ - 0.39).
The influence of visual complexity on intentions to share
the image also was mediated by perceived luxury, followed
by product attitudes (- 1.06 \ CI \ - 0.33). In addition,
for the unfamiliar luxury brand, perceived luxury and
product attitudes were significant mediators of purchase
intentions (0.14 \ CI \ 0.88) and intentions to share the
image (0.08 \ CI \ 0.52).
To test H4 (brand familiarity as a moderator), we ana-
lyzed data using a two-way ANOVA, with visual com-
plexity and brand familiarity. As H4 predicted, the results
revealed significant interaction effects between visual
complexity and brand familiarity on perceived luxury
(F(1,203) = 30.61, p \ 0.001). The main effect of visual
complexity was not significant for perceived luxury, while
the main effect of brand familiarity on perceived luxury
was (F(1,203) = 58.96, p \ 0.001). The results are shown in

Table 2 Visual complexity

Simple image (M) Complex image (M) Statistics
effect on perceived luxury
Familiar luxury brand 5.76 4.62 F(1,100) = 19.76, p \ 0.001
Unfamiliar luxury brand 3.57 4.26 F(1,102) = 10.00, p = 0.002
Visual communication of luxury fashion brands on social media: effects of visual complexity…
Tables 2 and 3. Figure 2 shows the mean levels of per-
ceived luxury at each level of visual complexity for both
the unfamiliar and familiar luxury brands. These results
supported H4.
Study 2
Methods
Study 2 employed an online experiment. Four conditions
with a between-subject design were included. Based on the
pretests, we selected two levels of visual complexity (low
vs. high) and two levels of brand familiarity (familiar vs.
unfamiliar). For the simple image, we merely changed the
background in the complex image to a solid color. A
woman’s handbag and clothing of brand A, which had
classical styles, were used for the familiar luxury brand.
The process and measurements were identical to those in
Study 1. Only female Facebook users were eligible to
participate. Participants were assigned randomly to one of
the four conditions that were linked to a scenario. They
were asked to imagine that they found the image on
Facebook. Then, participants were presented an image and
were asked to indicate their perception of its luxury
(Hagtvedt and Patrick 2008), product attitudes (Cox and
Cox 2002), purchase intentions (Lafferty and Goldsmith
1999), and intentions to share the image (So and Bolloju
2005; see Table 1). We also measured visual complexity,
attitudes about images, and brand familiarity for manipu-
lation checks. All scales were 7-point scales.
Preliminary analysis results
A total of 197 usable responses were collected through
MTurk. The participants ranged in age from 18 to 70 years,
and most were 26–35 years (36%), followed by 19–25
(27%), and 36–45 (18%). All participants were female and
lived in the USA. The majority was Caucasian or white
(80%), and had a college degree (73%).
Factor analysis was conducted to identify constructs
used in Study 2. The maximum likelihood method with
Table 3 The moderating effect of brand familiarity
df F
Perceived luxury
Visual complexity (A) 1 2.11
Brand familiarity (B) 1 58.96***
A9B 1 30.61***
***p B 0.001
457
Varimax rotation was used. We found four factors corre-
sponding to the four constructs: perceived luxury, product
attitudes, purchase intentions, and intentions to share the
image. All factor loadings for each construct were over
0.80, which exceeds the threshold accepted widely. The
Cronbach’s alphas were 0.90 (perceived luxury), 0.94
(product attitudes), 0.94 (purchase intentions), and 0.93
(intentions to share the image), respectively.
The manipulation check results showed that visual
complexity was significantly higher for the complex than
the simple image (MSimplicity = 3.45, MComplexity = 4.15,
F(1,195) = 18.92, p \ 0.001), while the attitude about the
complex image did not differ significantly from that about
the simple image (MSimplicity = 5.35, MComplexity = 5.02,
F(1,194) = 2.79, p = 0.10). In addition, brand familiarity
was higher for a familiar luxury brand than for an unfa-
miliar brand (MFamiliar brand = 4.63, MUnfamil-
iar brand = 2.15, F(1,195) = 172.60, p \ 0.001), showing the
successful manipulation.
Hypothesis testing
ANOVA was used to test H1. The data for unfamiliar and
familiar luxury brands were analyzed separately. For the
familiar luxury brand, the simple image had significantly
higher perceived luxury than the complex image, sup-
porting H1 (perceived luxury: MSimplicity = 6.00, MCom-
plexity = 5.31, F(1,98) = 11.74, p = 0.001). In contrast, for
the unfamiliar brand, the perceived luxury was significantly
higher for the complex than the simple image (MSimplic-
ity = 4.94, MComplexity = 5.40, F(1,95) = 5.09, p = 0.02).
The results are shown in Table 4.
To test H2 and H3, PROCESS analyses were used with
the bootstrap method (Preacher and Hayes 2008). In the
groups with the familiar luxury brand, the effects of visual
complexity on purchase intentions and intentions to share
the image were mediated by perceived luxury, followed by
product attitude (purchase intentions:
- 1.11 \ CI \ - 0.21; intentions to share image:
- 1.08 \ CI \ - 0.16). The results for the unfamiliar
brand also showed that perceived luxury, followed by
product attitude, were significant mediators of the influ-
ences of visual complexity on purchase intentions and
intentions to share the image (purchase intentions:
0.07 \ CI \ 0.69; intentions to share the image:
0.07 \ CI \ 0.54). Both the results from unfamiliar and
familiar luxury brands supported H2 and H3.
The moderating effect of brand familiarity (H4) was
examined using a 2 9 2 ANOVA. In support of H4, the
results showed a significant interaction between visual
complexity and brand familiarity on perceived luxury
(F(1,192) = 15.29, p \ 0.001; see Table 5). However, the
main effect of visual complexity on perceived luxury was
458 J. E. Lee et al.

Fig. 2 Moderating effect of

brand familiarity on the
relationship between visual
complexity and perceived
luxury (Study 1)

Table 4 Visual complexity

Simple image (M) Complex image (M) Statistics
effect on perceived luxury
Familiar luxury brand 6.00 5.31 F(1,98) = 11.74, p = 0.001
Unfamiliar luxury brand 4.94 5.40 F(1,95) = 5.09, p = 0.02

Table 5 The moderating effect of brand familiarity
df F
Perceived luxury
Visual complexity (A) 1 0.79
Brand familiarity (B) 1 10.50***
A9B 1 15.29***
***p B 0.001
not significant, while the main effect of brand familiarity
had a significant influence on perceived luxury
(F(1,192) = 10.50, p = 0.001). The interaction effects are
shown in Fig. 3.
Discussion
This study provided evidence that visual complexity plays
a significant role in perceptions of luxury brands presented
on social media. In this study, we examined the influence
of visual complexity by manipulating different elements in
an image to determine its effect on perceived luxury, fol-
lowed by product attitude and behavioral intentions. In
Study 1, visual complexity was established with respect to
arrangement and quantity, while Study 2 examined visual
complexity with respect to complex versus plain back-
grounds. Despite the differences in the visual elements
used in the manipulation, the effects of visual complexity
yielded similar results in the two studies.
Based on the results from both studies, when partici-
pants were familiar with a classical style luxury brand, they
perceived that a simple image had greater luxury than did a
complex image. A classical luxury brand typically makes
use of minimalist, chic, simple, and timeless images
instead of decorative and playful images. Thus, images
with low visual complexity were more congruent with
perceptions of classical style luxury brands than were those
with high levels of complexity. The results supported the
scarcity effect, which indicates that images with fewer
objects lead consumers to assign a higher value to the
product, including perceptions that the product is more
expensive (Brock 1968). The results of this study also were
consistent with previous studies suggesting that luxury
advertising and visual merchandising that include less
complexity tend to be more effective in presenting products
with a more luxurious look (Crewe 2015; Zarzosa and
Luna-Nevarez 2011). Based on the results of this study,
luxury brands with higher levels of brand familiarity,
particularly those that express a classical style, should
present images on social media that have less complex
backgrounds, fewer numbers of the product, and are
organized better to obtain desirable results.
Visual communication of luxury fashion brands on social media: effects of visual complexity…
Fig. 3 Moderating effect of
brand familiarity on the
relationship between visual
complexity and perceived
luxury (Study 2)
In contrast, the effects of visual complexity were
opposite in the condition with an unfamiliar brand: High
visual complexity has a more powerful effect in increasing
perceptions of luxury when the consumer is unfamiliar
with the brand. This can be explained according to whether
consumers’ information processing style is heuristic or
systematic (Chaiken 1980; Petty and Cacioppo 1984). In
the familiar condition, individuals used the brand as a
heuristic cue, and high visual complexity may have dis-
tracted from their information processing because of the
incongruity with the classical style brand image they had
developed previously. However, when the brand was
unfamiliar, participants may have used systematic pro-
cessing and had more favorable perceptions of complex
than simple images. Further, these results were consistent
with Cheng and Mugge’s (2015) study that focused on
product design, in which greater visual complexity was
preferred with unfamiliar products. This indicates that
when consumers confront unfamiliar stimuli, including
unfamiliar brands and products, they need more resources
and information to process and learn about the unfamiliar
stimuli.
This study also supported the mediating effects of per-
ceived luxury and product attitude on the relationship
between visual complexity and behavioral intentions. With
a familiar luxury brand in a classical style, visual com-
plexity decreased perceived luxury, as well as product
attitudes and behavioral intentions. With an unfamiliar
brand, visual complexity increased purchase intentions and
intentions to share the image through perceived luxury,
followed by positive attitudes about the products. These
findings support past studies that showed that visual stimuli
influenced purchase intentions indirectly through
459
perceptions of luxury and product attitudes (e.g., Huettl and
Gierl 2012; Hagtvedt and Patrick 2008).
Implications, limitations, and future research
Implications
The findings of this study extended the literature on luxury
branding and social media marketing. In particular, previ-
ous studies that have focused on luxury have investigated
only consumer motivations to purchase luxury products.
This study focused instead on social media marketing of
luxury brands, which offers a platform for fruitful future
research that explores the way in which visual content on
social media influences consumers’ perceptions about, and
behavior regarding luxury products. This is among the first
studies to examine visual social media content in luxury
fashion brands, and thus, it provides the foundation for
future work that examines the role of complexity in social
media images. Therefore, this study contributes to the lit-
erature in luxury brand marketing and shows the impor-
tance of visual factors in determining the success of luxury
advertising on social media.
In addition to its theoretical contributions, this study has
important managerial implications for marketing luxury
brands. Based on the results, when a brand is well-known
and projects a classical style, luxury brand marketers
should focus more on simple images (plain backgrounds
and fewer products) to increase consumers’ perceptions of
luxury, which in turn, lead to positive attitudes and
behavioral intentions. In addition, a simple image with a
small number of products allows the consumer to
460
concentrate more on the deluxe features and craftsmanship
of the product, which is a hallmark of luxury brands.
Moreover, the focus on the product, rather than on a
complex visual background, allows the product to take the
spotlight in the image and evokes the feeling of prestige
and limited quantity that makes luxury brands desirable.
In contrast, marketers working with brands that are new
or unfamiliar to consumers should include more complex
images in their social media content. Because consumers
have no prior knowledge of the brand, it is better to provide
them with more resources to process information about the
brand more extensively. Moreover, with unfamiliar brands,
a product’s position within a complex image allows the
consumer to create new associations with it. The com-
plexity of the image and setting the product in a specific
context provide the consumer with a reference point for use
of the product. Because creating a luxury image is a core
marketing strategy for these brands, it is crucial for luxury
marketers to use appropriate visual stimuli to make their
products appear more expensive and prestigious.
In addition, the study examined two behavioral out-
comes related to social media marketing—sharing and
purchase intentions. For marketers, these results provide
guidance with respect to the way in which to design social
media posts that will elicit a response from consumers.
Choosing the appropriate level of visual complexity for an
image post can create positive luxury perceptions as well as
foster word-of-mouth (WOM) when people share images
on social media. Thus, luxury marketers should determine
where they are positioned with respect to consumer per-
ceptions of the brand, whether it is familiar or unfamiliar,
and whether it expresses a classical style, to make deci-
sions about the visual complexity of the images they post
on social media.
Limitations and future research
Although we developed and conducted the experiments
carefully, the study has some limitations. Because of its
primarily exploratory nature, participants were instructed
to imagine they found the stimuli on social media (i.e.,
Facebook). Therefore, the findings may be difficult to
generalize to actual social media conditions, where posts
from other brands and friends coexist.
In addition, because this study tested only two types of
images of one luxury brand of women’s fashion products, it
may not be possible to generalize the findings to other
images, other types of products, and/or other luxury brands.
Further, this study focused only on a luxury brand with a
classical style, so the results may not be applicable to
brands that have baroque styles. Thus, future research
should investigate other types and brands of luxury
J. E. Lee et al.
products, and various visual stimuli to increase the ability
to generalize the results.
This research is an important first step in understanding
the way in which varying levels of visual complexity
influence perceptions of brand luxury and behavioral out-
comes, such as intentions to purchase a product or share an
image. This study focused on images created for Facebook,
but with the increase in more visually based social media
platforms, such as Instagram and Pinterest, it is necessary
for future research to examine content created for those
platforms. Increasingly, social media platforms also enable
users to incorporate video content, and future research
should investigate video-specific social media content to
determine its influence on luxury branding and marketing.
References
Alba, J.W., and J.W. Hutchinson. 1987. Dimensions of consumer
expertise. Journal of Consumer Research 13(4): 411–454.
Anderson, R.E., and M.A. Jolson. 1980. Technical wording in
advertising: Implications for market segmentation. The Journal
of Marketing 44(1): 57–66.
Berlyne, D.E. 1971. Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Birkhoff, G.D. 1932. Aesthetic measure. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Brock, T.C. 1968. Implications of commodity theory for value
change. Psychological Foundations of Attitudes 1: 243–275.
Campbell, M.C., and K.L. Keller. 2003. Brand familiarity and
advertising repetition effects. Journal of Consumer Research
30(2): 292–304.
Chaiken, S. 1980. Heuristic versus systematic information processing
and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 39(5): 752–766.
Chamblee, R., R. Gilmore, G. Thomas, and G. Soldow. 1993. When
copy complexity can help ad readership. Journal of Advertising
Research 33(3): 23–28.
Cheng, P., and Mugge, R. 2015 Should product innovations look
simple or complex? The effects of visual complexity on
consumers’ comprehension of product innovations. In Proceed-
ings of the IASDR 2015 congress interplay, 2–5 November 2015.
Brisbane, Australia. IASDR.
Chu, S.C., S. Kamal, and Y. Kim. 2013. Understanding consumers’
responses toward social media advertising and purchase inten-
tion toward luxury products. Journal of Global Fashion Mar-
keting 4(3): 158–174.
Cox, D., and A.D. Cox. 2002. Beyond first impressions: The effects of
repeated exposure on consumer liking of visually complex and
simple product designs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science 30(2): 119–130.
Creusen, M.E., R.W. Veryzer, and J.P. Schoormans. 2010. Product
value importance and consumer preference for visual complexity
and symmetry. European Journal of Marketing 44(9/10):
1437–1452.
Crewe, L. 2015. Placing fashion: Art, space, display and the building
of luxury fashion markets through retail design. Progress in
Human Geography. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132515580815.
Dawley, L. 2009. Social network knowledge construction: Emerging
virtual world pedagogy. On the Horizon 17(2): 109–121.
Visual communication of luxury fashion brands on social media: effects of visual complexity…
Ducoffe, R.H. 1996. Advertising value and advertising on the web.
Journal of Advertising Research 36(5): 21–35.
Fiske, S.T. 1982. Schema-triggered affect: Applications to social
perception. In Affect and cognition: 17th annual Carnegie
Mellon symposium on Cognition, ed. M.S. Clark and S.T. Fiske,
55–78. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fornell, C., and D.F. Larcker. 1981. Evaluating structural equation
models with unobservable variables and measurement error.
Journal of Marketing Research 18: 39–50.
Geissler, G.L., G.M. Zinkhan, and R.T. Watson. 2006. The influence
of home page complexity on consumer attention, attitudes, and
purchase intent. Journal of Advertising 53(2): 69–80.
Hagtvedt, H., and V.M. Patrick. 2008. Art infusion: The influence of
visual art on the perception and evaluation of consumer products.
Journal of Marketing Research 45(3): 379–389.
Hall, R.H., and P. Hanna. 2004. The impact of web page text-
background colour combinations on readability, retention, aes-
thetics and behavioral intention. Behaviour and Information
Technology 23(3): 183–195.
Heine, K. 2011. The concept of luxury brands. Berlin: Technische
Universität Berlin.
Hu, L.T., and P.M. Bentler. 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in
covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new
alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary
Journal 6(1): 1–55.
Huettl, V., and H. Gierl. 2012. Visual art in advertising: The effects of
utilitarian vs. hedonic product positioning and price information.
Marketing Letters 23(3): 893–904.
Hussain, R., and A.S. Ferdous. 2014. Developing a framework of
integrated visual brand identity touch-point (IVBIT) pro-
grammes in universities. The Marketing Review 14(4): 429–443.
Hutton, J.G. 1997. The influence of brand and corporate-identity
programmes on consumer behaviour: A conceptual framework.
Journal of Brand Management 5(2): 120–135.
Jala Krishen, A., K. Kamra, and F. Mac. 2008. Perceived versus
actual complexity for websites: Their relationship to consumer
satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction
and Complaining Behavior 21: 104–123.
Kapferer, J.N. 2012. Abundant rarity: The key to luxury growth.
Business Horizons 55(5): 453–462.
Karvonen, K. 2000 The beauty of simplicity. In Proceedings of the
ACM conference on universal usability, 85–90. Arlington, VA:
The Association of Computing Machinery.
Kastanakis, M.N., and G. Balabanis. 2014. Explaining variation in
conspicuous luxury consumption: An individual differences’
perspective. Journal of Business Research 67(10): 2147–2154.
Keller, K.L. 2009. Managing the growth tradeoff: Challenges and
opportunities in luxury branding. Journal of Brand Management
16(5–6): 290–301.
Keller, K.L. 1991. Cue compatibility and framing in advertising.
Journal of Marketing Research 28: 42–57.
Kent, R.J., and C.T. Allen. 1994. Competitive interference effects in
consumer memory for advertising: The role of brand familiarity.
The Journal of Marketing 58(3): 97–105.
Kim, A.J., and E. Ko. 2012. Do social media marketing activities
enhance customer equity? An empirical study of luxury fashion
brand. Journal of Business Research 65(10): 1480–1486.
Kim, M., and S. Lennon. 2008. The effects of visual and verbal
information on attitudes and purchase intentions in internet
shopping. Psychology and Marketing 25(2): 146–178.
Lafferty, B.A., and R.E. Goldsmith. 1999. Corporate credibility’s role
in consumers’ attitudes and purchase intentions when a high
versus a low credibility endorser is used in the ad. Journal of
Business Research 44(2): 109–116.
Leberecht, T. (2009) Multimedia 2.0: From paid media to earned
media to owned media and back. CNET. May 11, http://www.
461
cnet.com/news/multimedia-2-0-from-paid-media-to-earned-
media-to-owned-media-and-back/ Accessed 14 July 2016.
Lynn, M. 1989. Scarcity effects on desirability: Mediated by assumed
expensiveness? Journal of Economic Psychology 10(2):
257–274.
Lynn, M. 1991. Scarcity effects on value: A quantitative review of the
commodity theory literature. Psychology and Marketing 8:
43–57.
MacKenzie, S.B., and R.A. Spreng. 1992. How does motivation
moderate the impact of central and peripheral processing on
brand attitudes and intentions? Journal of Consumer Research
18(4): 519–529.
Magrath, V., and H. McCormick. 2013. Branding design elements of
mobile fashion retail apps. Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management 17(1): 98–114.
Maheswaran, D., D.M. Mackie, and S. Chaiken. 1992. Brand name as
a heuristic cue: The effects of task importance and expectancy
confirmation on consumer judgments. Journal of Consumer
Psychology 1(4): 317–336.
Mangold, W.G., and D.J. Faulds. 2009. Social media: The new hybrid
element of the promotion mix. Business Horizons 52(4):
357–365.
Mazzalovo, G. 2012. Brand aesthetics. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
McNely, B.J. 2012 Shaping organizational image-power through
images: Case histories of instagram. In Proceedings of the
conference on professional communication conference
(IPCC),1–8. 2012 IEEE International.
Michailidou, E., Harper, S., and Bechhofer, S. 2008 Visual complex-
ity and aesthetic perception of web pages. In Proceedings of the
26th annual ACM international conference on design of
communication: SIGDOC ‘08, Lisbon. https://doi.org/10.1145/
1456536.1456581.
Monroe, K.B., and R. Krishnan. 1985. The effect of price on
subjective product evaluation. In The perception of merchandise
and store quality, ed. J. Jacoby and J. Olson, 209–232.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Book.
Muehling, D.D., and M. McCann. 1993. Attitude toward the ad: A
review. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising
15(1): 25–58.
Mulken, M.V., A.V. Hooft, and U. Nederstigt. 2014. Finding the
tipping point: Visual metaphor and conceptual complexity in
advertising. Journal of Advertising 43(4): 333–343.
Nandan, S. 2005. An exploration of the brand identity–brand image
linkage: A communications perspective. Journal of Brand
Management 12(4): 264–278.
Nunes, P.F., B.A. Johnson, and R.T. Breene. 2004. Selling to the
moneyed masses. Harvard Business Review 82: 94–104.
Okonkwo, U. 2009. Sustaining the luxury brand on the internet.
Journal of Brand Management 16(5): 302–310.
Parguel, B., T. Delécolle, and P. Valette-Florence. 2016. How price
display influences consumer luxury perceptions. Journal of
Business Research 69(1): 341–348.
Peracchio, L.A., and J. Meyers-Levy. 2005. Using stylistic properties
of ad pictures to communicate with consumers. Journal of
Consumer Research 32(1): 29–40.
Percy, L., and J.R. Rossiter. 1983. Effects of picture size and colour
on brand attitude responses in print advertising. Advances in
Consumer Research 10(1): 17–20.
Petty, R.E., and J.T. Cacioppo. 1984. The effects of involvement on
responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and
peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 46(1): 69–81.
Phan, M., R. Thomas, and K. Heine. 2011. Social media and luxury
brand management: The case of Burberry. Journal of Global
Fashion Marketing 2(4): 213–222.
462
Pieters, R., L. Warlop, and M. Wedel. 2002. Breaking through the
clutter: Benefits of advertisement originality and familiarity for
brand attention and memory. Management Science 48(6):
765–781.
Pieters, R., M. Wedel, and R. Batra. 2010. The stopping power of
advertising: Measures and effects of visual complexity. Journal
of Marketing 74(5): 48–60.
Potvin, O., F.Y. Doré, and S. Goulet. 2009. Lesions of the dorsal
subiculum and the dorsal hippocampus impaired pattern sepa-
ration in a task using distinct and overlapping visual stimuli.
Neurobiology of Learning and Memory 91(3): 287–297.
Preacher, K.J., and A.F. Hayes. 2008. Asymptotic and resampling
strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in
multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods 40(3):
879–891.
Rambourg, E. 2014. The bling dynasty: Why the reign of Chinese
Luxury shoppers has only just begun. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Schmitt, B. 2012. The consumer psychology of brands. Journal of
Consumer Psychology 22(1): 7–17.
Schmitt, B.H., and A. Simonson. 1997. Marketing aesthetics: The
strategic management of brands, identity, and image. New York,
NY: The Free Press.
Sheng Goh, Y., V. Chattaraman, and S. Forsythe. 2013. Brand and
category design consistency in brand extensions. Journal of
Product and Brand Management 22(4): 272–285.
Silverstein, M.J., and N. Fiske. 2003. Luxury for the masses. Harvard
Business Review 81: 48–57.
Snyder, M., and A.A. Stukas Jr. 1999. Interpersonal processes: The
interplay of cognitive, motivational, and behavioral activities in
social interaction. Annual Review of Psychology 50(1): 273–303.
So, J.C., and N. Bolloju. 2005. Explaining the intentions to share and
reuse knowledge in the context of IT service operations. Journal
of Knowledge Management 9(6): 30–41.
Sujan, M. 1985. Consumer knowledge: Effects on evaluation
strategies mediating consumer judgments. Journal of Consumer
Research 12: 16–31.
Tuch, A.N., J.A. Bargas-Avila, K. Opwis, and F.H. Wilhelm. 2009.
Visual complexity of websites: Effects on users’ experience,
physiology, performance, and memory. International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies 67(9): 703–715.
Van Rompay, T.J., A.T. Pruyn, and P. Tieke. 2009. Symbolic
meaning integration in design and its influence on product and
brand evaluation. International Journal of Design 3(2): 19–26.
Veblen, T. 1899. The theory of leisure class. New York: Modern
Library.
J. E. Lee et al.
Veryzer, R.W. 1993. Aesthetic response and the influence of design
principles on product preferences. Advances in Consumer
Research 20(1): 224–228.
Vigneron, F., and L.W. Johnson. 2004. Measuring perceptions of
brand luxury. The Journal of Brand Management 11(6):
484–506.
Wallace, R. 2001. Proving our value: Measuring package design’s
return on investment. Design Management Journal 12(3): 20–27.
Wang, X., C. Yu, and Y. Wei. 2012. Social media peer communi-
cation and impacts on purchase intentions: A consumer social-
ization framework. Journal of Interactive Marketing 26(4):
198–208.
Wu, K., J. Vassileva, Y. Zhao, Z. Noorian, W. Waldner, and I. Adaji.
2016. Complexity or simplicity? Designing product pictures for
advertising in online marketplaces. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services 28: 17–27.
Yeoman, I. 2011. The changing behaviours of luxury consumption.
Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management 10(1): 47–50.
Zarzosa, J., and C. Luna-Nevarez. 2011. Artistic stylistic properties of
fashion luxury advertisements. Advances in Consumer Research
39: 810–811.
Jung Eun Lee is Assistant Professor of Apparel at Virginia Tech,
Blacksburg, VA. She holds a Ph.D. in Fashion and Retail Studies
from The Ohio State University. Her research strives to gain new
insights on how customers evaluate advertisement and promotions.
Her works provide important implication for marketers how to
communicate with their customers effectively and appropriately.
Songyee Hur is currently a second-year Ph.D. student in Retail and
Consumer Sciences at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Her
research is focused on visual merchandising and its effects on
consumer behavior within the retail context and socially responsible
consumer behavior. She holds a MA in Fashion and Retail Studies at
The Ohio State University.
Brandi Watkins (Ph.D., The University of Alabama) is an assistant
professor of public relations at Virginia Tech. Her research interests
include studying the use and influence of social media on relationship
building efforts between an organization and its publics. She teaches
classes in public relations and social media.