Luxury-charity partnerships can help promote retail sales this holiday season

December 14, 2015

Chestnut Hill, MA (December 14, 2015): Luxury items and the high prices they command may make consumers think twice this holiday season about whether the cost is justified. But if that luxury item is linked to "doing good," does that make it an easier purchase decision? Yes, according to new research forthcoming in the Journal of Retailing, which finds consumers are more likely to buy luxury brands when these brands highlight partnerships with charity organizations at the point of sale.

"A lot of people like to buy luxury but feel a little guilty about it," says co-author Henrik Hagtvedt, Associate Professor of Marketing with the Carroll School of Business at Boston College. "So what we found is that if there's a way to remove that guilt, people will be more likely to go ahead and make the purchase. One way to do that is to collaborate with a charity."

Like every holiday season, luxury marketers will spend millions of dollars this year on retail décor to help convert consumer desire into purchases. Since these retail spaces are designed to dazzle consumers with the luster of luxury, they aren't perceived as a good place to promote partnerships with charity. But Hagtvedt and Marketing Professor Vanessa Patrick of the C.T. Bauer College of Business at the University of Houston challenge this notion with evidence that the cash register may in fact be the best place for a luxury brand to partner with charity.

"At this pre-purchase stage of the decision cycle, consumers are often looking for a reason to buy or not to buy," says Dr. Hagtvedt. "Charity partnerships may not fit perfectly with a dazzling retail display, but they can help justify a desirable purchase."

Titled Gilt and Guilt: Should Luxury and Charity Partner at the Point of Sale? the study points out that 47% of consumers feel guilty about luxury consumption and "often seek out opportunities to justify the indulgence - a license to consume."

The authors conducted three experiments with 342 college students and adults to support their insights.

In one study, participants could purchase either a luxury brand (Godiva) or a value brand (M&M's). Without any mention of charity, 47% chose to purchase the luxury brand. However, when participants were told that the Godiva chocolates were made and sold in association with the World Wildlife Fund, the choice of Godiva jumped to 78%. Follow-up experiments demonstrated that the willingness to purchase luxury products increased because the association with charity diminished the participants' feelings of guilt for purchasing a luxury product. The same pattern emerged whether the luxury products were chocolates, high-end jeans, or Rolex watches.

The collaboration with charity allows consumers "the license to indulge" in the luxury brand they want to purchase.

"The consumer sees that some of this money is going to a good cause, and that diminishes the guilt," says Dr. Hagtvedt. "In other words, it makes the consumer feel better and removes an impediment to purchase."

The current research indicates that even negative emotions generated at the point of sale can be strategically managed to result in a win-win scenario for luxury brands, charities, and consumers alike. Luxury brands increase sales, charities increase contributions, and consumers can enjoy guilt-free consumption.

Boston College

Related Consumers Articles from Brightsurf:

When consumers trust AI recommendations--or resist them
The key factor in deciding how to incorporate AI recommenders is whether consumers are focused on the functional and practical aspects of a product (its utilitarian value) or on the experiential and sensory aspects of a product (its hedonic value).

Do consumers enjoy events more when commenting on them?
Generating content increases people's enjoyment of positive experiences.

Why consumers think pretty food is healthier
People tend to think that pretty-looking food is healthier (e.g., more nutrients, less fat) and more natural (e.g., purer, less processed) than ugly-looking versions of the same food.

How consumers responded to COVID-19
The coronavirus pandemic has been a catalyst for laying out the different threats that consumers face, and that consumers must prepare themselves for a constantly shifting landscape moving forward.

Is less more? How consumers view sustainability claims
Communicating a product's reduced negative attribute might have unintended consequences if consumers approach it with the wrong mindset.

In the sharing economy, consumers see themselves as helpers
Whether you use a taxi or a rideshare app like Uber, you're still going to get a driver who will take you to your destination.

Helping consumers in a crisis
A new study shows that the central bank tool known as quantitative easing helped consumers substantially during the last big economic downturn -- a finding with clear relevance for today's pandemic-hit economy.

'Locally grown' broccoli looks, tastes better to consumers
In tests, consumers in upstate New York were willing to pay more for broccoli grown in New York when they knew where it came from, Cornell University researchers found.

Should patients be considered consumers?
No, and doing so can undermine efforts to promote patient-centered health care, write three Hastings Center scholars in the March issue of Health Affairs.

Consumers choose smartphones mostly because of their appearance
The more attractive the image and design of the telephone, the stronger the emotional relationship that consumers are going to have with the product, which is a clear influence on their purchasing decision.

Read More: Consumers News and Consumers Current Events is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to