Lifestyle Brands: The Elephant in the Room

Lifestyle brands (LBs) address consumers’ core values through both their tangible and symbolic qualities. In using them, consumers hope to possess and project the values and qualities that these brands represent (Helman and de Chernatony 1999). Lifestyle branding (LBg) led to success in the United States and abroad (Danziger 2009; Lamb 2011; Sauer 2012; Birkner 2011; Menkes 1997). Top consumer brands are identified as LBs, including Nike (Klein 1999), Starbucks (Sauer 2012), and Apple (Cuneo 2003). LBg seems ubiquitous in the practitioner’s world (Geskens 2012), with a dizzying array of brands claiming lifestyle brand (LB) (Kiley 2005). This research highlights an academic-practitioner divide regarding LBs, namely, an almost absolute lack of discussion of LBs in the most highly respected academic marketing journals. While LBg has been touched on in some academic articles (Helman and de Chernatony 1999; Fernie et al. 1997), we do not believe anyone has formally operationalized the concept of LBg beyond a very brief definition. We contribute to marketing theory and practice by identifying the essential elements of LBg and providing a comprehensive definition of the term. In a literature review we found a single top-tier marketing journal article with the words “LB” or “LBg” in the title (Chernev, Hamilton, and Gal 2011). Yet the words “LBg” appear only in the “managerial implications” section. The article’s focus is consumer self-expression through brands, and while theoretically and practically useful, LBg is left wholly unexamined. Only one article with the words “LB” or “LBg” was discovered in the Journal of Marketing Research; they do not appear at all in the Journal of Consumer Research.