Luxury brands have long been associated with exclusivity, wealth, and social distinction. Traditionally, owning a luxury item such as a designer handbag or a premium smartphone was a clear symbol of elevated status, often accessible only to the elite (Ko, Costello, & Taylor, 2019). However, in recent years, a shift has occurred not in the pricing of luxury products, but in their reach. Despite maintaining high price points, luxury goods are now owned by a broader range of consumers, thanks to increased financial flexibility, global brand penetration, and evolving consumer behaviour (Shukla & Bick, 2022).

Increased availability of the products has creating so much of demand and accessibility to broader audience. Many of the bigger brands have started manufacturing the luxury goods with reasonable price to attract the middle-income individual who seek to experience the luxury in economical (Balabanis & Stathopoulou, 2021). Phau & Prendergast (2010) stated that the prestige has changed from its pricing to perception. Where, the price of luxury items remains substantial by holding back the command among the customers.

This research is to investigate how consumer experience and brand identity are changing with respect to transformation happening at luxury segment in fashion industry or accessories. These changes the idea and perception of the people towards the luxury product since it is accessible for even masses.

Theoretical and Historical Roots: From Price to Symbolic Power

Early theories treated luxury as direct reflection of wealth and privilege. Veblen (1899/2009) argued that people purchase expensive goods mainly to display status, while Simmel (1904/1957) described fashion and luxury as part of a “trickle-down” process where elites lead and others imitate.

Leibenstein (1950) added that some consumers chase luxury because others own it (bandwagon effect), while others seek it to stand apart (snob effect). These perspectives show luxury as something bound tightly to money and exclusivity.

Later work broadened this view. Bourdieu (1984) showed that status is not only about money but also about taste, cultural literacy, and symbolic knowledge. Modern scholars similarly describe luxury as a mix of heritage, quality, and meaning-making, not just price (Ko et al., 2019).

Research on “masstige” and “new luxury” demonstrates how brands can offer prestige to a wider audience while still preserving some aura of exclusivity (Silverstein & Fiske, 2003; Kapferer & Bastien, 2012). This shift suggests that luxury has evolved from being primarily an economic marker to being a cultural and identity-based experience.

Past vs. Present Luxury: Diffusion, Access, and the Meaning of “Prestige” Today, this diffusion happens much faster. Platforms like Instagram and e-commerce sites have made luxury goods visible and aspirational to global audiences in real time (Rosendo-Ríos & Shukla, 2023). In addition, “intangible luxury” such as exclusive services, digital experiences, and software-enabled products now carries the same prestige once limited to physical goods (Ramadan, 2019). The rise of resale and rental markets also allows consumers to temporarily “own” prestige without the full financial burden, reshaping the meaning of luxury ownership (Turunen & Leipämaa-Leskinen, 2015).

Historically, luxury was tied to scarcity, artisanal skill, and extremely limited access. Ownership was confined to elites, and prestige spread gradually as others sought to imitate their lifestyles (Veblen, 1899/2009; Kapferer & Bastien, 2012).

Although high price tags still matter, consumers increasingly build prestige through cultural knowledge, style codes, and symbolic awareness rather than wealth alone (Han, Nunes, & Drèze, 2010).

Psychological Mechanisms: Identity, Visibility, and Value Construction

Luxury today appeals both to how people see themselves and how they want to be seen. On one hand, consumers purchase luxury to signal status and manage impressions in social groups (Rosendo-Ríos & Shukla, 2023). On the other, they do it for personal satisfaction, such as boosting self-esteem or enjoying craftsmanship and sensory pleasure (Truong, 2011).

Visibility plays a key role. Obvious brand markers attract new or aspirational buyers, while understated designs appeal to “insiders” who understand subtle cues (Han et al., 2010). In technology, premium smartphones and wearables illustrate how small design tweaks, exclusive programs, or ecosystem lock-ins create hierarchies of status even at similar price points (Ko et al., 2019).

Socio-Cultural Dynamics: Platforms, Resale, and Cultural Capital

Social media and influencer culture accelerate the diffusion of luxury, shrinking the time it takes for trends to move from elites to the mainstream (Rogers, 2003). At the same time, second-hand and rental platforms normalize the idea that prestige can circulate, allowing people to “try on” luxury rather than permanently own it (Turunen & Leipämaa-Leskinen, 2015).

In this environment, cultural capital comes not only from owning an item but from knowing which collaboration, archive piece, or drop matters (Bourdieu, 1984). Interestingly, counterfeits sometimes make luxury even more desirable by increasing its visibility, though they also challenge authenticity and brand control (Romani, Gistri, & Pace, 2012).

Brand Strategies in the Democratized Luxury Market

Luxury brands adapt to this new landscape in several ways. They launch entry-level product lines and capsule editions to expand reach without diluting their top-tier offerings (Kapferer & Bastien, 2012). They also fine-tune logo prominence and edition sizes to let consumers choose between overt and subtle signaling (Han et al., 2010).

Experiential marketing has become essential: immersive flagship stores, digital storytelling, and exclusive events help transform luxury into a lived experience (Atwal & Williams, 2009). Increasingly, brands also rely on influencer partnerships and “community-first” strategies to engage younger consumers who value social belonging as much as exclusivity (Rosendo-Ríos & Shukla, 2023). Circular models, such as collaborations with authenticated resale or repair platforms, help them maintain prestige while aligning with sustainability narratives (Turunen & Leipämaa-Leskinen, 2015).

Critical Commentary and Research Gaps

The literature suggests that while luxury retains its financial cost, its symbolic power is now shaped by culture, identity, and visibility. However, several gaps remain. Research on digital-native forms of luxury, such as NFTs and metaverse experiences, is limited (Ramadan, 2019). Similarly, while democratization opens access, it may create new symbolic barriers that reward cultural insiders rather than broad inclusivity (Bourdieu, 1984).

The sustainability of luxury also remains contested: while resale and rental may reduce ownership, they can also fuel higher overall consumption (Turunen & Leipämaa-Leskinen, 2015). Moreover, most studies are concentrated in Western and Asian markets, leaving African and Middle Eastern contexts underexplored (Shukla & Bick, 2022). Finally, the long-term effects of democratization on brand loyalty and equity remain uncertain.

Overall, democratization may not be as “democratic” as it seems. Brands have widened their consumer base, but exclusivity persists through cultural knowledge, insider communities, and controlled scarcity.

Objective

1. To analyze the psychological and socio-cultural impacts of democratized luxury.
2. To assess the role of digitalization and globalization in transforming luxury markets.
3. To examine brand strategies in the democratized luxury market.

The statistical analysis of the collected data was performed using SPSS 26 IBM Software Reliability test is performed in order to check reliability using Cronbach Alpha. Validation test was performed using Exploratory factor analysis for data validation. Descriptive statistics and cross-tabs performed to identify the relationship between variables and constructs. Pearson’s correlation is performed to test the inter variable relationship and multiple regression analysis to predict the constructs relationship. SEM is performed to test overall structural relationship and meditating factors of the research. To analyse the research model, we used the Partial Least Squares (PLS) technique using the SmartPLS4 software. We tested the examination of the structural model (testing the hypothesized relationship) Besides, to test the significance of the path coefficients and the loadings of a bootstrapping method.

Interpretation: In order to observe the socio-cultural factors of respondents, we have done the frequencies of demographic factors. In that,70.6% falls under 15–25 yrs of age group, 22.9% falls under 25–35 yrs of age group, 5.1% falls under 35–45 yrs of age group, 1.4% falls under 46–55 yrs & more. In this, we observe maximum people who wanted to experience luxury products are from 15–25 yrs age group. That means youth is preferring to have branded products.

Interpretation: In the respondents, both genders have almost equally distributed, i.e., 51.3% male and 48.7% female. That means we can say that willingness to purchase (or use) of luxury goods are equally distributed among genders.

Interpretation: In order to use luxury products literacy also have a major role because some of the respondents we observe only 1% are from 10th, 5.5% are from 10+2 (Inter), 68.9% are from undergraduate degree, 22.2% are from masters, and 2.4% are from PhD.

Interpretation: Regions for the usage of (or) awareness about the luxury product plays a major role because 89.6% are from urban areas, whereas 10.4% are from rural areas.

Output of mean and standard deviation:

Interpretation: As the standard deviation spread between 0.9 to 1.5, so the data are conducive for further research.

Significance values of variables: 

Interpretation: The significance value of variables is validated, if the value is less than 0.05.

Interpretation: The reliability check from the obtained data we have Cronbach’s alpha value 0.913 which says the data is reliable (kottari,2004).

Crosstabs:

Interpretation: To analyse the relation between the variables of same construct or different construct we used cross tabs. From the responses we observed that maximum of urban leaving respondents i.e, 372 have accepted that wearing an expensive watch will increase the social image in the society.

Interpretation: With cross tabulation test we can say that the region with a highly priced watches are better quality have given the output that urban region people believe that low priced watches are with low quality.

This research has explored that how luxury brands continued their symbolic power irrespective of competition, accessibility, changing dynamics in the luxury watch segment. It is explored to understand the influence of perceived prestige, decision making of consumer perceptions and purchase intention behaviour. A comprehensive review of existing literature has highlighted a gap in understanding how premium pricing strategies are facing new challenges, there by initiating the theoretical foundation for this study.

A structured questionnaire was developed using validated measurement scale and data has been collected from 422 respondents from relevant sample. Primarily checked the reliability and developed crosstabs to check the how the demographic factors affecting the purchase intention of the consumers.

The findings have revealed that prestige in luxury watches is no longer driven only by price, but also with emotional attachment, perceived brand power. Even though luxury became more accessible, its impact over consumer purchase intention remains strong. This study shows that psychological and symbolic factors play dominant role than financial uniqueness.

1. Atwal, G., & Williams, A. (2009). Luxury brand marketing—The experience is everything! Journal of Brand Management, 16(5–6), 338–346. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2010.11
2. Balabanis, G., & Stathopoulou, A. (2021). Why some consumers purchase luxury brands for their non-conspicuousness. Journal of Business Research, 123, 463–475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.034
3. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Harvard University Press.
4. Han, Y. J., Nunes, J. C., & Drèze, X. (2010). Signaling status with luxury goods: The role of brand prominence. Journal of Marketing, 74(4), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.74.4.015
5. Hennigs, N., Wiedmann, K.-P., Klarmann, C., Strehlau, S., Godey, B., Pederzoli, D., … Oh, H. (2012). What is the value of luxury? Journal of Business Research, 65(10), 1278–1284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.012
6. Kapferer, J.-N., & Bastien, V. (2012). The luxury strategy (2^nd). Kogan Page.
7. Ko, E., Costello, J. P., & Taylor, C. R. (2019). What is a luxury brand? A new definition and review of the literature. Journal of Business Research, 99, 405–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.08.023
8. Leibenstein, H. (1950). Bandwagon, snob, and Veblen effects in the theory of consumers’ demand. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 64(2), 183–207. https://doi.org/10.2307/1882692
9. Phau, I., & Prendergast, G. (2010). Consuming luxury brands: The relevance of the “rarity principle.” Journal of Brand Management, 17(6), 428–440. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2010.58
10. Ramadan, Z. (2019). The democratization of intangible luxury. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 37(6), 660–673. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-11-2018-0490
11. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5^th). Free Press.
12. Romani, S., Gistri, G., & Pace, S. (2012). When counterfeits raise the appeal of luxury brands. Marketing Letters, 23(3), 807–824. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-012-9179-5
13. Rosendo-Ríos, V., & Shukla, P. (2023). Hedonic and self-presentational motives driving luxury participation: The moderating role of democratization. Journal of Business Research, 155, 113448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113448
14. Shukla, P., & Bick, G. (2022). Luxury consumption in emerging markets: A review and research agenda. Journal of International Marketing, 30(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069031X221126925
15. Shukla, P., Punjaisri, K., & Ponting, C. (2022). Consumer motives and participation in luxury markets: A multi-market investigation. Journal of Business Research, 139, 716–729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.10.030
16. Silverstein, M. J., & Fiske, N. (2003). Trading up: The new American luxury. Portfolio.
17. Simmel, G. (1957). Fashion. American Journal of Sociology, 62(6), 541–558. (Original work published 1904)
18. Truong, Y. (2011). Intrinsic motivations, self-esteem, and luxury goods consumption. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 18(6), 555–561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2011.11.002
19. Turunen, L. L. M., & Leipämaa-Leskinen, H. (2015). Pre-loved luxury: Identifying meanings of second-hand luxury possessions. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 24(7), 609–620. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-05-2014-0604
20. Tynan, C., McKechnie, S., & Chhuon, C. (2010). Co-creating value for luxury brands. Journal of Business Research, 63(11), 1156–1163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.10.012
21. Veblen, T. (2009). The theory of the leisure class. Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1899)
22. Yeoman, I. (2011). The changing behaviors of luxury consumption. Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, 10(1), 47–50. https://doi.org/10.1057/rpm.2010.49