Open for all, valued by few? How open branding dilutes perceived brand status

Purpose This study aims to investigate how open (vs closed) branding – a permissive (vs restrictive) governance stance toward unauthorized consumer appropriation of brand-related intellectual property – shapes perceived brand status. It examines reference group association as the mediator and product status relevance as a boundary condition. Design/methodology/approach Five between-subjects online experiments (n = 958) tested the hypotheses. Studies 1a–3 used single-factor designs manipulating branding strategy (open vs closed branding), with Study 1a adding a no-response baseline. Study 4 used a 2 (branding strategy: open vs closed branding) × 2 (product status relevance: high vs low) design. Findings Open branding produces lower perceived brand status than closed branding. This relative status disadvantage arises because open branding weakens associations with higher-status reference groups and is stronger when product status relevance is high. Practical implications Firms should treat open branding as an intellectual property governance signal rather than a generic engagement tactic. Particularly for high-status-relevant products, managers should selectively govern participation, collaboration partners and core status-bearing symbols to preserve the brand’s desired reference group associations. Originality/value This article extends open branding research beyond its common focus on attitudinal benefits by identifying a symbolic status cost of permissive intellectual property governance. It explains this cost through reference group association and establishes product status relevance as a boundary condition, clarifying when and why status dilution occurs.