perception study of luxury brands at the dubai mall in dubai, uae

Perception Study of Luxury Brands at The Dubai Mall

Polimoda - Master in Luxury Management, 2012-2013

1

Percept ion Study of Luxury Brands at The Dubai Mal l in Dubai , UAE

Plus Minus Interest ing Study

Luxury Management Master 2012-2013

December 2012



2

TABLE OF CONTENT

Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………. p. 5 Introduction …………………………….…………………………………………….. p. 24

Objective …………………………………………………………………….. p. 24 Environment ……………………………………………………………….. p. 25 Analysts ………………………………………………..…………………….. p. 25 Approach and Methodology ………………………………………… p. 26

PMI Parameters ……………………………………………. p. 26 PMI Scale of Assessment ………………………….….. p. 29 Selected Luxury Brands ………………………….…….. p. 29

PMI Analysis Results ..……………………………………………….…………….. p. 30 Analysis Per Brand ………………………………………………………. p. 31

Armani ………………………….……………………………… p. 32 Burberry ………………………………………………………. p. 35 Chanel ………………………………….………………………. p. 38 Dior ………………………………………….…………………… p. 41 Dolce & Gabbana ………………………….……………… p. 44 Fendi ……………………………………………….…………… p. 47 Gucci ………………………………………………….………… p. 50 Hermes ………………………………………………………… p. 53 Louis Vuitton …………………………………………….….. p. 56 Ralph Lauren ………………………………………………... p. 59 Tom Ford ……………………………………………………… p. 62

Analysis Per PMI Parameter ………………………………………… p. 65 Atmosphere …………….…………………………………… p. 66 Buzz product ……………….……………………………….. p. 68 Cleanliness in shop ………….……………………………. p. 70 Communicate events ………….………………………… p. 72 Emotion ………………………………….……………………. p. 74 Extras ………………………………………….……………….. p. 76 Fitting room cleanliness ………………….……………. p. 78 Fitting room lighting ………………………….…………. p. 80 Fitting room mirror ……………………………….……… p. 82 Fitting room size ……………………………………….….. p. 84 Interior design ……………………………………………... p. 86 Lighting ………………………………………………………… p. 88 Location ……………………………………………………….. p. 90 Odor …………………………………………………………….. p. 92 Orderliness ………………………………………….……….. p. 94 Price quality perception ………………………….……. p. 96



3

Quality perception …………………………….………….

p. 98

Sales personnel appearance ………………….……… p. 100 Sales personnel greetings ………………………….…. p. 102

Sales personnel languages ………………….………… p. 104 Sales personnel patience & courtesy ……….…… p. 106 Sales personnel product information ………….… p. 108

Shoes cleanliness …………………………………………… p. 110 Shoe uniformity ………………………………………….. p. 112 Store communication …………………………………… p. 114 Store layout…………………………………………………… p. 116 Store temperature ……………………………………….. p. 118 Upkeep ………………………………………………………… p. 120 Visual merchandising ……………………………………. p. 122 Window cleanliness ……………………………………… p. 124 Window visual merchandising ……………………… p. 126

Conclusions and Recommendations ……………………………………….. p. 129 Armani ………………………………………………………..………………. p. 130 Burberry ………………………………………………..……………………. p. 131 Chanel …………………………………………………………………………. p. 132 Dior ……………………………………………………………………………… p. 133 Dolce & Gabbana ……………………..…………………...……………. p. 134 Fendi …………………………………………..………………………………. p. 135 Gucci ……………………………………………..……………………………. p. 136 Hermes …………………………………………..…………………………… p. 137 Louis Vuitton ……………………………………..……………………….. p. 138 Ralph Lauren………………………………………………………………… p. 139 Tom Ford ………………………………………………..…………………… p. 140

Appendix 1: PMI Parameters Analysis by Theme ……………………. p. 144 Environment ……………………………………………………………….. p. 145

Atmosphere …………………………………………………. p. 146 Cleanliness in Shop ……………………………………….. p. 148 Emotion ………………………………………………………… p. 150 Fitting Room Cleanliness ………………………………. p. 152 Fitting Room Lighting ……………………………………. p. 154 Fitting Room Mirror ………………………………………. p. 156 Fitting Room Size …………………………………………… p. 158 Interior Design ………………………………………………. p. 160 Lighting …………………………………………………………. p. 162 Location …………………………………………………………. p. 164 Oder ………………………………………………………………. p. 166 Orderliness ……………………………………………………. p. 168 Store Layout ………………………………………………….. p. 170 Store Temperature ………………………………………… p. 172 Upkeep ………………………………………………………….. p. 174 Window Cleanliness ………………………………………. p. 176

Product …………………………………………………………………………. p. 178 Buzz Product ………………………………………………….. p. 179



4

Price Quality Perception …………………………………

p. 181

Quality Perception …………………………………………. p. 183 Communication ……………………………………………………….….. p. 185

Communicate Events …………………………………... p. 186 Extras ……………………………………………………………. p. 188 Store Communication …………………………………... p. 190 Visual Merchandizing ……………………………………. p. 192 Window Visual Merchandizing ……………………… p. 194

Sales Personnel ……………………………………………………………. p. 196 Sales Personnel Appearance …………………………. p. 197 Sales Personnel Greetings …………………………….. p. 199 Sales Personnel Languages ……………………………. p. 201 Sales Personnel Patience & Courtesy …………….. p. 203 Sales Personnel Product Information ……………. p. 205 Shoes Cleanliness …………………………………………. p. 207 Shoe Uniformity …………………………………………… p. 209

Appendix 2: Additional Analysts Quotes …………….…………………… p. 211 Armani ………………………………………………..………………………. p. 212 Burberry ………………………………………………..……………………. p. 218 Chanel …………………………………………………………………………. p. 223 Dior ……………………………………………………………………………… p. 228 Dolce & Gabbana …………………………………………..……………. p. 233 Fendi …………………………………..………………………………………. p. 238 Gucci ……………………………………..……………………………………. p. 242 Hermes …………………………………..…………………………………… p. 246 Louis Vuitton ……………………………..……………………………….. p. 251 Ralph Lauren………………………………………………………………… p. 256 Tom Ford ………………………………………..…………………………… p. 262



5

- Execut ive summary -

The fo l lowing report is a comprehensive consumer analys is of

eleven selected luxury retail stores located within The Dubai Mall of Dubai, United Arab Emirates. The stores chosen for evaluation in this study include: Armani, Burberry, Chanel, Dior, Dolce & Gabbana, Fendi, Gucci, Hermes, Louis Vuitton, Ralph Lauren and Tom Ford.

The study was conducted by s ix teen Luxury Management graduate students

attending Polimoda International Institute of Fashion Design and Marketing (Florence, Italy).

The methodology used for th is examinat ion was a modified version of the Plus

Minus Interesting Index, also known as a PMI Index. A scale of -‐1.0 to 1.0 was applied to rate the chosen luxury retail stores across thirty-‐one PMI parameters.

The strongest brands that measured up to consumers’ perceptions were Dior, Chanel and Hermes respectively, while Dolce & Gabbana, Armani and Burberry displayed the weakest performances.

The report is d iv ided into sect ions that inc lude individual brand studies and comparative analysis amongst the PMI parameter performances. Analysts were seeking to determine the strongest and weakest PMI parameters found within each store. The 31 parameters were used as an index to evaluate the client’s overall experience when visiting the retail space. Evaluation of the parameters were based upon each analyst’s personal experience and developed perception when visiting the stores.

The report inc ludes customized recommendat ions regarding areas of improvement for every brand based on their individual and collective results and analysis.



6

Ob ject ive The focus of this study was to determine the best and worst performances of 11 selected luxury brands located within The Dubai Mall, based upon the impressions that each store left in the mind of the consumers by evaluating 31 specific parameters.

Env ironment The Dubai Mall, located in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, was specifically chosen as the premier location to most effectively evaluate buyer perceptions and attitudes toward the 11 selected leading luxury brand of the world today.

Analysts This study was completed by the 2012-‐2013 Polimoda Luxury Management Graduate Class and led by market research consultant, Professor Benjamin Malhotra. Perceptions gathered for this report were comprised by a group of 16 luxury management graduate analysts of differing age, gender and nationality that visited The Dubai Mall to compile the initial research.

Approach And Methodology The perception research gathered for this study was retrieved from The Dubai Mall on Friday, October 12, 2012 and Saturday, October 13, 2012. Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI parameters per brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the 31 PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store was eligible to receive a comprehensive evaluation based upon three perspectives involving internal and external comparisons. Perspective one offered an external comparison between brands from a macro viewpoint. Each store received a composite score ranging somewhere between -‐496.0 to 496.0. This was determined by adding the total sum of the 16 scores given for each of the 31 PMI parameter results, which highlighted the brand’s overall performance standing against the other brands assessed. Perspective two offered an internal comparison of the individual store’s strongest and weakest PMI parameters. Each store received a composite score ranging somewhere between -‐16.0 to 16.0. This was determined by reviewing the total sum of the 16 scores given for each of the 31 PMI parameter results that were evaluated.



7

Perspective three offered an external comparison of the strongest and weakest stores within each of the 31 PMI parameters. Based upon 16 perceptions, brands were eligible to have received a total individual PMI score ranging somewhere between -‐16.0 to 16.0. PMI Parameters

Se lec ted Luxury Brands 1. Armani 7. Gucci 2. Burberry 8. Hermes 3. Chanel 9. Louis Vuitton 4. Dior 10. Ralph Lauren 5. Dolce & Gabbana 11. Tom Ford 6. Fendi

17. Quality Perception 18. Sales Personnel Appearance 19. Sales Personnel Greetings 20. Sales Personnel Language 21. Sales Personnel Patience & Courtesy 22. Sales Personnel Product Information 23. Shoe Cleanliness 24. Shoe Uniformity 25. Store Communication 26. Store Layout 27. Store Temperature 28. Upkeep 29. Visual Merchandising 30. Window Cleanliness 31. Window Visual Merchandising

1. Atmosphere 2. Buzz Products 3. Cleanliness in Shop 4. Communicate Events 5. Emotion 6. Extras 7. Fitting Room Cleanliness 8. Fitting Room Lighting 9. Fitting Room Mirror 10. Fitting Room Size 11. Interior Design 12. Lighting 13. Location 14. Odor 15. Orderliness 16. Price Quality Perception



8

PMI Research Resul ts Ana lys is Per Brand COMPOSITE RANKING 1. Dior 303.5 7. Louis Vuitton 153.5 2. Chanel 285.5 8. Gucci 149.5 3. Hermes 276.0 9. Burberry 148.0 4. Tom Ford 262.5 10. Armani 86.5 5. Ralph Lauren 220.5 11. Dolce & Gabbana -‐5.0 6. Fendi 207.0 Average Score 189.8 ARMANI Strongest Performances Weakest Performances 1. Location: 15.5 1. Buzz Products: -‐12.5, Extras: -‐12.5 2. Store Temperature: 12.5 2. Window Visual Merchandising: -‐5.5 3. Sales Personnel Language: 11.0 3. Store Cleanliness: -‐3.5, Store Communication: -‐3.5,

Window Cleanliness: -‐3.5 BURBERRY Strongest Performances Weakest Performances 1. Fitting Room Lighting: 15.0 1. Extras: -‐15.0 2. Quality Perception: 12.5 2. Communicate Events: -‐6.5 3. Fitting Room Size: 11.5 3. Buzz Products: -‐4.5

CHANEL Strongest Performances Weakest Performances 1. Fitting Room Size: 16.0 1. Buzz Products: -‐3.0 2. Fitting Room Lighting: 15.5 2. Extras: -‐2.5 3. Fitting Room Cleanliness: 15.0 3. Communicate Events: 1.0



9

DIOR Strongest Performances Weakest Performances 1. Fitting Room Cleanliness: 16.0 1. Buzz Product: -‐4.0 2. Fitting Room Lighting: 15.5 Visual Merchandising: 15.5

2. Extras: -‐3.5

3. Shoe Cleanliness: 15.0 3. Lighting: -‐0.5 DOLCE & GABBANA Strongest Performances Weakest Performances 1. Location: 14.5 1. Store Communication: -‐11.0 2. Store Layout: 10.0 2. Sales Personnel Greetings: -‐8.5 3. Orderliness: 8.5 3. Communicate Events: -‐8.0, Extras: -‐8.0

FENDI Strongest Performances Weakest Performances 1. Fitting Room Cleanliness: 15.5, Location: 15.5

1. Extras: -‐15.0

2. Shoe Cleanliness: 14.0 2. Store Communication: -‐9.0 3. Interior Design: 12.5 3. Communicate Events: -‐7.5 GUCCI Strongest Performances Weakest Performances 1. Location: 14.0 1. Extras: -‐11.0 2. Fitting Room Cleanliness: 12.5 Sales Personnel Language: 12.5 Store Layout: 12.5

2. Store Communication: -‐7.5

3. Orderliness: 10.0 3. Cleanliness in Shop: -‐1.5



10

HERMES Strongest Performances Weakest Performances 1. Location: 16.0 1. Communicate Events: -‐7.5 2. Fitting Room Mirror: 15.5 Fitting Room Size: 15.5

2. Store Communication: -‐3.0

3. Fitting Room Cleanliness: 15.0 Fitting Room Lighting: 15.0 Sales Personnel Appearance: 15.0 Store Temperature: 15.0

3. Extras: 0.0

LOUIS VUITTON Strongest Performances Weakest Performances 1. Location: 15.5 1. Extras: -‐15.0 2. Store Temperature: 13.0 2. Communicate Events: -‐10.0 3. Fitting Room Size: 12.0 Shoe Cleanliness: 12.0

3. Emotion: -‐4.0

RALPH LAUREN Strongest Performances Weakest Performances 1. Sales Personnel Appearance: 14.5 1. Extras: -‐15.0 2. Fitting Room Size: 14.0 2. Buzz Products: -‐0.5

Price-‐Quality Perception: -‐0.5 Store Communication: -‐0.5

3. Fitting Room Mirror: 13.5 Location: 13.5 Shoe Cleanliness: 13.5

3. Window Cleanliness: 1.0

TOM FORD Strongest Performances Weakest Performances 1. Fitting Room Cleanliness: 15.5 1. Communicate Events: -‐12.0 2. Cleanliness in Shop: 15.0 Orderliness: 15.0 Store Temperature: 15.0

2. Extras: -‐10.0

3. Quality Perception: 14.5 3. Store Communication: -‐9.0



11

Ana lys is Per PMI Parameter ATMOSPHERE PMI Parameter: Atmosphere-‐evaluate the general mood or feeling that a customer experiences when they visit a store. See brand scores below. 1. Dior 12.5 7. Burberry 4.5 2. Tom Ford 11.5 8. Hermes 4.0 3. Ralph Lauren 10.0 9. Armani 3.5 4. Chanel 8.5 10. Louis Vuitton -‐3.0 5. Fendi 6.5 11. Dolce & Gabbana -‐5.5 6. Gucci 6.0 Average Score 5.32 BUZZ PRODUCT PMI Parameter: Buzz Product-‐evaluate whether or not the store offers any unordinary products, which attract additional interest of the consumer; made for extended word-‐of-‐mouth brand communication. See brand scores below. 1. Hermes 9.0 7. Chanel -‐3.0 2. Gucci 8.5 8. Fendi -‐3.0 3. Louis Vuitton 5.5 9. Dior -‐4.0 4. Dolce & Gabbana 2.5 10. Burberry -‐4.5 5. Tom Ford 0.5 11. Armani -‐12.5 6. Ralph Lauren -‐0.5 Average Score -‐0.1 CLEANLINESS IN SHOP PMI Parameter: Cleanliness in Shop-‐evaluate the store’s overall tidiness in reaction to the observed occurrence of visible distractions such as fingerprints on glass displays, mirrors and windows; appearance of dust, etc. See brand scores below. 1. Tom Ford 15.0 7. Ralph Lauren 5.5 2. Chanel 11.0 8. Louis Vuitton 4.0 3. Dior 10.0 9. Gucci -‐1.5 4. Hermes 8.0 10. Armani -‐3.5 5. Burberry 7.5 11. Dolce & Gabbana -‐6.5 6. Fendi 7.0 Average Score 5.1



12

COMMUNICATE EVENTS PMI Parameter: Communicate Events-‐evaluate the visibility of various communication tools used to promote or mention present and future special brand events. See brand scores below. 1. Ralph Lauren 3.5 7. Fendi -‐7.5 2. Chanel 1.0 8. Hermes -‐7.5 3. Dior 1.0 9. Dolce & Gabbana -‐8.0 4. Gucci 0.0 10. Louis Vuitton -‐10.0 5. Armani -‐1.0 11. Tom Ford -‐12.0 6. Burberry -‐6.5 Average Score -‐4.27 EMOTION PMI Parameter: Emotion-‐evaluate store’s overall ability to offer consumer an impressive “wow effect” when they visit the store. See brand scores below. 1. Dior 13.5 7. Burberry 2.5 2. Tom Ford 11.5 8. Gucci 1.5 3. Chanel 8.0 9. Armani 0.0 4. Ralph Lauren 7.5 10. Louis Vuitton -‐4.0 5. Fendi 7.0 11. Armani 0.0 6. Hermes 5.5 Average Score 4.2 EXTRAS PMI Parameter: Extras-‐evaluate store’s ability to offer consumer something complimentary; such as catalogs, brochures or samples. See brand scores below. 1. Hermes 0.0 7. Armani -‐12.5 2. Chanel -‐2.5 8. Burberry -‐15.0 3. Dior -‐3.5 9. Fendi -‐15.0 4. Dolce & Gabbana -‐8.0 10. Louis Vuitton -‐15.0 5. Tom Ford -‐10.0 11. Ralph Lauren -‐15.0 6. Gucci -‐11.0 Average Score -‐9.7 FITTING ROOM CLEANLINESS PMI Parameter: Fitting Room Cleanliness-‐evaluate the cleanliness conditions found with a store’s fitting rooms; seeking to determine if they are tidy and free of carpet or furniture stains, dust on floor, fingerprints on mirror, etc. See brand scores below. 1. Dior 16.0 7. Burberry 9.5 2. Fendi 15.5 8. Louis Vuitton 7.0 3. Tom Ford 15.5 9. Armani 5.0 4. Chanel 15.5 10. Ralph Lauren 2.0 5. Hermes 15.5 11. Dolce & Gabbana -‐4.0 6. Gucci 12.5 Average Score 9.9



13

F ITTING ROOM LIGHTING PMI Parameter: Fitting Room Lighting-‐evaluate appearance of lighting in the fitting room and how it affects the visible appearance of the product and person. See brand scores below. 1. Chanel 15.5 7. Ralph Lauren 8.0 2. Dior 15.5 8. Armani 5.0 3. Burberry 15.0 9. Gucci 4.5 4. Hermes 15.0 10. Dolce &Gabbana 2.5 5. Louis Vuitton 11.0 11. Tom Ford 2.0 6. Fendi 9.5 Average Score 9.4 FITTING ROOM MIRROR PMI Parameter: Fitting Mirror-‐evaluate appropriate appearance of mirror size, length, shape. See brand scores below. 1. Hermes 15.5 7. Tom Ford 10.5 2. Dior 14.0 8. Burberry 6.5 3. Ralph Lauren 13.5 9. Louis Vuitton 5.0 4. Chanel 13.0 10. Gucci 4.5 5. Fendi 12.0 11. Dolce & Gabbana 0.0 6. Armani 10.5 Average Score 9.5 FITTING ROOM SIZE PMI Parameter: Fitting Room Size-‐evaluate the comfort of a consumer’s visit to the fitting room based upon the size of space allotted for each room. See brand scores below. 1. Chanel 16.0 7. Tom Ford 10.0 2. Hermes 15.5 8. Fendi 8.0 3. Ralph Lauren 14.0 9. Armani 6.5 4. Louis Vuitton 12.0 10. Gucci 2.5 5. Burberry 11.5 11. Dolce & Gabbana -‐3.5 6. Dior 10.5 Average Score 9.3 INTERIOR DESIGN PMI Parameter: Interior Design-‐evaluate store’s overall conceptual development of interior space related to proper representation of the brand’s identity. See brand scores below. 1. Tom Ford 13.5 7. Louis Vuitton 8.5 2. Dior 13.0 8. Armani 8.0 3. Fendi 12.5 9. Burberry 7.0 4. Ralph Lauren 12.5 10. Dolce & Gabbana 7.0 5. Chanel 11.5 11. Gucci 5.5 6. Hermes 10.0 Average Score 9.9



14

L IGHTING PMI Parameter: Lighting-‐evaluate the store’s overall use and appearance of lighting; how it affects the store atmosphere and visible presentation of products. See brand scores below. 1. Chanel 12.0 7. Tom Ford 4.0 2. Ralph Lauren 11.0 8. Gucci 2.0 3. Fendi 9.5 9. Dolce & Gabbana 0.0 4. Hermes 9.0 10. Dior -‐0.5 5. Burberry 4.5 11. Armani -‐3.0 6. Louis Vuitton 4.5 Average Score 4.82 LOCATION PMI Parameter: Location-‐evaluate the perceived interpretation of the store’s overall location placement within The Dubai Mall. See brand scores below. 1. Hermes 16.0 7. Gucci 14.0 2. Armani 15.5 8. Chanel 13.5 3. Fendi 15.5 9. Ralph Lauren 13.5 4. Louis Vuitton 15.5 10. Burberry 9.5 5. Dior 14.5 11. Tom Ford 9.5 6. Dolce & Gabbana 14.5 Average Score 13.7 ODOR PMI Parameter: Odor-‐evaluate the scent that is carried throughout the store. See brand scores below. 1. Dior 12.5 7. Gucci 8.5 2. Armani 10.5 8. Louis Vuitton 6.5 3. Chanel 10.0 9. Burberry 5.5 4. Ralph Lauren 10.0 10. Hermes 4.0 5. Tom Ford 10.0 11. Dolce & Gabbana -‐0.5 6. Fendi 9.0 Average Score 7.82 ORDERLINESS PMI Parameter: Orderliness-‐evaluate the store’s organizational effectualness; observing if merchandise and displays have a pre-‐thought order and arrangement. See brand scores below. 1. Tom Ford 15.0 7. Gucci 10.0 2. Dior 14.0 8. Ralph Lauren 9.0 3. Hermes 13.0 9. Dolce & Gabbana 8.5 4. Chanel 11.5 10. Louis Vuitton 8.0 5. Armani 10.5 11. Burberry -‐4.0 6. Fendi 10.0 Average Score 9.5



15

PRICE QUALITY PERCPETION PMI Parameter: Price-‐Quality Perception-‐evaluate the perceived interpretation of a brand’s selected product quality assortment in relation to the product’s listed retail price. See brand scores below.

QUALITY PERCEPTION PMI Parameter: Quality Perception-‐evaluate the perceived quality of products offered within the store; based upon each analyst’s initial interpretation. See brand scores below. 1. Chanel 14.5 7. Ralph Lauren 9.5 2. Tom Ford 14.5 8. Gucci 9.0 3. Hermes 13.5 9. Louis Vuitton 6.0 4. Burberry 12.5 10. Armani 0.5 5. Fendi 11.5 11. Dolce & Gabbana -‐3.5 6. Dior 11.0 Average Score 9.0 SALES PERSONNEL APPEARANCE PMI Parameter: Sales Personnel Appearance-‐evaluate personnel’s outward appearance in dress and grooming; asking if the appearance relates to proper representation of the brand’s core image and message. See brand scores below. 1. Hermes 15.0 7. Dior 8.0 2. Ralph Lauren 14.5 8. Louis Vuitton 8.0 3. Tom Ford 13.0 9. Gucci 7.0 4. Chanel 12.5 10. Dior 8.0 5. Fendi 10.0 11. Armani 4.5 6. Burberry 9.5 Average Score 9.32 SALES PERSONNEL GREETINGS PMI Parameter: Sales Personnel Greetings-‐evaluate the level of greetings and acknowledgement offered by staff when a consumer enters to visit a store. See brand scores below. 1. Louis Vuitton 11.5 7. Burberry 3.5 2. Chanel 9.5 8. Ralph Lauren 3.5 3. Dior 9.0 9. Armani 2.0 4. Tom Ford 9.0 10. Fendi -‐0.5 5. Gucci 6.5 11. Dolce & Gabbana -‐8.5 6. Hermes 4.0 Average Score 4.5

1. Fendi 11.0 7. Burberry 2.0 2. Chanel 7.5 8. Louis Vuitton 1.5 3. Dior 6.5 9. Gucci -‐0.5 4. Hermes 5.0 10. Ralph Lauren -‐0.5 5. Armani 3.0 11. Dolce & Gabbana -‐4.0 6. Tom Ford 2.5 Average Score 3.0



16

SALES PERSONNEL LANGUAGE PMI Parameter: Sales Personnel Language-‐evaluate the staff’s ability to speak in multiple languages and effectively communicates with consumers of different nationalities. See brand scores below. 1. Gucci 12.5 7. Burberry 9.0 2. Hermes 11.5 8. Chanel 8.5 3. Armani 11.0 9. Fendi 8.0 4. Dior 11.0 10. Ralph Lauren 8.0 5. Louis Vuitton 10.5 11. Dolce & Gabbana 6.0 6. Tom Ford 10.5 Average Score 9.68 SALES PERSONNEL PATIENCE & COURTESY PMI Parameter: Sales Personnel Patience & Courtesy-‐evaluate the staff’s ability to remain patient and respectful as they diligently answer questions and take time with each client. See brand scores below. 1. Tom Ford 13.5 7. Gucci 6.5 2. Dior 12.0 8. Ralph Lauren 5.5 3. Louis Vuitton 11.0 9. Hermes 5.0 4. Burberry 8.5 10. Armani 3.5 5. Chanel 8.0 11. Dolce & Gabbana -‐2.5 6. Fendi 6.5 Average Score 7.0 SALES PERSONNEL PRODUCT INFORMATION PMI Parameter: Sales Personnel Product Information-‐evaluate staff’s ability to instantly recall product knowledge regarding a variety of details (ex. price, material, composition, history). See brand scores below. 1. Dior 13.0 7. Louis Vuitton 5.5 2. Tom Ford 12.5 8. Armani 4.0 3. Chanel 10.5 9. Ralph Lauren 3.5 4. Fendi 8.5 10. Gucci 0.0 5. Burberry 7.5 11. Dolce & Gabbana -‐5.5 6. Hermes 6.5 Average Score 6.0 SHOE CLEANLINESS PMI Parameter: Shoe Cleanliness-‐evaluate the cleanliness of personnel’s shoes; looking for new and clean shoes. See brand scores below. 1. Dior 15.0 7. Tom Ford 10.5 2. Chanel 14.0 8. Dolce & Gabbana 7.0 3. Fendi 14.0 9. Armani 6.0 4. Hermes 13.5 10. Burberry 4.5 5. Ralph Lauren 13.5 11. Gucci 4.5 6. Louis Vuitton 12.0 Average Score 10.4



17

SHOE UNIFORMITY PMI Parameter: Shoe Uniformity-‐evaluate the consistent look of all personnel’s shoes; determining if they match the chosen outfit and are made by the brand for which they represent in the store. See brand scores below. 1. Chanel 14.5 7. Gucci 6.5 2. Dior 12.5 8. Louis Vuitton 6.0 3. Hermes 12.0 9. Armani 1.5 4. Ralph Lauren 9.5 10. Dolce & Gabbana 1.5 5. Tom Ford 9.5 11. Burberry 1.0 6. Fendi 7.0 Average Score 7.4 STORE COMMUNICATION PMI Parameter: Store Communication-‐evaluate the presence of visible signs present within a store, including appearance of both traditional signage or digital communication (ex. t.v., i-‐Pad, etc.). See brand scores below. 1. Burberry 6.5 7. Armani -‐.35 2. Chanel 4.0 8. Gucci -‐7.5 3. Louis Vuitton 3.5 9. Fendi -‐9.0 4. Dior 2.0 10. Tom Ford -‐9.0 5. Ralph Lauren -‐0.5 11. Dolce & Gabbana -‐11.0 6. Hermes -‐3.0 Average Score -‐2.5 STORE LAYOUT PMI Parameter: Store Layout-‐evaluate the overall store layout and ease of consumer’s ability to efficiently and effectively shop the store. See brand scores below. 1. Dior 14.0 7. Dolce & Gabbana 10.0 2. Gucci 12.5 8. Armani 9.0 3. Ralph Lauren 12.5 9. Hermes 4.0 4. Tom Ford 11.5 10. Louis Vuitton 4.0 5. Chanel 11.0 11. Burberry 0.5 6. Fendi 11.0 Average Score 9.0



18

STORE TEMPERATURE PMI Parameter: Store Temperature-‐evaluate the climate control within the store to determine the level of comfort it offers guests as they visit the store. See brand scores below. 1. Hermes 15.0 7. Burberry 10.5 2. Tom Ford 15.0 8. Chanel 8.5 3. Dior 13.5 9. Fendi 6.5 4. Louis Vuitton 13.0 10. Gucci 6.0 5. Armani 12.5 11. Dolce & Gabbana 3.0 6. Ralph Lauren 12.5 Average Score 10.5 UPKEEP PMI Parameter: Upkeep-‐evaluate the store’s general appearance in terms of attention given toward overall maintenance; looking for what is scratched, damaged, stained, worn, etc. See brand scores below. 1. Tom Ford 11.5 7. Armani 1.0 2. Dior 8.0 8. Fendi 1.0 3. Hermes 6.5 9. Burberry 0.5 4. Gucci 4.0 10. Dolce & Gabbana 0.5 5. Ralph Lauren 3.5 11. Louis Vuitton -‐2.5 6. Chanel 1.5 Average Score 3.2 VISUAL MERCHANDISING PMI Parameter: Visual Merchandising-‐evaluate effectiveness of store’s visual displays and informative set-‐ups; asking if they serve to entice and stimulate a consumer’s desire to act and purchase. See brand scores below. 1. Dior 15.5 7. Burberry 7.0 2. Tom Ford 10.5 8. Gucci 7.0 3. Chanel 9.5 9. Dolce & Gabbana 2.0 4. Hermes 9.0 10. Louis Vuitton 1.5 5. Fendi 7.5 11. Armani -‐2.0 6. Ralph Lauren 7.5 Average Score 6.8 WINDOW CLEANLINESS PMI Parameter: Window Cleanliness-‐evaluate the general appearance and maintenance given toward a store’s display windows; looking for glass fingerprints, dust on floors, broken light bulbs. See brand scores below.

1. Hermes 12.5 7. Chanel 2.5 2. Tom Ford 12.5 8. Louis Vuitton 2.0 3. Fendi 10.5 9. Dolce & Gabbana 1.0 4. Burberry 8.0 10. Ralph Lauren 1.0 5. Dior 7.0 11. Armani -‐3.5 6. Gucci 6.5 Average Score 5.4



19

WINDOW VISUAL MERCHANDISING PMI Parameter: Window Visual Merchandising-‐evaluate the effective appearance of a store’s window presentation; assessing how merchandise is creatively displayed in relation to the brand’s core image and message. See brand scores below. 1. Hermes 14.0 7. Dolce & Gabbana 6.0 2. Ralph Lauren 12.5 8. Louis Vuitton 4.5 3. Tom Ford 8.5 9. Burberry 3.5 4. Chanel 8.0 10. Gucci 1.5 5. Fendi 7.0 11. Armani -‐5.5 6. Dior 6.5 Average Score 6.0

Conc lus ions And Recommendat ions Upon collection of the 16 evaluations created for all 11 stores, analysts carefully inspected both the individual and collective performances of each store in search of their specific strengths and deficiencies. Generally speaking, it was found that all brands need to work on improving their chosen strategies for delivering stronger ‘Store Communication’, and offering more effective ways to ‘Communicate Events’. Additionally, each store needs to strengthen their offering of ‘Extras’ and ‘Buzz Products’. Summarized below are the individual and more specific recommendations offered for each brand. Armani

• Reconsider the store layout to more effectively display distinctions between the various Armani brands. Create three separate stores, or more clearly define spaces within the current store, to showcase each brand (Giorgio Armani, Emporio Armani, Armani Collezioni) under the Armani Group. This would help avoid brand dilution and confusion among consumers.

• Redesign staff uniforms. Sales personnel appeared informal and dressed in uncoordinated apparel.

• Strengthen visual merchandising and upkeep of the store, by using other colors besides an all

black décor. The dominant use of black made it difficult to clearly and easily see merchandise. Likewise, dust and fingerprints were more pronounced through the use of all black interiors.

Burberry

• Look to improve the overall upkeep of the store. Analysts observed scratched and worn-‐out displays and furnishings.

• Reduce quantity of merchandise assortment on display. Observations revealed that product

displays were overcrowded and appeared in excess.



20

• Strengthen visual merchandising in window displays. The window displays observed at the time of this study were perceived as dull and ineffective at generating emotional interest of the consumer.

• Improve welcoming greetings offered by sales personnel. The majority of analysts felt

unacknowledged as they entered the store. Chane l

• Create more attractive visual merchandising displays, both in the store front windows and inside the store. Analysts commented that displays were too classic and uninteresting, lacking creativity.

• Select music that is more relevant and consistent with the brand’s image and identity. The music

playlist was a distraction for many analysts while visitng the store, which influenced the perceived experience of the overall atmosphere.

• Improve the level of upkeep and window cleanliness seen throughout the store. These

parameters scored below average due to inconsitent performances, spotting visible evidence of scratches and unkept windows.

Dior

• Take extra care toward improving both store and window cleanliness. High traffic areas of the shop appeared more neglected in maintaining pristine conditions.

• Reduce the intensity of store lighting. Several analysts perceived the lighting to be overhwelming

and too bright for visible comfort. Dolce & Gabbana

• Improve the level of welcoming, greetings and interaction offered by sales personnel. Most analysts noted that the staff remained distant and unapproachable throughout their visit to the store.

• Create better methods for improving the store’s visual merchandising, upkeep and odors. Several

displays appeared overcrowded, messy and unorganized, while analysts also noted the presence of unpleasant odors throughout the store.

• Reconfigure the space allotted for each fiiting room and their subsequent level of cleanliness. They were perceived as too small and unkept, noting the appearance of dirt and stains.

Fend i

• Improve the level of welcoming, greetings and interaction offered by sales personnel. Staff weren’t positioned in the most optimal spots to welcome, receive and assist guests.

• Create better methods for improving the store’s overall upkeep. Evaluations revealed that chips

were present on several walls and wood displays throughout the store. Scratches were also visible on many fixtures.



21

Gucc i

• Improve the consistent level of welcoming and greetings offered by sales personnel. Opposing perceptions were gathered by analysts. Some people stated that the staff was unwelcoming and pretentious, while others experienced them to offer warm and helfpul assistance.

• Strengthen the level of product knowledge offered by sales personnel. Generally, staff appeared

uninformed and unaware of the differentiating values and details existing between each product when analysts asked for additional clarification.

• Redesign the layout of the fitting rooms and store lighting. Analysts perceived the rooms to be

poorly lit, extremly narrow and offering a distored reflection due to the tinted mirrors. Also, lighting was found to be too warm or “yellow”, and dim throughout the store. This made it difficult for analysts to see the true colors and details of an item.

• Reconfigure the visual merchandising diplays. Products appeared overcrowded, making them overwhelming to preview.

Hermes

• Redesign the store layout to offer a more efficient flow. Some analysts perceived that the store’s layout felt disconnected and created obstructive viewpoints that interupted the consumer’s walk throughout the store.

• Reduce the presence of uninviting odors. Comments were made about the unpleasant odors that

existed within the store. Some analysts couldn’t determine if the odor was masking other bad smells or left lingering from the overused spray of store fragrance testers.

• Create a more inviting atmosphere to receive customers. After being greeted at the door, most

analysts felt neglected and ignored during their visit to the shop; noting little interaction with the staff.

Louis Vu i t ton

• Improve the atmosphere and emotion created while visitng the store. The store felt chaotic and more reprsentative of a mass retailer atsosphere due to the high volume of traffic circulating throughout the store. This left most analysts void of experiencing postive and alluring emotions throughout their visit.

• Look to improve the overall cleanlienss and upkeep of the store. The large crowd of consumers

created more challenging obstacles in keeping the visual appearance of the store in pristine condition. More visitors equals greater wear-‐and-‐tear on the interiors and facilities of the store. Analysts noted furniture and displays appeared worn and used, while several areas appearead dirty and unpolished throughout the store.

Ralph Lauren

• Improve cleanliness and upkeep conditions. Several carpets were found frayed. Wood shelves were damaged and glass areas revealed an excess of fingerprints and smudges.



22

• Reconfiugre both fitting room and store lighting. Comments were made suggesting that the lighting was too yellow, and offered unflattering visual perspectives to guests as they tried-‐on apparel and observed merchandise throughout the store.

• Improve the welcoming greetings and quality of service offered by sales personnel. Analysts

perceived deficiencies in the level of customer service extended by the store’s staff members. This was especially noted in regards to the absence of proper entrance greetings. Associates were peceived to be lacking in their patience and courtesy toward guests. Likewise, they struggled to recall basic product knowledge when inquiries were made by the analysts.

Tom Ford

• Create stronger and more obvious forms of store communication. There appeared to be a lacking presence of visual display communication, both tranditional or digital. Although Tom Ford centers upons minimalist, product-‐focused communication, analysts struggled to make the connection between the various products on display and their relation to the brand. This was due to the noticeable absence of store signage.

• Reconfigure both fitting room and store lighting. Although used to create a specific mood and

ambiance, the dark interiors and dim-‐cast lighting created challenges for the analysts to easilty see merchandise throughout the entire store.



23



24

- Introduct ion -

Object ive

The P lus Minus Interest ing (PMI) is an ana ly t ica l too l often used in strategically determining and widening the perception of certain brands within the market, and to discover issues about themselves that otherwise might not have been considered. It allows an overall view of what they are doing right and what there are doing wrong, by considering pros and cons as well as other implications and possible outcomes resulting from the aforementioned actions.

The focus of th is s tudy was to examine the per formance of eleven brands in The Dubai Mall and the impressions they left in the mind of the consumers over the course of two days from October 12-‐13th, 2012. Each of the stores were measured against a set of 31 values, across a range from general aspects such as the store atmosphere and design layout, to specificities including sales personnel’s product knowledge and shoe cleanliness, and external presentation of the brands through in-‐store visual merchandising and window displays.

The purpose of the research is to compare both quant i ta t ive and qua l i ta t ive in format ion, with the aid of visual graphics, to showcase the high and low scores of each brand across the defined set of parameters, along with the highest and lowest scoring of brands within each parameter. Subsequent recommendations are suggested based on the analysis of each individual brand, together with the evaluation of each brands across the various parameters.



25

Env i ronment

The Dubai Mall, located in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, was specifically chosen as the premier location to most effectively evaluate buyer perceptions and attitudes toward some of the world’s leading luxury brand retailers. Opened in November 2008, The Dubai Mall presently stands as the world’s largest shopping center, based on a total area of over 12 million square feet. It is located within the 20 billion dollar Burg Khalifa complex and includes over 1,200 shops. As an epicenter for shopping, The Dubai Mall receives over 750,000 visitors a week. It has grown to become one of the world’s most-‐visited shopping and leisure destinations.

Ana lysts

This study was completed by the 2012-‐2013 Polimoda Luxury Management Graduate Class and led by market research consultant, Professor Benjamin Malhotra. Perceptions gathered for this report are comprised by a group of 16 luxury management graduate analysts of differing age, gender and nationality that visited The Dubai Mall to compile the initial research.

Ana lyst Background

Country Gender Age Country Gender Age China Male 25 India Female 25 China Male 35 India Male 23 China Female 24 Kenya Female 24 China Female 24 Lebanon Male 27 Columbia Female 30 United States Female 26 Canada Female 23 United States Female 29 France Female 27 Taiwan Female 22 Hong Kong Male 23 Taiwan Female 24



26

Approach And Methodology

The perception research gathered for this study was retrieved from The Dubai Mall on Friday, October 12, 2012 and Saturday, October 13, 2012. The approach and methodology used in this study offers three perspectives: an external comparison between brands from a macro viewpoint, an internal comparison of the individual store’s strongest and weakest PMI parameters, and an external comparison of the strongest and weakest stores within each of the 31 PMI parameters.

PMI Parameters

Atmosphere Evaluate the general mood or feeling that a customer experiences when they visit a store.

Buzz Product Evaluate whether or not the store offers any unordinary products, which attract additional interest of the consumer; made for extended word-‐of-‐mouth brand communication.

Cleanliness in Shop Evaluate the store’s overall tidiness in reaction to the observed occurrence of visible distractions such as fingerprints on glass displays, mirrors and windows; appearance of dust, etc.

Communicate Events Evaluate the visibility of various communication tools used to promote or mention present and future special brand events.

Emotion Evaluate store’s overall ability to offer consumer an impressive “wow effect” when they visit the store.

Extra Evaluate store’s ability to offer consumer something complimentary; such as catalogs, brochures or samples.

Fitting Room Cleanliness Evaluate the cleanliness conditions found with a store’s fitting rooms; seeking to determine if they are tidy and free of carpet or furniture stains, dust on floor, fingerprints on mirror, etc.

Fitting Room Lighting Evaluate appearance of lighting in the fitting room and how it affects the visible appearance of the product and person.



27

Fitting Room Mirror

Evaluate appropriate appearance of mirror size, length, shape.

Fitting Room Size Evaluate the comfort of a consumer’s visit to the fitting room based upon the size of space allotted for each room.

Interior Design Evaluate store’s overall conceptual development of interior space related to proper representation of the brand’s identity.

Lighting Evaluate the store’s overall use and appearance of lighting; how it affects the store atmosphere and visible presentation of products

Location Evaluate the perceived interpretation of the store’s overall location placement within The Dubai Mall.

Odor Evaluate the scent that is carried throughout the store.

Orderliness Evaluate the store’s organizational effectualness; observing if merchandise and displays have a pre-‐thought order and arrangement.

Price-‐Quality Perception Evaluate the perceived interpretation of a brand’s selected product quality assortment in relation to the product’s listed retail price.

Quality Perception Evaluate the perceived quality of products offered within the store; based upon each analyst’s initial interpretation.

Sales Personnel Appearance Evaluate personnel’s outward appearance in dress and grooming; asking if the appearance relates to proper representation of the brand’s core image and message.

Sales Personnel Greetings Evaluate the level of greetings and acknowledgement offered by staff when a consumer enters to visit a store.

Sales Personnel Language Evaluate the staff’s ability to speak in multiple languages and effectively communicate with consumers of different nationalities.

Sales Personnel Patience & Courtesy

Evaluate the staff’s ability to remain patient and respectful as they diligently answer questions and take time with each client.

Sales Personnel Product Information

Evaluate staff’s ability to instantly recall product knowledge regarding a variety of details (ex. price, material, composition, history).



28

Shoe Cleanliness

Evaluate the cleanliness of personnel’s shoes; looking for new and clean shoes.

Shoe Uniformity Evaluate the consistent look of all personnel’s shoes; determining if they match the chosen outfit and are made by the brand for which they represent in the store.

Store Communication Evaluate the presence of visible signs present within a store, including appearance of both traditional signage or digital communication (ex. t.v., i-‐Pad, etc.)

Store Layout Evaluate the overall store layout and ease of consumer’s ability to efficiently and effectively shop the store.

Store Temperature Evaluate the climate control within the store to determine the level of comfort it offers guests as they visit the store.

Upkeep Evaluate the store’s general appearance in terms of attention given toward overall maintenance; looking for what is scratched, damaged, stained, worn, etc.

Visual Merchandising Evaluate effectiveness of store’s visual displays and informative set-‐ups; asking if they serve to entice and stimulate a consumer’s desire to act and purchase.

Window Cleanliness

Window Visual Merchandising

Evaluate the general appearance and maintenance given toward a store’s display windows; looking for glass fingerprints, dust on floors, broken light bulbs.

Evaluate the effective appearance of a store’s window presentation; assessing how merchandise is creatively displayed in relation to the brand’s core image and message.

Note: A complimentary organization of the 31 PMI Parameters also exists by themes (Environment, Product, Communication, Sales Personnel) in the Appendix 1 page 143, in addition to their existing arrangement by alphabetical order as currently organized throughout the document.



29

PMI Sca le o f Assessment

The PMI study is the compilation of 16 mystery shopping sessions conducted in The Dubai Mall for 11 luxury brands, to assess the efficiency of their stores with regards to the parameters stated above in the PMI index. A point of scale that ranges from -‐1.0 to 1.0 to grade each parameter, deducting or adding half a point based on our observation of each category. The measurement scale is as follows: 1.0: Excellent 0.5: Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened -‐0.5: A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception -‐1.0: Very poor or unacceptable condition The averages obtained in this study are the sum of each parameter and of each luxury brand. This will enable brands to position themselves in comparison to their competitors on a scale ranging from -‐16.0 to 16.0. This points out the strengths and weaknesses of every luxury brand store at The Dubai Mall and help up position and highlight the problems and strengths they have.

Se lec ted Luxury Brands

The analysts defined a list of 11 internationally recognized luxury brands to compile an in-‐depth perception study of their personal shopping experiences at these stores in The Dubai Mall. The analysts various backgrounds provide a comprehensive overview of today’s luxury consumer market. The selected list of luxury retail stores chosen goes as follows:

1. Armani 2. Burberry 3. Chanel 4. Dior 5. Dolce & Gabbana 6. Fendi

7. Gucci 8. Hermès 9. Louis Vuitton 10. Ralph Lauren 11. Tom Ford



30

- PMI Analys is Resul ts - The PMI analysis results provide the perceptions gathered during the evaluation of the 11-‐selected luxury brands. Divided into three parts, the analysis results assess the PMI scores from three vantage points: an external comparison between brands from a macro viewpoint, an internal comparison of the individual store’s strongest and weakest PMI parameters, and an external comparison of the strongest and weakest stores within each of the 31 PMI parameters. The graph below allows a quick view of the brands results after analysis of the 31 parameters they were graded on. The report will further see the in-‐depth results for each brand and each parameter.



31

I -‐ Analysis per Brand



32

ARMANI

Note: The red line represents the average score documented for each individual PMI parameter, based upon the 11 stores reviewed. Its presence serves as a visible benchmark to see how each store performed per parameter in comparison against the average evaluation for each listed category.



33

Considering 16 different perceptions gathered by analysts of differing age, gender and nationality, this research recognizes the strengths and deficiencies found within the Armani retail store, located in The Dubai Mall. Composite Score Results -‐ Armani -‐ 10th Place It is important to mention that Armani received the second lowest PMI composite score (86.5 out of a scale ranging from -‐496.0 to 496.0) when compared to the eleven stores evaluated in this study. The average composite score received by each store was equivalent to 189.77. Reference page 28 to review additional composite score results regarding all eleven brands that were assessed.

Strongest Performances

1. Location: 15.5 2. Store Temperature: 12.5 3. Sales Personnel Language: 11.0

Weakest Performances 1. Buzz Products: -‐12.5

Extras: -‐12.5 2. Window Visual Merchandising: -‐5.5 3. Store Cleanliness: -‐3.5 Store Communication: -‐3.5 Window Cleanliness: -‐3.5

EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI parameters per brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition.

Collecting the 31 PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is eligible to receive a comprehensive evaluation based upon two perspectives from an internal and external viewpoint.

Perspective one offers an external comparison between brands by adding the combined total of each store’s 31 PMI score results to highlight the brand’s overall performance standing against the other brands assessed. The stores may receive a composite score ranging somewhere between -‐496.0 to 496.0.

Perspective two involves compiling and analyzing the individual assessment of each store’s 31 PMI scores based upon 16 perceptions to determine which PMI scores are considered the brand’s strongest and weakest performance indicators. Brands may receive a total individual PMI score ranging somewhere between -‐16.0 to 16.0.



34

Individual PMI Score Results The research reveals that the best and most positive PMI indicators for Armani were the store’s chosen ‘Location’ (15.5 out of a scale ranging from -‐16.0 to 16.0), followed by a comfortable ‘Store Temperature' (12.5) and an observed superiority in the ‘Sales Personnel Language’ abilities (11.0). Analysts noted that the store’s location appeared to be more visible than some of other surrounding brands due to the strategic placement of the Armani Café, which is located in the middle of the Fashion Avenue center, outside of the Armani store. This serves as an additional brand reinforcement tool. Under weak performances, negative scores were noted for nine of the thirty-‐one PMI parameters assessed. Of the three weakest PMI scores received, Armani scored the lowest for their lack of visible ‘Buzz Products’ (-‐12.5) and available ‘Extras’ (-‐12.5); such as catalogs, brochures and samples. Secondly, it was perceived that Armani did not offer strong ‘Window Visual Merchandising’ (-‐5.5) or ‘Visual Merchandising’ (-‐2.0). Products were observed as being displayed in an unimaginative manner. In a tie for third, it was perceived that Armani strongly lacked in offering an acceptable level of ‘Store Cleanliness’ (-‐3.5) and ‘Store Communication’ (-‐3.5). Looking closer, it was noted that Armani fell short in many other parameter categories including the poor ‘Sales Personnel Appearance’ (4.5), and the weak view of ‘Quality Perception’ (0.5) and ‘Price-‐Quality Perception’ (3.0). In addition, it is to be note that despite its positive score (9.0), the ‘Store Layout’ was found to be confusing by a group of analysts, as it housed three different lines of the Armani Group under the same store. Analyst Sampling: Positive Observations

• “Prime location and central to other hub of luxury retailers with Armani Café located just outside of the shop.” (Regarding PMI: Location)

• “Made great use of i-‐Pads in the store to view catalogues.” (Regarding PMI: Store Communication)

• “Large open space, could see throughout the entire store.” (Regarding PMI: Store Layout) Analyst Sampling: Need For Improvement Observations

• “Uniforms primarily seemed very casual and almost looked cheap.” (Regarding PMI: Personnel Appearance)

• “Overpriced for the quality represented. Confusing…store housed three tiers of brands: Emporio Armani, Giorgio Armani and Armani Collezioni. It made the cheaper lines look overpriced…and the luxury line looked cheap.” (Regarding PMI: Price-‐Quality Perception)

• “Dark products on black surfaces made it hard to see products properly. Poor product line differentiation.” (Regarding PMI: Visual Merchandising)

Note: For additional sample quotes, refer to the appendix p.142.



35

BURBERRY




36

Considering 16 different perceptions gathered by analysts of differing age, gender and nationality, this research recognizes the strengths and deficiencies found within the Burberry retail store, located in The Dubai Mall. Composite Score Results -‐ Burberry -‐ 9th Place It is important to mention that Burberry received a below average PMI composite score (148.0 out of a scale ranging from -‐496.0 to 496.0) when compared to the eleven stores evaluated in this study.

Strongest Performances 1. Fitting Room Lighting: 15.0 2. Quality Perception: 12.5 3. Fitting Room Size: 11.5

Weakest Performances 1. Extras: -‐15.0 2. Communicate Events: -‐6.5 3. Buzz Product: -‐4.5

The average composite score received by each store was equivalent to 189.77. Reference page 28 to review additional composite score results regarding all eleven brands that were assessed.







37

Individual PMI Score Results Burberry received the highest PMI score for positive observations regarding the conditions of their ‘Fitting Room Lighting’ (15.0 out of a scale ranging from -‐16.0 to 16.0). It was noted that the lighting offered guests a flattering environment to see themselves in the garments. Burberry also received high PMI scores for the observed ‘Quality Perception’ (12.5) of their products and notice of their generous ‘Fitting Room Size’ (11.5). Most analysts agreed that Burberry offered fantastic fabrication of garments, using quality materials that incorporated excellent finishing details. Additionally, it was perceived that the size and design of the fitting rooms offered guests a relaxing environment to try on apparel. The lowest received PMI scores were due to analysts’ inability to locate available ‘Extras’ (-‐15.0); such as catalogs, brochures and samples. Also lacking in strength, Burberry received low marks for their neglect to ‘Communicate Events’ (-‐6.5) and offer a memorable ‘Buzz Product’ (-‐4.5) that would catch the continued interest of a consumer once they leave the store. Burberry revealed weak performances with regards to offering consistent ‘Sales Personnel Greetings’ (3.5), enticing consumer ‘Emotion’ (2.5) and maintaining adequate store ‘Upkeep’ (0.5). Additionally, inadequacies were noted for the absence of effective store ‘Orderliness’ (-‐4.0) due to the overcrowded assortment of merchandise. Analyst Sampling: Positive Observations

• “Strong, interesting and good use of technology to constantly communicate the Burberry brand/message/heritage.” (Regarding PMI: Store Communication)

• “Sales assistant was very patient and helpful, went to look for my friends around the store to get their opinions.” (Regarding PMI: Sales Personnel Patience & Courtesy)

• “Nice and spacious with all necessary practical features.” (Regarding PMI: Fitting Room Size)

Analyst Sampling: Need For Improvement Observations • “Confusing to know where you are in the store. Lots of product; doesn’t allow for good

visibility.” (Regarding PMI: Store Layout) • “Overcrowded merchandise in clothing area. Sunglasses display extended well above the

reach of any human without a ladder of sorts.” (Regarding PMI: Visual Merchandising) • “Needs urgent makeover…walls need to be painted and retouched, the furniture looks

worn out, the floor is scratched, new counter fits etc.” (Regarding PMI: Upkeep) Note: For additional sample quotes, refer to the appendix p.148.



38

CHANEL




39

Considering 16 different perceptions gathered by analysts of differing age, gender and nationality, this research recognizes the strengths and deficiencies found within the Chanel retail store, located in The Dubai Mall. Composite Score Results -‐ Chanel – 2nd Place It is important to mention that Chanel received an incredibly high PMI composite score (285.5 out of a scale ranging from -‐496.0 to 496.0) when compared to the eleven stores evaluated in this study.

Strongest Performances 1. Fitting Room Size: 16.0 2. Fitting Room Lighting: 15.5 3. Fitting Room Cleanliness: 15.0

Weakest Performances 1. Buzz Products: -‐3.0 2. Extras: -‐2.5 3. Communicate Events: 1.0








40

Individual PMI Score Results Chanel’s top three ranking PMI scores pertain to the superior satisfaction found in the quality of their fitting rooms. This included receiving a perfect score in the category for ‘Fitting Room Size’ (16.0 out of a scale ranging from -‐16.0 to 16.0), where analysts noted that the spacious rooms offered guests the comfort of trying on apparel with the help of sales associates, while still maintaining an atmosphere of personal privacy. It was also perceived that the quality of their ‘Fitting Room Lighting’ (15.5) and ‘Fitting Room Cleanliness’ (15.0) were near next to perfect from the perspective of the 16 analysts. Collectively, it’s important to emphasize that Chanel received all positive PMI scores for each of the 31 categories assessed, except two negative-‐scored indicators including the store’s absence of a ‘Buzz Product’ (-‐3.0) and lack of offering guests ‘Extras’ (-‐2.5); such as catalogs, brochures and samples. It was also noted that although receiving mostly positive PMI scores, Chanel received low positive marks for PMI parameters related to their inability to properly ‘Communicate Events’ (1.0) and maintain the store’s professional ‘Upkeep’ (1.5). Feedback revealed that this particular Chanel store displayed old, frayed carpets and scratched fixtures and mirrors. In spite of receiving above average scores in comparison against other brands, Chanel could still make improvements in their ‘Visual Merchandising’ (9.5) and ‘Window Visual Merchandising’ (8.0) to help enhance the overall ‘Atmosphere’ (8.5) and ‘Emotion’ (8.0) experienced by a guest. Analyst Sampling: Positive Observations

• “Very flattering side lighting.” (Regarding PMI: Fitting Room Lighting) • “Extremely patient and kind salesperson, truly impressive and above average.”

(Regarding PMI: Sales Personnel Patience & Courtesy) • “Well divided into clear sections, popular bags at front and clothes at back -‐ logical

retailing.” (Regarding PMI: Store Layout) Analyst Sampling: Need For Improvement Observations

• “A bit confusing, lots of products close to the cash wrap and the price didn’t match the idea of a buzz product.” (Regarding PMI: Buzz Products)

• “Weak. Cheesy. Synthetic amethyst gemstones scattered around floor and display. Looked cheap.” (Regarding PMI: Window Visual Merchandising)

• “The music playing was hip-‐hop and that's not part of DNA of the brand.” (Regarding PMI: Atmosphere)

Note: For additional sample quotes, refer to the appendix p. 153.



41

D IOR




42


Considering 16 different perceptions gathered by analysts of differing age, gender and nationality, this research recognizes the strengths and deficiencies found within the Dior retail store, located in The Dubai Mall. Composite Score Results -‐ Dior – 1st Place It is important to mention that Dior set the standard in meeting analyst’s expectations of what was considered a top-‐performing luxury brand. Dior earned first place by receiving the highest PMI composite score (303.5 out of a scale ranging from -‐496.0 to 496.0) when compared to the eleven stores evaluated in this study.

Strongest Performances 1. Fitting Room Cleanliness: 16.0 2. Fitting Room Lighting: 15.5 Visual Merchandising: 15.5 3. Shoe Cleanliness: 15.0

Weakest Performances 1. Buzz Product: -‐4.0 2. Extras: -‐3.5 3. Lighting: -‐0.5







43

Individual PMI Score Results Collectively, Dior scored extremely high in numerous PMI categories. It was determined that Dior’s strongest PMI parameter was in relation to the store’s ‘Fitting Room Cleanliness’ (16.0 out of a scale ranging from -‐16.0 to 16.0), for which they received a perfect score. Analysts observed that the fitting rooms were clean, tidy and well maintained with a white décor. Dior also received two near-‐perfect scores from analysts that appreciated the store’s flattering ‘Fitting Room Lighting’ (15.5) and alluring ‘Visual Merchandising’ displays (15.5). On the weaker side, there was little evidence of any visible ‘Buzz Products’ (-‐4.0) that would enhance communication and catch the interest of a consumer. There was also a lack of visibly offered ‘Extras’ (-‐3.5); such as catalogs, brochures and samples. Although, it was noted that some analysts were given catalogs only after following an extended interaction with a Dior sales associate. In spite of receiving high marks for the stores ‘Fitting Room Lighting’, Dior received low marks for the perceived quality of the store’s overall ‘Lighting’ (-‐0.5). Analysts noted that that lighting was inconsistent and often too bright in some areas. It was also discovered that more time and effort should be focused on maintaining the store’s ‘Window Cleanliness’ (7.0) and ‘Window Visual Merchandising’ (6.5) and ‘Upkeep’ (8.0). Analyst Sampling: Positive Observations

• “Superior. The shop manager and another associate spent 40 minutes helping us. Giving us great info about the brand/story. They were happy to do their job. Passionate about Dior.” (Regarding PMI: Sales Personnel Patience & Courtesy)

• “Gorgeous. Impressive entry with custom chairs and amazing video screens that wrapped around entire front room.” (Regarding PMI: Interior Design)

• “Absolute wow-‐effect in regards of the quality of the service and the smoothness of the entire process.” (Regarding PMI: Emotion)

Analyst Sampling: Need For Improvement Observations • “Too bright throughout the entire store.” (Regarding PMI: Store Lighting) • “The walls were dirty and there were many chips visible; restoration needed.” (Regarding

PMI: Upkeep) • The store’s external LED-‐imprinted Dior print was a bit overwhelming when approaching

the store entrance.” (Regarding PMI: Window Visual Merchandising) Note: For additional sample quotes, refer to the appendix p. 158.



44

DOLCE & GABANNA




45

Considering 16 different perceptions gathered by analysts of differing age, gender and nationality, this research recognizes the strengths and deficiencies found within the Dolce & Gabbana retail store, located in The Dubai Mall. Composite Score Results – Dolce & Gabbana – 11th Place Dolce & Gabbana received the lowest PMI composite score (-‐5.0 out of a scale ranging from -‐496.0 to 496.0) when compared to the eleven stores evaluated in this study.

Strongest Performances 1. Location: 14.5 2. Store Layout: 10.0 3. Orderliness: 8.5

Weakest Performances 1. Store Communication: -‐11.0 2. Sales Personnel Greetings: -‐8.5 3. Communicate Events: -‐8.0 Extras: -‐8.0


EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI parametes per brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition.






46

Individual PMI Score Results Collectively, Dolce & Gabbana scored extremely poor in the majority of the 31 PMI parameters that were evaluated, which included receiving 14 negative PMI scores. Based on the 16 analyst’s perceptions, Dolce & Gabbana received their highest PMI score for the ‘Location’ (14.5 out of a scale ranging from -‐16.0 to 16.0) of their store amidst other luxury brands located on Fashion Avenue. They also received high marks for their ‘Store Layout’ (10.0). Some analysts agreed that the store was smartly designed into departmentalized rooms. These smaller rooms offered shoppers an opportunity to pass through the different sections of the store with greater ease.

Dolce & Gabbana received their lowest PMI score for a lack of visible ‘Store Communication’ (-‐11.). Given their history of extensive ad campaigns, analysts noted that the store didn’t provide additional internal communication to reinforce the brand’s acknowledged image and message.

They also performed low under the categories of ‘Communicate Events’ (-‐8.0) and offering ‘Extras’ (-‐8.0); such as catalogs, brochures and samples. Another low PMI score to be considered was Dolce & Gabbana’s lack of extending an appropriate ‘Sales Personnel Greeting’ (-‐8.5). The majority of analysts agreed that they were not warmly welcomed when entering and shopping in the store. It was perceived that personnel remained cold, distant and disengaged with guests.

Additional weak performances included unfavorable perceptions made toward the ‘Fitting Room Cleanliness’ (-‐4.0), which was found to be small, dirty and containing random stains on the carpet. Analysts also agreed that the overall condition of the store was lacking in strong ‘Visual Merchandising’ (2.0) and an unpleasant ‘Odor’ (-‐0.5) filled the space. Analyst Sampling: Positive Observations

• “Quite adequate in size. Offered convenience of four rooms.” (Regarding PMI: Fitting Room Size)

• “Good lighting. Natural light coming in the back room through the big windows.” (Regarding PMI: Store Lighting)

• “Store layout went from menswear towards womenswear with a clear and nice flow.” (Regarding PMI: Store Layout)

Analyst Sampling: Need For Improvement Observations • “Dull. Uninteresting. Overcrowded accessories. Two perfume bottles on display at check-‐

out where empty. Empty sunglass displays.” (Regarding PMI: Visual Merchandising) • “None of the staff attempted to engage with me. I felt non-‐existent.” (Regarding PMI:

Sales Personnel Patience & Courtesy) • “Messy. Messy. Staff were unpacking clothing on display tables around multiple locations

in shop.” (Regarding PMI: Orderliness) Note: For additional sample quotes, refer to the appendix p. 164.



47

FENDI




48

Considering 16 different perceptions gathered by analysts of differing age, gender and nationality, this research recognizes the strengths and deficiencies found within the Fendi retail store, located in The Dubai Mall. Composite Score Results -‐ Fendi -‐ 6th Place Fendi received an above average PMI composite score (207.0 out of a scale ranging from -‐496.0 to 496.0) when compared to the eleven stores evaluated in this study.

Strongest Performances 1. Fitting Room: Cleanliness: 15.5

Location: 15.5 2. Shoe Cleanliness: 14.0 3. Interior Design: 12.5

Weakest Performances 1. Extras: -‐15.0 2. Store Communication: -‐9.0 3. Communicate Events: -‐7.5








49

Individual PMI Score Results The research reveals that the highest performing PMI indicators for Fendi were in relation to the perceived superior quality condition of their ‘Fitting Room Cleanliness’ (15.5 out of a scale ranging from -‐16.0 to 16.0) and the desirable space of their store ‘Location’ (15.5), which was situated in the middle of Fashion Avenue. Additionally, analysts offered high marks for the appearance of the personnel’s ‘Shoe Cleanliness’ (14.0), in which it was mentioned that they all looked clean and new. Fendi also scored high under the ‘Interior Design’ (12.5) category. Analysts were impressed with the sleek and well-‐designed interiors. The bold marble designs offered a clean and effective backdrop to compliment the luxurious feeling of the products and brand image. Under weak performances, negative scores were noted for five of the thirty-‐one PMI categories assessed. The worst PMI score was given to Fendi’s inability to offer guests any visible ‘Extras’ (-‐15.0); such as brochures, catalogs and samples. They also scored low under the PMI categories for ‘Store Communication’ (-‐9.0) and ‘Communicate Events’ (-‐7.5). The majority of analysts were unable to locate any special event communication or general store brand communication (both traditional or digital) that further emphasized Fendi’s brand message and identity to consumers as they walked throughout the store. When taking a second glance at results, weak performances were also found within Fendi’s inability to offer consistent ‘Sales Personnel Greetings’ (-‐0.5) and maintain a pristine ‘Upkeep’ (1.0) of the store. Analyst Sampling: Positive Observations

• “Fendi had a good layout flow. You could easily see through the store and spaces were clearly defined.” (Regarding PMI: Store Layout)

• “Happy, updated, sleek modern and inviting atmosphere.” (Regarding PMI: Interior Design)

• “Few windows but the store was open and very inviting, not intimidating.” (Regarding PMI: Atmosphere)

Analyst Sampling: Need For Improvement Observations • “Not particularly enticing in accessories section, but womenswear was displayed nicely.”

(Regarding PMI: Visual Merchandising) • “Dirty and dusty displays especially in accessories section.” (Regarding PMI: Cleanliness

In Shop) • “Window display not separated from store, difficult to see clearly the outfits with store

background.” (Regarding PMI: Window Visual Merchandising) Note: For additional sample quotes, refer to the appendix p. 170.



50

GUCCI




51

Considering 16 different perceptions gathered by analysts of differing age, gender and nationality, this research recognizes the strengths and deficiencies found within the Gucci retail store, located in The Dubai Mall. Composite Score Results -‐ Gucci -‐ 8th Place Gucci received a below average PMI composite score (149.5 out of a scale ranging from -‐496.0 to 496.0) when compared to the eleven stores evaluated in this study.

Strongest performances 1. Location: 14.0 2. Fitting Room Cleanliness: 12.5 Sales Personnel Language: 12.5 Store Layout: 12.5 3. Orderliness: 10.0 Weakest performances

1. Extras: -‐11.0 2. Store Communication: -‐7.5 3. Cleanliness in Shop: -‐1.5








52

Individual PMI Score Results ‘Store Location’ (14.0 out of a scale ranging from -‐16.0 to 16.0) was considered Gucci’s strongest PMI indicator. They were strategically located along Fashion Avenue, adjacent to Chanel and Louis Vuitton. Gucci’s second highest performing PMI indicator was a three-‐way tie between an appreciation of their ‘Fitting Room Cleanliness’ (12.5), elevated levels of their ‘Sales Personnel Language’ (12.5) abilities and accessible ‘Store Layout’ (12.5). Gucci also received high marks for the appearance of their ‘Store ‘Orderliness’ (10.0), despite some analyst remarks regarding an observed overabundance of merchandise. Collectively, it was still found to be well-‐organized in a non-‐confusing manner. It is important to note that Gucci was one of the few stores to receive high scores for their ability to offer guests a ‘Buzz Product’. Gucci captured analyst’s attention by showcasing geographically-‐limited products alongside a made-‐to-‐order heritage bag display. However, Gucci scored substantially below average in PMI categories that involved the appearance of providing ‘Extras’ (-‐11.0); such as catalogs, brochures and samples. Likewise they received low marks for the perceived quality of their ‘Cleanliness in Shop’ (-‐1.5). Analysts found the store to be covered in fingerprints and remarked that shelves and displays were scratched, reflecting certain upkeep issues. ‘Price Quality Perception’ (-‐0.5) was also noted as a concern perceived by analysts who stated that products appeared to be overpriced given the use of unimpressive materials.

Analyst Sampling: Positive Observations

• “Loved that they displayed complete looks without using traditional mannequins, allowed the consumer to picture themselves in the outfit and not the mannequin. Put hats above hanging rack of clothing…and boots underneath the outfit.” (Visual Merchandising)

• “Overheard multiple languages spoken by different sales associates.” (Sales Personnel: Language)

• “Organized well, not confusing, bit too many products on display.” (Orderliness) Analyst Sampling: Need For Improvement Observations

• “Saleslady was condescending when describing an 'exclusive' bag as crocodile when it was clearly alligator.” (Sales Personnel: Patience & Courtesy)

• “Lighting was a bit too warm (yellow), needed to consult various mirrors to check true color of items.” (Lighting)

• “Can see around the shop well, but the little islands and chairs made it difficult to move around when there were many people in the shop.” (Store layout)




53

HERMES




54

Considering 16 different perceptions gathered by analysts of differing age, gender and nationality, this research recognizes the strengths and deficiencies found within the Hermes retail store, located in The Dubai Mall. Composite Score Results -‐ Hermes – 3rd Place Hermes received the third highest PMI composite score (276.0 out of a scale ranging from -‐496.0 to 496.0) when compared to the eleven stores evaluated in this study. The average composite score received by each store was equivalent to 189.77. Reference page 28 to review additional composite score results regarding all eleven brands that were assessed.

Strongest Performances 1. Location: 16.0 2. Fitting Room Mirror: 15.5 Fitting Room Size: 15.5 3. Fitting Room Cleanliness: 15.0 Fitting Room Lighting: 15.0 Sales Personnel Appearance: 15.0 Store Temperature: 15.0

Weakest Performances 1. Communicate Events: -‐7.5 2. Store Communication: -‐3.0 3. Extras: 0.0







55

Individual PMI Score Results Hermes received numerous outstanding PMI scores including a top-‐performing score for the ‘Location’ (16.0 out of a scale ranging from -‐16.0 to 16.0) of its store along Fashion Avenue. Other high-‐scoring PMI indicators revealed that Hermes offered excellent ‘Fitting Room Mirrors’ (15.5) and generous ‘Fitting Room Sizes’ (15.5). It was also perceived that they were extremely successful in offering guests superior ‘Fitting Room Cleanliness’ (15.0), flattering ‘Fitting Room Lighting’ (15.0), well-‐groomed ‘Sales Personnel Appearance’ (15.0) and comfortable ‘Store Temperature’ (15.0). Although Hermes mostly received positive ranking PMI scores, they did score negatively in two categories regarding their inability to ‘Communicate Events’ (-‐7.5) and offer additional ‘Store Communication’ (-‐3.0). These communication indicators were surprisingly low when considering the rich heritage of the Hermes brand and products. They also performed low in offering guests any ‘Extras’ (0.0); such as brochures, catalogs and samples. Looking beyond the lowest scoring PMI indicators for Hermes, it’s beneficial to mention that the store also placed low in categories related to the ‘Atmosphere’ (4.0) and store ‘Odor’ (4.0) perceived by guests. Likewise, there were deficiencies found within the offered, and sometimes absent, ‘Store Personnel Greetings’ (4.0) and expressed confusion surrounding the ‘Store Layout’ (4.0). Analyst Sampling: Positive Observations

• “Great displays. Awesome window front with jungle theme that incorporated wild print and colors of signature jewelry and scarves.” (Regarding PMI: Window Visual Merchandising)

• “Comfortable room with sitting areas.” (Regarding PMI: Fitting Room Size) • “Received an Hermes catalog with very interesting, creative, and quality content inside.

Also saw fresh flowers throughout whole store.” (Regarding PMI: Extras) Analyst Sampling: Need For Improvement Observations

• “Layout was too complicated, hidden corners/areas with products that some customers may not realize or walk through.” (Regarding PMI: Store Layout)

• “Decent. Nothing grand. Really ugly floor tiles in one part of store. Looks like a shower room.” (Regarding PMI: Interior Design)

• “Scratched wood displays. Tattered and frayed carpets. (Regarding PMI: Upkeep) Note: For additional sample quotes, refer to the appendix p. 180.



56

LOUIS VUITTON




57

Considering 16 different perceptions gathered by analysts of differing age, gender and nationality, this research recognizes the strengths and deficiencies found within the Louis Vuitton retail store, located in The Dubai Mall. Composite Score Results – Louis Vuitton -‐ 7th Place Louis Vuitton performed below average when reviewing their collective PMI composite score (153.5 out of a scale ranging from -‐496.0 to 496.0) when compared to the eleven stores evaluated in this study.

Strongest Performances 1. Location: 15.5 2. Store Temperature: 13.0 3. Fitting Room Size: 12.0 Shoe Cleanliness: 12.0

Weakest Performances 1. Extras: -‐15.0 2. Communicate Events: -‐10.0 3. Emotion: -‐4.0








58

Individual PMI Score Results After completing a visit to Louis Vuitton, the majority of analysts awarded high scores for the desirable ‘Location’ (15.5 out of a scale ranging from -‐16.0 to 16.0) of the shop, which was located along a main corner of Fashion Avenue. Analysts also marked high for the comfortable conditions of the ‘Store Temperature’ (13.0) and spacious ‘Fitting Room Size’ (12.0). ‘Shoe Cleanliness’ (12.0) was additionally acknowledged as a strong parameter. Under weak performances, negative scores were noted for five of the thirty-‐one PMI categories assessed. Louis Vuitton received their worst PMI score for their inability to offer anything complimentary to consumers when they shopped the store in relation to receiving ‘Extras’ (-‐15.0); such as catalogs, brochures and samples. They also scored low in their visible absence to ‘Communicate Events’ (-‐10.0) because analysts could not easily find information regarding current and future event promotions. Although it was not their lowest PMI score, it is important to emphasize Louis Vuitton offered a weak performance under the ‘Emotion’ (-‐4.0) category. Analysts observed that the store did not leave any lasting impression or ‘wow effect’ after visiting the store. Complaints were made that the store appeared overcrowded and overstocked with merchandise, resulting in a less than luxurious feeling. Analysts also noted that the store needed to extend additional attendance to the overall ‘Cleanliness in Shop’ (4.0) and general ‘Upkeep’ (-‐2.5). Analyst Sampling: Positive Observations

• “Great location within Fashion Avenue, occupied corner leading to the center of Fashion Avenue.” (Regarding PMI: Location)

• “Staff was very nice and patient, helpful in writing down product code to check at other stores.” (Regarding PMI: Sales Personnel: Patience & Courtesy)

• “Explained the leather used and monogram series.” (Regarding PMI: Sales Personnel: Product Information)

Analyst Sampling: Need For Improvement Observations • “A bit confusing, maze-‐like; no clear passage or flow.” (Regarding PMI: Store Layout) • ”Too many products displayed everywhere in every corner, a bit like a zoo.” (Regarding

PMI: Visual Merchandising) • “Felt like we had entered a fast fashion brand. Crowds of people.” (Regarding PMI:

Atmosphere) Note: For additional sample quotes, refer to the appendix p. 185.



59

RALPH LAUREN




60

Considering 16 different perceptions gathered by analysts of differing age, gender and nationality, this research recognizes the strengths and deficiencies found within the Ralph Lauren retail store, located in The Dubai Mall. Composite Score Results – Ralph Lauren -‐ 5th Place Ralph Lauren received an above average PMI composite score (220.5 out of a scale ranging from -‐496.0 to 496.0) when compared to the eleven stores evaluated in this study. The average composite score received by each store was equivalent to 189.77. Reference page 28 to review additional composite score results regarding all eleven brands that were assessed.

Strongest Performances 1. Sales Personnel Appearance: 14.5 2. Fitting Room Size: 14.0 3. Fitting Room Mirror: 13.5 Location: 13.5 Shoe Cleanliness: 13.5

Weakest Performances 1. Extras: -‐15.0 2. Buzz Product: -‐0.5 Price-‐Quality Perception: -‐0.5 Store Communication: -‐0.5 3. Window Cleanliness: 1.0







61

Individual PMI Score Results Ralph Lauren performed exceptionally well under the PMI categories for quality of ‘Sales Personnel Appearance’ (14.5 out of a scale ranging from -‐16.0 to 16.0) and comfort of their ‘Fitting Room Sizes’ (14.0). They also received high scores in satisfaction and appreciation of their ‘Fitting Room Mirrors’ (13.5), store ‘Location’ (13.5) and impressive ‘Shoe Cleanliness’ (13.5) of personnel. On the weaker side, Ralph Lauren received an almost unanimous vote among the sixteen analysts who acknowledged the store’s lack of offering ‘Extras’ (-‐15.0); such as catalogs, brochures or samples to guests. Analysts were also unable to locate any visibly showcased ‘Buzz Products’ (-‐0.5) that would enhance communication and catch the interest of a consumer upon departure from the store. Additionally, negative reflections were made regarding the overall ‘Price-‐Quality Perception’ (-‐0.5) of merchandise that was on display. Most analysts commented that items appeared exaggerated in price for the quality of apparel represented. Equally low, Ralph Lauren performed weak under the ‘Store Communication’ (-‐0.5) category for not offering more visibly effective communication tools (both traditional and digital). Lastly, it was noted that Ralph Lauren received a low PMI score for ‘Window Cleanliness’ (1.0) because analysts observed visible dust, scratches and streaks along the main store front window displays.

Other weak parameter performances included poor lighting in both the fitting rooms and throughout the entire store. Complaints were made that the lighting was too yellow and cast a misrepresented view of the apparel. It was also noted that some sales personnel were somewhat disengaged with clients and unknowledgeable about certain products when inquiries were made. Analyst Sampling: Positive Observations

• “Seemed bothered/annoyed by my request to try things on.” (Regarding PMI: Sales Personnel Patience & Courtesy)

• “Beautiful. Elegant. Sophisticated. Homey. Matched brand's image and heritage.” (Regarding PMI: Interior Design)

• “The communication throughout the store to communicate image and heritage of the brand was not evident though present.” (Regarding PMI: Store Communication)

Analyst Sampling: Need For Improvement Observations • “Little beat-‐up. Columns scratched. Frayed carpet in shoe room. Lamp cords dangling from

counter displays. Scratched wood shelves.” (Regarding PMI: Upkeep) • “Not consistent, a lot of items seemed overpriced.” (Regarding PMI: Price-‐Quality Perception) • “Visible streaks on windows.” (Regarding PMI: Window Cleanliness)




62

TOM FORD




63

Considering 16 different perceptions gathered by analysts of differing age, gender and nationality, this research recognizes the strengths and deficiencies found within the Tom Ford retail store, located in The Dubai Mall. Composite Score Results – Tom Ford -‐ 4th Place Tom Ford received an above average PMI composite score (262.5.0 out of a scale ranging from -‐496.0 to 496.0) when compared to the eleven stores evaluated in this study.

Strongest Performances 1. Fitting Room Cleanliness: 15.5 2. Cleanliness in Shop: 15.0 Orderliness: 15.0 Store Temperature: 15.0 3. Quality Perception: 14.5

Weakest Performances 1. Communicate Events: -‐12.0 2. Extras: -‐10.0 3. Store Communication: -‐9.0


EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31PMI parameters per brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition.






64

Individual PMI Score Results Collectively, Tom Ford received over the majority of positive PMI scores in review of all thirty-‐one categories that were assessed for each store in this study. Many of Tom Ford’s positive PMI scores held higher than the average scores found within each individual PMI comparison from store to store.

The highest performing PMI categories for Tom Ford were in relation to the analysts’ mutual perception that the store offered immaculate cleanliness. ‘Fitting Room Cleanliness’ (15.5 out of a scale ranging from -‐16.0 to 16.0), ‘Cleanliness In Shop’ (15.0) and ‘Orderliness’ (15.0) all received near-‐next-‐to-‐perfect scores. Analysts commented on the consistent focus that was placed in offering thorough attention to details. This perception of superior cleanliness was reflective in the seemingly great pains that were taken to keep products neatly displayed. Likewise, Tom Ford received high scores for the comfortable level of their ‘Store Temperature’ (15.0) and perceived appreciation of their ‘Quality Perception’ (14.5) of products which remained consistent with the brand’s image and reputation. However, Tom Ford received rather negative scores with respect to their inability to ‘Communicate Events’ (-‐12.0) or offer additional ‘Store Communication’ (-‐9.0) that would serve as follow-‐up “conversation” to reinforce their brand among clients. Analysts overwhelmingly observed that there were no attempt to provide any type of print or media communication to help bridge the gap between the luxury consumer and the Tom Ford brand. Analysts also remarked that the store did not offer guests any readily available ‘Extras’ (-‐10.0); such as catalog, brochures or samples. Adequate store lighting presented an additional weakness found within the store. Analysts had a hard time properly seeing merchandise as they shopped due to the dim-‐cast lighting in the fitting rooms and throughout the entire store. Analyst Sampling: Positive Observations

• “Excellent quality perception; hand-‐stitching details and exotic materials.” (Regarding PMI: Quality Perception)

• “Very modern and contemporary with and edgy feeling.” (Regarding PMI: Interior Design) • “Knowledgeable staff, explained the distinction in their product’s leather grades and

elaborated upon special and unique products.” (Regarding PMI: Sales Personnel Product Information)

Analyst Sampling: Need For Improvement Observations • “Empty perfume bottles at perfume display section.” (Regarding PMI: Visual Merchandising) • “Horribly dim and insufficient, had to go near entrance to catch better lighting.” (Regarding

PMI: Store Lighting) • “Immediate greeting, however staff was crowded at the entrance by a desk, felt a bit

strange.” (Regarding PMI: Sales Personnel Greeting) Note: For additional sample quotes, refer to the appendix p. 197.



65

II -‐ Analysis Per PMI Parameter

Note: A complimentary organization of the 31 PMI Parameters also exists by themes (Environment, Product, Communication, Sales Personnel) in the Appendix 1 page 143, in addition to their existing arrangement by alphabetical order as currently organized throughout the document.



66

ATMOSPHERE

Note: The red line represents the average score of the parameter, based upon the 11 stores reviewed. Its presence serves as a visible benchmark to see how each store performed per parameter in comparison against the average evaluation for each listed category.



67

To asses the atmosphere, the analysts observed the overall mood of the store considering factors such as the service from the sales personnel, the design and display of the products as well as the lighting, decor, facilities and music in the store. The results of the graph indicate that our analysts generally perceived a good energy within the 11 stores visited. Dior (12.5) received the highest score, closely followed by Tom Ford (11.5) and Ralph Lauren (10.0). Dior, for example, was very strong in conveying the ‘Dior’ mood, while Tom Ford’s atmosphere appeared to be serious, sophisticated, dark and glamorous.

Strongest Performers

1. Dior: 12.5 2. Tom Ford: 11.5 3. Ralph Lauren: 10.0

Weakest Performers 1. Dolce & Gabbana: -‐5.5 2. Louis Vuitton: -‐3.0 3. Armani: 3.5

However, the only two stores with negative scores were Dolce & Gabbana (-‐5.5) with the lowest score, and Louis Vuitton (-‐3.0). Some contributing factors for the low scores include; being perceived as too busy, thus not providing customers with a pleasant, helpful atmosphere or that stores came off as vain and dull.

PMI PARAMATER: Atmosphere-‐evaluate the general mood or feeling that a customer experiences when they visit a store. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



68

BUZZ PRODUCTS




69

Amongst the 11 stores analyzed, few had any products to excite the customers and give them something to talk about. Hermes (9.0) received the highest score, as analysts found that the playing cards, exotic board games and horse riding equipment added some excitement to the selection of products offered in the store. Many of analysts also found there to be some buzz products at Gucci (8.5) and Louis Vuitton (5.5).

Strongest Performers 1. Hermes: 9.0 2. Gucci: 8.5 3. Louis Vuitton: 5.5 Weakest Performers 1. Armani: -‐12.5 2. Burberry: -‐4.5 3. Dior: -‐4.0

There was some confusion among the analysts when it came to assessing the presence or absence of buzz products, where in some cases, what some analysts considered a buzz product, others did not, and with some brands choosing not to prominently display their buzz products, they often went unnoticed. The -‐0.1 average score may be an indication of these issues. Despite the confusion, Armani (-‐12.5) where it was almost unanimously found that there were no buzz products. Burberry (-‐4.5) and Dior (-‐4.0) also placed in the bottom three.

PMI PARAMETER: Buzz Product-‐evaluate whether or not the store offers any unordinary products, which attract additional interest of the consumer; made for extended word-‐of-‐mouth brand communication. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



70

CLEANLINESS IN SHOP




71

Cleanliness is an important aspect for a luxury consumer experience. Cleanliness can impact customers’ willingness to make a purchase at that particular store, and it can also influence the frequency of their visits. Out of the 11 stores evaluated, the brands that stood out for the cleanliness of their store were Tom Ford (15.0), Chanel (11.0) and Dior (10.0). Many comments regarding Tom Ford mentioned the immaculate condition of the carpet and surfaces within the store.


1. Tom Ford: 15.0 2. Chanel: 11.0 3. Dior: 10.0

Weakest Performers 1. Dolce & Gabbana: -‐6.5 2. Armani: -‐3.5 3. Gucci: -‐1.5

However, some stores such as Dolce & Gabbana (-‐6.5), Armani (-‐3.5) and Gucci (-‐1.5) were found to be extremely unclean. Analysts observed an excess of dirty surfaces, dusty displays, carpet stains, visible fingerprints, as well as smudged windows and mirrors.

PMI PARAMETER: Cleanliness in Shop-‐evaluate the store’s overall tidiness in reaction to the observed occurrence of visible distractions such as fingerprints on glass displays, mirrors and windows; appearance of dust, etc. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



72

COMMUNICATE EVENTS




73

Results indicated that most stores offered little or no events communicated. Generally the analysts had mixed views as to whether or not there were evens communicated. This indicates that communication was not made clear and obvious when present.

Only three brands received a positive score in this parameter including; Ralph Lauren (3.5), Chanel (1.0) and Dior (1.0).


1. Ralph Lauren: 3.5 2. Chanel: 1.0

Dior: 1.0 3. Gucci: 0.0

Weakest Performers 1. Tom Ford: -‐12 2. Louis Vuitton: -‐10 3. Dolce & Gabbana: -‐8

Most of the other brands scored lower than the average -‐4.3. Tom Ford (-‐12.0), Louis Vuitton (-‐10.0) and Dolce & Gabbana (-‐8.0) were the weakest performers.

PMI PARAMETER: Communicate Events-‐evaluate the visibility of various communication tools used to promote or mention present and future special brand events. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



74

EMOTION




75

A store’s ability to offer a “Wow Effect” is essential for luxury fashion brands.

Overall, the stores evaluated generated positive emotions, with a modest average score of 4.2. Dior (13.5) was perceived to create the greatest emotion. Most of the analysts expressed that they felt a “wow effect”, which was mainly given by the quality of service.


1. Dior: 13.5 2. Tom Ford: 11.5 3. Chanel: 8.0


Tom Ford (11.5) was the second best performer. Frequent comments were made about the unique vibe of the store’s style and interior in comparison to the other evaluated luxury fashion stores. Chanel (8.0) also received a good result with 8.0. Dolce & Gabbana (-‐6.5) was perceived to have the least “wow effect”, where the emotion was repeatedly described as disappointing. Louis Vuitton (-‐4.0) was perceived to be dull and crowded. Additionally, Armani (0.0) created feelings of indifference.

PMI PARAMETER: Emotion-‐evaluate store’s overall ability to offer consumer an impressive “wow effect” when they visit the store. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



76

EXTRAS




77

The overall perception of visible ‘Extras’ was found to be disappointing by analysts. Although poor scores were evident among all stores, Hermes (0.0), Chanel (-‐2.5) and Dior (-‐3.5) performed the strongest of the worst because some analysts noted the presence of brochures and catalogue in these stores. These items were sometimes only given after thorough interaction with the sales associates or a purchase.

However, as shown by the results, most analysts did not receive any complimentary products such as samples and other kinds of giveaways in any of the stores. Burberry (-‐15.0), Fendi (-‐15.0), Louis Vuitton (-‐15.0) and Ralph Lauren (-‐15.0) scored the worse, where the analysts almost unanimously found no extras offered. Also scoring low were Armani (-‐12.5) and Gucci (-‐11.0).


1. Hermes: 0.0 2. Chanel: -‐2.5 3. Dior: -‐3.5

Weakest Performers 1. Burberry: -‐15.0

Fendi: -‐15.0 Louis Vuitton: -‐15.0 Ralph Lauren: -‐15.0

2. Armani: -‐12.5 3. Gucci: -‐11.0

PMI PARAMETER: Extras-‐evaluate store’s ability to offer consumer something complimentary; such as catalogs, brochures or samples. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



78

F ITT ING ROOM CLEANLINESS




79

With the exception of Dolce & Gabbana (-‐4.0), all the other stores analyzed received positive PMI indicators regarding the overall condition of their store’s ‘Fitting Room Cleanliness’ and appearance. More than half of the stores scored above the average of 9.0. The lowest graded fitting rooms were found to be messy and untidy with dirty, stained carpets. Most notably, it was found that a dusty floor in the fitting room was the determining factor as to whether a fitting room was perceived as clean or unclean.


1. Dior: 16.0 2. Fendi: 15.5

Tom Ford: 15.5 3. Chanel: 15.0

Hermes: 15.0 Weakest Performers

1. Dolce & Gabbana: -‐4.0 2. Ralph Lauren: 2.0 3. Armani: 5.0

The top performer in this category was Dior (16.0); where the fitting rooms were noted to be impeccably clean and well maintained. In spite of its white décor, there was no visible dust found on any surface in the fitting rooms. Comments regarding well thought out decorations also contributed to the overall perception of cleanliness in the fitting rooms, likewise for Chanel’s fitting rooms. Tom Ford (15.5) and Fendi’s (15.5) fitting rooms were perceived to be clean with no visible marks and hardly any dust. Other strong performers included Chanel (15.0) and Hermes (15.0). While other weak performers besides Dolce & Gabbana (-‐4.0), included Ralph Lauren (2.0) and Armani (5.0).

PMI PARAMETER: Fitting Room Cleanliness-‐evaluate the cleanliness conditions found with a store’s fitting rooms; seeking to determine if they are tidy and free of carpet or furniture stains, dust on floor, fingerprints on mirror, etc. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



80

F ITT ING ROOM LIGHTING




81

Every store analyzed in The Dubai Mall received a positive score regarding the appearance of lighting and its effect on the person and products in the fitting rooms, with five stores standing above the average 9.5. The highest result in this category was Chanel (15.5) and Dior (15.5) stores. Both were noted to have had flattering side lighting in the fitting rooms which truly and accurately reflected the colors of products.


1. Chanel: 15.5 Dior: 15.5

2. Burberry: 15.0 Hermes: 15.0

3. Louis Vuitton: 11.0 Weakest Performers

1. Tom Ford: 2.0 2. Dolce & Gabbana: 2.5 3. Gucci: 4.5

The weakest performing store in this category was Tom Ford (2.0). The fitting rooms though consistent with the store itself, were found to be too dark and dimly lit. They employed the use of spotlights to focus on specific areas that was perceived to ultimately distort the perception of the garments and products. Dolce & Gabbana (2.5) faced a similar problem where the fitting room lighting was considered to be too bright or too strong, unflattering and harshly lit from above. It is apparent that the spotlight effect was not favored amongst the analysts. It was noted that Gucci (4.5) had similar fitting room lighting concerns like those observed in Tom Ford

PMI PARAMETER: Fitting Room Lighting-‐evaluate appearance of lighting in the fitting room and how it affects the visible appearance of the product and person. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



82

F ITT ING ROOM MIRROR




83

All the stores analyzed attained no less than a score of 0.0 in regard to the size, shape, length and cleanliness of the ‘Fitting Room Mirrors’, and the overall high scores lead to a high average of 9.5. Hermes (15.5) received the highest score for their clean, three-‐way mirrors that were the ideally sized for the fitting rooms. Dior (14.0) followed closely, where both the full-‐length mirrors inside the fitting rooms and the larger mirrors in the outer parlor allowed customers to carefully inspect the product details up-‐close as well as from afar. Similarly, the Dior Homme section’s fitting rooms were equipped with mirrors both in the front and back to offer consumers a 360° view. Ralph Lauren (13.5) also performed strong in this parameter.


1. Hermes: 15.5 2. Dior: 14.0 3. Ralph Lauren: 13.5

Weakest Performers 1. Dolce & Gabbana: 0.0 2. Gucci: 4.5 3. Louis Vuitton: 5.0

Dolce & Gabbana (0.0) received the lowest score, with many analysts observing marks and scratches on the relatively small mirrors in comparison to other brands. These mirrors were also noticeably dirty and chipped. The prevailing issue with the mirrors in both the Gucci (4.5) and Louis Vuitton (5.0) stores were the size of their narrow fitting rooms that forced customers to stand too close to the mirrors. Analysts were unable to get a proper view of themselves or the products. Gucci also had a tinted treatment applied to their mirrors, causing additional visibility problems.

PMI PARAMETER: Fitting Room Mirror-‐evaluate appropriate appearance of mirror size, length, shape. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



84

F ITT ING ROOM SIZE




85

The fitting rooms in a luxury store should reflect the image and position of the store. The more spacious the fitting room, the more luxurious the store is perceived to be. Chanel (16.) received a perfect score, meaning each analyst was wowed and impressed by the size of the room. Their opulent fitting rooms maximized the luxury experience, giving the customer a fitting space made up of an actual fitting room with a large three-‐way mirror, a bathrobe, a long chair as well as flowers and tissues. In addition there was an exterior fitting area, which served as a lounge for the customer’s family and friends, therefore creating a total private fitting experience. Hermes (15.5) and Ralph Lauren (14.0) provided a similar experience


1. Chanel: 16.0 2. Hermes: 15.5 3. Ralph Lauren: 14.0

Weakest Performers 1. Dolce & Gabbana: -‐3.5 2. Gucci: 2.5 3. Armani: 6.5

Dolce & Gabbana’s (-‐3.5) considerably low score was attributed to their relatively small fitting rooms, smudged mirrors, dirty carpets and curtains providing little privacy; therefore creating an unpleasant overall customer experience. Other low scoring performers included Gucci (2.5) and Armani (6.5).

PMI PARAMETER: Fitting Room Size-‐evaluate the comfort of a consumer’s visit to the fitting room based upon the size of space allotted for each room. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



86

INTERIOR DESIGN




87

All the stores analyzed received positive scores for their ‘Interior Design’. The highest performer was Tom Ford (13.5), followed by Dior (13.0), Fendi (12.5) and Ralph Lauren (12.5). Each top store was perceived to have had a very strong correlation between their brand image and the interior design, adding value to the customer’s experience.

Tom Ford displayed sophisticated interiors, using leather, glass and velvet fabrics to create a luxe ambiance. The Dior store was all white and extremely bright to reflect the modernity of the brand’s style, yet still keeping some heritage and history in the women’s section. Fendi ‘s interiors incorporated the use of wood, leather and limestone.


1. Tom Ford: 13.5 2. Dior: 13.0 3. Fendi: 12.5

Ralph Lauren: 12.5 Weakest Performers

1. Gucci: 5.5 2. Burberry: 7.0

Dolce & Gabbana: 7.0 3. Armani: 8.0

Ralph Lauren (12.5) stayed the most true to its image and heritage using strong themes from horseback riding, and a country ranch, adding white wood for a classic feel. Gucci (5.5) and Dolce & Gabbana (7.0) performed poorly in when compared to the average score of 10.0. Other low performers included Burberry (7.0) and Armani (7.0).

PMI PARAMETER: Interior Design-‐evaluate store’s overall conceptual development of interior space related to proper representation of the brand’s identity. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



88

L IGHTING




89

‘Lighting’ is an important aspect of a luxury store. In this case, both Chanel (12.0) and Ralph Lauren (11.0) able to create good lighting to compliment the mood of their store provide a comfortable shopping experience.

On the other hand, brands such as Armani (-‐3.0), Dior (-‐0.5) and Dolce & Gabbana (0.0) received low scores for their overuse of spotlights, which were often perceived to cause discomfort when standing directly beneath them. A customer would have to move to avoid the distracting light.


1. Chanel: 12.0 2. Ralph Lauren: 11.0 3. Fendi: 9.5

Weakest Performers 1. Armani: -‐3.0 2. Dior: -‐0.5 3. Dolce & Gabbana: 0.0

PMI PARAMETER: Lighting-‐evaluate the store’s overall use and appearance of lighting; how it affects the store atmosphere and visible presentation of products. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



90

LOCATION




91

All 11 stores evaluated received positive scores for their location within The Dubai Mall, particularly for their proximity to the Fashion Avenue corner. The majority of the brands were located within or just off the main atrium thus receiving high scores.

Despite their similar locations, a difference was noted where the store’s location was strategically in the most visible corner points of the atrium; thus catching the customers’ eye and attracting them to the store. The results reflect this finding with Hermes (16.0) , Armani (15.5), Fendi (15.5) and Louis Vuitton (15.5), all corner stores performing the best.


1. Hermes: 16.0 2. Armani: 15.5

Fendi: 15.5 Louis Vuitton: 15.5

3. Dior: 14.5 Dolce & Gabbana: 14.5

Weakest Performers 1. Burberry: 9.5


Ralph Lauren: 13.5 3. Gucci: 14.0

Burberry (9.5) and Tom Ford (9.5) received the lowest scores in this category, most commonly due to their positions more than half way down the Fashion Avenue. The analysts perceived this area to be a less prime spot which would impair shopper visibility and brand presence in comparison to their competitors. Other weak performers included Chanel (13.5) and Gucci (14.0)

PMI PARAMETER: Location-‐evaluate the perceived interpretation of the store’s overall location placement within The Dubai Mall. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



92

ODOR




93

With the clear exception of Dolce & Gabbana (-‐0.5), every other brand analyzed received positive results for the odor in their stores. More than half of the stores scored above the average score of 8.0 and were mostly found to have a neutral odor; no notably pleasant or unpleasant scents.

Multiple analysts complained about the persistent and unpleasant scent in the Dolce & Gabbana store, with some analysts also noting that they observed the sales personnel spraying perfumes to hide the undesirable smell.


1. Dior: 12.5 2. Armani: 10.5 3. Chanel: 10.0

Ralph Laure: 10.0 Tom Ford: 10.0

Weakest Performers 1. Dolce & Gabbana: -‐0.5 2. Hermes: 4.0 3. Burberry: 5.5

Dior received the highest score with 12.5 where the majority of analysts noted the presence of a pleasant fragrance. Some analysts actually recognized the jasmine-‐like aroma as one of Dior’s signature perfume fragrances.

PMI PARAMETER: Odor-‐evaluate the scent that is carried throughout the store. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



94

ORDERLINESS




95

The results indicate that the most orderly stores were Tom Ford (15.0), Dior (14.0) and Hermes (13.0). Analysts found that in each of these stores, the various departments were well divided with specialized sales personnel assigned to each department. Burberry (-‐4.0) received the lowest score. Most of the analysts found the store to be “overcrowded” with merchandise. It appeared difficult for the sales associates to properly handle and maintain store’s appearance due to the excess merchandise, which in turn lowered the analysts’ perception of Burberry as a luxury brand.


1. Tom Ford: 15.0 2. Dior: 14.0 3. Hermes: 13.0

Weakest Performers 1. Burberry: -‐4.0 2. Louis Vuitton: 8.0 3. Dolce & Gabbana: 8.5

Louis Vuitton (8.0) and Dolce & Gabbana (8.5) also received relatively low scores compared to the other brands. However this perception was largely due to their being many customers trying on the garments and accessories, therefore disrupting the general order within the store.

PMI PARAMETER: Orderliness-‐evaluate the store’s organizational effectualness; observing if merchandise and displays have a pre-‐thought order and arrangement. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



96

PRICE QUALITY PERCEPTION




97

The ‘Price-‐Quality Perception’ is paramount for luxury stores, as in luxury, the perception of quality is what justifies the price. The average score in this category was positive, however quite low at 3.1. Here Fendi (11.0) stands out from all other brands, attributed to their elaborate and intricate detailed garments and accessories.

Chanel (7.5) and Dior (6.5) received the next best scores for this parameter, though having considerably lower scores than Fendi. Their garments were perceived to be much less elaborate.


1. Fendi: 11.0 2. Chanel: 7.5 3. Dior: 6.5

Weakest Performers 1. Dolce & Gabbana: -‐4.0 2. Gucci: -‐0.5

Ralph Lauren: -‐0.5 3. Louis Vuitton: 1.5

On the lower end of the scale, Dolce & Gabbana (-‐4.0) performed poorly in price-‐quality perception. This was due to a common perception that items were overpriced in related to their perceived quality. Similarly, Gucci (-‐0.5) and Ralph Lauren (1.5) both criticized for their mediocre finishing, materials and designs relative to the prices given.

PMI PARAMETER: Price-‐Quality Perception-‐evaluate the perceived interpretation of a brand’s selected product quality assortment in relation to the product’s listed retail price. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



98

QUALITY PERCEPTION




99

According to the graph, the average score for the overall ‘Quality Perception’ is quite high. The highest score was awarded to both Tom Ford (14.5) and Chanel (14.5). Tom Ford was perceived to deliver on their promise of offering high quality products, with many positive comments about the fine materials, finishing and intricate details. The Chanel products, though simple, were praised for their high quality materials and finishing. Hermes (13.5) received very similar comments to Chanel.


1. Chanel: 14.5 Tom Ford: 14.5

2. Hermes: 13.5 3. Burberry: 12.5

Weakest Performers 1. Dolce & Gabbana: -‐3.5 2. Armani: 0.5 3. Louis Vuitton: 6.0

Dolce & Gabbana (-‐3.5) was the only store that scored negatively. The most frequent criticism was that the products were perceived be made with simple materials and the execution was somehow lower than the standard expected of a big fashion house. Louis Vuitton (6.0) scored modestly given their stature in the luxury industry, followed by Armani (0.5).

PMI PARAMETER: Quality Perception-‐evaluate the perceived quality of products offered within the store; based upon each analyst’s initial interpretation. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



100

SALES PERSONNEL APPEARANCE




101

The appearance of sales personnel is a representation of the brand itself. All the stores received generally positive results. Hermes (15.0) performed the best in this category. Analysts noted that both the male and female sales personnel were well groomed, uniformly dressed in the brands suits as well as scarves for the women. Ralph Lauren (14.5) Tom Ford (13.0) followed closely as well.

Dolce & Gabbana (0.5) received the lowest overall score, with the comments stating that the sales personnel not only displayed a lack of uniformity, but they also carried themselves poorly with wrinkled clothing. Each associate was different from the other with wrinkly clothes and not carrying themselves like they should be doing in a luxury boutique. Armani (4.5) and Gucci (7.0) also received relatively low scores.


1. Hermes: 15.0 2. Ralph Lauren: 14.5 3. Tom Ford: 13.0

Weakest Performers 1. Dolce & Gabbana: 0.5 2. Armani: 4.5 3. Gucci: 7.0

PMI PARAMETER: Sales Personnel Appearance-‐evaluate personnel’s outward appearance in dress and grooming; asking if the appearance relates to proper representation of the brand’s core image and message. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



102

SALES PERSONNEL GREETINGS




103

The perceptions of our analysts were quite divided with regard to the greetings received upon entry and within the stores. However the results of the graph shoes that the greetings at the Louis Vuitton (11.5) store were considerably better than the other stores, with customers receiving a warm welcome upon arrival. Chanel (9.5), Dior (9.0) and Tom Ford (9.0) were also noted to have personnel immediately and warmly greeting customers upon entry into the stores.

Strongest Performers 1. Louis Vuitton: 11.5 2. Chanel: 9.5 3. Dior: 9.0

Tom Ford: 9.0 Weakest Performers

1. Dolce & Gabbana: -‐8.5 2. Fendi: -‐0.5 3. Armani: 2.0

The lowest score by a significant margin was Dolce & Gabbana (-‐8.5). The problem was prevalent amongst the analysts who all mentioned that there were no greetings at the entrance or within the store. Some of the analysts felt like the staff did not even acknowledge their presence. At Fendi (-‐0.5), the problem was quite different: the staff were found to be very friendly and respectful however due to so few sales personnel, some of the analysts were greeted right away, but others had to wait several minutes for a sales person to greet and assist them.

PMI PARAMETER: Sales Personnel Greetings-‐evaluate the level of greetings and acknowledgement offered by staff when a consumer enters to visit a store. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



104

SALES PERSONNEL LANGUAGES




105

The ‘Sales Personnel Languages’ was one of the best performing categories we analyzed, where even the lowest score was a positive 6.0. We found that the sales personnel in The Dubai Mall were able to communicate in several different languages. The best performing store in terms of language was Gucci (12.5), with our analysts able to observe the staff communicating in English, Chinese, Spanish and Russian.


1. Gucci: 12.5 2. Hermes: 11.5 3. Armani: 11.0

Dior: 11.0 Weakest Performers

1. Dolce & Gabbana: 6.0 2. Fendi: 8.0

Ralph Lauren: 8.0 3. Chanel: 8.5

Hermes (11.5) was a close second, followed by Dior (11.0) and Armani (11.0). Each of these stores had personnel speaking to customers in the previously mentioned languages as well as Arabic, French and Polish. Dolce & Gabbana (6.0) scored the lowest. The sales personnel were able to speak a few languages however they seemed to have some difficulty giving detailed information in English. Fendi (8.0) and Ralph Lauren (8.0) also scored lower in comparison to the other brands.

PMI PARAMETER: Sales Personnel Language-‐evaluate the staff’s ability to speak in multiple languages and effectively communicate with consumers of different nationalities. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



106

SALES PERSONNEL PATIENCE & COURTESY




107

The strongest performers in this category were Tom Ford (13.5), Dior (12.0) and Louis Vuitton (11.0). The sales personnel at Tom Ford were noted to have been helpful, patient, attentive, polite and able to give customers very detailed information about every product in the store. Some analysts gave particular mention to the service at Dior (12.0), having been wowed by the experience. Another leading quality mentioned, was that staff were respectfully non intrusive.


1. Tom Ford: 13.5 2. Dior: 12.0 3. Louis Vuitton: 11.0

Weakest Performers 1. Dolce & Gabbana: -‐2.5 2. Armani: 3.5 3. Hermes: 5.0

The score received by Dolce & Gabbana (-‐2.5) was due to the rudeness of some personnel, their indifference to the presence of customers and some displays of vanity particularly from the male sales personnel. Armani’s (3.5) was largely due to their inconsistent dealing with customers, as some analysts found the personnel very helpful and others were disappointed. Hermes received similar criticism however many analysts observed that the sales personnel did not acknowledge them until they asked for help, at which point they were very helpful.

PMI PARAMETER: Sales Personnel Patience & Courtesy-‐evaluate the staff’s ability to remain patient and respectful as they diligently answer questions and take time with each client. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



108

SALES PERSONNEL PRODUCT INFORMATION




109

A sales person’s ability to give customers detailed information about the products is very important for luxury brands as this is what sets aside basic service from superior service. The strongest performer in this category was Dior (13.0), with many comments highlighting the extremely high level of detail and knowledge the sales personnel were able to convey about the products. Tom Ford (12.5) also received postive comments regarding their sales personnel’s knowledge of the whole range products as well as their willingness to share that with the customers.



Weakest Performers 1. Dolce & Gabbana: -‐5.5 2. Gucci: 0.0 3. Ralph Lauren: 3.5

The weakest performer in the category, by quite a margin was Dolce & Gabbana (-‐5.5). Not only were the sales personnel not forthcoming but also when asked they offered very little information about the materials, finish, maintenance, style and other aspects about the products. Gucci (0.0) received a low score due to a number of errors made by the sales people when describing the product. Ralph Lauren (3.5) also placed in the bottom three.

PMI PARAMETER: Sales Personnel Product Information-‐evaluate staff’s ability to instantly recall product knowledge regarding a variety of details (ex. price, material, composition, history). EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



110

SHOES CLEANLINESS




111

The ‘Sales Personnel Shoe Cleanliness’ is part of their general grooming and appearance, however managers often neglect the shoes, which can spoil the overall appearance if left unchecked. Overall the stores analyzed performed well regarding the sales personnel shoe cleanliness. The stores that received the highest scores were Dior (15.0), followed by Chanel (14.0) and Fendi (14.0).

There were, however four brands that did not manage to meet the average standard for shoe cleanliness. The weakest performers were Burberry (4.5) and Gucci (4.5), as well as Armani (6.0) as compared to the average score of 10.4. Analysts observed dust and some general wear and tear regarding the sale personnel shoes.


1. Dior: 15.0 2. Chanel: 14.0

Fendi: 14.0 3. Hermes: 13.5


1. Burberry: 4.5 Gucci: 4.5

2. Armani: 6.0 3. Dolce & Gabbana: 7.0

PMI PARAMETER: Shoe Cleanliness-‐evaluate the cleanliness of personnel’s shoes; looking for new and clean shoes. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



112

SHOE UNIFORMITY




113

The ‘Sales Personnel Shoe Uniformity’ was a measure of whether or not the brand issued their sales personnel with company shoes to give them a more harmonious appearance. Some analysts found it difficult to clearly observe whether the shoes were uniform. Many of our analysts noticed that all the sales personnel at Chanel (14.5) wore the brand’s shoes therefore they received the highest score, with Dior (12.5) and Hermes (12.0) also performing well.


1. Chanel: 14.5 2. Dior: 12.5 3. Hermes: 12.0

Weakest Performers 1. Burberry: 1.0 2. Armani: 1.5

Dolce & Gabbana: 1.5 3. Louis Vuitton: 6.0

The weakest performers were Burberry (1.0) as well as Armani (1.5) and Dolce & Gabbana (1.5). Generally, it was found that shoe uniformity was helpful to better control the standard of shoes worn. However in some stores the personnel did not wear the same shoes, but still achieved an impeccable appearance.

PMI PARAMETER: Shoe Uniformity-‐evaluate the consistent look of all personnel’s shoes; determining if they match the chosen outfit and are made by the brand for which they represent in the store. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



114

STORE COMMUNICATION




115

The results for the ‘Store Communication’ were generally weak across the board. Burberry (6.5) lead in this category, followed by Chanel (4.0) followed and Louis Vuitton (3.5). Our analysts found that these stores provided some level of communication, whether is was an LCD screen showing a recent fashion show or printed media, compared to most of the other brands that did not have any form of communication within the store.

The lowest scores were given to Dolce & Gabbana (-‐11.0), Fendi (-‐9.0), Tom Ford (-‐9.0) and Gucci (-‐7.5)


1. Burberry: 6.5 2. Chanel: 4.0 3. Louis Vuitton: 3.5

Weakest Performers 1. Dolce & Gabbana: -‐11.0 2. Fendi: -‐9.0

Tom Ford: -‐9.0 3. Gucci: -‐7.5

Fendi actually implemented a screening of its fashion runways on a tiny screen projected against a marble surface which was placed extremely high up on a wall. Most analysts never saw this as it was wrongly placed and presented.

PMI PARAMETER: Store Communication-‐evaluate the presence of visible signs present within a store, including appearance of both traditional signage or digital communication (ex. t.v., i-‐Pad, etc.) EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



116

STORE LAYOUT




117

None of the stores evaluated scored below zero, which is a positive indication that all brands placed a strong emphasis on creating a space with good visibility and flow. The strongest performers in this category were Dior (14.0), , Gucci (12.5) and Ralph Lauren (12.5) also performing well. These stores were perceived to have clear, practical and well-‐organized layouts, each with a natural flow. These stores also had well defined areas and a logical progression of products as you moved further into the store.


1. Dior: 14.0 2. Gucci: 12.5

Ralph Lauren: 12.5 3. Tom Ford: 11.5

Weakest Performers 1. Burberry: 0.5 2. Hermes: 4.0

Louis Vuitton: 4.0 3. Armani: 9.0

Burberry (0.5), Hermes (4.0) and Louis Vuitton (4.0) performed poorly. Researchers found that these stores did not give sufficient consideration to the flow of their spaces, forcing customers to move around in confusion or backtrack through the store to get a good look at all the products. The Louis Vuitton store had a circular layout, which initially appeared to be innovative and unique, however when walking around the store, our analysts quickly realized that this layout caused congestion at certain points of the store.

PMI FACTOR: Store Layout-‐evaluate the perceived interpretation of the overall store layout and the ease of consumer’s ability to efficiently and effectively shop the store. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



118

STORE TEMPERATURE




119

All the brands analyzed performed relatively well in the ‘Store Temperature’. The Dubai Mall providing acceptable air conditioning, however often perceived as too cold by analysts, the stores were graded on their ability to give customers a smooth transition into their climate. It should have been comfortably cool, neither too hot or too cold. The stores that received the highest scores were Hermes (15.0) and Tom Ford (15.0) and Dior (13.5). Each of these stores were successful in maintaining a comfortable temperature balance.


1. Hermes: 15.0 Tom Ford: 15.0

2. Dior: 13.5 3. Louis Vuitton: 13.0

Weakest Performers 1. Dolce & Gabbana: 3.0 2. Gucci: 6.0 3. Fendi: 6.5

The stores that were found to have had some discrepancies with their temperatures were, Dolce & Gabbana (3.0), Gucci (6.0) and Fendi (6.5). In the latter mentioned store, analysts felt a sudden drop in temperature when they entered the stores, which gave an instant perception that they were too cold and wished to exit the store sooner than they had planned. Whereas, with Dolce & Gabbana (-‐3.0) was found to have insufficient air conditioning, noting that the store was too warm and slightly stuffy.

PMI PARAMETER: Store Temperature-‐evaluate the climate control within the store to determine the level of comfort it offers guests as they visit the store. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



120

UPKEEP




121

The ‘Upkeep’ of a store is especially important for luxury brands, as they are required to uphold a refined lifestyle and culture that the customers are used to or in search of. For instance, one would not expect to see chipped tables, scratched counters or dirty walls in any luxury venue. Tom Ford (11.5) was perceived to be the most well maintained store. Dior (8.0) and Hermes (6.5) also performed well. All three of these stores were well maintained, but some marks and chips were visible to the keen eye.



Weakest Performers 1. Louis Vuitton: -‐2.5 2. Burberry: 0.5

Dolce & Gabbana: 0.5 3. Armani: 1.0 4. Fendi: 1.0

Louis Vuitton (-‐2.5) performed poorly. Despite the constant flow of traffic through the store, the amount of visible marks and scratches on the surfaces was surprising for such a highly regarded fashion brand. Dolce & Gabbana (0.5) and Burberry (0.5) also received low scores for the appearance of noticeable marks, scratches and chips.

PMI FACTOR: Upkeep-‐evaluate the perceived interpretation of the store’s general appearance and overall maintenance. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



122

V ISUAL MERCHANDIS ING




123

Having a strong visual display of merchandise in the store is essential for luxury brands to enhance their products and to encourage consumers to make a purchase. The analysts were particularly impressed with the in-‐store visual merchandising at Dior (15.5). They were praised for displaying products in a very attractive manner keeping the optimal amount of products on display, using flattering side-‐lights for their bags and maintaining a pleasant flow throughout the store. Tom Ford (10.5) and Chanel (9.5) were also very highly regarded In this parameter.



Weakest Performers 1. Armani: -‐2.0 2. Louis Vuitton: 1.5 3. Dolce & Gabbana: 2.0

The weakest performing stores in this category were Armani (-‐2.0), Louis Vuitton (1.5) and Dolce & Gabbana (2.0). These stores left plenty of room for improvement when it came to displaying their products in a gratifying way as they were often perceived as over-‐crowded.

PMI FACTOR: Upkeep-‐evaluate the perceived interpretation of the store’s in-‐store visual displays and informative set-‐ups that help to entice and intrigue a buyer’s product interest. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



124

W INDOW CLEANLINESS




125

The store windows are the first points of contact a customer has with a store, therefore it is an important to leave a good impression.

Hermes (12.5) and Tom Ford (12.5) received the highest score for their ‘Window Cleanliness’. There were no fingerprints, marks, scratches or any signs of dirt or dust observed. Fendi (10.5) and Burberry (8.0) were also some of the best performers for this parameter.

There were some stores where analysts noticed fingerprints and a buildup of dust; these stores received the lowest scores. The poorest performers were Armani (-‐3.5), as well as Dolce & Gabbana (1.0) and Ralph Lauren (1.0) with 1.0 and Louis Vuitton (2.0).



2. Fendi: 10.5 3. Burberry: 8.0

Weakest Performers 1. Armani: -‐3.5 2. Dolce & Gabbana: 1.0

Ralph Lauren: 1.0 3. Louis Vuitton: 2.0

PMI FACTOR: Window Cleanliness-‐evaluate the perceived interpretation of the store’s general appearance and maintenance regarding visible scratches and marks in shop’s display windows. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



126

W INDOW VISUAL MERCHANDISING




127

The ‘Window Visual Merchandising’ of a store is fundamental to attract customers to the store. Brands aim to use this space to convey their brand identity as well as inspirations for the current collections. In this category, analysts found the tropical jungle display at the Hermes (14.0) store the most captivating. Ralph Lauren (12.5) also performed well for their elaborate equestrian themed window display. On the lower end of the scale, Armani (-‐5.5), Gucci (1.5) and Burberry (3.5) were criticized for plain and uninteresting window displays.



Weakest Performers 1. Armani: -‐5.5 2. Gucci: 1.5 3. Burberry: 3.5

PMI FACTOR: Window Visual Merchandising-‐evaluate the perceived interpretation of the initial window display set up to entice and intrigue consumer to enter store. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



128



129

- Conc lus ions And Recommendat ions - Moving into the conclusions and recommendations of this study, this chart serve as a reminder of the ranking of the 11 brands with regards to the 31 parameters that were assessed.



130

ARMANI

Conceptua l ly , the Armani s tore w i th in The Duba i Ma l l houses all three lines under the Armani brand, Giorgio Armani, Emporio Armani and Armani Collezioni. Potentially, damaging issues such as brand dilution could arise if consumers’ lack of understanding the differentiation between the sub-‐brands as this creates confusion in the market. Several analysts’ comments noted that the mixing of the three brands led to the perception that lower lines were overpriced, while the luxury line was regarded as subpar in comparison. Changes in the store layout and interior design could further demonstrate the separation between various product lines, allowing customers to clearly discern the assortment of prices and products offered by the company.

Consequent ly , Armani shou ld cons ider redes ign ing the i r S ta f f Un i forms to help consumers identify and recall the brand’s value of elegance and sophistication, providing immediate recognition. The current uniform has been perceived as too informal and sub-‐standard. As store and brand ambassadors, it is crucial that Armani staff communicate a sense of style consistent with the Armani brand. Store management can look into Hermes and Ralph Lauren for reference in the appearance of sales personnel. They scored the highest ratings within The Dubai Mall across competition.

L ikewise , observat ions concern ing ‘Visual Merchandising’ as well as store ‘Upkeep’ noticed

the obstructive use of black, lacquered furnishings throughout the store, causing difficulty in accurately discerning the products on display. Similarly, dust and fingerprints were more pronounced through the application of black furnishings within the store, and store upkeep suffers as well as a result of highly visible scratch marks. While the black décor corresponds with the Armani brands, it is advised that store management must constantly clean throughout the day and replace damaged surfaces to ensure a spotless and pristine condition to protect the brand image.



131

BURBERRY

Burberry was perce ived as we l l sor ted and innovat ive while keeping up with its core values. Many aspects of the store were positive and the key point to be noted amongst the negative factors was the absence of consistency. While fitting rooms were well done and maintained, inconsistencies exist within the store in regard to general display and furnishing that were worn out and scratched. Burberry is thus advised to look into the Tom Ford store for ‘Upkeep’ management, who scored the highest and more than double among competitors in the category.

Desp i te the fac t that the w ide assor tment of Burberry products were perceived to be of excellent quality and priced accordingly, several comments revealed the problem of excess merchandise on display. Instead, management should only focus on a few key items or special products. In addition to ‘Visual Merchandising’, consumers are usually drawn into a store through its window display. The lack of creativity demonstrated in Burberry’s windows failed to communicate and connect with consumers emotionally; therefore management must pay exceptional attention in designing its ‘Window Merchandising’ to attract more clients. A stunning and innovative window display, as in the case of Hermes, proves to leave a lasting impression in consumers’ minds and increase the enticement of its products. Another in-s tore fac tor to rev ise a t Burberry is the lack of formal greetings from

sales personnel upon entrance and exit to the shop, together with their appearance. Although their diverse language skills, extensive product knowledge and patience was noted while dealing with customers, Burberry should refer to Louis Vuitton, where specific staff was delegated to the role of formally greeting every walk-‐in clients that arrive and leave the store.

F ina l ly , in a s im i lar fash ion as most of the brands within The Dubai Mall, Burberry is missing

in ‘Extras’ such as catalogs and brochures, ‘Buzz Products’ and ‘Events Communications’ that retain clients’ interest even after they have left the store. In fact, Burberry is the weakest performer in ‘Extras’ and the second weakest in ‘Buzz Products’, entirely ignoring this vital component of brand communication with clients. Again, Burberry should consult the model of Hermes, who was the strongest performer in both categories. Likewise, a good indicator of ‘Events Communication’ is Ralph Lauren in its cross-‐display of ornamental cars and the brand’s exhibitions of vintage cars.



132

CHANEL

Chane l was comprehens ive ly the second best s tore in the s tudy , coming in

as the strongest performer in five categories; ‘Quality Perception’, ‘Fitting Room Lighting’, ‘Store Lighting’, ‘Fitting Room Mirror’ and ‘Shoe Uniformity’ of staff. Overall, the Chanel store maintained a perceived standard that was above average in most of the PMI parameters.

Nonethe less , opportun i t ies for improvement lie within the absence of ‘Extras’ and ‘Buzz Products’ in the store. Consumers were very aware of this lack of brand communication instruments, and thus Chanel should consider creating unconventional products that can surprise customers and create a buzz, as well as ensuring availability of free catalogues, brochures and possibly occasional samples of perfumes and cosmetics.

Another suggested proposa l for the Chanel store concerns the unexciting ‘Visual

Merchandising’ and displays, where the store should attempt distancing from its decidedly classic, conservative style to a more creative and captivating approach to dazzle and lure in customers. While browsing, several observations indicated an inconsistency between the background music in store and the core values of the Chanel brand’s image. The shop is advised to closely examine and re-‐evaluate their visual display and ‘Atmospheric’ approach and to assure consistency throughout the store.

Addi t iona l fac tors that shou ld be rev ised at the Chane l s tore involve the general ‘Store Upkeep’ and ‘Window Cleanliness’, where the store has ranked below the average standard among its competitors. Whilst the fitting rooms were described as impeccably clean and well kept, the same could not be said about the interior and exterior as scratch marks and fingerprints were visible both within the store and on the windows outside. To match up to the other brands within The Dubai Mall, Chanel should turn to Tom Ford, the strongest performer in both categories, to polish and refine its overall maintenance and tidiness procedures.



133

DIOR

The D ior s tore in The Duba i Ma l l has a genera l ly positive perception among

consumers, scoring above average standards in almost all categories compared to its competitive brands. In fact, Dior is the strongest performer in the following eight categories: ‘Atmosphere’, ‘Emotion’, ‘Fitting Room Cleanliness’, ‘Odor’, ‘Sales Personnel Product Information’, ‘Shoe Cleanliness’, ‘Store Layout’ and ‘Visual Merchandising’. Overall, the Dior store has lived up to consumers’ expectations and criteria, but there are still a few areas that can be touched upon. Wh i le the wh i te in ter ior des ign is aesthetically pleasing and praised by consumers, store

cleanliness is more susceptible as dirt and chips are more visibly noticeable on the floors and walls. Sales personnel should be particularly aware of the cleanliness in store, especially around areas where customers are likely to remain for a longer period of time, such as display windows. Thus, store management should allocate staff with cleaning and upkeep tasks regularly throughout the day to ensure a clean environment internally and externally.

The overexposure o f l ight ing in-s tore was one of Dior’s weakest performances. Bearing

in mind the stark white, silver décor and its reflective effects, store lighting was recognized as too bright and glaring. Although consumers mainly prefer white lighting, Dior must be careful with its indoor illumination and perhaps consider reducing some of its lights, so as not to overwhelm customers.

S imi lar ly , the lack o f v is ib ly ava i lab le Buzz Products and Extras had resulted in a less-‐than-‐favorable scoring for Dior. Extras were not readily on display for clients but only upon request and interaction with the sales assistants. The absence of these brand communication tools leads to a missed opportunity for the brand to maintain a lasting impression and memorable experience for the consumers after their departure. Thus, Dior is highly advised to utilize such products as instruments to refresh and update the concept and image of Dior in consumers’ minds.



134

DOLCE & GABBANA

The Do lce & Gabbana s tore had unfortunately left an overall unenthusiastic impression

among consumers. The store had repeatedly fallen below the average standard in comparison to its competitors within The Dubai Mall. In spite of this, Dolce & Gabbana’s location was praised as allowing the brand maximum exposure and recognition within the mall. In addition, the stylish organization plan offers an intimate and cozy environment without disrupting a smooth flow between various sections of the shop.

Perhaps one o f the most te l l ing s igns was the perception of the sales personnel, who failed to encourage a friendly and approachable atmosphere throughout the store. Notably, sales assistants did not engage or interact with clients initially throughout their tour around the shop, and seemed generally indifferent and unwelcoming. Acting as brand ambassadors, sales staff should not only be trained for extensive product knowledge, they must also provide better customer service experience through patience, politeness as well as a welcoming attitude.

Other fac tors for cons iderat ion regard ing the in-s tore environment includes

‘Store Orderliness’, ‘Odor’, ‘Store Upkeep’ and ‘Visual Merchandising’, where products were found to be over crowded as well as messy around multiple areas within the shop. Staff was also noticed to be spraying air refresher throughout the store to rid of its unpleasant scent. The ambient smell subconsciously reflects the image of the brand, and the olfactory sense of the human being can ruin or ameliorate the customer’s mood. In light of the bad odor situation at Dolce & Gabbana, it is less likely to promote customer purchases, and visible air fresheners around the store is a detriment to consumers’ impression of the brand.

Scor ing far be low the average, Dolce & Gabbana’s Fitting Rooms should be completely

redeveloped, as the size was perceived to be too small, and the overall condition was dirty and un-‐kept since dust and sand are more visible on black carpets. Assigning a regular schedule for staff or cleaners to frequently check and maintain the fitting rooms should be adopted immediately to mitigate the issue. Likewise, catalogues should be placed on the coffee tables in the lounge area of the store to keep communication and maximize customers’ awareness.



135

FENDI

To conc lude the ana lys is o f Fend i , th is s tore per forms fa i r l y we l l within the parameters of the PMI categories. Fendi has its strong weaknesses on both communication of the store and the brand. Since it is essential to build the first impression of the brand on consumers in order to begin a relationship with them, it is recommended that Fendi look to other Dubai Mall luxury stores examined such as Chanel, Dior and even Ralph Lauren to set-‐up communication areas such as LED fashion show displays and small signage or elements explaining a particular product or brand identity.

Prov id ing c l ient w i th ‘Ex t ras ’ such as catalogs or brochure are another glaring weakness of this Fendi store when it is tool it can use to communicate with its consumers. This communication could trigger the beginning of a “conversation” with potential clients who may very well buy product because of this certain investment.

I t i s a lso recommended that Fend i enhances its client relations through improvement of its

brand ambassadors. The scores earned in the PMIs involving sales personnel are quite below average, notably for greeting clients; therefore a general reevaluation of sales personnel effectiveness is highly suggested. Fendi has a beautifully designed open-‐space entrance that can easily attract the eye of luxury consumers to enter the store. However if sales personnel are not positioned correctly to welcome clients upon entering, this open space is not utilized efficiently and can also create difficulty in keeping track of customer flow. Fendi can improve the greetings at the door by assigning personnel to stand by its entrance, like that of Louis Vuitton, instead of having all personnel dispersed throughout the retail space.

Th is s tore shou ld a lso take note o f i ts upkeep. There are paint chips present on the walls and wood displays, as well as scratches on fixtures; these problems should be repaired or replaced. All of the following suggestions will promote a better overall client experience for luxury consumers visiting this Fendi store in The Dubai Mall.



136

GUCCI Out o f the th i r ty-one parameters o f the PMI ana lys is , Gucci only scored above average in eighteen indicators. Particularly low scores include ‘Cleanliness in Shop’, ‘Extras’ offered to consumers, ‘Fitting Room Lighting, Size & Mirror’, ‘Interior Design’, ‘Lighting’ within store, ‘Price-‐Quality Perception’, ‘Shoe Cleanliness’ of staff, ‘Store Communication’, ‘Store Temperature’ and ‘Window Visual Merchandising’.

One o f the most revea l ing comments regard ing the Gucc i s tore was the insincerity and pretentiousness from the staff towards consumers. While some were greeted warmly and treated with respect, many felt that staff was too cold and unwelcoming, perhaps even condescending in certain situations. When questioned about the products, most sales personnel had to refer to other sources and seemed poorly informed. Gucci is thus advised to carefully retrain their employees with product knowledge and material information, as well as reminding its staff of the importance of treating every consumer with respect and genuine interest.

Bes ides improvements o f s ta f f qua l i ty , Gucci should also consider repurposing the lighting within the store and the fitting room layout. As indicated in the report, white lights and spacious fitting rooms are suggested to be more preferred among consumers. The narrow fitting rooms forced many consumers to stand close to the mirror, thereby distorting their view and inspection of outfits. The store lighting was found to be too warm and yellow, and consumers had to consult various mirrors within the store to check the true colors of items.

Al though Gucc i scored re la t ive ly h igh in terms o f ‘S tore Layout ’ , several comments pointed out the cluster of merchandise that was on display and felt the store was a bit over-‐packed with products. To avoid overwhelming customers upon arrival, the store should re-‐examine their product offerings and only display items that are more requested and high-‐selling in volume.

To reta in an overa l l outs tand ing impress ion in consumers ’ m inds, the Gucci store in The Dubai Mall needs to take into account their lack of extra products or promotional items that can be given to consumers as a reminder of the brand. Products such as the Gucci monogram-‐shaped sugar (usually associated with Gucci Café) are an excellent example that can improve the general perception as well as acting as a buzz product for the brand.



137

HERMES

Overa l l , Hermes s t r ives very hard to create a luxur ious env i ronment through its painstaking attention to detail with the quality of products and overall cleanliness of its space, especially with respect to the impeccable fitting rooms. This store is also situated in one of the best locations of The Dubai Mall with very innovative and attractive ‘Window Visual Merchandising’; this further reinforces Hermes image as a top luxury retail brand. However there are a few points of improvement that this Hermes store can take advantage of that will exhibit the dominance of the brand with in the luxury retail market. ‘S tore Layout ’ is a major weakness w i th th is par t icu lar Hermes; it is highly recommended that management reevaluate the flow of product within the space so that clients can move a bit more naturally and freely throughout it. When the layout of the space is more sensible and organic for clients, such as The Dubai Mall stores of Dior, Gucci and Ralph Lauren, the luxury consumer will feel more comfortable within the space and consequently be more inclined to purchase product. An improved layout will also give Hermes the opportunity to display more communication for both the brand and the store itself, which is another major weakness of this retail space. ‘Odor’ is also an issue for this store; it is suggested that Hermes provide a limit to the amount of fragrance testers on display for clients’ use so that the odor within the store does not become too over powering and unpleasant. ‘Sa les Personne l ’ i s another major aspect that requires improvement. Hermes

received a rather low score for atmosphere (4.0 out of a scale ranging from -‐16.0 to 16.0) and this is due to the attitudes of the brand ambassadors. Although this store does take care to greet clients at the door upon entrance, there is subsequently little interaction made with potential clients thereafter. One analyst even describes seeing three brand ambassadors having an argument on the sales floor concerning the loss of a sale to a client; this is unacceptable in any store and especially a luxury store. Consequently a reevaluation as well as a retraining of all sales personnel on the importance of professionalism, patience and courtesy is greatly recommended. This will certainly ensure an improved atmosphere and a generally enhanced shopping experience for clients.



138

LOUIS VUITTON

Lou is Vu i t ton is a wor ld-renowned luxury s tore with extremely high popularity. The

store located in The Dubai Mall attempts to do its best to accommodate the high amount of consumer traffic it experiences everyday in a luxurious manner. However many areas of improvement arise with this large number of luxury consumers entering the store. This fact therefore presents a few recommendations to increase overall client satisfaction and contentment. Th is Lou is Vu i t ton s tore must work harder on the control of ‘Atmosphere’ and

‘Emotion’; these are areas where it received rather low PMI scores (-‐3.0 and -‐4.0 out of a scale ranging from -‐16.0 to 16.0). The environment in the space was chaotic due to the crowd created by consumers. This high density not only lowered the quality of service per personnel, but also produced an uncomfortable shopping experience. This strongly affects the perception of the store and consequently will damage the brand itself in the long term. Hiring more sales personnel as well as a reevaluation of personnel positioning on the sales floor are suggestions that can raise the quality of the consumer experience as well as establish a pleasant environment.

The ‘C lean l iness ’ and ‘Upkeep’ o f the s tore are a lso weaknesses of Louis Vuitton. In actuality, these negative outcomes stem from the large crowd of luxury consumers present as previously mentioned. These weaknesses will be highly improved once another investment is made to repair any worn furniture and fixtures as well as a thorough cleaning within the store. This investment will then be maintained in the long run due to a higher number of brand ambassadors on the sales floor as recommended earlier. Reassessment and change of the store layout for this space is also suggested to aid in easing consumer congestion. All of these ideas can help the Louis Vuitton store located in The Dubai Mall achieve a better atmosphere within its walls and further cement its exceptional position within the luxury retail market.



139

RALPH LAUREN Overa l l , Ra lph Lauren at The Duba i Ma l l is rather well done. The store location is situated very effectively within the mall; the minute attention to detail given to the window visual merchandising greatly aids to strengthen and visually cement the brand image in the eyes of luxury consumers. With regarding to the store interior, the atmosphere created within the space is quite a positive one and the store layout provides clients with a clear and non-‐confusing view of the product. In addition to this, the fitting room size and mirror help to deliver a luxurious environment for consumers while shopping in the space. All of these strengths are reflected through the high scores Ralph Lauren received for each of the corresponding PMI categories.

However the s tore fe l l shor t on i ts ‘Upkeep’ and ‘C lean l iness ’ ; the carpets were frayed, the wooden shelves had scratch marks, smudges were present on the exterior window and interior fixtures, and additionally there was dust buildup in several places. All of these weaknesses were very clearly visible and require immediate attention and repair. Furthermore although the majority of fitting room PMI parameters received high scores, it is suggested that Ralph Lauren consider changing its lighting; the shade was rather yellow and unflattering. A modification to sharp and more becoming lighting, like that of the Chanel and Dior stores, will entice consumers to purchase more products if they perceive that look more attractive. There are areas o f improvement considering the sales personnel. Ralph Lauren scored below average in the PMI parameters that measured the ‘Greetings’, ‘Language’ skills, ‘Product Information’, and finally ‘Patience and Courtesy’ of its brand ambassadors. A retraining seminar for all sales personnel could be an effective way to improve among these specific areas. Until these weaknesses are rectified, the overall client experience will never reach its highest potential. Finally there were no client ‘Extras’ such as catalogs or brochures displayed or offered. This is a key advantage that any luxury store could exploit to enhance the luxurious atmosphere within the retail space. It would be very beneficial to this particular Ralph Lauren if a small extra were introduced to keep luxury consumers highly interested in the brand even after they exit the store.



140

TOM FORD

When render ing conc lus ions for the Tom Ford s tore in The Dubai Mall by large, the total experience one receives upon entering this particular Tom Ford is very positive when compared to the other luxury brands studied for the report. Many factors left lasting impressions: the cleanliness throughout the entire space, the sophisticated environment due to its sleek and contemporary interior design, the helpful and courteous personnel and high quality products. Since a majority of scores received from the PMI categories were well above average, one could deduce that this Tom Ford store diligently strives to create a luxurious and professional experience to their clients.

Neverthe less , there are a few aspects that can improve despite this stringent attempt of success in complete client satisfaction. There appeared to be a lacking presence of visual display communication, both traditional or digital. Although Tom Ford centers upon product-‐focused communication, analysts struggled to make the connection between the various products on display and their relation to the brand due to the noticeable absence of store signage. In addition, the store managers need to reconfigure both fitting room and store lighting. Although used to create a specific mood and ambiance, the dark interiors and dim-‐cast lighting created challenges for the analysts to easily see merchandise throughout the entire store.

There fore , a few suggest ions present themse lves in order to improve the strategies

used by Tom Ford in The Dubai Mall. To enhance its effort to communicate events to consumers, this store could follow the same approach as The Dubai Mall stores of Ralph Lauren, Chanel, as well as Dior and invest in a small media showing of its latest runway show for men and/or women. With respect to its communication for the store itself, Tom Ford can follow the likes of Burberry, Chanel, and Louis Vuitton to also display small and discreet signs possibly providing a small explanation of the luxurious, quality-‐centered approach taken to construct one of its products or fragrances. It is taken into consideration that the Tom Ford brand does not seek to overtly advertise within their stores because it is the company’s intention to let the product speak for itself. However it is believed that very minute signage would not diminish Tom Ford’s overall brand image. Finally regarding extras, this particular store must absolutely look to other Tom Ford Direct Operating Stores in providing small extras to help engage the potential client and to force the luxury consumer to consider starting a relationship with this brand by ultimately buying a product.



141



142

THANK YOU TO Professor Benjamin Malhotra AND Polimoda Luxury

Management Master Class of 2012-‐2013: Laura Belsley, Mina Bishop, Juliana Calvo, Kim Chan, Nicolette Fu, Hadi Hazim, Molly Hsu, Feng Hong, Jingwei Jiang, Safeeya Jordan-‐Walker, Sharon Kimingi, Summer Lee, Edmond Luk, Shadan Mohamed, Queena Ning, Eekshitha Prasad, Priscila Verlvoet.



143



144

APPENDIX 1 – PMI Parameters Analys is by Theme

This section offers complimentary organization of the 31 PMI Parameters by themes (Environment, Product, Communication, Sales Personnel), in addition to their existing arrangement by alphabetical order as currently organized throughout the document.



145

ENVIRONMENT Atmosphere

C leanl iness in Shop Emot ion F i t t ing Room C leanl iness F i t t ing Room L ight ing F i t t ing Room Mirror F i t t ing Room Size Inter ior Des ign L ight ing Locat ion Oder Order l iness Store Layout Store Temperature Upkeep Window C leanl iness



146

ENVIRONMENT ATMOSPHERE




147

To asses the atmosphere, the analysts observed the overall mood of the store considering factors such as the service from the sales personnel, the design and display of the products as well as the lighting, decor, facilities and music in the store. The results of the graph indicate that our analysts generally perceived a good energy within the 11 stores visited. Dior (12.5) received the highest score, closely followed by Tom Ford (11.5) and Ralph Lauren (10.0). Dior, for example, was very strong in conveying the ‘Dior’ mood, while Tom Ford’s atmosphere appeared to be serious, sophisticated, dark and glamorous.


4. Dior: 12.5 5. Tom Ford: 11.5 6. Ralph Lauren: 10.0


However, the only two stores with negative scores were Dolce & Gabbana (-‐5.5) with the lowest score, and Louis Vuitton (-‐3.0). Some contributing factors for the low scores include; being perceived as too busy, thus not providing customers with a pleasant, helpful atmosphere or that stores came off as vain and dull.

PMI PARAMATER: Atmosphere-‐evaluate the general mood or feeling that a customer experiences when they visit a store. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



148

ENVIRONMENT CLEANLINESS IN SHOP




149

Cleanliness is an important aspect for a luxury consumer experience. Cleanliness can impact customers’ willingness to make a purchase at that particular store, and it can also influence the frequency of their visits. Out of the 11 stores evaluated, the brands that stood out for the cleanliness of their store were Tom Ford (15.0), Chanel (11.0) and Dior (10.0). Many comments regarding Tom Ford mentioned the immaculate condition of the carpet and surfaces within the store.


4. Tom Ford: 15.0 5. Chanel: 11.0 6. Dior: 10.0

Weakest Performers 4. Dolce & Gabbana: -‐6.5 5. Armani: -‐3.5 6. Gucci: -‐1.5

However, some stores such as Dolce & Gabbana (-‐6.5), Armani (-‐3.5) and Gucci (-‐1.5) were found to be extremely unclean. Analysts observed an excess of dirty surfaces, dusty displays, carpet stains, visible fingerprints, as well as smudged windows and mirrors.




150

ENVIRONMENT EMOTION




151

A store’s ability to offer a “Wow Effect” is essential for luxury fashion brands.

Overall, the stores evaluated generated positive emotions, with a modest average score of 4.2. Dior (13.5) was perceived to create the greatest emotion. Most of the analysts expressed that they felt a “wow effect”, which was mainly given by the quality of service.




Tom Ford (11.5) was the second best performer. Frequent comments were made about the unique vibe of the store’s style and interior in comparison to the other evaluated luxury fashion stores. Chanel (8.0) also received a good result with 8.0. Dolce & Gabbana (-‐6.5) was perceived to have the least “wow effect”, where the emotion was repeatedly described as disappointing. Louis Vuitton (-‐4.0) was perceived to be dull and crowded. Additionally, Armani (0.0) created feelings of indifference.




152

ENVIRONMENT FITT ING ROOM CLEANLINESS




153

With the exception of Dolce & Gabbana (-‐4.0), all the other stores analyzed received positive PMI indicators regarding the overall condition of their store’s ‘Fitting Room Cleanliness’ and appearance. More than half of the stores scored above the average of 9.0. The lowest graded fitting rooms were found to be messy and untidy with dirty, stained carpets. Most notably, it was found that a dusty floor in the fitting room was the determining factor as to whether a fitting room was perceived as clean or unclean.


4. Dior: 16.0 5. Fendi: 15.5


Hermes: 15.0 Weakest Performers

4. Dolce & Gabbana: -‐4.0 5. Ralph Lauren: 2.0 6. Armani: 5.0

The top performer in this category was Dior (16.0); where the fitting rooms were noted to be impeccably clean and well maintained. In spite of its white décor, there was no visible dust found on any surface in the fitting rooms. Comments regarding well thought out decorations also contributed to the overall perception of cleanliness in the fitting rooms, likewise for Chanel’s fitting rooms. Tom Ford (15.5) and Fendi’s (15.5) fitting rooms were perceived to be clean with no visible marks and hardly any dust. Other strong performers included Chanel (15.0) and Hermes (15.0). While other weak performers besides Dolce & Gabbana (-‐4.0), included Ralph Lauren (2.0) and Armani (5.0).

PMI PARAMETER: Fitting Room Cleanliness-‐evaluate the cleanliness conditions found with a store’s fitting rooms; seeking to determine if they are tidy and free of carpet or furniture stains, dust on floor, fingerprints on mirror, etc. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



154

ENVIRONMENT FITT ING ROOM LIGHTING




155

Every store analyzed in The Dubai Mall received a positive score regarding the appearance of lighting and its effect on the person and products in the fitting rooms, with five stores standing above the average 9.5. The highest result in this category was Chanel (15.5) and Dior (15.5) stores. Both were noted to have had flattering side lighting in the fitting rooms which truly and accurately reflected the colors of products.


4. Chanel: 15.5 Dior: 15.5

5. Burberry: 15.0 Hermes: 15.0

6. Louis Vuitton: 11.0 Weakest Performers

4. Tom Ford: 2.0 5. Dolce & Gabbana: 2.5 6. Gucci: 4.5

The weakest performing store in this category was Tom Ford (2.0). The fitting rooms though consistent with the store itself, were found to be too dark and dimly lit. They employed the use of spotlights to focus on specific areas that was perceived to ultimately distort the perception of the garments and products. Dolce & Gabbana (2.5) faced a similar problem where the fitting room lighting was considered to be too bright or too strong, unflattering and harshly lit from above. It is apparent that the spotlight effect was not favored amongst the analysts. It was noted that Gucci (4.5) had similar fitting room lighting concerns like those observed in Tom Ford

PMI PARAMETER: Fitting Room Lighting-‐evaluate appearance of lighting in the fitting room and how it affects the visible appearance of the product and person. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



156

ENVIRONMENT FITT ING ROOM MIRROR




157

All the stores analyzed attained no less than a score of 0.0 in regard to the size, shape, length and cleanliness of the ‘Fitting Room Mirrors’, and the overall high scores lead to a high average of 9.5. Hermes (15.5) received the highest score for their clean, three-‐way mirrors that were the ideally sized for the fitting rooms. Dior (14.0) followed closely, where both the full-‐length mirrors inside the fitting rooms and the larger mirrors in the outer parlor allowed customers to carefully inspect the product details up-‐close as well as from afar. Similarly, the Dior Homme section’s fitting rooms were equipped with mirrors both in the front and back to offer consumers a 360° view. Ralph Lauren (13.5) also performed strong in this parameter.


4. Hermes: 15.5 5. Dior: 14.0 6. Ralph Lauren: 13.5

Weakest Performers 4. Dolce & Gabbana: 0.0 5. Gucci: 4.5 6. Louis Vuitton: 5.0

Dolce & Gabbana (0.0) received the lowest score, with many analysts observing marks and scratches on the relatively small mirrors in comparison to other brands. These mirrors were also noticeably dirty and chipped. The prevailing issue with the mirrors in both the Gucci (4.5) and Louis Vuitton (5.0) stores were the size of their narrow fitting rooms that forced customers to stand too close to the mirrors. Analysts were unable to get a proper view of themselves or the products. Gucci also had a tinted treatment applied to their mirrors, causing additional visibility problems.

PMI PARAMETER: Fitting Room Mirror-‐evaluate appropriate appearance of mirror size, length, shape. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



158

ENVIRONMENT FITT ING ROOM SIZE




159

The fitting rooms in a luxury store should reflect the image and position of the store. The more spacious the fitting room, the more luxurious the store is perceived to be. Chanel (16.) received a perfect score, meaning each analyst was wowed and impressed by the size of the room. Their opulent fitting rooms maximized the luxury experience, giving the customer a fitting space made up of an actual fitting room with a large three-‐way mirror, a bathrobe, a long chair as well as flowers and tissues. In addition there was an exterior fitting area, which served as a lounge for the customer’s family and friends, therefore creating a total private fitting experience. Hermes (15.5) and Ralph Lauren (14.0) provided a similar experience


4. Chanel: 16.0 5. Hermes: 15.5 6. Ralph Lauren: 14.0

Weakest Performers 4. Dolce & Gabbana: -‐3.5 5. Gucci: 2.5 6. Armani: 6.5

Dolce & Gabbana’s (-‐3.5) considerably low score was attributed to their relatively small fitting rooms, smudged mirrors, dirty carpets and curtains providing little privacy; therefore creating an unpleasant overall customer experience. Other low scoring performers included Gucci (2.5) and Armani (6.5).

PMI PARAMETER: Fitting Room Size-‐evaluate the comfort of a consumer’s visit to the fitting room based upon the size of space allotted for each room. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



160

ENVIRONMENT INTERIOR DESIGN




161

All the stores analyzed received positive scores for their ‘Interior Design’. The highest performer was Tom Ford (13.5), followed by Dior (13.0), Fendi (12.5) and Ralph Lauren (12.5). Each top store was perceived to have had a very strong correlation between their brand image and the interior design, adding value to the customer’s experience.

Tom Ford displayed sophisticated interiors, using leather, glass and velvet fabrics to create a luxe ambiance. The Dior store was all white and extremely bright to reflect the modernity of the brand’s style, yet still keeping some heritage and history in the women’s section. Fendi ‘s interiors incorporated the use of wood, leather and limestone.


4. Tom Ford: 13.5 5. Dior: 13.0 6. Fendi: 12.5


4. Gucci: 5.5 5. Burberry: 7.0

Dolce & Gabbana: 7.0 6. Armani: 8.0

Ralph Lauren (12.5) stayed the most true to its image and heritage using strong themes from horseback riding, and a country ranch, adding white wood for a classic feel. Gucci (5.5) and Dolce & Gabbana (7.0) performed poorly in when compared to the average score of 10.0. Other low performers included Burberry (7.0) and Armani (7.0).

PMI PARAMETER: Interior Design-‐evaluate store’s overall conceptual development of interior space related to proper representation of the brand’s identity. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



162

ENVIRONMENT LIGHTING




163

‘Lighting’ is an important aspect of a luxury store. In this case, both Chanel (12.0) and Ralph Lauren (11.0) able to create good lighting to compliment the mood of their store provide a comfortable shopping experience.

On the other hand, brands such as Armani (-‐3.0), Dior (-‐0.5) and Dolce & Gabbana (0.0) received low scores for their overuse of spotlights, which were often perceived to cause discomfort when standing directly beneath them. A customer would have to move to avoid the distracting light.


4. Chanel: 12.0 5. Ralph Lauren: 11.0 6. Fendi: 9.5

Weakest Performers 4. Armani: -‐3.0 5. Dior: -‐0.5 6. Dolce & Gabbana: 0.0

PMI PARAMETER: Lighting-‐evaluate the store’s overall use and appearance of lighting; how it affects the store atmosphere and visible presentation of products. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



164

ENVIRONMENT LOCATION




165

All 11 stores evaluated received positive scores for their location within The Dubai Mall, particularly for their proximity to the Fashion Avenue corner. The majority of the brands were located within or just off the main atrium thus receiving high scores.

Despite their similar locations, a difference was noted where the store’s location was strategically in the most visible corner points of the atrium; thus catching the customers’ eye and attracting them to the store. The results reflect this finding with Hermes (16.0) , Armani (15.5), Fendi (15.5) and Louis Vuitton (15.5), all corner stores performing the best.


4. Hermes: 16.0 5. Armani: 15.5

Fendi: 15.5 Louis Vuitton: 15.5

6. Dior: 14.5 Dolce & Gabbana: 14.5

Weakest Performers 3. Burberry: 9.5


Ralph Lauren: 13.5 3. Gucci: 14.0

Burberry (9.5) and Tom Ford (9.5) received the lowest scores in this category, most commonly due to their positions more than half way down the Fashion Avenue. The analysts perceived this area to be a less prime spot which would impair shopper visibility and brand presence in comparison to their competitors. Other weak performers included Chanel (13.5) and Gucci (14.0)

PMI PARAMETER: Location-‐evaluate the perceived interpretation of the store’s overall location placement within The Dubai Mall. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



166

ENVIRONMENT ODOR




167

With the clear exception of Dolce & Gabbana (-‐0.5), every other brand analyzed received positive results for the odor in their stores. More than half of the stores scored above the average score of 8.0 and were mostly found to have a neutral odor; no notably pleasant or unpleasant scents.

Multiple analysts complained about the persistent and unpleasant scent in the Dolce & Gabbana store, with some analysts also noting that they observed the sales personnel spraying perfumes to hide the undesirable smell.


4. Dior: 12.5 5. Armani: 10.5 6. Chanel: 10.0

Ralph Laure: 10.0 Tom Ford: 10.0

Weakest Performers 4. Dolce & Gabbana: -‐0.5 5. Hermes: 4.0 6. Burberry: 5.5

Dior received the highest score with 12.5 where the majority of analysts noted the presence of a pleasant fragrance. Some analysts actually recognized the jasmine-‐like aroma as one of Dior’s signature perfume fragrances.

PMI PARAMETER: Odor-‐evaluate the scent that is carried throughout the store. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



168

ENVIRONMENT ORDERLINESS




169

The results indicate that the most orderly stores were Tom Ford (15.0), Dior (14.0) and Hermes (13.0). Analysts found that in each of these stores, the various departments were well divided with specialized sales personnel assigned to each department. Burberry (-‐4.0) received the lowest score. Most of the analysts found the store to be “overcrowded” with merchandise. It appeared difficult for the sales associates to properly handle and maintain store’s appearance due to the excess merchandise, which in turn lowered the analysts’ perception of Burberry as a luxury brand.



Weakest Performers 4. Burberry: -‐4.0 5. Louis Vuitton: 8.0 6. Dolce & Gabbana: 8.5

Louis Vuitton (8.0) and Dolce & Gabbana (8.5) also received relatively low scores compared to the other brands. However this perception was largely due to their being many customers trying on the garments and accessories, therefore disrupting the general order within the store.

PMI PARAMETER: Orderliness-‐evaluate the store’s organizational effectualness; observing if merchandise and displays have a pre-‐thought order and arrangement. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



170

ENVIRONMENT STORE LAYOUT




171

None of the stores evaluated scored below zero, which is a positive indication that all brands placed a strong emphasis on creating a space with good visibility and flow. The strongest performers in this category were Dior (14.0), , Gucci (12.5) and Ralph Lauren (12.5) also performing well. These stores were perceived to have clear, practical and well-‐organized layouts, each with a natural flow. These stores also had well defined areas and a logical progression of products as you moved further into the store.


4. Dior: 14.0 5. Gucci: 12.5

Ralph Lauren: 12.5 6. Tom Ford: 11.5

Weakest Performers 3. Burberry: 0.5 4. Hermes: 4.0

Louis Vuitton: 4.0 3. Armani: 9.0

Burberry (0.5), Hermes (4.0) and Louis Vuitton (4.0) performed poorly. Researchers found that these stores did not give sufficient consideration to the flow of their spaces, forcing customers to move around in confusion or backtrack through the store to get a good look at all the products. The Louis Vuitton store had a circular layout, which initially appeared to be innovative and unique, however when walking around the store, our analysts quickly realized that this layout caused congestion at certain points of the store.

PMI FACTOR: Store Layout-‐evaluate the perceived interpretation of the overall store layout and the ease of consumer’s ability to efficiently and effectively shop the store. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



172

ENVIRONMENT STORE TEMPERATURE




173

All the brands analyzed performed relatively well in the ‘Store Temperature’. The Dubai Mall providing acceptable air conditioning, however often perceived as too cold by analysts, the stores were graded on their ability to give customers a smooth transition into their climate. It should have been comfortably cool, neither too hot or too cold. The stores that received the highest scores were Hermes (15.0) and Tom Ford (15.0) and Dior (13.5). Each of these stores were successful in maintaining a comfortable temperature balance.



5. Dior: 13.5 6. Louis Vuitton: 13.0

Weakest Performers 4. Dolce & Gabbana: 3.0 5. Gucci: 6.0 6. Fendi: 6.5

The stores that were found to have had some discrepancies with their temperatures were, Dolce & Gabbana (3.0), Gucci (6.0) and Fendi (6.5). In the latter mentioned store, analysts felt a sudden drop in temperature when they entered the stores, which gave an instant perception that they were too cold and wished to exit the store sooner than they had planned. Whereas, with Dolce & Gabbana (-‐3.0) was found to have insufficient air conditioning, noting that the store was too warm and slightly stuffy.

PMI PARAMETER: Store Temperature-‐evaluate the climate control within the store to determine the level of comfort it offers guests as they visit the store. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



174

ENVIRONMENT UPKEEP




175

The ‘Upkeep’ of a store is especially important for luxury brands, as they are required to uphold a refined lifestyle and culture that the customers are used to or in search of. For instance, one would not expect to see chipped tables, scratched counters or dirty walls in any luxury venue. Tom Ford (11.5) was perceived to be the most well maintained store. Dior (8.0) and Hermes (6.5) also performed well. All three of these stores were well maintained, but some marks and chips were visible to the keen eye.



Weakest Performers 5. Louis Vuitton: -‐2.5 6. Burberry: 0.5

Dolce & Gabbana: 0.5 7. Armani: 1.0 8. Fendi: 1.0

Louis Vuitton (-‐2.5) performed poorly. Despite the constant flow of traffic through the store, the amount of visible marks and scratches on the surfaces was surprising for such a highly regarded fashion brand. Dolce & Gabbana (0.5) and Burberry (0.5) also received low scores for the appearance of noticeable marks, scratches and chips.

PMI FACTOR: Upkeep-‐evaluate the perceived interpretation of the store’s general appearance and overall maintenance. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



176

ENVIRONMENT WINDOW CLEANLINESS




177

The store windows are the first points of contact a customer has with a store, therefore it is an important to leave a good impression.

Hermes (12.5) and Tom Ford (12.5) received the highest score for their ‘Window Cleanliness’. There were no fingerprints, marks, scratches or any signs of dirt or dust observed. Fendi (10.5) and Burberry (8.0) were also some of the best performers for this parameter.

There were some stores where analysts noticed fingerprints and a buildup of dust; these stores received the lowest scores. The poorest performers were Armani (-‐3.5), as well as Dolce & Gabbana (1.0) and Ralph Lauren (1.0) with 1.0 and Louis Vuitton (2.0).



5. Fendi: 10.5 6. Burberry: 8.0

Weakest Performers 4. Armani: -‐3.5 5. Dolce & Gabbana: 1.0

Ralph Lauren: 1.0 6. Louis Vuitton: 2.0

PMI FACTOR: Window Cleanliness-‐evaluate the perceived interpretation of the store’s general appearance and maintenance regarding visible scratches and marks in shop’s display windows. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



178

PRODUCT

Buzz Product Pr ice Qual i ty Percept ion Qual i ty Percept ion



179

PRODUCT BUZZ PRODUCTS




180

Amongst the 11 stores analyzed, few had any products to excite the customers and give them something to talk about. Hermes (9.0) received the highest score, as analysts found that the playing cards, exotic board games and horse riding equipment added some excitement to the selection of products offered in the store. Many of analysts also found there to be some buzz products at Gucci (8.5) and Louis Vuitton (5.5).

Strongest Performers 1. Hermes: 9.0 2. Gucci: 8.5 3. Louis Vuitton: 5.5 Weakest Performers 1. Armani: -‐12.5 2. Burberry: -‐4.5 3. Dior: -‐4.0

There was some confusion among the analysts when it came to assessing the presence or absence of buzz products, where in some cases, what some analysts considered a buzz product, others did not, and with some brands choosing not to prominently display their buzz products, they often went unnoticed. The -‐0.1 average score may be an indication of these issues. Despite the confusion, Armani (-‐12.5) where it was almost unanimously found that there were no buzz products. Burberry (-‐4.5) and Dior (-‐4.0) also placed in the bottom three.

PMI PARAMETER: Buzz Product-‐evaluate whether or not the store offers any unordinary products, which attract additional interest of the consumer; made for extended word-‐of-‐mouth brand communication. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



181

PRODUCT PRICE QUALITY PERCEPTION




182

The ‘Price-‐Quality Perception’ is paramount for luxury stores, as in luxury, the perception of quality is what justifies the price. The average score in this category was positive, however quite low at 3.1. Here Fendi (11.0) stands out from all other brands, attributed to their elaborate and intricate detailed garments and accessories.

Chanel (7.5) and Dior (6.5) received the next best scores for this parameter, though having considerably lower scores than Fendi. Their garments were perceived to be much less elaborate.


4. Fendi: 11.0 5. Chanel: 7.5 6. Dior: 6.5

Weakest Performers 4. Dolce & Gabbana: -‐4.0 5. Gucci: -‐0.5

Ralph Lauren: -‐0.5 6. Louis Vuitton: 1.5

On the lower end of the scale, Dolce & Gabbana (-‐4.0) performed poorly in price-‐quality perception. This was due to a common perception that items were overpriced in related to their perceived quality. Similarly, Gucci (-‐0.5) and Ralph Lauren (1.5) both criticized for their mediocre finishing, materials and designs relative to the prices given.

PMI PARAMETER: Price-‐Quality Perception-‐evaluate the perceived interpretation of a brand’s selected product quality assortment in relation to the product’s listed retail price. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



183

PRODUCT QUALITY PERCEPTION




184

According to the graph, the average score for the overall ‘Quality Perception’ is quite high. The highest score was awarded to both Tom Ford (14.5) and Chanel (14.5). Tom Ford was perceived to deliver on their promise of offering high quality products, with many positive comments about the fine materials, finishing and intricate details. The Chanel products, though simple, were praised for their high quality materials and finishing. Hermes (13.5) received very similar comments to Chanel.


4. Chanel: 14.5 Tom Ford: 14.5

5. Hermes: 13.5 6. Burberry: 12.5

Weakest Performers 4. Dolce & Gabbana: -‐3.5 5. Armani: 0.5 6. Louis Vuitton: 6.0

Dolce & Gabbana (-‐3.5) was the only store that scored negatively. The most frequent criticism was that the products were perceived be made with simple materials and the execution was somehow lower than the standard expected of a big fashion house. Louis Vuitton (6.0) scored modestly given their stature in the luxury industry, followed by Armani (0.5).

PMI PARAMETER: Quality Perception-‐evaluate the perceived quality of products offered within the store; based upon each analyst’s initial interpretation. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



185

COMMUNICATION

Communicate Events Extras Store Communicat ion V isua l Merchandiz ing Window Visua l Merchandiz ing



186

COMMUNICATION COMMUNICATE EVENTS




187

Results indicated that most stores offered little or no events communicated. Generally the analysts had mixed views as to whether or not there were evens communicated. This indicates that communication was not made clear and obvious when present.

Only three brands received a positive score in this parameter including; Ralph Lauren (3.5), Chanel (1.0) and Dior (1.0).


4. Ralph Lauren: 3.5 5. Chanel: 1.0

Dior: 1.0 6. Gucci: 0.0

Weakest Performers 4. Tom Ford: -‐12 5. Louis Vuitton: -‐10 6. Dolce & Gabbana: -‐8

Most of the other brands scored lower than the average -‐4.3. Tom Ford (-‐12.0), Louis Vuitton (-‐10.0) and Dolce & Gabbana (-‐8.0) were the weakest performers.

PMI PARAMETER: Communicate Events-‐evaluate the visibility of various communication tools used to promote or mention present and future special brand events. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



188

COMMUNICATION EXTRAS




189

The overall perception of visible ‘Extras’ was found to be disappointing by analysts. Although poor scores were evident among all stores, Hermes (0.0), Chanel (-‐2.5) and Dior (-‐3.5) performed the strongest of the worst because some analysts noted the presence of brochures and catalogue in these stores. These items were sometimes only given after thorough interaction with the sales associates or a purchase.

However, as shown by the results, most analysts did not receive any complimentary products such as samples and other kinds of giveaways in any of the stores. Burberry (-‐15.0), Fendi (-‐15.0), Louis Vuitton (-‐15.0) and Ralph Lauren (-‐15.0) scored the worse, where the analysts almost unanimously found no extras offered. Also scoring low were Armani (-‐12.5) and Gucci (-‐11.0).


4. Hermes: 0.0 5. Chanel: -‐2.5 6. Dior: -‐3.5

Weakest Performers 4. Burberry: -‐15.0

Fendi: -‐15.0 Louis Vuitton: -‐15.0 Ralph Lauren: -‐15.0

5. Armani: -‐12.5 6. Gucci: -‐11.0

PMI PARAMETER: Extras-‐evaluate store’s ability to offer consumer something complimentary; such as catalogs, brochures or samples. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



190

COMMUNICATION STORE COMMUNICATION




191

The results for the ‘Store Communication’ were generally weak across the board. Burberry (6.5) lead in this category, followed by Chanel (4.0) followed and Louis Vuitton (3.5). Our analysts found that these stores provided some level of communication, whether is was an LCD screen showing a recent fashion show or printed media, compared to most of the other brands that did not have any form of communication within the store.

The lowest scores were given to Dolce & Gabbana (-‐11.0), Fendi (-‐9.0), Tom Ford (-‐9.0) and Gucci (-‐7.5)


4. Burberry: 6.5 5. Chanel: 4.0 6. Louis Vuitton: 3.5

Weakest Performers 4. Dolce & Gabbana: -‐11.0 5. Fendi: -‐9.0

Tom Ford: -‐9.0 6. Gucci: -‐7.5

Fendi actually implemented a screening of its fashion runways on a tiny screen projected against a marble surface which was placed extremely high up on a wall. Most analysts never saw this as it was wrongly placed and presented.

PMI PARAMETER: Store Communication-‐evaluate the presence of visible signs present within a store, including appearance of both traditional signage or digital communication (ex. t.v., i-‐Pad, etc.) EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



192

COMMUNICATION VISUAL MERCHANDIS ING




193

Having a strong visual display of merchandise in the store is essential for luxury brands to enhance their products and to encourage consumers to make a purchase. The analysts were particularly impressed with the in-‐store visual merchandising at Dior (15.5). They were praised for displaying products in a very attractive manner keeping the optimal amount of products on display, using flattering side-‐lights for their bags and maintaining a pleasant flow throughout the store. Tom Ford (10.5) and Chanel (9.5) were also very highly regarded In this parameter.



Weakest Performers 4. Armani: -‐2.0 5. Louis Vuitton: 1.5 6. Dolce & Gabbana: 2.0

The weakest performing stores in this category were Armani (-‐2.0), Louis Vuitton (1.5) and Dolce & Gabbana (2.0). These stores left plenty of room for improvement when it came to displaying their products in a gratifying way as they were often perceived as over-‐crowded.

PMI FACTOR: Upkeep-‐evaluate the perceived interpretation of the store’s in-‐store visual displays and informative set-‐ups that help to entice and intrigue a buyer’s product interest. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



194

COMMUNICATION WINDOW VISUAL MERCHANDISING




195

The ‘Window Visual Merchandising’ of a store is fundamental to attract customers to the store. Brands aim to use this space to convey their brand identity as well as inspirations for the current collections. In this category, analysts found the tropical jungle display at the Hermes (14.0) store the most captivating. Ralph Lauren (12.5) also performed well for their elaborate equestrian themed window display. On the lower end of the scale, Armani (-‐5.5), Gucci (1.5) and Burberry (3.5) were criticized for plain and uninteresting window displays.



Weakest Performers 4. Armani: -‐5.5 5. Gucci: 1.5 6. Burberry: 3.5

PMI FACTOR: Window Visual Merchandising-‐evaluate the perceived interpretation of the initial window display set up to entice and intrigue consumer to enter store. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



196

SALES PERSONNEL

Sales Personnel Appearance Sa les Personnel Greet ings Sa les Personnel Languages Sa les Personnel Pat ience & Courtesy Sa les Personnel Product In format ion Shoes C leanl iness Shoe Uni formi ty



197

SALES PERSONNEL SALES PERSONNEL APPEARANCE




198

The appearance of sales personnel is a representation of the brand itself. All the stores received generally positive results. Hermes (15.0) performed the best in this category. Analysts noted that both the male and female sales personnel were well groomed, uniformly dressed in the brands suits as well as scarves for the women. Ralph Lauren (14.5) Tom Ford (13.0) followed closely as well.

Dolce & Gabbana (0.5) received the lowest overall score, with the comments stating that the sales personnel not only displayed a lack of uniformity, but they also carried themselves poorly with wrinkled clothing. Each associate was different from the other with wrinkly clothes and not carrying themselves like they should be doing in a luxury boutique. Armani (4.5) and Gucci (7.0) also received relatively low scores.



Weakest Performers 4. Dolce & Gabbana: 0.5 5. Armani: 4.5 6. Gucci: 7.0

PMI PARAMETER: Sales Personnel Appearance-‐evaluate personnel’s outward appearance in dress and grooming; asking if the appearance relates to proper representation of the brand’s core image and message. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



199

SALES PERSONNEL SALES PERSONNEL GREETINGS




200

The perceptions of our analysts were quite divided with regard to the greetings received upon entry and within the stores. However the results of the graph shoes that the greetings at the Louis Vuitton (11.5) store were considerably better than the other stores, with customers receiving a warm welcome upon arrival. Chanel (9.5), Dior (9.0) and Tom Ford (9.0) were also noted to have personnel immediately and warmly greeting customers upon entry into the stores.

Strongest Performers 4. Louis Vuitton: 11.5 5. Chanel: 9.5 6. Dior: 9.0

Tom Ford: 9.0 Weakest Performers

4. Dolce & Gabbana: -‐8.5 5. Fendi: -‐0.5 6. Armani: 2.0

The lowest score by a significant margin was Dolce & Gabbana (-‐8.5). The problem was prevalent amongst the analysts who all mentioned that there were no greetings at the entrance or within the store. Some of the analysts felt like the staff did not even acknowledge their presence. At Fendi (-‐0.5), the problem was quite different: the staff were found to be very friendly and respectful however due to so few sales personnel, some of the analysts were greeted right away, but others had to wait several minutes for a sales person to greet and assist them.

PMI PARAMETER: Sales Personnel Greetings-‐evaluate the level of greetings and acknowledgement offered by staff when a consumer enters to visit a store. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



201

SALES PERSONNEL SALES PERSONNEL LANGUAGES




202

The ‘Sales Personnel Languages’ was one of the best performing categories we analyzed, where even the lowest score was a positive 6.0. We found that the sales personnel in The Dubai Mall were able to communicate in several different languages. The best performing store in terms of language was Gucci (12.5), with our analysts able to observe the staff communicating in English, Chinese, Spanish and Russian.


4. Gucci: 12.5 5. Hermes: 11.5 6. Armani: 11.0

Dior: 11.0 Weakest Performers

4. Dolce & Gabbana: 6.0 5. Fendi: 8.0

Ralph Lauren: 8.0 6. Chanel: 8.5

Hermes (11.5) was a close second, followed by Dior (11.0) and Armani (11.0). Each of these stores had personnel speaking to customers in the previously mentioned languages as well as Arabic, French and Polish. Dolce & Gabbana (6.0) scored the lowest. The sales personnel were able to speak a few languages however they seemed to have some difficulty giving detailed information in English. Fendi (8.0) and Ralph Lauren (8.0) also scored lower in comparison to the other brands.

PMI PARAMETER: Sales Personnel Language-‐evaluate the staff’s ability to speak in multiple languages and effectively communicate with consumers of different nationalities. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



203

SALES PERSONNEL SALES PERSONNEL PATIENCE & COURTESY




204

The strongest performers in this category were Tom Ford (13.5), Dior (12.0) and Louis Vuitton (11.0). The sales personnel at Tom Ford were noted to have been helpful, patient, attentive, polite and able to give customers very detailed information about every product in the store. Some analysts gave particular mention to the service at Dior (12.0), having been wowed by the experience. Another leading quality mentioned, was that staff were respectfully non intrusive.


4. Tom Ford: 13.5 5. Dior: 12.0 6. Louis Vuitton: 11.0

Weakest Performers 4. Dolce & Gabbana: -‐2.5 5. Armani: 3.5 6. Hermes: 5.0

The score received by Dolce & Gabbana (-‐2.5) was due to the rudeness of some personnel, their indifference to the presence of customers and some displays of vanity particularly from the male sales personnel. Armani’s (3.5) was largely due to their inconsistent dealing with customers, as some analysts found the personnel very helpful and others were disappointed. Hermes received similar criticism however many analysts observed that the sales personnel did not acknowledge them until they asked for help, at which point they were very helpful.

PMI PARAMETER: Sales Personnel Patience & Courtesy-‐evaluate the staff’s ability to remain patient and respectful as they diligently answer questions and take time with each client. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



205

SALES PERSONNEL SALES PERSONNEL PRODUCT INFORMATION




206

A sales person’s ability to give customers detailed information about the products is very important for luxury brands as this is what sets aside basic service from superior service. The strongest performer in this category was Dior (13.0), with many comments highlighting the extremely high level of detail and knowledge the sales personnel were able to convey about the products. Tom Ford (12.5) also received postive comments regarding their sales personnel’s knowledge of the whole range products as well as their willingness to share that with the customers.



Weakest Performers 4. Dolce & Gabbana: -‐5.5 5. Gucci: 0.0 6. Ralph Lauren: 3.5

The weakest performer in the category, by quite a margin was Dolce & Gabbana (-‐5.5). Not only were the sales personnel not forthcoming but also when asked they offered very little information about the materials, finish, maintenance, style and other aspects about the products. Gucci (0.0) received a low score due to a number of errors made by the sales people when describing the product. Ralph Lauren (3.5) also placed in the bottom three.

PMI PARAMETER: Sales Personnel Product Information-‐evaluate staff’s ability to instantly recall product knowledge regarding a variety of details (ex. price, material, composition, history). EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



207

SALES PERSONNEL SHOES CLEANLINESS




208

The ‘Sales Personnel Shoe Cleanliness’ is part of their general grooming and appearance, however managers often neglect the shoes, which can spoil the overall appearance if left unchecked. Overall the stores analyzed performed well regarding the sales personnel shoe cleanliness. The stores that received the highest scores were Dior (15.0), followed by Chanel (14.0) and Fendi (14.0).

There were, however four brands that did not manage to meet the average standard for shoe cleanliness. The weakest performers were Burberry (4.5) and Gucci (4.5), as well as Armani (6.0) as compared to the average score of 10.4. Analysts observed dust and some general wear and tear regarding the sale personnel shoes.


4. Dior: 15.0 5. Chanel: 14.0

Fendi: 14.0 6. Hermes: 13.5


4. Burberry: 4.5 Gucci: 4.5

5. Armani: 6.0 6. Dolce & Gabbana: 7.0

PMI PARAMETER: Shoe Cleanliness-‐evaluate the cleanliness of personnel’s shoes; looking for new and clean shoes. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



209

SALES PERSONNEL SHOE UNIFORMITY




210

The ‘Sales Personnel Shoe Uniformity’ was a measure of whether or not the brand issued their sales personnel with company shoes to give them a more harmonious appearance. Some analysts found it difficult to clearly observe whether the shoes were uniform. Many of our analysts noticed that all the sales personnel at Chanel (14.5) wore the brand’s shoes therefore they received the highest score, with Dior (12.5) and Hermes (12.0) also performing well.


4. Chanel: 14.5 5. Dior: 12.5 6. Hermes: 12.0

Weakest Performers 4. Burberry: 1.0 5. Armani: 1.5

Dolce & Gabbana: 1.5 6. Louis Vuitton: 6.0

The weakest performers were Burberry (1.0) as well as Armani (1.5) and Dolce & Gabbana (1.5). Generally, it was found that shoe uniformity was helpful to better control the standard of shoes worn. However in some stores the personnel did not wear the same shoes, but still achieved an impeccable appearance.

PMI PARAMETER: Shoe Uniformity-‐evaluate the consistent look of all personnel’s shoes; determining if they match the chosen outfit and are made by the brand for which they represent in the store. EVALUATION: Analysts assessed each one of the 31 PMI factors per store brand using an evaluation scale ranging from -‐1.0 to 1.0. Within this range, stores received one of the four grades listed below: 1.0 Excellent ; 0.5 Interesting but something is lacking and should be strengthened ; -‐0.5 A perceived inadequacy exists causing a negative perception ; -‐1.0 Very poor or unacceptable condition. Collecting the individual PMI results from all 16 analysts for all 11 brands, each store is then eligible to receive a comprehensive score ranging anywhere from -‐16.0 to 16.0.



211

APPENDIX 2 - Addi t iona l Analysts Quotes



212

ARMANI Atmosphere

• “Very Armani mood -‐ Milanese, sleek, modern.” • “There were no other clients in the store, the salespeople were waiting around. It made the

atmosphere uncomfortable.” • “Pleasant general mood and shopping atmosphere.” • “Pleasant space, but the lighting influences the atmosphere.” • “Very somber and somewhat sad atmosphere.”

Buzz Products

• “I did not see any buzz products.” • “No buzz product available.” • “Non existent.” • “No buzz products were on display.” • “No conversation piece present.” • “Some attention grabbing products such as gold jeans that were displayed.”

Cleanliness in Shop

• “Dingy looking and feeling.” • “Fingerprints were particularly visible on shiny black lacquered interiors in addition to extremely

dusty floors and furniture.” • “Good general cleanliness.” • “Lots of footprints on the floor.” • “It was generally clean despite finger prints on some of the showcases and on the window outside.”

Communicate Events

• “No events were communicated.” • “The LCD screens with the fashion shows at the entrance is a good touch.” • “Videos of fashion shows were playing in the back of the store.” • “Flats screens showing the 2012 fashion show was also i-‐Pads.” • “Fashion shows presented.”

Emotion

• “No particular emotion felt within store.” • “Decent store but far from having a wow factor.” • “Good Armani feel but no emotion within the store.”



213

• “Well kept Armani feeling however it didn’t grow in me.” • “The store does not give extra emotion but just a standard Armani emotion.”

Extras

• “There were no catalogues or samples to give out.” • “I didn't see any.” • “There was nothing offered.”

Fitting Room Cleanliness

• “Dirty…floor stains and door scratches. The room didn't even lock because it was broken.” • “There was dust on the seats and carpets.” • “The carpets are stained.” • “Not really tidy nor clean.” • “Clean, but the walls a bit dirty.”

Fitting Room Lighting

• “The fitting rooms were a bit dark, as in the whole store.” • “Poorly lit. It was hard to see properly.” • “The fitting rooms were neither too bright or dim.” • “It was too dim to see the products properly.” • “The fitting rooms need light improvement.”

Fitting Room Mirror

• “Good sized mirror but with prints on it.” • “Nice large floor-‐to-‐ceiling mirror.” • “The mirror had scratches and dust.” • “The mirror was of a good size and clean; yet not a 3-‐way as seen in most other stores.” • “Good sized mirror, fairly clean.”

Fitting Room Size

• “The fitting room was a bit small, but gave enough room to do what is needed.” • “Small. It was the size of a Zara fitting room. Nothing luxurious about it at all.” • “The fitting room was very small and only two hangers.” • “It was not as big as I expected but meets the purpose.” • “It was not very large but comfortable; I could try on apparel easily.”

Interior Design

• “Very very Armani, sleek minimal and neutral tones,” • “The interior design was straight forward, basic black interiors, in line with style of Armani brand.” • “The design is minimal, Armani like, but too black. Nothing came out. “ • “The interior design was too standard, too dark and not exciting.” • “The design is somewhat consistent to the Armani image: a bit too sleek and not as classic.”

Lighting

• “There was not enough lighting throughout. Couldn't see merchandise well.” • “Lighting was a bit too dim throughout store.” • “The store was too dark and reinforced by everything being black.”



214

• “The lighting was over done at certain displays and was very dull at few areas in the store, no harmony.”

• “The lighting is too dim, makes for a dingy atmosphere.” Location

• “Great location, occupies from turn-‐of-‐corner towards the Fashion Avenue circular center.” • “Great spot. Central to other hub of luxury retailers.” • “Prime location in the main circle with brand café outside.”

Odor

• “The store smelled of Armani's perfume.” • “No overwhelming smell, didn’t smell bad either.” • “Good scent. Nothing unusual.” • “Very clean and fresh scent.”

Orderliness

• “The was store well divided, products were well placed in displays.” • “The store was organized but having 3 brands (Armani, Giorgio and Emporio) can be a bit confusing

and overwhelming.” • “The store was well sorted, but the products had no effect/did not catch the eye” • “Messy. Accessories were bulk displayed and piled on top of each other (especially leather goods…i-‐

Pad cases/wallets). Empty sunglass display spaces (15 vacant spots). The stock room door was left open. Could see all the electrical mess that is supposed to be kept hidden and "behind the scenes".”

• “The store seemed a bit chaotic.” Price Quality Perception

• “The store seemed slightly overpriced.” • “Products seemed overpriced for the quality presented. In addition it was confusing…the store

housed three tiers of Armani…Emporio, Giorgio Armani and Armani Collezioni. It made the cheaper lines look overpriced…and the luxury line look cheap.”

• “Things seemed overpriced considering the product had no life.” • “The basic items were overpriced.” • “Clothing seemed masse products for their price.”

Quality Perception

• “Good quality perception, however products seem en masse, not unique pieces.” • “The quality of the casual clothes was sub-‐standard.” • “The fabrics were not of particular nice quality.” • “A few items (bags and blazers) were very nice but everything else seemed of poor quality.” • “A slightly bad perception, many unintended hanging threads were visible; some garments

appeared not to be constructed well.” Sales Personnel Appearance

• “Weak sales personnel appearance. The salesman that I worked with was busting out of his jacket…too small. Unpolished.”

• “They were well dressed but in different suits, either grey and black. Made it uniform. I guess the general appearance is OK but it could be better.”



215

• “However in uniforms, they did not look good (wrong sizes), almost cheap looking.”

• “I found the men's light blue linen suits very unflattering, scruffy and unrepresentative of the sleek Armani look.”

• “The women were dressed a bit too relax for a luxury store (cotton Asian looking attire).” Sales Personnel Greetings

• “No initial door greeting. A salesman did eventually make contact with me and was helpful/engaging while I was in the shop.”

• “I was greeted warmly and individually.” • “I did not receive any particular greeting upon entering or leaving the store.” • “I did not get immediately greeted by personnel.” • “The staff warmly and professionally welcomed me into the store.”

Sales Personnel Language

• “I heard the staff speaking in different languages.” • “I heard Polish, English, Chinese and Russian spoken.” • “My salesman did not speak very good English, but he was Asian and thus very likely to cater to

those languages.” • “Good English and Chinese speaking sales people.”


• “The salesman was kind but had to call a colleague to answer a question on the buzz product.” • “The salesman was kind and welcoming. But…at one point he said I should go to the other Armani

store (in another mall) to find the jacket in a different size. Although perhaps helpful for me…he was sending potential sales out the door and to another shop.”

• “He took all the clothes to the fitting room and waited until I tried each one.” • “Once our salesperson was done helping us he quickly returned to talking with other salesperson.” • “The salesman was very attentive and did his best to fix the problem with the i-‐Pad catalogue.” • “She was a bit impatient with me, it seems as she new I was not buying anything.” • “The sales associate was patient yet seemed a bit too eager to make a sell.”


• “My salesperson was informed. He knew about details of the garments I reviewed.” • “He explained all the lines extensions of Armani.” • “She brought out a very cheap calculator, not ARMANI at all.” • “The sales associate knew many details about product without having to check with any references.” • “The sales person was kind however wasn’t too keen on talking/assisting the customer.” • “The salesman was kind but lacked the right terminology and could not speak in depth about the

products.” Shoe Cleanliness

• “The staffs shoes were relatively clean.” • “Clean corporate shoes.” • “Shoes were clean and well shined.” • “The personnel’s shoes seemed fine.”



216

Shoe Uniformity • “Not sure they were all Armani shoes.” • “The men's shoes were the same, women's may have varied.” • “Everyone had different shoes on but with the same color.”

Store Communication

• “The store made great use of i-‐Pads to view catalogues.” • “i-‐Pads displayed throughout the store with look books.” • “There were just two posters near the fitting rooms.” • “I did not see any visible signs.”

Store Layout

• “Large store with good flow between sections, can see through the entire store.” • “Layout made sense and compatible with brand, from lower line Emporio Armani at entrance

towards higher line Giorgio Armani in the back; womenswear on left side menswear on right.” • “Large store with a lot of space, however very confusing to have 2 Armani brands in one store. No

coherence or separate division between the 2 brands.” • “Large store, felt understocked.” • “Good flow but couldn’t find distinction between Emporio and Giorgio.”

Store Temperature

• “Comfortable temperature; not too warm or cold.” • “The store was too cool, would prevent me from wanting to try something on.” • “Good temperature, cooler then outdoor.”

Upkeep

• “There were a couple of scratches on the tiles and the furniture was a bit damaged. The sofa/chairs had stains on the fabric.”

• “There were many chips and scratches very easily present.” • “The store seemed generally well-‐kept.” • “Things looked used and abused. Dirty carpets. Stains all over cream furniture.”

Visual Merchandizing

• “The display was good, but nothing to entice the customer.” • “Carefully spaced hangers, the sales assistant rearranged hangers immediately after a customer;

however, plastic sunglasses display seemed cheap and not in style of store.” • “The dark products on the black surfaces made it hard to see the products properly. Poor product

line differentiation.” • “The plastic shelf for sunglasses (with a lot of finger prints) looks cheap.” • “The limited and premium products prominently displayed and well lit.” • “The showcases needed more product (a bit empty) and had finger prints all over them.”

Window Cleanliness

• “Scratches on the mirror and dusty lights.” • “There were paint marks/droplets on the floor of the window display.” • “There were finger print markings.” • “The wooden floor and a display table were completely scratched.”



217

• “Clean: very sparse fingerprints for the end of the day.” Window Visual Merchandising

• “Nice products but boring display, not creative, just clothes on mannequins.” • “The mannequins looked extra frail/anorexic. Smallest shop mannequins I've ever seen in my life.

Too dark against black backdrop. Couldn't see merchandise well. No contrast.” • “Chic merchandise but similar to Zara.”



218

BURBERRY Atmosphere

• “The environment was upbeat and pleasant.” • “The store conjures up an image of rainy occasions, albeit in very nice outfits during such conditions.” • “Staff greetings and helpfulness created nice ambience, despite not being superbly warm.” • “Accessories staff was very welcoming but clothing staff were inaccessible and ignoring.” • “The excessive amount of products on display decreased the otherwise enjoyable atmosphere &

quality of shopping by overwhelming the consumer.” Buzz Products

• “I did not see any buzz products.” • “No buzz product available.” • “Non existent.” • “No buzz products were on display.” • “Only communication was for a new watch launch.”

Cleanliness in Shop

• “Generally quite tidy considering the over amount of products.” • “Fingerprints, smudges and scratches were observed, particularly in perfume room.” • “Clean but not at its best.” • “Numerous fingerprints and smudges, cleaning staff in store did not seem willing to clean.” • “Good effort, but there is space for improvement.”

Communicate Events

• “No events were communicated.” • “No fashion shows on display inside the store.” • “Nothing was used to communicate the brand.” • “There was only a large LED display outside of store for new watch launch.”

Emotion

• “Fair respectful representation of the brand, not particularly amazing nor awful.” • “Very British/London.” • “No particular wow effect, there was nothing negative nor major thrill.” • “The store was not bad, but not extraordinary for a luxury retail brand.”

Extras

• “There were no catalogues or samples to give out.”



219

• “I didn't see any.” • “There was nothing offered.”


• “Quite clean, tidy and well laid out.” • “Clean, but bad carpet choice as it appeared dirty when it wasn’t; made it unclear whether it was

dirty or just the carpet pattern.” • “Overall quite clean but could be improved.” • “’Prorsum’ fitting room was spacious with lounge furniture and large TV screen to showcase each

collection as well as additional Burberry information.” Fitting Room Lighting

• “Lighting was pleasant.” • “Good and very flattering lighting.” • “Sufficient and well-‐lit in the fitting room.” • “Lighting was comfortable to the eye.” • “Lighting was a good colour to enhance and bring out the products.”

Fitting Room Mirror

• “Mirror was large, although the room was narrow and long so clients had to stand very close to it.” • “Some blur marks from cleaning cloth were visible on the mirror.” • “Mirror was large but some fingerprints were visible.” • “Three-‐way mirror was practical and allowed clients full view.” • “A few scratches were observed.”

Fitting Room Size

• “Large, long room with hangers, chairs, and space for placing multiple items to try on at once.” • “Large and comfortable room.” • “Big enough room, with more focus on depth.” • “Nice and spacious with all the necessary and practical features of a fitting room.”

Interior Design

• “Wood décor and interior, but a bit too uniform.” • “Very boxy sections, evokes a more traditional image.” • “Design was consistent with the brand image.” • “Very classic, large rooms followed by smaller rooms throughout sections of the store.” • “There were no doubts that it was a Burberry store.”

Lighting

• “The lighting was perhaps just a bit too bright in the store.” • “The floor reflection dramatized the overall lighting in store making it a little bit too bright.” • “Too much glare with the lighting.” • “Easy to see and access but leans towards bright.”

Location

• “The location was a bit out of the main area but still relatively close to some competitors.” • “The store was not as central to the main hub of luxury brand shops in comparison.”



220

• “It was not in the centre of Fashion Avenue, but near other luxury brands.”

• “The off-‐centre location creates a more comfortable atmosphere.” • “Good location.”

Odor

• “There was no specific odor, neither pleasant nor unpleasant.” • “No bad scent throughout store, but no specific good scent either.” • “Neutral scent, nothing particularly special.” • “Only a slight, faint whiff of scent from the ‘Body’ perfume on display near entrance but generally

was barely noticeable.” Orderliness

• “There were a lot of merchandise in the clothing area, seemingly overcrowded and messy.” • “The display of sunglasses was not in order as well as out of reach unless equipped with a ladder.” • “There were a lot of products in every corner, making it confusing to discern.” • “The clothing section was too messy and confusing, but the accessories section was very organized

in comparison.” • “The vast amount of products created a sense of disorderliness.”

Price-‐Quality Perception

• “The price given the quality of the clothes were fair enough, but just a bit overpriced.” • “Overall good prices. But leans a little high.” • “Relatively expensive because of the brand name mark up.”

Quality Perception

• “The quality was fair, but not overwhelmingly amazing.” • “In general the materials used were good.” • “The construction and finishing of goods were acceptable but not wowed by it.” • “Good quality, nothing extraordinary or innovative to attract.”

Sales Personnel: Appearance

• “Sales staff were average looking and standardly groomed.” • “All staff was quite tidy and professional in terms of looks.” • “Sales personnel were good representative of the brand image.” • “Nothing spectacular in terms of appearance.” • “Staff were dressed quite formal and standard as expected.”

Sales Personnel: Greeting

• “Sales personnel were very friendly and smiley.” • “Clients were greeted warmly and individually.” • “Staff were generally nice and professional but did not immediately greet clients upon entrance.” • “It took a few moments before sales staff greeted clients but pleasantly.” • “Sales staff were very friendly and engaging in the accessories side, less so in the clothing section.”

Sales Personnel: Language

• “There were multi-‐lingual staff in store”



221

• “Sales assistants command Mandarin and English.” • “Staff could not speak French.” • “Sales associate could not speak Spanish but tried very hard to understand and interact with client.” • “Staff was able to speak Chinese and Russian.”

Sales Personnel: Patience and Courtesy

• “Sales associates were very helpful, patient and courteous.” • “Staff was helpful with all the questions and took time to answer and explain.” • “Sales assistants tried their best to answer questions whenever possible.” • “Staff personal guided client around the store and handpicked each selection.” • “In comparison, sales staff in accessories section e more friendly and engaging than the garment

section.” Sales Personnel: Product Information

• “Sales staff was adequately knowledgeable about the products.” • “Sales associate was well informed on the fabric material of trench coats and the differences

between the sub-‐lines.” • “Sales assistant knew the products very well.” • “The associate knew specific details about the product without any references.” • “The sales personnel were very informative and passionate about the brand.”

Shoe Cleanliness

• “The shoes of the sales personnel were good and adequately clean.” • “Shoes were tidy but not exceptionally clean and sharp.” • “Good shoes, but not particularly polished.”

Shoe Uniformity

• “It was uncertain if some shoes were from Burberry and part of the uniform or not.” • “All the shoes were black.” • “The shoes were not uniformed/standard shoes among the associates.” • “The black shoes matched the Burberry uniform outfits, but were not standardized.” • “Shoes were all different.”

Store Communication

• “There were large LCD display screens demonstrating the craftsmanship behind the new watch.” • “Interesting TV display screens were located outside the store for the new watch launch campaign.” • “Untraditional communication media such as visual technology was used to share the brand

message through videos in the store.” • “Posters with Emma Watson’s new Burberry campaign were visible throughout the shop.”

Store Layout

• “Clients were unable to see the whole store at once.” • “The store was divided into too many different sections and rooms, thus creating a confusing flow.” • “It felt like two different stores with two different ambiances throughout the shop due to the layout

segments by departments.” • “The layout was generally unfavorable as there were too many things in the way while walking.” • “Menswear section in the back was particularly narrow.”



222

Store Temperature

• “Temperature was adequate.” • “It was a pleasant temperature.” • “The store temperature was comfortable.” • “It was not too cold compared to the rest of the Dubai Mall.”

Upkeep

• “There were dust and chipped wood visible on the floor.” • “Glass was scratched, as well as parts of the wood flooring.” • “Walls need to be painted or retouched and counter refitted.” • “Interior was poorly maintained and the store should put in better efforts.” • “Moderate scratches and chips were visible, furniture seemed worn out too.”

Visual Merchandising

• “Products were displayed paired in outfits to attract attention.” • “Items and new collections were displayed in nice themes interestingly.” • “The visual display strongly encourages clients to interact with the products.” • “Too much product was on display, thus a bit confusing.” • “Merchandise was displayed in a nice layout, yet seemed a bit too much displayed for a luxury store.”

Window Cleanliness

• “Windows seemed fine in appearance but upon close inspection showed visible markings and scratches.”

• “Generally clean windows but with tiny, acceptable marks.” • “There were some scratches here and there.” • “Some fingerprints were visible due to curious clients who touched the windows and magnifiers for

closer view.” Window Visual Merchandising

• “There were installations of huge display screens with ad campaign film for new watch.” • “Strong, clean and clear message focused on new watch and video screens that played Burberry

brand videos.” • “All windows were dedicated to watch launch, no clothes were on display.” • “The video and display were eye-‐catching and helped the product to entice customers, but not very

exciting.” • “Merchandising was only focused on watch, no other garment or products from Burberry were

shown.”



223

CHANEL Atmosphere

• “Very Chanel classic, elegant atmosphere.” • “Classic Chanel atmosphere, nothing enticing. It didn’t exceed my expectation.” • “It felt a bit stuffy.” • “A bit dull.” • “Overheard hip-‐hop music playing, didn’t match the DNA of the brand.”

Buzz Products

• “I didn’t see anything.” • “Nothing in particular, but everything seemed interesting.” • “No real buzz product.” • “Nothing offered.” • “Spotted a Channel surfboard and plasticized cotton shorts.”

Cleanliness in Shop

• “Quite clean for the size of the shop.” • “Clean and generally scratch-‐less.” • “Fingerprints seen everywhere you went in the shop.” • “Basically clean, but carpet is a little stained and walls look a bit dirty.” • “Very clean.”

Communicate Events

• “No events communicated.” • “Video of fashion show was playing.” • “3 Screens showing the latest fashion show.” • “I didn’t see any.”

Emotion

• “Chairs and changing rooms really ‘wowed’.” • “Impressive jewelry and watch area. Very nice design.” • “Nice emotion, highly played up the prestige of the brand.” • “It looked very much like the brand-‐nothing over the top.” • “No particularly strong emotion.”

Extras

• “I didn’t see any.”



224

• “I saw books and catalogs to look at. No one suggested that we could take them.”

• “Nothing was offered to me.” Fitting Room Cleanliness

• “Very, very clean inside.” • “Clean, however I saw black shoe marks on a white table.” • “Immaculate, almost flawless.” • “Fitting room was perfectly clean and well maintained.” • “Very tidy and well decorated.”


• “Extremely flattering side lighting.” • “Neither too bright or too dim.” • “Fitting room was well let.”

Fitting Room Mirror

• “Perfect. Loads of space to see yourself in the mirror from up close and at a distance.” • “Good size, but a bit too far to the back.” • “Very large 3-‐way mirror that appeared clean.” • “Mirrors offered both full-‐length and multi-‐angle views.” • “Could have been bigger.”

Fitting Room Size

• “Huge space, with t.v., couch, screen to change behind if friends are also in the room.” • “Extremely large. Me, my friend and the associate had plenty of room to spread-‐out.” • Quite spacious.”

Interior Design

• “Beautiful sitting parlors throughout shop. Gorgeous interiors in the lounging areas.” • “Nice and coherent with the brand.” • “Elegant and very sophisticated.” • “Comfortable and good looking tweed chairs evoking Chanel DNA.”

Lighting

• “Inconsistent, a bit too bright for bags and clothes, then dim for jewelry.” • “Focus was mostly on the products. Nice balance.” • “Very nice. Not too bright and not too dark.” • “Lighting was fine, very white.”

Location

• “Good, in the central hub of the other luxury retail shops.” • “Along Fashion Avenue between competitors.” • “Store façade is obstructed by location of Gucci and Louis Vuitton.” • “Good, strong location. Prime spot.”



225

Odor • “Neutral scent, not bad but not particularly good either.” • “I smelled traces of Chanel No. 5.” • “No bad odors, pleasant smells.”

Orderliness

• “Shoes were lying around the shop after clients had tried them on.” • “Perfect balance of merchandise. Not too much, not too little.” • “Seemed quite in order despite crowds of clients within the store.” • “Somewhat orderly, a bit disheveled in some sections.”

Price Quality Perception

• “Expensive, but clearly well made.” • “Very pricey, but obviously made with great detail.” • “Although very nice quality and workmanship; prices seemed a bit too high.” • “Good price to quality ratio.”

Quality Perception

• “Fantastic and interesting use of unique fabric, like the plasticized cotton shorts.” • “Great quality of wool tweed fabrics.” • “Amazing details on the apparel.” • “Interesting and well made products were offered in the assortments.”

Sales Personnel Appearance

• “Everyone dressed very well. Looked like Chanel brand.” • “Associates put together in a very neat manner.” • “Well dressed and professional along the way.”

Sales Personnel Greetings

• “Greeting ok; not particularly warm.” • “Offered a delayed greeting. Didn’t welcome at the door, but welcoming once inside.” • “Greeted upon entering and exiting the shop.” • “Some sales assistants greeted, quite nice.”


• “Very good English, overhead a associate speaking Chinese with a guest also.” • “Obvious that staff spoke multiple languages-‐Arabic, English, Chinese.” • “Multi-‐lingual staff.”


• “Very patient and willing to check available products in my size.” • “Extremely patient and kind salesperson, truly impressive and above average.” • “Very courteous. Lady helped me in the fitting room. Took time to grab other items.” • “Patient, but not very friendly.”


• “Quickly found out the where the product was located that I asked about.”



226

• Very helpful. Knowledgeable. Informed about the pieces that I tried-‐on.”

• “Explained the Bombay Matier Collection and the details about SS13.” • “Knew a lot of details but had to look-‐up info regarding the garment’s construction.” • “Informative, but read a label when I asked for more info on the item.”

Shoe Cleanliness

• “Clean and polished.” • “Immaculate.”

Shoe Uniformity

• “Great. Associates wore Chanel brand shoes.” • “Men in dress shoes. Women in pumps. All looked like Chanel brand.” • “Everyone appeared to have matching shoes.” • “Uniform with evidence of the Chanel logo.”

Store Communication

• “Catwalk videos shown around the store, including the fitting rooms.” • “Some signage was present.” • “Showed video footage of runway shows.” • “No communication, didn’t see anything.”

Store Layout

• “Not so fluid, felt a little too segmented.” • “Well divided into clear sections, popular bags at front with clothing in the back.” • “Big and organized well, but I easily tripped on steps leading to back room. Should be marked more

clearly.” • “Most popular products sold upfront with a natural link to the jewelry division close-‐by.”

Store Temperature

• “Perfect temperature.” • “Not too warm, or too cold.” • “A little chilly, even the associate agreed.”

Upkeep

• “I saw some chipped mirrors throughout the store.” • “Quite poorly maintained, scratches and old carpet.” • “Frayed carpets and random paper scraps spotted on the floor.” • “Disappointing. Scratched glass displays, old carpet.”


• “Interesting and curious products displayed more prominently.” • “Not everything could be properly displayed due to limited space.” • “Most of the collections were racked on one shelf and not exclusively displayed.” • “Products well displayed.”



227

Window Cleanliness • “One light bulb was broken and the electric wiring was visible in the windows.” • “Clean, but could have been neater looking.” • “Fingerprints everywhere.” • “Clean with no dust bunnies, did see scratches on the floor and displays.”


• “The window styling was edgy but didn’t really match the look and feel of Chanel.” • “Cheesy merchandising. Used synthetic gems scattered around display. Looked cheap.” • “Quite simple, doesn’t quite represent the brand.” • “Nice visual display, but nothing particularly interesting.”



228

D IOR Atmosphere

• “Very pleasant atmosphere, highly respectful associates.” • “Felt exclusive and elegant.” • “Elite and yet not snobbish.” • “Dior image communicated well throughout entire store.”

Buzz Products

• “No buzz products were available.” • “The appearance of buzz products wasn’t evident to me.” • “Saw special couture gowns in display cases.” • “Was told the story of the new ‘MyDior’ ring.”

Cleanliness in Shop

• “Mostly well kept, very few scratches.” • “Evidence of dust in high traffic areas.” • "Impeccable and dust free. ” • “Tidy, especially considering the size of the store.”

Communicate Events

• “Dior fashion show playing screen when entering store.” • “No events communicated.” • “Nothing impressive, saw a flat screen show the season’s fashion show.” • “ A bit weak, but the store is so impressive that you barely notice it.”

Emotion

• “Fabulous. Made me feel special. Made me want to always buy Dior.” • “Sharp look and feeling in menswear section.” • “Strong “wow-‐effect”.” • “Classic and Elegant.” • “Captivating, edgy.”

Extras

• “Nothing offered.” • “Received a beverage while I tried on clothing.”



229

• “I was given a Dior shopping bag with a catalog.” • “Not offered anything extra by the staff.”


• “Very tidy and well decorated.” • “Well-‐kept room with all white décor, little to no dust.” • “Clean, nicely decorated.” • “Spotless and inviting.”


• “Well lit without creating a harsh glare.” • “Perfect to see merchandise and my reflection.” • “Flattering side lighting.” • “Pleasing lights surrounding the room.”

Fitting Room: Mirror

• “Clean mirrors, both the one in front and the one towards the back.” • “ Nice sized mirror, but didn’t offer 3-‐way view as seen in other stores.” • “ Large mirrors, good size.” • “Great. Was able to see my self up-‐close and appreciate what was I trying.” • “ The size and quality of the mirror was great.”

Fitting Room: Size

• “Immense room, with a waiting room for friends and additional fitting rooms within the main fitting room.”

• “Very spacious.” • “Huge. Loved the layout.” • “Amazing, fitting room was set-‐up as a large salon parlor…then there were individual rooms for

guests to use within the main parlor.”

Interior Design • “Bright, classic and elegant. Very Dior, well done!” • “Looked very Dior, very couture.” • “Great interior, glamorous Dior style.” • “Very innovative and good utilization of space.” • “Gorgeous. Impressive entry with custom chairs and amazing video screens that wrapped around

entire front room.” Lighting

• “Little dull in fitting room.” • “Nice lighting in men's and women's divisions, too bright in accessories area.” • “A little bit too bright throughout the whole store.” • “Slightly too bright.”

Location

• “Located along a prime fashion catwalk scene.” • “Prime Location.”



230

• “Great. In the hub of other luxury retailers.” • “Can be seen from the entrance of Fashion Avenue.”

Odor

• “Good, not overwhelming.” • “No unpleasant smells.” • “Good. Nothing unusual.” • “Light perfume, nice touch.”

Orderliness

• “Organized divisions, products displayed neatly.” • “Products well organized and conveniently reachable.” • “Good. Everything had its place and purpose.” • “Products displayed neatly.”


• “Pricey, but good quality products.” • “Fair price quality ratio. Experience was perfect, left believing price is justified.” • Products have substance; hence it seems worthy of the price.” • “Accessories have better quality.” • “Retail price too high.”

Quality Perception

• “Very high quality perceived.” • “Good quality clothes, but difficult to focus on details because store was huge.” • “Excellent quality perception.” • “Evident use of high-‐end materials.”

Sales Personnel: Appearance

• “Not very young representatives, but experienced.” • “Male staff appeared in black suit uniform, well groomed.” • “Personnel appeared to have differing outfits, but all looked professional.” • “Very neat and polished appearance.” • “Neat, but not particularly fantastic.”

Sales Personnel: Greetings

• “Friendly greeting upon entrance to menswear.” • “Greeted immediately.” • “Kind. Engaging. Professional.” • “Greeted in different languages.” • “Warmly greeted at the door.”


• “Excellent English with effective communication.” • “Very good English.” • “Chinese speaking salesperson.” • “No Spanish speaking associates, but met an Italian salesperson and we communicated pretty well.”



231

• “Associates spoke English and Arabic.” Sales Personnel: Patience & Courtesy

• “Sales woman spent time explaining and telling stories about baby Dior.” • “Associate very kind, friendly, and respectful.” • “Very friendly and eager to help, patient with checking sizes and styles.” • “Wow! Wow! Wow! This is what luxury shopping is all about. Received full-‐service from start to

finish. Perfect hand-‐off between associates. Genuine. Helpful.” • “Patient and extremely friendly.”

Sales Personnel: Product Information

• “Talked about product details with ease, very enthusiastic.” • “Superior. The shop manager and another associate spent 40 minutes helping us. Giving us great

info about the brand and story. They were happy to do their job, very passionate about Dior.” • “Explained products, materials and fashion trends.” • “Knowledgeable and passionate about the brand.” • “Associate very knowledgeable about product details and eager to explain.”

Shoe Cleanliness

• “Neat Shoes.” • “Very Clean and well polished.” • “Hardly any dust.” • “ Perfectly cleaned.” • “Appropriate for work.”

Shoe Uniformity

• “Appeared to look like part of the uniform.” • “All were black, not sure if they were all Dior.” • “Shoes match and look great.”

Store Communication

• “Some product signage, here and there.” • “Few sign, nothing impressive.” • “No signs were posted in the store, however the sales personnel made up for it.” • “LCD screens present throughout the store.”

Store Layout

• “Great. Well-‐sectioned. Clearly defined. Good flow.” • “Good flow and well placement of merchandise.” • “Floor plan was okay, acceptable flow. Very linear and visible.” • “Clear divisions with flow.”

Store Temperature

• “Nice temperature.” • “Moderate.” • “Good, slightly cold.” • “A bit too cold.”



232

• “Comfortable temperature.” Upkeep

• “Store well kept. Good. Fresh. New. Clean feeling.” • “Well arranged and handled by sales representatives.” • “Dirty walls needed touch-‐up painting, and spotted some chips on walls.” • “Well maintained, nothing broken or scratched.” • “High traffic areas needed more cleaning attention.”


• “Well tailored and thought-‐out displays.” • “Orderly displays. Not overcrowded, displayed three sizes of each item.” • “Products well displayed.“

Window Cleanliness

• “Some marks on the window, but few.” • “One of the cleanest stores in Dubai mall.” • “Little smudges on windows.” • “Extremely clean compared to the other stores around, dust in corners.”


• “The light too bright for the visual, client need to look closely for details.” • “Best store among the luxury avenue.” • walls of exterior were uneasy on the eyes, but definitely got my attention.” • “Amazing window displays but a few light bulbs were broken.” • “Very nice and creative merchandising, attractive to client.”



233

DOLCE & GABBANA

Atmosphere • “Tacky and cheap. Music kept cutting in and out. Was silent for a long time at one point.” • “Uncomfortable, made us feel unwelcomed.” • “Mood felt a bit sad.” • “Standard style.” • “Very unpleasant and felt uncomfortable being watched.”

Buzz Products

• “I didn't see any.” • “No visible buzz products seen.” • “Pink baroque-‐styled shoes with floral decorations and extravagant heel.” • “A special and interesting pair of shoes on display.” • “Nothing special that attracted by eyes or that a can consider a buzz product.”

Cleanliness in Shop

• “Finger prints on some of the showcases, big window looking towards the outside area were completely filthy.”

• “A few mark around the store, but generally clean.” • “Messy. Messy. Staff was unpacking clothing on display tables around multiple locations in shop.

Dusty shelves.” • “Not that dirty, but some marks on counters and changing area.” • “Fingerprints everywhere, carpet is extremely dirty.”

Communicate Events

• “Did see a screen showing videos, but hard to find.” • “Didn’t see anything that caught my interested.” • “Coffee table book that presented the previews fashion shows.” • “No event communication.”

Emotion

• “Zero positive emotion.” • “Definitely a wow feeling when entering the store, however it was for all the wrong reasons -‐ over

the top light interiors housing unimpressive clothing.” • “Disappointing.”



234

• “Unpleasant emotion.” Extras

• “Some catalogues to take if you asked for them.” • “Very weak” • “Nothing offered.” • “Didn’t anything that was eye-‐catching.” • “No extras.”


• “Carpet was dirty stained in some sections.” • “Not clean, carpet needs to be replaced with a new one.” • “Fitting room filthy; carpet dirty with objects on the floor.” • “ Needs improvement, they can do better.”


• “Harsh spot lighting from above, not flattering.” • “Average lighting, a bit disturbing.” • “Okay lighting, a bit too bright.” • “Spot lights were sharp on the mirror and created a glare.” • “White cold lighting was not pleasant.”


• “Large mirror with some marks on it.” • “Good size mirror.” • “Good, clean but unflattering.” • “It didn’t seem they had the best quality mirrors.” • “Spots were observed on the side, size appropriate.”

Fitting Room: Size

• “Very small.” • “Uncomfortable to manage and change outfits.” • “Very small compared to other brands.” • “Fairly small to be in The Dubai Mall, where everything is exaggerated.”

Interior Design

• “Recognizably Dolce & Gabbana, but a bit too dark and dull.” • “Very overdone and jarring.” • “Average. Nothing amazing. Acceptable.” • “Consistent to brand, but not extremely comfortable.”

Lighting

• “Good lighting, and natural light coming in the back room through the big window.” • “Dim lighting with black interior is a poor decision for displaying products.” • “Lights were not really enhancing the product.” • “Window facing west side creates sunlight during afternoon, brings heat to the store makes and

makes it too warm.”



235

• “To dim in general.” Location

• “Prime area along the fashion catwalk of other luxury brands.” • “Prime Location.” • “Great. In the hub of other luxury retailers.”

Odor • “Terrible scent. Employee walking around spraying air freshener, very unprofessional.” • “Nothing overwhelming.” • “Unpleasant scent present throughout the store.” • “Nothing special that bothered me.”

Orderliness

• “Bags well organized, but too many products on display in general.” • “Tidy, but was uninteresting.” • “Generally well organized.” • “The overall display is ok, it could use improvement.”


• “Overpriced for poor level of quality.” • “A bit overpriced in terms of the quality of the clothing, the bags seemed better made.” • “The ladies handbags were very expensive.” • “Over-‐priced. Quality didn't match the price.”

Quality Perception

• “Not good. Cheap looking.” • “Decent quality but not very exciting or luxurious.” • “Generally poor quality, men’s suits were polyester blends, but some of women’s lace dresses were

of nicer quality.” • “Quality was low, more so in the women’s wear, menswear was better.” • “Quality seemed decent but the amount of product on display seemed to diminish their individual

value.” Sales Personnel: Appearance

• “Put together but not impeccably.” • “Average, it can be better.” • “Staff were uniformed, generally groomed but not particularly well.” • “One male associate had slimy styled hair…needed trimmed.” • “The sales men were attractive but dressed like bouncers in a club.”

Sales Personnel: Greetings

• “No greeting for several minutes, until question was asked.” • “Very weak.” • “Nobody even acknowledged our presence.” • “Quite ignored for a while.” • “Need improvements.”



236


• “Trilingual.” • “English was fairly good.” • “No one speak Spanish, but the English was descent.” • “Chinese speaking knowledge was very well spoken.” • “Spoke English fairly well, was Asian and spoke Chinese on the phone.”

Sales Personnel: Patience & Courtesy

• “Staff didn't engage with me at all. Felt non-‐existent.” • “One male staff was particularly rude regarding a runway dress. • “Very rude with arms folded and eyes rolling.” • “Not particularly kind or helpful.” • “Didn't engage at all.”

Sales Personnel: Product Information

• “Had no extra knowledge on the products.” • “Had to look up basic questions about garments.” • “Asked for the exchange rate and took him time to do the calculations.” • “Sales assistant had to look at label to check material of men’s suit.”

Shoe Cleanliness

• “Clean without fingerprints. No dust bunnies.” • “Clean and tidy.” • “Some were clean, some had scruff marks.” • “Some were in sports sneakers.” • “Average.”

Shoe Uniformity

• “Not sure if shoes were all the Dolce & Gabbana brand.” • “All different.” • “No matching shoes but same color range.” • “Standard uniform and shoes.”

Store Communication

• “Nothing was present.” • “No communication.” • “Didn’t see anything.” • “Very weak communications standards.”

Store Layout

• “Good flow. Easy to locate products you may be searching for.” • “Clear and thought-‐out flow.” • “Basically fine, but slightly annoying when display tables and sofas are in the way while walking.” • “Various sections through-‐out, decent flow.”

Store Temperature



237

• “A bit too cold.” • “Good Temperature.” • “Nice warm temperature compared to the freezing mall.” • “Too hot, particularly inside fitting room.”

Upkeep

• “Didn’t appear maintained on a consistent basis.” • “Fingerprints. Carpet stains.” • “Fairly maintained.” • “Scratched furniture.” • “Store needs better house keeping.”


• “Products weren’t very enticing, overall display were a let down.” • “Too much merchandise on display, not particularly attractive.” • “Dull. Uninteresting. Overcrowded accessories. Two perfume bottles on display at check-‐out were

empty. Also, saw empty sunglass displays.” Window Cleanliness

• “Some minor scratches.” • “Finger print present. Moderately clean.” • “Average it could have been better.” • “Scratches were observed on glass.”


• “Drawing some attention.” • “Display not imaginative or special.” • “Stale and boring.” • “Lack of creativity.”



238

FENDI

Atmosphere • “Happy, updated, sleek modern and inviting atmosphere.” • “The ambiance was enjoyable, nice environment. “ • “Portrayed an elegant mood.”

Buzz Products

• “There were limited edition watches.” • “There was a limited edition baguette.” • “I was explained there were made to measure bags.”

Cleanliness in Shop

• “Dirty and dusty displays especially in accessories section.” • “Certain dust and scratches on the rack and floor.” • “Not clean at all; many fingerprints and • Smudges were visible.”

Communicate Events

• “No events communicated.” • “I didn’t see any LED screen.” • “None were observed.”

Emotion

• “The interior design made an impression.” • “The walls and interior design of the store gave a wow effect.” • “The setting is different than other luxury brand e.g. the entrance and the lay out of items.”

Extras

• “There weren’t any catalogues or samples to give out.” • “I didn't see any.” • “Nothing was offered.”


• “Tidy space, no visible mess.” • “Very clean and tidy.” • “Clean and not many visible dust spots.”



239


• “Light and calming.” • “Ok lighting, it was with a spot light.” • “Good lighting.”

Fitting Room Mirror

• “There was a 3 dimensional mirror, very elegant.” • “Good sized mirror.” • “Nice and clean 3-‐way mirror.”

Fitting Room Size

• “Perfect size fitting room, it allowed a comfortable experience.” • “Spacious and comfortable.” • “Good size and comfortable.”

Interior Design

• “Very good and different interior design, all the marble and gold inside were very reminiscent of Rome, the home of the brand.”

• “Beautiful Sleek and chic. But marble stone area looked dirty. It wasn't…it was just bad marble.” • “Earthy atmosphere, complementing the products, luxury feeling.” • “Amazing interior design, loved the wave finish walls.”

Lighting

• “Nice warm light, not too much of it either.” • “Nice warm light, with nice glow on the displays.” • “Warm light, not too bright.”

Location

• “Prime location on the fashion catwalk.” • “Good location within Fashion Avenue.”

Odor

• “No particular ambiance scent.” • “Neutral odor.” • “Neutral scent, not bad but not particularly differentiating.”

Orderliness

• “Well divided and well organized.” • “Neat and interesting layout, the right amount of products on display. I noticed an emphasis on the

right items.” • “Very tidy as just the right amount of products is displayed.” • “The products were quite neatly displayed.”


• “Fair price based on the product materials and value.” • “Its leather apparels and menswear were reasonably priced in terms of price quality.”



240

• “Price seemed good, due to the visible detail in the items.”

Quality Perception • “Some of their merchandise were repetitive and quality in subjective to the bags.” • “Inferior finishes on leather wallets; not consistent with luxury image.” • “The products appeared detailed and well made.” • “I found the quality perception to be strong.”


• “The sales personnel were well dressed and put together.” • “They looked smart, formal and professional.” • “All were suited up in uniformed, both men and women.”


• “I was welcomed several times by various staff members.” • “I was greeted upon entering the store.” • “Great, Kind and Genuine.” • “No greeting until midway through the store.” • “Nobody took attention to me.”


• “Staff spoke good English and Chinese, communicated well with Chinese and English in the same time.”

• “Overheard multiple languages spoken by different sales associates.” • “Staff spoke good English, and had Asian sales staff.”


• “Very kind staff, complimentary and were also humorous.” • “Well-‐informed. Helped find conversion rate on products.” • “Kind associates who were eager to help.”


• “Knew it was cashmere without checking label, quite knowledgeable about the season/fashion show.”

• “Knowledgeable, explained about the special edition watches with complete details.” • “Very knowledgeable, explained about the baguette special and knew special leather grains and

unique products.”

Shoe Cleanliness • “The shoes were neat and tidy.” • “The shoes seemed reasonably clean.”

Shoe Uniformity

• “All black but no uniformity among associates' shoes.” • “Looked the same but were actually different.” • “Uniformity was maintained.”



241

Store Communication • “I did not see any signage in the store.” • “No communication was visible.” • “The store had a tiny screen playing footage of past runway shows, but it was high on the wall. It

was hard to see and I wouldn’t be surprised if nobody noticed it.” Store Layout

• “Good layout, very simple, only one flows towards clothes section.” • “Easy to navigate and had an undisturbed private feeling in the back.” • “Good flow could see through the store, spaces were clearly divided.”

Store Temperature

• “The store was absolutely freezing. Felt like being trying things on in a meat locker fridge, especially the fitting rooms!”

• “I was cold and felt shivers.” • “It was freezing...not enjoyable.”

Upkeep

• “I saw dust and the hangers were worn out.” • “Very well maintained, but the glass payment counter was completely scratched and worn out.” • “The walls need to be repainted; scratches on displays. A bit disappointing when the interior design

is so great.” • “Scratches, dusty shelves and needs repainting.”


• “Lacked variety in men’s collection and didn’t have stock.” • “Not particularly enticing in accessories section, but women wear was displayed nicely.” • “A little too minimalist…but perfect amount of inventory assortment.” • “The accessories were nicely displayed.”

Window Cleanliness

• “Little dust and some finger prints.” • “The lights were dusty.” • “Generally clean but with scratches.”


• “There was one outfitted mannequin and one bag next to it, nothing very special.” • “Few windows but the store was open and very inviting, not intimidating.” • “The window display did not seem coherent with the design in store.”



242

GUCCI Atmosphere

• “The mood was calm and peaceful. “ • “Generally okay, focused on promoting a glamorous feel with the evening gowns.” • “Nice atmosphere thanks to friendly associates.”

Buzz Products

• “There was a Gucci jewelry box and men's flower pins for suits.” • “There were exclusive heritage bags.” • “They had a made to order collection.”

Cleanliness in Shop

• “There were fingerprints on the display cases.” • “There were some marks, but generally did it not feel so clean (especially compared to the mall

standard).” • “The carpet was dusty.”

Communicate Events

• “LED with fashion shows.” • “Video of fashion show was playing in the back; showcases the evening gowns on display in store

was from runway show.” • “LED screen with fashion show playing in the background.”

Emotion

• “The walls and interior design of the store gave a wow effect.” • “Interior design gave a positive impression and emotion.” • “I did not feel any wow-‐effect.” • “The store was OK but definitely not a wow store.”

Extras

• “No brochures were offered.” • “Nothing was offered.” • “I was given a few perfume samples after interaction with the salesperson.”


• “Quite clean and neat.” • “Clean and tidy space.”



243

• “The carpet was vacuumed and not too many visible scratches.”

Fitting Room Lighting • “Absolutely horrible, fluorescent. It was bad.” • “Very dark with velvet walls.” • “Lighting was a bit dim inside the fitting room.”

Fitting Room Mirror

• “A three-‐way mirror was only available but only outside of the fitting room in the dressing room corridor.”

• “Good size but the small fitting room forced you to stand very close to the mirror.” • “The color of the mirror outside is yellow, which influences the exact look and color of the clothes.”

Fitting Room Size

• “Good, sufficient for what needs to be done.” • “Alright, but leaning towards small.” • “The fitting room was small for a luxury brand.”

Interior Design

• “A lot of brown, but not many other visibly Gucci elements in the décor.” • “Pretty good décor consistent to brand image…not very imaginative however.” • “Mostly wood, not very distinctively Gucci.”

Lighting

• “The lighting was low with the gold décor.” • “The store was too dark and it made it hard to see.” • “Lighting was okay, a bit too warm (yellow), needed to consult various mirrors to check true color of

items.” • “Too strong in parts, inconsistent all around.”

Location

• “Within Fashion Avenue, next to Chanel and Louis Vuitton. Great location.” • “Great in the hub of other luxury retailers.” • “In the middle of the Fashion catwalk.”

Odor

• “Pleasant scent.” • “Neutral scent, not bad but not particularly differentiating.” • “No specific unpleasant odor.”

Orderliness

• “Products were displayed neatly despite too much merchandise.” • “Organized well, not confusing, bit too many products on display.” • “Good orderliness. However I wouldn't have left floor mirrors behind the check-‐out. When you stand

at the check-‐out consumer can see all the cash register mess and wires behind the counter because of the mirror reflection.”



244


• “Overpriced for products you receive. Silk print shirts cost 600 euro when it looked like something from Zara.”

• “Overpriced, 100% viscose dress was sold at 5000 Dirham.” • “A bit overpriced.” • “Generally well priced but the 'exclusive' items were over exaggerated.”

Quality Perception

• “Not bad quality but not astounding either.” • “Fine quality but not spectacular in general.” • “Good quality perception.”


• “The sales personnel looked a little tacky. My saleslady’s makeup/lipstick was obnoxious.” • “Not very attractive but professional.” • “Ok overall, bad shoes though.”


• “Greeting upon both entrance and departure, but was not warm and felt forced.” • “Other for the doorman it took a few moments to receive a greeting.” • “Greeted upon arrival but not very warm.” • “Only greeted by one saleswoman who came off a bit aggressive for some reason.”


• “The sales assistant was able to speak Russian.” • “Spanish speaking saleslady, she was Venezuelan.” • “Good knowledge of English and Chinese.”


• “Saleslady was condescending when describing an 'exclusive' bag as crocodile when it was clearly alligator.”

• “Salesperson was hardly interested.” • “Salesperson gave stuck up answer to whether the bag was made in Italy: 'of course’.”


• “My salesperson had to check the label inside the garment to determine material.” • “Knowledge about bags was good, but badly communicated.” • “Could not give basic product information off-‐hand.” • “Not knowledgeable about bag materials (e.g. crocodile).”

Shoe Cleanliness

• “Mostly good, but one or two unclean.” • “Shoes tidy but not exceptionally clean and sharp.”

Shoe Uniformity

• “Not uniform but all black.”



245

• “Decent shoes but not matching.” Store Communication

• “No communication like history or heritage.” • “Some books on the tables, and a small screen which seemed broken in half (tacky, better to have

nothing).” • “Didn’t see any.”

Store Layout

• “The store was clearly divided into left (menswear) and right (women swear), accessed through a central area (accessories).”

• “Good flow to the store, can see the various sections.” • “Good flow and spacious.”

Store Temperature

• “The store was a bit too cold.” • “Adequate temperature.” • “Comfortable store temperature.”

Upkeep

• “The store was well maintained aside from the cleaning.” • “Aside from many fingerprints, store was decently well maintained.” • “Generally good but the fitting room door was chipped and scratched.”


• “Nice displays of evenings gowns and handbags, but seemed a bit cluttered (too much merchandise).”

• “Products placed well, but just clothes on a mannequin and bags on a shelf -‐ not very creative.” • “No new collection highlighted.”

Window Cleanliness

• “The window was spotless.” • “Clean and tidy windows.” • “Windows were clean with no visible scratches.”


• “The background is too dark. There was no contrast with the merchandise and made it hard to see.” • “Some showstopper gowns with beading in the window, that was nice.” • “Coherent display to the general vibe, but the lighting was not flattering.” • “The window display was not very catchy.” • “It looked very much like the brand-‐ nothing over the top.”



246

HERMES Atmosphere

• “Atmosphere was luxurious, but almost too boxy and stuffy due to strange layout.” • “The atmosphere felt ordinary with an off-‐putting classist air.” • “A very bad atmosphere; associates seen arguing on floor about sales.” • “The atmosphere felt outdated and boring.” • “Atmosphere felt less luxurious than other stores.”

Buzz Product

• ”They have Hermes playing cards for sell; very clever.” • “Buzz products include a chess-‐piece set and golf equipment.” • “There are equestrian accessories and exotic board game sets present.” • “There are very well-‐made saddles with miniature versions available too.” • “Horse riding equipment serves as Buzz Product.”

Cleanliness in Shop

• “There were very few visible marks and fingerprints present.” • “Fingerprint smudges on some display cases seen.” • “The shop was clean but it can be better.” • “There were moderate fingerprints and smudges on displays.” • “The shop pretty clean but not pristine.”

Communication Events

• “I did not see any communication.” • “A video of the current fashion show was playing in the back of the store.” • “No communication present.” • “They have media inside the shop but not at a easy spot location.” • “Communication present but not in full view for the clients.”

Emotion • “Emotion was fair; I was not wowed.” • “I did not feel any wow factor.” • “Very nice, but there was no wow factor for me.” • “Ordinary emotion, but Hermes should feel outstanding.” • “Felt elegant but no wow factor.”

Extras

• “A free magazine offered with very interesting, creative, and quality material inside.”



247

• “Catalogues offered to customers.” • “A free catalogue is available.” • “ A complimentary catalogue was offered to me.” • “Surprisingly extra are available.”


• “The fitting room is very tidy and private.” • “A very clean fitting room.” • “Fitting room very tidy with even fresh flowers on the table inside.” • “The fitting room is clean and without any dust.” • “A neat and tidy fitting room.”


• “The lighting was good, gentle, and soft.” • “Fitting room lighting neither too bright nor too dim.” • “Great lighting within the fitting room.” • “Suitable and agreeable lighting in the fitting room.” • “Nice fitting room lighting present.”

Fitting Room Mirror

• “The mirror is an ideal size.” • “The fitting room mirror is an appropriate size.” • “The mirror is a good size and very clean.” • “A good-‐sized three-‐way mirror present in the fitting room.” • “Mirror is large, clean, and tidy.”

Fitting Room Size

• “Great fitting room size; it is not too large or small and contains tables and chairs.” • “Fitting room is quite large and comfortable.” • “The fitting room is very spacious and comfortable.” • “The fitting room size is very large and comfortable considering the space for merchandise.”

Interior Design

• “Interior design is decent but nothing grand; there are really ugly tile flooring in one part of the store that reminded me of a shower room.”

• “Design too plain; they could do more to exude luxury status.” • “It looked very much like the brand; nothing is over the top.” • “Interior design contained very ‘Hermes-‐like’ colors, orange, brown and white; it is a bit more

modern than expected but nice.” Lighting

• “Lighting dingy and well-‐lit; it is hard to see in some parts of the store.” • “The lighting is good but the tone slightly distorted the colors of the merchandise.” • “The lighting needs to be stronger.” • “Adequate lighting but a bit too dim.” • “The lighting was much too soft overall.”



248

Location • “Prime location; it is near one of the main entrances.” • “Location is near the ‘Fashion Avenue’ entrance.” • “Great location.” • “Location within the ‘Fashion Catwalk’.”

Odor

• “NOSE ATTACK! I could not stop sneezing the entire time inside the store; the fragrances are way too strong and prominent.”

• “There is a weird scent present, I think it may be because of the Hermes fragrances on display. I did not like it.”

• “The perfume odor is much to harsh on the nose.” • “The odor consists of a very overpowering perfume smell.” • “The odor is filled with Hermes perfume, but there are too many testers present and the scent if

overpowering.” Orderliness

• “Everything placed in the store is placed orderly.” • “The store is quite organized.” • “It is very well organized in each section.” • “The orderliness is adequate.”


• “The product is too expensive overall.” • “The quality is high, therefore the price is high.” • “There is nothing particularly special offered; it feels as though people are only paying for the brand

name.” • “The price is a bit high for what you get.”

Quality Perception

• “Excellent quality leatherwork, the quality of the clothes is a bit less.” • “There is very high quality present on leather goods.” • “Everything appeared well-‐crafted.” • “The products are composed of excellent quality and materials.” • “The clothing is not overly impressive but excellent leather goods.”


• “The salespeople are well-‐groomed and dressed.” • “The sales personnel are well-‐dressed and elegant.” • “They looked very professional.” • “The sales associates appeared very well-‐dressed and professional.”


• “I was greeted immediately.” • “There was no official formal greeting, but a few staff smiled at me upon entrance.” • “Greeting was nice, but the security was a bit arrogant.” • “They did not even acknowledge us.”



249

Sales Personnel Languages

• “Associates spoke clearly and well.” • “Chinese sales personnel present who clearly spoke Chinese, but they did not help us.” • “Associates were seen speaking English and Arabic but did not appear to speak much else.” • “The language skills were adequate.” • “Multiple languages were overheard by different associates.”


• “I was not helped in any way, shape, or form.” • “They were patient, but not very kind.” • “Some staff (within the apparel section) were not patient at all, many were simply talking amongst

themselves and not even trying to help.” • “The staff was impatient and were fighting with each other.” • “The sales personnel were only attentive to certain customers who looked rich.”


• “One associate did not know basic product knowledge about shoes and some apparel.” • “Staff had to read the labels to gain information.” • “One associate had to refer to colleagues to provide information.” • “Overall staff was not very knowledgeable.”

Shoe Cleanliness

• “Most shoes were clean and even some of the male’s shoes were freshly shined.” • “The shoes were well maintained.” • “The sales personnel shoes’ were very clean and nice.” • “The shoes appeared pretty clean and tidy.”

Shoe Uniformity

• “Most shoes were uniform.” • “The shoes appeared to be standard company uniform.” • “The shoes were uniform but nothing special.” • “They were all black but appeared to not all be from Hermes.” • “The shoes appeared to be of the same kind.”

Store Communication

• “No store communication present.” • “There appeared to be no type of store communication.” • “I did not see any store communication visibly present.”

Store Layout

• “The layout was too complicated, there are hidden corners and areas where product is present that I did not realize was there until further inspection.”

• “The layout is very confusing.” • “Going through the store was too complicated.” • “There is a bit a store flow present but the visibility is poor.” • “The layout is a little confusing with an odd flow; the departments seemed random.”



250

Store Temperature

• “The temperature was perfect.” • “A very pleasant temperature present.” • “The temperature was very nice.” • “A comfortable temperature was inside the store.”

Upkeep

• “There are scratches and chips present.” • “The space urgently needs a makeover, the walls need to be retouched and fixtures need to be

replaced.” • “There are many scratches on the wood present.” • “I saw tattered carpets and various wood scratches present.”


• “A museum-‐like display however the saddles were interesting.” • “The merchandising was good and thoughtful.” • “The display was nice but could be a bit more interesting.” • “The merchandising was a bit overly crowded.” • “The display was poor.”

Window Cleanliness

• “Outside windows were very clean.” • “I saw minimal scratches on the window; it was very clean and tidy.” • “The windows were almost perfect.” • “Very clean windows without any visible dust.” • “The windows were perfect.”


• “The window display was great. It is an awesome window front with a jungle theme that smartly incorporated the product.”

• “The window displays were enticing, creative, and original.” • “The display was so amazing that we had to take a picture.” • “The idea was very creative; the idea of the jungle is nice and fresh.” • “The cool jungle display made shoppers curious to look inside the store and see more product.”



251

LOUIS VUITTON

Atmosphere

• “Noisy, like a grocery market.” • “Felt like a mass retailer. Too many sales agents. Too big. Too much. Weird to hear a rap song play

in store.” • “Luxury brand feeling, but too many customers inside.” • “Too busy…didn't lend to a pleasant atmosphere.”

Buzz Products

• “Some small items, shoes from the fashion show.” • “Dot collection of leather goods and garments in collaboration with Japanese artist Yayoi Kusama.” • “Couple of calendars and note books.” • “Key chains, bracelets, books, postcards.”

Cleanliness in Shop

• “Good. Clean. Tidy.” • “Clean, person going around constantly cleaning glass displays from fingerprints.” • “Moderate fingerprints and smudges on displays.” • “Hardly any fingerprints visible throughout the shop.”

Communicate Events

• “They had a screen, however the display was so terrible you barely noticed it.” • “Didn’t see anything that caught my interest.” • “No event communication.”

Emotion

• “Typical standard LV, nothing really special.” • “None, the store was also too busy and crowded.” • “Too many people in the store…extremely uncomfortable.” • “Nothing special, a bit dull.” • “Overwhelming.”

Extras

• “I didn't see any.” • “Very weak. Nothing offered.” • “Didn’t see anything that was eye catching.”



252

Fitting Room Cleanliness • “A few scratches within the fitting room.” • “Adequately clean.” • “Clean but strings on floor.”


• “Fantastic lighting.” • “Perfectly lit, didn’t feel the effects of harsh focus lights.” • “Great lighting effects.”


• “Clean mirrors, both the one in front and the one towards the back.” • “ Good length mirror size, but not 3-‐way as seen in other stores.” • “ Large mirrors, good size.” • “ The size and quality of the mirror was great.”

Fitting Room: Size

• “Good average size.” • “Comfortable size to try out outfits.” • “Could have been a bit more spacious but looks great.” • “Overall good quality, LV can afford better and bigger rooms.” • “Sufficient, meets the purpose.”

Interior Design

• “Pleasant with gold LV décor.” • “Very retro, and coherent with the brand.” • “Light wood interiors, does not particularly evoke luxurious feeling.” • “Nice interior design; consistent to brand image.” • “Relatively bland, predictable.”

Lighting

• “A bit too strong.” • “Too bright throughout store.” • “Good. Well-‐lit. Easy to see merchandise.” • “Well Light, a bit disturbing in some areas, Overall good.”

Location

• “Had two entrances from different sides of the shop.” • “Great location within Fashion Avenue, occupied corner leading to the center of Fashion Avenue.” • “Prime Location.” • “Great. In the hub of other luxury retailers.”

Odor

• “Good, not overwhelming.” • “No noticeable good or bad odor.” • “No unpleasant smells.” • “Good. Nothing unusual.”



253

Orderliness

• “A lot of products kept in place.” • “Everything was in order and re-‐racked immediately.” • “Impressive order for the amount of people working and customers.”


• “Not too overpriced given the average quality materials.” • “Quality seemed decent.” • “Products look cheap.” • “It looks quantitative and not qualitative.”

Quality Perception

• “Some of their suits were classic, some of their leather goods were good quality.” • “Materials felt ok, not great.” • “Nice materials but nothing exceptional.” • “Wasn't wowed by craftsmanship. So much merchandise…takes away any luster of quality

perceived.” Sales Personnel: Appearance

• “All personnel had different outfits, but all impeccable.” • “Very neat and polished appearance.” • “Neat, but not particularly fantastic.” • “It looks good but a little bit dark and boring.” • “Overall good.”

Sales Personnel: greetings

• “Warmly greeted at the door.” • “Kind. Engaging. Professional.” • “Friendly greeting upon entrance of menswear.” • “Greeted immediately.” • “Greetings in different language.”


• “Excellent English with effective communication.” • “Very good English.” • “At least four Chinese sales speaking personnel working throughout my visit.” • “No Spanish speakers, but knew English well.” • “Excellent sales associate speaker, perfect English and Arabic.”


• “Helpful but staff is overwhelmed and it takes them time to bring out the item.” • “Associates nice and eager to help.” • “Welcoming, they let us take our time to walk around.” • “Staff was very nice and patient, helpful in writing down product code to check at other stores.” • “Lady took time helping me, brought me other complimentary garment options.”



254

Sales Personnel: Product Information • “Well-‐informed. Told me about the limited edition collection and other current collections.” • “It seems that he knew a lot about the products and brand.” • “Too busy to explain.” • “It seem like she was on training duty, another sales agent was telling her what to say.”

Shoe Cleanliness

• “Appropriate for work.” • “Neat Shoes.” • “Very Clean and well polished.”

Shoe Uniformity

• “Standard LV uniform and shoes.” • “Some wore professional shoes, other were wearing casual ones.” • “Most of the were wearing all black shoes but not everyone was wearing the typical LV work shoe.” • “They all look good.”

Store Communication

• “Signs for bespoke bags explained on a poster.” • “i-‐Pad with product information.” • “Wallpapers and vintage photos.” • “Screen showcasing fashion show.”

Store Layout

• “Flowed, but no visible division of sections.” • “Excellent flow with a wide coverage of all segments, however it can become a bit puzzling path.” • “Nice, seen better flow at other stores.” • “Overall good, a bit confusing, maze-‐like; passage.” • “Flow but no visible division of sections.”

Store Temperature

• “Neither too warm or cold, moderate temperature.” • “Moderate.” • “Good, slightly cold.” • “Comfortable temperature.”

Upkeep

• “Worn furniture, wooden floors need to be polished and some of the tile flooring have scratches.” • “Chipped wood, mirror and shelves.” • “Fraying furniture. Dirty rugs.” • “Some marks on fitting room wall.” • “Clear efforts but not perfects, scratches on glass displays.”

Visual Merchandising • “Nothing spectacular. Average.” • “Too many products displayed everywhere in every corner, a bit like a zoo.” • “Strong brand merchandising through the entire store but it can be better merchandised.”



255

• “Extensive assortment and limited edition Japanese polka dot collection was highlighted.”

• “LV can do better, standard.”

Window Cleanliness • “Few marks can be found.” • “Fingerprints on windows.” • “Random scratches all around, specially on the side corners of the windows.” • “Dusty and dead bugs.” • “Few visible marks.”


• “International look, not really unique.” • “No theatrical display that is typical LV.” • “Coherent with inside.” • “Chic but lacked appeal compared to the other brands.” • “ Lack of creativity in a certain point of view.”


• “International look, not really unique.” • “No theatrical display that is typical LV.” • “Coherent with inside.” • “Chic but lacked appeal compared to the other brands.” • “ Lack of creativity in a certain point of view.”



256

RALPH LAUREN Atmosphere

• “The atmosphere was perfect, gorgeous and homey.” • “The atmosphere was great provided by the store displays, luxurious feel and homey American

ambiance.” • “A very calm and composed mood, well done.” • “The atmosphere was pleasant and extremely nice.” • “The atmosphere was very ‘Ralph Lauren’ and comfortable.”

Buzz Product

• “I saw a horsewhip available for purchase.” • “There were no visible buzz products seen.” • “They had a few attractive products but nothing with a huge impact.” • “There were no buzz products spotted.” • “I did see a Ralph Lauren coffee table books but I was not sure if they were for sale and if that truly

constitutes a buzz product.” Cleanliness in Shop

• “It was clean however there were dust bunnies and strings present on the floor.” • “The store was adequately clean but not exceptionally so.” • “There were fingerprints visible everywhere.” • “The sofa was torn and dust was present.” • “The space was not particularly clean; the walls were dirty.”

Communicate events

• “There was a video of the current fashion show on display.” • “Upcoming events were not communicated however, there were displays showed the current

fashion show.” • “I did not see a communication of events, but there were heritage books on display.” • “There was no communication for events present.”

Emotion

• “The store had no wow effect for me.” • “I thought the emotion was very nice, however I did not feel anything particularly special.” • “The emotion was good, but not strong.”



257

• “The emotion was a bit underwhelming for me.” • “I thought the emotion was very pleasant but I did not feel any specific wow factor.”

Extras

• “I did not see anything offered.” • “There were absolutely no extras seen or available.” • “Nothing was offered to me in terms of extras.” • “No extras were clearly present.”


• “The fitting room was somewhat clean but it could be much better.” • “It was generally clean, but the floor was a particular spot of dirtiness.” • “There was dust on the floor and seats clearly visible in the fitting room.” • “Many dust bunnies were present inside.” • “The floor of the fitting room was filthy.”


• “The lighting was only so-‐so.” • “The fitting room lighting was warm, but there was a bit of glare.” • “The lighting felt a bit dimmed.” • “The fitting room lighting was a bit dark, as in the whole store.” • “The lighting was too dim; I needed to go outside to adequately see the garment.”

Fitting Room Mirror

• “The fitting room mirror was great.” • “The mirror was a good size and very clean.” • “There is a very clean and large full-‐sized mirror in the fitting room.” • “The fitting room mirror was really nicely sized and adequately clean.” • “The mirror inside the fitting room really aided in seeing the garment, it is unfortunate the lighting

was inadequate.” Fitting Room Size

• “The fitting room was great and cozy; I feel like I was home.” • “The fitting room size was comfortable and very nice-‐sized.” • “The room was very big.” • “The fitting room felt quite spacious.” • “The fitting room was a good size; it was not too large and not too small with a chair as well.”

Interior Design

• “The design is beautiful, elegant, sophisticated and homey; it matched the brand’s image and heritage.”

• “The interior design is good, creative, and very Ralph Lauren.” • “The design is very consistent to the brand’s image and heritage.” • “The interior design in the space is very well done.” • “The space has very nice interior design and felt very warm.”



258

Lighting • “The lighting was warm, inviting, and great.” • “The lighting in the space was good.” • “Store lighting was very nice, not too bright or too dim.” • “The space was well lit but not overwhelming.” • “The lighting was basically good but a bit too bright in the shoe area.”

Location

• “The store is situated in a good location on Fashion Avenue.” • “It is in a nice area, just off the fashion catwalk.” • “The store is in a prime location.” • “Location felt a bit off from the traffic path but certainly still good.” • “The store is in a good location within in the central hub of luxury retail shops.”

Odor

• “The odor inside was good, nothing unusual.” • “There was a pleasant odor present within the store.” • “The odor was a neutral scent; not bad but not particularly good either.” • “The odor was nothing noticeable, but nothing was unpleasant smelling either.” • “The odor was very neutral.”

Orderliness

• “The store was well organized; it was easy to locate what you looking for.” • “The space was orderly but it seemed too crowded.” • “There was a bit too much product around the entire the store.” • “The space was organized well and was not confusing.” • “The orderliness was good, but could have been simplified.”


• “The product is a little bit overpriced.” • “The price seemed a bit high for the product clients are purchasing.” • “The garments are overpriced for the fabric used to construct them.” • “Some items seemed a little too expensive.” • “The garments are extremely overpriced for the quality.”

Quality Perception

• “The quality was good but I was not wowed by it.” • “There was a good perception of the quality of product.” • “There was adequate quality and materials; nothing was exceptionally luxurious.” • “Overall, there was good quality present.” • “The quality was better than I expected from Ralph Lauren.”


• “The staff was very well dressed.” • “The sales personnel looked very well put together and professional.” • “The staff had a great appearance.” • “The associates were uniform, very well-‐groomed and in line with the brand.”



259

• “The personnel looked well-‐tailored.” Sales Personnel Greetings

• “I was not greeted immediately upon entrance.” • “There was absolutely no greeting upon arrival.” • “I received no formal greeting when I entered, but one associate smiled when I came in.” • “The greeting was only ok, the staff said hello but it did not feel genuine.” • “The staff greeting was delayed, and it was not very warm.”

Sales Personnel Languages

• “There were Chinese personnel present who spoke Mandarin.” • “I heard Chinese, Hindi, Arabic and Russian spoken by the staff.” • “I overheard multiple languages spoken by different sales associates.” • “The English spoken by the staff was very good.” • “The communication between clients and staff was very good and pleasant.”


• “No one attempted to answer my question when I spoke to a group of sales associates who were simply talking to each other.”

• “The staff seemed not very patient and condescending.” • “The sales associates were fairly patient but not very warm.” • “The personnel seemed bothered and annoyed by my request to try things on.” • “When I asked questions to the staff about product they seemed to be hassled.”


• “They were not very familiar with the material.” • “The staff could not properly explain the Ralph Lauren black label to me.” • “The associates were not very knowledgeable about product details.” • “The staff did not know about unique production details, however they did look into it quickly and

found the answer.” • “One associated had to look at the label to answer my question.”

Shoe Cleanliness

• “All the staff’s shoes were clean.” • “The shoes were very clean but not well dressed.” • “The shoes of the personnel were well-‐maintained.” • “The shoes were very clean and well-‐kept.” • “The sales associates’ shoes were clean but not shining.”

Shoe Uniformity

• “The staff was all wearing Ralph Lauren shoes.” • “The shoe uniformity was good and all within the same color range.” • “I was not sure if the staff’s shoes were from Ralph Lauren but they were all uniform, tidy and

identical.” • “The uniformity was maintained with all of the sales personnel.”



260

Store Communication • “There were no visible signs of store communication.” • “I did not see store communication within the space.” • “There were no signs present in the store.” • “There was no specific store communication clearly visible.”

Store Layout

• “The store layout had a good flow that lent to an ease of shopping.” • “There was a good and simple flow present; it was easy to enter from one side to the other.” • “The flow of the store layout was good, but it was a bit crowded with product.” • “This large store had a good flow between sections, you can easily see through the entire store.” • “There was an intelligent store layout and flow present.”

Store Temperature

• “The temperature was perfect.” • “A very comfortable temperature was experienced.” • “The temperature inside the space was very pleasant.” • “It was a good temperature inside, not too cold or hot.”

Upkeep

• “The furniture and space felt a little beat-‐up: columns were scratched, frayed carpeting and scratched wood present.”

• “The upkeep could be much better; a much higher quality is expected for this type of luxury store.” • “There were various upkeep problems present, most notably the frayed carpeting and many

scratched fixtures and furniture.” • “Generally the upkeep was bad; the fitting room door wood was chipped.” • “There were many display tables that were scratched; there were some upkeep problems overall.”


• “Most of the products were displayed on hangers on the wall, not particularly luxurious or enticing.” • “The visual merchandising was okay; the limited and premium products were prominently displayed

and well lit.” • “The visual merchandising was nice and interesting but the shoes on one mannequin were

absolutely terrible.” • “The merchandising was basically good, but there were some clothes that had been tried on that

were not folded and put back neatly.” • “The visual merchandising was nice, but there was too much product on the floor; it felt a bit

crowded.” Window Cleanliness

• “The exterior windows were dusty and had scratches.” • “The windows were not clean; there were many wiping streaks present.” • “The window had moderate scratches and was a bit dusty as well.” • “Many marks and dust were present on the window displays.” • “The windows were generally clean but there were visible streaks present.”



261

Window Visual Merchandising • “It was gorgeous and made me curious about the products inside the store.” • “There was a great window display of an equestrian image; very inline with the brand image.” • “The window display was fantastic.” • “The window visual merchandising was very creative and nicely communicated.” • “The display was excellent; a classy display in true Ralph Lauren style.”



262

TOM FORD Atmosphere

• “Very serious and sophisticated, dark and glamorous feel.” • “Mood was great, cool and classic vibe.” • “Pleasant, felt the Tom Ford feel.” • “Nice atmosphere but some of the staff seemed uneasy.”

Buzz Products

• “Offering limited edition made-‐to-‐measure suits.” • “Showcased James Bond suit, was fun to see.” • “I didn’t see any buzz products.”

Cleanliness in Shop

• “Very clean, hardly any visible dust.” • “Very neat and tidy.” • “Clean and generally scratch-‐less.”

Communicate Events

• “No events were communicated.” • “No signs of media communication.” • “I didn’t see any.”

Emotion

• “Felt very luxurious and warm.” • “Drastically different from all other stores reviewed in this study.” • “Great emotional feeling when visiting the store, impressed by garments.” • “Had a good emotion, a subtle ‘wow effect’.”

Extras

• “Female staff did not offer me samples of the perfumes.” • “I received a brochure.” • “Nothing was offered to me.”


• “Very clean, both floors and padded walls.” • “Fitting room was well done, nicely maintained.” • “Clean. No marks, no dust.”



263


• “Dark. Hard to see clothing and reflection. Weird lighting.” • “Too dim. Need to step outside to adequately see the garment.” • “Light was a bit too dim inside the fitting room.”

Fitting Room Mirror

• “Had an elegant 3-‐D mirror.” • “Mirror size was nice, but it was the wrong size for the small fitting room. • “Excellent, clean mirror.

Fitting Room Size

• “A bit small, but enough room to do what is needed.” • “Not as big as I expected, but it meets the purpose.” • “On the small side, not very spacious.” • “Room proximity was just right.”

Interior Design

• “Sleek, chic. Very Tom Ford.” • “Fitting with the brand image, dark but sophisticated. Demure, void of obnoxious logos.” • “Seemed very well linked to the brand.” • “Very modern and contemporary with an edgy feeling.”

Lighting

• “Pleasant and complimented the décor.” • “Lighting needs to be stronger.” • “Horribly dim and insufficient, had to move toward entrance to catch better lighting of the product I

was looking at.” • “Much too dim throughout the entire store.”

Location

• “Not located in the main hub of other major competition.” • “Seemed a bit off the main Fashion Avenue path.” • “Could have been better placed.” • “Not in the center of Fashion Avenue, but fitting location for brand. In a more discrete, but

complimentary spot next to Lanvin, and Alexander McQueen.” Odor

• “Smelled like the ‘Tuscan Leather’ fragrance.” • “Pleasant scent throughout the store.” • “Quite pleasant, nice mix of Tom Ford fragrances.” • “Scent was overwhelming.”

Orderliness

• “Very ordered and neat.” • “Merchandise was well-‐organized in to specific sections.” • “Mostly appeared in order.”



264

• “Displayed the right amount of products.” Price Quality Perception

• “Fair pricing for quality represented.” • “Very high mark-‐up, items were expensive for what you received in return.” • “Quality of suits were excellence for the price you paid. Shirts seemed overpriced.”

Quality Perception

• “Excellent quality and tailoring.” • “I spotted hand-‐stitched button holes, good quality fabrics.” • “Production appeared detailed and well-‐made.” • “Great quality, evidence of hand-‐stitching and use of exotic materials.”


• “Very sharply dressed in Tom Ford apparel.” • “Well dressed, formal and representative of the brand.” • “Men were all uniformed in Tom Ford suits, very well-‐groomed, neat and sharp; however female

staff wore too much makeup.” Sales Personnel Greetings

• “The door man did not greet us.” • “I was immediately greeted. However, the staff was crowded at the entrance by the desk. It felt a

bit awkward.” • “Female associate looked at me in a judgmental manner, no warm greetings.” • “Greeting was made upon arrival with no follow-‐up as I walked the store.”


• “I overheard multiple languages spoken be different sales associates.” • “No Chinese speaker, but very good English speaking associates.” • “Perfect English and French spoken.” • “I heard an associate speak in Russian to a guest.”


• “Was helpful, but rather aloof. Felt judged.” • “Was patient but didn’t really make an effort to spend time with the client.” • “Associates were nice and helpful, but didn’t go out of their way to interact with me.” • “Very kind staff, complimentary and humorous.”


• “Knew product info well.” • “Looked at label to check for more info when I asked them about an item.” • “Could offer basic info off-‐hand, but couldn’t go in-‐depth without a reference guide.” • “Extremely informative, extensive explanations.”

Shoe Cleanliness

• “Neatly maintained, polished.” • “Very clean, well kept.”



265

Shoe Uniformity

• “All personnel in uniform wearing Tom Ford shoes.” • “Everyone wore black shoes.”

Store Communication

• “No signs were posted anywhere in the store.” • “I saw a few product information books on display.” • “Didn’t see any visible display of signs.”

Store Layout

• “Nice men’s and women’s separation at the entrance.” • “Odd flow from room-‐to-‐room, a little confusing.” • “Nice flow and well-‐segmented products and categories.” • “Odd flow from room-‐to-‐room, felt a little confusing.”

Store Temperature

• “Very good temperature, comfortable.” • “Pleasant temperature, felt find while I shopped around.” • “The temperature was perfect.”

Upkeep

• “Well kept and image respected.” • “Adequate upkeep; nothing needs immediate replacement.” • “No visible scratches or chips, maintenance was well-‐attended.”


• “Empty perfume bottles at perfume display section.” • “Visual merchandising was good, spotlighting specific items.” • “Not very exciting, but offered decent displays.” • “Neat and clean, smart adding mirror as wall behind the sunglasses display.”

Window Cleanliness

• “Some marks on the window, but minimal.” • “Clean and free of fingerprints and smudges.” • “Some of the floors had scratches in the windows.”


• “Lacking. Not engaging enough. Hard for me to find the store.” • “Display is normal, didn’t really offer anything extra to catch my attention.” • “A bit too dark and dim…too black.”



266

Percept ion Study o f Luxury Brands at The Dubai Ma l l in Dubai , UAE

P lus Minus Interest ing Study

Po l imoda Luxury Management Master 2012-2013

December 2012

perception study of luxury brands at the dubai mall in dubai, uae

Documents

fitting room cleanliness

sales personnel appearance

sales personnel greetings

sales personnel languages

fitting room lighting

selected luxury brands

fitting room size

window cleanliness