teoria luxului in cc.2

enter the marketplace. As emphasisedby Dubois and Duquesne6 (p. 115),‘We believe that an analysis of thedirect relationship between consumersand brands is the key to an improvedunderstanding of such a market.’ Con-sequently, the development of an in-strument measuring the perception ofluxury in the form of a scale is ofparticular interest. This scale could beused not only in the creation of aluxury brand, but also in the con-tinuous monitoring of existing luxurybrands and in basic research in con-sumer behaviour.

Researchers have focused on howthe supposed luxury of a brand enablesa consumer to express his or her ownself, an ideal self, or specific dimensionsof the self through the use of a brand.7,8

INTRODUCTIONConsiderable research has been con-ducted to identify and conceptualisethe dimensions of various brands, andmuch of that has been on the symbolicuse of brands.1–3 Yet the measure-ment of the perceived luxuriousness ofa brand has received comparativelylimited empirical attention. This studyis focused on understanding what ismeant by ‘luxury brand’, and on thedevelopment of a scale to measure thedimensions of perceived luxury.

Despite the importance of luxurybrands in consumers’ lives and thefact that the luxury market contributesa large amount of economic activityin the industrialised world,4,5 little isknown about the influence of luxuryon the perception of brands once they

484 � HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 1479-1803 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 11, NO. 6, 484–506 JULY 2004

Franck VigneronDepartment of Marketing,California State University,Northridge College of Businessand Economics, 18111 NordhoffStreet, Northridge, CA91330–8377, USA

Tel: �(818) 677 2018Fax: �(818) 677 7669E-mail: [email protected]

Measuring perceptions ofbrand luxuryReceived (in revised form): 8th January, 2004

FRANCK VIGNERONis an assistant professor of Marketing at California State University, Northridge. His research focuses onmeasuring the effect of luxury brands on consumer behaviour and evaluating the impact of social taste onconsumer judgment and decision making. His work has been published in the Academy of Marketing Science Reviewand the proceedings of the American Psychology Association and the European Marketing Academy, amongothers.

LESTER W. JOHNSONis a professor of Marketing at the Melbourne Business School, Australia. His research focuses on customersatisfaction and consumer behaviour in services. He has published in the Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience, Academy of Marketing Science Review, Journal of Retailing, Journal of Services Marketing, Journal of AdvertisingResearch, Journal of Business Research and the Journal of International Marketing, among others.

AbstractWhat distinguishes high-luxury brands from those that are low on luxury? This paper discusses atheoretical framework of the brand-luxury construct that leads to a specification of the dimensionsof luxury as applied to brands. The development of a scale for the measurement of the dimensionsof brand luxury is then described. The paper concludes with a consideration of the theoretical andpractical implications regarding the symbolic use of luxury brands for the public policy-maker andconsumer.

more surprising, he showed that thesegoods could also be either a luxury ora necessity for the same person indifferent situations. Consequently, theperception of what is and is not aluxury brand, as well as the amount ofluxury contained in a brand, may bedependent on the context and thepeople concerned.

Thus the degree of luxury associatedwith a brand is conceptualised to bemeasured on a continuum withinthe luxury range and in agreementwith previous research.19–21 This paperagrees with authors such as Kapferer22

who argue that a luxury brand is adiscontinuity vis a vis other types ofbrands and make a further conceptualdistinction between the different de-gree of ‘luxury’ in these brands. A scaleto measure this degree of luxuriousness(and the degree of each of thesub-dimensions of luxury that arediscussed later) would allow an es-timate to be made of the amount ofperceived luxury of a luxury brand.Cadillac and Lincoln may be perceivedoverall as having the same level ofluxury, but the scale may reveal thattheir overall brand-luxury perceptionsare combinations of different evalua-tions of the same dimensions ofluxury.

The main contribution of thepresent paper is to develop aninstrument for the researcher andmarketer of luxury products who maywish to measure the amount of luxurycontained in a given brand. Thebrand-luxury scale treats luxury as amatter of degree, residing on acontinuum from ‘very little’ to ‘a greatdeal’.

Before presenting the detailed resultsof this study, a brief review will bemade of the luxury construct and its

Practitioners view luxury as a mainfactor to differentiate a brand in aproduct category,9,10 as a central driverof consumer preference and usage,11

and as a common denominator that canbe used to define consumption acrosscultures.12,13 Finally, luxury productsoffer a different brand category tomeasure the suitability of the internetas a communication tool.14

This paper examines the concept ofa luxury brand, with the goals ofdesigning a conceptual framework anddeveloping a scale to measure dif-ferences in the luxury of brands. Atpresent there is no scale measuringthe perceived luxury of a brand, oreven a clear definition of what con-stitutes a luxury brand compared to anon-luxury brand. Work by Kapferer15

and Dubois et al.16 goes part way indeveloping such a measurement scale,but stops well short of full develop-ment of a scale.

Although a brand may be perceivedas luxurious, consumers and researchershave recognised that not all luxurybrands are deemed equally luxurious.‘Luxury is particularly slippery todefine. A strong element of humaninvolvement, very limited supply andthe recognition of value by othersare key components . . . So betweenpremium and luxury, in marketingterms, is a difference of degree.’17 Forinstance, a Cadillac and a Rolls-Roycemay be both perceived as luxury cars,but one compared with the otherwould be considered more luxurious.In this case, the Rolls-Royce could beassumed to be more luxurious than theCadillac. Kemp18 demonstrated thatsome goods such as water could beviewed by different observers as eithera luxury or as a necessity depending onwho wants the goods or why. Even

� HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 1479-1803 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 11, NO. 6, 484–506 JULY 2004 485

MEASURING PERCEPTIONS OF BRAND LUXURY

brings esteem on the owner, apart fromany functional utility. Hence, luxuryproducts enable consumers to satisfypsychological and functional needs,and it seems that these psychologicalbenefits are the main factor distinguish-ing them from non-luxury products orcounterfeits.29

Nueno and Quelch30 (p. 61) defineluxury brands as ‘those whose ratio offunctionality to price is low, while theratio of intangible and situational utilityto price is high’. This definition iscomparable to the definition made byeconomists or marketing consultants31

who define luxury brands as thosewhose price and quality ratios are thehighest of the market; that is, theirprice is significantly greater than theprice of products with similar tangiblefeatures.

This definition suggests, however,that brands are of two kinds: eitherluxurious or not luxurious. In effect,there are brands that may be a luxurybrand in a certain product category andnot a luxury brand in another productcategory.32 Rolls-Royce is considered aluxury brand of car but not a luxurybrand of aeroplane engines.

In addition, there is a distinctionbetween luxury brands associated withthe upper range of luxury and thoseassociated with the lower range ofluxury. A brand may be defined as aluxury brand, but all brands con-sidered luxury brands may not bedeemed equal, and one brand having ahigher perceived luxury in one productcategory may have a lower perceivedluxury in another product category.Cartier for instance may have a greaterluxury image in the jewellery marketthan in the apparel or fragrancemarket. The luxury brand Armani maybe placed in the upper range of

potential relevance to issues pertainingto the analysis of luxury-seeking con-sumer behaviour. Then the major stepsare discussed in the development of thescale, including detailed tests of thereliability and validity of the scale.Finally, key findings of the research arereviewed and discussed.

DEFINING THE LUXURY CONSTRUCTThe luxury brand market has beengrowing steadily for the past 20 years,growing by up to 25 per cent in1989, with a minimum of 10 percent per year, although it grew moreslowly during the mid-1990s.23 Thereare many reasons why this growthhas been maintained, from a grow-ing aspirational affluence24 and growingpopulation of young upwardly mobileconsumers25 to an ageing wealthierpopulation26 or a greater relative num-ber of people with high income.27

In 1997 Kapferer28 presented thesemiotics of the word ‘luxury’, itssociological references and the prag-matics of luxury-brand management:

‘Luxury defines beauty; it is art applied tofunctional items. Like light, luxury is en-lightening. [. . .] They offer more than mereobjects: they provide reference of good taste.That is why luxury management shouldnot only depend on customer expectations:luxury brands are animated by their internalprogramme, their global vision, the specifictaste which they promote as well as thepursuit of their own standards . . . Luxuryitems provide extra pleasure and flatter allsenses at once . . . Luxury is the appendageof the ruling classes.’ (p. 253)

Thus there is an agreement in theliterature to define luxury goods asgoods for which the simple use ordisplay of a particular branded product


VIGNERON AND JOHNSON

concept of exclusivity or rarity iswell documented in the literature onluxury.35 The contradiction that luxurybrands face when increasing exposureand sales while maintaining a fragileperception of limited supply is puttinga great deal of pressure on luxurybrands.36

Over the past 20 years, brands thatwere once traditionally targeting thewealthiest consumers have launchednew product lines, new brands orproduct extensions to market their

luxury brands (also named ‘griffe’, seeKapferer33 for a discussion). EmporioArmani is the more popular Armanibrand, crafted to satisfy the need of alarger target luxury market. It may beranked in a lower level of luxury, butstill considered luxury.

Phau and Prendergast34 point outthat while luxury is a subjectiveconcept, ‘luxury brands compete onthe ability to evoke exclusivity, awell-known brand identity . . . brandawareness and perceived quality’. This


Table 1 Review of factors describing luxury brands across three studies

Vigneron & Johnson(1999)

Items developed inthis study Kapferer (1998)

Dubois, Laurent andCzellar (2001)

Non-personal-orientedperceptions

Conspicuousness ConspicuousElitistExtremely expensiveFor wealthy

Belonging to a minorityIts price

ConspicuousElitistVery high priceDifferentiate from others

Uniqueness Very exclusivePreciousRareUnique

Exclusiveness

Its uniqueness

Scarcity

Uniqueness

Quality CraftedLuxuriousBest qualitySophisticatedSuperior

Craftsman

Its qualityBeauty of objectExcellence of product

Not mass-producedRather like luxuryExcellent qualityGood taste

Personal-oriented-perceptions

Hedonism ExquisiteGlamorousStunning

Its great creativityIts sensualityIts magic

PleasureAesthetics andpolysensualityMakes life beautiful

Extended self LeadingVery powerfulRewardingSuccessful Knowing that few have one

Refined peopleReveal who you arePleasingFew people own

Items withoutapparentcommunalities

Savoir faire and traditionInternational reputationLong historyGrown out of a creative

geniusNever out of fashionForefront of fashion

Ancestral heritage andpersonal historySuperfluous andnon-functionalMakes dream


bery, conspicuousness and bandwagonmotives) inherited from Leibenstein44

and Mason.45 In doing so, they at-tempted to establish a balance betweenpersonal and interpersonal motives forconsumption of luxury brands. Thismodel is also consistent with previousresearch on luxury that demonstratedthat behaviour varies between differentpeople depending on their suscep-tibility to interpersonal influence.46–51

Although Vigneron and Johnson usethe terminology ‘prestige-seeking be-havior’, in the present paper, theterm ‘luxury’ is preferred to ‘pres-tige’. Therefore, this paper refers to‘luxury-seeking consumer behaviour’and ‘luxury brands’ when discussingthe brand category, whereas ‘prestige’ isused when relating to the extreme endof the luxury-brand category. The term‘luxury’ in this context is more in-clusive in the sense that it includesboth personal and interpersonal aspects.While prestige or status consump-tion involves purchasing a higher-priced product to embellish one’s ego,52

products to middle-class consumers. Infact some people have called this trendthe ‘democratisation of luxury’.37–39

Remaury40 examines the cultural dif-ferences that shape this trend anddescribes the impact of a greaterdemocratic process influencing luxury-product marketing in the USA com-pared to Europe.

In an earlier review article,Vigneron and Johnson41 developed aframework of ‘prestige-seeking con-sumer behavior’. This prestige-seekingframework was originally inspired bythe conceptual work of Mason,42 whodeveloped a framework of status-seeking behaviour to explain con-sumers’ behaviour in relation to luxurybrands. His conceptual frameworkmostly focused on the interpersonaleffects associated with this behaviour.

In contrast, Vigneron and Johnson’sframework included personal aspectssuch as hedonist and perfectionistmotives inspired from the work ofDubois and Laurent,43 as well as themore usual interpersonal aspects (snob-


Figure 1 Proposed framework of brand luxury index

Hedonic

Extended self

Quality

Conspicuousness

UniquenessNon-personalperceptions

Personalperceptions

LUXURY


ture, demonstrates the existence ofthree latent luxury dimensions reflect-ing non-personal-oriented perceptions:perceived conspicuousness, perceiveduniqueness and perceived quality. Italso shows two personal-oriented per-ceptions: perceived extended self andperceived hedonism. Each one of thesedimensions is strongly correlated butnot identical as constructed in theformative framework.70

These are the five key luxurydimensions that must be established ormonitored for creating a lasting luxurybrand. It is expected that different setsof consumers would have differentperceptions of the level of luxury forthe same brands, and that the overallluxury level of a brand would in-tegrate these perceptions from differentperspectives.

Perceived conspicuousnessThe early work on conspicuousconsumption71,72 suggested that aconsumer considered reference groupinfluences when publicly consumingluxury products. The consumption ofluxury brands may be important toindividuals in search of social repre-sentation and position. This means thatsocial status associated with a brand isan important factor in conspicuousconsumption. Furthermore, consumerswho perceive price as a proxy forquality often perceive high price as anindicator of luxury.73 Hence themeasure of conspicuousness includesitems such as ‘extremely expensive’ or‘for wealthy’ that tap into perceptionsof price and social status associatedwith the brand. As pointed out byVigneron and Johnson,74 ‘This argu-ment is further supported by themarketing literature which recom-

luxury consumption involves purchas-ing a product that represents value toboth the individual and vis a vissignificant others.

As early as 1986, Andrus et al.53 (p.5) noted the need for literature pertain-ing to the study of luxury brands:‘Status brand strategies are intuitivelyrecognised by marketing professionalsand practitioners. However, there islittle literature on the topic reported.’A review of the literature sincethen suggests a growing interest inthe topic of luxury,54–59 but thereis still little work on the evalua-tion of luxury brands (exceptions areKapferer,60 Eastman et al.,61 Phau andPrendergast62 and Dubois et al.63).

The psychometric work undertakenin the measurement of luxury offersevidence of multiple dimensionalities indefining the concept.64–66 Vigneron andJohnson67 proposed that the luxury-seeking consumer’s decision-makingprocess is explained by five main factorsthat form a semantic network. Theyreviewed the latent structure of, andthe interrelations among, the primarymeanings of the prestige (luxury)concept that underlie the decision-making process undertaken when as-sessing luxury brands. For comparison,Table 1 presents a review of the factorsand communalities between the Vig-neron and Johnson five-dimensionframework, the Brand Luxury Indexitems that are derived later in this paper,and the items developed by Kapferer68

and Dubois et al.69

The definition of what separatesluxury brands and non-luxury brandshas been operationally defined in thisstudy through five perceived dimen-sions of a luxury brand. Hence theconceptual framework used (Figure 1),which was derived from the litera-



problem of being influenced by pres-sures and demands from one’s ownmembership group, and being attractedby the standard dictated by anotherreference group. People’s desire toconform to affluent lifestyles and/or tobe distinguished from non-affluentlifestyles affects their luxury-seekingbehaviour.84–87 Belk’s88 concept of ‘ex-tended self’ suggests that people regardtheir possessions as part of iden-tity. Thus ‘luxury imitators’ may usethe perceived extended-self dimensiontransferred from luxury brands toenhance their self-concept and repli-cate stereotypes of affluence by con-suming similar luxury items.89–91

The possession of luxury brands maybe more appreciated by consumerswho are highly materialistic and sus-ceptible to interpersonal influence.92,93

Richins94 (p. 522) wrote: ‘Materialismis a value that represents the in-dividual’s perspective regarding the rolepossessions should play in his/her life.’Materialistic consumers may regardluxury brands as a means to reachhappiness, and may use these brands toevaluate personal or others’ success.People who are concerned with socialacceptance and conformity with af-fluent reference groups may valuepossessions that are more sociallyvisible and expensive. Belk95 (p. 487)stated ‘as an essential materialisticactivity collecting is a lens viewing allluxury consumption more clearly’, andfurther explained that a person’s collec-tions may represent personal success incomparison with other people’s collec-tions.

Perceived hedonismLuxury-seekers are considered hedonicconsumers when they are looking for

mends the use of ‘‘prestige-pricingstrategy’’ when appealing to status-conscious consumers.’75,76

Perceived uniquenessResearch reveals that scarcity orlimited supply of products enhancesconsumers’ preferences for a brand.77,78

Individuals express a ‘need foruniqueness’79 when they are searchingfor something that is difficult to obtain(for example, a Louis Vuitton hand-bag). The consumer behaviour litera-ture conceptualised consumers’ needfor uniqueness as subsuming threebehavioural dimensions (see, forreview, Tian et al.80). Uniqueness issought to enhance one’s self-image andsocial image by adhering to one’spersonal taste, or breaking the rules, oravoiding similar consumption. Theuniqueness dimension is based on theassumptions that perceptions of ex-clusivity and rarity enhance the desirefor a brand, and that this desirability isincreased when the brand is alsoperceived as expensive.81,82 A luxurybrand that would be difficult to findbecause of its uniqueness (such as alimited edition), and which would beexpensive compared to normal stan-dards (for example, a Jaguar car), wouldbe even more valuable.

Perceived extended selfConsumers may use luxury brands toclassify or distinguish themselves inrelation to relevant others, but theymay also try to integrate the symbolicmeaning into their own identity.83

Social referencing and the constructionof one’s self appears to be deter-minant in luxury consumption. Mul-tiple reference groups refer to the



perceptions of quality. In addition,‘high prices may even make certainproducts or services more desirable’106

(p. 10) because consumers perceivehigher prices as an indication of greaterquality.107

Although the five dimensions ofluxury are likely to be correlated, theyall contribute to an index of luxury.The Brand Luxury Index (BLI) that isdeveloped in this paper is a multi-dimensional scale that aggregates fivesub-scales to form an overall compen-satory index of luxury. While con-sumers may choose to maximise all fivedimensions, in practice, consumerswould trade off less salient dimensionsfor more salient ones. This paperattempts to crystallise the concep-tual framework defined above bydeveloping a scale to measure themulti-dimensional concept of luxury.Thus a seven-point semantic differen-tial scale, the Brand Luxury Index(BLI), is developed following recom-mended scaling procedures, as ex-plained in the following section.

SCALE DEVELOPMENT

MethodologyFor the purpose of this research, asemantic differential scale wasdeveloped.108,109 The scale-develop-ment process (see Table 2) employed inthis study followed the paradigm andrefinements suggested by theAmerican Psychology Associationguidelines.110–112 Data for developingthe scale were mostly collected byuniversity faculties using responsesobtained from samples of under-graduate and postgraduate businessstudents at the beginning of lectures ina large Australian university (university

personal rewards and fulfilment ac-quired through the purchase andconsumption of products evaluated fortheir subjective emotional benefits andintrinsically pleasing properties, ratherthan functional benefits.96,97 ‘Hedonicdimension’ is used to refer to theluxury dimension reflected by sensorygratification98 and sensory pleasure99

expected from the consumption.Therefore, people who rely on theirown personal opinion (for example,role-relaxed consumers,100 or inner-directed consumers101), and who arenot susceptible to interpersonal in-fluence when considering luxurybrands, may represent the hedonic typeof consumer.

Perceived qualityIt is expected that luxury brands offersuperior product qualities and perfor-mance compared with non-luxurybrands. Perfectionist consumers mayperceive more value from a luxurybrand because they may assume that itwill have a greater brand quality andreassurance.102 The literature on luxuryconsumption emphasises the impor-tance of leadership in quality to ensurethe perception of luxury.103–105 It seemsrather difficult to develop a luxurybrand image without developing along-term commitment to quality. Ac-cordingly, people influenced by thequality dimension of luxury may per-ceive that luxury brands have superiorcharacteristics compared with non-luxury brands. These characteristicsmay include, but are not restrictedto: technology, engineering, design,sophistication and craftsmanship. Forinstance, speed and acceleration for aluxury car or precision for a luxurywatch are elements reflecting the



views with 12 managers of interna-tional luxury brands in Australia, andfocus groups with 25 postgraduatestudents (MBA in luxury brandmanagement, taught in English inFrance), led to the generation of157 bipolar adjectives. These itemswere then examined by a panel ofreviewers (n � 77). These reviewerswere composed of managers of luxurybrands, marketing academics or con-sumers having bought several estab-lished luxury brands within the pastfew months. The reviewers wereasked to indicate their agreement ordisagreement as to whether they feltthat the word pair could be used toevaluate the luxury of a brand. Thisinitial content analysis resulted inreducing the original 157 items to30.

students have been used as subjects inseveral previous empirical studies ofluxury113–115). Several pre-tests werecarried out to select a pool of brandsthat would be perceived as having asubsequent degree of luxury for thesamples used. For instance, Levi’s inAustralia is perceived as an upmarketbrand of jeans, but it may not havebeen acceptable if this study wascarried out in the USA for instance.

Item generation and first contentvalidityFirst, a set of word pairs wasgenerated, customised for the specificmeasurement of luxury. A review ofthe literature on luxury brands (bothacademic and commercial, such asadvertising material), qualitative inter-


Table 2 Summary of the scale development process

Stage of scaledevelopment Sample Analysis procedure Results

Item generation Expert judges(n � 77)

Personal rating:• 3 phases

157 items reduced to30 items

Reliability Business students(n � 1060)

• Internal reliability (n � 884)• Reliability over time

(n � 176)

30 items reduced to22 items

Validity Business students(n � 1322)

Standard validity procedures:• Content validity (n � 186)• Predictive validity (n � 463)• Nomological validity

(n � 331)• Construct validity:

convergent anddiscriminant (n � 342)

Significant level of validity:22 items reduced to20 items

Brands used todevelop the scale

David Jones; Hilton; Levi’s; Mercedes-Benz; Nike Air shoes; Porsche 911 turbo;Ralph Lauren shirt; Ray Ban; Rolex; house in Sydney.

Brands used to testthe scale

Bally leather shoes; BMW 750i; Hugo Boss; Grace Brothers; Cartier; Chanel No5;Christian Dior; Ferrari F355; Gucci sunglasses; Guerlain; Yves-Saint-Laurent shirt;Hermes; Hilton; David Jones; Moet & Chandon; Nike Air; Bang & Olufsen; Revlon;Sony; Louis Vuitton.


30-item scale to check item loadingsand to allow the number of dimen-sions in the initial exploratory phaseto be driven by the data. Separateprinciple component analyses withvarimax rotation were used to evaluateand identify the component fac-tors (Table 4). Varimax rotationwas preferred to oblimin rotation,even though factor correlation wasanticipated. Oblimin rotation wasperformed and resulted in a lesssatisfactory solution from the factorpattern loadings and rational factorstructure. These results were alsoconfirmed across the study.

In interpreting the factors, a decisionwas made (a priori) to discard the factorloadings of less than 0.60. The averagefactor correlations between the sub-scales were calculated and ranged from0.91 to 0.96. The congruence correla-tion coefficients were higher than 0.90,showing that the factor structure isinvariant.116

For each of the four brands, thefirst factor accounted for most of thevariation in the data, explaining anaverage of 50 per cent of the commonvariance. Two brands had a numberof items that did not load on anyfactors. Levi’s had seven items that didnot reach the cut-off of 0.60, and RayBan had three items that also did notload on any factor. These items were

Internal scale reliabilityAll the brands that were used in thisstudy were selected in compliancewith a certain number of criteria. Forinstance, brands were tested andselected that had sufficient brandawareness and a potential luxuryimage with the target respondents.The results from the initial analysis(n � 418 business students) indicatedthat for each brand (Levi’s, Ray Ban,Rolex and Porsche) the Cronbach’salpha coefficients were greater than0.86, suggesting significant internalreliability for the scale. Cronbach’salpha was also calculated for each oneof the five dimensions. It ranged from0.69 to 0.90 with the hedonicdimension for the Levi’s sample beingthe lowest (see Table 3).

To extend the reliability analysis, theitem-to-total correlations were ex-amined for each item within allsamples, with significant values rangingfrom 0.30 to 0.80. No items weredropped based on this criterion, butoffending items were identified andflagged for further investigation.

Exploratory factor analysisAlthough the authors made a theoreti-cal assumption about a five-dimen-sional structure, an exploratory factoranalysis was performed on the initial


Table 3 Reliability coefficients for each brand and each dimension

Results Conspicuous Unique QualityExtendedself Hedonic Scale alpha

Levi’s (n � 106)Ray Ban (n � 104)Rolex (n � 106)Porsche (n � 102)Total data set(n � 418)

0.870.850.880.890.91

0.840.900.900.900.93

0.730.870.880.880.87

0.780.800.870.880.88

0.690.860.800.880.86

0.860.890.880.890.95


Confirmatory factor analysisThe objective of the next step was tomodel the proposed structural solutionand measure its overall fit usingconfirmatory factor analysis (CFA)of the 30 items. The proposedframework hypothesised, first, that thefactors identified by the exploratoryfactor analysis would be substantiallyrelated to the dimensions indicated by

also registered as offending items, andwere further examined in the nextanalysis. Exploratory factor analysis isuseful for data-reduction purposes, butit does not provide evidence of thedimensionality of measures, essential inscale development.117 In the presentstudy, confirmatory factor analysis wasused to test the reliability of theitems.


Table 4 Varimax rotated factor structure: Full data set. Original 30 items used for scale development

Factor Factor Factor Factor FactorFactors one two three four five

Eigen value 12.84 2.37 2.13 2.01 1.50% of commonvariance 42.8% 7.9% 7.1% 6.7% 5.0%

Items

1. Classic 0.05 0.15 0.12 (0.67) 0.192. Concern 0.23 (0.61) 0.15 0.12 0.023. Conspicuous 0.29 0.20 (0.72) 0.21 0.214. Crafted 0.20 0.17 0.21 (0.74) 0.115. Distinctive 0.67 0.11 0.06 0.22 0.056. Elitist 0.24 0.18 (0.74) 0.17 0.217. Emotional 0.18 (0.81) 0.18 0.13 0.278. Exceptional (0.75) 0.21 0.22 0.16 0.109. Exclusive (0.77) 0.26 0.25 0.15 0.12

10. Expensive 0.24 0.28 (0.76) 0.13 0.1711. Exquisite 0.12 0.17 0.24 0.12 (0.67)12. Fascinating 0.30 0.25 0.23 0.13 (0.72)13. Glamorous 0.13 0.20 0.06 0.09 (0.82)14. Impressive 0.19 (0.73) 0.11 0.14 0.1615. Leading 0.14 (0.77) 0.15 0.19 0.1016. Luxurious (0.77) 0.21 0.24 0.14 0.1917. Powerful 0.22 (0.74) 0.17 0.16 0.2218. Precious (0.77) 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.1619. Quality 0.23 0.15 0.16 (0.78) 0.1420. Rare (0.76) 0.22 0.19 0.19 0.1821. Rewarding 0.16 (0.82) 0.17 0.13 0.2322. Sophisticated 0.18 0.19 0.16 (0.74) 0.1823. Status 0.21 0.18 (0.76) 0.21 0.0824. Stunning 0.28 0.26 0.18 0.19 (0.74)25. Stylish 0.17 0.08 0.08 (0.70) –0.00426. Successful 0.20 (0.76) 0.08 0.19 0.1227. Superior 0.16 0.19 0.16 (0.72) –0.0128. Symbolic 0.05 0.02 (0.75) 0.10 0.0129. Unique (0.79) 0.22 0.18 0.14 0.2030. Wealthy 0.23 0.20 (0.74) 0.18 0.23

Italics indicate significant factor loadings (>0.60).


by the findings, for instance relativelysmall GFI values of 0.70 (Levi’s jeans),0.75 (Ray Ban), 0.71 (Rolex), 0.73(Porsche 911) and 0.78 (combineddata). All of this suggested only amoderately acceptable fit for the five-factor model.120

The measurement models wereexamined, and the offending itemsreviewed (Table 6). Items that did notcontribute to the scale’s internalconsistency were removed (eight itemsout of 30). A revised CFA model wascomputed with the revised solution (ie22 items) for each one of the brandsand for a combined data set. The fit forthe revised five-factor model wassignificantly improved without theeight offending items compared withfindings from the initial model (ie 30items). This model, however, stillproduced a significant chi-squaredemonstrating a moderate fit. Thefive-factor solution needed furtherrefinement to attain non-significantchi-square statistics for each brand.

the structural model. Secondly, theconceptual model hypothesised thatscores on the five latent variableswould measure related, but distin-guishable, constructs. The covariancematrix for the 30 items was used,and parameter estimates were com-puted using the maximum-likelihoodmethod.118 The fit of the five-factorsolution was assessed by examiningfactor loadings, goodness-of-fit in-dicators, factor inter-correlations, andby comparing it to several availablealternatives (the null model, one-factor model and five-factor model).Several alternative indices were usedto assess goodness-of-fit119 such as thechi-square statistic and the goodness-of-fit index (GFI).

The five-factor model for everysample, with all 30 items each loadingon its appropriate construct, yieldedsignificant chi-square statistics (Table5). The other indices for measuringthe goodness-of-fit also indicated amoderate fit to the data, as evidenced


Table 5 Dimensions of original 30-item scale

Conspicuous Unique Quality Extended self Hedonic

Conspicuous andinconspicuous

Elitist and popularExpensive and

inexpensiveFor wealthy and

for well-offImposing* and

unimposingImpressive* and

unimpressiveHigh status

symbol* andmedium statussymbol

High standing* andmedium standing

Distinctive* andneutral

Exceptional* andnormal

Exclusive andunexclusive

Precious and notprecious

Rare and not rareUnique and

common

Classic* and novelCrafted and mass

producedHigher quality and

lower qualityLuxurious and

upmarketSophisticated and

unadornedStylish* and

standardSuperior

Leading andinfluential

Powerful andpowerless

Rewarding andunrewarding

Successful andaverage

Emotional* andunemotional

Exquisite andtasteful

Fascinating* andindifferent

Glamorous andattractive

Stunning andmemorable

*Indicates items that were deleted during the study


puted, one for each brand (using the20 items remaining). The revisedmodel sensibly improved the good-ness-of-fit and substantially enhancedthe chi-square non-significance of thefive-factor model. For instance, Mer-cedes-Benz 600SEL indicated a betterfit (�2 � 170.31, p < 0.274) comparedwith the model using the previous 22items (�2 � 229.35, p < 0.069).

Analysis of the results indicates asatisfactory level of reliability over timefor the scale. In addition, it enabled thegoodness-of-fit of the structural modelto be improved. The items repeatedlyaffecting the reliability of the scale —ie at least three times during the study— were removed from the model. Thenext study assessed the validity of thescale, using methods such as contentvalidity, predictive validity, and dis-criminant and convergent validity.

SCALE VALIDITY

Second content validityThis step was an attempt to substantiateand extend the findings of the initialcontent validity check. Three newbrands were used to test the revised20-item scale: David Jones, an up-

Test-retest reliabilityThe consistency of measurement wasdetermined by collecting data on twooccasions separated by two weeks usingthe same subject population.121 A newset of respondents (n � 176 businessstudents) initially rated three newbrands: a house in Double-Bay (anaffluent area in Sydney, Australia), aMercedes-Benz 600SEL, and a RalphLauren polo shirt. As before an analysiswas conducted for each brand andanother analysis for the combined set ofdata.

The average correlation betweentime one and time two on total scoreswas 0.84 (two items were removed).Test-retest Pearson correlations for eachbrand were as follows: house, r � 0.83;Mercedes, r � 0.86; and Ralph Lauren,r � 0.82. These brands were alsotested for internal scale reliability overthe two periods. The Cronbach’salpha coefficient ranged from 0.89 to0.91, and the item-to-total correlationswere from 0.35 to 0.65. Altogether,these results demonstrated a significantimprovement in terms of reliabilitywhen compared to the reliabilityindices originally computed (ie with 30and 22 item scales). In addition,four measurement models were com-


Table 6 Results from the different models

Results 30-item model 22-item model 20-item model

Chi-squareDegree of FP valueChi-square/dfGFIAGFINFITLIRMSEA

1428.21395.00

0.0003.610.780.740.850.870.07

255.30160.00

0.0001.590.940.930.960.980.04

240.74160.00

0.0001.500.960.950.970.990.02

This table shows the CFA results from the combined brands (ie Levi’s, Ray Ban, Rolex and Porsche)


ment store, 83 per cent agreement forHilton hotels, and 86 per cent agree-ment for Nike Air shoes.

Predictive validityTo test validity, a single-item attitudescale (measuring only luxury) was usedas a criterion to obtain a score classifiedinto two distinct categories (high andlow luxury). A new set of respon-dents (n � 132 students) classified threebrands into these two categories. Then331 students rated the BLI scale withthe three following brands: David Jonesdepartment stores, Hilton hotels andNike Air shoes, respectively. Based onNunnally123 and DeVellis,124 accuracywas defined as the proportion of cor-rect classifications (ie the higher thecorrelation between the high or lowluxury scores obtained with the BLIscale and the criterion, the greater thevalidity of the BLI scale as a predictorof luxury for brands).

The predictive validity study sug-gested that the brand luxury indexscale was sensitive in measuring luxury,and provided further evidence for ac-curacy. The scores predicted with thecriterion-related scale were correlatedto a satisfactory degree with the BLIoverall luxury scores (correlations rang-ing from 0.32 to 0.42) (Table 7).

market department store (n � 63), Hil-ton Hotels (n � 51) and Nike Airshoes (n � 72). After the respondents(undergraduate students at a largeuniversity in Australia) had completedthe questionnaire, they were thenasked to answer the following open-ended question: ‘Please, we would begrateful if you could write in your ownwords and as simply as possible, thereason why you rated this brand thatway.’ This method was similar to theprocedure outlined by Zaichkowsky.122

Each subject was classified into one ofthree groups according to their BLImean score (high, medium and low).Then three judges independently as-sessed the open-ended responses, class-ifying respondents into groups withattitudes describing a low, medium orhigh level of perception of luxurytowards the brand. Finally, each sub-ject’s BLI classification was correlatedwith their open-attitude rating tomeasure an overall agreement betweena subject’s rating using the scale and theopen attitude towards the brand.

The results revealed a significantassociation between the open-endedanswers from the respondents and theirscores, providing further evidence tosupport the validity of the scale. Thisagreement was as follows: 78 per centagreement for the David Jones depart-


Table 7 Correlations between BLI scale and criterion-related scale

BLI David Jones BLI Hilton Hotel BLI Nike Air Mean score

Criterion David JonesCriterion Hilton HotelCriterion Nike Air

0.340.32

0.42

5.916.584.20

Percentage of correctclassificationsMean score

88%

0.90

81%

0.29

72%

–0.29

n/a

n/a

This table shows the CFA results from the combined brands (ie Levi’s, Ray Ban, Rolex and Porsche)


scores were positively related to thefive criteria associated with the luxury-related scales (Table 9). For example,79 per cent of the higher BLI raterswere materialistic respondents, and 76per cent of the lower BLI raters as-sumed that high prices were negativelyrelated to the luxury level of brands. Inaddition, the results from the BLI scalewere correlated with the revised so-cial desirability scale from Strahan andGerbasi130 to examine potential exter-nal bias. The correlations were eitherlow or not significant, which suggestedthat the BLI scales were not likelyto be influenced by social-desirabilitybias.

Additional analyses of the constructinterrelationships were required to fur-ther substantiate evidence of the scalevalidity. The next step was to as-sess the construct validity of the scaleusing classical statistical methods suchas Campbell and Fiske’s131 multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) matrix.

Assessing construct validity using theCampbell and Fiske criteriaThe MTMM matrix approach toconstruct validation is expressed in

Nomological validityThis step consisted of examining thenomological validity between fiveluxury-related scales and the BLI scaleusing 331 respondents (business stu-dents) and three brands (David Jonesdepartment stores, Hilton Hotels andNike Air shoes). It was hypothesisedthat a materialistic person (a measure ofmaterialistic attitudes was used, fromMoschis and Churchill125) would beinvolved with fashion brands (a fashioninvolvement factor was used, fromTigert et al.126) and brands thatcontribute to personal image andpleasure (an enduring involvementscale was used, from Higie andFeick127). Such a person would have apositive attitude towards money (amoney-prestige scale was used, fromYamauchi and Templer128), wouldassign luxury to high prices (aprice-based prestige sensitivity scalewas used, from Lichtenstein et al.129),and would be classified among thehigher raters of the BLI scale (Table8).

The correlations among the luxury-related scales were strong, providingevidence of related construct measure-ment among the five scales. The BLI


Table 8 Correlations between BLI scale and related attitude scales

Money- Price- EnduringBLI Material prestige Fashion prestige involvement SDS(n = 331) (n = 168) (n = 168) (n = 163) (n = 163) (n = 163) (n = 168)

BLI (0.82)Material 0.52 (0.81)Money-prestige 0.44 0.92 (0.76)Fashion 0.69 n/a n/a (0.80)Price-prestige 0.59 n/a n/a 0.54 (0.86)Enduring involvement 0.47 n/a n/a 0.77 0.48 (0.83)SDS 0.15 0.07 0.14 n/a n/a n/a (0.78)

Correlations are significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); n/a, data not applicable because these scales were notaddressed on the same questionnaires; figures in parentheses on diagonals — Chronbach’s alpha


of correlation among the traits isrelatively illustrated in every heterotraittriangle. Note that the actual validitycoefficients of these five traits rangedfrom 0.48 to 0.81 with a degree ofvalidity significant at the 0.01 level.The Campbell-Fiske criteria performedwell in the present study (Figure 2).

Each of the conditions regarded asnecessary for assessing convergent anddiscriminant validity were met. Thismethod initiated a substantial assess-ment regarding the construct validity aswell as the method/halo bias. Researchhas encouraged the use of this approachto provide initial information on theanalysis of variance of MTMM data.

The present study yielded encourag-ing evidence concerning the constructvalidity of the BLI scale and itsmulti-dimensionality (ie conspicuous-ness, uniqueness, quality, self-percep-tion and hedonism).

DISCUSSION

ImplicationsThis research offers several potentialcontributions, but particularly, extendsthe studies carried out by Kapferer,135

Vigneron and Johnson136 and Dubois etal.137 on the attitudes towards theconcept of luxury and brand luxury.

terms of convergent validity (agree-ment among scores obtained from oneprocedure with scores from anotherprocedure) and discriminant validity(no correlation with other unintendedmeasures). The Likert and Staple scalewas used, as recommended in previousresearch132 for the two other measure-ment procedures (n � 342 students).The adjectives from the BLI scaleindicating a greater level of luxurybecame the unipolar adjectives of theStaple and Likert scale.

The average reliability coeffi-cient (Cronbach’s alpha) was 0.82,with values ranging from 0.71to 0.90, suggesting values rangingfrom respectable to very good.133

Based on the recommendation fromMarsh and Hocevar,134 the heterotrait-monomethod triangles were comparedwith their respective reliability valuesto identify any evidence of halo effects.This review did not show anyindication between both values, andsubsequently supported the proposalof non-method biases. FollowingCampbell and Fiske’s requirements, itcan be identified that: first, betweenthe three methods, the validation isexcellent; secondly, all the validitydiagonals exceed the heterotrait valuesof both the monomethod andheteromethod; and, finally, the pattern


Table 9 Percentage of respondents sorted among each scale category

Scale MaterialismPower-prestigeof money

Fashioninvolvement

Price-basedprestige

Enduringinvolvement

Respondents(a) High BLI raters(b) Low BLI raters

(1)79%28%

(2)21%72%

(1)76%34%

(2)24%66%

(1)82%12%

(2)18%88%

(1)77%24%

(2)23%76%

(1)72%24%

(2)28%76%

High BLI score — respondents with BLI score above the overall mean score; Low BLI score — respondentswith BLI score below the overall mean score; (1) Respondents positively related to the rated concept; (2)Respondents negatively related to the rated concept; (a) Cases with mean scores higher than the overall meanBLI score; (b) Cases with mean scores lower than the overall mean BLI score


The implications of this researchare of significance for marketers andscholars in the field of luxury brands. Itestablishes a structural analysis of brandluxury and proposes a managerialinstrument capable of creating andevaluating luxury brands. As noted, theresults of this research could servevarious purposes, but perhaps be speci-fically applied to create and build brandluxury, or address issues such as how tomaintain brand luxury once it isestablished. The value of the BLI scaleis to measure the amount of luxurycontained in a luxury brand (ie from itshigh to its low range). One of the

Vigneron and Johnson’s luxury-seekingconsumer behaviour framework wasused to derive the five dimensions ofthe scale. Dubois and Laurent’s138

luxury scale measures perceptions ofluxury as a general concept. In com-parison, researchers may use the BLIscale to measure consumers’ percep-tions of the luxury of specific brands orproducts. The present research revealedthat the concept of luxury is multi-dimensional and substantiated by afive-factor model. In developing a scalemeasuring the luxury of a brand,evidence was established for aspects ofreliability and validity.


Figure 2 Results from the mulitrait-multimethod matrix of correlations


ful to understand how consumersview luxury brands. From a marketsegmentation point of view, clus-tering groups according to their dif-ferent perceptions of brand luxury mayreveal salient psychographic charac-teristics useful in advertising, for in-stance. From a market positioningpoint of view, if a manager of aluxury brand witnessed declining brandluxury, the specific weakening dimen-sion could be identified. Thus, takingremedial actions such as changingthe advertising message, stressing theluxury attributes, or emphasising thebenefits of the brand over competingbrands could be undertaken. For ex-ample, if the luxury image of a carmaker was slowly decreasing due toan increasing number of dealers (ieweakening uniqueness), then appealsemphasising the limited number of carsavailable, or informing the consumerabout the precious components used inmaking the car, would be appropriateto reinforce the overall luxury image.

Future researchFurther replication and extensionwould be required before the findingscould be considered definitive. Henceone suggestion for further researchwould be to empirically compare theBLI scale with the Kapferer139 andDubois et al.140 scales. Potentialmeasures of convergent validity ormeasures of attitudes towards theconcept of luxury and cross-tabulationswith particular brands could beexamined.

In addition, the replicability of thesefindings should be tested with addi-tional samples (in particular, with actualconsumers of luxury products). TheBLI scale could be examined using

applications could be to use the scale tohelp an ‘upper-range established’ brandbuild a luxury-brand image.

In summary, these findings con-tribute to new explanations ofluxury brands beyond those in theeconomics/analytical literature. Thesefindings support the existence of latentluxury constructs influenced by per-sonal and interpersonal perceptionstowards the brands. These findings helpexplain the key luxury dimensions thatmanagers must establish or monitor forcreating a lasting luxury brand. Inaddition, the BLI scale is par-ticularly useful for comparing severalluxury brands and thus for recognis-ing competitive advantages. Relativestrengths and weaknesses can beidentified in the target market alongeither each of the 20 items comprisingthe scale or each of the five underlyingdimensions determined by the re-search.

For instance, Levi’s, although con-sidered by Australian students as aluxury brand, received the lowestluxury score among the brands usedto develop the scale. Rolex rankedfirst followed by Mercedes-Benz andPorsche, which indicated that thescale was not measuring the ex-pected monetary value but rather brandluxury. In addition to indicating if abrand is luxurious or not, the scaleallows the marketer to rank the brandsand also help to discover the fac-tors that support or decrease theluxury dimension. Mercedes-Benz andPorsche had very similar scores forquality and uniqueness, but con-spicuousness was much higher forMercedes, which contributed to makethe Mercedes brand luxury greater thanthat of Porsche.

Hence the BLI scale is help-



to measure, and people may try togive biased answers when dealing withluxury brands.

The MTMM matrix approach usedtwo other types of self-report question-naire measures, different only in thescale type. It would be an improvementto apply other methods with substan-tially different validity threats such asobservational measures in addition toself-report. Further, more research todetermine norms for different brandsand categories needs to be carriedout to investigate issues of validity.In addition, replication using differentdata sources other than students andmanagers from Australia is needed toreinforce the validity of the scale.

In conclusion, the final 20-item scale

a second-order confirmatory factoranalysis to reduce the number ofitems to a more parsimonious ver-sion. Studies using the BLI in othercountries may provide further evidenceof nomological validity, where samplescould be matched across countries, animportant consideration in cross-na-tional research.

LimitationsA major critique is that there may bea ‘demand effect’ from ‘leading’ termssuch as ‘elitist’ (positive connotations)and ‘popular’ (negative connotations).An individual’s motivation is not al-ways obvious and conscious. Indeed,abstract constructs are more difficult


Table 10 Twenty Items in the BLI scale

Non-personal-oriented perceptions

Conspicuousness ConspicuousPopular

AffordableFor wealthy

: : : : : :: : : : : :: : : : : :: : : : : :

NoticeableElitist*Extremely expensive*For well-off

Uniqueness Fairly exclusivePrecious

RareUnique

: : : : : :: : : : : :: : : : : :: : : : : :

Very exclusive*ValuableUncommonUnusual

Quality CraftedUpmarket

Best qualitySophisticated

Superior

: : : : : :: : : : : :: : : : : :: : : : : :: : : : : :

ManufacturedLuxurious*Good qualityOriginalBetter

Personal-oriented perceptions

Hedonism ExquisiteAttractive

Stunning

: : : : : :: : : : : :: : : : : :

TastefulGlamorous*Memorable

Extended self LeadingVery powerful

RewardingSuccessful

: : : : : :: : : : : :: : : : : :: : : : : :

InfluentialFairly powerfulPleasingWell regarded

*Indicates item is reverse-scored


(8) Lichtenstein, D. R., Ridgway, N. M. andNetemeyer, R. G. (1993) ‘Price perceptionsand consumer shopping behavior: A fieldstudy’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 30,May, pp. 234–245.

(9) Alleres, D. (1991) ‘Specificites et strategiesmarketing des differents univers du luxe’,Revue Française du Marketing, Vol. 133, Nos2/3, pp. 71–97.

(10) Kapferer, J.-N. (1997) ‘Managing luxurybrands’, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 4,No. 4, pp. 251–260.

(11) Dubois, B. and Duquesne, P. (1993b) ‘Themarket for luxury goods: Income versusculture’, European Journal of Marketing, Vol.27, No. 1, pp. 35–44.

(12) Bourdieu, P. (1984) ‘Distinction: A SocialJudgment of Taste’, Nice, R. (trans),Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

(13) Dubois, B. and Paternault, C. (1997) ‘Doesluxury have a home country? Aninvestigation of country images in Europe’,Marketing and Research Today, Vol. 25, May,pp. 79–85.

(14) Nyeck, S. and Roux, E. (1997) ‘WWW asa communication tool for luxury brands:Compared perceptions of consumers andmanagers’, 24th International Research Seminarin Marketing, 3–6 June, La Londe lesMaures, pp. 296–316.

(15) Kapferer, J.-N. (1998) ‘Why are we seducedby luxury brands?’, Journal of BrandManagement, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 44–49.

(16) Dubois, B., Laurent, G. and Czellar, S.(2001) ‘Consumer rapport to luxury:Analyzing complex and ambivalentattitudes’, Consumer Research WorkingPaper No. 736, HEC, Jouy-en-Josas, France.

(17) Cornell, A. (2002) ‘Cult of luxury: Thenew opiate of the masses’, AustralianFinancial Review, 27th April, p. 47.

(18) Kemp, S. (1998) ‘Perceiving luxury andnecessity’, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol.19, October, pp. 591–606.

(19) Alleres, ref. 9 above.(20) Roux, ref. 7 above.(21) Dubois and Duquesne, ref. 11 above.(22) Kapferer, ref. 10 above.(23) Roux, E. (2002) ‘Le luxe: Au-dela des

chiffres, quelles logiques d’analyse?’, RevueFrançaise du Marketing, Vol. 187, No. 2, pp.45–47.

(24) Prendergast, G. and Wong, C. (2003)‘Parental influence on the purchase ofluxury brands of infant apparel: Anexploratory study in Hong Kong’, Journal ofConsumer Marketing, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.157–169.

(25) Roux, ref. 23 above.

(Table 10) is sensitive to the luxuryimage over different socially desirablebrands, demonstrating reliable measuresand valid results compared to what wasanticipated. This scale has potentialvalue for researchers interested inmeasuring the decision-making processinvolving the consumer’s perceptionsof luxury. From a practical standpoint,the more complete measurement ofluxury perceptions provides useful in-formation for effective positioning andpromotional strategies. This is par-ticularly effective when comparing theluxury image of different brands, andhence for identifying competitive ad-vantage.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe authors would like to thank BernardDubois, Harold H. Kassarjian and Judith L.Zaichkowsky for suggestions and comments onearlier drafts of this paper. The anonymousreviewers are also thanked for their helpfulcomments.

References(1) Aaker, D. (1991) ‘Managing Brand Equity:

Capitalizing on the Value of a BrandName’, Free Press, New York, NY.

(2) Keller, K. L. (1991) ‘Conceptualizing,measuring and managing customer-basedbrand equity’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57,No. 1, pp. 1–22.

(3) Aaker, J. L. (1997) ‘Dimensions of brandpersonality’, Journal of Marketing Research,Vol. 34, August, pp. 347–356.

(4) McKinsey Corporation (1990) ‘The LuxuryIndustry: An Asset for France’, McKinsey,Paris, France.

(5) Silverstein, M. J. and Fiske, N. (2003)‘Luxury for the masses’, Harvard BusinessReview, Vol. 81, No. 4, pp. 48–57.

(6) Dubois, B. and Duquesne, P. (1993a)‘Polarization maps: A new approach toidentifying and assessing competitiveposition — The case of luxury brands’,Marketing and Research Today, Vol. 21, May,pp. 115–123.

(7) Roux, E. (1991) ‘Comment se positionnentles marques de luxe’, Revue Française duMarketing, Vol. 132/133, Nos 2–3, pp.111–118.



(44) Leibenstein, H. (1950) ‘Bandwagon, snob,and Veblen effects in the theory ofconsumers’ demand’, Quarterly Journal ofEconomics, Vol. 64, May, pp. 183–207.

(45) Mason, ref. 42 above.(46) Bourne, F. S. (1957) ‘Group influence in

marketing and public relations’, in ‘SomeApplications of Behavioral Research’,Likert, R. and Hayes, S. P. (eds), Unesco,Paris, France.

(47) Mason, R. S. (1981) ‘ConspicuousConsumption’, St Martin’s Press, NewYork, NY.

(48) Bearden, W. O. and Etzel, M. J. (1982)‘Reference group influence on product andbrand purchase decisions’, Journal of ConsumerResearch, Vol. 9, September, pp. 183–194.

(49) Horiuchi, Y. (1984) ‘A systems anomaly:Consumer decision-making process forluxury goods’, unpublished doctoraldissertation, University of Pennsylvania,Philadelphia, PA.

(50) Bushman, B. J. (1993) ‘What is in a name?The moderating role of publicself-consciousness on the relation betweenbrand label and brand preference’, Journal ofApplied Psychology, Vol. 78, No. 5, pp.857–861.

(51) Pantzalis, ref. 35 above.(52) Eastman, J. K., Goldsmith, R. E. and

Flynn, L. R. (1999) ‘Status consumption inconsumer behavior: Scale development andvalidation’, Journal of Marketing Theory andPractice, Summer, pp. 41–52.

(53) Andrus, D. M., Silver, E. and Johnson, D.E. (1986) ‘Status brand management andgift purchase: A discriminant analysis’,Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 3,March, pp. 5–13.

(54) Dubois, B. and Paternault, C. (1995)‘Understanding the world of internationalluxury brands: The ‘‘dream formula’’ ’,Journal of Advertising Research, July/August,pp. 69–76.

(55) Kapferer, ref. 10 above.(56) Kapferer, ref. 15 above.(57) Nueno and Quelch, ref. 30 above.(58) Bernstein, L. (1999) ‘Luxury and the hotel

brand’, Cornell Hotel and RestaurantAdministration Quarterly, February, pp. 47–53.

(59) Arghavan and Zaichkowsky, ref. 29 above.(60) Kapferer, ref. 15 above.(61) Eastman et al., ref. 52 above.(62) Phau and Prendergast, ref. 34 above.(63) Dubois et al., ref. 16 above.(64) Dubois and Laurent, ref. 43 above.(65) Kapferer, ref. 15 above.(66) Dubois et al., ref. 16 above.(67) Vigneron and Johnson, ref. 41 above.

(26) Frances, P. (2002) ‘Older and wealthier’,American Demographics, Vol. 24, November,pp. 40–42.

(27) Gardyn, R. (2002) ‘Oh, the good life’,American Demographics, Vol. 24, November,pp. 30–36.

(28) Kapferer, ref. 10 above.(29) Arghavan, N. and Zaichkowsky, J. L. (2000)

‘Do counterfeits devalue the ownership ofluxury brands?’, Journal of Product and BrandManagement, Vol. 9, No. 7, pp. 485–497.

(30) Nueno, J. L. and Quelch, J. A. (1998) ‘Themass marketing of luxury’, BusinessHorizons, November–December, pp. 61–68.

(31) McKinsey Corporation, ref. 4 above.(32) Dubois, B. and Laurent, G. (1996) ‘Le luxe

par-dela les frontieres: Une etudeexploratoire dans douze pays’, DecisionsMarketing, Vol. 9, September–December, pp.35–43.

(33) Kapferer, ref. 10 above.(34) Phau, I. and Prendergast, G. (2000)

‘Consuming luxury brands: The relevanceof the ‘‘rarity principle’’ ’, Journal of BrandManagement, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 122–138.

(35) Pantzalis, I. (1995) ‘Exclusivity strategies inpricing and brand extension’, unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, University of Arizona,Tucson, AZ.

(36) Roux, E. and Floch, J. M. (1996) ‘Gererl’ingerable: La contradiction interne detoute maison de luxe’, Decisions Marketing,Vol. 9, September–December, pp. 15–23.

(37) Anonymous (1993) ‘The luxury goodstrade: Upmarket philosophy’, The Economist,Vol. 325, December, pp. 95–98.

(38) Gardyn, ref. 27 above.(39) Lipovetsky, G. and Roux, E. (2003) ‘Le

Luxe Eternel: De l’Age du Sacre au Tempsdes Marques’, Gallimard, Paris, France.

(40) Remaury, B. (2002) ‘Luxe et identiteculturelle americaine?’, Revue Française duMarketing, Vol. 187, No. 2, pp. 49–60.

(41) Vigneron, F. and Johnson, L. W. (1999) ‘Areview and a conceptual framework ofprestige-seeking consumer behavior’,Academy of Marketing Science Review,available online at http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/amsrev/search.htm.

(42) Mason, R. S. (1992) ‘Modelling thedemand for status goods’, working paper,Department of Business and ManagementStudies, University of Salford, UK.

(43) Dubois, B. and Laurent, G. (1994)‘Attitudes toward the concept of luxury: Anexploratory analysis’, in ‘Asia-PacificAdvances in Consumer Research’, Leong,S. M. and Cote, J. A. (eds), Vol. 1, No. 2,pp. 273–278.



(87) McCracken, G. (1986) ‘Culture andconsumption: A theoretical account of thestructure and movement of the culturalmeaning of consumer goods’, Journal ofConsumer Research, Vol. 13, June, pp. 71–84.

(88) Belk, R. W. (1988) ‘Possessions and theextended self’, Journal of Consumer Research,Vol. 15, September, pp. 139–168.

(89) Douglas, M. and Isherwood, B. (1979)‘The World of Goods’, Basic, New York,NY.

(90) Hirschman, E. C. (1988) ‘The ideology ofconsumption: A structural-syntacticalanalysis of ‘‘Dallas’’ and ‘‘Dynasty’’ ’, Journalof Consumer Research, Vol. 15, December,pp. 344–359.

(91) Dittmar, H. (1994) ‘Material possessions asstereotypes: Material images of differentsocio-economic groups’, Journal of EconomicPsychology, Vol. 15, December, pp.561–585.

(92) Bearden, W., Netemeyer, R. G. and Teel,J. E. (1989) ‘Measurement of consumersusceptibility to interpersonal influence’,Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15,March, pp. 473–481.

(93) Richins, M. L. (1994a) ‘Valuing things:The public and private meanings ofpossessions’, Journal of Consumer Research,Vol. 21, December, pp. 504–521.

(94) Richins, M. L. (1994b) ‘Special possessionsand the expression of material values’,Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21,December, pp. 522–533.

(95) Belk, R. W. (1995) ‘Collecting as luxuryconsumption: Effects on individuals andhouseholds’, Journal of Economic Psychology,Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 477–490.

(96) Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I. and Gross, B.L. (1991) ‘Why we buy what we buy: Atheory of consumption values’, Journal ofBusiness Research, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp.159–170.

(97) Westbrook, R. A. and Oliver, R. L.(1991) ‘The dimensionality of consumptionemotion patterns and consumersatisfaction’, Journal of Consumer Research,Vol. 18, June, pp. 84–91.

(98) Rossiter, J. R. and Percy, L. (1997)‘Advertising Communications andPromotion Management’ (2nd edn),McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

(99) Hirschman, E. C. and Holbrook, M. B.(1982) ‘Hedonic consumption: Emergingconcepts, methods and propositions’,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46, Summer, pp.92–101.

(100) Kahle, L. R. (1995) ‘Role-relaxedconsumers: Empirical evidence’, Journal of

(68) Kapferer, ref. 15 above.(69) Dubois et al., ref. 16 above.(70) Diamantopoulos, A. and Winklhoffer, H.

M. (2001) ‘Index construction withformative indicators: An alternative to scaledevelopment’, Journal of Marketing Research,Vol. 38, May, pp. 269–277.

(71) Veblen, T. B. (1899) ‘The Theory of theLeisure Class’, Houghton Mifflin, Boston,MA.

(72) Bearden and Etzel, ref. 48 above.(73) Lichtenstein et al., ref. 8 above.(74) Vigneron and Johnson, ref. 41 above.(75) Berkowitz, E. N., Kerin, R. A., Hartley, S.

W. and Rudelius, W. (1992) ‘Marketing’(3rd edn), Irwin, Homewood, IL.

(76) Groth, J. C. and McDaniel, S. W. (1993)‘The exclusive value principle: The basis forprestige pricing’, Journal of ConsumerMarketing, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 10–16.

(77) Lynn, M. (1991) ‘Scarcity effects on value:A quantitative review of the commoditytheory literature’, Psychology and Marketing,Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 45–57.

(78) Pantzalis, ref. 35 above.(79) Snyder, C. R. and Fromkin, H. L. (1977)

‘Abnormality as a positive characteristic:The development and validation of a scalemeasuring need for uniqueness’, Journal ofAbnormal Psychology, Vol. 86, No. 5, pp.518–527.

(80) Tian, K. T., Bearden, W. O. and Hunter, G.L. (2001) ‘Consumers’ need for uniqueness:Scale development and validation’, Journal ofConsumer Research, Vol. 28, June, pp. 50–66.

(81) Groth and McDaniel, ref. 76 above.(82) Verhallen, T. M. and Robben, H. S. (1994)

‘Scarcity and preference: An experiment onunavailability and product evaluation’,Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 15, June,pp. 315–331.

(83) Holt, D. B. (1995) ‘How consumersconsume: A typology of consumptionpractices’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.22, June, pp. 1–16.

(84) French, J. R., Jr, and Raven, B. H. (1959)‘The bases of social power’, in ‘Studies inSocial Power’, Cartwright, D. (ed.) Institutefor Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI, pp.150–167.

(85) Solomon, M. R. (1983) ‘The role ofproducts as social stimuli: A symbolicinteractionist approach’, Journal of ConsumerResearch, Vol. 10, December, pp. 319–329.

(86) Mick, D. G. (1986) ‘Consumer research andsemiotics: Exploring the morphology ofsigns, symbols, and significance’, Journal ofConsumer Research, Vol. 13, September, pp.196–213.



R. L. (2001) ‘Consumer self-confidence:Refinements in conceptualization andmeasurement’, Journal of Consumer Research,Vol. 28, June, pp. 121–134.

(122) Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985) ‘Measuring theinvolvement construct’, Journal of ConsumerResearch, Vol. 12, December, pp. 341–352.

(123) Nunnally, ref. 110 above.(124) DeVellis, ref. 112 above.(125) Moschis, G. P. and Churchill, G. A., Jr

(1978) ‘Consumer socialization: Atheoretical and empirical analysis’, Journalof Marketing Research, Vol. 15, November,pp. 599–609.

(126) Tigert, D. J., Ring, L. R. and King, C. W.(1976) ‘Fashion involvement and buyingbehavior: A methodological study’, in‘Advances in Consumer Research’, Vol. 3,Anderson, B. B. (ed.) The Association forConsumer Research, Provo, UT, pp.46–52.

(127) Higie, R. A. and Feick, L. F. (1988)‘Enduring involvement: Conceptual andmethodological issues’, in ‘Advances inConsumer Research’, Vol. 16, Srull, T.(ed.) Association for Consumer Research,Provo, UT, pp. 690–696.

(128) Yamauchi, K. T. and Templer, D. I. (1982)‘The development of a money attitudescale’, Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol.46, No. 5, pp. 522–528.

(129) Lichtenstein et al., ref. 8 above.(130) Strahan, R. and Gerbasi, K. C. (1972)

‘Short, homogeneous versions of theMarlow-Crowne social desirability scale’,Journal of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 28, No.1, pp. 191–193.

(131) Campbell, D. and Fiske, D. (1959)‘Convergent and discriminant validity bythe multitrait-multimethod matrix’,Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 56, No. 1, pp.81–105.

(132) Menezes, D. and Elbert, N. F. (1979)‘Alternative semantic scaling formats formeasuring store image: An evaluation’,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16,February, pp. 80–87.

(133) DeVellis, ref. 112 above.(134) Marsh, H. W. and Hocevar, D. (1983)

‘Confirmatory factor analysis ofmultitrait-multimethod matrices’, Journal ofEducational Measurement, Vol. 20, Fall, pp.231–248.

(135) Kapferer, ref. 15 above.(136) Vigneron and Johnson, ref. 41 above.(137) Dubois et al., ref. 16 above.(138) Dubois and Laurent, ref. 43 above.(139) Kapferer, ref. 15 above.(140) Dubois et al., ref. 16 above.

Advertising Research, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp.59–62.

(101) Kassarjian, H. H. (1965) ‘Riesmanrevisited’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 29,April, pp. 54–56.

(102) Aaker, ref. 1 above.(103) Quelch, J. A. (1987) ‘Marketing the

premium product’, Business Horizons, Vol.30, No. 3, pp. 38–45.

(104) Garfein, R. T. (1989) ‘Cross-culturalperspectives on the dynamics of prestige’,Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 3,Summer, pp. 17–24.

(105) Roux, E. (1995) ‘Consumer evaluation ofluxury brand extensions’, EMACConference, May, ESSEC, Paris, France.

(106) Groth and McDaniel, ref. 76 above.(107) Rao, A. R. and Monroe, K. B. (1989)

‘The effect of price, brand name, and storename on buyers’ perceptions of productquality: An integrative review’, Journal ofMarketing Research, Vol. 26, August, pp.351–357.

(108) Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J. andTannenbaum, P. H. (1957) ‘TheMeasurement of Meaning’, University ofIllinois Free Press, Urbana, IL.

(109) Mindak, W. A. (1961) ‘Fitting thesemantic differential to the marketingproblem’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 25, No.1, pp. 28–33.

(110) Nunnally, J. C. (1978) ‘PsychometricTheory’ (2nd edn), McGraw-Hill, NewYork, NY.

(111) Gerbing, D. W. and Anderson, J. C. (1988)‘An updated paradigm for scaledevelopment incorporatingunidimensionality and its assessment’,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 25, May,pp. 186–192.

(112) DeVellis, R. F. (1991) ‘Scale Development:Theory and Applications’, SagePublications Inc, Newbury Park, CA.

(113) Kapferer, ref. 15 above.(114) Eastman et al., ref. 52 above.(115) Dubois et al., ref. 16 above.(116) Everett, J. E. (1983) ‘Factor comparability

as a means of determining the number offactors and their rotation’, MultivariateBehavioral Research, Vol. 18, pp. 197–218.

(117) Gerbing and Anderson, ref. 111 above.(118) Arbuckle, J. L. (2003) ‘AMOS 5.00’,

Smallwaters Corporation, Chicago, IL.(119) Hair, J. F., Jr, Anderson, R. E., Tatham,

R. L. and Black, W. C. (1995)‘Multivariate Data Analysis’ (4th edn),Prentice-Hall Inc, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

(120) Ibid.(121) Bearden, W., Hardesty, D. M. and Rose,



teoria luxului in cc.2

Documents

dimensionsof brand luxury

dimensionsof luxury

effect of luxury brands

highluxury brands

brandluxury construct

symbolic use of luxury

journal of services

perception of brands