See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/31968013

Measuring perceptions of brand luxury

Article  in  Journal of Brand Management · July 2004

DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.bm.2540194 · Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS

579 15,073

2 authors:

Franck Vigneron Lester W Johnson

California State University, Northridge Swinburne University of Technology
15 PUBLICATIONS   1,394 CITATIONS    187 PUBLICATIONS   6,141 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Massive online courses and the marketing of higher education View project

Chinese cutural values in marketing and management View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Franck Vigneron on 24 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The Journal of Brand Management
July 2004, Volume 11 Number 6, p 484-508

Measuring Brand Luxury Perceptions

Franck Vigneron

Lester W. Johnson

1
Franck Vigneron is assistant professor of marketing, Department of Marketing, College

of Business & Economics, California State University Northridge, 18111 Nordhoff

Street, Northridge CA 91330 ([email protected]). Lester W. Johnson is

professor of marketing, Mt Eliza Business School, PO Box 7262. St Kilda Rd PO,

Melbourne Vic 3004, Australia ([email protected]).

2
 ABSTRACT

What distinguishes among brands that are high versus low on luxury? We discuss a

theoretical framework of the brand luxury construct that leads to a specification of the

dimensions of luxury as applied to brands. We then describe the development of a scale

for the measurement of the dimensions of brand luxury. We conclude with theoretical

and practical implications regarding the symbolic use of luxury brands for public policy

maker and consumer.

3
 INTRODUCTION

Considerable research has been conducted to identify and conceptualize the

dimensions of various brands, and much of that has been on the symbolic use of brands

(e.g., Aaker 1991; Keller 1991; Aaker 1997). And yet the measurement of perceived

luxuriousness of a brand has received comparatively limited empirical attention. Our

study is focused on understanding what is meant by a luxury brand and the development

of a scale to measure the dimensions of perceived luxury.

Despite the importance of luxury brands in consumers’ lives and the fact that the

luxury market constitutes a large economic activity in the industrialized world

(McKinsey Corporation 1990, Silverstein and Fiske 2003), little is known about the

influence of luxury on the perception of brands once they enter the marketplace. As

emphasized by Dubois and Duquesne (1993a, p.115), “we believe that an analysis of the

direct relationship between consumers and brands is the key to an improved

understanding of such a market”. Consequently, the development of an instrument

measuring the perception of luxury in the form of a scale is of particular interest. This

scale could be used not only in the creation of a luxury brand but also in the continuous

monitoring of existing luxury brands in addition to basic research in consumer behavior.

Researchers have focused on how the supposed luxury of a brand enables a

consumer to express his or her own self, an ideal self, or specific dimensions of the self

through the use of a brand (Roux 1991; Lichtenstein, Ridgway and Netemeyer 1993).

Practitioners view luxury as a main factor to differentiate a brand in a product category

4
(Allérès 1991; Kapferer 1997), as a central driver of consumer preference and usage

(Dubois and Duquesne 1993b), and as a common denominator that can be used to define

consumption across cultures (Bourdieu 1984; Dubois and Paternault 1997) or finally

luxury products offer a different brand category to measure the suitability of the Internet

to become a communication tool for luxury brand (Nyeck and Roux 1997).

We examine the concept of a luxury brand with the goals of designing a conceptual

framework and developing a scale to measure differences in the luxury of brands. At

present there is no scale measuring the perceived luxury of a brand, or even a clear

definition of what constitutes a luxury brand compare to a non-luxury brand. Work by

Kapferer (1998) and Dubois et al (2001) go part way in developing such a measurement

scale but stop well short of full scale development.

Although a brand may be perceived as luxurious, consumers and researchers

recognized that not all luxury brands are deemed equally luxurious. “Luxury is

particularly slippery to define. A strong element of human involvement, very limited

supply and the recognition of value by others are key components. … So between

premium and luxury, in marketing terms, is a difference of degree" (Cornell 2002). For

instance, a Cadillac and a Rolls-Royce may be both perceived as luxury cars but one

compared with the other would be considered more luxurious. In this case, we could

assume the Rolls-Royce to be more luxurious than the Cadillac. Kemp (1998)

demonstrated that some goods such as water could be viewed by different observers as

either a luxury or as a necessity depending on who wants the good or why. Even more

surprising he showed that these goods could also be either a luxury or a necessity for the

same person in different situations. Consequently, the perception of what is and is not a

5
luxury brand as well as the amount of luxury contained in a brand may be context and

people dependent.

Thus, we conceptualize the degree of luxury associated with a brand to be

measured on a continuum within the luxury range and in agreement with previous

research (e.g., Allérès 1991; Roux 1991; Dubois and Duquesne 1993a). We agree with

authors such as Kapferer (1997) who argue that a luxury brand is a discontinuity vis a vis

other types of brands and make a further conceptual distinction between the different

degree of “luxury” between these brands. A scale to measure this degree of luxuriousness

(and the degree of each of the sub-dimensions of luxury that we discuss later) would

allow us to estimate the amount of perceived luxury of a luxury brand. Cadillac and

Lincoln may be perceived overall as having the same level of luxury, but the scale may

reveal that their overall brand luxury perceptions are combinations of different

evaluations of the same luxury dimensions.

Our main contribution is to develop an instrument for the researcher and marketer

of luxury products who might wish to measure the amount of luxury contained in a given

brand. The brand luxury scale treats luxury as a matter of degree, residing on a

continuum from very little to a great deal.

Before presenting the detailed results of our study, we begin with a brief review of

the luxury construct and its potential relevance to issues pertaining to the analysis of

luxury-seeking consumer behavior. Next, we discuss the major steps in our scale

development including detailed tests of the reliability and validity of the scale. Finally,

key findings of the research are reviewed and discussed.

6
 DEFINING THE LUXURY CONSTRUCT

The luxury brand market has been growing steadily for the past twenty years, up to

25% in 1989 with a minimum of 10% per year although it grew more slowly during the

mid 1990s (Roux 2002). Many reasons have maintained this growth, from a growing

aspirational affluence (Prendergast and Wong 2003) and growing young upward mobile

consumers (Roux 2002) to an aging wealthier population (Frances 2002) or a greater

ratio of people with high income (Gardyn 2002).

In 1997 Kapferer presented the semiotics of the word luxury, its sociological

references and the pragmatics of luxury brand management.

“Luxury defines beauty; it is art applied to functional items. Like light,

luxury is enlightening. […] They offer more than mere objects: they
provide reference of good taste. That is why luxury management should not
only depend on customer expectations: luxury brands are animated by their
internal programmme, their global vision, the specific taste which they
promote as well as the pursuit of their own standards. […] Luxury items
provide extra pleasure and flatter all senses at once. […] Luxury is the
appanage of the ruling classes.” (Kapferer 1997, P.253)

Thus, there is an agreement in the literature to define luxury goods as goods for

which the simple use or display of a particular branded product brings esteem on the

owner, apart from any functional utility. Hence, luxury products enable consumers to

satisfy psychological and functional purposes and it seems that these psychological

attributes constitute mostly what distinguish them from a non-luxury product or

counterfeit (Nia and Zaichkowsky 2000).

Nueno and Quelch (1998, p. 61) define luxury brands as: “… those whose ratio of

functionality to price is low while the ratio while the ratio of intangible and situational

utility to price is high”. This definition is comparable to the definition made by

economists or marketing consultants (e.g., McKinsey 1990) who define luxury brands as

7
those whose price and quality ratios are the highest of the market, that is, their price is

significantly greater than the price of products with similar tangible features.

However, this definition suggests that brands are of two kinds, either luxurious or

not luxurious. In effect, there are brands that may be a luxury brand in a certain product

category and not a luxury brand in another product category (Dubois and Laurent 1996).

Rolls-Royce is considered a luxury brand of car but not a luxury brand of plane engines.

In addition, there is a distinction between luxury brands associated with the upper-

range luxury and the lower-range luxury. A brand may be defined as a luxury brand but

all brands considered luxury may not be deemed equal, and one brand having a higher

perceived luxury in one product category may have a lower luxury perception in another

product category. Cartier for instance may have a greater luxury image in the jewelry

market than in the apparel or fragrance market. The luxury brand Armani may be be

placed in the upper-range of luxury brands (also named “griffe”, see Kapferer 1997 for a

discussion). Emporio Armani is the more popular Armani brand that was crafted to

satisfy the need of a larger luxury-target market. It may be ranked in a lower level of

luxury but still considered a luxury.

Phau and Prendergast (2000) point out that while luxury is a subjective concept

“luxury brands compete on the ability to evoke exclusivity, a well-known brand identity,

[…] brand awareness and perceived quality”. This concept of exclusivity or rarity is well

documented in the literature on luxury (e.g., Pantzalis 1995). The contradiction that

luxury brands face when increasing exposure and sales while maintaining a fragile

perception of limited supply is putting a great deal of pressure on luxury brands (Roux

and Floch 1996).

8
 Over the past twenty years, brands that were once traditionally targeting the

wealthiest consumers have launched new product lines, new brands or product

extensions to market their products to middle class consumers. In fact some people have

called this trend the “democratization of luxury” (The Economist 1993; Gardyn 2002;

Lipovetsky and Roux 2003) and Rémaury (2002) examines the cultural differences that

shape this trend and he describes the impact of a greater democratic process influencing

luxury marketing in America compare to Europe.

In an earlier review article (Vigneron and Johnson 1999) the authors developed a

framework named prestige-seeking consumer behavior. This prestige-seeking framework

was originally inspired from the conceptual work of Mason (1992) who developed a

status-seeking framework to explain the consumer behavior of luxury brands. His

conceptual framework mostly focused on the interpersonal effects associated with this

behavior.

In contrast, Vigneron and Johnson’s (1999) framework included personal effects

such as hedonist and perfectionist motives inspired from the work of Dubois and Laurent

(1994), as well as the more usual interpersonal effects (snob, conspicuousness and

bandwagon motives) inherited from Leibenstein (1950) and Mason (1992). In doing so,

they attempted to establish a balance between personal and interpersonal oriented

motives for luxury consumption. This model is also consistent with previous research on

luxury that demonstrated that individuals' behavior varies across persons depending on

their susceptibility to interpersonal influence (e.g., Bourne 1957; Mason 1981; Bearden

and Etzel 1982; Horiuchi 1984; Bushman 1993; Pantzalis 1995).

9
 Although Vigneron and Johnson (1999) use the terminology prestige-seeking

behavior, we prefer to use the term luxury instead of prestige. Therefore, in this paper,

we refer to luxury-seeking consumer behavior (LSCB) and luxury brands when

discussing the brand category whereas we use “prestige” when relating to the extreme-

end of the luxury brand category. The term luxury in this context is more inclusive in the

sense that it includes both personal and interpersonal effects. While prestige or status

consumption involves purchasing a higher price product to embellish one’s ego

(Eastman, Goldsmith and Flynn 1999), luxury consumption involves purchasing a

product that represent value to both the individual and vis à vis significant others.

As early as 1986 Andrus, Silver, and Johnson (1986, p.5) noted the need for

literature pertaining to the study of luxury brands: “status brand strategies are intuitively

recognized by marketing professionals and practitioners. However, there is little

literature on the topic reported”. A review of the literature since then suggests a growing

interest in the topic of luxury (e.g., Dubois and Paternault 1995, Kapferer 1997, 1998,

Nueno and Quelch 1998, Bernstein 1999, Nia and Zaichkowsky 2000) but there is still

little work on the evaluation of luxury brand (exceptions are Kapferer 1998, Eastman et

al 1999; Phau and Prendergast 2000 and Dubois et al 2001).

The psychometric work undertaken in the measurement of luxury offers evidence

of multiple dimensionalities in defining the concept (Dubois and Laurent 1994; Kapferer

1998; Dubois, Laurent and Czellar 2001). Vigneron and Johnson (1999) proposed that

this luxury-seeking consumer decision-making process is explained by five main factors

that form a semantic network. They reviewed the latent structure of, and the

interrelations among, the primary meanings of the prestige (luxury) concept that underlie

the decision-making process undertaken when assessing luxury brands. For a synopsis

purpose Table 1 presents a review of the factors and communalities between the

10
Vigneron and Johnson ‘s framework and the above mentioned studies from the literature

on luxury brand.

_____________________________
Insert Table 1 about here
_____________________________

The definition of what separates luxury brands and non-luxury brands has been

operationally defined in this study as the distinction between brands exhibiting five

perceived dimensions of a luxury brand. Hence, our conceptual framework (Figure 1)

derived from the literature the existence of three latent luxury dimensions reflecting non-

personal oriented perceptions (1) perceived conspicuousness, (2) perceived uniqueness

and (3) perceived quality; and two personal oriented perceptions (4) perceived extended-

self, and (5) perceived hedonism. Each one of these dimensions is strongly correlated but

not identical as constructed in our formative framework (Diamantopoulos and

Winklhoffer 2001).

_____________________________
Insert Figure 1 about here
_____________________________

These are the five key luxury dimensions that must be established or monitored for

creating a lasting luxury brand. It is expected that different sets of consumers would have

different perceptions of the level of luxury for the same brands, and that the overall

luxury level of a brand would integrate these perceptions from different perspectives.

Perceived Conspicuousness

11
 The early work on conspicuous consumption (Veblen 1899; Bearden and Etzel

1982) suggested that a consumer considered reference group influences when publicly

consuming luxury products. The consumption of luxury brands may be important to

individuals in search of social representation and position. This means that social status

associated with a brand is an important factor in conspicuous consumption. Furthermore,

consumers who perceive price as a proxy for quality often perceive high price as an

indicator of luxury (Lichtenstein, Ridgway, and Netemeyer 1993). Hence, our measure

of conspicuousness includes items such as “extremely expensive” or “for wealthy” that

tap into perceptions of price and social status associated with the brand. As pointed out

by Vigneron and Johnson (1999), “This argument is further supported by the marketing

literature which recommends the use of "prestige-pricing strategy" when appealing to

status-conscious consumers (Berkowitz, Kerin, Hartley, and Rudelius 1992, 341; Groth

and McDaniel 1993).”

Perceived Uniqueness

Research reveals that scarcity or limited supply of products enhances consumers’

preferences for a brand (Lynn 1991; Pantzalis 1995). Individuals express a “need for

uniqueness” (Snyder and Fromkin 1977) when they are searching for something that is

difficult to obtain, e.g., Louis Vuitton handbag. The consumer behavior literature

conceptualized consumer’s need for uniqueness as subsuming three behavioral

dimensions (see for review, Tian, Bearden, and Hunter 2001). Its purpose is to enhance

one’s self-image and social image by adhering to one’s personal taste, or breaking the

rules, or avoiding similar consumption. The uniqueness dimension is based on the

assumptions that perceptions of exclusivity and rarity enhance the desire for a brand, and

that this desirability is increased when the brand is also perceived as expensive (Groth

and McDaniel 1993; Verhallen and Robben 1994). A luxury brand that would be difficult
12
to find because of its uniqueness (e.g., limited edition) and which would be expensive

compared to normal standard (e.g., Jaguar car) would be even more valuable.

Perceived Extended-Self

Consumers may use luxury brands to classify or distinguish themselves in relation

to relevant others but they may also try to integrate the symbolic meaning into one’s

identity (Holt 1995). Social referencing and the construction of one self appears to be

determinant in luxury consumption. Multiple reference groups refer to the problem of

being under pressures and demands of one’s own membership group and attracted by the

standard dictated by another reference group. People’s desire to conform to affluent

lifestyles and/or to be distinguished from non-affluent lifestyles affects their luxury-

seeking behavior (French and Raven 1959; Solomon 1983; Mick 1986; McCracken

1986). Belk’s (1988) concept of extended self suggests that we regard our possessions as

part of identity. Thus, “luxury imitators” may use the perceived extended-self dimension

transferred from luxury brands to enhance their self-concept and replicate stereotypes of

affluence by consuming similar luxury items (Douglas and Isherwood 1979; Hirschman

1988; Dittmar 1994).

The possession of luxury brands may be more appreciated by consumers who are

highly materialistic and susceptible to interpersonal influence (Bearden, Netemeyer, and

Teel 1989; Richins 1994a). “Materialism is a value that represents the individual’s

perspective regarding the role possessions should play in his/her life” (Richins 1994b,

522). Materialistic consumers may regard luxury brands as a means to reach happiness

and may use these brands to evaluate personal or others’ success. People who are

concerned with social acceptance and conformity with affluent reference groups may

value possessions that are more socially visible and expensive. Belk (1995, 487) stated
13
“as an essential materialistic activity collecting is a lens viewing all luxury consumption

more clearly”, and further explained that a person’s collections may represent personal

success in comparison with other people’s collections.

Perceived Hedonism

Luxury-seekers are considered hedonic consumers when they are looking for

personal rewards and fulfillment acquired through the purchase and consumption of

products evaluated for their subjective emotional benefits and intrinsically pleasing

properties, rather than functional (Sheth, Newman, and Gross 1991; Westbrook and

Oliver 1991). By hedonic dimension we refer to the luxury dimension reflected by

sensory gratification (Rossiter and Percy 1997) and sensory pleasure (Hirschman and

Holbrook 1982) expected from the consumption. Therefore, people who rely on their

own personal opinion (e.g., role-relaxed consumers, Kahle 1995, or inner-directed

consumers, Kassarjian 1965) and who are not susceptible to interpersonal influence

when considering luxury brands may represent hedonist type of consumers.

Perceived Quality

It is expected that luxury brands offer superior product qualities and performance

compared with non-luxury brands. Perfectionist consumers may perceive more value

from a luxury brand because they may assume that it will have a greater brand quality

and reassurance (Aaker 1991). The literature on luxury consumption emphasizes the

importance of leadership in quality to ensure the perception of luxury (Quelch 1987;

Garfein 1989; Roux 1995). It seems rather difficult to develop a luxury brand image

without developing a long-term commitment for quality. Accordingly, people influenced

by the quality dimension of luxury may perceive that luxury brands have superior

characteristics than non-luxury brands. These characteristics may include, but are not
14
restricted to, technology, engineering, design, sophistication, and craftsmanship. For

instance, speed and acceleration for a luxury car or precision for a luxury watch are

elements reflecting the perceptions of quality. In addition, "high prices may even make

certain products or services more desirable" (Groth and McDaniel 1993, 10) because

consumers perceive higher prices as indication of greater quality (Rao and Monroe

1989).

Although the five dimensions of luxury are likely correlated, they all contribute to

an index of luxury. The brand luxury index (BLI) is a multidimensional scale that

aggregates five sub-scales to form an overall compensatory index of luxury. While

consumers may choose to maximize all five dimensions, in practice, consumers would

trade off less salient dimensions for more salient ones.

This paper attempts to crystallize the conceptual framework defined above by

developing a scale to measure the multidimensional concept of luxury. Thus, a seven-

point semantic differential scale, the Brand Luxury Index (BLI), is developed following

recommended scaling procedures, as explained in the following section.

SCALE DEVELOPMENT

Methodology

For the purpose of this research, a semantic differential scale was developed

(Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum 1957; Mindak 1961). The scale development process

15
(Table 2) employed in this study followed the paradigm and refinements suggested by

the American Psychology Association guidelines (Nunnally 1978; Gerbing and Anderson

1988; DeVellis 1991). Data for developing the scale were mostly collected by university

faculty using responses obtained from samples of undergraduate and postgraduate

business students at the beginning of lectures in a large Australian university (university

students have been used as subjects in several previous empirical studies of luxury, e.g.,

Kapferer 1998, Eastman 1999, Dubois et al 2001). Several pretests were carried out to

select a pool of brands that would be perceived as having subsequent degree of luxury

for our samples. For instance, Levi’s in Australia is perceived as an upscale brand of

jeans but it may not have been acceptable if this study was carried out in the USA for

instance.

_____________________________
Insert Table 2 about here
_____________________________

Item Generation and First Content Validity

We first generated a set of word-pairs customized for the specific measurement of

luxury. A review of the literature on luxury brands (i.e., academic and commercial such

as advertising material), including qualitative interviews with 12 managers of

international luxury brands in Australia and in addition of focus groups with 25

postgraduate students (MBA in luxury brand management taught in English in France), a

total of 157 bipolar adjectives were generated. These items were then examined by a

panel of reviewers (N = 77). These reviewers were composed of managers of luxury

brands, marketing academics, or consumers having bought several established luxury

brands within the past few months. The reviewers were asked to indicate their agreement

or disagreement as to whether they felt that the word pair could be used to evaluate the 16
luxury of a brand. This initial content analysis resulted in reducing our original 157 items

to 30 item adjectives.

Internal Scale Reliability

All the brands that were used in this study were selected in compliance with a

certain number of criteria. For instance, we tested and selected brands that had sufficient

brand awareness and a potential luxury image to the target respondents. The results from

the initial analysis (N = 418 business students) indicated that for each brand (i.e., Levi’s,

Ray Ban, Rolex, and Porsche) the Cronbach Alpha coefficients were greater than .86,

suggesting significant internal reliability for the scale. Cronbach Alpha was also

calculated for each one of the five dimensions. It ranged from .69 to .90 with the hedonic

dimension for the Levi’s sample being the lowest (Table 3).

To extend the reliability analysis, we examined the item-to-total correlations for

each item within all samples, with significant values ranging from .30 to .80. We did not

drop any items based on this criterion, but we identified a set of offending variables,

which were flagged for the purpose of further investigation.

_____________________________
Insert Table 3 about here
_____________________________

Exploratory Factor Analysis

Although we had a theoretical assumption about a five dimensional structure, we

performed an exploratory factor analysis on the initial 30-item scale to check item

loadings and to allow the number of dimensions in our initial exploratory phase to be

driven by the data. Separate principle component analyses with varimax rotation were 17
used to evaluate and identify the component factors (Table 4). Varimax rotation was

preferred to Oblimin, even though factor correlation was anticipated. Oblimin rotation

was performed and resulted in a less satisfactory solution from the factor pattern

loadings and rational factor structure. These results were also confirmed across the study.

_____________________________
Insert Table 4 about here
_____________________________

In interpreting the factors, a decision was made (à priori) to discard the factor

loadings of less than .60. The average factor correlations between the subscales were

calculated and ranged from .91 to .96. The congruence correlation coefficients were

higher than .90 showing that the factor structure is invariant (Everett 1983).

For each of the four brands, the first factor accounted for most of the variation in

the data, explaining an average of 50% of the common variance. Two brands had a

number of items that did not load on any factors. Levi’s had 7 items that did not reach

the cut-off of .60, and Ray Ban had 3 items that also did not load on any factor. These

items were also registered as offending estimates, and were further examined in the next

analysis. Exploratory factor analysis is useful for data reduction purposes, but it does not

provide evidence of the dimensionality of measures essential in scale development

(Gerbing and Anderson 1988). In the present study, we used confirmatory factor analysis

to test the reliability of the variables.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

The objective of the next step was to model the proposed structural solution and

measure its overall fit using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the 30 items. The

proposed framework hypothesized, first, that the factors identified by the exploratory

factor analysis would be substantially related to the dimensions indicated by the 18

structural model. Second, the conceptual model hypothesized that scores on the five

latent variables would measure related, but distinguishable, constructs. The covariance

matrix for the 30 items was used, and parameter estimates were computed using the

maximum-likelihood method (Arbuckle 2003). The fit of the five-factor solution was

assessed by examining factor loadings, goodness-of-fit indicators, factor

intercorrelations, and by comparing it to several available alternatives (i.e., null model,

one-factor model, and five-factor model). Several alternative indices were used to assess

goodness-of-fit (Hair et al. 1995) such as the Chi-square statistic and the goodness-of-fit

index (GFI).

The five-factor model for every sample, with all 30 items each loading on its

appropriate construct, yielded significant chi-square statistics (Table 5). The other

indices for measuring the goodness-of-fit also indicated a moderate fit to the data, as

evidenced by the findings. For instance, relatively small GFI values, .70 (Levi’s jeans), .

75 (Ray Ban), .71 (Rolex), .73 (Porsche 911), and .78 (combined data). All of this

suggested only a moderately acceptable fit for the five-factor model (Hair et al. 1995).

_____________________________
Insert Table 5 about here
_____________________________

We examined the measurement models, and reviewed the offending estimates

(Table 6). Items that did not contribute to the scale’s internal consistency were removed

(8 items out of 30). We computed a revised CFA model with the revised solution (i.e., 22

items) for each one of the brands and for a combined data set. The fit for the revised five-

factor model was significantly improved without the 8 offending items compared with

prior findings from the initial model (i.e., 30 items). However, this model still produced a

19
significant Chi-square demonstrating a moderate fit. The five-factor solution needed

further refinement to attain non-significant Chi-square statistics for each brand.

_____________________________
Insert Table 6 about here
_____________________________
Test-Retest Reliability

The consistency of measurement was determined by collecting data on two

occasions separated by two weeks using the same subject population (Bearden, Hardesty

and Rose 2001). A new set of respondents (N = 176 business students) initially rated

three new brands: a house in Double-Bay (an affluent area in Sydney Australia), a

Mercedes-Benz 600sel, and a Ralph Lauren Polo Shirt. As before we conducted an

analysis for each brand and another analysis for the combined set of data.

The average correlation between time one and time two on total scores was .84 (2

items were removed). Test-retest Pearson correlations for each brand were as follows:

house r = .83; Mercedes r = .86; and Ralph Lauren r = .82. These brands were also tested

for internal scale reliability over the two periods. The Cronbach alpha coefficient ranged

from .89 to .91, and the item-to-total correlations were from .35 to .65. Altogether, these

results demonstrated a significant improvement in terms of reliability when compared to

the reliability indices originally computed (i.e., with 30 and 22 item-scales). In addition,

we computed four measurement models, one for each brand (using the 20 items

remaining). The revised model sensibly improved the goodness-of-fit and substantially

enhanced the Chi-square non-significance of the five-factor model. For instance,

Mercedes-Benz 600sel indicated a better fit, χ2 = 170.31, p<.274, compared with the

model using the previous 22 items, χ2 = 229.35, p<.069.

Analysis of the results indicates a satisfactory level of reliability over time for the

scale. In addition, it enabled us to improve the goodness-of-fit of the structural model.

20
The items repetitively affecting the reliability of the scale, i.e., at least three times during

the study, were removed from the model. The next study assessed the validity of the

scale, using methods such as content validity, predictive validity, and discriminant and

convergent validity.

SCALE VALIDITY

Second Content Validity

This step was an attempt to substantiate and extend the findings of the initial

content validity. We used three new brands to test the revised 20-item scale: David Jones,

an upscale department store (N = 63), Hilton Hotels (N = 51), and Nike (N = 72). After

the respondents (undergraduate students at a large university in Australia) had completed

the questionnaire, we asked them to answer the following open-ended question: “Please,

we would be grateful if you could write in your own words and as simply as possible, the

reason why you rated this brand that way”. This method was similar to the procedure

outlined by Zaichkowsky (1985). Each subject was classified into three groups according

to their BLI mean score (high, medium and low). Then, three judges independently

assessed the open-ended responses, classifying respondents into groups with attitudes

describing a low, medium, or high level of perceived luxury toward the brand. Finally,

we correlated each subject BLI classification with their open-attitude rating to measure

an overall agreement between a subject’s rating using the scale and the open attitude

toward the brand.

The results revealed a significant association between the open-ended answers

from the respondents and their scores, providing further evidence to support the validity

of the scale. This agreement was as follows: 78 percent agreement for the David Jones

department store, 83 percent agreement for the Hilton hotel, and 86 percent agreement

for Nike Air shoes. 21

Predictive Validity

To test validity a single-item attitude scale (measuring only luxury) was used as a

criterion to obtain a score classified into two distinct categories (high and low luxury). A

new set of respondents (N = 132 students) classified 3 brands into these two categories.

Then, 331 students rated the BLI scale with the three following brands; David Jones

department stores, Hilton hotels, and Nike Air shoes, respectively. Based on Nunnally

(1978) and DeVellis (1991), we defined accuracy as the proportion of correct

classifications (i.e., the higher the correlation between the high or low luxury scores

obtained with the BLI scale and the criterion, the greater the validity of the BLI scale as

a predictor of luxury for brands).

The predictive validity study suggested that the brand luxury index scale was

sensitive in measuring luxury, and provided further evidence for accuracy. The scores

predicted with the criterion-related scale were correlated (i.e., correlations ranging from .

32 to .42) to a satisfactory degree with the BLI overall luxury scores (Table 7).

_____________________________
Insert Table 7 about here
_____________________________

Nomological Validity

This step consisted of examining the nomological validity between five luxury-

related scales and the BLI scale using 331 respondents (business students) and 3 brands

(David Jones department stores, Hilton Hotels, and Nike Air shoes). We hypothesized

that a materialistic person (we used a measure of materialistic attitudes from Moschis

and Churchill 1978) would be involved with fashion brands (we used a fashion 22
involvement factor from Tigert, Ring, and King 1976) and brands that contribute to

personal image and pleasure (we used an enduring involvement scale from Higie and

Feick 1989). Such a person would have a positive attitude towards money (we used a

money-prestige scale from Yamauchi and Templer 1982), would assign luxury to high

prices (we used a price-based prestige sensitivity scale from Lichtenstein, Ridgway and

Netemeyer 1993), and would be classified among the higher raters of the BLI scale

(Table 8).

_____________________________
Insert Table 8 about here
_____________________________

The correlations among the luxury-related scales were strong, providing evidence

of related construct measurement among the five scales. The BLI scores were positively

related to the five criteria associated with the luxury-related scales (Table 9). For

example, 79% of the higher BLI raters were materialistic respondents, and 76% of the

lower BLI raters assumed that high prices were negatively related to the luxury level of

brands. In addition, we correlated the results from the BLI scale and the revised social

desirability scale from Strahan and Gerbasi (1972) to examine potential external bias.

The correlations were either low or nonsignificant, which suggested that the BLI scales

were not likely to be influenced by social-desirability bias.

_____________________________
Insert Table 9 about here
_____________________________

23
 Additional analyses of the construct interrelationships were required to further

substantiate evidence of the scale validity. The next step was to assess the construct

validity of the scale using classical statistical methods such as Campbell and Fiske’s

(1959) multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) matrix.

Assessing Construct Validity Using the Campbell and Fiske Criteria

The MTMM matrix approach to construct validation is expressed in terms of

convergent validity (agreement among scores obtained from one procedure with scores

from another procedure) and discriminant validity (no correlation with other unintended

measures). We used the Likert and Staple scale as they were recommended in previous

research (Menezes and Elbert 1979) for our two other measurement procedures (N = 342

students). The adjectives from the BLI scale indicating a greater level of luxury became

the unipolar adjectives of the Staple and Likert scale.

The average reliability coefficient (Cronbach alpha) was .82, with values ranging

from .71 to .90, suggesting values ranging from respectable to very good (DeVellis

1991). Based on the recommendation from Marsh and Hocevar (1983), we compared the

heterotrait-monomethod triangles with their respective reliability values to identify any

evidence of halo effects. This review did not show any indication between both values,

and subsequently supported the proposal of non-method biases. Following Campbell

and Fiske’s requirements, we can identify that (1) between the three methods the

validation is excellent, (2) all the validity diagonals exceed the heterotrait values of both

the monomethod and heteromethod, and (3) finally, the pattern of correlation among the

trait is relatively illustrated in every heterotrait triangle. Note that the actual validity

coefficients of these five traits ranged from .48 to .81 with a degree of validity significant

at .01 level. The Campbell-Fiske criteria performed well in the present study (Matrix 1).
24
 _____________________________
Insert Matrix 1 about here
_____________________________

Each of the conditions regarded as necessary for assessing convergent and

discriminant validity were met. This method initiated a substantial assessment regarding

the construct validity as well as the method/halo bias. Research has encouraged the use

of this approach to provide initial information on the analysis of variance of MTMM

data.

The present study yielded encouraging evidence concerning the construct validity

of the brand luxury inventory scale and its multi-dimensionality (i.e., conspicuousness,

uniqueness, quality, self-perception, and hedonism).

DISCUSSION

Implications

This research offers several potential contributions from previous works, but

particularly, extends the studies carried out by Kapferer (1998), Vigneron and Johnson

(1999) and Dubois, Laurent and Czellar (2001) on the attitudes towards the concept of

luxury and brand luxury. We used Vigneron and Johnson’s luxury-seeking consumer

behavior framework to derive the five dimensions of the scale. Dubois and Laurent’s

luxury scale (1994) measures perceptions of luxury as a general concept. In comparison,

researchers may use the BLI scale to measure consumers‘ perceptions of the luxury of

specific brands or products. The present research revealed that the concept of luxury is

multidimensional and substantiated by a five-factor model. In developing a scale

25
measuring the luxury of a brand, we established evidence for aspects of reliability and

validity.

The implications of this research are of significance for marketers and scholars in

the field of luxury brands. It establishes a structural analysis of brand luxury and

proposes a managerial instrument capable of creating and evaluating luxury brands. As

noted, the result of this research could serve various purposes, but perhaps be

specifically applied to create and build brand luxury, or address issues such as how to

maintain brand luxury once it is established. The value of the BLI scale is to measure the

amount of luxury contained in a luxury brand (i.e., from its high to its low range). One of

the applications could be to use the scale to help an “upper-range established” brand

build a luxury-brand image. In sum, our findings contribute to new explanations of

luxury brand beyond that explained in the economics/analytical literature. Our findings

support the existence of latent luxury constructs influenced by personal and interpersonal

perceptions toward the brands. These findings help explain the key luxury dimensions

that managers must establish or monitor for creating a lasting luxury brand. In addition,

the BLI scale is particularly useful for comparing several luxury brands and thus for

recognizing competitive advantages. Relative strengths and weaknesses can be identified

in the target market along either each of the 20 items comprising the scale or each of the

five underlying constructs determined by the research.

For instance, Levi’s although considered by Australian students as luxury brand

received the lowest luxury score amongst the brands used to develop the scale. Rolex

ranked first followed by Mercedes-Benz and Porsche which indicated that the scale was

not measuring the expected monetary value but rather brand luxury. In addition to

indicate if a brand is luxurious or not the scale allows the marketer to rank the brands

and also help to discover the factors which support or decrease the luxury dimension.
26
Mercedes-Benz and Porsche had very similar score for Quality and Uniqueness but

Conspicuousness was much higher for MB which contributed to make MB brand luxury

greater than Porsche.

Hence, the BLI scale is helpful to understand how consumers view luxury brands.

From a market segmentation point of view, clustering groups according to their different

luxury perceptions of brand luxury may reveal salient psychographic characteristics

useful in advertising for instance. From a market positioning point of view, if a luxury

brand manager witnessed a declining brand luxury, the specific weakening dimension

could be identified. Thus, taking the exact remedial actions such as changing the

advertising message, stressing the luxury attributes, emphasizing benefits of the brand

over competing brands could be undertaken. For example, if the luxury image of a car

maker was slowly decreasing due to an increasing number of dealers (i.e., weakening

uniqueness), then appeals which would emphasize the limited number of cars available

or give the consumer information about the precious components used in making the car,

would be appropriate to reinforce the overall luxury image.

Future Research

Further replication and extension would be required before the findings could be

considered definitive. Hence, one suggestion for further research would be to empirically

compare the BLI scale with Kapferer (1998) and Dubois et al. (2001) ‘s scales. Potential

measures of convergent validity or measures of attitudes towards the concept of luxury

and cross-tabulations with particular brands could be examined.

In addition, it would be interesting to identify the variables that discriminate more

significantly between the 3 luxury brand categories (prestige brand, premium brand and

upmarket brand). Also, the replicability of these findings should be tested with additional
27
samples (in particular, with actual consumers of luxury products). The BLI scale could

be examined using a second-order confirmatory factor analysis to reduce the number of

items to a more parsimonious version. Studies using the BLI in other countries may

provide further evidence of nomological validity where samples could be matched across

countries, an important consideration in cross-national research.

Limitations

A major critique is that there may be “a demand effect” from “leading” terms such

as elitist (positive connotations) and popular (negative connotations). An individual‘s

motivation is not always obvious and conscious. Indeed, abstract constructs are more

difficult to measure, and people may try to give biased answers when dealing with luxury

brands.

The MTMM matrix approach used two other types of self-report questionnaire

measures, different only in the scale type. It would be an improvement to apply other

methods with substantially different validity threats such as observational measures in

addition to self-report. Further, more research to determine norms for different brands

and categories need to be carried out to investigate issues of validity. In addition,

replication using different data sources other than students and managers from Australia

are needed to reinforce the scale validity.

In conclusion, the final 20-item scale (Table 10) is sensitive to the luxury image

over different socially desirable brands, demonstrating reliable measures, and valid

results compared to what was anticipated. This scale has potential value for researchers

interested in measuring the decision-making process involving the consumer perceptions

of luxury. From a practical standpoint, the more complete measurement of luxury

28
perceptions provides useful information for effective positioning and promotional

strategies. This is particularly effective when comparing the luxury image between

different brands and hence for identifying competitive advantage.

_____________________________
Insert Table 10 about here
_____________________________

29
 REFERENCES

Aaker, David (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand

Name, New York: Free Press.

Aaker, Jennifer L. (1997), “Dimensions of Brand Personality,” Journal of Marketing

Research, 34 (August), 347-356.

Allérès, Danielle (1991), "Spécificités et Stratégies Marketing des Différents Univers du

Luxe," Revue FranÇaise du Marketing, 133 (2/3), 71-97.

Andrus, David M., Edward Silver and Dallas E. Johnson (1986), "Status Brand

Management and Gift Purchase: A Discriminant Analysis," Journal of Consumer

Marketing, 3 (March), 5-13.

Arbuckle, James L. (2003), AMOS 5.00, Chicago, IL: Smallwaters Corporation.

Bearden, William O. and Michael J. Etzel (1982), "Reference Group Influence on

Product and Brand Purchase Decisions," Journal of Consumer Research, 9

(September), 183-194.

Bearden, William, Richard G. Netemeyer and Jesse E. Teel (1989), "Measurement of

Consumer Susceptibility to Interpersonal Influence," Journal of Consumer Research,

15 (March), 473-481.

30
Bearden, William, David M. Hardesty, and Randall L. Rose (2001), “Consumer Self-

Confidence: Refinements in Conceptualization and Measurement,” Journal of

Consumer Research, 28 (June), 121-134.

Belk, Russell W. (1988), "Possessions and the Extended Self," Journal of Consumer

Research, 15 (September), 139-168.

Belk, Russell W. (1995), “Collecting as Luxury Consumption: Effects on Individuals and

Households,” Journal of Economic Psychology, 16 (4), 477-490.

Berkowitz, Eric N., Roger A. Kerin, Steven W. Hartley and William Rudelius (1992),

Marketing, (3rd ed.) Homewood, IL.: Irwin.

Bernstein, Laurence (1999), “Luxury and the Hotel Brand,” Cornell Hotel and

Restaurant Administration Quarterly, (February), 47-53.

Bourdieu, Pierre (1984), Distinction: A Social Judgment of Taste, (trans.) Richard Nice,

Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.

Bourne, Francis S. (1957), "Group Influence in Marketing and Public Relations”, in

Some Applications of Behavioral Research, (eds.) Rensis Likert and Samuel P. Hayes,

Paris: Unesco.

Bushman, B. J. (1993), “What is in a Name? The Moderating Role of Public Self-

Consciousness on the Relation between Brand Label and Brand Preference,” Journal

of Applied Psychology, 78 (5), 857-861.

31
Campbell, Donald and Donald Fiske (1959), “Convergent and Discriminant Validity by

the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix,” Psychological Bulletin, 56 (1), 81-105.

Cornell, Andrew (2002), “Cult of Luxury: The New Opiate of The Masses”, Australian

Financial Review, April 27, 47.

DeVellis, Robert F. (1991), Scale Development: Theory and Applications, Newbury Park,

CA.: Sage Publications, Inc.

Diamantopoulos, Adamantios and Heidi M. Winklhoffer (2001), Index Construction with

Formative Indicators: An Alternative to Scale Development,” Journal of Marketing

Research, 38 (May), 269-277.

Dittmar, Helga (1994), "Material Possessions as Stereotypes: Material Images of

Different Socio-Economic Groups," Journal of Economic Psychology, 15

(December), 561-585.

Douglas, Mary and Baron Isherwood (1979), The World of Goods, New York: Basic.

Dubois, Bernard and Patrick Duquesne (1993a), “Polarization Maps: A New Approach to

Identifying and Assessing Competitive Position - The Case of Luxury Brands,”

Marketing and Research Today, 21 (May), 115-123.

Dubois, Bernard and Patrick Duquesne (1993b), "The Market for Luxury Goods: Income

Versus Culture," European Journal of Marketing, 27 (1), 35-44.

32
Dubois, Bernard and Gilles Laurent (1994), “Attitudes Toward the Concept of Luxury:

An Exploratory Analysis,” in Asia-Pacific Advances in Consumer Research, (eds.)

Siew Meng Leong and Joseph A. Cote, 1 (2), 273-278.

Dubois, Bernard and Gilles Laurent (1996), "Le Luxe par-delà les Frontières: Une Etude

Exploratoire dans Douze Pays," Décisions Marketing, 9 (September/ December),

35-43.

Dubois, Bernard, Gilles Laurent and Sandor Czellar (2001), “Consumer Rapport to

Luxury: Analyzing Complex and Ambivalent Attitudes”, Consumer Research Working

Paper N.736. HEC: Jouy-en-Josas, France.

Dubois, Bernard and Claire Paternault (1995), “Understanding the World of International

Luxury Brands: The “Dream Formula”,” Journal of Advertising Research, (July/

August), 69-76.

Dubois, Bernard and Claire Paternault (1997), "Does Luxury have a Home Country? An

Investigation of Country Images in Europe," Marketing and Research Today, 25

(May), 79-85.

Eastman, Jacqueline K., Ronald E. Goldsmith and Leisa Reinecke Flynn (1999), “Status

Consumption in Consumer Behavior: Scale Development and Validation,” Journal of

Marketing Theory and Practice, (Summer), 41-52.

33
Economist (The), anonymous (1993), “The Luxury Goods Trade: Upmarket Philosophy,”

325 (December), 95-98.

Everett, John E. (1983), “Factor Comparability as a Means of Determining the Number

of Factors and their Rotation,” Multivariate Behavioral Research, 18, 197-218.

Frances, Peter (2002), “Older and Wealthier”, American Demographics, 24 (November),

40-42.

French, John R., Jr. and Bertram H. Raven (1959), "The Bases of Social Power", in

Studies in Social Power, (ed.) Dorwin Cartwright, Ann Arbor, MI.: Institute for Social

Research, 150-167.

Gardyn, Rebecca (2002), “Oh, The Good Life”, American Demographics, 24

(November), 30-36.

Garfein, Richard T. (1989), "Cross-Cultural Perspectives on the Dynamics of Prestige,"

Journal of Services Marketing, 3 (Summer), 17-24.

Gerbing, David W. and James C. Anderson (1988), “An Updated Paradigm for Scale

Development Incorporating Unidimensionality and Its Assessment,” Journal of

Marketing Research, 25 (May), 186-192.

Groth, John C. and Stephen W. McDaniel (1993), " The Exclusive Value Principle: The

Basis for Prestige Pricing," Journal of Consumer Marketing, 10 (1), 10-16.

34
Hair, Joseph F. Jr., Rolph E. Anderson, Ronald L. Tatham, and William C. Black (1995),

Multivariate Data Analysis (4th ed.), Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Higie, Robin A. and Lawrence F. Feick (1988), “Enduring Involvement: Conceptual and

Methodological Issues,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 16, Thomas Srull

(ed.), Provo, UT.: Association for Consumer Research, 690-696.

Hirschman, Elizabeth C. (1988), "The Ideology of Consumption: A Structural-

Syntactical Analysis of "Dallas" and "Dynasty", Journal of Consumer Research, 15

(December), 344-359.

Hirschman, Elizabeth C. and Morris B. Holbrook (1982), "Hedonic Consumption:

Emerging Concepts, Methods and Propositions," Journal of Marketing, 46 (Summer),

92-101.

Holt, Douglas B. (1995), “How Consumers Consume: a Typology of Consumption

Practices,” Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (June), 1-16.

Horiuchi, Yoshihide (1984), A Systems Anomaly: Consumer Decision-Making Process

for Luxury Goods, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.

Kahle, Lynn R. (1995), "Role-Relaxed Consumers: Empirical Evidence," Journal of

Advertising Research, 35 (2), 59-62.

Kapferer, Jean-Noël (1997), “Managing Luxury Brands,” Journal of Brand

Management, 4 (4), 251-260.

35
Kapferer, Jean-Noël (1998), “Why are we Seduced by Luxury Brands?,” Journal of

Brand Management, 6 (1), 44-49.

Kassarjian, Harold H. (1965), “Riesman Revisited,” Journal of Marketing, 29 (April),

54-56.

Keller, Kevin L. (1991), “Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing Customer-Based

Brand Equity,” Journal of Marketing, 57 (1), 1-22.

Kemp, Simon (1998), “Perceiving Luxury and Necessity,” Journal of Economic

Psychology, 19 (October), 591-606.

Leibenstein, Harvey (1950), "Bandwagon, Snob, and Veblen Effects in the Theory of

Consumers' Demand," Quarterly Journal of Economics, 64 (May), 183-207.

Lichtenstein, Donald R., Nancy M. Ridgway, and Richard G. Netemeyer (1993), “Price

Perceptions and Consumer Shopping Behavior: A Field Study,” Journal of Marketing

Research, 30 (May), 234-245.

Lipovetsky, Gilles and Elyette Roux (2003), Le luxe éternel: De l'âge du sacré au temps

des marques, Paris: Gallimard.

Lynn, Michael (1991), "Scarcity Effects on Value: A Quantitative Review of the

Commodity Theory Literature," Psychology and Marketing, 8 (1), 45-57.

36
Marsh, Herbert W. and Dennis Hocevar (1983), “Confirmatory Factor Analysis of

Multitrait-Multimethod Matrices,” Journal of Educational Measurement, 20 (Fall),

231-248.

Mason, Roger S. (1981), Conspicuous Consumption, New York: St. Martin's Press.

Mason, Roger S. (1992), Modelling the Demand for Status Goods, Working Paper,

Department of Business and Management Studies, University of Salford, UK.

McCracken, Grant (1986), "Culture and Consumption: A Theoretical Account of the

Structure and Movement of the Cultural Meaning of Consumer Goods," Journal of

Consumer Research, 13 (June), 71-84.

McKinsey Corporation (1990), The Luxury Industry: An Asset for France, Paris:

McKinsey.

Menezes, Dennis and Norbert F. Elbert (1979), “Alternative Semantic Scaling Formats

for Measuring Store Image: An Evaluation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 16

(February), 80-87.

Mick, David G. (1986), "Consumer Research and Semiotics: Exploring the Morphology

of Signs, Symbols, and Significance," Journal of Consumer Research, 13

(September), 196-213.

Mindak, William A. (1961), “Fitting the Semantic Differential to the Marketing

Problem,” Journal of Marketing, 25 (1), 28-33.

37
Moschis, George P. and Gilbert A. Churchill, Jr. (1978), “Consumer Socialization: A

Theoretical and Empirical Analysis,” Journal of Marketing Research, 15 (November),

599-609.

Nia, Arghavan and Judith Lynne Zaichkowsky (2000), “Do Counterfeits Devalue the

Ownership of Luxury Brands?,” Journal of Product and Brand Management, 9 (7),

485-497.

Nueno, Jose Luis and John A. Quelch (1998), “The Mass Marketing of Luxury,”

Business Horizons, (November-December), 61-68.

Nunnally, Jum C. (1978), Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill.

Nyeck, Simon and Elyette Roux (1997), “"WWW as a Communication Tool for Luxury

Brands: Compared Perceptions of Consumers and Managers", 24th International

Research Seminar in Marketing, 3-6 June, La Londe les Maures, pp. 296-316.

Osgood, Charles E., George J. Suci, and Percy H. Tannenbaum (1957), The Measurement

of Meaning, Urbana, IL.: University of Illinois Free Press.

Pantzalis, Ioannis (1995), Exclusivity Strategies in Pricing and Brand Extension,

Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Arizona.

Phau, Ian and Gerard Prendergast (2000), “Consuming Luxury Brands: The Relevance of

the ‘Rarity Principle’”, Journal of Brand Management, 8 (2), 122-138.

38
Prendergast, Gerard and Claire Wong (2003), “Parental Influence on the Purchase of

Luxury Brands of Infant Apparel: an Exploratory Study in Hong Kong,” Journal of

Consumer Marketing, 20 (2), 157-169.

Quelch, John A. (1987), "Marketing the Premium Product," Business Horizons, 30 (3),

38-45.

Rao, Akshay R. and Kent B. Monroe (1989), "The Effect of Price, Brand Name, and

Store Name on Buyers' Perceptions of Product Quality: An Integrative Review,"

Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (August), 351-357.

Rémaury, Bruno (2002), “Luxe et identité culturelle américaine?,” Revue Française du

Marketing, 187 (2), 49-60.

Richins, Marsha L. (1994a), "Valuing Things: The Public and Private Meanings of

Possessions," Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (December), 504-521.

Richins, Marsha L. (1994b), "Special Possessions and the Expression of Material

Values," Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (December), 522-533.

Rossiter, John R. and Larry Percy (1997), Advertising Communications and Promotion

Management (2nd Ed), New York: McGraw-Hill.

Roux, Elyette (1991), "Comment se Positionnent les Marques de Luxe," Revue

Française du Marketing, 132/133 (2-3), 111-118.

39
Roux, Elyette (1995), Consumer Evaluation of Luxury Brand Extensions, EMAC

Conference, May, ESSEC, Paris.

Roux, Elyette (2002), “Le Luxe: Au-delà des Chiffres, Quelles Logiques d’Analyse?,”

Revue Française du Marketing, 187 (2), 45-47.

Roux, Elyette and Jean Marie Floch (1996), “Gérer L’Ingérable: la Contradiction Interne

de toute Maison de Luxe,” Décisions Marketing, Vol. 9, 15-23.

Sheth, Jagdish N., Bruce I. Newman, and Barbara L. Gross (1991), "Why We Buy What

We Buy: A Theory of Consumption Values," Journal of Business Research, 22 (1),

159-170.

Silverstein, Michael J. and Neil Fiske (2003), “Luxury for the Masses,” Harvard

Business Review, 81 (4), 48-57.

Snyder, Charles R. and Howard L. Fromkin (1977), "Abnormality as a Positive

Characteristic: The Development and Validation of a Scale Measuring Need for

Uniqueness," Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 86 (5), 518-527.

Solomon, Michael R. (1983), "The Role of Products as Social Stimuli: A Symbolic

Interactionist Approach," Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (December), 319-329.

Strahan, Robert and Kathleen Carrese Gerbasi (1972), “Short, Homogeneous Versions of

the Marlow-Crowne Social Desirability Scale,” Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28

(1), 191-193.

40
Tian, Kelly Tepper, William O. Bearden, and Gary L. Hunter (2001), “Consumers’ Need

for Uniqueness: Scale Development and Validation,” Journal of Consumer Research,

28 (June), 50-66.

Tigert, Douglas J., Lawrence R. Ring, and Charles W. King (1976), “Fashion

Involvement and Buying Behavior: A Methodological Study,” in Advances in

Consumer Research, Vol.3, Beverly B. Anderson (ed.), Provo, UT.: The Association

for Consumer Research, 46-52.

Veblen, Thorstein B. (1899), The Theory of the Leisure Class, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Verhallen, Theo M. and Henry S. Robben (1994), "Scarcity and Preference: An

Experiment on Unavailability and Product Evaluation," Journal of Economic

Psychology, 15 (June), 315-331.

Westbrook, Robert A. and Richard L. Oliver (1991), “The Dimensionality of

Consumption Emotion Patterns and Consumer Satisfaction,” Journal of Consumer

Research, 18 (June), 84-91.

Vigneron, Franck and Lester W. Johnson (1999), “A Review and a Conceptual

Framework of Prestige-Seeking Consumer Behavior,” Academy of Marketing Science

Review, http://www.amsreview.org/amsrev/theory/vigneron01-99.html.

Yamauchi, Kent T. and Donald I. Templer (1982), “The Development of a Money

Attitude Scale,” Journal of Personality Assessment, 46 (5), 522-528.

41
Zaichkowsky, Judith L. (1985), “Measuring the Involvement Construct,” Journal of

Consumer Research, 12 (December), 341-352.

42
 TABLE 1: REVIEW OF FACTORS DESCRIBING LUXURY BRANDS ACROSS THREE
STUDIES

Vigneron & Johnson Kapferer (1998) D u b o i s , L a u r e n t &

(1999) Czellar (2001)

Non-personal Oriented CONSPICUOUS Conspicuous ------------------------ Conspicuous
Perceptions NESS Elitist Belonging to a Minority Elitist
Extremely Expensive Its Price Very High Price
For Wealthy ------------------------ Differentiate from Others

UNIQUENESS Very Exclusive Exclusiveness Scarcity

Precious ------------------------ ------------------------
Rare ------------------------ ------------------------
Unique Its uniqueness Uniqueness

QUALITY Crafted Craftsman Not Mass Produced

Luxurious ------------------------ Rather like Luxury
Best Quality Its Quality Excellent Quality
Sophisticated Beauty of Object Good Taste
Superior Excellence of Product ------------------------

P e r s o n a l O r i e n t e d HEDONISM Exquisite Its Great Creativity Pleasure

Perceptions Glamorous Its sensuality Aesthetics and
Stunning Its Magic Polysensuality
Makes Life Beautiful

EXTENDED- Leading ------------------------ Refined People

SELF Very Powerful ------------------------ Reveal who you are
Rewarding ------------------------ Pleasing
Successful Knowing that Few Few People Own
Have One

Items without Apparent Savoir Faire and Ancestral Heritage and

Communalities Tradition Personal History
International Reputation Superfluous and Non-
Long History functional
Grown out of a Creative Makes Dream
Genius
Never out of Fashion
Forefront of Fashion

43
______________________________________________________________________________________________________

FIGURE 1

PROPOSED FRAMEWORK OF BRAND LUXURY INDEX

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Conspicuousness

Non-Personal Uniqueness
Perceptions

LUXURY Quality

Hedonic
Personal
Perceptions

Extended-Self

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

44
______________________________________________________________________________________________________

TABLE 2

SUMMARY OF THE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

______________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Stage of Scale Sample Analysis Results

Development Procedure
______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Item Generation Experts judges Personal Rating: 157 items reduced to 30

(N=77) • 3 phases items

Reliability Business Students • Internal Reliability (N=884) 30 items reduced to 22

(N=1060) • Reliability over Time (N=176) items

Validity Business Students Standard Validity Procedures: Significant level of

(N=1322) • Content validity (N=186) validity:
• Predictive validity (N=463) 22 items reduced to 20
• Nomological validity (N=331) items
• Construct validity: convergent &
discriminant (N=342)

Brands used to David Jones, Hilton, Levi’s; Mercedes-Benz; Nike Air shoes; Porsche 911 turbo;
Develop the Scale Ralph Lauren shirt; Ray Ban; Rolex; house in Sydney.

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

45
 TABLE 3

RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS FOR EACH BRAND AND EACH DIMENSION

_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Scale Alpha
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Results Conspicuous Unique Quality Extended Self Hedonic

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Levi’s (N = 106) .87 .84 .73 .78 .69 .86

Ray Ban (N = 104) .85 .90 .87 .80 .86 .89
Rolex (N = 106) .88 .90 .88 .87 .80 .88
Porsche (N = 102) .89 .90 .88 .88 .88 .89
Total Data Set (N = 418) .91 .93 .87 .88 .86 .95

_____________________________________________________________________________________

46
 TABLE 4

VARIMAX ROTATED FACTOR STRUCTURE: FULL DATA SET

Original 30 Items Used for Scale Development

_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
FACTORS Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor
One Two Three Four Five
EIGENVALUE 12.84 2.37 2.13 2.01 1.50
% OF COMMON 42.8% 7.9% 7.1% 6.7% 5.%
VARIANCE
ITEMS
1. Classic .05 .15 .12 (.67) .19
2. Concern .23 (.61) .15 .12 .02
3.Conspicuous .29 .20 (.72) .21 .21
4.Crafted .20 .17 .21 (.74) .11
5. Distinctive .67 .11 .06 .22 .05
6. Elitist .24 .18 (.74) .17 .21
7. Emotional .18 (.81) .18 .13 .27
8. Exceptional (.75) .21 .22 .16 .10
9. Exclusive (.77) .26 .25 .15 .12
10. Expensive .24 .28 (.76) .13 .17
11. Exquisite .12 .17 .24 .12 (.67)
12. Fascinating .30 .25 .23 .13 (.72)
13. Glamorous .13 .20 .06 .09 (.82)
14. Impressive .19 (.73) .11 .14 .16
15. Leading .14 (.77) .15 .19 .10
16. Luxurious (.77) .21 .24 .14 .19
17. Powerful .22 (.74) .17 .16 .22
18. Precious (.77) .18 .17 .17 .16
19. Quality .23 .15 .16 (.78) .14
20. Rare (.76) .22 .19 .19 .18
21. Rewarding .16 (.82) .17 .13 .23
22. Sophisticated .18 .19 .16 (.74) .18
23. Status .21 .18 (.76) .21 .08
24. Stunning .28 .26 .18 .19 (.74)
25. Stylish .17 .08 .08 (.70) -.004
26. Successful .20 (.76) .08 .19 .12
27. Superior .16 .19 .16 (.72) -.01
28. Symbolic .05 .02 (.75) .10 .01
29. Unique (.79) .22 .18 .14 .20
30. Wealthy .23 .20 (.74) .18 .23
Note: 47
(italics) Significant factor loadings (> .60).

_____________________________________________________________________________________

TABLE 5

DIMENSIONS Of ORIGINAL 30-ITEM SCALE

_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Conspicuous Unique Quality Extended Self Hedonic

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Conspicuous & Distinctive * & Classic * & Novel Leading & Emotional * &
Inconspicuous Neutral Crafted & Mass Influential Unemotional
Elitist & Popular Exceptional * & Produced Powerful & Exquisite & Tasteful
Expensive & Normal Higher Quality & Powerless Fascinating * &
Inexpensive Exclusive & Lower Quality Rewarding & Indifferent
For Wealthy & For Unexclusive Luxurious & Unrewarding Glamorous &
Well off Precious & Not Upmarket Successful & Attractive
Imposing * & Precious Sophisticated & Average Stunning &
Unimposing Rare & Not Unadorned Memorable
Impressive * & Rare Stylish * &
Unimpressive Unique & Standard
High Status Common Superior
Symbol * &
Medium Status
Symbol
High Standing * &
Medium Standing

N.B.. * show items that were deleted along with the study
_____________________________________________________________________________________

48
 TABLE 6

RESULTS FROM THE DIFFERENT MODELS

_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Results 30 item Model 22 item Model 20 item Model

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Chi-square 1428.21 255.30 240.74

Degree of F 395 160 160
P value .000 .000 .000
Chi-square/df 3.61 1.59 1.50
GFI 0.78 0.94 0.96
AGFI 0.74 0.93 0.95
NFI 0.85 0.96 0.97
TLI 0.87 0.98 0.99
RMSEA 0.07 0.04 0.02

_____________________________________________________________________________________
N.B. This table shows the CFA results from the combined brands (i.e., Levi’s, Ray Ban,
Rolex, and Porsche)

49
 TABLE 7

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN BPI SCALE

AND CRITERION-RELATED SCALE

_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

BPI BPI BPI Mean Score

David Jones Hilton Hotel Nike Air
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Criterion David Jones .34 5.91

Criterion Hilton Hotel .32 6.58
.42
Criterion Nike Air 4.20
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Percentage of Correct 88% 81% 72% n.a.
Classifications
Mean Score .90 .29 -.29 n.a.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Notes: This table shows the CFA results from the combined brands (i.e., Levi’s, Ray Ban,
Rolex, and Porsche)

50
 TABLE 8

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN BPI SCALE

AND RELATED ATTITUDE SCALES

_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

BPI Material (N Money- Fashion (N Price- Enduring SDS

(N = 331) = 168) Prestige (N = 163) Prestige (N Involvet. (N = 168)
= 168) = 163)
(N = 163)
_____________________________________________________________________________________
BPI (.82)
Material .52 (.81)
Money-Prestige .44 .92 (.76)
Fashion .69 n.a. n.a. (.80)
Price-Prestige .59 n.a. n.a. .54 (.86)
Enduring- .47 n.a. n.a. .77 .48 (.83)
Involvet.
SDS .15 .07 .14 n.a. n.a. n.a. (.78)
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Notes: Correlations are significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed);
n.a., Data not applicable because these scales were not addressed on the same
questionnaires.
Coefficient Alpha in diagonals with parentheses.

51
 TABLE 9

PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS
SORTED AMONG EACH SCALE CATEGORIES

_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

SCALE/ Materialism Power-Prestige Fashion- Price-Based Enduring

of Money Involvement Prestige Involvement

_____________________________________________________________________________________
\Respondents (1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2)
(a) High BPI Raters 79% 21% 76% 24% 82% 18% 77% 23% 72% 28%
(b) Low BPI Raters 28% 72% 34% 66% 12% 88% 24% 76% 24% 76%
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Notes: High BPI score: Respondents with BPI score above the overall mean score.
Low BPI score: Respondents with BPI 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 mean BPI score.
(b) Cases with mean scores lower than the overall mean BPI score.

52
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
MATRIX 1

RESULTS FROM THE MULITRAIT-MULTIMETTHOD MATRIX OF

CORRELATIONS

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

53
 TABLE 10
20 ITEMS IN THE BLI SCALE

_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Non-personal Oriented Perceptions
________________________________________

CONSPICUOUSNESS Conspicuous____:____:____:____:____:____:____Noticeable
Popular____:____:____:____:____:____:____Elitist*
Affordable____:____:____:____:____:____:____Extremely Expensive*
For Wealthy____:____:____:____:____:____:____For Well Off

UNIQUENESS Fairly Exclusive____:____:____:____:____:____:____Very Exclusive*

Precious____:____:____:____:____:____:____Valuable
Rare____:____:____:____:____:____:____Uncommon
Unique____:____:____:____:____:____:____Unusual

QUALITY Crafted____:____:____:____:____:____:____Manufactured
Upmarket____:____:____:____:____:____:____Luxurious *
Best Quality____:____:____:____:____:____:____Good Quality
Sophisticated____:____:____:____:____:____:____Original
Superior____:____:____:____:____:____:____Better
Personal Oriented Perceptions
________________________________________

HEDONISM Exquisite____:____:____:____:____:____:____Tasteful
Attractive____:____:____:____:____:____:____Glamorous*
Stunning____:____:____:____:____:____:____Memorable

EXTENDED-SELF Leading____:____:____:____:____:____:____Influential
Very Powerful____:____:____:____:____:____:____Fairly Powerful
Rewarding____:____:____:____:____:____:____Pleasing
Successful____:____:____:____:____:____:____Well Regarded
Note: (*) Indicates item is reverse scored.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

54

View publication stats