Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
George Christodoulides
is a lecturer in Marketing and Director of the Centre for Research in Brand Marketing at the University of Birmingham
Business School. With a doctorate in brand marketing, George’s research focuses on branding and E-marketing,
particularly in the way the internet and its related technologies have been affecting brands. George is a regular presenter
at national and international conferences and his research has appeared in journals such as the Journal of Marketing
Management, the Service Industries Journal, the Journal of Product and Brand Management, Interactive Marketing, and the Journal
of Brand Management.
Nina Michaelidou
is a lecturer in Marketing at Birmingham Business School, University of Birmingham. She holds a PhD from Warwick in
consumer behaviour and has published papers in European and American journals and conference proceedings on variety
seeking, brand switching, involvement, food choice and antismoking messages. Current research focuses on examining
determinants of food choice. Nina teaches marketing communications and consumer behaviour on a range of degree
programmes.
Ching Hsing Li
was a postgraduate student at the University of Birmingham in 2006–2007. She now works in Marketing for the Qisda
Corporation in Taiwan.
© 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1350-23IX Brand Management Vol. 16, 5/6, 395–405
www.palgrave-journals.com/bm/
Christodoulides et al
396 © 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1350-23IX Brand Management Vol. 16, 5/6, 395–405
Measuring perceived brand luxury
© 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1350-23IX Brand Management Vol. 16, 5/6, 395–405 397
Christodoulides et al
who conducted qualitative interviews with consumers’ need for uniqueness,24 defined
consumers. The authors identified six in the literature as ‘an individual’s pursuit
dimensions of luxury, including (1) excel- of differentness relative to others achieved
lent quality, (2) very high price, (3) scarcity through the acquisition, utilisation and dis-
and uniqueness, (4) aesthetics and polysen- position of consumer goods for the purpose
suality,20 (5) ancestral heritage and personal of developing and enhancing one’s personal
history and (6) superfluousness. and social identity’ (p. 50).
In a similar line,Vigneron and Johnson21 (3) Perceived quality: Consumers expect, long
proposed a framework of luxury-seeking before they consume a luxury brand, that it
consumer behaviour consisting of five per- will exhibit superior product characteristics
ceived values that differentiate luxury and and performance compared with non-luxury
non-luxury brands. Although some con- brands.25 It is therefore highly unlikely that
sumers may strive to maximise all five values a luxury brand image can be sustained when
in the pursuit of luxury brands, others may product quality is not consistently maintained
be prepared to trade off less salient values at a high standard.
for more salient values. It is essentially these (4) Perceived hedonism: Luxury products are
five perceived values that a few years later predominantly ‘hedonic’,26 given that their
comprised the backbone of Vigneron and consumption is primarily associated with an
Johnson’s4 conceptual framework for the affective and sensory experience of aesthetic
development of the BLI scale. The first or sensual pleasure, fantasy and fun.27 This
three dimensions (that is perceived con- point is also echoed by Berry,28 who argues
spicuousness, perceived uniqueness and per- that a characteristic of luxuries is that they
ceived quality) reflect non-personal-oriented please people rather than simply alleviate a
perceptions, and the other two (that is state of discomfort such as in the case of nece-
perceived hedonism and perceived extended ssities. Most consumers thus describe their
self) reflect personal-oriented perceptions. consumption of luxury as a highly hedonic
The dimensions are explained below. experience that can engage all the senses.19
(5) Perceived extended self (originally ‘per-
(1) Perceived conspicuousness: This draws on ceived social value’): Belk’s29 concept of
early studies that focussed on the influence ‘extended self ’ suggests that our possessions
of reference groups on the consumption of are ‘a major contributor to and reflection
luxury brands. Veblen14 coined the term of our identities’ (p. 139). Through owner-
‘conspicuous consumption’ to refer to ship of luxury brands, consumers aspire to
public consumption of luxury goods as a be associated with certain prestige groups
means of asserting prestige and status. As and at the same time seek to be disassoci-
Mason22 contends, ated from non-prestige reference groups.
‘To the purely conspicuous consumer, the
DEVELOPMENT OF THE BLI
satisfaction derived from any particular
Drawing on their previous work,21
purchase comes not from its value in use
Vigneron and Johnson4 argue that luxury
but from audience reaction to the wealth
is a multidimensional concept composed of
displayed by the purchaser in being able to
five dimensions, as outlined above. The
secure the product for consumption’. (p. 26)
authors adopted the following procedure
(2) Perceived uniqueness: Research shows to develop the BLI scale. An initial pool of
that consumer perceptions of limited supply 157 bipolar items was generated from the
of a brand may lead to increased preference literature, manager interviews and focus
for that brand.23 This is not surprising given groups with postgraduate students. This
398 © 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1350-23IX Brand Management Vol. 16, 5/6, 395–405
Measuring perceived brand luxury
© 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1350-23IX Brand Management Vol. 16, 5/6, 395–405 399
Christodoulides et al
1. Conspicuous — — — 0.80
2. Elitist — — — 0.87
3. Expensive — — 0.70 —
4. Wealthy — 0.71 0.38 —
5. Exclusive — — 0.72 —
6. Precious 0.43 0.66 — —
7. Rare — 0.72 — —
8. Unique 0.49 0.60 — —
9. Crafted — 0.64 — —
10. Luxurious — — 0.64 —
11. Quality 0.72 0.43 — —
12. Sophisticated 0.71 0.45 — —
13. Superior 0.78 0.35 — —
14. Exquisite 0.79 — — —
15. Glamorous 0.40 — 0.57 —
16. Stunning 0.75 — — —
17. Leading 0.76 — — —
18. Powerful 0.72 — — —
19. Rewarding 0.64 — — —
20. Successful 0.63 — — —
online. Snowballing was used to draw a Table 3: AVE and standardised correlations
sample of Taiwanese consumers of luxury Average variance extracted
brands. Unlike Vigneron and Johnson,4 we Conspicuousness 0.34
allowed respondents to answer the ques- Uniquness 0.56
Quality 0.63
tions in relation to the luxury brand they
Hedonism 0.50
had last bought. This resulted in a number Extended self 0.80
of different brand evaluations. The data col-
lection stage yielded 260 fully completed Standardised correlations between factors
Conspicuousness and uniquness 0.92 (0.85)
questionnaires. Conspicuousness and quality 0.75 (0.56)
Conspicuousness and hedonism 0.65 (0.42)
Evaluation of the BLI scale Conspicuousness and extended-self 0.73 (0.53)
Uniqueness and quality 0.84 (0.71)
Reliability coefficients were first estimated Uniqueness and hedonism 0.83 (0.69)
for the BLI scale and the five sub-scales. Uniqueness and extended-self 0.82 (0.67)
Cronbach’s was 0.61 for conspicuousness, Quality and hedonism 0.95 (0.90)
Quality and extended-self 0.84 (0.71)
0.79 for uniqueness, 0.84 for quality, 0.64
Hedonism and extended-self 0.94 (0.88)
for hedonism and 0.90 for extended self.
Although the BLI scale’s was 0.93, the Note: numbers in parentheses indicate squared scores.
reliability coefficients for conspicuousness
and hedonism are below the recommended
0.70 threshold.35 Vigneron and Johnson4 analysis. Varimax rotation was used in line
reported values ranging from 0.86 with the original study, but given the sample
(hedonism) to 0.93 (uniqueness). The data size factor loadings < 0.35 were sup-
were then subjected to exploratory factor pressed.36 With eigenvalues greater than
400 © 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1350-23IX Brand Management Vol. 16, 5/6, 395–405
Measuring perceived brand luxury
unity, four factors were extracted suggesting metric properties of the BLI scale of Vign-
serious cross-loadings among items (see eron and Johnson. The scale was originally
Table 2). Factor analysis was then repeated developed and validated using data from
using oblimin rotation, which allows factors business students in Australia. The analysis
to be correlated, but again only four factors of the present data collected from actual
emerged. consumers in Taiwan suggested some prob-
Confirmatory factor analysis was then lems with the scale’s psychometric proper-
used to further detect the dimensionality ties and its equivalence across cultures. The
of the BLI scale. Chi-square was 823.00 results are summarised as follows. Reliabi-
(d.f.= 160),which was significant (P < 0.000). lity coefficients of conspicuousness and
Values of fit were also inadequate. GFI was hedonism did not pass the threshold of
0.76, AGFI was 0.68, NFI = 0.79,TLI = 0.79 0.70,35 but exceeded 0.60 for exploratory
and RMSEA = 0.13. research.38 Exploratory and confirmatory
Assessment of convergent and discrimi- factor analyses failed to provide support for
nant validity was computed from LISREL the underlying structure of BLI, but indi-
output. Convergent validity was gauged cated serious cross-loadings of items. The
through the average variance extracted chi-squared test was significant, and values
(AVE), which measures the percentage of of fit were inadequate for the factor analytic
total variance of the data accounted for by model of BLI. Convergent and discriminant
each construct. Fornell and Larcker37 argue validity were then assessed using data from
that the validity of a construct will be sus- the LISREL output. Convergent validity
pect if the AVE is less than 0.50. AVE for was not established for conspicuousness
the five factors was 0.34 for conspicuous- (AVE = 0.34). If the AVE is less than 0.5, it
ness, 0.56 for uniqueness, 0.63 for quality, means that the variance captured by the
0.50 for hedonism and 0.80 for extended- construct is less than the measurement error.
self (see Table 3). Discriminant validity refers In accordance with the earlier indication
to the degree to which measures of the of cross-loadings from factor analysis, it
various dimensions of the BLI scale are was not possible to establish discriminant
unique. Discriminant validity was tested by validity. Discriminant validity was parti-
comparing the AVE for each factor with cularly problematic for conspicuousness
the squared pairwise correlation between and uniqueness, less problematic for quality
factors. In order to establish discriminant and hedonism and least problematic for
validity, the AVE for a given factor should extended self. This finding is contrary to
be higher than all 1 estimates involving that of Vigneron and Johnson, who reported
that factor.36 Comparisons among AVE and adequate discriminant validity for the scale.
squared correlations revealed a total lack of One of the reasons might be that business
discriminant validity among the five sub- students are more adept at discriminating
scales (see Table 3). among the five factors than actual con-
Composite reliability estimates were then sumers. A potential explanation is that busi-
projected from the LISREL output. These ness students had possibly been exposed to
were 0.64 for conspicuousness, 0.83 for these concepts during their studies and
uniqueness, 0.87 for quality, 0.73 for therefore were more capable of distin-
hedonism and 0.92 for extended self. guishing among these theoretically distinct
concepts.
DISCUSSION A more plausible explanation could
The purpose of this paper was to provide involve cultural differences. Previous
an independent assessment of the psycho- research found culture to affect consumer
© 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1350-23IX Brand Management Vol. 16, 5/6, 395–405 401
Christodoulides et al
perceptions of brands such as those manifest vidualistic society, whereas Taiwan is pro-
in brand equity7 and brand personality foundly collectivistic.45 In individualistic
measures.39 In light of this, it is not sur- societies, the goals of individuals are valued
prising to observe some differences in terms more highly than the goals of the group,
of brand luxury perceptions of Taiwanese as opposed to collectivistic societies where
versus Australian respondents. The view of the interests of the group prevail over the
brands as socially constructed entities able interests of the individual.46,47 Interpreting
to communicate cultural meaning is well the findings of this study in light of this
documented in the marketing literature.40 divergence of cultural values between Aus-
More specifically, research suggests that cul- tralia and Taiwan, more individualist Aus-
tural differences are more salient for abstract, tralians may seek luxury to enhance their
symbolic traits of brands as opposed to individual identity and power status in
functional or utilitarian attributes, which society. As such, uniqueness is an important
tend to show less variability or significance and distinct dimension of brand luxury.
across cultures.41,42 As discussed in the lit- On the other hand, more collectivist Tai-
erature review, luxury brands are based pre- wanese consumers may pursue luxury not
dominantly on symbolic values, making to stand out from the rest of society and
them prone to cultural influence. stress their individuality, but as a way to
More specifically, past research suggested conform and be accepted by fellow society
that East Asians use holistic reasoning strat- members.
egies, whereas Westerners use analytic rea-
soning strategies.43 Taiwanese consumers CONCLUSIONS
may therefore take a more holistic view of The research described in this paper evalu-
brand luxury, and may make more universal ates the Vigneron and Johnson4 BLI using
evaluations of brand luxury than their a sample composed of actual consumers.
Western counterparts. In this sense, the Findings indicate some concerns with the
meaning of luxury may differ between scale’s dimensionality, which warrant addi-
Western and Confucian cultures. Wong and tional research attention. This is because a
Ahuvia44 suggest that the Asian style of scale measuring perceived brand luxury is
luxury consumption is based on four aspects potentially useful for both researchers and
of Confucian culture, including interde- practitioners. The literature argues for dif-
pendent self-concept, the balance between ferent tiers of luxury,16 so a scale measuring
individual and group needs, hierarchy and perceived brand luxury can be used by
the legitimacy of group affiliations. Further, practitioners to fine-tune the positioning of
relative to Western consumers, Asian con- their brand(s) with a view of achieving the
sumers focus more on publicly visible desired level of luxury. Practitioners can also
possessions that have public meanings.44 As use such a scale to identify potential
such, cultural differences between Western strengths over competition. For example,
and East Asian societies have implications two brands (for example Hermes and Louis
for luxury brands. This might suggest that Vuitton) may arrive at the same score, but
Vigneron and Johnson’s4 dimension of further analysis is likely to reveal different
uniqueness is not so relevant for luxury perceptions with regard to individual
seekers in Asia. dimensions of luxury. This can then be used
Furthermore, in comparing Australian to inform pricing strategies, as the price
and Taiwanese cultures on Hofstede’s indi- charged for a brand should not be seen as
vidualism versus collectivism dimension of being outside the brand’s luxury tier (over-
culture,46 Australia represents a highly indi- pricing or underpricing). Moreover,
402 © 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1350-23IX Brand Management Vol. 16, 5/6, 395–405
Measuring perceived brand luxury
© 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1350-23IX Brand Management Vol. 16, 5/6, 395–405 403
Christodoulides et al
(20) Dubois, B. and Paternault, C. (1995) Understanding social psychology’s view of human nature.
the world of international luxury brands: The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51(3):
dream formula. Journal of Advertising Research 35(4): 515–530.
69–76. (35) Nunnally, J. C. (1978) Psychometric Theory, 2nd edn.,
(21) Vigneron, F. and Johnson, L. W. (1999) A review McGraw-Hill: New York.
and a conceptual framework of prestige-seeking (36) Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E.,Tatham, R. L. and Black,
consumer behavior. Academy of Marketing Science W. C. (1998) Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th edn.,
Review 3(1): 15. Prentice-Hall: New Jersey.
(22) Mason, R. (1984) Conspicuous consumption: A (37) Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. F. (1981) Evaluating
literature review. European Journal of Marketing structural equation models with unobserved
18(3): 26–39. variables and measurement error. Journal of
(23) Lynn, M. (1991) Scarcity effects on value: A quan- Marketing Research 18(1): 39–50.
titative review of the commodity theory literature. (38) Bagozzi, R. P. and Yi, Y. (1988) On the evaluation
Psychology and Marketing 8(1): 45–57. of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy
(24) Tian, K.T., Bearden,W. O. and Hunter, G. L. (2001) of Marketing Science 16(Spring): 74–94.
Consumers’ need for uniqueness: Scale develop- (39) Aaker, J. L., Benet-Martinez, V. and Garolera, J.
ment and validation. Journal of Consumer Research (2001) Consumption symbols as carriers of culture:
28(1): 50–66. A study of Japanese and Spanish brand personality
(25) Garfein, R. T. (1989) Cross-cultural perspectives constructs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
on the dynamics of prestige. Journal of Services Mar- 81(3): 492–508.
keting 3(Summer): 17–24. (40) McCracken, G. (1986) Culture and consumption:
(26) Hirschman, E. C. and Holbrook, M. B. (1982) A theoretical account of the structure and move-
Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts, ment of the cultural meaning of consumer goods.
methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing Journal of Consumer Research 13(1): 71–84.
46(Summer): 92–101. (41) Aaker, J. and Maheswaran, D. (1997) The effect
(27) Dhar, R. and Wertenbroch, K. (2000) Consumer of cultural orientation of persuasion. Journal of
choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. Consumer Research 24(3): 315–328.
Journal of Marketing Research 37(February): 60–71. (42) Kim, H. and Markus, H. R. (1999) Deviance or
(28) Berry, C. J. (1994) The Idea of Luxury: A Conceptual uniqueness, harmony or conformity? A cultural
and Historical Investigation. Cambridge, MA: analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Cambridge University Press. 77: 785–796.
(29) Belk, R. W. (1988) Possessions and extended self. (43) Fiske, A., Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R. and
Journal of Consumer Research 15(September): Nisbett, R. E. (1998) The Cultural Matrix of
139–168. Social Psychology. In: D. Gilbert, S. Fiske and
(30) Hair et al, 1998 state that for a sample size >350 G. Lindzey (eds.) The Handbook of Social
factor loadings of 0.30 are statistically significant. Psychology, 4th edn., McGraw-Hill: San Francisco,
(31) Wells, W. D. (1993) Discovery-oriented consumer pp. 915–981.
research. Journal of Consumer Research 19(4): (44) Wong, N.Y. and Ahuvia, A. C. (1998) Personal taste
489–504. and family face: Luxury consumption in Confu-
(32) James, W. L. and Sonner, B. S. (2001) Just say no cian and Western societies. Psychology & Marketing
to traditional student samples. Journal of Advertising 15(5): 423–441.
Research 41(5): 63–71. (45) http://www.geert-hofstede.com, accessed 4
(33) Burnett, J. J. and Dunne, P. M. (1986) An September 2008.
appraisal of the use of student subjects in marketing (46) Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture’s Consequences. Sage:
research. Journal of Business Research 14(4): Beverly Hills, California.
329–343. (47) Hofstede, G. (1984) The cultural relativity of the
(34) Sears, D. O. (1986) College sophomores in the quality of life concept. Academy of Management
laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on Review 9(3): 389–398.
404 © 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1350-23IX Brand Management Vol. 16, 5/6, 395–405
Measuring perceived brand luxury
APPENDIX
See Table A1.
Non-personal-oriented perceptions
Conspicuousness
Conspicuous __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Noticeable
Popular __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Elitist a
Affordable __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Extremely
expensivea
For wealthy __:__:__:__:__:__:__ For well-off
Uniquness
Fairly exclusive __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Very exclusivea
Precious __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Valuable
Rare __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Uncommon
Unique __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Unusual
Quality
Crafted __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Manufactured
Upmarket __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Luxuriousa
Best quality __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Good quality
Sophisticated __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Original
Superior __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Better
Personal-oriented perceptions
Hedonism
Exquisite __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Tasteful
Attractive __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Glamorousa
Stunning __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Memorable
Extended self
Leading __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Influential
Very powerful __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Fairly powerful
Rewarding __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Pleasing
Successful __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Well regarded
a
Reverse scored items.
© 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1350-23IX Brand Management Vol. 16, 5/6, 395–405 405