Journal of Business Research 83 (2018) 38–50
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Business Research
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres
The impact of brand penetration and awareness on luxury brand desirability:
A cross country analysis of the relevance of the rarity principle
T
Jean-Noël Kapferera,⁎, Pierre Valette-Florenceb,c
a
b
c
INSEEC, 43 Quai de Grenelle, 75015, Paris, France
Grenoble IAE, Université Grenoble Alpes, BP 47, 38040, Grenoble, France
CERGAM, EA 4225, Aix-Marseille Université, France
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords:
Luxury
Dream
Rarity
Penetration
Awareness
Negative-binomial regression
The global market for luxury brands has witnessed sustained growth in the last two decades, driven by purchases
from emerging economies such as China and rising upper middle classes. Because luxury is associated with rarity
and exclusivity, fears arise about whether continued growth might dilute the leading luxury brands' desirability.
Prior studies offer conflicting results about the effect of greater market penetration on luxury brands' desirability;
it appeared negative in the USA but not in Asia, today's highest growth luxury markets. The present research
analyzes 3200 luxury consumers' perceptions of 60 major brands across six Eastern and Western countries, both
emerging and mature. The overall effect of increased market penetration on luxury desirability remains negative,
while the impact of awareness remains always positive. This confirmation of the rarity principle has notable
implications for marketing luxury brands that seek to sustain their dream value.
1. Introduction
Once a niche sector, accessible only to the wealthy, luxury has become a thriving market, aiming at a vastly enlarged clientele, encompassing the upper middle class. After the 2008 economic crisis, the
personal luxury market began to grow again, reaching a rate of 30%
between 2011 and 2016 (Bain & Co., 2017). Although mature countries
remain the most important luxury markets, because of their purchasing
power and the flow of incoming tourists, future growth is elsewhere, in
the fast-rising, emerging countries. For example, the Chinese domestic
market for personal luxury goods currently ranks third worldwide (at
17.9 billion €), just after Japan (22 billion €), but already having bypassed France (17.1 billion €) and Italy (17.3 billion €). The United
States remains the top market (82 billion €) (Bain & Co., 2017). These
figures only measure domestic sales, yet modern consumers also shop
elsewhere in the world. Bain and Co. (2017) estimates that Chinese
consumers represent 31% of all purchases of personal luxury goods in
the world (Japanese 10% and other Asians 10%), when considering
what they buy both domestically and abroad while traveling.
Luxury, once the ordinary of extraordinary people, has become the
extraordinary of ordinary people too. Thus, the luxury market is
changing, and it appears likely to continue doing so, with global shifts
across national borders. Existing, predominantly Western luxury
brands, therefore, must determine if their traditional luxury
⁎
management approaches still apply among Eastern consumers. One
major question for the managers of highly successful luxury brands is
defining how well and how far they can generalize the notion that
luxury brands' desirability rests on maintaining some form of rarity and
exclusivity, thus on controlling the growth of brand penetration.
Continued growth and rarity seem two opposed notions.
To date, the academic literature has mainly focused on
luxury measurement (Vigneron & Johnson, 1999; Wiedmann,
Hennigs, & Siebels, 2007; de Barnier, Falcy, & Valette-Florence, 2012;
Kapferer & Valette-Florence, 2016a, 2016b), on diverse reactions to
marketing-mix variables such as price (e.g. Kapferer & Laurent, 2016;
Parguel, Delecolle, & Valette-Florence, 2016) or on luxury brand commitment antecedents (e.g. Shukla, Banerjee, & Singh, 2016). However,
in their everyday life, brand managers are more concerned with the
performance of their brand: how to create growth yet maintain its
luxury status. They monitor the growth of brand awareness and the
overall penetration of their brands on the market seen as a whole and
are sensitive to how these two parameters interact with the desirability
for luxury brands. In a sense, this point of view corresponds to a
paradigmatic shift from the study of individuality to the analysis at an
aggregate level of the interplay of brands operating on the markets.
One single pioneering study, conducted more than twenty years ago
in the United States and replicated in France, concluded that greater
market penetration dilutes the desirability of luxury brands
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jnkapferer@inseec.com (J.-N. Kapferer), pvalette@grenoble-iae.fr (P. Valette-Florence).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.09.025
Received 4 May 2016; Received in revised form 14 September 2017; Accepted 14 September 2017
Available online 10 October 2017
0148-2963/ © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Journal of Business Research 83 (2018) 38–50
J.-N. Kapferer, P. Valette-Florence
2. Theoretical development
(Dubois & Paternault, 1995), but this effect did not arise in two replication studies conducted in Singapore or Hong Kong, a disconfirmation which seems to limit the generalizability of the rarity
principle to western clients. Asian consumers would be not at all the
same from that respect? This is the research gap we address: theory and
management need to know if the rarity principle is tied to the western
culture (quite individualistic) and does not apply in Asia, or if it is a
global principle. A cross country replication of the US seminal study
was designed to provide an unambiguous answer. Consequently, our
research focus is exclusively located at an aggregate level, trying to
analyze what the interplay is between luxury brand awareness and
luxury brand penetration in order to keep fueling the dream for luxury
brands.
Compared to the pioneering American study of Dubois and
Paternault (1995), our contribution is hence threefold. First, it is a replication in the USA, twenty years after the original study: since then,
many American luxury brands have been growing fast (Coach, Michael
Kors, Tory Burch, Polo Ralph Lauren, etc.) and moulded public perceptions of luxury in this country. Secondly, we extend this research to
Asian countries as well as European ones and South America, including
mature countries as well as emerging countries, which are the great
challenge for the future of the luxury industry. Thirdly, it represents an
improvement as to the measurement procedures, the statistical models
and the respondents' sample selection. Our results do confirm the hypothesis of the universality of the rarity principle, also known as the
‘dream equation’. However, they go one step further by showing that if
the overall tendency remains the same whatever the country, subtle
differences occur according to the culture, economic development of
the corresponding countries and the maturity of the luxury market in
these countries. Yet, our research does not aim at investigating the
possible intervening processes, but aims in priority at assessing or not
the validity of the rarity principle across countries and cultures, among
luxury buyers.
From a conceptual standpoint, our contribution refers to three main
theoretical approaches. First, it mostly rests on Brock's commodity
theory on the psychological effects of scarcity. Secondly, it also rests on
cultural differences between the western culture and the Asian one (for
instance as far as the need for uniqueness is concerned). Thirdly, it
makes reference to bandwagon effect versus snob effect theory.
Bandwagon effects (when one's choice follows the choice of the many)
should be prevalent in countries where conformity is rewarded (such as
China) or in new markets, where the consumers have not enough
confidence in their own choice. Snob effects may appear in luxury
mature markets where new riches need to differentiate themselves and
adopt newer and lesser known brands with less penetration.
Our results point out that although the dream equation seems to
hold true whatever is the country, hence extending the seminal work of
Dubois and Paternault (1995) to other countries than the USA, cultural
differences exist between mature countries (France, Germany and
Japan) and emerging ones (Brazil and China). Moreover, complementary and innovative statistical analyses shed light on the existence of thresholds of brand awareness and penetration beyond which
the impact of awareness and of penetration are fully operating on the
desirability of the brand, its dream value. Ultimately, and with regards
to those thresholds, managerial illustrations are provided per countries
and per brands.
Below, we first provide an overview of the theoretical background
relied on as to the interplays between luxury growth, luxury desirability, and cultural differences and rarity. We then present our research objectives, the methodology and the different stages involved in
the subsequent analyses. The article then details the main theoretical as
well as managerial contributions and concludes with a discussion of
further research avenues that warrant attention.
In the following sections, we shall address the core points of luxury
growth, luxury brand desirability, the moderating role of cultural differences and the rarity principle.
2.1. The challenge of luxury growth
Despite ongoing discussions about its precise meaning, the general
concept of luxury is familiar and quite clear, even if one person's luxury
is not identical to another person's (Berry, 1994). It refers to high
quality, hedonistic products, often handmade, that express tradition or
heritage and are sold in selective environments, at a price far beyond
their functional utility, such that they are associated with taste, elegance and the elite (Vigneron & Johnson, 1999; Kapferer & Bastien,
2012). Luxury value consists of two elements: luxury for the self (selfreward, self-pampering, self-elevation) and luxury for others, which
stems from the emotional pleasure of flaunting prosperity. According to
self-congruency theory (Sirgy, 1982), luxury buyers can either buy
luxury brands for themselves in order to satisfy their private self or for
others to fulfill their social self. Hence, luxury brands serve signaling
functions (Sundie et al., 2011), such that the rarity or exclusivity of a
luxury product adheres to its buyers. This function is especially important in fast growing economies with a rising class of new rich who
seek to make strong statements about their own success (Han,
Nunes, & Dreze, 2010).
The challenge of luxury brands thus is to sustain the notion or
dream of privilege and exclusivity even as they diffuse and grow in
popularity. This is all the most important today as many luxury brands
can be called mega-brands: they dominate in terms of market share, of
retail distribution and brand awareness (Solca, Bertini, & Fan, 2013).
Unlike fast-moving consumer goods, which seek to extend their
penetration and grow their sales constantly (Sharp, 2010;
Romaniuk & Sharp, 2016), luxury diffusion should seek to remain limited, to maintain the sense of rarity. Yet, growing inherently means
selling to more people, increasing the penetration of the brand, whether
through more stores, more product lines, e-commerce sites, communication or more accessible prices. Thus, there is an inherent risk that
growth might dilute the desirability of the leading luxury brands, on the
basis of the following paradox: the higher the dream, the higher the
sales, but the higher the sales, the lower the dream.
2.2. Why more sales create less desirability
All definitions of luxury relate to some form of rarity and exclusivity. Historically, luxury products were reserved for the aristocracy, then later spread to the happy few or the rich who wished to
emulate them (Berry, 1994). Only recently has luxury growth relied on
extensions of sales to the upper-middle class. Despite this extension,
perceived rarity and exclusivity remain underlying factors of the luxury
concept. De Barnier et al. (2012) factor analyzed three widely used
luxury perception scales and note that they share one convergent dimension: elitism. Thus, luxury value is based on perceived rarity and
the feeling that not everyone can or should possess a specific luxury
product or brand.
Although the term “commodity” accordingly seems remote from
luxury concerns, Brock's (1968) commodity theory is pertinent because
it addresses the psychological effects of scarcity and asks: Why does
scarcity enhance the desirability of anything that can be possessed? For
Brock, the possession of scarce products creates value through feelings
of personal distinctiveness and uniqueness, because possessions are an
extension of the self (Belk, 1988). In addition, people might prefer not
to look like everyone else, as suggested by need for uniqueness theory
(Fromkin, 1970; Snyder & Fromkin, 1980). Lynn (1991) tests these assumptions and shows that the stronger the need for uniqueness, the
more scarcity enhances value, especially for products purchased mainly
39
Journal of Business Research 83 (2018) 38–50
J.-N. Kapferer, P. Valette-Florence
2.4. The rarity principle: Previous empirical research on luxury brands
for their symbolism (e.g., luxuries). As a strong test of this effect, Berger
and Heath (2008) reveal “taste abandonment,” or a shift in preferences
due to the post hoc realization that the product no longer acts as a
viable signal of uniqueness. This effect occurs most readily when too
many others, or else “rejected others,” adopt the product, causing it to
lose its uniqueness and ability to symbolize a preferred status. Luxury
brand penetration –the percentage of people having bought it – should
negatively impact perceived brand rarity and exclusiveness. This negative impact is especially true for luxury brands. Yet, it could be argued that doubling the sales of Bentley's in China (1595 units in 2016)
would not really impact its rarity, measured in percentage of the total
number of cars sold in this giant country. But rarity is not to be understood as an absolute concept: luxury buyers do not measure themselves up to laymen, to the masses but up to their peers (Han et al.,
2010). If there are four Bentley's in front of the Peninsula Hotel Hong
Kong, this will not impact absolute rarity, nor the brand appeal among
the masses, or the lower middle class, but it could impact its perceived
rarity among the riches themselves (Solca et al., 2013). It means that
this brand could lose its distinctive power and its feelings of exclusivity
among the high end luxury buyers themselves, those who not only
contribute to the business of Bentley's but above all to its prestige!
Scarcity may stem from two sources: lack of supply or excess demand. Gierl and Huettl (2010, p. 230) explore how sources of scarcity
interact with consumption to increase or decrease perceived value and
note that, “If a product is used for conspicuous consumption, signals of
scarcity due to limited supply are advantageous compared to signals of
scarcity due to high demand.” Some luxury brands thus restrict their
diffusion to enhance their desirability: Rolls Royce produced no more
4011 cars in 2016, and Ferrari made 8014. Hermès starves the market
of high end leather bags: there is one-year waiting list for the iconic
Kelly or Birkin bags.
Three studies directly addressed the rarity principle and the associated risk of decreased desirability when luxury brands' penetration
grows. A pioneering one, conducted in the United States, concluded
that greater market penetration dilutes the desirability of luxury brands
(Dubois & Paternault, 1995). However, this effect did not arise in two
replication studies conducted in Singapore or Hong Kong, which seem
to limit its generalizability to Western clients (Wong & Zaichkowsky,
1999; Phau & Prendergast, 2000). The present research is a replication
of the American pioneering study, an extension to Asian, European and
South American countries and to both mature and emerging countries.
Finally, it is an improvement in methodology, especially that of the
consumer sample recruitment, and the width of the brand sample. It
fills a research gap: the rarity principle is often claimed to be internationally valid, but -so far- empirical evidence is contradictory. Is the
rarity principle a myth? It also answers a managerial demand: to develop global luxury brands managers need to assess the validity of their
own managerial practices across borders and cultures.
The first study to address this rarity principle (negative impact of
more penetration on luxury brands' desirability) also coined the term
“Dream Equation” (Dubois & Paternault, 1995). The luxury industry
often refers to its role as “selling dreams” (e.g., dream boats, dream
places, dream watches). Bernard Arnault (2001, p. 117), the CEO of
LVMH, the world's leading luxury group with more than 70 brands,
describes luxury products as “items that serve little purpose in the lives
of consumers except to fulfill dreams. And those dreams don't come
cheap.” A content analysis of perceptions of luxury among consumers
from six countries confirms that “dream” is a frequently used term to
define luxury brands' uniqueness (Godey et al., 2013). What is this
dream made of? Luxury brands do indeed sell more than sophisticated
products and experiences: their desirability is also tied to the quality
and exclusivity of life symbolically attached to these products as well as
the heritage and prestige of their brands, and of their most glamorous
clients.
Dubois and Paternault (1995) focus on two levers of luxury desirability, brand awareness and brand penetration. Of course, luxury desire cannot be simply reduced to these two levers, but conspicuous
consumption requires a recognizable brand logo, because without
awareness, the luxury brand cannot perform its necessary role of costly
signaling (Nelissen & Meijers, 2011). With a representative U.S. sample,
including 3000 male and female consumers aged 15 years and older,
Dubois and Paternault conducted individual interviews about 34 personal luxury brands. To measure awareness, they used a single, aided
name awareness item. Because luxury is structurally associated with
feelings of rarity and exclusivity, they also measured the level of penetration of the brand (i.e., the aggregate of individually declared
purchases over the past two years). With regard to the “dream,” they
used a lottery simulation, asking respondents to select the five brands
they would like best if given the chance to choose a beautiful present.
Dubois and Paternault adopted brands as the object of their study:
their analyses were conducted at an aggregate level. They did not
choose to analyze at the individual level for it would have measured
another effect: the impact of knowing a name and of owning a product
on its desirability. It is evident first that one cannot dream about a
brand one does not know if only by name. As to the effect of individual
purchase on desirability, it would have measured if possessing a luxury
item dilutes its desirability, its dream value: do you still dream about
Rolex when you possess one on your wrist? Instead, the present research focuses on the impact of penetration (how many others have
bought) on a luxury brand's desirability. They selected 34 luxury brands
from diverse product categories. This choice is based three reasons:
2.3. Cultural differences
The moderating role of need for uniqueness, as posited by Brock
(1968), has another implication: luxury brands are now international,
and the importance of the need for uniqueness likely varies across international cultures. Managers of global brands thus need to know if
they can generalize their existing knowledge about luxury buyers'
psychology to consumers in Asian or emerging countries (Shukla,
Singh, & Banerjee, 2015). As Liang and He (2012) show, in China the
need for conformity is higher than in Western countries, where individualism is more prominent. Similarly, Zhan and He (2012) explain
preferences for well-known brands among Chinese luxury consumers as
functional, in that these mega-brands grant Chinese consumers a sense
of security about quality and enable the buyers to increase their face, by
enhancing their reputation and social status. This would explain the
long-lasting commercial success of Louis Vuitton in China. These results
echo Yang's (1998) study of Taiwanese fashion buyers, who do not wish
to express individualistic autonomy, as their Western counterparts do,
but rather seek to conform to contemporary mainstream norms. However, in an analysis of East Asian luxury consumers, Le Monk, House,
Barnes, and Stephan (2012) show that a face-saving norm has a negative impact on buyers' desire for exclusivity in China, but a positive
influence in Japan. Therefore, researchers cannot refer broadly to
“Asia”, but instead must account for the unique features of different
nations: China and Japan may both be Asian countries, but the former is
still a developing country, whereas the latter is one of the most developed economies in the world. Although our research is designed to
assess or not the validity of the rarity principle across countries and
continents, and does not aim at investigating the possible intervening
processes, we do expect differences in the magnitude of effects of penetration on luxury brand desirability among real luxury buyers.
• Luxury today is brought by brands. People enter not a leather bag
store, but a Prada store or a Coach store.
• Luxury brands have extended their range to many product
40
Journal of Business Research 83 (2018) 38–50
J.-N. Kapferer, P. Valette-Florence
•
3. Research objectives, hypotheses and methodology
categories, selling a life style, thus encouraging the clients to come
back to the store or to the site
The luxury market today is concentrating itself, with many family
companies joining luxury groups (LVMH, Kering, Richemont, EPI,
etc.). Thus LVMH, world N°1 luxury group holds more than 70
brands, across 10 categories: leather, fashion, jewels, watches, cosmetics, fragrances, wine, spirits, travel and hospitality. Implicit is
the belief that beyond product category differences, there is a unique and shared way to manage a luxury brand in order to maintain
its luxury status.
The main research objectives will be first presented, followed by the
proposal of our hypotheses. Then the pursued methodology will be
detailed.
3.1. Research objectives
According to the rarity principle, high market penetration – a proxy for
perceived exclusivity within one's own social environment – is negatively
correlated to luxury brands desirability. This principle has been repeated
over and over in texts on luxury brand management (Kapferer & Bastien,
2012), such that it has become essentially a mantra of luxury brands, most
of which are European in origin. Yet, stockholders also demand that luxury
brands continue to expand their penetration worldwide, especially in fast
growing economies (e.g., China, Brazil). According to the traditional
managerial mantra and predictions, continued growth in these new
countries will put luxury brands at risk: it will dilute their feelings of exclusivity, a fundamental basis of their pricing power. Yet, as the preceding
literature review indicates, Asian consumers might be less sensitive to
rarity claims, such that more penetration would not dilute their dream as
much as it does for their Western counterparts. This would explain the
success of luxury mega-brands in Asia (Rolex, Chanel, Prada, etc.). To
determine if these cultural differences are relevant and actual in real-world
settings, as well as to help luxury managers understand how generalizable
the rarity principle is globally, this widescale study was undertaken across
six countries, with the premise that the dream equation will hold whatever
the countries.
This research then replicates the paradigm of the pioneer American
study, as well as the two disconfirming Asian studies; it extends the
research to more countries, so as to encompass both emerging and
mature markets, both Asian and Western. Finally, it aims at improving
the dependent variable measurement, the sampling selection process
and the models of statistical analysis.
When they regressed the dream value of these 34 luxury brands on
measures of awareness and purchase, Dubois and Paternault found a
significant positive beta weight for the former and a significant negative
beta for the latter. Thus, the equation known as the “dream equation”,
relating brand desirability to two major performance indicators of
brands:
Dream = 0.58 Awareness – 0.59 Purchase – 8.6 (R2 = 0.78).
This “dream equation” confirmed that brand awareness creates
value. It establishes the capacity of the brand to be recognized. Most
important -holding brand awareness constant- a brand's dream value is
negatively affected by a higher level of brand penetration in the population. The brand loses its perceived exclusivity. Therefore, to build
the dream, the difference between the levels of brand awareness and
brand penetration is of paramount importance.
These results (i.e., negative impact of more penetration on desirability) have been replicated in France (Kapferer & Valette-Florence,
2016a), despite some methodological differences (more luxury brands
from more diverse sectors, use of a binary measure of the dream value
of the luxury brands, its desirability, simpler than the lottery simulation
of the seminal study: “Does this brand make you dream?”). In contrast,
two replications conducted in Asian nations produced conflicting results regarding the rarity principle (i.e., negative effect of more penetration). Specifically, Wong and Zaichkowsky (1999) replicated the
methodology of the U.S. study in Hong Kong: they confirmed that
awareness boosts a luxury brand's desirability but uncovered no negative effect of the aggregate purchase level on dream. The methodology
they used relied on a convenience sample (n = 70, 40 men and 30
women) of relatively young Hong Kong residents (61% between 18 and
34 years), recruited as they visited popular shopping malls. The only
criterion was that they had bought at least one product among the
luxury brands on a list in the past three years; the list featured only
personal luxury goods. The authors offer no specific explanation for the
contradictory results, but they might reflect greater pressures toward
conformity in Confucian cultures, where being unique is not as valued
as it is in more individualistic, Western societies (Wong & Ahuvia, 1998;
Shukla et al., 2015). Considering the importance of conformity in Asian
societies, high brand penetration may not have the same deleterious
effects among consumers: this might explain the local continuing success of luxury mega brands such as Vuitton or Gucci. Another explanation would be that the sample was made of lower middle class
people attending popular shopping malls (not luxury shopping malls).
Among these consumers, bandwagon effect prevails (Tsai, Yang, & Liu,
2013). Bandwagon effect refers to “the extent to which the demand for
a commodity is increased due to the fact that others are also consuming
the same commodity” (Leibenstein, 1950, p189). Snob effect is just the
opposite.
Another study, undertaken in Singapore by Phau and Prendergast
(2000) and using the same methodology as Dubois and Paternault
(1995), also failed to reproduce the original U.S. findings. Brand popularity (awareness) propelled the dream value of luxury brands, but
these authors found no significant negative effect of aggregated penetration on the dream, after partialling out the impact of brand awareness. These authors refer to the local high need for conformity, to explain why mega luxury brands (high awareness and penetration) do
actually reassure buyers.
3.2. Hypotheses
This study seeks to provide comparable, relevant results across six
major luxury markets to assess the international validity of the rarity
principle, through the dream equation. Accordingly, we formally propose two main hypotheses:
H1. Brand awareness positively affects the luxury brand dream (brand
desirability) whatever the country.
H2. Brand penetration negatively affects the luxury brand dream (brand
desirability) whatever the country, holding brand awareness constant.
This universality hypothesis is based on the dual function of luxury
consumption (Kapferer & Bastien, 2012): luxury for self (self-rewards
and pleasure) or luxury for others (brands being a marker of social
stratification and the costly signaling of exclusivity). For a strong test of
the universality of the rarity principle, we needed to select important
luxury markets (Bain & Co., 2017) that also offer a distinction between
emerging countries (China, Brazil) versus mature ones (USA, Japan,
Germany, France), all from different continents. Emerging luxury
markets showed -until now- higher growth rates than mature countries
but the latter have higher levels of luxury consumption per capita.
In this contrast, across countries, we anticipated differences in the
amount of negative influence exerted by high penetration on desirability. This could be due to a number of potential factors, first of all
cultural factors. Our review of need for uniqueness theory suggests that
Chinese luxury buyers should be less sensitive to the rarity principle
than Japanese consumers. Yet Chadha and Husband (2007) also note
the importance of luxury for the fast rising class of new riches among
Chinese consumers, compared with the rather bespoke vision of luxury
in Japan. Similarly, U.S. luxury buyers should be less sensitive to the
41
Journal of Business Research 83 (2018) 38–50
J.-N. Kapferer, P. Valette-Florence
Within each country, respondents were randomly presented a set of
15 brands among the 60 and simply had to indicate if each brand made
them dream (or not), if they knew it more than only by name (or not),
and if they already had bought it (or not). Since this study selected real
luxury buyers, it was hypothesized that these respondents were
knowledgeable about the brands and could voice a clear cut opinion
about which of these brands were luxury brands and which were not. In
addition the choice for asking single questions was in line with Rossiter
(2016) who also advises to use single-item measures for the many
constructs in marketing that are of an abstract nature. Moreover, since
each respondent had to randomly evaluate each of 15 brands, relying
on usual rating scales would have been too time-consuming. Real
luxury consumers do not have much time for academic research: this
justifies the choice of single binary questions for each evaluated brands
instead of ratings on lengthy Likert scales. The same choice had already
been adopted by the former studies on the international relevance of
the rarity principle, examined above. Because of the number of missing
values per respondent due to the randomness of the data collection
procedure and in order to be fully in line with our main research objectives, the results were therefore averaged for each country, leading
to aggregated data in which the 60 brands represented the observations
and using the mean averages of the variables as a percentage.
Contrary to the statistical methodology of former tests of the rarity
principle, multiple regressions of the relationships between the dream
value and awareness and penetration were not relied on here for three
main reasons. First, multiple regressions are not suited to handle count
data since they produce estimates that fall outside the 0–100 range, a
situation which does not make concrete sense. Second, they ideally
require a multivariate distribution which is very unlikely to hold in our
case. Third, parameter estimates rely on the restrictive assumption of
homoscedasticity which is rarely met in practice. Hence, we decided to
rely on specialized models more suited for analyzing count data which
avoid the aforementioned problems.
Since, in our case, the conditional variance exceeds the conditional
mean, a very restrictive assumption of Poisson regressions, we chose to
perform more general and powerful binomial-negative regressions.
Negative binomial regression is similar to regular multiple regression
except that the dependent variable is an observed count that follows the
negative binomial distribution. Based on the Poisson-gamma mixture
distribution, negative binomial regression loosens the restrictive assumption that the conditional variance is equal to the conditional mean
made by the Poisson model.
In practice, the regression equations are very similar to those of
multiple regression, except that we model the log of the response
variable. The dispersion parameter in negative binomial regression does
not affect the expected counts, but it does affect the estimated variance
of the expected counts. The coefficients have an additive effect in the
log (dream) scale and a multiplicative effect in the dream scale.
Although the beta coefficients give the sign value of the incidence of the
predictors' variables, the exponential form is often preferred as it can
explain directly the relative increase or decrease in the dependent
variable. For instance, a positive β1 value of 0.215 for awareness means
that increasing by 1% awareness would lead to an increase by 0.215%
in the logs of expected counts of the dream value of the brand, while
holding the other variables in the model constant. Looking at the exponential value term, this implies in a more explicit manner that increasing awareness by one unit will induce an increase of exp. (0.215)
= 1.240 or 24% in the dream value of the brand, while holding the
other variables in the model constant.
All analyses were in addition based on Bootstrapped estimates
(5000 replications). Furthermore, we also performed systematic power
analyses. Power represents the probability of rejecting a false null hypothesis, and is equal to one minus beta, beta being the probability of a
type-II error, which occurs when a false null hypothesis is not rejected.
Ideally, values greater than 0.90 are expected for power. In our case,
results proved to be satisfactory with values for power ranging from
snob effect (Leibenstein, 1950), also known as negative externalities
(produced by high brand penetration), than their European counterparts, but for different reasons. That is, the United States produces
worldly, successful luxury brands (e.g., Coach, Michael Kors, Marc Jacobs, Calvin Klein, and Ralph Lauren) that are positioned at lower price
points than their European counterparts and often distributed in offprice outlets in an effort to extend their penetration (Solca,
Grippo, & Lucarelli, 2017). This strategy may reflect the roots of U.S.
culture and the American dream of a classless society, in which access
to material happiness ideally is open to everyone. In contrast, French
luxury brands (e.g., Chanel, Dior, and Yves Saint Laurent) take very
high price positions and restrain their distribution network as an active
signaling of their rather elitist view of luxury. As our research does not
aim at investigating the possible intervening processes but assess (or
not) the cross country validity of the rarity principle, we propose the
following complementary hypothesis:
H3. Although always negative, the impact of penetration on desirability
varies by country. For instance, it should be lower in open societies,
claiming to be classless such as the USA and higher in highly elitist
countries such as France.
3.3. Sampling, brands selection and measurement
For a strong test of the universality of the rarity principle, the
sample interviewed across all countries should be both relevant and
consistent. The selection of the samples of luxury buyers in each
country thus relied on Internet panels, determined on the basis of respondents' self-declared purchases of a list of hedonic products, at a
price above a threshold that would indicate luxury. These products
appealed to both genders (e.g., a bottle of Champagne or wine for at
least 100 Euros, shoes for men or women for at least 350 Euros, sunglasses for at least 350 Euros, jackets for men or women for at least 400
Euros). These prices reflected the median levels determined in an international study of luxury price thresholds (Kapferer & Laurent, 2016).
On the whole, 3217 luxury buyers took part in the present survey.
Through the use of quotas, each sample was representative of its
country's luxury buyers in terms of geographical localization (e.g., main
cities on the East and West U.S. coasts; major cities in France, Germany,
Japan, and Brazil; main regional districts in China). Hence, and contrary to most previous researches relying on ad hoc young respondents,
we decided to focus on respondents who had already bought luxury
products in the last months before the survey, in order to ensure that
these respondents were real consumers of luxury products, hence fully
aware of what the pursuit of luxury means. In addition, all our samples
comprise both men and women, are spread in terms of age and exhibit
rather high monthly net income. As such, we acknowledge that our
samples are not fully representative of all luxury products buyers (including for instance all those who buy only exceptionally), but rather
representative and prototypical of affluent clients in each country, susceptible to be really concerned by luxury consumption, thus knowledgeable about luxury and the luxury brands too.
Table 1 displays the sample characteristics in terms of size, age,
gender, and net income. On average, 90% of the respondents lived in
households of at least two people, and approximately one-third earned
more than 5000 Euros per month (3.4% earned more than 15,000 Euros
per month).
Sixty worldly known and internationally distributed luxury brands
were included, spanning a high diversity of luxury sectors and representing both products and services. These brands were drawn from
lists of the members of Comité Colbert in France, Fondazione Altagamma
in Italy, and their equivalents in the United Kingdom and Germany.
These professional national organizations collectively promote the luxury
brands of their own country, in their domestic market as well as abroad.
Several Swiss and U.S. luxury brands also were included. Appendix 1
presents the list of 60 brands used in each country's survey.
42
Journal of Business Research 83 (2018) 38–50
J.-N. Kapferer, P. Valette-Florence
Table 1
Gender, age and net income characteristics per countries.
Size
Gender
Men
Women
Total
Age
18–24
25–34
35–44
45–54
55–75
Total
Net income per month
< 3000 Euros
3000–4999 Euros
5000–9999 Euros
10,000–14,999
Euros
> 15,000 Euros
Total
Country
Total
France
USA
China
Brazil
Germany
Japan
N
%
N
%
N
267
50,1%
266
49,9%
533
313
62,5%
188
37,5%
501
324
48,2%
348
51,8%
672
337
62,6%
201
37,4%
538
292
57,0%
220
43,0%
512
283
61,4%
178
38,6%
461
1816
56,5%
1401
43,5%
3217
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
74
13,9%
106
19,9%
117
22,0%
99
18,6%
137
25,7%
533
66
13,2%
145
28,9%
121
24,2%
99
19,8%
70
14,0%
501
86
12,8%
204
30,4%
188
28,0%
141
21,0%
53
7,9%
672
107
19,9%
196
36,4%
124
23,0%
80
14,9%
31
5,8%
538
91
17,8%
140
27,3%
127
24,8%
121
23,6%
33
6,4%
512
56
12,1%
179
38,8%
57
12,4%
80
17,4%
89
19,3%
461
480
14,9%
970
30,2%
734
22,8%
620
19,3%
413
12,8%
3217
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
203
38,1%
177
33,2%
88
16,5%
18
3,4%
16
3,0%
533
96
19,2%
142
36,1%
181
24,2%
59
11,8%
28
5,6%
501
206
30,6%
201
29,9%
162
24,1%
41
6,1%
15
2,2%
672
236
43,9%
160
29,7%
62
11,5%
18
3,3%
19
3,5%
538
117
22,9%
188
36,7%
144
28,1%
24
4,7%
13
2,5%
512
106
22,9%
169
36,6%
117
25,4%
32
6,9%
19
4,1%
461
964
29,9%
1037
32,2%
754
23,4%
192
5,9%
110
3,4%
3217
sometimes rather low in magnitude, all regression parameter estimates
are statistically significant, all confidence intervals not incorporating
zero. The rarity principle is indeed relevant worldwide.
0.87 up to 0.98. All analyses have been performed per country by
means of Maximum Likelihood (ML) Estimation relying mainly on the R
package1 and Stata 14. ML being subject to interpretation, standard R2
should be regarded with caution and hence are not reported. Hence, we
decided to assess prediction by computing R2 on a replication sample.
Due to the rather limited sample size (N = 60) per country, we opted
for a K-fold random cross validation procedure. Hence, performing
multiple random drawing (K = 1500) of 40 brands in order to estimate
the predicted values on the remaining 20 brands in each country enabled us to compute mean R2 estimates on the replication samples. In
addition, as stated above, while using count data regression, a directly
analogous R2 for multiple regressions is not available. However,
Cameron and Windmeijer (1996), and more recently Mbachu, Nduka,
and Nja (2012), suggest relying on the deviance R-squared, which will
be hence reported as a benchmark and another supplementary means
for assessing the overall predictive power, along with a likelihood ratio
chi-square test which provides a test of the overall model comparing
this model to a “null” model without any predictors.
4.1. Checking the validity of the results
Hence, with regard to our assessment of the universality of the relationship of brand awareness and brand penetration with the luxury
dream, the results in Table 2 suggest a remarkable and similar pattern
across all countries, whether mature or emerging, Eastern or Western.
These findings do confirm the research hypotheses, H1 and H2. All
countries (though the United States to a lesser extent than expected
compared to the original research published in 1995) indicate that
higher penetration rates negatively influence the brand dream power,
whereas higher awareness reinforces it. Thus, unlike the two former
studies run in Hong Kong and Singapore on convenience samples,
which had disconfirmed the validity of the rarity principle in Asia, our
study based on larger samples of real luxury buyers assess the international validity of the rarity principle. In addition, we notice that
globally, the inhibitor effect of penetration is always lower than the
catalyst effect of brand awareness.
These results are striking, especially because we did not include
small, poorly known brands in our final sample of 60 brands, nor did
the sample feature masstige brands (Silverstein & Fiske, 2005) who use
communication to create a halo of prestige while pursuing ‘growth
without end’ (Schaefer & Kuehlwein, 2015, p 203). Including these
types of brands would have accentuated the regression weights of both
independent variables: (a) unknown brands cannot spark dreams while
well known ones can (b) masstige brands being more accessible in
price, have a less selective distribution, and thus enjoy a higher penetration rate while sparking less luxury dream. In the present study the
rarity effect actually does affect all luxury brands, even the most iconic
ones.
4. Main results
Table 2 presents the results of all the negative binomial regressions
run for each country separately, along with their corresponding K-fold
random R2 and pseudo-R2. Moreover, all the likelihood ratio chi-square
tests indicate a significant improvement over a “null” model as a baseline. They confirm our hypotheses: despite cultural differences between
countries as well as maturity differences between markets the beta
weights attached to the independent variables of the dream equation
appear as predicted: positive impact of brand awareness on the luxury
brand's dream value and negative impact of brand penetration. Although
1
glm.nb {MASS}.
43
Journal of Business Research 83 (2018) 38–50
J.-N. Kapferer, P. Valette-Florence
Table 2
Negative binomial regression parameter estimates per country.
France : Bootstrapped parameter estimates
R² K-Fold=28.55%; R²deviance=30.05%
Likelihood ratio Chi-square: 25.875;
(df=2; Sig=.000)
Intercept
Penetration
95 % Confidence interval
B
Std. error
Lower
15,397
,145
3,1046
,0288
Awareness
,215
,0358
Negative binomial
,1 0 1
,0246
21,482
Upper
9,313
,201
,088
,145
,285
,0 6 3
,1 6 3
Hypothesis test
Exp(B)
Wald ChiSquare
S i g.
24,597
,000
2,056E-07
95 % Confidence interval for
Exp(B)
L o we r
U p pe r
4,681E-10
9,029E-05
25,296
,000
,865
,818
,915
36,011
,000
1,240
1,156
1,330
USA: Bootstrapped parameter estimates
R² K-Fold = 16.36%; R²deviance = 17.13%
Likelihood ratio Chi-square: 14.360;
(df=2; Sig=.000)
Intercept
PENETRATION
95 % Confidence Interval
B
0,523
,071
Std. error
1,4249
,0157
AWARENESS
,083
,0163
Negative Binomial
, 05 1
,0 1 6 0
Hypothesis Test
Exp(B)
Lower
Upper
Wald ChiSquare
S i g.
3,316
2,270
0,135
,713
,086
,055
,063
,105
, 0 28
,0 9 4
5,926E-01
95 % Confidence Interval for
Exp(B)
L o we r
U p pe r
3,630E-02
9,676E+00
3,988
,046
,931
,918
,946
7,171
,007
1,086
1,065
1,111
China: Bootstrapped parameter estimates
R² K-Fold = 37.36%; R²deviance = 40.57%
Likelihood ratio Chi-square: 32.863;
(df=2; Sig=.000)
Intercept
Penetration
95 % Confidence Interval
B
1,644
,036
Std. error
0,2452
,0034
Awareness
,032
,0034
Negative binomial
,0 4 0
, 01 5 8
Hypothesis Test
Exp(B)
Lower
Upper
Wald ChiSquare
S i g.
1,163
2,124
44,944
,000
,052
,012
,012
,044
,0 1 8
, 0 87
5,175E+00
95 % Confidence Interval for
Exp(B)
L o w er
U p pe r
3,200E+00
8,368E+00
3,830
,050
,965
,949
,988
29,562
,000
1,033
1,012
1,045
Brazil: Bootstrapped parameter estimates
R² K-Fold = 45.92%; R²deviance = 47.09%
Likelihood ratio Chi-Square: 47.127;
(df=2; Sig=.000)
Intercept
Penetration
B
Std. error
1,524
0,2632
,045
,0019
Awareness
,047
,0033
Negative binomial
,0 1 5
, 0 09 2
95 % Confidence interval
Hypothesis Test
Lower
Upper
Wald ChiSquare
S ig .
1,008
2,040
33,523
,000
,054
,011
,030
,056
, 00 4
,0 5 0
Exp(B)
4,590E+00
95 % Confidence Interval for
Exp(B)
L o we r
U p p er
2,740E+00
7,689E+00
59,335
,000
,956
,948
,989
64,957
,000
1,049
1,030
1,057
Germany:Bootstrappedparameterestimates
R² K-Fold = 23.32%; R²deviance = 24.80%
Likelihood ratio Chi-Square: 18.672;
(df=2; Sig=.000)
Intercept
Penetration
95 % Confidence Interval
B
Std. error
Lower
6,938
,074
2,2693
,0228
Awareness
,113
,0263
Negative binomial
,0 6 6
,0198
11,385
Upper
2,490
,086
,054
,071
,139
, 03 7
,1 1 9
Hypothesis Test
Exp(B)
Wald ChiSquare
Si g.
9,346
,002
9,707E-04
95 % Confidence Interval for
Exp(B)
L ow e r
U p pe r
1,136E-05
8,292E-02
5,798
,016
,928
,918
,947
18,627
,000
1,120
1,074
1,149
Japan:Bootstrappedparameterestimates
R² K-Fold = 22.04%; R²deviance = 23.39%
Likelihood ratio Chi-square: 17.420;
(df=2; Sig=.000)
Intercept
Penetration
95 % Confidence interval
B
3,296
,069
Std. error
2,3749
,0175
Hypothesis test
Exp(B)
Lower
Upper
Wald ChiSquare
Si g.
7,950
1,359
1,926
,165
,085
,055
Awareness
,084
,0265
,070
,126
Negative binomial
, 01 4
, 0 0 87
, 00 3
,0 43
3,705E-02
95 % Confidence interval for
exp(B)
L o we r
U p pe r
3,526E-04
3,893E+00
2,896
,089
,933
,919
,946
7,850
,005
1,087
1,073
1,135
NB 1: Figures in bold type and framed in black refer to France only
NB 2: Figures in bold type and italics and framed in red refer to non different parameter estimates (Germany, Japan and US)
NB 3: Figures in italics and underlined and framed in blue refer to non different parameter estimates (Brazil and China).
Germany, the corresponding β is 0.275 inducing a R2 increase of 8%.
Not surprisingly, Germany which holds a long tradition of manufacturing high-end luxury cars has the highest impact of luxury cars on
dream, as luxury buyers are used to be in touch with, to possess and to
drive them more than in any other countries. Ultimately, we also did
the analysis without Ferrari and Rolls Royce which both enjoy having
the smallest penetration in each country, the highest brand awareness
level and also being held as the most “dreamable” cars in the world.
This did not change the results which remain remarkably the same
across all the countries. Hence, all the aforementioned methodological
precautions give full support to our interpretations.
Despite the similarities of the overall patterns though, some
Now it could be argued that the above results are spuriously created
by the presence of 12 luxury automobile brands within the sample of 60
luxury brands. These brands are by definition very expensive, thus have
little penetration and spark high dreams. To offset this remark, an
analysis holding cars as dummy variables was undertaken. This did not
change the results since the overall pattern of regressions coefficients
remains unchanged across the countries. More precisely, penetration
still negatively impacts the dream, while awareness still shows a positive incidence on the dream.
Being a luxury car always positively and significantly impacts the
dream, resulting in an increase of R2 ranging from 4 to 8% (full results
are available upon request, in order to preserve space). For instance, in
44
Journal of Business Research 83 (2018) 38–50
J.-N. Kapferer, P. Valette-Florence
Table 3
Homogeneous subsets tests of negative binomial regression coefficients.
Penetration
Country
Homogeneous subsets α = 0.05
1
France
Germany
USA
Japan
Brazil
China
Sig.
2
3
-0.145
-0.074
-0.071
-0.069
1.000
0.648
- 0.045
- 0.036
0.181
2
3
Awareness
Country
Homogeneous subsets α = 0.05
1
China
Brazil
USA
Japan
Germany
France
Sig.
0.032
0.047
0.083
0.084
0.113
0.185
0.115
differences exist, as predicted by H3. To assess the differences across
countries, we relied on bias-corrected bootstrap difference tests (5000
replications) of regression coefficients across countries. Results strongly
support hypothesis H3, showing that the impact of penetration on desirability varies by country.
More precisely, we identified three groups based on the beta
weights measuring the impact of awareness and penetration on the
dream value of the brand:
•
•
• China and Brazil – the two emerging markets of our study- exhibit
very close beta weights (framed in blue, table 2);
• Germany, Japan and US form another group (framed in red, table 2).
These are both western and Asian countries, but mature markets;
• France stands alone (framed in black, table 2). In addition, Table 3
displays the corresponding homogeneous subsets tests.
There are also striking differences between countries (Tables 2 and 3):
• The negative effect of penetration on the dream value is strongest in
France. This is evidenced by the β2 value (measuring the impact of
penetration on the logarithm of dream, β2 = − 0.145). If one now
looks at the exponential value term (Exp β2 = 0.865), the result
indicates that holding awareness constant, one increase of one unit
in penetration would induce a decrease of 13.55% (1–0.865) in the
dream value of the brand. This negative impact is far above the one
of German clients (β2 = −0.74), Japanese clients (β2 = − 0.69) as
well as US clients (β2 = −0.71). This is probably reflecting France's
very elitist vision of luxury, as already identified by a research
comparing attitudes toward luxury between 20 countries (Dubois,
Laurent, & Czellar, 2005). Although competing against each other,
French luxury brands such as Dior, Chanel, Hermès or Louis Vuitton
collectively promote the same specific idea of what is luxury, based
on three pillars of highest product quality, being very expensive and
prestigious brands (Kapferer, 2015). France has never produced
“accessible luxury” brands. Here luxury brands should not sell to too
many people, otherwise they cannot claim to be luxury brands. This
is a paradox for a country whose 1789 Revolution promoted
•
45
0.215
1.000
equalitarianism. Yet many French luxury brands stress their legendary history, linked to France's former kings and emperor.
Looking at these four countries altogether (France, Germany, USA,
and Japan), luxury clients from these mature countries are all quite
sensitive to higher brand penetration, all negatively, meaning that
for them luxury growth needs to remain strictly under control, if the
brand wants to sustain its feelings of exclusivity which underpin
luxury desirability.
Chinese and Brazilian luxury buyers also are negatively sensitive to
the effect of penetration on the dream of luxury (respectively
β2 = − 0.045 and β2 = − 0.036). These two negative and significant beta weights reflect the conspicuous role of luxury consumption in Asia (Chadha & Husband, 2007) as well as in fast
moving emerging Latin American countries. Yet as indicated in
Table 3, luxury buyers from these two emerging countries are less
negatively sensitive to increased market penetration than their
counterparts from mature countries. As discussed in the theoretical
part of this article, in the Chinese culture the need for uniqueness is
less strong. In a country where conformity is still rewarded, bandwagon effects are operating (Kastanakis & Balabanis, 2012). As a
result brands have to reach higher levels of penetration to stimulate
the snob effect. In the case of Brazil, one cannot invoke conformity
pressures to explain the data. Rather the state of development of the
luxury market. At this time, despite the importance of its population, Brazil is not yet a strong luxury market (Bain & Co, 2017):
brands are still to be pushed if luxury consumption is to take off. It
may be too early to witness snob effects, leading clients to abandon
their luxury brands when their penetration is felt as excessive.
The positive effect of awareness is by far the strongest in France
(β1 = +0.215, impact on the logarithm of the brand dream value).
In other words, it means that holding penetration constant, one
increase of one unit in awareness would induce an increase of exp.
(0.215) = 1.240 or 24% in the dream. The French love demonstrations of power where everyone knows you but few can access.
Once again, German (β1 = + 0.113) and to a lower extent Japanese
(β1 = +0.084) as well as US (β1 = + 0.083) luxury buyers are also
sensitive to higher brand awareness.
Journal of Business Research 83 (2018) 38–50
J.-N. Kapferer, P. Valette-Florence
Table 4
Penetration and awareness threshold points by country.
France: P* = 3 and
A** = 88
USA: P = 6 and
A = 91
Japan: P = 6 and
A = 92
Germany: P = 6 and
A = 92
Brazil: P = 29 and
A = 87
China: P = 33 and
A = 92
Brands below the threshold points
Brioni
Coach
Donna Karan
Ermenegildo Zegna
Grey Goose
Harry Winston
Mandarin
Marriott
Martell
Mikimoto
Patek Philippe
Peninsula
Tom Ford
N = 13
Brioni
Boucheron
Breitling
Christian Louboutin
Ermenegildo Zegna
Guerlain
Harry Winston
Mandarin
Martell
Maserati
Mauboussin
Mikimoto
Patek Philippe
Peninsula
Tod's
N = 15
Brands always
concerned by the dream
equation
Brands above the
threshold points
Brioni
Aston Martin
Boucheron
Donna Karan
Ermenegildo Zegna
Grey Goose
Guerlain
Hyatt
Mandarin
Marriott
Martell
Maserati
Mauboussin
Patek Philippe
Relais & Châteaux
Tod's
Tom Ford
N = 17
Brioni
Baccarat
Boucheron
Christian Louboutin
Coach
Donna Karan
Ermenegildo Zegna
Grey Goose
Guerlain
Harry Winston
Hyatt
Lexus
Mandarin
Marc Jacobs
Maserati
Mauboussin
Mikimoto
Patek Philippe
Peninsula
Relais & Châteaux
Tod's
Tom Ford
N = 22
Brioni
Baccarat
Boucheron
Breitling
Coach
Daslu
Donna Karan
Ermenegildo Zegna
Guerlain
Harry Winston
Hennessy
Hyatt
Mandarin
Marc Jacobs
Marriott
Martell
Maserati
Mauboussin
Mikimoto
Patek Philippe
Peninsula
Tod's
Tom Ford
N = 23
Brioni
Aston Martin
Baccarat
Boucheron
Breitling
Burberry
Cartier
Coach
Dolce & Gabbana
Dom Perignon
Donna Karan
Ermenegildo Zegna
Givenchy
Grey Goose
Harry Winston
Hyatt
Jaguar
Mandarin
Marc Jacobs
Marriott
Martell
Mauboussin
Mercedes
Mikimoto
Moet & Chandon
Montblanc
Patek Philippe
Peninsula
Prada
Qeelin
Ralph Lauren
Ritz Carlton
Shang Xia
Tiffany
Tod's
Tom Ford
Versace
Yves Saint Laurent
N = 38
Armani
Audi
BMW
Bulgari
Cadillac
Chanel
Dior
Ferrari
Gucci
Hermès
Lacoste
Louis Vuitton
Mercedes
Omega
Porsche
Rolex
Rolls Royce
Swarovski
N = 18
P* = Penetration threshold; A** = Awareness threshold; N = Number of brands below the threshold points.
Brands in bold type are always below the threshold points whatever are the countries, whereas those in bold italics are always above the threshold points.
Brands in italics (Qeelin and Shang Xia) are specific to China.
• Chinese and Brazilian luxury buyers are also sensitive to the positive
sample of 60 brands in each country. Now one might ask: above what
level of brand awareness AND of market penetration is the dream
equation significant, while for all brands below these awareness AND
penetration levels, i.e. below both thresholds, the dream equation
would not hold.
To answer, systematic heuristic searches give these points displayed
in Table 4, along with the corresponding brands below these points,
that is to say, not yet affected by the impact of either awareness or
penetration on the luxury brand dream value.
Globally, and supporting previous results, three main clusters of
countries emerge:
effect of brand awareness on the luxury dream (logarithm) (respectively β1 = 0.047 and β1 = 0.032). But in comparison with
their mature countries counterpart examined above, they are less
sensitive to this positive effect of awareness on the dream of luxury.
In the emerging countries, luxury diffusion is progressive: it is first
bought by a minority, but this minority who travels is quite
knowledgeable about the brands. As these consumers learn more
about different luxury brands, they evaluate the best-known brands
more negatively as uniqueness-seeking becomes a more important
goal. (Zhan & He, 2012).
• France still stands aside the other countries. The threshold point for
4.2. Threshold analyses: Diagnosing which brands are most concerned
penetration is the lowest among all countries (P = 3%), as well as the
threshold point for brand awareness (A = 88%), also smaller than the
other western developed countries. France holds a very long-lasting
relationship with luxury brands and promotes a quite aristocratic and
elitist vision of luxury (Dubois et al., 2005): as a result, luxury brands'
dream value is soon negatively impacted by penetration. As shown in
the first column of Table 4, the dream equation (in other words the
rarity principle) is impacting the great majority of the brands (47/60
Ultimately, and mirroring recent techniques performed in mediational analyses (Spiller, Fitzsimons, Lynch, & Mcclelland, 2013) relying
on the Jonson-Neyman point (1936), we performed a threshold analysis
with the aim of uncovering the threshold points related to the impact of
BOTH awareness and penetration on the luxury brand dream value.
How does this relate to former analyses examined above? The nonlinear
regressions - sources of Table 2- were estimated across the whole
46
Journal of Business Research 83 (2018) 38–50
J.-N. Kapferer, P. Valette-Florence
•
•
our results confirm that the rarity principle is relevant to luxury buyers
across countries, Eastern and Western, emerging and mature. As expected from the theoretical discussion, a positive and significant effect
of awareness on the luxury brand's dream, as well as a negative effect of
penetration, emerged. The discrepancy with the two disconfirming
former Asian studies (run in Hong Kong and Singapore) can be explained by variations in the nature of their samples (small and convenience). When the sample consists of real luxury consumers, selected
on the basis of the same behavioral criteria (buying specific products
priced above a certain level) greater penetration leads to lower desirability. In all countries, luxury exists because not everybody can access
it.
Greater brand penetration causes the luxury brand to change its
status and suffer negative externalities, similar to those that result from
the presence of counterfeits (Grossman & Shapiro, 1988). The brand no
longer fully acts as a signal of distinction or the superiority of the
owner; instead, it becomes an integrative means for followers to mimic
the tastes of the rich (Han et al., 2010). When too many people buy a
luxury brand, the elites abandon those options and seek to recreate
their symbolic distance from followers (Amaldoss & Jain, 2005): this is
called the snob effect. Yet the happy many hope that luxury remains
accessible and are not bothered by its increased diffusion; the happy
few clearly do not share this vision.
Beyond this overall picture, we find some idiosyncrasies across
different countries. In contrast with Dubois and Paternault's (1995)
initial findings, we find a significant yet lower negative impact of penetration on the luxury dream in the U.S. sample. This discrepancy may
reflect the impact of the successful U.S. luxury brands which have been
launched since then: they compete through lower price points, e-commerce sales as well as extensive outlet networks. Doing so they promote
a more accessible vision of luxury, at least more accessible than the
vision of their European counterparts, where more penetration is less of
a problem than for instance in France, up to a tipping point where they
do lose distinctiveness (Solca et al., 2017). The other mature countries
follow the same rules quite similarly, which is remarkable since we also
included Japan. Finally, there is a homogeneous group made of emerging countries, Brazil and China behaving more in the same way
compared to the remaining mature countries. In these two countries the
luxury market is more recent. Consumers have to learn. Bandwagon
effects prevail over the snob effect: this is why -in these two countriespresent clients are only slightly negatively sensitive to luxury brands'
growing penetration rates.
or 78%). Very few luxury brands (13) are not yet subject to the
threats implied by the rarity principle. The latter brands should invest
in growing their dream: they still lack saliency (deficit of brand
awareness) and visibility (deficit of commercial presence and market
penetration). These brands are bespoke brands (at least in this
country), such as Brioni (expensive suits for men), E. Zegna, Patek
Philippe, Tom Ford, Mikimoto pearls, or D. Karan and The Peninsula
Hotel which opened only recently in Paris.
A second group comprises the three remaining developed countries
(USA, Germany, Japan), with almost identical threshold points for
awareness and penetration. For these countries the penetration
threshold point turns around 6% and the threshold of awareness
around 92%. Compared to France's extremely elitist vision, those
countries don't have such constraints. Consequently, penetration has
to be higher before it can damage the dream. Noticeably, the same
brands still need to boost their dream by means of more penetration
and more awareness (Brioni, Patek, Zegna).
Lastly, Brazil and China belong to a third group, characterized by
much higher thresholds of penetration (P ≥ 23%) along with a rather higher threshold of awareness (A ≥ 87%). Indeed, in these
developing countries, the luxury market is growing, step by step
(Chadha & Husband, 2007). It has not diffused too much below the
boundaries of the upper middle class: as a consequence, at an aggregate level, penetration –as measured within this sample of luxury
buyers – has to reach a higher level before damaging the dream. This
is why in China 38 brands among the 60 (63.3%) still need to grow
their penetration and awareness: the rarity principle does not impact them yet, they are perceived as too confidential to create enough value, enough luxury dream. The number of such brands is
also high in Brazil (23/60 or 38.3%).
Globally, across all countries, three brands are not creating enough
dream and are not subject to the impact either of awareness nor penetration. Brioni and Ermenegildo Zegna are still far too confidential
than the other brands encompassed within this research and hence are
not suffering any form of excessive penetration. The same reasoning
seems to apply for the high-end luxury manufacturer Patek Philippe.
These brands have hence still room to develop in all countries (except
Switzerland) whatever their dream level is.
On the contrary, across all six countries, there are eighteen luxury
brands on which bear the Damocles' sword, the rarity principle, implying a negative impact of penetration on the brand dream power,
holding awareness constant. These brands are Armani, Audi, BMW,
Bulgari, Cadillac, Chanel, Dior, Ferrari, Gucci, Hermès, Lacoste, Louis
Vuitton, Mercedes, Omega, Porsche, Rolex, Rolls Royce and Swarovski:
they stand always above the two thresholds. They are what Solca et al.
(2013) call the “luxury mega-brands” with high revenues, extended
penetration and visibility. The brand managers of these brands should
be aware of the risks and start at least stopping the retail expansion if
not downsizing the retail network.
The presence of Ferrari among the brand most concerned by the
dream equation could be a surprise. Isn't this brand starving the market
by limiting its production of automobiles? The answer is that only two
thirds of Ferrari operating profits are attributable to automobiles and
engines. A third is produced by media rights and also the multiplication
of licenses (Saviolo, 2011). All around the world, Ferrari megastores
sell licensed articles (apparel, belts, T shirts, eyewear, watches, toys,
mugs,...) to the masses: their proliferation could dilute the halo of exclusivity of the brand.
5.2. Implications for management: Shrink to grow?
This research confirms the paradox: The more desirable a luxury
brand is, the more it sells. The more it sells, the less desirable it becomes. As a luxury brand expands its sales, its dream value gets diluted
by greater penetration. A luxury brand cannot invoke dreams if it is too
unknown or if its brand penetration is too high. In operational terms,
these results confirm that managing a luxury brand requires sensitivity
to the different parameters fueling the dream value of a luxury brand.
The rarity principle has proven valid across the Eastern and Western
markets analyzed in this study. A luxury brand might confront various
situations that require different distribution and communication responses.
For example:
• Low brand awareness, below the threshold, in which case the luxury
brand cannot perform its signaling function. Regardless of the
quality or exceptionality of the product or service, the brand cannot
leverage the renown of its name as an essential marker of value
among consumers who are not buyers but who nevertheless might
recognize the brand displayed by a luxury owner. In this case, it is
time to invest in communication, going beyond the core target
market.
5. Conclusion and discussion
5.1. Theoretical contributions
Overall, our three hypotheses are confirmed. Rooted in both commodity theory (Brock, 1968) as well as need for differentiation theory,
47
Journal of Business Research 83 (2018) 38–50
J.-N. Kapferer, P. Valette-Florence
• As
•
•
•
•
2
most expensive lines. Chanel thus overinvests in advertising its most
expensive jewelry items. Finally, luxury brands growing through
accessible extensions should do so outside their core business while
also launching highly publicized, expensive, limited editions of their
core products. Hermès, to increase its market penetration and attract new consumers, sells silk shawls at 350 euros and silk ties at
150 euros. But it also strictly limits the volume of its iconic leather
bags (leather is Hermès's core business), charges very high prices for
them, and controls their retail presence tightly (Kapferer & ValetteFlorence, 2016a).
awareness increases, luxury brands should open new stores
progressively. There is no need to “burn the brand” through excess
communication, an ubiquitous Internet presence, or too many store
openings in the same city or district. The optimal number of shops is
specific to the product category: for fragrance brands, a frequent
purchase, consumers may want shops close enough to their home or
workplace, but this demand is less pertinent for men's luxury suits.
High penetration also results from an excess of accessible lines (licenses, accessories) or counterfeits. The essence of luxury is rarity,
which applies not only to the product but also to buyers. Selling to
many consumers disrupts the signaling function and price justification for luxury. Luxury brands therefore must regain their selectivity by reducing the number of shops, refraining from entering
China's Tier 3 cities, reinvesting in their core business, emphasizing
a premium strategy, and increasing the average price of their products. Then, they can attempt to reengage with cultural elites, such
as by cooperating with avant-garde artists or renowned designers to
endow the brand with a renewed image. They could also create a
secret private club for their best clients, allowing them access to
exceptional events organized for them by the brand.
If a brand becomes too diffused, it still can grow its sales and profits,
but the core luxury customers may leave, which limits the value of a
key asset of any luxury brand, namely, its clientele as a source of
prestige. In this situation, some brands may decide to shrink their
penetration in order to regain desirability. Others prefer to change
their business model, leave the luxury market, and grow their distribution further. For example, Mauboussin jeweler, a formerly
prestigious brand, now targets the bridge market by extending its
distribution while also reducing its average prices, on the basis of a
low cost business model.
Luxury brands can grow their sales by appealing to larger yet lower
income consumer segments, but the risk is that they erode their
brand equity among the elite consumers who created their success
initially. To slow down this negative process, some brands use
“differential rarity” tactics, such as creating multiple layers of subbrands, each positioned at a certain price level, with distinct distribution patterns. Armani is a typical case: Its full range cascades
from the very exclusive Armani Privé and Giorgio Armani lines, to
Armani Collezione (sold in multi-brand stores) and Emporio Armani
with its own stores, to the widely distributed line of Armani jeans.
Armani Privé maintains a purposefully very scarce distribution, as
does Giorgio Armani, whereas Armani jeans are sold through a
wholesale network.
Such sub-branding practices raise a question2: If luxury brands can
create low-tier sub-brands that reach more people while increasing
awareness (without hurting the dream value of the original high-end
luxury brand itself), why not just penetrate more (which increases
their profits) and create multiple product lines (lower vs. high) for
the same brand? Some brands have been doing so in China; they
launched in Tier 1 cities (Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou, Shenzhen),
then opened stores in Tier 2 cities (regional hubs), and finally
searched for new clients by opening stores in Tier 3 cities, selling
specific product lines. This never-ending expansion of their penetration and store presence has a cost though, in that they risk
seeming like provincial brands to consumers living in Tier 1 cities.
Furthermore, consumers living in provincial towns like to purchase
luxury brands when they visit Tier 1 cities or travel to Korea, Japan,
or Europe. They also can buy online.
Another danger associated with creating lower priced lines relates to
accessibility. As wealth grows worldwide, if a luxury brand wants to
remain a luxury brand, it must always remain partly inaccessible, to
be dreamed about. To do so, luxury brands may need to increase
their average price points and focus their communication on the
5.3. Limitations and further research
A first question arises about the external validity and generalizability of the results of this research to more mainstream targets.
Amaldoss and Jain (2005), relying on Bourdieu's (1984) theory of taste
competition, show that the consumers they call “followers” create negative externalities for a luxury brand; demand from these consumers
increases sales but reduces prestige. Brand penetration may not have
the same deleterious effects among followers, for whom buying a very
well-known and diffused brand does no harm, because they seek a safe
visa of good taste that will be widely recognized, rather than an exclusive brand. Followers want to buy luxury brands that reduce their
perceived risk by offering high brand recognition and wide penetration.
This rationale underpins the bandwagon effect. Does the luxury dream
equation thus change when applied to followers? But even so, the long
term profits of luxury brands depend mostly on the 20% of clients
making 70% of their sales: they are the HNWIs, high net worth individuals. It is crucial that luxury brands preserve these HNWI's perception that they are not over-diffused.
The rarity principle may not also apply to millennials, young adults,
as long as they do not work and have not entered social competition,
moving up the ladder, known to fuel the need for positional goods,
distinctive brands. Also, further research should explore the validity of
the rarity principle for non-luxury brands that still are highly specialized and that consider their clientele a type of elite, such as Nespresso
or the North Face.
A second point relates to the level of analysis. Although for methodological reasons individual analyses were not feasible, one might not
want to focus exclusively in the future on aggregate data. Such analyses
will give finer insights as for the roots of dream at the individual level,
the price to pay being an increased length of the questionnaires while
relying on well-established Likert scales, thus having less probability to
interview real luxury buyers. Moreover and although we took great care
in selecting countries and luxury brands, obviously increasing both
their number is deemed necessary in order to give greater universality
and credence to our results. Ultimately, and given the differences in
terms of penetration between countries, a more precise selection of the
full spectrum of luxury buyers could be worth undertaking.
A final avenue for improvement is related to adding more predictors
within the dream equation. Indeed, although statistically significant, regression parameter estimates are for some countries rather low, pointing
out additional explanatory variables could be worth investigating. As a
matter of fact, although the R2 ranges from 14% to 47% between countries, they are all below 50%. For instance, tradition, which is an important variable in close connection with authenticity (Morhart, Malar,
Guevremontg, Girardin, & Grohmann, 2015) could be worth investigating
along with fashion which has proven to interplay with the luxury perception (Kapferer & Valette-Florence, 2016b). These rather stimulating
potentialities are hence left for further empirical investigations.
Nonetheless, we still believe our approach remains innovative on
both academic and managerial sides. From a theoretical point of view,
it confirms the universal character of rarity theory, while contrasting its
impact according to the nature of the market and the economic development of countries. In addition, from an operational point of view,
and thanks to more sophisticated statistical procedures than the ones
The authors thank an anonymous reviewer for raising this question.
48
Journal of Business Research 83 (2018) 38–50
J.-N. Kapferer, P. Valette-Florence
Acknowledgements
previously relied on, our results give managers very insightful recommendations with regards to the relative thresholds activating the
dream equation per country and per concerned brands. Ultimately, we
wish our work to be a first step toward a better understanding of luxury
branding management with a worldwide outlook.
The authors would like to thank all the reviewers for their constructive comments made on previous versions of this manuscript. This
article is dedicated to the late Professor Bernard Dubois who first proposed the dream equation more than twenty years ago.
Appendix A
Appendix 1
List of brands.
Armani
Aston Martin
Audi
Baccarat
BMW
Boucheron
Breitling
Brioni
Bulgari
Burberry
Cadillac
Cartier
Chanel
Christian Louboutin
Coach
Dior
Dolce & Gabbana
Dom Perignon
Donna Karan
Ermenegildo Zegna
Ferrari
Givenchy
Grey Goose
Gucci
Guerlain
Harry Winston
Hennessy
Hermès
Hyatt
Jaguar
Lacoste
Lexus
Louis Vuitton
Mandarin
Marc Jacobs
Marriott
Martell
Maserati
Mauboussin
Mercedes
Mikimoto
Moet & Chandon
Montblanc
Omega
Patek Philippe
Peninsula
Porsche
Prada
Ralph Lauren
Relais & Châteaux
Ritz Carlton
Rolex
Rolls Royce
Swarovski
Tiffany
Tod's
Tom Ford
Versace
Volvo
Yves Saint Laurent
Appendix 2
Brands: Luxury
Cars
Aston Martin
Audi
BMW
Cadillac
Ferrari
Jaguar
Lexus
Maserati
Mercedes
Porsche
Rolls Royce
Volvo
49
Journal of Business Research 83 (2018) 38–50
J.-N. Kapferer, P. Valette-Florence
352–359.
Lynn, M. (1991). Scarcity effects on value: A quantitative review of the commodity theory
literature. Psychology and Marketing, 8(1), 43–57.
Mbachu, H. I., Nduka, E. C., & Nja, M. E. (2012). Designing a pseudo R-squared goodnessof-fit measure in generalized linear models. Journal of Mathematics Research, 4(2),
148–154.
Morhart, F. M., Malar, L., Guevremontg, A., Girardin, F., & Grohmann, B. (2015). Brand
authenticity: An integrative framework and measurement scale. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 25(2), 200–218.
Nelissen, R. M., & Meijers, M. H. (2011). Social benefits of luxury brands as costly signals
of wealth and status. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32, 343–355.
Parguel, B., Delecolle, T., & Valette-Florence, P. (2016). How price display influences
consumer luxury perceptions. Journal of Business Research, 69(1), 341–348.
Phau, I., & Prendergast, G. (2000). Consuming luxury brands: Relevance of the rarity
principle. Journal of Brand Management, 8(2), 122–138.
Romaniuk, J., & Sharp, B. (2016). How brands grow (Part Two)Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Rossiter, J. (2016). How to Use C-OAR-SE to Design Optimal Standard Measures.
European Journal of Marketing, 50(11), 1924–1941.
Saviolo, S. (2011). Ferrari case: From Niche to Icon. Milano: SDA Bocconi School of
Management.
Schaefer, W., & Kuehlwein, J. P. (2015). Rethinking Prestige Brands. London: Kogan Page.
Sharp, B. (2010). How brands grow: What marketers don't know. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Shukla, P., Banerjee, K., & Singh, J. (2016). Customer commitment to luxury brands.
Journal of Business Research, 69, 323–331.
Shukla, P., Singh, J., & Banerjee, M. (2015). They are not the same: Variations in Asian
consumers' value perceptions of luxury brands. Marketing Letters, 3, 265–278.
Silverstein, M., & Fiske, N. (2005). Trading up. New York: Penguin Books.
Sirgy, J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behaviour: A critical review. Journal of
Consumer Research, 9, 287–300.
Snyder, C. R., & Fromkin, H. L. (1980). Uniqueness: The human pursuit of difference. New
York: Plenum.
Solca, L., Bertini, P., & Fan, H. (2013). Luxury goods: The future of mega-brands. Exane
BNP-PARIBAS reports, Paris, July 8th.
Solca, L., Grippo, M., & Lucarelli, G. (2017). The meteoric rise and fall of american luxury.
Exane BNP-PARIBAS reports, Paris, March 8th.
Spiller, S. A., Fitzsimons, G. J., Lynch, J. G., Jr., & Mcclelland, G. H. (2013). Spotlights,
floodlights, and the magic number zero: Simple effects tests in moderated regression.
Journal of Marketing Research, 50(2), 277–288.
Sundie, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Vohs, K. D., & Beal, D. J.
(2011). Peacocks, porsches and thorsten veblen: Conspicuous consumption as sexual
signaling system. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(4), 664–680.
Tsai, W. S., Yang, Q., & Liu, Y. (2013). Young Chinese consumers snob and bandwagon
luxury consumption preferences. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 25,
290–304.
Vigneron, F., & Johnson, L. W. (1999). A review and conceptual framework of prestige
seeking consumer behavior. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 3, 1. http://www.
amsreview.org/articles/vigneron01-1999.pdf.
Wiedmann, K.-P., Hennigs, N., & Siebels, A. (2007). Measuring consumers' luxury value
perception: A cross-cultural framework. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 7.
Wong, A. C. Y., & Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1999). Understanding luxury brands in Hong Kong.
European advances in consumer research. 4. European advances in consumer research (pp.
310–316). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Wong, N. Y., & Ahuvia, A. C. (1998). Personal taste and family face: Luxury consumption
in Confucian and Western societies. Psychology and Marketing, 15(5), 423–441.
Yang, K. S. (1998). Chinese responses to modernization: A psychological analysis. Asian
Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 75–97.
Zhan, L., & He, Y. (2012). Understanding luxury consumption in China: Consumers'
perception of best known brands. Journal of Business Research, 65, 1452–1460.
References
Amaldoss, W., & Jain, S. (2005). Pricing of conspicuous goods. Journal of Marketing
Research, 42(1), 30–42.
Arnault, B. (2001). The perfect paradox of star brands. Harvard Business Review, 79(9),
117–123.
Bain, & Co (2017). World luxury market monitor (Spring update)Milano: Bain & Co.
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research,
15(2), 139–168.
Berger, J., & Heath, C. (2008). Who drives divergence? Identity signaling, outgroup
dissimilarity, and the abandonment of cultural tastes. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 95(3), 593–607.
Berry, C. J. (1994). The idea of luxury: A conceptual and historical investigation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Brock, T. C. (1968). Implications of commodity theory for value change. In A. G.
Greenwald, T. C. Brock, & T. M. Ostrom (Eds.). Psychological Foundations of Attitudes
(pp. 243–275). New York: Academic Press.
Cameron, A. C., & Windmeijer, F. A. G. (1996). R-squared measures for count data regression models with applications to health care utilization. Journal of Business and
Economic Statistics, 14, 209–220.
Chadha, R., & Husband, P. (2007). The cult of the luxury brand: Asia's love affair with luxury.
London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
de Barnier, V., Falcy, S., & Valette-Florence, P. (2012). Do consumers perceive three levels
of luxury? a comparison of accessible, intermediate, and inaccessible luxury brands.
Journal of Brand Management, 19(7), 623–636.
Dubois, B., Laurent, G., & Czellar, S. (2005). Consumer segments based on attitudes towards luxury: Empirical evidence from twenty countries. Marketing Letters, 16(2),
115–128.
Dubois, B., & Paternault, C. (1995). Understanding the world of international luxury
brands: The ‘dream formula’. Journal of Advertising Research, 35(4), 69–76.
Fromkin, H. L. (1970). Effects of experimentally aroused feelings of undistinctiveness
upon valuation of scarce and novel experiences. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 16, 521–529.
Gierl, H., & Huettl, V. (2010). Are scarce products always more attractive? The interaction
of different types of scarcity signals with products' suitability for conspicuous consumption. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27, 225–235.
Godey, B., Pederzoli, D., Aiello, G., Donvito, R., Wiedmann, K.-P., & Hennigs, N. (2013). A
cross-cultural exploratory content analysis of the perception of luxury from six
countries. The Journal of Product and Brand Management, 22(3), 229–237.
Grossman, G. M., & Shapiro, C. (1988). Foreign counterfeiting of status goods. Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 53(412), 79–100.
Han, Y. J., Nunes, J. C., & Dreze, X. (July 2010). Signaling status with luxury goods: The
role of brand prominence. Journal of Marketing, 74, 15–30.
Jonson, P. O., & Neyman, J. (1936). Tests of certain linear hypotheses and their applications to some educational problems. Statistical Research Memoirs, 1, 57–93.
Kapferer, J. N. (2015). On luxury: How luxury brands can grow yet remain rare. London:
Kogan-Page.
Kapferer, J. N., & Bastien, V. (2012). The luxury strategy: Break the rules of marketing to
build luxury brands (2d ed.). London: Kogan-Page.
Kapferer, J. N., & Laurent, G. (2016). Where do consumers think luxury begins? A study of
perceived minimum price for 21 luxury goods in 7 countries. Journal of Business
Research, 69, 332–340.
Kapferer, J. N., & Valette-Florence, P. (2016a). Beyond rarity: The paths of the luxury
dream. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 25(2), 120–133.
Kapferer, J. N., & Valette-Florence, P. (2016b). Are luxury and fashion contradictory.
Singapore LVMH Luxury Symposium.
Kastanakis, M. N., & Balabanis, G. (2012). Between the mass and the class: Antecedents of
the “bandwagon” luxury consumption behavior. Journal of Business Research, 65(10),
1399–1407.
Le Monk, L., HOUSE, B., Barnes, R., & Stephan, U. (2012). Influence of face and group
orientation on the perception of luxury goods. International Marketing Review, 29(6),
647–672.
Leibenstein, H. (1950). Bandwagon, snob, and Veblen effects in the theory of consumers'
demand. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 64(2), 183–207.
Liang, B., & He, Y. (2012). The effect of culture on consumer choice: The need for conformity vs. the need for uniqueness. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 36,
Jean-Noël Kapferer is a worldwide famous researcher and consultant on luxury
branding. He is the author of several books on Branding Management and Luxury
Branding and has extensively published in top-seeded scientific journals.
Pierre Valette-Florence is a professor in Marketing and Quantitative Methods. He has
published numerous articles in highly recognized scientific journals in the fields of luxury
branding, consumer behavior and multivariate data analysis.
50