17
Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal Luxury perceptions: luxury brand vs counterfeit for young US female consumers Farrell Doss Tammy Robinson Article information: To cite this document: Farrell Doss Tammy Robinson, (2013),"Luxury perceptions: luxury brand vs counterfeit for young US female consumers", Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17 Iss 4 pp. 424 - 439 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-03-2013-0028 Downloaded on: 08 November 2014, At: 22:27 (PT) References: this document contains references to 35 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3143 times since 2013* Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: Ian Phau, Min Teah, Nadine Hennigs, Klaus#Peter Wiedmann, Stefan Behrens, Christiane Klarmann, Juliane Carduck, (2013),"Brand extensions: A successful strategy in luxury fashion branding? Assessing consumers’ implicit associations", Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17 Iss 4 pp. 390-402 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-03-2013-0022 Melika Husic, Muris Cicic, (2009),"Luxury consumption factors", Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 13 Iss 2 pp. 231-245 Oriol Iglesias, Jatinder J. Singh, Mònica Casabayó, Kuang#peng Hung, Annie Huiling Chen, Norman Peng, Chris Hackley, Rungpaka Amy Tiwsakul, Chun#lun Chou, (2011),"Antecedents of luxury brand purchase intention", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 20 Iss 6 pp. 457-467 Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 549136 [] For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download. Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 22:27 08 November 2014 (PT)

Luxury perceptions: luxury brand vs counterfeit for young US female consumers

  • Upload
    tammy

  • View
    225

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Luxury perceptions: luxury brand vs counterfeit for young US female consumers

Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An InternationalJournalLuxury perceptions: luxury brand vs counterfeit for young US female consumersFarrell Doss Tammy Robinson

Article information:To cite this document:Farrell Doss Tammy Robinson, (2013),"Luxury perceptions: luxury brand vs counterfeit for young US femaleconsumers", Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17 Iss 4 pp. 424- 439Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-03-2013-0028

Downloaded on: 08 November 2014, At: 22:27 (PT)References: this document contains references to 35 other documents.To copy this document: [email protected] fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3143 times since 2013*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Ian Phau, Min Teah, Nadine Hennigs, Klaus#Peter Wiedmann, Stefan Behrens, Christiane Klarmann,Juliane Carduck, (2013),"Brand extensions: A successful strategy in luxury fashion branding? Assessingconsumers’ implicit associations", Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal,Vol. 17 Iss 4 pp. 390-402 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-03-2013-0022Melika Husic, Muris Cicic, (2009),"Luxury consumption factors", Journal of Fashion Marketing andManagement: An International Journal, Vol. 13 Iss 2 pp. 231-245Oriol Iglesias, Jatinder J. Singh, Mònica Casabayó, Kuang#peng Hung, Annie Huiling Chen, Norman Peng,Chris Hackley, Rungpaka Amy Tiwsakul, Chun#lun Chou, (2011),"Antecedents of luxury brand purchaseintention", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 20 Iss 6 pp. 457-467

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 549136 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

2:27

08

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Page 2: Luxury perceptions: luxury brand vs counterfeit for young US female consumers

Luxury perceptions: luxury brandvs counterfeit for young US

female consumersFarrell Doss and Tammy Robinson

Interior Design and Fashion, Radford University, Radford, Virginia, USA

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this study is twofold: expand the body of empirical knowledge of consumerluxury brand perceptions by using the Brand Luxury Index (BLI) scale to compare and contrast youngfemale consumers’ luxury perceptions for a luxury brand and counterfeits of that brand, and use thedata from the research to investigate the psychometric properties of the BLI scale.Design/methodology/approach – A convenience sample of 215 female students across multipleprogrammes of study completed separate, modified BLI scales for the luxury brand and thecounterfeits of that brand. The BLI scale taps five dimensions or factors of brand luxury using non-personal-oriented perceptions and personal-oriented perceptions.Findings – This study used a modified version of the original BLI scale. Results show that all ratedperceptions of the luxury brand were significantly higher than those for the counterfeits of that brand.Between-subjects effects revealed that luxury perceptions of those whose last handbag acquisition wasa luxury brand significantly differed from the luxury perceptions of those whose last handbagacquisition was a counterfeit brand. SEM results produced inadequate fit values for the luxury brand;but suggested adequate fit for the counterfeit of the luxury brand.Research limitations/implications – As more luxury brand producers and retailers seek toexpand their presence on the world arena, brand equity may be compromised by making luxurybrands so ubiquitous in the market place. Reported perceptions in this research suggest the marketmay be saturated with luxury brands and that luxury brands may be “overexposed”. Results from thisstudy may only be applicable to young female college consumers. Also, since a particular luxury brandwas used, results may not be generalized to other luxury brands. Additional research is needed thatlooks at other populations’ perception of luxury brands.Originality/value – No research has been found that compared young consumer luxury perceptionsfor both luxury brands and their counterfeits. An investigation of this area would provide additionalinsight on consumer perceptions for luxury and counterfeit brands.

Keywords Perceptions, Counterfeit brand, Luxury brand, Perceived conspicuousness,Perceived uniqueness, Semantic differential scale

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionAs established luxury brands reach out to young luxury consumers, they face stiffcompetition from counterfeit and masstige brands. Masstige branding, a pricingstrategy that marries reasonable price premiums and high perceived prestige and isdesigned to attract young and middle class consumers, has further blurred thecommonly believed perceptions of luxury (Truong et al., 2009). Young luxuryconsumers, the fastest growing segment of the luxury market, demand fashion-drivenproduct offerings (Juggessur and Cohen, 2009). To address the needs of this new luxurycustomer, luxury brands have adopted up-market to down-market pricing strategiesand introduced fashion-driven product offerings (Stegemann, 2006). Luxury brandshave expanded access to their products by aggressively expanding geographiccoverage to more consumer markets. Several studies described this phenomena as “thedemocratization of luxury” or luxury for the masses (Dubois and Laurent, 1995;

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/1361-2026.htm

Journal of Fashion Marketing andManagementVol. 17 No. 4, 2013pp. 424-439r Emerald Group Publishing Limited1361-2026DOI 10.1108/JFMM-03-2013-0028

424

JFMM17,4

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

2:27

08

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Page 3: Luxury perceptions: luxury brand vs counterfeit for young US female consumers

Kapferer and Bastien, 2009; Twitchell, 2002). The traditional conspicuous consumptionmodel for luxury brands has been transformed into an experiential luxury awarenessshaped by a shift in how consumers define luxury (Kapferer and Bastien, 2009;Wiedmann et al., 2007). The shift may mean that consumers are beginning to perceiveluxury brands and the consumption of these products as no longer exclusive toindividuals in fashion capitals or only to members of the upper echelon of society butalso accessible and available for the masses.

Luxury brands reaction to changing consumer perceptions may have led tooverexposure, as once hard to find luxury brands are seemingly available in manyconsumer markets and a variety of retail formats. Over-diffusion may negativelyimpact the prestige character of luxury brands (Dubois and Paternault, 1995).Counterfeit luxury brands have also flooded the market and may have helped toaccelerate luxury brand overexposure. Likewise, constant new product offerings andstylistic changes driven by fashion may persuade consumers to perceive luxury brandsas more of a disposable, rather than investment, acquisition. Finally, young luxuryconsumers and masstige brand competition have put pressure on established luxurybrands to establish price points that are attainable, instead of aspirational, for thesenew luxury consumers. These new “realities” for luxury brands may have influencedperceptions about luxury brands and counterfeits of luxury brands.

Bain and Company’s, (2010) Global Luxury Goods Worldwide Market studyreported that the soft-good luxury market was around $238 billion in 2007. Theyreported that fashion accessories comprised 24 per cent of this market, and that womenaccounted for 62 per cent of these purchases. Ironically, the InternationalAntiCounterfeiting Coalition (n.d.) estimate the market for fake luxury brands coststhe industry billions of dollars in lost sales. Young consumers have been shown in theliterature to have an affinity for luxury brands. However, due to their limited financialresources, they may feel no choice but to purchase counterfeits to obtain the latestfashion luxury products.

Vigneron and Johnson (2004) developed the Brand Luxury Index (BLI) scale tomeasure consumer luxury perceptions for brands. The BLI scale was reported to bea reliable, valid instrument. Subsequent studies employing the BLI scale (Vigneron,2006; Christodoulides et al., 2009) raised questions about the psychometric stabilityof the BLI scale and suggested more research on the BLI scale.

Though the BLI scale was developed to be a strategic tool for the luxury brandsector, a novel use of this scale would be to investigate consumer luxury perceptions ofa luxury brand and counterfeits of that brand. Dubois and Laurent (1994) and Duboiset al. (2001) showed that consumers’ attitudes towards the concept of luxury differconsiderably from those of non-luxury brands. Yet, has the “democratization of luxury”influenced young consumers’ perceptions of luxury and counterfeit brands? Ananalysis of their luxury perceptions could provide answers.

Though many studies have examined why consumers purchase luxury brands andcounterfeits, no studies were identified that investigated young consumers’ luxuryperceptions for a luxury brand and counterfeits of that brand. An investigation of thisarea would provide additional insight on consumer perceptions for luxury andcounterfeit brands. Furthermore, additional research that employed the BLI scalewould answer the call from the literature for more study of the scale’s psychometricstability. Hence, the purpose of this study is twofold: expand the body of empiricalknowledge of consumer luxury brand perceptions by using the BLI scale to compareand contrast young female consumers’ luxury perceptions for a luxury brand and

425

Young US femaleconsumers

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

2:27

08

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Page 4: Luxury perceptions: luxury brand vs counterfeit for young US female consumers

counterfeits of that brand, and use the data from the research to investigate thepsychometric properties of the BLI scale.

Relevant literatureLuxury brandsComprehensive reviews of prestige (luxury) consumer behaviour by Vigneron andJohnson (1999) and Kapferer and Bastien (2009) concluded the study of prestige orluxury brands is not easy because there is little agreement in the academic literaturethat provides a definitive definition. Therefore, the authors of this study have adopteda widely cited definition provided by Nueno and Quelch (1998). A luxury brand is apremium priced brand purchased by consumers for their psychological values (hedonicand symbolic), and not primarily for their functional or economic value. Easterman andEastman (2011) explain that luxury brands have both conspicuous and status ladencomponents and that though some may consider these components interchangeable,they believe each component speaks to different consumer perceptions of luxurybrands. Truong et al. (2009) suggested conspicuousness is associated with consumersbeing motivated by appearance and image, while status correlates to consumers beingmotivated by external or internal motives.

Cailleux et al. (2009) stated that established luxury brands face new challengesin the market place and these brands can no longer rely on only the prestige derivedfrom reputation and history to maintain relevance in the market place. Wiedmann et al.(2007) stated the traditional conspicuous consumption model for luxury brands hasbeen transformed into an experiential luxury awareness shaped by a shift in howconsumers define luxury. In a study that examined the anatomy of the luxury brand,Fionda and Moore (2009) presented a synopsis of key models from the literature thatidentify dimensions for consumer luxury perceptions. All of the models identifiedcontained an aggregate of the following six dimensions: brand/marketing strategy,product and design, price exclusivity, communications strategy, brand leadership/designer, distribution strategy, and heritage. Keller (2009) produced a similar list ofattributes in a study that examined challenges for luxury brands. He further statedthat equity measurements for luxury brands need additional development to tap intotheir most distinctive attributes.

Counterfeit brandsCounterfeits of luxury brands are forgeries and take advantage of the luxury brand’sremarkable value and reputation. They are widely available and cause considerabledamage to luxury brands. Eisend and Schuchert-Guler (2006) published a manuscriptexplaining counterfeit purchase behaviour that provided a review and previewof consumer research on this topic. Perez et al. (2010) examined consumption ofcounterfeit luxury goods and identified three main themes associated with thisbehaviour: being efficient, having fun, and fooling others. Perez et al. described efficientconsumers as “savvy” consumers who would buy classic styles of an original luxurybrand, but would then buy the counterfeit of a style considered trendy and that wouldonly be popular for a season. Respondents expressed that shopping for counterfeitscould be enjoyable and adventurous. Many enjoyed the thrill of searching for andfinding counterfeits, which often included eluding law enforcement. Respondentsalso stated that they enjoyed having a counterfeit item that others would think wasthe genuine article. These consumers balanced the risk of buying and owning acounterfeit with the risk of being “discovered” by their friends.

426

JFMM17,4

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

2:27

08

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Page 5: Luxury perceptions: luxury brand vs counterfeit for young US female consumers

Nia and Zaichkowsky (2000) examined if counterfeit brands devalued theownership of luxury brands. They polled a sample of Canadian luxury consumer aboutseveral international luxury brands. The majority of respondents did own luxurybrands, and approximately 30 per cent of the sample did not own counterfeit luxurybrands. Findings revealed that respondents perceived counterfeit brands to be inferiorto luxury brands and they felt more prestige was derived from the ownership of luxuryproducts. Surprisingly, respondents did not perceive counterfeit brand availability tonegatively affect luxury brands.

Masstige brands and fashion effectsMasstige branding may also be increasing the viability of counterfeit brands. Asdescribed by Truong et al. (2009), masstige brands have placed pressure on luxurybrands to offer products at price points that are more “attainable than aspirational” tomeet demands of growth segment of the luxury markets. However, aspirational pricepoints are a traditional hallmark for luxury brands. If luxury brands lower prices,they may inadvertently lessen the cache of the brand and make counterfeits of thebrand more attractive.

Juggessur and Cohen (2009) developed the fashion taxonomy of high fashion(luxury) and counterfeit brands, a conceptual model that draws upon Vigneronand Johnson’s (1999) five categories of prestige seeking consumer behaviour.The Veblen effect, snob appeal, bandwagon, perfectionism, and hedonic effectswere used to explain why a consumer would gravitate away from a luxury brandto a counterfeit brand. They stated that fashion affects the consumer adoptionprocess and, in certain purchasing scenarios, enhances the attractiveness of thecounterfeit brands over the high-fashion brand. For instance, Tom et al. (1998) statedthat due to the volatility of change in the fashion market and the prices demandedby high-fashion brands, consumers may purchase counterfeit copies that willonly last long enough until new counterfeit copies are available for the latest high-fashion brands.

Conceptual modelVigneron and Johnson (1999) developed a conceptual model that identifiedcomponents of consumer luxury brand perceptions. The first component, non-personal-oriented perceptions, included the factors of perceived conspicuousness,perceived uniqueness, and perceived extended-self. Personal-oriented perceptionswere the second component and included the factors of perceived hedonism andperceived quality/perfection. In 2004, they developed and tested the 20-item BLIscale, a tool that could be used to provide quantifiable data on consumer brandluxury perceptions. The BLI scale could be used as an instrument that would addressconcerns about luxury brands mentioned by Cailleux et al. (2009), Wiedmann et al.(2007), and Keller (2009). The five factors of the Vigneron and Johnson (2004) BLIscale are described as follows:

(1) Perceived conspicuousness. The public consumption of luxury brands can beimportant to individuals looking for social prestige and status (Bearden andEtzel, 1982). For many consumers, a higher price denotes higher quality;therefore, a more expensive good can be viewed as a luxury good. Vigneronand Johnson (1999) noted that the use of a “prestige-pricing strategy” isappropriate when appealing to status-seeking consumers.

427

Young US femaleconsumers

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

2:27

08

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Page 6: Luxury perceptions: luxury brand vs counterfeit for young US female consumers

(2) Perceived uniqueness. Luxury brands have often been viewed as products thatare not accessible by the mainstream consumer due to their higher price. Theyare considered to be unique because not everyone can afford them. They areconsidered to be exclusive since they may be available only at select retail outlets.

(3) Perceived extended-self. Consumers may use luxury products to construct theirown identity. Belk (1988) noted that many consumers regard their possessionsas being part of their identity. Consumers may also use expensive andexclusive luxury products to distinguish themselves from others. Vigneronand Johnson (2004) stated that consumers’ need to separate themselves from anon-affluent lifestyle affected their luxury-seeking behaviour.

(4) Perceived hedonism. According to Bearden and Etzel (1982), hedonism refersto sensory gratification and sensory pleasure derived from the consumption ofa luxury brand. Hedonism captures the emotional and pleasurable benefits ofa product, rather than its functional properties.

(5) Perceived quality/perfection. As previously mentioned, consumers oftenassociate a higher price with higher quality, and therefore often assume that aluxury, higher-priced brand has superior characteristics over a non-luxurybrand. These characteristics may include craftsmanship, design, and durability.

Vigneron and Johnson (2004) stated the BLI could be used to gauge consumerperceptions of luxury and to also develop effective product promotional andpositioning strategies. Such a tool could also prove useful in the comparison andcontrasts of competing brands. Though the BLI scale’s developers reported findingsthat support its psychometric properties, neither Vigneron (2006) nor Christodoulideset al. (2009) could duplicate a five-factor solution and raised questions about thepsychometric stability of the BLI scale. Both authors called for additional studiesthat employ the BLI scale.

Though the BLI scale was developed to be a strategic tool for the luxury brandsector for competing brands to maintain or capture new market share, a novel useof this scale would be to apply the aforementioned protocol to investigate consumerluxury perceptions of a luxury brand and counterfeits of that brand. Truong et al.(2009) state the new consumer for luxury products is young and different from thetraditional, much older luxury customer. Robinson and Doss (2011) reported in a studythat examined young female college students’ pre-purchase alternative evaluationprotocol that approximately 82 per cent of their sample owned luxury brands. Theseconsumers have a keen interest in fashion and are heavily targeted by luxury andmasstige brands. Yet, their disposable use of fashion coupled with their pricesensitivity, make these consumers prime targets for counterfeit brands. Robinsonand Doss also reported that at least 60 per cent of their sample of young femalesowned counterfeit brands. An investigation that compares and contrasts youngconsumers’ luxury perceptions for a luxury brand and counterfeits of that brand mayprove valuable to the literature. To test similarities and differences in young femaleluxury perceptions for a luxury brand and counterfeits of that brand, the followinghypotheses were developed:

H1. There will be significant luxury perception differences in the ratings of theluxury brand and counterfeits of that brand on the three non-personal-orientedperceptions of:

428

JFMM17,4

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

2:27

08

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Page 7: Luxury perceptions: luxury brand vs counterfeit for young US female consumers

H1a. Perceived conspicuousness

H1b. Perceived uniqueness

H1c. Perceived extended-self,

And the two personal-oriented perceptions of:

H1d. Perceived hedonism

H1e. Perceived quality/perfection

H2. There will be significant luxury perception differences in the ratings of theluxury brand and counterfeits of that brand for all 20 matched – pair items onthe BLI scale.

MethodologyTo expand the use of the BLI scale in empirical research, a convenience sample offemale college students was engaged. The population was chosen because they areheavily targeted by marketers of handbag and accessory luxury brands. Similarly,Calder et al. (1982) state that a convenience sample from within the population ofinterest of the study is valid; especially when the primary goal is to examinepsychological processes more so than generalizations (Grewal et al., 2000; O’Cass, 2000).

The luxury brand chosen for the study’s control was the COACHr brand ofhandbags. Doss et al. (2011) stated that young female college students reportedpurchasing both authentic and counterfeit COACHr brand handbags. Some may arguethat COACHr products are not a representative of luxury products because of itsaverage price point. However, luxury perceptions evoke more attributes than pricealone. The COACHr brand seems to inhabit a unique space in the luxury brandsegment. Heine (2010) identifies two categories of luxury products, accessible andexceptional. To be considered an accessible luxury product, a leather good or clothingproduct from a luxury brand is priced between 100 and 500 euros. COACHr brandaverage product offerings fall within this parameter. Further, Vigneron and Johnson(2004) and Nueno and Quelch (1998) explained that luxury products are availableto consumers along a continuum of price points and levels of perceived luxury fromlow to high. Though consumers may be aware of multiple luxury product offeringsalong this continuum, they tend to gravitate towards luxury products that are inconcert with their cohort. Hence, for the population of interest for this study, youngconsumers, the COACHr brand represents a plausible luxury brand fit for a control.

Christodoulides et al. (2009) identified an issue with the BLI scale’s 20, matched-pairitems that compose the scale and suggested the choice of terms used in the itempairings were too specific and not broad enough in scope to communicate sharedmeanings with other populations of interest. To address this issue, the authorsconvened a focus group of female students and asked them to complete the scaleand identify issues they noticed with the BLI scale’s 20 matched-pair items.

Three major themes were extracted from the focus group. First, the BLI scale’smatched-pair items did not seem to be “polar opposites”; hence they felt they reallydid not have a “real choice”. Second, the focus group also stated that one should not

429

Young US femaleconsumers

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

2:27

08

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Page 8: Luxury perceptions: luxury brand vs counterfeit for young US female consumers

assume all luxury brands are imbued with the levels of luxury afforded by theoriginal BLI scale’s matched-pair item range. Finally, the focus group felt thatseveral of the terms used in the matched-pair items did not represent terms orphrasings they would use to describe the variables. Other terms were suggested bythe focus group. For instance the matched-pair item of “conspicuous – noticeable” wastransformed to “conspicuous – inconspicuous”; and “unique – unusual” became“unique – common”.

Comments from the focus group and information on semantic differential attitudinalresearch (Heise, 1970) were used to develop a modified BLI scale for this study. Thefinal instrument consisted of 20 matched-pair, polar-opposite items on a seven-pointsemantic differential scale. A higher rating on the modified scale corresponds to luxuryperceptions, while a lower rating reflects non-luxury perceptions. A comparison ofthe original BLI scale and the modified scale developed for this study is providedin Table I.

The instrument was administered to college females in a medium-sized universitylocated in the southern region of the USA using a snowballing technique. A totalof 215 questionnaires were completed; four were discarded because they wereincomplete. The sample was comprised of female students across multipleprogrammes of study. Each student completed a separate modified BLI scale forthe luxury brand, COACHr, and the counterfeits of that brand. The remainder of thescale was comprised of demographic questions used to describe the sample.

ResultsApproximately 91 per cent of the respondents were between the ages of 17-22.In total, 67 per cent were merchandizing, fashion design, or interior design majors.

Original BLI scale Vigneron andJohnson (2004) Modified BLI scale

Conspicuousness Conspicuousness – noticeable Conspicuousness – inconspicuousnessPopular – elitista Humble – elitista

Affordable – extremely expensivea Affordable – expensivea

For wealthy – for well-off For the wealthy – for the non-wealthyUniqueness Fairly exclusive – very exclusivea Exclusive – everywhere

Precious – valuable Precious – disposableRare – uncommon Rare – widely availableUnique – unusual Unique – common

Quality Crafted – manufactured Hand crafted – mass producedUpmarket – luxuriousa Practical – luxuriousa

Best quality – good quality Best quality – poor qualitySophisticated – original Sophisticated – tackySuperior – better Superior – inferior

Hedonism Exquisite – tasteful Beautiful – uglyAttractive – glamorousa Dull – glamorousa

Stunning – memorable Stunning – regrettableExtended self Leading – influential Leader – follower

Very powerful – fairly powerful Powerful – not powerfulRewarding – pleasing Rewarding – disappointingSuccessful – well regarded Successful – unsuccessful

Note: aReverse scored items

Table I.Original and modifiedBLI scale items

430

JFMM17,4

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

2:27

08

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Page 9: Luxury perceptions: luxury brand vs counterfeit for young US female consumers

Respondents reported spending an average of $294 for a luxury handbag and anaverage of $24 for a counterfeit handbag. Approximately 65 per cent of the respondentsreported that the last handbag they acquired was from a luxury brand, whereas,approximately 35 per cent of respondents reported a counterfeit luxury brand wasthe last handbag acquired. Cronbach’s a were computed to determine the internalreliability of the modified BLI scales used for this study. Both scales showed a’s above0.900 which suggest excellent internal reliability. To test research hypotheses, GMLanalysis of variance with repeated measures and between-subject factor wereemployed. For both hypotheses, “last handbag acquired, luxury or counterfeit” wasthe between-subject factor.

H1 and H2 were supported as significant differences were found ( po0.05) forconsumers’ non-personal-oriented perceptions of H1a: perceived conspicuousness,H1b: perceived uniqueness, H1c, and personal-oriented perceptions of H1d: perceivedhedonism, and H1e: perceived quality/perfection; and for H2, all 20 matched-pairitems on the modified BLI scale between the luxury brand and counterfeits of thatbrand. Generally, respondents perceived the counterfeit brand to be inferior to theluxury brand across all measures. Results support findings by Nia and Zaichkowsky(2000) that consumers’ perceive counterfeit brands as inferior to luxury brands.Figure 1 graphically illustrates mean perception ratings for each item on themodified BLI scale.

Additionally, between-subject effects ( po0.05) were observed for three factors ofH1a-H1c: conspicuousness, uniqueness, and quality. Between-subject effects ( po0.05)were observed for ten of the matched – pair items for H2: expensive – affordable, forthe wealthy – for the non-wealthy, precious – disposable, rare – widely available,luxurious – practical, best quality – poor quality, sophisticated – tacky, superior –inferior, beautiful – ugly, and rewarding – disappointing. Results suggest last handbagpurchased, luxury or counterfeit, had a significant effect on consumers’ perceptionsof brand luxury. Consumers whose last handbag acquisition was a counterfeitbrand tended to display higher levels of perceived luxury for both the luxury brandand counterfeits of that brand. These differences were significant for three factorsand ten matched-pair items of the modified BLI scale. Table II presents a comparison ofluxury perception means for the luxury brand and counterfeits of that brand for allfive factors.

Guidelines developed by Christodoulides et al. (2009) and Janssens et al. (2008) wereused to assess the psychometric properties of the modified BLI scale. The modified BLIscale was subjected to exploratory factor analysis to determine underliningdimensions within the 20-item scales. The analysis, which included principlecomponent analysis with varimax rotation and a factor loading set to converge on fivefactors, followed procedures suggested by Vigneron and Johnson (2004) and Vigneron(2006). However, the authors set the a priori suppression of 0.40 based upon the samplesize as suggested by Janssens et al. instead of 0.60 as used by Vigneron and Johnson.Though Vigneron and Johnson conceptualized a five-factor theoretical model, resultsfrom both factor analyses failed to support a five-factor solution.

Results for both the luxury brand and counterfeit of the luxury brand scalesidentified a three-factor solution. These results support Vigneron’s (2006) findingsfor a three factor solution, but differ from Christodoulides et al. (2009) who reporteda four-factor solution. Only slight variations of item loadings on each of the three factorsolutions distinguish the luxury brand from counterfeits of the luxury brand(see Table III). The first component of both factor analyses is labelled Hedonistic

431

Young US femaleconsumers

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

2:27

08

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Page 10: Luxury perceptions: luxury brand vs counterfeit for young US female consumers

_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____

____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____

_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____

_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____

_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____

_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____

_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____

_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____

_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____

_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____

_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____

_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____

_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____

_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____

_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____

_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____

_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____

_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____

_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____

_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____

Luxury brand = Counterfeit brand =

Successful

Rewarding

Powerful

Leader

Stunning

Glamorous

Beautiful

Superior

Sophisticated

Best Quality

Luxurious

Hand Crafted

Unique

Rare

Precious

Exclusive

For the Wealthy

Expensive

Elitist

Conspicuous Inconspicuous

Humble

Affordable

For the Non Wealthy

Everywhere

Disposable

Widely Available

Common

Mass Produced

Practical

Poor Quality

Tacky

Inferior

Dull

Regrettable

Follower

Not Powerful

Disappointing

Unsuccessful

Median point =

Ugly

Figure 1.Consumer perceptions ofluxury for a luxury brandand counterfeit of thatbrand on the modifiedBLI scale

Luxury brand Counterfeit brandMean SD Mean SD

Conspicuousness*Last acquisition luxury brand 4.55 1.00 2.74 0.77Last acquisition counterfeit brand 4.86 1.02 2.94 0.82Uniqueness*Last acquisition luxury brand 3.51 1.37 2.01 1.14Last acquisition counterfeit brand 3.81 1.46 2.55 1.29Quality*Last acquisition luxury brand 3.83 0.86 2.89 0.95Last acquisition counterfeit brand 4.16 0.97 3.37 0.97HedonismLast acquisition luxury brand 4.77 1.32 3.01 1.23Last acquisition counterfeit brand 4.80 1.20 3.59 1.25Extended-selfLast acquisition luxury brand 4.52 1.27 2.60 1.31Last acquisition counterfeit brand 4.86 1.02 3.03 1.34

Note: *Significant between subject effects ( po0.05)

Table II.Comparisons of luxuryperceptions factors ofluxury brand andcounterfeit of that brand

432

JFMM17,4

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

2:27

08

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Page 11: Luxury perceptions: luxury brand vs counterfeit for young US female consumers

because it seems to encompass attributes associated with hedonic consumer behaviour.Nevertheless, the first component displays serious cross-loadings similar to thecross-loadings reported in Vigneron and Christodoulides et al. The second and thirdcomponents, conspicuousness and uniqueness, respectively, have factor loadingsprimarily consistent with the theoretical constructs outlined by Vigneron and Johnson.

The first factor in both scales explained approximately 45 per cent of the variationof the data for each brand. The three-factor solution for the luxury brand explainedapproximately 64 per cent of the variance in the data, while the three-factor solutionfor the counterfeit brand explained approximately 60 per cent. An 18-item model anda 16-item model with three factors emerged from both exploratory factor analyses forthe luxury brand and counterfeits of the luxury brand, respectively.

Though both Vigneron (2006) and Christodoulides et al. (2009) completedconfirmatory factor analyses (CFA) on the original 20-item BLI scale, Janssens et al.(2008) suggests that loading in CFAs should be based upon results derived fromexploratory factor analysis. Hence, CFA was computed on the 18-item luxurybrand and the 16-item counterfeits of the luxury brand to discover the dimensionalityof the BLI scale for both. AMOS 18 software package was used to perform thetwo CFAs.

For the luxury brand, CFA results on the modified BLI scale showed a significant w2

of 399.20 (df¼ 132, po 0.000). A significant w2 of 169.96 (df¼ 101, po0.000) was alsoobtained for the counterfeit of the luxury brand (see Table IV). Fit values wereinadequate for the luxury brand; GFI was 0.83, AGFI was 0.78, NFI¼ 0.83, TLI¼ 0.79,

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3Luxury

“Hedonic”Counterfeit“Hedonic”

Luxury“Conspicuous”

Counterfeit“Unique”

Luxury“Conspicuous”

Counterfeit“Unique”

ConspicuousElitist 0.646 0.511Expensive 0.839 0.738For wealthy 0.769Exclusive 0.736 0.656Precious 0.782Rare 0.831Unique 0.764 0.701Hand crafted 0.758 0.575Luxurious 0.659 0.739Best qualitySophisticated 0.597Superior 0.720 0.788Beautiful 0.825 0.712Glamorous 0.725 0.654Stunning 0.843 0.807Leader 0.629 0.729Powerful 0.756 0.767Rewarding 0.826 0.869Successful 0.641 0.761

Note: aThree components explained 45, 11, and 8 per cent, respectively (total 64 per cent), bThreecomponents explained 45, 9, and 6 per cent, respectively (total 60 per cent)

Table III.Rotated component matrix

for three-factor solutionfor a luxury brandaand

counterfeit of that brandb

433

Young US femaleconsumers

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

2:27

08

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Page 12: Luxury perceptions: luxury brand vs counterfeit for young US female consumers

and RMSEA¼ 0.98. For counterfeits of the luxury brand, every value but RMSEAsuggest an adequate fit; GFI was 0.91, AGFI was 0.88, NFI¼ 0.91, TLI¼ 0.95, andRMSEA¼ 0.06.

DiscussionThe purpose of this study was to twofold: expand the body of empirical knowledgeof consumer brand luxury perceptions by using a modified version of Vigneronand Johnson’s (2004) BLI scale to compare and contrast the amount of perceived luxuryin a luxury brand and counterfeits of that brand, and use the data from the researchto investigate the psychometric properties of the modified BLI scale.

This study used a modified version of the original BLI scale. Results show thatall rated perceptions of the luxury brand were significantly higher than those for thecounterfeits of that brand. Matched-pair item ratings suggest young female consumersdo not perceive counterfeits of this luxury brand (COACHr) as a luxurious option.Further, only one perception (conspicuous/inconspicuous) approached the mediumluxury rating for the counterfeit brand. Findings suggest that counterfeits of luxurybrands may not be ultimately purchased to satisfy any luxury need beyond “lookingthe part” of the luxury brand which would be in concert with findings by Perez et al.(2010), and Tom et al. (1998).

Between-subjects effects revealed that those whose last handbag acquisition wasa luxury brand significantly differed from those whose last handbag equation was acounterfeit brand on several factors and individual perception ratings on the modifiedBLI scale. Those whose last acquisition was a counterfeit handbag displayed higherluxury perceptions for both the luxury brand and counterfeit of the luxury brand.Perhaps these consumers desired a luxury brand for their last handbag, but had tosettle for a counterfeit. Their higher perceptions could be reflective of their affinity forthe luxury brand and acquisition of the counterfeit as “the next best thing”.

Though the luxury brand was rated above the median on consumer perceptionsfor all five factors of the modified BLI scale, an analysis of the 20 individual matchedpair scale items revealed several perceptions that should be problematic for luxurybrands. Eight-item perceptions on the modified BLI scale were below the medianand reveal that this sample of female college students perceived the COACHr brand tobe: more everywhere than exclusive, more widely available than rare, more commonthan unique, more mass produced than hand crafted, more practical than luxurious,

ResultsVigneron andJohnson (2004)

Vigneron(2006)a

Christodoulideset al. (2009)

Present study(luxury)

Present study(counterfeit)

w2 240.74 174.13 823.00 399.20 169.96df 160.00 116.09 160.00 132.00 101.00p-value 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000w2/df 1.5 1.5 5.14 3.02 1.68GFI 0.96 0.96 0.76 0.83 0.91AGFI 0.95 0.95 0.68 0.78 0.88NFI 0.97 0.97 0.79 0.83 0.91TLI 0.99 0.99 0.79 0.86 0.95RMSEA 0.02 0.02 0.13 0.98 0.06

Note: aAuthors completed CFA’s on four luxury brands, all showing acceptable fits. The above listedCFA results represent the brand with the best fit

Table IV.CFA results forpresent and previousBLI research studies

434

JFMM17,4

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

2:27

08

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Page 13: Luxury perceptions: luxury brand vs counterfeit for young US female consumers

more regrettable than stunning, more follower than leader, and more unsuccessful thansuccessful (see Figure 1). Most of these perceptions are counter to consumerexpectations that define a luxury brand as described by Fionda and Moore (2009),and Keller (2009). These findings could be indicative of the recent explosion of new,fashion forward luxury product offerings and retailers selling luxury productsworldwide. However, one could argue that the luxury brand consumer perceptionsof this research reflect a central dilemma plaguing luxury brand research: the lack of auniversal understanding of luxury. Yet, one thing is clear, consumers seem more thanable to identify what is not a luxury product as witnessed by the counterfeits of theluxury brand overall perception ratings.

Vigneron and Johnson (2004), Vigneron (2006), Christodoulides et al. (2009) reportedCronbach’s a of 40.9 for the entire 20 item BLI scale, which is supported by findings ofthis study. Cronbach’s a in the present study were 0.910 for the luxury brand and 0.904for the counterfeit of that luxury brand. These findings suggest that both the originaland modified version of the 20-item BLI scale have excellent internal reliability.However, the current study notes problems with some of the psychometric propertiesof the original BLI scale. Exploratory factor analyses for both the luxury brand andcounterfeits of that brand failed to support the five-factor model reported by Vigneronand Johnson. The three-factor solution derived in this study because of multiple cross-loading of scale items suggests the five-factor solution reported by Vigneron andJohnson may not be achievable for all luxury perception studies. In fact, the conceptualtheory developed for the BLI may represent a universal set of factors that comprisebrand luxury perceptions for which individual consumer perceptions only tap intoa subset of all possible perceptions. Such an explanation does little to support thevalidity of a five-factor model as proposed by the literature. However, the explanationdoes speak to findings in the literature that report the lack of universal agreement onthe luxury construct and the multitude of meanings and perceptions of luxury acrossthe entire consuming public. This diversity in the market place may prevent theconstruction of a single solution set for all possible conditions. Nevertheless, additionalscale purification to enhance factor loadings that are consistent with the conceptualmodel may result in more consistent results.

This study utilized a sample of consumers from the USA who tend to have the samereference point and understanding of luxury. For instance, the luxury brand COACHr

was found to be a very popular luxury brand for this group of consumers. Results fromthe current study show that their average spending for a luxury handbag matchedtarget prices for the COACHr brand. One would expect with such a defined andconcentrated subject pool, cross-loading issues on the modified BLI scale would not bean issue. However, the cross-loadings persist. These findings lead the researchers tosuggest that the Vigneron and Johnson’s (2004) BLI scale’s proposed five-factor modelis dimensionally unstable and the proposed framework for the study of brand luxurywould benefit from additional conceptual investigations. Vigneron and Johnson’s BLIscale is primarily a reflection of hedonic and symbolic-driven consumer perceptions.Wiedmann et al. (2007) proposed a luxury model that looked at luxury consumptionfrom a combination of hedonic, utilitarian, and symbolic perspectives. Findings fromthe Wiedmann et al. study may help to explain why BLI research has resultedin inconsistent results across independent studies. Consumer luxury perceptions for aluxury brand and counterfeits of that brand may be formed from the interaction ofa “shopping cart” of factors that are only relevant or called into play when needed.Though Vigneron and Johnson’s BLI scale presents an elegant and efficient tool for

435

Young US femaleconsumers

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

2:27

08

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Page 14: Luxury perceptions: luxury brand vs counterfeit for young US female consumers

the measurement of consumer luxury perceptions, its cross-loading issues may havejeopardized its overall effectiveness in luxury perception research.

Conclusions and implicationsAs more luxury brand producers and retailers seek to expand their presence on theworld arena, brand equity may be compromised by making luxury brands soubiquitous in the market place. Reported perceptions in this research suggest themarket may be saturated with luxury brands, luxury brands may be “overexposed”,and that luxury brands may be losing their uniqueness. These perceptions may impactluxury brand purchases and lead more consumers to purchase counterfeits of thebrand if consumers began to view luxury brands as commodities. Luxury brandproducers and retailers may wish to consider market place exposure; possibly,restricting channels to reduce the availability of brand offerings.

Consequentially, as more luxury brands introduce more fashion-based items to themarket they may be limiting the seemingly timeless appeal of their luxury product.For the traditional luxury consumer with plentiful financial resources, this strategymay help this customer “stand apart” as they can easily afford to purchase luxurybrands that showcase high-fashion looks. Nevertheless, there is a luxury brandconsumer that purchase these products as an investment that will stand the test oftime. Fashion products have finite product lifespans and are often discarded in place ofthe newer fashion. Luxury brands must be able to find a balance that provides updatedproduct offerings that are serviceable over an extended period of time.

Competition from masstige brands is a reality that luxury brands must addressif they wish to remain relevant to new luxury consumers. Luxury firms may needto investigate the development of product offerings that satisfy the pricing thresholdof the lower ends of the luxury market. Several firms have done this by providingaccessories such as belts, glasses, and personal goods that are still comparativelyexpensive to substitute offerings, but accessible for those willing to pay more totrade-up.

This study showed that consumers that last acquired a counterfeit brand exhibitedhigher luxury perception ratings for both luxury and counterfeit brands. Theirperceptions presents a unique marketing opportunity for luxury brands to developstrategies that appeal to their enhanced perceptions of luxury brands.

The modified version of the BLI scale used in this study did not improve the cross-loading issues cited in previous studies. Though w2-tests for both the luxury brand andcounterfeits of that brand were significant, values of fit were inadequate for the luxurybrand. Additional work is needed on the modified scale to improve its effectiveness as atool in luxury perception inquiries. Replication studies are important to help establishconstruct reliability and test other psychometrics in empirical research. Informationfrom replications can serve to benchmark consumer luxury perceptions and serveas the foundation for longitudinal queries into luxury perceptions for a luxury brandand counterfeits of that brand.

However, results from this study show that consumers may perceive a “lack ofluxury” for a luxury brand. The semantic differential scale endpoints on Vigneron andJohnson’s (2004) BLI scale do not allow for this. If consumers are not allowed anadequate range of choice, restrictions could lead to inflated score of consumer luxuryperceptions. The modified version of the BLI scale used in this research employeda semantic differential scale of polar opposite choices for each matched-paired itemon the BLI scale. This modified scale offers consumers a range of responses not present

436

JFMM17,4

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

2:27

08

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Page 15: Luxury perceptions: luxury brand vs counterfeit for young US female consumers

in the original scale. Research that uses the original BLI scale may need to makeallowances to accommodate a broader range of consumer perception ratings.

Limitations and future researchThis study used a sample of young female college students that were actualconsumers of luxury brands and counterfeits of that brand to evaluate a modifiedversion of Vigneron and Johnson’s (2004) BLI scale. Findings were inconclusivesince consumers’ perceptions for the luxury brand call to question dimensionalinstabilities identified by Christodoulides et al. (2009); nevertheless, consumers’perceptions for the counterfeits of the luxury brand support the dimensional stabilityof the BLI scale as reported by Vigneron and Johnson. Regardless, these inconsistentfindings regarding the dimensional stability of the scale warrant additional research.

The authors of this work were only able to identify three published studies in theliterature that have employed the BLI scale. Both Christodoulides et al. (2009) andVigneron (2006) support the development of a useful scale for the measurement ofperceived brand luxury. Such a scale may help crystallize a broadly accepted measurefor luxury perception that may become the foundation for this evolving body ofresearch. Though the modified BLI scale developed for this study did little to improvecross-loading issues reported in the literature, it did show that a luxury brand maypossess non-luxury perceptions. In total, 40 per cent of the items on the modified BLIscale were rated below the median for the luxury brand. Of particular concern werereported consumer perceptions that the luxury brand for this study was commonand widely available. Therefore, further research with other luxury brands is needed.

Findings from this study are not without limitations. Results from this study mayonly be applicable to young female college consumers. Also, since a particular luxurybrand (COACHr) was used, results may not be generalized to other luxury brands.Since a modified version of the BLI scale was used in the study, the inconsistent findingreported in this study may be due to modifications made to the original BLIscale. Finally, report findings were generated from self-reported questionnaire datathat may not reflect actual perceptions. Additional research is needed that looksat other populations’ perception of luxury brands. Further, new research shouldexpand the BLI scale by including the effects of utilitarian aspects of luxury, fashionand masstige brand effects. The paucity of completed research suggests other factorsmay be involved in luxury brand perceptions that are not completely captured bythe BLI scale.

References

Bain and Company (2010), “Global luxury goods market: the annual Bain study”, available at:http://practicalstockinvesting.com/2010/10/25/global-luxury-goods-market-the-annual-bain-study/ (accessed 26 October 2010).

Bearden, W.O. and Etzel, M.J. (1982), “Reference group influence on product and brand purchasedecisions”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9, pp. 183-194.

Belk, R.W. (1988), “Possessions and the extended self”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15No. 15, pp. 139-168.

Cailleux, H., Mignot, C. and Kapferer, J. (2009), “Is CRM for luxury brands?”, Journal of BrandManagement, Vol. 16 Nos 5/6, pp. 406-412.

Calder, B.Y., Phillips, L.W. and Tybout, A.M. (1982), “The concept of external validity”, Journal ofConsumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 240-244.

437

Young US femaleconsumers

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

2:27

08

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Page 16: Luxury perceptions: luxury brand vs counterfeit for young US female consumers

Christodoulides, G., Michaelidou, N. and Li, C.H. (2009), “Measuring perceived brand luxury: anevaluation of the BLI scale”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 16 Nos 5/6, pp. 395-405.

Doss, F.D., Robinson, T.R. and Mitchell, K.S. (2011), “Impact of fashion opinion leadership onyoung female preferences of prestige, imitation, and counterfeit handbags”, AAFCS-CURProceedings 2011, American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences 100th AnnualConference and Expo, Phoenix, AZ, p. 34.

Dubois, B. and Laurent, G. (1994), “Attitudes toward the concept of luxury: an exploratoryanalysis”, in Leong, S.M. and Cote, J.A. (Eds), Asia-Pacific Advances in Consumer Research,Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 273-278.

Dubois, B. and Laurent, G. (1995), “Luxury possessions and practices”, European Advances,Vol. 2, pp. 69-77.

Dubois, B. and Paternault, C. (1995), “Understanding the world of international luxury brands:the dream formula”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 69-76.

Dubois, B., Laurent, G. and Czellar, S. (2001), “Consumer rapport to luxury: analyzingcomplex and ambivalent attitudes”, paper presented at Les Cahiers de Recherche, Paris.

Easterman, J.K. and Eastman, K.L. (2011), “Perceptions of status consumption and the economy”,Journal of Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9 No. 7, pp. 9-19.

Eisend, M. and Schuchert-Guler, P. (2006), “Explaining counterfeit purchases: a review andpreview”, Academy of Marketing Science Review, No. 12, available at: www.amsreview.org/articles/eisend12-2006.pdf (accessed 26 October 2010).

Fionda, A.M. and Moore, C.M. (2009), “The anatomy of the luxury fashion brand”, Journal ofBrand Management, Vol. 16 Nos 5/6, pp. 347-363.

Grewal, R., Mehta, R. and Kardes, F. (2000), “The role of the social-identity function of attitudes inconsumer innovativeness and opinion leadership”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 21,pp. 233-252.

Heine, K. (2010), “Identification and motivation of participants for luxury consumer surveysthrough viral participant acquisition”, The Electronic Journal of Business ResearchMethods, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 132-145, available at: www.ejbrm.com (accessed 20 May 2013).

Heise, D.R. (1970), “The semantic differential and attitude research”, in Summers, G.F. (Ed.),Attitude Measurement, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL, pp. 235-253.

International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition (n.d.), “The truth about counterfeiting”, available at:www.iacc.org/about-counterfeiting/the-truth-about-counterfeiting.php (accessed 10October 2010).

Janssens, W., Wijnen, K., de Pelsmacker, P. and Van Kenhove, P. (2008), Marketing Research withSPSS, Prentice Hall, Harlow.

Juggessur, J. and Cohen, G. (2009), “Is fashion promoting counterfeit brands?”, Journal of BrandManagement, Vol. 16 Nos 5/6, pp. 383-394.

Kapferer, J. and Bastien, V. (2009), “The specificity of luxury management: turning marketingupside down”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 16, pp. 311-322.

Keller, K.V. (2009), “Managing the growth trade-off: challenges and opportunities in luxurybranding”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 16 Nos 5/6, pp. 290-301.

Nia, A. and Zaichkowsky, J.L. (2000), “Do counterfeits devalue the ownership of luxury brands?”,Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 7, pp. 485-497.

Nueno, J.L. and Quelch, J.A. (1998), “The mass marketing of luxury”, Business Horizons, Vol. 41No. 6, pp. 61-68.

O’Cass, A. (2000), “An assessment of consumers’ product, purchase decision, advertising andconsumption involvement in fashion clothing”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 21,pp. 545-576.

438

JFMM17,4

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

2:27

08

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Page 17: Luxury perceptions: luxury brand vs counterfeit for young US female consumers

Perez, M.E., Castano, R. and Quintanilla, C. (2010), “Constructing identity through theconsumption of counterfeit luxury goods”, Qualitative Market Research: An InternationalJournal, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 219-235.

Robinson, T.R. and Doss, F.D. (2011), “Pre-purchase alternative evaluation: prestige andimitation fashion products”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 15 No. 3,pp. 278-290.

Stegemann, N. (2006), “Unique brand extension challenges for luxury brands”, Journal ofBusiness and Economics Research, Vol. 4 No. 10, pp. 57-68.

Tom, G., Garibaldi, B., Zeng, Y. and Pilcher, J. (1998), “Consumer demand for counterfeit goods”,Psychology and Marketing Journal, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 405-421.

Truong, Y., McColl, R. and Kitchen, P.J. (2009), “New luxury brand positioning and the emergenceof masstige brands”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 16 Nos 5/6, pp. 375-382.

Twitchell, J.B. (2002), Living it Up: Our Love Affair with Luxury, Columbia University Press,New York, NY.

Vigneron, F. (2006), “An empirical replication and cross-cultural study of brand luxury betweenAustralia and New Zealand”, in Lees, M.C., Davis, T. and Gregory, G. (Eds), Asia-PacificAdvances in Consumer Research, Association for Consumer Research, Sydney, pp. 148-155.

Vigneron, F. and Johnson, L.W. (1999), “A review and a conceptual framework of prestige-seekingconsumer behaviour”, Academy of Marketing Science Review, Vol. 3, available at:www.amsreview.org/articles/vigneron01-1999.pdf (accessed 28 September 2012).

Vigneron, F. and Johnson, L.W. (2004), “Measuring perceptions of brand luxury”, Journal ofBrand Management, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 484-506.

Wiedmann, K., Hennigs, N. and Siebels, A. (2007), “Measuring consumers’ luxury value perception:a cross-cultural framework”, Academy of Marketing Science Review, Vol. 7, available at:www.amsreview.org/articles/wiedmann07-2007.pdf (accessed 16 November 2012).

About the authors

Dr. Farrell Doss teaches in the areas of Merchandising. His research interests include luxurymarket consumer behaviour, counterfeiting, shopping motivations, and reference groupinfluence. He has presented papers and published work in these areas. Dr. Farrell Doss is thecorresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]

Dr. Tammy Robinson teaches in the areas of Merchandising and Consumer Behaviour. Herresearch interests include consumer behaviour, appearance management, clothing behaviour,and body cathexis. She has presented papers and has published work in these areas.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

439

Young US femaleconsumers

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

2:27

08

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)