Posted: June 6th, 2015

“The importance of brand: How consumers use luxury fashion brand to communicate self-concept

Fashionistas, Fashion Victims, and Fashion Addicts

 

There are several different categories of people who value fashion, popular brands and luxury items more than others do. This section provides an overview of literature that defines three types of fashion-related individuals. First type is fashionista – a person who follows the latest trends in fashion or even professionally creates and promotes high fashion. Professional fashionistas include fashion designers, fashion editors and other fashion-related professions. However, as Finney (2006) indicated in her book, the cost of being a fashionista is exceptionally high for those who are not professionally employed in the fashion industry. It is simple to explain this fact considering the price of dress and accessories from the latest collections of famous brands. Thus, only people with high income could afford to be fashionistas just because they like to look fashionably and follow trends.

 

On the other hand, desire to look stylishly is inherent almost to all modern women and the majority of them do not have million-dollar bank accounts. Addressing these issues, Finney (2006) introduced the notion of a “budget fashionista,” a woman “who is so fabulous that her style extends past economic constraints.” Budget fashionistas do not value fashion trends as much as general posh-looking fashionistas do. Their personal style complements fashion rather than fashion defines their personal style. In this way, they manage to avoid spending enormous sums on their style and prefer to value their budget more than fashion items.

 

The next category of fashion-obsessed people is fashion victims. In his book, Barnard (2002) defined fashion victims as individuals who “spend too much time or money on fashion.” Speaking more precisely, fashion victims would spend their efforts and finances to follow fashion desperately even although, in reality, there are other things that are objectively much more important for them.

 

Often people who try to follow fashion trends could be labelled by fashionistas as fashion victims. For example, Russell (2011) described a fashion victim as a person who tries hard to dress fashionably, but fails to do so time and time again. These failures could be caused by several reasons such as the wrong sources for guidance as to which clothes are fashionable (Russell, 2011). The notion of the fashion victim emerged with popularization of fashion magazines and media in general. Confirming this statement, Arnold (2001), pointed out in her book that the consumer obsession with fashion brands and the style press spawned the notion of the fashion victim. Agins (2010) cited the example of a fashion designer Mizrahi as “the quintessential fashion victim”, who failed to read the shifts in the marketplace and arrived on the global fashion scene “just when fashion was changing.”

 

The third category of individuals is fashion addicts. These are the people who addicted to fashion just as if it is their drug. Actually, this category often includes people from the two categories mentioned above because usually both fashionistas and fashions victims consider fashion as one of the most, if not the most, important part of their life. Fashion addicts would do anything and accept any spending to look fashionably. For instance, in their article, Berger & Heath (2008) mentioned an example when a fashion addict wears a dark T-shirt with the name of some heavy metal band even though he or she might not like heavy metal at all, but only because this T-shirt looks good with black jackets that are currently in trend.

 

 

2.1 Introduction

 

The objective of the literature review chapter is to provide a critical discussion on the previous studies and theoretical perspectives on luxury brand preferences, with particular attention paid to the luxury fashion industry. The purpose is to develop a solid understanding of the strategies pursued by consumers in using certain brands as tools for communicating self-concept and expressing self-identity.

 

The chapter contains three major sections: general discussion on brand preference, analysis of behavioural patterns of consumers with regard to luxury brands, and the assessment of the theory of self-concept in its application to luxury brand preference. Chapter concludes with the overview of the gaps in the existing literature and sets the rationale for conducting the present research.

 

2.2 Brands preference

 

While it is widely assumed that the concept of “brand” is a relatively new phenomenon, numerous types of brands have been in existence for centuries. By definition, brand implies “the name, associated with one or more items in the product line that is used to identify the source or character of the items” (Taloo, 2007, p. 170). The purpose of investing into brand development is to ensure the product offered by one company is easily distinguished from a similar product sold by another firm. The examples of well-known global brands include Coca-Cola, Sony, McDonald’s, Chanel, and many others. As no company can survive without investing into brand building and millions of products surround contemporary consumers, the power of brand and ability to recognize and manipulate brand preferences determines the success of any particular brand in facilitating positive decision making by a consumer (Moilanen & Rainisto, 2008).

 

The understanding of consumer behaviour and the way brand preferences are formed has direct impact on the success of a firm in appealing to potential and retaining existing customers, while keeping the demand for a product high enough for sustained profit-driven performance of a company (Hoyer, MacInnis, & Pieters, 2012). Brand, as the final result of product prototyping, design, price, distribution, and perception, represents the sum of consumer’s perception about a company in general (Keller, Aperia, & Georgson, 2008). For example, when given a choice between a well-known brand and a newly introduced untitled product, consumers will rely on their past experience with the well-known brand to make the purchase decision. As Hoyer, MacInnis, and Pieters (2012) noted, the preference for the known brand is shaped by two factors: 1) risk reduction mechanism (works only in the case when previous experience with the brand was positive and the performance of a product sold under another brand is unknown) and 2) satisfactory aspect (deals with emotional satisfaction stemming from the purchase itself as well as with functionality of the purchased product).

 

Brand preference can be defined as the likelihood of choosing a certain brand over others when the choice offered (Robinson, 2014). Brand preference is, therefore, fundamental to understanding consumer choices and purchase intentions. There are three factors that determine the attachment of a consumer to brand: association toward the brand, beliefs about the brand, and the loyalty of the consumer towards the brand (Glynn & Woodside, 2009). Association implies a positive image of the brand in consumer’s mind. In most cases, association is closely related to specific needs and wants of consumers. If brand image or association is positive, consumer develops a belief about that brand, which in turn leads to the formation of a brand attitude. The affective response to brand evaluation is also liked to trustworthiness of the brand with regard to its ability to meet expected product performance outcomes, as discussed earlier. Consumer loyalty, as the final step of brand-building, reflects on the overall strength of the brand in the eyes of consumers. Loyal consumers are willing to pay a premium price on the brands they are loyal to and the likelihood to switch to another brand is rather low (Robinson, 2014). The impact of brand image on purchasing decision making process and brand preference is particularly evident in analysis of luxury brands.

 

2.3 Luxury Brands

 

  • Defining luxury and its characteristics

 

The word “luxury” originates from Latin word luxus which means indulgence of the senses, regardless of cost (Lei & Chu, 2014). Applying this definition to luxury brands, it implies preference for expensive brands that bring a sense of satisfaction to consumers. Chevalier and Mazzalovo (2012) cited the following important aspects of luxury brands: a social practice of lavish expenditures in the search for expensive amenities and superfluous goods; most often motivated by the desire of fatuous; luxury product is of high quality, sophisticated, and expensive; its value is embedded in the enjoyment if products; and luxury products are frequently valuable because of their rarity. Furthermore, specifically with regard to luxury fashion brands, Lei and Chu (2014) pointed out the following characteristics:: global recognition, critical mass, core competence and other products, high product quality and innovation, powerful advertising, immaculate store presentation and finally, superb customer service.

 

Luxury goods are grouped in four major categories, including fashion, perfumes and cosmetics, wines and spirits and watches and jewellery (Fionda & Moore, 2009). Okonkwo’s (2009) categorised the scope of luxury goods to include the services industry, resulting in 8 groups of luxury products, as depicted in Figure 1. For the purpose of this study, the primary focus is made on fashion & accessions and leathergoods categories.

 

 

 

Figure 1: The scope of luxury goods and services industry, adapted from Okonkwo (2009)

 

 

 

  • Brand Preference in Luxury Fashion

 

Brand preference in luxury fashion industry is marked with a number of unique characteristics that are not common in purchasing decisions for other types of goods. As Scholz (2014) argued, luxury brands are desired by huge part of the population, partially because luxury goods are not accessible to most of the consumers. Yet, the more luxury brands gets purchased, the less exclusive and desired it becomes because the “dream value” is lost (Scholz, 2014, p. 42). Brand preference in luxury fashion industry is characterized with the purchasing decision based on an inspirational act “with many criteria unrelated to a single price variable” (Chevalier & Gutsatz, 2012, p. 50). In other words, when a consumer prefers a luxury fashion product, the primary motivation is to enhance self-image and to reinforce a sense of peer membership in an exclusive, limited circle of people.

 

  • Shopping Experience Preferences

 

Luxury brand preference is also subject to the certain characteristics of the shopping experience. Premium price in luxury fashion industry is automatically translated into superior customer service and specialness, as argued by Atwal and Jain (2012). In addition to expecting royal customer service, consumers who prefer luxury fashion brands expects a certain degree of entertainment, such as presentation of new collections and other exciting events, such as cocktail evenings for regular clients.

 

2.3.2.2 Brand Insistence

 

Among the factors that have direct impact on brand preference in luxury fashion industry, special attention should be paid to brand awareness. In this regard, Atwal and Jain (2012) pointed out that the preference of luxury fashion brands is dictated with the need for immediate social acceptance in a “privileged society” (p. 132). However, in many cases, the preference for luxury brand in fashion is dictated with the desire for high quality product and exclusivity as the predominant factors driving the purchase (Wang, 2014). Brand insistence is the final stage in brand loyalty building, where consumer preference for a luxury brand in fashion leads a consumer to refuse alternatives and to search exclusively for the desired product (Boone & Kurtz, 2015). Among examples of products with brand insistence characteristics, it is reasonable to mention Rolex and Chanel.

Unlike other types of brands, brands in luxury fashion industry are characterized with the perception of customers that extends beyond the functional or purely performance related benefits (Lee, Yao, Mizerski, & Lambert, 2015). Specifically, consumers with strong brand preference for luxury fashion products are looking for expressive value embedded in the preferred products, including showing personality or social status as well as fulfilling internal psychological needs, as will be discussed later in the literature review.

 

Considering the phenomenon of brand insistence, Lee, Yao, Mizerski, and Lambert (2015) argued that consumers in luxury fashion industry have different perceptions of level of luxury and their perception is largely based on such individual variables as demographic background and persona values. The five dimensions of luxury product perception include: perceived conspicuousness, perceived uniqueness, perceived quality, perceived extended self, and perceived hedonism for personal perception (Lee, Yao, Mizerski, & Lambert, 2015). In addition, Wang (2014) mentioned the financial, functional, individual, and social dimensions of luxury brand preference. For each consumer, the combination of dimensions is unique, whereas brand value occupies the central place.

 

2.3.2.3 Theory of Luxury Brand Preference in Fashion Industry

 

As preference for luxury brand in fashion industry is based on the combination of factors that extend beyond the prior experience with a certain brand and personality aspects to include the influence of social membership and status, the theoretical analysis refers back to the fundamental vision of brand image as offered by Keller (in Yao, Mizerski, & Lambert, 2015). In luxury fashion industry, brand perception is reflected by the brand association in consumer memory, which implies that the choice of a certain brand is associated with information nodes connected to the consumer’s memory. In other words, the preference for luxury brand in fashion dictates the necessity for creating meaning for the brand that is frequently separate from the product itself.

 

2.4 Luxury Brands Consumption

 

In recent years, the issue of luxury brand consumption gained considerable attention of the researchers (Shukla, 2011). Previous studies were mostly concerned with cross-cultural analysis of consumer attitudes (e.g. Dubois, Laurent & Czella, 2001) and counterfeit products (e.g. Nia & Zaichkowsky, 2000; Wilcox, Kim & Sen, 2008). Other researches focused on motives for choosing luxury products to impress others (e.g. Bushman, 1993; Corneo & Jeanne, 1997; Vigneron & Johnson, 1999) or show off the social status (e.g. Mason, 1992; Eastman, Goldsmith & Flynn, 1999; Chadha & Husband, 2006; Mandel, Petrova & Cialdini, 2006; Han, Nunes & Dreze, 2010). Wiedmann and Hennigs (2012) discussed the emerging view that there are two types of luxury brand consumptions, namely personally oriented and socially oriented. This section of the literature review offers the analysis of the previous studies on luxury consumption factors that form consumer preference of luxury brands in fashion.

 

2.4.1 Luxury Consumption Factors

 

2.4.1.1 Aesthetics

 

Luxury consumption involves a strong aesthetic appeal that largely shaped the intention as well as actual purchase decision making by consumers. Kapferer (1997) proposed that luxury is the “beauty; it is art applied to functional items. Like light, luxury is enlightening. Luxury items provide extra pleasure and flatter all senses at once” (p. 253). With regards to specific product characteristics, consumers with high level of preference for luxury brands in fashion are paying attention to such attributes as design, colour, and style, which are the principal aspirations of luxury brand consumption (Mazzalovo, 2012). “Aesthetics gets involved in sharing of experiences and therefore of emotions” (Mazzalovo, 2012, p. xiv). Design and form are the elements of differentiation for individuals, whereas luxury brands are specifically associated with uniqueness and limited quantity, which allows consumers to differentiate themselves based on style and a higher level of thoughtfulness. Chevalier and Mazzalovo (2012) mentioned it is fundamental for luxury brands to have high aesthetic value. The product should be unique and clearly identified in the eyes of consumers as well as within the social group to which a customer belongs. Therefore, aesthetics and ease of brand recognition are among the critical reasons consumers have preference for luxury fashion brands.

 

2.4.1.2 Quality

It is a widespread assumption that preference for luxury brands in fashion industry is largely shaped with a superior quality (Wiedmann & Hennigs, 2012). Luxury brands are believed to offer higher quality compared to the non-luxury ones (Nia & Zaichkowsky, 2000; O’Cass & Frost, 2002; Vigneron & Johnson, 2004; Oknokwo, 2007) and it is one of the factors consumers are attracted to luxury brands, despite the high price margin difference (Chevalier & Mazzalovo, 2008; Husic & Cicic, 2009; Panigyrakis & Koronaki, 2011). The study conducted by Wiedmann and Hennigs (2012) among luxury fashion brand consumers revealed that quality was the most important factor mentioned by study participants. Consumers are ready to pay premium price for a luxury brand product because of the perception that the chosen product will last longer and be more durable (Wiedmann & Hennigs, 2012). Similar results were also found in the study by Dubois, Laurent & Czella (2001) who discovered that excellent quality and luxury goods have a strong association in the consumer’s mind; refinement in every detail is important to create quality and consumers see quality as a signal of reliability and durability. In other words, the preference for luxury brands frequently implies making a worthy investment backed up with trust of consumers.

 

2.4.1.3 Reference Group Influence

 

The preference for luxury products in fashion is concerned not only with quality and uniqueness of the products, but also with the symbolic value of the purchase to buyers as well as social networks (Wiedmann, Hennigs & Siebels, 2009). As Batey (2012) argued, luxury brands offer abstract and symbolic associations and the resulting association gives brand a depth of meaning to consumers. While generic brands are purchased most for their functional roles, luxury brands are preferred because of their demarcation function, which means the public opportunity to demonstrate one’s moral concepts and belong to a particular social stratum (Kastner, 2013). Luxury products are bought for what they mean beyond for what they are because one of the motivations used by consumers of luxury products is the desire for social conformity and acceptance within a particular reference group (Kastner, 2013). Reference groups are defined as ‘social groups that are important to a consumer and against which he or she compares himself or herself’ (Escalas & Bettman, 2003 p.341). Thus, consumers may use luxury goods to represent their identity and to imitate the lifestyle of affluent to associate oneself to reference group (Vigneron & Johnson, 2004).

 

 

2.4.2 Conspicuous Consumption

 

In contemporary research, luxury consumption pattern is frequently equated to conspicuous consumption of brands (Mazur, 2012), which implies that individuals with strong preference for luxury brands are primary interested in displaying their wealth. This explanation of conspicuous was first offered by Thorstein Veblen. At the heart of this theory is the assumption that people display their wealth through their leisure activities, luxury and wasteful consumption; whereas member of any social class tries to imitate the upper class and the cycle has no end (Veblen, 2012).

 

Furthermore, the research on status-seeking consumers resulted in the development of five categories or types of consumers with specific reference to luxury brand consumption (Tremblay & Tremblay, 2012).

 

  • The Veblenian Consumer – perceives conspicuous value. The main objective of purchase is to impress others.
  • The Snob Consumer – perceives unique value. This type of consumer wants to be perceived as different to others. Price is viewed as the critical indicator of exclusivity.
  • The Bandwagon Consumer – perceives social value. This group of consumers is related to the snob purchasers, but the primary stimulus for the purchase is to obtain the symbolic value of membership in a group. Their consumption has a strong social purpose.
  • The Hedonist Consumer – perceives emotional value. As luxury goods are known for their intangible benefits, the hedonist consumers are attached to such benefits. They place less value on price and are more concerned about pleasure of purchase.
  • The Perfectionist Consumer – perceive quality value. They presume price as a factor of quality and rely on their own judgment rather than on opinion of their reference group while making a purchase decision.

 

While conspicuous consumption pattern does not explain the perception of luxury brands for all individuals but it does provide a solid framework for understanding purchase motivates and luxury brand management strategies (El-Gohany, 2014). In recent literature, an increasing attention is being paid to two distinct views of luxury brand preference and consumption: personally oriented and socially oriented (Dato, 2014). From the standpoint of conspicuous consumption, the purchase of luxury brands supports both orientations. The socially oriented consumer is driven by a desire to impress others while the personally oriented consumer enjoys luxury for self-pleasure.

 

2.4.3 Luxury for Self-pleasure

 

While the previous sections discussed the external stimulus or driver that motivate consumers to prefer luxury brands to generic products, special attention should be paid to the internal factors that shape luxury brand preference among consumers. One of such internal factors is the search for self-pleasure. As Wiedmann and Hennigs (2012) argued, those consumers who choose to buy luxury brands are predominantly interested in displaying their status and by doing so they experience self-pleasure or satisfaction with personal achievement. This aspect of luxury consumption is not related to the price of a product or belonging to the reference groups. It rather unveils the satisfaction and joy in the self (Erlin, 2014).

 

Wong & Ahuvia (1998) explained that the rationale of personal oriented consumer for buying luxury is because (i) the products can give them hedonic experience; consumers who value hedonic experience are more likely to please their private self (ii) the products enable consumers to express their internal self and (iii) the products match with consumer’s attitude and taste of quality. Similarly, Tsai (2005) examined personal oriented towards luxury brand consumption in cross-regional research with these factors: self-directed pleasure, self-gift giving, congruity with internal self, and quality assurance. The results revealed that these personal orientated factors are important motives of luxury brand consumption particularly with repurchase intention.

 

In a more recent research by Peeters, Van Molle, and Wils (2011) that explored luxury brand consumption among European consumers, the study confirmed that those consumers who chose luxury brands and wealth-displaying behaviours (expensive traveling, over-priced spas, and luxury fashion choices) are more driven with the sense of self-pleasure rather than with the motivation to show their social superiority. Erlin (2014) also suggested that pleasure-generating effect of luxury brand consumption is one of the internal factors that underline the preference for luxury brands in the first place. The next section of this literature review offers an in-depth evaluation of self-concept theory with regard to luxury brand purchases and preferences.

 

2.5 Self-concept Theory

 

2.5.1 Conceptualisation of Self-Concept

 

The issue of self-concept originates within social psychology. By definition, self-concept implies perceptions and attitudes of humans toward themselves, which includes personal characteristics, image of the self, and feelings associated with the self (Hattie, 2014). In other words, self-concept is a purely internal perception of personal identity, whereas external factors do have an impact on the formation of the self. Given the fact that luxury brand consumption is a type of human behaviour and implies making choices, the psychological studies are of particular value in an attempt to explain the motives and triggers of luxury brand preference. The idea that consumers seek for the purchases in luxury brand segment was also shared in the study by Ruvio and Belk (2013), who concluded that luxury brand consumption enhances the self-concept and brings satisfaction.

 

The application of self-concept theory is not limited to consumer behaviour studies but also includes the brand preference behavioural patterns, as argued by Flynn, Goldsmith, & Korzenny (2011). According to their research, consumers rely on certain brands as tools for self-construct, which in turn leads to specific consumption practices. In other words, consumers use brands as tools for communicating their identity to society, to express who they are or how they envision themselves. In essence, preference for certain brands, particularly luxury ones, enables consumers to bridge with their identities and allow them to link to their reference group and consumers will create and present themselves through their brand choices (Escalas & Bettman, 2003).

 

Finally, the research by Hamilton and Hassan (2010) brought to the light the distinction between actual self and desired self. By focusing on luxury brands, consumers who prefer premium-segment products frequently aim at supporting or creating the desired self through changing the actual self (Hamilton & Hassan, 2010). In addition, brand consumption and brand preference patterns are used to explore the desire of consumers to achieve an ideal self, which would be the symbolic manifestation of the ideal image of the self (Ruvio & Belk, 2013).

 

2.5.2 Actual Self and Ideal Self

 

Brand preference was also researched in the context of modifying the actual self in an attempt to achieve an ideal self (Ruvio & Belk, 2013). Consumers choosing luxury brands have the belief that those brands are more congruent with their self-image and, consequently, their brand preference is based on the necessity to enhance self-image (Abel, Buff & O’Neill, 2013). Differentiating between the actual self, self-concept, and ideal self, the question is which of these three interrelated constructs have the greatest impact on purchasing decisions and brand preference. The research conducted by Abel, Buff and O’Neill (2013) showed that the actual self has great impact on brand consumption behaviour, whereas the preference of luxury brands is more shaped by an ideal self-image.

 

In with previous findings, Malar et al (2011) concluded that consumers’ purchasing decisions are driven with intrinsic motivation to enhance their self-esteem through consumption of luxury brands. The intrinsic motivation surfaces in the result of the comparison between an actual self and ideal self. When these two types of self do not match, consumers try to achieve the balance between their visualized ideal self and actual self by purchasing certain brands that strengthen their identity (Malar et al., 2011).

 

With reference to emotional brand attachment context, both actual self and ideal self work in different situations for different types of consumers. In general, consumers tend to form a more emotional brand attachment with brands that are congruent with the actual self, as some consumers may have a negative feeling by comparing themselves with the aspiration brand. They may think of a brand as too superior or unaffordable to them. On the contrary, consumers with low self-esteem may find themselves more attracted to brands with ideal self congruence. The underlying rationale is that these aspiration brands can make them feel good about themselves or enhance their self-concept (Malar et al., 2011). For example, McNeill and Graham (2014) suggested that mothers tend to make brand preferences in infant clothing consumption as an extension of self-image. In other words, purchasing decision in fashion industry allows consumers to achieve a higher level of conformity with inner self.

2.5.3 Self-Congruence

 

In recent years, an increasing attention is being paid to the concept of self-congruence, which is defined as a match between brand personality and consumers’ self (Nam, Ekinci, & Whyatt, 2011). The discussion on self-congruence frequently appears with reference to brand image and is believed to have a strong impact on brand loyalty (Ha & Im, 2012). Congruency theory postulates that consumer behaviour and brand preference are impacted by congruence or psychological comparison between product-user image and self-concept (Ha & Im, 2012).

 

Thus, brand consumption based on luxury brand preference, for example, serves as a tool for consumers to establish and communicate their self-concept. The preference for a luxury brand can be understood as the process of satisfying the need for self-congruence (Kressmann et al., 2006). Consumers strive for consistency in their behaviour and it can be achieved by consuming a brand congruent to their self-concept, either their actual self or real self (Malar et al., 2011).

 

Self-congruence impacts not only bran preference, but also leads to satisfaction stemming from the purchase of a certain brand, shapes new product purchases, and affects future purchase intentions (Miranda, 2009). Sirakaya-Turk (2011) pointed out that high level of self-congruence motivates consumers to pay more attention to the value of the brand they are purchasing compared to those with low level of self-congruence, whose purchasing decisions are mostly affected by functionality of the product (low brand loyalty behavioural pattern).

 

2.6 Brand and Self-Expressive Benefit

 

As brands have a self-expression function, it is reasonable to assume that consumers who prefer luxury brands have a better opportunity to express themselves and make the statement about their identity. Yet, the concept of self-expression is also applicable to purchasing decision making process, as particularly evidenced with purchase of green products or other consumption patterns that are based on the analysis of the causes driving the purchase itself (Hartmann & Apaolaza-Ibáñez, 2012). Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2012) argued that self-expressive benefit of brand consumption implies analysing the attribute importance of making a certain brand preference. In this regard, the choice of certain brand should generate a particular emotional benefit for a consumer. Luxury brand consumption, for example, is an attempt to find the balance with inner self and the self-expression benefits comes from the realization of being able to afford luxury products.

 

Aaker (2010) stated that consumers may use a brand to express their self-concepts, whether it’s their actual self, ideal self or social self, while brands with strong personalities tend to have a major impact on the self-expression process. The purchase or use of a ‘fit’ product brand gives consumers a sense of fulfilment, and on the contrary, consumers will feel uncomfortable when using a brand that is not linked to their self-concept (Aaker, 2010).

 

2.7 Gaps in the Literature

 

Literature review provided an in-depth evaluation of the recent studies and theoretical insights into luxury brand consumption patterns and the motivational factors that lead consumers to prefer certain brands over others. The three sections of the literature review covered brand preference, concept of luxury brands, and self-image. Although a substantial number of studies have been conducted on luxury brands, self-concept and consumer behaviour, previous literature failed to address a number of important issues. First, while the research on brand preference did provide extensive description of the factors that shape preference for certain brands, little attention has been paid to luxury fashion brands, which implies insufficient understanding of the factors that lead consumers to choose luxury brands in fashion section. Second, the previous research on theory of self-concept is deficient in terms of linking self-concept to brand preference in general and luxury fashion brand choice in particular. This research aims to expand the current knowledge on luxury brand consumption as a tool for communicating self-concept.

 

2.8 Summary

 

The chapter discussed relevant up-to-date literature on factors that contribute to brand preference, essentials of luxury brand choice, and the theory of self-concept. It focused on consumer behaviour in the context of luxury brand consumption that links to self-concept and how consumers use brand to construct their identity. It addresses the definition of each concept, investigates into each subject as well as critically discusses previous research. The next chapter is methodology that presents the research design of this study, the data analysis, and research limitations.

 

Findings from the Questionnaire

To find public opinion about the subject of luxury brand preferences, there was a special questionnaire designed. This questionnaire consisted from twelve questions both open-ended and closed, which covered several areas of personal luxury brand preferences. Total number of participants of the questionnaire is 85 people. They showed total completion rate at 86%, which a decent indicator, which shows that the absolute majority of participants answered all required questions. As for the gender structure of participants, there were 60 female and 25 male participants, which is 71% and 29%, respectively. The age structure of questionnaire participants is showed below, on the figure 1.1:

Fig. 1.1. Age structure of participants

As one could see from this demonstrative chart, participants from 22 to 27-years-old constituted an absolute majority with 51% or 43 individuals from the total number of participants. The second largest age group was individuals aged from 27 to 35-years-old with 25% or 21 individuals from the total number. Participants that are older than 35-years-old formed the third largest group with 14% or 12 participants. Then, 9% or 8 participants were from 16 to 22-years-old, and only 1 participant was less than 16-years-old, which is only 1% from the total number.

Nationality of participants was dominantly Armenian with 43 or 36.55% of participants indicated “Armenian” as their nationality. The second largest nationality group was Russian, with 10 or 8.5% of participants identified themselves as Russians. The rest of participants represented various countries such as Iran, Germany, Bulgaria, Switzerland, and France. In general, the participants of the questionnaire represented a vast number of nationalities, which allows to state that this questionnaire represented international opinion about luxury brands preferences. On the chart below (figure 1.2), one could see how participants think of themselves in terms of their devotion to fashion:

Fig. 1.2. Participants’ self-identification based on their fashion preferences

It is clear from this chart that the majority of participants were not interested in fashion at all – this category constitutes 34% or 27 participants. On the other hand, 27% or 22 participants described themselves as “fashionistas”, which means that fashion plays a significant role in their lives. 19% or 15 participants not classified themselves into any of categories. Finally, equal number of participants identified themselves as fashion victims and fashion addicts – each of these categories constituted 10% or 8 participants.

The professional structure of participants is much diversified with such professions present as realtor, economist, auditor, banker, lawyer, project manager, etc. However, some participants indicated that they are students without any job at all, and some stated that they are housewives at the moment. In terms of influence of annual income on ability to spend money to keep up with fashion, 51% or 41 participants, an absolute majority, stated that they try to keep with fashion although it blows their budget. Then, 29% or 23 participants indicated that their income allows them to be fashionable without sacrificing other commodities. 8% or 6 participants stated that either their budget is too tight to spend it on fashion or they just do not like fashion. Finally, 13% or 10 participants have not chosen any of suggested categories.

Figure 1.3 indicates what exact types of luxury products participants bought lately:

Fig. 1.3. Types of luxury products participants bought lately

The most popular luxury brands were Gucci, Prada, Dolce & Gabbana, Dior, Versace, Louis Vuitton, and Chanel. Participants indicated that the luxury product and luxury brand that they chose indicate that they are fashionistas or it make them feel more confident about themselves. 61% or 41 participants stated that the product they bought lately suits them more than others. However, 20% or 15 participants stated that they do not know and other 20% or 15 participants answered negatively to this question. Among the features that make the luxury product (brand name), which they bought lately suit them, participants indicated such features as “crazy design”, stylishness, originality, and quality of product. Finally, answering the last question, 71% or 53 participants stated that they would buy a luxury fashion product, which they like aesthetically even if they do not like its brand. 19% or 14 participants stated that they do not know exactly, and 11% or 8 participants answered to this question negatively.

References

Aaker, D. & Joachimsthaler, E. (2012). Brand Leadership. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Abel, J., Buff, C., & O’Neill, J. (2013). Actual self – concept versus ideal self-concept: An examination of image congruence and consumers in the health club industry. Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal, 3(1), 78 – 96.

Atwal, G. & Jain, S. (2012). The Luxury Market in India: Maharajas to Masses. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Batey, M. (2012). Brand Meaning. Abingdon, UK: Psychology Press.

Boone, L. & Kurtz, D. (2015). Contemporary Marketing. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.

Chevalier¸M. & Gutsatz, M. (2012). Luxury Retail Management: How the World’s Top Brands Provide Quality Product and Service Support. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Chevalier, M. & Mazzalovo, G. (2012). Luxury Brand Management: A World of Privilege. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Dato, M. (2014). The Sustainable Global Marketplace: Proceedings of the 2011 Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) Annual Conference. New York, NY: Springer.

El-Gohary, H. (2014). Emerging Research on Islamic Marketing and Tourism in the Global Economy. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Erlin, M. (2014). Necessary Luxuries: Books, Literature, and the Culture of Consumption in Germany. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Flynn, L., Goldsmith, R., & Korzenny, F. (2011). Brand engagement in Self-Concept: a psychometric and demographic analysis. Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 3(2), 5-17.

Glynn, M. & Woodside, A. (2009). Business-to-business Brand Management: Theory, Research and Executive Case Study Exercises. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.

Ha, S. & Im, H. (2012). Identifying the Role of Self-Congruence on Shopping Behavior in the Context of U.S. Shopping Malls. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 30(2), 87 – 101.

Hamilton, K. & Hassan, L. (2010). Self-concept, emotions and consumer coping. European Journal of Marketing, 44(7/8), 1101 – 1120.

Hartmann, P. & Apaolaza-Ibáñez, V. (2012). Consumer attitude and purchase intention toward green energy brands: the roles of psychological benefits and environmental concern. Journal of Business Research, 65(9), 1254 – 1263.

Hattie, J. (2014). Self-Concept. East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.

Hollebeek, L. (2011). Exploring customer brand engagement: definition and themes. Journal of strategic marketing, 19(7), 555 – 573.

Hoyer, W., MacInnis, D., & Pieters, R. (2012). Consumer Behavior. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.

Kastner, O. (2013). When Luxury Meets Art: Forms of Collaboration between Luxury Brands and the Arts. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media.

Keller, K., Apéria, T., & Georgson, M. (2008). Strategic Brand Management: A European Perspective. London, UK: Pearson Education.

Kressmann, F., Sirgy, J., Herrmann, A., Huber, F., Huber, S., & Lee, D. (2006). Direct and indirect effects of self-image congruence on brand loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 59(9), 955 – 964

Lee, A., Yao, J., Mizerski, R., & Lambert, C. (2015). The Strategy of Global Branding and Brand Equity. New York, NY: Routledge.

Lei, S. & Chu, L. (2014). Brand Equity, Consumer Satisfaction and Brand Loyalty: An Empirical Study of Luxury Fashion Brands Consumption in China. The International Journal Of Business & Management, 2(11), 22-27.

Malar, L., Krohmer, H., Wayne, H., & Nyffeneger, B. (2011). Emotional brand attachment and brand personality: the relative importance of the actual and the ideal self. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 35 – 52.

Mazur, M. (2013). Impacts of Interdependencies Between Strategies on an Individual’s Increase in Relative Status – An Exploratory Study. Hamburg, Germany: GRIN Verlag.

Mazzalovo, G. (2012). Brand Aesthetics. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

McNeill, L. & Trelise, G. (2012). Mother’s choice: an exploration of extended self in infant clothing consumption. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 13(6), 403 – 410

Miranda, M. (2009). Engaging the purchase motivations to charm shoppers. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 27(1), 127 – 145.

Moilanen, T. & Rainisto, S. (2008). How to Brand Nations, Cities and Destinations: A Planning Book for Place Branding. San Diego, CA: Palgrave Macmillan.

Nam, J., Ekinci, Y., & Whyatt, G. (2011). Brand equity, brand loyalty and consumer satisfaction. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(3), 1009 – 1030.

Peeters, E., Van Molle, L., & Wils, K. (2011). Beyond Pleasure: Cultures of Modern Asceticism. New York, NY: Berghahn Books.

Robinson, L. (2014). Marketing Dynamism & Sustainability: Things Change, Things Stay the Same. New York, NY: Springer.

Ruvio, A. & Belk, R. (2013). The Routledge Companion to Identity and Consumption. New York, NY: Routledge.

Scholz, L. (2014). Brand Management and Marketing of Luxury Goods. Hamburg, Germany: Anchor Academic Publishing.

Sirakaya-Turk, E. (2011). Research Methods for Leisure, Recreation and Tourism. New York, NY: CABI Press.

Talloo, T. (2007). Business Organisation And Management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

Tremblay, V. & Tremblay, C. (2012). New Perspectives on Industrial Organization: With Contributions from Behavioral Economics and Game Theory. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media.

Veblen,T. (2012). The Theory of the Leisure Class. Toronto, Canada: Courier Corporation Press.

Wang, C. (2014). Brand Management in Emerging Markets: Theories and Practices: Theories and Practices. New York, NY: IGI Global.

Wiedmann, K. & Hennigs, N. (2012). Luxury Marketing: A Challenge for Theory and Practice. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media.

Expert paper writers are just a few clicks away

Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.

Calculate the price of your order

You will get a personal manager and a discount.
We'll send you the first draft for approval by at
Total price:
$0.00
Live Chat+1-631-333-0101EmailWhatsApp