Do consumers perceive three levels of luxury? A comparison of accessible, intermediate and inaccessible luxury brands

Luxury and sustainability: a common future? The match depends on how consumers define luxury

“…This large number results from the fact that they often reflect individual conceptions of luxury rather than try to define the concept. Instead of adding another definition, their own, in a literature review and re-analysis of three well known scales measuring luxury, De Barnier et al (2012) have identified the seven common elements characterising luxury, as they emerge from the three main scales adopted to date: these factors are exceptional quality, hedonism (beauty and pleasure), price (expensive), rarity (which is not scarcity) , selective distribution and associated personalised services, exclusive character (prestige, privilege), and creativity (art and avant-garde). This paper builds on this working definition of the concept.…”

“…Socio-demographic characteristics were known, because they belong to BVA national panel. Their perception of luxury was operationalised based on the seven criteria defining a 'luxury item' (De Barnier et al, 2012): outstanding quality, hedonism (beauty and pleasure), price (very expensive), rarity, selective distribution and associated services, exclusivity (prestige, privilege, inaccessible), creativity (art and avant-garde). We asked respondents which of these seven attributes defined luxury, in descending order of importance.…”

The role of perceived value in vertical brand extensions of luxury and premium brands

“…Kim & Lavack, 1996;Kim et al, 2001;Kirmani et al, 1999), but have not acknowledged that brands vary on a continuum of prestige and price (De Barnier et al, 2012;Reddy et al, 2009;Truong et al, 2009), as well as status and conspicuousness (Truong et al, 2008;Vigneron & Johnson, 2004). For example, Reddy et al (2009) differentiate between luxury brands and premium brands; for both luxury and premium brands quality is important, but the price is lower and distribution is less selective for premium than for luxury brands.…”

“…It is unclear whether this is the case also in the context of the downscale vertical line extension of a luxury brand and the extent to which consumers would evaluate the lower priced product positively, even if its increased affordability may lower its perceptions of exclusivity. As Heath et al (2011: 19) point out, 'further research on' (downscale vertical line extensions of) 'luxury brands is needed, partly because regular luxury-brand consumers may not like seeing their brands being consumed by the masses (Berger & Heath, 2007;Kirmani et al, 1999) '. Further complexity is added by fact that, even at the upper end of the spectrum, brands vary on a continuum of prestige and price (De Barnier, Falcy, & Valette-Florence , 2012;Reddy, Terblanche, Pitt, & Parent, 2009;Truong, McColl, & Kitchen, 2009), as well as status and conspicuousness (Truong, Simmons, McColl, & Kitchen, 2008;Vigneron & Johnson, 2004). In the context of vertical extensions, it is particularly important to acknowledge such variations in the continuum of prestige, price and exclusivity.…”

A review and a conceptual framework of the key value drivers of mass customisation

“…Furthermore, luxury products do not fulfil basic needs but rather satisfy hedonic desires and might be bought in order to affirm one's social position. Moreover, psychological benefits such as social recognition and enhanced self-esteem enable luxury brands to be distinguished from others and are consequently perceived more unique (De Barnier et al, 2012). Therefore, we argue that the luxury level of products positively predicts a product's appropriateness for MC.…”