Millennial Consumers Perceptions on Luxury Goods: Capturing Antecedents for Brand Resonance in the Emerging Market Context

Figures & data

Table 1. Literature on millennial consumer behaviors (developed vs. developing countries).

Studies	Main findings	Data collected from
Parment (2013)	Segmenting by age (Millennial) provides a richer segmentation for shopping behavior analysis	Developed countries (Europe and Sweden)
Lee and Tai (2006)	Young consumers in a developing country is largely affected by mass media so they are allowed to develop favorable attitude to global brands	Developing country (Kazakhstan)
Lissitsa and Kol (2016)	Segmenting the millennial consumer is valid to analyze the trend of internet adoption and online purchasing behavior	Developed country (Israel)
Purani, Kumar, and Sahadev (2019)	Millennial consumers innovativeness and peer influence plays crucial roles in their e-loyalty formation	Developing countries (India)
Tjandra, Omar, and Ensor (2015)	Millennial consumers in developed countries perceive better quality toward the products made in advanced countries and also pay attention to the associated ethical issue on manufacturing the products. Millennial consumers in developing countries only consider the functionality of the products.	Developed & developing countries
Weber (2017)	Millennial consumers are self-reliant and independent consumer group so personal value is more appreciated.	Developed countries (USA)
Smith (2012)	Digital marketing strategies are effective to attract attention of millennial consumers as they repeatedly use websites and use online reviews.	Developed countries (USA)
Valentine and Powers (2013)	In life style analysis, millennial consumers are experiencers to socialized strives, to seek social status and achievers who care about self-images.	Developed countries (USA)
Smith (2011)	Digital marketing is an effective strategy for millennial consumers. However, the marketing tools should support them in efficient, comparable, and incentive-based shopping.	Developed countries (USA)
Bilgihan (2016)	For millennial consumers, trust and brand equity are key precursors of e-loyalty in online shopping	Developed countries (USA)
Gurǎu (2012)	For developed country millennial consumers novelty, quality, reliability, reputation, value for money and environmental values are critical elements to evaluate products but in developing countries, value for money and convenience are important factors.	Developed (France) & developing countries (Rumania)

Figure 1. A research framework of this study.

Figure 2. Research model.

Table 2. Measurement items.

COO preference	The country where the luxury brand originates is highly technological advance. The country where the luxury brand originates has high quality in its workmanship. The country where the luxury brand originates is prestigious.	Mohd, Nasser, and Mohamad (2007)
Brand prestige	This luxury brand has the ability to deliver what it promises. This luxury brand is very prestigious. This luxury brand is committed to deliver on its claims. 4. What luxury brand stands for what is important to me.	Baek (2010)
Normative influence	I get anxious when I don’t know which luxury brand is popular among my friends. It is important that I continue to keep in touch with what my friends are buying. 3. When I buy a new luxury brand it is important for me to share the details online	Przybylski et al. (2013)
Cognitive identification	Using luxury brand gets me to think about this brand. I think about luxury brand a lot when I’m using it. Using luxury brand stimulates my interest to learn more about this brand.	Hollebeek (2011)
Affective identification	I feel very positive when using luxury brand. Using luxury brand makes me happy. 3. I feel good when I use luxury brand.	Hollebeek (2011)
Luxury brand salience	I know how the symbol of luxury brand looks like I have no difficulties in imagining luxury brand in my mind I can recognize luxury brand among other competing brands. 4. Characteristics of luxury brand comes to my mind quickly.	Yoo and MacInnis (2005) Mohd, Nasser, and Mohamad (2007)
Luxury brand resonance	1. I feel as if I have a close personal connection with the luxury brand I prefer. 2. I can identify with important luxury brand in my life. 3. There are links between luxury brand that I prefer and how I view myself. 4. My favorite luxury brand is an important indication of who I am	Sprott, Czellar, and Spangenberg (2009)

Table 3. Sample characteristics.

Variable	Category	Frequency	Percent (%)
Gender	Male	100	39.7
	Female	152	60.3
	Total	252	100
Age	Under 20 s	11	4.4
	20s	104	41.3
	30s	85	33.7
	40s	62	20.6
	Total	252	100
Occupation	Student	88	34.9
	Office worker	120	47.6
	Self-employed	26	10.3
	Public-employee	5	2.0
	Other	13	5.2
	Total	252	100

Table 4. Correlations among constructs.

	①	②	③	④	⑤	⑥	⑦
①	1
②	-.248***	1
③	.029	.236***	1
④	.102	.226***	.283***	1
⑤	.071	.269***	.385***	.220***	1
⑥	.097	.350***	.421***	.314***	.388***	1
⑦	.090	.308***	.410***	.253***	.332***	.447***	1
Mean	2.908	3.416	3.496	3.500	3.497	3.429	3.398
S.D.	.885	.640	.784	.663	.682	.705	.700

① COO preference, ② Brand prestige, ③ Normative influence, ④ Cognitive identification, ⑤ Affective identification, ⑥ Luxury brand salience, ⑦ Luxury brand resonance Note. *** p < 0.01

Table 5. Exploratory factor analysis.

Constructs Items Components Reliability
LBR2							.780
LBR3							.851
LBR4							.830
COO preference	COO1	.897							.846
	COO2	.850
	COO3	.876
Brand prestige	BP1		.751						.775
	BP2		.794
	BP3		.635
	BP4		.746
Normative influence	NI1			.849					.845
	NI2			.831
	NI3			.770
Cognitive identification	CI1				.839				.841
	CI2				.804
	CI3				.774
Affective identification	AI1					.848			.819
	AI2					.816
	AI3					.702
Luxury brand salience	LBS1						.799		.827
	LBS2						.813
	LBS3						.787
	LBS4						.710
Luxury brand resonance	LBR1							.667	.828

Table 6. Confirmatory factor analysis.

Constructs	Items	Factor Loading	S.E.	Std. Loading	t value	CR	AVE
LBR2	1.133	.102	.608	11.064***
LBR3	1.179	.103	.724	11.392***
LBR4	1.128	.105	.689	10.797***
COO preference	COO1	1	–	.805	–	.883	.716
	COO2	.823	.060	.723	13.752***
	COO3	.959	.067	.767	14.413***
Brand prestige	BP1	1	–	.564	–	.857	.600
	BP2	.848	.141	.630	5.999***
	BP3	1.490	.176	.403	8.487***
	BP4	1.512	.178	.557	8.497***
Normative influence	NI1	1	–	.721	–	.882	.713
	NI2	1.309	.111	.691	11.837***
	NI3	1.282	.108	.593	11.876***
Cognitive identification	CI1	1	–	.704	–	.879	.707
	CI2	.817	.081	.646	10.039***
	CI3	.717	.075	.599	9.519***
Affective identification	AI1	1	–	.719	–	.858	.670
	AI2	1.056	.098	.666	10.753***
	AI3	.890	.098	.493	9.121***
Luxury brand salience	LBS1	1	–	.638	–	.896	.684
	LBS2	1.045	.080	.661	13.074***
	LBS3	.896	.073	.619	12.334***
	LBS4	.930	.077	.504	12.040***
Luxury brand resonance	LBR1	1	–	.445	–	.896	.685

Note. *** p < 0.01

Figure 3. Result of research model.

Table 7. Path analysis.

	Path	Coefficient	Result
H1	COO preference [graphic] Cognitive identification	.15**	Support
H2	COO preference [graphic] Affective identification	.17**	Support
H3	Brand prestige [graphic] Cognitive identification	.21**	Support
H4	Brand prestige [graphic] Affective identification	.29***	Support
H5	Normative influence [graphic] Cognitive identification	.28***	Support
H6	Normative influence [graphic] Affective identification	.39***	Support
H7	Cognitive identification [graphic] Luxury brand salience	.31***	Support
H8	Affective identification [graphic] Luxury brand salience	.45***	Support
H9	Luxury brand salience [graphic] Luxury brand resonance	.52***	Support

Note. *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05

Lee, J. W., and S. Tai. 2006. Young consumers’ perceptions of multinational firms and their acculturation channels towards western products in transition economies. International Journal of Emerging Markets 1 (3):212–24. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/17468800610674444.

 Google Scholar

Lissitsa, S., and O. Kol. 2016. Generation X vs. generation Y - A decade of online shopping. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 31:304–12. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.04.015.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Purani, K., D. S. Kumar, and S. Sahadev. 2019. e-Loyalty among millennials: Personal characteristics and social influences. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 48:215–23. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.02.006.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tjandra, N. C., M. Omar, and J. Ensor. 2015. Advanced and emerging economies Generation Y’s perception towards country-of-origin. International Journal of Emerging Markets 10 (4):858–74. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJoEM-11-2012-0146.

 Google Scholar

Weber, J. 2017. Discovering the millennials’ personal values orientation: A comparison to two managerial populations. Journal of Business Ethics 143 (3):517–29. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2803-1.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Valentine, D. B., and T. L. Powers. 2013. Generation Y values and lifestyle segments. Journal of Consumer Marketing 30 (7):597–606.

 Google Scholar

Mohd, N. Y., M. N. Nasser, and O. Mohamad. 2007. Does image of country-of-origin matter to brand equity? Journal of Product & Brand Management 16 (1):38–48. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420710731142.

 Google Scholar

Baek, Y. M. 2010. To buy or not to buy: Who are political consumers? What do they think and how do they participate? Political Studies 58 (5):1065–86. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2010.00832.x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Przybylski, A. K., K. Murayama, C. R. Dehaan, and V. Gladwell. 2013. Motivational, emotional, and behavioral correlates of fear of missing out. Computers in Human Behavior 29 (4):1841–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.014.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hollebeek, L. 2011. Exploring customer brand engagement: Definition and themes. Journal of Strategic Marketing 19 (7):555–73. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2011.599493.

 Google Scholar

Yoo, C., and D. MacInnis. 2005. The brand attitude formation process of emotional and informational ads. Journal of Business Research 58 (10):1397–406. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.03.011.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sprott, D., S. Czellar, and E. Spangenberg. 2009. The importance of a general measure of brand engagement on market behavior: Development and validation of a scale. Journal of Marketing Research 46 (1):92–104. doi: https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.46.1.92.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

Datasets are available on request.