Consumer evaluations of trend imitation: brand equity, consumer attitudes and preference
| Pages | 516-527 |
| Published date | 21 August 2017 |
| Date | 21 August 2017 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-07-2016-1257 |
| Author | Areti T. Vogel,Kittichai Watchravesringkan |
| Subject Matter | Marketing,Product management,Brand management/equity |
Consumer evaluations of trend imitation:
brand equity, consumer attitudes
and preference
Areti T. Vogel and Kittichai Watchravesringkan
Department of Consumer, Apparel and Retail Studies, The Bryan School of Business and Economics,
University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to uncover consumer evaluations of high-priced traditional retail luxury brands and more affordable neo-mass luxury
retail brands when they imitate the innovative designs of one another.
Design/methodology/approach – Using a scenario inspired by a lawsuit involving admitted copying practices, this study used a one-way (time
of product introduction: the traditional luxury brand launches the product design before the neo-mass luxury brand vs the neo-mass luxury brand
launches the product design before the traditional luxury brand) between-subjects experimental design to examine the effect of time of product
introduction (such that consumers are aware of imitation practices) on brand attitude, brand equity (measured via the dimensions of brand
associations, brand image, brand credibility and brand leadership) and brand preference.
Findings – Results reveal that consumer awareness of imitation practices is important in determining changes in brand equity, brand attitude and
brand preference, regardless of luxury brand type. The research also indicates that consumers evaluate traditional luxury brands that engage in
imitation practices more negatively than neo-mass luxury brands that do so.
Research limitations/implications – This research provides a deeper understanding of consumer response to imitation practices, along with
managerial insight for luxury brands operating in that sphere. Limitations and future research directions are also offered.
Originality/value – This study appears to be one of the first to investigate imitation practices by using stimuli inspired by a copycat case, and one
of few that assesses consumer evaluations of imitation by existing brands.
Keywords Retailing, Brand image, Attitude, Consumer brand equity, Luxury branding, Democratization, Brand preference, Copycats, Dilution,
Trend imitation
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Almost immediately after a product or service reaches the
market similar offerings are available to consumers. In the
retail sector, and particularly within the apparel and
accessories industry, firms imitate affordable trendy goods
(e.g. Crocs’s sandals) as well as high-priced luxury brand
products (Beltrametti, 2010;Pouillard, 2011;Wilke and
Zaichkowsky, 1999); however, the issue seems a bit more
controversial when traditional luxury brands (TLBs) launch
trends or innovative designs (i.e. those that are first to appear
in the market) that are subsequently imitated by neo-mass
luxury brands (NLBs) (i.e. affordable luxury brands
attempting to convey the same prestige as TLBs) and mass
market brands. Albeit a less frequent occurrence and not
usually public knowledge, TLBs also imitate the designs of
others (e.g. the case of Christian Louboutin SA et al. v. Yves
Saint Laurent America, Inc. et al. [2011]). For instance,
Horyn (2002) reported that Nicolas Ghesquiere admitted to
copying a patchwork vest originally debuted by an
underground designer from San Francisco while he served as
the creative director at the high-end Balenciaga fashion house.
In the instant study, the practice of copying the innovative
designs and/or trends launched by another firm will be
referred to as trend imitation, and a traditional luxury brand
(i.e. extremely high-priced and exclusive) will be referred to as
a TLB, while a NLB (i.e. more affordable) will be referred to
as a NLB.
The existence of trend imitation and the simultaneous
availability of both originals and the copycats thereof, which
can confuse consumers as to the originator of an innovative
design, may seem counterintuitive in light of US intellectual
property laws designed to prevent copying. However, such
legislation in the USA only prevents certain types of copycats.
The use of another firm’s trademark in such a manner that
causes confusion for the consumer as to which company
produced the goods or services is considered trademark
infringement in the USA and is illegal (Lanham Act, 1946).
This law renders counterfeit goods (i.e. exact replicas) illegal,
as they feature the trademark of another firm (Beltrametti,
2010;McCarthy, 2015). Design piracy consists of copying the
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
Journal of Product & Brand Management
26/5 (2017) 516–527
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-07-2016-1257]
Received 1 July 2016
Revised 18 February 2017
12 May 2017
Accepted 15 May 2017
516
To continue reading
Request your trial