Article

Indian Consumers’ Assessment of IIM Kozhikode Society & Management Review

9(1) 84–95, 2020
‘Luxuriousness’: A Comparison of Indian © 2019 Indian Institute
of Management Kozhikode
and Western Luxury Brands Reprints and permissions:
in.sagepub.com/journals-permissions-india
DOI: 10.1177/2277975219859778
journals.sagepub.com/home/ksm

Sangeeta Devanathan1

Abstract
The concept of luxury is relative in nature and the perceived luxuriousness of a brand is influenced by a number of
subjectivities.
In the Indian context, the history of colonization and the dominance of Western cultures for the past many decades
have created a preference for luxury brands of Western origin, which is reflected in the perceptions of luxuriousness of
the brand. However, the ‘Westernization’ of the Indian society is intertwined with a milieu of traditions and cultures which
are strongly embedded in ‘Indian-ness’, where, consumptions linked to the Indian cultural traditions and celebrations
create a distinction between products that have their origins in Indian culture versus those that stemmed from the
Western world.
This study compares the perceived luxuriousness of Western brands (LV and Hermes) to Indian luxury brands
(Sabyasachi and AND) and examines the effect of the cultural origins of a product in the context women’s fashion,
where a saree is seen as a product that originates from Indian culture, vis-à-vis evening dresses, which are perceived as
a primarily Western concept.
The results of the study reveal that though the perceived luxuriousness of Western brands is higher than those of
Indian origin, there is a clear moderating effect of the cultural origin of the product. Western brands attempting to occupy
the luxury space in products which have their cultural origins in India (example Hermes marketing sarees) are perceived
as being less luxurious than Indian brands present in the same product category (Sabyasachi sarees). The reverse was
also found to be true, where Indian luxury brands attempting to create a space for themselves in products which are
considered to be of Western origins were perceived to be less luxurious than brands their Western counterparts.

Keywords
Luxury, luxuriousness, cultural origin, country of origin of brand

Introduction past two decades, fueled by increasing brand awareness

The term ‘luxury market’ extends itself to describing a
whole range of products and services, from super cars to
nail-art, from holiday packages at a private island to an
Ayurvedic cream in a jar. Luxury brands have always been
a fascinating space and luxury brand marketing one of the
most complicated and challenging. The luxury market in
the context of India is garnering more attention than ever
before as it has been growing at a tremendous pace in the
and growing purchasing power of the upper class in Tier II
and Tier III cites. India’s Ultra High Net Worth Individuals
(UHNWI) count rose by 340 per cent (to 6,020 persons),
whereas global growth was 61 per cent (to 187,468)
(Knight Frank Wealth Report, 2016). The report also says
that India will account for 5 per cent of the total UHNWI
population and 6 per cent of the billionaire population
across the world by 2025. In a nation that has more luxury
consumers than the adult population of several countries,

1
CMS Business School, Jain (Deemed-to-be University), Bangalore, Karnataka, India.

Corresponding Author:
Sangeeta Devanathan, Assistant Professor, CMS Business School, Jain (Deemed-to-be University), Bangalore 560027, Karnataka, India.
E-mail: d.sangeeta13@gmail.com
Devanathan
it is no surprise at all that international luxury brands are
seen hotfooting into India, and most of the global luxury
brands have already arrived or are expected to enter soon.
The Concept of Luxury
Conceptualizing luxury is tricky as it is elusive, where the
term ‘luxury’ can be used to define anything or nothing.
While a car from Skoda may be a luxury from a student’s
perspective, even a Mercedes S-Class may not cut the bill
as ‘luxury’ for a billionaire heir. Adding to this confusion is
the trend where a number of marketers launch products and
brands with the promise of ‘affordable luxury’ or ‘masstige’
products (Royo-Vela & Voss, 2015; Truong, McColl, &
Kitchen, 2009). On the other hand, we have many luxury
brands which refrain from calling themselves ‘luxury’
(Han et al., 2010).
The consequence of the subjectivity in the term ‘luxury’
renders it difficult to differentiate it from the ordinary (Phau
& Prendergast, 2000b). The perception of what is (or not) a
luxury brand is thus context-driven and people-dependent,
making it hard to categorize products or brands as luxury or
non-luxury. Vigneron and Johnson (2004) contend that even
though a brand may be perceived as luxurious, not all luxury
brands are deemed equally luxurious. For example, while
both a Cadillac and a Rolls-Royce may be perceived as lux-
ury cars, the Rolls-Royce could be considered to be more
luxurious than the Cadillac. Kapferer (1992) points out that
what counts in luxury is not the absolute price, but the price
differential between luxury products and the products with
comparable functions. Nueno and Quelch (1998) define
luxury brands as ‘those whose ratio of functionality to price
is low, while the ratio of intangible and situational utility to
price is high’. These approaches to defining the concept
indicate that luxury is a continuum of ‘levels of luxury’
rather than a categorical variable. This can be observed by
how some brands are considered luxury in one product cate-
gory, while non-luxury in another. A case in point is Rolls-
Royce, which is considered as a luxury in cars, and
non-luxury in jet engines (Kapferer & Bastien, 2012). There
are brands that have created extensions, enabling them to
occupy multiple points on the luxury continuum. Armani,
for example, is considered an upper-range luxury brand,
whereas the Emporio Armani brand, which has been crafted
to cater to the larger luxury market, is not considered as
luxurious as the Armani brand, neither is Emporio Armani
perceived as a non-luxury brand (Atwal & Williams, 2009).
While a Porsche is considered as a sporty brand which is
high on technical features, the less expensive Jaguar, with
fewer functionalities to offer, is perceived as being more
‘luxurious’ (Kapferer, 1992).
85
Recognizing luxury as a continuous variable, Vigneron
and Johnson (2004) developed a scale to measure the
‘level of luxury in a brand’ by considering non-personal
perceptions (conspicuousness, uniqueness and quality)
as well as personal perceptions (hedonic and extended
self). Kapferer’s (1992) approach to the various levels
of luxury is to break the continuum into three categories
of luxury and having a fourth category that is outside the
luxury consideration (non-luxury). This model labels a
brand that is at the bottom rung of the pyramid (character-
ized by mass series, cost pressure and the spiral of qual-
ity) as ‘non-luxury’. The upper rungs of the pyramid are
formed by three levels of luxury products: (a) upper-range
brand (characterized by mass production in a factory and
has the highest quality); (b) the luxury brand (produced in
a much smaller series at a workshop and is usually a
hand-made work with fine craftsmanship) and (c) Griffe
(which is a pure creation and a unique work that can be
described as materialized perfection). The subjectivity
involved in what is considered as luxury leads to a brand
being judged on its ‘luxuriousness’ rather than the luxury
tag being attached to it nominally (Vigneron & Johnson,
2004). As a continuous variable, the definition for luxury
is elusive and the only consensus in management litera-
ture is that there is actually no consensus about the defi-
nition of luxury products and brands (Christodoulides,
Michaelidou, & Li, 2009; de Barnier, Falcy, & Valette-
Florence, 2006; Kapferer, 1997; Vigneron & Johnson,
2004; Yeoman & McMahon-Beattie, 2006).
While a definition for luxury remains inconclusive, two
distinct approaches for understanding the concept of lux-
ury are discerned from extant literature: the characteristics-
based approach and the consequences-based approach.
Brand image—often born out of the creator’s aura, ances-
tral heritage and personal history (Bruce & Kratz, 2007;
Dias & Ryab; 2002; Dubois & Laurent, 1994; Dubois,
Laurent, & Czellar, 2004; Fionda & Moore, 2009; Fuchs,
Prandelli, Schreier, & Dahl, 2013; Jackson, 2004; Kapferer,
2008; Kapferer & Bastien, 2009; Okonkowo, 2009; Phau
& Prendergast, 2000b); high quality products—catering to
the aesthetic sensibilities of the discerning few and created
in a studio or a workshop rather than being mass produced
Moore & Birtwistle, 2005); very high price—high ratio of
the price to the product’s functional benefits (Jain, Roy, &
Ranchhod, 2015; Nueno & Quelch, 1998; Park, Jaworski, &
Maclnnis, 1986; Royo-Vela & Voss, 2015); and exclusivity
and uniqueness developed by managing demand—achieved
by maintaining a high price and supply-scarcity created by
the production methods (Erickson & Johansson, 1985;
Jackson, 2004; Kapferer, 2008; Keller, 2009) are the charac-
teristics associated with luxury. While the characteristics-
based approach aids the identification of luxury, it is the
86 IIM Kozhikode Society & Management Review 9(1)
consequence of these characteristics that gives important
consumer insights. The consequence of luxury consump-
tion as gleaned from literature may be summarized as some-
thing that signals and accords status (Kleine, Kleine, &
Kernan, 1993; Levy, 1959; Liu, Li, Mizerski, & Soh, 2012;
Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001; Sirgy, 1982; Vigneron & Johnson,
1999; Wernerfelt, 1990; White & Dahl, 2006, 2007), thus
creating vertical social stratification along with an enhance-
ment of self-image and social-image (Belk, 1988; Levy,
1959). The consequence of the high quality and craftsman-
ship in luxury is credited with providing hedonistic pleasure
(Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000; Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982;
Kapferer & Bastien, 2009; Sheth, Newman, & Gross, 1991),
which unlike other identified consequences is an internal
motivation, rather than social.
The social consequences of luxury consumption are a
stronger driver of luxury value (Dubois & Laurent, 1994;
Escalas & Bettman, 2005; Levy, 1959; White & Dahl, 2007)
which is interwoven with the sociocultural fabric of a nation.
Luxury goods consumption patterns thus need to be
examined in light of the cultural backdrop in which the
consumption takes place (Wong & Ahuvia, 1998) as it is
influenced by the national culture as well as global consumer
culture through emergence of global brands (Eng & Bogaert,
2010). There is no consensus in literature on what constitutes
luxury across cultures. The meanings of luxury consumption
of non-Western consumers may not be similar to the Western
consumers (Brannen, 1992). The conceptual models of
luxury have mainly been built on the individual construct
and in the context of Western society. A few studies have
compared the difference in luxury consumption and luxury
perceptions between Western cultures and the Eastern Asian
consumers (Chadha & Husband, 2007; Christodoulides
et al., 2009; Hennigset al., 2012; Shukla, 2011; Wong &
Ahuvia, 1998). However, research on luxury consumption
from the Indian context so far is sparse (Gupta, 2009; Eng
& Bogaert, 2010; Shukla, 2012; Shukla & Purani, 2012) and
consequently, the trends in the Indian luxury consumption
demand to be examined from closer quarters.
Luxury in the Indian Context
While the consumption-based orientation to happiness
seeking has commonly been labelled as a Western charac-
teristic (Ger & Belk, 1996), luxury consumption as a means
of signalling social status and class is evidenced in Eastern
cultures like India and China since time immemorial
(Atwal & Jain, 2012; Chadha & Husband, 2007; Shukla,
2012). Some of the ancient Indian texts, such as the
Mahabharata, are set in the times of prosperity and describe
opulent lifestyles. Continuing with this tradition, the
magnificent lifestyles of Maharajas and Nawabs in the
18th and 19th centuries have been described in detail by
historians. The royal palaces converted to present-day
uber-luxurious heritage hotels like the Oberoi Udaivilas in
Udaipur serve as fine examples of Indian luxury.
The rich craftsmanship of India produced many of the
famous princely silken robes and drapes, complemented by
jewellery crafted with diamonds, sapphires, rubies and more
(Atwal & Jain, 2012). On the other hand, the penchant for
Western representations for luxury amongst the maharajas
and nawabs is well chronicled (Eng & Bogaert, 2010; Jain,
2012). The maharajas, nizams and sultans commissioned
custom designed cars, jewellery, extraordinary works of art
from Cartier, Van Cleef & Arpels, Boucheron, Harry Winston
and others (Jaffer et al., 2006). Indian royalty’s love for
luxury and lavish lifestyle intensified as the British Raj
gained supremacy in India (Jain, 2012), where the maharajas
and the British would socialize as the political relationship
between them forged deeper roots. By the 1940s, the
relationship between Indian royalty and the British became
interdependent (Copland, 2002).
The glory of the maharajas started its downward spiral
after India’s independence, when most of the princely states
signed the Instrument of Accession with either India or
Pakistan and settled for ‘privy purse’ doled out by the demo-
cratic institutions that were formed (Das, 2008). However,
the income disparity in post-independence India was stark
and the attitudes towards luxurious consumption of the
few elites who controlled majority of the wealth remained
unchanged. A number of hired helps were required to do
housework; chauffeurs were required to drive around the
men and ladies of the house and urban Indians still got their
clothes stitched to measure (Jain, 2012).
India is thus no stranger to luxury, what is new though is
the birth of the famed ‘great Indian middle class’ as main-
stream consumers (Brosius, 2012). The economic reforms,
which started in 1991, transformed India into a globalized
economy. This encouraged the entry of multinational com-
panies from various sectors, which provided dream
jobs with attractive salaries, capturing the attention of the
ambition-led youth. These economic reforms also encour-
aged the development of a consumer society (Venkatesh &
Swamy, 1994). The upper class was no longer ashamed of
conspicuous consumption.
Luxury has been considered a natural accompaniment of
the ruling classes and India’s colonial past has resulted in the
idea of Westerners being an embodiment of ‘aristocracy’ and
‘luxury’ being a route to preserve the aristocrat’s social ideal
continues to reign in India (Pels, 1997; Renner, Ramalingam,
& Pirta, 2014). The middle class thus viewed consumption
of luxury as an opportunity to climb up the social ladder.
Higher income gave way to mid-budget fashion brands such
Devanathan
as Gap, Mango and Levi’s. These ‘ladder’ brands slowly
made way for higher brands such as Dior, Burberry and
Louis Vuitton (LV), thus aiding the growth of India’s
luxury industry (Atwal & Jain, 2002).
While there is a growing trend of Indian consumers
accepting Western fashion and styles, one cannot general-
ize Western perceptions of luxury in the Indian context
without consideration of cultural factors (Godey et al,
2012; Wong & Ahuvia, 1998). Luxury continues to be con-
ceptualized in the Western context and ex-colonies like
India have exhibited preference for Western luxury brands
(Eng & Bogaert, 2010; Kinra, 2006). At the same time,
having shaken off colonial rule over 70 years back, India is
also waking up to ‘luxury’ as defined in its own culture
(Lowther, 2005).
As an economy that is characterized by internationality
and globalization, the Indian luxury market is unique as
marketing managers must deal with a complex and dynamic
demand side and address multifaceted customer percep-
tions of value (Hennigs et al., 2012). Chadha and Husband
(2007) have conceptualized the evolution of the luxury
consumer as progression of economic and social develop-
ment in five stages—‘the subjugation’, ‘the start of money’,
‘the show-off’, ‘the fit-in’ and ‘the way of life’—and
describe the Indian market as being at ‘the start of money’
stage. While this may be said of the Indian society at large,
it would be erroneous to assume the non-existence of con-
sumers at other stages of luxury consumption cycle. For
example, the ‘old rich’, who are global travellers and
exposed to luxury consumption in the international context,
may be expected to be in the later stages of the luxury
consumption cycle. The stages of luxury consumption
cycle in the Indian market may thus be viewed as a succes-
sive gradation from ‘subjugation’ to ‘way of life’.
The success of Western brands in China and most parts
of South-East Asia (Bain & Company, 2017; Chandran,
2014; Walley & Li, 2015) has encouraged Western luxury
brands to consider India as their next big destination as
academics and practitioners draw parallels between India
and China, touting India as the ‘next China’. However, the
Indian sociocultural fabric makes it unique and the parallels
drawn are often misplaced (Chadha & Husband, 2007;
Kumar & Paul, 2018). The communist ideals of China are
in contradiction of the Indian feudal aristocracy, which has
always coexisted alongside extreme poverty, and while
private enterprise was snuffed out in China, India’s socialist
route allowed industrialist families to flourish alongside
state-owned enterprises, creating a sizable vault of old
money with suitably refined tastes (Atwal & Bryson,
2017). Also, the economic resurgence of India is credited
to its knowledge economy, creating ‘educated new money’
that behaves differently from China’s garment-and-toy-
87
manufacturing new money (Hubacek, Guan, & Barua,
2007). Another significant difference is the multitude of
religions followed in India, which lead to a potpourri of
festivals, customs and dresses (Lowther, 2005). Therefore,
while in China, the Western luxury brands had to enter and
fill a near vacuum, in India, these brands have to jostle for
space or blend with local traditions.
Country of origin effect has been a widely discussed
topic in the marketing literature for many years (Laroche
et al, 2005; Elliot & Cameron, 1994; Piron, 2000) where
research may be further split into subcategories of country of
manufacturing (COM), country of assembly (COA), country
of design (COD) and country of brand (COB) (Nebenzahl,
Jaffe, & Lampert, 1997; Samiee, 1994; Srinivasan, Jain, &
Sikand, 2004). Phau and Prendergast (2000a) propose that
the COB concept is an appropriate tool for evaluation in the
case of luxury brands because luxury customers tend to
perceive the brand through its name, origin, personality and
country ethnicity (Stoimenova, 2013). In the context of this
research, a Western brand refers to a brand that has its
origins in the Western part of the world, while Indian brands
to brands where the country of origin is India.
The Westernization of India due to the colonial past
(Srinivas, 1956), and the presence of well-travelled ‘old
money’ and ‘educated new money’ with international tastes,
suggests that Western brands are considered more luxurious
than brands of Indian origin. I therefore predict that the
brands of Western origin would be considered as more
luxurious than brands of Indian origin. The difference in
the luxuriousness perceptions is expected to be starker
when the Indian brand is positioned as non-luxury and
pitted against a non-luxury Western brand, than in the case
of an Indian luxury brand in comparison to a Western
luxury brand.
H1: Indian consumers perceive Western brands to be
more luxurious than Indian brands.
H1.1: The luxury categorization of a brand has a mod-
erating effect on the luxuriousness perceptions of
Western vs. Indian brands.
The Indian consumer’s affinity to Western brands is not com-
plete or absolute in the complex sociocultural fabric of India.
For example, Indian consumers show a continued preference
for ethnic outfits as well as a predilection for foreign brands.
Rao (2010) points out how Bollywood movies have reflected
the Indian consumer’s mindset, where stars are accepted in
Western outfits (representing the ‘globalized’ Indian), while
still wanting the ‘Indian-ness’ to be clearly marked by the
female lead wearing Indian outfits like saree and salwar
kameez at least sometimes during the narrative. The vast
biosocial diversity in India nests a milieu of cultural
88 IIM Kozhikode Society & Management Review 9(1)

traditions, and the ostentatious celebratory occasions are Table 1. Indian-ness/Western-ness of Chosen Brands
marked with specific dress codes which are adhered to by the
Group 1 Group 2
old and new rich alike. This sociocultural backdrop leads to a
Indian-ness of the Brand Western-ness of the Brand
prediction that Indian consumers pride products which have
(7-point scale, 1 being ‘not (7-point scale, 1 being ‘not
their origins in Indian culture and would not perceive these Indian at all’ and 7 being Western at all’ and 7 being
products as less luxurious than product categories which ‘completely Indian) ‘completely Western)
reflect Western culture. Extending this argument, it is also LV 1.33 LV 6.67
predicted that the cultural origin of the product (Nakata & Hermes 1.33 Hermes 6.67
Sivakumar, 1996) would be a strong moderating variable, Sabyasachi 6.67 Sabyasachi 1.00
where Indian luxury brands dealing with products which AND (Anita 4.67 AND (Anita 2.33
have their origins in Indian culture would be considered as Dongre) Dongre)
more luxurious than the same products from Western brands. FBB-Liva 7.00 FBB-Liva 1.33
H&M 1.67 H&M 5.67
H2: There is no difference in the perceptions of luxuri- Source:   Authors own.
ousness of products which are culturally of Indian
origin vis-à-vis products which are culturally from
Western origins. Group 2 was asked about the ‘Western-ness’ of the
H3: The cultural origin of a product moderates the products and brands) (Table 2).
perceptions of luxuriousness of Indian vs. Western 3. Both groups were asked to categorize the brands
luxury brands. into ‘luxury brand’ or ‘non-luxury brand’ (Table 3).

The judges’ composite scores were consistent with my

judgement, where Sabyasachi and AND were rated as
Research Method
brands with clear Indian origins and LV and Hermes as
The study examines the relationship between the percep- Western brands. Also, sarees were identified as a product
tions of a brand’s luxuriousness and its relationship to the category with origins in Indian culture, while evening
origins of the brand (brands with a Western origin in com- dresses were considered as stemming from Western culture.
parison to brands from India). The interaction effects of the There was a near consensus in categorizing Sabyasachi,
cultural origins of the product have been studied across two AND, Hermes and LV as luxury brands, while H&M and
product categories in fashion: (a) saree1 (steeped in Indian FBB-Liva were categorized as non-luxury brands.
culture) and (b) evening dress (a primarily Western
concept). Table 2. Cultural Origin of the Chosen Products
The characteristics-based approach has been used to
identify LV, Hermes, Sabyasachi and AND as ‘luxury’ Group 1 Group 2
brands for the study, and for the purpose of control, H&M Cultural Origin of Cultural Origin of the
and FBB-Liva were included as ‘non-luxury’ brands. The the Product is Indian Product is Western
(7-point scale, 1 being (7-point scale, 1 being ‘not
choice of the brands also took into account the product ‘not Indian at all’ and 7 Western at all’ and 7 being
categories offered by the brands. Hermes had included being ‘completely Indian’) ‘completely Western’)
sarees as a part of its product offerings in 2011 (Tulshyan, Evening dress 1.67 Evening dress 6.33
2011), while Anita Dongre, a successful Indian designer is Saree 6.67 Saree 1.33
known for her AND brand of Western outfits. Source:  Author’s own.
Six independent judges were split into two groups, and
were asked to rate each brand and product category on a
seven-point scale for: Table 3. Chosen Brands and Product Categories

Cultural Origin Origin of Brand

1. How ‘Indian/Western’ was the brand (anchored on
either extreme by ‘completely Indian/Western’ and of Product Luxury Category Western Indian
‘not Indian/Western at all’)? (Table 1) Western Luxury brand LV AND (Anita
2. To what extent is the product’s origin from the (Evening dress) Dongre)
Indian/Western culture (anchored on either extreme Non-luxury brand H&M FBB-Liva
by ‘completely Indian/Western’ and ‘not Indian/ Indian (Saree) Luxury brand Hermes Sabyasachi
Western at all’)? (Group 1 was asked about the Non-luxury brand NA NA
‘Indian-ness’ of the products and brands, while Source:  Authors own.
Devanathan 89

Sampling. Sixty postgraduate female Management Results and Discussion

students in the age group of 21 to 25 years, residing
in Bangalore and with an annual household income > Indian vs. Western Brands
`2 million were selected as respondents for the study. Since
the product categories being considered (sarees and Results (H1 and H1.1). An analysis of variance was perfor-
evening dress) are for feminine consumption, the sample med and it reveals that Western brands are rated significan-
was restricted to female respondents. An exposure and tly higher on luxuriousness (MWestern Brand – MIndian Brand = 0.99,
awareness of the brands included in the study was a F = 0.985, p < 0.05; Tables 4–6 ). The difference is reduced
prerequisite for sample selection—towards which the when comparing Indian and Western luxury brands
annual household income (> `2 million) and the city of (difference of 0.72 for luxury brands vs. 1.27 for non-
residence (Bangalore) were used as surrogate indicators. luxury brands).
Respondents were shown photographs of the six Discussion. The analysis confirms H1 and H1.1, where
products, along with the brand name and logo prominently Indian consumers perceive Western brands to be more
displayed. The prices of the exhibits were not revealed, to luxurious; however, when an Indian brand manages to
exclude the influence of the price as factor on the perception position itself as ‘luxury’, the difference between an Indian
of the luxuriousness (Zeithaml, 1988). and Western luxury brand’s perceived luxuriousness is
Respondents were asked to rate each exhibit on its reduced. Positioning a brand as luxury thus moderates the
‘luxuriousness’ on a scale of 1 to 7 (anchored on either effect of ‘country of origin’ of the brand (Figure 1).
extreme as ‘least luxurious’ to ‘most luxurious’).
Table 5. Perceptions of Luxuriousness: Indian vs. Western
Brands (Moderating Effect of Luxury Categorization)
Table 4. Perceptions of Luxuriousness: Indian vs. Western
Brands Dependent Variable: Luxuriousness
Luxury Category Origin of Brand Mean Difference
Dependent Variable: Luxuriousness
Luxury brand Western (LV and 6.217 0.717
Origin of Mean Difference Hermes)
Brand (I–J) Std. Error Sig.b
Indian (Sabyasachi 5.500
Western (I) Indian (J) .992 *
.088 .000 and AND)
Source:   Author’s own. Based on estimated marginal means. Non-luxury brand Western (H&M) 4.017 1.267
Notes: *The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. Indian (FBB-Liva) 2.750
b
Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
Source:   Author’s own.

Table 6. Tests of Between-Subjects Effects (Moderating Effect of Luxury Categorization on Origin of Brand)

Dependent Variable: Luxuriousness

Type III Sum Partial Eta Non-cent. Observed
Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared Parameter Powerb
Corrected 569.000a 3 189.667 308.881 .000 .722 926.642 1.000
Model
Intercept 6832.672 1 6832.672 11127.316 .000 .969 11127.316 1.000
Brand origin 78.672 1 78.672 128.121 .000 .265 128.121 1.000
Luxury 490.050 1 490.050 798.069 .000 .692 798.069 1.000
category
Brand origin* 6.050 1 6.050 9.853 .002 .027 9.853 .879
Luxury
category
Error 218.600 356 .614
Total 9908.000 360
Corrected 787.600 359
Total
Source:   Author’s own.
Notes: aR Squared = .722 (Adjusted R Squared = .720)
b
Computed using alpha = .05.
90 IIM Kozhikode Society & Management Review 9(1)
Figure 1. Perceptions of Luxuriousness: Indian vs. Western Brands (Moderating Effect of Luxury Category)
Source: Author’s own.
Products of Indian and Western Cultural
Origins
Results (H2). It was hypothesized that due to the coexistence
of Western and Indian cultures, product categories that are
considered to be of Indian origin (especially in fashion) are
not differentiated from products that are inherently Western
in terms of their luxuriousness. A univariate analysis of
variance supported the hypothesis, where products with
their origins in Indian culture (MIndian Product = 5.96) were not
significantly different ( p = 0.08 ) from products of Western
origins (MWestern Product = 5.76) with regards to perceived
luxuriousness (MWestern Product = 5.76; Tables 7–8). The
interaction effect of the luxury category of the brand could
not be assessed as no prominent non-luxury Western brand
was found to offer products that culturally have an Indian
origin in the Indian market.
Discussion. As hypothesized (H2), the results show that
while Indian consumers perceive Western brands as being
more luxurious, a similar predilection is not exhibited for
products that stem from Western culture. It may therefore
be inferred that the cultural origin of the product would
moderate the effect of country of origin of a brand in luxury
perceptions.
Results (H3 ). Indian luxury brands are perceived as
more luxurious than Western brands when the product’s
cultural roots are Indian (MIndian Brand + Indian Product – MWestern Brand
+ Indian Product
= 0.28). The difference in luxury perception
between Western and Indian brands is starker when the
product is culturally Western (MWestern Brand + Western Product –
MIndian Brand + Western Product = 1.72 (Table 9). An analysis of
variance exhibited a clear interaction effect between the
country of origin of the brand with the cultural origin of the
product (F = 150.69, p < 0.05) (Table 10).
Discussion. The results reveal that while Indian luxury
brands are perceived to be less luxurious than Western
luxury brands, the cultural origin of the product plays a
moderating role, and Indian luxury brands are considered
to be more luxurious than Western luxury brands when the
product under consideration is culturally connected to
‘Indian-ness’. The preference for Western brands among
Indian consumers is revalidated when we look at the
reverse (MWestern Brand + Western Product – MIndian Brand + Western Product),
wherein Indian luxury brands dealing in Western-origin
products are considered far less luxurious than Western
brands (Figure 2).
Table 7. Perceptions of Luxuriousness – Products of Indian
origin vs. Western origin
Dependent Variable: Luxuriousness
Cultural Origin Mean
of Product Difference Std. Error Sig.b
Western Indian
5.96 5.76 –.200 .114 .080
Source:   Author’s own.
Notes: Based on estimated marginal means.
b
Adjustment for multiple comparisons : Bonferroni.
Devanathan 91

Table 8. Univariate Analysis of Variance: Products of Indian Origin vs. Western Origin

Dependent Variable: Luxuriousness

Type III Sum of Partial Eta
Source Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared
Corrected 2.400a 1 2.400 3.091 .080 .013
Model
Intercept 8236.817 1 8236.817 10608.978 .000 .978
Product origin 2.400 1 2.400 3.091 .080 .013
Error 184.783 238 .776
Total 8424.000 240
Corrected 187.183 239
Total
Source:   Author’s own.
Notes: aR Squared = .013 (Adjusted R Squared = .009).

Table 9. Perceptions of Luxuriousness – Indian vs.   Western luxury brands (Moderating Effect of Cultural
Origin of Product)

Dependent Variable: Luxuriousness

Cultural Origin of Product Origin of Brand Mean Difference
Western (Evening dress) Western (LV dress) 6.617 1.717
Indian (AND) 4.900
Indian (Saree) Western (Hermes) 5.817 –0.283
Indian (Sabyasachi) 6.100
Source:   Author’s own.

Table 10. Tests of Between-Subjects Effects (Moderating Effect of Cultural Origin of Product)

Dependent Variable: Luxuriousness

Type III Sum Partial Eta Non-cent. Observed
Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared Parameter Powerb
Corrected 93.217a 3 31.072 78.039 .000 .498 234.116 1.000
Model
Intercept 8236.817 1 8236.817 20687.003 .000 .989 20687.003 1.000
Brand origin 30.817 1 30.817 77.397 .000 .247 77.397 1.000
Product origin 2.400 1 2.400 6.028 .015 .025 6.028 .686
Brand origin* 60.000 1 60.000 150.692 .000 .390 150.692 1.000
Product origin
Error 93.967 236 .398
Total 8424.000 240
Corrected Total 187.183 239
Source:   Author’s own.
Notes: aR Squared = .498 (Adjusted R Squared = .492).
b
Computed using alpha = .05.
92 IIM Kozhikode Society & Management Review 9(1)
Figure 2. Perceptions of Luxuriousness: Indian vs. Western Brands (Moderating Effect of Cultural Origin of Product)
Source: Author’s own.
Conclusions and Managerial Implications
The findings of this study offer actionable strategies for
luxury marketers of Indian and Western brands. The intri-
cate fabric of Indian society has ensured that its consum-
ers do not get engulfed into the Western culture, as Indians
pride the ‘global citizen’ tag while fiercely protecting
aspects of the Indian culture and customs. Indian mar-
keters can thus look at building a luxury brand by retain-
ing the essence of ‘Indian-ness’ rather than compete
head-on with the Western concepts of luxury. Indian
luxury brands could look at the ‘luxurification’ of prod-
ucts of Indian origin as a route to expanding their market
outside the country’s borders. Sabyasachi has forayed
into Western bridal gowns to connect with the global
citizen, which may be expected to have the same tepid
results as Hermes’ saree experiment.
For Western brands, which are hungry for a chunk of the
attractive Indian market, the challenge is in increasing
occasions of usage, much like what Cadbury did by posi-
tioning itself as a ‘meetha’ (sweet), thus appealing to the
Indian sensibilities by seamlessly entwining with Indian
traditions.2 Looking to offer products of Indian origin as a
route to the Indian luxury consumer’s wallet is not expected
to yield the desired results for Western brands.
While this study was restricted to fashion, the possibility
of generalizing the findings in other product categories,
such as those which have their consumption prominently
linked to culture (for example, Ayurvedic cosmetics in
comparison to Western cosmetics), could be a future area
of research.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research,
authorship and/or publication of this article.
Notes
1. A sari, saree or shari is a female garment from the Indian
subcontinent that consists of a drape varying from five to
nine yards (4.5 metres to 8 metres) in length and two to four feet
(60 cm to 1.20 m) in breadth that is typically wrapped around
the waist, with one end draped over the shoulder usually baring
the midriff.
2. Globally, most of the market for chocolate comes from personal
indulgence. Cadbury, identifying that there were rituals and
traditions in India which necessitated the distribution and
consumption of ‘sweets’ among family and friends, repositioned
Cadbury as a ‘meetha’ or sweet rather than chocolate, which
enabled them to make inroads into an untapped market
(Motwani, 2016).
References
Atwal, G., & Bryson, D. (2017). A Luxury Footprint. In Luxury
Brands in China and India (pp. 233–247). London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Atwal, G., & Jain, S. (Eds.). (2012). The luxury market in India:
Maharajas to masses. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Atwal, G., & Williams, A. (2009). Luxury brand marketing—
The experience is everything! Journal of Brand Mana-
gement, 16(5–6), 338–346.
Atwal, G., Jain, S., & Bryson, D. (2014). The rise of the Indian
female luxury consumer. In G. Atwal & D. Bryson (Eds.),
Devanathan
Luxury brands in emerging markets (pp. 105–116). London:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Bain & Company. (2018, January 18). 2017 China Luxury Market
Study [Press release]. Retrieved November 01, 2018, from
http://www.bain.com.cn/pdfs/201801180441238002.pdf
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of
Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168.
Brannen, M. Y. (1992). Cross-cultural materialism: Commodifying
culture in Japan. In F. W. Rudmin & M. Richins (Eds.),
Meaning, measure, and morality of materialism (Special
volume, pp. 167–180). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer
Research.
Brosius, C. (2012). India’s middle class: New forms of urban
leisure, consumption and prosperity. New Delhi: Routledge.
Bruce, M., & Kratz, C. (2007). Competitive marketing strategies
of luxury fashion companies. In T. Hines & M. Bruce (Eds.),
Fashion marketing (pp. 154–174). London: Routledge.
Chadha, R., & Husband, P. (2007). The culture of the luxury
brand: Inside Asia’s, love affair with luxury. London:
Nicholas Brealey International.
Chandran, N. (2014). Forget China, this is the next big luxury
market. Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2014/09/24/
forget-china-this-is-asias-new-luxury-market.html
Christodoulides, G., Michaelidou, N., & Li, C. H. (2009).
Measuring perceived brand luxury: An evaluation of the BLI
scale. Journal of Brand Management, 16(5–6), 395–405.
Copland, I. (2002). The princes of India in the endgame of empire,
1917–1947 (Vol. 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.Das, B. R. (2017). Liberal democracy and the concept
of freedom in India. International Journal of Academic
Research and Development, 2(6), 1–4. Retrieved November
1, 2018, from http://www.academicjournal.in/archives/2017/
vol2/issue6
de Barnier, V., Falcy, S., & Valette-Florence, P. (2012). Do
consumers perceive three levels of luxury? A comparison
of accessible, intermediate and inaccessible luxury brands.
Journal of Brand Management, 19(7), 623–636.
Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between
hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing
Research, 37(1), 60–71.
Dias, S., & Ryab, L. 2002. Options theory and options
thinking in valuing returns on brand investment and brand
extensions. Journal of Product and Brand Management,
11(2), 115–128.
Dubois, B., & Laurent, G. (1994). Attitudes towards the concept
of luxury: An exploratory analysis. ACR Asia-Pacific
Advances.
Dubois, B., Laurent, G., & Czellar, S. (2004). Segmentation
based on ambivalent attitudes: The case of consumer attitudes
toward luxury (Working Paper). Paris: HEC.
Elliott, G. R., & Cameron, R. C. (1994). Consumer perception of
product quality and the country-of-origin effect. Journal of
International Marketing, 2(2), 49–62.
Eng, T. Y., & Bogaert, J. (2010). Psychological and cultural
insights into consumption of luxury western brands in
India. Journal of Customer Behaviour, 9(1), 55–75.
Erickson, G. M., & Johansson, J. K. (1985). The role of price
in multi-attribute product evaluations. Journal of Consumer
Research, 12(2), 195–199.
93
Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2005). Self-construal,
reference groups, and brand meaning. Journal of Consumer
Research, 32(3), 378–389.
Fionda, A. M., & Moore, C. M. (2009). The anatomy of
the luxury fashion brand. Journal of Brand Management,
16(5–6), 347–363.
Fuchs, C., Prandelli, E., Schreier, M., & Dahl, D. W. (2013).
All that is users might not be gold: How labeling products
as user designed backfires in the context of luxury fashion
brands. Journal of Marketing, 77(5), 75–91.
Ger, G., & Belk, R. W. (1996). Cross cultural differences in
materialism. Journal of Economic Psychology, 17(1), 55–77.
Godey, B., Pederzoli, D., Aiello, G., Donvito, R., Chan, P., Oh,
H., ... & Weitz, B. (2012). Brand and country-of-origin effect
on consumers’ decision to purchase luxury products. Journal
of Business Research, 65(10), 1461–1470.
Gupta, K. D. (2009). Changing paradigms of luxury consumption
in India: A conceptual model. South Asian Journal of
Management, 16(4), 29.
Han, Y. J., Nunes, J. C., & Drèze, X. (2010). Signaling status
with luxury goods: The role of brand prominence. Journal of
Marketing, 74(4), 15–30.
Hennigs, N., Wiedmann, K. P., Klarmann, C., Strehlau, S., Godey,
B., Pederzoli, D. & Taro, K. (2012). What is the value of
luxury? A cross-cultural consumer perspective. Psychology
& Marketing, 29(12), 1018–1034.
Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic
consumption: Emerging concepts, methods and proposi-
tions. The Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 92–101.
Hubacek, K., Guan, D., & Barua, A. (2007). Changing lifestyles
and consumption patterns in developing countries: A scenario
analysis for China and India. Futures, 39(9), 1084–1096.
Jackson, T. (2004). A contemporary analysis of global luxury
brands. In M. Bruce, C. M. Moore, & G. Birtwistle (Eds.),
International Retail Marketing (pp. 155–169). Oxford, UK:
Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Jain, S. (2012). India’s historical luxury fables. In G. Atwal &
S. Jain (Eds.), The luxury market in India: Maharajas to
Masses (pp. 14–25). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Jain, V., Roy, S., & Ranchhod, A. (2015). Conceptualizing luxury
buying behavior: The Indian perspective. Journal of Product
& Brand Management, 24(3), 211–228..Jaffer, A., Singh,
M., & Kapoor, P. (2006). Made for Maharajas: A design diary
of princely India. Vendome Press.
Kapferer, J.-N. (1992). Strategic brand management: New
approaches to creating and evaluating brand equity. New
York: The Free Press.
———. (1997). Managing luxury brands. Journal of Brand
Management, 4(4), 251–259.
———. (2008). The new strategic brand management: Creating
and sustaining brand equity long term. (4th ed.). London:
Kogan Page.
Kapferer, J.-N., & Bastien, V. (2009). The specificity of luxury
management: Turning marketing upside down. Journal of
Brand Management, 16(5–6), 311–322.
———. (2012). The luxury strategy: Break the rules of marketing
to build luxury brands. Kogan page publishers.
Keller, K. L. (2009). Managing the growth tradeoff: Challenges
and opportunities in luxury branding. Journal of Brand
Management, 16(5–6), 290–301.
94 IIM Kozhikode Society & Management Review 9(1)
Kinra, N. (2006). The effect of country-of-origin on foreign
brand names in the Indian market. Marketing Intelligence
& Planning, 24(1), 15-30.
Kleine III, R. E., Kleine, S. S., & Kernan, J. B. (1993).
Mundane consumption and the self: A social-identity
perspective. Journal of consumer psychology, 2(3), 209–235.
Knight Frank.(2016). The Wealth Report 2016. Retrieved from
https://content.knightfrank.com/research/83/documents/en/
wealth-report-2016-3579.pdf
Kumar, A., & Paul, J. (2018). Mass prestige value and competition
between American versus Asian laptop brands in an emerging
market—Theory and evidence. International Business
Review, 27(5), 969–989.
Laroche, M., Papadopoulos, N., Heslop, L. A., & Mourali, M.
(2005). The influence of country image structure on consumer
evaluations of foreign products. International Marketing
Review, 22(1), 96–115.
Levy, S. J. (1959). Symbols for sale. Harvard Business Review,
33(2), 33–39.
Liu, F., Li, J., Mizerski, D., & Soh, H. (2012). Self-congruity,
brand attitude, and brand loyalty: A study on luxury
brands. European Journal of Marketing, 46(7/8), 922–937.
Lowther, B. (2005). Saris and Louis Vuitton: Luxury brands
eyeing India for future growth. Women’s Wear Daily, 189(95),
1–7.
Moore, C. M., & Birtwistle, G. (2005). The nature of parenting
advantage in luxury fashion retailing—The case of Gucci
group NV. International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management, 33(4), 256–270.
Motwani, A. (2016, Jan 27). How a British chocolate brand
became a substitute for Indian mithai. Retrieved from https://
qz.com/india/602029/how-a-british-chocolate-brand-
became-a-substitute-for-indian-mithai/
Muniz, A. M., & O’Guinn, T. C. (2001). Brand community. Journal
of Consumer Research, 27(4), 412–432.
Nakata, C., & Sivakumar, K. (1996). National culture and new
product development: An integrative review. The Journal of
Marketing, 60(1), 61–72.
Nebenzahl, I. D., Jaffe, E. D., & Lampert, S. I. (1997). Towards
a theory of country image effect on product evaluation. MIR:
Management International Review, 37(1), 27–49.
Nueno, J. L., & Quelch, J. A. (1998). The mass marketing of
luxury. Business Horizons, 41(6), 61–61.
Okonkwo, U. (2009). Sustaining the luxury brand on the Internet.
Journal of brand management, 16(5–6), 302–310.
———. (2009). Sustaining the luxury brand on the Internet.
Journal of brand management, 16(5-6), 302-310.
Park, C. W., Jaworski, B. J., & Maclnnis, D. J. (1986). Strategic
brand concept-image management. The Journal of Marketing,
50(4), 135–145.
Pels, P. (1997). The anthropology of colonialism: culture, history,
and the emergence of Western governmentality. Annual
Review of Anthropology, 26(1), 163–183.
Phau, I., & Prendergast, G. (2000a). Conceptualizing the country of
origin of brand. Journal of Marketing Communications, 6(3),
159–170.
———. (2000b). Consuming luxury brands: The relevance of
the ‘rarity principle’. Journal of Brand Management, 8(2),
122–138.
Piron, F. (2000). Consumers’ perceptions of the country-of-
origin effect on purchasing intentions of (in) conspicuous
products. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17(4), 308–321.
Rao, S. (2010). ‘I need an Indian touch’: Glocalization and
Bollywood films. Journal of International and Intercultural
Communication, 3(1), 1–19.
Renner, W., Ramalingam, P., & Pirta, R. S. (2014). Moral
universals, ancient culture and Indian youth. Part II: Facing
the challenge of westernization. Journal of the Indian
Academy of Applied Psychology, 40(1), 9–19.
Royo-Vela, M., & Voss, E. (2015). Downward price-based
brand line extensions effects on luxury brands. Business and
Economics Research Journal, 6(3), 145.
Samiee, S. (1994). Customer evaluation of products in a global
market. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(3),
579–604.
Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., & Gross, B. L. (1991). Why we buy
what we buy: A theory of consumption values. Journal of
Business Research, 22(2), 159–170.
Shukla, P. (2011). Impact of interpersonal influences, brand
origin and brand image on luxury purchase intentions:
Measuring interfunctional interactions and a cross-national
comparison. Journal of World Business, 46(2), 242–252.
———. (2012). The influence of value perceptions on
luxury purchase intentions in developed and emerging
markets. International Marketing Review, 29(6), 574–596.
Shukla, P., & Purani, K. (2012). Comparing the importance of
luxury value perceptions in cross-national contexts. Journal
of Business Research, 65(10), 1417–1424.
Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical
review. Journal of consumer research, 9(3), 287–300.
Srinivas, M. N. (1956). A note on Sanskritization and
Westernization. The Journal of Asian Studies, 15(4), 481–496.
Srinivasan, N., Jain, S. C., & Sikand, K. (2004). An experimental
study of two dimensions of country-of-origin (manufacturing
country and branding country) using intrinsic and extrinsic
cues. International Business Review, 13(1), 65–82.
Stoimenova, P. (2013). Country-of-origin effect in the luxury
goods category (Unpublished master’s thesis). Erasmus
School of Economics. doi:https://thesis.eur.nl/pub/15536
Truong, Y., McColl, R., & Kitchen, P. J. (2009). New luxury brand
positioning and the emergence of masstige brands. Journal of
Brand Management, 16(5–6), 375–382.
Tulshyan, R. (2011, 12 October). Hermes is now selling sarees
in India, and it’s a big deal. Forbes. Retrieved from https://
www.forbes.com/sites/worldviews/2011/10/12/hermes-is-
now-selling-saris-in-india-and-its-a-big-deal/#2dc6c9f85f24
Venkatesh, A., & Swamy, S. (1994). India as an emerging
consumer society: A cultural analysis. Research in Consumer
Behavior, 7, 193–223.Vigneron, F., & Johnson, L. W. (1999).
A review and a conceptual framework of prestige-seeking
consumer behavior. Academy of Marketing Science Review,
1(1), 1–15.
Vigneron, F., & Johnson, L. W. (2004). Measuring perceptions of
brand luxury. Journal of brand management, 11(6), 484–506.
Walley, K., & Li, C. (2015). The market for luxury brands in
China: Insight based on a study of consumer’s perceptions
in Beijing. Journal of Brand Management, 22(3), 246–260.
Devanathan
Wernerfelt, B. (1990). Advertising content when brand choice is
a signal. Journal of Business, 63(1), 91–98.
White, K., & Dahl, D. W. (2006). To be or not be? The
influence of dissociative reference groups on consumer
preferences. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(4), 404–
414.
White, K., & Dahl, D. W. (2007). Are all out-groups created
equal? Consumer identity and dissociative influence. Journal
of Consumer Research, 34(4), 525–536.
95
Wong, N. Y., & Ahuvia, A. C. (1998). Personal taste and family
face: Luxury consumption in Confucian and Western
societies. Psychology & Marketing, 15(5), 423–441.
Yeoman, I., & McMahon-Beattie, U. (2006). Luxury markets
and premium pricing. Journal of Revenue and Pricing
Management, 4(4), 319–328.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality,
and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. The
Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22.