Article

Metamorphosis
20(1) 16–24, 2021
Country of Origin Effect on Purchase © 2021 Indian Institute of
Management, Lucknow

Intention Towards Italian Luxury Fashion: Reprints and permissions:

in.sagepub.com/journals-permissions-india

Mediating Role of Brand Perception

DOI: 10.1177/09726225211030067
journals.sagepub.com/home/met

and Social Status

Sandeep Kumar1 and Amit Gautam1

Abstract
Economic growth, urbanization and higher disposable incomes have helped to propel growth of luxury fashion in India. Indian custom-
ers attach luxury fashion with their social status. Therefore, a need was felt to understand the drivers of purchase intention for luxury
fashion goods. The purpose of study is to explain the role of factors which have influence on purchase intention for luxury fashion
brands. The research tries to identify the mediating effect of brand perception and social status on interrelationship between country
of origin (COO) and purchase intention. The data were collected by means of structured questionnaires from a total of 400 Indian
customers residing in the Delhi NCR. Structural equation modelling has been used to find the outcomes. COO, brand perception and
social status were found to significantly influence customer purchase intention. However, mediation effect of brand perception was
found in relation between COO and purchase intention. Mediation effect of social status also exists in relation between COO and
purchase intention. Brand perception and social status sequentially mediate the relationship between COO and purchase intention.

Keywords
Country of origin, brand perception, social status, purchase intention, Italian luxury fashion

Introduction Delhi NCR accounts 40% of spending on luxury products,

The size of the global luxury market is estimated to be
around $2 trillion. As per, ASSOCHAM Report, 2018,
India’s luxury market is set to grow to $30 billion from
$23.8 billion by the year end at 30% growth rate.1 This
amounts to approximately 1.5% of the total global market
size. The Indian luxury market comprises of products (wear
or carry, such as clothing footwear and accessories), ser-
vices (experience and enjoy such as travel and hospitality),
and assets (houses, cars, planes, etc.). The most visible part
of luxury market is the luxury products market which is
around 30% of the total market.
In India, luxury fashion is on nascent stage, with a slow
but constant growth and creating opportunities for the
foreign companies dealing in luxury products. Although
there will be some obstacle including high import duty on
luxury goods, the demand for luxury products will increase
in the upcoming years. If we talk of demographic profile,
followed by Punjab and Haryana. South and western India
approximately account 25% each of spending on luxury
products, and the remaining 10% sale on luxury products
is with the eastern part of India.2 The rapidly growing
middle class with its increasing purchasing power is the
key driver for the growth of luxury market in India. Apart
from this, increased penetration of Internet and frequent
travel to foreign countries lead customer interest towards
luxury fashion.
The country of origin (COO) image is the overall per-
ception consumers form of products from a particular
country, based on their prior perceptions.3–4 The origin
was specified not only for identification but also to signal
quality because since ancient times countries have been
famous for their products such as India for spices, French
for wines and perfumes, Italy for fashion, Switzerland
for watches, Egypt for textiles industry, Australia for
pearls, etc.

1 Institute of Management Studies, BHU, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India.

Corresponding author:
Amit Gautam, Institute of Management Studies, BHU, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh 221005, India.
E-mail: amitgautam@fmsbhu.ac.in
Kumar and Gautam
Consumers usually evaluate a product on the basis
of intrinsic cues which is inherited in the product itself
(such as taste, design, and other product features) and
extrinsic cues (such as price, brand, place of purchase, or
COO) which are externally attributed to goods.4–5 In the
absence of information of tangible attributes, consumers
use COO as an extrinsic attribute. Brand name may be a
dominant cue in consumer evaluations of products; COO
may be another very important, perhaps, more important
than brand name, cue that consumers use during evalua-
tions of foreign products and domestic products vs. foreign
products.6
The COO cue prompts a global evaluation of quality,
performance, specific product, and service attributes.7
Consumers infer attributes to the brand based on country
stereotypes and experiences with the brand.8 Products
originated in a developed country such as Germany or
the USA have a greater chance of positive brand image
perceptions in comparison with products made in devel-
oping countries.9 COO effect comes in picture when
a customer makes a product evaluation and makes
decision to buy any product. The COO effect can be
driven by various factors including country image/
national stereotypes, consumer ethnocentrism, involve-
ment, consumers’ product familiarity, experience, and
cultural difference.
As per Takhor and Lavack,10 COO plays an important
role in determining the brand perception. Consumers have
knowledge of brand origins, and it has significant influence
that drives perception of product quality.11 COO have influ-
ence on overall perception of brands, and it may vary with
high and less reputed brands.12 The effect of COO is very
strong with reference to brand perception, because it has
the power in shaping brand image in the customer’s mind.
However, Laroche et al.13 suggest that COO has a significant
influence on consumers’ choice. Apart from this, the elite
consumer give weightage to made in label when purchas-
ing a luxury product, since it reflects their social status.
Elite consumers buy luxury products for themselves and to
impress their friends and family member.14 The fundamen-
tal objective of this study is to explain the role of factors
which have influence on purchase intention for Italian
luxury fashion brands of Indian customers. As well as to
measure the mediating effect of brand perception and
social status on interrelationship between COO and pur-
chase intention. Hence, the following objectives have been
set for the study:
1. To investigate the interrelationship among COO,
brand perception, social status, and purchase
intention.
2. To examine the mediation effect of brand perception
and social status on the interrelationship between
COO and purchase intention.
17
Literature Review
Country of Origin
COO refers to the country with which a product or brand is
associated, such as SONY is a Japanese brand and Apple is
an American brand.15 COO research started with the study
of COO effect in the American market and found that
respondents are biased that product made in less developed
nations will be of inferior quality. Somehow, they associate
quality with the level of development.16 Bilkey and
Nes17 found that during the process of product evaluation,
customers use only COO information to make their buying
decision. Further researches showed that COO is not the
only factor that affects consumer product evaluation.
Product cues such as quality and price may have a stronger
effect on consumer decision-making than COO infor-
mation.18 The COO image is based on previous experience
from the country.19 In addition, Tse and Gorn’s20 findings
reveal that a well-known global brand will override the
COO effect, which further found that the COO is an impor-
tant factor in consumer product evaluation. Elliot and
Cameron21 found that quality and price are more signifi-
cant than COO as well as locally manufactured products
are preferred by the customers. As per Ahmed et al.,22 in the
presence of other extrinsic cues, consumer’s purchase
decision is more influenced by brand rather than COO.
COO has a significant impact on brand perception. Both
less and high reputed brands are affected differently if the
production is shifted to another country.12
Brand Perception
Brand perception is the reality as how a customer views the
brand; in other words, brand perception is the current
image that exists in the minds of the customers. Brand is
perceived on the following parameters: quality, value,
visual, senses, personality, legacy, and status. Research has
shown evidence that customers of developing countries
prefer to purchase brands originated in developed coun-
tries.23 Customer associate brands with countries where the
brands were initially developed rather than with the coun-
tries in which the products are currently produced.24 The
COO image of a brand contributes to the positive or nega-
tive perception towards the brand and brand image.25–27
The impact of COO on the brand perception varies from
product categories. Products with technical features are
more likely to be evaluated on the basis of COO.4
Social Status
Status is used as a synonym for honour or prestige, while
social status denotes the relative position of a person on
hierarchy of social worth. Earlier status consumption was
confined to the Western countries, but later on in major
countries status consumption became prominent and got
18
reflected in the usage of luxury products with demonstra-
tion of modern status symbols.28–29 Researchers found that
consumers perceived that the consumption of foreign prod-
ucts and brands may confer higher social status.30–31 Con-
sumers of developing countries are highly influenced by
glamorous Western consumption practices and lifestyles.
Studies conducted in several developing nations such as
India, China, and Vietnam have shown that foreign brands
from developed nations are preferred for the reason of
status.32–35,9 Indian customers perceive that consumption of
foreign brands enhances their social status and foreign
brands have a distinct edge over Indian brands, so far as the
status attribute is concerned.9 Consumers prefer to pur-
chase products made in a certain country to show off their
wealth and enhance their status amongst their peers.14
Purchase Intention
It is defined as a measure of the strength of one’s intention
to perform a specific behaviour or make the decision to buy
a product or service. COO has an effect on purchase inten-
tion.36–38,23 Findings indicate that brand image and quality
of products create significant positive influence on pur-
chase intention of foreign products.39COO will positively
influence product evaluation and purchase intention, when
there is strong match between product image and
country.40As per Khan, et al.,14 Elite consumers look for
made in label especially when purchasing luxury goods
and perceive that it will reflect their social status. They also
interpret that consumption of these products will make an
impression among their family and friends; they, hence,
have an intent to purchase foreign brands.
Hypotheses Development
Country of Origin and Brand Perception
The quality of foreign brand was perceived to be generally
higher and superior to domestic brands among Indian
customers. Customers, in light of individual experience or
information from other sources, seem to have knowledge
with respect to the quality of products made in various
nations and might utilize COO as a summary construct
rather than as an inferential signal to make decisions about
the quality of brands.41 Rosenbloom and Haefner’s42 study
reveals that global brands are indicators of quality, and
they reduce the uncertainty and risk associated with high
involvement products. The brand originating from devel-
oped countries have ability to create trust in consumer’s
mind. Studies have found a significant positive relation-
ship between COO and brand perception.12,56 Hence, on the
basis of existing literature, it can be hypothesized:
H1 COO has significant and positive impact on brand
perception towards Italian luxury fashion brands.
Metamorphosis 20(1)
Country of Origin and Social Status
Indian customers are inclined towards consumption of
foreign luxury goods for enhancement of social status.
They believe that purchase of foreign goods may display
their wealth and enhance social status. Batra et al.31 carried
out a study on Indian consumers’ perceptions of foreign
brands and found that they are primarily motivated for the
purpose of status enhancement. The product/brand origi-
nating from developed countries are not only perceived on
quality aspect but also on social status. Schultz et al.33 sur-
veyed Vietnamese consumers and found that COO not only
acts as an indicator of quality but also as a symbolic repre-
sentation and status enhancement. Hence, on the basis of
existing literature, it can be hypothesized:
H2: COO has significant and positive impact on social
status towards Italian luxury fashion brands.
Country of Origin and Purchase Intention
From last many decades, Indian consumers have devel-
oped a taste for foreign goods because of perceived quality,
reliability and exclusiveness, and particularly for Italy-
based luxury fashion. As it is perceived as the fashion
capital of the world and most of the global fashion brands
originate from there. So it becomes imperative for Indian
consumers to purchase these global fashion brands. Find-
ings further indicate that COO is a very important factor in
the purchase intention of luxury products.43 Studies have
found that COO has positive and significant effect on pur-
chase intention.36,23 Further studies have shown that COO
has significant effect on purchase intention.36,44 Hence, on
the basis of existing literature, it can be hypothesized:
H3: COO has significant and positive impact on purchase
intention towards Italian luxury fashion brands.
Brand Perception and Social Status
Consumers attach themselves to specific brands to affirm
their desired identity. They consume the brands to signify the
wealth, success, and social status. Customers are emotionally
attached to the luxury brands and do not bother in paying
high premium for the brand. Batra et al.31 studied perception
of consumer for local and non-local brands in a developing
country like India and found that the non-local brand pos-
sesses high quality and enhance social status. Wong and
Ahuvia45 found that preference for luxury goods among East
Asians is often viewed as a sign of materialism. Youth cus-
tomers attach themselves to certain brands to proclaim their
desired identity and prefer the brands originating from
Western countries, because these brands are associated with
status and pride in the construction of social identity. Hence,
on the basis of existing literature, it can be hypothesized:
Kumar and Gautam
H4: 
Brand perception has significant and positive
impact on social status towards Italian luxury fash-
ion brands.
Brand Perception and Purchase Intention
Consumers’ intention to purchase a specific brand is
in harmony with their impression about the COO of the
brand. Due to this, the brands originating from developed
countries are preferred over domestic brands in emerging
countries. Wang and Yang’s46 study was based on the rela-
tionship between brand perception and purchase intention
with reference to Chinese automobile industry. They found
that brand perception has positive significant impact on
purchase intention. Brand image creates significant posi-
tive influence on purchase intention for foreign prod-
ucts.47,39 Hence, on the basis of existing literature, it can be
hypothesized:
H5: 
Brand perception has significant and positive
impact on purchase intention towards Italian luxury
fashion brands.
Social Status and Purchase Intention
Customers, in particular, tend to buy luxury goods for
display of their social status and wealth. Elite customers
associate global brands with their social status and
perceive that these brands differentiate them from others;
hence, they have an intent to purchase these brands.48
Figure 1. Structural Model
Source: Primary data analysis, SPSS 20.
19
The enhancement of social status is increasingly one of the
first and most important reasons for consumers to purchase
Western products. 45Hence, on the basis of existing litera-
ture, it can be hypothesized:
H6: Social status has significant and positive impact on
purchase intention towards Italian luxury fashion
brands.
Country of Origin and Purchase Intention:
Mediation of Brand Perception and Social
Status
A country with its positive COO image helps in the rein-
forcement of brand image. Customers perceive that con-
spicuous consumption may confer higher social status.
Consequently, the customers have an intent to buy these
luxury fashion brands. Prior studies have indicated that
there exists an established link between COO, brand per-
ception, social status, and purchase intention.9,46,48,49 It has
been broadly acknowledged that COO directly influences
brand perception, and brand perception is an antecedent of
social status. These three variables have direct and indirect
effect on purchase intention. Based on the literature review,
the study conceptualized the model as shown in Figure 1
and the following hypotheses are proposed:
H7: Brand perception mediates the relationship between
COO and purchase intention towards Italian luxury
fashion brands.
20 Metamorphosis 20(1)

H8: Social status mediates the relationship between Table 1. Convergent Validity, Discriminant Validity and Inter-
COO and purchase intention towards Italian luxury correlations Among Variables
fashion brands.
CR AVE SS BP PI COO
H9: Brand perception and social status has mediation
effect on the relationship between COO and pur- SS 0.950 0.759 0.871
chase intention towards Italian luxury fashion brands. BP 0.941 0.726 0.507 0.852
PI 0.858 0.551 0.538 0.407 0.742
COO 0.947 0.719 0.497 0.362 0.595 0.848
Operational Definition Source: Primary data analysis, SPSS 20.
Note: Bold values are square root of AVE and and these are greater
In this study, researcher define elite customers as those
than the component correlation coefficients hence fulfilling the criteria
belonging to the high social stratum and living an affluent of discriminant validity.
lifestyle; since they have a high disposable income and
purchasing capacity and a willingness to buy compara- Table 2. Summary of Fit Indices for Measurement Model
tively expensive foreign goods and services.
|2/df CFI GFI NFI TLI RMSEA RMR
2.44 0.96 0.90 0.93 0.95 0.05 0.02
Research Methodology
Source: Primary data analysis, SPSS 20.
The insights from the literature review and discussion with
experts were used to design the questionnaire. The drafted and CR should be greater than AVE. Standardized estimate
questionnaire was validated from industry experts, and of all items range between 0.591 and 0.926, meeting the
modifications were made as per their advice. Respondents minimum required value. CR of the constructs vary
were asked to rate the statements on a 5-point Likert scale between 0.858 and 0.950, and AVE ranges between 0.551
where 1 indicates ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 indicates and 0.759. Further CR for each construct exceeds the
‘strongly agree’. The scale items were tested for reliability respective AVE, thus establishing convergent validity.
measures and resulted with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.940 Discriminant validity expresses the degree to which a con-
which indicates internal consistency reliability. To check struct is truly different from other constructs.50 It was
the reliability and validity of the questionnaire, CFA analy- examined through Fornell and Larcker’s51 AVE test and
sis was performed. Factor loading range between 0.591 correlations criterion. From Table 1, it can be seen that the
and 0.926, meeting the minimum required value. The com- square root of average variance extracted is greater than
posite reliability (CR) of the constructs is more than 0.858, the component correlation coefficients. Therefore, the
average variance extracted (AVE) is more than 0.551, construct discriminant validity is confirmed.
which confirms convergent validity. Each construct had a The fit indices of the measurement model are
minimum of 5 to 7 items.
Chi-square (χ2) = 601.515, CMIN/df = 2.44, p = .000, root
Descriptive study was conducted for the research with a
mean square of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.05, root
cross-sectional review; response was collected through a
mean square residual (RMR), comparative fit index (CFI)
structured questionnaire from the customers visiting Italian
= 0.96, normalized fit index (NFI) = 0.93, goodness of fit
luxury fashion brands stores in Delhi NCR. A total of 417
index (GFI) = 0.90, and Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = 0.95.
respondents were approached to collect the data. However,
This indicates that the proposed scale fits for measurement.
17 questionnaires were found not suitable for further
analysis due to incomplete information. The majority of
respondents were married (81%) and the percentage of Path Analysis
businessman was 49. Above 10 lakh monthly income
respondents were 35%. Delhi NCR accounts 40% of After establishing validity and reliability of measurement
spending on luxury products in India, hence considered as model, structural equation modelling (SEM) analysis is con-
target population. This study was conducted in the month ducted to test the hypothesis. From Table 3, it can be seen that
of May to June 2019. Convenience sampling technique has COO, brand perception, and social status have significant and
been used to collect the responses from respondents. positive impact on purchase intention. Figure 1 shows the
Further to examine the hypothesized conceptual research standardized path coefficients, illustrating the significant rela-
model, structural equation modelling was performed. tionships. Among the three constructs, COO (0.418) has more
impact on purchase intention. H6: Social status has significant
and positive impact on purchase intention (β = 0.270; p < .05).
Data Analysis and Interpretation Hence, H6 is supported. H5: Brand perception is having
significant and positive impact on purchase intention
Scale Assessment
(β = 0.119; p < .05) is also supported. Further, it was also
Standard factor loading (standardized estimate) of items found that COO is having significant and positive impact
should be above 0.50, the AVE should meet the cut-off on brand perception and social status (β = 0.362; p < .05
value of 0.50, CR value should be equal or higher than 0.70 and β = 0.361; p < .05). Therefore, H1 and H2 have been
Kumar and Gautam 21

Table 3. Summary of Testing of Hypothesis for Structural Model

Estimates Critical
Endogenous Constructs Exogenous Constructs (b) Ratio P-value R2 Result
Purchase Intention Country of Origin 0.418 7.312 *** 0.443 Supported
Brand Perception Country of Origin 0.362 6.796 *** 0.131 Supported
Social Status Country of Origin 0.361 7.075 *** 0.370 Supported
Social Status Brand Perception 0.376 7.616 *** 0.370 Supported
Purchase Intention Brand Perception 0.119 2.274 0.023 0.443 Supported
Purchase Intention Social Status 0.270 4.673 *** 0.443 Supported
Source: Primary data analysis, SPSS 20.

supported. In addition, brand perception positively impacts
social status (β = 0.376; p < .05). Thus, H4 has been sup-
ported. Meanwhile, the coefficient of determination (R2)
value for purchase intention is 44.3%, social status is 37%,
and brand perception is 13.1%. Minimum threshold value
of R2 should be 10%.52 Results met the criteria of R2 which
indicate that SEM is valid.
Mediation Analysis
The research model (Figure 1) represents mediation
hypotheses, indicating how an independent variable (COO)
effects dependent variable (purchase intention) through
mediating variables (brand perception and social status).
SEM analysis is being applied to evaluate mediation model
and test mediation hypotheses (H7, H8 and H9). To deter-
mine the different effects and test mediation, the four-step
procedure suggested by Baron and Kenny53 has been
applied.
Initially, the mediator effect of brand perception on the
relationship between COO and purchase intention has been
tested through the four-step procedure. First, the model
showed that the antecedent variable COO had a significant
effect on brand perception. At the second step, it was found
that brand perception had a significant effect on purchase
intention. Third, when the mediating path through brand
perception to purchase intention was constrained (i.e., brand
perception was not linked to purchase intention), the direct
effect of COO (β = 0.60; p < .05) on purchase intention was
significant. Fourth, the previously direct effect of COO
(β = 0.52; p < .05) was significantly reduced when the
mediating path from brand perception to purchase inten-
tion was linked (see Table 4). Hence, it can be concluded
that brand perception partially mediates the relationship
between COO and purchase intention. Therefore, H7 is
supported.
Further to test H8, which predicted that social status
mediates the relationship between COO and purchase
intention, the same procedure is followed as discussed
above. First, the model showed that COO had a significant
effect on social status. At the second step, it was found that
social status had a significant effect on purchase intention.
Third, when the mediating path through social status to
purchase intention was constrained (i.e., social status was
not linked to purchase intention), the direct effect of COO
(β = 0.60; p < .05) on purchase intention was significant.
Fourth, the previously direct effect of COO (β = 0.44;
p < .05) was significantly reduced when the mediating
path from social status to purchase intention was linked
(see Table 4). Hence, it can be concluded that social status

Table 4. The Mediating Effect of Brand Perception and Social Status Between Country of Origin and Purchase Intention

Path Path via brand Path CMIN/DF GFI IFI CFI RMSEA
perception Coefficient
Country of Not constrained 0.52 2.684 0.911 0.962 0.962 0.06
OriginàPurchase Constrained 0.60 4.405 0.908 0.951 0.951 0.05
Intention
Path Path via social status Path CMIN/DF GFI IFI CFI RMSEA
Coefficient
Country of Not constrained 0.44 3.334 0.910 0.950 0.950 0.07
OriginàPurchase Constrained 0.60 4.405 0.908 0.951 0.951 0.05
Intention
Path Path via brand Path CMIN/DF GFI IFI CFI RMSEA
perception and social Coefficient
status
Country of Not constrained 0.42 2.445 0.912 0.958 0.958 0.06
OriginàPurchase Constrained 0.60 4.405 0.908 0.951 0.951 0.05
Intention
Source: Primary data analysis, SPSS 20.
Note: Bold values show the mediating path for better understanding in differentiating the relationship between dependent and independent variables.
22
partially mediates the relationship between COO and pur-
chase intention. Therefore, H8 is supported.
Lastly, H9 which predicted that brand perception and
social status mediates the relationship between COO and
purchase intention has been tested through the same proce-
dure as mentioned earlier. First, the model showed that
COO had a significant effect on brand perception and
social status. At second step it has been found that these
mediating variables had a significant effect on purchase
intention. Third, when the mediating path, through brand
perception and social status to purchase intention was con-
strained (i.e., brand perception and social status was not
linked to purchase intention) the direct effect of COO
(β = 0.60; p < .05) on purchase intention was significant.
Fourth, the previously direct effect of COO (β = 0.42;
p < .05) was significantly reduced when the mediating
path from brand perception and social status to purchase
intention was linked (see Table 4). Hence, it can be con-
cluded that brand perception and social status partially
mediate the relationship between COO and purchase inten-
tion. Therefore, H9 is supported.
Discussion and Implication
It can be inferred from the analysis that COO has signifi-
cant and positive impact on purchase intention. This is in
line with several other research works.41,43,54 Therefore,
marketers should emphasize more on COO information
while advertising, promoting, or educating customers about
product offerings. Results reveal that social status is having
significant and positive impact on purchase intention. This
is in line with the findings of Kinra9 and Khan et al.14
Indian customer purchase luxury fashion brands to get
noticed by others in the society and perceive that the con-
sumption of it will enhance their social status. This study
empirically proved the positive relationship between
brand perception and purchase intention, and this result is
consistent with empirical studies of Wang et al.46 and
Bhakar et al.47
The findings of the study also highlight that COO is
having significant and positive impact on brand perception
and social status. The result supports the findings of Khan
and Bamber,55 Pandaa and Misra,56 Pham and Richards,57
Batra et al.31 and Koubaa.12 Elite consumers rely on COO
information in order to determine the quality of luxury
fashion brands. They perceive that luxury brands origi-
nated in developed country such as Italy will be of superior
quality and the consumption of it will enhance their social
status. Most of the MNC’s are shifting their manufacturing
units to low labour cost countries such as India, Vietnam,
Philippines, and China to reduce the cost. From financial
aspect, it is an effective decision, but it affects the custom-
ers perception about the brands. Hence, the marketers
should appraise this issue before restructuring their supply
chain including the relocation of production units.
Metamorphosis 20(1)
In addition, brand perception positively impacts social
status, and the results are in line with the findings of Batra
et al.31 The luxury fashion brands originating from devel-
oped countries have considered status signalling and pres-
tige as their key factors. It is also found that brand
perception mediated the path between COO and purchase
intention, as well as the mediation effect of social status
also exists on interrelation between COO and purchase
intention. The countries with its positive COO image help
in strengthening the brand image originating from these
countries such as SONY, a Japanese brand, and GUCCI, an
Italian brand. Customers perceive that the consumption of
luxury fashion brands originating from developed coun-
tries may confer higher social status. Hence, customers
have an intent to purchase these luxury fashion brands. It is
also worth mentioning here that COO is not the only one
factor which influences customer purchase intention but
brand perception and social status are also factors that have
significant role in explaining the purchase intention for
Italian luxury fashion brands.
Managerial Implication
COO is identified as an important variable that has signifi-
cant influence on purchase intention for luxury fashion
brands. Hence, foreign companies entering in the Indian
market should associate with their respective country name
in the segment of luxury fashion goods. It is also revealed
that Indian customers have favourable attitude towards
luxury brands that are made in developed countries. Hence,
these brands may achieve a competitive advantage in the
Indian market over competitors by positioning themselves
using COO as a unique selling preposition. In the 21st
century, luxury goods trade is rapidly increasing and the
international marketplace has become more competitive.
It is essential for marketing managers to understand the
fact that consumer attitudes towards a specific COO or
brand can be significantly changed, either positively or
negatively, and it may influence the preference of the
customers. Hence, taking into consideration the dynamic
nature of customers, marketing strategies should be devel-
oped in tune with their changing requirement. It is also the
case of Indian cinema which exerts significant influence on
youth as luxury fashion is promoted by cinema, which is
prompting youth towards luxury consumption.58 Indian
youth firmly believe that if they consume the brand which
is being used by the celebrities, it will enhance their social
status. Celebrities extend their personality and popularity
to the brand and give consumers a reason to trust on a
brand. Hence, marketers should have close association
with celebrities to capture elite customers.
Marketers should also take a clue from the consumer
preferences identified earlier on, which have significant
influence on purchase of luxury brands. It further assists in
identifying the factors which affect customer purchase
intention. The perception of the luxury brand is totally
Kumar and Gautam
different in comparison to an economical product. It is also
found that social status and COO information are an essen-
tial factor which influence elite consumers’ buying deci-
sions. Overall, an understanding has been developed for
the purchase intention of luxury fashion goods among elite
consumers of India, which could assist marketers to design
appropriate marketing mix strategies that will facilitate in
targeting the existing and future purchasers and position
the brand in the Indian market suitably.
Theoretical Implication
The current study seeks to expand the existing literature
on purchase intention by understanding the relationship
between COO, brand perception, social status, and their
impact on purchase intention towards Italian luxury fashion
brands in an emerging economy. The past literature pre-
sented not exactly ambiguous but a not-so-rich coverage of
the purchase intention of Italian luxury fashion brands. A
lot of research has been reported related to COO effect on
purchase intention in automobile industry, electronic dura-
bles, and FMCG sector. However, limited attention has
been given in the context of luxury fashion brands with
reference to elite consumers of India. It is focused on the
purchase intention for Italian luxury fashion brands sold
in Indian market with reference to brand perception and
social status, an area that has primarily remained unex-
plored. The research study contributes majorly and directly
to the literature pool of luxury purchase intention that
exists in India. In addition to it, mediation effect of brand
perception and social status was not examined earlier
with reference to COO and purchase intention. The com-
prehensive framework developed here propagates the
clarity of each factor that leads to purchase intention,
thereby making a major contribution to the field of con-
sumer behaviour research.
Limitation and Future Research
This study deals with cross-sectional data, and a longitudi-
nal study covering pre-purchase and post-purchase behav-
iour would have added more in-depth view on the factors
affecting purchase intention. Future studies can be under-
taken concerning the post-purchase behaviour which is
largely unexplored and can be taken up. Similar studies can
be conducted for other brands and product categories such
as watches from Switzerland and perfumes from France.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
23
References
1. PTI. India’s luxury market to cross $30 billion by year-end:
ASSOCHAM. 2018 February 28. Available from https://
brandequity.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/business-
of-brands/indias-luxury-market-to-cross-30-billion-by-
year-end-assocham/63111478
2. Meenakshi K. India’s luxury market on an impressive
growth spree. 2017 March 15. Available from https://
fashionunited.in/news/retail/india-s-luxury-market-on-an-
impressive-growth spree/2017031514958.
3. Roth Martin S, Romeo Jean B. Matching product category
and country image perceptions: A framework for managing
country-of-origin effects. J Int Bus Stud. 1992; 23(3):477–497.
4. Zhang Y. Chinese consumers’ evaluation of foreign prod-
ucts: The influence of culture, product types, and product
presentation format. Eur J Mark. 1996; 30(12):50–69.
5. D’Astous A, Ahmed S. Antecedents, moderators and
dimensions of country-of-origin evaluations. Int Mark Rev.
2008; 25(1):75–106.
6. Han CM, Terpstra V. Country-of-origin effects for uni-
national and bi-national products. J Int Bus Stud. 1988;
19(2):235–255.
7. Al-Sulaiti KI and Baker MJ. Country of origin effects:
A literature review. Mark Intell Plan. 1998; 16(3):150–199.
8. Liefeld JP. Consumer knowledge and use of country-of-
origin information at the point of purchase. J Consum
Behav. 2004; 4(2):85–97.
9. Kinra N. The effect of country-of-origin on foreign brand
names in the Indian market. Mark Intell Plan. 2006;
24(1):15–30.
10. Thakor MV, Lavack MA. Effect of perceived brand origin
associations on consumer perceptions of quality. J Prod
Brand Manag. 2003; 12(6):394–407.
11. Samiee S, Shimp TA, Sharma S. Brand origin recognition
accuracy: Its antecedents and consumers’ cognitive limita-
tions. J Int Bus Stud. 2005; 36:379–397.
12. Koubaa Y. Country of origin, brand image perception,
and brand image structure. Asia Pac J Mark Logist. 2007;
20(2):139–155.
13. Laroche M, Papadopoulos N, Heslop LA, Mourali M. The
influence of country image structure on consumer evalua-
tions of foreign products. Int Mark Rev. 2005; 22(1):96–115.
14. Khan H, Bamber D, Quazi A. Relevant or redundant: Elite
consumers’ perception of foreign-made products in an emerg-
ing market. J Mark Manag. 2012; 28(9–10):1190–1216.
15. Samiee S. Customer evaluation of products in a global
market. J Int Bus Stud. 1994; 25:579–604.
16. Schooler RD. Product bias in the central American common
market. J Mark Res. 1965; 2(4):394–397.
17. Bilkey WJ, Nes E. Country-of-origin effects on product
evaluations. J Int Bus Stud. 1982; 13(1):89–100.
18. Ettenson R, Wagner J, Gaeth G. The effect of country of
origin and the “made in the U.S.A.” campaign. J Retail.
1988; 64(1):85–100.
19. Papadopoulos N, Heslop LA. Product Country Images:
Impact and Role in International Marketing. New York,
NY: CRC Press. 1993; 89–115.
20. Tse D, Gorn G. An experiment on the salience of coun-
try of origin in the era of global brands. J Int Mark. 1993;
1(1):57–76.
24
21. Elliot G, Cameron A. Consumer perception of product
quality and the country-of-origin effect. J Int Mark. 1994;
2(2):49–62.
22. Ahmed ZU, Johnson JP, Yang X, Fatt CK, Teng HS, Boon
LC. Does country of origin matter for low-involvement
products? Int Mark Rev. 2004; 21(1):102–120.
23. Sharma P. Country of origin effects in developed and
emerging markets: Exploring the contrasting roles of mate-
rialism and value consciousness. J Int Bus Stud. 2011;
42(2):285–306.
24. Jin Z, Chansarkar B, Kondap NM. Brand origin in an
emerging market: Perceptions of Indian consumers. Asia
Pac J Mark Logist. 2006; 18(4):283–302.
25. Hulland J. Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic
management research: A review of four recent studies.
Strateg Manag J. 1999; 20(2):195–204.
26. Ahmed S, D’Astous A, Eljabri J. The impact of technologi-
cal complexity on consumers’ perceptions of products made
in highly and newly industrialised countries. Int Mark Rev.
2002; 19(4):387–407.
27. Hassan SS, Craft S. Examining world market segmentation
and brand positioning strategies. J Consum Mark. 2012;
29(5):344–356.
28. Belk R. Leaping luxuries and transitional consumers. In:
Batra R, editors. Marketing Issues in Transitional Economies.
New York, NY: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 1999; pp.
39–54.
29. Nguyen TTM, Tanbyah SK. Antecedents and consequences
of status consumption among urban Vietnamese consumers.
Organ Mark Emerg Econ. 2011; 2(1):75–98.
30. Bar-Heim G. The meaning of Western commercial arti-
facts for Eastern European. youth. J Contemp Ethno. 1987;
16(2):205–226.
31. Batra KOR, Ramaswamy V, Alden DL, Steenkamp JEM,
Ramachander S. Effects of brand local and nonlocal origin
on consumer attitudes in developing countries. J Consum
Psychol. 2000; 9(2):83–95.
32. Sklair L. The culture-ideology of consumerism in urban
China: Some findings from a survey in Shanghai. Res
Consum Behav. 1994; 7:259–292.
33. Schultz II CJ, Pecotich A, Le K. Changes in marketing activ-
ity and consumption in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. In
Ed. Clifford J. Shultz II, Russell Belk, Güliz Ger: Research
in Consumer Behavior: Consumption in Marketizing
Economies. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 1994: pp. 225–257.
34. Hamzaoui L, Dwight M. The impact of country of design
and country of manufacture on consumer perceptions of bi-
national products’ quality: An empirical model based on the
concept of fit. J Consum Mark. 2006; 23(3):145–155.
35. Narang R. Understanding purchase intention towards
Chinese products: Role of ethnocentrism, animosity, status
and self-esteem. J Retail Consum Serv. 2016; 32:253–261.
36. Parameswaran R, Pisharodi R Mohan. Assimilation effects in
country image research. Int Mark Rev. 2002; 19(3):259–278.
37. Lee HM, Lee CC. Country-of-origin and brand redeploy-
ment impact after brand acquisition. J Consum Mark. 2011;
28(6):412–420.
38. Licsandru TC, Szamosi LT, Papadopoulos N. The impact of
country-of-origin, ethnocentrism and animosity on product
evaluation: Evidence from Romania. Manag Dyn Knowl
Econ. 2013; 1(2):259–277.
Metamorphosis 20(1)
39. Haque A, Anwar N, Yasmin F, Sarwar A, Ibrahim Z,
Momen A. Purchase intention of foreign products: A study
on Bangladeshi consumer perspective. SAGE Open. 2015;
5(2):1–12.
40. Dagger ST, Raciti MM. Matching consumers’ country and
product image perceptions: An Australian perspective.
J Consum Mark. 2011; 28(3):200–210.
41. Agrawal J, Kamakura WA. Country of origin: A competi-
tive advantage? Int J Res Mark. 1999; 16(4):255–267.
42. Rosenbloom A, Haefner JE. Country-of-origin effects
and global brand trust: A first look. J Glob Mark. 2009;
22(4):267–278.
43. Piron F. Consumers’ perceptions of the country-of-origin
effect on purchasing intentions of (in)conspicuous products.
J Consum Mark. 2000; 17(4): 308–321.
44. Jin Z, Chansarkar B, Kondap NM. Brand origin in an
emerging market: Perceptions of Indian consumers. Asia
Pac J Mark Logist. 2006; 18(4):283–302.
45. Wong N, Ahuvia AC. Personal taste and family face:
Luxury consumption in Confucian and Western societies.
Psychol Mark. 1998; 15:423–441.
46. Wang X, Yang Z. Does country-of-origin matter in the rela-
tionship between brand personality and purchase intention
in emerging economies? Evidence from China’s auto indus-
try. Int Mark Rev. 2008; 25(4):458–474.
47. Bhakar SS, Bhakar S, Bhakar S. Relationship between coun-
try of origin, brand image and customer purchase intentions.
Far East J Psychol Bus. 2013; 10(2):25–47.
48. Khan H, Bamber D. Country of origin effects, brand image,
and social status in an emerging market. Hum Factors Ergon
Manuf. 2008; 18(5):580–588.
49. Jap W. Does “made in …” matter to Chinese consumers?
J Glob Bus Manag. 2013; 9(1):186–195.
50. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate
Data Analysis. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall;
2010.
51. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation mod-
els with unobservable variables and measurement error.
J Mark Res. 1981; 18(1):39–50.
52. Falk RF, Miller NB. A primer for soft modeling. Akron,
OH: University of Akron Press; 1992.
53. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator–mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual,
strategic and statistical considerations. J Personal Soc
Psychol. 1986; 51(6):1173–1182.
54. Verlegh PWJ, Steenkamp JBEM. A review and meta-
analysis of country-of-origin research. J Econ Psychol.
1999; 20(5):521–546.
55. Khan H, Bamber D. Market entry using country-of-origin
intelligence in an emerging market. J Small Bus Enterpr
Develop. 2007; 14(1):22–35.
56. Pandaa RK, Misra S. Impact of country-of-origin image on
brand equity: A study on durable products in India. Proc
Soc Behav Sci. 2014; 150:494–499.
57. Pham HC, Richards B. The Western brands in the minds
of Vietnamese consumers. J Consum Mark. 2015; 32(5):
367–375.
58. Narayanan R. The impact of factors influencing the buying
behaviour on the development of marketing strategies for
luxury fashion products: A study of the urban youth in select
cities of India. Doctoral Thesis. DY Patil University; 2014.