Limitations and Future Research

While this study is subject to several limitations, it also provides opportunities for future research. First, an important limitation arises from collecting data through interviews. This is caused by the concept of double hermeneutics, which entails a double interpretation process during data collection (Bell et al., 2019). Initially the interviewee first interprets his or her own social world and realities when engaging with the interviewer. Afterwards, the interviewer then interprets what was said by the interviewee. This double process inevitably adds subjectivity to the results of this study. Acknowledging this risk, we intended to minimize subjectivity by following data triangulation and supplementing primary with secondary data. Moreover, we analyzed the data separately to further reduce subjectivity of interpretations, which were then jointly discussed and concluded in the findings. Future research ought to triangulate data even further by using other additional data sources, for instance by conducting focus groups or field observations.

Secondly, the study design limits the external validity of results. Conducting a single case study allows to follow a holistic approach by exploratively investigating the novel research field of generational effects on CBBE of luxury fashion brands. Yet, choosing only one brand as the focal point of analysis inhibits the ability to validate results outside of the research context. Although LV was considered a

119 typical case that is expected to be representative of a larger population of luxury brands (Yin, 2003), the results first need to be validated in the context of other luxury brands to be generalized. This is particularly relevant given the fact that luxury brands are built on the premise of uniqueness, which makes them incomparable to other luxury brands (Kapferer & Bastien, 2012). Therefore, future research should replicate this study and increase the number of cases to include different luxury brands to test our findings. The external validity of our results is furthermore of concern as selecting primary data solely through conducting in-depth interviews likely results in mono-method bias. Consequently, future research should triangulate data even further by collecting primary data through additional data sources, such as a netnography or focus groups.

Third, the generalizability of our results is further limited due to a relatively small sample size of 16 participants. Although participants were sampled to include different nationalities and an equal distribution of gender and age to reach heterogeneity, the sample is likely not representative of the broader population of luxury customers. For instance, all sampled Gen Y participants are currently students, meaning that the data is biased towards Gen Y participants with a higher education background. Furthermore, it does not account for Gen Y customers that are currently employed, which is likely to affect their discretionary income and hence their ability to engage in luxury purchases.

Additionally, all Gen X participants are subject to a high income of their own or their partner. This leads them to enjoy an affluent lifestyle which likely influences their engagement with luxury brands in comparison to Gen X luxury customers of a weaker financial background. While this study’s findings provide a valuable first indication of differences between Gen X and Gen Y luxury customers in terms of CBBE, future research should address the issue of generalizability by including a larger sample size.

By doing so, attention should be paid to incorporate different educational and vocational backgrounds.

Making use of a larger sample size in future research will further ensure stronger theoretical saturation during the data collection and analysis process. Although theoretical saturation was concluded after the 16th interview, it is likely that a larger and more heterogeneous sample would have led to the emergence of further perspectives well beyond the 16th interview. The before-mentioned mono-method bias is also likely to have influenced the premature identification of theoretical saturation. Therefore, future research should not only include a larger sample size, but it is also deemed beneficial to incorporate multiple primary data collection methods to investigate the creation of CBBE from a cross-generational perspective.

120 Moreover, while this research serves as a first indication of generational differences on CBBE of luxury brands, the presented research design as well as the derived theoretical model may be extrapolated to include not only a larger sample size but also a broader range of luxury customers. For instance, the findings provide tentative evidence for causal inferences between customers’ perception of luxury brands, generational cohort membership and their cultural backgrounds. Therefore, replicating the research design or testing our theoretical model across specifically chosen nationalities will result in valuable insights in the future research. In particular, we believe that contrasting nationalities that are known to be culturally distant (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005), such as Asian and European countries, will result in significant findings. Given the growing importance of emerging countries for the luxury industry (Kapferer, 2016), such insights on generational differences generated in a cross-cultural setting may lead to important implications for the development of global branding strategies.

Furthermore, another future research opportunity is presented by including additional generations in the presented research design, such as generation Z (Gen Z) born after 2000 (Rich, 2008). As Gen Z is slowly entering the luxury market, studying them and how they create CBBE in comparison to other generations such as Gen X and Gen Y is expected to result in a future outlook on the long-term development of luxury branding strategies. In addition, not only cohort effects but also life cycle effects were found to influence differences in customers and the creation of CBBE. However, these were not specifically investigated in this study. Accounting for differences in the participants' life stages within generations as suggested by Gurau (2012) and Hellevik (2002) is expected to result in even more nuanced findings concerning generational differences in CBBE creation.

Lastly, through the data analysis process, authenticity was concluded to be a driver of CBBE creation, encompassing brand perceptions such as uniqueness or brand heritage. As brand authenticity did not emerge as a particularly important factor of CBBE for luxury brands during the literature review, it was not formally addressed in the data collection process. However, based on this study’s findings, the role of brand authenticity should be further investigated in future research. Obtaining profound knowledge on the concrete role of brand authenticity on CBBE in a luxury context will provide both scholars as well as brand managers with important implications on the concept’s role in luxury brand management.

121