In selective coding, the final stage of the process, the aim is to pursue the “(...) procedure of selecting the core category, systematically relating it to other categories, validating those relationships, and filling in categories that need further refinement and development” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p.116).
Core categories represent the main focus points of the analysis, which all other categories can be attributed to. Categories must display conceptual density and a high level of abstraction to qualify as a core category in order to ensure the necessary foundation required for theory generation (Strauss &
Corbin, 1990).
In this study, multiple core categories are selected. Doing so entails the flexibility of remaining open to modifying codes and potentially shifting their focus at this stage (Thornberg & Charmaz, 2012).
Consequently, codes were adjusted according to emergent themes throughout all of the stages of coding in this study. By using a mind-map tool (Appendix 3.1), categories, and their relationship was validated.
Seven core categories emerged from the primary and secondary data: Authenticity, brand image, brand
73 associations, socialization, personal values, brand knowledge, and customer attitudes. Furthermore, a synthesis to theory was provided, comparing the core categories with the CBBE measurement scale derived from Aaker (1996), Keller (2009), and Baalbaki and Guzmán (2016). An example of the selective coding for socialization is provided in above provided Table 8.
Theoretical synthesis
Selective Coding
Axial Coding
Open Coding
Quote
Social influence
(Baalbaki &
Guzmán, 2016)
Socialization Ingroup vs outgroup
Envy Gen Y Male 1: “I think there is a certain jealousy regarding people that are buying nice stuff for themselves (…) I just don't want to make it seem like I have a lot of money to spare.”
Status
Gen X Female 3: “(…) But if you are at a certain level, you like it. But you also need to have these things.”
Group Acceptance
Gen Y Female 3: “ I think it's just human to try to feel that you belong to a certain group. (…) everyone tries to fit in somehow.”
Social
perception
Perception of self
Gen Y Female 1: “Well, I hope that they think
‘Oh she has style’.”
Perception of others
Gen X Female 2: “Well-off. And I always see a sporty, elegant person in front of me. So... not too funky, confident”.
Insider recognition
Gen Y Male 2: “I don't like...I like to be recognized like by my friends, but not by, like, everyone”
Table 8: Example of selective coding
74
5. Findings
This section presents the findings derived to answer the research question: ‘How does the generational shift from Generation X to Generation Y influence the customer-based brand equity of luxury fashion brands?’. The findings are structured in three core parts. Firstly, they present our model of CBBE and explain the synthesis between our theoretical model and the CBBE model used for data collection.
Secondly, the different drivers of CBBE are illustrated in detail, pointing out generational differences and similarities. Lastly, the identified moderator and outcomes of CBBE who are exemplified in a similar manner.
5.1 The CBBE model for luxury fashion brands
The literature review revealed that loyalty, perceived quality and leadership, association and differentiation, social influence, and sustainability are highly relevant parameters when measuring the CBBE specifically of luxury brands (Aaker, 1996; Keller, 2009; Baalbaki & Guzmán, 2016). However, the data analysis showed that not all of these parameters, to the same extent, are significant for the CBBE of LV for the customers of Gen X and Gen Y. For instance, some parameters, such as social influence, were found to be highly impactful, whereas sustainability is not very influential for the formation of CBBE of LV.
Furthermore, findings revealed that not all parameters play the same role in constructing the CBBE of LV. Instead they have differing impacts, where some parameters drive CBBE and others are emerged as moderators or outcomes of LV’s CBBE. To explore whether Gen X and Gen Y influence the brand equity of luxury fashion brands, we developed the conceptual model to illustrate generational differences among luxury customers (Figure 5). It synthesizes the theoretically derived CBBE model with the derived codes that emerged from data analysis.
In more detail, the model’s drivers are identified as authenticity, brand image, brand associations, and socialization, which can be related to the theoretically derived concepts such as perceived quality and leadership (Keller, 1996), associations and differentiation (Keller, 1996), and social influence (Baalbaki
& Guzmán, 2016). Furthermore, personal values in line with Wiedmann et al.’s (2009) value-based
75 segmentation are found to play a moderating role in the formation of CBBE. Lastly, brand knowledge and customer attitudes result as outcomes of LV’s CBBE for the consumers, entailing notions of Keller (1993) and Baalbaki & Guzmán (2016).
Figure 5: CBBE Model for Luxury Fashion Brands based on Gen X and Gen Y data
5.2 CBBE Drivers
Four identified drivers influence the creation of CBBE, namely authenticity, brand image, brand associations and socialization. They play an important role in the development of CBBE for both Gen X and Gen X. In the following, these drivers will be down into different components or sources, where generational differences and their role in CBBE creation are highlighted and discussed.
Authenticity Brand Image Brand Associations
Socialization Drivers of Brand Equity
Brand Knowledge Customer Attitudes Outcomes of Brand Equity Moderator:
Personal values
A Luxury Fashion Brand Equity Model To Identify Generational Differences
76
5.2.1 Authenticity
Figure 6 – The Authenticity Driver of LV’s CBBE
The first driver of CBBE for LV resonates with the concept of brand authenticity. For the respondents of both Gen X and Gen Y, authenticity appears highly relevant when purchasing luxury brands as it gives the brand a sense of timelessness and trustworthiness. Respondents define authenticity as a careful balance of uniqueness, heritage, and specific product attributes. Similarities can be found to Kapferer (1998), who argues that exclusivity, uniqueness, craftsmanship, high quality, heritage, and timelessness define luxury brands' attractiveness. Although this attractiveness is subjective, there are overarching qualities that consistently contribute to the perceived brand authenticity of LV, which, however, differ between the generations to some extent.