Coach Versus Goldlion: The Effect of Socially Versus Personally Oriented Motives on Consumer Preference for Foreign and Domestic Masstige Brands in Emerging Markets

Abstract

The fast-growing middle class in emerging markets is leading luxury brands to adopt an affordable luxury (aka “masstige”) approach to reach the mass market. However, academic research in this promising area is scarce. Focusing on China, the world's largest emerging market, this research shows a novel pattern of masstige brand consumption: Instead of always preferring foreign masstige brands (e.g., Coach) as implied in previous international marketing literature, consumers in emerging markets prefer domestic masstige brands (e.g., Goldlion) when their personally oriented motives are made salient. In contrast, consumers prefer foreign masstige brands when their socially oriented motives are made salient. This stems from domestic masstige brands better manifesting self-focused intangible attributes (i.e., the actual value to please oneself), whereas foreign masstige brands are superior in other-focused intangible attributes (i.e., the symbolic value to impress others). Three studies using a multimethod approach provide converging results that support this phenomenon. The findings bring significant contributions to the literature and offer actionable implications for managers, including positioning and price promotion strategies for masstige brands in emerging markets.

Keywords

masstige brand country of origin socially oriented motives personally oriented motives price elasticity

The luxury industry continues to flourish in emerging economies (Ko, Costello, and Taylor 2019). Take China, the largest emerging market in the world, as an example: China is a new leader of luxury consumption worldwide, accounting for 35% of global sales (Danziger 2020). Traditionally, luxury branding has mainly focused on a product's exclusivity by featuring its symbolic values through rarity and high prices to signal one's elite social status (Han, Nunes, and Drèze 2010; Wang, Stoner, and John 2019). However, the magnitude of the market size and the growing spending power of the middle class in emerging economies have led luxury brands to adopt a more inclusive strategy, namely, the masstige (mass + prestige) strategy (Toh 2020; Wang 2021).

Masstige brands (e.g., Coach, Kate Spade, Pandora, Hugo Boss) reflect a level of luxury where the quality, styles, and prices of items are higher than everyday, ordinary products, but lower than premium and traditional luxury goods in the same category (Das, Saha, and Balaji 2022; Kumar, Paul, and Unnithan 2020; Paul 2019). Although traditional premium luxury brands and new masstige brands both belong to the luxury family, they differ in their market positioning. While the premium luxury brand highlights its rarity and exclusivity to signal its elite status for only a few customers, the masstige strategy takes a more inclusive approach: It offers premium goods at attainable prices to reach a mass consumer population (Kumar and Paul 2018; Silverstein and Fiske 2003). To a certain extent, masstige brands can be viewed as a downward extension of premium luxury brands to target a broader population in the market; it is where status and affordability meet (Das, Saha, and Balaji 2022; Silverstein and Fiske 2003).

Although masstige branding is relatively new, it has proved to be a successful strategy, particularly in emerging markets. Masstige brand sales in China reached $33 billion in 2016 and are expected to keep a 11%–13% annual increase, potentially reaching $90 billion by 2025 (Huang et al. 2017). The fast-growing masstige consumption has emerged from brands’ “mass marketing” nature coupled with the fast-growing middle class of consumers in the target market (Cavusgil et al. 2018). Among the fastest growing populations in the world, China's middle class reached 400 million in 2019 and is expected to reach 500 million in 2025 and 750 million by 2035 (Chen 2020; Hye 2021).

Despite the success of the masstige approach in the marketplace, academic research on masstige brands is relatively behind (Gao et al. 2009; Paul 2018). To further complicate the issue, when making purchase decisions, consumers in emerging markets often face the challenge of choosing a foreign or domestic masstige brand. Unlike traditional premium luxuries that are exclusively foreign (i.e., Western), masstige brands in emerging markets are composed of foreign and domestic luxuries. For example, when considering purchasing a wallet, Chinese consumers often consider Coach (foreign) and Goldlion (domestic) options, which are popular masstige brands available in the Chinese market (CDN Newswire 2022). Similarly, Starbucks is a popular foreign masstige coffee brand that is considered the “new luxury” in China (Atwal 2021), whereas its largest competitor, Luckin Coffee, is a domestic Chinese masstige brand (Xu 2019).

What are the primary motives that lead consumers to prefer domestic (vs. foreign) masstige brands? The extant literature offers little insight to address this question. Previous research shows that consumers’ motives underlying luxury consumption can be broadly categorized into socially oriented motives (e.g., status signaling) and personally oriented motives (e.g., personal enjoyment and gratification) (Patrick and Monga 2020). However, most prior work focused primarily on either the personally oriented or the socially oriented motives to explain consumers’ luxury consumption, and little research considered both motives simultaneously (e.g., Berger and Ward 2010; Hagtvedt and Patrick 2009). Therefore, an important, but unaddressed, question is: How do socially oriented and personally oriented motives influence consumer preference of domestic (vs. foreign) masstige brands in emerging markets? Answering this question is critical in illuminating effective marketing strategies (e.g., segmentation, positioning, ad appeals) for both domestic brands and foreign brands.

This research synthesizes the findings from two streams of research, namely, the country-of-origin (COO) effect in the international marketing literature and the socially versus personally oriented motives in the luxury consumption literature. We theorize and empirically show a novel pattern of masstige brand consumption: Instead of always preferring foreign masstige brands as implied in previous international marketing literature, consumers in emerging markets prefer domestic masstige brands when their personally oriented motives are made salient. In contrast, they prefer foreign masstige brands when their socially oriented motives are made salient. Consistent with these findings, we also show that foreign (vs. domestic) masstige brands have smaller price elasticity. Therefore, foreign masstige brands should avoid price promotions to resonate with their target consumers, whereas discounts and sales might be more effective for domestic masstige brands.

This research aims to significantly contribute to the international marketing and the luxury consumption literatures. First, prior research on luxury branding from the COO perspective is limited, as traditional premium luxury brands are typically exclusively foreign. However, masstige brands provide a unique opportunity for investigating the COO effect in the context of luxury consumption, given that foreign and domestic masstige brands coexist in emerging markets (Kumar, Paul, and Unnithan 2020). Second, by synthesizing the international marketing and luxury consumption literatures, we are among the first to theorize and empirically test how the salience of different consumption motives (socially oriented vs. personally oriented) affects consumers’ preferences for foreign versus domestic masstige brands. This is an important discovery because it opens new avenues for future researchers to examine new forms of luxury consumption in the evolving international economy. Third, we underscore an unidentified relationship between price elasticity and the COO of masstige brands, showing that foreign (vs. domestic) masstige brands have lower price elasticity due to the distinct intangible attributes associated these two types of masstige brands. As far as we know, this is the first time that the difference in price elasticity across domestic and foreign masstige brands has been documented in the literature.

From a managerial perspective, our research offers myriad actionable managerial implications for the positioning and pricing strategies of masstige brands in emerging markets. For example, depending on its COO, a masstige brand may adopt distinctive positioning and marketing tactics (e.g., product design following the global trend vs. one's own cultural background) to target different segments (i.e., personally oriented vs. socially oriented consumers) of emerging markets. Additionally, in a departure from the conventional wisdom that price promotion is incompatible with luxury brands (Dalton 2018; Langer 2020), our findings suggest that price promotion effectiveness may vary depending on a masstige brand's COO. Thus, managers of masstige brands should strategically appraise price promotions.

The remainder of the article introduces the concept of masstige brands and synthesizes the luxury consumption involving different motives and the international marketing literature on the COO effect. We then develop hypotheses on how and why socially oriented and personally oriented motives exert differential impacts on consumer preference for domestic (vs. foreign) masstige brands, followed by three studies to test these hypotheses. We conclude the article with a discussion of our findings and their implications to theory and practice.

Theoretical Background and Hypotheses

Masstige Brands and Major Motives for Masstige Consumption

Masstige brands refer to “high-quality status-granting non-exclusive brands priced reasonably below traditional luxuries but at a premium to similar mass-market alternates in that product category” (Das, Saha, and Balaji 2022, p. 523). Although the exact definition of masstige brands may vary because it is a relatively new phenomenon (for a summary of different definitions, see Table 1), researchers have generally agreed on two key features that characterize masstige brands: (1) status granting: the brand must have a more prestigious image and better quality than everyday brands and (2) affordability: the brand is priced below traditional premium luxury items such that it is more attainable for the mass market. As put by Silverstein and Fiske (2003, p. 50), masstige brands take “a sweet spot between mass and class.” In a similar vein, some scholars refer to the masstige strategy as “luxury democratization” (Shukla et al. 2022; Tsai 2005). Table 2 presents some examples of premium luxury and masstige brands.

Table 1.

Definition of Masstige Brands.

Study	Definition
Kim et al. (2019, p. 277)	“Masstige brands … make luxury accessible to the mass market.”
Das, Saha, and Balaji (2022, p. 523)	“High-quality status-grating non-exclusive brands priced reasonably below traditional luxuries but at a premium to similar mass-market alternates in that product category.”
Truong, McColl, and Kitchen (2009, p. 376)	Masstige brands are “often targeted to the mass and are less expensive than traditional luxury goods, which have a well-confined exclusivity in terms of both accessibility and price.”
Silverstein and Fiske (2003, p. 1)	“Products and services that possess higher levels of quality, taste, and aspiration than other goods in the category but are not so expensive as to be out of reach.”
Brun and Castelli (2013, p. 832)	Masstige brands are “not necessarily rare or manufactured in low volume [yet] they acquire the luxury label due to design, additional services or the aura created by the brand.”
Granot, Russell, and Brashear-Alejandro (2013, p. 33)	“The mass production and distribution of premium goods and services” that are “accessible, intimate, ubiquitous.”

Table 2.

Examples of Premium Luxury and Masstige Brands.

Category	Premier Luxury Brands		Masstige Brands
Category	Brand	Country of Origin	Brand	Country of Origin
Handbag	Hermès	f	Coach	f
	Channel	f	Kate Spade	f
	Louis Vuitton	f	Goldlion (金利来)	d
Clothing	Armani	f	Hugo Boss	f
	Burberry	f	Youngor (雅戈尔)	d
	Dior	f	FIRS (杉杉)	d
Jewelry	Bulgari	f	Pandora	f
Jewelry	Cartier	f	Chow Sang Sang (周生生)	d
Wine	Château Lafite Rothschild	f	Penfolds	f
Wine	Romanee Conti	f	Changyu Noble Dragon (张裕)	d

Notes: f = foreign, d = domestic (i.e., China).

Prior research has identified two types of consumer motives for luxury consumption: the socially oriented and the personally oriented (Berger and Ward 2010; Patrick and Monga 2020; Tynan, McKechnie, and Chhuon 2010). These two motives have fundamental differences in their very natures. Socially oriented motives describe when “buying to impress others” drives consumers’ luxury consumption and when consumers use luxury goods to indicate their elite social status. In the marketing literature, socially oriented motives of luxury consumption are mainly exhibited as status signaling: People consume luxury goods because luxury goods give their owners favorable social images (Han, Nunes, and Drèze 2010; Sallot 2002; Zhou and Hui 2003). In contrast, personally oriented motives highlight one's self-interest and enjoyment of luxury consumption (Hagtvedt and Patrick 2009; Holmqvist, Ruiz, and Peñaloza 2020). While scholarship on personally oriented motives is relatively scarce, researchers posit that luxury consumption matches individuals’ personal tastes and brings them joy, serving as a mechanism for consumers to reward themselves (Holbrook and Hirschman 1982; Holmqvist, Ruiz, and Peñaloza 2020; Lageat, Czellar, and Laurent 2003; Wang 2021). Web Appendix A, Table W1, summarizes the main findings related to these two motives in the luxury consumption literature.

Notably, socially oriented and personally oriented motives are not mutually exclusive. The two motives are likely to coexist within buying decisions involving masstige brands, but their weights may differ in specific purchase situations. Therefore, this research takes a relative-importance perspective (i.e., socially oriented motives weigh more than personally oriented motives, or vice versa) rather than an either–or approach. We suggest that both motives are critical to masstige consumption. On one hand, masstige brands help consumers signal their status, which satisfies their socially oriented motives. Masstige brands are superior to everyday brands, so they exhibit “a symbolic marker of group membership” (Kastanakis and Balabanis 2012, p. 1402) to differentiate the brand users from those that are in the “mainstream” (Bellezza, Gino, and Keinan 2014; Berger and Ward 2010; Han, Nunes, and Drèze 2010). On the other hand, the affordability enables masstige brands to better satisfy consumers’ personally oriented motives via luxury consumption, as masstige brands offer better opportunities for consumers to draw personal fulfillment based on their personal preferences and tastes.

Next, we bring in the COO effect and turn our discussion to how (and why) domestic and foreign masstige brands help satisfy consumer needs, depending on whether consumers’ socially oriented or personally oriented motives are made salient at the time of decision making.

County-of-Origin Effect in Masstige Consumption

In today's highly commoditized and globalized market, COO information has become critical to consumers’ brand inferences (Khan and Bamber 2008; Liu et al. 2021; Ulgado and Lee 1998). Through unique associations with a brand's home nation, COO information conveys country-specific advantages or benefits, and transfers these characteristics to consumers’ perceptions and evaluations of brands (Koschate-Fischer, Diamantopoulos, and Oldenkotte 2012; Sun et al. 2017; Suter et al. 2018). This research examines masstige consumption in China, because of its market size and importance in the luxury market. We conceptualize and operationalize a brand's COO by categorizing it as a domestic (i.e., Chinese) or foreign (i.e., Western) brand (for some examples, see Table 2).¹

The international marketing literature has established that consumers generate brand bias based on a brand's COO, which further influences their product evaluations and choices (Elliott and Cameron 1994; Gürhan-Canli and Maheswaran 2000; Zhou, Yang, and Hui 2010). In particular, two types of brand attributes—tangible and intangible—are believed to cause such COO biases (Batra et al. 2000; Baughn and Yaprak 1993; Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003). Tangible attributes are usually concrete and directly related to the physical composition of the product (e.g., product quality, performance). Emerging market consumers may associate foreign brands with superior quality because of their standardized quality-control systems (Hong et al. 2023; Özsomer and Altaras 2008; Özsomer and Simonin 2004) and multimarket reach and coverage (Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 1999; Keller 1998). In contrast, intangible attributes refer to the features that are external to the physical product itself (Batra et al. 2000; Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003). In emerging markets, an important intangible attribute carried by foreign brands is the symbolic value, as consumers usually associate these brands with the “glamorous Western consumption practices and lifestyles” (Batra et al. 2000, p. 85).

Prior research on the COO effect has primarily been conducted in nonluxury contexts because high-end luxuries are exclusively foreign, which makes the COO concept irrelevant in the context of luxury consumption. In these nonluxury contexts, tangible and intangible attributes play important roles in product evaluations, with tangible attributes sometimes having the greater impact (Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003). However, we expect the intangible attributes to play a dominant role in the context of luxury consumption because luxury, including masstige, brands usually exceed the hurdle of quality and performance, which makes tangible attributes less important in consumer decision making. In fact, luxury-consumption consumers focus more on the higher-level motives such as status and self-actualization (e.g., Berger and Ward 2010; Hagtvedt and Patrick 2009). Because both foreign masstige brands and domestic masstige brands belong to the luxury family and have already passed the high-quality threshold (Das, Saha, and Balaji 2022), tangible attributes should be less diagnostic in driving consumers’ preferences for masstige brands. Consistent with our argument, tangible attributes, such as quality-related characteristics (e.g., extra buttons, particular stitching), become a less distinguishable cue to consumers when they are purchasing luxury items (Berger and Ward 2010; Han, Nunes, and Drèze 2010).

We further anticipate that two types of intangible attributes are particularly relevant to masstige brands: other-focused attributes (e.g., status signaling), which provide symbolic value to impress others, and self-focused attributes (e.g., identity recognition, personal enjoyment), which provide actual value to please oneself. As discussed next, a masstige brand's superiority in self- or other-focused attributes changes consumers’ preferences for foreign versus domestic masstige brands, depending on the salience of their motives at the time of product choice.

Socially Oriented Motives and Preference for Foreign (vs. Domestic) Masstige Brands

We expect that when socially oriented motives are salient, emerging market consumers prefer foreign masstige brands. This is because foreign masstige brands are superior in other-focused intangible attributes, which provide more extrinsic value and benefits (e.g., enhanced social status) to the brand user. The gist of socially oriented motives through masstige consumption is to impress others. In such a situation, consumers emphasize the symbolic values associated with brands rather than the tangible attributes, such as functionality and quality, or self-focused intangible attributes. In line with our reasoning, previous research shows that compared with domestic brands, foreign brands can better signal the user's status, as “status goods are nearly inevitably foreign” (Ger, Belk, and Lascu 1993, p. 104). Consumers in emerging markets have a tradition of adopting foreign brands to communicate and improve their social status by exhibiting “elite power and privilege” because foreign (especially Western) brands have historically been relatively rare in emerging markets and thus convey more exclusivity than domestic brands (Batra et al. 2000; Burke 1996, p. 181). Consider the success of the masstige brand Coach in China. The popularity of Coach can be largely attributed to the status that the brand offers; it represents an aspirational lifestyle and consumption attitudes of an elite class in contemporary Western society (Lu 2013). Thus, we hypothesize:

H₁: When socially oriented motives are salient, consumers in emerging markets prefer foreign over domestic masstige brands.

Personally Oriented Motives and Preference for Domestic (vs. Foreign) Masstige Brands

We further expect that when personally oriented motives are salient, consumers in emerging markets will prefer domestic masstige brands. Rather than striving for an impressive social image, personally oriented motives are about pleasing the self, which “features the feelings of bliss, contentment, and ecstasy for the self” (Tsai 2005, p. 3). Prior research has identified that heightened personally oriented motives can come from many sources, including self-indulgence (Mick and Demoss 1990; Tsai 2005), the need for congruity with one's internal self (Vickers and Renand 2003), and a preference for being authentic (Beverland 2006; Nijssen and Douglas 2011). Consistent with these personally oriented motives, domestic masstige brands are superior to foreign masstige brands in the following self-focused intangible attributes: (1) value for money, which helps consumers in emerging markets enhance their personal enjoyment, and (2) a better understanding of local consumers’ needs and wants, thereby enabling domestic masstige brands to provide more authentic and culturally relevant offerings and experiences.

The COO literature shows that value for money is an important benefit that leads consumers in emerging markets to favor domestic over foreign brands, although it is not examined in the context of luxury consumption (Kinra 2006; Silverstein 2006). Extending this stream of research to masstige consumption, we expect that compared with foreign counterparts, domestic masstige brands can grant consumers more personal enjoyment and indulgence, as the cost difference allows for extra or upgraded products or services for the same price. For instance, the foreign masstige brand Starbucks charges about $4.80 per cup in China, while the domestic masstige brand Luckin Coffee charges only $3.50 (Xu 2019). For $4.80, Luckin consumers can choose a larger coffee or an additional snack. Therefore, whether it means a product upgrade (e.g., a domestic genuine leather handbag may cost less than a foreign canvas handbag) or increased quantity (e.g., the same amount of money can buy a medium Starbucks coffee or a large Luckin Coffee), domestic brands may amplify the joy and pleasure that consumers get (i.e., the actual value to please oneself) by trading down from a foreign brand name.

Also, domestic (vs. foreign) masstige brands tend to understand local consumers better, so they can provide more accurate market offerings to suit consumers’ personally oriented motives (e.g., satisfying personal tastes and lifestyles more authentically). Foreign masstige brands are usually centrally coordinated (from the top) from a Western (i.e., European or North American) worldview, with local executives having little freedom to make modifications for the local context (Danziger 2019). Such a one-way approach is ill-equipped to suit the unique needs of domestic consumers. As evidenced by Dolce and Gabbana's recent pizza-chopsticks ad debacle in the Chinese market, foreign masstige brands lack a deep understanding of domestic values, making it harder to connect with their domestic consumers at the personal level (Danziger 2019). Relatedly, prior research has highlighted the importance of brand authenticity in the global market, as consumers desire unique and genuine brand characteristics (Nijssen and Douglas 2011). Relative to foreign masstige brands, domestic brands can leverage a far better understanding of local markets and provide more indomitable advantages to cater to the tastes of their domestic consumers (Ewing et al. 2002). Through a number of key branding elements—including the brand name (Zhang and Schmitt 2001), advertising appeals (Verlegh, Steenkamp, and Meulenberg 2005), language (Samiee, Shimp, and Sharma 2005), and package designs and aesthetics associated with the local market (Suter et al. 2018)—domestic masstige brands can better satisfy consumers’ personally oriented motives. Taken together, we hypothesize:

H₂: When personally oriented motives are salient, consumers in emerging markets prefer domestic over foreign masstige brands.

Price Elasticity for Foreign (vs. domestic) Masstige Brands

We further anticipate that different consumption motives, whether socially or personally oriented, affect not only consumers’ brand choices but also their responses to key marketing tactics of masstige brands, such as pricing. Price elasticity reflects the degree to which consumers respond to price changes or differences for products or services (Wakefield and Inman 2003). Prior research has identified a number of factors that may affect price elasticity, including price format (Dhar and Hoch 1996), price framing (Lichtenstein and Bearden 1989), product type (Gardner 1971), consumption situations (Netemeyer, Bearden, and Teel 1992), and cultural differences (Lee, Lalwani, and Wang 2020). However, there is a scarcity of research on how price elasticity is affected by consumption motive (i.e., socially oriented vs. personally oriented) and/or a brand's COO (i.e., domestic vs. foreign).

We previously asserted that the consumption of foreign masstige brands stems from socially oriented motives, whereas that of domestic masstige brands is driven by personally oriented motives. If our theorizing is valid, we would expect heterogeneity in price elasticity among luxury items in the unique context of masstige consumption. In particular, we expect consumers to be less price sensitive for foreign than domestic masstige brands. This is because paying a higher price for a functionally equivalent product can display wealth and social status, which is consistent with socially oriented motives (Bagwell and Bernheim 1996; Pesendorfer 1995). Given that a major thrust associated with buying foreign masstige brands is to impress others and build admirable social images, consumers should be less price sensitive to avoid the “negative connotations, such as being perceived as ‘cheap’ or unable to afford the higher priced alternative” (Wakefield and Inman 2003, p. 206). On the contrary, an increased price weakens the key benefit of value for money that domestic masstige brands offer, as it means less personal gain, highlights pain for payment (Holmqvist, Ruiz, and Peñaloza 2020; Kinra 2006; Silverstein 2006), and is less consistent with the personally oriented motives, such as self-indulgence, making domestic masstige brands less desirable. Taken together, we hypothesize:

H₃: Foreign masstige brands have lower price elasticity than domestic masstige brands in emerging markets.

To test these hypotheses, we used a multimethod approach through three studies to enhance the reliability and generalizability of our findings. Study 1 used secondary data of masstige jewelry purchases in China to provide initial evidence on the effects of socially oriented (H₁) and personally oriented (H₂) motives on one's preference for domestic (vs. foreign) masstige brands. It further showed that foreign masstige brands have lower price elasticity than domestic masstige brands (H₃). Study 2 replicated Study 1's findings using consumers’ actual expenditures across different product categories and demonstrated superiority of other-focused and self-focused attributes as a key mechanism. To establish the causal direction between consumption motives and brand choice, Study 3 empirically manipulated socially oriented and personally oriented motives and examined their impacts on participants’ choices between foreign versus domestic masstige watches, thus providing further support for H₁ and H₂.

Study 1

Method

Sample

The secondary data were obtained from a leading marketing research company in China, containing responses from 737 Chinese consumers who had purchased one of the six major masstige jewelry brands in the six months before the data were gathered. These respondents were carefully selected to match the profile of typical customers in the jewelry masstige market in China at the time of the study. This data set includes several pieces of information related to consumption, including brand choice, price paid, and perceived quality (1 = “the lowest quality,” and 10 = “the highest quality”) of the six major jewelry brands in the marketplace. Brands 1 and 2 were foreign brands, whereas Brands 3–6 were domestic brands. None of the consumers purchased multiple brands. Given our agreement with the research firm, we are not allowed to reveal the names of these brands. Table 3 provides the summary statistics of the six brands, and Web Appendix B, Table W2, presents the summary statistics of consumer demographics.

Table 3.

Summary Statistics of the Six Brands in Study 1.

Brand	Brand 1	Brand 2	Brand 3	Brand 4	Brand 5	Brand 6
Domestic brand	0	0	1	1	1	1
Choice share	19.81%	22.39%	14.65%	14.79%	14.11%	14.25%
Price average^a	1.46	1.53	1.21	1.24	1.07	1.26
Quality	8.72	8.24	8.32	8.21	7.83	8.00

^aPrice and budget unit: ¥1,000.

Scales

To assess the motives underlying consumers’ masstige consumption, the research company incorporated a seven-item, five-point scale (see Web Appendix C, Table W3) in the survey. Specifically, personally oriented motives were assessed by three items (e.g., “Purchasing masstige brands brings me personal pleasure and enjoyment;” α = .76), whereas socially oriented motives were measured by four items (e.g., “Masstige brands help me show off my social status;” α = .82). These items were adapted from Guido et al. (2020) and were randomized in the survey to reduce the common method bias (Podsakoff et al. 2003).²

Statistical tools

We used a utility maximization framework in which a factor analysis is embedded (Kamakura and Russell 1989; Koval et al. 2016), And we took two steps. First, we conducted a factor analysis to extract two key motives of masstige consumption. Second, we embedded the consumption motives into a discrete choice model to explore how consumption motives influenced masstige brand choice to test our hypotheses.

In the first step, following Koval et al. (2016), we applied a factor analysis to reduce the dimension redundancy of variables and better extract the key motives underlying masstige purchases. As expected, two components were extracted from the factor analysis (Web Appendix C, Table W3). These two factors extracted 66.35% of data variance. As part of the confirmation of the two factors, we also provided the scree plot in Web Appendix C, Figure W1. The plot showed that both components had eigenvalues above 1. M1–M3 loaded more on Factor 2, which reflected personally oriented motives, whereas M4–M7 loaded more on Factor 1, which reflected socially oriented motives.³ The factor scores produced in this analysis were used in the next step to represent the two purchase motives for masstige consumption.

In the second step, we used a random utility maximization framework to model consumer demand for different masstige brands. We specified consumer utility u as

u = β_{0} + β_{1} Dom + β_{2} P + β_{3} Dom \times P + β_{4} Q + ε,

(1)

where Dom was a dummy variable indicating whether each brand was a domestic or foreign brand (0 = foreign, 1 = domestic). P was the price of each brand, while Q captured the quality of each brand.

We used two sets of variables to consider heterogeneous preference toward brands’ COO and price elasticity, and further specified $β_{1}$ and $β_{2}$ as:

β_{1} = α_{1} + α_{2} Social + α_{3} Personal + α_{4} D,

(2)

β_{2} = α_{5} + α_{6} Social + α_{7} Personal + α_{8} D,

(3)

where Social reflected socially oriented motives and Personal reflected personally oriented motives. D was a vector of consumer demographic variables to control for observed heterogeneity, including family income, gender, age, and abroad experience.

Combining Equations 1–3, we obtained:

\begin{aligned} u = & β_{0} + α_{1} Dom + α_{5} P + β_{3} Dom \times P + α_{2} Social \times Dom \\ + α_{3} Personal \times Dom + α_{4} D \times Dom + α_{6} Social \times P \\ + α_{7} Personal \times P + α_{8} D \times P + β_{4} Q + ε, \end{aligned}

(4)

where

α_{2} Social \times Dom

and

α_{3} Personal \times Dom

tested whether consumers with socially oriented motives and those with personally oriented motives had different preferences toward foreign (H₁) and domestic (H₂) masstige brands, respectively.

β_{3} Dom \times P

tested whether price elasticity differed across domestic and foreign brands (H₃).

α_{1} Dom

and

α_{5} P

captured the baseline preference toward domestic brands and the baseline price coefficient, respectively.

β_{0}

was a vector of brand intercepts. Identification of a discrete choice model required to fix

α_{1}

and one of the brand intercepts to be 0. Detailed discussions regarding identifications in a discrete choice model can be found in Kamakura and Russell (1989). Table 4 presents an overview of the variables. We assumed that the error terms were i.i.d. and followed the Type I extreme value distribution (i.e.,

ε \sim EV (0, 1)

) to apply the maximum likelihood estimation for our model estimation.

Table 4.

Variable List in Study 1.

Variable	Variable Type	Operationalization
Y	Dependent	Whether each brand is chosen. It is connected with consumer utility u with a logistic link: $prob (Y = 1) = \frac{\exp (u)}{1 + \exp (u)}$ .
Dom	Independent	Whether each brand is a domestic brand (0, 1).
P	Independent	Price of each brand.
Social	Independent	Consumer's socially oriented motive score.
Personal	Independent	Consumer's personally oriented motive score.
D	Control	Consumer's demographic variables, including Income, Gender, Age, and Abroad.
Q	Control	Perceived quality of each brand.
Income	Control	Income level as described in Web Appendix B, Table W2.
Gender	Control	Gender (1 = male, 0 = female).
Age	Control	Age level as described in Web Appendix B, Table W2.
Abroad	Control	Whether consumer has abroad work/study experience (0, 1).
Important interaction terms for hypothesis testing
Social × Dom		To test whether socially oriented motives induce greater preferences for foreign brands (H₁).
Personal × Dom		To test whether personally oriented motives induce greater preferences for domestic brands (H₂).
Dom × P		To test whether foreign brands have lower elasticity than domestic brands (H₃).

Results

The estimation results are presented in Table 5, Column 2. Consistent with H₁, the coefficient of Social × Dom was negative and significant (β = −.406, p < .01), indicating that consumers were more likely to purchase foreign (vs. domestic) brands if their motives were socially oriented. Supporting H₂, the coefficient of Personal × Dom was positive and significant (β = .474, p < .01), indicating that consumers were more likely to purchase domestic masstige brands if their motives were personally oriented. Note that we included the brands’ quality Q as a control variable. As expected, the coefficient of quality was positive and significant (β = 1.552, p < .01), indicating that consumers were more likely to purchase brands with higher quality. It is worth noting that our main findings between COO and consumption motives are robust after controlling for this quality effect.⁴

Table 5.

Model Estimation Results of Study 1.

Variables	Proposed Model	Alternative Model
P	−2.915*	−2.447*
Dom × P	−.365**	−.389**
Social × Dom	−.406**	−.505**
Personal × Dom	.474**	.516**
Income × Dom	−.191	−.065
Gender × Dom	−.046	−.045
Abroad × Dom	−.438	−.520
Age × Dom	.011	.030
Social × P	1.550**	1.433**
Personal × P	−1.636**	−1.466**
Income × P	2.207	1.530
Gender × P	1.314	1.262
Abroad × P	−.263	−.258
Age × P	.206	−.289
Q	1.552**	1.957*
Q × Dom		−.352
Q × Social		−2.409**
Q × Personal		.994
Brand 1	Fixed	Fixed
Brand 2	.141	.666
Brand 3	.382	.732
Brand 4	.459	.129
Brand 5	.820*	1.121
Brand 6	.789*	1.094
Bayesian information criterion	2,203.28	2,204.36

*p < .05, **p < .01.

H₃ specifies that foreign masstige brands have lower price elasticity than domestic masstige brands. Consistent with H₃, results showed that the coefficient of Dom × P was negative and significant (β = −.365, p < .01). Also, the coefficient of Social × P was positive and significant (β = 1.550, p < .01), and the coefficient of Personal × P was negative and significant (β = −1.636, p < .01), suggesting that socially oriented motives are associated with lower price elasticity, whereas personally oriented motives are associated with larger price elasticity. These findings are consistent with our theorizing.

Counterfactual Analyses

Our estimation results showed that consumers would prefer foreign masstige brands if their socially oriented motives were made salient and that they would prefer domestic masstige brands if their personally oriented motives were made salient. An important managerial implication is that marketers can use tools (e.g., advertising) to influence consumers’ brand choices through the salience of these consumption motives. To quantify such an effect, we conducted three counterfactual analyses to explore the following hypothetical scenarios: (1) only foreign masstige brands advertise to enhance the salience of socially oriented motives, (2) only domestic masstige brands advertise and lead consumers to be more personally oriented, and (3) foreign masstige brands advertise to enhance the salience of socially oriented motives while domestic masstige brands advertise to enhance the salience of personally oriented motives.

To provide a benchmark for the comparison, we first used our model estimates to predict choice shares of the six brands and present the results Table 6, Row 2. In the first counterfactual analysis, we explored the situation in which marketers of foreign masstige brands focused on socially oriented motives in their ads while those of domestic masstige brands did not advertise anything. Presumably, this would make consumers become more socially oriented in masstige consumption. We performed this analysis by increasing the score of socially oriented motives by .5 standard deviation above the mean for each consumer. The predicted market share and the percentage change compared to the benchmark are presented in Table 6, Rows 3 and 4. Results showed that if consumers were more socially oriented, this change would significantly benefit foreign brands, as the choice shares increased by 8%–10%. However, foreign brands’ advertising would hurt domestic brands, as there is a negative spillover effect such that the market shares would drop by about 6%–7% for domestic brands. This is because consumers would switch from domestic brands to foreign brands when exposed to ads germane to socially oriented motives.

Table 6.

Counterfactual Analyses Results.

Analysis		Brand 1	Brand 2	Brand 3	Brand 4	Brand 5	Brand 6
Benchmark	Share%	19.97	22.28	14.69	14.75	14.10	14.22
Social increase	Share%	21.62	24.46	13.73	13.77	13.19	13.23
Social increase	Change%	8.28	9.79	−6.53	−6.63	−6.48	−6.92
Personal increase	Share%	18.09	19.76	15.80	15.87	15.15	15.33
Personal increase	Change%	−9.41	−11.30	7.60	7.63	7.40	7.83
Both increase	Share%	19.67	21.93	14.85	14.91	14.26	14.38
Both increase	Change%	−1.48	−1.58	1.12	1.13	1.09	1.15

In the second counterfactual analysis, we explored the situation in which domestic masstige firms focused on personally oriented motives in their ads while foreign firms did not advertise anything. In this case, consumers’ personally oriented motives tend to be salient in masstige consumption. Similar to the first analysis, we increased the score of personally oriented motives by .5 standard deviation above the mean for each consumer. The predicted market share and percentage change are presented in Table 6, Rows 5 and 6. Results indicated that domestic brands would benefit from this change, as their choice shares would increase by about 7%–8%. There is also a negative spillover effect for foreign brands, as their choice shares would decrease by 9%–12%. Thus, consumers would switch from foreign brands to domestic brands when exposed to ads that enhance the salience of personally oriented motives.

Our first two counterfactual analyses explored the scenarios in which only one type of consumption motives was highlighted in advertising. What if socially oriented motives (promoted by foreign brands) and personally oriented motives (promoted by domestic brands) are advertised simultaneously? In other words, if foreign masstige brands launch socially oriented motive campaigns at the same time that domestic brands launch personally oriented motive campaigns, how would the choice shares be affected for each party? To answer this question, we conducted the third counterfactual analysis by increasing the scores of both types of motives by .5 standard deviation above the mean. As shown in Table 6, Rows 7 and 8, foreign brands would suffer and domestic brands would thrive in China if foreign brands focused on socially oriented motives at the same time that domestic brands focused on personally oriented motives in their campaigns.

Discussion

Using secondary data, Study 1 provided initial evidence that socially oriented motives lead consumers to prefer foreign over domestic masstige brands, whereas personally oriented motives influence consumers to favor domestic over foreign masstige brands. Although the secondary data enabled us to test our hypotheses in a real-life setting, one potential concern was whether our findings were generalizable to other product categories. The subsequent study addressed this issue by using consumers’ actual expenditures on masstige brands across multiple categories. This study also tested superiority of other-focused and self-focused attributes as a key process underlying the relationship between consumption motives and consumers’ expenditures on foreign (vs. domestic) masstige brands. Last, Study 2 provides direct evidence supporting our theorizing that tangible (vs. intangible) attributes such as quality are less diagnostic in driving consumers’ preferences for masstige brands.

Study 2

Method

Sample

A total of 176 participants who had purchased masstige brands in the previous 12 months were recruited from an online panel (www.credamo.com) in China in exchange for a payment. Participants were told that they would complete three unrelated tasks. In the first task, participants were given the definition of “masstige brands” then asked to list the masstige brands that they purchased in the previous 12 months (as completely as they could recall). Afterward, participants were asked, “Among your masstige consumptions made in the past year, what's the percentage of your spending made on Chinese masstige brands?” (0%–100%). Participants listed masstige brands that covered a variety of categories—including jewelry, handbags, cellphones, skin care products, watches, and wine—and on average, 55% of their masstige consumption involved domestic brands.

Scales

Participants then rated their perceptions of the relative superiority of other-focused intangible attributes with two items (r = .78, p < .001): (1) “Compared to Chinese masstige brands, foreign masstige brands can better signal my social status” and (2) “Compared to Chinese masstige brands, foreign masstige brands will make others look up to me.” In addition, participants rated their perception of relative superiority of self-focused intangible attributes with two items (r = .49, p < .001): (1) “Compared to foreign masstige brands, Chinese masstige brands can better improve my life quality” and (2) “Compared to foreign masstige brands, Chinese masstige brands offer better personal values and are more consistent with my taste and lifestyle.” All items were anchored by 1 = “strongly disagree” and 7 = “strongly agree.”

In the second ostensibly unrelated task, we measured participants’ personally oriented (α = .77) and socially oriented (α = .94) consumption motives using the same scale as in Study 1 (see Web Appendix D, Table W4). As in Study 1, these questions were randomized to reduce common method bias.⁵

In the third task, we measured participants’ quality perceptions of domestic brands with three items (e.g., “Quality is usually not an issue for Chinese masstige brands;” α = .70) and foreign brands with three items (e.g., “Quality is usually not an issue for foreign masstige brands;” α = .81). All of these items (for all the items, see Web Appendix E) were anchored by 1 = “strongly disagree” and 7 = “strongly agree.” Finally, participants reported family income, gender, age, study/work abroad experience, and the cities they lived in. Summary statistics are presented in Web Appendix F, Table W6.

Statistical tools

As in Study 1, we first conducted a factor analysis to extract two key motives underlying masstige purchases (see Web Appendix D, Table W4 and Figure W4). These two factors extracted 78.71% of data variance. Also, as in Study 1, we subsequently used the factor scores to reflect the two types of consumption motives.⁶

Results

To test our hypotheses, we used a linear regression model with the percentage of domestic brand consumption as the dependent variable and the factor scores of socially oriented and personally oriented motives as the independent variables. The same demographic variables were also included as in Study 1. H₁ asserted that socially oriented motives lead consumers to prefer foreign over domestic masstige brands. Supporting H₁, results showed that consumers with socially oriented motives spent more in foreign masstige consumption (β = −4.130, p < .05). H₂ proposed that personally oriented motives lead consumers to favor domestic over foreign masstige brands. Consistent with H₂, results revealed that consumers with personally oriented motives spent more in domestic masstige consumption (β = 4.172, p < .05), as shown in Table 7.⁷

Table 7.

Model Estimation Results of Study 2.

Variables	Domestic%
Social	−4.130*
Personal	4.172*
Gender	5.839
Age	.758**
Income	−.883
Abroad	5.033
Constant	31.444**
R-square	.129

*p < .05, **p < .01.

To examine whether superiority of foreign (vs. domestic) masstige brands in other-focused and self-focused attributes is a key process underlying our findings, we performed a mediation analysis using Model 4 in PROCESS (5,000 bootstrapped samples; Hayes 2017) with the difference between factor scores of personally oriented motives (Personal) and socially oriented motives (Social) as the independent variable, superiority of other-focused and self-focused attributes as parallel mediators, and the percentage of expenditure on domestic masstige brands as the dependent variable. As expected, the indirect effects of superiority in other-focused (1.97; 95% CI = [.63, 3.99], excluded 0) and self-focused (.89; 95% CI = [.12, 2.20], excluded 0) attributes were both significant and in the hypothesized directions. These results validate our theorizing.

Finally, respondents believed that masstige brands passed the quality threshold, and there was no significant difference between domestic and foreign masstige brands (M_domestic = 4.99, M_foreign = 4.87; p = .177). This analysis provides direct evidence supporting our theorizing that tangible attributes such as quality are less critical in driving consumers’ preferences for masstige brands.

Discussion

Study 2 replicated Study 1's findings using the expenditure from multiple categories of masstige consumption. It further showed that superiority of other-focused attributes (e.g., status signaling) is a key process underlying the effect of socially oriented motives on consumer preferences for foreign masstige brands, and that superiority of self-focused attributes (e.g., personal pleasure) is a key process underlying the effect of personally oriented motives on consumer preferences for domestic masstige brands. One potential concern in the first two studies was that the data were correlational in nature. To address this issue, Study 3 aimed to establish the causal relationship between consumption motives and preferences for domestic (vs. foreign) masstige brands. Furthermore, the subsequent study was designed to enhance the managerial implications by showing how a domestic brand can create a competitive advantage when facing direct competition from its foreign counterpart.

Study 3

Method

Sample

Two-hundred Credamo workers (34% male, 66% female; M_age = 30.90 years, SD = 8.01) were randomly assigned to either a socially oriented purchase condition or a personally oriented purchase condition. In the socially oriented condition, participants were asked to imagine that there is a class reunion at the beginning of the new year, and that they plan to purchase a new watch to look good in front of others in this reunion. In the personally oriented condition, participants were asked to imagine that at the beginning of the new year, they plan to purchase a new watch to enhance personal enjoyment and reward themselves. Under the pretense, participants were shown the description of two watches, namely Option A and Option B, and were asked to choose one (0 = Option A, 1 = Option B). Option A is a foreign masstige brand (originated and made in the United States), whereas Option B is a domestic brand (designed and manufactured in China). Both watches have the same price of ¥3,000 (equivalent to $500). The actual stimuli are presented in Web Appendix H.

Scales

As in Study 2, participants rated their perceptions of the relative superiority of other-focused intangible attributes with two items (r = .85, p < .001): (1) “Compared to Option B, Option A can better signal my social status” and (2) “Compared to Option B, Option A will make others look up to me.” In addition, participants rated their perceptions of the relative superiority of self-focused intangible attributes with two items (r = .71, p < .001): (1) “Compared to Option A, Option B can better improve my life quality” and (2) “Compared to Option A, Option B offers better personal values and is more consistent with my taste and lifestyle.” Participants supplied demographic information—including age, gender, and household income—at the end of the study.

Results

Manipulation check

Participants were asked to recall the scenario and indicate the purchase situation they were inserted in (i.e., “going to a class reunion,” “going to an academic conference,” “enhance personal enjoyment and reward myself,” “none of above,” or “I don’t remember”). Results showed that participants in the socially oriented condition predominantly selected “going to a class reunion” (R = 92%), whereas those in the personally oriented condition overwhelmingly selected “enhance personal enjoyment and reward myself” (R = 92%). The difference was statistically significant (χ²(1) = 161.85, p < .001, φ = .90). Thus, purchase motives were successfully manipulated.

Brand choice

A binary logistic regression on the choice of the domestic brand (Option B), with purchase condition (0 = socially oriented, 1 = personally oriented) as the independent variable, showed a significant main effect of purchase condition (Wald χ²(1) = 34.48, β = 1.84, SE = .31, exp (β) = 6.30, p < .001). Consistent with our expectations, in the socially oriented condition, 71% of participants chose the foreign masstige brand, whereas only 29% chose the domestic masstige brand. On the contrary, in the personally oriented condition, 72% of participants chose the domestic masstige brand, whereas 28% chose the foreign masstige brand.

Superiority in self-oriented and other-oriented attributes

Our theorization rests on the assumption that when consumption is socially oriented, consumers view foreign masstige brands as superior in other-focused attributes to domestic masstige brands; conversely, when consumption is personally oriented, consumers view domestic masstige brands as superior in self-focused attributes to foreign masstige brands. Consistent with our prediction, a t-test revealed that participants in the socially oriented condition (M = 4.83, SD = 1.79) perceived foreign (vs. domestic) masstige brands to be superior in other-focused attributes than those in the personally oriented condition (M = 3.49, SD = 1.78; t(198) = 5.33, p < .001). A similar analysis revealed that participants in the personally oriented condition (M = 5.48, SD = 1.32) perceived domestic (vs. foreign) masstige brands to be superior in self-focused attributes than those in the socially oriented condition (M = 5.03, SD = 1.51; t(198) = −2.22, p = .028).

Mediation analysis

We performed mediation analysis using Model 4 in PROCESS (5,000 bootstrapped samples; Hayes 2017) with purchase condition (socially oriented vs. personally oriented) as the independent variable, other-focused and self-focused attributes as parallel mediators, and brand choice as the dependent variable. As expected, results showed a significant indirect effect for other-focused attributes (1.68; 95% CI = [.98, 3.69], excluded 0) and a significant indirect effect for self-focused attributes (.79; 95% CI = [.12, 2.24], excluded 0). Notably, these results are consistent with those in Study 2.

General Discussion

Emerging markets have become the new growth engine for the global luxury industry. In particular, the fast-growing middle class in emerging markets has made masstige brands a promising opportunity for domestic and foreign companies (Ho 2020). However, academic research on masstige branding, especially from the perspective of consumers in emerging markets, has been limited (Kumar, Paul, and Unnithan 2020). By focusing on China, the world's leading market for masstige consumption, this research empirically investigated how socially oriented and personally oriented motives affect consumers’ preferences for foreign and domestic masstige brands, as well as consumers’ price sensitivity toward these brands.

Specifically, three studies provide converging and robust evidence that socially oriented motives enhance consumers’ preferences for foreign masstige brands because these brands provide better other-focused intangible attributes, whereas personally oriented motives increase consumers’ preferences for domestic masstige brands because these brands offer better self-focused intangible attributes. Study 1 provided initial evidence on the relationship between consumption motives and preference for domestic (vs. foreign) masstige brands, using secondary data from the jewelry industry in China. It also revealed that foreign masstige brands have a lower price elasticity than domestic masstige brands. Study 2 replicated the findings of Study 1 by using the expenditure of masstige brands across multiple categories from actual consumers and provided direct evidence on superiority of self-focused and other-focused attributes as the underlying mechanism. In a laboratory experiment, Study 3 manipulated consumption motive to examine its effect on consumers’ preference for a domestic (vs. foreign) watch.

Theoretical Contributions

This research offers several theoretical contributions to the growing body of literature on masstige branding. First, our research identifies two important motives for the consumption of masstige brands in emerging markets: socially oriented and personally oriented motives. Prior literature predominantly focuses on socially oriented motives to examine luxury consumption (Bellezza, Gino, and Keinan 2014) while largely overlooking personally oriented motives. Given the new phenomenon of masstige brands, we theorized and empirically investigated the role that personally oriented motives play in driving consumers’ choices of masstige brands in emerging markets. This discovery is important in answering the call from previous researchers (e.g., Kumar, Paul, and Unnithan 2020) to better understand masstige brands (vs. traditional premium luxury) and offer a comprehensive theorization on how and why consumers in emerging markets purchase certain types of masstige brands but not others.

Furthermore, our research extends previous research on international marketing and luxury consumption by showing a novel pattern of masstige brand consumption. While the COO effect suggests that consumers should always prefer foreign masstige brands, we found that consumers in emerging markets prefer domestic masstige brands when their personally oriented motives are made salient. In contrast, consumers prefer foreign masstige brands when their socially oriented motives are made salient. This effect can be explained by the fact that domestic masstige brands are superior in self-focused intangible attributes, whereas foreign masstige brands are superior in other-focused intangible attributes. Thus, our scholarship offers a novel and complete theoretical perspective regarding the influences of consumption motives on the COO effect in the context of masstige consumption.

Finally, our research contributes to the pricing literature regarding the pricing strategy for masstige brands in emerging markets. Although conventional wisdom seems to suggest that price promotion is incompatible with the premium, exclusive image of traditional luxury brands (Dalton 2018; Langer 2020), we show that the effectiveness of price promotions for masstige brands depends on a brand's COO. Our findings suggest that foreign masstige brands attract consumers with other-focused intangible attributes, which makes consumers less price sensitive and causes the price elasticity of foreign brands to be generally lower than that of domestic brands. Thus, discounts and sales are good promotion strategies for domestic masstige brands but not for foreign brands. To the best of our knowledge, this research represents the first attempt to theorize and document the difference in price elasticity across domestic and foreign masstige brands.

Managerial Implications

This research offers a few important and actionable managerial implications. First, marketers of domestic masstige brands should prioritize the growing segment of consumers whose masstige consumption is personally (vs. socially) oriented. Therefore, domestic masstige brands should focus on developing their own competitive advantages (e.g., cater to domestic consumers’ needs, tastes, and cultures) instead of uncritically following their foreign competitors. This approach aligns with a recent finding that more Chinese consumers are becoming less status obsessed (Langer 2023). Instead of paying premiums to impress others, these consumers are willing to pay premiums for taste, style, and comfort to please themselves. Our findings suggest that these consumers are salient in personally oriented motives. Therefore, marketers would benefit from carefully identifying consumer segments. Foreign masstige brands should focus on consumers whose consumption is socially oriented and rely on their premium brand status to differentiate themselves from domestic masstige brands to attract emerging markets’ consumers who want to display their social status.

Second, it is important for masstige brands to carefully design positioning strategies that fit with different consumer motives underlying masstige consumption. To promote domestic masstige brands, marketers can use communication appeals or contextual cues to enhance the accessibility of personally oriented motives (e.g., using ad appeals that promote the independence of the self). Conversely, when promoting foreign masstige brands, marketers may profit more by appealing to the social aspect of the self (e.g., appeals of social harmony).

Another approach is to highlight the other-focused versus self-focused attributes of the brand so that it matches a particular motive. This strategy is especially useful when the decision context is prone to inducing a specific motive. For example, in a context where socially oriented motives are likely to be activated by situational contingencies such as the media setting (e.g., social vs. personalized media), marketers of foreign masstige brands would profit from highlighting the status-signaling benefit of the product. In decision contexts where personally oriented motives are likely to be activated, marketers of domestic masstige brands can emphasize cues related to personal benefits (e.g., cater to one's culture background) to enhance consumer preferences.

Finally, our research provides managerial insights on pricing strategies. Our findings suggest that discounts can fruitfully promote domestic masstige brands but create negative outcomes for foreign masstige brands. Therefore, it is important that foreign masstige brands do not “price race” with domestic masstige brands, because the same tactic may work very differently. A discounted price may not necessarily attract new consumers for foreign masstige brands, and it could even alienate the core consumer base of foreign masstige brands who are socially motivated in masstige consumption.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

The present research offers strong support for the role of consumption motives in consumer adoption of masstige brands, but it is not without limitations. First, our empirical findings are limited to the Chinese market. Although China is currently the largest emerging market for masstige consumption, other emerging economies have also shown increasing demand for masstige brands. For instance, India is projected to outpace China and become the world's largest growth powerhouse, and the burgeoning middle class in Vietnam is fueling a boom in luxury goods (Ho 2020; Thong 2021). Therefore, a more comprehensive examination that incorporates countries in other emerging markets would enhance the generalizability of our findings. Second, while our research mainly focused on physical goods, the masstige concept is equally important in the service context (Kumar, Paul, and Unnithan 2020). Would our conclusions still hold in the service context, or perhaps the drive of personally oriented motives would appear more salient and influential than socially oriented motives? Thus, we call for future research to investigate the influence of different motives for masstige service on consumers’ brand preferences and price elasticity. These challenges may prove to be promising opportunities for masstige strategy to thrive in the new era of luxury democratization.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-jig-10.1177_1069031X231197625 - Supplemental material for Coach Versus Goldlion: The Effect of Socially Versus Personally Oriented Motives on Consumer Preference for Foreign and Domestic Masstige Brands in Emerging Markets

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-jig-10.1177_1069031X231197625 for Coach Versus Goldlion: The Effect of Socially Versus Personally Oriented Motives on Consumer Preference for Foreign and Domestic Masstige Brands in Emerging Markets by Zhe Zhang, Alex Yao and Zhiyong Yang in Journal of International Marketing

Footnotes

Author Contributions

The first two authors contributed equally to this article.

Special Issue Editors

Rajeev Batra, Kelly Hewett, Ayşegül Özsomer, and Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Zhiyong Yang

Notes

References

Alden

Dana L.

Steenkamp

Jan-Benedict E.M.

Batra

Rajeev

(1999), “Brand Positioning Through Advertising in Asia, North America, and Europe: The Role of Global Consumer Culture,” Journal of Marketing, 63 (1), 75–87.

Atwal

Glyn

(2021), “5 Reasons ‘New Luxury’ Is the ‘New Normal’ in China,” Jing Daily (August 27), https://jingdaily.com/new-luxury-china-starbucks-apple/.

Bagwell

Laurie Simon

Bernheim

B. Douglas

(1996), “Veblen Effects in a Theory of Conspicuous Consumption,” American Economic Review, 86 (3), 349–73.

Batra

Rajeev

Ramaswamy

Venkatram

Alden

Dana L.

Steenkamp

Jan-Benedict E.M.

Ramachander

(2000), “Effects of Brand Local and Nonlocal Origin on Consumer Attitudes in Developing Countries,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9 (2), 83–95.

Baughn

C. Christopher

Yaprak

Attila

(1993), “Mapping Country-of-Origin Research: Recent Developments and Emerging Avenues,” in Product-Country Images: Impact and Role in International Marketing. Routledge, 89–116.

Bellezza

Silvia

Gino

Francesca

Keinan

Anat

(2014), “The Red Sneakers Effect: Inferring Status and Competence from Signals of Nonconformity,” Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (1), 35–54.

Berger

Jonah

Ward

Morgan

(2010), “Subtle Signals of Inconspicuous Consumption,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (4), 555–69.

Beverland

Michael

(2006), “The ‘Real Thing’: Branding Authenticity in the Luxury Wine Trade,” Journal of Business Research, 59 (2), 251–58.

Brun

Alessandro

Castelli

Cecilia

(2013), “The Nature of Luxury: A Consumer Perspective,” International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 41 (11–12), 823–47.

10.

Burke

Timothy

(1996), Lifebuoy Men, Lux Women: Commodification, Consumption, and Cleanliness in Modern Zimbabwe. Duke University Press.

11.

Cavusgil

S. Tamer

Deligonu

Seyda

Kardes

Ilke

Cavusgil

Erin

(2018), “Middle-Class Consumers in Emerging Markets: Conceptualization, Propositions, and Implications for International Marketers,” Journal of International Marketing, 26 (3), 94–108.

12.

CDN Newswire (2022), “Luxury Leather Goods Market Report 2021: COVID-19 Growth and Change till 2028 Players Are Burberry, Coach IP Holdings LLC, Dior, Goldlion, Givenchy, Guccio Gucci S.p.A, Kate Spade, Longchamp, Mulberry,” Digital Journal (January 27), https://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/luxury-leather-goods-market-report-2021-covid-19-growth-and-change-till-2028-players-are-burberry-coach-ip-holdings-llc-dior-goldlion-givenchy-guccio-gucci-s-p-a-kate-spade-longchamp-mulberry.

13.

Chao

Paul

(2001), “The Moderating Effects of Country of Assembly, Country of Parts, and Country of Design on Hybrid Product Evaluations,” Journal of Advertising, 30 (4), 67–81.

14.

Chen

Frank

(2020), “China’s Middle Class Not So Rich After All,” Asia Times (November 28), https://asiatimes.com/2020/11/chinas-middle-class-not-so-rich-after-all/.

15.

Dalton

Matthew

(2018), “Why Luxury Brands Burn Their Own Goods,” The Wall Street Journal (September 6), https://www.wsj.com/articles/burning-luxury-goods-goes-out-of-style-at-burberry-1536238351.

16.

Danziger

Pamela N.

(2019), “How Luxury Brands Can Unlock Their Potential in the Chinese Market,” Forbes (September 10), https://www.forbes.com/sites/pamdanziger/2019/09/10/how-luxury-brands-can-unlock-their-potential-in-the-chinese-market/.

17.

Danziger

Pamela N.

(2020), “Fate of Luxury Depends on China, but Continued Success There Is Not Guaranteed,” Forbes (May 15), https://www.forbes.com/sites/pamdanziger/2020/05/15/fate-of-luxury-depends-on-china-but-continued-success-there-is-not-guaranteed/.

18.

Das

Manish

Saha

Victor

Balaji

M.S.

(2022), “‘Standing Out’ and ‘Fitting In’: Understanding Inspiration Value of Masstige in an Emerging Market Context,” Journal of Product & Brand Management, 31 (4), 521–35.

19.

Dhar

Sanjay K.

Hoch

Stephen J.

(1996), “Price Discrimination Using In-Store Merchandising,” Journal of Marketing, 60 (1), 17–30.

20.

Elliott

Gregory R.

Cameron

Ross C.

(1994), “Consumer Perception of Product Quality and the Country-of-Origin Effect,” Journal of International Marketing, 2 (2), 49–62.

21.

Essoussi

Leila Hamzaoui

Merunka

Dwight

(2007), “Consumers’ Product Evaluations in Emerging Markets: Does Country of Design, Country of Manufacture, or Brand Image Matter?” International Marketing Review, 24 (4), 409–26.

22.

Ewing

Michael T.

Napoli

Julie

Pitt

Leyland F.

Watts

Alistair

(2002), “On the Renaissance of Chinese Brands,” International Journal of Advertising, 21 (2), 197–216.

23.

Gao

Ling

Norton

Marjorie J.T.

Zhang

Zhi-ming

Chester Kin-man

(2009), “Potential Niche Markets for Luxury Fashion Goods in China,” Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 13 (4), 514–26.

24.

Gardner

David M.

(1971), “Is There a Generalized Price-Quality Relationship?” Journal of Marketing Research, 8 (2), 241–43.

25.

Ger

Gnliz

Belk

Russell W.

Lascu

Dana-Nicoleta

(1993), “The Development of Consumer Desire in Marketing and Developing Economies: The Cases of Romania and Turkey,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 20, Leigh McAlister and Michael L. Rothschild, eds. Association for Consumer Research, 102–107.

26.

Granot

Elad

Russell

La Toya M.

Brashear-Alejandro

Thomas G.

(2013), “Populence: Exploring Luxury for the Masses,” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 21 (1), 31–44.

27.

Guido

Gianluigi

Amatulli

Cesare

Peluso

Alessandro M.

De Matteis

Clarissa

Piper

Luigi

Pino

Giovanni

(2020), “Measuring Internalized Versus Externalized Luxury Consumption Motivations and Consumers’ Segmentation,” Italian Journal of Marketing, 2020 (March), 25–47.

28.

Gürhan-Canli

Zeynep

Maheswaran

Durairaj

(2000), “Determinants of Country-of-Origin Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (1), 96–108.

29.

Hagtvedt

Henrik

Patrick

Vanessa M.

(2009), “The Broad Embrace of Luxury: Hedonic Potential as a Driver of Brand Extendibility,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19 (4), 608–18.

30.

Hair

Joseph F.

Black

William C.

Babin

Barry J.

Anderson

Rolph E.

(2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed. Pearson.

31.

Han

Young Jee

Nunes

Joseph C.

Drèze

Xavier

(2010), “Signaling Status with Luxury Goods: The Role of Brand Prominence,” Journal of Marketing, 74 (4), 15–30.

32.

Hayes

Andrew F.

(2017), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. Guilford Press.

33.

Jonathan

(2020), “Coronavirus Exposes China Dependency Problem: How It Affects Global Luxury,” Luxuo (April 29), https://www.luxuo.com/homepage-slider/coronavirus-exposes-china-dependency-problem-how-it-affects-global-luxury.html.

34.

Holbrook

Morris B.

Hirschman

Elizabeth C.

(1982), “The Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Consumer Fantasies, Feelings, and Fun,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (2), 132–40.

35.

Holmqvist

Jonas

Ruiz

Carlos Diaz

Peñaloza

Lisa

(2020), “Moments of Luxury: Hedonic Escapism as a Luxury Experience,” Journal of Business Research, 116 (August), 503–13.

36.

Hong

Ruiyang

Zhang

Zhe

Zhang

Chun

Zuohao

(2023), “Is Brand Globalness Compatible with Brand Country-of-Origin? An Investigation of Hybrid Brand Positioning Strategies for Emerging Market Brands,” International Marketing Review, 40 (1), 49–79.

37.

Huang

Yimeng

Yehua

Luan

Lan

Poh

Felix

Chen

Hong

(2017), “Quality Life, Fashion Lead: Masstige Market Analysis,” staff paper, McKinsey & Company, https://www.mckinsey.com.cn/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/20171127_%E9%BA%A6%E8%82%AF%E9%94%A1%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E8%BD%BB%E5%A5%A2%E5%B8%82%E5%9C%BA%E9%9D%A2%E9%9D%A2%E8%A7%82.pdf.

38.

Hye

Cheah Cheng

(2021), “Middle-Class Nation: How China Is Rising to the Challenge of Common Prosperity,” South China Morning Post (November 18), https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3156287/middle-class-nation-how-china-rising-challenge-common-prosperity.

39.

Kamakura

Wagner A.

Russell

Gary J.

(1989), “A Probabilistic Choice Model for Market Segmentation and Elasticity Structure,” Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (4), 379–90.

40.

Kastanakis

Minas N.

Balabanis

George

(2012), “Between the Mass and the Class: Antecedents of the ‘Bandwagon’ Luxury Consumption Behavior,” Journal of Business Research, 65 (10), 1399–1407.

41.

Keller

Kevin Lane

(1998), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity. Prentice-Hall.

42.

Khan

Hina

Bamber

David

(2008), “Country of Origin Effects, Brand Image, and Social Status in an Emerging Market,” Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 18 (5), 580–88.

43.

Kim

Jae-Eun

Lloyd

Stephen

Adebeshin

Keji

Kang

Ju-Young M.

(2019), “Decoding Fashion Advertising Symbolism in Masstige and Luxury Brands,” Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 23 (2), 277–95.

44.

Kinra

Neelam

(2006), “The Effect of Country-of-Origin on Foreign Brand Names in the Indian Market,” Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 24 (1), 15–30.

45.

Eunju

Costello

John P.

Taylor

Charles R.

(2019), “What Is a Luxury Brand? A New Definition and Review of the Literature,” Journal of Business Research, 99 (June), 405–13.

46.

Koschate-Fischer

Nicole

Diamantopoulos

Adamantios

Oldenkotte

Katharina

(2012), “Are Consumers Really Willing to Pay More for a Favorable Country Image? A Study of Country-of-Origin Effects on Willingness to Pay,” Journal of International Marketing, 20 (1), 19–41.

47.

Koval

Oksana

Nabareseh

Stephen

Klimek

Petr

Chromjakova

Felicita

(2016), “Demographic Preferences Towards Careers in Shared Service Centers: A Factor Analysis,” Journal of Business Research, 69 (11), 4798–803.

48.

Kumar

Ajay

Paul

Justin

(2018), “Mass Prestige Value and Competition Between American Versus Asian Laptop Brands in an Emerging Market—Theory and Evidence,” International Business Review, 27 (5), 969–81.

49.

Kumar

Ajay

Paul

Justin

Unnithan

Anandakuttan B.

(2020), “‘Masstige’ Marketing: A Review, Synthesis and Research Agenda,” Journal of Business Research, 113 (May), 384–98.

50.

Lageat

Thierry

Czellar

Sandor

Laurent

Gilles

(2003), “Engineering Hedonic Attributes to Generate Perceptions of Luxury: Consumer Perception of an Everyday Sound,” Marketing Letters, 14 (2), 97–109.

51.

Langer

Daniel

(2020), “Luxury Labels Must Avoid the Sales Promotion Trap to Survive,” Campaign (September 21), https://www.campaignasia.com/article/luxury-labels-must-avoid-the-sales-promotion-trap-to-survive/463778.

52.

Langer

Daniel

(2023), “Why Selling Luxury in China Is More Challenging Than Ever,” Jing Daily (March 13), https://jingdaily.com/china-selling-luxury-social-impact-digital-strategy/.

53.

Lee

Hyejin

Lalwani

Ashok K.

Wang

Jessie J.

(2020), “Price No Object!: The Impact of Power Distance Belief on Consumers’ Price Sensitivity,” Journal of Marketing, 84 (6), 113–29.

54.

Lichtenstein

Donald R.

Bearden

William O.

(1989), “Contextual Influences on Perceptions of Merchant-Supplied Reference Prices,” Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (1), 55–66.

55.

Liu

Hao

Schoefer

Klaus

Fastoso

Fernando

Tzemou

Efstathia

(2021), “Perceived Brand Globalness/Localness: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Directions for Further Research,” Journal of International Marketing, 29 (1), 77–94.

56.

Yiren

(2013), “How Coach Purses Came to Symbolize Middle-Class Aspirations in China,” The Atlantic (August 19), https://www.theatlantic.com/china/archive/2013/08/how-coach-purses-came-to-symbolize-middle-class-aspirations-in-china/278811/.

57.

Mick

David Glen

DeMoss

Michelle

(1990), “Self-Gifts: Phenomenological Insights from Four Contexts,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (3), 322–32.

58.

Netemeyer

Richard G.

Bearden

William O.

Teel

Jesse E.

(1992), “Consumer Susceptibility to Interpersonal Influence and Attributional Sensitivity,” Psychology & Marketing, 9 (5), 379–94.

59.

Nijssen

Edwin J.

Douglas

Susan P.

(2011), “Consumer World-Mindedness and Attitudes Toward Product Positioning in Advertising: An Examination of Global Versus Foreign Versus Local Positioning,” Journal of International Marketing, 19 (3), 113–33.

60.

Özsomer

Ayşegül

Altaras

Selin

(2008), “Global Brand Purchase Likelihood: A Critical Synthesis and an Integrated Conceptual Framework,” Journal of International Marketing, 16 (4), 1–28.

61.

Özsomer

Ayşegül

Simonin

Bernard L.

(2004), “Marketing Program Standardization: A Cross-Country Exploration,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21 (4), 397–419.

62.

Patrick

Vanessa M.

Monga

Alokparna (Sonia) Basu

(2020), “Building and Growing Luxury Brands: Strategies for Pursuing Growth While Maintaining Brand Coherence,” in Research Handbook on Luxury Branding. Edward Elgar Publishing, 117–37.

63.

Paul

Justin

(2018), “Toward a ‘Masstige’ Theory and Strategy for Marketing,” European Journal of International Management, 12 (5–6), 722–45.

64.

Paul

Justin

(2019), “Masstige Model and Measure for Brand Management,” European Management Journal, 37 (3), 299–312.

65.

Pesendorfer

Wolfgang

(1995), “Design Innovation and Fashion Cycles,” American Economic Review, 85 (4), 771–92.

66.

Podsakoff

Philip M.

MacKenzie

Scott B.

Lee

Jeong-Yeon

Podsakoff

Nathan P.

(2003), “Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5), 879–903.

67.

Sallot

Lynne M.

(2002), “What the Public Thinks About Public Relations: An Impression Management Experiment,” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 79 (1), 150–71.

68.

Samiee

Saeed

Shimp

Terence A.

Sharma

Subhash

(2005), “Brand Origin Recognition Accuracy: Its Antecedents and Consumers’ Cognitive Limitations,” Journal of International Business Studies, 36 (4), 379–97.

69.

Shukla

Paurav

Rosendo-Rios

Veronica

Trott

Sangeeta

Lyu

Jing (Daisy)

Khalifa

Dina

(2022), “Managing the Challenge of Luxury Democratization: A Multi-Country Analysis,” Journal of International Marketing, 30 (4), 44–59.

70.

Silverstein

Michael J.

(2006), Treasure Hunt: Inside the Mind of the New Consumer. Portfolio.

71.

Silverstein

Michael J.

Fiske

Neil

(2003), “Luxury for the Masses,” Harvard Business Review, 81 (4), 48–57.

72.

Srinivasan

Narasimhan

Jain

Subhash C.

Sikand

Kiranjit

(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.

73.

Steenkamp

Jan-Benedict E.M.

Batra

Rajeev

Alden

Dana L.

(2003), “How Perceived Brand Globalness Creates Brand Value,” Journal of International Business Studies, 34 (January), 53–65.

74.

Sun

Luping

Zheng

Xiaona

Meng

Keller

L. Robin

(2017), “Intention–Behavior Discrepancy of Foreign Versus Domestic Brands in Emerging Markets: The Relevance of Consumer Prior Knowledge,” Journal of International Marketing, 25 (1), 91–109.

75.

Suter

Mariana Bassi

Borini

Felipe Mendes

Floriani

Dinorá Eliete

da Silva

Dirceu

Polo

Edison

(2018), “Country-of-Origin Image (COI) as a Country-Specific Advantage (CSA): Scale Development and Validation of COI as a Resource Within the Firm Perspective,” Journal of Business Research, 84 (March), 46–58.

76.

Thong

Vien

(2021), “Luxury Brands Remain Gung-Ho About Vietnam Despite Pandemic,” VnExpress (March 23), https://e.vnexpress.net/news/business/economy/luxury-brands-remain-gung-ho-about-vietnam-despite-pandemic-4253184.html.

77.

Toh

Michelle

(2020), “China’s Luxury Market Boomed this Year, Even as Global Sales Shrank,” CNN Business (December 16), https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/16/business/china-luxury-market-coronavirus-intl-hnk/.

78.

Truong

Yann

McColl

Rod

Kitchen

Philip J.

(2009), “New Luxury Brand Positioning and the Emergence of Masstige Brands,” Journal of Brand Management 16 (5–6), 375–82.

79.

Tsai

Shu-pei

(2005), “Impact of Personal Orientation on Luxury-Brand Purchase Value: An International Investigation,” International Journal of Market Research, 47 (4), 427–52.

80.

Tynan

Caroline

McKechnie

Sally

Chhuon

Celine

(2010), “Co-Creating Value for Luxury Brands,” Journal of Business Research, 63 (11), 1156–63.

81.

Ulgado

Francis M.

Lee

Moonkyu

(1998), “The Korean Versus American Marketplace: Consumer Reactions to Foreign Products,” Psychology & Marketing, 15 (6), 595–614.

82.

Verlegh

Peeter

Steenkamp

Jan-Benedict E.M.

Meulenberg

Matthew T.G.

(2005), “Country-of-Origin Effects in Consumer Processing of Advertising Claims,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 22 (2), 127–39.

83.

Vickers

Jonathan S.

Renand

Franck

(2003), “The Marketing of Luxury Goods: An Exploratory Study – Three Conceptual Dimensions,” The Marketing Review, 3 (4), 459–78.

84.

Wakefield

Kirk L.

Inman

J. Jeffrey

(2003), “Situational Price Sensitivity: The Role of Consumption Occasion, Social Context and Income,” Journal of Retailing, 79 (4), 199–212.

85.

Wang

Yajin

(2021), “A Conceptual Framework of Contemporary Luxury Consumption,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 39 (3), 788–803.

86.

Wang

Yajin

Stoner

Jennifer L.

John

Deborah Roedder

(2019), “Counterfeit Luxury Consumption in a Social Context: The Effects on Females’ Moral Disengagement and Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 29 (2), 207–25.

87.

Yuhan

(2019), “China’s Luckin Coffee Tries to Conquer a Nation of Tea Drinkers,” NPR (May 17), https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/05/17/723193259/what-does-chinas-luckin-coffee-have-that-starbucks-doesnt.

88.

Zhang

Shi

Schmitt

Bernd H.

(2001), “Creating Local Brands in Multilingual International Markets,” Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (3), 313–25.

89.

Zhou

Lianxi

Hui

Michael K.

(2003), “Symbolic Value of Foreign Products in the People’s Republic of China,” Journal of International Marketing, 11 (2), 36–58.

90.

Zhou

Lianxi

Yang

Zhiyong

Hui

Michael K.

(2010), “Non-Local or Local Brands? A Multi-Level Investigation into Confidence in Brand Origin Identification and Its Strategic Implications,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38 (2), 202–18.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.26 MB