KOREASCHOLAR

As luxury brands have become a globalised phenomenon, marked with the appearance of recognizable and standardized platforms worldwide, we ask how their consumption and meanings are shaped by divergent cultural beliefs that permeate contemporary multicultural marketplaces. Cross-cultural luxury branding literature advises luxury brand managers to cultivate coherent brand identities tied to their internal ‘brand DNA’, with the aim to translate this identity into a consistent global brand image. However, this managerial commitment to a standardized approach in international marketing has meant that brand researchers often adopt an ethnocentric perspective on branding, characterized with the tendency to assess marketplaces in terms of their various degrees of ‘glocalization’. Consequently, the literature on cross-cultural luxury branding has largely focused on the effects of global positioning and local cultural influences, paying little attention to the influences of other foreign cultures that may operate within a multicultural marketplace. This paper is concerned with advancing our knowledge about how complex multicultural influences shape luxury brand markets. In particular, focusing on the interplay between local and foreign cultural meanings in a single national market, we demonstrate how the consumption of luxury brands is influenced by multiple, and at times conflicting, cultural beliefs. Luxury brands and cultural meanings are thoroughly intertwined. Throughout history, the idea of luxury has been influenced by various ideological beliefs, providing an “illuminating entrée into a basic political issue, namely, the nature of social order” (Berry, 1994: 6). For instance, since ancient civilisations, such as the Egyptians and Amerindians, luxury goods have been used as the symbol of status and power (Kapferer and Bastien, 2009). In the days of Plato and early Christianity, luxury was also perceived in a pejorative form that signified the corruption of a virtuous manly life; and with the works of Adam Smith, the idea of luxury has become a vindication of commercial society (Berry, 1994). Over the last two decades, we have witnessed unprecedented demand for luxury brands by international consumers in Japan, in East Asia, and now in the BRIC (i.e., Brazil, Russia, India, and China) and CIVETS countries (i.e., Colombia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Egypt, Turkey, and South Africa) (Kapferer, 2012). Due to the accelerated flows of consumption meanings, ideologies, and people resulting from global economic forces (Appadurai, 1997), many of these emerging marketplaces are characterized by cross-cutting cultural flows, exhibiting a high degree of inner differentiation and complexity (Craig and Douglas, 2006), mutual entanglement (Robertson, 1992; Welsh, 1999), and interpenetration (Andreasen, 1990). Consequently, there is a growing need to advance our understanding of how increasing multicultural influences shape luxury brand markets. Informed by a cultural branding approach (Bengtsson et al., 2010) and research on multicultural marketplaces (Craig and Douglas, 2006), we address this issue in cross-cultural luxury branding by offering a qualitative inquiry into luxury brand consumption in New Zealand, uncovering the interplay between two distinct cultural beliefs permeating this multicultural market – the local Kiwi ‘tall poppy syndrome’ and the foreign ‘face-saving’ orientation originating from East Asian immigrant cultures. The Kiwi tall poppy syndrome conveys a negative social attitude towards people (the ‘tall poppies’) who are conspicuously successful and whose distinction, rank, or wealth attracts envious notice or hostility (Mouly and Sankaran, 2002). Conversely, the East Asian ‘face-saving’ orientation is concerned with the social image of success that an individual projects in society (Le Monkhouse et al., 2012). We found that not only did these two local and foreign cultural beliefs convey oppositional meanings about luxury brands in New Zealand, but they also prompted consumers to adopt different luxury brand consumption styles. Furthermore, despite being oppositional in nature, our findings suggest that these beliefs could jointly influence individual consumers, adding yet increased complexity to how these individuals consumed luxury brands. In particular, we demonstrate that luxury brand consumers in New Zealand are able to hold multiple and conflicting local and foreign cultural beliefs in tension, emerging as contextual cultural shifters. While the literature on cross-national luxury branding conventionally privileges cross-national methods which tend to de-emphasise the heterogeneity within national luxury markets (Wiedmann et al., 2007), the results of our study suggest the need to consider intercultural diversity at the intra-national level. Indeed, Brewer and Venaik (2012) decry the danger of applying culture-level constructs to the level of the individual. Brubaker (2004) calls this the fallacy of groupism, where we treat ethnic groups as concrete entities instead of seeing group-making as an on-going project. This is echoed by Calhoun (2003: 547) who encourages “avoiding the illusion that plagued much earlier thoughts of ethnicity and nationalism – that there was one basic identity common to all members of a group.” Essentially, when an individual’s cultural identity is reduced to the nationality or the ethnicity that he or she declares on a survey, not only does this overlook the multidimensionality and complexity of cultural influences which shape how they consume luxury brands, but this also misses further opportunities to engage with luxury brand consumers. While some cross-national luxury consumption studies have accommodated a degree of complexity with the consideration of differences between global and local cultures (e.g., Park et al., 2008; Shukla and Purani, 2012), the results of our study show that, within multicultural marketplaces, the level of cultural complexity goes beyond the global-local dichotomy. Rather, the consumption of luxury brands is transculturally constituted and derived from multiple forms of belonging (Calhoun, 2003). In these markets, consumers find themselves negotiating the meanings and consumption styles of luxury brands at the confluence of multiple cultural beliefs. For marketers operating within multicultural markets, this means that nationality, ethnicity, and degree of glocalisation may be less useful bases for segmentation, prompting the consideration of other ways in which to understand and use cultural influences in segmenting, targeting, and positioning luxury brands. In our study, two distinct cultural belief systems, one local and one foreign, shaped luxury brand consumption in New Zealand. Furthermore, these cultural beliefs were not necessarily tied to an individual consumer’s ethnicity. Given these complexities, it may be more useful to consider other bases of segmentation such as the influence of situational factors (Douglas and Craig, 2011) and the relative salience among multiple cultural beliefs. Furthermore, this is the first study to empirically demonstrate the impact of multiculturalism on luxury brand markets, where consumers emerge as contextual cultural shifters. Our findings illustrate that contextual factors in a multicultural marketplace, like a filter, shaped which cultural influences were appropriated by individual consumers in a given consumption situation. Thus, underlying any given luxury brand consumption situation is a complex interplay between multicultural influences, situational norms, and individual factors. This prompts multiple considerations for luxury brand managers. Might it be possible to go a step further and encourage consumers to adopt culturally-constituted consumption styles which fit better with one’s brand positioning? More specifically, by questioning which cultural influences underpinning luxury brands are more dominant for them, consumers could be encouraged to reconsider their personal uses and attitudes towards luxury brands. Further research is required to find out what contexts are likely to tilt consumers’ consideration in favour of one cultural influence over another. If a luxury brand is a status symbol, might it be possible to prime both Western and Asian consumers to switch to status-conspicuous beliefs? For example, what cues and appeals might marketers present to encourage consumers to think in a more face-saving way? If a brand is understated, might it be possible to prime consumers to adhere to cultural beliefs which encourage more discreet styles of consumption? For example, what cues and appeals might marketers present to encourage consumers to consider the tall poppy syndrome? Such research would be particularly useful for marketers who have little room for repositioning their luxury brand image. Finally, rather than a glocal branding approach, which involves cultivating brand identity within the organisation and overcoming local brand image inconsistencies (Matthiesen and Phau, 2005), we posit that managers need to adopt a multicultural branding approach. We envision that such an approach would involve identifying and pursuing opportunities for the development of dynamic brand identities (da Silveira et al., 2011), where luxury brand managers can assume the role of proactive architects of luxury brand cultures which support diverse modes of luxury brand consumption. This carries implications for cross-cultural luxury branding on three levels. At the basic level, a multicultural branding approach involves paying closer attention to the contextual topography of a given marketplace and consumer receptivity to global, local, and foreign cultural beliefs. As our study showed, a luxury brand entering an emergent multicultural market like New Zealand will invariably face consumer resistance due to the influence of the dominant Kiwi ‘tall poppy’ syndrome. However, this is by no means a monolithic discourse; its influence is uneven. Because of greater diversity and intercultural exchange, consumers in cosmopolitan centres such as Auckland are more likely to be receptive to other cultural influences. As such, it would be a logical point of entry for a global luxury brand. This also suggests that, rather than cross-national differences, segmentation based on the prevalence of multiple cultural beliefs and consumption styles in major cities could be a more appropriate strategy for luxury branding. At a more advanced level, luxury brand managers can not only select, but also focus on proactively cultivating the most conducive contexts, where consumers would feel more empowered to appropriate their desired luxury brand consumption styles within a multicultural marketplace. In doing so, marketers will be able to both target the increasing buying power of ethnic consumers by appealing to their foreign consumption styles (Lisanti, 2010), as well as to find a better positioning to the mainstream consumers who are receptive to cultural shifting. For instance, several respondents in our study presented an interesting dynamic between the two cultural influences: on one hand, they have a desire to consume luxury brands in a more conspicuous way due to the influence of face-saving beliefs, but on the other hand, they feel that they must suppress this desire due to the influence of the Kiwi ‘tall poppy’ syndrome. To unlock this hidden market potential, luxury brand marketers would do well to design liminal spaces and retail spectacles (Kozinets et al., 2004). In the same way that the “Coca-Cola Telenovela Club” provided a liminal space in which Latina moms in the US could explore and perform their love of telenovelas (Lisanti 2010), luxury brand managers might design similar liminal spaces and retail spectacles where could safely circumvent the influence of the local tall poppy syndrome. In contrast to the social sanctions on conspicuous consumption in their everyday lives, liminal spaces can provide an immersive space where foreign styles of brand consumption can be affirmed and cultivated. In other words, luxury brand managers can empower consumers to appropriate their desired culturally-constituted meanings and, therefore, to endorse the particular styles of luxury brand consumption within a multicultural marketplace. Finally, at the broader strategic level, rather than cultivating brand identity entirely within the organisation and then communicating this identity to consumers, luxury brand managers can aim to collaborate with the diverse range of consumers in developing a dynamic multicultural brand identity. This strategy would involve incorporating a wider range of cultural meanings and developing the most appropriate brand positioning(s), thereby addressing tensions around the conflicting luxury brand consumption styles within a multicultural marketplace. In line with the cultural branding (Bengtsson et al., 2010) and dynamic brand identity (da Silveira et al., 2013: 31) approaches, the multicultural branding approach should view brand identity as developing over time through “mutually influencing inputs from several social constituents” that include both brand managers and consumers. Moreover, it should focus on more proactively and thoroughly intertwining the on-going social construction of brand meaning with the on-going evolution of multiculturally-informed consumption styles of luxury branding that emerge within a marketplace. In short, by assuming the role of cultural architects, luxury brand marketers must become more aware of the varying sensitivities of consumers to multiple cultural beliefs and practices across a range of contexts, proactively cultivate contexts which enhance their brand receptiveness, and strive to construct multiculturally-informed dynamic brand identities that embed the brand image more deeply within a marketplace and assist consumers in coping with dynamic cultural change.

• Yuri Seo(Victoria University of Wellington)
• Margo-Buchanan-Oliver(University of Auckland)
• Angela Cruz(University of Auckland)