Introduction In the last years, luxury has experienced a multiplicity of transformations from different perspectives. The opening up of the fast-growing economies to luxury has disrupted its essence and identity by bringing in a stratification of the levels in luxury, an expansion of customers’ segments and a new mode of operationalization for luxury brands: the digitalization of luxury. However, luxury brands identity should still be characterized by their rarity, originality and exclusivity. Luxury capitals and their urban ecosystem represent a significant space where luxury brands had and still have anchored their essence, customer experience and all those values that represent their identity. Luxury industries are threatened by a progressive loss of mystique, market analysts say, as consumers search for something more than aesthetics and shallow status symbols (Boston Consulting Group, 2010). Consequently, luxury brands should rely more consistently on their heritage and history, in order to strengthen their appeal (Atsmon et al, 2012). In-store experience is increasingly important in luxury markets (Atsmon et al, 2012) and the shopping destination plays a key role. In fact, besides being an instrumental occasion for getting the needed products, the shopping experience becomes an end valued for its own sake (Rintamaki et al, 2007, p. 628). As a result of the changing context and new priorities, this research will focus on the case study of one main French luxury brand – Christian Dior – and will explore how the brand has capitalized on the local “brandscape” effect of Paris as a luxury city to reinforce the brand heritage and keep its own identity in “turbulent times”. The results of this study are preliminary ones at this stage but they already provide an overview of how the brand has capitalized on the brandscape orientation. Theoritical Development In order to understand how Christian Dior has capitalized on the local “brandscape” effect of Paris and reinforce its brand heritage, this article will first review the main concepts of brandscape and brand heritage. Brandscape City branding literature has overlooked the role of individual brands that, being somehow associated with the city, contribute to city brand building (Pasquinelli, 2014). In city branding literature, a variety of geographical units may be relevant for brands, especially at a smaller scale: the ‘region of origin’ or the ‘city of origin’ (as in this article) may turn out to be of much greater significance. However, the geographical fragmentation of global value chains caused the breakdown of the ‘origin’ into a set of geographical associations (Insch and McBride, 2004), such as the “Made in”, “Designed in”, “Assembled in” and “Headquartered in” (Papadopoulos, 2011). Consequently, origin will not simply be the geographical context where the product is manufactured. Rather, the brand origin becomes ‘the place, region or country where a brand is perceived to belong’ (Thakor and Kohli, 1996, p. 26). The origin is, thus, a matter of perception and, in addition to the physical or material attachment to the place of production, other spatialities may add value to product brands, such as the ‘usage context’ (Gerr et al, 1999), in relation to specific situations and rituals of consumption. In this perspective, rather than a simple and static place–product identification, there is a need to look at the process of constructing geographical associations, where spatial circuits of value and meaning are activated in the production, circulation, consumption and regulation of product brands (Pike, 2009, 2010, 2011). Consequently, cities may become the host of these spatial circuits and, because of their nature in a globalized economy, they play a distinctive role in the ‘local origination’ of product brands, helping local firms to construct globally competitive brands (Pike, 2011). Brand heritage A brand is often represented by s a set of functional attributes and symbolic values, branding being the process of associating the attributes with the product in order to add value to it (Hakala et al., 2011). According to Kapferer (2004), a brand’s success is based on its saliency, differentiability and intensity, and on the trust attached to the associations. In addition to these, Davis (2000) underlines the role and accumulation of experiences in brand recognition. Brand preference ultimately depends on what the brand means to the customer and on the impact of its emotional effect, in other words on its place in the heart (Ballantyne et al., 2006). Related to the same idea, brand attachment is characterized by a strong linkage or connectedness between the brand and the self (Kleine and Kleine, 1993). In this context, brand heritage is one of the associations that marketers can use to differentiate their brands from those of their competitors, ultimately helping them to create a unique image for the offering (Keller and Lehmann, 2006). For Aaker (1996), heritage is a key component of brand equity and this heritage represents an essential value for the customer and other stakeholders (Keller and Richey, 2006). The main advantages of brand heritage is as a matter of fact to add stability, familiarity, sincerity and differentiation (Merchant and Rose, 2013) in order to bring authenticity (Fionda and Moore, 2009; Kapferer and Bastien, 2008), and to reduce purchasing risk (Steewart-Allen, 2002). In difficult times, consumers become less confident in the future and wish to protect themselves from the hazards of the outside world and as a result it increases the interest in brands with a heritage: skillfully exploited, they can evoke past events (Brown et al., 2003) and reassure the consumer. The word heritage is generally associated with inheritance: something transferred from one generation to the next. As a concept, therefore, it works as a carrier of historical values from the past (Nuryanti, 1996). But the concept of heritage is different from history (Urde et al. 2007) and retro (Wiedmann et al. 2011). Heritage corresponds to different meaning. On the corporate perspective, heritage is defined as “all the traits and aspects of an organization that link its past, present, and future in a meaningful and relevant way” (Burghausen and Balmer 2014b, p. 394). This link between the different time strata, called omni-temporality, is a cornerstone of corporate heritage (Balmer 2011). Finally, Banerjee (2008, p. 314) describes the four pillars of the heritage of a brand as its history, image, expectancy and equity. History represents its rich and eventful past, the image "an after effect of the brand communication and positioning based on the perceived benefits by consumers”. Brand expectancy refers to the physical and emotional benefits that consumers receive from the brand. Finally, equity comprises two subsets: a homogeneous and heterogeneous set of competencies that facilitate progression and give advantages over the competition. With the exception of its history, the elements of the brand's heritage in Banerjee’s description (2008) are difficult to measure. Methodology In order to provide specific responses from the field, the empirical research methodology chosen follows the case analysis method (Yin, 1984). Following Yin (1984) case study approach and guidelines, a unique emblematic and successful case study is proposed to be analyzed in its unicity. Data reported will be authorized when required or based on primary evidence from public sources such as online, offline media, press, and advertisement and communication campaigns. The research data collection process has started with a pilot work in order to be oriented by experts in the field with respect to the coherence of the research covered. A focus group has been created and has provided indications to build a guideline for the empirical data collection. As a result, it has been decided to start the empirical data collection through an analysis of public sources on a 2 years timeframe. The length of the public sources analysis is related to the need to provide a consistent evaluation of the brand positioning heritage. The following empirical data will be concentrated on interviews with Christian Dior brand in a timeline of 2 months in order to have access to diverse sources of information and to integrate data necessary to build a coherent case study. The interviews are going to be carried in Paris headquarters and in the diverse flagship stores in Paris. Paris as location of data investigation and collection has been decided in relation to its central role in the research questions of the paper and in the historical development of the brand. Christian dior as a successful case of fashion city brandscape and heritage Christian Dior French New Look appeared in 1947 during the first Christian Dior couture fashion show in Paris. At the time, the Paris couture trade was in a precarious state. What it needed was excitement, and Christian Dior delivered it in a collection of luxurious clothes with soft shoulders, waspy waists and full-flowing skirts intended for what he called flower women. ‘It’s quite a revelation, dear Christian Dior’ pronounced Carmel Snow, the editor of US magazine Harper’s Bazaar. ‘Your dresses have such a New Look.’ And here it was: the New Look dresses were born. Dior brand is specifically embedded on the name of the founder, fashion designer of the brand, very inspired by the atmosphere and history of Paris : “ The air of Paris is really the air of couture” (Dior, 2011). The logo itself reminds the founder of the brand. Its simplicity and elegance reinforce the brand identification for consumers; in the logo, it is possible to find the sophistication and elegance representative of the personality of its creator. The company has made efforts to keep the same values promoted by its original founder Christian Dior. Indeed, Dior was primarily a female brand. Dior’s company is also synonymous of dreams. The designer always wanted to reach the excellence in every pieces he created and it’s on the same motto that the company has reached the success known today. Though earlier Dior focused only on women, it diversified into products for men under the brand of Dior Homme, and for children under the brand of Baby Dior as well as other products lines such as parfumes and cosmetics with the same aspect of perfectionism. Preliminary results and conclusion In order to evaluate Christian Dior relationship with the urban environment -Paris-, a first collection of on line data has shown the following. Christian Dior bought his first couture house in Paris in 1946 after working for Robert Pigue and Lucien Lelong. His first house, 30 avenue Montaigne, was the place where the Dior Label would flourish. Considered as one of the greatest couturiers of this century, Christian Dior never ceased to develop his image and fame around the "great Parisian chic", anchored in the mythical and symbolic history of the famous "light city". His latest exhibition at the “Musée des Arts Décoratifs” celebrating the 70th anniversary of Maison Dior, says a lot about this position. The brand strategy has always been in fact, to bring beauty by respecting the tradition and heritage of the company. In this environment, Dior shows the implementation of a very specific brand communication policy. As in the following examples, the ad is always really elegant and sophisticated with quite often the appearance of a famous person being the “muse” of the brand. And the story always takes place in Paris and is illustrated by short anecdotes in the heart of the capital, next to its most famous monuments such as the Eiffel Tower. The logo is also present in a simple way, reflecting the strength of the brand with a clear recognition and association with French luxury and high quality products. If these ways of communicating remain more classical, where the consumer can easily rely on the values of the brand with a “dream” touch, the real power of Dior’s brand is the way it communicates on the brand itself and its history. The continuation of our research will consist in deepening these preliminary results by analyzing supplementary data coming from public sources and interviews led with Dior's brand.

The strategic stakes of differentiation are so great for companies that the adequacy between aesthetic perception of the products and functional benefits for consumers must be taken into account (Alba and Williams, 2013; Bloch, 1995; Reimann et al., 2010). In order to examine the consumer's aesthetic perception, we tested an exploratory measurement scale of aesthetic style (Lagier, 2006), which we first validated for different kinds of products. Exploratory and confirmatory analysis of this scale were conducted and obtained results which proved the stability of the scale for design products. The three dimensions of the factor analysis can be interpreted within the conceptual framework of the perception of design products. We effectively find two clearly distinct dimensions which measure: “affective intensity” and “tolerance for ambiguity”. The last dimension is composed of items which fall both in the domain of “cognitive differentiation” and “cognitive discrimination”. To segment our sample and quantify the different profiles of aesthetic style, eight groups of consumers were formed from the scores on the three dimensions. Finally, the structure of aesthetic style on consumer preference for four design objects was also tested. We seek to show that our scale can also explain the choice for some objects. A one-way ANOVA was conducted to determine whether there were significant differences in preference for each object based on intensity scores of affective intensity, cognitive discrimination/differentiation and tolerance for ambiguity. Our measurement scale of aesthetic style, in the context of this test, explained consumer preference for some design objects.