ryic ecieseaf vaa thes otwfer

t ve ye, largely2007)

ed byfor nohe luxor (Okllengess and retplace

perceive sufcient value in the luxury good to compensate for the highprice charged, particularly in times of recession. Therefore, understand-

Journal of Business Research 63 (2010) 11561163

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Businthe appetite for luxury brands is growing elsewhere in the emergingeconomies of China, India, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America(Verdict, 2007; Chadha and Husband, 2006).

Themarketing of luxury goods requires a ne balancing act to satisfythe increasing demand in the global marketplace, while safeguardingthe brands' cachet and exclusivity in the face of challenges from the riseof counterfeiting (Bian and Veloutsou, 2007), parallel imports, brand

the paper draws conclusions, considers managerial implications andoffers suggestions to enable luxury brand owners to keep in tune withtheir customer base and differentiate themselves more effectively.

2. Conceptualizing the brand

Although the academic and practitioner branding literature is

overextensions, and adoption bymembers of i(Bothwell, 2005). Luxury goods marketing iscounter-intuitive to the extent that Bastien astate that classical marketing is the surest w

Corresponding author. Nottingham University BusNottingham NG8 1BB, UK. Tel.: +44 115 846 6978.

E-mail address: caroline.tynan@nottingham.ac.uk (C

0148-2963/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier Inc. Aldoi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.10.012. Although luxury con-aning due to the creditconomy (Teather, 2008),

research methodology employed and discuss key ndings from theempirical analysis of types of value for luxury brands, the nature ofthe value creation network and processes of value co-creation. Finally,sumer demand in the West appears to be wcrunch, property crash and a slowing world erepresents a 31% increase over the pasa 71% growth over the next ve yearsfrom emerging economies (Verdict,expenditure on luxury goods increas2004 compared to a 7% increaseMcMillan, 2004) whereas in France tis the fourth largest revenue generatphenomenal rate of growth and chaluxury brands ensure that practitionerlarly examine and analyse the markfueled by high demand. In Britain, consumer50% between 1994 andn-luxuries (Keane andury fashion sector aloneonkwo, 2007, p.1). Thisinherent in marketing

ecently academics regu-

In light of the above, this paper addresses the nature of value forluxury brands and the ways in which value co-creation takes place.The authors seek to explore conceptually the meaning of value forluxury brands, and empirically investigate how rms and consumersco-create value in the luxury market. The paper proceeds rst byreviewing the conceptualization of brands in general and luxurybrands specically, then developing a theoretical framework of typesof customer value for the luxury market. Next, the authors outline thenappropriate subculturescomplex and frequentlynd Kapferer (2009, p.2)ay to fail in the luxury

extensive, ndinremains elusive.multiplicity of doperationalizatioBrodie et al., 20schemes for bran2007; Stern, 200et al., 2008). By

iness School, Jubilee Campus,

. Tynan).

l rights reserved.past two decades. Estimated to be wo 63billion in 2007 whichars, predictions indicate

ing the types of value sought and the processes of value co-creation isimportant.The global market for luxury brands has grown rapidly over the

rth $2Co-creating value for luxury brands

Caroline Tynan , Sally McKechnie, Celine ChhuonNottingham University Business School, UK

a b s t r a c ta r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 1 July 2008Received in revised form 1 January 2009Accepted 1 August 2009

Keywords:ValueCo-creationTypes of valueCustomer value frameworkLuxury brands

The global market for luxucurrent challenging economthat customers perceive sufto recent service-oriented reand product-centric view opaper, the authors developresearch to identify processinteractions taking place benetworks, which help to dif

1. Introductionbrands has witnessed dramatic growth over the last two decades but thenvironment contributes to the difculty brand owners experience in ensuringnt value in their luxury brands to compensate for the high prices. Accordingrch, customers and suppliers co-create value as a result of a shift from a rm-lue creation to one that focuses on personalized brand experiences. In thiseoretical framework of types of value for luxury brands, and use case studyf value creation in this particular setting. The ndings highlight the variety ofeen luxury brand owners, their customers and members of their respectiveentiate luxury brands and co-create a superior value proposition.

2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

business. Successful luxury goods marketing requires the customer to

ess Researchg a universally accepted denition of the term brandAs a result of themultifaceted nature of the concept aenitions and contextualized understandings of itsn exist (Gabbott and Jevons, 2009; Jevons, 2007;06). The recent developments of two classicationd conceptualization using historical analyses (Jevons,6) form the basis of further work (Buchanan-Oliverapplying the historical-analysis method to multiple

ket segmentation (Dubois et al., 2005; Dubois and Duquesne, 1993);conspicuous consumption (Truong et al., 2008; O'Cass and McEwen,

1157C. Tynan et al. / Journal of Business Research 63 (2010) 115611632004) as opposed to prestige-seeking consumer behavior (Vigneronand Johnson, 1999); online presence for luxury brand marketing(Dall'Olmo Riley and Lacroix, 2003; Kapferer, 1997, 2000); counter-feiting (Bian and Veloutsou, 2007; Giacalone, 2006), and the meaningof luxury goods. However, in spite of this broad literature on theluxury market, researchers have yet to address the meaning of valueand the value creation process for luxury brands.

Understanding the nature of value for luxury goods requires con-sideration of what constitutes a luxury brand. Dening luxury goodsor brands is difcult (Vigneron and Johnson, 1999; Dubois andDuquesne, 1993). Luxury goods exist at one end of a continuum withordinary goods, so where the ordinary ends and luxury starts is amatter of degree as judged by consumers. Sekora denes luxury asanything unneeded (1977, p. 23), which is set in the context of whatsociety considers necessary and is thus a relative and dynamic term(Berry, 1994). The roots of the word luxury derive luxury fromluxus, which according to the Oxford Latin Dictionary (1992) meanssoft or extravagant living, (over)-indulgence and sumptuousness,luxuriousness, opulence, but the term luxury is currently and com-monly used by marketers in most product or service categories tocommunicate to consumers a particular tier of offer (Dubois et al.,2005) in order to persuade them to trade up. In addition, new termsmeanings of the term brand, Stern (2006) proposes a quadripartiteclassication scheme which categorizes the construct according tonature (literal and metaphoric), function (entity and process), locus(world and mind) and valence (positive and negative). Jevons (2007)alternatively traces the development of brand denitions through ahistorical meta-analysis and identies six key components of branddenitions in his review (i.e. identity, functionality, symbol(ism),sustainability, differentiation, and value creation/delivery). He incor-porates them into the following integrated denition: A brand is atangible or intangible concept that uniquely identies an offering,providing symbolic communication of functionality and differentia-tion, and in doing so sustainably inuences the value offered.According to Buchanan-Oliver et al. (2008), having so many key com-ponents renders this classicationunnecessarily complicatedand there-fore they conate the classication to three components (i.e. symbolic,functional and psychological). They also argue that Jevons' (2007)classication does not satisfactorily capture the experiential componentof de Chernatony's (2002) brand denition. After applying a combinedclassication scheme for brand conceptualization based on conatedJevons (2007) and Stern (2006) to their own analysis of contemporarybrand perspectives, they conclude the need to address the experientialdimension of the brand as well.

3. Conceptualizing the luxury brand

Traditionally, much of the academic literature on luxury goodscomes from a variety of disciplines such as history (e.g. Berry, 1994),economics (e.g. Leibenstein, 1950; Veblen, 1899) and sociology (e.g.Bourdieu, 1984). However, a growing level of interest in the market-ing literature exists (Truong et al., 2008) across a variety of areas: thenature and denition of luxury goods (Vigneron and Johnson, 1999,2004; Catry 2003; Vickers and Renand, 2003; Dubois and Czellar,2002; Nueno and Quelch, 1998; Kapferer, 1997; Dubois andDuquesne, 1993; Veblen 1899); competitive structure of luxury mar-kets (Chadha and Husband, 2006; Dubois and Duquesne, 1993);issues relating to the democratization of luxury (Luxury Institute2007; Twitchell 2002) such as extending the market while retainingthe luxury cachet (e.g. Giacalone, 2006; Catry, 2003; Silverstein andFiske, 2003; Dubois and Czellar, 2002; Nueno and Quelch, 1998) andtrading up for luxury goods (Silverstein and Fiske, 2003, 2007); mar-are emerging in the practitioner literature such as old luxury beingabout the good itself and dened by the company and new luxurybeing experiential and dened by the consumer (Florin et al., 2007).

Marketing academics are using luxury in different ways: forexample, Vigneron and Johnson (1999) use luxury to describe thevery top category of prestige brands, whereas Dubois and Czellar(2002) view prestige to stem from a unique accomplishment inthe brand and luxury to merely concern self-indulgence. Economistsdene luxury goods as goods for which demand rises either inproportion with income or in greater proportion than income (i.e.where the income elasticity of demand is equal to or greater than 1),but clearly the purchase of luxury goods is not governed simply byeconomic factors (Dubois and Duquesne, 1993), as income is a nec-essary but not sufcient condition to explain purchase. By examiningthe motivation for consumers to purchase luxury goods within asocio-economic context, Veblen's seminal work (1899, 1994) pro-poses that individuals from the wealthy leisure class engage inconspicuous consumption when purchasing high priced items inorder to ostentatiously communicate wealth and achieve social status(Bagwell and Bernheim, 1996). This view is consistent with Leibenstein(1950), whose examination of this phenomenon identies the Vebleneffectwherebydemand for a good rises because its price is higher ratherthan lower, plus two forms of interpersonal effects of conspicuousconsumption: the snob effect, where the demand for a good falls as thenumber of buyers increases, since snobs desire to be different andexclusive and therefore disassociate themselves from the masses; andthe bandwagon effect, where demand for a good increases becauseconsumers follow others in their reference groups who have alreadybought the good. O'Cass and McEwen (2004) however voice concernsover the interchangeable use in the literature of the terms conspicuousconsumption and status consumption. According to them, the formerrelates to thedesires of consumers to gainprestigebypurchasing status-laden products and brands of public or private display, whereas thelatter refers to the visual public display or overt usage of products.

As a result of Belk's (1988) work on the extended self, whichhighlights the importance of possessions in contemporary consump-tion and consumers' feelings about them as a key contributor andreection of their identities, luxury goods researchers (such asVigneron and Johnson (1999)) recognise that consumers can derivesubjective intangible benets from these goods beyond theirfunctional utility, while additional motivations to purchase theminclude their higher levels of quality (Garfein, 1989) and authenticity(Beverland, 2006).

In Vigneron and Johnson's (1999) review of prestige-seeking con-sumer behavior they separate interpersonal effects on prestige con-sumption from personal effects, and conceptualize ve types ofperceived value for prestige goods: namely three types of interper-sonal effects (i.e. the Veblen effect for perceived conspicuous value;the snob effect for perceived unique value; and the bandwagon effectfor perceived social value) and two types of personal effects (i.e. thehedonic effect for perceived emotional value and the perfectionismeffect for perceived quality value). Following further work, they revisethis classication by switching around the bandwagon effect to apersonal effect and the perfectionism effect to an interpersonal effect(Vigneron and Johnson, 2004). The authors can see arguments forboth of these positions, especially in considering the behavior ofglobal consumers.

Catry (2003) argues for the possible replacement of actual scarcity,once considered essential to the existence of a luxury good, by thenotion of perceived rarity maintained through rare ingredients orcomponents in the short term, or sustainably through strategies oftechno-rarity enabled by innovation, limited editions or informationbased rarity.

An alternative approach to conceptualising consumer perceptionsof luxury goods from Vickers and Renand (2003) considers luxurygoods as symbols of personal and social identity and seems to fulll

calls from Jevons (2007) and Buchanan-Oliver et al. (2008) to take an

supplier's network (e.g. members of brand communities, share-holders, or partners of the supplier). Prahalad and Ramaswamy

1158 C. Tynan et al. / Journal of Business Research 63 (2010) 11561163(2004) see the experience being the brand and identify co-creation astaking place and evolving through personalized experiences in whichthe customer is an active partner. By taking an experience-centricview further, Schmitt (2003) asserts that Experience Marketing candeliver sensory, emotional, cognitive, behavioural and relational valueto customers to which Tynan and McKechnie (2009) add social andinformational based value. To be successful, Poulsson and Kale (2004)argue that a marketing experience should have personal relevancefor the customer, be novel, offer an element of surprise, engenderlearning and engage the customer. This recognition that the branddoes indeed have an experiential component and that the experienceintegrative perspective on brand denition. They propose differenti-ating between luxury and non-luxury goods in terms of the mix oftheir components on three dimensions: functionalism, experiential-ism and symbolic interactionism. Therefore, the key identiers ofluxury brands adopted in this study are high quality, expensive andnon-essential products and services that appear to be rare, exclusive,prestigious, and authentic and offer high levels of symbolic andemotional/hedonic values through customer experiences. In short,evidence of luxury brand denitions from each of the four brandperspectives (i.e. symbolic, functional, psychological, and experien-tial), which Buchanan-Oliver et al. (2008) identify, exists.

4. Co-creation of value

Authors such as Payne et al. (2009), Prahalad and Ramaswamy(2004) and Vargo and Lusch (2004) argue that the rm does notcreate and deliver value to the passive customer, but rather throughinteraction and dialogue embeds value in the co-creation processbetween the rm and its active customer. This moves the focus ofmarketing to a process of co-creating value through the exchange ofknowledge and skills with customers and partners (Vargo and Lusch,2004) to co-construct unique experiences (Prahalad and Ramaswamy,2004), that is developing a service orientation predicated onprocesses of joint value creation (Vargo and Lusch 2004, 2008).Nevertheless, the academy does not yet understand the processes ofvalue creation and recent studies overlook the creation of the serviceexperience (Schembri, 2006). Pealoza and Venkatesh (2006)recommend that researchers should study markets as social con-structions to examine those multiple perspectives of meaning whichcreate value for the customer.

These new understandings emphasizing the importance of valueco-creation are particularly important for this study of value co-creation in the luxury goods market. While value is a central conceptin marketing (Payne and Holt, 2001), Woodruff and Flint (2006) callfor the development of a better understanding of customer value. Thefocus of traditional marketing is the rm-centered notion of value inexchange, that is making a value proposition for the passive customerto accept or decline (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004). Recent studieshowever, emphasize the co-creation of value by the supplier and theconnected, empowered and active customer (Prahalad and Ramas-wamy, 2004, p.8), who determines value uniquely and phenomeno-logically (Vargo and Lusch, 2008, p. 7) during consumption. Thus, theconcept of value-in-use supersedes that of value in exchange (Luschand Vargo, 2006) and suggests the use of marketing approaches,which are experiential, interactive, progressive, evolving and exible(Tynan and McKechnie, 2009).

The customer and the supplier co-create value at multiple pointsof interaction (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004, p. 13) through co-creation experiences which take place throughout the life of theservice and not just at the point of exchange. These value-creatinginteractions can include other members of the customer's and theof the brand involves an interactive process between the customer,supplier and their networks contributes to understanding of the co-creation of value.

5. The framework development process

This current study specically addresses the gap within the lit-erature on the nature and co-creation of value in the luxury market.Having reviewed the literature on what constitutes a luxury brand,greater attention is now required to understand how customersinteract with, and experience, the luxury brand. Smith and Colgate(2007) offer an innovative and useful general theoretical frameworkof customer value creation, which led to authors to explore the typesof value they identify. Their framework includes types of value (i.e.functional/instrumental value, experiential/hedonic value, symbolic/expressive value, and cost/sacrice value) plus sources of value (i.e.information, products, interaction, environment, ownership/posses-sion transfer), and as this framework is generic in nature its appli-cation for luxury goods requires further development.

Initially, to accommodate the types of value identied by Vigneronand Johnson (1999, 2004) the authors classify Veblen, snob, band-wagon, and perfectionism effects as symbolic/expressive value, hedoniceffects as experiential/hedonic value and perfectionism effects as cost/sacrice value. Next, the authors classify theworkof Vickers andRenand(2003) on personal and social symbolic meanings as relating tosymbolic/expressive value. However, to extend the framework for thistype of value in the luxury context, the authors believe that they shoulddraw a distinction between meanings of an outer- and self-directednature. Finally, noting that Smith and Colgate (2007) indicate how theyclassify Holbrook's (1999) customer value types in the framework, andconsulting theoriginal typology of consumer value (CCV) four particulartypes emerged as appropriate for the context of this study. Two of themare self-oriented: excellence (quality), which is a utilitarian value, andaesthetics (beauty), a sensory value, which Smith and Colgate (2007)classify as functional/instrumental value and experiential/hedonic valuerespectively. The remaining two types are other-oriented: status(impression management) which is a desired value; and esteem(possessions) which concerns possession value. Therefore the authorsclassify the self-oriented types as self-directed types of symbolic/expressive value and the remaining other-oriented ones as outer-directed types of symbolic/expressive value.

Expanding the typology to encompass luxury grounded theoreticalsources of value requires the addition of a number of new sources ofvalue including craftsmanship (Kapferer, 1997) as a utilitarian value.The symbolic/expressive category is expanded by incorporating band-wagon, snob and Veblen effects (Leibenstein, 1950), the notion ofsigns (Kapferer, 1997; Levy, 1957), status or esteem (O'Cass andMcEwen, 2004), prestige (Dubois and Czellar 2002), social identity(Vickers and Renand, 2003), uniquenessmentioned by Kapferer (1997)and rst explored by Ruvio (2008), and authenticity (Beverland, 2006)in the outer-directed category. Symbolic/expressive additions in theself-directed category include self-gift giving behaviors (Tsai 2005;Mickand DeMoss, 1990), nostalgia (Holbrook and Schindler, 2003) plusinternally focused aspects of uniqueness (Ruvio 2008; Kapferer, 1997)and authenticity (Beverland, 2006). According to Schmitt (2003) andothers (Poulsson and Kale, 2004; Prahalad, 2004; Car and Cova, 2003;Pine and Gilmore, 1998; Carbone and Haeckel, 1994; Holbrook andHirschman 1982) consuming the experience adds value in theexperiential/hedonic category. In addition to incorporating new sourcesof value for luxury goods to the framework, the authors incorporate onenew type of value which Smith and Colgate (2007) did not consider,which is value offered by the relationship with the brand (Fournier,1998), the brand community (Veloutsou andMoutinho, 2009; Kozinets,2002; Cova and Cova, 2001; Muiz and O' Guinn, 2000) and/or theservice provider (Grnroos, 2006), which is particularly important forhigh value luxury goods where personal service and high expectations

are the norm. Finally, the cost/sacrice category is expanded to

encompass exclusivity and rarity (Catry, 2003). Table 1 showsreclassications and extensions of Smith and Colgate's (2007) originaltypes of value and additions to the theoretical sources in order toprovidea framework for understanding types of value for luxurybrands.

6. Methodology

The research utilized a multiple case study approach to investigatethe nature and co-creation of value in the luxury market. The authorsfocused on three luxury brands for this study because of the advan-tages of allowing the investigation of a contemporary phenomenon ina real life context where the boundaries between phenomenon andcontext are not clearly dened (Yin, 1984). They collected data foreach of the chosen brands over a fteen-month period using severalmethods of data collection including interviews with senior practi-tioners, analysis of ofcial brand websites, a netnography of brand-related blogs, together with a limited number of customer interviewsand some retail observations in order to understand the dynamics

Since many luxury brands are now focusing on developing anonline presence, the authors considered the examination of ofcialwebsites for each of the three brands important. They also undertooka netnography in order to explore the attitudes and behavior of onlinemarket-oriented communities (Kozinets, 2002; Fller et al., 2007).The advantage of this nal form of data collection is that it providesmarketing researchers with a window into naturally occurring be-haviors, such as searches for information by and communal word ofmouth between consumers (Kozinets, 2002, p.62). Thus, theresearchers examined both unofcial websites and blogs dedicatedto each of the brands and more general websites dedicated to luxuryautomotive and fashion clothing brands. The netnography was con-ducted in the third and twelfth months of the study period, and itsscope is indicated by the number of sources referred to for each brand:Brand X brand-related websites (47), brand-related blogs (4), luxurycar-related websites (6), and luxury car-related blogs (6); Brand Y brand-related website (1), fashion designer-related websites (7),brand-related blogs (8), fashion-related blogs (8), designer-relatedblogs (7); Brand Z brand-related websites (2), brand-related blogs

ourc

olbcond Joh97);); so(Beveffecolbrgia (ct (Hxpermor04;randuniteff

1159C. Tynan et al. / Journal of Business Research 63 (2010) 11561163of value creation in this market. Not only can the resulting datayield useful managerial and consumer insights, but also the uses ofnetnography (or online ethnography) and other participativeapproaches to data collection are more appropriate at a time whenlatest thinking indicates that the nature of customer involvement andengagement with rms and their goods is changing (Bonnemaizonet al., 2007; Pealoza and Venkatesh, 2006; Vargo and Lusch, 2004;Prahalad, 2004).

The choice of the three case companies was guided by a number ofcriteria including their global iconic status as well known, aspiration-al, luxury, British, heritage brands (in spite of foreign ownership inone case): Brand X is an automotive company, Brand Y is a designer offashion clothing, and Brand Z is a department store. Gaining access tosenior managers proved highly challenging and so theWalpole Group(2007), a UK-based trade association of British luxury brand owners,initially mediated contact.

The authors undertook four in-depth interviews with senior prac-titioners, which lasted thirtyminutes on average using an open-endedstyle of questioning. Eight face-to-face interviews with customers oftwo of the selected brands took place outside agship stores lastingfteen minutes on average. The researchers followed these with aretail observation at each store, which consisted of eld notes beingaudio-recorded of their description of the store and multisensoryimpressions of the retail environment upon entering each store andwalking all around it. Given the low footfall at UK-based luxury carshowrooms for the remaining brand and the fact that most of itscustomers live overseas, the authors sent a short postal survey tomembers of a club of brand enthusiasts instead.

Table 1Customer value framework for luxury goods.Source: Developed from Smith and Colgate (2007).

Types of value Theoretical s

Utilitarian Excellence (HSymbolic/expressive Outer-directed Conspicuous

Vigneron anKapferer, 19Czellar 2002authenticity

Self-directed Bandwagonaesthetics (H2008; nostal

Experiential/hedonic Hedonic effe1999); the ePine and Giland Kale, 20

Relational Consumerbbrand comm

Cost/sacrice Perfectionism(11), luxury fashion websites (14), and luxury fashion blogs (5).Each interview discussion was audio-recorded and transcribed

verbatim. The text was analysed independently by the authors fol-lowing the generalized sequence of steps of data reduction andtransformation, data display and conclusion drawing/verication(Miles and Huberman, 1994, p. 10), which was then discussed, ini-tially on a within-case basis and then on a between-case basis. Usinga similar process for analysis of the online material, the authorsapproached the data from a holistic perspective and undertook datatriangulation to improve the internal validity of the work. By em-ploying what can best be described as dialectical tacking (Geertz,2003) the authors continually referred back and forth between theliterature review and the data gathered through the various multiplemethods, to enable us to incrementally generate deeper under-standings of the nature of value and its co-creation for luxury goods.

7. Findings and discussion

This article now presents and discusses the ndings belowaccording to the emergent themes with some exemplar quotationsprovided.

7.1. Types of value delivered and sought

Customers identied a wide range of values that they sought inluxury goods and highlighted how the brand delivered value. Theyconsidered money no object due to their status as ultra high or high

es

rook, 1999), craftsmanship (Kapferer, 1997)sumption (Veblen 1899); bandwagon, snob and Veblen effects (Leibenstein, 1950;nson, 1999); perfectionism effect (Vigneron and Johnson, 2004); signs (Levy 1957;status/esteem (Holbrook, 1999; O'Cass and McEwen, 2004); prestige (Dubois andcial identity (Vickers and Renand, 2003); uniqueness (Ruvio 2008; Kapferer, 1997);erland 2006).t (Vigneron and Johnson, 2004); personal identity (Vickers and Renand, 2003);ook, 1999); self-gift giving (Mick and DeMoss 1990; Tsai, 2005); uniqueness Ruvio,Holbrook and Schindler 2003); authenticity (Beverland 2006).irschman and Holbrook, 1982; Vigneron and Johnson 1999); aesthetics (Holbrook,ience (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982; Carbone and Haeckel, 1994;e, 1998; Schmitt 2003; PoulssonPrahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004; Prahalad, 2004: Car and Cova, 2003).relationships (Fournier, 1998; Grnroos, 2006; Veloutsou and Moutinho, 2009);y (Kozinets, 2002; Cova and Cova, 2001; Muiz and O' Guinn, 2000).ect (Vigneron and Johnson, 1999); exclusivity (Catry, 2003); Rarity (Catry, 2003).

for them. The utilitarian value sources of excellence (Holbrook, 1999),

1160 C. Tynan et al. / Journal of Business Research 63 (2010) 11561163quality and craftsmanship (Kapferer, 1997) are assumed and taken forgranted although still acknowledged as being valuable.

Our customer is someone who has signicant amount of money andsomeone who enjoys ne things. We have... some of our owners arecar collectors and they just love cars and they respect the Brand X forwhat it is in terms of craftsmanship and engineering. And we havecustomers who buy for what the brand stands for, the history andheritage and the customers who buy it because it's just the best car inthe world. (Marketing Director, Brand X)Using both contemporary and traditional patterns, Brand Z product isknown for beauty, luxury and uniqueness. (Brand Users' website,Brand Z)For me, the last thing I am concerned with is how much it is becauseat the end of the day I'm paying for quality and that's what luxury isabout. (Brand Y customer, male aged 33)

Symbolic/expressive (e.g. Vigneron and Johnson, 1999, 2004),experiential/hedonic (e.g. Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982; Holbrookand Hirschman 1982; Schmitt, 2003) and relational sources of value(Fournier, 1998; Grnroos, 2006) were all raised by informants, whoalso provided evidence of the signs and symbols associated with theluxury brands triggering pleasant and creative thoughts. Aesthetics(Holbrook, 1999) are important to luxury goods customers andrecognised by practitioners, as is authenticity (Beverland, 2006) withassociated artefacts guaranteed through a combination of provenance,certication, limited production and signed items.

So much effort is put into the design and manufacturing of the carsthat driving a Brand X, smelling the leather, sitting in the seat, isequivalent to the pleasure of drinking champagne, eating caviar, andhaving a back massage, all at the same time! (Member of Enthusiasts'Club, Brand X)Luxury brand means quality, originality, sense of scarcity. (MarketingManager, Brand Z)Whenever I see his signature on product or paper bag, I feel naturallyconnected to the brand itself. I am always mesmerized by his artisticsophistication and creativity. I also feel lovable when I wear his suit.(Blog: Carrie, Brand Y)

Customers discuss luxury goods in rich hedonic language describingthem as opulent, pleasing to the touch and eye and designed toindulge and delight. Fashion bloggers conveyed their delight inwearing designer branded clothing, which evokes status (O'Cass andMcEwen, 2004) or prestige (Dubois and Czellar, 2002), or helps themexpress their uniqueness (Ruvio, 2008). All of these examples are ofvalue brought about during the customer's use of the luxury brandrather than at the point of purchase.

7.2. Processes of co-creating value

The networked nature of value co-creation was in evidence (Achroland Kotler, 2006) through a wide variety of interactions. For thecompanies the constellation of individuals in these value-creatingnetworks is of high status and includes unofcial and ofcial brandcommunities, experts including the curator of a national museum,net worth individuals. The cost/sacrice value category associatedwith the perfectionism effect (Vigneron and Johnson, 1999) andnotions of exclusivity and rarity (Catry, 2003) appear to be irrelevantto them. Money is a necessary but not a sufcient condition for thepurchase of luxury goods. According to one Marketing Director,his customers are not interested in an invitation to come and drinkchampagne as they can afford to have all that they wished and theirtime is precious, but they do value something exclusive and tailoreddesigners across a range of elds (e.g. fabric, transportation and elec-tronics); symbols of popular culture (namely an iconic 1960's fashionmodel, a renowned musician, a photographer, a graphic artist), as wellas editors and journalists. According to Bastien and Kapferer (2009)contemporary art is a source of inspiration for luxury brand designersand helps to enable brand owners to maintain topicality and relevancefor their brands. Clearly seeking out fresh and varied collaborationswithin theworlds of art,music and fashion such as promoting a numberof up and coming designers, serves as a means of enhancing the overallvalue of the brands we examined. By comparison, the customer net-works include ofcial and unofcial brand communities and socialnetworking sites.

..Brand Y has the ability to anticipate, and even spark off trends notonly fashion but in the wider context of popular culture. (FashionistaWebsite)

In the luxury market interactions are multilayered and complex,and not simply comprising interaction between the rm and thecustomer. In addition, they regularly include interactions with otherluxury brand owners, the informed and partisan brand community,opinion leaders, and the owners, employees and customers of othernon-competing luxury brands (e.g. luxury watch, yacht and carmanufacturers engaged in joint events). The customers favor inter-action with high status individuals as this offers them privilegedaccess to information. In the case of Brand X, this relates to contactwith the Company Designer and an opportunity to tap intoknowledge or discuss new ideas and developments in a sectorthat is of great personal interest to them. As for Brand Z, customershighly appreciate introductions made to new cutting edgedesigners in the art world rather than designers from the company,since they can possibly use them to enhance their social capitalamongst members of their peer group. Of the three companies,Brand Y creates value the most widely through public and privateevents including exhibitions, book and album launches, dinnerparties, previews and limited edition releases. Clearly, co-creation ofvalue requires customer awareness of these events and interest inparticipating in them. Much evidence indicated that customers ofBrand X were the most involved in creating events for themselvesthrough enthusiasts' international, national and regional events andmeetings.

It is all about providing the customer with an experience. Customersno longer dene themselves by what they own or what they buybecause their wealth means they can acquire almost any assets butthey dene (themselves) more by experiences, whether it's a trip toSouth Pole or it's a balloon ying over the Andes or it's to talk to thedesigner of the Brand X. (Marketing Director, Brand X)

It is noteworthy that not only is the experience about facilitatinginteraction between customers and the company and its employees, butalso the experience concerns interactions and experiences shared withcomplementary and similarly positioned brands, and experiences withother members of the elite. So in terms of the developing serviceorientation predicated on processes of joint value creation (Vargo andLusch 2004, 2008) a network becomes important for luxury brandowners in offering opportunities for co-creatingvaluewithother brandsin the network and other members of the brand community throughsatisfying and tailoring brand experiences based on interactions withbrand staff, customers and their counterparts. In terms of co-creatingservice, the multiple interactions between network members serve asa basis upon which luxury brand owners can develop differentiated,desired and difcult to copy aspects of their brand experience.

Our customers arevery interested in who the other customers are.They are quite competitive peopleand I think they're quiteinterested in meeting their peers. We make these interactions

possible through our private events, and I think that's the primary

them. Certainly, the netnography revealed that the brandscapes arerich and varied involving partners whom the brand sponsors but also

1161C. Tynan et al. / Journal of Business Research 63 (2010) 11561163reason why they enjoy getting together because they get to knowother customers. (Brand Manager, Brand X)... I think that when they buy into luxury they try to buy somethingthat makes them feel special or is specialit's almost like buying intoa club, you feel part of something that is exclusive, that is beautifulquality, taking time to design, that is thought about. (MarketingDirector, Brand Y)

All the marketers spoke of listening to their luxury goods cus-tomers. They also keep up a constant stream of communication, bothon- and ofine, including blogs to provide information and new ideasfor their customers in real time. Celebrity endorsement through be-spoke clothing for an Oscar winning actor and members of a premierfootball team kept Brand Y in the news.

Many customers will come to (plant) to determine the nal specica-tions of their car, and many will also come and see it during themanufacturing process. So it is very much part of our strategy to deliveran experience on a long termbasis and also itwould be fair to say thatit is something that our customerswill demand fromustheywant thatdegree of involvement. (Marketing Director, Brand X)

Only Brand X demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of theprocesses and benets of engaging in a dialogue with customers. Theyfocus on offering specically what the customer wants, and listensand responds to customers effectively in order to co-create thedesired experience. By comparison, the other brands communicatewith their customers more indirectly through opinion leaders, themedia and staged events, which indicates that the two-way processesthat lead to co-created brand experiences and the co-creation of valueare not yet in place.

We try to create a one-to-one basis in stores so it will be up to eachstore manager to develop their own customer base and work closelywith regular customers to build up regular relationships. So each shophas its own data base and has to look after it. Mainly, customers willreceive invitations for previews or maybe Christmas shopping eveningsjust for those customers, sowe try tomake them feel special.Wedon't doa loyalty card, but who knows, possibly in the future, as technologybecomes more and more relevant. (Marketing Director, Brand Y)We have a quite strong press team who are looking for editorial,coverage and product placements in the right target publications. Wealso conduct web or online communications, so e-communication,and we have a big email database, and we also contact loyalty cardsregularly to inform them about new things happening in-store.(Marketing Manager, Brand Z)

The overall luxury brand experience offers an important way ofenhancing perceptions of each of the ve types of value proposedearlier in Table 1. The participants reported a broad range of person-alized experiences including private and select dinner parties to meetsenior managers and inuential individuals in the eld, a bespokegrooming service, a private book launch, and the opportunity to joinan exclusive members' club. Facilitating and participating in suchexperiences with the customer is the process by which so much valuecreation takes place (Schmitt, 2003).

For the case study companies these experiences offer an oppor-tunity for some unscripted interactions between the brand staff andcustomers in order to gather information, tailor the experience to theindividual or refresh its format. For the marketers they offer benetsfor the luxury good consumer that literally money cannot buy, whichenhances brand exclusivity (Catry, 2003) and prestige (Dubois andCzellar, 2002). For these reasons, the automotive plant and agshipstore and outlets for the case study brands represent unique venuesand destinations in themselves: designed to facilitate a special expe-

rience for the luxury customer and staffed with well-trained andthose who are completely independent of the brand. This conclusionsuggests that practitioners should monitor all channels of brand-related communications (i.e. ofcial and unofcial), so that they canrespond to them exibly and interactively. Many opportunities existto engage customers usefully in dialogue instead of opting for anextensive array of one-way communication. However, luxury brandowners should also recognise that customers want different levels ofengagement with their brands ranging from minimal to highlyinformed employees keen to assist customers rather than push theminto a purchase.

I also like the assistants in Brand Y, they're very courteous and theydon't push anything onto me. They don't seem to be there to sell butto advise. (Brand Y customer, male aged 32)The store is beautifully laid out and just a wonderful experience. Thisis a store I couldn't live without. (Blog: Streetwise, Brand Z)

8. Conclusions and implications

This exploratory study examined how marketers and consumerscan co-create value in the luxury goods marketplace. So far, much ofthe traditional marketing literature, plus that in this setting, takes amanagerial perspective and neglects to take into account theconsumer perspective. Examining this marketplace as a socialconstruction offers deeper insights into the nature and sources ofvalue both in exchange and use (Pealoza and Venkatesh, 2006).

The researchers have developed a theoretical framework of typesof value for luxury brands, and have used case study research toexplore the many types of value which customers seek and receivefrom luxury brands. While a high standard of utilitarian value isassumed as essential for all luxury goods and cost/sacrice basedvalue appears to be irrelevant to customers; the symbolic/expressive,experiential/hedonic and relational types of value are the ones whichenable differentiation between various luxury brands. As Table 1illustrates, the nature of these particular types of value is varied.

This study identies processes of value co-creation by rms andcustomers. Co-creating the luxury brand experience involves dialogueand complex interactions between the brand owner, employee,customer and other social groups including the customer brandcommunities, those experts or agencies who are part of the brandowners' network and the industry itself. The experience only createsvalue when the parties engage and market with each other, that is,when no separation between production and consumption occurs,which traditionally serves to divide the parties. Without a doubt theinteractive and networked nature of value creation is hugelyimportant, cutting across art systems, fashion systems, design systemsand integrated marketing communications systems which mediatebetween the culturally constituted world and the consumer good(Arnould et al., 2004) and also accommodates the latest develop-ments in technology and innovation. So brand owners must establish,develop and refresh their networks in order to access new ideas andexpertise, which will enable them to innovate continually in a highlycompetitive marketplace and stay at the cutting edge.

Brand owners do not just offer value rather they co-create valuewith inputs and inuence from customers and other parties to achievevalue sought in terms of exclusivity, recognition, access to privilegedinformation and prestige. The ndings indicate that the substantialinterplay amongst non-competing but complementary luxury brandnetworks co-creates value. Interactions with high status individualshave become a crucial differentiator and source of value for each of thecase brands. A huge range of public and private events was identied,which were not necessarily brand owner-led or even controlled byinvolved. Co-creating value for each of the case brands requires

The authors wish to thank the editors and anonymous reviewers

1162 C. Tynan et al. / Journal of Business Research 63 (2010) 11561163for their helpful and considered comments on this paper, as well asacknowledging the nancial support provided by a bursary from theWorshipful Company of Marketors and the assistance of the WalpoleGroup in gaining access to senior managers for this study.

References

Achrol Ravi S, Kotler Philip. The service-dominant logic for marketing: a critique. In:Lusch Robert F, Vargo Stephen L, editors. The service-dominant logic of marketing:dialog, debate, and directions. New York: M.E. Sharpe; 2006. p. 32033.

Arnould Eric J, Price Linda L, Zinkham George M. Consumers2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2004.

Bagwell Laurie Simon, Bernheim Douglas. Veblen effects in a theory of conspicuousconsumption. Am Econ Rev 1996;86(3):34973.

Bastien Vincent, Kapferer Jean-Noel. Luxury marketing plays by a different set of rules,vol. 2. Financial Times June 15th; 2009.

Belk Russell W. Possessions and the extended self. J Consum Res 1988;15:13968September.

Berry CJ. The idea of luxury: a conceptual and historical investigation. Cambridge, MA:Cambridge University Press; 1994.

Beverland Michael. The real thing: branding authenticity in the luxury wine trade.J Bus Res 2006;59:2518.

Bian Xuemei, Veloutsou Cleopatra. Consumers' attitudes regarding non-deceptivecounterfeit brands in the UK and China. J Brand Manag 2007;12(3):21122.

Bonnemaizon Audrey, Cova Bernard, Louyot Marie-Claude. Relationship marketing in2015: a Delphi approach. Eur Manag J 2007;1:509.

Bothwell Claire. Burberry versus The Chavs. BBC Money Programme. 28th October; 2005.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4381140.stm 2005: accessed on 25th June 2007.

Bourdieu Pierre. Distinction: a social critique of the judgement of taste. London:Routledge; 1984.

Brodie Roderick, Glynn Mark, Little Vicky. The service brand and the service-dominantlogic: missing fundamental premise or the need for stronger theory? Mark Theory2006;6(3):36379.

Buchanan-Oliver Margo, Brodie Roderick J, Huang Diana. Rening the dimensions of thebrand in the service economy. Paper presented at Thought Leaders InternationalConference on Brand Management. Birmingham Business School; 2008.

Carbone LP, Haeckel SH. Engineering customer experiences.MarkManag 1994;3(3):819.Car Antonella, Cova Bernard. Revisiting consumption experience: a more humble but

complete view of the concept. Mark Theory 2003;3(2):26786.Catry Bernard. The great pretenders: the magic of luxury goods. Bus Strateg Rev 2003;14

(3):117.Chadha Radha, Husband Paul. The cult of the luxury brand: inside Asia's love affair with

luxury. London: Nicholas Brealey International; 2006.skilful and well-trained staff, who can successfully engage throughmultiple channels in an appropriate dialogue with the ultra high andhigh net worth individuals who constitute much of the market forluxury products. Venues are also important, with each of the brandshaving iconic destination outlets of high prestige and design content,which add value for their customers. Whether changes in thecustomer base for luxury goods generally or the emergence of theonline marketplace will change this need materially, remains to beseen.

9. Limitations and future work

The ndings reported from this exploratory study are limited tothree case studies in one country and so may not be generalizable toall luxury brands. Therefore, further research jointly examining valueco-creation from both a practitioner and consumer perspective shouldconsider a broader selection of luxury brands. The global nature of thismarketplace and the increasing importance of luxury goods in China,India and Russia suggest that further research in other countries,particularly in collectivist cultures, is needed as is work on the issue ofthe disposal of luxury goods.

While the service-oriented, customer-focused approach has provid-ed a fruitful lens to aid the conceptualization process in this study, theemergent status of this work makes this approach challenging to workwith, particularly due to its continual evolution in language andsubstance throughout the fteen months of the study.

AcknowledgementJevons Colin. Towards an integrated denition of brand. Birmingham Business School:Paper presented at Thought Leaders International Conference on BrandManagement;2007.

Cova Bernard, Cova Vronique. Tribal aspects of postmodern consumption research:the case of French in-line roller skaters. J Consum Behav 2001;1(1):6776.

Dall'Olmo Riley Francesca, Lacroix Caroline. Luxury branding on the internet: lostopportunity of impossibility? Mark Intell Plann 2003;21(2):86104.

de Chernatony Leslie. Would a brand smell any sweeter by a corporate name? CorpReputation Rev 2002;5(23):11432.

Dubois Bernard, Czellar Sandor. Prestige brands or luxury brands? An exploratory inquiryon consumer perceptions 31st European Marketing Academy Conference. Portugal:University of Minho; 2002.

Dubois Bernard, Duquesne Patrick. The market for luxury goods: income versus culture.Eur J Mark 1993;27(1):3544.

Dubois Bernard, Czellar Sandor, Laurent Gilles. Consumer segments based on attitudestoward luxuury: empirical evidence from twenty countries. Mark Lett 2005;16(2):11528.

Florin Dave, Callen Barry, Mullen Sean, Kropp Jeanne. Proting frommegatrends. J ProdBrand Manag 2007;12(4):2205.

Fournier Susan. Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumerresearch. J Consum Res 1998;24(4):34373.

Fller Johann, Jawecki Gregor, Mhlbacker Hans. Innovation creation by online basketballcommunities. J Bus Res 2007;60(1):6071.

Gabbott Mark, Jevons Colin. Brand community in search of theory: an endless spiral ofambiguity. Mark Theory 2009;9(1):11922.

Garfein TRichard. Cross-cultural perspectives on the dynamics of prestige. J Serv Mark1989;3:1724 Summer.

Geertz C. From the native's point of view: on the nature of anthropological understanding.Local knowledge: further essays in interpretive anthropology. NewYork: Basic Books;2003.

Giacalone Joseph. The market for luxury goods: the case of the Comit Colbert1. SouthBus Rev 2006;32(1):3340.

Grnroos Christian. On dening marketing: nding a new roadmap for marketing. MarkTheory 2006;6(4):395417.

Hirschman Elizabeth C, Holbrook Morris B. Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts,methods and propositions. J Mark 1982;46:92101 Summer.

Holbrook Morris B. Consumer value: a framework for analysis and research. New York:Routledge; 1999.

Holbrook Morris B, Hirschman Elizabeth C. The Experiential aspects of consumption:Consumer fantasies, feelings and fun. Journal of Consumer Research 1982;9:13240.

HolbrookMorris B, Schindler Robert M. Nostalgic bonding: exploring the role of nostalgiain the consumption experience. J Consum Behav 2003;3(2):10727.

Kapferer Jean-Noel. Managing luxury brands. J Brand Manag 1997;4(4):25160.Kapferer Jean-Noel. How the internet impacts on brand management. J Brand Manag

2000;7(6):38991.KeaneMiriam Jordan,McMillanZita. Above andbeyond. BrandStrategy2004:30November.Kozinets Robert V. The eld behind the screen: using netnography for marketing

research in online communities. J Mark Res 2002;29:6172 February.Leibenstein Harvey. Bandwagon, snob and Veblen effects in the theory of consumer

demand. Q J Econ 1950;64:183207.Levy Sidney J. Symbols for sale. Harvard Bus Rev 1957;37:11724 JulyAugust.Lusch Robert F, Vargo Stephen L. Service-dominant logic as a foundation for general

theory. In: Lusch Robert F, Vargo Stephen L, editors. The service-dominant logic ofmarketing: dialog, debate, and directions. New York: M.E. Sharpe; 2006. p. 40620.

Luxury Institute. The luxury consumer market: a wealth of opportunity; 2007. http://www.luxuryinstitute.com/pdfs/Luxury_Institute_The_Luxury_Consumer_Market.pdf accessed on 1st December 2008.

Mick David Glen, DeMoss Michelle. Self-gifts: phenomenological insights from fourcontexts. J Consum Res 1990;17:32232 December.

Miles Matthew B, Huberman AMichael. Qualitative data analysis: an expanded source-book. CA: Sage Publications: Beverly Hills; 1994.

Muiz Albert, O' Guinn Thomas C. Brand communities. J Consum Res 2000;27:41232March.

Nueno Jose Luis, Quelch John. The mass marketing of luxury. Bus Horiz 1998;41(6):618.O'Cass Aron, McEwen Emily. Exploring consumer status and conspicuous consumption.

J Consum Behav 2004;4(1):2539.Okonkwo Uche.Luxury fashion Branding: Trends, Tactics, Techniques, Basingstoke, Hamp-

shire UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1992.Payne Adrian, Holt Sue. Diagnosing customer value: integrating the value process and

relationship marketing. Br J Manag 2001;12:15982.Payne Adrian, Storbacka Kaj, Frow Pennie, Knox Simon. Co-creating brands: diagnosing

and designing the relationship experience. J Bus Res 2009;62:37989.Pealoza Lisa, Venkatesh Alladi. Further evolving the new dominant logic of

marketing: from services to the social construction of markets. Mark Theory2006;6(3):299316.

Pine Joseph, Gilmore James. Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard Bus Rev1998:97105 JulyAugust.

Poulsson Susanne, Kale Sudhir. The experience economy and commercial experiences.Mark Rev 2004;4:26777.

Prahalad CK. The cocreation of value. In: Bolton Ruth, editor. Invited commentaries onevolving to a new dominant logic for marketing, vol. 68. J Mark; 2004. p. 23. January.

Prahalad CK, Ramaswamy V. Co-creation experiences: the next practice in valuecreation. J Interact Market 2004;18(3):514 Summer.

RuvioAyalla. Unique like everybodyelse?Thedual roleof consumers' need foruniqueness.Psychol Mark 2008;25(5):44464.

Schembri Sharon. Rationalizing service logic, or understanding services as experience?Market Theory 2006;6(3):38192.

Schmitt Bernd. Customer experience management: a revolutionary approach to connect-ing with your customers. New Jersey: JohnWiley & Sons, Inc; 2003.

Sekora John. Luxury: the concept inWestern thought, Eden to Smollett, Baltimore, USA.USA: The Johns Hopkins University Press; 1977.

SilversteinMichael, FiskeNeil. Luxury for themasses. Harvard Bus Rev 2003;81(4):4857.Silverstein Michael, Fiske Neil. Trading up: why consumers want new luxury goods and

how companies create them. New York: Portfolio; 2007.Smith JBrock, Colgate Mark. Customer value creation: a practical framework. J Mark

Theory Pract 2007;15:723 Winter.Stern BB. What does brand mean? Historical-analysis method construct denition.

J Acad Mark Sci 2006;43(2):21623.Teather David. 24 th JuneMillionaires defy the credit crunch as rich get richer; 2008.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jun/24/richlists.Truong Yann, Simmons Geoff, McColl Rodd, Kitchen Philip J. Status and conspicuous-

ness are they related? Strategic marketing implications for luxury brands. J StratMark 2008;16(3):189203.

Tsai Shu-pei. Impact of personal orientation on luxury-brand purchase value: aninternational investigation. Int J Mark Res 2005;47(4):42954.

Twitchell James B. Living it up: America's love affair with luxury. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press; 2002.

Tynan Caroline, McKechnie Sally. Experience marketing: a review and reassessment.J Market Manag 2009;25(5/6):50117.

Vargo Stephen L, Lusch Robert F. Evolving a services dominant logic. J Market 2004;68:117January.

Vargo Stephen L, Lusch Robert F. Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution.J Acad Market Sci. 2008;36(1):110.

Veblen, Thorstein. The Theory of the Leisure Class. Reprint, New York: Penguin Books,[1899] 1994.

Veloutsou Cleopatra C, Moutinho Luiz. Brand relationships through brand reputationand brand tribalism. J Bus Res 2009;62(3):31422.

Verdict. Global luxury retailing. Sector Report; 2007.Vickers Jonathan S, Renand Franck. The marketing of luxury goods: an exploratory

study three conceptual dimensions. Market Rev 2003;3(4):45978 4.Vigneron Franck, Johnson Lester W. A review and a conceptual framework of prestige

seeking consumer behaviour. Acad Market Sci Rev 1999;1:115.Vigneron Franck, Johnson Lester W. Measuring perceptions of brand luxury. Brand

Manag 2004;11(6):484506.Walpole Group. http://www.thewalpole.co.uk/2007. accessed 8th May, 2007.Woodruff Robert B, Flint Daniel J. Marketing's service-dominant logic and customer

value. In: Lusch Robert F, Vargo Stephen L, editors. The service-dominant logic ofmarketing: dialog, debate, and directions. New York: M.E. Sharpe; 2006. p. 18395.

Yin Robert K. Case study research. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage Publications; 1984.

1163C. Tynan et al. / Journal of Business Research 63 (2010) 11561163

Co-creating value for luxury brandsIntroductionConceptualizing the brandConceptualizing the luxury brandCo-creation of valueThe framework development processMethodologyFindings and discussionTypes of value delivered and soughtProcesses of co-creating value

Conclusions and implicationsLimitations and future workAcknowledgementReferences