Philippine BAYON de NOYER

MASTER THESIS THE INFLUENCE OF LIMITED EDITIONS ON CONSUMERS’ PURCHASE INTENTION IN THE MAKEUP INDUSTRY November, 24th 2016

Academic tutor: Mrs. Yi LI

2

SUMMARY

ABSTRACT 3   THANKING 3   A.   INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW 5  1)   INTRODUCTION 5  2)   LITERATURE REVIEW 8  a.   The Makeup Industry 8  b.   Limited editions and scarcity effect 9  c.   Luxury brands vs. Mass-Market brands 13  d.   Good cause vs micro-innovation 16  e.   Conclusion 18   B.   METHODOLOGY 19  1)   RESEARCH DESIGN: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH 19  2)   ONLINE EXPERIMENTS 20  a.   Experiment 1 20  b.   Experiment 2 22  c.   Experiment 3 24  d.   Sample’s requirements 25   C.   DATA ANALYSIS 26  1)   SAMPLE’S ANALYSIS 26  2)   RESULTS 29  a.   Experiment 1 (2 (brand type: luxury vs. mass-market) × 2 (limited edition: yes vs. no) between-subject design) 29  b.   Experiment 2 (2 (brand type: charitable vs. non-charitable) × 2 (charitable edition: yes vs. no) between-subject design) 35  c.   Experiment 3 (2 (brand type: innovative vs non-innovative) x 2 (promotion level: highly promoted vs poorly promoted) between-subject design) 41  d.   Main findings 49   D.   DISCUSSION AND LIMITATIONS 50   APPENDIX: ONLINE SURVEY 53   REFERENCES 80  

3

ABSTRACT Purpose. Brands in the cosmetics industry are facing a complex, quickly-changing and competitive market. In order to differentiate, they need to find efficient marketing strategies to increase sales and revenues. The literature suggests that scarcity effect could be used to increase consumers’ purchase intention because limited availability makes people want to feel different and unique. Limited edition is one example of using scarcity effect in marketing: because they will be unavailable as soon as the time will pass and/or the stock will be over. This research tests the effect of limited editions on consumers’ purchase intention in the makeup industry. In addition, this research extends the literature on scarcity effect by examining whether the effect of scarcity on consumers’ purchase intention changes across different type of brands (luxury vs. mass-market), and across different types of limited edition (good causes and micro-innovation). Based on the brand fit theories, defending that a marketing strategy would have to fit the brand image to be efficient, we predicted that limited editions from luxury brands have a significant better influence on consumers’ purchase intention than have limited editions from mass-market brands; Good-cause limited editions influence more consumers’ purchase intention when the purpose of the cause fit the brand image; And micro-innovative packaging limited editions are increasing the most consumers’ purchase intention when fitting with the brand image. Methodology & Design. We used three online experiments to run our quantitative research. Our objective was to test the effect of two independent variables (brand type and edition type) on each of the following dependent variables: purchase intention, product attractiveness and brand fit. The purpose of studying the product attractiveness and the brand fit was to understand the behavior of the purchase intention. Besides, we evaluated the luxury perception, charitable perception and innovative perception of each brand, for respondents to give us an objective opinion about the brands they were confronted to. We counted 213 valid answers. Main findings. Our findings did not support that limited editions increase consumers’ purchase intention for makeup brands. In addition, the effect of scarcity on consumers’ purchase intention did not result changing across different type of brands (luxury vs. mass-market), and across different types of limited edition (good causes and micro-innovation). However, good-cause limited edition and innovative limited edition fits better respectively with the charitable brand and the innovative brand. Thus, we concluded that the specific type of limited edition does matter for different brands. One surprising finding was found in the micro-innovation experiment: participants said the brand fit negatively influenced purchase intention. It could mean that when a brand offers a surprising innovative limited edition, consumers are more willing to buy the products because they are pleasantly astonished and amazed.

4

THANKING I would like to thank IESEG School of Management for having given me the opportunity to write a thesis with the support of an experienced and reliable academic tutor: Mrs. Yi LI. Thank you for her time, explanations, encouragements, commitment and numerous feedbacks during this whole semester. You have been demanding as well as supportive which allowed me to go further in the research. I would like to thank as well all the people who kindly responded to my online survey. I would not have been able to conclude anything if you had not taken the time to give your opinion. Finally, thank you to all the people around me that have been supportive and helpful during those eight months of marketing research.

5

A.  INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW

1)  INTRODUCTION

“Global Beauty Market is an extraordinary, fascinating area of global consumption which in the last two decades has been a witness to dramatic changes, reflecting the various economic, social and cultural transformations taking place at different parts of the modern, global world.” (Łopaciuk and Łoboda 2013). Cosmetic brands are confronted to a hypercompetitive market, in a mature industry (Saucet 2007). As a consequence, the need for developing efficient marketing strategies, among others, is very high. The extreme level consumption got to the cosmetic industry: the industry has been growing at a 5% per year for 20 years and has proved it is able to achieve stable and continuous growth as well as resisting in unfavorable economic conditions. (Łopaciuk 2013). As a matter of fact, we could compare it to the fashion industry. Fashion is by definition what goes out of fashion (Manga 2010). The consumption of trendy products has been evolving toward an infinite chase of fashionable goods and a constant need to search for new ones. The clothes industry was heavily disrupted by the fast fashion brought to the world in particular by the Spanish company: Zara. Clothes appear as fast as they disappear in the stores. Fashion is made completely ephemeral. Fast fashion, its constantly changing collections, its high-speed reaction to trends is growing consumers’ accustom of change (Lannelongue 2003). Fast fashion was born because of the demand. Indeed, companies are changing their collections that fast because of the quick change of consumers’ tastes. Fast fashion is first demand driven. Furthermore, we can say that this business strategy is successful because it consequently pushes consumers to constantly buy products. Thus we can also say that it is supply driven. Companies decide to supply stores on such a regular basis because they know that consumers will buy: it is a virtuous cycle. That kind of concept of ephemeral product lines is quite the same as product lines’ extensions called limited editions. Both the limited edition’s skirt from Roberto Cavalli in H&M and the blue shirt from Zara will disappear in some weeks; the only difference is that consumers are clearly informed that the skirt is a limited edition. As a consequence, if we push the concept of fast fashion further, we are going toward the concept of limited editions, which is a supply driven business. It is very pertinent in our day-to-day life as companies are everyday looking for new ways to increase each time more the consumption level. Overall, we need to distinguish “supply driven” and “demand driven”, in the case of limited editions we are going to work on “supply driven”, as the products launched in limited editions are managed by the suppliers.

6

We are now going to look back at the beauty industry. It is obvious that Fashion and Beauty industries have a lot of shared characteristics. People are buying beauty products to feel beautiful, to style their look, to be up to date, to socialize, to be fashionable etc. According to the Freudian Psychoanalytic Theory, most of the cosmetic brands try to position themselves on the basis of its appeal to the consumers who have an ego. This means that “consumers have an impulsive drive for which they seek immediate satisfaction” (Shallu and Gupta 2013). The concept of ego, satisfying oneself can be found in the immediate satisfaction of buying clothes or accessories. People are satisfying their ego, feeling good about their look, and upon everything feeling beautiful. This satisfaction does not last forever because trends are changing, brands are launching other collections and the personal seek for perfection, style and beauty never ends. “Fast fashion” responds to those expectations of rapid changes. It is the same in the beauty industry. Consumers are constantly looking for something else, something new to make them feel even more beautiful than before. For that reason, we could say that the “fast fashion” phenomenon quite likely happens in the beauty industry. Due to the wide range of products and its fast rotation, consumers are permanently tempted to try something else, something new. The beauty industry is usually divided between five main categories (Łopaciuk 2013): skincare, hair care, color (makeup), fragrances and toiletries. It is important to specify that we are going to talk only about makeup in particular. Indeed, makeup is the category that we can more easily associate to “fast fashion”. Makeup is like clothes: people wear it; change it every day, and have different colors, patterns, textures and occasions to wear it. If we say that both fashion and makeup industries are similar, we can assume that consumers also share similar traits. As a consequence, we could relate some of the researches made on the fashion industry to the makeup industry. Manga X. (2010) wrote about the strategies to catch consumers in fashion industry. He took the examples of Zara and H&M to illustrate how those retailers enthrall consumers to buy their infinite lines of products. Barthes R. said that fashion is about the permanent imitation of a novelty by a large amount of people (Barthes 2013). Those who provoke that eruption are also those who put it out of fashion every single month/year to offer something else. Thus, there is a permanent renewal of both products bought by consumers and, overall, by the products offered. Fashion is by definition an institution that pushes consumers to permanent purchase. There is a contrast here between “permanent” renewal and “limited” editions. But it seems that in order to provide a permanent renewal, the editions rotation rate must be high. In that sense, limited editions are enabling brands to achieve that high rotation rate. In recent years, limited editions have been widely used in Fast-Moving-Consumer-Goods (FMCG) industries. “Companies use the limited-edition-strategy especially because of the additional growth potential and the possibility to distinguish one’s brand from the others” (Kirsche 2005). Lancôme launched in summer 2012 a limited edition: Lancôme by

7

Corno Limited Edition Makeup Collection (figure 1.1). The collection was launched in Canada where the artist Corno is very famous, reason of its great success. People were literally rushing to the stores to buy the products until the stock was over: it did increase consumers’

purchasing intention. “For consumers, these products are very attractive because they offer something new and exciting” (Esch and Winter 2010). A very few researches have been made about “limited editions” as a proper concept. Esch and Winter are ones of the pioneers. They wrote a thesis about it: “Limited Editions – Evaluation and Reciprocal Effects On FMCG Brands”. They experimented the effect of limited editions for low-involvement products (such as frozen pizzas and biscuits). Their findings cannot be directly applied to the makeup industry because cosmetic products cannot be considered as low involvement products. Furthermore, the study was mostly about giving pieces of advice to brands in order for them to succeed their limited edition strategy. Nothing has been done on the influence of limited editions on consumers’ purchase intention. For the reasons listed above, makeup brands, just like other brands in other industries, would need to introduce limited editions to increase consumers’ purchase intention. And as a matter of fact, we do observe those practices in that particular industry. Through this work, we are going to take the example of MAC Cosmetics, a brand from Estée Lauder Group. It is a great example for a company often launching limited editions. For example, MAC’s website drew 18 million visitors in one day with the exclusive online launch of Riri Woo Lipstick, part of the Riri Hearts MAC collection created in collaboration with the global pop superstar, Rihanna (2013 Esthée Lauder Annual Report). In the following section, we are going to describe the makeup industry in order to understand in which precise environment we are interested to understand the influence of limited editions on consumers.

Figure 1 - Lancôme by Corno Limited Edition Makeup Collection

8

2)  LITERATURE REVIEW a.  The Makeup Industry

The makeup industry is evolving, changing and moving quickly from trend to trend. Some examples: men use to wear makeup at the French court in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, then it was restricted to woman at the Victorian period, and nowadays, makeup is coming back for men (Carter 2011); the social idea of skin color has also changed: today, people are willing to get tanned and this is reflected in makeup (Carter 2011), so they try to darken their skin with foundations or self-tanning creams. Figure 2.1 is a makeup timeline showing the dramatic changes that occurred in the industry.

Besides, we could have a look at the history of lipstick. Lipstick was created around 3.000 years ago. The color was only dark red until the 1920s. In the 1930s, some other shades were introduced (around red and pink), in the 1930s and 1940s colored lips were not popular and judged vulgar (for prostitutes and rebel teenagers). In the 1950s, dark red lipstick was popular again thanks to Marilyn Monroe and Elizabeth Taylor, and the innovation on the product and the colors started: long lasting, other shades etc. Music bands, cinema and art influenced the lipsticks’ trends. Shades like black, blue or purple appeared and became fashionable, when that was unimaginable some years ago! On the other hand, we can observe how trends are coming back, just like for clothes (example: the eyeliner that was really trendy in the 1950s with Marilyn Monroe for example, and that came back to massive consumption nowadays). Those examples are going toward the idea that the makeup industry is an evolving one, where trends and customs can rapidly change. The brands’ challenge is to play with trends, and quickly react to novelty opportunities. In a matured market like the makeup industry, companies are pending to develop efficient strategies to keep selling products, and stimulate consumers’ purchase intention. “Global cosmetics manufacturers have to differentiate their products to adjust them to the expectations of their customers” (Łopaciuk 2013). One of the opportunities makeup brands have is to offer differentiated products, exclusive products: limited editions.

Figure 2 – Makeup timeline

9

Kumar, Massie, and Dumonceaux wrote about the “comparative innovative business strategies of major players in cosmetic industry” (Kumar, Massie and Dumonceaux 2006). “The cosmetic industry is a very lucrative, innovative, and fast paced industry where product innovation is the key to success. The purpose of this paper is to present a detailed analytical (qualitative) study of cosmetic industry in the global marketplace with a focus on the four market leaders in this industry relative to their business and innovation strategies.” (Kumar 2006). The four major players studied are L’oréal, Estée Lauder, Beiersdorf (i.e. Nivea) and Coty (i.e. Rimmel, O.P.I). Through a detailed SWOT and Porter analysis, they concluded, “each of these cosmetic companies is unique. They each offer something different to the industry; selling method, marketing strategy, product line, and distribution channel”. As we said before, no particular study has been made about limited editions in the global cosmetic industry, neither in the makeup industry. Nevertheless, the researches made about cosmetic industries are defending that efficient marketing strategies do have to be settled in order to survive in such a competitive industry. In the following section, we are going to evaluate if limited editions could be one of the strategy to adopt in such a complex industry. We said before, makeup brands, just like other brands in other industries, would need to introduce limited editions to increase consumers’ purchase intention. Launching limited editions would produce a supply driven scarcity effect. What and how would that effect help companies increase consumers’ purchase intention? After defining properly what is a limited edition, we will look at the scarcity effect in details.

b.  Limited editions and scarcity effect In an industry like makeup, a limited edition is a product or an entire line of products that is not permanently produced. That is to say that the availability of that product is limited in a scale of time and/or in number. The company is taking the decision to launch a special product for particular reasons, which can be various. It can be to celebrate a special period of the year (i.e. Christmas, Easter, Valentine’s Day, summer etc.), to offer a special innovation (i.e. additional feature, special packaging design, original colors etc.), to endorse a celebrity or to participate in a good-cause. It can actually be a mix of those different purposes listed previously. In order to be successful, limited editions need to differentiate themselves from the competition while meeting consumers’ wishes. “Limited editions succeed to meet desires by their extraordinary product characteristics” (Banasiak 2005; Kirsche 2005). Limited editions are ways to satisfy consumers’ short term needs. Indeed, products lines have a limited life cycle because of many reasons such as because the short-term trend, a movie release, a particular vacation etc. Launching a limited edition is a way to avoid taking too many risks producing important quantities that might not be sold out, and that may make the company lose money. Overall, we could say that it is like a “temporary” risk the company is taking.

10

On the other side, in order to catch consumers’ attention on those limited editions product lines, consumers are directly informed in points of sale. The promotional material is clear about the limited edition feature. It can be different types or mix of information. It can be announced by the merchandising. The promotional material is set to catch the attention of consumers and to add even more value to the limited edition line (Figure 3 : MAC Charlotte Olympia Collection Spring 2016 Sneak Peek limited edition). The merchandising is carefully arranged to appeal consumers to have a look. Charlotte Olympia is easily visible so that consumers can

relate to her. The information about the limited edition can be a simple “limited edition” sign or other much more creative ideas such as a show or a proper promoter that introduces the products to consumers. The general objective is to inform consumers that the offer is restricted and temporary. Overall, a limited edition is made by the brands: unavailable forever and unavailable for everyone. We are thus talking about a supply driven strategy: the limited availability (period of time and quantity) is set by the company itself. The company is willing to use a supply driven scarcity effect. What does scarcity mean and what does it imply? Scarcity is synonym with uncommonness, rarity or infrequency. It is the fact of being rare and not available for everyone. Scarcity can also be defined as “the basic economic problem that arises because people have unlimited wants but resources are limited” (Investopedia). It is the feeling of missing, of having a lack of something, implied by a short supply. In order to understand better, we could compare it to the famine, being a scarcity of food. We are now going to explain the psychological effect of it using the literature.

Figure 3 – MAC Charlotte Olympia Collection

11

Scarcity effect is quite well defined in the literature, and probably the best way to explain it is by using the Commodity Theory (Brock 1968) that aims at explaining the psychological effects of scarcity. The theory says that “any commodity will be valued to the extent that it is unavailable” (Brock 1968). Brock defines each keyword of its theory in order to give it sense. First, a commodity is anything that is useful, transferable from one person to another and that has the potential to be possessed. By definition, every single marketable good is a commodity. Secondly, “value” is defined as the commodity’s capacity to affect attitudes and behaviors. Brock is giving two context-synonyms to help us better understand: “utility” and “desirability”. Finally, he is giving the different scenarios of “unavailability”, including the scenario of a limit of supply, giving the example of limited editions. Going forward in his initial theory, he suggests that individuals could desire scarce commodities because their acquisition brings them feelings of personal distinctiveness and uniqueness (Brock, 1968). Another theory is explaining the scarcity effect predicted by the Commodity Theory: The Need-for-Uniqueness Theory (Snyder and Fromkin 1980). According to that theory, individuals wish to feel somehow unique, and thus react quite bad to the fact that there are sensibly identical to many others (Fromkin 1972). And since “material possessions are often an extension of the self” (James, 1890; Belk, 1989), one possible cause of self-uniqueness is the ownership of scarce commodities. Starting from those theories, Lynn made a research in order to find the marketing implications. He confirmed with a meta-analysis “Scarcity enhances the value of anything that can be possessed; useful and transferable” (Lynn 1991). Thus, marketers have a way to increase the perceived value of products by shaping their perceived scarcity. Lynn gave the example of limited editions to illustrate that marketing opportunity. Now we understood the supply driven scarcity effect and its psychological effects, we would be interested in knowing the effects on consumers’ purchase intention. Brock described the scarcity effect as a “remarkable relevant effect to marketing practice” (Brock 1968). We are going to evaluate the different consequences on consumers. As a continuum of Brock, Lynn and Fromkin’s findings, a research has been designed to void the lack of literature about the phenomenon of scarcity purchasing (Wu, Lu, and Fu 2011). It is an attempt to fully understand how scarcity affects consumers’ value perception and purchase intention. They found that “perceived scarcity has a significantly positive impact on assumed expensiveness” (Wu 2011). That is to say that consumers are following a naïve economic theory, thinking that the scarcest the product is, the most expensive it should be. Then, “perceived scarcity has a significantly positive effect on perceived uniqueness”. That result is consistent with the Need-for-uniqueness Theory (Snyder 1980). The fact of possessing rare commodities, individuals are able to satisfy their pursuit of distinctiveness thanks to things identified as unique.

12

Besides this particular research, something that we can be associated to the Need-for-Uniqueness Theory is also the “use-it-or-lose-it” effect. People are so much worried not to be unique enough, that the pressure of losing the opportunity to be unique influences them, and pushes them to make the act of purchase. “The restricted availability indicates a “use-it-or-lose-it”- situation and is therefore an additional sales appeal” (Oller 2006; Theodore 2004). A “use-it-or-lose-it” situation can be developed by a limited-time or a limited-quantity entity, and increase consumers’ purchase intention. Indeed, one research says that time-limited promotion has a significant effect on consumers’ purchase intention (Aggarwal and Vaidyanathan 2003). The other one argues that quantity-limited messages have a significant effect on consumers’ purchase intention. We are not going to try to figure out if time-limited or quantity-limited products have a different effect on consumers’ purchase intention in the makeup industry. Indeed, we are going to assume that makeup limited editions are both time and quantity limited. We are going to continue with the research of Wu (2010). They found “a significantly positive relationship (…) of [the] assumed expensiveness on perceived quality” to finally find that “perceived value has a significant effect on scarcity purchase intention” (Wu 2011). They concluded describing limited editions as “products to intensify consumer desire and intention to purchase” (Wu 2011). The results are consistent with those of Eisend defending that “value perception’s influence on others has an influence on the self, which in turn leads to purchase intention” (Eisend 2008). To sum up, limited editions are a type a limited supply that has a scarcity effect on consumers. Consumers perceive an added value to the limited editions because they are neither available forever nor for everyone. Individuals want to feel unique, and find in the possession of scarce products a cause of self-uniqueness. On the other side, the perceived value influences positively the purchasing intention. As a matter of fact, we could make the assumption that the same would happen in the makeup industry and thus make the following hypothesis. H1. Limited editions in the makeup industry increase consumers’ purchase intention. On the other hand, we could comment that there are different types of makeup brands, high-price and low-price levels. Nevertheless, they are both using limited editions’ strategies. KIKO MILANO launched in 2016 the “limited edition trend collection” while CHANEL launched the SUNKISS RIBBON BLUSH in limited edition. The marketing strategy between a luxury brand like CHANEL and a mass-market brand like KIKO MILANO are obviously different. As we are trying to evaluate the scarcity effect on consumers’ purchase intention, it would be indeed interesting and relevant to think about the difference(s) existing between the two price-level type of brands. The effect could differ a lot. Thus, we are curious to discover if limited editions would be more effective for luxury brands or for mass-market brands.

13

c.  Luxury brands vs. Mass-Market brands

In order to predict for which price-level brand limited editions would eventually be the most efficient, we will start by defining both of them. In the literature, luxury brands are defined as desirable “Luxury brands must be desired by all, consumed only by the happy few” (Kapferer 1997), sophisticated, “creative” and “original” (Chevalier and Gutsatz 2012). We are confronted to concepts such as scarcity, dream, inaccessibility (in the sense that few people can afford to buy those products), uniqueness (Okonkwo 2007) and exclusivity (Tungate 2009; Okonkwon 2007, Chevalier 2012; Hennigs, Wiedmann and Klarmann 2012). We also find the relation with dream (Dubois and Laurent 1994). Besides, the literature is quite wide about the concept of conspicuous consumption. “Conspicuous consumption is the purchase of goods or services for the specific purpose of displaying one's wealth. Conspicuous consumption is a mean to show one’s social status, especially when the goods and services publicly displayed are too expensive for other members of a person's class. This type of consumption is typically associated with the wealthy but can also apply to any economic class.” (Investopedia). As it is defined, most of the time, conspicuous goods seem to be related to expensive goods, we can assume that high-value goods are most of the time luxurious goods. Nevertheless, the concept of conspicuous goods is going further that the financial value of the products. “Consumers purchase conspicuous goods to satisfy not only material needs but also social needs such as prestige. In an attempt to meet these social needs, producers of conspicuous goods like cars, perfumes, and watches, highlight the exclusivity of their products. (…) Purchase decisions are affected by the desire for exclusivity and conformity” (Amaldoss and Jain 2005). Because of the social pressure, companies understand that consumers’ purchase intention increases when the levels of exclusivity, scarcity and desirability are at their maximum. Another author wrote about social needs consumers express. “Social needs play an important role in the purchase of conspicuous goods. Though, the desire for uniqueness leads to higher prices and firm profits, a desire for conformity leads to lower prices and profits.” (Amaldoss 2005). It seems that when a consumer is looking for a unique product, he will look at luxury brand’ products. We are now looking at the definition of mass-market brands. Mass-market means “produced and distributed in large quantities and intended to appeal to the widest range of consumers” (business dictionary). Mass-market products are distributed by mass retailers or many different independent stores and are promoted through mass media. Mass promotion is becoming a very broad phenomenon reaching every day more people, and making it very common. “Spam e-mail, blogging, instant messaging, television, canned phone messages, and other electronic methods of mass marketing have desensitized the (…) buyer to these tactics of selling.” (Brayham 2008). Moreover, “for a mass-market brand, price is key: it must be mainstream. Everything must be done, at the back office level, to ensure higher productivity, and hence a

14

lower production cost, while not altering the quality and taste”. (Grassi 2006). From all those characteristics listed above we could use the first adjective “accessible” to describe mass-market brands. Besides, in the literature we can find some discussions about the image of mass-market brands. “Everyone knows that mass distribution does not always have a good image. (…) In their eagerness to position themselves as the cheapest, the major players in distribution and their massive bulk buying have launched themselves on the world like hunting dogs, driven by a single idea: to always find it cheaper and import it as quickly as possible.” (Grassi 2006). Illustrating that previous quote, come to mind the following adjectives: excessive, fast, ordinary and reactive. Now we have synthetically defined luxury and mass-market brands, we wonder how do we predicate which of the luxurious or mass-market brands is more likely to be efficient in the limited editions’ sales? In the literature, a lot of academic papers are talking about the efficiency of “brand fit”. The literature is defending that gathering two marketable entities is efficient when those two entities are, to a certain extent, alike. The literature is varied about the concept of brand fit because it actually deals with a lot of different cases. In order to define brand fit, we are going to go through different cases. On the first hand, we are going to see the case of a brand extension. In that case, the brand level fit “depends on the extension’s ability to reflect the brand concept, and consumers’ ability to categorize the new product based on a shared concept formed by brand-unique associations.” (Evangeline 2016). The association will efficiently work if the brand extension is in harmony with the brand image perceived by consumers, as well as when the extended brand and the initial brand share image-related associations (Evangeline 2016). That is to say “consumer perceived fit plays an important role in the success of brand extensions” (Evangeline 2016). Another paper is defending the same opinion: “the brand origin-extension fit has the strongest effect on brand extension success both in terms of quality evaluations and purchase intentions” (Sichtmann and Diamantopoulos 2013). To conclude, parent brand/extension brand fit would increase consumers’ purchase intention, and thus takes part in the success of the extended brand. Secondly, we can mention the case of the sponsoring brand/ event fit. In the literature, that particular fit of the sponsor has been described as ”relevance”, “complementarity”, or “compatibility” (Johar and Pham 2001; Rifon and al., 2004). In order to feel a fit between the sponsoring brand and the event, consumers perceive a “match between the schemas they hold about the event and the sponsoring brand, they are believed to transfer affect from the event to the brand” (Wentzel, Tomczak, and Coppetti 2007). The argument is defended using the Schema Theory (Whitney 1987). The theory basically says that people are trying to put the information they get into their own pre-existing mind schema. Processing that information, they

15

evaluate if it fits with the schema they have in mind. If it does fit, they store it into “appropriate slots”. Thus, it is a common psychological reflex to be willing to associate information received in order to evaluate if they fit or not with what ones has in mind. Now, how does that impact consumers? “The result shows the sponsor/event congruence variable has a positive impact toward brand image and attitudes toward the brand sponsor.” (Hutabarat and Gayatri 2014). Besides, “higher perceptions of event/sponsor fit results in a more positive attitude toward the sponsoring brand (Gwinner and Bennett 2008), which increases purchase intention (Wu 2011). To conclude, the event/sponsoring brand fit would increase the consumers’ purchase intention for the sponsoring brand. One last example we are going to use is the case of brand alliance. Researchers have been looking for a correlation between brands’ fit and beneficial behavioral consequences, such as purchase intention. Among the different thesis, most of them agree on the fact that the fit between the different brands of an alliance has a positive effect on consumers: “brand owners could expect more beneficial behavioral consequences of alliance attitudes if they are (…) based on alliances between brands with similar brand concepts (…)”(Samuelsen, Olsen and Keller 2015); “the fit between partner brands in terms of expectancy and relevancy has a positive effect in relation to consumers' perception of the brand alliance” (Andy 2015). To conclude, it seems pretty clear that the partners’ brands fit is having a positive effect on consumers’ perception and thus, purchase intention (Wu 2011). As we are trying to predicate which of the luxury or mass-market brands is more likely to be efficient in the limited editions’ sales, we are going to use the literature about the brand fit theories, to predicate that to be efficient, a marketing strategy would have to fit the brand image. Overall, we are willing to demonstrate to which type of price-level brand we can best relate the limited editions. According to the definition of luxury brands, luxury brands are presenting many more common characteristics with limited editions: i.e. scarcity effect, uniqueness, desirability, and conspicuous goods. As a matter of fact, it seems the most relevant to make the assumption that limited editions from luxury brands would better influence consumers’ purchase intention than mass-market brands. In order to justify that hypothesis a little more, we can quote once again the research of (Wu 2011) saying that “perceived scarcity has a significantly positive impact on assumed expensiveness. (…) These results imply that the higher the level of perceived scarcity, the higher will be the assumed expensiveness.” (Wu 2011). Luxury brands are fitting very well to that academic result. H2. Limited editions from luxury brands have a significant better influence on consumers’ purchase intention than have limited editions from mass-market brands.

16

We have made a first hypothesis in a previous section: limited editions in the makeup industry increase consumers’ purchase intention. To go further in the research, we divided the makeup industry into two different price-level brands and predicate that luxury brands would have a significant bigger effect on consumers’ purchase intention when launching a limited edition, compared to the second type: mass-market brands. Now, we can ask ourselves: are we able to generalize every limited edition in one category? Or would we be able to distinguish different types as well as we did for the brands? A lot of different categories exist: celebrity endorsement, good-cause editions, packaging innovation etc. In order to be consistent in our overall paper results, we should identify when and how do the different types of limited editions work better. In order to optimize the analytic section, only two particular types of limited editions will be evaluated in the following order: good-cause limited editions and micro-innovation limited editions.

d.  Good cause vs micro-innovation

The first type of limited edition we are going to deal with is the one supporting a good-cause. One company that uses a lot this type of limited editions is The Body Shop. One example of a good cause special edition launched by The Body Shop is illustrated on the left side. “Hemp Hand Protector” is a hand cream, for

which consumers donate $2.20 to The Body Shop Foundation. This donation will support the global target to protect and enrich the planet, the people and animals, and the oceans. Having that example in mind, we are willing to figure out how and when does such a limited edition have the most significant effect on increasing purchase intention. A research has been made about the impact of charity branding, in order to identify if the fit product/cause really matters (Hamlin and Wilson 2004). It supports that the most important condition to ensure the quality of outcome is probably the fit product/cause. Indeed, obtaining a good 'fit', in terms of positioning and objectives for both product and charity, is very important to the success of cause related marketing (CRM) initiatives. Another study defends the same finding, widening good-cause to corporate social responsibility (CSR) “CSR/brand fit strengthens both personal and social brand identification, which in turn increase consumers’ purchase intention” (Cha, Yi and Bagozzi 2016, Wu 2011). In addition, a research has been made putting the cause/brand fit as a moderator in the research model. The result shows “consumer behavioral responses in favor of the brand (i.e. purchase intent) and social-cause (i.e. support to Non-Profit Organization) are reinforced in a context of high cause/brand perceived fit” (Bigné-Alcañiz, Currás-Pérez, Ruiz-Mafé and Sanz-Blas 2012).

Figure 4 - The Body Shop "Hemp Hand Protector"

17

Nevertheless, we could ask ourselves what does fit means? And how can we assess the fit between a brand and a good-cause? The evaluation and decision structures of consumers are pre-determining the market position of the brand. (Hamlin 2004). That is to say that it is not that easy to know whether the brand is perceived by consumers as able to fit good-cause purposes or not. The assessment of whether a brand is perceived as suitable for such CRM should be made by an empirical test rather that assuming it by relying on published opinion. A research has been made on the brand personality of non-profit organization (NOP). It has been made in order to help stakeholders evaluating NOP more precisely. The scale is composed of 4 dimensions: integrity, nurturance, sophistication, and ruggedness. (Venable, Rose, Bush and Gilbert 2005). This scale will help us identifying when consumers perceive a brand as charitable. We are willing to test the efficiency of the cause/brand fit in the particular makeup industry. We can make the assumption, thanks to the literature, that good-cause limited editions work better when the brand image fits the good-cause. That is to say that consumers’ purchase intention increase more when there is a charity/brand fit. H3. Good-cause limited editions influence more consumers’ purchase intention when the purpose of the cause fit the brand image. On the other side, we are interested in the limited editions featuring a micro-innovation. “Micro-innovation” (Saucet 2007) is the methodology or the concept of adapting, modifying, or customizing existing products lines. It is a tiny modification of something already existing. In other words, it is a “minor” innovation that adds value to an existing products’ line. In the

makeup industry, a lot of micro-innovations are made on the packaging. One example is the “Couture Edition” from Givenchy illustrated (figure 4). The standard red lipstick and the standard free prism have been especially “dressed” with that flowered packaging. The only difference of this Couture limited edition is the design of the packaging. It is an example of micro-innovation.

As we said before, the cosmetic industry is a “mature, saturated and hypercompetitive market” (Saucet 2007). Saucet describes micro-innovation as the main option to fight against the market threat. A micro-innovation is changing very slightly the global offer. Nevertheless, it is able to disrupt the sensorial feeling of the consumer, which disrupts its behavior and consequently influences positively its purchase intention. In the makeup industry, we are going to assume that a micro-innovation is a packaging change, as it is the main micro-innovation made on the

Figure 5 - Givenchy Couture Edition

18

products. Besides, “packaging is a vital tool in the marketing mix, too often ignored by companies, but twice as much is annually spent on this as on above-­‐the-­‐line advertising and promotions. (…) Consumers buy by image and perception of value”. (Sara, R., 1990) One of the few options companies have to "stand out from the crowd" is to produce superior designed products for their target markets.” (Kotler, P., & Alexander Rath, G., 1984). To continue, we are willing to predicate when does that particular type of limited edition is the most effective. Packaging might be a vital tool in the marketing mix; a limited edition packaging might be profitable in some cases and not in some others. Just as we did to predicate the efficiency of the two different price-level brands in the particular marketing of limited editions, we are going to use the brand fit theory to assess the most adequate formula of success in the case of a packaging limited edition. As a matter of fact, we are willing to demonstrate that a packaging innovation limited edition is more efficient in the case of a brand known for being an innovative one. In order to do so, we will need to evaluate the level of innovativeness perceived about brands. For that purpose, a consumer perceived brand innovativeness (CPBI) scale has been developed in order to evaluate how innovative consumers perceive brands. (Shams, Alpert, and Brown 2015). CPBI is associated with “launching new product”, “trend-setter”, “innovative”, “dynamic” and “cutting-edge” (Shams 2015). By evaluating whether a brand is or is not an innovative brand, we will be able to evaluate if the fit innovative brand/micro-innovation has a positive effect and we are making the following hypothesis: H4. Micro-innovative packaging limited editions are increasing the most consumers’ purchase intention when fitting with the brand image.

e.  Conclusion Our research will have a main objective: study the effect of limited editions on consumers’ purchase intention. We are expecting limited editions to be a reliable marketing strategy to differentiate a brand from its competitors in such a competitive industry: the makeup industry. We are making the hypothesis relying on one proposition: limited editions implies a scarcity effect that increase consumers’ purchase intention. We have been able to make four hypotheses that are forecasting different theories about brand types, limited editions types, brand/ limited editions fit, the following: H1. Limited editions in the makeup industry increase consumers’ purchase intention. H2. Limited editions from luxury brands have a significant better influence on consumers’ purchase intention than have limited editions from mass-market brands. H3. Good-cause limited editions influence more consumers’ purchase intention when the purpose of the cause fit the brand image. H4. Micro-innovative packaging limited editions are increasing the most consumers’ purchase intention when fitting with the brand image.

19

B.  METHODOLOGY

1)  RESEARCH DESIGN: QUANTITATIVE

RESEARCH

Thanks to the literature, we have been able to design solid hypotheses that we are going to test through a quantitative research. To better understand the cause and effect relationships we are confronted to in our research, we built two conceptual frameworks. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 1:

H2 H1

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 2:

H3

H4

Again, we are talking about the following hypotheses: H1. Limited editions in the makeup industry increase consumers’ purchase intention. H2. Limited editions from luxury brands have a significant better influence on consumers’ purchase intention than have limited editions from mass-market brands. H3. Good-cause limited editions influence more consumers’ purchase intention when the purpose of the cause fit the brand image. H4. Micro-innovative packaging limited editions are increasing the most consumers’ purchase intention when fitting with the brand image.

TYPE OF LIMITED EDITION

TYPE OF BRAND (LUXURY vs MM)

LIMITED EDITION

SCARCITY EFFECT

PURCHASE INTENTION

BRAND IMAGE

TYPE OF LE/BRAND IMAGE FIT

PURCHASE INTENTION

20

In order to properly test every hypothesis, we are going to run three different experimental researches, described in the following part.

2)  ONLINE EXPERIMENTS a.  Experiment 1

The first experiment will aim at evaluating the effect of the scarcity effect on consumers’ purchase intention (testing H1), while testing the moderator “type of brand” (testing H2). We will gather a sample of subjects, that we will randomly split into two groups: an experimental group and a control group in order to manipulate the different phenomena. Half will be confronted to a limited edition (experimental group) and the other half will be confronted to a standard product (control group). Besides, in order to test H2, both the experimental and the control group will be randomly assigned a mass-market brand (KIKO MILANO) or a luxury brand (CHANEL), in order to measure the influence that the type of brand would eventually have on consumers’ purchase intention. Thus, we will have a 4-independent-samples experiment. We chose to show people a combination of products that we created ourselves. Indeed, it seems important to offer subjects different categories of products: nail polish, eyes shadow and lipstick. We would like every subject to feel concerned about at least one product category, and thus his or her answers will be interested for our research. Moreover, to avoid the bias of consumers’ tastes, the only difference between the limited edition and the standard one from the same brand will be the indication of whether it is a limited edition or not. That is to say that separately for luxury and mass-market brands, the three products presented to the subject will be the very same. Indeed, the results could be biased a lot by subjects’ preferences for colors, textures, packaging, efficiency of the promotion etc. We are thus willing to delete that bias. The brand logo will be very visible in order to be sure that subjects have it in mind during all the test. The price is indicated in order to increase the influence of the type of brand. People are aware that the price is telling a lot about the brand’s type they are buying from. Basically, the higher the price is, the more luxurious the brand is. This is a second indicator, with the brand logo, of the brand’s type. The indication that the products are limited editions will be a banner under each product, just as the brand are doing online. Both limited editions banners are showing a woman presenting the collection. In the case of the non-limited editions, the picture of the woman will be kept in order not to remove the effect she might have had on the subjects of the experimental group (identification, example of use, beauty image etc.).

21

Because we are going to run the experiment online, we are going to simulate an online shopping purchase. Thus, we are using the contents of both the CHANEL and KIKO MILANO webpages. For each four conditions, a little tab “ADD TO BASKET” will be set under the product description. Originally, the tabs in each website were different: “quick buy” for CHANEL and “select a color” for KIKO. In order to limit the differences those two tabs could have on consumers’ purchase intention, we will replace both of them by “ADD TO BASKET”. In this experiment, we will first evaluate the respondents’ purchase intention. Indeed, we want to have that first insight without asking questions that could influence the respondents. Afterwards, we want to know if the respondent in the experimental group find the limited editions more attractive. It is a way to measure the scarcity effect and to possibly explain the behavior of the purchase intention. To continue, we ask two questions about the fit between the brand and the products offered. Afterwards, just as the first questions, we are willing to test H2 without influencing the respondents. The following question is a manipulation check: we ask respondents to define their luxury perception of the brand they saw. We want to be sure that they identify CHANEL as a luxury brand and KIKO as a non-luxury brand. We are asking to respondents to position themselves about the six following pairs of opposite adjectives, on a 7-points-scale: “Conspicuousness/ Noticeable”, “Popular/Elitist”, “Affordable/Extremely expensive”, “Crafted/ Manufactured”, “Upmarket/ Luxurious”, “Best quality/ Good quality” (Vigneron 2006). To conclude that part, respondent need to pass to the next page and answer the two last questions: two attention checks. We want to make sure that the subject has identified the brand shown and whether he or she has been confronted to a limited edition or not. In that experiment, we are first running an independent sample test in order to do the manipulation check. Then we go on with three different two-way ANOVA testing the two independent variables: brand type and limited edition on purchase intention, product attractiveness and brand fit. We are finishing part 1 analysis with a regression to test if there is a correlation between brand fit and purchase intention. We are confronted to a between-subject design: 2 (brand type: luxury vs. mass-market) × 2 (limited edition: yes vs. no)

22

b.  Experiment 2 The second experiment will test whether the fit between the type of limited edition and the brand image has a positive influence on consumers’ purchase intention, in the particular case of good-cause limited editions. We will gather a sample of subjects, that we will randomly split into two groups: one experimental group and one control group in order to manipulate the different phenomena. Half will be confronted to a charitable limited edition (experimental group) and the other half will be confronted to a standard/ non-charitable limited edition (control group). We want to see if a limited edition for a charitable cause is more efficient than a non-charitable one. Besides, we obviously want to evaluate the brand-fit, that is the reason why we are going to confront respondents to two different brands. We will pick those two brands, and ask subjects to evaluate whether they would define them as charitable or not, thanks to the following likert-scale: “Honest”, “Positive influence”, “Committed to the public good”, “Reputable”, “Reliable”, “Compassionate”, “Caring”, “Loving” (Venable, Rose, Bush and Gilbert 2005). Indeed, it would be too risky to evaluate that characteristic beforehand, in their behalf. We could easily miss some insights about a potential fit. Nevertheless, to maximize our chances to get interesting results, we are going to choose brands that should have opposite charitable brand images, relying on their last public opinions in the medias. This will just be a sort of forecast, which will or will not be confirmed by the subjects’ evaluations. As discussed above, we are willing to choose one brand known to be charitable and another one that is less recognized as so.

-   THE BODY SHOP: the brand is known to be often turning its campaigns toward social and environmental causes. Products are promoted to be made of natural products, without being tested on animals. One example of limited edition The Body Shop has is the HEMP HAND PROTECTOR that gives money to the foundation for each purchase. Furthermore, it created a foundation: The Body Shop Foundation fighting for animal protection, human rights and environmental protection. In points of sales, consumers are encouraged to give their change to the foundation at the checkout. In 2006, the brand has been purchased by L’oréal Group, which had a big impact on its brand image. Has the brand been able to save its charitable image? We will see it in the experiment.

-   MAYBELLINE: the brand is not famous to be charitable. It is a low-priced brand, promoting its products with trendy models, and it does not talk about protecting the environment or human rights. When visiting the website, there is no specific banner or information about being charitable.

23

We are going to select similar products in both brands: an eye shadow palette and a BB cream. Just as the first experiment, we want that every subject to be able to identify herself or himself to the case study. To create the limited editions, we will use the layout of The Body Shop Foundation’s website to show respondents we are talking about charitable limited editions’ products. We will indicate “$3 go directly to the [BRAND] Foundation!* *For the purchase of one [BRAND] BB Cream or Eyeshadow Palette, $3 are given without intermediary to the [BRAND] Foundation. No taxes deducted. See more information on [WEBSITE]”. The indication that the products are limited editions will be a banner under each product. Just as in the first experiment, we will first evaluate the respondents’ purchase intention, to have objective insights. Afterwards, we want to know if the respondent in the experimental group find the limited editions more attractive than in the control group. It is a way to measure the scarcity effect, and whether a charitable limited edition is more attractive than a non-charitable one, apart from the brand image. To continue we are asking respondents to evaluate the brand, whether they think it is charitable or not, as a manipulation check. Afterwards, we are evaluating the fit between the brand and the products offered, asking respondents to position themselves about the six following pairs of opposite adjectives, on a 7-points-scale: thanks to the following likert-scale: “Consistent/ Inconsistent”, “Similar/ Different”, “Representative/ Unrepresentative”, “Typical/ Atypical” (Ahluwalia, Rohini and Gurhan-Canli 2000). They are asked to pass to the next page and confirm the brand they saw during that second shopping scenario and the purpose of the limited edition they were confronted to (attention checks). In that experiment, we are first running an independent sample test in order to do the manipulation check. Then we go on with three different two-way ANOVA testing the two independent variables: brand type and edition type on purchase intention, product attractiveness and brand fit. We are finishing part 2 analysis with a regression to test if there is a correlation between brand fit and purchase intention. We are confronted to a between-subject design : 2 (brand type: charitable vs. non-charitable) × 2 (charitable edition: yes vs. no)

24

c.  Experiment 3 This experiment is very similar to the previous one. We will gather a sample of subjects, that we will randomly split into two groups: one will be confronted to a packaging innovation’s limited edition very highlighted (experimental group) and the other one to a low promoted packaging innovation’s limited edition (control group). We want to see if a limited edition highly promoted as having a very innovative packaging is more efficient than a poorly promoted one. Besides, we are also testing whether the fit between the type of limited edition and the brand image has a positive influence on consumers’ purchase intention. But this time we are studying packaging innovations in limited editions. Just like in the experiment 2, we will pick two different brands and ask the respondents to evaluate whether they think they are innovative brands or not. That is to say that people have to say if they picture the brand as launching innovative products, as having trend-setter ideas etc using the Likert-scale (1: not at all, 5: neutral, 7: very much): “Trend-setter”, “Innovative”, “Dynamic”, “Cutting-edge” (Shams, Alpert and Brown. 2015). As discussed above, we are willing to choose one brand known to be innovative and another one that is less famous for that characteristic. We chose:

-   MAC: the brand strategy is based on the fact it needs to remain at the cutting edge of innovation. It is the prime example of a company launching numerous limited editions endorsing stars, promoting recently released movies, collaborating with trendy designers etc. The points of sales are constantly changing. For those reasons, the brand image should be seen as quite innovative.

-   SISLEY: the target of that brand is older, the strategy of the brand is mainly based on the high quality of its products, and less about the out-of-the box innovation.

Just like the two previews experiments, we are testing first the purchase intention, so there is no influence from other questions. Afterwards, we test in which group the respondent finds the limited editions more attractive. It is a way to measure the scarcity effect, as well as whether a highly promoted packaging innovation in limited edition is more attractive than a poorly promoted one. To continue, we ask two questions about the fit between the brand and the products offered. In between those two “fit” questions, we are asking respondents to evaluate the brand as well as the products they saw. As a manipulation check of whether they think the brand and the limited editions are innovative or not. To finish, they pass to the next page and confirm the brand they saw during that second shopping scenario and the purpose of the limited edition they were confronted to.

25

To run this third and last experiment, we are first running an independent sample test in order to do the manipulation check. Then we go on with two different two-way ANOVA testing the two independent variables: brand type and promotion type on purchase intention and product attractiveness. We go on with an independent sample t-test to test if the type of promotion has an influence on the product innovativeness. We are finishing the part 3 analysis with another two-way ANOVA to test the effect of our two independent variables on brand fit and go on with a regression to test if there is a correlation between brand fit and purchase intention. We are confronted to a between-subject design: 2 (brand type: innovative vs non-innovative) x 2 (promotion level: highly promoted vs poorly promoted).

d.  Sample’s requirements We need at least 50 people per condition, that is to say a total of 200 different subjects. We will interview both male and female, from 15 to 99 years old. The survey will be available in French and in English because respondents will come from a lot of different countries such as: France, Japan, USA, Australia, Spain, Germany, England Japanese, Spanish, German. Those two translations ensure that people understand the questions and thus that the results will be relevant.

Need for uniqueness and demographics. Every respondent will have one last block of questions to answer after the three shopping scenarios. The first part is a “need for uniqueness” assessment: respondents are asked to position themselves from 1 (I don’t feel like that at all) to 10 (I feel a lot like it) about the following sentences: “I collect unusual products as a way of telling people I’m different.”, “I often look for one-of-a-kind products or brands as a way to create a style that is all my own.”, “The products and brands that I like best are the ones that express my individuality.”, “As far as I’m concerned, when it comes to the products I buy and the situations in which I use them, customs and rules are made to be broken.”, “I avoid products or brands that have been accepted and purchased by the average consumer.” And “Products don’t seem to hold much value when they are purchased regularly by everyone.” (Tian, Bearden and Hunter 2001). It is used to assess a trait having to do with consumer’s motivation to purchase and own products, which helps provide a sense of distinctiveness from other people. This will allow us to better identify the respondents, and see if there is an influence on our research. The other part is to know the gender, age, occupation, frequency of makeup’s use and income. We will use a specific scale to evaluate the frequency of makeup’s use, respondents need to choose one option from the following ones: “Never”, “Rarely, in less than 10% of the chances when I could have”, “Occasionally, in about 30% of the chances when I could have”, “Sometimes, in about 50% of the chances when I could have”, “Frequently, in about 70% of the chances when I could have”, “Usually, in about 90% of the chances I could have.” And “Every time”. (Vagias, Powell, Moore and Wright 2012)

26

C.  DATA ANALYSIS

1)  SAMPLE’S ANALYSIS

The online survey counted 229 finished answers. We had to remove 16 answers because respondents failed one of attention check from at least one part. As a results, we have 213 valid answers.

Gender. A majority of the respondents are female respondents (90%). (see table 1.1) Age. The average is 29 years old, 65% are between 20 and 29 years old, nevertheless

the sample is quite broad with approximately 9% of teenagers (between 16 and 19) and 11% of people between 50 and 59 years old. (see table 1.3).

Occupation. 50% are working, including 16% in marketing and communication, and 2% in the cosmetics industry. 41% are students, including 10% in “Marketing and/or communication”. (see table 1.2).

Frequency of Makeup’s Use. 62% of the population is using “frequently” to “every time” makeup. However, an important part is using it “never” to “occasionally” (27%) (see table 1.4). We can say that the sample is quite heterogeneous, with a majority of people using makeup and thus having quite a knowledge about it.

Income. The majority of respondents are earning less than 1500€ (54%). In general, the respondents do not earn more than 3000€ (88%) (see table 1.5).

Table 1.1 – Sample’s gender

Frequency Percentage

Male 22 10,3

Female 191 89,7

TOTAL 213 100

Table 1.2 – Sample’s occupations

Frequency Percentage Studying Marketing and/or Communication 22 10,3 Studying something else 65 30,5 Working in Marketing and/or communication 35 16,4 Working for a cosmetic company 4 1,9 Working in another field 68 31,9 Not working 18 8,5 Retired 1 ,5 TOTAL 213 100

27

Table 1.3 – Sample’s age Frequency Percentage

Mean 28,73 / /

Minimum 16 / /

Maximum 81 / /

16-19 20 9 20-24 96 45 25-29 43 20 30-34 12 6

35-39 7 3 40-44 4 2 45-49 7 3 50-54 15 7 55-59 8 4 +60 1 0 TOTAL 213 100%

Table 1.4 – Sample’s frequency of Makeup’s use

Frequency Percentage Never 17 8,0 Rarely, in less than 10% of the chances when I could have 22 10,3 Occasionally, in about 30% of the chances when I could have 19 8,9 Sometimes, in about 50% of the chances when I could have 23 10,8

Frequently, in about 70% of the chances when I could have 18 8,5 Usually, in about 90% of the chances I could have 64 30,0 Every time 50 23,5 Total 213 100

Table 1.5 – Sample’s monthly income Frequency Percentage Under 1500 € 115 54,0 Between 1500 € and 3000 € 72 33,8 Between 3000 € and 6000 € 15 7,0 Above 6000 € 11 5,2 Total 213 100

28

Need for uniqueness. We created a new variable based on six items (“I collect unusual products as a way of telling people I’m different”, “I often look for one-of-a-kind products or brands as a way to create a style that is all my own”, “The products and brands that I like best are the ones that express my individuality”, “As far as I’m concerned, when it comes to the products I buy and the situations in which I use them, customs and rules are made to be broken”, “I avoid products or brands that have been accepted and purchased by the average consumer” and “Products don’t seem to hold much value when they are purchased regularly by everyone”) (Cronbach’s alpha = .807).

As we explained in the literature review, individuals could desire scarce commodities (limited editions) because their acquisition brings them feelings of personal distinctiveness and uniqueness (Brock, 1968). The need for uniqueness can be different from one individual to the other, and knowing the one of our sample could explain the results we obtain in the study.

We are willing to know if our sample has a high need for uniqueness, which is having a Need For Uniqueness mean equals to 7. We are launching a One-sample T-test to figure out if the population is significantly different from 7.

The test shows participants have a low need for uniqueness (M = 4.06, SD = 1.69) (p > .12) (table 1.6). Table 1.6 - One-Sample Statistics Need for Uniqueness

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Need For Uniqueness 213 4,0595 1,69361 ,11604

29

2)  RESULTS a.  Experiment 1 (2 (brand type: luxury

vs. mass-market) × 2 (limited edition: yes vs. no) between-subject design)

Manipulation check. First, we want to test whether respondents perceive the type of

chosen brands correctly. Specifically, we want to check that respondents consider Chanel as a luxury brand and Kiko as a non-luxury/ mass-market one. In order to test that luxury perception, we created a new variable named “Luxury perception”, based on four items (“Popular/ Elitist”, “Affordable/ Extremely expensive”, “Upmarket/Luxurious”, “Best quality/Good quality”) (Cronbach’s alpha = .715).

We observed the results and variances and realized two items were not relevant: “Conspicuousness/ Noticeable” and “Crafted/ Manufactured”. In a way it is obvious that both Chanel and Kiko’s products are manufactured and not hand-made/crafted, respondents knew that. In addition, the distinction between “conspicuous” and “noticeable” is hard to make, so respondents got confused and answered wrong. As a consequence, we deleted both of these items.

To compare the luxury perception between two brands: Kiko and Chanel, we ran an independent sample test. Table 2.1- Group Statistics Luxury perception Chanel vs Kiko

BRAND N Mean Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

Luxury Perception Chanel 110 5,78 1,148 ,109 Kiko 103 4,29 ,890 ,088

Table 2.2 - Independent Samples Test luxury perception Chanel vs Kiko Levene's Test

for Equality of Variances

t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Diff.

Std. Error Diff.

95% Confid. Interval of the

Diff. Lower Upper

Luxury Per.

Equal variances assumed

7,352 ,007 10,547 211 ,000 1,492 ,141 1,213 1,770

Equal variances not assumed

10,634 204,0 ,000 1,492 ,140 1,215 1,768

Independent sample t-test showed that participants perceived Chanel (M = 5.78, SD =

1.15, see table 2.1) as more luxurious than Kiko (M = 4.29, SD = .89, see table 2.1, t (204) = 10.63, p < .001, see table 2.2). Thus, the manipulation of brand type was successful.

30

Purchase intention. In order to test the first two hypotheses, we ran a two-way ANOVA on purchase intention, using brand type and limited edition as two independent variables. Table 2.3 - Descriptive Statistics 2 (brand type: luxury vs. mass-market) × 2 (limited edition: yes vs. no) on purchase intention Limited Edition Luxury Brand Mean Std. Deviation N Standard edition Kiko 4,54 1,810 49

Chanel 5,03 1,897 55 TOTAL 4,80 1,863 104

Limited edition Kiko 4,46 1,996 54

Chanel 5,26 1,838 55 TOTAL 4,87 1,951 109

TOTAL Kiko 4,50 1,901 103 Chanel 5,15 1,863 110 TOTAL 4,83 1,904 213

Table 2.4 - Tests of Between-Subjects Effects 2 (brand type: luxury vs. mass-market) × 2 (limited edition: yes vs. no) on purchase intention

Dependent Variable: Purchase Intention 1 Source Type III

Sum of Squares

df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared

Intercept Hypothesis 4946,403 1 4946,403 236,739 ,052 ,996 Error 18,970 ,908 20,894a

Limited Edition

Hypothesis ,295 1 ,295 ,229 ,716 ,186 Error 1,289 1 1,289b

Luxury Brand

Hypothesis 21,888 1 21,888 16,977 ,152 ,944 Error 1,289 1 1,289b

Limited Edition * Luxury Brand

Hypothesis 1,289 1 1,289 ,362 ,548 ,002 Error 745,128 209 3,565c

If we have a look at the results above, we can see that neither “Limited edition”, “Luxury

brand’ nor the combination of both have a significant effect on purchase intention (all p > .152, table 2.4). It suggests that neither brand type nor limited edition has any effect on consumers’ purchase intention. It is a surprising result as we predicted the scarcity effect implied by limited editions should increase respondents’ purchase intention. We could assume that limited editions for both brands did not have a noticeable scarcity effect. It could possibly be explained by the survey materials.

As a result, we are not able to validate neither H1: limited editions in the makeup industry increase consumers’ purchase intention; nor H2: limited editions from luxury brands have a significant better influence on consumers’ purchase intention than have limited editions from mass-market brands.

31

Product attractiveness. We are now wondering if those independent variables had an effect on perceived product attractiveness. Indeed, we are willing to better identify the participants’ position towards the products they were confronted to, to understand the lack of influence on the purchase intention. We asked two questions about the products’ attractiveness (“How attractive do you find the selected products of this brand?” and “How attractive do you find the selected products compared to the other products of the same brand?”) and decided to combine them into one single variable (Cronbach’s alpha = .715)

We ran a two-way ANOVA test on the attractiveness measure, using both the brand type

and limited edition as two independent variables.

Table 2.5 - Descriptive Statistics 2 (brand type: luxury vs. mass-market) × 2 (limited edition: yes vs. no) on product attractiveness Dependent Variable: Attractiveness 1 Limited Edition Brand type Mean Std. Deviation N Standard Edition Kiko 5,15 1,515 49

Chanel 5,74 1,530 55 TOTAL 5,46 1,543 104

Limited Edition Kiko 5,11 1,574 54 Chanel 5,88 1,398 55 TOTAL 5,50 1,531 109

TOTAL Kiko 5,13 1,539 103 Chanel 5,81 1,460 110 TOTAL 5,48 1,533 213

Table 2.6 - Tests of Between-Subjects Effects (brand type: luxury vs. mass-market) × 2 (limited edition: yes vs. no) on product attractiveness

Dependent Variable: Attractiveness1 Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta

Squared Corrected Model 25,080a 3 8,360 3,691 ,013 ,050 Intercept 6359,880 1 6359,880 2808,135 ,000 ,931 Limited Edition ,142 1 ,142 ,063 ,802 ,000 Luxury Brand 24,350 1 24,350 10,752 ,001 ,049 Limited Edition * Brand type ,466 1 ,466 ,206 ,650 ,001 Error 473,344 209 2,265 TOTAL 6897,750 213 Corrected Total 498,425 212 a. R Squared = ,050 (Adjusted R Squared = ,037)

We found a main effect of brand type on product attractiveness (F(1, 209)=10.75, p = .001, table 2.6). Participants found Chanel’s products (M = 5.81, SD = 1.46, table 2.5) to be more attractive than Kiko’s products (M = 5.13, SD = 1.54, table 2.5). It suggests that participants perceived Chanel’s products more attractive than Kiko’s. As we said in the literature review, conspicuous goods/luxurious goods (Chanel) are basically more attractive. The surprise here is

32

about the fact that respondents claim to be more attracted by Chanel’s products but, as we saw in the previous paragraph, there is no effect on their purchase intention. We could explain that phenomena because of the prices. We have a young sample, respondents are globally earning less than 3.000€ a month (table 1.5), so even if they are attracted to the products, they may not afford it, and thus the purchase intention is not affected.

Limited edition has no effect on product attractiveness (F(1, 209)=.06, p = .80, table 2.6). And there was no interaction effect of the two independent variables (F(1, 209)=.21, p = .65, table 2.6).

Brand fit. Given that our theory to predict consumers’ purchase intention would

increase for luxury brand’s limited edition products due to a perceived brand fit, we are wondering if the reason we did not observe any effect on purchase intention was caused by a lack of perceived brand fit. We asked five questions about the brand fit (“The products I saw are standing out from the products normally offered by the same brand”1, “The products I saw are different from the products normally offered by the same brand”2, “The products I saw fit with the products normally offered by the same brand”, “The products I saw are similar the products normally offered by the same brand” and “To what extent are you surprised to see this brand launches this line of products?”3) and decided to combine them into one single variable (Cronbach’s alpha = .782).

We ran a two-way ANOVA test on the brand fit measure, using both the brand type and

limited edition as two independent variables.

Table 2.7 - Descriptive Statistics (brand type: luxury vs. mass-market) × 2 (limited edition: yes vs. no) on brand fit

Dependent Variable: Fit 1 Limited Edition Luxury Brand Mean Std. Deviation N Standard edition Kiko 5,10 1,218 49

Chanel 5,67 1,378 55 TOTAL 5,40 1,331 104

Limited edition Kiko 4,58 1,377 54 Chanel 5,41 1,378 55 TOTAL 5,00 1,433 109

TOTAL Kiko 4,83 1,323 103 Chanel 5,54 1,378 110 TOTAL 5,20 1,395 213

1  Reversed  scale,  we  changed  the  direction  of  the  scale  2  Reversed  scale,  we  changed  the  direction  of  the  scale  3  Reversed  scale,  we  changed  the  direction  of  the  scale

 

33

Table 2.8 - Tests of Between-Subjects Effects (brand type: luxury vs. mass-market) × 2 (limited edition: yes vs. no) on brand fit Dependent Variable: Fit 1 Source Type III Sum

of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta

Squared Corrected Model 35,663a 3 11,888 6,591 ,000 ,086 Intercept 5725,290 1 5725,290 3174,459 ,000 ,938 Limited Edition 7,908 1 7,908 4,385 ,037 ,021 Luxury Brand 26,118 1 26,118 14,481 ,000 ,065 Limited Edition * Luxury Brand

,837 1 ,837 ,464 ,497 ,002

Error 376,942 209 1,804 Total 6163,288 213 Corrected Total 412,605 212 a. R Squared = ,086 (Adjusted R Squared = ,073)

We found a main effect of brand type on brand fit (F(1, 209)=14.48, p = .000, table 2.8).

Participants found Chanel’s products (M = 5.54, SD = 1.38, table 2.7) to have a higher brand fit than Kiko’s products (M = 4.83, SD = 1.32, table 2.7). It means that the Chanel’s products presented to respondents were perceived as fitting Chanel better than presented Kiko’s products fitting Kiko. The fact that the luxury brand shows a higher brand fit than the mass-market brand supports in a way the result about the influence of brand type and limited edition on purchase intention. We were wondering if a lack of brand fit was perceived. Indeed, it would have been some kind of moderator explaining the lack of positive reaction on the purchase intention for the luxury brand group. However, looking at the two-way ANOVA results, we cannot consider the brand fit as being a moderator on the influence of the brand type on the purchase intention. Respondents are indeed evaluating a brand fit.

Besides, we found that the limited edition has a main effect on brand fit (F(1, 209)=4.39,

p = .037, table 2.8). Participants found that standard editions (M = 5.40, SD = 1.33, table 2.7) have a higher brand fit than limited editions (M = 5.00, SD = 1.43, table 2.7). That second main effect is telling us that maybe respondents do not consider a limited edition as fitting one of the two brands or both. This might be the real moderation effect. Unfortunately, we have no statistically significant means to make any assumption.

There was no interaction effect of two independent variables (F(1, 209)=.46, p = .5,

table 2.8)

34

Brand fit * Purchase intention. To go further in the influence of brand fit in our model, we are willing to see if it has a correlation directly with the purchase intention.

In order to test the effect of the brand fit on purchase intention, we ran a regression. Table 2.9 – Regression Brand fit * Purchase intention Coefficientsa Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized

Coefficients t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 4,591 ,505 9,087 ,000

Fit1 ,047 ,094 ,034 ,499 ,618 a. Dependent Variable: PurchaseIntention1

Looking at the results above, we can see that there is no statistically significant

correlation between brand fit and purchase intention (p = .618, table 2.9). As a consequence, we can keep the idea that brand fit might be a moderator in the interaction between limited edition and purchase intention, as limited editions are perceived as fitting less the brand image than standard editions.

To sum up. Considering that the manipulation of brand type was successful, we found that we could not validate our first hypothesis H1 (Limited editions in the makeup industry increase consumers’ purchase intention); nor our second one H2 (Limited editions from luxury brands have a significant better influence on consumers’ purchase intention than have limited editions from mass-market brands). Neither limited edition nor the type of brand increase respondents’ purchase intention. We tried to explain it by a lack of Chanel’s product attractiveness. We found a main effect of the type of brand on the attractiveness: participants found Chanel’s products to be more attractive than Kiko’s. Our attempt to explain the lack of positive influence of Chanel limited edition on purchase intention failed. To finish, we wanted to see if the brand fit could explain something. We found two main effects on brand fit. First, participants found that Chanel’s products have a higher brand fit than Kiko’s products It is not explaining the lack of positive reaction of purchase intention when participants were confronted to Chanel. Secondly, respondents found that standard editions have a higher brand fit than limited editions. This, on the contrary, could explain a lack of positive reaction of purchase intention when participants were confronted to a limited edition.

35

b.  Experiment 2 (2 (brand type: charitable vs. non-charitable) × 2 (charitable edition: yes vs. no) between-subject design)

Manipulation check. First, we want to test whether respondents perceived the type of

chosen brands correctly. In particular, we want to check that respondents consider The Body Shop as being a charitable brand and Maybelline as being a less/non-charitable brand.

In order to test the charitable perception, we created a new variable named “Charitable

perception”, based on eight items (Honest, Positive influence, Committed to the public good, Reputable, Reliable, Compassionate, Caring and Loving). (Cronbach’s Alpha = .923). To compare the charitable perception between the two brands: The Body Shop and Maybelline, we ran an independent sample test. Table 3.1 - Group Statistics charitable perception The Body Shop vs Maybelline

Type of Brand N Mean Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

Charitable Perception

The Body Shop 107 6,14 1,385 ,134 Maybelline 106 5,44 1,461 ,142

Table 3.2 - Independent Samples Test charitable perception The Body Shop vs Maybelline

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances

t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Diff.

Std. Error Diff.

95% Confidence Interval of the

Diff. Lower Upper

Charitable Perception

Equal var. assumed

,403 ,526 3,608 211 ,000 ,704 ,195 ,319 1,088

Equal var. not assumed

3,607 210,184 ,000 ,704 ,195 ,319 1,088

Independent sample t-test showed that participants perceived The Body Shop (M = 6.14,

SD = 1.39, table 3.1) as more charitable than Maybelline (M = 5.44, SD = 1.46, table 3.1 t(210) = 3.61, p < .000, table 3.2). Thus, the manipulation of the brand was successful.

36

Purchase intention. In order to test the behavior of the purchase intention, we ran a two-way ANOVA on purchase intention, using type of brand and type of edition as two independent variables. Table 3.3 - Descriptive Statistics 2 (brand type: charitable vs. non-charitable) × 2 (charitable edition: yes vs. no) on purchase intention Dependent Variable: Purchase Intention 2 Type of Brand Type of Edition Mean Std. Deviation N The Body Shop Charitable Edition 4,90 1,996 51

Non Charitable Edition 4,58 1,709 56

TOTAL 4,74 1,850 107 Maybelline Charitable Edition 4,76 2,032 55

Non Charitable Edition 4,50 2,163 51 TOTAL 4,64 2,090 106

TOTAL Charitable Edition 4,83 2,006 106 Non Charitable Edition 4,55 1,930 107 TOTAL 4,69 1,969 213

Table 3.4 - Tests of Between-Subjects Effects 2 (brand type: charitable vs. non-charitable) × 2 (charitable edition: yes vs. no) on purchase intention

Dependent Variable: Purchase Intention 2 Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean

Square F Sig. Partial Eta

Squared Corrected Model 5,003a 3 1,668 ,427 ,734 ,006 Intercept 4672,734 1 4672,734 1195,647 ,000 ,851 Brand type ,634 1 ,634 ,162 ,688 ,001 Edition Type 4,455 1 4,455 1,140 ,287 ,005 Brand type * Edition Type ,045 1 ,045 ,012 ,915 ,000 Error 816,798 209 3,908 TOTAL 5501,000 213 Corrected Total 821,801 212

a. R Squared = ,006 (Adjusted R Squared = -,008)

Looking at the results above, we can see that neither “brand type”, “edition type” nor

the interaction of both have a significant effect on purchase intention (all p > .287, table 3.4). It is a surprising result as we expected a limited edition to increase the purchase intention, even more if it was for a good-cause. The goal of that second part, is to explain the increase of purchase intention by the fit that could exist between the products and the brand. However, our first result is that the purchase intention is not significantly influenced neither by brand type nor edition type.

37

Product attractiveness. We are now wondering if those independent variables had an effect on the product attractiveness. It would be a way to explain why those two independent variables do not have an effect on purchase intention. We asked two questions about the products’ attractiveness (“How attractive do you find the selected products of this brand? And “How attractive do you find the selected products compared to the other products of the same brand?”) and decided to combine them into one single variable (Cronbach’s alpha = .709).

We ran a two-way ANOVA on the attractiveness measure, using both brand type and

edition type as two independent variables. Table 3.5 - Descriptive Statistics 2 (brand type: charitable vs. non-charitable) × 2 (charitable edition: yes vs. no) on product attractiveness Dependent Variable: Attractiveness 2

Brand Type Edition Type Mean Std. Deviation N The Body Shop Charitable Edition 4,86 1,477 51

Non Charitable Edition 4,91 1,607 56 TOTAL 4,89 1,539 107

Maybelline Charitable Edition 4,98 1,633 55 Non Charitable Edition 4,76 1,305 51 TOTAL 4,88 1,481 106

TOTAL Charitable Edition 4,92 1,553 106 Non Charitable Edition 4,84 1,466 107 TOTAL 4,88 1,507 213

Table 3.6 - Tests of Between-Subjects Effects 2 (brand type: charitable vs. non-charitable) × 2 (charitable edition: yes vs. no) on product attractiveness Dependent Variable: Attractiveness 2 Source Type III Sum

of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta

Squared Corrected Model 1,315a 3 ,438 ,191 ,903 ,003 Intercept 5063,206 1 5063,206 2203,452 ,000 ,913 Brand Type ,010 1 ,010 ,004 ,948 ,000 Edition Type ,380 1 ,380 ,165 ,685 ,001 Brand type * Edition type ,934 1 ,934 ,406 ,525 ,002 Error 480,251 209 2,298 Total 5559,500 213 Corrected Total 481,566 212 a. R Squared = ,003 (Adjusted R Squared = -,012)

Looking at the results above, we can see that neither “brand type, “edition type” nor the

interaction of both have significant effect on product attractiveness (all p > .525, table 3.6). If respondents are not more attracted by a charitable edition, products from a charitable brand nor the combination of both, it can explain why the purchase intention is not influenced as well.

38

Brand fit. We are wondering if those independent variables have an effect on the brand fit. We asked nine questions about the brand fit (“The products I saw are standing out from the products normally offered by the same brand”4, “The products I saw are different from the products normally offered by the same brand”5, “The products I saw fit with the products normally offered by the same brand”, “The products I saw are similar the products normally offered by the same brand” and “To what extent are you surprised to see this brand launches this line of products?6”, “Consistent/ Inconsistent”7, “Similar/ Different”8, Representative/ Unrepresentative”9 and “Typical/ Atypical”10) and decided to combine them into one single variable (Cronbach’s alpha = .830).

We ran a two-way ANOVA on brand fit measure, using both the brand type and the edition type as two independent variables. Table 3.6 - Descriptive Statistics 2 (brand type: charitable vs. non-charitable) × 2 (charitable edition: yes vs. no) on brand fit Dependent Variable: Fit2 Edition Type Brand Type Mean Std. Deviation N Charitable Edition The Body Shop 4,82 1,037 51

Maybelline 4,47 1,012 55 TOTAL 4,64 1,034 106

Non Charitable Edition The Body Shop 4,74 1,224 56 Maybelline 5,39 1,166 51 TOTAL 5,05 1,235 107

Total The Body Shop 4,78 1,134 107 Maybelline 4,91 1,178 106 TOTAL 4,84 1,156 213

Table 3.7 - Tests of Between-Subjects Effects 2 (brand type: charitable vs. non-charitable) × 2 (charitable edition: yes vs. no) on brand fit Dependent Variable: Fit2 Source Type III Sum

of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta

Squared Corrected Model 23,633a 3 7,878 6,346 ,000 ,083 Intercept 5011,314 1 5011,314 4036,904 ,000 ,951 Edition Type 9,417 1 9,417 7,586 ,006 ,035

Brand Type 1,218 1 1,218 ,981 ,323 ,005 Edition Type * Brand Type

13,330 1 13,330 10,738 ,001 ,049

4 Reversed scale, we changed the direction of the scale 5 Reversed scale, we changed the direction of the scale 6 Reversed scale, we changed the direction of the scale 7 Reversed scale, we changed the direction of the scale 8 Reversed scale, we changed the direction of the scale 9 Reversed scale, we changed the direction of the scale 10 Reversed scale, we changed the direction of the scale

39

Error 259,447 209 1,241 TOTAL 5283,001 213 Corrected Total 283,080 212 a. R Squared = ,083 (Adjusted R Squared = ,070)

We observed that there is a statistically significant interaction effect edition type* brand

type on brand fit (F(1, 209)=13.33, p = .001, table 3.7) Respondents evaluate that the brand fit is higher in the case of a charitable edition from The Body Shop (M = 4.82, SD = 0.16, table 3.6) than in the case of a charitable edition from Maybelline (M = 4.47, SD = 0.15, table 3.6). On the contrary, respondents evaluate that the brand fit is lower in the case of a non-charitable edition from The Body Shop (M = 4.74, SD = 0.15, table 3.6) than in the case of a non-charitable edition from Maybelline (M = 5.39, SD = 0.16, table 3.6). We can better picture the interaction effect on the following graph:

Those results are coherent with the manipulation check. Indeed, if respondents consider

that a brand is charitable, they should see a fit between that brand and a charitable limited edition.

40

Brand fit * purchase intention. In order to test our third hypothesis H3 (Good-cause limited editions influence more consumers’ purchase intention when the purpose of the cause fit the brand image), we ran a regression.

Table 3.8 – Regression Brand fit * purchase intention Coefficientsa Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized

Coefficients t Sig. 95,0% Confidence

Interval for B B Std. Error Beta Lower

Bound Upper Bound

1 (Constant) 5,487 ,581 9,437 ,000 4,341 6,633 Fit 2 -,165 ,117 -,097 -1,414 ,159 -,395 ,065

a. Dependent Variable: Purchase Intention 2

Looking at the results above, we can see that there is no statistically significant

correlation between brand fit and purchase intention (p = .159, table 3.8). We cannot validate our third hypothesis.

To sum up. Knowing that the manipulation of the brand type was successful, participants confirmed their opinion revealing that, according to them, the brand fit is higher in the case of a charitable edition from The Body Shop than in the case of a charitable edition from Maybelline. On the contrary, respondents evaluated that the brand fit is lower in the case of a non-charitable edition from The Body Shop than in the case of a non-charitable edition from Maybelline.

Nevertheless, respondents did not evaluate the type of edition, the type of brand nor the interaction of both as having a significant influence on purchase intention. We confirmed that with the no-influence of the same two independent variables on the products’ attractiveness.

As a result, we have not been able to validate H3: Good-cause limited editions influence more consumers’ purchase intention when the purpose of the cause fit the brand image, as the brand fit does not have a correlation with the purchase intention.

41

c.  Experiment 3 (2 (brand type: innovative vs non-innovative) x 2 (promotion level: highly promoted vs poorly promoted) between-subject design)

Manipulation check. We want to test whether respondents perceived the type of chosen

brands correctly. Specifically, we want to check that respondents consider MAC as an innovative brand and Sisley as a less/non-innovative one.

In order to test that innovative perception, we created a new variable named “Innovative perception” based on four items (Trend-setter, Innovative, Dynamic and Cutting edge) (Cronbach’s Alpha = .933).

To compare the innovative perception between the two brands: MAC and Sisley, we ran an independent sample T-test. Table 4.1 - Group Statistics innovative perception MAC vs Sisley Brand Type N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error

Mean Innovative Perception

MAC 108 6,43 1,629 ,157 Sisley 105 5,07 1,658 ,162

Table 4.2 - Independent Samples Test innovative perception MAC vs Sisley

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances

t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean Differe

nce

Std. Error

Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the

Difference Lower Upper

Innovative Perception

Equal variances assumed

,084 ,772 6,034 211 ,000 1,359 ,225 ,915 1,803

Equal variances not assumed

6,033 210,557 ,000 1,359 ,225 ,915 1,803

Independent sample t-test shows that participants perceived MAC (M = 6.43, SD = 1.63,

table 4.1) as more innovative than Sisley (M = 5.07, SD = 1.66, table 4.1), t(210) = 6.03, p < .000, table 4.2). Thus the manipulation of brand type is successful.

42

Purchase intention. In order to test the behavior of the purchase intention, we ran a two-way ANOVA on purchase intention, using type of brand and type of promotion as two independent variables. Table 4.3 - Descriptive Statistics 2 (brand type: innovative vs non-innovative) x 2 (promotion level: highly promoted vs poorly promoted) on purchase intention

Dependent Variable: Purchase Intention 3

Promotion Type Innovative Brand Mean Std. Deviation N Poorly Promoted MAC 4,51 2,113 57

Sisley 4,84 1,907 51 TOTAL 4,67 2,016 108

Highly Promoted MAC 5,00 1,869 51 Sisley 4,43 1,960 54 TOTAL 4,71 1,929 105

TOTAL MAC 4,74 2,007 108 Sisley 4,63 1,936 105 TOTAL 4,69 1,969 213

Table 4.4 - Tests of Between-Subjects Effects 2 (brand type: innovative vs non-innovative) x 2 (promotion level: highly promoted vs poorly promoted) on purchase intention Dependent Variable: Purchase Intention 3

Source Type III Sum of Squares

df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared

Corrected Model 11,559a 3 3,853 ,994 ,397 ,014 Intercept 4687,142 1 4687,142 1209,037 ,000 ,853 Promotion type ,085 1 ,085 ,022 ,882 ,000 Brand type ,725 1 ,725 ,187 ,666 ,001 Promotion type * Brand type

10,814 1 10,814 2,790 ,096 ,013

Error 810,242 209 3,877 TOTAL 5501,000 213 Corrected Total 821,801 212 a. R Squared = ,014 (Adjusted R Squared = ,000)

We observe that we have one marginally significant result: the interaction effect of

promotion type and brand type on purchase intention (p = .096, table 4.4).

43

Table 4.5 – Estimates 2 (brand type: innovative vs non-innovative) x 2 (promotion level: highly promoted vs poorly promoted) on purchase intention Dependent Variable: Purchase Intention 3 Promotion Type Brand Type Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound Poorly Promoted MAC 4,509 ,261 3,995 5,023

Sisley 4,843 ,276 4,300 5,387 Highly Promoted MAC 5,000 ,276 4,456 5,544

Sisley 4,432 ,268 3,904 4,960 Table 4.6 - Pairwise Comparisons 2 (brand type: innovative vs non-innovative) x 2 (promotion level: highly promoted vs poorly promoted) on purchase intentio Dependent Variable: Purchase Intention 3 Promotion type (I) Brand

type (J) Brand type Mean

Diff. (I-J) Std.

Error Sig.a 95% Confidence Interval

for Diff.a Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Poorly Promoted MAC Sisley -,334 ,380 ,379 -1,083 ,414 Sisley MAC ,334 ,380 ,379 -,414 1,083

Highly Promoted MAC Sisley ,568 ,384 ,141 -,190 1,326 Sisley MAC -,568 ,384 ,141 -1,326 ,190

Based on estimated marginal means a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Least Significant Difference (equivalent to no adjustments).

Table 4.7 - Univariate Tests 2 (brand type: innovative vs non-innovative) x 2 (promotion level: highly promoted vs poorly promoted) on purchase intention Dependent Variable: Purchase Intention 3

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared

Contrast ,725 1 ,725 ,187 ,666 ,001

Error 810,242 209 3,877 The F tests the effect of Label Innovative Brand PART 3. This test is based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons among the estimated marginal means.

Table 4.8 - Label Promotion Type * Brand Type

Dependent Variable: PurchaseIntention3 Promotion type Brand Type Mean Std.

Error 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound Poorly Promoted MAC 4,509 ,261 3,995 5,023

SISLEY 4,843 ,276 4,300 5,387 Highly Promoted MAC 5,000 ,276 4,456 5,544

SISLEY 4,432 ,268 3,904 4,960

Looking at the detailed ANOVA results, we can see that there is no statistically

significant effect on purchase intention, neither from brand type nor promotion type (p > .141, table 4.6).

44

Graph 4.1 – Interaction effect of brand type * promotion type on purchase intention

Nevertheless, if we have a look at the graph 4.1, we can observe the marginal tendency

(not statistically significant). Respondents confronted to the innovative brand were more likely to buy the highly promoted limited editions, whereas respondents confronted to the non-innovative brand were more likely to buy poorly promoted limited editions. This could be explained by the brand fit that we will analyze afterwards.

45

Product attractiveness. We are also wondering if those independents variables had an effect on the product attractiveness. Indeed, they might not have a significant effect on purchase intention, but we would like to know more about them. We asked two questions about the products’ attractiveness (“How attractive do you find the selected products of this brand? And “How attractive do you find the selected products compared to the other products of the same brand?”) and decided to combine them into one single variable (Cronbach’s alpha = .739).

We ran a two-way ANOVA on the attractiveness measure, using both brand type and promotion type as two independent variables. Table 4.9 - Descriptive Statistics 2 (brand type: innovative vs non-innovative) x 2 (promotion level: highly promoted vs poorly promoted) on product attractiveness Dependent Variable: Attractiveness 3 Promotion Type Brand Type Mean Std. Deviation N Poorly Promoted MAC 5,96 1,715 57

Sisley 5,29 1,397 51 TOTAL 5,64 1,600 108

Highly Promoted MAC 5,55 2,038 51 Sisley 5,51 1,459 54 TOTAL 5,53 1,755 105

TOTAL MAC 5,76 1,876 108 Sisley 5,40 1,426 105 TOTAL 5,59 1,675 213

Table 4.10 - Tests of Between-Subjects Effects 2 (brand type: innovative vs non-innovative) x 2 (promotion level: highly promoted vs poorly promoted) on product attractiveness Dependent Variable: Attractiveness 3 Source Type III Sum

of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta

Squared Corrected Model 12,542a 3 4,181 1,500 ,216 ,021 Intercept 6611,100 1 6611,100 2371,638 ,000 ,919 Promotion type ,490 1 ,490 ,176 ,676 ,001 Brand type 6,542 1 6,542 2,347 ,127 ,011 Promotion type * Brand type

5,144 1 5,144 1,845 ,176 ,009

Error 582,601 209 2,788 TOTAL 7243,500 213 Corrected Total 595,143 212 a. R Squared = ,021 (Adjusted R Squared = ,007)

Looking at the results above, we can see that neither “brand type, “promotion type” nor the interaction of both have significant effect on product attractiveness (all p > .127, table 4.10). The purchase intention might not be influenced because the product attractiveness is not influenced either by those two independent variables.

46

Product innovativeness. We are willing to test whether the type of promotion had an influence on the respondents’ opinion about the product attractiveness. In order to test that, we created a new variable that we named “Innovative Product” based on four (Trend-setter, Innovative, Dynamic and Cutting edge) (Cronbach’s Alpha = .929).

We ran an independent sample T-test to compare the highly promoted and poorly

promoted cases. Table 4.11 - Group Statistics Innovative perception (poorly promoted vs highly promoted) Promotion N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Innovative Product

Poorly Promoted 108 5,49 1,860 ,179 Highly Promoted 105 5,26 1,958 ,191

Table 4.12 - Independent Samples Test Innovative perception (poorly promoted vs highly promoted) Levene's Test

for Equality of Variances

t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean Differen

ce

Std. Error

Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the

Difference Lower Upper

Innovative Product

Equal variances assumed

,155 ,695 ,857 211 ,392 ,224 ,262 -,291 ,740

Equal variances not assumed

,857 209,671 ,393 ,224 ,262 -,292 ,740

The results show that the product innovativeness is not influenced by the promotion type

(p = .695, table 4.12). Thus, we cannot partly explain the marginal influence of promotion type*brand type on purchase intention with the effect of promotion type on product attractiveness.

Brand fit. We are now wondering if our two independent variables, brand type and promotion type, have an effect on the brand fit. We are willing to see if it could explain our first marginal result about the interaction effect of brand type*promotion type on purchase intention. In order to test the brand fit, we created a new variable based on the nine questions we asked about it to respondents (“The products I saw are standing out from the products normally offered by the same brand”11, “The products I saw are different from the products normally offered by the same brand”12, “The products I saw fit with the products normally offered by the

11 Reversed scale, we changed the direction of the scale 12 Reversed scale, we changed the direction of the scale  

47

same brand”, “The products I saw are similar the products normally offered by the same brand” and “To what extent are you surprised to see this brand launches this line of products?13”, “Consistent/ Inconsistent”14, “Similar/ Different”15, Representative/ Unrepresentative”16 and “Typical/ Atypical”17) and decided to combine them into one single variable (Cronbach’s alpha = .865).

We ran a two-way ANOVA on brand fit measure, using both the brand type and the

promotion type as two independent variables. Table 4.13 - Descriptive Statistics 2 (brand type: innovative vs non-innovative) x 2 (promotion level: highly promoted vs poorly promoted) on brand fit Dependent Variable: Fit3 Promotion type Brand type Mean Std. Deviation N Poorly Promoted MAC 4,42 1,390 57

Sisley 4,19 1,132 51 TOTAL 4,31 1,274 108

Highly Promoted MAC 4,67 1,368 51 Sisley 4,20 1,062 54 TOTAL 4,42 1,237 105

TOTAL MAC 4,53 1,379 108 Sisley 4,19 1,091 105 TOTAL 4,37 1,254 213

Table 4.14 - Tests of Between-Subjects Effects 2 (brand type: innovative vs non-innovative) x 2 (promotion level: highly promoted vs poorly promoted) on brand fit Dependent Variable: Fit 3 Source Type III Sum

of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta

Squared Corrected Model 7,913a 3 2,638 1,692 ,170 ,024 Intercept 4052,677 1 4052,677 2600,535 ,000 ,926 Promotion type ,897 1 ,897 ,576 ,449 ,003 Brand type 6,463 1 6,463 4,147 ,043 ,019 Promotion type * Brand type

,779 1 ,779 ,500 ,480 ,002

Error 325,706 209 1,558 TOTAL 4393,073 213 Corrected Total 333,619 212

a. R Squared = ,024 (Adjusted R Squared = ,010)

13 Reversed scale, we changed the direction of the scale 14 Reversed scale, we changed the direction of the scale 15 Reversed scale, we changed the direction of the scale 16 Reversed scale, we changed the direction of the scale 17 Reversed scale, we changed the direction of the scale

48

We observe a main effect of the brand type on the brand fit (F(1,209)=4.15, p = 0,04, table 4.14). Participants found that MAC’s products are better fitting the brand image (M = 4.53, SD = 1.38, table 4.13) than Sisley’s products (M = 4.19, SD = 1.09, table 4.13). MAC’s products are fitting MAC better than Sisley’s products are fitting Sisley. Those results are coherent with the manipulation check. Indeed, if respondents consider that a brand is innovative (the case of MAC), they should see a fit with an innovative product.

The promotion type and the interaction brand type * promotion type do not have an effect on the brand fit.

Brand fit * Purchase intention. In order to test the fourth and last hypothesis H4 (Micro-innovative packaging limited editions are increasing the most consumers’ purchase intention when fitting with the brand image.), we ran a regression test. Table 4.15 – Regression Brand fit * Purchase intention Coefficientsa Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized

Coefficients t Sig. 95,0% Confidence

Interval for B B Std. Error Beta Lower

Bound Upper Bound

1 (Constant) 5,621 ,486 11,563 ,000 4,663 6,579 Fit3 -,214 ,107 -,136 -1,999 ,047 -,425 -,003

a. Dependent Variable: Purchase Intention 3 As we can observe in the above table, p = .047 (table 4.15) which is statistically

significant. Looking at the unstandardized coefficients, we can make the following assumption: for one-point increase in fit, the model predicts that the purchase intention will decrease by 0.214 points (table 4.15), holding all of the other independent variables constant. As a result, we have rejected the fourth hypothesis. It is a very surprising result, which rejects our fourth hypothesis. We found a marginal interaction effect roughly saying that if an innovative brand uses an important promotion to present its products, the purchase intention would be higher than a non-innovative brand with an important promotion campaign. Then, we found out that the brand fit actually decreases the purchase intention. It could mean that when a brand offers a surprising innovative limited edition, something that respondents do not expect from the brand, people are pleasantly surprised, even amazed, and thus are more willing to try and buy them.

To sum up. Considering that the manipulation of brand type was successful, we marginally observed that participants found that MAC’s products are better fitting the brand image than Sisley’s products. This is a confirmation of our manipulation check. Our two independent variables: brand type and promotion type are not influencing purchase intention nor product attractiveness. To finish, we surprisingly found that the brand fit is negatively influencing purchase intention, which we explained by a pleasant surprise turning into a purchase intention. Thus, we could not validate H4: Micro-innovative packaging limited editions are increasing the most consumers’ purchase intention when fitting with the brand image.

49

d.  Main findings

In general, we have not reached our principal objective: demonstrate that limited editions increase consumers’ purchase intention. In every experiments, we confirmed our respondents perceived the brand as we expected: Chanel as a luxury one, The Body Shop as a charitable one and MAC as an innovative one. In addition, we confirmed that respondents correctly identified The Body shop as a charitable brand because the fit between The Body Shop and the charitable limited edition is higher than the fit between Maybelline and the charitable limited edition.

None of the three brand type had an effect on purchase intention: luxurious vs mass-market, charitable vs non-charitable and innovative vs non-innovative. The type of edition did not have an effect on purchase intention either: limited vs standard, charitable vs non-charitable, highly promoted vs poorly promoted.

In order to explain why the purchase intention was not influenced in every cases, we

looked at the products’ attractiveness behavior and found that it was positively influenced by Chanel, the luxury brand. We asked ourselves: why is the product attractiveness influenced by the brand type and not the purchase intention? We made the hypothesis that the sample cannot afford expensive products as their monthly income is for the majority inferior to 3000€.

Besides, products’ attractiveness was not influenced neither by charitable brand vs non-charitable brand, charitable edition vs non-charitable edition, innovative brand vs non-innovative nor highly promoted vs poorly promoted. To go deeper and keep trying explaining that finding, we looked at the brand fit. We found some quite surprising results. Respondents found that Chanel’s products have a higher brand fit than Kiko’s products. We thought we could explain the lack of purchase intention reaction to a luxury brand, and even more to a limited edition. Nevertheless, the brand/products fit cannot explain it.

On the other side, respondents found that standard editions have a higher brand fit than limited editions in the first part. This could be a real moderator in the influence of luxury brand vs mass-market brands on purchase intention. Indeed, if respondents do not think that a limited edition is suitable for the luxury brand, then we are not able to demonstrate anything. However, we have not been able to statistically explain that it was one brand or the other.

Another surprising result is that participants found the brand fit is negatively influencing purchase intention in the micro-innovation part. It is surprising because we found that if an innovative brand uses an important promotion to present its products, the purchase intention would be higher than in the case of a non-innovative brand. We could maybe explain the brand fit*purchase intention correlation by the fact that a surprise is well actually well perceived for

50

that type of innovative brands. Indeed, it amuses consumers, surprise them and make them want to try the innovative products from a brand that they did not expect to offer them that type of product.

To conclude, we rejected all the hypothesis of our model, the following ones: H1. Limited editions in the makeup industry increase consumers’ purchase intention. H2. Limited editions from luxury brands have a significant better influence on consumers’ purchase intention than have limited editions from mass-market brands. H3. Good-cause limited editions influence more consumers’ purchase intention when the purpose of the cause fit the brand image. H4. Micro-innovative packaging limited editions are increasing the most consumers’ purchase intention when fitting with the brand image.

D.  DISCUSSION AND LIMITATIONS

Through that research, we rejected our four hypotheses because we could not conclude that limited editions increase consumers’ purchase intention, neither across different type of brands (luxury vs. mass-market), nor across different types of limited edition (good causes and micro-innovation). However, we pointed out that the specific type of limited edition does matter for different brands. We found that for micro-innovation limited editions, the brand fit negatively influenced the purchase intention. We interpreted it saying that to surprise people is beneficial for a brand that does not usually offer very innovative products. We found interesting results that make us thinking that limited editions do have a great potential for brands to be competitive in such a complex and moving-quickly industry.

That first research on the influence of limited editions on consumers’ purchase intention in the makeup industry needs to be completed, deepened and restructured to succeed in understanding the attitude of consumers toward that particular marketing strategy. In that section, we are going to examine what the limitations of the research were to give directions for future researches and for brands.

Limitations. The first limitation concerns the design of the online survey. Indeed, I found it especially hard to design the visuals for the different scenarios. On Qualtrics, respondents do not have the possibility to zoom in nor to see the scenario visuals in high definition. Obviously, I sent the online survey to relatives and friends and they gave me some feedback about their experience filling it. A lot told me that it was quite long (and thus hard to concentrate during the whole time), they were not able to see everything clearly, they did not read carefully enough the first page introducing the survey and thus answered to the first shopping scenario as a trial and became more familiar with the process only for the two following shopping scenarios.

51

Thanks to those feedbacks, I think that I would change some features if I had to make another survey. I would include a quick first trial scenario that would not be evaluated, just so people get used to the questions and process. It would not add too much time to the survey though.

The second limitation could be about the profiles of the sample. Indeed, I think that the

sample should only be frequent makeup users so they can actually give relevant answers: I think the 10% male respondents, or the 27% that do not use makeup altered a little our findings. In addition, we can also talk about the monthly income. If we do not want to have the “I cannot afford it” bias, we should have included a statement saying “imagine money is not a preoccupation” or simply attribute the luxury brands to people declaring earning more than 3.000€ a month for example. In any ways, a previous participants’ recruitment session would be ideal to recruit a sufficient number of subjects, who respond to specific characteristics (more subjects would allow us to draw more relevant conclusions).

The third limitation could be about the fact that the experiment is made online, setting online

shopping scenarios for respondents. There is obviously differences between the two distribution channels. I was very surprised about the little promotion of limited editions online. When designing the online survey, I looked at the websites and took it as a design model. But if you compare the highlighting/ promotion of limited editions’ lines online and offline, you might be surprised. Brands are not really highlighting the limited editions online. They often have a different sub-tab for limited editions without highlighting it at all. You can search for the lipstick category as you look for the limited edition category. If there is no specific tab, there is only one “limited edition” banner under the product picture. On the contrary, when you go to a store where there is a limited edition, it is generally better highlighted and salespersons are talking about them, and directing you toward the limited editions. I think consumers are confronted with so many different products, brands, promotions etc. in the makeup industry, that brands would maybe need to emphasize limited edition even more: online and offline. So, in my survey design, I reproduced the visuals and promotion style I found online and maybe that is one limitation to the consumers’ lack of familiarity of the limited edition online.

We have just seen the potential limitations of our research. Before discussion about future researches, let’s think about a possible explanation to the lack of reaction of purchase intention about limited editions in the research, without looking at the variables. We could talk about the saturation of consumers. As we repeated numerous times, the makeup/cosmetics market is complex because it gathers a lot of actors, lots of competitors, lots of brands, lots of promotion campaigns, lots of stores and a lot of information in general. We are in a period of time when consumers ask more than they used to. They ask about the origin of products, the fabrication’s conditions, the use of natural/ organic ingredients, the efficiency, the security etc. They are expecting brands to be explicative, to be very convincing, and are not so naïve anymore. As a results, charitable limited editions, innovative limited editions, or limited editions in general

52

need to convince consumers that the features of the products are true and trustworthy, just like any other product in the market. In that aim, brand image is extremely important and plays an undeniable role in the success of marketing strategies.

Future research. I would have some recommendations to make. First, I would do the

experiments offline: in a point of sales. It would be set up for the different experiments. I think that the questions of the quantitative test should be asked by a spokesperson, which will probably help respondents focus and understand better the scenarios’ processes. Participants will be able to look at the real products, take them in hands, read at the back and get to know better the products. Secondly, the sample should be more carefully recruited, in order to have persons using makeup, having a normal/high income. Thirdly, I would better take into account the consumers’ saturation to better focus on convincing them about the reasons to buy those limited editions. Thus, when presenting the type of limited edition to the participants, it is important to take time on the reason-to-believe speech, in order to catch the attention of participants and to properly convince them.

Managerial implications. Brands should carefully choose the type of limited editions they are launching. A line of products featuring a surprising packaging innovation could work well for a brand that do not have a particular innovative brand image. Indeed, in our research, it seemed that surprise consumers increased their purchase intention, only in the case of micro-innovation. Launching limited editions is a way for the brand to express itself, to promote it and to catch consumers’ attention.

53

APPENDIX: ONLINE SURVEY HELLO “Hello, I am Philippine BAYON de NOYER, student at IESEG School of Management, doing a Master of Marketing. I am currently writing a Master Thesis about consumers’ attitude and purchase intention of some cosmetic brands, and I need your opinion! We ensure you that your responses will be kept confidential and anonymous. The survey will take you less than 10 minutes. You will be confronted to three different online shopping scenarios, and will be ask to evaluate three different brands. Please try to answer to the questions as you feel, there is no right or wrong answer. We value your honest opinions. We kindly ask you to answer all the questions in one sitting. You can move to next page to start the survey, Thank you!” Q137 TIMING

First Click (1) Last Click (2) Page Submit (3) Click Count (4)

54

P1CLE On this page, you are confronted to the first shopping scenario. You will see some products from a brand, please take your time to read the information and evaluate the products as if you were shopping online, we will ask you some questions regarding your opinion about the products and the brands on the following pages.

55

P1CSE On this page, you are confronted to the first shopping scenario. You will see some products from a brand, please take your time to read the information and evaluate the products as if you were shopping online, we will ask you some questions regarding your opinion about the products and the brands on the following pages.

56

P1KLE On this page, you are confronted to the first shopping scenario. You will see some products from a brand, please take your time to read the information and evaluate the products as if you were shopping online, we will ask you some questions regarding your opinion about the products and the brands on the following pages.

57

P1KSE On this page, you are confronted to the first shopping scenario. You will see some products from a brand, please take your time to read the information and evaluate the products as if you were shopping online, we will ask you some questions regarding your opinion about the products and the brands on the following pages.

58

P1Q1 How likely are you going to buy one of the products? Not at all1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) Neutral5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) 8 (8) Very much9 (9) P1Q2 How much do you want to buy one of the products? Not at all1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) Neutral5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) 8 (8) Very much9 (9) P1Q3 How much do you like the selected products of this brand? Not at all1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) Neutral5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) 8 (8) Very much9 (9)

59

P1Q4 How attractive do you find the selected products of this brand? Not at all1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) Neutral5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) 8 (8) Very much9 (9) P1Q5 How attractive do you find the selected products compared to the other products of the same brand? Much less attractive1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) The same5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) 8 (8) Much more attractive9 (9) P1Q6 To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Use the scale where 1 = "totally disagree", 5 = "neither agree nor disagree", and 9 = "totally agree". 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The products I saw are standing out from the products normally offered by the same brand. (1)

The products I saw are different from the products normally offered by the same brand. (2)

The products I saw fit with the products normally offered by the same brand. (3)

The products I saw are similar the products normally offered by the same brand. (4)

60

P1Q7 To what extent are you surprised to see this brand launches this line of products? Not at all surprised1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) Neutral5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) 8 (8) Extremely surprised 9 (9) P1Q8 Please evaluate the brand you saw on the following aspects. The more your answer is close to the extremities, the more you agree with the corresponding adjective. Conspicuousness/ Noticeable (1) Popular/ Elitist (2) Affordable/ Extremely expensive (3) Crafted/ Manufactured (4) Upmarket/ Luxurious (5) Best quality/ Good quality (6) PAGE BREAK P1Q9 What brand have you seen in the first shopping scenario? Chanel (1) Dior (2) Kiko de Milano (3) Another one (4) P1Q10 Were the products you saw limited editions? Yes (1) No (2) I don't remember (3) PAGE BREAK

61

P1Q11 You have completed the first part of the survey about the first shopping scenario. Please move to the next page for the second part, and second shopping scenario. Please be reminded that the 3 parts are independent. So please try not to let your responses to the first part of the survey influence your judgment in the next tasks. Q138 Timing

First Click (1) Last Click (2) Page Submit (3) Click Count (4)

62

P2TBSSLE On this page, you will be confronted to the second shopping scenario. You will see some products from a brand, please take your time to read the information and evaluate the products as if you were shopping online, we will ask you some questions regarding your opinion about the products and the brands on the following pages.

63

P2TBSCLE On this page, you will be confronted to the second shopping scenario. You will see some products from a brand, please take your time to read the information and evaluate the products as if you were shopping online, we will ask you some questions regarding your opinion about the products and the brands on the following pages.

64

P2MSLE On this page, you will be confronted to the second shopping scenario. You will see some products from a brand, please take your time to read the information and evaluate the products as if you were shopping online, we will ask you some questions regarding your opinion about the products and the brands on the following pages.

65

P2MCLE On this page, you will be confronted to the second shopping scenario. You will see some products from a brand, please take your time to read the information and evaluate the products as if you were shopping online, we will ask you some questions regarding your opinion about the products and the brands on the following pages.

66

P2Q1 How likely are you going to buy one of the products? Very unlikely1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) Neutral5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) 8 (8) Very likely9 (9) P2Q2 How much do you want to buy one of the products? Not at all1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) Neutral5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) 8 (8) Very much9 (9) P2Q3 How much do you like the selected products of this brand? Not at all1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) Neutral5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) 8 (8) Very much9 (9)

67

P2Q4 How attractive do you find the selected products of this brand? Not at all1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) Neutral5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) 8 (8) Very much9 (9) P2Q5 How attractive do you find the selected products compared to the other products of the same brand? Much less attractive1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) The same5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) 8 (8) Much more attractive9 (9) P2Q6 To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Use the scale where 1 = "totally disagree", 5 = "neither agree nor disagree", and 9 = "totally agree". 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The products I saw are standing out from the products normally offered by the same brand. (1)

The products I saw are different from the products normally offered by the same brand. (2)

The products I saw fit with the products normally offered by the same brand. (3)

The products I saw are similar the products normally offered by the same brand. (4)

68

P2Q7 Please rate the brand on the following aspects. Use 1 = “Not at all”, 5 = "Neutral", and 9 = “Very much” Honest (1) Positive influence (2) Committed to the public good (3) Reputable (4) Reliable (5) Compassionate (6) Caring (7) Loving (8) P2Q8 Using the adjectives below, please evaluate how do you think those limited editions are fitting the image of the brand you saw. The more your answer is close to the extremities, the more you agree with the corresponding adjective. Consistent/ Inconsistent (1) Similar/ Different (2) Representative/ Unrepresentative (3) Typical/ Atypical (4) P2Q9 To what extent are you surprised to see this brand launches this line of product? Not at all1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) Neutral5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) 8 (8) Very much9 (9) PAGE BREAK P2Q10 What brand have you just seen in the second scenario? Sisley (1) Maybelline (2) The Body Shop (3) Another one (4)

69

P2Q11 What was the purpose of the limited editions? New packaging design (1) One of the 4 seasons' celebration (2) Good-cause donation (3) Other (4) ____________________ PAGE BREAK P2Q12 You have now completed the second part of the survey. Please go to the following page for the last shopping scenario. Once again, the next scenario you will be confronted to is independent from the other ones. Q139 Timing

First Click (1) Last Click (2) Page Submit (3) Click Count (4)

70

P3MILE On this page, you will be confronted to the third and last shopping scenario. You will see some products from a brand, please take your time to read the information and evaluate the products as if you were shopping online, we will ask you some questions regarding your opinion about the products and the brands on the following pages.

71

P3SILE On this page, you will be confronted to the third and last shopping scenario. You will see some products from a brand, please take your time to read the information and evaluate the products as if you were shopping online, we will ask you some questions regarding your opinion about the products and the brands on the following pages.

72

P3SSLE On this page, you will be confronted to the third and last shopping scenario. You will see some products from a brand, please take your time to read the information and evaluate the products as if you were shopping online, we will ask you some questions regarding your opinion about the products and the brands on the following pages.

73

P3MSLE On this page, you will be confronted to the third and last shopping scenario. You will see some products from a brand, please take your time to read the information and evaluate the products as if you were shopping online, we will ask you some questions regarding your opinion about the products and the brands on the following pages.

74

P3Q1 How likely are you going to buy one of the products? Very unlikely1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) Neutral5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) 8 (8) Very likely9 (9) P3Q2 How much do you want to buy one of the products? Not at all1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) Neutral5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) 8 (8) Very much9 (9) P3Q3 How much do you like the selected products of this brand? Not at all1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) Neutral5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) 8 (8) Very much9 (9)

75

P3Q4 How attractive do you find the selected products of this brand? Not at all1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) Neutral5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) 8 (8) Very much9 (9) P3Q5 How attractive do you find the selected products compared to the other products of the same brand? Much less attractive1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) The same5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) 8 (8) Much more attractive9 (9) P3Q6 To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Use the scale where 1 = "totally disagree", 5 = "neither agree nor disagree", and 9 = "totally agree" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The products I saw are standing out from the products normally offered by the same brand. (1)

The products I saw are different from the products normally offered by the same brand. (2)

The products I saw fit with the products normally offered by the same brand. (3)

The products I saw are similar the products normally offered by the same brand. (4)

76

P3Q7 Evaluate the brand you saw by giving your opinion of the following adjectives. Use 1 = "disagree", 5 = "Neither agree nor disagree" and 9 "Agree" Trend-setter (1) Innovative (2) Dynamic (3) Cutting-edge (4) P3Q8 Evaluate the limited editions you saw by giving your opinion of the following adjectives. Use 1 = "disagree", 5 = "Neither agree nor disagree" and 9 "Agree" Trend-setter (1) Innovative (2) Dynamic (3) Cutting-edge (4) P3Q9 Using the adjectives below, please evaluate how do you think those limited editions are fitting the image of the brand you saw. The more your answer is close to the extremities, the more you agree with the corresponding adjective. Consistent/ Inconsistent (1) Similar / Different (2) Representative/ Unrepresentative (3) Typical/ Atypical (4) P3Q10 To what extent are you surprised to see this brand launches this line of product? Not at all 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) Neutral 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) 8 (8) A lot 9 (9) PAGE BREAK

77

P3Q11 What brand have you seen in the third shopping scenario? MAC (1) Sisley (2) Maybelline (3) Another one (4) P3Q12 What was the purpose of the limited editions? New packaging design (1) One of the 4 seasons' celebration (2) Good-cause donation (3) Other (4) ____________________ PAGE BREAK

78

Q1 You have completed all questions from the three shopping scenarios. On this page, we would like to know more about you in order to understand your decisions in the previous scenarios. Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements to describe yourself. Use the scale where 1 = "totally disagree", 5 = "neither agree nor agree", and 9 = "totally agree". 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I collect unusual products as a way of telling people I’m different. (1)

I often look for one-of-a-kind products or brands as a way to create a style that is all my own. (2)

The products and brands that I like best are the ones that express my individuality. (3)

As far as I’m concerned, when it comes to the products I buy and the situations in which I use them, customs and rules are made to be broken. (4)

I avoid products or brands that have been accepted and purchased by the average consumer. (5)

Products don’t seem to hold much value when they are purchased regularly by everyone. (6)

Q2. What is your gender? Male (1) Female (2) Q3 How old are you? [ENTER YOUR TEXT] Q4 Which of the following options is the most appropriate to describe your occupation? Studying Marketing and/or Communication (1) Studying something else (2) Working in Marketing and/or communication (3) Working for a cosmetic company (4) Working in another field (5) Not working (6) Retired (7)

79

Q5 How frequently would you say you use make-up? Never (1) Rarely, in less than 10% of the chances when I could have (2) Occasionally, in about 30% of the chances when I could have (3) Sometimes, in about 50% of the chances when I could have (4) Frequently, in about 70% of the chances when I could have (5) Usually, in about 90% of the chances I could have (6) Every time (7) Q6 What is your monthly income? Under 1500 € (1) Between 1500 € and 3000 € (2) Between 3000 € and 6000 € (3) Above 6000 € (4) PAGE BREAK THE END Thank you very much for you help, I wish you a very nice day!

80

REFERENCES Aggarwal, P., & Vaidyanathan, R. (2003). Use it or lose it: Purchase acceleration effects of time-limited promotions. Journal of Consumer Behaviour,2(4), 393-403. Ahluwalia, Rohini and Zeynep Gurhan-Canli (2000), “The Effects of Extensions on the Family Brand Name: An Accessibility-Diagnosticity Perspective,” JCR, 27 (3), 371-381 John, Deborah Roedder, Barbara Loken, and Christopher Joiner (1998), “The Negative Impact of Extensions: Can Flagship Products Be Diluted?” JM, 62 (January), 19-32 Amaldoss, W., & Jain, S. (2005). Conspicuous consumption and sophisticated thinking. Management science, 51(10), 1449-1466. Andy Wei, H. (2015). REEXAMINATION OF BRAND ALLIANCE EVALUATION MODEL: THE EFFECTS OF THE OVERALL FIT BETWEEN PARTNER BRANDS ON CONSUMER BRAND ALLIANCE EVALUATION. Academy Of Marketing Studies Journal, 19(1), 11-23. Banasiak, K. (2005). Here today, gone tomorrow. Food technology, 59(4), 40-43. Barthes, R. (2013). The language of fashion. A&C Black. Bayham, A. (2008). Six Reasons Why Face-to-Face Trumps Mass Marketing. American Salesman, 53(6), 22-25. Belk, R. W., Wallendorf, M., & Sherry, J. F. (1989). The sacred and the profane in consumer behavior: Theodicy on the odyssey. Journal of consumer research,16(1), 1-38. Bigné-Alcañiz, E., Currás-Pérez, R., Ruiz-Mafé, C., & Sanz-Blas, S. (2012). Cause-related marketing influence on consumer responses: The moderating effect of cause–brand fit. Journal Of Marketing Communications, 18(4), 265-283. doi:10.1080/13527266.2010.521358 Carter, M. (2011). Facials: The Aesthetics of Cosmetics and Makeup. Literature & Aesthetics, 8. Cha, M., Yi, Y., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2016). Effects of Customer Participation in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Programs on the CSR-Brand Fit and Brand Loyalty. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 57(3), 235-249. doi:10.1177/1938965515620679

81

Chevalier, M., & Gutsatz, M. (2012). Luxury retail management: How the world's top brands provide quality product and service support. John Wiley & Sons. Dubois, B., & Laurent, G. (1994). Attitudes towards the concept of luxury: An exploratory analysis. AP-Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research Volume 1. Esch, F. R., & Winter, K. (2010). Evaluation and Feedback Effects of Limited Editions in FMCG Categories. In Advances in Advertising Research (Vol. 1) (pp. 21-36). Gabler. Evangeline, S. J., & Ragel, V. R. (2016). The Role of Consumer Perceived Fit in Brand Extension Acceptability. IUP Journal Of Brand Management, 13(1), 57-72. for schema-theoretic views of comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, Fromkin, H. L. (1972). Feelings of interpersonal undistinctiveness: An unpleasant affective state. Journal of Experimental research in Personality. Fromkin, H. L., & Snyder, C. R. (1980). The search for uniqueness and valuation of scarcity. In Social exchange (pp. 57-75). Springer US. Grassi, W. (2006). The New Strategic Brand Management: Creating and Sustaining Brand Equity Long Term. Journal Of Product & Brand Management, 15(1), 81-82. doi:10.1108/10610420610650909 Gwinner, K., & Bennett, G. (2008). The Impact of Brand Cohesiveness and Sport Identification on Brand Fit in a Sponsorship Context. Journal Of Sport Management, 22(4), 410-426. Hamiln, R. P., & Wilson, T. (2004). The impact of cause branding on consumer reactions to products: does product/cause'fit'really matter?. Journal of Marketing Management, 20(7-8), 663-681. Hennigs, N., Wiedmann, K. P., Klarmann, C., Strehlau, S., Godey, B., Pederzoli, D., ... & Taro, K. (2012). What is the Value of Luxury? A Cross-­‐Cultural Consumer Perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 29(12), 1018-1034. Hutabarat, P., & Gayatri, G. (2014). THE INFLUENCE OF SPONSOR-EVENT CONGRUENCE IN SPONSORSHIP OF MUSIC FESTIVAL. South East Asian Journal Of Management, 8(1), 47-64. James, W. (1890). The consciousness of self. The principles of psychology, 8. Kapferer, J. N. (1997). Managing luxury brands. Journal of brand management,4(4), 251-259.

82

Kirsche, M. (2005). Limited-edition candy provides short–but sweet–sales boosts. Drug Store News, Consumables, 4(11), 2005. Kotler, P., & Alexander Rath, G. (1984). Design: A powerful but neglected strategic tool. Journal of business strategy, 5(2), 16-21. Kumar, S., Massie, C., & Dumonceaux, M. D. (2006). Comparative innovative business strategies of major players in cosmetic industry. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 106(3), 285-306. Lannelongue, M. P. (2003). La mode racontée à ceux qui la portent. Hachette littératures. Łopaciuk, A., & Łoboda, M. (2013, June). Global beauty industry trends in the 21st century. In Management, Knowledge and Learning International Conference (pp. 19-21). Lynn, M. (1991). Scarcity Effects on Value: A Quantitative Review of the Commodity Theory Literature. Psychology & Marketing, 8(1), 43-57. Manga, X. (2010). La captation de la jeune clientèle en matière de mode: le cas d'H&M et ZARA (Doctoral dissertation, Metz). Okonkwo, U. (2007). Luxury fashion branding: Trends. Tactics, Techniques, New York. Oller, S. (2006). Short and Sweet–Limited-Edition Candy is Keeping Things Interesting in the Category, but for how Long. CSP, February, 72-80. Pham, M. T., & Johar, G. V. (2001). Market Prominence Biases in Sponsor Identification: Processes and Consequentiality. Psychology & Marketing, 18(2), 123-143. Samuelsen, B., Olsen, L., & Keller, K. (2015). The multiple roles of fit between brand alliance partners in alliance attitude formation. Marketing Letters, 26(4), 619-629. doi:10.1007/s11002-014-9297-y Sara, R. (1990). Packaging as a retail marketing tool. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 20(8), 29-30. Saucet, M. (2007). Vers une nouvelle approche pour innover en marchés saturés: un exemple dans le secteur des cosmétiques (Doctoral dissertation, Nice).

83

Shallu, M., & Gupta, M. S. (2013). Impact of promotional activities on consumer buying behavior: A study of cosmetic industry. International Journal of Commerce, Business and Management (IJCBM), 2(6), 379-381. Shams, R., Alpert, F., & Brown, M. (2015). Consumer perceived brand innovativeness. European Journal Of Marketing, 49(9/10), 1589-1615. doi:10.1108/EJM-05-2013-0240 Sharma, P., & Roy, R. (2016). Looking Beyond First-Person Effects (FPEs) in the Influence of Scarcity Appeals in Advertising: A Replication and Extension of Eisend (2008). Journal of Advertising, 45(1), 78-84. Sichtmann, C., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2013). The impact of perceived brand globalness, brand origin image, and brand origin-extension fit on brand extension success. Journal Of The Academy Of Marketing Science, 41(5), 567-585. doi:10.1007/s11747-013-0328-7 Theodore S. For a Limited Time Only. Beverage Industry 2004; 95 (9): 6. Tian, K. T., Bearden, W. O., & Hunter, G. L. (2001). Consumers' Need for Uniqueness: Scale Development and Validation. Journal Of Consumer Research, 28(1), 50-66. Tungate, M. (2009). Luxury world: the past, present and future of luxury brands. Kogan Page Publishers. Vagias, W. M., Powell, R. B., Moore, D. D., & Wright, B. A. (2012). Development, Psychometric Qualities, and Cross-Validation of the Leave No Trace Attitudinal Inventory and Measure (LNT AIM). Journal Of Leisure Research, 44(2), 234-256.

Venable, B. T., Rose, G. M., Bush, V. D., & Gilbert, F. W. (2005). The Role of Brand Personality in Charitable Giving: An Assessment and Validation. Journal Of The Academy Of Marketing Science, 33(3), 295-312. doi:10.1177/0092070305276147 Vigneron, F. (2006). AN EMPIRICAL REPLICATION AND CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY OF BRAND LUXURY BETWEEN AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND. Advances In Consumer Research - Asia-Pacific Conference Proceedings, 7148-155. Wentzel, D., Tomczak, T., & Coppetti, C. (2007). THE IMPACT OF ARTICULATION AND AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION ON THE EVALUATION OF INCONGRUENT SPONSORSHIPS. AMA Winter Educators' Conference Proceedings, 1846-47. Whitney, P. (1987). Psychological theories of elaborative inferences: Implications

84

Wu, W. Y., Lu, H. Y., Wu, Y. Y., & Fu, C. S. (2012). The effects of product scarcity and consumers' need for uniqueness on purchase intention. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 36(3), 263-274.