The impact of country of origin on consumer purchase decision of luxury vs. fast fashion: case of Saudi female consumers

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of country of origin on purchase decisions of luxury and fast fashion. The countries of origin include the US and European countries like France, Italy, UK, Spain, Germany, and Sweden. Moreover, conspicuous consumption was included in this research as a mediating variable, and brands from the US and Europe were evaluated. A total of 443 women were surveyed. The data were assessed using a structural equation model and a t-test. The results confirm the positive relationship between the country of origin and purchase decision of luxury and fast fashion; conspicuous consumption acted as a mediating variable that affected this relation. The results also confirm the positive relationship between conspicuous consumption and consumer purchase decisions of luxury and fast fashion brands. No difference was found between luxury and fast fashion in terms of the relation to the country of origin and conspicuous consumption. Moreover, US brands were evaluated higher than European ones for both luxury and fast fashion. This study gives insight into the role of country of origin in purchase decisions. In addition, it provides a deep understanding of the term of conspicuous consumption and its relation not only to luxury but also to fast fashion.

Introduction

The fashion sector is a very important sector around the world and has been growing rapidly in recent years. For instance, the projected valuation of the global apparel market for 2020 was USD 1.5 trillion. Womenswear was the bestselling garment category in the world, outperforming menswear, sportswear, and childrenswear. Womenswear represents almost half of the total apparel sales around the world. Furthermore, sales from branded apparel comprised more than half of the total apparel sales (Guo et al. 2020), and this amount is expected to increase in the coming years, especially with the amazing development in technology and consumers’ culture (Barretta and Fırat 2022). According to Castillo-Abdul et al. (2022), the luxury fashion brands market constitutes a large proportion of the global luxury goods market, with an estimated total value of 1.015 billion euros in 2021 and about 465 consumers. Within this market, European countries, the United States, and China occupy the largest market shares in descending order.

Several factors are responsible for the recent growth of the global fashion sector, such as the increase in economic stability and levels of purchasing power, an increase in the number of international fashion outlets across the world, and changes in consumer tastes (Salmon and Tordjman 2020). Additionally, an increase in foreign direct investment in fashion has allowed companies to open new branches and directly sell their products in other countries (Efremov and Vladimirova 2020). Social media, especially Instagram, has enabled the spread of luxury fashion brands through the sharing of positive comments with others, especially among millennials (Castillo-Abdul et al. 2022).

Branded apparel are classified as high-end products and is targeted towards the upper social classes. European and US brands constitute a larger portion of the global sales of branded apparel as compared to Eastern clothing brands. European fashion brands are the best in the fashion market. Paris has been, and continues to be the foremost fashion capital of the world (Steele 2019). Besides New York City, three of the fashion capital cities of the world are European: Paris, Milan, and London. Most of the fashion brands today belong to European companies despite overseas manufacturing of these products. According to BrandZ (the brand equity database managed by the marketing firm Millward Brown) the highest-valued fashion luxury brands for 2019 are all European (Louis Vuitton, Chanel, Hermes, Gucci, Rolex, Cartier, Burberry, Dior, Saint-Laurent, and Prada), and this includes top fast fashion brands (Zara, H&M, Mango, Next, and Bershka) (Ghemawat et al. 2003). In contrast, New York ranked first from 2009–2011 as the fashion capital, and it ranked higher than Paris, London, and Milan (Martínez de Lejarza and Hernández-Carrión 2012). Moreover, US brands lead in terms of the most affordable luxury brands around the world (Coach, Carolina Herrera, Tory Burch, Calvin Klein, Michael Kors, and Ralph Lauren; Alserhan et al. 2014) and two of the top influential fast fashion brands (Forever 21 and Gap; Tokatli, 2007).

Due to their dominant position in the market share for global apparel, European and US brands provide a clear signal to fashion brands developing their businesses in emerging markets. Analysing factors that influence consumers’ purchase decisions for branded apparel, European and US brands can help fashion brands in these markets improve their branding strategy. Several studies have examined the impact of the country of origin (COO) on consumer purchase decisions for various products (Dobrucalı 2019; Liefeld 2004; Lin and Chen 2006; Shirin and Kambiz 2011). However, few studies have focussed on the impact of COO on branded apparel. Therefore, this research aims to investigate the impact of COO on the consumer purchase decision for luxury and fast fashion brands, specifically for European and US brands. The study considers conspicuous consumption as a mediating variable. The study makes two major contributions to the field of fashion research studies. It represents a rarely examined area of research that concentrates on the relationship between the COO and consumers’ purchase decisions regarding fast fashion; most studies have focused on the relationship between the COO and consumers’ purchase decisions regarding luxury fashion. It will also expand the scope and generalize the theory of conspicuous consumption in the field of fast fashion purchase behaviour. The guiding question is—‘Does the COO effect differ in its importance in the purchasing decision of luxury vs. fast fashion?’

Literature review and hypotheses

Some consumers have inadequate knowledge about a brand’s COO as most clothing products belong to a country and are manufactured elsewhere. Consumers were unable to specify the COO of most brands under study (Liefeld 2004; Samiee et al. 2005). COO refers to ‘the country in which the head office of the company that owns the brand name is located’ (Liefeld 2004). A clothing label often contains the percentage of material content, care information, washing instructions, and country of manufacture but not the COO. This problem is exclusive to branded products as unbranded apparel originates from and is manufactured in the same country (Balabanis and Diamantopoulos 2008). Previous studies showed that a consumer’s attitude toward a country affects their evaluation of a product associated with that country regardless of the product’s features (Barbarossa et al. 2018; Kinra 2006; Laroche et al. 2005; Papadopoulos et al. 2017).

According to Andéhn et al. (2016), a consumer’s product category is the result of an association between the product place and the evaluation situation. This category might affect their decision to purchase a particular product. Purchase decisions are decisions concerning the choice and acquisition of products and services in the contexts of consumer and organization’ (Jaakkola 2007). Consumers base their purchase decisions on several factors, especially their perceptions of the product and its origin (Hahnel et al. 2014; Nadeau and Bradley 2012). Numerous studies have examined the impact of COO on consumer purchase decision, but only a few focus on the fashion sector of luxury and fast fashion products. According to Bauer et al. (2006), the concept of purchase decisions can be applied to all products and product categories. Godey et al. (2012) studied seven countries comparing the factors influencing purchasing decisions: luxury versus non-luxury products; they found that COO impacted consumer decisions on buying luxury more than non-luxury products. In contrast, Liefeld (2004) found that the COO of products is not a significant factor influencing purchase decisions for most North American consumers. Luxury brands refer to ‘the highest level of prestigious products based on a number of physical and psychological values’ (Vigneron and Johnson 1999). The most essential features of luxury brands such as Chanel, Dior, and Gucci are quality, price, brand history, reputation, uniqueness, rarity, and limited production (Fionda and Moore 2009). Several studies have shown that the most important reasons for the purchase of these goods are the need for uniqueness, quality, status, conspicuousness, recognition by others, belonging to groups, conformity, self-expression, extended self, hedonism, self-pleasure, self-esteem, and vanity (Escalas and Bettman 2005; Park et al. 2008; Pham et al. 2018; Vigneron and Johnson 2004). Even with much higher prices, the feelings consumers experience are a primary factor influencing their decision to purchase luxury products as compared to non-luxury products, with the same practical benefits (Arli et al. 2020). Cuesta-Valiño et al. (2022) pointed to the importance of happiness in achieving a company’s goals because consumer happiness increases brand loyalty, and increased satisfaction will have a positive effect on consumer happiness. The question here is whether a brand’s COO increases consumers’ feelings of happiness. Some consumers even prefer buying used luxury brands to new non-luxury brands (Turunen and Pöyry 2019). No previous study has adequately considered the COO as a reason to purchase a luxury product. Thus, hypothesis 1 was developed:

H1. There is a positive relationship between COO and consumer purchase decisions of luxury fashion.

Fast fashion brands are significantly different from luxury fashion brands. Fast fashion involves the mass production of apparel. The idea of fast fashion like Zara and H&M is based on reducing the amount of time between design, production, buying, consuming, disposal, and fashion seasons. Moreover, it is characterized by flexibility in cost and quality (Doyle et al. 2006; Taplin 1999). Consumers buy into fast fashion to stay in style and constantly replace their wardrobes (Sull and Turconi 2008). The fast fashion system is based on the techniques of limiting distribution time (also called the quick response technique), and enhanced design, which encourages consumers to be trendy or highly fashionable (Cachon and Swinney 2011; Ferdows et al. 2004; Ghemawat et al. 2003). Few studies have examined the relationship between fast fashion or non-luxury brands and COO (Godey et al. 2012); thus, hypothesis 2 was developed:

H2. There is a negative relationship between COO and consumer purchase decisions of fast fashion.

European and American fashion are different, with the former giving an impression of luxury and uniqueness. Luxury originated and developed in Europe; hence, consumers may prefer to opt for European fashion, which could be evidence of wealth. Even though New York is one of the world’s largest fashion capitals, American fashion brands are described by consumers as ‘practical and fast’ as compared to European ones. Moreover, most consumers associate luxury with particular European countries such as France and Italy because, according to Blaszczyk and Pouillard (2018), fashion in Europe is considered a historically significant phenomenon. Gonda and Farkas (2020) noted that Central and Western Europe have a competitive advantage in fashion in terms of location and product quality. Thus, the hypotheses 3 and 4 were developed:

H3. European luxury fashion brands are evaluated higher compared to US luxury brands.

H4. US fast fashion brands are evaluated higher compared to European fast fashion brands.

The term conspicuous consumption is closely related to luxury. The term is defined by O’cass and McEwen (2004) as the tendency for individuals to show themselves and enhance their status among others through obvious consumption of possessions. Liang et al. (2018) found that consumers consume conspicuously mainly when they experience social exclusion, not only to present their possessions but also to show the brand’s logo. A brand’s prominence, ‘the extent to which a product has visible markings that help ensure observers recognize the brand’, is the main reason why consumers, especially those who value higher status, purchase luxury goods (Han et al. 2010). According to Kwon and Kim (2022), there is a strong relationship between the personality dimensions of a consumer and the conspicuous consumption of luxury brands that leads to influence the purchasing decision. Therefore, hypotheses 5 and 6 were developed:

H5. The relationship between COO and consumer purchase decisions of luxury brands and fast fashion is mediated by the desire for conspicuous consumption.

H6. Conspicuous consumption and consumer purchase decisions of luxury brands are positively related.

Conspicuous consumption may result in consumer satisfaction and happiness driven by the purchase of high brands (Cuesta-Valiño et al. 2022). In contrast, some consumers believe that the consumption of luxury products is wasteful mainly because of the high price and low utility of these products. Thus, this study asks whether those consumers will show their lower-status brands to others. Furthermore, social media influencers may play an important role in promoting fast fashion consumption and linking them to conspicuous consumption same as luxury brands (Özbölük and Akdoğan 2022). Many studies have examined and confirmed the relationship between conspicuous and luxury consumption (Amatulli et al. 2018; O’cass and McEwen, 2004; Souiden et al. 2011; Wang and Griskevicius 2014; Zhou et al. 2018); however, none of them has examined the relationship between conspicuous and fast fashion consumption. Thus, hypothesis 7 was developed:

H7. Conspicuous consumption and consumer purchase decisions of fast fashion are negatively related.

Materials and methods

Based on the literature review and the resulting hypotheses, the following model was proposed. The model is built on the following research question: ‘Does the COO effect differ in its importance in the purchasing decision of luxury vs. fast fashion?’ The model consists of independent, dependent, and mediating variables. The independent variable, the COO, is classified as either US or European origin, while the dependent variable, consumer purchase decision, is classified as either luxury or fast fashion. Conspicuous consumption was addressed as a mediating variable, and its impact on both luxury and fast fashion was tested. Moreover, the evaluation of US and European luxury and fast fashion was included. This proposed model attempts to highlight the relationship between the COO and the purchase decision, specifically in the fashion sector. The proposed model is shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1 [Images not available. See PDF.]

The proposed model.

The research follows the descriptive quantitative analytical approach, which relies on exploring a specific phenomenon and then proceeds to describe and analyze the factors that led to its occurrence. It is then measured quantitatively to determine the extent of its impact and size. In order to obtain the data, a questionnaire tool was developed following an in-depth review of the literature.

The questionnaire in this study included five parts. The first part of the survey examined the actual purchase decisions of luxury and fast fashion. The participants were asked to specify their frequency of purchase of the listed brands. The listed brands were divided into two parts. The first part included nine European luxury brands (Hermes, Chanel, Dior, Louis Vuitton, Burberry, Gucci, Fendi, Balenciaga, and Loewe) and six US brands (Coach, Carolina Herrera, Tory Burch, Calvin Klein, Michael Kors, and Ralph Lauren). The second part about fast fashion included nine European brands (Zara, H&M, Mango, Miss Selfridge, Next, S. Oliver, Gerry Weber, Stradivarius, and Bershka) and five US brands (Forever 21, Gap, Guess, American Eagle Outfitters, and Victoria’s Secret). Thus, the questionnaire comprised 29 brands. Each brand’s history was reviewed carefully to confirm its COO and classification as either luxury or fast fashion. Moreover, five fashion experts reviewed the list to ensure the correctness of brand origin and classification. The brands listed for luxury and fast fashion were based on the most popular luxury and fast fashion in Saudi Arabia (Abalkhail 2015).

The second part of the survey measured the participant’s knowledge of COO of both luxury and fast fashion. Participants were then asked to attempt to determine the COO of each brand (they were only notified about the correct COO after). The COOs were listed as follows: European luxury brands (France, the UK, Italy, and Spain), US luxury brands European fast fashion (Spain, Sweden, the UK, and Germany) and US fast fashion.

To measure the COO effect, the scales developed by Nagashima (1970) and Roth and Romeo (1992) were adopted. Both scales comprised dimensions related to the products in general. Only dimensions related to fashion were applied. This part comprised seven questions about the association between dimensions and countries for both luxury and fast fashion.

The scale of conspicuous consumption was adopted from Marcoux, Filiatrault, and Cheron (1997) and O’cass and McEwen (2004). The developed scale included six questions about showing fashion consumption to others that were measured using a 5-point Likert scale. The final part of the questionnaire collected participants’ demographic data (age, income, level of education, and marital status).

Sample

The survey was created on Google Forms. The study was granted an exemption from requiring ethics approval for low risk research before conducting the research. The random sampling method was chosen for this study. The link for the survey was distributed randomly via undergraduate students, graduate students, and faculty emails in the two largest universities in Saudi Arabia. These universities are located in the two largest cities, namely Riyadh and Jeddah. The university staff of students and faculty were chosen as this study targeted women only, and since universities in Saudi Arabia are separated by gender, it was ideal for distributing the survey. University student samples are quite common in psychological and cross-cultural studies because of the lower incidence of response bias and lower administrative costs in comparison to other samples. Furthermore, they are characterized by ease of recruitment. These samples are also known for low levels of sample variability due to differences in education level. In general, they are an excellent representative sample for this community (Arnett 2016; Saucier et al. 2015). University employees in general were chosen because the exemption from requiring ethical approval for low-risk research was specific to them. Women were chosen as the demographic for this study as they are generally perceived to have a more positive attitude toward fashion than men (Pentecost and Andrews 2010; Stokburger-Sauer and Teichmann 2013).

As the study is written in English and the majority of participants spoke Arabic only, the survey was written in English and then translated to Arabic. A pre-test was then conducted to ensure the appropriate translation and determine the degree of participant knowledge about the brands under study. Four students who spoke both Arabic and English took the survey in both languages. They suggested some changes, and the final draft was formed based on their suggestions. Before the participants started the survey, consent was obtained from them for participation in the study and they had the decision to withdraw at any time. Three weeks after distributing the survey, a total of 443 completed surveys were received. These surveys were collected between June and August 2021.

Results

The analyses conducted for this study consist of a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), a structural equation model (SEM), reliability analysis conducted using a Cronbach’s alpha, and paired-samples t-tests. The reliability analysis determined the level of internal consistency and reliability relative to conspicuous consumption, and the SEM tested the majority of this study’s hypotheses. The confirmatory factor analysis was conducted prior to the SEM and determined whether conspicuous consumption had an appropriate factor structure. All measures were first examined in Stata MP 13.0 for outlying cases or coding errors. Adhering to this, study measures were recorded in Stata MP 13.0 and converted from string to numeric variables, which was required for the analysis. Reliability analysis was also conducted in Stata MP 13.0, with the confirmatory factor analysis and the SEM conducted using IBM Amos 25, and the paired-samples t-tests were conducted in IBM SPSS 23.

Initial descriptive statistics were conducted on the measures included in the SEM model, along with age and gender. The results relating to these study variables are presented in Table 1. The mean and standard deviations associated with these measures are presented along with the minimum and maximum scores and range.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics on study measures.

Measure	Mean	SD	Range	Min	Max
COO: US luxury brands the country of origin of U.S luxury brands including the most popular U.S luxury brands (Coach, Carolina Herrera, Tory Burch, Calvin Kline, Michael Kors and Ralph Lauren)	1.07	1.07	7	0	7
COO: European luxury brands (the country of origin of European luxury bra-nds including the most popular European luxury brands: Hermes, Chanel, Dior, Louis vitton, Burberry, Alexander Mcqueen, Gucci, Fendi, Balenciaga and LOEWE)	5.90	1.14	7	0	7
COO: US fast fashion brands (the country of origin of U.S fast fashion brands including the most popular U.S fast fashion: Forever 21, Gap, Guess, American Eagle Outfitters and Victoria’s Secret)	1.72	1.72	7	0	7
COO: European fast fashion brands (the country of origin of European fast fashion brands including the most popular European fast fashion: Zara, H&M, Mango, Miss Selfridge, Next, S. Oliver, Gerry Weber, Stradivarius and Bershka)	5.25	1.75	7	0	7
Consumer PD: Luxury fashion brands Consumer purchase decision of Luxury fashion brands including European and US brands	14.71	13.57	60	0	60
Consumer PD: Fast fashion brands Consumer purchase decision of fast fashion brands including European and US brands	33.58	14.12	56	0	56
COO: European luxury brands	4.43	2.08	10	0	10
COO: US luxury brands	5.44	3.49	10	0	10
COO: European fast fashion	3.31	2.26	10	0	10
COO: US_fast fashion brands	6.28	3.39	10	0	10

Regarding age, 64 respondents (14.5%) were aged 18–24 years; 112 (25.4%), 25–34 years; 123 (27.9%), 44–35 years; 100 (22.7%), 45–54 years; and 42 (9.5%), 55 years and older. Appendix A presents the frequency tables constructed for all individual study variables.

Table 2 presents the means and percentages associated with a number of respondents that purchased each brand in question. As presented, the means were substantially higher with respect to fast fashion compared to luxury fashion. Similarly, the percentages of those who purchased one or more of each specific brand were also substantially higher with respect to fast fashion.

Table 2. Brands purchased.

Measure	Mean	% Purchased one or more
Luxury fashion
Hermes	0.322	19.7%
Chanel	0.912	45.1%
Dior	0.821	42.2%
Louis Vuitton	1.054	47.8%
Burberry	1.197	55.1%
Alexander McQueen	0.252	14.7%
Gucci	1.070	54.4%
Fendi	0.989	49.7%
Balenciaga	0.327	17.2%
Loewe	0.224	12.5%
Coach	1.317	60.1%
Carolina Herrera	0.971	44.2%
Tory Burch	1.000	45.8%
Calvin Klein	1.603	61.7%
Michael Kors	1.306	56.5%
Ralph Lauren	1.408	48.5%
Fast fashion
Zara	3.456	93.0%
H&M	3.549	96.1%
Mango	3.211	92.7%
Miss Selfridge	1.762	61.7%
Next	2.998	87.5%
S. Oliver	0.955	33.3%
Gerry Weber	1.259	46.5%
Stradivarius	2.510	77.6%
Bershka	2.836	86.6%
Forever 21	2.454	81.2%
Gap	2.410	77.1%
Guess	2.059	72.8%
American Eagle	1.694	59.4%
Victoria’s Secret	2.583	81.2%

Table 3 reports the sample sizes and percentages of correct responses for the COO questions. The most well-recognized brands were French, Italian, and American, with the percentages of correct responses generally lower in the case of British, Spanish, German, and Swedish brands.

Table 3. Correct responses to COO.

Measure	N Correct	% Correct
European luxury brands
Hermes (French)	257	58.3%
Chanel (French)	327	74.1%
Dior (French)	304	68.9%
Louis Vuitton (French)	243	55.1%
Burberry (UK)	128	29.0%
Alexander McQueen (UK)	128	29.0%
Gucci (Italy)	188	42.6%
Fendi (Italy)	201	45.6%
Balenciaga (Spain)	102	23.1%
Loewe (Spain)	84	19.0%
US luxury brands
Coach	231	52.4%
Carolina Herrera	166	37.6%
Tory Burch	241	54.6%
Calvin Klein	290	65.8%
Michael Kors	289	65.5%
Ralph Lauren	230	52.2%
European fast fashion
Zara (Spain)	204	46.3%
H&M (Sweden)	106	24.0%
Mango (Spain)	150	34.0%
Miss Selfridge (UK)	202	45.8%
Next (UK)	231	52.4%
S. Oliver (Germany)	78	17.7%
Gerry Weber (Germany)	91	20.6%
Stradivarius (Spain)	123	27.9%
Bershka (Spain)	133	30.2%
US fast fashion
Forever 21	246	55.8%
Gap	264	59.9%
Guess	272	61.7%
American Eagle Outfitters	355	80.5%
Victoria’s Secret	255	57.8%

A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to determine whether conspicuous consumption, the only latent variable included in this study’s SEM, had an appropriate factor structure. This was determined based on all standardized estimates being above 0.30, with all paths being statistically significant, and the acceptable model fit present. In the initial model, question 79 (‘I choose fashion brands that show who I am’) had a low standardized estimate of 0.232. For this reason, this measure was excluded from this model and in the later structural equation. The revised CFA had standardized regression weights all above 0.50, with all paths achieving statistical significance at the 0.001 alpha level. Model fit was found to be borderline but acceptable with a normed chi-square of 5.112, TLI of .858, CFI of 0.953, and RMSEA of .096 with 90% CI [0.061, 0.135], p < 0.05.

In this SEM model, conspicuous consumption was incorporated as a latent variable with COO for luxury brands and fast fashion and consumer purchase decisions for luxury fashion and fast fashion were included as observed variables. The paths specified in this model conformed to those included in this study’s conceptual diagram, which specified paths between COO and consumer purchase decision, COO and conspicuous consumption, and conspicuous consumption and consumer purchase decision.

Table 4 reports the results of these specified paths, and in this paragraph, all estimates are presented in parentheses. All significant paths have positive estimates, indicating positive associations between each pair of variables. Some additional paths were found to approach but not to achieve significance at the 0.05 alpha level.

Table 4. Structural Equation Model: Estimates and Standard Errors.

Path	Estimate (SE)
COO: luxury brands: US → CC	−0.007 (0.038)
COO: luxury brands: Euro → CC	0.068 (0.036)
COO: fast fashion: US → CC	0.069** (0.024)
COO: fast fashion: Euro → CC	0.004 (0.023)
CC → Consumer PD: luxury fashion	5.295*** (1.021)
CC → Consumer PD: fast fashion	6.378*** (1.044)
COO: luxury brands: US → Consumer PD: luxury fashion	0.949 (0.587)
COO: luxury brands: US → Consumer PD: fast fashion	3.880*** (0.587)
COO: luxury brands: Euro → Consumer PD: luxury fashion	0.976 (0.555)
COO: luxury brands: Euro → Consumer PD: fast fashion	2.732*** (0.555)
COO: fast fashion: US → Consumer PD: luxury fashion	0.558 (0.371)
COO: fast fashion: US → Consumer PD: fast fashion	2.036*** (0.371)
COO: fast fashion: Euro → Consumer PD: luxury fashion	0.788* (0.358)
COO: fast fashion: Euro → Consumer PD: fast fashion	1.217*** (0.358)

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

The results of the SEM supported Hypotheses 1, 5, and 6, but failed to indicate negative relationships between COO and consumer purchase decision of fast fashion (Hypothesis 2) and between conspicuous consumption and consumer purchase decision of fast fashion (Hypothesis 7). As an SEM does not test for the significant mean difference between two or more measures, Hypotheses 3 and 4 were not evaluated based on this model’s results, therefore, additional analyses must be conducted to test them.

Two paired-sample t-tests were conducted to examine whether European luxury fashion brands are evaluated higher than US luxury brands and whether US fast fashion brands are evaluated higher than European fast fashion brands.

To test Hypothesis 3, the mean differences between European luxury fashion brands and US luxury brands were compared. This paired-sample t-test was found to have statistical significance; t(442) = 6.562, p < .001. The mean of European luxury brands (M = 4.430, SD = 2.078) was significantly lower than the mean associated with US luxury brands (M = 5.444, SD = 3.485). This indicates that European luxury brands are evaluated lower than US luxury brands, which supports the opposite understanding of that proposed by the third hypothesis.

A second paired-samples t-test was conducted to test Hypothesis 4. Significance was also found in this case; t(442) = 17.219, p < .001. A significantly lower mean was found among European fast fashion brands (M = 3.306, SD = 2.263) as compared with US fast fashion brands (M = 6.280, SD = 3.393). This result supports Hypothesis 4.

Cronbach’s alpha was used to determine the level of internal consistency reliability associated with conspicuous consumption. This scale had an alpha of 0.715, indicating acceptable reliability. This means that the questionnaire had high stability and that the sample was homogeneous in responding to the questionnaire, enabling the results to be reliable and generalizable. All other constructs were used as indices, with sums created for the purposes of the SEM. No reliability analyses were conducted on these measures as they were not used as scales or latent variables.

Discussion

This study sought to examine the COO effect on purchasing decisions. The positive relationship between COO and consumer purchase decision of luxury fashion was supported (Hypothesis 1), while no negative relationships were indicated between COO and consumer purchase decision of fast fashion (Hypothesis 2). This result is logical as most of the well-recognized brands by participants were French, Italian, and American. These countries, besides UK, are the top three luxury brands originators. This result is consistent with other studies confirming the positive relationship between COO and luxury brands’ purchase decisions (Aiello et al. 2009; Godey et al. 2012; Javed and Hasnu 2013; Piron 2000).

European luxury fashion brands were hypothesized as better than US luxury brands, while US fast fashion brands were evaluated higher than European fast fashion brands. However, for luxury brands, the result rejected the expected hypothesis as European luxury brands were evaluated lower than US luxury brands. Participants might evaluate US luxury brands higher than that of their European equivalents because of the appropriate price. Most US luxury fashion is provided at reasonable prices compared to European brands. Regarding fast fashion, US fast fashion brands were evaluated higher than European brands. Although European brands are more prevalent, US brands saw the highest preference. This result is consistent with previous results that confirmed the positive attitude toward US brands (Al-Rajhi 2008; Fullerton et al. 2007; Lee et al. 2008; Sohail 2005).

The result confirmed that conspicuous consumption acted as a mediating variable in the relationship between COO and consumer purchase decisions. Therefore, higher values on the COO of fast fashion in the US, predict higher values on conspicuous consumption, which go on to predict higher values on consumer purchase decision of luxury fashion and fast fashion. Previous studies showed that conspicuous consumption was impacted by COO (Piron 2000), acted as a mediating variable (Abalkhail 2015) and affected purchase decisions (Ozkan-Pir and Karaduman 2017).

The result confirmed the positive relationship between conspicuous consumption and consumer purchase decisions of luxury brands. Consumers who desire conspicuous consumption tend to buy luxury brands. This result is consistent with several studies that confirmed this positive relationship between conspicuous consumption and luxury brands (Kastanakis and Balabanis 2014; Ozkan-Pir and Karaduman 2017).

Regarding the relationship between conspicuous consumption and consumer purchase decision of fast fashion, no negative relation was confirmed. It was hypothesized that a negative relationship exists between conspicuous consumption and consumer purchase decisions regarding fast fashion; however, the result supported the positive relationship. This result was unexpected since fast fashion does not promote conspicuous consumption. This result could be expected if fast fashion was compared to unbranded fashion on conspicuous consumption. Most previous studies have examined the relationship between conspicuous consumption and luxury brands, but no study that examined the relationship between conspicuous consumption and fast fashion was found. A study by Pandya (2013) compared branded and unbranded clothes relative to some features. Unbranded clothes are better than branded ones in terms of more features, but conspicuous consumption is not one of them.

Theoretical implications

This research contributed to the fashion marketing literature by highlighting two important points. First, the study represents a rarely examined area of research on the relationship between the COO and consumers’ purchase decisions regarding fast fashion. Most previous studies have focused on the relationship between the COO and consumers’ purchase decisions regarding luxury fashion (Aiello et al. 2009; Godey et al. 2012; Javed and Hasnu 2013; Piron 2000). While no negative relationships have been revealed between COO and consumers’ purchase decisions regarding fast fashion, further studies should focus on COO and fast fashion through the concept of conspicuous consumption in comparison with non-branded fashion consumption.

Second, this research addressed conspicuous consumption as a mediating variable in the relationship between COO and consumers’ purchase decisions. Most studies have addressed conspicuous consumption as a mediating variable between COO and luxury consumption (Abalkhail 2015; Piron 2000), but none of them have explored the impact of conspicuous consumption on fast fashion consumption. This suggests that researchers of fashion need to pay more attention and fill the gap relating to the impact of conspicuous consumption on fast fashion. This will go toward achieving the main goal of merchandising the luxury and fast fashion market as well as consumer satisfaction and merchant success (Núnez-Barriopedro et al. 2023; Alonso-Garcia et al. 2023; Núnez-Barriopedro et al. 2023).

Strategic implications

The study has implications for the retailers of luxury and fast fashion. Since the positive relationship between the COO and consumer purchase decisions of luxury and fast fashion was supported, luxury and fast fashion companies should enhance the brand’s origin in the minds of their consumers. The COO should be included in the clothing label to support the country of manufacturing and improve the brand image in the consumers’ minds.

Another implication is for the luxury and fast fashion retailers in Saudi Arabia. The top three luxury brands purchased by participants are US brands (Calvin Kline, Coach, and Michel Kors). While the top three fast fashion brands that were purchased by participants are European brands (H&M, Zara, and Mango). The retailers for these brands should continue to succeed and maintain the same level of achievement. The other retailers for luxury brands in Saudi should learn from these companies’ successful businesses and discover the reasons for their outstanding performance.

Another implication is for US brands. They were generally evaluated higher than European brands for both luxury and fast fashion. This has a significant impact on the US cloth companies, and they should investigate expanding their business and opening new branches in Saudi Arabia.

Limitations and future research

The first limitation of this study pertains to the measures developed by the author to examine the actual purchase decision of luxury and fast fashion. The author developed this scale based on a previous study on the most popular fashion brands in Saudi Arabia. (Abalkhail 2015). Some changes were made while classifying luxury and fast fashion. Additionally, some brands were added and some were omitted to ensure variation in the countries of origin. To avoid this limitation, each brand’s country of origin and classification were carefully reviewed by the researcher and five fashion experts. Most studies so far have depended on consumption attitude and purchase intention to study consumer behaviour. Therefore, future studies should pay greater attention to actual consumer purchases.

The second limitation of this research is the unclear demarcation between luxury and fast fashion brands, which could have led the participants to mix up the two categories. Although both types of fashion were clarified while introducing the survey, this ambiguity may still have confused the participants. Some research studies have compared the differences between luxury and fast fashion; however, very few of them have clearly classified specific brands under each category. More studies should be conducted to classify luxury and fast fashion brands. Additionally, awareness should be raised among consumers to help them distinguish between luxury and fast fashion brands, as they are vastly different in terms of their manufacturing processes and long-term quality.

Further research is required to compare the relationship between conspicuous consumption and fast fashion. None of the previous studies showed a positive correlation between conspicuous consumption and fast fashion. While most studies have compared the relationship between conspicuous consumption and luxury fashion, only one recent study was found to compare the relationship between conspicuous consumption and counterfeit fashion products (Pham and Nasir 2016). Therefore, there is scope for further study on how conspicuous consumption influences the purchase of non-luxury products such as unbranded, second-hand, or counterfeit products.

The third limitation of this study is that the participants chosen were limited to two Saudi Arabian cities. Although the study included the largest cities in Saudi, the research could definitely benefit by including more cities from different regions in the country. According to McCollough (2020), conspicuous consumption seems to be stronger in emerging countries because of a middle-class population. Therefore, citizens of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) or more countries in Middle East, for example, may be included in future research studies concentrating on conspicuous consumption and the purchase of luxury versus non-luxury brands.

Data availability

The study used primary data and the author has attached the dataset as a supplementary file to this submission

Competing interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This study was granted exemption from requiring ethics approval for low risk research before conducting the study from “Unit of Biomedical Ethics”, King Abdul Aziz University.

Informed consent

Consent was obtained from all participants for participation in the study before they start the survey and they had the decision to withdraw at any time. It is included in the first page of the survey.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02112-z.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

Abalkhail, T. S. (2015). An assessment of values concerning luxury brand purchase intention: a cross-culture comparison. LSU Doctoral Dissertations, 2851. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/2851

Aiello, G; Donvito, R; Godey, B; Pederzoli, D; Wiedmann, KP; Hennigs, N; Ivanovna, SI. An international perspective on luxury brand and country-of-origin effect. J Brand Manag; 2009; 16, 5–6 pp. 323-337. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1057/bm.2008.52]

Alonso-Garcia, J; Pablo-Marti, F; Nunez-Barriopedro, E; Cuesta-Valino, P. Digitalization in B2B marketing: omnichannel management from a PLS-SEM approach. J Bus Ind Mark; 2023; 38, 2 pp. 317-336. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-09-2021-0421]

Al-Rajhi KS (2008) The effects of brands and country of origin on consumers’ buying intention in Saudi Arabia. Doctoral dissertation, University of Glasgow. Available from: https://theses.gla.ac.uk/597/

Alserhan, BA; Bataineh, MK; Halkias, D; Komodromos, M. Measuring luxury brand consumption and female consumers’ religiosity in the UAE. J Dev Entrep; 2014; 19, 2 1450009. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1142/s1084946714500095]

Amatulli, C; De Angelis, M; Korschun, D; Romani, S. Consumers’ perceptions of luxury brands’ CSR initiatives: an investigation of the role of status and conspicuous consumption. J Clean Prod; 2018; 194, pp. 277-287. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.111]

Andéhn, M; Nordin, F; Nilsson, ME. Facets of country image and brand equity: revisiting the role of product categories in country‐of‐origin effect research. J Consum Behavi; 2016; 15, 3 pp. 225-238. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cb.1550]

Arli, D; Gil, LDA; van Esch, P. The effect of religiosity on luxury goods: the case of Chilean youths. Int J Consum Stud; 2020; 44, 3 pp. 181-190. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12559]

Arnett JJ (2016) The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Methodological issues and strategies in clinical research (pp. 115–132). Am Psychol Assoc. https://doi.org/10.1037/14805-008

Balabanis, G; Diamantopoulos, A. Brand origin identification by consumers: a classification perspective. J Int Market; 2008; 16, 1 pp. 39-71. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jimk.16.1.39]

Barbarossa, C; De Pelsmacker, P; Moons, I. Effects of country-of-origin stereotypes on consumer responses to product-harm crises. Int Market Rev; 2018; 35, 3 pp. 362-389. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/imr-06-2016-0122]

Barretta, PG; Fırat, AF. Innovation from virtual brand community members may only be virtually effective. Int J Internet Market Advert; 2022; 16, 1-2 pp. 186-202.

Bauer, HH; Sauer, NE; Becker, C. Investigating the relationship between product involvement and consumer decision‐making styles. J Consum Behav; 2006; 5, 4 pp. 342-354. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cb.185]

Blaszczyk RL, Pouillard V (eds) (2018) European Fashion: The Creation of a Global Industry. Manchester University Press, Manchester

Cachon, GP; Swinney, R. The value of fast fashion: quick response, enhanced design, and strategic consumer behavior. Manag Sci; 2011; 57, 4 pp. 778-795. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1100.1303]zbMath ID: 1214.90070

Castillo-Abdul, B; Pérez-Escoda, A; Núñez-Barriopedro, E. Promoting social media engagement via branded content communication: a fashion brands study on Instagram. Media Commun; 2022; 10, 1 pp. 185-197. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17645/mac.v10i1.4728]

Cuesta-Valiño, P; Gutiérrez-Rodríguez, P; Núnez-Barriopedro, E. The role of consumer happiness in brand loyalty: a model of the satisfaction and brand image in fashion. Corp Gov: Int J Bus Soc; 2022; 22, 3 pp. 458-473. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CG-03-2021-0099]

Dobrucalı, B. Country-of-origin effects on industrial purchase decision making: a systematic review of research. J Bus Industrial Market; 2019; 34, 2 pp. 401-411. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/jbim-07-2017-0169]

Doyle, SA; Moore, CM; Morgan, L. Supplier management in fast moving fashion retailing. J Fashion Market Manag; 2006; 10, 3 pp. 272-281. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13612020610679268]

Efremov VS, Vladimirova, IG (2020). Features of the international activities of digital companies. In 1st international conference on emerging trends and challenges in the management theory and practice (ETCMTP 2019) Atlantis Press 12–17. https://doi.org/10.2991/aebmr.k.200201.003

Escalas, JE; Bettman, JR. Self‐construal, reference groups, and brand meaning. J Consum Res; 2005; 32, 3 pp. 378-389. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/497549]

Ferdows, K; Lewis, MA; Machuca, JA. Rapid-fire fulfillment. Harv Bus Rev; 2004; 82, 11 pp. 104-110. https://hbr.org/2004/11/rapid-fire-fulfillment

Fionda, AM; Moore, CM. The anatomy of the luxury fashion brand. J Brand Manag; 2009; 16, 5–6 pp. 347-363. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1057/bm.2008.45]

Fullerton, JA; Kendrick, A; Chan, K; Hamilton, M; Kerr, G. Attitudes towards American brands and brand America. Place Brand Publ Dipl; 2007; 3, 3 pp. 205-212. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.pb.6000063]

Ghemawat, P; Nueno, JL; Dailey, M. ZARA: Fast fashion (Vol. 1); 2003; Boston, MA, Harvard Business School: https://hbsp.harvard.edu/product/703497-PDF-ENG

Godey, B; Pederzoli, D; Aiello, G; Donvito, R; Chan, P; Oh, H; Weitz, B. Brand and country-of-origin effect on consumers’ decision to purchase luxury products. J Bus Res; 2012; 65, 10 pp. 1461-1470. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.012]

Gonda G, and Farkas MF (2020) Trends in fashion retail-global expansion and centralization of the most competitive players. J Manag 36(1)

Guo, S; Choi, TM; Shen, B. Green product development under competition: a study of the fashion apparel industry. Euro J Oper Res; 2020; 280, 2 pp. 523-538.MathSciNet ID: 4007292[DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2019.07.050]zbMath ID: 1430.90084

Hahnel, UJ; Gölz, S; Spada, H. How does green suit me? Consumers mentally match perceived product attributes with their domain‐specific motives when making green purchase decisions. J Consum Behav; 2014; 13, 5 pp. 317-327. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cb.1471]

Han, Y; Nunes, JC; Drèze, X. Signaling status with luxury goods: the role of brand prominence. J Market; 2010; 74, 4 pp. 15-30. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.74.4.15]

Jaakkola, E. Purchase decision-making within professional consumer services: organizational or consumer buying behaviour?. Market Theory; 2007; 7, 1 pp. 93-108. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1470593107073847]

Javed, A; Hasnu, SAF. Impact of country-of-origin on product purchase decision. J Market Consum Res; 2013; 1, pp. 31-51. https://iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JMCR/article/view/9223/9432

Kastanakis, MN; Balabanis, G. Explaining variation in conspicuous luxury consumption: an individual differences’ perspective. J Bus Res; 2014; 67, 10 pp. 2147-2154. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.04.024]

Kinra, N. The effect of country‐of‐origin on foreign brand names in the Indian market. Market Intel Plan; 2006; 24, 1 pp. 15-30. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02634500610641534]

Kwon, ES; Kim, J. Exploring brand humanisation on SNSs: brand personality and its influence on brand partner quality, brand attitude and consumer behavioural engagement. Int J Int Market Adv; 2022; 16, 3 pp. 203-229.

Laroche, M; Papadopoulos, N; Heslop, LA; Mourali, M. The influence of country image structure on consumer evaluations of foreign products. Int Market Rev; 2005; 22, 1 pp. 96-115. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02651330510581190]

Lee, MY; Kim, YK; Pelton, L; Knight, D; Forney, J. Factors affecting Mexican college students’ purchase intention toward a US apparel brand. J Fashion Market Manag; 2008; 12, 3 pp. 294-307. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13612020810889263]

Liang, S; He, Y; Chang, Y; Dong, X; Zhu, D. Showing to friends or strangers? Relationship orientation influences the effect of social exclusion on conspicuous consumption. J Consum Behav; 2018; 17, 4 pp. 355-365. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cb.1723]

Liefeld, JP. Consumer knowledge and use of country‐of‐origin information at the point of purchase. J Consum Behav: Int Res Rev; 2004; 4, 2 pp. 85-87. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cb.161]

Lin, LY; Chen, CS. The influence of the country‐of‐origin image, product knowledge and product involvement on consumer purchase decisions: an empirical study of insurance and catering services in Taiwan. J Consum Market; 2006; 23, 5 pp. 248-265. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363760610681655]

Marcoux, JS; Filiatrault, P; Cheron, E. The attitudes underlying preferences of young urban educated Polish consumers towards products made in western countries. J Int Consum Market; 1997; 9, 4 pp. 5-29. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1300/j046v09n04_02]

Martínez de Lejarza, I; Hernández-Carrión, JR. Ranking-based ties’ social networks: an illustration based on a system of fashion capital cities in the world. Business Systems Laboratory; 2012; 1, 1 pp. 225-247. http://bslaboratory.net/web/images/BSR/bsr-vol.1-iss.1-june-december.2012.complete.pdf

McCollough, J. The impact of consumers’ time constraint and conspicuous consumption behaviour on the throwaway society. Int J Consum Stud; 2020; 44, 1 pp. 33-43. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12545]

Nadeau, J; Bradley, M. Observing the influence of affective states on parent–child interactions and in‐store purchase decisions. J Consum Behav; 2012; 11, 2 pp. 105-114. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cb.386]

Nagashima, A. A comparison of Japanese and US attitudes toward foreign products. J Market; 1970; 34, 1 pp. 68-74.MathSciNet ID: 1273259[DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002224297003400115]

Núnez-Barriopedro E, Penelas-Leguía A, López-Sanz JM, Loranca-Valle MC (2023) A public service management model as an antecedent for citizen satisfaction and fiscal policy. Manag Decis

Núnez-Barriopedro, E; Cuesta-Valiño, P; Mansori-Amar, S. The role of perceived usefulness and annoyance on programmatic advertising: the moderating effect of Internet user privacy and cookies. Corp Commun: Int J; 2023; 28, 2 pp. 311-324. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-03-2022-0033]

O’Cass, A; McEwen, H. Exploring consumer status and conspicuous consumption. J Consum Behav: Int Res Rev; 2004; 4, 1 pp. 25-39. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cb.155]

Özbölük, T; Akdoğan, K. The role of online source credibility and influencer identification on consumers’ purchase decisions. Int J Int Market Adv; 2022; 16, 1-2 pp. 165-185.

Ozkan-Pir, E; Karaduman, İ. Environmental consciousness, environmental education, conspicuous consumption and re-buying decisions on network marketing in Turkey. EURASIA J Math Sci Technol Educ; 2017; 13, 8 pp. 5531-5542. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00837a]

Pandya, M. Branded versus unbranded jeans: opinions and perceptions of Indian youth. J Market Commun; 2013; 8, 3 pp. 57-61.

Park, HJ; Rabolt, NJ; Sook Jeon, K. Purchasing global luxury brands among young Korean consumers. J Fashion Market Manag; 2008; 12, 2 pp. 244-259. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13612020810874917]

Papadopoulos, N; Banna, AE; Murphy, SA. Old country passions: an international examination of country image, animosity, and affinity among ethnic consumers. J Int Market; 2017; 25, 3 pp. 61-82. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jim.16.0077]

Pentecost, R; Andrews, L. Fashion retailing and the bottom line: the effects of generational cohorts, gender, fashion fanship, attitudes and impulse buying on fashion expenditure. J Retail Consum Serv; 2010; 17, 1 pp. 43-52. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2009.09.003]

Pham, M; Valette‐Florence, P; Vigneron, F. Luxury brand desirability and fashion equity: the joint moderating effect on consumers’ commitment toward luxury brands. Psychol Market; 2018; 35, 12 pp. 902-912. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.21143]

Pham, THM; Nasir, MA. Conspicuous consumption, luxury products and counterfeit market in the UK. Euro J Appl Econ; 2016; 13, 1 pp. 72-83. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5937/ejae13-10012]

Piron, F. Consumers’ perceptions of the country‐of‐origin effect on purchasing intentions of (in) conspicuous products. J Consum Market; 2000; 17, 4 pp. 308-321. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363760010335330]

Roth, MS; Romeo, JB. Matching product category and country image perceptions: a framework for managing country-of-origin effects. J Int Bus Stud; 1992; 23, 3 pp. 477-497. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490276]

Salmon WJ, Tordjman A (2020) The internationalisation of retailing. In Dawson J, Findlay A and Sparks L (Eds.) The Retailing Reader 364

Samiee, S; Shimp, TA; Sharma, S. Brand origin recognition accuracy: its antecedents and consumers’ cognitive limitations. J Int Bus Stud; 2005; 36, 4 pp. 379-397. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400145]

Saucier, G; Kenner, J; Iurino, K; Bou Malham, P; Chen, Z; Thalmayer, AG; Altschul, C. Cross-cultural differences in a global “survey of world views”. J Cross-Cult Psychol; 2015; 46, 1 pp. 53-70. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022114551791]

Shirin, K; Kambiz, HH. The effect of the country-of-origin image, product knowledge and product involvement on consumer purchase decisions. Chin Bus Rev; 2011; 10, 8 pp. 601-615. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17265/1537-1506/2011.08.004]

Sohail, MS. Saudi consumers’ perceptions of foreign products. J Int Bus Entrep; 2005; 11, 1 pp. 93-106.

Souiden, N; M’Saad, B; Pons, F. A cross-cultural analysis of consumers’ conspicuous consumption of branded fashion accessories. J Int Consum Market; 2011; 23, 5 pp. 329-343. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2011.602951]

Steele, V. Paris, capital of fashion; 2019; London, UK, Bloomsbury Publishing: [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781350102972]

Stokburger-Sauer, NE; Teichmann, K. Is luxury just a female thing? The role of gender in luxury brand consumption. J Bus Res; 2013; 66, 7 pp. 889-896. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres/2011.12.007]

Sull, D; Turconi, S. Fast fashion lessons. Bus Strategy Rev; 2008; 19, 2 pp. 4-11. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8616.2008.00527.x]

Taplin, IM. Statistical review: continuity and change in the US apparel industry: a statistical profile. J Fashion Market Manag; 1999; 3, 4 pp. 360-368. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb022572]

Tokatli, N. Global sourcing: insights from the global clothing industry—The case of Zara, a fast fashion retailer. J Econ Geogr; 2007; 8, 1 pp. 21-38. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbm035]

Turunen, LLM; Pöyry, E. Shopping with the resale value in mind: a study on second‐hand luxury consumers. Int J Consum Stud; 2019; 43, 6 pp. 549-556. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12539]

Vigneron, F; Johnson, LW. A review and a conceptual framework of prestige seeking consumer behavior. Acad Market Sci Rev; 1999; 1, pp. 1-15. https://www.ams-web.org/resource/resmgr/original_amsr/vigneron01-1999.pdf

Vigneron, F; Johnson, LW. Measuring perceptions of brand luxury. J Brand Manag; 2004; 11, 6 pp. 484-506. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51127-6_10]

Wang, Y; Griskevicius, V. Conspicuous consumption, relationships, and rivals: women’s luxury products as signals to other women. J Consum Res; 2014; 40, 5 pp. 834-854. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/673256]

Zhou, J; Xu, X; Shen, B. Selling luxury fashion to conspicuous consumers in the presence of discount sensitivity behavior. Int Trans Oper Res; 2018; 25, 6 pp. 1763-1784.MathSciNet ID: 3844838[DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/itor.12543]zbMath ID: 1420.91226