The Common Values of Social Media Marketing and Luxury Brands. The Millennials and Generation Z Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

• The authors focused on a specific culture, Romania, the statistical results should be analyzed in such context. However, the author emphasizes on common values and z perspectives throughout the paper. The generalization issue should be taken care.
• Definition issue: What is the definition of luxury in this paper?  There might be differences in prestige goods between luxury but authors did not clearly set boundaries of the concepts. This may have been resulted in errors in measurements. The luxury had to be defined and why prestige brand values could be adopted to the study.
• Authors focused generation Z but other than the samples were younger people, no solid grounding of how the research model was set considering the generation of the question.
• Definition issue also arises. What is the definition of generation Z or Y? especially in Romanian contexts?
• Psychometric properties of the scales (table1) . The author stated 0.5 for internal consistency statistics (Cronbach’s alpha). Why? According to Cronbach, an existing scale should be greater than 0.7 for acceptable reliability.
• What is the contribution of this study to the body of the literature?

Author Response

Thank you for the pertinent comments on our article. These observations will certainly increase the value of our research and we are sure that they will be very useful in our future projects as well.

Problem 1: The authors focused on a specific culture, Romania, the statistical results should be analysed in such context. However, the author emphasizes on common values and z perspectives throughout the paper. The generalization issue should be taken care.

Response 1: In the article we point out that this study is conducted in the context of an under-researched market, an emerging country in Eastern Europe, Romania, on a sample of consumers who are part of Generations Y (Millennials) and Z and that the results must be analysed only in this context, without the claim of generalization to other countries. Considering this a limitation of our study, we intend to conduct a future study on a larger sample of Y and Z consumers from Romania, Macedonia, Ukraine and possibly consumers from emerging countries in Northern Africa. We started from the idea that studies that focus on the incompatibility between luxury brands and social media marketing in Eastern Europe are missing or very limited, especially in terms of luxury brands and social media marketing perception among Generation Y and Generation Z consumers and we intend to develop such a study.

 

Problem 2: Definition issue: What is the definition of luxury in this paper?  There might be differences in prestige goods between luxury but authors did not clearly set boundaries of the concepts. This may have been resulted in errors in measurements. The luxury had to be defined and why prestige brand values could be adopted to the study.

Response 2: In the revised manuscript, in the beginning of the Literature review and hypotheses development section we clarify the differences between prestige brands and luxury brands.

Vigneron and Johnson (1999) classify prestige brands, to differentiate them from non-prestige brands into three categories: upmarket brands, premium brands, and luxury brands, respectively in an increasing order of prestige. The authors use the term "luxury" when referring to the extreme-end of the prestige-brand category, and in their article the terms are interchangeable.

In fact, Vigneron and Johnson (2004) also show that this prestige-seeking framework was originally inspired by the conceptual work of Mason (1992) who developed a status-seeking framework to explain the consumer behavior of luxury brands. Consequently, it can be appreciated that the perceived value dimensions and the motivations associated with them are common for prestige brands and luxury brands, the authors, when discussing these values in their article, refer to either prestige brands or luxury brands. Also, the border between the three categories of prestigious brands is very dynamic, luxury brands, inaccessible at one time, go down to the bottom of the range, and some premium brands tend to move into the category of affordable luxury.

Moreover, Vigneron and Johnson give examples of prestige brands, brands such as: Louis Vuitton, Porsche, Kenzo, Cartier, Moet & Chandon, Chanel, Hermes, Christian Dior, Gucci, Rolex, Versace, Ralph Lauren, Patek Philippe, Gianfranco Ferragamo, which are recognized as luxury brands.

Problem 3: Authors focused generation Z but other than the samples were younger people, no solid grounding of how the research model was set considering the generation of the question. Definition issue also arises. What is the definition of generation Z or Y? especially in Romanian contexts?

Response 3: On page 9, in the revised manuscript, we defined Generations Y and Z, presenting the various points of view identified in the literature. In the absence of consistent and valid studies, we considered that in Romania, Generation Y includes consumers born between 1979-1994, and generation Z includes consumers born after 1995.

Although the Y and Z Generations of consumers from Romania, an Eastern European country, were formed in a different cultural environment from the consumers in developed countries, the problem is more complex, given that almost 5 million Romanians (many from Generations Y and Z) live in developed countries. Also, Romanian consumers have adopted Western behaviors and values as a result of free movement, especially in the European space, of free access to offline and online media. The complexity of the issue goes beyond the scope of this article and may be the subject of future research.

Even if the literature cited throughout our article identifies differences and similarities between consumers in Generations Y and Z, we do not know if these findings are valid for consumers in the two generations in Romania and we want to see if these conclusions can be confirmed.

 

Problem 4: Psychometric properties of the scales (table1) . The author stated 0.5 for internal consistency statistics (Cronbach’s alpha). Why? According to Cronbach, an existing scale should be greater than 0.7 for acceptable reliability.

Response 4: George and Mallery (2003) argue that a value under 0.5 of the Alpha Cronbach coefficient is considered unacceptable, a value greater than 0.5 is considered weak, greater than 0.6 is considered questionable, greater than 0.7 is considered acceptable,  greater than 0.8 is considered good, and a value exceeding 0.9 indicates an excellent level.

Thus, referring to the Cronbach’s alpha values in Table 1, the values between 0.5 and 0.6 (2 values in our study) are not unacceptable according to George and Mallery (2003), 2 values are greater than 0.70, and one value is 0.88.

Researchers such as Cho & Kim (2015) and Cortina (1993) caution against applying any arbitrary or automatic cut off criteria.  Rather, it is suggested than any minimum value should be determined on an individual basis, based on the purpose of the research, the importance of the decision
involved, and/or the stage of the research (i.e., exploratory, basic, or applied). Cortina (1993) contends that researchers should not make decisions about scale adequacy based solely on the level of Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, and the adequate level of reliability depends on the decision that is made with the scale.

1. George, D.; Mallery, P. SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference 0 update (4th ed.); Allyn & Bacon: Boston, 2003.
2. Cho, E.; Kim, S. Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha: Well Known but Poorly Understood. Organ. Res. Methods. 2015, 18, 207-230. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1094428114555994
3. Cortina, J. M. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. J. Appl. Psychol. 1993, 78, 98–104. https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0021-9010.78.1.98

Problem 5: What is the contribution of this study to the body of the literature?

Response 5: The present study contributes, first of all, to the development of the literature on the theory of luxury value, on the perceived dimensions of luxury value. This study also contributes to the development of literature on the theory of perceived social media marketing and social media uses and gratifications in relation to luxury brands.

Unlike other studies, which only focus on a few dimensions of luxury perception or social marketing channels perception, we proposed a multidimensional approach to them in this research. This study is also conducted in the context of an under-researched market, an emerging country in Eastern Europe, Romania.

The topic of compatibility between luxury brands and social media has emerged and developed especially in the last 5 or 6 years, after luxury bands have long avoided social media. Studies conducted on the relationship between the compatibility of luxury values and social media as a marketing channel in the perception of Generations Y and Z in Central and Eastern European countries are very limited. This is why we wanted, through our study to help develop knowledge on the subject, knowing that it requires development and refinements both in terms of the theoretical and methodological point of view.

Problem 6: Moderate English changes required

Response 6: In the revised manuscript we brought many changes in terms of language and style.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editor and Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled: The Common Values of Social Media Marketing and Luxury Brands. The Millennials and Generation Z Perspective.

The authors approach a very interesting and trendy subject. The luxury goods market is evolving and innovating to adapt to the preferences of the younger generation. This applies to both the product offer, communication channels and involvement in social media.

Overall, the topic of this paper is interesting and worthy of publication. The research part is clearly written, with good, concise prose, and also paper provides interesting findings.

However, the authors will find below some comments and suggestions to improve.

• Four generations are distinguished in social sciences: Baby Boomers, Generation X, Generation Y and Generation Z. I agree that Millenials (Generation Y) and Generation Z are considered to be the new core luxury consumers. These consumers make higher demands for the online customization of luxury goods, drive luxury purchases online, and are strongly influenced by video bloggers. I understand, then, the choice of these generations to study. However, nowhere in the text is it explained how you define generation Y and Z (how old they are at the time of the survey). Only there is a mention of “the older generation” and “the younger generation” (line 401-408) and “the upper part of Generation Z” and “the lower part of generation Y” (line 536-537). In the literature, a wide variety of age ranges defining the Y and Z generations can be seen. Often the reason for the difference is the country of origin of the generation.
• Another comment is related to the explanation of sample and data collection. The authors do not provide information on when and how long they conducted the online questionnaire.
• In the result section, the Authors explain “the H5 research hypothesis is rejected. A possible explanation for this result might be the fact that the sample includes many respondents from the upper part of Generation Z (22-25 years) and many respondents from the lower part of generation Y (26- 29 years old)”. Another explanation may be the disproportion between the sample size of generation Y and generation Z. (230 respondents were up to 25 years old (76%), 42 respondents in the age 26-40 years (14%). Is it Generation Z and Generation Y in your opinion?)
• References to the literature are correct, however, when using online sources, one should take care of the availability and up-to-date of the sources. (See item [99] accessed two years ago, Eurostat publishes updated data).
• Technical issues. Please take a look at Table 2 the letter H (hypothesis) is missing in the last line.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for the pertinent comments on our article. These observations will certainly increase the value of our research and we are sure that they will be very useful in our future projects as well.

Problem 1: Four generations are distinguished in social sciences: Baby Boomers, Generation X, Generation Y and Generation Z. I agree that Millennials (Generation Y) and Generation Z are considered to be the new core luxury consumers. These consumers make higher demands for the online customization of luxury goods, drive luxury purchases online, and are strongly influenced by video bloggers. I understand, then, the choice of these generations to study. However, nowhere in the text is it explained how you define generation Y and Z (how old they are at the time of the survey). Only there is a mention of “the older generation” and “the younger generation” (line 401-408) and “the upper part of Generation Z” and “the lower part of generation Y” (line 536-537). In the literature, a wide variety of age ranges defining the Y and Z generations can be seen. Often the reason for the difference is the country of origin of the generation.

 Response 1: In the revised manuscript, on page 9, we defined Generations Y and Z, presenting the various points of view identified in the literature. In the absence of consistent and valid studies, we considered that in Romania, Generation Y includes consumers born between 1979-1994, and generation Z includes consumers born after 1995.

The Alpha generation is now being discussed; the name was coined by Australian social researcher Mark McCrindle around 2005. This is the first generation born entirely in the 21st Century. Born between 2010 and 2025, the members of Alpha Generation are the children of Millennials and the youngest Gen Xers. They are also referred to as the younger relatives of Generation Z.

Although the Y and Z Generations of consumers from Romania, an Eastern European country, were formed in a different cultural environment from the consumers in developed countries, the problem is more complex, given that almost 5 million Romanians (many from Generations Y and Z) live in developed countries. Also, Romanian consumers have adopted Western behaviors and values as a result of free movement, especially in the European space, of free access to offline and online media. The complexity of the issue goes beyond the scope of this article and may be the subject of future research.

Literature review presents the differences between Baby Bommers, X, Y and Z generations. The older generation refers to Baby Boomers and Generation X, to emphasize a different behavior compared to the younger generation of consumers from the Z generation, but also the Y generation.

Generation Z consumers are aged 26 or younger (born after 1995), and Generation Y consumers are at most  41 or 42 years old (in literature there are different opinions). Regarding the perceptions of luxury brands and social media, not finding big differences among onsumers aged for example 24 or 25, according to the accepted periodization, and those aged 27 or 28 is quite possible.

Problem 2: Another comment is related to the explanation of sample and data collection. The authors do not provide information on when and how long they conducted the online questionnaire.

Response 2: The sample selection of this research was convenience sampling and comprised 303 Romanian residents aged 18+ that were asked to complete an online survey between September 2018 and February 2019. On the dedicated Facebook page entitled: “Do you like luxury?” visitors were shown various articles and posts from luxury producers, after which, they were invited to answer the questionnaire. To ensure traffic, the Facebook page was sponsored.

Problem 3: In the result section, the Authors explain “the H5 research hypothesis is rejected. A possible explanation for this result might be the fact that the sample includes many respondents from the upper part of Generation Z (22-25 years) and many respondents from the lower part of generation Y (26- 29 years old)”. Another explanation may be the disproportion between the sample size of generation Y and generation Z. (230 respondents were up to 25 years old (76%), 42 respondents in the age 26-40 years (14%). Is it Generation Z and Generation Y in your opinion?)

Response 3: For the sample selection we chose convenience sampling, a non-probability method, and we administered the questionnaire on Facebook. Thus, many responses came from consumers from the professional environment of the authors, which is why there are disproportions in the sample structure. After this study, we aim to conduct a study on a larger sample of respondents from several countries, Romania, Macedonia, Ukraine and possibly consumers from emerging countries in Northern Africa.

 Problem 4: References to the literature are correct, however, when using online sources, one should take care of the availability and up-to-date of the sources. (See item [99] accessed two years ago, Eurostat publishes updated data).

Response 4: We could not find up-to-date Eurostat data on the share of the two generations in the European Union and Romania, but, in the revised manuscript, we have supplemented the information with data presented in a report by the European Parliamentary Research covering Generations Z and Alpha (see page 10).

Problem 5: Technical issues. Please take a look at Table 2 the letter H (hypothesis) is missing in the last line.

Response 5: In the revised manuscript we corrected the omission in table 4.

Reviewer 3 Report

Although the article was not prepared on an representative sample, it does contain a cognitive scientific value. 

Author Response

Thank you for the appreciation that our article contains cognitive scientific value. Your review encourages us and gives us confidence to deepen topics such as luxury brands and digital marketing, luxury brands and mobile marketing, luxury brands and AI.