Journal of Business Research 120 (2020) 398–406

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

Impact of product characteristics of limited edition shoes on perceived T

value, brand trust, and purchase intention; focused on the scarcity message
frequency
⁎
Heeju Chae , Seunggwan Kim, Jungguk Lee, Kyounghye Park
Department of Fashion Design and Merchandising, Kyungsung University, Busan, Republic of Korea
Department of Trade and Commerce Department, Kyungsung University, Busan, Republic of Korea

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study examined the product characteristics of the LES (Limited Edition Shoes) and confirmed the structural
Limited Edition Shoes (LES) relationship between perceived value, brand trust, and purchase intention. It also verified whether there is a
Limited Edition Product (LEP) different type of one-time and repeated scarcity messages. The outcome showed that the various characteristics
Perceived value of the LES are associated with uniqueness, self-expression, and investment. The characteristics affected perceived
Types of scarcity message
value, brand trust, and purchase intention. The structural relationship is affected depending on the type of shoe
Purchase intention
release and the degree of influence. Because of the distinctive characteristics of LES, shoe companies should
consider the characteristics that fit the consumer. Also, the type of release appropriate to the consumer should be
considered as the consumer's desire to purchase may vary depending on the type of release.

1. Introduction The current sneakers are evaluated as a dollar of 1 billion markets

The 'trading-up' phenomenon indicates consumers’ tendency to at-
tain achievement by consuming products with higher emotional value
(Silverstein & Fiske, 2003). The willingness to feel the psychological
satisfaction by possessing high-quality goods leads to the desire for rare
and new products that could differentiate themselves from others (Tian,
Bearden, & Hunter, 2001). With the development of social media such
as Instagram and Facebook, the outlet of self-expression through rare
products and share the feeling of possessing those varied. Modern
consumers consider social media as a reference group to meet their
needs through trading-up purchases for the purpose of recognition in
reference groups (Shin & Lee, 2019).
Products capitalizing on the needs of consumers like this are called
‘limited edition’ (Gierl, Plantsch, & Schweidler, 2008). In the past, LEP
(Limited Edition Products) have been limited to enthusiasts only in
special areas such as luxury brand cars. With the growing demand for
consumers' self-expression recently these items are being expended to
regular household goods. Among these various industries, the fashion
industry actively utilizes limited edition marketing. In particular, sports
brands frequently release LES (Limited Edition Shoes) because shoes are
closely connected with the human self-image (Lee, 2016). The closer
that self-image and brand image match, the more positive a consumer’s
attitude toward the brand (Graeff, 1996).
and the overall sneaker market is expected to grow to as big as $95.14
billion by 2025. NIKE, ADIDAS, and other global brands are actively
marketing using LEP. The brand has been marketing events such as
giving a raffle for buying LES to consumers who have posted a LEP
footwear ad and posted on social media.
To date, previous studies on LEP mainly focused on the effect of the
message type of ‘limited time scarcity’ and ‘limited quantity scarcity’ on
consumer behavior (Park, 2011; Yoon, Lee, & Lee, 2014). Also, prior
findings assessed the influence of the buyer’s personality on purchasing
decisions and evaluation of the consumers of LEP (Hwang & Koh,
2016). As such, there is little research on LEP itself. Because LEP dis-
tinguishes from existing products, businesses should segment their LEP
features and understand the impact on consumers. The product consists
of a variety of characteristics, which serve as critical clues that affect
perception and evaluation of the product (Jacoby, Olson, & Haddock,
1971). Therefore, research should be conducted by applying scarcity
messages to products.
Although LEP is being launched to stimulate consumers' purchase
intentions, there is a growing negative opinion about the increase of
certain LEP releases. According to Friestad and Wright (1994), con-
sumers may become more knowledgeable about persuasion after re-
ceiving repetitive marketing messages developing suspicions and
gaining negative perceptions of marketers' messages. In addition, if

⁎
Corresponding author at: Department of Fashion Design and Merchandising, Kyungsung University, Busan, Republic of Korea.
E-mail address: hjchae@ks.ac.kr (H. Chae).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.040
Received 27 November 2018; Received in revised form 11 November 2019; Accepted 13 November 2019
Available online 29 January 2020
0148-2963/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
H. Chae, et al.
consumers are frequently exposed to the scarcity message, consumers
perceive the seller’s intentions, believe that the marketing is a sales
gimmick or the product isn’t rare, and lose their purchase intention
(Yeo & Park, 2004). In other words, if LEP is frequently released, it is
expected to have a negative effect on not only the launched product but
also the brand, so it is necessary to closely discuss with LEP of the
brand.
Therefore, this study divides the release type of LES into the absence
and presence of repetition. OLE (One-time Limited Edition) is only re-
leased once. On the other hand, RLE (Repeated Limited Edition) means
that the brand re-release the same design of a popular shoe model at
some interval but reinterprets the shoe color, materials, and technology
in a modern way. That is, it is classified into ‘OLE’ which cannot be
reprinted, and ‘RLE’ which is the repetition of a single model of LES.
Hwang and Koh (2016) said that consumers of LEP fashion products
want recognition from others. To flamboyant consumers, OLE is less
popular than RLE because of its high degree of scarcity. Flamboyant
consumers will exhibit a different purchase intention toward products
unrecognizable to others. In addition, RLE promotes negative com-
ments from frequent releases. This study is expected to confirm the
effect of different types of LEP on consumers. In particular, we want to
analyze the characteristics of LEP in detail and study the consumer’s
perceived value.
The study focused on young adults in South Korea. Importantly,
many global companies have used Korea as a testbed market. Among
them, Merrell, an American outdoor and sports company, is a perfect
example of using South Korea as a testbed. In 2011, the company
produced custom made shoes to meet the need of South Korean cus-
tomers. The shoemaker later exported the products developed in South
Korea to China and South America with huge success. South Korean
customers prefer products with high standards, and this helps global
brands predict global marketability. And the global fashion and
streetwear magazine HYPEBEAST found that South Korea and China
consume the largest amount of LEP. Collectively, we supposed South
Koreans are the best fit for the study.
Therefore, we verify the impact of product characteristics of LES on
each factor by dividing LES products into ‘OLE’ and ‘RLE’. This study
examines the characteristics of LES, verifies the connectivity of per-
ceived value, brand trust, and purchase intention according to LEP type,
and suggests marketing implications for global sports brands in the
future. There are several purposes for this study: firstly, to verify the
characteristics of LES; second, to identify structural relationships be-
tween product characteristics, perceived value, brand trust, and pur-
chase intention; third, to identify how two types of LES effect on con-
sumers purchase intention.
2. Theoretical backgrounds
2.1. Limited edition
Consumers expect products or brands that have a sense of in-
dividuality beyond as well as the utility of the product itself (Eom &
Lee, 2012). LEP is a product for which a marketer intentionally adjusts
the scarcity of the product to meet this desire (Balachander & Stock,
2009). According to Snyder and Fromkin (1977), consumers want to
express their personality or identity differently from others by owning
something special that others don’t possess.
If the products that an individual often uses are consumed by many
people and become popular, that individual wants to consume another
product instead. This consumer psychology is called a ‘snob effect,’
which is why many companies are using limited edition marketing. For
example, there is a case where LEP is released as a prototype before the
production of the main product. Burberry, a luxury brand, sold a lim-
ited-edition keyring for a single day and re-released it in the form of
similar goods after confirming the explosive market reaction. In addi-
tion, a very small amount is distributed to the market, raising the price
399
Journal of Business Research 120 (2020) 398–406
through the market called ‘resell’ and enhancing the value of the brand.
However, no one has researched the marketing of LES. But the LES are
becoming more popular and gaining more attention, it is necessary to
study the characteristics of the LES in more detail.
2.2. The characteristics of the Limited Edition Shoes (LES)
In the study by Hwang and Koh (2016), the characteristics of LEP is
divided into scarcity and uniqueness. According to Lee (2016), shoes
are the mediator that reflects human identity, desire, and are used as a
means of self-expression (Kim, Choi, & Lee, 2001). As the size of the
shoe market grows, it is often the case that the shoes are bought for the
profit of resale rather than the purpose of wearing LEP. This, therefore,
is the investment property of the LES. The detailed characteristics of
LEP to be examined in this study are represented by scarcity, unique-
ness, self-expression, visibility, and investment.
Scarcity means that the value of the product is positively correlated
with demand and negatively correlated with supply (Kim & Baek,
2014). The psychological effect of scarcity is immense, and the anxiety
of total product consumption may increase the relative value of the
product (Lynn, 1991).
Eventually, the scarcity of the product increases the psychological
value that consumers attribute to the product and affects consumers'
purchase intentions. By studying product scarcity and information ex-
clusivity, Kelman (1953) argued that consumers who learned about
product scarcity were twice as likely to buy the product than those who
didn’t. That’s why scarcity has a direct effect on consumer behavior.
Suri and Monroe (2003) argue that the scarcity of goods stimulates
consumers and disrupts their information processing ability through
research. Products with high scarcity, therefore, induce impulsive be-
havior by stimulating consumer psychology.
Uniqueness is the only different quality when certain properties of
an object are compared to those of another object and it also refers to a
non-standardized quality. The consumer has a unique desire to express
his or her identity and uniqueness distinct from others by acquiring the
product. Consumers' desire for uniqueness includes all areas where they
can feel different from others.
Consumers strengthen their social or inner self while purchasing
and using specific products. In this case, consumers perceive self-ex-
pression. Consumers are more attached to objects that project their self-
image. Consumers want to express themselves with and consume pro-
ducts that can communicate their desired utopia or identity. Therefore,
they consume the products that match their self to maintain self-image
and have a higher purchase intention when the product has a high level
of self-expression (Ericksen & Sirgy, 1992). Lee (2016) stated that the
shoe is closely related to the human self-image. Jeon and Kim (2010)
noted that the intrinsic meaning of shoes includes a method of exposing
the pursuit of beauty, manifestation of identity, and the object of col-
lection. That is why shoes are a means of self-disclosure and a product
that reveals self-expression.
Conspicuousness means that an individual is proud to be seen and
displays something larger than real. In a modern society as consump-
tion propensity changes, the main reason for conspicuous consumption
is because the act itself is a frequent occurrence in everyday life, and it
can satisfy the desire to distinguish one from others through the con-
sumption of prodigious products (Park & Park, 2014). Conspicuous
consumption becomes more prominent in situations where the products
can be seen by others.
Investment spending means consuming LES to create a price range
above the list price during the resale process. Objects become symbols
when they have an exchange value rather than a use-value, and they
have a symbolic value as well as a real value. In particular, the longer
the original shoe model, the more expensive it is and the greater the
likelihood it is treated as a luxury good. Also, enthusiasts purchase
shoes not for the purpose of wearing them but for collecting them, so
everything such as the tag and state of preservation of the original
H. Chae, et al.
shoebox is used as a measure of the price (Han, 2004). There is also a
'Sneakerhead' online, a consumer type that collects limited footwear for
business purposes. Sneaker data company, Campless, estimates that the
market size of Sneakerhead is about $12B, and as the resale price of LES
is rising, more and more consumers are considering the LES as a means
of investment.
2.3. Perceived value
Perceived value is the assessment of the consumer's utility for a
particular product (Zeithaml, 1988). Consumers perceive the value of
the same product differently according to their circumstances (Cooper,
1988) and appreciate the value of the product during the purchase
process, leading to purchase behavior (Patterson & Spreng, 1997)
Among the people who like shoes, there is the phenomenon of buying
the information that sells the LES or buying the activities using the
information such as the surprise sale as ‘sneaker game’ and enjoying the
process of purchasing as well as purchasing itself. Schindler (1998) also
argues that it tries to win economic and psychological compensation by
winning the tacit buy competition. Particularly, consumers who want to
purchase LEP for their own use can achieve their intended use by using
other substitutes even if they fail to purchase (Seo, 2017), but con-
sumers who are collecting or reselling cannot replace other products.
Therefore, purchase intention according to perceived value will be
higher than consumer intention.
Sheth, Newman, and Gross (1991) said that consumers' perceived
value has a significant effect on the purchasing process. Sweeney and
Soutar (2001) studied the perceived value in a multidimensional
manner, focusing on the overall assessment of the product rather than a
single dimension of the customer's interests and risk relationships with
the product. The perceived value is defined as the functional value for
the price, functional value for the quality, emotional value, and social
value. In an article using the scale developed in the precedent study, the
perceived value is modified to suit the research theme (Ju & Koo,
2014).
In this study, the perceived value was modified to emotional, social,
and economical values according to the subject of LES.
The functional value for the quality was lost. This is because the LES
are aesthetically pleasing, and consumers tend to perceive that rare LEP
quality is higher, regardless of the actual quality of the LES product
(Balachander & Stock, 2009). Consumers also think that good products
are generally scarce, and consequently, rare products are of good
quality (Seo, 2017)
Consumers have emotional feelings about the overall evaluation and
judgment of a product or service, and the value that consumers feel at
this time is called emotional value (Park & Ryu, 2014). Emotional value
is the utility of a particular emotional state to the product and can
change depending on the consumer's experience and subjectivity. LEP
buyers have shown an attachment to a LEP or continued use of a LEP
brand, and have enjoyed the purchase process (Hwang & Koh, 2016).
Consumers can strengthen their social self-concept through products,
and these social values can strengthen their status to others through
purchasing or using products (Hur & Ahn, 2009). Economical value is
the ratio between the price paid and the actual price of the product
(Sweeney & Soutar, 2001). And economical value is measured by the
cost, time, effort, and all exogenous and endogenous attributes of the
consumer when purchasing the goods (Zeithaml, 1988). LEP has an
economical value higher than real value due to scarcity (Ju & Koo,
2014).
2.4. Brand trust
Brand trust is achieved through mutual experiences and activities
and is a necessary concept for a successful relationship between a
company and its customers (Anderson & Narus, 1990). Choi (2012)
defined trust as a belief where the consumer's chosen store will bring
400
Journal of Business Research 120 (2020) 398–406
the best benefit to them.
Brand trust increases the likelihood that consumers will be able to
choose their products (Erdem & Swait, 2004). Even if there is a lack of
rationality in the transaction relationship, maintaining and trading
continuously creates long-term friendly relations between suppliers and
consumers (Kim, 2005).
2.5. Purchase intention
Purchase intention is a personal, conscious effort to purchase a
brand and a reflection of the purchase plan of the consumer (Aaker,
1997). The purchase intention is highly correlated with the actual
purchase behavior of consumers and is a possible index and predictor
that the intention of the consumer leads to purchase behavior (Ajzen &
Fishbein, 1977; Davidson & Jaccard, 1979). Besides, purchasing beha-
vior affects consumers' efforts and it is important to predict them (Kim,
2018).
2.6. Types of scarcity
The scarcity message is an urgent message used to intensify the
psychological pressure of the consumer and increase the desire to
purchase the product (Lynn, 1991). The scarcity message is used as a
strategy to stimulate consumers' purchasing desires by informing con-
sumers about the availability of a specific product is limited (Lynn,
1989). Also, limited purchasing opportunities increase psychological
pressure and enhance purchase intention. (Bozzolo & Brock, 1992;
Lynn, 1991). Increase the perceived value of products (Brock &
Brannon, 1992), which increases consumer desire for products.
As such, LEP is the marketing strategy that makes the most use of
scarcity messages that increase scarcity value by limiting the number of
products or sales hours (Lynn, 1991). Among them, when the quantity-
limited message is applied to a product that is used for a high-use
consumer product or a public place, the purchase intention of the
consumer is high, and when the time-limited message is applied to a
product for reminding a one (Seo, 2017). Therefore, LES products that
are close to consumer goods are products that use quantity-limited
messages.
LEP of shoes are separated into two types: a single model released
once in a limited quantity and a repetitive recreation of a model’s color
and shape. For example, a product called Air Humara, a collaboration
product of ‘Nike’ and ‘Supreme’ was launched only once in March 2015
and limited to 1000 families. Meanwhile, Nike released Jordan 3 Black
Cement as a LEP six times since 1988. In this study, the sales type of LES
was defined as ‘OLE’ and ‘RLE’.
3. Research model
3.1. Hypothesis development
3.1.1. Characteristics of LES and perceived value
According to a study by Hwang and Koh (2016), consumers of LEP is
more influenced by emotional factors and third-party perceptions. Ac-
cording to a study by Park (2011), the characteristics of LEP make
consumers feel worthier of the LEP, stimulate their psychological desire
to own the products. In addition, LEP is a highly engaging product that
takes a long time for a consumer to make a purchase decision and
undergo a complex evaluation process, and consumers tend to perceive
more value when purchasing these more engaging products (Yang &
Park, 2017). Therefore, a consumer’s perceived value may change ac-
cording to the characteristics of the LES, suggesting the following hy-
pothesis.
H1. The characteristics of the LES will be positively related to perceived
value.
H. Chae, et al.
3.1.2. Perceived value, brand trust, and purchase intention
The high perceived value of a product affects consumers' brand trust
(Kim & Cho, 2017). The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect
of the perceived value of consumers on brand trust.
H2. Perceived value will be positively related to brand trust.
Perceived value as a criterion of purchase judgment in the purchase
process of the consumer is important (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001). Lee
and Im (2008) found that consumers’ purchase intentions were greater
as the number of positive emotional value perceptions increased, and
consumers' purchase intentions decreased as the number of negative
emotional value perceptions increased.
Therefore, it is necessary to closely examine the perceived value to
understand consumer buying behavior (Kang, Noh, & Kang, 2016).
H3. Perceived value will be positively related to purchase intention.
3.1.3. Brand trust and purchase intention
In general, trust is known to be a predictor of purchase behavior
(Doney & Cannon, 1997). Kim, Lee, and Kim (2004) confirmed that
purchase intention is usually influenced by brand trust. Brand trust can
have a positive effect on purchase intention and buying, reducing the
risk of uncertainty and inducing purchasing (Kim & Kim, 2017).
H4. Brand trust will be positively related to purchase intention.
3.1.4. Moderate effect of scarcity message type
In general, consumers positively evaluate scarcity messages because
purchasing is restricted. There, however, are cases where the response
of the consumer is negative as the scarcity message becomes obvious.
This is called the backfire effect of scarcity messages (Park & Na, 2008).
When the frequency of scarcity messages increase from continual pro-
duct sales, it creates an inconsistent consumer expectation of the scar-
city. Therefore, consumers have a contrasting effect on scarcity mes-
sages, and evaluation is also likely to be negative. The purpose of this
study is to present the type of scarcity message as a control variable
closely related to the purchase intention. The type of scarcity message
presented to the consumer can affect the purchase intent. It is also
possible to predict whether the perceived value of the consumer may
vary depending on the type of scarcity message in the LES. Therefore,
this study divides the types of scarcity messages into OLE and RLE and
investigates the differences in purchase intention.
H5. Depending on the type of scarcity message, the structural
relationship of each factor will differ.
3.2. Research model
The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of the char-
acteristics of LES on perceived value, brand trust, and purchase inten-
tion through the above hypotheses. Also, the type of scarcity message is
set as a modulator variable. Therefore, the research model of this study
is set as shown in Fig. 1.
3.3. Stimulus setting
In this study, visual stimuli were divided into scarcity types one-
time and repeated. We conducted two preliminary studies to select the
image stimulus for this study. In the first survey, ten consumers who
had more than five LES purchasing experiences were shown a type of
scarcity message, and shoe images suitable for the type were selected.
Then, we chose a final image for each type of the selected shoes by
measuring how they appealed to five experts in the shoe industry.
According to a previous study (Choi, 2014), a brand logo affects pur-
chasing intention. Thus, 30 students who participated in Footwear
Young Lions, a part of a K Univ at Busan. Creative Korea (CK) project
401
Journal of Business Research 120 (2020) 398–406
majoring shoes, were divided into two groups to confirm whether the
presence of a brand logo (Nike) affects the purchasing intention. As a
result, it was shown that there was a significant influence when the
brand logo was present. So the brand logo was excluded, and the sti-
mulus was set.
3.4. Data collection and analysis
The survey was conducted using questionnaires based on the pre-
vious research for 20–30 potential or actual buyers of LES by using
online Google Forms. A total of 460 participants (229 repeated and 231
one-time) participated in the survey. The data collection period was
from March 10, 2018, to May 2, 2018. The questionnaire of this study
examined the effects of the characteristics of the LES on perceived
value, brand trust, and purchase intention, so it suggested uniqueness,
investment, and self-expression as characteristics of the LES. Perceived
value is presented as emotional value, social value, and economical
value. The previous study used the reliability scale, and it was mea-
sured by the 7-point Likert scale. For the perceived value, a related
study (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001) used a total of 15 items to supplement
the appropriate items. The LES product characteristic factors were used
to add 26 items to the questionnaire of the related previous study (Lee &
Park, 2007). The items about brand trust were supplemented by nine
items from the previous study (Reast, 2005). Purchasing intention was
revised to fit this study by referring to the six items of the related
previous study (Engle, 1982)
4. Results
4.1. Factor analysis and reliability and validity analysis
Before the hypothesis test, the characteristics of LES was analyzed
by exploratory factor analysis, and the reliability of each factor was
examined through confirmatory factor analysis.
There isn’t the previous study about LES. Therefore, we analyzed the
factors of LES to utilize it in this study. Based on the previous researches
on LEP (Hwang & Koh, 2016; Ju & Koo, 2014), we divided the char-
acteristics of LES into 5 types (scarcity, uniqueness, investment, visi-
bility, self-expression).
As a result of the factor analysis, the product characteristic of the
independent variable LES were classified into three types: uniqueness,
self-expression, and investment. In this study, it is considered that there
is academic significance by closely analyzing the characteristics of LES.
Three types of characteristics were applied to the model of this study.
Confirmatory factor analysis was performed to verify reliability and
validity. The results of this study are as follows. First, the characteristics
of the independent variable LES are extracted by factor analysis and the
parameters such as emotional value, economical value, and social
value. And we conducted confirmatory factor analysis on the ques-
tionnaire items of the dependent variables, brand trust, and purchase
intention. The analysis used AMOS 23.0 and the results are shown in
Table 1 below.
The main model fit factor is χ2 = 1084.729, df = 478, χ2/
df = 2.030, GFI = 0.878, IFI = 0.969, TLI = 0.960, CFI = 0.969,
RMSEA = 0.047. The general goodness of fit index (GFI) is based on
χ2/df of 3.0 or less, IFI, TLI, CFI value of 0.9 or more, and RMSEA value
of 0.1 or less so, all values are met. Therefore, to verify the convergence
validity of the measurement model, the significance of factor load,
average variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability (CR) were
confirmed. In general, it can be said that the discriminant validity is
secured when the AVE value is 0.5 or more and the CR value is 0.7 or
more. In this study, the CR value of the investment factor among shoe-
LEP characteristics is below the reference value. However, since all the
factors are satisfied, it can be said that the discriminant validity of each
factor is secured at the level of compliance.
H. Chae, et al. Journal of Business Research 120 (2020) 398–406

Fig. 1. Conceptual research model.

4.2. Hypothesis test
In order to verify the hypothesis of this study, the path analysis was
performed through AMOS 23.0. The main model fit factor is
χ2 = 864.989, df = 434, χ2/df = 1.993, GFI = 0.900, IFI = 0.970,
TLI = 0.961, CFI = 0.970, RMSEA = 0.047. The results show that the
standardized path coefficients of the causality model are shown in
Fig. 1, and the verification results are shown in Table 2.
4.2.1. The effect of characteristics of LES on perceived value
The effect of three attributes (uniqueness, investment, and self-ex-
pression) of the LES on the perceived value type (emotional, econom-
ical, and social) was examined. The uniqueness characteristic is the
emotional (β = 0.363, t = 0.067, p < .001), social (β = 0.32,
t = 0.066, p < .001), and economical (β = 0.231, t = 0.06,
p < .001) values. All of the three types showed significant effects.
This supports the result that consumers feel the characteristics of the

Table 1
Results of confirmatory factor analysis.
Variables Factors Questionnaire Standardized Factor loading AVE CR (Cronbach’sα)

Characteristics of Limited Edition Shoe Uniqueness 1 Own design 0.722 0.573 0.797 (0.908)
3 Feature 0.826
4 Unique 0.81
5 Different 0.833
6 Distinct 0.799
9 Feeling less quantity 0.51
Investment 22 Buy before others 0.81 0.618 0.632 (0.9)
24 Close meaning to investment 0.886
25 Consider future asset values 0.77
27 First purpose is economic benefit 0.664
Self-Expression 13 Expresses ego 0.81 0.662 0.723 (0.912)
14 Reflection of individuality 0.727
15 Image improvement 0.868
17 Express me 0.844

Perceived Values Emotional Value 1 Differentiate me 0.87 0.763 0.781 (0.939)

3 Favorite stuff 0.878
4 Pleasure from possession 0.882
5 Want to own 0.866
Social Value 11 Make me look different 0.886 0.791 0.820 (0.938)
12 Got social recognition 0.914
13 Social preference 0.876
14 Good impression 0.883
Economical Value 6 Reasonable price 0.883 0.740 0.803 (0.923)
7 Cost-effectiveness 0.923
8 Affordable product 0.861
9 Commensurate with the price 0.822

Brand Trust 3 If occur problem no repeat 0.894 0.779 0.913 (0.944)

6 Specialized skill and know-how 0.937
7 Good quality 0.79
8 Experience like friend 0.904

Purchase Intention 1 Required product 1.141 0.873 0.809 (0.946)

2 Intend to seeking information 0.895
5 Try to purchase 0.877
6 Give priority 0.788

Model Fit χ2 = 1084.729, df = 478, χ2/df = 2.030, GFI = 0.878, IFI = 0.969, TLI = 0.960, CFI = 0.969, RMSEA = 0.047

402
H. Chae, et al. Journal of Business Research 120 (2020) 398–406

Table 2
Hypotheses testing results.
Hypotheses Standardized loading(β) S.E C.R Results

H1 Uniqueness → Emotional Value 0.363 0.067 5.557*** Supported

Investment → Economical Value 0.823 0.061 13.225*** Supported
Self-Expression → Social Value 0.109 0.061 1.68 Not Supported
Uniqueness → Economical Value 0.231 0.060 3.909*** Supported
Uniqueness → Social Value 0.32 0.066 5.024*** Supported
Investment → Emotional Value 0.671 0.058 10.471*** Supported
Investment → Social Value 0.611 0.062 10.056*** Supported
Self-Expression → Economical Value 0.124 0.070 1.99*** Supported
Self-Expression → Emotional Value 0.267 0.037 3.88* Supported

H2 Emotional Value → Brand Trust 0.113 0.041 3.693*** Supported

Economical Value → Brand Trust 0.269 0.058 6.891*** Supported
Social Value → Brand Trust 0.247 0.052 6.868*** Supported

H3 Emotional Value → Purchase Intention 0.285 0.052 6.664*** Supported

Economical Value → Purchase Intention 0.578 0.055 10.817*** Supported
Social Value → Purchase Intention 0.141 0.073 3.145** Supported

H4 Brand Trust → Purchase Intention 0.069 0.030 2.366** Supported

Model Fit χ2 = 864.989, df = 434, χ2/df = 1.993, GFI = 0.900, IFI = 0.970, TLI = 0.961, CFI = 0.970, RMSEA = 0.047

LES as a unique characteristic in a previous study on the characteristics
of the buyers of LEP (Hwang & Koh, 2016). In addition, the perceived
value of investment, emotional (β = 0.671, t = 0.058, p < .001),
social (β = 0.611, t = 0.062, p < .001), economical (β = 0.823,
t = 0.061, p < .001), and it has a significant impact on all three types.
This demonstrates the results of the previous study (Hwang & Koh,
2016), in which LEP of shoes is considered to be one of the most cost-
effective media in recent years and that the LEP is worth more than the
list price.
Finally, self-expression was found to affect emotional value
(β = 0.267, t = 0.037, p < .05) and economical value (β = 0.124,
t = 0.070, p < .001) but, it didn’t affect social values (β = 0.109,
t = 0.061, p > .05). This result is consistent with the study of
Simmons and Lynch (1991), which explains that self-expression occurs
when product and self-image match and consumers are more influenced
by consumers' images than product.
4.2.2. The effect of perceived value on brand trust and purchase intention
The effect of perceived value on brand trust was found as emotional
(β = 0.113, t = 0.041, p < .001), social (β = 0.247, t = 0.052,
p < .001) and economical (β = 0.269, t = 0.058, p < .001) values.
All three types showed significant effects as shown. This is consistent
with the study of Hwang (2016) that consumers' perceived value affects
brand trust. The emotional (β = 0.285, t = 0.052, p < .001), social
(β = 0.141, t = 0.073, p < .01) and economical (β = 0.578,
t = 0.055, p < .001) values showed significant influence on purchase
intention. This is similar to the results of Ju and Koo (2014) that con-
sumers' perceived value affects purchase intention. Brand trust affects
purchase intention (β = 0.069, t = 0.030, p < .01). According to Choi
(2014), it is explained that higher the brand trust and this study also
confirmed the results.
4.2.3. The effect of brand trust on purchase intention
Brand trust has affects purchase intention (β = 0.069, t = 0.030,
p < .01). Choi (2014) insists that higher brand trust is more influence
on purchase intention. This study also confirmed the results (see Fig. 2).
4.2.4. Moderating effect of type of scarcity message
AMOS 23.0 was used for multiple regression analysis to investigate
the effect of the scarcity message on the results of this study. According
to the release type of LES, it was divided into OLE and RLE, and it was
confirmed whether there is a difference between the two groups. The
results are shown in Table 3 below.
Among the characteristics of the LES, investment influenced only
emotional (Δx2 = 3.823, p < .001) and social (Δx2 = 7.111,
p < .001) value by two types of scarcity messages. The reason for
affecting emotional value is the same as previous studies (Kim, Lee,
Choi, & Park, 2006), in which consumers get pleasure through mental
accounting, which is a process of thinking about product investment
when purchasing a product.
5. Conclusion
This study examines the effects of LES product characteristics on
perceived value, brand trust, and purchase intention. Among the LEP of
the fashion industry, shoes have various product characteristics, and
research has focused on active releases, such as collaboration and re-
release of existing products.
As a result of the study, the characteristics were identified and
classified into two types: OLE with a very limited number of products
and RLE in which the same type of product was continuously released
with a difference in raw materials. The results of this study are as fol-
lows.
First, the various characteristics of the LES demonstrated unique-
ness, self-expression, and investment. Uniqueness derives from a new
combination of colors or introducing a model with a distinctive dif-
ference from the general model through design modification. Self-ex-
pression indicates the means of projecting and exposing self-image. This
is consistent with Kim et al. (2001) analysis of the fact that shoes have
been used to reveal consumers’ identities because consumers purchase
shoes revealing their true selves. Consumers also view LES as invest-
ment goods. Currently. There are consumers for resale of LES.
Second, the characteristics of the LES affect perceived value, but
self-expression didn’t affect social value. This means that LES can ex-
press more self-efficacy than general shoes. Because the general pur-
chaser demonstrates their social position or status through shoes (Kim
et al., 2001), the buyer of the LES wants to reveal their self-image rather
than social image by matching the image represented by the shoe with
their self-image. As a result, LES consumers are more interested in ex-
pressing themselves through products rather than receiving social re-
cognition. Companies should focus on matching the image of the pro-
duct with the image of the target consumer before launching the LES.
Third, there was a significant relationship between perceived value,
brand trust, and purchase intention. LES were closely related to per-
ceived value, brand trust, and purchase intention. The social value,
economical value, and emotional value that are presented as perceived
value in the launch of the LES should be considered. In addition, the
brand trust that launches the LES affects the purchase intention, so

403
H. Chae, et al. Journal of Business Research 120 (2020) 398–406

Fig. 2. Hypotheses testing results.

brands should consider the factors that affect brand trust as well as
products.
Fourth, the structural relationship is affected depending on the type
of shoe release, which also affects the degree of influence. This is be-
cause consumers feel differently about OLE that is released only once
and RLE that is released many times. The results are summarized below.
Moderating effects were found in the path from investment to
emotional and social values. It was confirmed that the effect was
greater in RLE. Inevitability affects emotional value because it is easier
to invest in RLE than OLE. In the case of OLE, reseller price is more
unstable and harder to anticipate because it is event-specific and has
many launches. On the other hand, the price range of RLE is predictable
when it is re-released because of empirical evidence from the previous
release. In addition, because each sale gets a lot of attention from SNS,
the Internet community, and similar, the risk of resale investment can
be predicted. In the case of the path to investment and social value, RLE
spread easily to the Internet and SNS due to frequent resale, so it is easy
for others to understand LES. By discovering the shoes through the
extraordinary interest of others, purchasers of RLE can feel a strong
social value.
When the brand trust is linked to the purchase intention, RLE has
more influence than OLE. RLE shoes have been released because the
existing LES have been steadily receiving positive feedback. For this
reason, it is expected that RLE won’t lead to inferior purchase such as a
purchase of poor quality shoes or those with a poor response, so there is
a lower burden of risk and this can be linked with purchase intention.
Therefore, the sports fashion brand should decide the release type ac-
cording to the consumer and the select the type that can satisfy the
value that the target consumer is satisfied with the characteristics of the
product.
This study has the following implications. The LES’ features are
uniqueness, investment, and self-expression. As a result, consumers are
more unique with rare products and attribute more value to uniqueness.
This is consistent with the previous study, which shows that the pro-
pensity to pursue a unique attribute influences attitudes toward fashion
products and purchase intention (Boo & Han, 2016; Jo & Lee, 2015).
And Companies should select the type of release based on which
characteristics are strongly associated with these findings. The reason is
if the backfire effect is bigger for consumers as the product continues to
be released, the meaning of LEP may be diminished. In addition, even
more, uniqueness is felt in OLE, so even if brands try to launch a new re-
released model, consumers will favor OLE. However, the impact of

Table 3
Multi group analysis.
No. Path One-Time Type Repeated Type x2 Δx 2

γ1 Uniqueness → Emotional Value 0.374 0.473 1550.497 0.445

γ2 Investment → Economical Value 0.832 1.04 1551.442 1.39
γ3 Self-Expression → Social Value 0.24 −0.196 1556.319 6.267
γ4 Uniqueness → Economical Value 0.241 0.342 1550.586 0.534
γ5 Uniqueness → Social Value 0.233 0.485 1553.05 2.998
γ6 Investment → Emotional Value 0.623 0.944 1553.875 3.823***
γ7 Investment → Social Value 0.494 0.934 1557.163 7.111***
γ8 Self-Expression → Economical Value 0.073 −0.032 1550.412 0.36
γ9 Self-Expression → Emotional Value 0.209 0.137 1550.223 0.171
γ10 Emotional Value → Brand Trust 0.092 0.13 1550.371 0.319
γ11 Economical Value → Brand Trust 0.343 0.183 1550.104 0.052
γ12 Social Value → Brand Trust 0.177 0.305 1553.318 3.266
γ13 Emotional Value → Purchase Intention 0.283 0.304 1550.572 0.52
γ14 Economical Value → Purchase Intention 0.614 0.531 1552.306 2.254
γ15 Social Value → Purchase Intention 0.205 −0.008 1554.563 4.511
γ16 Brand Trust → Purchase Intention 0.021 0.149 1555.029 4.977***

404
H. Chae, et al.
purchasing through brand trust is greater than OLE. Brands that want to
use LEP strategy should consider not only focusing on the launch of LES
but also on what perceived value they can meet.
When brand lunch LES, they will have to release LEP to satisfy
brand trust and customer value as well as profit. In addition, if com-
panies use different directions for the two launches of one-time release
or repeated release, businesses will be able to attract and retain cus-
tomers on a continuous basis.
This study is important because it reveals meaningful effects on the
perceived value, brand trust, and purchase intention of LES character-
istics, but further study is needed due to the limitations.
First, this study only included one product of OLE. However, LEP
type was compared with the release period and the number of release
times, so if analytical research is conducted, important results in dif-
ferent directions will be obtained.
Second, brand trust and purchase intention were studied in a single
dimension, but if they are constructed in a multidimensional manner,
different results can be obtained. Therefore, it is necessary to consider
this point in future studies.
Third, in order to improve the accuracy of the study, the brand logo
was removed and the preliminary survey was carried out on the majors
of the footwear, but the individual experiences such as the brand ex-
perience of the subjects and the degree of desire for uniqueness weren’t
completely controlled. In future studies, it will be possible to obtain
more meaningful results if more stringent personal variables are con-
trolled.
Fourth, this study sets Korea as a target country by referring to the
report that the shoe industry is growing in North America, Europe and
Asia, and the report that the country which purchases the most LEP is
Korea. Based on the research data of Lee, Cheon, and Kwak (2016),
after the introduction of smartphones and the spread of SNS, the actual
buyers, 20–30 s, were selected as research subjects. However, shoes are
a global fashion item and needed by people of all ages. Because it is an
item, future studies will be able to give the implications for the direc-
tion of LEP to see the difference by expanding the subjects to all oc-
cupations and ages.
References
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3),
347–356.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and
review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 888.
Anderson, J. C., & Narus, J. A. (1990). A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm
working partnerships. Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 42–58.
Balachander, S., & Stock, A. (2009). Limited edition products: When and when not to offer
them. Marketing Science, 28(2), 336–355.
Boo, S. H., & Han, K. M. (2016). The effect of financial deprivation and scarcity message
on purchase intention. Korean Journal of Consumer and Advertising Psychology, 17(4),
619–643.
Bozzolo, A. M., & Brock, T. C. (1992). Unavailability effects on message processing: A
theoretical analysis an empirical test. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13(1),
93–101.
Brock, T. C., & Brannon, L. A. (1992). Liberalization of commodity theory. Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, 13(1), 135–144.
Choi, S. H. (2012). The effects of brand trust dimensions on consumers' economic and
social loyalty behavior. Consumption Culture Study, 15(2), 171–188.
Choi, D. H. (2014). The effect of a brand logo on a brand trust and purchase intention.
Journal of Foodservice Management Society of Korea, 17(4), 125–141.
Cooper, R. G. (1988). The new product process: A decision guide for management. Journal
of Marketing Management, 3(3), 238–255.
Davidson, A. R., & Jaccard, J. J. (1979). Variables that moderate the attitude–behavior
relation: Results of a longitudinal survey. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
37(8), 1364.
Doney, P. M., & Cannon, J. P. (1997). An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller
relationships. The Journal of Marketing, 61(2), 35–51.
Engle, R. F. (1982). Autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity with estimates for the
variance of United Kingdom inflation. Econometrica, 50(4), 987–1007.
Eom, K. H., & Lee, Y. I. N. (2012). Research reports: A study on development of sports
wear product design through collaboration. Journal of the Korean Society of Design
Culture, 18(3), 274–283.
Erdem, T., & Swait, J. (2004). Brand credibility, brand consideration, and choice. Journal
of Consumer Research, 31(1), 191–198.
Ericksen, M. K., & Sirgy, M. J. (1992). Employed females' clothing preference, self-image
405
Journal of Business Research 120 (2020) 398–406
congruence, and career anchorage. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(5),
408–422.
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope
with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1–31.
Gierl, H., Plantsch, M., & Schweidler, J. (2008). Scarcity effects on sales volume in retail.
The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 18(1), 45–61.
Graeff, T. R. (1996). Using promotional messages to manage the effects of brand and self-
image on brand evaluations. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 13(3), 4–18.
Han, S. M. (2004). Meaning for consumption of NIKE brand. Journal of Social Research,
19(1), 105–127.
Hur, W. M., & Ahn, J. H. (2009). The empirical research on relationship of consumption
value, satisfaction, trust, loyalty of green product in elderly consumer. Journal of the
Korean Gerontological Society, 29(1), 195–213.
Hwang, Y. J., & Lee, S. B. (2016). The effects of brand image, quality level, and perceived
value on brand credibility and purchase intention: A comparative study between PB
lunch boxes from convenience stores and brand lunch boxes. International Journal of
Tourism and Hospitality Research, 30(11), 199–217.
Hwang, K. Y., & Koh, A. R. (2016). A qualitative research on purchase decision-making
process by LEP fashion consumers. Family and Environment Research, 54(6), 599–610.
Jacoby, J., Olson, J. C., & Haddock, R. A. (1971). Price, brand name, and product com-
position characteristics as determinants of perceived quality. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 55(6), 570.
Jeon, M. Y., & Kim, R. D. (2010). Why do people wear shoes? : An exploratory study on
the hierarchical structure of the meanings in products through the network theory.
Consumption Culture Study, 13(3), 31–51.
Jo, A., & Lee, Y. J. (2015). The effects of consumer value and conspicuous consumption
tendency on the attitude toward and purchase intention of fashion cause-related
marketing products. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles, 39(1),
43–54.
Ju, S. H., & Koo, D. M. (2014). Effect of the characteristics of art collaboration products on
customers perceived value and product purchasing intention. Journal of Marketing
Studies, 22(2), 101–123.
Kang, S. H., Noh, M. J., & Kang, B. H. (2016). Consumers’ perception, perceived values,
and responses on corporate social responsibility activities. Korea Business Review,
20(4), 205–229.
Kelman, H. C. (1953). Attitude change as a function of response restriction. Human
Relations, 6(3), 185–214.
Kim, E. H. (2005). The forming factors of long-term orientation in foodservice franchise
system. International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 19(3), 109–124.
Kim, Y. S. (2018). The effects of selection attributes of convenience store HMR foods on
perceived value and purchase intention. Journal of the Table & Food Coordinate, 13(1),
75–94.
Kim, J. H., & Baek, M. J. (2014). What scarcity message is more attractive, ‘Almost sold
out’ or ‘LEP’?: Focused on the affiliation motivation fulfilled or unfulfilled with in-
group. Korean Journal of Advertising, 25(3), 7–32.
Kim, H. J., & Cho, S. H. (2017). The effect of trust and authenticity on a consumer’s
complaining behavior and repurchase intention in a discount department store.
Journal of Product Research, 35(2), 117–125.
Kim, M. J., Choi, H. S., & Lee, H. J. (2001). A study on the history of western shoes and
their aesthetic value. Journal of the Korean Society of Costume, 51(5), 157–173.
Kim, J. H., & Kim, D. H. (2017). The relationship between brand image, personality,
brand trust and consumer behavior. Journal of the Korean Society for Wellness, 12(3),
209–226.
Kim, D. C., Lee, Y. J., Choi, W. W., & Park, J. W. (2006). Individual investors mental
accounting: Asymmetric realization of gains and losses. Korean Management Review,
35(2), 671–692.
Kim, K. S., Lee, S. D., & Kim, J. Y. (2004). The effect of trust toward parent firm on the
trust for its internet shopping mall and on purchase intention – comparison of ex-
perienced customers and non-experienced prospects. Journal of Channel and Retailing,
9(4), 85–114.
Lee, J. Y. (2016). A study on desire embedded in shoes and eroticism based on Slavoj
Zizek’s desire theory. Bulletin of Korean Society of Basic Design & Art, 17(6), 423–436.
Lee, S. Y., Cheon, Y. J., & Kwak, K. T. (2016). Social big data mining research of Korean
cultural consumers – An analysis based on theory of taste eclecticism and collective
emotion. Journal of Cultural Policy, 30(1), 204–226.
Lee, J. H., & Im, J. E. (2008). The effect of perceived justice on post complaint behavior in
the internet open market-focused on the moderating effect of fashion involvement.
Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles, 32(9), 1427–1437.
Lee, S. M., & Park, S. H. (2007). A study on the effect of clothes purchasing intention
between personality type and shopping orientation. Journal of the Korean Society of
Knit Design, 5(1), 67–74.
Lynn, M. (1989). Scarcity effects on desirability: Mediated by assumed expressiveness.
Journal of Economic Psychology, 10(2), 257–274.
Lynn, M. (1991). Scarcity effects on value: A quantitative review of the commodity theory
literature. Psychology & Marketing, 8(1), 43–57.
Park, H. H. (2011). The effectiveness of scarcity message type on consumer attitude:
Focused on moderating role of involvement and self-monitoring in online cosmetic
advertising. Journal of Marketing Studies, 19(1), 29–47.
Park, J. C., & Na, J. H. (2008). The effects of intention inferences on scarcity effect:
Moderating effect of scarcity type, scarcity depth. Journal of Global Academy of
Marketing Science, 18(4), 197–217.
Park, H. J., & Park, S. H. (2014). The effects of beauty involvement on self-satisfaction by
conspicuous consumption tendency groups. Fashion & Textile Research Journal, 16(1),
137–144.
Park, H. J., & Ryu, K. S. (2014). The effect of restaurant service quality on customers’
perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty in casual restaurants. Korean Journal of
H. Chae, et al.
Hospitality & Tourism, 17(5), 133–156.
Patterson, P. G., & Spreng, R. A. (1997). Modelling the relationship between perceived
value, satisfaction and repurchase intentions in a business-to-business, services con-
text: An empirical examination. International Journal of Service Industry Management,
8(5), 414–434.
Reast, J. D. (2005). Brand trust and brand extension acceptance: The relationship. Journal
of Product & Brand Management, 14(1), 4–13.
Schindler, R. M. (1998). Consequences of perceiving oneself as responsible for obtaining a
discount: Evidence for smart-shopper feelings. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(4),
371–392.
Seo, S. Y. (2017). The interaction effect of scarcity message and purpose to buy on the
special edition products evaluation. Korean Management Review, 46(1), 267–286.
Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., & Gross, B. L. (1991). Why we buy what we buy: A theory of
consumption values. Journal of Business Research, 22(2), 159–170.
Shin, D. H., & Lee, K. A. (2019). The Influences that satisfaction of deficiency needs exerts
on social media loyalty the interaction between the mediating effect of social media
characteristics and anonymity. Formative Media Studies, 22(1), 22–34.
Silverstein, M. J., & Fiske, N. (2003). Luxury for the masses. Harvard Business Review,
81(4), 48–57.
Simmons, C. J., & Lynch, J. G., Jr (1991). Inference effects without inference making?
Effects of missing information on discounting and use of presented information.
Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 477–491.
406
Journal of Business Research 120 (2020) 398–406
Snyder, C. R., & Fromkin, H. L. (1977). Abnormality as a positive characteristic: The
development and validation of a scale measuring need for uniqueness. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 86(5), 518.
Suri, R., & Monroe, K. B. (2003). The effects of time constraints on consumers' judgments
of prices and products. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(1), 92–104.
Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2001). Consumer perceived value: The development of a
multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 203–220.
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.
Yang, X. P., & Park, C. W. (2017). A study on the influence of optional factors on per-
ceived values and their implications on the perceived values: Focus on the char-
acteristics of the customer and the adjustment effect of the product type. Journal of
Product Research, 35(6), 151–166.
Yeo, J. S., & Park, J. W. (2004). Interactive effects of breadth of parent brand and product
category similarity of an extension on attitudes toward the extension and parent
brand beliefs. Korean Management Review, 33(5), 1397–1421.
Yoon, S., Lee, H., & Lee, C. (2014). The effects of limited quantity scarcity message and
product type on the purchase intention: Focusing on the moderating role of reg-
ulatory focus and the mediating role of processing fluency. The Korean Journal of
Advertising, 25(8), 241–268.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end
model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22.