Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpss20

All that glitters is not sold: selling a luxury brand

outside a luxury environment

Moumita Das Gyomlai, Michael Ahearne, Dominique Rouziès & Jean-Noël

Kapferer

To cite this article: Moumita Das Gyomlai, Michael Ahearne, Dominique Rouziès & Jean-Noël
Kapferer (2021): All that glitters is not sold: selling a luxury brand outside a luxury environment,
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, DOI: 10.1080/08853134.2021.1948341

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08853134.2021.1948341

Published online: 22 Jul 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rpss20
JOURNAL OF PERSONAL SELLING & SALES MANAGEMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/08853134.2021.1948341

All that glitters is not sold: selling a luxury brand outside a luxury
environment
Moumita Das Gyomlaia, Michael Ahearneb, Dominique Rouzièsc and Jean-Noël Kapfererd
a
College of Business, Ohio University, 1 Ohio University Drive, Athens, Ohio, 45701, USA; bC.T. Bauer College of Business, University of
Houston, Melcher Hall 4750, Calhoun Road Houston, Texas, 77204, USA; cHEC Paris, 1 Avenue de la Libération, Jouy-en-Josas, 78351, France;
d
INSEEC U, 43 Quai de Grenelle, Paris, 75015, France

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

To reach new clientele, luxury brands make strategic extensions into new product categories with Received 22 June 2020
more accessible prices resulting in less selective retail strategies that also feature stores not directly Accepted 23 June 2021
operated by the luxury brands (non-DOS). Entering such stores entails challenges as the luxury KEYWORDS
brand steps outside its luxury environment and loses direct control of the salesperson that interacts Luxury brand;
with the end consumer. Furthermore, in a less selective non-DOS, a luxury brand’s sales may get store brand;
impacted due to image discrepancies in the salesperson’s mind, while the luxury brand competes retail sales force;
for the salesperson’s attention. This study proposes several motivational levers that direct the brand identification;
efforts of a salesperson in a less selective non-DOS: the salesperson’s perceived fit between the effort allocation;
brand and the store, the level of identification with the luxury brand, and luxury sensitivity. With perceived fit
empirical support in a unique dataset, the authors show that a salesperson’s perceived fit increases
effort allocation for a luxury brand, and luxury brand identification strengthens it. Counterintuitively,
the results show that a salesperson with a high level of luxury sensitivity is not predisposed to
sell luxury outside a luxury environment. Finally, suggestions for performance implications are
offered to luxury brand managers and retailers selling luxury brands.

Luxury brands differ from other brands as they are deeply
rooted in creating a feeling of exclusivity, elevating the buy-
ers, and maintaining social class differences between the
haves and the have not’s (Kapferer 2014). Luxury brands
need to maintain status and create experiences that confirm
the consumers’ perceptions of class subjectivities (Dion and
Borraz 2017). Luxury retail is a fundamental contact point
with a luxury brand and serves as a tool to achieve this.
Prior research shows that salespeople play a critical role to
influence consumers’ desire to purchase a luxury brand
(Wang, Chow, and Luk 2013; Ward and Dahl 2014), com-
municate the luxury brand’s power (Cervellon and Coudriet
2013), and act as brand ambassadors (Michel, Merk, and
Eroglu 2015). Typically, luxury brands use selective distri-
bution to build perceptions of brand exclusivity and ensure
a heightened experience for the consumer (Derville and
Kapferer 2018). Luxur y brands tend to use
directly-operated-stores (DOS), such as flagship stores, bou-
tique stores, and shop-in-shops nested within a department
store to maximize control over the luxury experience and
over the retail price. In DOS, luxury brands recruit and
train salespeople instrumental to deliver an extraordinary
experience, and to fuel consumers’ “adoration” for the luxury
brand (Dion and Arnould 2011). Dion and Borraz (2017)
examined how a luxury brand manages status and highlight
the active role of salespeople in delivering the luxury expe-
rience from a DOS.
Not much is known about how salespeople influence the
sales of luxury brands from a store that is not directly
operated by the luxury brand (non-DOS) outside the luxury
environment. This issue warrants attention due to two rea-
sons. First, a majority of personal luxury sales (between
50-60%) occur via non-DOS (Bain and Company 2020;
Kering Integrated Report 2019); examples include
multi-brand department stores without brand-specific
shop-in-shops and multi-brand specialty stores (selling
product lines like small leather goods, watches, footwear,
cosmetics, fragrances, food and beverages, etc.). Digital
e-retailers (such as Farfetch, Yoox NAP, MyTheresa, Tmall)
are also examples of non-DOS. Notably, luxury brands can
choose a spectrum of non-DOS partners: for example, part-
nering with two stores of Bergdorf Goodman in New York
represents a highly selective distribution strategy, whereas
partnering with more than 2000 stores of Sunglass Hut
across the world represents a less selective one. Luxury
brands partner with less selective non-DOS to expand their
footprint to reach a wider audience via production and
distribution licenses that provide access to more-accessibly
priced products in less intimidating retail spaces. However,
the less selective non-DOS are not directly controlled by
any of the luxury brands, and the salespeople are neither
affiliated to one specific luxury brand nor trained to deliver
a luxury specific experience. Consequently, to what extent
a salesperson is motivated to sell a particular luxury brand

CONTACT Moumita Das Gyomlai dasm1@ohio.edu

© 2021 Pi Sigma Epsilon National Educational Foundation
2 M. D. GYOMLAI ET AL.
in a less selective multi-brand environment is not clear.
Second, the customer base of luxury sales is changing
(Wharton 2018). According to a 2020 report from Bain &
Co, millennials and Gen Z shoppers are expected to con-
tribute to 150% of the total growth projected from 2019
to 2025. On average, these young luxury customers do not
have unlimited disposable income, but they buy entry-level
luxury products (Wharton 2018). For these customers, less
intimidating multi-brand stores serve as gateways to luxury
brands (Dion and Borraz 2017). At these important gate-
ways to luxury brands, what role does the salesperson play
in selling luxury brands? How may a luxury brand manager
ensure that the luxury brand is supported by a salesperson
in a less selective store that cannot be a DOS? These are
surprising, yet significant, gaps in our understanding of
motivations of salespeople dealing with sales in the personal
luxury industry via less selective non-DOS. The aim of this
paper is to address these gaps.
To explore these questions, our paper uses a unique
perspective by adopting concepts from the consumer
research domain for luxury brands. We draw from literature
on brand extensions to understand the impact of luxury
brand dilution in sales management. Consumer research on
luxury brand dilution has produced valuable insights
(Albrecht et  al. 2013; Bellezza and Keinan 2014; Hagtvedt
and Patrick 2009; Magnoni and Roux 2012). However, we
have limited understanding of how the perception of luxury
brand dilution may impact a salesperson. In this paper, we
shift the lens of enquiry and study the salesperson’s moti-
vation to sell luxury in a less selective non-DOS environ-
ment. We propose and demonstrate the direct effect of
salesperson’s perceived fit between a luxury brand and store
brand on his/her motivation to sell a luxury brand in the
less selective non-DOS. Additionally, we delineate the con-
cept of a salesperson’s identification toward a specific luxury
brand versus a salesperson’s sensitivity toward luxury as a
category in general. We test our hypotheses using field
survey data, combined with objective performance data
obtained from salespeople and their managers employed by
a retail chain that carries luxury and non-luxury brands,
wherein the luxury brands do not control the salespeople
(i.e., a less selective non-DOS). Specifically, we show that
salesperson’s perceived fit between a luxury brand and store
brand has a positive impact on effort allocation toward
selling the luxury brand, and the salesperson’s identification
with the luxury brand strengthens, while salesperson’s luxury
sensitivity mitigates this effect.
This study makes substantial contributions to four dif-
ferent literature streams in marketing (see Table 1). First,
we contribute to the literature on luxury brands by pre-
senting insights on selling luxury brands. Prior research has
focused on consumer-centric issues such as consumers’
choice process in a single- versus multi-brand luxury store
(Desmichel and Kocher 2020), feeling of inauthenticity due
to luxury consumption (Goor et  al. 2020), motivation to
buy luxury brands (Amatulli, Guido, and Nataraajan 2015;
Amatulli et  al. 2018; Eastman et  al. 2018), how luxury
customers signal their status to each other (Han, Nunes,
and Drèze 2010), etc. Studies on selling luxury brands
remain sparse. Notable exceptions are Cervellon and
Coudriet (2013), Merk and Michel (2019), and Moore,
Doherty, and Doyle (2010). With this study, we advance
knowledge on selling luxury brands in a unique context of
luxury sales in a less selective non-DOS environment.
Second, this study adds to the field of luxury retail sales.
Prior research that examined luxury salespeople focused on
DOS. Cervellon and Coudriet (2013) highlight the role of
salespeople in transmitting the power of a luxury brand,
while Merk and Michel (2019) study the negative effects of
salesperson brand identification. Both studies were set up
in flagship stores. We add to this literature by presenting
insights when luxury brands step outside the DOS.
Specifically, we propose and find support for three percep-
tual factors (perceived fit between luxury brand and store
brand, salesperson luxury brand identification, and sales-
person luxury sensitivity) that influence a salesperson to
sell a luxury brand in a less selective non-DOS. Third, this
study makes contributions to luxury brand dilution litera-
ture. While prior research has established consequences of
luxury brand dilution for consumers (Albrecht et  al. 2013;
Bellezza and Keinan 2014; Hagtvedt and Patrick 2009;
Magnoni and Roux 2012), its effects on a salesperson have
not yet been studied. The literature is also silent regarding
the sales performance implications of a salesperson’s per-
ceived risk of luxury brand dilution. We introduce the con-
cept of perceived fit between luxury brand and store brand
to capture the extent of luxury brand dilution as assessed
by the salesperson. Specifically, we propose and find that
when a luxury brand is sold outside the DOS, the sales-
people support the luxury brand in accordance with their
fit assessment between the luxury brand and the store brand
(in this case the less selective non-DOS from where the
luxury brand is sold). Finally, this research contributes to
the brand identification literature. Prior research on
brand-based triggers to drive motivation of sales employees
shows that a salesperson’s brand identification influences
the salesperson’s efforts to support the brand (i.e.,
Badrinarayanan and Laverie 2011; Gammoh, Mallin, and
Pullins 2014; Gillespie and Noble 2017; Gillespie, Noble,
and Lam 2016; Hughes and Ahearne 2010; Hughes et  al.
2019). We build on this and develop a model that accounts
for particularities in the luxury context. We demonstrate
that a salesperson’s luxury brand identification acts as a
moderator and strengthens the positive effect of a salesper-
son’s perceived fit on effort allocation for the luxury brand.
We also introduce the notion of a salesperson’s luxury sen-
sitivity and find evidence of its negative moderating effect.
Our study points toward the counterintuitive evidence that
a salesperson with high luxury sensitivity is not predisposed
to sell luxury brands in the less selective non-DOS envi-
ronment. To sum up, insights from this study build upon
and advance prior theoretical streams in the marketing
literature and provide managerial directions for a luxury
brand manager to better understand the forces that influ-
ence the effort allocation of sales employees in less selective
non-DOS channels outside the luxury brand’s control.
 JOURNAL OF PERSONAL SELLING & SALES MANAGEMENT 3

Table 1. Study contributions.

Gaps in current literature
Literature on luxury brands have mainly focused
on consumer-centric issues (such as
determinants of choice process, motivation,
emotional attachment, signaling etc.) or
brand-centric issues (such as strategies
employed by luxury brands to maintain brand
image, brand power, etc.).
Literature on luxury retail sales are few, and have
been based on salespeople selling luxury brands
from directly-operated-stores (DOS).
Literature on brand dilution in luxury context have
been plenty, but no known study explores the
brand dilution effect from the salesperson point
of view.
Literature on brand identification have shown to
help a salesperson put forth more efforts
toward selling the brand, but no known study
has examined the phenomenon in the context
of luxury brands.
Contributions of current study
Contribution #1
Extends literature on luxury brands in the
context of ‘selling’ luxury brands.
Contribution #2
Extends literature on luxury retail sales by
investigating what a salesperson
experiences when selling a luxury brand
outside of the DOS environment.
Contribution #3
Introduces the concept of ‘perceived fit
between luxury brand and store brand’ to
capture the extent of dilution as
experienced by a salesperson.
Contribution #4
Investigates the moderating effect of
brand identification, while accounting for
particularities in the luxury context.
Relevant work
Amatulli, Guido, and Nataraajan (2015); Amatulli
et  al. (2018); Bellezza and Keinan (2014);
Boisvert and Ashill (2018); Dion and Arnould
(2011); Dion and Borraz (2015); Dion and Borraz
(2017); Desmichel and Kocher (2020); Dubois
and Duquesne (1993); Eastman et  al. (2018);
Fionda and Moore (2009); Godey et  al. (2012);
Goor et  al. (2020); Han, Nunes, and Drèze
(2010).
Cervellon and Coudriet (2013); Merk and Michel
(2019).
Albrecht et  al. (2013); Bellezza and Keinan (2014);
Hagtvedt and Patrick (2009); Magnoni and Roux
(2012); Vogel, Cook, and Watchravesringkan
(2019).
Badrinarayanan and Laverie (2011); Gammoh,
Mallin, and Pullins (2014); Gillespie and Noble
(2017); Gillespie, Noble, and Lam (2016); Hughes
and Ahearne (2010); Hughes et  al. (2019)

Background literature
Triggers that direct salespeople effort allocation in a
retail store
Extant research in sales management has focused on two
main approaches to direct the effort allocation by salespeo-
ple: extrinsic (e.g., via sales quotas and targets) and intrinsic
(e.g., via salespeople’s identification with a brand). In
research on intrinsic approaches, several broad constructs
have been studied extensively such as task enjoyment, moti-
vation to sell, task challenges, psychological ownership etc.
(e.g., Gillespie, Noble, and Lam 2016; Miao, Evans, and
Shaoming 2007; Sujan 1986; Tyagi 1985). In the last decade,
researchers have studied salespeople effort allocation with
a brand-centric lens of enquiry (Badrinarayanan and Laverie
2011; Gammoh, Mallin, and Pullins 2014; Hughes and
Ahearne 2010; Hughes 2013). Insights from these studies
show how a psychological trigger like brand identification
impacts salespeople. However, research is silent on how
particularities in a luxury context affect luxury brand iden-
tification’s influence on salespeople’s effort allocation.
Notably, since luxury brands are especially susceptible to
the risk of brand dilution, whether a salesperson’s luxury
brand identification helps or hurts a luxury brand is yet
to be determined. In the next sections, we expand upon
the distribution strategy of luxury brands, brand dilution
risks for luxury brands in less selective non-DOS, and the
key constructs for our conceptual model.
Luxury brand distribution strategy
Luxury brands strive to balance two competing pressures:
continued growth and exclusivity imperatives (Albrecht et  al.
2013; Bellezza and Keinan 2014; Boisvert and Ashill 2018;
Kapferer 2014; Parment 2008; Schneier 2017). Strategies such
as growth via market expansion come at a risk that ‘dream
value’ of luxury brands may be destroyed through over
diffusion (Dubois and Paternault 1995; Kapferer and
Valette-Florence 2018). Thus, an objective of luxury brands
is to design a distribution strategy, that preserves the sym-
bolic value of the brand and creates avenues for continued
growth, but minimizes the risk of dilution. The physical
and digital space from where luxury is sold plays a key role
in achieving this. A luxury brand closely manages its
directly-operated-stores (DOS) such as the flagship store,
boutique stores and shop-in-shops nested within department
stores, and their own e-commerce website. At these DOS,
a luxury brand provides an exquisite environment for con-
sumers to achieve status-seeking purposes, evoke scarcity,
infuse and establish the brand’s authenticity (Atwal and
Williams 2009; Brakus, Schmitt, and Zarantonello 2009). In
the physical stores, sales employees act as brand ambassadors
and deliver a luxury experience from the DOS (Cervellon
and Coudriet 2013; Merk 2014; Michel, Merk, and Eroglu
2015). However, between 50-60% of personal luxury sales
occur in stores not directly operated by luxury brands
(non-DOS) (Bain and Company 2020; Kering Integrated
Report 2019): in the physical world this constitutes
multi-brand department stores without brand-specific
shop-in-shops and multi-brand specialty stores acting as
distribution partners. In this non-DOS universe, luxury
brands exercise the criteria of selective distribution: i.e.,
luxury brands limit the number of their stores and reserve
the right to refuse selling via stores that do not fulfill
brand-specific objective criteria (e.g., the physical set-up/
location of the store, assortment mix, pricing policy, etc.).
These criteria are set up by luxury brands and agreed upon
with the non-DOS typically via a contractual agreement.
The stringency of the contract terms creates a distinction
between “selective” and “less selective” non-DOS in terms
of access to product lines, and co-existence with non-luxury
4 M. D. GYOMLAI ET AL.
brands. The top-end of the expensive product lines of luxury
brands are sold via the selective non-DOS, while an array
of accessible lower-priced product lines (such as accessories,
small leather goods, eyewear, etc.) are sold via the less selec-
tive non-DOS. This access differential helps the luxury
brands to manage a balance between continued growth and
sustained exclusivity by offering entry-level products via less
selective non-DOS, while minimizing the risk of over dif-
fusion. Additionally, in less selective non-DOS, luxury and
non-luxury brands are permitted to co-exist within the same
store. As an example, Bergdorf Goodman is a selective
non-DOS store (carrying a range of multiple luxury brands),
meanwhile Macy’s is a less selective non-DOS (wherein
accessible product lines of luxury brands co-exist with
non-luxury brands). At a less selective non-DOS, a luxury
brand gets to be part of a consumer’s less deliberative shop-
ping journey (e.g., Chanel, Dior, Lancôme or Marc Jacobs
fragrances at Sephora or Douglas; Cartier luxury lighters
and pens at a specialty tobacconist; Salvatore Ferragamo
eyewear at Sunglass Hut). This distribution strategy helps
luxury brands to maintain the dream value and create chan-
nels for growth.
Brand dilution risks in a less selective non-DOS
Impact on luxury brands
While the distribution strategy of going beyond a luxury
environment through a less selective non-DOS helps a lux-
ury brand to get access to a larger share of the market
(beyond the footprint of its wealthy customers), it exposes
the luxury brand to the potential risk of brand dilution.
First, while the iconic flagship stores are considered to be
works of art (Dion and Arnould 2011; Ryan 2007), the same
is not true for the less selective non-DOS. The brand iden-
tity of the less selective non-DOS itself may be different
from that of the luxury brand. Thus, placing a luxury brand
in a less selective non-DOS exposes the luxury brand to
the risk of dilution. Second, the less selective non-DOS
generally carries multiple brands, thereby transmitting mul-
tiple brand meanings. A luxury brand in the midst of mul-
tiple other brands runs the risk of identity dilution (Derville
and Kapferer 2018): this risk is also present on multi-brand
e-retail platforms. Third, the salespeople at the less selective
physical non-DOS are not affiliated to one particular luxury
brand: they neither belong to, nor are controlled by one
luxury brand. While salespeople at a DOS create a
brand-specific luxury experience (Dion and Arnould 2011),
the salespeople at a less selective non-DOS are not trained
to deliver the experience for a specific luxury brand. This
further increases the risk of brand dilution. To sum up,
selling a luxury brand in a less-selective non-DOS entails
potential risks of brand dilution.
Impact on salesperson
For a luxury brand manager, a focus on how the risk of
brand dilution influences a salesperson is pertinent due
to several reasons. First, although salespeople are not
generally the target for marketing actions by brands, they
are not immune to the communication by the brands
(Donavan, Janda, and Suh 2006; Hughes et  al. 2019;
Wolfinbarger and Gilly 2005). Communication directed
toward consumers influences salespeople’s attitudes and
beliefs about the brand, and shapes their behaviors (e.g.
Gilly and Wolfinbarger 1998; Hughes 2013). When the
brand gives out mixed cues in its marketing strategy the
risks of brand dilution are likely to be experienced by
salespeople. Second, salespeople can influence consumers
across many retail formats where both engage in a dyadic
interaction in categories such as cars, clothes, electronic
goods, optical services, and so on (Davis-Sramek et  al.
2009; Goff et  al. 1997; van Dolen et  al. 2002). Brand
dilution for a salesperson may impact the nature of these
interactions. Last, but not least, luxury brands design
their customers’ experiences to help them accomplish
status-seeking purposes (Atwal and Williams 2009).
Interaction with salespeople is a key part of this luxury
experience, and salespeople are often the humanized con-
tact of the luxury brand with the customers (Cervellon
and Coudriet 2013). Salespeople are the last mile of per-
suasion for luxury brands. Thus, risk of brand dilution
for salespeople is likely to impact the quality of the luxury
selling experience. In this study, we capture it in terms
of salesperson’s perceived fit.
Hypothesis development
Salesperson’s perceived fit between luxury brand
and store brand
We define salesperson’s perceived fit between a luxury brand
and store brand as the extent to which the salesperson
believes the brand identity of the luxury brand has a good
fit with that of the less selective non-DOS from where it is
sold. When a luxury brand is sold in a less selective
non-DOS environment, the brand identity of the non-DOS
may be different from that of the luxury brand: this differ-
ence in brand identities has important implications. Prior
research shows that consumers harbor negative attitudes
when brand cues are mismatched (Heider 1946; Osgood
and Tannenbaum 1955). If salespeople perceive a brand
identity mismatch, they too are likely to harbor a negative
attitude toward the luxury brand. Furthermore, poorly per-
ceived brand fit leads to the dilution of a parent brand
(Albrecht et  al. 2013; Martinez and de Chernatony 2004;
Martinez and Pina 2003; Roux 1995; Völckner and Sattler
2006). Extant research has studied the impact of brand
dilution on consumers (for a review, see Loken and John
[2009]), but to date, no study has captured brand dilution
from the perspective of a salesperson. A luxury brand carries
the risk of dilution to the extent that the salesperson per-
ceives that the brand identities of the luxury brand and the
non-DOS brand do not fit well. Therefore, salespeople’s
assessment of fit between a luxury brand and the non-DOS
brand is likely to reflect the risk of dilution of the lux-
ury brand.

Impact of salesperson’s perceived fit on luxury selling
effort
A luxury brand in a non-DOS environment competes for
a salesperson’s attention since the salesperson is influenced
by a multitude of cues and multiple brands in the selling
environment. Various levers of influence (e.g., monetary
incentives, consumer promotions, brand identification) deter-
mine if the salesperson may promote one brand over the
other. For a luxury brand manager, knowing how to influ-
ence the salesperson’s direction of effort to support the
luxury brand is a critical resource. Prior research has defined
effort as “the force, energy, or activity by which work is
accomplished” (Brown and Peterson 1994, 71). In a
multi-brand context, a salesperson’s brand effort has been
conceptualized as “the force, energy, or activity expended
against the focal brand relative to that expended against all
other brands” (Hughes and Ahearne 2010, 84). In line with
this conceptualization, we define the salesperson’s luxury
selling effort as the force, energy, or activity expended
against the focal luxury brand relative to that expended
against all other brands in the non-DOS.
Using different theoretical explanations, we propose sev-
eral processes that occur when a salesperson perceives a
high level of fit between the luxury brand and the less
selective non-DOS brand: (1) positive evaluation due to
perceived fit and greater fluency, and (2) higher availability
of cognitive resources for the salesperson. First, although
the idea of perceived fit for the salesperson has not yet
been well researched, there is a rich literature on brand
extensions in the consumer and brand domain. Fit assess-
ment is an important determinant in this literature; the
transfer of perceived quality attributes from the old brand
to the new brand is enhanced when the two brands (product
classes) fit together (Aaker and Keller 1990). Perspectives
such as cognitive consistency (Heider 1946; Osgood and
Tannenbaum 1955), stimulus generalization (Bierley,
McSweeney, and Vannieuwkerk 1985), and affect transfer
(Wright 1975) highlight the importance of fit. The brands
perceived to fit well gather better consumer evaluations
(Aaker and Keller 1990; Boush and Loken 1991; Meyvis,
Goldsmith, and Dhar 2012). Thus, we anticipate that positive
evaluations will be elicited when a salesperson has a high
level of perceived fit between the luxury brand and the less
selective non-DOS brand. Furthermore, an extensive review
of cognitive consistency theories by Kruglanski et  al. (2018)
suggests that “consistency may induce a sense of fluency”
(53). Studies show that fluency explains how consistent ele-
ments elicit positive affect (Topolinski and Strack 2009;
Winkielman and Cacioppo 2001). At a high level of per-
ceived fit, the salesperson is in a decision environment with
elements that are consistent with each other. We anticipate
that a high level of perceived fit (or consistency) in the
selling environment induces fluency in the processing of
information for the salesperson, leading to positive affect
generation. A salesperson with positive affect is likely to
transmit this affect in his/her social interaction (Barsade
2002), and lead to positive behaviors (Loken and John 1993).
Thus, a salesperson with high perceived fit is more likely
JOURNAL OF PERSONAL SELLING & SALES MANAGEMENT 5
to have positive evaluations for the luxury brand, and trans-
mit this affect in luxury selling efforts. Last, but not least,
selling as a process requires attentional focus and cognitive
resources (Weitz, Castleberry, and Tanner 2001) and deple-
tion of cognitive resources is likely to affect the selling
process negatively. When a salesperson perceives a low level
of fit between a luxury brand and the less selective non-DOS
brand, multiple propositional beliefs are likely to emerge.
To the extent that the brand identities of the luxury brand
and the less selective non-DOS brand differ in the mind of
the salesperson, the beliefs will be inconsistent. Again, cog-
nitive consistency theories (Heider 1946; Osgood and
Tannenbaum 1955) suggest that people in a decision envi-
ronment with incompatible cues attempt to reduce the
inconsistency, thereby increasing their cognitive load. At a
high level of perceived fit, the salesperson is not subject to
inconsistent cues, and mental resources are conserved.
Therefore, a salesperson with a high level of perceived fit
is more likely to have greater cognitive resources to utilize
in the selling situation. In sum, we expect that a salesperson
with a high level of perceived fit between the luxury and
the less selective non-DOS brand puts forth more efforts
in selling the luxury brand. Thus,
H1: A salesperson’s perceived fit between a luxury brand and
store brand, is positively related to the salesperson’s luxury
selling effort.
The dual effects of salesperson’s relationship with
luxury
Negative moderating effect at a construct level:
salesperson luxury sensitivity
Little agreement exists on defining luxury (Chevalier and
Mazzalovo 2008; Kapferer 2014; Vickers and Renand 2003;
Vigneron and Johnson 2004). Luxury is a relative concept
(Mortelmans 2005), and the definition of luxury is different
for every person: how one defines luxury is related to how
one perceives luxury (Michman and Mazze 2006). Such a
subjective conceptualization of luxury lends the concept
open to various levels of interpretation. Importantly, the
value of luxury as a concept in the mind of an individual
may be different; i.e. not every individual may have a similar
level of interest in the consumption of luxury or ‘dream of
luxury’ in the same way. Thus, the extent to which a sales-
person values luxury as a concept may differ from one
salesperson to another. We define this phenomenon as sales-
person luxury sensitivity: it measures how much the person
understands the value of luxury and is positively reacting
to it. We focus on luxury sensitivity for two reasons. First,
experts in luxury marketing suggest that the exclusivity
perceptions of luxury serve as a status signal to be main-
tained and recreated in the selling process (Kapferer and
Bastien 2009). Specifically, the salesperson plays a key role
in transmitting the referent and coercive power of a luxury
brand (Cervellon and Coudriet 2013). To the extent that
the salesperson himself/herself values luxury is therefore
critical in this transmission of brand message. Second, prior
6 M. D. GYOMLAI ET AL.
research in luxury selling show that salespeople adjust their
selling efforts by screening aspiring customers to determine
which customers should be sold luxury (Cervellon, Poujol,
and Tanner 2019; Wang, Chow, and Luk 2013; Ward and
Dahl 2014). This disposition of salespeople hinges on their
own assessment of the value of luxury. Thus, we focus on
salesperson luxury sensitivity to determine the direction of
salespeople’s luxury selling effort.
We posit that salespeople with high luxury sensitivity
will inhibit effort allocation toward selling the luxury brand
despite a high level of perceived fit between the luxury and
the non-DOS brand. This reduction of effort can be
explained by building on prior research on (1) the role of
implicit attitudes in selling luxury, and (2) luxury salespeo-
ple’s selling approach based on their judgment. First,
although research has not yet explored the implicit and
explicit attitudes of a salesperson while selling luxury, Wang,
Chow, and Luk (2013) demonstrate that when consumers
are buying luxury, it is implicit rather than explicit attitudes
that exert a stronger impact on purchase intentions. Prior
research shows that luxury brands represent good quality
and a high social status (Zhou and Belk 2004).
Communication efforts surrounding luxury brands result in
exposure of luxury cues that highlight this higher social
status to the viewers (salespeople and consumers alike).
Mere exposure to such cues creates implicit positive attitudes
(Bornstein and D’Agostino 1992; Grimes and Kitchen 2007).
Repeated association of luxury with desirable symbols
enhance the implicit positive attitudes toward luxury, and
impact behavior through nonconscious processing
(Fitzsimons, Chartrand, and Fitzsimons 2008). Similarly, we
anticipate that a salesperson with a high luxury sensitivity
is likely to hold (1) stronger positive implicit attitudes
toward luxury, and (2) a greater degree of non-conscious
processing, in comparison to a salesperson with low luxury
sensitivity. At a given level of perceived fit, a salesperson
with a high luxury sensitivity is likely to be guided by the
implicit attitude (a relatively automatic reaction) that he/
she holds toward luxury more than the explicit attitudes (a
relatively deliberative action). A salesperson is more likely
to judge the current environment around luxury (i.e., the
less selective non-DOS) as an automatic reaction, and be
wary of selling luxury outside the traditional norms of the
DOS. Second, extant research in luxury retail sales shows
evidence that salespeople judge aspiring luxury consumers
of their worthiness to buy luxury (Cervellon, Poujol, and
Tanner 2019; Wang, Chow, and Luk 2013; Ward and Dahl
2014). This prior literature alludes to salespeople’s propensity
to protect luxury brands. We contend that a similar behavior
is likely to manifest in salespeople with high levels of luxury
sensitivity. At a given level of perceived fit, salespeople with
a high luxury sensitivity are likely to question the legitimacy
of luxury brands in the less selective non-DOS environment
in a bid to ‘protect’ luxury. In both cases, whether the
salesperson relies on implicit attitudes (and adopts more
automatic processing), or assumes the role of a protector
of luxury (and judges consumers), we contend that the
salesperson is likely to be cautious in selling luxury. This
caution is likely to create more stress in the selling
environment, thereby, more mental resources are required
to resolve the stress. Given two salespeople with similar
perceived fit levels, the salesperson with a higher luxury
sensitivity will have less available resources for effort allo-
cation, weakening the effect of perceived fit on luxury selling
efforts. Thus,
H2: Salesperson’s luxury sensitivity negatively moderates the
impact of salesperson’s perceived fit on the salesperson’s luxury
selling effort.
Positive moderating effect at a specific brand level:
salesperson luxury brand identification
Prior research defines brand identification as a cognitive
process that entails perceived oneness with a brand and
considering the brand’s success and failures as one’s own
(for e.g. Ashforth and Mael 1989; Mael and Ashforth 1992;
van Dick 2004). In the sales management context, a sales-
person’s brand identification refers to the degree to which
one defines oneself by the same attributes that one believes
defines a brand (Hughes and Ahearne 2010), and is known
to be a driver of positive sales outcomes, such as effort,
performance, job satisfaction and commitment
(Badrinarayanan and Laverie 2011; Gammoh, Mallin, and
Pullins 2014; Hughes 2013; Hughes and Ahearne 2010). We
define a salesperson’s luxury brand identification as the
degree to which he/she defines himself/herself by the same
attributes that he/she defines the luxury brand. Unlike lux-
ury sensitivity, luxury brand identification is a brand-specific
construct, since a salesperson can strongly identify with
luxury brand A, and simultaneously not identify with luxury
brand B. We contend that a salesperson with high luxury
brand identification will strengthen the impact of perceived
fit on luxury selling effort. This can be explained due to
(1) a heightened sense of psychological ownership of the
luxury brand, (2) personal vested interest in the success of
the luxury brand, and (3) resilience to inconsistent infor-
mation surrounding the luxury brand.
Prior research by Ryan and Deci (2000) highlights that
identification is an intrinsic source of motivation. Salespeople
with a high luxury brand identification are likely to be
motivated by their intrinsic connection to the luxury brand.
This connection helps develop a sense of psychological own-
ership: via a greater accumulation of intimate knowledge
about the brand (Pierce, Kostova, and Dirks 2001), and by
building greater affect toward the brand (Bergami and
Bagozzi 2000). Additionally, when individuals identify with
a specific brand, they get personally vested: they form a
psychological relationship with the brand, start to demon-
strate favoritism, and make efforts to benefit the brand (e.g.,
Kuenzel and Halliday 2008; Underwood, Bond, and Baer
2001). Salespeople with a high level of brand identification
get personally vested in the success of the brand (Donavan,
Janda, and Suh 2006; Hughes and Ahearne 2010), display
higher brand attachment, consider the success (or failure)
of the brand as their own (Gillespie and Noble 2017;
Gillespie, Noble, and Lam 2016), and prioritize the brand
in interactions with consumers (Hughes et  al. 2019). Last,
but not least, brand identification lends an important

psychological tool: resilience. Consumers tend to be resilient
to negative information about the company if they feel a
strong identification with the brand (Bhattacharya and Sen
2003). Similarly, a consumer’s identification with a brand
community mitigates the negative effects of service failure
(Mandl and Hogreve 2020). Along the same lines, we predict
that brand identification with a specific luxury brand would
make salespeople resilient to the inconsistent brand cues in
their environment. While a salesperson may rely on implicit
attitudes (akin to the mechanisms as explained in the pre-
vious section on luxury sensitivity), resilience generated due
to brand identification will help salespeople to maintain an
overall positive affect for the luxury brand. Therefore, with
positive affect, a personal vested interest in the success of
the luxury brand, combined with resilience, a salesperson
with a high level of identification is likely to be a champion
for the luxury brand. As theorized before, a salesperson
with a high level of perceived fit will have more cognitive
resources available, further boosting the salesperson’s selling
efforts in support of the luxury brand. Thus,
H3: Salesperson’s luxury brand identification positively moder-
ates the impact of salesperson’s perceived fit on the salesperson’s
luxury selling effort.
Control system for determining luxury brand sales
performance
Prior research based on agency theoretic models of sales
force compensation has guided sales performance determi-
nation across multiple contexts (e.g., Basu et  al. 1985;
Coughlan and Joseph 2012; Coughlan and Sen 1989;
Eisenhardt 1985; John and Weitz 1989; Joseph and
Thevaranjan 1998; Lal and Staelin 1986; Lal and Srinivasan
1993; Mantrala, Sinha, and Zoltners 1994; Raju and
Srinivasan 1996; Rao 1990). When a luxury brand is sold
in a less selective non-DOS with multiple other brands, the
issue of goal alignment becomes prominent since each of
the brands present in the store aims to maximize its own
profit, giving rise to issues of resource allocation for the
salesperson (Anderson, Lodish, and Weitz 1987; Hughes and
Ahearne 2010). Furthermore, if the less selective non-DOS
also sells its own line of branded products, the extent to
which a salesperson is encouraged to sell a particular luxury
brand may directly compete with the goals of encouraging
the sales of the store brand products. Salesforce control
systems are set up in place to direct the efforts of sales-
people and sales performance (e.g. Cravens et  al. 1993; Evans
et  al. 2007). These control systems are often a combination
of incentives set up by the store and/or set up by the mul-
tiple brands themselves. Borrowing from Hughes and
Ahearne (2010), we define control system alignment for
luxury brand as the extent to which the control systems
put in place by the store are aligned with the goals of the
luxury brand during a given timeframe. We use control
system alignment in our research for two key reasons. First,
the store management has complete control over the incen-
tive strategies chosen to motivate their salespeople. Control
system alignment gives the flexibility to measure the strat-
egies with respect to specific luxury brands as applicable to
JOURNAL OF PERSONAL SELLING & SALES MANAGEMENT 7
individual retail stores. Second, a comprehensive account of
a salesperson’s incentives includes those offered by the lux-
ury brand directly to the salesperson (e.g., spiffs), or indirect
incentives that focus on direct-to-consumer promotions (e.g.,
special priced collection, limited edition, etc.). Control sys-
tem alignment includes all these incentives. In line with
prior research (Hughes and Ahearne 2010), we surmise that
the store’s control systems alignment with the luxury brand
will trigger salespeople’s motivation and strengthen the
impact of relative effort on the sales performance of the
luxury brand. The effects of effort on sales performance
have been empirically demonstrated across research spanning
more than three decades (e.g., Brown and Peterson 1994;
Christen, Iyer, and Soberman 2006; Fu, Richards, and Jones
2009; Gillespie and Noble 2017, to name a few). For the
sake of parsimony, we do not explicitly hypothesize the
relationship between effort and sales in our model.
Consequently, we present the final hypothesis, and Figure
1 that illustrates the conceptual model proposed and tested:
H4: Control system alignment for a luxury brand (a) increases
the salesperson’s luxury selling effort and (b) positively mod-
erates the impact of salesperson’s luxury selling effort on the
salesperson’s luxury brand performance.
Research design
Research environment
This research project involved multiple interactions with the
marketing and training personnel of a channel partner that
has distribution contracts with various luxury brands and
represent the less selective non-DOS entity for our study.
While luxury brands were active in maintaining their luxury
brand identities, the channel partner invested in developing
its own brand identity. For instance, the channel partner
has its distinct brand name (store brand), a marketing cam-
paign to communicate its identity, and marketing collaterals
to support and boost its own brand image. This store brand
is present via more than 1800 stores, all of them being the
embodiment of the brand name, carrying multiple brands,
and their own line of branded products. Thus, each store
in our sample was associated with a common overarching
store brand. Typical of a franchising system, each store was
operationally independent or free to choose their product
assortment from a large spectrum of brands (luxury and
non-luxury) that are made available to them via the channel
partner. As the channel partner addresses the needs of a
large market and lends its brand name as the primary iden-
tifier to an individual store, it does not have a luxury posi-
tioning. Thus, each store carried a multitude of luxury and
non-luxury brands that served as a unique context for our
research: when luxury brands are sold outside a luxury
environment in a less selective non-DOS.
Sample and brand selection
We collected data from a set of stores belonging to a leading
distribution channel partner, a well-known chain of retail
stores that sells eyewear in Europe. There were several
8 M. D. GYOMLAI ET AL.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
reasons for this choice. First, the channel partner is a central
cooperative group offering its brand name and marketing
support to all the retail stores that are part of its network.
Thus, the brand name of the central cooperative group
served as the baseline store brand for our study. Second,
the channel is a partner for multiple luxury brands wherein
the channel’s stores carry the luxury brands, but the luxury
brands do not control the salespeople. Third, eyewear cat-
egory served as a perfect testing ground for our study since
luxury and non-luxury brands have traditionally co-existed
in eyewear stores. Thus, the stores represented a natural
setting for our study. Fourth, a salesperson plays an import-
ant role in interacting with customers to influence purchase
decisions at an eyewear store (van Dolen et  al. 2002; Goff
et  al. 1997). To the extent this interaction supported the
sales of luxury brands was a key question for our study.
Last, by collecting data from a single company, we achieved
better control over contextual factors thereby enhancing
internal validity (Jones, Sundaram, and Chin 2002).
After interviewing experts in the eyewear category, we
chose to focus on four luxury brands (Dior, Chanel, Prada,
and Gucci). Several reasons prompted our decision to focus
on these brands. First, these brands represent well-established
luxury houses with continued branding efforts in Europe.
A pretest with in-person interviews with a select group of
store managers and salespeople confirmed that the brands
were well-recognized luxury brands in the market and
among the employees of the stores. Second, typically, the
stores that were part of the channel partner network carried
at least one brand out of these four brands. Therefore, we
could collect responses from the salespeople on at least one
of the four brands. Finally, a selection of these four brands
allowed us to create a dataset capturing various levels of
perceptions of luxury brands measured against the anchor
store brand, without overwhelming the respondent. Each
salesperson that we collected data from, rated at least one
luxury brand against the store brand, or at best, four luxury
brands considered one at a time against the store brand.
We aimed to minimize respondent fatigue with a largely
visual questionnaire capturing information on a maximum
of four brands for each salesperson. We tested the ques-
tionnaire with a small sample of stores and confirmed this
before launching the study.
Data collection
The organization of sales teams was consistent across stores,
with several salespeople reporting to one store manager.
Surveys were administered to the salespeople and their
respective store managers. In addition, objective sales per-
formance data were obtained through daily sales tracking
sheets filled out by salespeople for a period of one-month,
after which they were returned directly using self-addressed
postage-paid envelopes. In total, survey questionnaires were
delivered to 138 store managers and 424 salespeople with
a response rate of 48% and 45% respectively. Store managers
provided the information on the salesperson luxury selling
effort, control system alignment for luxury and other store

related control variables (number of luxury brands and
in-store brand prominence). Salespeople provided all the
other measures for the model’s constructs, along with daily
sales. The data collection was organized in two phases. In
phase 1, survey questionnaires were emailed to store man-
agers and their salespeople. An electronic survey platform
was used to collect data during this phase, and responses
were monitored on a regular basis. A reminder email to
non-respondents was also sent after one month. After a
period of four months, phase 2 was initiated, where research
assistants collected the survey questionnaires personally at
the stores. A comparison of phase 1 and phase 2 data
showed no significant differences in the major constructs,
suggesting that nonresponse bias was unlikely to be a con-
cern in this study (Armstrong and Overton 1977). Combining
the responses from the two rounds of data collection, the
final data set includes responses from 66 store managers
and 191 salespeople resulting in 390 usable responses. The
average respondent was 32 years old and had 6.6 years of
experience in working with the channel partner. Almost
39% of the respondents were male.
Construct measures
A combination of new and existing scales was developed.
Following the procedure outlined by Churchill (1979), for
each of the new scales, we started with an initial pool of
items using exploratory research refining them after con-
sulting academic researchers, marketing personnel from the
channel partner company, and store managers. A small sub-
set of store managers and salespeople pretested the scales.
Measures collected from salespeople included: (1) Salesperson’s
Perceived Fit Between Luxury and Store Brand (PF) captured
with the help of an 8-point Venn diagram from Bergami
and Bagozzi (2000) original scale. As shown in the Appendix,
a series of Venn diagrams indicating a degree of overlap
between a luxury brand and the store brand were provided,
and a salesperson was asked to choose the level of overlap
that best represented his/her assessment of perceived fit
between that luxury brand and the store brand. For a store
that carried all four luxury brands, a salesperson responded
for one luxury brand at a time. (2) Salesperson’s Luxury
Brand Identification (LBI) adopted from Hughes and Ahearne
(2010) included eight-point visual and verbal representation
of the perceived overlap of salesperson and luxury brand
identity. For a store that carried all four luxury brands, a
salesperson completed this for all four brands separately to
indicate his/her brand identification with that specific luxury
brand. (3) Salesperson’s Luxury Sensitivity (LS) assessed by
each salesperson using a new five-point Likert scale that
taps into the personal disposition about luxury. Since the
value of luxury is personal and different for each individual,
we wanted to tap into this deep-seated sentiment with
respect to luxury. Each salesperson rated three statements
on a five-point Likert scale. A pretest was conducted to
ensure the clarity of each item to the respondents and ensure
respondents’ interpretation or ability to respond to the
JOURNAL OF PERSONAL SELLING & SALES MANAGEMENT 9
questions. (4) Salesperson’s Luxury Brand Performance (LBP),
an objective measure captured the proportion of sales that
a specific luxury brand represents out of the total sales by
the salesperson in the timeframe of the study. In line with
prior research (Hughes and Ahearne 2010), we adopted this
construct to reflect the luxury brand’s share of total sales
for each salesperson. Each salesperson reported daily sales
data on a sales tracking form provided by us. We calculated
the Salesperson’s Luxury Brand Performance proportion from
this sales data for each individual salesperson for each of
the four luxury brands present in their store.
Measures collected from store managers included: (1)
Salesperson’s Luxury Selling Effort (LSE) referred to the activ-
ity expended by the salesperson in favor of a specific luxury
brand against all other brands present in the store. Given
that each salesperson worked in a retail store, the assessment
of the store manager is likely to accurately represent the
salesperson’s effort allocation. The store manager reported
the salesperson’s luxury selling effort by responding to two
questions. The first question identified the extent of the
effort on selling the category of luxury brands in general.
The second question captured the amount of effort directed
toward the specific luxury brand(s) that were present in the
store. A composite measure was created for each luxury
brand by multiplying the effort allocation score for the
specific luxury brand with that of luxury brands in general.
If a store carried more than one of the luxury brands short-
listed for our study, the sales manager could report the
salesperson’s effort allocation across the brands using the
same set of two questions. This simple two-stage assessment
was done to facilitate the manager’s evaluation of salesper-
son’s luxury selling effort allocation, and was validated as
a precise measure during the pretests. (2) Control System
Alignment for Luxury Brand (CSA) measured the extent to
which control systems put in place by the store are aligned
with the goals of the luxury brand during a given timeframe.
Store managers reported on motivational mechanisms offered
to salespeople [direct incentives offered by the store to the
retail salesperson or indirect incentives that focus on
brand-to-consumer promotions (e.g., special priced collec-
tion, limited edition, etc.)] for each of the four luxury
brands and all other brands in the store. A ratio of the
count of support activities for a specific luxury brand to
the total count of all activities present in the store gives a
CSA score for the specific luxury brand. A store with one
luxury brand created one CSA score, while a store with all
four luxury brands created four different CSA scores. For
example, if a store has two of the luxury brands – Dior
and Chanel, the store manager reported the motivational
mechanisms for these two brands versus all other brands
in the store. This helped in creating a CSA score for Dior
and CSA score for Chanel for this store. If the CSA score
for Dior was higher than that of Chanel, the control systems
to motivate salespeople within this store were aligned to
support the sales of Dior more than that of Chanel in that
given timeframe.
Additional control variables were added to account for
factors that may influence the direction and intensity of a
10 M. D. GYOMLAI ET AL.

salesperson’s luxury selling effort and luxury brand perfor-
mance. (1) Number of Luxury Brands - store managers
reported on the total number of luxury brands at their
respective stores. (2) In-store Brand Prominence - store man-
agers reported on the visibility elements present in the store
(brand logo, brand-specific point-of-sale material, special
display case, brand-specific display column, brand-specific
display window, other) for each of the four chosen luxury
brands and all other brands in the store. A ratio of the
count of in-store visibility elements of a specific luxury
brand to the total count was used. (3) Luxury Brand Market
Share was obtained from company records. (4) Salesperson
Tenure, reported by the respective salespeople. A complete
list of items is presented in the Appendix.
Data analysis and results
Measurement model
We conducted an exploratory factor analysis to evaluate
reflective scales, using oblique promax rotation. Table 2
displays descriptive statistics. Factor loadings for all con-
structs ranged from .59 to .94 with no unusually high
cross-loadings. Next, we conducted a confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) using MPlus to test the discriminant validity
of the measures. The measurement model demonstrated
adequate fit (χ2 = 272.101, d.f. = 6, p < .001, CFI = 1,
RMSEA = .00, SRMR = .00). All factor loadings of the
indicators to their respective latent constructs were signif-
icant. Each construct presented the desired level of com-
posite reliability and average variances extracted were found
to be greater than .50 (Bagozzi and Yi 2012). In addition,
all squared correlations between the latent constructs were
smaller than the average variance extracted from the respec-
tive constructs, in support of the measures’ discriminant
validity (Fornell and Larcker 1981).
Analytical approach
The data included 191 salespeople nested in 66 stores, with
repeated measures for most of the salespeople for each lux-
ury brand in the store. The multilevel structure of the data
introduced dependencies that violated the assumptions of
OLS regression, and hence modeling choices appropriate for
hierarchical observations were made. The intra-class cor-
relation coefficients (ICC) that measure the proportion of
total variance in the dependent variables attributable to the
store level showed that a two-level structure was warranted
– level 1 is at the salesperson level and level 2 is at the
store level. According to the ICC’s, 46.4% of total variability
in a salesperson’s luxury brand performance and 41.3% of
total variability in a salesperson’s luxury selling effort were
due to store-level factors. The analysis used a multilevel
structural equation model fit using MPlus 7 and estimated
with full information maximum likelihood (Raudenbush and
Bryk 2002). Random intercepts were introduced for the two
dependent variables to account for within-store dependen-
cies. All slopes were treated as fixed. The modeled interac-
tions all occur between variables that vary within the store;
hence there were no between-level interactions.
As explained earlier, luxury brand performance (LBP) is
a function of Luxury Selling Effort (LSE), and control system
alignment (CSA). Hence:
LBPij = β0 j + β1j ( LSE ij ) + rij (1)
where LBPij is salesperson i’s luxury brand performance
in store j, LSEij is the luxury selling effort for the luxury
brand by salesperson i in store j, and rij is an error term
assumed to be distributed N(0,σ2). Then, regression param-
eters (intercept and slope) from Step 1 become the outcome
variables and are regressed on the control system alignment
(CSA) variable:
β0 j = ϒ 00 + ϒ 01 ( CSA j ) + u 0 j (2)
β1j = ϒ10 + ϒ11 ( CSA j ) + u1j (3)
where CSAj is the control system alignment for the luxury
brand in store j. The above equations capture the variation
present at Level 2; and combining them gives the following:
LBPij = ϒ 00 + ϒ 01 ( CSA j ) + ϒ10 ( LSE ij )
+ ϒ11 ( CSA j ) ( LSE ij ) + u 0 j + u1j ( LSE ij ) + rij (4)

Table 2. Correlations and summary statistics.

  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Luxury Brand Performance (LBP) 1
2. Luxury Selling Effort (LSE) .104 1
3. Control System Alignment (CSA) −.058 .163* 1
4. Number of Luxury Brands .290* .042 −.085 1
5. In-Store Brand Prominence −.1 .162* .192* −.355* 1
6. Tenure within Store .037 −.004 .038 −.153* .119* 1
7. Salesperson Perceived Fit (PF) −.031 .174* .089 .062 −.025 −.056 1
8. Luxury Brand Identification (LBI) .06 .001 −.021 .056 .034 .038 −.047 1
9. Luxury Sensitivity (LS) .152* .04 .064 .043 .012 −.101* −.038 .41* 1
M .253 659.59 .074 13.24 .268 3.5 2.122 3.989 2.868
SD .184 500.872 .153 4.576 .196 1.162 1.224 1.222 0.852
Ρ .891 .820
AVE .803 .606
*
p < .05; N = 390.
Notes: ρ = Bagozzi’s (1980) composite reliability index, and AVE = Fornell and Larcker (1981) index of the average variance extracted by the construct.

Thus, the effects of control system alignment for the
luxury brand, luxury selling effort, and the cross-level inter-
action of control system alignment with luxury selling effort
on the luxury brand performance are captured by ϒ01, ϒ10
and ϒ11, respectively.
Predicting the luxury selling effort for the luxury brand
involves a similar approach:
LSE ij = β0 j + β1j ( LBIij ) + β2j ( LSij ) + rij
β0 j = ϒ 00 + ϒ 01 ( CSA j ) + ϒ 02 ( PFij ) + u 0 j
β1j = ϒ10 + ϒ11 ( PFij )
β2j = ϒ 2 0 + ϒ 21 ( PFij )
Thus,
LSE ij = ϒ 00 + ϒ 01 ( CSA j ) + ϒ 02 ( PFij ) + ϒ10 ( LBIij ) +
ϒ 2 0 ( LSij ) + ϒ11 ( PFij ) ( LBIij ) + ϒ 21 ( PFij ) ( LSij ) + u 0 j + rij
Consequently, the direct effects of control system align-
ment for the luxury brand, salesperson’s perceived fit
between the luxury and the store brand, salesperson’s luxury
brand identification, salesperson’s luxury sensitivity on sales-
person’s luxury selling effort are captured by ϒ01, ϒ02, ϒ10,
and ϒ20 respectively; and interaction of perceived fit with
luxury brand identification, and with luxury selling effort
are captured by ϒ11, and ϒ21 respectively.
For each salesperson, evaluations were obtained for the
luxury brands Dior, Chanel, Prada and Gucci across 66
stores; thus 66 clusters were considered for grouping at
Level 2. However, since the salesperson rated one to four
luxury brands, a nesting issue exists (i.e. a salesperson may
have rated up to four brands). Therefore, we included three
dummy variables that correspond to three luxury brands
(Chanel, Prada and Gucci). By adding these we control for
differential effects of the various brands included in the
analysis, and reduce the possible bias associated with a
salesperson reporting on more than one brand. This
research follows Hughes and Ahearne (2010) in specifying
a two-level hierarchical linear model with random effects
at the store level and fixed effects (dummy variables) rep-
resenting the different brands within stores. Alternative
modeling options, such as a three-level model or estimation
with robust standard errors clustered on the salesperson,
were not possible due to the unbalanced nature of the
salesperson data (for many salespeople, there was only a
single observation).
JOURNAL OF PERSONAL SELLING & SALES MANAGEMENT 11
Results
All variables involved in interactions were grand-mean-cen-
tered prior to estimating the model, to assist in interpreta-
tion. The advantage of grand-mean-centering is that
variances and slopes have a clear interpretation, as they
represent the expected variances for the ‘average’ respondent
(Hox 2002). Since standard fit indexes were not available
with MPlus when estimating a multi-level model with
(5) cross-level interactions, the model comparisons are made
using a likelihood ratio test, Akaike’s information criterion
(AIC), and the sample-size adjusted Bayesian information
(6) criterion (BIC). As shown in Table 3, a model was first
estimated where luxury brand performance was the sole
dependent variable, with only main effects (i.e., luxury sell-
(7) ing effort and control system alignment for luxury). Luxury
selling effort was removed as a mediator. The results showed
a significant positive relationship between luxury selling
effort and luxury brand performance (β = .080, p < .05),
(8)
though control system alignment for luxury was not signif-
icant (β = −.044, p = .299).
Next, the mediator of luxury selling effort and all
non-interaction terms were introduced in the model. The
results indicate a positive significant relationship between
luxury selling effort and luxury brand performance (β =
.082, p < .05), in support of the model. Control system
(9) alignment for luxury is non-significant for the performance
equation (β = −.042, p = .306), and it has a non-significant
effect on luxury selling effort (β = .192, p = .336). Salesperson
perceived fit between luxury and the store brand has a
positive significant effect on luxury selling effort (β = .081,
p < .01). As expected, the path from the luxury brand
visibility control variable to luxury selling effort (β = .745,
p < .01) is significant. The comparative model fit statistics
confirm that this second model provides a significant
improvement over the first one. The AIC gets reduced from
310.362 to 276.493, and the sample-size adjusted BIC gets
reduced from 320.28 to 297.116. In addition, the likelihood
ratio test rejects the null hypothesis of no model difference
[χ2 (14) = 62.27, p < .01].
The final model introduces the interactions. Again, the
main effect of salesperson’s perceived fit between the luxury
and the store brand on luxury selling effort is significant
(β = .077, p < .01), in support of H1. Thus, when a sales-
person perceives a higher fit between the luxury and the
store brand, he/she is more likely to expend efforts to sell
the luxury brand relative to other brands in the portfolio.
Furthermore, the luxury selling effort has a positive signif-
icant main effect on performance (β = .081, p < .05), imply-
ing that when a salesperson puts more relative selling effort
for the luxury brand, it translates into higher sales perfor-
mance for the luxury brand. In addition, the two interaction
terms in the luxury selling effort equation (Equation 9) are
significant. First, the positive effect of a salesperson’s per-
ceived fit between a luxury and the store brand on relative
effort is pulled downwards as a salesperson’s luxury
12 M. D. GYOMLAI ET AL.

Table 3. Model comparisons and effects.

  Model 1 Model 2 Model3
Luxury selling effort → luxury brand performance .080* .082* .081*
Control system alignment → luxury brand performance −.044 −.042 −.051
Control system alignment X luxury selling effort → performance .040

Control system alignment → luxury selling effort .192 .177

Salesperson perceived fit → luxury selling effort .081** .077**
Luxury brand identification → luxury selling effort .014 .018
Salesperson perceived fit X luxury brand identification → luxury selling effort .028*
Luxury sensitivity → luxury selling effort .017 .011
Salesperson perceived fit X Luxury sensitivity1 → luxury selling effort −.050*
Covariates −.000 −.001 .000
Luxury brand market share → luxury brand performance
Luxury brand market share → luxury selling effort .021 .023
Number of luxury brands → luxury brand performance .012 .011 .011
Number of luxury brands → luxury selling effort .016 .016
In-store brand prominence → luxury brand performance −.030 −.056 −.051
In-store brand prominence → luxury selling effort .745** .737**
Salesperson tenure → luxury brand performance .023 .023 .023
Salesperson tenure → luxury selling effort .003 −.004
Chanel → luxury brand performance −.011 −.011 −.012
Chanel → luxury selling effort .030 .037
Prada → luxury brand performance −.005 −.004 −.004
Prada → luxury selling effort −.072 −.066
Gucci → luxury brand performance −.021 −.022 −.023
Gucci → luxury selling effort .002 .007
Number of free parameters 12 26 29
Log-likelihood −143.38 −112.25 −109.134
(-2LL Change) 62.27 6.224
AIC 310.36 276.493 276.269
BIC 320.28 297.116 299.272
N 390 390 390
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
1
Note: Considering the mid-point of both the luxury sensitivity scale and the perceived fit scale, salespeople who reported a high on both luxury sensitivity
and perceived fit account for 6% of the total observations.

sensitivity increases (β = −.50, p < .05), supporting H2.
Second, the positive effect of a salesperson’s perceived fit
between a luxury and the store brand increases as a sales-
person’s luxury brand identification increases (β = .028, p
< .05), supporting H3. However, we find no support for H4
(a) and (b). The results appear in Table 3.
Interaction effects
To interpret the impact of the interaction, we graphed the
interacting relationships. Figure 2(a) shows the nature of
the first interaction. The x-axis represents levels of a sales-
person’s perceived fit between the luxury and the store brand
ranging from one standard deviation below the mean (low
perceived fit) to one standard deviation above the mean
(high perceived fit). The y-axis represents levels of luxury
selling efforts. Note that there are no ticks on the axis
because the absolute level of relative effort depends on the
values of the other predictors. The effect size of the inter-
action, however, is the same regardless of values on the
other independent variables. The figure shows that a sales-
person’s perceived fit between the luxury and the store brand
has a positive relationship with luxury selling effort.
However, this relationship becomes attenuated as a sales-
person’s luxury sensitivity increases. In other words, a sales-
person’s perceived fit is a weaker predictor of relative effort
when luxury sensitivity is high. Figure 2(b) shows the
second interaction, where the low and high values again
represent one standard deviation below and above the mean,
respectively. The solid line shows that the relationship is
positive even when luxury brand identification is low (one
standard deviation below the mean). However, luxury brand
identification reinforces this positive relationship, and the
slope becomes steeper as the luxury brand identification
moves up to one standard deviation above the mean.
Discussion
Given the unique luxury retail sales environment, wherein
luxury brands are sold in a less-selective non-DOS – the
main purpose of this research was to explore the
under-researched phenomenon of how brand identity dif-
ferences between a given luxury brand and the store brand
may impact a salesperson’s propensity to sell luxury. We
show that a salesperson who sells luxury brands in a less
selective non-DOS environment perceives the brand identity
difference between a given luxury brand and the store
brand, and is likely to adjust his/her selling efforts in
response to this assessment. Specifically, a higher level of
perceived fit between a luxury brand and the store brand
is associated with a higher level of salesperson’s selling
effort for the luxury brand. We demonstrate the dual and
opposing effects of a salesperson’s connection with luxury.
At a given level of salesperson’s perceived fit between luxury

Figure 2. (a) Interaction effect of luxury sensitivity and perceived fit assessment on salesperson’s luxury selling effort. (b): Interaction effect of luxury brand
identification and perceived fit assessment on salesperson’s luxury selling effort.
brand and store brand, salesperson luxury sensitivity weak-
ens, while salesperson’s luxury brand identification strength-
ens the effect of perceived fit on selling effort for the
luxury brand.
We do not find a significant effect of control systems
alignment for a luxury brand on the tested model. We offer
two explanations for this seemingly surprising finding. First,
a luxury brand invests in building its symbolic value
through branding efforts crafted over time (Kapferer and
Bastien 2009). Prior research shows that branding efforts
influence and shape salespeople behavior (e.g. Gilly and
Wolfinbarger 1998; Hughes 2013; Hughes and Ahearne
2010; Hughes et  al. 2019; Wolfinbarger and Gilly 2005).
Unlike other brands, a luxury brand tends to be affect-rich,
and forges stronger connections on an emotional level
(Dion and Arnould 2011). We suspect that these strong
affect-laden connections mitigate the impact of control sys-
tems. Second, our finding is based on our analysis of sales-
people compensated primarily on a salary basis. In the
JOURNAL OF PERSONAL SELLING & SALES MANAGEMENT 13
absence of extrinsic rewards, the salespeople are more likely
to be persuaded by intrinsic motivations. Due to the lower
dependence on extrinsic rewards, salespeople’s effort allo-
cation could be significantly driven by the psychological
triggers. Albeit such a high dependence on salary was an
exception in the context of the study, having this condition
allowed us to tease out the varying effects of different
influences that shape up a salesperson’s ultimate choice for
effort allocation. Nevertheless, our study offers several
meaningful theoretical and managerial implications, which
we discuss next.
Theoretical implications
Fit assessment is a key driver of salesperson’s motivation
in a less selective non-DOS
Our findings suggest that salespeople notice inconsistent
brand cues in the less selective non-DOS, and perceive
brand identity differences between the luxury and the store
14 M. D. GYOMLAI ET AL.
brand. The risk of brand dilution in the mind of the sales-
people exists to the extent that they perceive such brand
identity differences: we capture this as perceived fit. Drawing
from a vast body of research in the domain of cognitive
consistency, we postulate how this fit assessment is likely
to influence salespeople’s allocation of effort to support the
luxury brand. While research in luxury brand dilution has
given us insights on the impact of inconsistent brand cues
for a consumer (Albrecht et  al. 2013; Bellezza and Keinan
2014; Hagtvedt and Patrick 2009; Magnoni and Roux 2012),
to the best of our knowledge, our study is the first one to
examine inconsistent brand cues for a salesperson by mea-
suring his/her fit assessment, and demonstrate the impact
on selling luxury brands. Past research has examined sales-
people’s motivations in the DOS environment (Cervellon
and Coudriet 2013; Merk and Michel 2019). We go beyond
this extant body of work to present insights on luxury retail
sales in the less selective non-DOS environment. In doing
so, we propose fit assessment as one of the key drivers of
salespeople’s motivation to sell luxury, and find empirical
support for the same.
While selling luxury brands outside a luxury
environment, brand identification influences efforts as a
moderator
Salespeople brand identification studies have gained prom-
inence in the past decade (Badrinarayanan and Laverie 2011;
Gillespie and Noble 2017; Gillespie, Noble, and Lam 2016;
Hughes and Ahearne 2010; Hughes et  al. 2019). While this
stream of research has highlighted the direct positive effect
of brand identification on various sales outcomes, we do
not find a direct effect. Instead, our study shows that luxury
brand identification acts as a moderator to strengthen the
positive effect of perceived fit on sales efforts. Although
this finding seems divergent from what prior research has
revealed, considering the unique situation wherein a sales-
person deals with luxury and non-luxury brands together
in a less-selective non-DOS, it is not unusual to discover
that fit assessment is more salient and impactful in driving
salespeople’s effort allocation. In other words, this finding
further corroborates the importance of a salesperson’s fit
assessment while selling a luxury brand in a less-selective
non-DOS. With this finding, our work accounts for partic-
ularities in luxury, and builds on the brand identification
narrative for salespeople.
Managerial implications
Distribution strategy design remains a key concern for lux-
ury brands (Schneier 2017). While historically, luxury
brands have preferred to invest heavily in their own store
networks (Amaral and Loken 2016), they have continued
to exist in multi-brand non-DOS for various strategic rea-
sons, such as to serve a specific country (e.g. Japan;
Chitrakorn 2017), or to meet the demands of certain types
of consumers (e.g. middle-class; Dion and Borraz 2017), or
to provide access to entry-level luxury products to
Millennials (Derville and Kapferer 2018; Wharton 2018).
With the additional non-DOS route to luxury brands, a
consumer can have access to the luxury world without
feeling intimidated. Thus, luxury brands have adopted retail
strategies that include selling the luxury brand outside the
carefully controlled and curated DOS environment. While
such strategies expose the luxury brand to brand dilution
risks, our study highlights the importance of choosing the
right fit between the luxury brand and non-DOS brand as
a way of mitigating this issue.
Our study shows that it is paramount to consider the
psychological motivation levers of the salespeople at less
selective non-DOS locations. Specifically, a luxury brand
marketer should play an active role to provide more
brand-centric information to the salespeople in a less selec-
tive non-DOS. In doing so, a luxury brand marketer can
attempt to build or strengthen identification with the luxury
brand, while using the communication opportunity to
assuage any luxury brand dilution risks. The luxury brand
marketers should focus on communicating the rationale
behind the partnership with the distribution channel, so
that sales employees at the stores of the distribution channel
partner have a better understanding of the brand strategy
and can play an active role in promoting the luxury brand.
Furthermore, it is also in the interest of the distribution
channel partner to ensure that the sales of luxury brands
from their stores are supported. To that effect, channel part-
ners can help create blueprints for spaces within a store to
create a separation for the luxury brands. Creating a distinct
luxury corner with elements to support the luxury brand
will help minimize the perception of luxury brand incon-
sistency for the salesperson. When a salesperson is selling
a luxury brand from a dedicated space for luxury brands,
it may help in increasing the fit assessment between the
luxury brand and the store brand, and consequently reduce
brand dilution effects in his/her selling effort. This study
also highlights the importance of brand-specific motivation
levers that help to direct sales efforts for a luxury brand.
While control systems (in terms of monetary rewards, incen-
tives etc.) typically direct a salesperson’s selling efforts,
non-monetary levers of motivation play an even greater role
in motivating salespeople to sell a luxury brand. A luxury
brand marketer should try to address these motivation levers
by allocating resources to manage them. For instance, a
luxury brand could take an active role in providing
brand-specific training in conjunction with the retail partner.
Even though the partner may hold the reins of the sales
personnel, training efforts could infuse elements of the lux-
ury brand through the sales personnel to create a strong
brand connection with the luxury brand. Training interven-
tion efforts may also help mitigate the risks of a salesperson’s
perceived brand dilution.
Limitations and further research
Although our research has provided meaningful insights
on selling luxury brands in a less selective non-DOS envi-
ronment, our study encompasses limitations that provide

avenues for further investigation. First, our research explores
the various forces of influence that direct a salesperson’s
effort allocation for a luxury brand outside its luxury envi-
ronment. We introduced the notion of salesperson’s per-
ceived fit between a luxury brand and the store brand as
a likely determinant of effort allocation for the specific
luxury brand. Our anchor for comparison was the less
selective non-DOS brand versus a given luxury brand, but
future research can explore how a salesperson views a lux-
ury brand in the midst of an assortment of other brands
present in the store. While research on assortment sheds
light on consumer-level variables like perception of variety,
consumers’ choice of the store or store-level outcomes like
customer retention, store sales and retailer costs of carrying
the assortment (Boatwright and Nunes 2001; Briesch,
Chintagunta, and Fox 2009; Kalyanam, Borle, and Boatwright
2007; Sloot, Fok, and Verhoef 2006), little is known about
the impact of assortment mix on the sales of luxury brands.
Specifically, two research areas can be explored: (1) the
impact of perceived fit within an assortment of luxury
brands, and (2) the impact of perceived fit of a ‘brand
assortment’ within the less selective non-DOS environment
(i.e., the entire assortment versus the store brand).
Additionally, our research highlights the impact of a sales-
person’s luxury brand identification on the selling efforts;
however, it primarily does so while considering a single
luxury brand at a time. A salesperson may be influenced
by multiple luxury brands at the same time, and the brand
identities of these brands may differ. Especially in
multi-brand retail stores selling luxury brands, a salesperson
can find himself/herself surrounded by brands with com-
peting brand narratives and strong identities. Future
research could shed light on how these multiple luxury
identities influence the salesperson simultaneously. It would
be interesting to note competing influences of different
luxury brands on a salesperson. With respect to the design
of the study, while we have provided theoretical justifica-
tions for our conceptual model, and tested it with
cross-sectional data, evidence of statistical causality is miss-
ing. As a next step, to ascertain causality and add more
value to this research, an experimental or longitudinal
approach is warranted.
Another big avenue for future research is in online luxury
commerce. Luxury brands are increasingly adopting online
platforms as a means of their strategy to meet the demands
of young affluent consumers. According to Bain and
Company (2020) report, up to 30% of personal luxury sales
are likely to take place via online channels by the year 2025.
The role of online channels is beyond just sales: consumers
spend a considerable amount of time on online channels
researching about a luxury brand before deciding to buy
from a physical location. Industry practitioners and acade-
micians have defined this phenomenon as webrooming (i.e.,
to research online and finally buy offline) (Kramer 2014;
Verhoef, Kannan, and Inman 2015). The challenges of man-
aging selective distribution remain the same in the online
world: the need to balance exclusivity and growth (Derville
and Kapferer 2018), as e-commerce platforms like Amazon
JOURNAL OF PERSONAL SELLING & SALES MANAGEMENT 15
or T Mall now knock at the door of luxury brands. Future
research could address the issue of potential luxury brand
dilution in this omnichannel journey of a luxury consumer
that weaves both online and physical locations. How the
rules of luxury brand management may need to be recon-
figured considering online presence, remains an issue to be
investigated, and presents a huge opportunity for future
academic research.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Sébastien Dequéant and Frédéric Douillet for pro-
viding access to the stores and for many valuable conversations.
Funding
This work was supported by the EDF Chair at HEC Paris, by a public
grant overseen by the French National Research Agency (ANR) as
part of the « Investissements d’Avenir » program (ANR-11-IDEX-0003/
Labex Ecodec/ANR-11-LABX-0047) and by the Sales Excellence
Institute of the University of Houston.
References
Aaker, David A., and Kevin Lane Keller. 1990. “Consumer Evaluations
of Brand Extensions.” Journal of Marketing 54 (1):27–41. doi:
10.1177/002224299005400102.
Albrecht, Carmen‐Maria, Christof Backhaus, Hannes Gurzki, and David
M. Woisetschläger. 2013. “Drivers of Brand Extension Success: What
Really Matters for Luxury Brands.” Psychology & Marketing 30
(8):647–59. doi: 10.1002/mar.20635.
Amaral, Nelson B., and Barbara Loken. 2016. “Viewing Usage of
Counterfeit Luxury Goods: Social Identity and Social Hierarchy
Effects on Dilution and Enhancement of Genuine Luxury Brands.”
Journal of Consumer Psychology 26 (4):483–95. doi: 10.1016/j.
jcps.2016.02.004.
Amatulli, Cesare, Gianluigi Guido, and Rajan Nataraajan. 2015. “Luxury
Purchasing among Older Consumers: Exploring Inferences about
Cognitive Age, Status, and Style Motivations.” Journal of Business
Research 68 (9):1945–52. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.004.
Amatulli, Cesare, Giovanni Pino, Matteo De Angelis, and Robert
Cascio. 2018. “Understanding Purchase Determinants of Luxury
Vintage Products.” Psychology & Marketing 35 (8):616–24. doi:
10.1002/mar.21110.
Anderson, Erin, Leonard M. Lodish, and Barton A. Weitz. 1987.
“Resource Allocation Behavior in Conventional Channels.” Journal
of Marketing Research 24 (1):85–97. doi: 10.1177/002224378702400108.
Armstrong, J. Scott, and Terry S. Overton. 1977. “Estimating
Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys.” Journal of Marketing Research
14 (3):396–402. doi: 10.1177/002224377701400320.
Ashforth, Blake E., and Fred Mael. 1989. “Social Identity Theory and
the Organization.” Academy of Management Review 14 (1):20–39.
doi: 10.5465/amr.1989.4278999.
Atwal, Glyn, and Alistair Williams. 2009. “Luxury Brand Marketing
- The Experience is Everything!” Journal of Brand Management 16
(5-6):338–46. doi: 10.1057/bm.2008.48.
Badrinarayanan, Vishag, and Debra A. Laverie. 2011. “Brand Advocacy
and Sales Effort by Retail Salespeople: Antecedents and Influence
of Identification with Manufacturers’ Brands.” Journal of Personal
Selling & Sales Management 31 (2):123–40. doi: 10.2753/
PSS0885-3134310202.
Bagozzi, Richard P. 1980. Causal Models in Marketing. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Bagozzi, Richard, and Youjae Yi. 2012. “Specification, Evaluation, and
Interpretation of Structural Equation Models.” Journal of the
16 M. D. GYOMLAI ET AL.
Academy of Marketing Science 40 (1):8–34. doi: 10.1007/
s11747-011-0278-x.
Bain and Company. 2020. “Bain-Altagamma Luxury Goods Worldwide
Market Study, Spring 2020.” Accessed 1 November 2020. https://
s3.amazonaws.com/cfda.f.mrhenry.be/2020/05/200507Bain-Alta
gammaSpring2020Update_FINAL.pdf, 21–22.
Barsade, Sigal G. 2002. “The Ripple Effect: Emotional Contagion and
Its Influence on Group Behavior.” Administrative Science Quarterly
47 (4):644–75. doi: 10.2307/3094912.
Basu, Amiya K., Rajiv Lal, Venkataraman Srinivasan, and Richard
Staelin. 1985. “Salesforce Compensation Plans: An Agency Theoretic
Perspective.” Marketing Science 4 (4):267–91. doi: 10.1287/
mksc.4.4.267.
Bellezza, Silvia, and Anat Keinan. 2014. “Brand Tourists: How Non–
Core Users Enhance the Brand Image by Eliciting Pride.” Journal
of Consumer Research 41 (2):397–417. doi: 10.1086/676679.
Bergami, Massimo, and Richard P. Bagozzi. 2000. “Self-Categorization,
Affective Commitment and Group Self-Esteem as Distinct Aspects
of Social Identity in Organization.” British Journal of Social
Psychology 39 (4):555–77. doi: 10.1348/014466600164633.
Bhattacharya, Chitrabhan B., and Sankar Sen. 2003. “Consumer-Company
Identification: A Framework for Understanding Consumers’
Relationships with Companies.” Journal of Marketing 67 (2):76–88.
doi: 10.1509/jmkg.67.2.76.18609.
Bierley, Calvin, Frances K. McSweeney, and Renee Vannieuwkerk. 1985.
“Classical Conditioning of Preferences for Stimuli.” Journal of
Consumer Research 12 (3):316–23. doi: 10.1086/208518.
Boatwright, Peter, and Joseph C. Nunes. 2001. “Reducing Assortment:
An Attribute-Based Approach.” Journal of Marketing 65 (3):50–63.
doi: 10.1509/jmkg.65.3.50.18330.
Boisvert, Jean, and Nicholas J. Ashill. 2018. “The Spillover Effect of
Downward Line Extensions on US Consumers’ Evaluation of a
French Luxury Parent Brand: The Role of Branding Strategies,
Authenticity, and Fit.” Psychology & Marketing 35 (10):740–51. doi:
10.1002/mar.21131.
Bornstein, Robert F., and Paul R. D’Agostino. 1992. “Stimulus
Recognition and the Mere Exposure Effect.” Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 63 (4):545–52. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.545.
Boush, David M., and Barbara Loken. 1991. “A Process-Tracing Study
of Brand Extension Evaluation.” Journal of Marketing Research 28
(1):16–28. doi: 10.1177/002224379102800102.
Brakus, J. Joško, Bernd H. Schmitt, and Lia Zarantonello. 2009. “Brand
Experience: What is It? How is It Measured? Does It Affect Loyalty?”
Journal of Marketing 73 (3):52–68. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.73.3.052.
Briesch, Richard A., Pradeep K. Chintagunta, and Edward J. Fox.
2009. “How Does Assortment Affect Grocery Store Choice?”
Journal of Marketing Research 46 (2):176–89. doi: 10.1509/
jmkr.46.2.176.
Brown, Steven P., and Robert A. Peterson. 1994. “The Effect of Effort
on Sales Performance and Job Satisfaction.” Journal of Marketing 58
(2):70–80. doi: 10.1177/002224299405800206.
Cervellon, Marie-Cécile, and Rachael Coudriet. 2013. “Brand Social
Power in Luxury Retail: Manifestations of Brand Dominance over
Clients in the Store.” International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management 41 (11/12):869–84. doi: 10.1108/IJRDM-01-2013-
0016.
Cervellon, Marie-Cécile, Juliet F. Poujol, and J. F. Tanner Jr. 2019.
“Judging by the Wristwatch: Salespersons’ Responses to Status
Signals and Stereotypes of Luxury Clients.” Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services 51:191–201. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.04.013.
Chevalier, Michel, and Gerald Mazzalovo. 2008. Luxury Brand
Management: A World of Privilege. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Chitrakorn, Kati. 2017. “Japan’s Luxury Market Enters a New Era.”
Accessed 10 February 2021. https://www.businessoffashion.com/ar-
ticles/global-currents/japans-luxury-market-enters-a-new-era
Christen, Markus, Ganesh Iyer, and David Soberman. 2006. “Job
Satisfaction, Job Performance, and Effort: A Reexamination Using
Agency Theory.” Journal of Marketing 70 (1):137–50. doi: 10.1509/
jmkg.70.1.137.qxd.
Churchill Jr., Gilbert A. 1979. “A Paradigm for Developing Better
Measures of Marketing Constructs.” Journal of Marketing Research
16 (1):64–73. doi: 10.1177/002224377901600110.
Coughlan, Anne T., and Kissan Joseph. 2012. “26 Sales Force
Compensation: Research Insights and Research Potential.” Handbook
on Business-to-Business Marketing 473:21–22.
Coughlan, Anne T., and Subrata K. Sen. 1989. “Salesforce Compensation:
Theory and Managerial Implications.” Marketing Science 8 (4):324–
42. doi: 10.1287/mksc.8.4.324.
Cravens, David W., Thomas N. Ingram, Raymond W. LaForge, and
Clifford E. Young. 1993. “Behavior-Based and Outcome-Based
Salesforce Control Systems.” Journal of Marketing 57 (4):47–59. doi:
10.1177/002224299305700404.
Davis-Sramek, Beth, Cornelia Droge, John T. Mentzer, and Matthew
B. Myers. 2009. “Creating Commitment and Loyalty Behavior among
Retailers: What Are the Roles of Service Quality and Satisfaction?”
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 37 (4):440–54. doi:
10.1007/s11747-009-0148-y.
Derville, Xavier, and Jean-Noël Kapferer. 2018. “Amazon, Just a Click
Away from Luxury.” Accessed 10 June 2020. https://www.european-
businessreview.com/amazon-just-a-click-away-from-luxury/
Desmichel, Perrine, and Bruno Kocher. 2020. “Luxury Single-versus
Multi-Brand Stores: The Effect of Consumers’ Hedonic Goals on
Brand Comparisons.” Journal of Retailing 96 (2):203–19. doi:
10.1016/j.jretai.2019.09.002.
Dion, Delphine, and Eric Arnould. 2011. “Retail Luxury Strategy:
Assembling Charisma through Art and Magic.” Journal of Retailing
87 (4):502–20. doi: 10.1016/j.jretai.2011.09.001.
Dion, Delphine, and Stéphane Borraz. 2015. “Managing Heritage
Brands: A Study of the Sacralization of Heritage Stores in the Luxury
Industry.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 22:77–84. doi:
10.1016/j.jretconser.2014.09.005.
Dion, Delphine, and Stéphane Borraz. 2017. “Managing Status: How
Luxury Brands Shape Class Subjectivities in the Service
Encounter.” Journal of Marketing 81 (5):67–85. doi: 10.1509/
jm.15.0291.
Donavan, D. Todd, Swinder Janda, and Jaebeom Suh. 2006.
“Environmental Influences in Corporate Brand Identification and
Outcomes.” Journal of Brand Management 14 (1-2):125–36. doi:
10.1057/palgrave.bm.2550057.
Dubois, Bernard, and Patrick Duquesne. 1993. “The Market for Luxury
Goods: Income versus Culture.” European Journal of Marketing 27
(1):35–44. doi: 10.1108/03090569310024530.
Dubois, Bernard, and Claire Paternault. 1995. “Understanding the
World of International Luxury Brands: The ‘Dream Formula.’”
Journal of Advertising Research 35 (4):69–76.
Eastman, Jacqueline K., Rajesh Iyer, C. David Shepherd, Angelina
Heugel, and Don Faulk. 2018. “Do They Shop to Stand out or Fit
in? The Luxury Fashion Purchase Intentions of Young Adults.”
Psychology & Marketing 35 (3):220–36. doi: 10.1002/mar.21082.
Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. 1985. “Control: Organizational and Economic
Approaches.” Management Science 31 (2):134–49. doi: 10.1287/
mnsc.31.2.134.
Evans, Kenneth R., Timothy D. Landry, Po-Chien Li, and Shaoming
Zou. 2007. “How Sales Controls Affect Job-Related Outcomes: The
Role of Organizational Sales-Related Psychological Climate
Perceptions.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 35
(3):445–59. doi: 10.1007/s11747-007-0033-5.
Fionda, Antoinette M., and Christopher M. Moore. 2009. “The Anatomy
of the Luxury Fashion Brand.” Journal of Brand Management 16
(5-6):347–63. doi: 10.1057/bm.2008.45.
Fitzsimons, Gráinne M., Tanya L. Chartrand, and Gavan J. Fitzsimons.
2008. “Automatic Effects of Brand Exposure on Motivated Behavior:
How Apple Makes You ‘Think Different.’” Journal of Consumer
Research 35 (1):21–35. doi: 10.1086/527269.
Fornell, Claes, and David F. Larcker. 1981. “Evaluating Structural
Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement
Error.” Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1):39–50. doi:
10.1177/002224378101800104.

Fu, Frank Q., Keith A. Richards, and Eli Jones. 2009. “The Motivation
Hub: Effects of Goal Setting and Self-Efficacy on Effort and New
Product Sales.” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 29
(3):277–92. doi: 10.2753/PSS0885-3134290305.
Gammoh, Bashar S., Michael L. Mallin, and Ellen Bolman Pullins.
2014. “Antecedents and Consequences of Salesperson Identification
with the Brand and Company.” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management 34 (1):3–18. doi: 10.1080/08853134.2013.
870181.
Gillespie, Erin Adamson, and Stephanie M. Noble. 2017. “Stuck like
Glue: The Formation and Consequences of Brand Attachments
among Salespeople.” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
37 (3):228–49. doi: 10.1080/08853134.2017.1348235.
Gillespie, Erin Adamson, Stephanie M. Noble, and Son K. Lam. 2016.
“Extrinsic versus Intrinsic Approaches to Managing a Multi-Brand
Salesforce: When and How Do They Work?” Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science 44 (6):707–25. doi: 10.1007/s11747-016-0473-x.
Gilly, Mary C., and Mary Wolfinbarger. 1998. “Advertising’s Internal
Audience.” Journal of Marketing 62 (1):69–88. doi:
10.1177/002224299806200107.
Godey, Bruno, Daniele Pederzoli, Gaetano Aiello, Raffaele Donvito,
Priscilla Chan, Hyunjoo Oh, Rahul Singh, Irina I. Skorobogatykh,
Junji Tsuchiya, and Bart Weitz. 2012. “Brand and Country-of-Origin
Effect on Consumers’ Decision to Purchase Luxury Products.”
Journal of Business Research 65 (10):1461–1470.
Goff, Brent G., James S. Boles, Danny N. Bellenger, and Carrie Stojack.
1997. “The Influence of Salesperson Selling Behaviors on Customer
Satisfaction with Products.” Journal of Retailing 73 (2):171–83. doi:
10.1016/S0022-4359(97)90002-6.
Goor, Dafna, Nailya Ordabayeva, Anat Keinan, and Sandrine Crener.
2020. “The Impostor Syndrome from Luxury Consumption.” Journal
of Consumer Research 46 (6):1031–51. doi: 10.1093/jcr/ucz044.
Grimes, Anthony, and Philip J. Kitchen. 2007. “Researching Mere
Exposure Effects to Advertising-Theoretical Foundations and
Methodological Implications.” International Journal of Market
Research 49 (2):191–219. doi: 10.1177/14707853070490
0205.
Hagtvedt, Henrik, and Vanessa M. Patrick. 2009. “The Broad Embrace
of Luxury: Hedonic Potential as a Driver of Brand Extendibility.”
Journal of Consumer Psychology 19 (4):608–18. doi: 10.1016/j.
jcps.2009.05.007.
Han, Young Jee, Joseph C. Nunes, and Xavier Drèze. 2010. “Signaling
Status with Luxury Goods: The Role of Brand Prominence.” Journal
of Marketing 74 (4):15–30. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.74.4.015.
Heider, Fritz. 1946. “Attitudes and Cognitive Organization.” The
Journal of Psychology 21 (1):107–12. doi: 10.1080/00223980.
1946.9917275.
Hox, Joop J. 2002. Multilevel Analysis: Techniques and Applications.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Hughes, Douglas E. 2013. “This Ad’s for You: The Indirect Effect of
Advertising Perceptions on Salesperson Effort and Performance.”
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 41 (1):1–18. doi:
10.1007/s11747-011-0293-y.
Hughes, Douglas E., and Michael Ahearne. 2010. “Energizing the
Reseller’s Sales Force: The Power of Brand Identification.” Journal
of Marketing 74 (4):81–96. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.74.4.081.
Hughes, Douglas E., Keith A. Richards, Roger Calantone, Brian Baldus,
and Richard A. Spreng. 2019. “Driving in-Role and Extra-Role Brand
Performance among Retail Frontline Salespeople: Antecedents and
the Moderating Role of Customer Orientation.” Journal of Retailing
95 (2):130–43. doi: 10.1016/j.jretai.2019.03.003.
John, George, and Barton Weitz. 1989. “Salesforce Compensation: An
Empirical Investigation of Factors Related to Use of Salary versus
Incentive Compensation.” Journal of Marketing Research 26 (1):1–14.
doi: 10.1177/002224378902600101.
Jones, Eli, Suresh Sundaram, and Wynne Chin. 2002. “Factors Leading
to Sales Force Automation Use: A Longitudinal Analysis.” Journal
of Personal Selling & Sales Management 22 (3):145–56.
Joseph, Kissan, and Alex Thevaranjan. 1998. “Monitoring and Incentives
in Sales Organizations: An Agency-Theoretic Perspective.” Marketing
Science 17 (2):107–23. doi: 10.1287/mksc.17.2.107.
JOURNAL OF PERSONAL SELLING & SALES MANAGEMENT 17
Kalyanam, Kirthi, Sharad Borle, and Peter Boatwright. 2007.
“Deconstructing Each Item’s Category Contribution.” Marketing
Science 26 (3):327–41. doi: 10.1287/mksc.1070.0270.
Kapferer, Jean-Noël. 2014. “The Future of Luxury: Challenges and
Opportunities.” Journal of Brand Management 21 (9):716–26. doi:
10.1057/bm.2014.32.
Kapferer, Jean-Noël, and Vincent Bastien. 2009. “The Specificity of
Luxury Management: Turning Marketing Upside Down.” Journal of
Brand Management 16 (5-6):311–22. doi: 10.1057/bm.2008.51.
Kapferer, Jean-Noël, and Pierre Valette-Florence. 2018. “The Impact of
Brand Penetration and Awareness on Luxury Brand Desirability: A
Cross Country Analysis of the Relevance of the Rarity Principle.”
Journal of Business Research 83:38–50. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.
09.025.
Kering Integrated Report. 2019. “Kering - Financial Document 2019.”
Accessed 24 Oct 2020. https://keringcorporate.dam.kering.
com/m/5950e4d285ac1f9a/original/2019-Financial-Document.pdf
Kramer, Arjan. 2014. “Webrooming, the Next Big Thing in All-Channel
Retailing.” Accessed 25 January 2021. https://www.capgemini.
com/2014/01/webrooming-the-next-big-thing-in-all-channel-retailing/
Kruglanski, Arie W., Katarzyna Jasko, Maxim Milyavsky, Marina
Chernikova, David Webber, Antonio Pierro, and Daniela di Santo.
2018. “Cognitive Consistency Theory in Social Psychology: A
Paradigm Reconsidered.” Psychological Inquiry 29 (2):45–59. doi:
10.1080/1047840X.2018.1480619.
Kuenzel, Sven, and Sue Vaux Halliday. 2008. “Investigating Antecedents
and Consequences of Brand Identification.” Journal of Product &
Brand Management 17 (5):293–304. doi: 10.1108/10610420810896059.
Lal, Rajiv, and Venkataraman Srinivasan. 1993. “Compensation Plans
for Single-and Multi-Product Salesforces: An Application of the
Holmstrom-Milgrom Model.” Management Science 39 (7):777–93.
doi: 10.1287/mnsc.39.7.777.
Lal, Rajiv, and Richard Staelin. 1986. “Salesforce Compensation Plans
in Environments with Asymmetric Information.” Marketing Science
5 (3):179–98. doi: 10.1287/mksc.5.3.179.
Loken, Barbara, and Deborah Roedder John. 1993. “Diluting Brand
Beliefs: When Do Brand Extensions Have a Negative Impact?”
Journal of Marketing 57 (3):71–84. doi: 10.2307/1251855.
Loken, Barbara, and Deborah Roedder John. 2009. “When Do Bad
Things Happen to Good Brands? Understanding Internal and External
Sources of Brand Dilution.” In Brands and Brand Management:
Contemporary Research Perspectives, edited by B. Loken, R. Ahluwalia,
and M. J. Houston, 233–63. New York: Routledge.
Mael, Fred, and Blake E. Ashforth. 1992. “Alumni and Their Alma
Mater: A Partial Test of the Reformulated Model of Organizational
Identification.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 13 (2):103–23.
doi: 10.1002/job.4030130202.
Magnoni, Fanny, and Elyette Roux. 2012. “The Impact of Step-Down
Line Extension on Consumer-Brand Relationships: A Risky Strategy
for Luxury Brands.” Journal of Brand Management 19 (7):595–608.
doi: 10.1057/bm.2012.8.
Mandl, Leonhard, and Jens Hogreve. 2020. “Buffering Effects of Brand
Community Identification in Service Failures: The Role of Customer
Citizenship Behaviors.” Journal of Business Research 107:130–7. doi:
10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.09.008.
Mantrala, Murali K., Prabhakant Sinha, and Andris A. Zoltners. 1994.
“Structuring a Multiproduct Sales Quota-Bonus Plan for a
Heterogeneous Sales Force: A Practical Model-Based Approach.”
Marketing Science 13 (2):121–44. doi: 10.1287/mksc.13.2.121.
Martinez, Eva, and Leslie de Chernatony. 2004. “The Effect of Brand
Extension Strategies upon Brand Image.” Journal of Consumer
Marketing 21 (1):39–50. doi: 10.1108/07363760410513950.
Martinez, Eva, and José M. Pina. 2003. “The Negative Impact of Brand
Extensions on Parent Brand Image.” Journal of Product & Brand
Management 12 (7):432–48. doi: 10.1108/10610420310506001.
Merk, Michaela. 2014. Luxury Sales Force Management: Strategies for
Winning over Your Brand Ambassadors. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Merk, Michaela, and Géraldine Michel. 2019. “The Dark Side of
Salesperson Brand Identification in the Luxury Sector: When Brand
Orientation Generates Management Issues and Negative Customer
18 M. D. GYOMLAI ET AL.
Perception.” Journal of Business Research 102:339–52. doi: 10.1016/j.
jbusres.2019.01.037.
Meyvis, Tom, Kelly Goldsmith, and Ravi Dhar. 2012. “The Importance
of the Context in Brand Extension: How Pictures and Comparisons
Shift Consumers’ Focus from Fit to Quality.” Journal of Marketing
Research 49 (2):206–17. doi: 10.1509/jmr.08.0060.
Miao, C. Fred, Kenneth R. Evans, and Zou Shaoming. 2007. “The Role
of Salesperson Motivation in Sales Control Systems-Intrinsic and
Extrinsic Motivation Revisited.” Journal of Business Research 60
(5):417–25. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.12.005.
Michel, Géraldine, Michaela Merk, and Sevgin Eroglu. 2015. “Salesperson–
Brand Relationship: Main Dimensions and Impact within the Context
of Private Brand Retailing.” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management 35 (4):314–33. doi: 10.1080/08853134.2015.1110937.
Michman, Ronald D., and Edward M. Mazze. 2006. The Affluent
Consumer: Marketing and Selling the Luxury Lifestyle. Westport, CT:
Greenwood Publishing Group.
Moore, Christopher M., Anne Marie Doherty, and Stephen A. Doyle.
2010. “Flagship Stores as a Market Entry Method: The Perspective
of Luxury Fashion Retailing.” European Journal of Marketing 44
(1/2):139–61. doi: 10.1108/03090561011008646.
Mortelmans, Dimitri. 2005. “Sign Values in Processes of Distinction:
The Concept of Luxury.” Semiotica 2005 (157):497–520. doi: 10.1515/
semi.2005.2005.157.1-4.497.
Osgood, Charles E., and Percy H. Tannenbaum. 1955. “The Principle
of Congruity in the Prediction of Attitude Change.” Psychological
Review 62 (1):42–55. doi: 10.1037/h0048153.
Parment, Anders. 2008. “Distribution Strategies for Volume and
Premium Brands in Highly Competitive Consumer Markets.” Journal
of Retailing and Consumer Services 15 (4):250–65. doi: 10.1016/j.
jretconser.2007.05.006.
Pierce, Jon L., Tatiana Kostova, and Kurt T. Dirks. 2001. “Toward a
Theory of Psychological Ownership in Organizations.” Academy of
Management Review 26 (2):298–310. doi: 10.5465/amr.2001.4378028.
Raju, Jagmohan S., and V. Srinivasan. 1996. “Quota-Based Compensation
Plans for Multiterritory Heterogeneous Salesforces.” Management
Science 42 (10):1454–62. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.42.10.1454.
Rao, Ram C. 1990. “Compensating Heterogeneous Salesforces: Some
Explicit Solutions.” Marketing Science 9 (4):319–41. doi: 10.1287/
mksc.9.4.319.
Raudenbush, Stephen W., and Anthony S. Bryk. 2002. Hierarchical
Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods. Vol. 1.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Inc.
Roux, Elyette. 1995. “Consumer Evaluation of Luxury Brand Extensions.”
In Proceedings of the 24th European Marketing Academy Conference,
edited by M. Bergadaà, Vol. 2, 1971–80. Cergy-Pontoise: ESSEC.
Ryan, Nicky. 2007. “Prada and the Art of Patronage.” Fashion Theory
11 (1):7–24. doi: 10.2752/136270407779934588.
Ryan, Richard M., and Edward L. Deci. 2000. “Self-Determination
Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social
Development, and Well-Being.” American Psychologist 55 (1):68–78.
doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.
Schneier, Matthew. 2017. “The Death Knell for the Bricks-and-Mortar
Store? Not Yet.” Accessed 4 February 2021. https://www.nytimes.
com/2017/11/13/fashion/shopping-online-retail.html
Sloot, Laurens M., Dennis Fok, and Peter C. Verhoef. 2006. “The
Short- and Long-Term Impact of an Assortment Reduction on
Category Sales.” Journal of Marketing Research 43 (4):536–48. doi:
10.1509/jmkr.43.4.536.
Sujan, Harish. 1986. “Smarter versus Harder: An Exploratory
Attributional Analysis of Salespeople’s Motivation.” Journal of
Marketing Research 23 (1):41–9. doi: 10.1177/002224378602300105.
Topolinski, Sascha, and Fritz Strack. 2009. “The Analysis of Intuition:
Processing Fluency and Affect in Judgements of Semantic Coherence.”
Cognition & Emotion 23 (8):1465–503. doi: 10.1080/02699930802420745.
Tyagi, Pradeep K. 1985. “Relative Importance of Key Job Dimensions
and Leadership Behaviors in Motivating Salesperson Work
Performance.” Journal of Marketing 49 (3):76–86. doi:
10.1177/002224298504900307.
Underwood, Robert, Edward Bond, and Robert Baer. 2001. “Building
Service Brands via Social Identity: Lessons from the Sports
Marketplace.” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 9 (1):1–13.
doi: 10.1080/10696679.2001.11501881.
van Dick, Rolf. 2004. “My Job is My Castle: Identification in
Organizational Contexts.” International Review of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology 19:171–204.
van Dolen, Willemijn, Jos Lemmink, Ko de Ruyter, and Ad de Jong.
2002. “Customer-Sales Employee Encounters: A Dyadic Perspective.”
Journal of Retailing 78 (4):265–79. doi: 10.1016/S0022-4359(02)00067-2.
Verhoef, Peter C., Pallassana K. Kannan, and J. Jeffrey Inman. 2015.
“From Multi-Channel Retailing to Omni-Channel Retailing:
Introduction to the Special Issue on Multi-Channel Retailing.”
Journal of Retailing 91 (2):174–81. doi: 10.1016/j.jretai.2015.02.005.
Vickers, Jonathan S., and Franck Renand. 2003. “The Marketing of
Luxury Goods: An Exploratory Study - Three Conceptual
Dimensions.” The Marketing Review 3 (4):459–78. doi:
10.1362/146934703771910071.
Vigneron, Franck, and Lester W. Johnson. 2004. “Measuring Perceptions
of Brand Luxury.” Journal of Brand Management 11 (6):484–506.
doi: 10.1057/palgrave.bm.2540194.
Vogel, Areti T., Sasikarn Chatvijit Cook, and Kittichai Watchravesringkan.
2019. “Luxury Brand Dilution: Investigating the Impact of Renting
by Millennials on Brand Equity.” Journal of Brand Management 26
(4):473–82. doi: 10.1057/s41262-018-00144-4.
Völckner, Franziska, and Henrik Sattler. 2006. “Drivers of Brand
Extension Success.” Journal of Marketing 70 (2):18–34. doi: 10.1509/
jmkg.70.2.018.
Wang, Xuehua, Cheris W. C. Chow, and Chung Leung Luk. 2013.
“Does Service Employee Arrogance Discourage Sales of Luxury
Brands in Emerging Economies?” Psychology & Marketing 30
(10):918–33. doi: 10.1002/mar.20655.
Ward, Morgan K., and Darren W. Dahl. 2014. “Should the Devil Sell
Prada? Retail Rejection Increases Aspiring Consumers’ Desire for
the Brand.” Journal of Consumer Research 41 (3):590–609. doi:
10.1086/676980.
Weitz, Barton A., Stephen Bryon Castleberry, and John F. Tanner. 2001.
Selling: Building Partnerships. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Wharton. 2018. “Why Luxury Brands Are Racing to Embrace
E-Commerce.” Knowledge@Wharton, March 13. http://knowledge.
wharton.upenn.edu/article/luxury-brands-racing-embrace-e-
commerce/
Winkielman, Piotr, and John T. Cacioppo. 2001. “Mind at Ease Puts
a Smile on the Face: Psychophysiological Evidence That Processing
Facilitation Elicits Positive Affect.” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 81 (6):989–1000. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.989.
Wolfinbarger, Mary Finley, and Mary C. Gilly. 2005. “How Firm
Advertising Affects Employees’ Trust, Organizational Identification,
and Customer Focus.” MSI Reports 5 (2):20–39.
Wright, Peter. 1975. “Consumer Choice Strategies: Simplifying vs
Optimizing.” Journal of Marketing Research 12 (1):60–7. doi: 10.1177/
002224377501200109.
Zhou, Nan, and Russell W. Belk. 2004. “Chinese Consumer Readings
of Global and Local Advertising Appeals.” Journal of Advertising 33
(3):63–76. doi: 10.1080/00913367.2004.10639169.
 JOURNAL OF PERSONAL SELLING & SALES MANAGEMENT 19

Appendix In your opinion, during the last month, how did Salesperson X
allocate his/her efforts between the following luxury brands? Please
Salesperson’s Perceived Fit between a Luxury Brand and the distribute 100 points among the following categories:
Store Brand (Salesperson Questionnaire) (Adapted from Bergami
and Bagozzi 2000)
Imagine that one of the circles represents the personality of the
brand as shown and the other represents that of Store brand. Please All other brands priced equal or
indicate which case (A, B, …, or H) shown below best represents the Dior Chanel Prada Gucci above 250 € Total
proximity that you perceive between the two brands: 100

Control System Alignment for Luxury Brand (Store Manager

Questionnaire) (Adapted from Hughes and Ahearne 2010)
During the last month, please indicate which brands were active
in your store for each of the following headings:

All other
brands All other
priced brands
equal or priced
Store above below
Dior Chanel Prada Gucci Brand 250 € 250 € N/A
Incentives
Salesperson’s Luxury Sensitivity (Salesperson Questionnaire) Premiums
Special Price
(Original Scale) Promotion
For each of the statements listed below, please indicate your opin- Special
ion on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being “strongly disagree” and 5 being Collection
“strongly agree” Limited Edition
Insurance
a. I love luxury brands. Support
b. I appreciate the exceptional quality and attention to detail
of luxury goods.
c. I’m ready to deprive myself completely to offer myself a In-Store Brand Prominence (Store Manager Questionnaire)
beautiful luxury product. (Original Scale)
Standard scale development procedures as recommended by During the last month, please indicate which of the following
Churchill (1979) was followed. Specifically, after conceptualizing the in-store support materials were present in your store for each of the
domain of this construct, an initial pool of items was generated based following brands and categories:
on a literature review and discussions with industry experts with
substantial experience in the luxury sector. In the next step, these
items were discussed with salespeople and sales managers to confirm
comprehensibility, and three items (that spanned three facets: cognitive, All other
brands All other
affective, and conative) were found to be most appropriate and retained
priced brands
for the scale. Analysis of data collected confirmed the estimates of equal or priced
reliability and analysis of factor structure confirmed the adequacy and Store above below
appropriateness of the measure (Churchill 1979). Dior Chanel Prada Gucci Brand 250 € 250 € N/A
Brand logo
Salesperson’s Luxury Selling Effort (Store Manager Brand-specific
Questionnaire) (Adapted from Hughes and Ahearne 2010) point-of-
Composite score obtained from the following two questions: sale
In your opinion, during the last month, how did Salesperson X material
allocate his/her efforts between the following? Please distribute 100 Special display
points among the following categories: case
Brand-specific
display
column
All other brands All other brands Brand-specific
priced equal or priced below 250 display
Store Brand above 250 € € Total window
100 Other
20 M. D. GYOMLAI ET AL.

Sales Tracking Sheets (Objective Data Collected from Salespeople)