General — Desirability & Brand Attribute Ratings

Desirability of Attributes

“Rating from 1–7, how much do these qualities make you desire a brand?”

Desirability Ratings by Attribute (all participants)
Item Mean SD N
Expressive 6.3 0.82 10
Exclusive 5.7 1.06 10
Masterful 5.4 1.71 10
Creative 5.0 1.70 10
Luxurious 4.8 1.40 10
Mysterious 3.5 1.90 10

Attribute Ratings by Brand

“How much do you think each brand embodies each attribute?”

Attribute Ratings by Brand
Attribute Brand Mean SD N
Creative Byredo 5.3 1.42 10
Tom Ford 4.1 1.45 10
DS&Durga 3.8 1.87 10
Commodity 3.7 2.21 10
Exclusive Byredo 5.3 0.82 10
Commodity 4.4 1.84 10
DS&Durga 4.4 1.71 10
Tom Ford 4.3 1.77 10
Expressive Byredo 5.1 0.74 10
Tom Ford 4.7 1.25 10
Commodity 4.1 1.85 10
DS&Durga 4.0 0.82 10
Luxurious Byredo 5.8 1.03 10
Tom Ford 5.3 1.06 10
DS&Durga 4.0 0.94 10
Commodity 3.8 1.62 10
Masterful Byredo 5.5 0.97 10
Tom Ford 5.2 1.03 10
Commodity 4.4 1.43 10
DS&Durga 3.9 1.20 10
Mysterious Byredo 5.1 0.74 10
Tom Ford 4.7 1.42 10
Commodity 4.5 1.58 10
DS&Durga 4.1 0.88 10

Attribute Correlations — All Brands Combined

Each brand × participant rating is treated as one observation (row-wise, pairwise complete). This matches the standard correlation method and uses all available raw scores.

Pearson Correlation — All Attributes, All Brands Pooled (N = 40 brand × participant observations)
Expressive Mysterious Exclusive Luxurious Masterful Creative
Expressive 1.0000 0.0758 ns 0.3493 * 0.3387 * 0.4287 ** 0.6135 ***
Mysterious 0.0758 ns 1.0000 0.4348 ** 0.4361 ** 0.3093 ns 0.3202 *
Exclusive 0.3493 * 0.4348 ** 1.0000 0.4822 ** 0.4377 ** 0.6025 ***
Luxurious 0.3387 * 0.4361 ** 0.4822 ** 1.0000 0.7081 *** 0.3591 *
Masterful 0.4287 ** 0.3093 ns 0.4377 ** 0.7081 *** 1.0000 0.4162 **
Creative 0.6135 *** 0.3202 * 0.6025 *** 0.3591 * 0.4162 ** 1.0000
* p<0.05 ** p<0.01 *** p<0.001 ns = not significant | Row-wise pairwise complete method

H1 — Visual Identity & Price Perception

Hypothesis: Visual cues (logo, campaign imagery, copy language) and price anchoring drive perceptions of mysteriousness and aspirational quality.

H1a — Logo: Mysterious & Aspirational

Logo Ratings — Mysterious & Aspirational by Brand
Dimension Brand Mean SD N
Logo – Aspirational DS&Durga 4.4 1.26 10
Byredo 3.9 1.66 10
Commodity 3.8 1.81 10
Tom Ford 3.4 1.65 10
Logo – Mysterious DS&Durga 5.0 1.15 10
Byredo 4.4 1.51 10
Commodity 4.2 2.30 10
Tom Ford 2.6 1.78 10

H1b — Campaign: Mysterious & Aspirational

Campaign Ratings — Mysterious & Aspirational by Brand
Dimension Brand Mean SD N
Campaign – Aspirational Byredo 5.90 1.10 10
Tom Ford 5.90 1.10 10
DS&Durga 4.70 1.34 10
Commodity 4.00 1.15 10
Campaign – Mysterious Byredo 5.44 1.13 9
Commodity 5.30 1.25 10
Tom Ford 5.30 1.25 10
DS&Durga 5.20 1.55 10

H1c — Copy Language: Mysterious & Aspirational

Copy Language Ratings — Mysterious & Aspirational by Brand
Dimension Brand Mean SD N
Language – Aspirational Byredo 5.9 0.57 10
Tom Ford 5.0 1.25 10
Commodity 4.4 1.58 10
DS&Durga 4.4 1.51 10
Language – Mysterious Byredo 5.3 0.95 10
DS&Durga 5.0 1.56 10
Commodity 4.9 1.60 10
Tom Ford 4.9 1.37 10

H1d — Price Effect on Luxury Perception

Luxury Perception — With vs Without Price, by Brand
Condition Brand Mean SD N
Lux W/ Price Byredo 6.0 0.67 10
Tom Ford 5.8 0.63 10
DS&Durga 5.4 0.70 10
Commodity 4.2 0.79 10
Lux W/O Price Byredo 5.9 0.99 10
Tom Ford 5.3 0.95 10
DS&Durga 4.7 1.16 10
Commodity 4.1 1.10 10
Price Effect on Luxury Score (W/ Price minus W/O Price)
Brand W/O Price W/ Price Δ Price Effect
DS&Durga 5.4 4.7 0.7
Tom Ford 5.8 5.3 0.5
Byredo 6.0 5.9 0.1
Commodity 4.2 4.1 0.1

H1e — Brand Exclusivity Factors

Brand Exclusivity Factors — Influence on Luxury Perception
Item Mean SD N
Notable Perfumers 5.6 1.58 10
Limited Editions 5.4 1.26 10
Limited Retail Locations 5.4 1.51 10
Use of Rare Ingredients 5.3 1.25 10
Personalized Experience 5.0 1.15 10
Celebrity Endorsement 4.8 0.92 10

H2 — Storytelling & Narrative

Hypothesis: Brands that communicate through narrative — in campaigns, discovery kits, retail environments, and product descriptions — are perceived as more compelling and premium.

H2a — Visual Campaign Storytelling

Storytelling Score — Visual Campaign by Brand
Item Mean SD N
Byredo 5.4 1.90 10
Commodity 4.4 1.90 10
Tom Ford 4.4 1.43 10
DS&Durga 4.0 1.76 10

H2b — Discovery Kit Language Storytelling

Storytelling Score — Discovery Kit Language by Brand
Item Mean SD N
DS&Durga 5.1 1.29 10
Byredo 5.0 1.41 10
Tom Ford 4.6 1.43 10
Commodity 4.5 1.58 10

H2c — Retail Environment Storytelling

Storytelling Score — Retail Environment by Brand
Item Mean SD N
Commodity 5.8 0.92 10
Tom Ford 5.5 1.72 10
Byredo 5.1 0.99 10
DS&Durga 4.8 0.79 10

H2d — Bestseller Language Persuasiveness

Persuasiveness — Bestseller Background Story by Brand
Item Mean SD N
Byredo 5.8 0.63 10
Tom Ford 5.4 1.07 10
Commodity 4.8 1.48 10
DS&Durga 4.3 1.57 10

H2 — Storytelling Summary Across All Touchpoints

H2 Storytelling Summary — Mean Score by Touchpoint and Brand
Touchpoint Byredo Commodity DS&Durga Tom Ford
Bestseller Language 5.8 4.8 4.3 5.4
Campaign 5.4 4.4 4.0 4.4
Discovery Kit 5.0 4.5 5.1 4.6
Retail 5.1 5.8 4.8 5.5

H3 — Packaging Design

Hypothesis: Physical packaging elements (bottle design, texture, weight, font) significantly influence perceived aspirational quality, and Commodity’s packaging scores lower than competitors on this dimension.

H3a — Importance of Packaging Elements

Importance of Packaging Elements (1–7)
Item Mean SD N
Color of Packaging 5.9 0.88 10
Bottle Design 5.8 0.92 10
Font/Visuals 5.5 1.08 10
Texture of Packaging 5.4 1.43 10
Magnetic Cap 5.1 1.91 10
Weight 4.4 1.35 10

H3b — Brand Packaging Aspirational Score

Aspirational Score — Packaging by Brand (1–7)
Item Mean SD N
Byredo 6.4 0.84 10
DS&Durga 4.7 1.25 10
Tom Ford 4.7 1.57 10
Commodity 3.8 1.81 10

H3 — Gap: Commodity vs Competitors

H3: Packaging Gap — Each Brand vs Commodity
Brand Mean Score Gap vs Commodity Direction
Byredo 6.4 2.6 Above Commodity
Commodity 3.8 0.0 —
DS&Durga 4.7 0.9 Above Commodity
Tom Ford 4.7 0.9 Above Commodity