Neww challenges in the luxury universe: an exploratory study of the concept of luxury experience in the Brazilian market from the perspective of brands and consumers: a case study of Pati Piva.

Luxury has evolved over the centuries; new challenges have created questions of appropriate strategies for brands. Experience and authenticity became important aspects in the field: consumers are enjoying more material comfort and there is a trend of a cultural shift for personal fulfillment and aspiration through experience. The biggest challenge for today's luxury marketers is to not only talk to the target, but to understand how the target is shifting, while not alienating consumers and damaging the brand´s image. Considering managers and consumers perspectives separately, it would be possible to conclude that their perceptions are congruent, as many studies have presented. However, if perspectives are put together and compared, different realities could emerge. This exploratory research is based on a case study that describes both perspectives of their perception on luxury experience, consumer behavior and consumption motivations, and luxury retailing. It was developed interviews with the brand owner and 10 brand´s consumers, and also indirect observations in the brands distribution formats. In the brand perspective, the case study has shown that luxury experience involves the construction of brand experience strategy based on products, multiple retail channels, consumer engagement, personal activity, exploration of five senses and other forms. In the consumer´s perspective, results revealed that brand consumers interviwed have different luxury experience perceptions and expectations; however, what is common is that service and quality must be maintained and they reflected the overall experience. Additionally, luxury retailing influences directly the consumer´s perception that must integrate multiple channels to fulfill personal demands. The research makes contributions for both actors - brand and consumer, in the sense that translates theoretical concepts of the experience itself and tries to clarify aspects that are still unknown and explored through the exploration of ways to detect the alignment between brand and consumer expectations of the experience.

Relations between regulation, competition policy and consumer protection in telecommunications, electricity and water supply

The purpose of this article is to discuss the relations between regulation, competition policy and consumer protection these relations in three key sectors of Brazil’s infrastructure: telecommunications, electricity and water supply. A study of the literature points to two general principles. First, the need for consumer protection depends on the “degree of sovereignty” enjoyed by consumers, defined in terms of the cost of consumer organization, consumers’ ability to evaluate services, and the level of competition in each sector. Second, the less sovereignty consumers enjoy the more consumer protection institutions are involved with regulation agencies. The evidence for the Brazilian case apparently corroborates these points. In addition, it is important to stress that consumer complaints in regulated sectors seem to have increased more intensely than in others. The article is divided into three sections. Section 1 presents theoretical elements and aspects of the relations between regulation, competition policy and consumer protection evidenced by international experience. Section 2 analyzes the Brazilian experience and in particular the available statistics on consumer complaints about telecommunications, electricity and water supply, submitted to Fundação Procon-SP during the nineties. The last section points to possible configurations of the institutional relations between competition policy, regulation and consumer protection, showing how the existing configuration of these areas in the three infrastructure sectors discussed confirms that the theoretical framework proposed has reasonable predictive power.

Inference in differences-in-differences with few treated groups and heteroskedasticity

Differences-in-Differences (DID) is one of the most widely used identification strategies in applied economics. However, how to draw inferences in DID models when there are few treated groups remains an open question. We show that the usual inference methods used in DID models might not perform well when there are few treated groups and errors are heteroskedastic. In particular, we show that when there is variation in the number of observations per group, inference methods designed to work when there are few treated groups tend to (under-) over-reject the null hypothesis when the treated groups are (large) small relative to the control groups. This happens because larger groups tend to have lower variance, generating heteroskedasticity in the group x time aggregate DID model. We provide evidence from Monte Carlo simulations and from placebo DID regressions with the American Community Survey (ACS) and the Current Population Survey (CPS) datasets to show that this problem is relevant even in datasets with large numbers of observations per group. We then derive an alternative inference method that provides accurate hypothesis testing in situations where there are few treated groups (or even just one) and many control groups in the presence of heteroskedasticity. Our method assumes that we know how the heteroskedasticity is generated, which is the case when it is generated by variation in the number of observations per group. With many pre-treatment periods, we show that this assumption can be relaxed. Instead, we provide an alternative application of our method that relies on assumptions about stationarity and convergence of the moments of the time series. Finally, we consider two recent alternatives to DID when there are many pre-treatment groups. We extend our inference method to linear factor models when there are few treated groups. We also propose a permutation test for the synthetic control estimator that provided a better heteroskedasticity correction in our simulations than the test suggested by Abadie et al. (2010).