The authors create a conceptual thought-piece article for marketing luxury brands. Within the paper, the authors differentiate the traditional marketing of mass brands from luxury brands by identifying counter-intuitive examples. The paper highlights the importance of unique prescriptive approaches to marketing luxury brands to retain or regain profitability, given the timing of the article's release (post 2007-8 global recession).

There are several strengths of the article; first, the authors attempt to define luxury and luxury brands. Useful conceptual definitions are a necessary condition for building good theories and valid empirical tests. Second, the article highlights areas for future marketing research for luxury goods. Finally, the piece provides prescriptive insights for luxury brand managers and premium brands (to up their position).

I highlight three critical weaknesses of the article; 1. Statements lack a reference or logical or theoretical build. In the section, Resist Client Demands, the authors make the statement, "there are two ways to go bankrupt: not listening to the client, and also listening to him too much." The authors provide no evidence of the validity of such a statement as it relates to luxury brands. This approach is taken throughout the sections. OK for a book but not OK for a peer-reviewed journal article. 2. Interview process? The article quotes numerous sources but fails to provide any insights into the interview method and analysis. It is as though interview responses fit into the author's preconceived framework. 3. Define a luxury brand. A ‘good’ conceptual definition is inclusive, exclusive, differentiating, clear, well-communicated, consistent, and parsimonious (Hunt, 2010). The authors allude to definitions of luxury brands throughout the article but fail to provide a parsimonious and succinct definition.