BRAND EXPERIENCE'S INFLUENCE ON CUSTOMER SATISFACTION AND LOYALTY: A MIRAGE IN MARKETING RESEARCH?

Transcription

1

2 Int. J. Mgmt Res. & Bus. Strat Nadine Walter et al., 2013 ISSN X Vol. 2, No. 1, January IJMRBS. All Rights Reserved BRAND EXPERIENCE'S INFLUENCE ON CUSTOMER SATISFACTION AND LOYALTY: A MIRAGE IN MARKETING RESEARCH? Nadine Walter 1*, Thomas Cleff 2 and Grandy Chu 3 *Corresponding Author: Nadine Walter, nadine.walter@hs-pforzheim.de Brand experience has attracted a lot of attention in the Marketing practice. With consumers seeking not only functional benefits of a brand but also emotional experiences, brand experience theory needs to provide answers on how brand experience can be measured and how it effects consumer behavior. J Josko Brakus, Bernd H Schmitt and Lia Zarantonello prove in their article Brand experience: What is it? How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty? in the Journal of Marketing that brand experience positively affects consumer satisfaction and loyalty. In addition, they provide an empirically validated brand experience scale based on the dimensions sensory, affective, intellectual and behavioral. The authors of this article apply Brakus et al. (2009) model of four brand dimensions and the impact on customer satisfaction and loyalty to the BMW brand in order to verify these findings. The authors conducted an empirical research during July 2011 with 57 University students at Pforzheim University in Pforzheim, Germany, and Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada, through an online questionnaire. The authors could only verify the model of Brakus et al. (2009) partially: Severe deviations were discovered in the factor analysis especially for the behavioral dimension of the brand experience scale, and a lack of correlation of the items brand experience and brand personality with customer satisfaction has been found. Additional research is needed to further test the brand experience model of Brakus et al. (2009). Keywords: Experience marketing, Experiential marketing, Brand experience, BMW INTRODUCTION Consumers nowadays no longer buy products and services in order to fulfill a functional need but instead purchase the emotional experiences around it (Morrison and Grane, 2007; Zarantonello and Schmitt, 2010). For the Starbucks experience consumers are willing to pay almost $3 for a small cup of coffee double the price compared to a traditional eatery. Experience marketing theory tries to find answers to what exactly makes 1 Pforzheim University, International Marketing, Tiefenbronner Straße 65, Pforzheim, Germany. 2 Pforzheim University, Quantitative Methods for Business and Economics, Tiefenbronner Straße 65, Pforzheim, Germany. 3 Ex-Student, Simon Fraser University, Canada. 130

3 a purchase an experience and what impact experience marketing has. The brand experience model of Brakus et al. (2009) provides meaningful answers to these two questions. On the one hand it proves that brand experience positively affects consumer satisfaction and loyalty. On the other hand it provides an empirically validated brand experience scale based on the dimensions sensory, affective, intellectual and behavioral. The scale is meaningful in academic research, but even more important as marketers engage in projects to understand and improve the experience their brand provides for their customers, they can use the scale for assessment, planning, and tracking purposes. (Brakus et al., 2009). This article attempts to examine the relationship between Brakus et al. s (2009) four brand experience dimensions and customer satisfaction and loyalty for the BMW brand. However, the findings of this research reveal that, when applied to the BMW brand, the questions developed by Brakus et al. (2009) to test for intensity in different experience dimensions may encompass some short-comings that returns biased results. Specifically, the behavioral dimension questions yielded responses that suggest survey subjects were indeed confused by its meaning. LITERATURE REVIEW 30 years ago Holbrook and Hirschman (1982) published their iconic paper (Tynan and McKechnie, 2009) The Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Consumer Fantasies, Feelings, and Fun. The authors identified new consumption behaviors that relate to the multi-sensory, fantasy, and emotive aspects of product use (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982). They claim that the existing theory of the rational consumer needs to be supplemented by emotional components of buying behavior. This pioneering article launched an academic debate and encouraged further research on this subject. Since then, experience marketing has established itself within marketing theory and plays nowadays an essential role within consumer marketing. The grounds for this growing phenomenon are based on three reasons: Firstly, overexposure to advertising from traditional media channels forces communication to focus on new ways to gain consumers attention and reach them with their messages (Mortimer, 2009). Secondly, globalization and saturation of markets has led to fierce competition for limited market share and increased level of competition. This is driven by the fact that functional product benefits are becoming interchangeable which makes it more difficult for companies to differentiate on functional product features (Fransen and Lodder, 2010). Pine and Gilmore (1998) claim that since goods and services become commoditized, the customer experiences that companies create will matter most. Thirdly, consumers with more hedonistic lifestyles are seeking consumption that recognizes their need of new and exciting experiences (Fransen and Lodder, 2010). Although experience-based marketing has received continuous attention, there is no common definition or usage of a dominant term. Several terms have been proposed, such as experiential consumption (Addis and Holbrook, 2001; Lofman, 1991), experience marketing (Pine and Gilmore, 1998), experiential marketing (Schmitt, 1999) or brand experience (Brakus et al., 2009). Brakus et al. (2009) define brand experience as subjective, internal consumer responses (sensations, feelings, and cognitions) 131

4 and behavioral responses evoked by brandrelated stimuli that are part of a brand s design and identity, packaging, communications, and environments. Various studies have analyzed the effect of experience marketing and tried to measure its outcomes. Fransen and Lodder (2010) have empirically examined the effects of experience marketing communication tools on consumer responses, and identified a positive influence on brand attitude and brand relation. Tsaur et al. (2006) confirm in their study on the Taipei Zoo that experiences have positive effects on emotion and emotion has a positive effect on the behavioral intention through the means of satisfaction. Brakus et al. (2009) confirm that brand experience affects consumer satisfaction and loyalty directly and indirectly through brand personality associations. Sands et al. (2008) found that in-store experiential events positively influence perceived shopping value and shopping behavior intention. In addition to analyzing the impact of experience marketing, various efforts have been made to develop operational typologies for experiences. These dimensions provide a framework by which companies and brands can engage consumers in an experiential manner (Sands et al., 2008). Pine and Gilmore (1998) sort experiences into four broad categories according to where they fall along the spectra of the two dimensions level of active/passive participation and level of immersion versus absorption : the entertainment, educational, aesthetic and escapist realm. These are well suited to analyze to explore retail settings (Sands et al., 2008). Schmitt (1999) identifies five different types of experiences: sensory experiences (Sense), affective experiences (Feel), creative cognitive experiences (Think), physical experiences, behaviors and lifestyles (Act) and social-identity experiences that result from relating to a reference group or culture (Relate). These categories are especially suitable to create brand experiences (Sands et al., 2008). Brakus et al. (2009) constructed a brand experience scale with four dimensions: sensory, affective, behavioral and intellectual. In contrast to Pine and Gilmore (1998) and Schmitt (1999), Brakus et al. (2009) did not derive their four factors from literature, but gathered them by empirical evidence through explorative and confirmatory factor analysis. In addition to the factor analysis, six further studies were conducted to proof the reliability of the scale. In conceptualizing brand experience, Brakus et al. (2009) concluded that brand experience is shaped by brand-related stimuli that constitute subjective, internal consumer responses, such as sensations, feelings and cognitions, as well as behavioral responses. They began with five dimensions selected through literature review, namely, sensory, affective, intellectual, behavioral and social. Through data collection and analysis the authors reduced their findings to four dimensions sensory, affective, behavioral, and intellectual. As Figure 1 depicts, each of the four dimensions are tested by three items, to gauge the intensity of the consumers brand experience. The research findings also led the authors to conclude that brand experience seems to be a stronger predictor of actual buying behavior compared to brand personality, a more effective measure of customer satisfaction (Brakus et al., 2009). Brakus et al. s (2009) provide a well-defined framework from which more confirmatory research can be conducted to measure the intensity of consumers experience with brands 132

5 Figure 1: Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The Four-Factor Model Note: a Reverse coded; * p <.01; and All coefficient values are standardized and appear above the associated path. Dotted lines are represent correlations. Source: Brakus et al. (2009), p. 60 and its effects on satisfaction and loyalty. Should this framework prove to be valid and consistent after further testing, the implications for marketing practitioners could be significant. Not only would it lend credence to brand experience as an independent attribute of the brand construct, moreover, the linkage between brand experience dimensions and loyalty could help marketers 133

6 improve customer retention. In addition, the brand scale with the four dimensions would give significant guidance on how to create and measure brand experience. This report attempts to validate the relationship between the four brand experience dimensions sensory, affective, behavioral, and intellectual and customer satisfaction and loyalty. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND HYPOTHESES The research paper by Brakus et al. (2009) culminated in the consumer behavior model depicted in Figure 2. It shows brand experience being a directly and indirectly (through brand personality and customer satisfaction) influencing factor on customer satisfaction and loyalty. With the purpose to verify consistency of Brakus et al. s (2009) findings, this report tests the same hypothesis, except they are specific to the BMW brand. The data collected will analyze brand experience s direct influence on satisfaction and loyalty: H 1 : Brand experience affects consumer satisfaction positively for BMW. H 2 : Brand experience affects consumer loyalty positively for BMW. As well, Brakus et al. (2009) found that brand experience has an indirect impact on satisfaction through its impact on brand personality. To verify this relationship, the results must first indicate that brand experience influences brand personality: H 3 : Brand experience affects brand personality positively for BMW. Figure 2: Discriminant and Predictive Validity of the Brand Experience Scale Note: a Reverse coded; * p < 0.01; All coefficient values are standardized and appear near the associated path. Source: Brakus et al. (2009), p

7 In addition, the results must also show brand personality s direct influence on satisfaction and loyalty: H 4 : Brand personality affects consumer satisfaction positively for BMW. H 5 : Brand personality affects consumer loyalty positively for BMW. Brakus et al. (2009) also tested for satisfaction s effect on loyalty to examine if brand experience also influences loyalty indirectly through satisfaction: H 6 : Consumer satisfaction affects consumer loyalty positively for BMW. Obtaining statistically significant results which confirm these hypotheses would prove that the brand experience model developed by Brakus et al. is valid when applied to BMW. More importantly, it would indicate that the model exhibits some consistency when applied by other researchers to other brands, which would give the model added credibility. DATA COLLECTION AND SAMPLING The brand chosen for this study is BMW because it surfaced as a brand that has relatively intense consumer experience in Brakus et al. s (2009) research. The results are collected through an online questionnaire, as it is both cost-effective and easy to distribute. The respondents are chosen by convenience sampling and self-selection through personal contacts of the researchers, and comprise of university students studying at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada, and Pforzheim University in Pforzheim, Germany. In total, 57 respondents participated in the first two weeks of July Control over respondent selection is reduced when online data collection formats are used. However, the questionnaire does request demographic information that serves as indication that those completing the survey generally belong to the desired sample of university students. Participants are only allowed to proceed in progression, meaning they were unable to skip questions. They could, however, leave the survey at any time, leaving it incomplete. Due to the time constraint of the project (2- week-sampling), no pre-testing of the questionnaire was conducted. To ensure that the brand experience measurements of BMW are based on personal experience with the product rather than on prejudice derived from marketing campaigns and other media, respondents are first asked a fielding question about their past experience with BMW products. Subjects are grouped according to whether they are an owner, a regular driver, an occasional driver, a passenger, or have no past experience at all. Only respondents with some form of past experience were directed to the questions on BMW s brand experience, personality, satisfaction and loyalty. To more precisely examine brand loyalty, subjects are asked to indicate whether they hold a valid driver s license. In attempting to test the four dimensions discussed by Brakus et al. (2009), the twelve statements, as outlined in Figure 1, were used as the measurements to test intensity of brand experience. Respondents were asked to rate each of the twelve statements on a 5-point Lickert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). In order to test brand experience similar to Brakus et al. (2009), the questionnaire uses Aaker s (1997) five brand personality dimensions. However, instead of using the 15 items that describe the five dimensions, this research asked respondents to rate their agreement with BMW s 135

8 representativeness of the five broad dimensions ruggedness, competence, sophistication, exciting, sincerity. These five personality attributes were measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). The five consumer satisfaction questions used by Brakus et al. (2009), modeled after Oliver (1980), were condensed into one general satisfaction question, where subjects are asked to rate their level of satisfaction with BMW on a 5-point Lickert scale (1 = very dissatisfied and 5 = very satisfied). The five consumer loyalty items used by Brakus et al. (2009), developed by You and Donthu (2001), were also condensed into one general loyalty question, asking respondents simply to select whether they would consider purchasing a BMW product or not. The reason for the combination of personality dimensions, satisfaction and loyalty into broader measurements is because this study is primarily interested in the brand experience questions developed by Brakus et al. (2009). Therefore, assuming that the personality, satisfaction and loyalty items accurately measure exactly those attributes simplifies the survey for respondents and provides a more defined framework to examine just the dimensions of brand experience. One of the survey questions asks participants to rate BMW on four brand evaluation items on 5- point Likert scales. This question would test the respondent s overall view of BMW, whether it is positive or negative. While brand evaluation is not directly part of the brand experience scale, Brakus et al. (2009) did encourage the testing of whether a brand s consumer experience is positive or negative. This question is subsequently excluded from the results, because it is not detailed enough to test specifically the extent to which a consumer enjoyed different dimensions of the brand experience. Brakus et al. (2009) primarily used structural equation modeling path analysis, confirmatory factor analysis and regression analysis to derive the relationships between different brand attributes and consumer behavior outcomes. Since brand experience dimensions are tested in twelve different questions, the twelve variables will be examined using factor analysis in this paper. A clear distinction of experience dimensions should emerge along with their respective dimension groups, if the twelve questions appropriately describe consumers experience with the BMW brand. The resulting factors will be used to formulate a regression model that attempts to explain consumer satisfaction and loyalty. The five brand personality dimensions will also be examined using factor analysis. The emerging factor(s) should give indication of consumers general opinion on the personality of the BMW brand. In addition, these factors will be used in further regression analysis that attempts to explain consumer satisfaction and loyalty. In order to confirm the influence of brand experience on brand personality, the five personality dimensions are grouped into one new variable through factor analysis, to be used as a dependent factor against the resulting brand experience factors. Finally, to test the influence of these brand experience and personality factors on consumer satisfaction and loyalty, a regression model using these factors as independent variables will be constructed to explain satisfaction and loyalty. Brand experience and personality factors will also be correlated through regression, to examine their direct influence on satisfaction and loyalty. 136

9 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Data used in the analysis for this paper was taken approximately two weeks after the questionnaire first became accessible. At the time in July 2011, there were 105 respondents. Filtering out those that did not finish the survey or have had no past experience with a BMW, 57 valid responses remain. The research results proved to be far less clearly defined as Brakus et al. (2009) prescribed. A factor analysis (Principal Component Analysis- PCA) on the 12 brand experience dimensions yielded scattered results. With a Kaiser-Meyer- Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy of 0.842, a Bartlett s Test of Sphericity significance smaller than 0.1%, and all item specific Measures of Sampling Adequacy (MSA) above 0.720, the analysis returned three factors with eigenvalues above 1. As indicated in Table 1, the varimax rotated matrix shows only sensory variables loading as one factor. The rest of the dimensions split up and they are loading on different components. To discern a clearer structure, sensory variables were removed from the factor analysis. Variables within the affective and intellectual dimensions all loaded on the same factor, while it became evident that the behavioral variables did not. To achieve a clearer understanding of the structure, numerous analyses with select variables (including testing the loading of each individual behavioral variable with the remaining nine) were done. The three behavioral variables were also examined alone, which showed all three Table 1: PCA of Brand Experience Items for BMW Rotated Component Matrix Component Sensory Sensory Sensory Affective Affective Affective Behavioral Behavioral Behavioral Intellectual Intellectual Intellectual Note: Bold indicate the pre-dominant loading. 137

10 loading on the same factor. It is interesting to note that throughout all the analysis, the third behavioral variable (this is not an action-oriented brand) consistently stood out as distinctly different from the other two. Unfortunately, the only understanding that become clearer through this exercise was that there is something inherently difficult about the behavioral variables that, when added to the data set, proves unstable. In the end, two independent Principal Component Analyses were chosen for the brand experience. The first contains the sensory, affective and intellectual dimensions 1, the other only the behavioral variables 2. Both PCAs analyses returned a one factor solution each with eigenvalues above 1. Table 2 shows these two factors, which accounts for 55% and 59% of the respective variances. The five brand personality dimensions tested loaded on two factors 3, with ruggedness, sophistication, and exciting on one, and competence and sincerity on the other. These two factors are then used as part of the regression analyses as independent variables. Grouping all five dimensions into one factor saw the percentage of explained variance decrease from 66% down to just under 41%. Regression analysis is used to examine the validity of the research hypotheses. The two brand experience dimensions were used as independent variables in three different tests against the single brand personality factor, against Table 2 : PCA 1 and 2 of Brand Experience items for BMW Experience PCA 1 Experience PCA 2 Component 1 Sensory Sensory Sensory Component 1 Behavioral Behavioral Behavioral Affective Affective Affective Intellectual Intellectual Intellectual Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy of 0.849, a Bartlett s Test of Sphericity significance smaller than 0.1%, and all item specific Measures of Sampling Adequacy (MSA) above Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy of 0.582, a Bartlett s Test of Sphericity significance smaller than 0.1%, and all item specific Measures of Sampling Adequacy (MSA) above Criterion: Eigenvalue > 1; Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy of 0.568, a Bartlett s Test of Sphericity significance smaller than 0.1%, and all item specific Measures of Sampling Adequacy (MSA) above

11 consumer satisfaction and against consumer loyalty. The first three research hypotheses deal with the direct impact of brand experience. With an overall model p-value of 0.387, there is not enough statistical evidence to not reject the null hypothesis and conclude that brand experience in this case has any influence on consumer satisfaction (hypothesis 1). In the regression against loyalty (hypothesis 2), only the factor consisting of sensory, affective and intellectual variables was found to be significant. However, the overall model shows significant influence of brand experience on consumer loyalty (p=0.002) 4. This resulted in a statistically significant model (R=0.450), confirming the research hypothesis that brand experience positively influences consumer loyalty. Testing the impact of brand experience on brand personality (hypothesis 3) yielded interesting results. Firstly, both experience factors are significant predictors of brand personality. In addition, having a significant model with R=0.674, this closely resembles the R=0.69 in the brand experience model of Brakus et al. (2009).This finding favors the research hypothesis that brand experience positively influences brand personality. The next three hypotheses address the indirect influence brand experience has on consumer behavior, through brand personality and customer satisfaction. Regression shows that the significance level (p=0.301) is too high to conclude that brand personality in this case has any impact on customer satisfaction. Therefore, hypothesis 4 cannot be verified. Consumer loyalty, on the other hand, shows a statistically significant relationship to brand personality (R=0.469), confirming research hypothesis 5. Hypothesis 6 assumes the impact of customer satisfaction on customer loyalty. The result of this regression is statistically insignificant (p=0.545), suggesting that in this case customer satisfaction has no influence on loyalty (Figure 3). Figure 3: Brand Experience Scale of BMW 4 When the same regression is done with these factors separately, though, both model returns statistically significant (sensory-affective-intellectual factor R=0.454, behavioral factor R=0.306). This is due to a multicollinearity issue, the factor with all twelve brand experience questions was used. 139

12 Summarizing the above, it can be said that the research resulted in two notable deviations from the Brakus et al. (2009) brand experience model: Firstly a divergence regarding the brand scale particularly in the factor analysis of the behavioral components and secondly we could not prove that either brand experience nor brand personality had any effect on customer satisfaction. In the factor analysis for the brand experience items the behavioral items are not loading on the same component. Instead items are loading on very different components when PCA was compiled with a different number of brand experience items. This is especially true when third behavioral item was part of the analysis. Therefore, the factor structure found by Brakus et al. (2009) cannot be confirmed through our research results. Examining the individual questions of the behavioral section, the third behavioral component asks the respondents agreement (or disagreement) with the statement this brand is not action oriented. Comparing this to the other two behavioral items ( I engage in physical actions and behaviors when I use this brand, and this brand results in bodily experiences ), the actionoriented statement appears to be more open to respondent interpretation. In our opinion, it is not clear if it refers to the experience resulting from interacting with the brand, or if it refers to the respondent s impression of the brand s personality. We conclude that this ambiguity might have caused confusions for the respondents and resulted in collecting results that differ from original intentions. Another curious finding is that consumer satisfaction, statistically speaking, seems to disappear completely from the model. One reason may be that brand experience does not directly or indirectly impact satisfaction. However, given that the analysis between satisfaction and loyalty also turned out to be insignificant, this outcome could be a reflection of having combined the five satisfaction questions used by Brakus et al. (2009) into one single satisfaction factor. Modeled after Oliver (1980), their five satisfaction measurements include: I am satisfied with the brand and its performance, if I could do it again, I would buy a brand different from that brand, my choice to get this brand has been a wise one, I feel bad about my decision to get this brand, and I am not happy with what I did with this brand. It is apparent that these measurements wider and more specific aspects of customers overall satisfaction level with the brand, including potential remorse and product performance. The combination of different dimensions into one may have compromised the accuracy of the survey. For the most part (satisfaction anomaly aside), brand experience dimensions appear to have discernible impact on both brand personality and loyalty. For practitioners, however, it would be most useful to examine the individual dimensions of brand experience for this model to be of much use. This is where the factor analysis instability poses a problem for the model. Whatever the reason, when behavioral dimension components cause the kind of volatility that was seen through this research effort, the application of the model would necessarily render the model of limited use, should it encounter similar issues,. Without being able to clearly examine the important aspects of brand experience as postulated by Brakus et al. (2009), marketers cannot obtain clear directions for defining and measuring brand experience. 140

13 CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS The brand experience model of Brakus et al. (2009), if proven consistent, could provide marketing practitioners that seek to add value to their brand meaningful guidance. These marketers would be able to survey their consumers experience with their brand, and done in on ways in which to improve that brand experience, and hence, increase customer loyalty. With the way the model worked in this particular research article, though, marketers would face difficulties in achieving a clear distinction between the four dimensions sensory, affective, intellectual and behavioral. Particularly, the behavioral dimension may be generating some level of confusion among respondents regarding its meaning due to its ambiguity. Brand experience and related subjects appear to be under-researched for the potential that it may be able to offer marketers, in both increasing the perceived value of their current product offerings as well as their brand equity. Further, and more extensive, confirmatory research should be conducted to test the consistency of the brand experience model developed by Brakus et al. (2009) to determine the full implications of brand experience. Researchers should also bring the twelve brand experience components under closer scrutiny to test whether consumers do in fact derive consistent meaning from each of the statements, and thus give more accurate responses that allow for clearer analysis. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH The biggest limitation to the validity of this research report is the small sample size. The small sample size was mainly due to two reasons. Firstly, because of convenience, the survey was mostly directed at students at university, which is a limited pool. Secondly, the questionnaire filtered out those who have not had previous experiences with BMW products. University students, who are falling obviously outside BMW s main target consumer demographic, are less likely to have had interactions with the high-end luxury brand. Combining these two issues means many of the respondents were filtered out, ending up with a final sample size of 57 useful responses. Another limitation is the fact that this paper considers brand experience only as applied to BMW. Due to the type of product the image that BMW exudes - luxury, performance and joy of driving - may result in biased findings when compared to consumer experience analysis of other brands. Further research should consider continuing to test the consistency of the brand experience model of Brakus et al. (2009) ideally with a larger sample and with a wider range of brands. REFERENCES 1. AakerJ L (1997), Dimensions of Brand Personality, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp Addis M and Holbrook M B (2001), On the Conceptual Link Between Mass Customisation and Experiential Consumption: An Explosion of Subjectivity, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp Brakus J J, Schmitt B H and Zarantonello L (2009), Brand Experience: What Is It? How 141

14 Is It Measured? Does It Affect Loyalty?, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73, May, pp Fransen M L and Lodder P (2010), The Effects of Experience-Based Marketing Communication on Brand Relation and Hedonic Brand Attitudes: The Moderating Role of Affective Orientation, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 37, pp Holbrook M B and Hirschman E C (1982), The Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Consumer Fantasy, Feelings and Fun, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp Lofman B (1991), Elements of Experiential Consumption: An Exploratory Study, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 18, pp Morrison S and Crane F G (2007), Building the Service Brand by Creating and Managing an Emotional Brand Experience, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp Mortimer R (2009), Getting the Right Attention, Brand Strategy, December, p Oliver R L (1980), A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 17, November, pp Pine B J and Gilmore J H (1998), Welcome to the Experience Economy, Harvard Business Review, July/August, pp Sands S, Oppewal H and Beverland M (2008), The Influence of In-store Experiential Events on Shopping Value Perceptions and Shopping Behaviour, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 35, pp Schmitt B H (1999), Experiential Marketing, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15, Nos. 1-3, pp Tsaur S H, Chiu Y T and Wang C H (2006), The Visitors Behavioral Consequences of Experiential Marketing: An Empirical Study on Taipei Zoo, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp Tynan C and McKechnie S (2009), Experience Marketing: A Review and Reassessment, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 25, Nos. 5/6, pp You X and Donthu N (2001), Developing and Validating a Multidimensional Consumerbased Brand Equity Scale, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 52, April, pp Zarantonello L and Schmitt B H (2010), Using the Brand Experience Scale to Profile Consumers and Predict Consumer Behavior, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 17, No. 7, pp

15 APPENDIX Questionnaire 143

16 APPENDIX (CONT.) Questionnaire (Cont.) 144

17