international journal management research.pdf

Upload: pergingegarong

Post on 07-Aug-2018

229 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 8/20/2019 International Journal Management Research.pdf

    1/17

  • 8/20/2019 International Journal Management Research.pdf

    2/17

    130

    This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijmrbs.com/currentissue.php

    Int. J. Mgmt Res. & Bus. Strat. 2013 Nadine Walter et al., 2013

    BRAND EXPERIENCE'S INFLUENCE ONCUSTOMER SATISFACTION AND LOYALTY:

    A MIRAGE IN MARKETING RESEARCH?

    Nadine Walter1*, Thomas Cleff 2 and Grandy Chu3

    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

    *Corresponding Author: Nadine Walter,[email protected]

    INTRODUCTIONConsumers 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

    1 Pforzheim University, International Marketing, Tiefenbronner Straße 65, 75175 Pforzheim, Germany.

    2 Pforzheim University, Quantitative Methods for Business and Economics, Tiefenbronner Straße 65, 75175 Pforzheim, Germany.

    3 Ex-Student, Simon Fraser University, Canada.

    Int. J. Mgmt Res. & Bus. Strat. 2013

    ISSN 2319-345X www.ijmrbs.com

    Vol. 2, No. 1, January 2013

    © 2013 IJMRBS. All Rights Reserved

    and Schmitt, 2010). For the “Starbucks experi-

    ence” 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

  • 8/20/2019 International Journal Management Research.pdf

    3/17

    131

    This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijmrbs.com/currentissue.php

    Int. J. Mgmt Res. & Bus. Strat. 2013 Nadine Walter et al., 2013

    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 questionsdeveloped 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, globali-

    zation 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 “goodsand 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)

  • 8/20/2019 International Journal Management Research.pdf

    4/17

    132

    This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijmrbs.com/currentissue.php

    Int. J. Mgmt Res. & Bus. Strat. 2013 Nadine Walter et al., 2013

    and behavioral responses evoked by brand-

    related 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 astronger 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

  • 8/20/2019 International Journal Management Research.pdf

    5/17

    133

    This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijmrbs.com/currentissue.php

    Int. J. Mgmt Res. & Bus. Strat. 2013 Nadine Walter et al., 2013

    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 representcorrelations.

    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

  • 8/20/2019 International Journal Management Research.pdf

    6/17

    134

    This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijmrbs.com/currentissue.php

    Int. J. Mgmt Res. & Bus. Strat. 2013 Nadine Walter et al., 2013

    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 satisfactionand 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. 60

  • 8/20/2019 International Journal Management Research.pdf

    7/17

    135

    This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijmrbs.com/currentissue.php

    Int. J. Mgmt Res. & Bus. Strat. 2013 Nadine Walter et al., 2013

    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 2011. 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 question-

    naire 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 passe-

    nger, or have no past experience at all. Only

    respondents with some form of past experience

    were directed to the questions on BMW’s brandexperience, 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 rateeach 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

  • 8/20/2019 International Journal Management Research.pdf

    8/17

    136

    This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijmrbs.com/currentissue.php

    Int. J. Mgmt Res. & Bus. Strat. 2013 Nadine Walter et al., 2013

    representativeness of the five broad dimensions

     – ruggedness, competence, sophisticat ion,

    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 questionsdeveloped 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 therespondent’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 structuralequation 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 dimen-

    sions 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 BMWbrand. 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.

  • 8/20/2019 International Journal Management Research.pdf

    9/17

    137

    This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijmrbs.com/currentissue.php

    Int. J. Mgmt Res. & Bus. Strat. 2013 Nadine Walter et al., 2013

    RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

    Data used in the analysis for this paper was taken

    approximately two weeks after the questionnairefirst 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 variablesloading 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 thestructure, 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

    1 2 3

    Sensory 01 0.726 0.365 –0.343

    Sensory 02 0.778 0.250 –0.278

    Sensory 03 –0.890 –0.041 0.079

    Affective 01 0.336 0.616 –0.025

    Affective 02 –0.702 –0.358 –0.024

    Affective 03 0.439 0.658 –0.238

    Behavioral 01 0.123 0.799 –0.131

    Behavioral 02 0.095 0.798 –0.309

    Behavioral 03 –0.239 –0.162 0.818

    Intellectual 01 0.489 0.515 0.389

    Intellectual 02 –0.693 –0.309 0.042

    Intellectual 03 0.334 0.698 0.179

    Note: Bold indicate the pre-dominant loading.

  • 8/20/2019 International Journal Management Research.pdf

    10/17

    138

    This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijmrbs.com/currentissue.php

    Int. J. Mgmt Res. & Bus. Strat. 2013 Nadine Walter et al., 2013

    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 dimensions1,

    the other only the behavioral variables2. 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 testedloaded on two factors3, 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 thevalidity 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

    Component

    1

    Sensory 01 0.838

    Sensory 02 0.805

    Sensory 03 –0.752

    Affective 01 0.650

    Affective 02 –0.778

    Affective 03 0.766

    Intellectual 01 0.650

    Intellectual 02 –0.732

    Intellectual 03 0.650

     Experience PCA 2

    Component

    1

    Behavioral 01 0.821

    Behavioral 02 0.853

    Behavioral 03 –0.600

    1 Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy of 0.849, a Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity significance smaller than 0.1%, and all item specificMeasures of Sampling Adequacy (MSA) above 0.777.

    2 Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy of 0.582, a Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity significance smaller than 0.1%, and all item specificMeasures of Sampling Adequacy (MSA) above 0.556.

    3 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 0.493.

  • 8/20/2019 International Journal Management Research.pdf

    11/17

    139

    This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijmrbs.com/currentissue.php

    Int. J. Mgmt Res. & Bus. Strat. 2013 Nadine Walter et al., 2013

    consumer satisfaction and against consumer 

    loyalty.

    The first three research hypotheses deal withthe 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-intellectualfactor R=0.454, behavioral factor R=0.306). This is due to a multicollinearity issue, the factor with all twelve brand experience questions wasused.

  • 8/20/2019 International Journal Management Research.pdf

    12/17

    140

    This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijmrbs.com/currentissue.php

    Int. J. Mgmt Res. & Bus. Strat. 2013 Nadine Walter et al., 2013

    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 onvery 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 componentasks the respondents’ agreement (or disagree-

    ment) 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 action-

    oriented statement appears to be more open to

    respondent interpretation. In our opinion, it is not

    clear if it refers to the experience resulting frominteracting 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 measure-

    ments 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 componentscause 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.

  • 8/20/2019 International Journal Management Research.pdf

    13/17

    141

    This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijmrbs.com/currentissue.php

    Int. J. Mgmt Res. & Bus. Strat. 2013 Nadine Walter et al., 2013

    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, marketerswould 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 increasingthe 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 afinal 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. 347-356.

    2. 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. 50-66.

    3. Brakus J J, Schmitt B H and Zarantonello L

    (2009), “Brand Experience: What Is It? How

  • 8/20/2019 International Journal Management Research.pdf

    14/17

    142

    This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijmrbs.com/currentissue.php

    Int. J. Mgmt Res. & Bus. Strat. 2013 Nadine Walter et al., 2013

    Is It Measured? Does It Affect Loyalty?”,

    Journal of Marketing , Vol. 73, May, pp. 52-

    68.

    4. 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. 801-802.

    5. 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. 132-140.

    6. Lofman B (1991), “Elements of Experiential

    Consumption: An Exploratory Study”,

     Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 18,

    pp. 729-735.

    7. 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.

    410-421.

    8. Mortimer R (2009), “Getting the Right

     Attention”, Brand Strategy , December, p. 55.

    9. Oliver R L (1980), “A Cognitive Model of the

     An tecedent s and Consequences of 

    Satisfaction Decisions”, Journal of 

    Marketing Research, Vol. 17, November, pp.460-469.

    10. Pine B J and Gilmore J H (1998), “Welcome

    to the Experience Economy”, Harvard 

    Business Review , July/August, pp. 97-105.

    11. Sands S, Oppewal H and Beverland M

    (2008), “The Influence of In-store Expe-

    riential Events on Shopping Value

    Perceptions and Shopping Behaviour”,

     Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 35,

    pp. 298-303.

    12. Schmitt B H (1999), “Experiential Marketing”,

    Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15,

    Nos. 1-3, pp. 53-57.13. 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. 47-64.

    14. Tynan C and McKechnie S (2009),

    “Experience Marketing: A Review and

    Reassessment”, Journal of Marketing 

    Management, Vol. 25, Nos. 5/6, pp. 501-517.

    15. You X and Donthu N (2001), “Developing and

    Validating a Multidimensional Consumer-

    based Brand Equity Scale”, Journal of 

    Business Research, Vol. 52, April, pp. 1-14.

    16. 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. 532-540.

  • 8/20/2019 International Journal Management Research.pdf

    15/17

    143

    This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijmrbs.com/currentissue.php

    Int. J. Mgmt Res. & Bus. Strat. 2013 Nadine Walter et al., 2013

    APPENDIX

    Questionnaire

  • 8/20/2019 International Journal Management Research.pdf

    16/17

    144

    This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijmrbs.com/currentissue.php

    Int. J. Mgmt Res. & Bus. Strat. 2013 Nadine Walter et al., 2013

    APPENDIX (CONT.)

    Questionnaire (Cont.)

  • 8/20/2019 International Journal Management Research.pdf

    17/17