Original Article

Brand experiences in service

organizations: Exploring the
individual effects of brand
experience dimensions
Received (in revised form): 19th March 2012

Herbjørn Nysveen
is a Professor in marketing at Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Strategy and management.

Per E. Pedersen
is a Professor in service innovation at Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Strategy and management. He is
also the Director of the Center for service innovation at Norwegian School of Economics.

Siv Skard
is a Post Doc in service innovation at Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Strategy and management.

ABSTRACT Brand experience has been conceptualized as a multidimensional construct

that explains customer loyalty. The authors present a study with the purpose of
testing a recently published brand experience scale in a service brand context. In
addition to validating the established dimensions of the measurement scale, the
study tests an additional dimension, relational experience, which is proposed as
particularly relevant for service brands. The study also reports results of a test of
the relationship between each of the experience dimensions and other brand-related
constructs. The results reveal significant influences of dimensions of brand experience
on brand personality, brand satisfaction and brand loyalty
Journal of Brand Management (2013) 20, 404–423. doi:10.1057/bm.2012.31;
published online 22 June 2012

Keywords: brand experience; customer experience; service brands; brand experience

dimensions; brand experience scale; structural equation modeling

INTRODUCTION emerging direction in consumer behavior

Scholars and practitioners have long been and marketing suggests that consumers no
Correspondence:
Herbjørn Nysveen
concerned with customer value beyond longer simply buy products and services,
Norwegian School of Economics,
Department of Strategy and
functional attributes and benefits, resulting but rather buy the experience around what
Management, Breiviksveien 40, in a paradigm of brand and customer expe- is being sold (Morrison and Crane, 2007).
Bergen, 5045, Norway
E-mail: [email protected] rience (Schmitt and Rogers, 2008). This Existing literature has discussed experiential

© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management Vol. 20, 5, 404–423

www.palgrave-journals.com/bm/
 Brand experiences in service organizations

aspects of consumption (Holbrook and relational experience dimension and find

Hirschman, 1982; Holt, 1995), dimensions empirical support for such a fifth dimen-
of customer experience (Schmitt, 1999; sion of brand experience. Both Brakus
Gentile et al, 2007), how to create superior et al (2009) and Iglesias et al (2011) study
customer experience (Verhoef et al, 2009) the effects of an aggregated experience
and potential effects of customer experience construct without examining the unique
(Biedanback and Marcell, 2010). However, effect of the various experience dimen-
definitions of experience tend to be circular sions. Therefore, the second contribution
(Palmer, 2010), and they differ greatly of this article is to investigate empirically
across research contributions. In addition, the unique effects of each of the five
no consensus exists on the underlying dimensions of brand experience on brand
dimensions of the experience constructs. As personality, brand satisfaction and brand
a result of the conceptual ambiguities, stud- loyalty.
ies of potential antecedents and effects have The article adds significant contributions
been rather neglected in existing empirical to brand experience literature. Although
research. However, in an extension of this we validate Brakus et al’s (2009) four dimen-
literature, Brakus et al (2010) present a clari- sions, we also uncover a fifth dimension –
fying discussion of the brand experience relational experience – which indicates that
construct and conduct a thorough valida- consumers’ perceptions of experiences may
tion of scales to measure the construct – a differ somewhat across services and prod-
construct divided into sensory, intellectual, ucts. In addition, rather than examine only
affective and behavioral dimensions (please the effects of brand experience in general,
also see, Iglesias et al, 2011). They also the unique effects of the various brand
empirically investigate and find significant experience dimensions revealed in this
effects of brand experience on brand study add a deeper and more nuanced
personality, brand satisfaction and brand understanding of brand experience effects.
loyalty. This last point is particularly important for
Building on the work of Brakus et al marketing and brand managers because it
(2009) and Iglesias et al (2011), the goals enhances their understanding on how to
of this article are twofold. First, the dimen- improve brand personality, satisfaction and
sions were validated on a combination of loyalty by fine-tuning brand experiences
product and service brands by Brakus et al along all five dimensions rather than on a
(2009) and on three product brands by single construct.
Iglesias et al (2011). From the often pro- We present a discussion of different
posed differences between products and experience constructs and experience dimen-
services, this article attempts to validate the sions proposed in the literature. Taking into
four dimensions of brand experience in a account potential differences between
service brand context. Brakus et al initially products and services, we discuss possible
conceptualized a fifth dimension – social, influences of these differences on the sig-
or relational, experience. However, this nificance of the brand experience dimen-
dimension was excluded due to semantic sions. Then, we discuss the potential effects
similarity to other items. Given the focus of the brand experience dimensions and
on service brands in this article, character- propose hypotheses. Next, we describe the
ized by the importance of inseparability methodological approach and present the
(Zeithaml et al, 1985) and co-creation results. We conclude with managerial
(Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004), we implications of the results and suggestions
argue for the relevance of a social or for further research.

© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management Vol. 20, 5, 404–423 405
 Nysveen et al

EXPERIENCE CONSTRUCTS 2010; Ojiako and Maguire, 2009; Verhoef

As Holbrook and Hirschman (1982) pre- et al, 2009; Walter et al, 2010) and that
sented the experiential view of consump- experiences may be stimulated either
tion and Pine and Gilmore (1998) introduced through direct interactions with a product
the ‘experience economy’, different experi- or service (for example, product usage,
ence constructs have appeared in marketing contact with a brand’s call center) or
and management literature. Experience has through indirect contact with a company
been examined in different contexts and at (for example, advertisements, third-party
various stages of the consumer life cycle, sources) (Meyer and Schwager, 2007;
resulting in constructs such as consump- Walter et al, 2010). Experiences are also
tion experience (Holbrook and Hirschman, often defined as personal (Pine and Gilmore,
1982), service experience (Hui and Bateson, 1999; Gentile et al, 2007; Ojiako and
1991), shopping experience (Kerin et al, Maguire, 2009) and memorable (Pine and
1992), product experience (Hoch, 2002), Gilmore, 1999; Ojiako and Maguire, 2009).
customer experience (Gentile et al, 2007) In terms of brand experience, similar
and brand experience (Brakus et al, 2009). approaches have been used in definitions,
Brakus et al (2009, p. 53) define brand focusing on the importance of interaction
experience as ‘subjective, internal consumer (both direct and indirect) and contact as
responses (sensations, feelings and cogni- sources of brand experience (Cliffe and
tions) and behavioral responses evoked by Motion, 2005; Alloza, 2008) and the per-
brand-related stimuli that are part of a sonal characteristics of experiences (Alloza,
brand’s design and identity, packaging, 2008).
communications and environments’. Most
of these experiences refer to specific phases DIMENSIONS OF EXPERIENCE
of the consumer life cycle (for example, Experience types (or dimensions) often
shopping experience) or specific offerings appear in formal definitions of experiences
(for example, service experience and prod- (Pine and Gilmore, 1999; Gentile et al,
uct experience). We consider both cus- 2007; Brakus et al, 2009). Although differ-
tomer and brand experiences to span the ent dimensions have been suggested, some
context- and life cycle-specific experiences. level of consistency and agreement exists
However, given that both customers and on the most important dimensions of
non-customers can have brand experiences, consumption experience. For example,
we consider brand experience to be the with regard to the established information
broadest experience construct. The concept processing perspective at the time, Holbrook
has also been suggested as the most com- and Hirschman (1982, p. 132) argue for the
prehensive notion of experience, spanning importance of ‘various playful leisure activi-
across different contexts, by Zarantonello ties, sensory pleasures, daydreams, esthetic
and Schmitt (2010). enjoyment and emotional responses’. Their
Although the construct of experience has view of the experience construct pertains
been defined in various ways, most articles to dimensions as activities, emotions and
focus on customer experience. The defini- sensations, proposed to complement the
tions state that customer experiences are a cognitive approach of the information-
function of a set of interactions between processing perspective. They also explicitly
customers and some part of an organization relate experience to the symbolic, hedonic
(Gupta and Vajic, 2000; Frow and Payne, and esthetic dimensions of consumptions.
2007; Gentile et al, 2007; Meyer and According to Naylor et al (2008), social
Schwager, 2007; Biedanback and Marcell, meaning motivates symbolic needs. If such

406 © 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management Vol. 20, 5, 404–423
 Brand experiences in service organizations

a meaning is attributed to the symbolic social world and the symbolic element
dimensions of consumption, we can also in Holbrook and Hirschman. Pine and
claim that social meaning or a relational Gilmore (1998, p. 99) also emphasize expe-
element is a dimension of the experience rience dimensions, describing experiences
construct as discussed by Holbrook and as ‘personal, existing only in the mind of
Hirschman (1982). an individual who has been engaged on an
Holt (1995) presents a somewhat alterna- emotional, physical, intellectual or even
tive approach; he emphasizes the impor- spiritual level’. Mascarenhas et al (2006)
tance of accounting (making sense of), divide customer experiences into a subjec-
evaluating (constructing value judgments) tive and objective component, in which
and appreciating (responding emotionally) emotional, intellectual and social experi-
as dimensions of the consumption experi- ences are dimensions of the subjective com-
ence. This approach basically divides con- ponent. Overlaps with these dimensions
sumption experiences into cognitive and also occur in the dimensions Gentile et al
emotional dimensions. However, Holt (2007) propose. Their sensorial, emotional,
notes that consumers’ understanding and cognitive and relational components mirror
interpretations are embedded in a social sense, feel, think and relate (Schmitt, 1999).
world, providing ‘participants with an In addition, Gentile et al include a prag-
intersubjectively shared lens through which matic component and a lifestyle compo-
they can make sense of situations, roles, nent. The pragmatic component reflects
actions and objects’ (p. 3). Thus, in his the use of the product in all its life-cycle
view, relationships between consumers stages, and the lifestyle component resides
constitute important preconditions for in the person’s value and belief system as
accounting, evaluating and appreciating. a consequence of the persons’ lifestyle and
This perspective considers consumption behaviors. From this, we argue for the rel-
as part of the general social world of the evance of the lifestyle and pragmatic com-
consumer. However, the social experience ponents as part of the behavioral act
dimension can also pertain to specific dimension. Although they do not discuss
relationships. For example, McAlexander experiential dimensions explicitly, Verhoef
et al (2002) have proposed a typology of et al (2009) examine customer experience
four customer-centric relationships: owner- as a holistic construct, containing cognitive,
to-product, owner-to-brand, owner-to- affective, emotional, social and physical
company and owner-to-other owners. responses. Thus, with an exception for the
Schmitt (1999) divides what he calls relational dimension, all the brand experi-
customer experiences into dimensions. His ence dimensions of Brakus et al (2009)
approach embraces all the dimensions of fit well into the existing frame of dimen-
Holbrook and Hirschman (1982) and Holt sions, referring to sensory, affective, behav-
(1995). The first dimension, sense, corre- ioral and intellectual dimensions of brand
sponds to Holbrook and Hirschman’s sen- experience.
sory dimension, and the feel dimension
reflects the emotional dimension pinpointed THE PRODUCT VERSUS SERVICE
by both Holbrook and Hirschman and DEBATE
Holt. The think dimension parallels The dimensions of brand experience
Holt’s cognitive dimensions, and the act revealed by Brakus et al (2009) were vali-
dimension corresponds to Holbrook and dated based on a combination of product
Hirschman’s activities. Finally, the relate and service brands. The validation of the
dimension is associated with both Holt’s scale conducted by Iglesias et al (2011) was

© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management Vol. 20, 5, 404–423 407
 Nysveen et al

undertaken on three physical products. Also, the co-creation process as ‘continuous,

the effects of brand experience on brand social and highly dynamic, and interactive
satisfaction, brand loyalty and brand per- process between the firm, the brand and all
sonality were revealed for product brands stakeholders’. This view regards value as
by Brakus et al (2009). Mosley (2007) argues being created through a network of social
that product brand experiences are simpler interactions between different stakeholders.
than service experiences, as services require In a service-dominant logic, a car is only a
a higher level of interpersonal complexity value proposition, and the value created
and relationship quality. Marketing litera- depends on how the customer takes
ture has long discussed such differences advantage of (co-create) the value proposi-
between products and services and implica- tion offered. According to Prahalad and
tions of these differences. Zeithaml et al Ramaswamy (2004), co-creation implies
(1985) emphasize intangibility (services lack joint creation of value by the customer and
the tangible quality of goods), hetero- company, and allows the customer to influ-
geneity (services cannot be standardized), ence her own service experience so that
inseparability (services are produced and it is adjusted to her specific context.
consumed simultaneously) and perishability Consequently, co-creation calls for a closer
(services cannot be stored) (IHIP) as unique relationship between the provider (brand)
characteristics of services. In addition to the of service delivery mechanisms and the
IHIP dimensions, Dibb et al (2006) claim customers and between customers. This
that services are typically characterized by signifies the importance of relationship as a
more client-based relationships and customer dimension of customers’ experience with
contact. These two additional dimensions the brand. The service-dominant logic
substantiate the relational character of serv- again substantiates this, in which inter-
ices, as is also signified in the inseparability activity and collaboration are essential for
dimension of services. co-creation of value. Thus, as mentioned,
Lovelock and Gummesson (2004) ques- the service-dominant logic suggests that
tion the generalizability of the IHIP para- customers actively participate in service
digm to describe differences between value creation and this co-creation is impor-
products and services, which Vargo and tant for how they experience the brand.
Lusch (2004) further substantiate. Vargo Consequently, the service-dominant logic
and Lusch present the IHIP paradigm as a is implicitly a relational perspective that
myth and propose the service-dominant underscores the importance of relational
model as an alternative. The service- experience as an experiential dimension.
dominant logic argues for the importance With the explicit focus on service brands
of understanding how goods and services in this article, the relational dimension of
are related (rather than how they differ). experience is highly relevant. We summa-
Service-dominant logic understands goods rize the review of experience dimensions
as appliances used to provide service. In this in Table 1; here, we consider the relational
perspective, a car is nothing more than a dimension a significant part of the experi-
delivery mechanism for transportation. ence construct in existing literature. Thus:
With this logic, Vargo and Lusch (2008,
p. 28) define service as ‘the application of Proposition 1: In addition to the sensory,
one’s resources for the benefit of another intellectual, affective, and behavio-
entity’. A main point in this perspective is ral dimension of brand experience,
that the customer is always a co-creator of relational experience is important for
value. Merz et al (2009, p. 331) describe service brands.

408 © 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management Vol. 20, 5, 404–423
 Brand experiences in service organizations

Table 1: Experience dimensions

Sense Feel Think Act Relate

Holbrook and Hirschman (1982) Sensory Emotional — Activities (Symbolic)

Holt (1995) — Emotional Cognitive — Social world
Schmitt (1999) Sense Feel Think Act Relate
Pine and Gilmore (1999) — Emotional Intellectual Physical —
Mascarenhas et al (2006) — Emotional Intellectual — Social
Gentile et al (2007) Sensorial Emotional Cognitive Pragmatic, Lifestyle Relational
Verhoef et al (2009) — Affective, Emotional Cognitive Physical Social
Brakus et al (2009), Sensory Affective Intellectual Behavioral —
Iglesias et al (2011)

EFFECTS OF BRAND EXPERIENCE Consumer satisfaction – here used syn-

Brakus et al (2009) reveal positive effects onymously with brand satisfaction – reflects
of brand experience on brand personality, ‘the consumer’s response to the evaluation
brand satisfaction and brand loyalty. Their of the perceived discrepancy between prior
most general theoretical argument for expectations (or some other norm of per-
such an effect is that experiences provide formance) and the actual performance of
value, and therefore that stronger experi- the product as perceived after its consump-
ences increase satisfaction. They also tion’ (Tse and Wilton, 1988, p. 204). This
argue that consumers want to repeat definition is based on the disconfirmation
experiences that lead to satisfaction, and paradigm stating that satisfaction is a func-
therefore that experiences also influence tion of the degree to which performance
loyalty positively. Although they do not expectation is confirmed through perceived
test the effect of individual experience performance (Oliver, 1993). The disconfir-
dimensions on brand personality, satisfac- mation paradigm also predicts direct effects
tion and loyalty, they use dimension- of performance expectations and perceived
specific arguments for these effects. performance on satisfaction (Oliver, 1993)
Building on McAllister and Pessemier and constitutes a typical cognitive perspec-
(1982), they claim that people seek sen- tive on satisfaction. An additional cognitive
sory stimulations and that brands that mechanism determining satisfaction is
realize such stimulations will be valued. equity, which reflects ‘fairness, rightness or
They also argue that people seek pleasure deservingness judgment that consumers
and avoid pain (Freud, 1950, as referred make in reference to what others receive’
in Brakus et al, 2009) and that intellectual (Szymanski and Henard, 2001, p. 18). In
stimulation is a way to suppress boredom addition, research has proposed affective
(Cacioppo and Petty, 1982, as referred in antecedents of satisfaction (Westbrook and
Brakus et al, 2009). Thus, both affective Oliver, 1991; Oliver, 1993). Although
and intellectual experiences are positively these antecedents are the most strongly sup-
valued. Brakus et al (2009) also found that ported in satisfaction literature (Szymanski
most descriptions of strong experiential and Henard, 2001), McAlexander et al
brands could be characterized as positive, (2003) find effects of brand community
indicating that the relationship between integration, conceptualized as customers’
the strength of brand experience dimen- relationship with the brand, product, com-
sions and brand personality, brand satis- pany, and other customers, on both brand
faction, and brand loyalty is positive. satisfaction and loyalty. The results indicate

© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management Vol. 20, 5, 404–423 409
 Nysveen et al

relevance of relational experiences on both perceive positive affect toward a brand

brand satisfaction and loyalty. In support, repeatedly, they are brought further into the
Marinova et al (2008) find that characteris- conative phase of loyalty, meaning they
tics of the frontline mechanisms, often the develop a commitment to re-purchase the
main relational unit consumers have with brand. In the action phase, the motivation
a brand, influence customer satisfaction. reflected in conative loyalty is transformed
Valenzuela et al (2009) find that self- into willingness to act and a ‘desire to over-
customization procedures influence cus- come obstacles that might prevent the act’
tomers’ decision satisfaction, indicating that (Oliver, 1999, p. 36). Oliver (1999) also
customers’ activities in the decision and highlights the importance of social bonding
choice process can influence satisfaction. as an antecedent of loyalty and notes that
This result reveals the relevance of the act attitude-like concepts and social forces are
dimension of customer experience on brand also important antecedents to loyalty. Related
satisfaction. From the general arguments of to the dimensions of brand experience, the
positive effects of experiences on brand think, feel and act dimensions of brand expe-
satisfaction (Brakus et al, 2009) and the dis- rience correspond to the cognitive, affective,
cussion regarding the relevance of the brand conative (behavioral intention) and action
experience dimensions for brand satisfac- phases of loyalty. Furthermore, the impor-
tion, we propose the following: tance of social bonding signifies the relational
dimensions of experience as antecedents of
Hypothesis 1: All the experience dimen- loyalty. The study by Iglesias et al (2011)
sions (sensory, intellectual, affective, found that the effect of brand experience on
behavioral, and relational) have a pos- brand loyalty was mediated by affective com-
itive effect on brand satisfaction. mitment. However, from the general argu-
ments for positive effects of brand experience
Loyalty is often described as ‘a deeply held on loyalty (Brakus et al, 2009), the discussion
commitment to rebuy or repatronize a pre- regarding the relevance of the experience
ferred product/service consistently in the dimensions on loyalty and the empirical sup-
future, thereby causing repetitive same-brand port for a direct effect of brand experience
or same brand-set purchasing, despite situa- on brand loyalty revealed by Brakus et al
tional influences and marketing efforts hav- (2009), we propose the following:
ing the potential to switching behavior’
(Oliver, 1999, p. 34). An often-cited per- Hypothesis 2: All the experience dimen-
spective on loyalty divides loyalty into four sions (sensory, intellectual, affective,
phases: cognitive, affective, conative and behavioral, and relational) have a
action (Oliver, 1999). Cognitive loyalty is positive effect on brand loyalty.
based on evaluation of attribute performance
levels. To keep customers loyal, brands Aaker (1997, p. 347) defines brand person-
should try to ensure that attribute perform- ality as ‘the set of human characteristics
ance has a high performance level over time. associated with a brand’. Geuens et al (2009)
If not, customers will often switch to other build on definitions from psychologists and
brands. If a brand can offer a high attribute present personality as ‘the systematic
performance level over time, customers can description of traits’ (McCrae and Costa,
be brought into the affective loyalty phase. 1987, p. 81) and traits as ‘relatively endur-
That is, they start to like the brand because ing styles of thinking, feeling and acting’
of the high attribute performance level they (McCrae and Costa, 1997, p. 509). Thus,
experience over time. When customers the relevance of the individual brand

410 © 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management Vol. 20, 5, 404–423
 Brand experiences in service organizations

experience dimensions as a source for brand In general, brand personality is consid-

personality inferences is clear. Brakus et al ered a positive element of a brand. Aaker’s
(2009) argue that brand experiences are (1997) argument for the importance of
useful as input for brand personality infer- brand personality regards the creation of
ences and that stronger brand experiences brand uniqueness, which is important for
increase the chance that consumers will consumers’ preferences and usage of a
develop personality associations to brands. brand (see also, Keller, 2008). According to
According to Aaker (1997), brand personal- Siguaw et al (1999, p. 49), brand personality
ity can be influenced through both direct is generally positive and results ‘in increased
and indirect contacts with the brand. This preference and patronage, higher emotional
means that all types of brand sensory per- ties to the brand, and trust and loyalty’. In
ceptions lead to inferences about brand their study, Sung and Kim (2010) find solid
personality. Furthermore, consumers’ inter- support for the positive effects of Aaker’s
pretations of (intellectual) and feelings about five brand personality dimensions across
brand advertising, brand logo, product- three product categories (watch, perfume,
related attributes and so forth, influence apparel) on brand trust and brand affect.
brand personality. Thus, it seems reasonable Furthermore, a brand’s personality charac-
that consumers’ use of the brand (behavio- teristics can reflect symbolism and enhance
ral) and their interaction or relationship consumers’ self-expression (Aaker, 1997).
with brand employees is important anteced- Preferences, positive emotions and trust are
ents for brand personality perceptions. all construct related positively to satisfaction
Grohmann (2009) claims that consumers and loyalty. Also, the possibility for self-
relate to brands as if they are friends and expression will add value and increase cus-
that this leads to inferences about brand per- tomers’ satisfaction with a brand. In
sonality traits. This implies that all the expe- addition, Brakus et al (2009) found direct
rience dimensions are important for brand significant effects of brand personality on
personality inferences. Related to the brand both brand satisfaction and brand loyalty.
personalities proposed by Aaker (1997), Although partly mediated by interaction
emotional experiences may lead to infer- quality, Ekinci and Dawes (2009) found
ences about sincerity of a brand; sensory that consumers’ perception of the personal-
experiences can make consumers perceive ity traits of frontline employees influence
a brand as rugged; intellectual experiences consumer satisfaction. Zentes et al (2008)
can lead to inferences about brand compe- revealed positive influences of brand per-
tence; and behavioral experiences may be sonality on store loyalty. From these theo-
particularly useful for stimulating inferences retical arguments and empirical results, we
about excitement. From the general argu- posit the following:
ment stating that brand experience strength
positively influences brand personality infer- Hypothesis 4: Brand personality has a
ences and the discussion regarding the rel- positive effect on (a) brand satisfaction
evance of the experience dimensions as a and (b) brand loyalty.
source of brand personality perception, we
propose the following: The positive relationship between brand
satisfaction and brand loyalty needs no fur-
Hypothesis 3: All the experience dimen- ther argumentation. Although the func-
sions (sensory, intellectual, affective, tional form of this positive relationship may
behavioral, and relational) have a pos- vary across product categories and con-
itive effect on brand personality. sumer characteristics (Dong et al, 2011),

© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management Vol. 20, 5, 404–423 411
 Nysveen et al

satisfied consumers generally want to con- Table 2: Sample demographics

tinue using the brand in the future (Brakus Sample (%)
et al, 2009).
Gender
Male 54.8
Hypothesis 5: Brand satisfaction has a Female 45.2
positive effect on brand loyalty.
Age
15–24 11.1
METHOD 25–34 15.4
We conducted an empirical study to measure 35–44 16.5
the effects of brand experience on brand per- 45–54 19.3
sonality, brand satisfaction and brand loyalty 55–64 20.2
64 + 17.5
in a service context, using brands that offer
telecommunication services (for example, Education
mobile services, television services, broad- Primary 8.6
Secondary 32.7
band services). The study was organized as University/college ⭐ 3 years 43.0
an online survey. We conducted the study University/college > 3 years 15.7
between 20 December 2010 and 10 January
Household income (in Norwegian krones)
2011, with the help of Norstat, the largest
< 200.000 6.5
online panel data provider in Norway. 200.000–399.000 14.8
400.000–599.000 19.6
Procedure 600.000–799.000 20.8
> 800.000 23.5
For the online panel survey respondents
were invited to participate by clicking on
a link to a Web site. The respondents who
clicked on the link accessed the question- Norwegian online consumers aged 15 or
naire, which presented a list of 10 well- older. To ensure sample representativeness,
known telecom brands. The respondents Norstat controls the sampling frame by age,
then marked all the brands with which they gender, education, income and other non-
had a relationship. If respondents marked disclosed consumer-related variables. Four
only one brand, the questions in the survey thousand five hundred and fifty-six poten-
pertained to that brand only. If respondents tial respondents were invited to participate
marked more than one brand, Norstat in the study. Among them, 1090 completed
selected the particular brand of focus in the the survey. As a consequence of the pro-
questionnaire. This brand selection was cedures applied, respondents are considered
based on a rule to ensure the sample reflected self-selected. Data were analyzed for care-
the brands’ current market share. After less responses, including setting a minimum
choosing the brand, the respondents completion time of 300 seconds for the
answered questions about brand experi- entire study. The final number of respond-
ences, brand personality, brand satisfaction ents after removal of careless response was
and brand loyalty, in that order. Finally, 1000. The sample reflects the demographic
respondents were thanked for their partici- characteristics of the population of Internet
pation. All the respondents received a reward users in Norway fairly well (Table 2).
based on the Norstat panel reward system.
Measures
Sample We measured sensory experience, affective
Respondents were recruited from a random experience, intellectual experience and
sample of a representative population of behavioral experience following Brakus

412 © 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management Vol. 20, 5, 404–423
 Brand experiences in service organizations

et al (2009). We also measured relational dimension is revealed, in support of

experience by three items reflecting the Proposition 1. Eigenvalues of the act and
brand’s influence on consumers’ feelings of feel dimension are less than 1. According
belonging to a community (see, Gentile to Cronbach’s  values, the internal con-
et al, 2007), feelings of being part of (sense sistencies of the measures were satisfactory
of belonging to) a family (see, Shim and (Table 3).
Eastlick, 1998) and feelings of not being The brand personality measures were
left alone (self-developed item). Items based on Aaker’s (1997) five dimensions of
measuring relational experience are holistic brand personality: sincerity, excitement,
in the sense that they do not pertain to competence, sophistication and ruggedness.
specific types of relationships, such as rela- We chose items used herein to be closely
tionship to the brand, to service personnel related to Aaker’s 15 facets reflecting
or to other customers. Measures of the five the five dimensions. However, because of
brand experience dimensions appear in difficulties obtaining exact English and
Table 3. An exploratory factor analysis Norwegian translations, we made several
(principal component, varimax rotation) adaptations in the wordings. For example,
revealed three factors with an eigenvalue we captured Sophistication with the two
greater than 1. To confirm the five theo- facets ‘upper class’ and ‘sophisticated’ rather
retical dimensions of brand experience dis- than ‘upper class’ and ‘charming’, which
cussed previously, we fixed the number of might be negatively correlated constructs
components to five and re-ran the analysis. in Norwegian. We also changed the item
The new factor analysis reveals the four ‘outdoorsy’ to ‘strong’. To validate the
experience dimensions of Brakus et al items measuring brand personality, we con-
(2009). In addition, a relational experience ducted a factor analysis ( principal component,

Table 3: Principal component, varimax rotation

Sense Relate Think Act Feel

‘Brand’ makes a strong impression on my senses 0.826 0.259 0.189 0.267 0.255
Being a customer of ‘Brand’ gives me interesting 0.830 0.286 0.180 0.265 0.256
sensory experiences
‘Brand’ appeals to my senses 0.800 0.315 0.154 0.274 0.321
‘Brand’ induces my feelings 0.466 0.187 0.317 0.250 0.683
I have strong emotions for ‘Brand’ 0.324 0.396 0.155 0.315 0.702
‘Brand’ often engage me emotionally 0.355 0.257 0.305 0.325 0.697
I often engage in action and behavior when I use 0.346 0.279 0.130 0.747 0.239
‘Brand’s’ services
As a customer of ‘Brand’ I am rarely passive 0.253 0.269 0.245 0.743 0.244
‘Brand’ engage me physically 0.303 0.381 0.248 0.578 0.336
I engage in a lot of thinking as a customer of ‘Brand’ 0.075 0.055 0.887 0.050 0.150
Being a customer of ‘Brand’ stimulates my thinking 0.160 0.149 0.858 0.185 0.155
and problem solving
‘Brand’ often challenge my way of thinking 0.263 0.366 0.695 0.299 0.153
As customer of ‘Brand’ I feel like I am part of a 0.230 0.856 0.161 0.190 0.224
community
I feel like I am part of the ‘Brand’ family 0.229 0.845 0.125 0.221 0.262
When I use ‘Brand’ I do not feel left alone 0.269 0.778 0.187 0.274 0.094

Cronbach’s  0.965 0.919 0.861 0.859 0.921

Eigenvalue 9.20 1.46 1.06 0.63 0.52
Variance explained 61.32 9.75 7.06 4.22 3.48

© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management Vol. 20, 5, 404–423 413
 Nysveen et al

varimax rotation). Two factors were or less equally high on the Sophisticated
revealed with an eigenvalue greater than 1. component (the difference between the
In specifying the number of factors to five two loadings is only 0.08). The reliability
(Aaker, 1997), the solution appearing in of the constructs for the Sincerity,
Table 4 was revealed. Excitement and Sophistication dimensions
Only two factors have an eigenvalue is satisfactory.
greater than 1, and the eigenvalue of two The problems revealed in the factor
other factors are below 0.5, which is con- analysis (Table 4) might be due to the
sidered very low. Convergent validity is deviation of item translations from those
satisfactory for three of the four items load- reflecting Aaker’s (1997) 15 facets. However,
ing on the Sincerity component. For the several studies have questioned Aaker’s
Excitement component, only two of the brand personality scale. According to Austin
four items have satisfactory convergent et al (2003), the framework is only valid
validity. Both items intended to measure when aggregating data across diverse prod-
Sophistication have good convergent valid- uct categories, not when aggregating data
ity, but only one item intended to measure within a specific product category. This
Rugged has a satisfactory convergent valid- objection is relevant for our study, which
ity. None of the relevant items loaded on examines services (mobile telephony, tele-
the Competence component, and we label vision and broadband services) in the
this component ‘Undefined’. For the three telecom sector. To meet this critique and
items loading on Sincerity, the two items obtain a dimensional structure as close as
loading on Excitement and the two items possible to that of Brakus et al (2009) (that
loading on Sophisticated, discriminant is, Aaker’s (1997) dimensions), we removed
validity is satisfactory. Discriminant validity three items from the original brand person-
for the item loading on Rugged is not ality scale because of low factor loadings on
satisfactory, because the item loads more the intended factor (cheerful, creative and

Table 4: Measures of brand personality. Principal component, varimax rotation

Sincerity Excitement Sophistication Undefined Rugged

Down-to-earth 0.775 0.354 0.213 0.167 0.100

Honest 0.817 0.283 0.232 0.243 0.163
Wholesome 0.818 0.281 0.257 0.210 0.135
Cheerful 0.534 0.671 0.244 0.163 0.217
Daring 0.235 0.741 0.323 0.370 0.074
Spirited 0.381 0.748 0.280 0.260 0.195
Creative 0.381 0.436 0.295 0.689 0.188
Up-to-date 0.427 0.365 0.253 0.704 0.224
Reliable 0.698 0.080 0.169 0.320 0.496
Intelligent 0.574 0.330 0.349 0.337 0.401
Successful 0.553 0.245 0.305 0.410 0.511
Upper class 0.246 0.210 0.886 0.173 0.095
Sophisticated 0.253 0.289 0.828 0.203 0.204
Strong 0.214 0.546 0.558 0.170 0.443
Tough 0.367 0.394 0.478 0.198 0.556

Cronbach’s  0.92 0.89 0.92 — —

Eigenvalue 10.57 1.13 0.70 0.48 0.35
Variance explained 70.44 7.56 4.69 3.17 2.30

Note: Cronbach’s s are calculated on the basis of bold numbers.

414 © 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management Vol. 20, 5, 404–423
 Brand experiences in service organizations

up-to-date) and re-ran the analysis. Table 5 the effect of brand experience on loyalty.
presents the results. In addition, brand personality partly medi-
As Table 5 shows, discriminant and con- ates the effect of brand experience on
vergent validity is satisfactory. Some cross- satisfaction. In this study, we chose to vali-
loadings on the Rugged dimension occur date the brand experience construct in a
for the ‘strong’ item, but these may be due somewhat different model for three reasons.
to the problems in translating Aaker’s (1997) First, our results from measurement valida-
original ‘outdoorsy’ item into Norwegian. tion indicate that the relationship dimen-
However, we apply the factor structure in sion of brand experience is particularly
Table 5 when designing the brand person- useful for service brands. Second, this find-
ality dimension measures in the analyses ing suggests that brand experience dimen-
conducted throughout this study. sions should be validated as individual latent
We measured brand satisfaction by three constructs in the nomological network of
items reflecting: satisfaction with the brand the brand experience. Third, as a result of
(Fornell, 1992), degree to which the brand serious problems in convergent and discri-
has been a good choice (Oliver, 1980) and minant validity of the brand personality
degree to which the brand has lived up to construct when compared with Aaker’s
expectations (Fornell, 1992) (Cronbach’s (1997) dimensions, the position of this con-
 = 0.953). We also measured brand loyalty struct in the nomological network of brand
by three items: ‘I will be loyal to “Brand” experience should be investigated separately
in the future’ (Brakus et al, 2009), ‘I will from brand experience dimensions.
keep on being a customer of “Brand” for These reasons suggest that three concep-
the next 6 months’ (Pedersen and Nysveen, tual models could be used to investigate the
2001) and ‘I will recommend “Brand” to nomological validity of the brand experi-
others’ (Brakus et al, 2009) (Cronbach’s ence construct. The first model corresponds
 = 0.862). to Brakus et al ’s (2009) original model. The
second model includes the relationship
RESULTS dimension of brand experience and is
Brakus et al (2009) conclude that brand designed with experience dimensions as
personality and satisfaction partly mediate latent constructs, which is in line with

Table 5: Revised brand personality. Principal component, varimax rotation

Sincerity Competence Sophistication Excitement Rugged

Down-to-earth 0.808 0.258 0.164 0.261 0.287

Honest 0.713 0.491 0.239 0.273 0.093
Wholesome 0.732 0.449 0.263 0.251 0.096
Daring 0.239 0.202 0.302 0.841 0.163
Spirited 0.356 0.284 0.279 0.733 0.243
Reliable 0.412 0.817 0.181 0.159 0.134
Intelligent 0.399 0.614 0.340 0.373 0.250
Successful 0.347 0.707 0.296 0.290 0.319
Upper class 0.194 0.203 0.890 0.230 0.132
Sophisticated 0.213 0.237 0.812 0.285 0.271
Strong 0.223 0.235 0.503 0.436 0.598
Tough 0.314 0.401 0.415 0.289 0.626

Cronbach’s  0.92 0.89 0.92 0.93 0.89

Eigenvalue 8.38 1.13 0.60 0.39 0.30
Variance explained 69.80 9.39 4.99 3.26 2.52

© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management Vol. 20, 5, 404–423 415
 Nysveen et al

Figure 1: Brakus et al’s (2009) model.

Brakus et al’s (2009) procedures. The third dimensions in service contexts and that the
model is similar to the second model, but underlying dimensions should be investi-
also includes brand personality as an aggre- gated separately to understand the effects
gate construct. of brand experience on satisfaction and
The results from applying structural loyalty.
equations modeling to Brakus et al’s (2009) The model including the five dimensions
original model appear in Figure 1. The of the brand experience concept for
model shows acceptable but not very good service contexts appears in Figure 2. Here,
fit: 2 = 985.8, 2/DF = 11.7, comparative we model the dimensions as latent
fit index (CFI) = 0.94, goodness-of-fit constructs, following Brakus et al (2009).
index (GFI) = 0.86 and root mean square The model shows considerably better fit
error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.098. than the model in Figure 1: 2 = 836.4,
The fit in Brakus et al’s study was somewhat 2/DF = 4.97, CFI = 0.97, GFI = 0.92 and
better but in the same range (CFI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.063. These fit index values
GFI = 0.86 and RMSEA = 0.08). All coef- indicate good fit rather than just acceptable
ficients were significant at the 1 per cent fit. The model explains 32.3 per cent of
level, and explained variances are 22.6 per the variance in satisfaction and 86.4 per
cent for brand personality; 58.7 per cent cent of the variance in loyalty. We identify
for satisfaction and 86.6 per cent for loyalty. three important observations in Figure 2.
As Figure 1 shows, brand personality, satisf- First, a pattern of significant, negative and
action and loyalty were mediated in the positive coefficients occurs between the
same way as in Brakus et al (2009). In con- brand experience dimensions and brand
trast with Brakus et al, the effect of brand satisfaction. Thus, strong experiences con-
experience on satisfaction was negative, and tributed differently to satisfaction depend-
the direct effect of brand experience on ing on whether these experiences were
loyalty was much lower. These findings sensory, affective, intellectual, behavioral or
indicate that strong brand experiences in relational. Second, few significant coeffi-
service contexts may be both negative and cients appear between brand experience
positive. Thus, strong brand experiences and brand loyalty, suggesting brand satisfac-
may affect satisfaction positively or nega- tion mediated most of the effects of the
tively. In addition, the findings suggest that brand experience dimensions on brand
Brakus et al’s brand experience construct loyalty. Third, the only significant brand
does not cover all relevant brand experience experience dimension directly affecting

416 © 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management Vol. 20, 5, 404–423
 Brand experiences in service organizations

Figure 2: Brand experience model with dimensions as latent constructs.

brand loyalty was the relational experience variance in brand personality (considerably
dimension. This strongly supports the more than the model in Figure 1), 62.6 per
need to include relational experiences as a cent of the variance in satisfaction and
dimension of brand experience for service 86.8 per cent of the variance in loyalty.
brands. As Figure 3 shows, many of the patterns
We found that the model in Figure 1 we observe in the models of Figures 1 and
explained considerably more variance in 2 were replicated. Thus, brand personality
brand satisfaction than the model in mediated the effects of brand experience
Figure 2. This finding may be accounted on satisfaction and loyalty, and brand per-
for by the inclusion of brand personality as sonality affected satisfaction and increased
a mediating variable in the model in the explained variance of brand satisfaction
Figure 1. Figure 3 shows the corresponding but contributed less to additional explained
results for a model including both brand variance in brand loyalty. We find, how-
experience dimensions as latent constructs ever, that brand personality still affected
and brand personality as a latent construct. brand loyalty directly. Furthermore, the
(To improve readability, we do not include pattern of positive and negative effects of
observed variables.) The model shows different brand experience dimensions cor-
acceptable fit: 2 = 1685.9, 2/DF = 6.22, responds to those observed in the model in
CFI = 0.95, GFI = 0.87 and RMSEA = 0.072. Figure 2. This pattern was similar for the
The model explains 39.9 per cent of the effect of the brand experience dimensions

© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management Vol. 20, 5, 404–423 417
 Nysveen et al

Figure 3: Brand experience model with brand personality included.

on both brand personality and brand satis- Although this result shows the importance
faction. We also find that the most impor- of relational experiences, Hypothesis 2 is
tant dimension with a positive influence on only marginally supported. Although brand
both brand personality and brand satisfac- experience as an aggregated construct
tion was the relational dimension, further had a positive effect on brand personality
underscoring the importance of including (Figure 1), as Figure 3 shows, only the rela-
this dimension in the brand experience tional and sensory experience dimensions
construct when applied to service contexts. had positive effects on brand personality;
We also find that despite the addition of thus, Hypothesis 3 is only weakly sup-
brand personality, the relational dimension ported. The results show support for
still affected brand loyalty directly, and it Hypotheses 4a, 4b and 5. Finally, in terms
was also the only brand experience dimen- of the relational experience dimension,
sion to have such an effect. analyses show significant effects of this
The results from Figures 2 and 3 indicate dimension on brand personality, brand sat-
that the effect of brand experience on brand isfaction and brand loyalty. Consequently,
satisfaction is ambiguous. Analysis shows Proposition 1 is strongly supported.
that the experience dimensions had insig-
nificant, but both positive and negative, DISCUSSION
effects on brand satisfaction. Consequently,
Hypothesis 1 is only partly supported. Theoretical contributions
Except for the relational brand experience Although theoretically derived as part of
dimension, none of the other dimensions the brand experience construct, Brakus
had a significant effect on brand loyalty. et al (2009) found no empirical support for

418 © 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management Vol. 20, 5, 404–423
 Brand experiences in service organizations

social experiences as an independent expe- with prior studies revealing effects of

rience dimension. Our findings, however, music on shopping experience (Yalch and
indicate that relational experiences not Spangenberg, 2000) and of scents on
only represent a unique dimension of the memory retrieval (Lwin et al, 2010).
construct, but that such experiences are Both emotional and cognitive experi-
important predictors of customer satisfac- ences negatively influence brand satisfac-
tion and loyalty. This finding corresponds tion. Cognitive, or intellectual, experience
to extant branding literature that regards is a function of the amount of thinking
relationships as central in creating brand necessary when dealing with the brand and
value. Hence, our research bridges two the degree to which the brand stimulates
emerging marketing perspectives: (i) stake- curiosity and problem solving (Brakus et al,
holders’ co-creation of brand value and 2009). If a brand stimulates a lot of think-
(ii) the importance of creating brand ing, it may be too complicated to use or
experiences that go beyond function differ- may not have an intuitive user interface.
entiation. Furthermore, a brand that stimulates prob-
Our research makes several theoretical lem solving may implicitly create challenges
contributions to the emerging field of for the customers to solve the problems.
brand experience. First, we have made a Thus, the negative effect of cognitive expe-
necessary validation of a newly established rience on satisfaction may be due to the
brand experience scale in a service context. brand being too complex and challenging.
Second, we demonstrate that relational The results also suggest that the strategies
aspects reside in the brand experience con- for stimulating emotional experience do
struct. Furthermore, prior research has not not work. It may be that customers do not
empirically studied experience dimensions expect or want feelings and sentiments to
as individual variables. Hence, our exami- be induced when dealing with a telecom
nation of individual effects of each experi- company. They may consider such experi-
ence dimension contributes to a deeper ences irrelevant for the typical usability
understanding of the complexity of the services telecom brands offer.
experience construct. The significant effect of relational expe-
rience on both satisfaction and loyalty is
Managerial implications also noteworthy. This effect advises mar-
Sensory experiences positively influence keting and brand managers to put priority
brand personality (Figure 3) and brand sat- on building strong relational experiences
isfaction (Figure 2). The construct of sen- for customers, but it also indicates some
sory experiences reflects the importance of major managerial challenges. Mosley (2007)
stimulating and appealing to consumers’ uses mobile phone operators as an example
senses. Thus, brands should strive to develop to illustrate the challenges of creating cus-
visually interesting and appealing brand tomer experiences through the relational
elements to increase brand satisfaction. experience dimension. The value network
Such effects of design and visual esthetics of mobile phone operators is often com-
influence consumers’ responses (Bloch, 1995; plex, and many actors are involved.
Bloch et al, 2003; Rindova and Petkova, Customers gain a relationship with the pro-
2007). Other senses should be similarly vider through many touch points both
stimulated. For example, the results indicate online and offline when they buy the
that both sounds and scents can improve device, decide about subscription and use
sensory experience and thereby strengthen post-purchase support services. Therefore,
brand satisfaction. The results are in line delivering a consistent brand experience is

© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management Vol. 20, 5, 404–423 419
 Nysveen et al

a challenging task. As a result of the sig- items. This is a considerable challenge

nificant effect of the relational experience because a valence-based brand experience
dimension, providers should expend effort construct is likely more difficult to discrim-
to standardize the customer interaction ele- inate from attitude-based brand constructs.
ments to ensure that the relational experi- Thus, the predictive power of a valence-
ence translates into a consistently strong based brand experience construct should be
and positive brand experience. Given the investigated.
increased importance of customer-to- The issue of a strength- versus valence-
customer interaction as a source of brand based brand experience construct also
experience, service providers may enhance raises the question of how to apply the
customers’ brand experience by effectively brand experience construct for managerial
cultivating communities (McAlexander et al, purposes. Implicit in a valence-based brand
2002) and foster social networking practices experience construct is the principle of a
(Schau et al, 2009). fit between the experience offering and
the experience requirements of the con-
Future research sumer. This fit leads to a positive experi-
A measurement scale, such as that devel- ence. In a strength-based interpretation
oped by Brakus et al (2009), represents a of the construct, fit is treated more
valuable tool for empirically testing cus- explicitly, raising questions related to the
tomers’ experiences with a brand. The scale individual, service-related and contextual
was originally developed and tested for moderators of the effects of a strong brand
product and service brands by Brakus et al experience. Developing a model that
(2009) and validated on product brands by integrates both brand experience strength
Iglesias et al (2011). By documenting results and valence might be a useful direction
for the relational experience dimension, the for further research.
current research indicates that the dimen- Previously, we raised the issue of per-
sionality of the scale is context dependent, ceived relevance of the brand experience
thus challenging the scale as a valid global dimension among consumers. We question
measurement tool. Therefore, further test- whether the negative effects of affective and
ing and validation of the dimensionality of cognitive experiential dimensions can be
brand and customer experience are needed explained by a lack of relevance. Furthermore,
across different contexts. given the lack of effect revealed for behav-
The items used to measure brand experi- ioral experiences, we question whether this
ence replicated those from Brakus et al dimension is relevant for consumers in the
(2009) and Iglesias et al (2011). However, context studied. Thus, despite the risk of
in line with the assumption that experiences complication, perhaps perceived relevance
in and of themselves are valuable and result of the experiential dimensions (in a given
in positive outcomes, items reflected expe- context) should be included in future
rience strength, not valence. However, the studies along with measures of strength and
current study shows that certain experience valence.
dimensions are negatively associated with Measuring brand and customer experi-
customer satisfaction and loyalty, indicating ence using a quantitative measurement scale
that experience is not an inherently positive has several limitations. First, measuring
concept. In line with Brakus et al’s recom- experience after an actual experience is
mendations, we encourage future research problematic because, by definition, experi-
to consider not only experience strength, ences are process oriented. A post-experience
but also positively and negatively worded measure resembles to a large degree a more

420 © 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management Vol. 20, 5, 404–423
 Brand experiences in service organizations

traditional outcome-oriented satisfaction Bloch, P.H. (1995) Seeking the ideal form: Product
design and consumer response. Journal of Marketing
measure. This is particularly relevant when 59(3): 16–29.
applying a valence-based approach to expe- Bloch, P.H., Brunel, F.F. and Arnold, T.J. (2003)
rience measurement. Future studies there- Individual differences in the centrality of visual
product aesthetics: Concept and measurement.
fore should consider other methodological Journal of Consumer Research 29(1): 551–565.
approaches to capture the experience as a Brakus, J.J., Schmitt, B.H. and Zarantonello, L. (2009)
non-linear process. Finally, self-reported Brand experience: What is it? How is it measured?
experiences, especially those related to Does it affect loyalty? Journal of Marketing 73(3):
52–68.
affect, may not be valid measures of experi- Cacioppo, J.T. and Petty, R.E. (1982) The need for
ence. Other, more unobtrusive methods cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
thus should be developed and employed to 42(1): 116–131.
Cliffe, S. and Motion, J. (2005) Building contemporary
better reveal customer and brand experi- brands: A sponsorship-based strategy. Journal of
ence. A triangulation of such methods Business Research 58(8): 1068–1077.
(Nacke et al, 2010) could help explain how Dibb, S., Simkin, L., Pride, W.M. and Ferrell, O.C.
(2006) Marketing. Concepts and Strategies. Boston,
strong and positive experiences are created MA: Houghton Mifflin.
and what their long-term behavioral con- Dong, S., Ding, M., Grewal, R. and Zhao, P. (2011)
sequences are in service contexts. Functional forms of the satisfaction-loyalty relation-
Our finding regarding the importance of ship. International Journal of Research in Marketing
28(1): 38–50.
relational brand experiences corresponds Ekinci, Y. and Dawes, P.L. (2009) Consumer percep-
with the evolving perspective on brand tions of frontline service employee personality traits,
value as a function of social interactions interaction quality, and consumer satisfaction. The
Service Industries Journal 17(125): 503–521.
between the company’s stakeholders (Merz Fornell, C. (1992) A national customer satisfaction
et al, 2009). Future research should further barometer: The Swedish experience. Journal of
explore the complexity of the relational Marketing 56(1): 6–21.
Freud, S. (1950) Beyond Pleasure Principle. New York:
component of brand experience, both in a Liveright.
product brand and a service brand setting. Frow, P. and Payne, A. (2007) Towards the ‘perfect’
In agreement with Iglesias et al (2011), we customer experience. Journal of Brand Management
propose that the role of co-creation proc- 15(2): 89–101.
Gentile, C., Spiller, N. and Noci, G. (2007) How to
esses in creating brand experiences should sustain the customer experience: An overview of
be a focus for future studies. experience components that co-create value with
the customer. European Management Journal 25(5):
395–410.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Geuens, M., Weijters, B. and De Wulf, K. (2009) A
This project was partially funded by new measure of brand personality. International
Telenor. Journal of Research on Marketing 26(2): 97–107.
Grohmann, B. (2009) Gender dimensions of brand
personality. Journal of Marketing Research 46(1):
REFERENCES 105–119.
Aaker, J.L. (1997) Dimensions of brand personality. Gupta, S. and Vajic, M. (2000) The contextual and
Journal of Marketing Research 34(3): 347–356. dialectical nature of experiences. In: J.A. Fitzsimmons
Alloza, A. (2008) Brand engagement and brand experi- and M.J. Fitzsimmons (eds.) New Service Developments:
ence at BBVA, the transformation of a 150 years Creating Memorable Experiences. Thousand Oaks,
old company. Corporate Reputation Review 11(4): CA: Sage, pp. 33–51.
371–379. Hoch, S.J. (2002) Product experience is seductive.
Austin, J.R., Siguaw, J.A. and Mattila, A.S. (2003) A Journal of Consumer Research 29(3): 448–454.
re-examination of the generalizability of the Aaker Holbrook, M. and Hirschman, E.C. (1982) The expe-
brand personality measurement framework. Journal riential aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies,
of Strategic Marketing 11(2): 77–92. feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research 9(2):
Biedanback, G. and Marcell, A. (2010) The impact of 132–140.
customer experience on brand equity in a business- Holt, D.B. (1995) How consumers consume: A typol-
to-business service setting. Journal of Brand Management ogy of consumption practices. Journal of Consumer
17(6): 446–458. Research 22(1): 1–15.

© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management Vol. 20, 5, 404–423 421
 Nysveen et al

Hui, M.K. and Bateson, J.E.G. (1991) Perceived con- Mosley, R.W. (2007) Customer experience, organiza-
trol and the effects of crowding and consumer tional culture and the employer brand. Journal of
choice on the service experience. Journal of Consumer Brand Management 15(2): 123–134.
Research 18(2): 174–184. Nacke, L.E., Grimshaw, M. and Lindley, C. (2010) More
Iglesias, O., Singh, J.J. and Batista-Foguet, J.M. (2011) than a feeling: Measurement of sonic user experience
The role of brand experience and affective com- and psychophysiology in a first-person shooter game.
mitment in determining brand loyalty. Journal of Interacting with Computers 22(5): 336–343.
Brand Management 18(8): 570–582. Naylor, G., Kleiser, S.B., Baker, J. and Yorkston, E.
Keller, K.L. (2008) Strategic Brand Management. Building, (2008) Using transformational appeals to enhance the
Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity. Upper Saddle retail experience. Journal of Retailing 84(1): 49–57.
River, NJ: Pearson, Prentice Hall. Ojiako, U. and Maguire, S. (2009) Seeking the perfect
Kerin, R.A., Jain, A. and Howard, D.J. (1992) Store customer experience: A case study of British tele-
shopping experience and consumer price-quality- com. Strategic Change 18(5–6): 179–193.
value perceptions. Journal of Retailing 68(4): Oliver, R.L. (1980) A cognitive model of the antecedents
376–397. and consequences of satisfaction decision. Journal of
Lovelock, C. and Gummesson, E. (2004) Wither Marketing Research 17(4): 460–469.
services marketing? In search of new paradigm Oliver, R.L. (1993) Cognitive, affective, and attribute
and fresh perspectives. Journal of Service Research bases of the satisfaction response. Journal of Consumer
7(1): 20–41. Research 20(3): 418–430.
Lwin, M.O., Morrin, M. and Krishna, A. (2010) Oliver, R.L. (1999) Whence consumer loyalty? Journal
Exploring the superadditive effects of scent and of Marketing 63(4): 33–44.
pictures on verbal recall: An extension of dual cod- Palmer, A. (2010) Customer experience management:
ing theory. Journal of Consumer Psychology 20(3): A critical review of and emerging idea. Journal of
317–326. Services Marketing 24(3): 196–208.
Marinova, D., Ye, J. and Singh, J. (2008) Do frontline Pedersen, P.E. and Nysveen, H. (2001) Shopbot bank-
mechanisms matter? Impact of quality and produc- ing: An exploratory study of customer loyalty
tivity orientations on unit revenue, efficiency, and effects. International Journal of Bank Marketing 19(4):
customer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing 72(2): 146–155.
28–45. Pine, II, B.J. and Gilmore, J.H. (1998) Welcome to
Mascarenhas, O.A., Kesavan, R. and Bernacchi, M. the experience economy. Harvard Business Review
(2006) Lasting customer loyalty: A total customer 76(4): 97–105.
experience approach. The Journal of Consumer Pine, II, B.J. and Gilmore, J.H. (1999) Experience
Marketing 23(7): 397–405. Economy: Work is Theatre & Every Business a Stage.
McAlexander, J.H., Kim, S.K. and Roberts, S.D. MA: Harvard Business School Press Books, .
(2003) Loyalty: The influences of satisfaction and Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2004) Co-creation
brand community integration. Journal of Marketing experiences: The next practice in value creation.
Theory and Practice 11(4): 1–11. Journal of Interactive Marketing 18(3): 5–14.
McAlexander, J.H., Schouten, J.W. and Koenig, H.F. Rindova, V.P. and Petkova, A.P. (2007) When is a
(2002) Building Brand Community. Journal of new thing a good thing? Technological change,
Marketing 66(1): 38–54. product form design, and the perception of value
McAllister, L. and Pessemier, E.A. (1982) Variety seek- for product innovations. Organizational Science
ing behavior: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of 18(2): 217–232.
Consumer Research 9(3): 311–322. Schau, H.J., Muñiz, A.M. and Arnould, E.J. (2009)
McCrae, R.R. and Costa, P.T. (1987) Validation of How brand community practices create value.
the five factor model of personality across instru- Journal of Marketing 73(5): 30–51.
ments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Schmitt, B.H. (1999) Experiential Marketing: How to Get
Psychology 52(1): 81–90. Customers to Sense, Feel, Think, Act, and Relate to
McCrae, R.R. and Costa, P.T. (1997) Personality trait Your Company and Brands. New York: Free Press.
structure as a human universal. American Psychologist Schmitt, B.H. and Rogers, D.L. (2008) Preface. In:
52(5): 509–516. B.H. Schmitt and D.L. Rogers (eds.) Handbook on
Merz, M.A., He, Y. and Vargo, S.L. (2009) The evolv- Brand and Experience Management. Cheltenham, UK:
ing brand logic: A service-dominant logic perspec- Edward Elgar, pp. ix–x.
tive. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 37(3): Shim, S. and Eastlick, M.A. (1998) The hierarchical
328–344. influence of personal values on mall shopping attitude
Meyer, C. and Schwager, A. (2007) Understanding and behavior. Journal of Retailing 74(1): 139–160.
customer experience. Harvard Business Review 85(2): Siguaw, J.A., Mattila, A. and Austin, J.R. (1999) The
116–126. brand-personality scale. Hotel and Restaurant
Morrison, S. and Crane, F.G. (2007) Building the Administration Quarterly 40(3): 48–55.
service brand by creating and managing an emo- Sung, Y. and Kim, J. (2010) Effects of brand personality
tional brand experience. Journal of Brand Management on brand trust and brand affect. Psychology &
14(5): 410–421. Marketing 27(7): 639–661.

422 © 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management Vol. 20, 5, 404–423
 Brand experiences in service organizations

Szymanski, D.M. and Henard, D.H. (2001) Customer Walter, U., Edvardsson, B. and Öström, Å. (2010)
satisfaction: A meta-analysis of the empirical evi- Drivers of customers’ service experiences: A study
dence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science in the restaurant industry. Managing Service Quality
29(1): 16–35. 20(3): 236–258.
Tse, D.K. and Wilton, P.C. (1988) Models of consumer Westbrook, R.A. and Oliver, R.L. (1991) The dimen-
satisfaction formation: An extension. Journal of sionality of consumption emotion patterns and
Marketing Research 25(2): 204–212. consumer satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research
Valenzuela, A., Dhar, R. and Zettelmeyer, F. (2009) 18(1): 84–91.
Contingent responses to self-customization proce- Yalch, R.F. and Spangenberg, E.R. (2000) The effects of
dures: Implications for decision satisfaction and music in a retail setting on real and perceived shopping
choice. Journal of Marketing Research 46(6): times. Journal of Business Research 49(2): 139–147.
754–763. Zarantonello, L. and Schmitt, B.H. (2010) Using the
Vargo, S. and Lusch, R.F. (2004) Evolving to a new brand experience scale to profile consumers and
dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing predict consumer behaviour. Journal of Brand
68(1): 1–17. Management 17(7): 532–540.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2008) Why service? Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. and Berry, L.L. (1985)
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 36(1): Problems and strategies in service marketing. Journal
25–38. of Marketing 49(2): 33–46.
Verhoef, P.C., Lemon, K.N., Parasuraman, A., Zentes, J., Morschett, D. and Schramm-Klein, H.
Roggeveen, A., Tsiros, M. and Schlesinger, L.A. (2008) Brand personality of retailers – An analysis
(2009) Customer experience creation: Determinants, of its applicability and its effect on store loyalty.
dynamics and management strategies. Journal of The International Review of Retail, Distribution and
Retailing 85(1): 31–41. Consumer Research 18(2): 167–184.

© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management Vol. 20, 5, 404–423 423