DESIRED SENSORY BRANDING STRATEGIES IN-STORE VERSUS

ONLINE: THE SKINCARE INDUSTRY

By

GABRIELLA BERMAN
(215032950)

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of

Philosophy (PhD) (Marketing) in the Faculty of Business and Economic
Sciences at the Nelson Mandela University

April 2023

Supervisor: Dr A Potgieter
Co-supervisor: Prof M Tait
 DECLARATION

I, Gabriella Kirsty Berman, hereby declare that:

• the work in this treatise is my own original work;

• all sources used or referred to have been documented and recognised;
and
• this treatise has not been previously submitted in full or partial fulfilment
of the requirements for an equivalent or higher qualification at any other
recognised educational institution.

Gabriella Kirsty Berman

24th November 2022

i
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A sincere thank you to all the people who, in one way or another, contributed
to the completion of my study. Special thanks are extended to:

• Dr A Potgieter and Prof M Tait for their guidance, continued support,

mentorship and words of encouragement throughout this study;
• to my friends and family for their encouragement and support to ensure
successful completion of this study;
• Miss C Stindt from the NMU statistical unit for her specialised support
and assistance with data processing and analysis;
• Ms R Ferreira for the language editing; and
• the respondents for their willingness to participate in the study and for
their cooperation.

Gabriella Kirsty Berman

24th November 2022

ii
 LANGUAGE EDITING DECLARATION

49a Shirley Street

Newton Park
Port Elizabeth
6045
Email: [email protected]
Telephone: 073 371 6678

11 July 2022

To whom it may concern

This is to confirm that I, the undersigned, have language edited the

introductory pages, edited the language and formatting and cross-checked the
references of the thesis, and checked the formatting of the reference list of G
Berman’s PhD thesis, titled DESIRED SENSORY BRANDING STRATEGIES
IN-STORE VERSUS ONLINE: THE SKINCARE INDUSTRY.
The responsibility for implementing the recommended changes rests with the
author of the study.

Yours truly

R Ferreira
MBA (PET); BCom (Hons) (UPE); DipMktM (IMM)

iii
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Modern shoppers are inundated with purchasing options in every product

category, with thousands of brands competing for their patronage. It has
therefore become increasingly important for organisations to differentiate
product offerings in the market if they want to be competitive. It has further
been highlighted that an individual’s experience of a brand is of paramount
importance, as it is directly linked to brand loyalty. A vehicle for creating
memorable brand experiences is the utilisation of multi-sensory experiences
or sensory branding.

Within the context of traditional or in-store shopping, sensory branding

encompasses the use of visual, auditory, olfactory, tactile and gustatory stimuli
to adjust consumer purchasing behaviour. However, more and more
consumers are opting for online shopping, spurred on by the effects of the
global COVID-19 pandemic, and are no less demanding of brands online than
they would be in-store. The cosmetics and personal care industry is one of the
more predominant gainers from e-commerce. The skincare industry exhibited
one of the largest growth rates from 2019 – 2025 and had an estimated market
value of $155.8 billion in 2022. When considering the South African skincare
industry in isolation, there is no exception, categorised by high average growth
rates and many competitive players in the market. This is apparent when
considering that the skincare industry within South Africa is expcted to grow
annually by 5.48% from 2023 to 2027, translating to an industry value of
$788.4 million by 2027 (Statista 2023). With reference to in-store shopping for
skincare products, sensory marketing strategies have been known to be
heavily relied on. Therefore, with consumers moving towards online shopping,
it is essential for skincare businesses to consider how to deliver sensory
experiences online as well as in-store.

Whilst the importance of the use of sensory branding and marketing in the
skincare industry is notable, both in-store and online, it was established that
while there is research available on sensory branding, there is very limited
academic research on digital sensory branding and the sensory branding of

iv
skincare products. Moreover, to the researcher’s knowledge, no academic
literature specifically investigates the digital sensory branding of skincare
brands. Therefore, this study will contribute not only by adding academic
research to the topic being investigated but also through rreccomendations
made based on the outcomes of this study to skincare brands in South Africa.

From the comprehensive literature review, a conceptual model was

constructed to investigate the relationship between traditional and digital
sensory branding strategies (independent variables) and brand loyalty
(dependent variable). Two sets of hypotheses were formulated relating to the
identified variables of this study and the empirical research conducted was
utilised to deduce whether these hypotheses should be rejected or supported.

To conduct the empirical research needed for this study, certain research
methodology was employed. This study made use of a positivistic paradigm
and a quantitative approach. The target population of this study constituted
consumers who had purchased skincare products in-store as well as online
and, as no true sample frame existed, respondents were selected through the
use of non-probability sampling, more specifically, convenience sampling. To
collect the data, an online survey was used, with the specific data collection
instrument being a web-based self-administered questionnaire, which was
distributed via social media platforms, such as Facebook and LinkedIn, as well
as via email. Section A of the questionnaire focused on the demographic
details of the respondents, while Section B – Section F related to the variables
of the study. A total of 372 potential respondents started the questionnaire,
however only 321 questionnaires were deemed usable after the data had been
coded and cleaned, indicating a response rate of 86.3%.

This study made use of both descriptive (measures of central tendency as well
as standard deviation and skewness) and inferential (SEM Models, Primary
Models, Pearson’s correlation coefficients, Chi-Square test of Association,
ANOVAs and Welch Robust test, Tukey test and Games Howell Test as well
as Cohen’s d) statistics to interpret the data, which was graphically illustrated.

v
The empirical investigation conducted in this study between the variables and
sub-variables revealed that significant relationships exist between traditional
sensory branding strategies (traditional olfactory and tactile stimuli) and digital
sensory branding strategies (digital visual, olfactory and tactile stimuli) and
brand loyalty, with refence to the skincare industry. It was further notable that,
with specific reference to the skincare industry, the sense of sight, smell and
touch are key factors for sensory branding, whereas auditory stimuli were
found to only be useful when used in unison with the other senses. Moreover,
with reference to in-store shopping, it was deduced that consumers shop for
skincare mostly via retail outlets, which could lead to sensory overload.
Furthermore, the results of this study suggest that younger consumers are
price sensitive.

Based on the pertinent empirical results, and corresponding literature findings,

of this study, recommendations were provided to businesses operating in the
skincare industry. With reference to in-store trading, it was recommended that
because skincare is mostly sold via retail outlets, the brand itself does not have
control over all sensory stimuli to which the consumer is exposed. As a result,
consumers may be subject to sensory overload and skincare brands should
keep their sensory branding in-store simple. Moreover, skincare brands could
make use of an in-store aesthetician or beautician, which would facilitate
consumer-product interaction. With regards to online trading, a
recommendation for skincare brands would be to use moving images or GIFs,
which will allow the consumer to more easily imagine the feel of the product.
Moreover, skincare brands can make use of brand ambassadors to create
“unboxing” videos, which will convey more clearly the sensory information of
the product and instil confidence in consumers. Reccomendations were also
made with reference to the financial state of consumers, as the financial
position of the respondents could influence their decision making.

The limitations of this study comprised the availability of reliable existing

sources to support the study as the concept of digital sensory branding is still
relatively new and, due to the study being focused on the skincare industry,
taste stimuli were excluded as they were found to have no relevance. Finally,

vi
based on all the literature findings and empirical results, recommendations for
future areas of study were made.

This study provides evidence that both traditional and digital sensory branding
strategies have an influence on, or relationship with, brand loyalty. Through
this study, the importance of sensory branding, with specific reference to the
skincare industry, is brought to light. Furthermore, skincare brands can utilise
the information provided to improve the experience of their consumers when
shopping in-store, as well as online, thereby increasing their base of brand
loyal consumers.

KEYWORDS:
Sensory branding; multi-sensory experiences; brand loyalty; traditional
sensory branding; digital sensory branding

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
LANGUAGE EDITING DECLARATION iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS viii
LIST OF TABLES xviii
LIST OF FIGURES xxiii
ANNEXURES xxvi

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

1.1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY 1

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT 4
1.3 AIM AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY 6
1.3.1 Primary objective 7
1.3.2 Secondary objectives 7
1.3.3 Methodological objectives 7
1.4 LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUALISATION 8
1.4.1 Brand experience 8
1.4.2 Brand loyalty 9
1.4.3 Visual branding strategy 12
1.4.4 Auditory branding strategy 12
1.4.5 Olfactory branding strategy 13
1.4.6 Tactile branding strategy 14
1.4.7 Gustatory branding strategy 15
1.5 CONCEPTUAL MODEL 15
1.6 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 17
1.6.1 Research paradigm, approach and design 18
1.6.2 Target population 19
1.6.3 Sampling 20
1.6.4 Sampling procedure 20

viii
1.6.5 Data collection methods 21
1.6.6 Measuring instrument 21
1.6.7 Data collection procedure 23
1.6.8 Data preparation 23
1.6.9 Validity of the measuring instrument 24
1.6.10 Reliability of the measuring instrument 25
1.6.11 Additional data analysis used 25
1.7 DELIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY 25
1.8 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS 26
1.9 CONTRIBUTION OF THE STUDY 27
1.10 DEFINITIONS OF KEY CONCEPTS 29
1.11 OUTLINE OF CHAPTERS 30

CHAPTER 2
THE CONCEPT OF BRAND EXPERIENCE AND BRAND EQUITY

2.1 INTRODUCTION 32
2.2 LITERATURE REVIEW 33
2.2.1 Brands 33
2.2.2 Brand equity 36
2.2.2.1 Brand awareness 38
2.2.2.2 Brand association 38
2.2.2.3 Perceived quality 39
2.2.2.4 Band loyalty 40
2.2.3 E-commerce and brand loyalty 42
2.2.4 Marketing or consumer experiences 45
2.2.4.1 Pine and Gilmore’s Experience Model 45
(a) The entertainment realm 46
(b) The educational realm 47
(c) The esthetic realm 47
(d) The escapist realm 48
2.2.4.2 Experiential marketing 48
2.2.5 Brand experiences 49

ix
2.2.6 Feel-related experiences 50
2.2.7 Cognitive experiences 50
2.2.8 Act experiences 50
2.2.9 Relate experiences 51
2.2.10 Sensory experiences 51
2.2.11 Multi-sensory experiences 52
2.2.12 Brand experiences and brand loyalty 55
2.3 SUMMARY 56

CHAPTER 3
SENSORY BRANDING STRATEGIES AND THE SKINCARE
INDUSTRY

3.1 INTRODUCTION 61
3.2 SKINCARE INDUSTRY IN SOUTH AFRICA 61
3.2.1 The skin care industry and the global COVID-19 pandemic 64
3.2.2 The shift of sales from in-store to online for skin care products 65
3.3 TRADITIONAL SENSORY BRANDING 67
3.4 DIGITAL SENSORY BRANDING 69
3.5 VISUAL SENSORY BRANDING 70
3.5.1 Traditional in-store visual strategies 74
3.5.2 Digital online visual strategies 75
3.6 AUDITORY SENSORY BRANDING 76
3.6.1 Traditional in-store auditory strategies 79
3.6.2 Digital online auditory strategies 79
3.7 OLFACTORY SENSORY BRANDING 80
3.7.1 Traditional in-store olfactory strategies 82
3.7.1 Digital online olfactory strategies 82
3.8 TACTILE SENSORY BRANDING 83
3.8.1 Traditional in-store tactile strategies 85
3.8.2 Digital online tactile strategies 86
3.9 TASTE SENSORY BRANDING 88
3.9.1 Traditional in-store taste strategies 91

x
3.9.2 Digital online taste strategies 91
3.10 SENSORY OVERLOAD 92
3.11 SUMMARY OF VARIOUS SENSORY BRANDING STRATEGIES 93
3.12 SUMMARY 95

CHAPTER 4
CONCEPTUAL MODEL

4.1 INTRODUCTION 105

4.2 ELEMENTS OF A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND 105
CONCEPTUAL MODEL
4.2.1 Theoretical framework 107
4.2.2 Conceptual framework 108
4.3 PREVIOUSLY EXISTING THEORIES 109
4.3.1 Consumer Behaviour Theory 110
4.3.1.1 The Buyer Behaviour Model 110
4.3.1.2 The Consumer Decision Model 111
4.3.1.3 The Theory of Planned Behaviour Model and the Reasoned Action 112
Model
4.3.1.4 The Technology Acceptance Model 114
4.3.2 The Experience Economy Theory 115
4.3.2.1 Conceptual model of experience marketing 116
4.3.2.2 A model of sensory marketing 117
4.3.2.3 A model for multi-sensory experience and shopping behaviour 118
4.3.3 Brand equity theory 119
4.3.3.1 A model of the influence of brand experience on brand equity 120
4.4 THE CONCEPTUAL MODEL 121
4.5 THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES 124
4.5.1 Brand experience 124
4.5.2 Traditional sensory branding 125
4.5.3 Digital sensory branding 126
4.5.4 Visual sensory branding 127
4.5.4.1 Traditional visual sensory branding strategies 127
4.5.4.2 Digital visual sensory branding strategies 128

xi
4.5.5 Auditory sensory branding 128
4.5.5.1 Traditional auditory sensory branding strategies 129
4.5.5.2 Digital auditory sensory branding strategies 129
4.5.6 Olfactory sensory branding 129
4.5.6.1 Traditional olfactory sensory branding strategies 130
4.5.6.2 Digital olfactory sensory branding strategies 130
4.5.7 Tactile sensory branding 131
4.5.7.1 Traditional tactile sensory branding strategies 132
4.5.7.2 Digital tactile sensory branding strategies 132
4.6 THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE: BRAND LOYALTY 132
4.7 SUMMARY 133

CHAPTER 5
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

5.1 INTRODUCTION 139

5.2 THE RESEARCH PARADIGM 140
5.3 THE RESEARCH DESIGN 143
5.4 SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION 145
5.4.1 Target population 145
5.4.2 Sampling 147
5.4.3 Completion rate 149
5.5 PRIMARY DATA 150
5.5.1 Data collection methods 150
5.5.2 Measuring instrument 152
5.5.3 Questionnaire structure 153
5.5.3.1 The demographic details of the respondents 154
5.5.3.2 Items relating to the variables specific to this study 154
5.5.4 Question format 156
5.5.5 Reliability of the measuring instrument 158
5.5.6 Validity of the measuring instrument 159
5.5.7 Data collection procedure 161
5.5.8 Data preparation 162
5.5.9 Data analysis techniques used 163

xii
5.6 PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED 164
5.7 SUMMARY 165

CHAPTER 6
REPORTING THE RESULTS

6.1 INTRODUCTION 171

6.2 COMPLETION RATE AND INTERNAL RELIABILITY OF THE 172
VARIABLES IN THE STUDY
6.2.1 Response rate 173
6.2.2 Internal reliability of the variables of the study 174
6.3 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS 176
6.4 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF THE RESPONDENTS 176
6.5 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF THE VARIABLES OF THE 179
STUDY
6.5.1 Traditional sensory branding strategies 180
6.5.1.1 Traditional visual stimuli 180
6.5.1.2 Traditional auditory stimuli 182
6.5.1.3 Traditional olfactory stimuli 184
6.5.1.4 Traditional tactile stimuli 185
6.5.2 Digital sensory branding strategies 187
6.5.2.1 Digital visual stimuli 187
6.5.2.2 Digital auditory stimuli 188
6.5.2.3 Digital olfactory stimuli 190
6.5.2.4 Digital tactile stimuli 191
6.5.3 Brand loyalty 193
6.6 INFERENTIAL STATISTICS 195
6.6.1 The results of the descriptive statistics of the second order factors 196
of the variables of this study
6.6.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) 198
6.6.2.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis for traditional sensory branding 200
strategies
6.6.2.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis for digital sensory branding 202
6.6.3 SEM models 204

xiii
 6.6.3.1 SEM model for traditional sensory branding and brand loyalty 204
6.6.3.2 SEM model for digital sensory branding and brand loyalty 206
6.6.3.3 SEM model for both traditional and digital sensory branding and 208
brand loyalty
6.6.4 Primary factor models 210
6.6.4.1 Primary model for traditional sensory stimuli 211
6.6.4.2 Primary model for digital sensory stimuli 213
6.6.4.3 Full primary model for both traditional and digital sensory stimuli 214
6.6.5 Traditional sensory branding strategies (independent variable) 217
and brand loyalty (dependent variable)
6.6.6 Digital sensory branding strategies (independent variable) and 219
brand loyalty (dependent variable)
6.6.7 Pearson’s correlations between variables of this study 221
6.6.8 Chi-square test of association between age and budget 224
6.6.9 ANOVAs, Welch Robust, Tukey’s and Games-Howell post hoc 226
tests and Cohen’s d
6.6.9.1 Independent sample t-test comparing mean factor scores of the 228
gender groups
6.6.9.2 ANOVAs comparing mean factor scores of the age groups 231
6.6.9.3 ANOVAs comparing mean factor scores of respondents’ monthly 243
budget for skincare products
6.6.9.4 ANOVAs comparing mean factor scores of the frequency with 255
which respondents purchase skincare products in-store
6.6.9.5 ANOVAs comparing mean factor scores of the frequency with 264
which respondents purchase skincare products online
6.7 SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESES AND RELATED STATISTICAL 273
TESTS PERFORMED TO SUPPORT THE HYPOTHESES
6.8 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 275

CHAPTER 7
SYNOPSIS, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 INTRODUCTION 278

xiv
7.2 SUMMARY OF THE RESEARCH 278
7.3 MAIN RESULTS: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF 285
RESPONDENTS
7.3.1 Gender of respondents 286
7.3.2 Age of respondents 286
7.3.3 Average monthly budget for skincare products 286
7.3.4 Frequency of purchasing skincare products in-store and 287
online
7.4 MAIN RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM 287
SECONDARY OBJECTIVES
7.4.1 Secondary objective 1: The use of multi-sensory branding to 288
create memorable brand experiences and enhance brand
loyalty
7.4.2 Secondary objective 2: Traditional and digital sensory 289
branding strategies
7.4.3 Secondary objective 3: The relationship between traditional 291
sensory branding and brand loyalty
7.4.4 The influence of traditional sensory branding on brand 291
loyalty
7.4.4.1 Main empirical and literature results relating to the influence 292
of traditional visual stimuli on brand loyalty
(a) Hypothesis linked to traditional visual stimuli 294
(b) Implications of the influence of traditional visual stimuli on 295
brand loyalty
(c) Recommendations and practical implications for businesses 296
operating in the skincare industry
7.4.4.2 Main empirical and literature results relating to the influence 296
of traditional auditory stimuli on brand loyalty
(a) Hypothesis linked to traditional auditory stimuli 299
(b) Implications of the influence of traditional auditory stimuli on 299
brand loyalty
(c) Recommendations and practical implications for businesses 300
operating in the skincare industry

xv
7.4.4.3 Main empirical and literature results relating to the influence 300
of traditional olfactory stimuli on brand loyalty
(a) Hypothesis linked to traditional olfactory stimuli 303
(b) Implications of the influence of traditional olfactory stimuli on 303
brand loyalty
(c) Recommendations and practical implications for businesses 304
operating in the skincare industry
7.4.4.4 Main empirical and literature results relating to the influence 304
of traditional tactile stimuli on brand loyalty
(a) Hypothesis linked to traditional tactile stimuli 309
(b) Implications of the influence of traditional tactile stimuli on 310
brand loyalty
(c) Recommendations and practical implications for businesses 310
operating in the skincare industry
7.4.5 Secondary objective 4: The relationship between digital 311
sensory branding and brand loyalty
7.4.6 The influence of digital sensory branding on brand loyalty 311
7.4.6.1 Main empirical and literature results relating to the influence 312
of digital visual stimuli on brand loyalty
(a) Hypothesis linked to digital visual stimuli 315
(b) Implications of the influence of digital visual stimuli on brand 316
loyalty
(c) Recommendations and practical implications for businesses 316
operating in the skincare industry
7.4.6.2 Main empirical and literature results relating to the influence 317
of digital auditory stimuli on brand loyalty
(a) Hypothesis linked to digital auditory stimuli 319
(b) Implications of the influence of digital auditory stimuli on 320
brand loyalty
(c) Recommendations and practical implications for businesses 320
operating in the skincare industry
7.4.6.3 Main empirical and literature results relating to the influence 320
of digital olfactory stimuli on brand loyalty

xvi
(a) Hypothesis linked to digital olfactory stimuli 323
(b) Implications of the influence of digital olfactory stimuli on 324
brand loyalty
(c) Recommendations and practical implications for businesses 324
operating in the skincare industry
7.4.6.4 Main empirical and literature results relating to the influence 324
of digital tactile stimuli on brand loyalty
(a) Hypothesis linked to digital tactile stimuli 328
(b) Implications of the influence of digital tactile stimuli on brand 328
loyalty
(c) Recommendations and practical implications for businesses 328
operating in the skincare industry
7.4.7 Secondary objective 5: Consumer brand loyalty 329
7.5 MAIN RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF 333
METHODOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES
7.5.1 Methodological objective one: Literature review on the 333
relationships between sensory branding strategies and
brand experience and consequently on brand loyalty
7.5.2 Methodological objective 2: Conceptual model 334
7.5.3 Methodological objective 3: Research design and 342
methodology
7.5.4 Methodological objective 4: Empirical investigation 344
7.5.5 Methodological objective 5: Data analysis 346
7.5.6 Methodological objective 6: Recommendations to 348
businesses operating within the skincare industry
7.6 PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY 348
7.7 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY 353
7.8 CONTRIBUTION OF THE STUDY 354
7.9 AREAS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 355
7.10 RECOMMENDATIONS 356
7.10.1 Practical recommendations 356
7.10.2 Concluding remarks 358
REFERENCE LIST 359

xvii
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1.1 NULL AND ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESES 16

TABLE 1.2 RECOMMENDED SAMPLE SIZE GUIDELINES 19
TABLE 1.3 DEFINITIONS OF CONCEPTS RELATED TO THE 29
STUDY
TABLE 1.4 OUTLINE OF THE THESIS 30
TABLE 2.1 CUSTOMER-BASED BRAND EQUITY MODELS AND 37
DIMENSIONS
TABLE 2.2 THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRADITIONAL AND 44
DIGITAL MARKETING
TABLE 2.3 SENSORY MARKETING APPROACHES 54
TABLE 3.1 A SUMMARY OF THE MEANINGS OF DIFFERENT 73
COLOURS
TABLE 3.2 SENSES AND SENSORY STRATEGIES OR STIMULI 93
TABLE 3.3 A SUMMARY OF COMMON SENSORY-ENABLING 94
TECHNOLOGIES
TABLE 3.4 A SUMMARY OF NEW SENSORY-ENABLING 94
TECHNOLOGIES
TABLE 4.1 NULL AND ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESES 123
TABLE 5.1 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH CHARACTERISTICS 141
TABLE 5.2 QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH CHARACTERISTICS 142
TABLE 5.3 RESEARCH DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS 143
TABLE 5.4 SAMPLE SIZE GUIDELINES 146
TABLE 5.5 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF 157
UNSTRUCTURED AND STRUCTURED QUESTIONS
TABLE 5.6 A SUMMARY OF THE TYPES OF QUESTIONS 157
UTILISED IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE OF THIS STUDY
TABLE 6.1 GUIDELINES FOR INTERPRETING CRONBACH 174
ALPHA VALUES
TABLE 6.2 CRONBACH ALPHA AND INTER-ITEM 175
CORRELATIONS CALCULATED FOR THE
VARIABLES OF THIS STUDY

xviii
TABLE 6.3 SUMMARY OF THE RESPONSES REGARDING THE 180
TRADITIONAL VISUAL STIMULI
TABLE 6.4 SUMMARY OF THE RESPONSES REGARDING THE 182
TRADITIONAL AUDITORY STIMULI
TABLE 6.5 SUMMARY OF THE RESPONSES REGARDING THE 184
TRADITIONAL OLFACTORY STIMULI
TABLE 6.6 SUMMARY OF THE RESPONSES REGARDING THE 185
TRADITIONAL TACTILE STIMULI
TABLE 6.7 SUMMARY OF THE RESPONSES REGARDING THE 187
DIGITAL VISUAL STIMULI
TABLE 6.8 SUMMARY OF THE RESPONSES REGARDING THE 189
DIGITAL AUDITORY STIMULI
TABLE 6.9 SUMMARY OF THE RESPONSES REGARDING THE 190
DIGITAL OLFACTORY STIMULI
TABLE 6.10 SUMMARY OF THE RESPONSES REGARDING THE 192
DIGITAL TACTILE STIMULI
TABLE 6.11 SUMMARY OF THE RESPONSES REGARDING 193
BRAND LOYALTY
TABLE 6.12 INFERENTIAL STATISTICS EMPLOYED FOR THE 196
PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY
TABLE 6.13 THE RESULTS OF THE DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS 197
OF FIRST ORDER FACTORS OF THE VARIABLES OF
THE STUDY
TABLE 6.14 INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES FOR THE 199
GOODNESS-OF-FIT INDICES
TABLE 6.15 MODEL FIT SUMMARY FOR TRADITIONAL 200
SENSORY BRANDING
TABLE 6.16 MODEL FIT SUMMARY FOR DIGITAL SENSORY 202
BRANDING
TABLE 6.17 REGRESSION WEIGHTS FOR TRADITIONAL 205
SENSORY BRANDING
TABLE 6.18 MODEL FIT SUMMARY FOR TRADITIONAL 205
SENSORY BRANDING

xix
TABLE 6.19 REGRESSION WEIGHTS FOR DIGITAL SENSORY 207
BRANDING
TABLE 6.20 MODEL FIT SUMMARY FOR DIGITAL SENSORY 207
BRANDING
TABLE 6.21 REGRESSION WEIGHTS RELATING TO THE FULL 209
SEM MODEL
TABLE 6.22 MODEL FIT SUMMARY FOR FULL SEM MODEL 209
TABLE 6.23 REGRESSION WEIGHTS FOR TRADITIONAL 211
SENSORY STIMULI
TABLE 6.24 REGRESSION WEIGHTS FOR DIGITAL SENSORY 213
STIMULI
TABLE 6.25 REGRESSION WEIGHTS RELATING TO THE FULL 215
PRIMARY MODEL
TABLE 6.26 PEARSON’S CORRELATIONS BETWEEN THE 222
VARIABLES OF THE STUDY
TABLE 6.27 CROSS TABULATION BETWEEN AGE AND BUDGET 225
TABLE 6.28 ANOVAS COMPARING THE MEAN FACTOR SCORES 228
OF THE FACTORS OF THE VARIABLES AND THE
GENDER GROUPS
TABLE 6.29 ANOVAS COMPARING THE MEAN FACTOR SCORES 231
OF THE VARIABLES AND AGE GROUPS
TABLE 6.30 RESULTS OF THE ANOVAS OF THE VARIABLES OF 234
THE STUDY AND THE AGE GROUPS OF
RESPONDENTS
TABLE 6.31 THE RESULTS OF THE TUKEY-TEST OF BRAND 236
LOYALTY AND THE AGE OF RESPONDENTS
TABLE 6.32 RESULTS OF THE WELCH ROBUST TEST OF THE 237
VARIABLES OF THE STUDY AND THE AGE GROUPS
OF RESPONDENTS
TABLE 6.33 THE RESULTS OF GAMES-HOWELL OF 239
TRADITIONAL TACTILE STIMULI AND THE AGE OF
RESPONDENTS

xx
TABLE 6.34 ANOVAS COMPARING THE MEAN FACTOR SCORES 243
OF THE VARIABLES AND BUDGET
TABLE 6.35 RESULTS OF THE WELCH ROBUST TEST OF THE 246
VARIABLES OF THE STUDY AND THE
RESPONDENTS’ MONTHLY BUDGET FOR
SKINCARE PRODUCTS
TABLE 6.36 THE RESULTS OF GAMES-HOWELL OF 248
TRADITIONAL OLFACTORY STIMULI AND THE
RESPONDENTS’ MONTHLY BUDGET
TABLE 6.37 THE RESULTS OF GAMES-HOWELL OF 250
TRADITIONAL TACTILE STIMULI AND THE
RESPONDENTS’ MONTHLY BUDGET
TABLE 6.38 THE RESULTS OF GAMES-HOWELL OF BRAND 251
LOYALTY AND THE RESPONDENTS’ MONTHLY
BUDGET
TABLE 6.39 THE RESULTS OF GAMES-HOWELL OF 253
TRADITIONAL SENSORY BRANDING AND THE
RESPONDENTS’ MONTHLY BUDGET
TABLE 6.40 ANOVAS COMPARING THE MEAN FACTOR SCORES 255
OF THE VARIABLES AND FREQUENCY WITH WHICH
RESPONDENTS PURCHASE SKINCARE PRODUCTS
IN-STORE
TABLE 6.41 RESULTS OF THE ANOVAS OF THE VARIABLES OF 259
THE STUDY AND THE FREQUENCY WITH WHICH
RESPONDENTS PURCHASE SKINCARE PRODUCTS
IN-STORE
TABLE 6.42 RESULTS OF THE WELCH ROBUST TEST OF THE 261
VARIABLES OF THE STUDY AND THE FREQUENCY
WITH WHICH THE RESPONDENTS SHOP FOR
SKINCARE PRODUCTS IN-STORE
TABLE 6.43 ANOVAS COMPARING THE MEAN FACTOR SCORES 264
OF THE VARIABLES AND FREQUENCY WITH WHICH

xxi
 RESPONDENTS PURCHASE SKINCARE PRODUCTS
ONLINE
TABLE 6.44 RESULTS OF THE ANOVAS OF THE VARIABLES OF 268
THE STUDY AND THE FREQUENCY WITH WHICH
RESPONDENTS PURCHASE SKINCARE PRODUCTS
ONLINE
TABLE 6.45 RESULTS OF THE WELCH ROBUST TEST OF THE 270
VARIABLES OF THE STUDY AND THE FREQUENCY
WITH WHICH THE RESPONDENTS SHOP FOR
SKINCARE PRODUCTS ONLINE
TABLE 6.46 SUMMARY OF THE HYPOTHESIS TESTING 273

xxii
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1.1 A MODEL DEPICTING THE INFLUENCE OF BRAND 11

EXPERIENCE ON BRAND LOYALTY
FIGURE 1.2 TRADITIONAL AND DIGITAL SENSORY BRANDING 17
STRATEGIES FOR SKINCARE BRANDS:
CONCEPTUAL MODEL
FIGURE 2.1 THE EXPERIENCE MODEL 46
FIGURE 2.2 A MODEL OF SENSORY MARKETING 52
FIGURE 2.3 A FRAMEWORK FOR MULTI-SENSORY 53
EXPERIENCE AND SHOPPING BEHAVIOUR
FIGURE 2.4 A GRAPHICAL DEPICTION OF A MULTI-SENSORY 54
EXPERIENCE
FIGURE 2.5 A MODEL DEPICTING THE INFLUENCE OF BRAND 55
EXPERIENCE ON BRAND EQUITY
FIGURE 3.1 GROWTH STATISTICS RELATING TO THE BEAUTY 62
INDUSTRY
FIGURE 3.2 SEGMENT REVENUE AND GROWTH RATE OF THE 62
BEAUTY INDUSTRY (2019 – 2025)
FIGURE 3.3 SALES IN-STORE VS ONLINE FOR SKIN CARE 65
PRODUCTS BY DIFFERENT AGE GROUPS
FIGURE 3.4 SENSORY MARKETING MODEL 68
FIGURE 3.5 THE HUMAN EYE 71
FIGURE 3.6 THE COLOUR WHEEL 77
FIGURE 3.7 A FRAMEWORK FOR THE RELATIONSHIP 74
BETWEEN LIGHTING, EMOTIONS AND CONSUMER
BEHAVIOUR
FIGURE 3.8 VISUAL ENABLING TECHNOLOGIES 76
FIGURE 3.9 THE HUMAN EAR 77
FIGURE 3.10 THE HUMAN NOSE 80
FIGURE 3.11 SEASON TRAVELLER HMD DEVICE 83
FIGURE 3.12 THE HUMAN SKIN STRUCTURE 84
FIGURE 3.13 SHOOGLEIT MULTI-GESTURE INTERFACE 87

xxiii
FIGURE 3.14 INFORM SHAPE-SHIFTING DISPLAY 88
FIGURE 3.15 TASTE AS A DUAL EXPERIENCE 89
FIGURE 3.16 LOCATION OF TASTE BUDS ON THE HUMAN 89
TONGUE
FIGURE 3.17 METACOOKIE+ 92
FIGURE 4.1 A SUMMARY OF THE DIFFERENCES AND 106
SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORKS AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS
FIGURE 4.2 THE CORE COMPONENTS OF THE CONSUMER 111
BEHAVIOUR MODEL
FIGURE 4.3 THE CONSUMER DECISION MODEL 112
FIGURE 4.4 COMPONENTS OF REASONED ACTION THEORY 113
FIGURE 4.5 THE TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL 114
FIGURE 4.6 CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF EXPERIENCE MARKETING 117
FIGURE 4.7 A MODEL OF SENSORY MARKETING 118
FIGURE 4.8 A MODEL FOR MULTI-SENSORY EXPERIENCE AND 119
SHOPPING BEHAVIOUR
FIGURE 4.9 CONSUMER BASED BRAND EQUITY MODEL 120
FIGURE 4.10 A MODEL OF THE INFLUENCE OF BRAND 121
EXPERIENCE ON BRAND EQUITY
FIGURE 4.11 A CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF THE DESIRED 122
SENSORY MARKETING STRATEGIES WHEN
PURCHASING SKINCARE PRODUCTS IN-STORE
VERSUS
FIGURE 5.1 THE RESEARCH ONION 139
FIGURE 5.2 SAMPLING METHODS AND TECHNIQUES 148
FIGURE 5.3 RESPONSE RATE CALCULATION 149
FIGURE 6.1 AGE GROUP OF RESPONDENTS 177
FIGURE 6.2 AVERAGE MONTHLY BUDGET FOR SKINCARE 178
PRODUCTS
FIGURE 6.3 FREQUENCY OF IN-STORE PURCHASES 178
FIGURE 6.4 FREQUENCY OF ONLINE PURCHASES 179

xxiv
FIGURE 6.5 THE SEM MODEL FOR TRADITIONAL SENSORY 206
BRANDING AND BRAND LOYALTY
FIGURE 6.6 THE SEM MODEL FOR DIGITAL SENSORY 208
BRANDING AND BRAND LOYALTY
FIGURE 6.7 THE FULL SEM MODEL FOR BOTH TRADITIONAL 210
AND DIGITAL SENSORY BRANDING AND BRAND
LOYALTY
FIGURE 6.8 THE PRIMARY MODEL FOR TRADITIONAL 212
SENSORY STIMULI AND BRAND LOYALTY
FIGURE 6.9 THE PRIMARY MODEL FOR DIGITAL SENSORY 214
STIMULI AND BRAND LOYALTY
FIGURE 6.10 THE FULL PRIMARY MODEL FOR BOTH 216
TRADITIONAL AND DIGITAL SENSORY STIMULI AND
BRAND LOYALTY
FIGURE 7.1 THE CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF THIS STUDY 338
FIGURE 7.2 THE FULL SEM MODEL FOR BOTH TRADITIONAL 340
AND DIGITAL SENSORY BRANDING AND BRAND
LOYALTY
FIGURE 7.3 THE FULL PRIMARY MODEL FOR BOTH 341
TRADITIONAL AND DIGITAL SENSORY BRANDING
AND BRAND LOYALTY
FIGURE 7.4 A SUMMARY OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN 349
THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OBJECTIVES
FIGURE 7.5 A SUMMARY OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN 351
THE PRIMARY AND METHODOLOGICAL
OBJECTIVES

xxv
 LIST OF ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE A QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THIS STUDY 463

ANNEXURE B COVER LETTER OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE 469
ANNEXURE C LIST OF SOURCES FOR THE ITEMS IN THE 471
QUESTIONNAIRE OF THIS STUDY
ANNEXURE D PERMISSION LETTER TO SUBMIT TO TURNITIN 475
ANNEXURE E TURNITIN REPORT 476

xxvi
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

1.1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

Modern shoppers are inundated with purchasing options in every product

category, with thousands of brands competing for their patronage (Isoraite
2018:116). Therefore, according to Mbah, Ekechukwu, Ede, Ugorji and
Egbudu (2020:6258), it has become increasingly important for organisations
to differentiate product offerings in the market if they want to be competitive.
Amar (2016:344) asserts that a strategy that can create competitive advantage
can be termed “a product differentiation strategy”, which, according to Amar
(2016:344) and Porter (1985:14), aims to demarcate products in the market
according to aspects such as services, quality, technical features and brand
image.

Brand image, as defined by Grubor and Milovanov (2017:80), as well as

Isoraite (2018:116), is a mixture of both the functional and emotional features
that a customer associates with a specific brand. Grubor and Milovanov
(2017:80) put forward that a brand image is invaluable to a business and has
the ability to facilitate deeper levels of connection between it and its customers.
Within a marketing context, it has been of significant interest to researchers to
understand how target audiences evaluate a brand and how they are likely to
react to branding strategies (Gürhan-Canli, Sarial-Abi & Hayran 2018:96). Kim
and Chao (2019:10) explain that how an individual experiences a brand has
been highlighted as being of paramount importance to marketers.

A brand experience is one that is intentionally created by a business to attract

attention and interact with customers (Pine & Gilmore 1999:2). The importance
of brand experience, as noted by Harris, Kluppel-Strobel and Shakhiry
(2017:1), along with Kim and Chao (2019:10), can be attributed to its ability to
aid in predicting purchase intention, overall satisfaction and consumer
behaviour in terms of customer loyalty to the brand, or the effect of brand value
on brand loyalty. Kim and Chao (2019:10) recognise that there is a direct

1
relationship between brand experience and the longevity of a brand. Brand
loyalty, as defined by Aaker (1991:39), refers to the degree of attachment felt
by a customer to a certain brand.

Therefore, it is key for marketers to gain insight into how their brand is
experienced by consumers and what tools can be utilised to build customer
relationships. The importance of recognising customer experience as an
important factor has roots in the work of Holbrook and Hirschman (1982:1), as
well as Hirschman and Holbrook (1982:1), and the notion has grown in
popularity ever since. As stipulated by Gao and Lan (2020:2) and Hulten
(2017:1), a vehicle for creating memorable brand experiences is the utilisation
of multi-sensory experiences.

As explained by Makela (2020:14), prior to conducting an in-depth analysis of

the literature on multi-sensory experiences, it is essential to understand what
they involve. Mcconnell and Hull (2020:331), along with Miller (2020:660),
identify the five human senses as sight (the visual system); smell (the olfactory
system); hearing (the auditory system); taste (the gustatory system); and
touch (the tactile system). Makela (2020:14) notes that the aforementioned
senses collectively work to help individuals form a comprehensible
understanding of their environment. Furthermore, individuals can experience
senses either externally (associated with the surveyed environment) (Harvey
2021; Hulten 2015:369; Longley 2019; Makela 2020:16) or internally
(associated with an experience or product) (Harvey 2021; Hulten 2015:369;
Longley 2019; Makela 2020:16). Makela (2020:14) and Velasco (2020:1) add
that the phenomenon of a multi-sensory experience occurs when two or more
of the five human senses are involved. For example, a consumer might
experience a brand through several senses, which would heighten his/her
emotional reaction to it and create a desired memorable experience (Makela
2020:15). Makela (2020:15) explains that different senses are capable of
stirring different emotions, and multi-sensory experiences can be optimised by
learning how the combinations work in unison.

2
Prior to making use of multi-sensory experiences to differentiate a brand, it is
important for a business to establish what its target market would value and
what would make them view the brand as unique (Makela 2020:19). With
reference to multi-sensory branding, internal senses are key, as they affect
the minds of the customers, thereby intensifying their connection with the
brand (Makela 2020:19). Thus, after successful multi-sensory branding of
various products, multi-sensory marketing would aim to communicate the
experience that the brands offer to their customers (Ifeanyichukwu & Peter
2018:156). Moreover, in a market place where consumers are becoming more
focused on experiences than on material or tangible goods, multi-sensory
marketing would provide marketers with a means to cater for the emotional,
intellectual and experience-orientated needs of their customers (Hulten
2017:2; Makela 2020:22). Therefore, sensory branding strategies should be
planned and implemented, since individuals are emotionally and intellectually
influenced by both positive and negative sensory experiences (Hulten 2017:3).

Within the context of traditional or in-store purchasing, sensory strategies

should include visual, auditory, olfactory, tactile and gustatory strategies
(Hulten 2017:3). However, as declared by Djordjevic (2021) and Yean (2022),
more and more shoppers are opting for online shopping in preference to
making in-store purchases, with an increase from 1.66 billion global digital
buyers in 2016 to over 2.14 billion in 2021 (Coppola 2020) and in 2022 there
were approximately 2.30 billion digital buyers (Fokina 2023). Currently (2023)
there are approximately 2.64 billion digital buyers, which is estimated to reach
2.77 billion by 2025 (Oberlo 2023).

The popularity and growth of the online shopping industry has been attributed
to its association with affordability and convenience (Arora & Aggarwal
2017:92; Djordjevic 2021), and the COVID-19 global pandemic has not only
fast-tracked the rise of online shopping globally but also initiated changes in
consumer online behaviour that are predicted to be everlasting (UNCTAD
2020). Since the rise of the global COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a 6%-
10% increase in online shopping in most product categories, with one of the

3
more predominant gainers being cosmetics and personal care products (rising
by 6%) (UNCTAD 2020).

Of the cosmetics and personal care industry, skincare accounts for the second
largest portion, earning more than 23% of the industry’s revenue (Dobric
2021). Furthermore, as the market has become more and more saturated with
skincare merchandise, consumers have formed higher expectations of their
personal care products (Cosmetics Business 2020). The cosmetics and
personal care industry relies heavily on sensory marketing for conventional in-
store shopping, by considering factors such as the texture, fragrance and
packaging of the products (Cosmetics Business 2020; Whitehouse 2017). The
importance of sensory experience in skincare is emphasised by the
Datamonitor report “Sensory Ingredients in Personal Care”, which found that
37% of females and 28% of males felt that their decision to purchase skincare
was influenced by the sensory benefits offered by the product offered
(Cosmetics Business 2020; Matthews 2015). However, as consumers are
moving towards online shopping, it is essential for cosmetic businesses to
consider how online shopping platforms will affect their ability to make use of
sensory marketing in the sale of their skincare products. Strategies for digital
sensory branding will be briefly discussed in Sections 1.4.3 to 1.4.7 of this
Chapter.

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT

At the foundation of any study is a research problem, which justifies and gives
perspective to the necessity of the research being conducted, as well as
identifying the research objectives (Pardede 2018:1; Forister & Blessing
2019:28). As explained by Bairagi and Munot (2019:65), along with Flamez,
Lenz, Balkin and Smith (2017:111), a well-written research problem statement
should explain the circumstances that gave rise to the need for a study. Miles
(2017:6) adds that by defining the problem statement, a researcher can
simultaneously develop the research questions of the study.

4
The research problem for the study was linked to the fact that while there is
research available on sensory branding, there is very limited academic
research on digital sensory branding and the sensory branding of skincare
products. Moreover, to the researcher’s knowledge, no academic literature
specifically investigates the digital sensory branding of skincare brands, as
stipulated above in Section 1.2 of this chapter.

Customers have migrated to online shopping platforms that they may prefer to
traditional in-store purchasing (Kinda 2019:3; Sabanoglu 2021). Furthermore,
consumers have become more sophisticated, and they expect more than just
functionality from their skincare products (Cosmetics Business 2020).
Although the skincare industry has always relied heavily on sensory marketing
for traditional in-store shopping (Cosmetics Business 2020; Whitehouse
2017), it is now essential for skincare brands to adapt their sensory marketing
strategies both for their in-store and online shops in order to form positive and
memorable brand experiences (Gao & Lan 2020:2; Hulten 2017:1), which will
lead to brand loyalty (Harris et al 2017:1; Kim & Chao 2019:10). Therefore, it
can be deduced that the use of digital sensory branding by skincare brands is
an important concern, and more research is needed in this regard. The
following paragraphs provide evidence for the necessity of this study.

There is a large collection of literature on the topic of sensory branding

(Akarsu, Melewar & Foroudi 2019; Alaxander & Nobbs 2016; Castillo-Villar &
Villasante-Arellano 2020; Chathuranga & Lakshika 2019; El-Sherbiny 2019;
Hulten 2017; Kim & Sullivan 2019; Rodrigues 2018; Rubio & Vidal 2019;
Tanasic & Tanasic 2019; Thatte 2019; Tia-Elina 2019; Wala, Czyrka & Fraz
2019; Viktoriia 2019). However, research on online sensory marketing is
limited (Abdullah, Hassan, Raza & Jeon 2018; Petit, Velasco & Spence 2019),
and only a very limited amount of research has been conducted on the sensory
branding of skincare products (Almomani 2020; Grandin, Jonsson & Kessen
2020; Huang & Lu 2020; Levrini & Jeffman dos Santos 2021; Sakhawat 2019).

No academic literature specifically investigates the sensory branding of

skincare products via online platforms (as far as could be determined by the

5
researcher). Therefore, it would be of interest to determine the difference
between the sensory branding strategies aimed at consumers who purchase
skincare products in-store and those that target online customers. Petit et al
(2019:12:14) acknowledge the lack of research on the sensory branding of
skincare products via online platforms, and thus call for research on the use
of digital tools to develop and facilitate online multi-sensory experiences in the
industry.

Further than the lack of academic literature on the topic, the researcher was
also drawn to it due to her career background in the skincare industry as well
as her passion for marketing. The researcher realised that there is a definite
shift towards online shopping, which has been intensified by the effects of the
global COVID-19 pandemic and that there was a gap in the capabilities of
businesses to implement sensory branding in physical stores versus digital
stores. However, specifically from experience in the skincare industry, it is
apparent that consumers are persuaded by sensory attributes of the products.
These factors led to the researcher selecting “desired sensory branding
strategies – in-store versus online: the skincare industry” as the topic for this
study.

1.3 AIM AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The research question of this study was: what sensory experiences are
desired by customers when purchasing skincare products in-store, as
opposed to online? This research question led to the aim of the study being to
conduct an investigation into the sensory experiences desired by customers
when purchasing skincare products in-store, as opposed to online. To
accomplish this aim, the following primary, secondary and methodological
objectives were formulated.

6
1.3.1 Primary objective

The primary objective of the study was to investigate the sensory experiences
desired by customers, when purchasing skincare products in-store, as
opposed to online.

1.3.2 Secondary objectives

The secondary objectives of the study were to:

SO1: determine how multi-sensory branding lends support to the creation of
positive and memorable brand experiences for consumers, thereby
increasing their brand loyalty;
SO2: explore the possible traditional and digital sensory branding strategies that
brands can utilise;
SO3: investigate the relationship between the various traditional sensory branding
strategies and brand loyalty;
SO4: investigate the relationship between the various digital sensory branding
strategies and brand loyalty; and
SO5: investigate consumer loyalty in the skincare industry.

1.3.3 Methodological objectives

The methodological objectives of the study were to:

MO1: conduct a comprehensive literature review into the relationship that exists
between the various traditional and digital sensory branding strategies and
brand experience, and the relationship between brand experience and brand
loyalty, with specific relation to skincare products;
MO2: develop a conceptual model of the identified variables’ relationship with
brand loyalty;
MO3: determine the appropriate research design and methodology to empirically
test the relationships as proposed in the conceptual model;

7
 MO4: undertake an empirical investigation by means of an online questionnaire to
test the relationship between the identified independent variables and
dependent variable;
MO5: analyse data through various statistical methods; and
MO6: provide recommendations, based on the results obtained in the empirical
research of this study, to skincare brands that have both online and offline
presences.

1.4 LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUALISATION

As previously discussed, sensory branding is the use of the five human senses
to create a memorable brand experience for consumers (Gao & Lan 2020:2;
Hulten 2017:3; Upadhyay 2017:352), whereas sensory marketing is the
communication of those experiences to the public or potential future
consumers. The combination of sensory branding and sensory marketing is
utilised as a method to enhance brand loyalty (Harris et al 2017:1; Kim & Chao
2019:10).

1.4.1 Brand experience

In a marketing context, brands go to great lengths to understand what

consumers want from the products that they purchase and how they will
respond to different branding strategies (Gürhan-Canli et al 2018:96). In the
sales and marketing of goods and services, as discussed by Kim and Chao
(2019:10), consumers’ perceptions of their brand experience are highlighted.

Before defining the concept of brand experience, the concept “brand” must
first be understood. According to Durmaz and Yasar (2016:48), a brand
comprises all aspects that define a product, service or business and
differentiate it in the market. Beig and Nika (2022:157) maintain that the value
of a brand lies in its ability not only to differentiate a product, service or
business in the market but also to generate continuous and dependable
income. Das, Agarwal, Malhotra and Varshneya (2019:479), Iglesias,
Markovic and Rialp (2019:343) and Yu, Yuan, Kim and Wang (2020:426) add

8
that in modern and dynamic market places, which are completely saturated
with competitors, experiential marketing is essential in building a brand and
establishing its place in the market.

Brakus, Schmitt and Zarantonello (2009:53) claim that the concept of a brand
experience can be understood as “subjective, internal consumer responses,
sensations, feelings, cognitions and behavioural responses evoked by brand-
related stimuli that are part of a brand’s design and identity, packaging,
communications and environments.” Based on Schmitt’s (1999:53) study of
experience, brand experience has been divided into four dimensions:
affective, behavioural, intellectual and sensory experience (Beig & Nika
2022:158). The study focuses on the sensory dimension.

Iglesias et al (2019:343) and Brakus et al (2009:53) explain that brand

experiences occur when consumers are exposed to brands. Furthermore,
brand experiences differ in that some may be positive, while others are
negative, and some may be intentional, while others not, which influences their
effect on consumers (Beig & Nika 2022:158). Smilansky (2017:3) adds that a
brand should communicate brand experience through all available touchpoints
(interactions). Moreover, when consumer-brand relationships improve,
consumers’ satisfaction and loyalty towards a brand grow stronger (Beig &
Nika 2022:158; Hussein 2018:2; Ong et al 2018:755). Therefore, it can be
deduced that a positive brand experience strengthens brand-customer
relationships, customer satisfaction and overall brand equity.

1.4.2 Brand loyalty

Brand loyalty, which can be behavioural or attitudinal, refers to the degree of

attachment that a customer feels towards a brand (Beig & Nika 2022:160).
Behavioural loyalty is the observed loyalty of a customer to a particular brand,
whereas attitudinal loyalty is the consumer’s intention to be loyal to a brand
(Beig & Nika 2022:160). Brand loyalty, as explained by Beig and Nika
(2022:160), is important for brands, as it reduces the threat of competitors in
the market and allows brands to increase the price of their products. As

9
discussed in the previous section, brand loyalty can be achieved through
positive brand experiences.

Brand loyalty can be increased when the stimuli that consumers associate with
a brand result in pleasurable experiences, although it will be decreased if
brand experiences are negative (Beig & Nika 2022:160; Hussein 2018:2). Ong
et al (2018:756) attribute the influence of positive brand experience on brand
loyalty to the fact that it creates superior value, which will result in increased
brand loyalty. Loyalty consists of two perspectives, namely customer loyalty
and brand loyalty. Customer loyalty, according to Ong et al (2018:758), refers
to loyalty derived from saving the consumer’s money, whereas brand loyalty
is based on positioning the brand as an asset in itself. Brand loyalty is known
to be an important aspect of brand equity (Hussein 2018:1; Ong et al
2018:758) and is a measure of the success of a brand’s marketing strategy
(Ong et al 2018:758). However, Hussein (2018:2) argues that the relationship
between brand experience and brand loyalty is inconsistent, and therefore
requires further study. Figure 1.1 below depicts a model of the influence of
brand experience on brand loyalty.

While brand experience comprises many different facets, as depicted in Figure

1.1, the study focuses on the influence of sensory experience on brand loyalty,
as sensory experience has been highlighted as one of the predominant
dimensions of brand experience, and brand loyalty has been emphasised as
the predominant determinant of brand equity.

10
 FIGURE 1.1
A MODEL DEPICTING THE INFLUENCE OF BRAND EXPERIENCE ON
BRAND LOYALTY

Source: Adapted from Beig & Nika (2022:161)

Sensory experiences, as stated previously, refer to the use of the five human
senses to create memorable interactions for the consumer (Beig & Nika
2022:158) and when two or more of the five human senses are stimulated
simultaneously, a multi-sensory experience occurs (Makela 2020:14; Velasco
2020:1). As stipulated by Gao and Lan (2020:2) as well as by Hulten (2017:1),
the creation of multi-sensory experiences and the use of sensory branding are
efficient strategies for building brand experiences in traditional brick-and-
mortar stores. However, as the world becomes more technologically inclined,
it is necessary to consider the role of sensory branding via online platforms.

In the sections that follow, both traditional and digital sensory branding are
discussed in relation to visual, auditory, olfactory, tactile and gustatory
branding strategies. It is important to note that while individuals may
experience a particular sense in isolation, it is more likely that they will
experience numerous senses simultaneously, and have multi-sensory
experiences (Hulten 2017:9).

11
1.4.3 Visual branding strategy

When making use of a visual branding strategy in an in-store context, the

brand’s identity is visually portrayed (Hulten 2017:3; Wala et al 2019:112).
Harvey (2021), Hulten (2017:5), Upadhyaya (2017:353) and Wala et al
(2019:112) explain that vision is the dominant sense and can include aspects,
such as colour, design, graphics and lighting, all of which can have an
influence on purchase decision. However, Upadhyaya (2017:357) maintains
that it is important for a brand to standardise its ambiance. Furthermore, visual
perception is influenced by an individual’s culture, meaning that he/she will
have a visual preference (Hulten 2017:5).

In the context of online platforms, visual branding strategies are similar in that
they include colour, design, lighting and graphics. In fact, Sarathy (2020)
declares that such visual cues are important sensory branding strategies,
which online retailers should consider, because consumers rely heavily on
what they see on the screen to make their purchase decision. However, Griffith
(2020), supported by Harvey (2021) and Sarathy (2020), argues that as the
digital market space is becoming more competitive, brands need to go beyond
the traditional use of colours, website design and videos and consider the
integration of new technologies, such as augmented reality (AR) and virtual
reality (VR). As a result, it is hypothesised that there are significant
relationships between both traditional and digital visual sensory branding
strategies and brand loyalty (Table 1.1).

1.4.4 Auditory branding strategy

A brand may express its identity using sound (Hulten 2017:3). According to
Griffith (2020), Harvey (2021), Hulten (2017:6) and Wala et al (2019:112),
auditory branding strategies include stimuli such as music, jingles, people’s
voices and specific words, which have been noted to have an influence on the
level of credibility and trust associated with a brand, as well as the amount of
time consumers spend in the store. While visual cues are the dominant sense,
auditory cues have the ability to stir individuals at a deeper emotional level

12
(Hulten 2017:6). According to Hulten (2017:6), individuals have different
auditory preferences associated with their social class. Upadhyaya (2017:357)
adds that in stores, the sound level, tempo and rhythm of music, for example,
should be considered.

When adopting auditory branding strategies via online platforms, brands need
to consider not only sound but also haptic vibration (any physical stimuli from
technology) (Sarathy 2020; Weir 2021). Griffith (2020), Harvey (2021), Sarathy
(2020) and Wala et al (2019:112) explain that if music is used as part of an
auditory branding strategy, it should portray the right mood in relation to the
brand’s image with regard to genre and tempo, for example. Another aspect
of an auditory branding strategy via online platforms is the embedded sounds
used in animation (Sarathy 2020), digital ads, social media or videos (Griffith
2020), all of which can be used to enhance online auditory branding
experiences. From the literature provided, it is hypothesised that there are
significant relationships between both traditional and digital auditory sensory
branding strategies and brand loyalty (Table 1.1).

1.4.5 Olfactory branding strategy

An olfactory branding strategy involves creating a particular atmosphere

associated with a brand by using appropriate odours (Hulten 2017:3).
Olfactory stimuli, as indicated by Hulten (2017:7), have an influence on quality
perception, the amount of time the consumer spends in the store and the
decision to purchase. Furthermore, individuals have personal olfactory
preferences, and fragrances are associated with moods, with positive
emotions being associated with pleasing smells and negative emotions being
associated with unpleasant odours (Hulten 2017:7). The strength of olfactory
branding strategies is that the memory of an olfactory experience such as a
perfume lasts longer than that of other sensory experiences such as an image
(Griffith 2020; Harvey 2021; Hulten 2017:7; Wala et al 2019:112). In addition,
Upadhyaya (2017:357) highlights that a brand’s particular fragrance should be
uniform and not differ across products and places.

13
With respect to online platforms, olfactory stimuli are somewhat limited, as
consumers do not have the ability to smell through a computer or cell phone
screen (Sarathy 2020). Therefore, as explained by Griffith (2020), along with
Sarathy (2020), brands make use of words and images that depict and suggest
odours, in an attempt to create internal sensory experiences for consumers.
Moreover, Harvey (2021) advises brands to instil their own particular fragrance
in the minds of their customers to create a strong association. As a result, it is
hypothesised that there are significant relationships between both traditional
and digital olfactory sensory branding strategies and brand loyalty (Table 1.1).

1.4.6 Tactile branding strategy

Tactile branding involves the use of touch to distinguish a brand (Hulten

2017:3; Wala et al 2019:114). As detailed by Hulten (2017:8) and Upadhyaya
(2017:358), the sensation of touch has the ability to influence feelings of
ownership, physical interaction, quality perception and a consumer’s
willingness to pay higher prices. Moreover, it includes stimuli, such as texture,
weight, material and form. According to Hulten (2017:8), consumers are either
inclined towards having a higher or lower need for touch (NFT), and those with
the latter are more motivated by sight. In addition, it has been found that
consumers make use of touch to evaluate products and may not be
comfortable making a purchase before evaluating how the brand feels (Hulten
2017:9).

Touch, like smell, is more difficult to incorporate into digital sensory branding.
Therefore, once again, brands include descriptive and emotive language to
create internal tactile experiences, and Harvey (2021) claims that this means
that brands need to amplify other senses online, such as sight and sound.
Wala et al (2019:114) add that an important feature is packaging, which can
be seen as well as felt, indicating the coherence between tactile and visual
senses. Based on the literature relating to tactile branding strategy, it is
hypothesised that there are significant relationships between both traditional
and digital tactile sensory branding strategies and brand loyalty (Table 1.1).

14
1.4.7 Gustatory branding strategy

To create memorable experiences, brands can also make use of taste, which
includes gastronomical experiences (Hulten 2017:3). Hulten (2017:9), along
with Wala et al (2019:113), explains that taste is completely personal, meaning
that there is no universal perception of taste and that an individual’s perception
is strongly influenced by his/her origin. Taste is closely linked to smell, sight
and touch, all of which have the capacity to alter an individual’s taste
experience (Hulten 2017:9). Therefore, a gustatory branding strategy should
not be considered in isolation, but rather as a whole with the other senses.

Harvey (2021) and Sarathy (2020) both recognise the importance of taste
stimuli in creating memorable brand experiences. However, they note that, as
with olfactory and tactile branding strategies, online customers cannot taste,
which makes gustatory branding difficult. Therefore, Harvey (2021) suggests
that brands should adopt a hybrid approach to sensory marketing and make
use of testimonials and brand ambassadors. Moreover, the brand should use
images and descriptive language to help the consumer imagine what the taste
might be (Sarathy 2020). Based on the above literature on sensory branding
strategies and their influence on brand experience and, in turn, brand loyalty,
a conceptual model is developed. However, as this study relates specifically
to the skincare industry, gustatory stimuli were excluded as it was not found to
be relevant in the evaluation of skincare products by consumers.

1.5 CONCEPTUAL MODEL

By means of a hypothesised framework, a researcher can graphically depict

the direction of the research and potential relationships between the identified
variables of the study (Adom, Hussein & Agyem 2018:438). Adom et al
(2018:438), as well as Lederman and Lederman (2015:594), add that a
hypothesised framework emphasises the feasibility of a study. The conceptual
model of the study indicates the relationship between the independent
variables (traditional and digital sensory branding strategies) and the

15
dependent variable (brand loyalty), which are based on the literature review
conducted (Section 1.4).

The formulated hypotheses for this study are presented in Table 1.1 and will
be discussed in more depth in Chapter 4 of this study. Figure 1.2
contextualises the hypothesis with reference to the proposed conceptual
model of this study.

TABLE 1.1
NULL AND ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESES
Hypotheses
# Ha Ho
Relationship between the independent and dependent variables of this study
Traditional sensory branding strategies
There is a significant relationship There is no significant relationship
H1 between traditional sensory branding between traditional sensory branding
strategies and brand loyalty. strategies and brand loyalty.
There is a significant relationship There is no significant relationship
H1a between traditional visual sensory between traditional visual sensory
strategies and brand loyalty. strategies and brand loyalty.
There is a significant relationship There is no significant relationship
H1b between traditional auditory sensory between traditional auditory sensory
strategies and brand loyalty. strategies and brand loyalty.
There is a significant relationship There is no significant relationship
H1c between traditional olfactory sensory between traditional olfactory sensory
strategies and brand loyalty. strategies and brand loyalty.
There is a significant relationship There is no significant relationship
H1d between traditional tactile sensory between traditional tactile sensory
strategies and brand loyalty. strategies and brand loyalty.
Digital sensory branding strategies
There is a significant relationship There is no significant relationship
H2 between digital sensory branding between digital sensory branding
strategies and brand loyalty. strategies and brand loyalty.
There is a significant relationship There is no significant relationship
H2a between digital visual sensory between digital visual sensory strategies
strategies and brand loyalty. and brand loyalty.
There is a significant relationship There is no significant relationship
H2b between digital auditory sensory between digital auditory sensory strategies
strategies and brand loyalty. and brand loyalty.
There is a significant relationship There is no significant relationship
H2c between digital olfactory sensory between digital olfactory sensory
strategies and brand loyalty. strategies and brand loyalty.
There is a significant relationship There is no significant relationship
H2d between digital tactile sensory between digital tactile sensory strategies
strategies and brand loyalty. and brand loyalty.

16
 FIGURE 1.2
TRADITIONAL AND DIGITAL SENSORY BRANDING STRATEGIES FOR
SKINCARE BRANDS: CONCEPTUAL MODEL

Independent Variables Dependent Variable

H1
Traditional Sensory Strategies

H1a
Visual Sensory Strategy
H1b
Auditory Sensory Strategy
H1c
Olfactory Sensory Strategy
H1d
Tactile Sensory Strategy

Brand Loyalty
H2
Digital Sensory Strategies

H2a
Visual Sensory Strategy
H2b
Auditory Sensory Strategy
H2c
Olfactory Sensory Strategy
H2d
Tactile Sensory Strategy

The conceptual model consists of two types of hypotheses, a null hypothesis

(H0) and an alternative hypothesis (Ha). For the current study, alternative
hypotheses were developed to test the possible influence of the independent
variables on the dependent variable.

1.6 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research methodology can be defined as the particular techniques that a

researcher utilises to identify, select, collect, sort and interpret information on
a specific topic (Sileyew 2019:1). The research methodology conveys the
validity and reliability of the study. A detailed discussion on all aspects of the
reserch methodology relevant to this study is provided in Chapter 5.

17
1.6.1 Research paradigm, approach and design

In the study, the positivistic research paradigm and the quantitative approach
were followed (Chapter 5: Section 5.2 & 5.3). The quantitative approach
explores the relationships between variables, thereby testing the hypotheses
of the study (Creswell & Creswell 2017:4). As the researcher wished to make
use of a structured questionnaire and statistical calculations, as well as making
generalisations about the population, the quantitative approach was
appropriate (Leavy 2017:19; Oflazoglu 2017:5).

Furthermore, as the study analysed the relationship between the independent

and dependent variables, a descriptive research design was selected (Achari
2014:14; Boudah 2019:155; Collis & Hussey 2014:42). As explained by Wiid
and Diggines (2015:67), a descriptive research design is used when the
researcher wants to answer questions, such as the following: Who are the
respondents of the study? What is the topic of the study? When and where will
the study be conducted? What methodology should be utilised to conduct the
study? According to Burkholder, Cox, Crawford and Hitchcock (2019:310),
when making use of a descriptive research design, there should be a clearly
defined research problem from which a research question should be
formulated.

This study made use of a structured questionnaire to collect data. Moreover,

various statistical techniques were used to analyse and interpret the data to
ascertain the relationships between the independent variables (traditional and
digital sensory branding strategies) and the dependent variable (brand
loyalty). McCombes (2020a), Mishra and Alok (2017:3), as well as Novikov
and Novikov (2013:60), note that these techniques are associated with a
descriptive research design.

When there is already a little knowledge about a topic, but not sufficient to
answer the research question, descriptive research is appropriate (Burkholder
et al 2019:310; Kumar 2019:171). In the context of the current study, there
was insufficient research conducted on the topic of digital sensory branding in

18
the skincare industry to answer the research question: What sensory
experiences are desired by customers when purchasing skincare products in-
store, as opposed to online?

1.6.2 Target population

Murphey (2016:6) and Umair (2018:3) maintain that the target population of a
study is the population that the study targets in order to acquire information.
The target population of the study included individuals who had purchased
skincare products, in-store as well as online, who were between the ages of
18 and 60 years, of any race, gender and nationality during the time of the
study (Chapter 5: Section 5.4.1). Umair (2018:3) explains that in the majority
of cases, it would not be possible to reach an entire population. Therefore,
researchers must make use of a sample of the population for a study, the
results of which can be generalised to the entire population. The number of
respondents included in the sample of a population is referred to as the sample
size of the study (Taherdoost 2017:237; Vasileiou, Barnett, Thorpe & Young
2018:2). Lavrakas et al (2019:8), along with Allen (2017:1523), add that it is
essential for the sample size to be large enough so that the study results may
be generalised to the entire population. When there is no known sample frame
(the list of all the individuals in the population who can be sampled), as in the
current study, setting an appropriate sample size can prove a challenge (Rahi
2017:3). In the event of the lack of a sample frame, sample size guidelines
should be followed (Comrey & Lee 92013:217; Rahi 2017:4). The
recommended guidelines can be found in Table 1.2 below.

TABLE 1.2
RECOMMENDED SAMPLE SIZE GUIDELINES
Sample Size Quality
50 Respondents Very poor
100 Respondents Poor
200 Respondents Reasonable
300 Respondents Good
500 Respondents Very good
1000 Respondents Excellent
Source: Adapted from Comrey and Lee (2013:217) as well as Rahi (2017:4)

19
Based on the above guidelines, the study set a minimum sample size of 300
respondents.

1.6.3 Sampling

Once the target population of a study is defined, the researcher must then
decide which portion of the target population will be selected to represent the
entire population, which will lead to efficient and cost-effective research. This
process is known as sampling (Allen 2017:1523; Lavrakas et al 2019:8;
Sekaran & Bougie 2016:235).

1.6.4 Sampling procedure

Non-probability sampling was utilised in the study, which made use of a non-
random method to collect data (Chapter 5: Section 5.4.1). In non-probability
sampling, not all individuals who constitute the population are given the
opportunity to take part in the study (Akinkunmi 2019:122; Nardi 2017:37).
This sampling method was selected because of the benefits associated with
it, which include time efficiency, convenience and cost effectiveness.
Moreover, it allows for an understanding of the topic through different people’s
perspectives (Akinkunmi 2019:122; Crossman 2018; Wolf, Joye, Smith & Fu
2016:342). Furthermore, not all individuals make use of skincare and would
therefore not be included.

More specifically, the study made use of convenience sampling, which is a

sub-category of non-probability sampling. As explained by Elfil and Negida
(2017:2), along with Etikan, Musa and Alkassim (2016:2), convenience
sampling allows for relatively quick and cost-effective gathering of data
because respondents are selected based on convenience. Additionally,
convenience sampling was appropriate because there was no sampling frame
available for the study. It was also determined that convenience sampling was
appropriate as, while a mailing list was utilised, the link to the questionnaire
was also distributed via social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram

20
and LinkedIn. Therefore, there was no actual list of respondents, which lends
support to the use of convenience sampling rather then quote sampling.

1.6.5 Data collection methods

A data collection method is the way that a researcher plans to collect primary
data (Rose, McKinley & Baffoe-Djan 2019:12). The data collection method
used in this study was an online survey (Chapter 5: Section 5.5.1), which
allowed the researcher to collect data from a large group of people (Ruel
2018:3). As noted by Toepoel (2015:2), as well as Gournelos, Hammonds &
Wilson (2019:127) and Struwig and Stead (2015:106), online surveys
consisting of questionnaires completed on online platforms are popular
because of the increased use of technology worldwide.

The researcher wanted a data collection method with a fast turnaround time,
which is a characteristic of an online survey (Shalin 2019:1; Struwig & Stead
2015:106). Further motivations for making use of an online survey included
the following: the target audience of this study was technologically inclined; an
online survey is conducive to non-probability sampling; and the researcher had
the means to create an online survey. In addition, an online questionnaire was
appropriate because of the COVID-19 pandemic that has led to a need to
minimise personal contact.

1.6.6 Measuring instrument

A measuring instrument is the specific data collection tool used to obtain

information from the respondents participating in a study (Kabir 2016:208;
Trigueros, Sandoval & Juan 2017:5). Rose et al (2019:21), as well as Paradis,
O’Brien, Nimmon, Bandiera and Martimianakis (2016:263), point out that a
researcher needs to select an appropriate measuring instrument to ensure the
collection of reliable and relevant data, which can later be analysed.

A questionnaire, which was the measuring instrument utilised in this study, is

defined as a series of items, relating to a topic, that allow the researcher to

21
acquire insight and statistically useful information from the respondents (Brace
2018:2; McLeod 2018; Pahwa 2019:1). The study made use of a web-based
self-administered questionnaire because of the technological nature of this
study and the popularity of online questionnaires due to the increased access
to, and usage of, technology (Dudovskiy 2018; Struwig & Stead 2015:106;
Toepoel 2015:2). Additionally, making use of a web-based self-administered
questionnaire meant that a larger number of respondents could be reached
and that the data collection process would be more time-efficient and cost-
effective, while still producing accurate data (Debois 2019:1; Dudovskiy
2018:1) (Chapter 5: Section 5.5.2).

The web-based self-administered questionnaire used in the study consisted of

six sections, whereby Section A gathered demographic information and
Sections B - E gathered information relating to the independent variables, and
sub-variables thereof (Chapter 5: Section 5.5.3). Collecting information from
the respondents about their desired sensory branding strategies separately in
a uniform manner allowed the researcher to conduct a comparison. Finally,
Section F of the questionnaire gathered information relating to brand loyalty
with specific reference to the skincare industry.

Section A of the questionnaire made use of dichotomous or closed-ended

questions, while Sections B to F made use of Likert scale questions. The Likert
scale questions required answers that ranged from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 5
(Strongly Disagree), where 3 indicated that the respondent felt “indifferent”
regarding how the factor influenced their experience of a brand. For reporting
purposes, answers of 1 and 2 were grouped and termed a “positive response”,
whereby respondents agreed that the factor had an influence on their
experience, while answers of 4 and 5 were grouped and termed a “negative
response”, whereby respondents agreed that the factor had a negative
influence on their experience. There were also screening questions prior to
the questionnaire to ensure that respondents met the requirements to take
part in the study.

22
1.6.7 Data collection procedure

The study made use of a web-based self-administered questionnaire to collect

primary data (Chapter 5: Section 5.5.7). A link to the questionnaire was posted
on social media platforms, such as Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn, as well
as by distributing the questionnaire via email to an existing mailing list, as
individuals who are technologically inclined can be assumed to be present on
these online platforms. The data collected via the mailing list abided by the
Protection of Personal Information Act (POPI Act) When consumers
subscribed to the skincare companie’s mailing list, they provide consent for
their email address to be used for the distribution of marketing and research
material.

To ensure that respondents were between the ages of 18 and 60 years, a

question was included in the demographics section of the questionnaire.
Further screening questions ensured that respondents met the requirements
to take part in the study, which were that they had purchased skincare both in-
store and online. On clicking on the link, the respondents were re-directed to
the web-based self-administered questionnaire, where the cover letter was
displayed. Prior to the start of the questionnaire, the respondent was asked to
provide written/implied consent by clicking the tick box that stated, “Yes, I
consent to taking part in this study”, or the one that stated, “No, I do not
consent to taking part in this study”. Had the respondents indicated that they
did not provide their consent, they were redirected to the end “Thank you”
page and the survey was terminated.

1.6.8 Data preparation

Once collected, the primary data needed to be organised to allow for accurate
analysis and interpretation (Simion 2016:52). Abdallah, Du and Webb (2017:1)
maintain that the primary data should be manipulated so that they can be
analysed in a structured manner. Harris (2020) adds that the process of
preparing data for analysis includes editing and coding the information to
ensure their accuracy. In this study, once gathered, the primary data was

23
edited, coded and captured in an excel spread sheet which could then be
analysed (Chapter 5: Section 5.5.8).

1.6.9 Validity of the measuring instrument

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was utilised to validate the measuring

instrument as well as to test the hypotheses of the study (Bastos 2021; Frey
2018) (Chapter 5: Section 5.5.6). When interpreting the CFA calculations, the
basic measures of goodness-of-fit were considered, as well as the absolute fit
indices, which include the Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI), Root Mean Square
Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and the Standardised Root Mean Residual
(SRMR). In this study, statistical, language and content experts were
consulted to ensure face validity, and content validity was addressed by
utilising previously tested items from questionnaires.

1.6.10 Reliability of the measuring instrument

Cronbach alpha coefficients were calculated for each of the remaining

variables (Leppink 2019:60), and those that presented acceptable Cronbach
alpha scores (! ≥ 0.7) were deemed reliable (Namdeo & Rout 2016:1374;
Taber 2018:1274) (Chapter 5: Section 5.5.5).

1.6.11 Additional data analysis used

In order to process and analyse the primary data of this study, IBM SPSS
Statistics version 28 was utilised. The descriptive statistics that were
calculated to summarise the results included frequency distributions, means
and standard deviations. Inferential statistics calculated to interpret the data
included the following (Chapter 5: Section 5.5.9).
• SEM Models were used to determine whether or not relationships existed
between the independent variables of the study, namely traditional and
digital sensory branding strategies, and the dependent variable of the
study, namely brand loyalty.

24
• Primary factor models were used to determine whether or not relationships
existed between the sub-variables of the study, namely traditional and
digital visual, auditory, olfactory and tactile stimuli, and the dependent
variable of the study, namely brand loyalty.
• The Pearson’s correlation coefficient test was used to measure the
correlation between variables (Goftay & Thatte 2017:78).
• Chi-square test of association was used to determine whether or not there
was a relationship between the age of the respondent and their monthly
average budget for skincare. This statistic was calculated as literature
suggested that these two demographic factors may be related.
Additionally, the outcomes of the ANOVA’s calculated for budget as well
as age group of the respondents (Chapter 6: Section 6.6.8.3 & Section
6.6.8.2), suggested that there may be a relation between the two.
Therefore, the researcher made the decision to conduct the additional Chi-
square test for the two demographic variables.
• Analysis of variance (ANOVA) as well as the Welch Robust Test were
conducted to identify statistically significant differences in the means of
groups, as different genders or ages (Holmes, Moody, Dine & Trueman
2017:274; Sawyer 2009:27);
• The Tukey test and Games-Howell test were used to identify means that
were significantly different from one another (Gravetter & Wallnau
2016:394; Sun 2016:1).
• Cohen’s d was calculated for the researcher to quantify the relationship
between two groups (Goulet-Pelletier & Cousineau 2018:243), thereby
allowing the researcher to identify practical significant variances on p<0.1
and p<0.05.

1.7 DELIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

The first delimitation of the study is that there was limited academic research
on digital sensory branding at the time of the study. Therefore, access to
relevant journal articles on this topic was limited. Furthermore, the study only
included institutions that operate within the skincare industry, and therefore
excluded institutions in other industries. Additionally, the data was collected

25
solely via online questionnaires, which could lead to questionnaire fatigue by
respondents. However, this data collection method was appropriate due to the
respondents needing to have purchased skincare online to meet the
requirements of this study (Section 1.6.5).

1.8 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The concept of ethics in research includes responsibility, accountability,

confidentiality, anonymity and consent (Dooly, Moore & Vallejo 2017:351).
Ethics ensure that research is conducted in a responsible manner (Das &
Tripathi 2017:1) and hold researchers accountable for their work, which in turn
aids in the avoidance of error when reporting (Dooly et al 2017:352). Research
ethics are not only for the benefit of the researcher but also for the participants
of a study, as they ensure that the dignity and rights of the participants are
protected (Das & Tripathi 2017:1). The World Health Organization (2020:1)
goes further and declares that all research should be reviewed by an ethics
board.

The researcher obtained full ethical clearance by the Research Ethics

Committee of Nelson Mandela University. Furthermore, to ensure that the
respondents of the study understood why the information was being collected
and for what it would be used, the questionnaire was accompanied by a
detailed covering letter. The letter clarified that the respondents’ participation
was completely voluntarily and that they could opt out of the study at any point
at no cost to themselves. The questionnaire included a question within the
demographic section to ensure that the respondents were over the age of 18
and under the age of 60 to ensure that minors or vulnerable groups were not
included in this study. The researcher explained in the covering letter attached
to the questionnaire that the respondents’ names would not be required to
assure them that they would remain anonymous. The researcher
acknowledged that because information would be collected via online
platforms, tampering from an outside source might threaten the confidentiality
of the respondents. Therefore, the respondents would be informed that they
could choose whether to answer all the questions.

26
On clicking on the link for the questionnaire, the respondent was redirected to
the web-based self-administered questionnaire, where the covering letter
again appeared. Prior to the start of the questionnaire, the respondent was
asked to provide written consent to taking part in the study. There was no
foreseeable risk to the respondents of this study, and the data collected
contributed to an understanding of the topic of sensory marketing. Moreover,
accurate recommendations could be made to institutions operating within the
skincare industry who sell their products via in-store and online platforms. The
proposal was presented to the Research Ethics Committee of Nelson Mandela
University to ensure that the study adhered to all ethical considerations and
guidelines.

1.9 CONTRIBUTION OF THE STUDY

Although the research study was based on the proven relationship between
brand experience and the longevity of a brand (Kim & Chao 2019:10), it
contributed to this knowledge by delving into the field of sensory marketing to
enhance consumer experiences (Scott & Uncles 2018). Furthermore, it has
already been established that within a marketing context, multi-sensory
experience should be utilised to enhance a brand, thereby creating a brand
image and awareness (Makela 2020:15-19). However, Hussein (2018:2) is of
the opinion that the relationship between brand experience and brand loyalty
is inconsistent. This study will therefore aid in bridging this gap in knowledge.

Due to the growth of technology, as well as the effects of the COVID-19

pandemic, online shopping has increased rapidly (Coppola 2020; Djordjevic
2021). The more predominant gainers from online shopping are cosmetics and
personal care products (UNCTAD 2020). Moreover, in both online and offline
market spaces, customer engagement with ethical brands is constantly under
discussion (Yoganathan, Osburg & Akhtar 2018:386).

There was limited research about the sensory branding of skincare products
(Almomani 2020; Grandin et al 2020; Huang & Lu 2020; Levrini & Jeffman dos
Santos 2021; Sakhawat 2019) and, to the researcher’s knowledge, there was

27
no research conducted on the online sensory branding of these products.
Thus, the significance of the study was that it would add to the academic
literature on sensory branding. Moreover, the study aimed to contribute to the
field of experiential marketing. Existing literature in this field is summarised as
follows.
• There is ample research on the topic of sensory branding (Akarsu et al
2019; Alaxander & Nobbs 2016; Castillo-Villar & Villasante-Arellano 2020;
Chathuranga & Lakshika 2019; El-Sherbiny 2019; Hulten 2017; Kim &
Sullivan 2019; Rodrigues 2018; Rubio & Vidal 2019; Tanasic & Tanasic
2019; Thatte 2019; Tia-Elina 2019; Wala et al 2019; Viktoriia 2019).
• Research on sensory marketing online is scarcer (Abdullah et al 2018; Petit
et al 2019).
• There is also limited research done on the use of virtual reality (VR) and
augmented reality (AR) in marketing (Griffith 2020; Petit et al 2019:44;
Huang & Liao 2017:449).
• There is only a limited amount of research on the sensory branding of
skincare products (Almomani 2020; Grandin et al 2020; Huang & Lu 2020;
Levrini & Jeffman dos Santos 2021; Sakhawat 2019).

In light of the abovementioned literature summary, the study:

• addressed the shortage of previous research on the sensory branding of
skincare products both in-store and online (since no research, as far as
could be determined, specifically investigates the sensory branding of
skincare products via online platforms);
• conceptualised a model based on the literature review, which was
conducted, to demonstrate the difference between the desirable sensory
branding strategies for skincare products sold in-store and those for
products sold online;
• contributed to the field of experience marketing by using a relatively large
sample size and advanced statistical analysis techniques; and
• stimulated thinking, and influenced the decision making, of institutions
who operate within the skincare industry that distribute their products via
brick-and-mortar stores as well as online platforms.

28
As clarified in the above paragraphs, in the past, the focus of research on
sensory branding strategies has been on those that involved traditional in-
person (face-to-face) interaction. However, despite the global shift towards
technology, only a few studies have been conducted on digital sensory
branding strategies. Therefore, the study contributed to academic research
not only by conducting an investigation into digital sensory branding strategies
but also by comparing desired sensory branding strategies for skincare
products sold in-store versus those sold online.

1.10 DEFINITIONS OF KEY CONCEPTS

For this research study, a number of concepts were identified (Table 1.3
below), which underpin the research question: What sensory experiences do
customers desire when purchasing skincare products in-store, as opposed to
online?

TABLE 1.3
DEFINITIONS OF CONCEPTS RELATED TO THE STUDY

Concept Definition Reference

An experience, which is intentionally created
to gain attention and interact with customers

“subjective, internal consumer responses,

Brand • Brakus et al (2009:53)
sensations, feelings, cognitions and
Experience behavioural responses evoked by brand- • Pine & Gilmore (1999:2)
related stimuli that are part of a brand’s
design and identity, packaging,
communications and environments”

The use of the five human senses in

Sensory • Hulten (2017:3)
branding to differentiate a brand from its
Branding competitors • Upadhyay (2017:352)

The communication of the sensory

• Ifeanyichukwu & Peter
experience created through sensory
(2018:1560)
Sensory branding to customers, thereby allowing the
Marketing • Hulten (2017:2)
brand to cater for consumers’ emotional,
intellectual and experience-orientated needs • Makela (2020:22)

Digital Sensory Sensory branding strategies that exist for • Griffith (2020)
Branding online platforms or in a digital context • Sarathy (2020)
Strategies

29
 Concept Definition Reference
The degree of attachment that a customer
• Beig & Nika (2022:160)
feels towards a brand based on positioning
Brand Loyalty • Ong et al (2018:758)
the brand as an asset in itself

Occurs when two or more of the five human

Multi-Sensory • Makela (2020:14)
senses are stimulated to create brand
Experience • Velasco (2020:1)
experiences.

Skincare products are products that are

developed with the aim of improving the look
and feel of one’s skin. Skincare products
can be classified based on their functionality
• Cosmetics Europe
and purpose and can either remain on the
(2021)
Skincare skin, such as moisturisers, anti-aging
Products • Romanowski (2020)
creams, tanners and over the counter drug
products, or be designed to remove • FDA (2020)
something from the skin, such as cleansers,
body soaps, toners, bubble bath and
exfoliation products.

The skincare industry is a sector or branch

Skincare • (Roberts 2021)
Industry within the larger beauty industry.

1.11 OUTLINE OF CHAPTERS

This study is divided into seven chapters as seen in Table 1.4 below.

TABLE 1.4
OUTLINE OF THE THESIS
Chapter Contents
Introduction and Background of the Study
This chapter provides an introduction and orientation to the research and
1 focus on the research problem; problem statement; research question; the
aim and objectives of the study; the significance of the study; and the
conceptual model.
The Concept of Brand Experience and Brand Equity
In Chapter 2, an overview of the literature on brand experience and the
2
creation thereof is presented. Additionally, the chapter provides a discussion
on the relationship between brand experience and brand loyalty.
Sensory Branding Strategies and the Skincare Industry
In Chapter 3, an overview of the literature on sensory branding strategies for
3
both in-store and online sales is provided and then contextualised to the
skincare industry.
Conceptual Model
4
Chapter 5 explains and discusses the elements of the conceptual model.
Research Methodology
5 This chapter includes an in-depth description and discussion of the research
design; research paradigm; data collection techniques and instruments; the

30
Chapter Contents
questionnaire construction and format; sampling; data analysis; and the
problems encountered during the study.
Reporting the Results
This chapter presents the results of the statistical analysis of the data
6
collected in the empirical study in the form of figures and tables. Moreover,
the results are interpreted and discussed.
Synopsis, Conclusions, Implications and Recommendations
This chapter provides the synopsis of the study. Following this, the
7 researcher draws conclusions based on the results of the study; discusses
the implications for institutions within the skincare industry; and makes
recommendations for future research.

31
 CHAPTER 2
THE CONCEPT OF BRAND EXPERIENCE AND BRAND EQUITY

2.1 INTRODUCTION

In the previous chapter, Chapter 1, an overview of the study was provided.

The chapter commenced with an introduction to the topic, including a short
synopsis on brand image, brand experience, multi-sensory branding, multi-
sensory experience within a traditional and digital context and finally an
application to the skincare industry. Following this, the research problem was
outlined and the specific research aims and objectives provided. Hereafter, a
literature review was conducted, which included a discussion on brand
experience, specifically sensory branding, and the influence thereof on brand
loyalty. Once the variables of the study had been identified, the conceptual
model of this study was proposed. The second portion of Chapter 1 was
dedicated to the research methodology that the researcher utilised to complete
this study, including a discussion on the research design and paradigm,
sampling, data collection method, measuring instrument, data preparation as
well as validity and reliability, data collection procedure and data analysis
used. In the final section of the chapter, delimitations of the study were noted,
definitions of key concepts provided and an outline of the study presented.

In Chapter 2, an in-depth literature review pertaining to brand experience and

brand loyalty is provided. The literature conceptualised in Chapter 2 sets the
foundation upon which this study is built, focusing on key literature, including
brand positioning or differentiation; brands; brand equity and the components
thereof; the relationship between e-commerce and brand loyalty; marketing or
consumer experiences, as well as brand experiences, including the
dimensions thereof, and the relationship between brand experience and brand
loyalty. This chapter is vital to this study, as it will make clear the relevance of
sensory branding.

32
2.2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Within every product or service category there are hundreds of competitors all
grappling for the attention of consumers (Janiszewska & Insch 2012:9;
Paunovic 2018; ZoriBari-Nwitambu & Kalu 2019:37), and it is therefore
important for brands to implement differentiation strategies to achieve their
desired brand position in the market. Blankson (2016:163), Fayvishenko
(2018:245) and Koelzer (2020) define brand positioning as the idealistic image
that the brand would like to portray to their consumers, including distinctive
qualities and positive attributes, to create a sustainable brand and consumer
attachment to the brand. Whereas, in early literature, differentiation was
defined as, “meeting human wants more accurately than the competition”
(1912:719), differentiation has more recently been defined by Davcik and
Rundquist (2012:94) as, “creating differences to distinguish a business’s
offerings to consumers”. Davcik and Sharma (2015:766), Kotler and Keller
(2016:392), as well as Lau (2018:6), concur with this definition. Frambach,
Prabhu and Verhallen (2003:381) add that differentiation strategy focuses on
product attributes rather than price, which is supported by Davcik and
Rundquist (2012:94). Therefore, it can be concluded that the difference
between differentiation and brand positioning is that brand positioning is how
the marketer would like the brand to be seen and thought of by their target
audience, whereas differentiation constitutes the strategies implemented to
achieve the desired brand position.

While the results of brand positioning or differentiation do not directly influence

a business’s profit, they are directly linked to the ability to build a brand that is
notable from the perspective of a target audience (Blankson 2016:162; Davcik
& Sharma 2015:766; Paunovic 2018).

2.2.1 Brands

In the modern world of marketing, branding has become a norm in the attempt
to differnciate oneself in the market. However, branding itself goes back as far
as the 1500’s, where a brand or symbol was often burned on property, such

33
as cattle, to indicate ownership (Cantor 2020; Geider 2021; O’Neill 2015).
However, in the 19th century the ideology behind branding began to advance,
which aligned with the rise of mass production of goods (Cantor 2020; Geider
2021). Due to the rapid increase in competitors in the market, companies
needed to differenciate themselves and so the trademark was developed,
which relates to words, phrases, symbols and designs used to represent a
company or product being legally registered (Cantor 2020; Geider 2021).
Cantor (2020) explains that it was only in the 20th century when the use of
technology in branding started and companies emerged to more innovative
and creative ways of using branding. Although, it was only after the second
world war that a culture shifted created neccisity for the act of brand
management, spurred on by stronger competitiors entering the market (Cantor
2020; Geider 2021). This culture shift was also the start of the use of emotional
branding, which included more in-depth analysis of the brands target audience
(Geider 2021; O’Neill 2015). The branding strategies developed had to shift
and change with the changing needs and wants of the target audiences as
well as technology advances, which has ultimately led to the modern branding
known today.

A brand, as defined by Dube and Rossi (2019:293), Bii and Kiptoo (2019:23)
and ZoriBari-Nwitambu and Kalu (2019:37), adds value to a product,
surpassing the functionality of the product, and takes the form of a name,
symbol or design. Furthermore, it should be noted that a brand allows
consumers to distinguish competitors in the market (Bii & Kiptoo 2019:26) and
Beig and Nika (2022:156) contribute in stating that brands are no longer just
placeholders in the market, but are rather representative of everything the
brand stands for and creates the ability for customers to form emotional
attachments. Waller (2020:1) supports Beig and Nika (2022:156) in the
statement that modern branding can be seen as humanising an inanimate
object.

Creating a strong memorable brand allows for a differential advantage in the

market (Beig & Nika 2022:156); it provides the opportunity to legally protect
brand owners through its role as intellectual property (ZoriBari-Nwitambu &

34
Kalu 2019:37) and it has the ability to impact the behaviour and attitude of
consumers (Zhang 2015:59; ZoriBari-Nwitambu & Kalu 2019:37). The brand
itself is therefore considered a key marketing tool. Knowles (2001) developed
a brand model which noted three dimensions that consumers measure when
making the decision to purchase from a specific brand, namely what you get,
how you feel and who is it from.

From Knowles’ (2001) WYG-HYF-WIF model, “what you get” refers to the
physical product offering. “How you feel” relates to the emotional and
psychological needs that the product satisfies for consumers, and “who is it
from” makes reference to the credibility of the supplier itself
(Alirezaeslambolchi & Erfanalhoseynihamedani 2017:45; Liegeois & Rivera
2011:15). How the product offering makes the consumer feel is becoming
more predominant as consumers are being exposed to mass marketing and
an influx of options when making purchases.

It can therefore be concluded that the importance of creating a strong and

successful brand is that it will make the product offering preferential to
customers, thereby achieving a competitive advantage and aid in building
brand equity. There are six brand building blocks that contribute to the creation
of brand equity, and therefore, the decision to purchase, which include:
• brand salience - the extent to which the brand is at the forefront of the
consumer’s mind;
• brand performance - the extent to which consumers are satisfied with how
the brand meets their functional needs;
• brand imagery – the extent to which the brand meets the consumer’s
psychological needs;
• consumer judgements - the consumer’s own personal opinions and
evaluations of the brand;
• consumer-brand feelings - the consumer’s emotional responses to a brand
or a brands’ product; and
• consumer-brand resonance - the nature of the relationship that consumers
feel they have with a specific brand (Ande, Gunasekaran, Murugesan &

35
 Natarajan 2016:1492; Keller 2020:451; Khanna, Jacob & Chopra
2019:339; Steenkamp, Herbst, de Villiers & Terblanche-Smit 2020:65;
Steenkamp, Herbst, de Villiers & Terblanche-Smit 2016:4).

2.2.2 Brand equity

The concept of brand equity was first introduced by Srinivasan (1979), who
proved that a strong brand resulted in an increase in perceived value of a
product. However, a weak brand can result in the opposite, as seen in the
definition provided by Aaker (1991:13) whereby brand equity consists of a
number of brand assets or liabilities that can either add value to, or take away
value from, a product offering.

In more recent studies, it has been suggested that brand equity can be defined
from either a financial or marketing perspective (Anderson 2011:1; Beig & Nika
2022:159; Narteh 2018:381; Tasci 2020:36). Specifically referencing the
marketing perspective of brand equity, two broad definitions are accepted,
namely firm-based brand equity (FBBE) and consumer-based brand equity
(CBBE) (Algharabat, Rana, Alalwan, Baabdullah & Gupta 2021:8; Beig & Nika
2022:159; Chatzipanagiotou, Christodoulides & Veloutsou 2019:328; Narteh
2018:381; Tasci 2020:36). FBBE refers to the financial benefit that resonates
from a brand for a business (Beig & Nika 2022:159; Zahari, Esa, Rajadurai,
Azizan & Muhhamed Tamyez 2019:272; Wang 2010:336), which was initially
stipulated by Farquhar, Han and Ijiri (1991). In contrast, CBBE is defined as
the effect of consumers’ awareness and knowledge of a brand on their
response to marketing of a product offering from a brand (Algharabat et al
2021:8; Chatzipanagiotou et al 2019:328; Koay, Ong, Khoo & Yeoh 2019:55;
Narteh 2018:381), which is considered to be the most widespread accepted
definition, originally proposed by Keller (2003:2).

The seminal work of Aaker (1991; 1992; 1996), along with Keller (1993; 2003)
sets the foundation of the CBBE theory. Aaker and Keller shared similar views
with regard to consumer-based brand equity in terms of being in agreement
that brand awareness and association facilitated the strengthening of CBBE.

36
However, Aaker (1991; 1992) went further to include perceived quality and
brand loyalty to the list of influencing factors, from which the five components
of CBBE were conceptualised. When discussing consumer-based brand
equity, there are many conflicting views as well as models that have been
developed, which are presented in Table 2.1.

TABLE 2.1
CUSTOMER-BASED BRAND EQUITY MODELS AND DIMENSIONS
Author(S) Dimensions
Brand awareness, brand association, perceived
Aaker (1991; 1996)
quality, brand loyalty

Keller (1993) Brand knowledge (brand awareness, brand image)

Cobb-Walgren, Ruble & Donthu Perceived quality, brand awareness, brand

(1995) association

Berry (2000) Brand awareness, brand meaning

Product functional utility, product symbolic utility,

Vazquez, Del Rio & Iglesias
brand name functional utility, brand name functional
(2002)
utility
Christodoulides, de Chernatony, Online experiences, willingness for bilateral
Furrer & Abimbola (2006) communication, trust, satisfaction

Physical quality, personal behaviour, ideal-self-

Nam, Ekinci & Whyatt (2011)
image, brand identity, lifestyle

Source: Adapted from Çınar (2020:283)

While there are many different proposed models relating to CBBE, there are
three generally accepted models, created by Aaker (1991), Kapferer (1992)
and Keller (1993). However, the five components of CBBE posited by Aaker
(1991) are the most commonly utilised, as they consider the effect of brand
value on brand loyalty and monetary benefits. The five components, as
determined by Aaker (1991), that constitute the brand equity model include
brand awareness, brand association, perceived quality, brand loyalty and
other proprietary assets (Aaker & Joachimsthaler 2000:31; Crescitelli &
Figueiredo 2009:103).

As explained by Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2000:31) and Beig and Nika

(2022:159), the first four components listed make reference to consumers,

37
whereas the final component, other proprietary assets, refers to the financial
value of brands. However, when debating brand equity from a marketing
perspective (CBBE) only the first four components are relevant.

2.2.2.1 Brand awareness

As posited by Aaker (1991:61), Beig and Nika (2022:159), Narteh (2018:383),

Shabbir, Khan and Khan (2017:418) and Tasci (2018:147), brand awareness
refers to the consumer’s ability to recognise a brand and differentiate it in the
market. Throughout many of the proposed CBBE models, brand awareness
has been identified as important (Aaker 1991; 1996; Berry 2000; Cobb-
Walgren et al 1995; Keller 1993), which could be attributed to the fact that
brand awareness, along with brand associations, are what form the brand’s
image, without which brand equity would not exist (Algharabat et al 2021:8;
Narteh 2018:383; Tasci 2018:147). Many researchers, however, prefer to refer
to brand awareness as “familiarity”, as this concept is more dynamic in nature
(Adams 2020; Jallad 2019; Lambert 2017; Tasci 2018:147).

The definition of familiarity, as expounded by Chinomona and Maziriri

(2017:71), Huang (2016:666), Tasci (2018:147) and Yang, Zhang and Zou
(2015:109), goes further than just the consumers’ knowledge of the brand, and
includes their experience of the brand. Therefore, familiarity can be classified
as either informational familiarity, which arises from advertising efforts and
media sources, or experiential familiarity, which stems from an individual’s
own experiences (Chen, Chen & Wu 2015:283; Tasci 2018:147; Yang et al
2015:109). From the above discussion on brand awareness and familiarity, it
can be concluded that brands with more positive awareness and familiarity
amongst consumers will receive higher loyalty.

2.2.2.2 Brand association

Brand association refers to any aspect of the product offering that resonates
within the minds of consumers when they think of a certain brand, such as a
colour, feature, quality level or image (Aaker 1991:109; Aaker &

38
Joachimsthaler 2000:31; Algharabat et al 2021:8; Beig & Nika 2022:159;
Narteh 2018:384; Tasci 2018:148). It stands to reason that should a consumer
have positive associations with a brand, then that brand will have a strong
brand image. However, as posited by Algharabat et al (2021:8), along with
Yoo, Donthu and Lee (2000:201), brand association is closely linked to brand
awareness as they are both imperative in forming brand image and should
therefore, be combined to form one component, namely brand
awareness/associations (BAS).

Algharabat et al (2021:9), as well as Narteh (2018:384), further explain that

due to brand associations being linked to consumer experiences, they have
the strongest impact on consumer decision making. Additionally, as stipulated
by Keller (1993:4), brand associations constitute three separate forms, namely
attributes, benefits and attitudes. Following the work of Keller (1993), should
a brand be able to create positive associations for consumers with reference
to attributes, benefits and attitudes, then they will be able to increase their
brand equity and financial status.

2.2.2.3 Perceived quality

Aaker (1991:85), Algharabat et al (2021:10), Beig and Nika (2022:159) and

Narteh (2018:384), as well as Tasci (2018:148), explain that perceived quality
is to what extent consumers perceive a product offering to be superior to
alternatives in the market, with reference to quality. Beig and Nika (2022:159)
add that perceived quality is not necessarily a true representation of the quality
of a product, but rather is based on the perception of individual consumers.
Therefore, it can be said that perceived quality is subjective, as it will differ
between consumers based on personal preferences. Zhao, Yao, Liu and Yang
(2021:21) further posit that consumers’ expectations, in terms of quality and
service, are heightened when they spend an increased amount on a product.

Brands that are perceived as having higher levels of quality often experience
higher levels of consumer loyalty, as well as increased support in terms of
positive recommendations (Keller 2013:187; Kotler & Armstrong 2010:243;

39
Narteh 2018:384). Many studies have been conducted in an attempt to
analyse the relationship between perceived quality and performance
measures of a brand (Abdullah & Tari 2012; Buzzell & Gale 1987; Duarte,
Brito, Serio & Martins 2011; Hendricks & Singhal 1996; 1997; 2000; Idris 2011;
Klingenberg, Timberlake, Geurts & Brown 2013; Lakhal, Pasin & Limam 2006;
Lin, Chow, Madu, Kuei & Yu 2005; Phan, Abdallah & Matsui 2011; Prajogo &
Brown 2006; Prajogo, Chowdhury, Yeung & Cheng 2012; Sadikoglu & Zehir
2010; Sila 2007; US Government General Accounting Office 1991). However,
the importance of perceived quality in building brand equity can be explained
in the statement by O’Neill, Sohal and Teng (2016:390), that there is a direct
relationship between perceived quality and financial performance of a
business. One could assume that the relationship between perceived quality
and financial performance may be due to the impact that perceived quality has
on brand loyalty.

2.2.2.4 Brand loyalty

Loyalty, with specific reference to marketing, is a topic that has received vast
attention, which can be attributed to its role in facilitating competitive
advantage and financial benefits (Tartaglione, Cavacece, Russo & Granata
2019:1). As defined by Aaker (1991:39), Algharabat et al (2021:9), Beig and
Nika (2022:160), Narteh (2018:385) and Tasci (2018:149), brand loyalty is
how attached a customer is to a certain brand, which can be either attitudinal
or behavioural. From an attitudinal perspective, loyalty refers to the
consumer’s intention to remain loyal to a brand (Beig & Nika 2022:160),
whereas behavioural loyalty is the physical purchase choice of the consumer
(Beig & Nika 2022:160). Tartaglione et al (2019:1) adds that a successful
brand loyalty building strategy should result in repurchase intention (RI), the
generation of positive word of mouth (WOM), as well as consumers being
willing to pay more (WPM), which is agreed upon by Alexandra and Cerchia
(2018:423), Foroudi, Jin, Gupta and Foroudi (2018:10), Giovanis and
Anthanasopoulou (2016:2), Haung, Liao, Wang and Lin (2018:2132), as well
as Saif, Ahmed, Shareef and Khalid (2018:67). Peek (2022) agrees and adds
that loyal customers are known to buy from brands more regularly.

40
In the past, customer loyalty has been measured as a single variable; however
in studies by Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001), Fullerton (2003), Lin (2010),
Ong, Salleh and Yusoff (2015) and Zeithaml, Berry and Parasuraman (1996,)
as well as Zhang and Bloemer (2008), brand loyalty is measured through the
use of RI, WOM and WPM, with WOM and WPM constituting attitudinal loyalty
and RI constituting behavioural loyalty. Furthermore, as argued by Ong et al
(2018:758), as well as Kandampully, Zhang and Bilgihan (2015), the
information that could be collected is of much more interest when considering
customer loyalty as a three-part variable, rather than as a singular variable.

The importance of brand loyalty lies in its link to pricing and to the reduction of
threat by competitors (Aaker 1991:39; Beig & Nika 2022:160). Furthermore,
as discussed by Narteh (2018:385), with reference to brand equity, increased
consumer loyalty will lead to a surge in sales, thereby increasing the profit or
financial status of a business. Therefore, brands can utilise brand loyalty to
increase their profit margins as well as to guard against, or gain a competitive
advantage in the market. However, as observed in the study of Robertson
(2020), of late, there is a definite decrease in consumer devotion to brands,
which is attributed to an increase in online shopping or e-commerce. Melnyk,
Osselaer and Bijmolt (2009:83) and Ndubisi (2006:50) add that there is a
distinct difference in consumer loyalty to a brand between men and women,
with the latter being more inclined to be loyal. However, Borgna (2018) insists
that due to changing gender roles, men are increasingly shopping for and
utilising cosmetic products. This is apparent in the work of Infante, Calixto and
Campos (2016:137) who found that with specific regards to skincare, women
were more likely to try varying brands. However, Burke (2021) states that
women are still 9% more loyal then men towards skincare brands when
shopping online. Klopotan, Buntak and Drozdjek (2014:488), McDougall
(2015) and Paricha (2019) concur and add that there is a difference in brand
loyalty based on age, where the older the consumers are, the more likely they
are to be loyal to a brand (Marketing Charts 2018). This is also suggested by
Gudat (2018) who clarifies that consumer loyalty peaks between the ages of
55 – 65 years. This is also true for the level of education of the consumer,
whereby the more highly educated an individual is, the more likely they are to

41
be brand loyal (Klopotan et al 2014:488; McDougall 2015; Sun, Foscht &
Eisingerich 2021:2; Vince 2021). However, brand loyalty is being influenced
by e-commerce (Morris 2020; Robertson 2020).

2.2.3 E-commerce and brand loyalty

As opined by Anuj, Fayaz and Kapoor (2018:59), the human race has become
highly dependent on technology, and along with many other industries, retail
has transformed as a result of the internet (Coppola 2021). In 2018, it was
recorded that 4.4 billion people made use of the internet, constituting more
than half of the world’s population (Internet World Stats 2018; McDonald 2018;
World Economic Forum 2019), and as stated by Kinda (2019:3) and
Sabanoglu (2021), online shopping, or e-commerce, is one of the most popular
forms of online activity.

Electronic, or e-commerce, is defined by Anuj et al (2018:60), Kinda (2019:3)

and Moriset (2018:2) as the sale of goods and services via the internet, or any
other digital platform, where payment may or may not be made online. In the
last decade, e-commerce has seen large growth in support, with e-commerce
sales equalling 3.5 trillion US dollars in 2019 (Coppola 2021), which has grown
to 4.28 trillion US dollars in 2020 and is projected to increase to 5.4 trillion US
dollars in 2022 (Sabanoglu 2021). Nyrop, Nathan, Lindquist and Karlsen
(2020:1) add that the rise in e-commerce is being fuelled by the effects of the
global COVID-19 pandemic (Ecommerce News 2021).

As stated by Kashuba (2021), the global COVID-19 pandemic has altered the
way consumers live their lives; specifically, it has caused a growth in e-
commerce as human needs and wants are endless (Bouzenita & Boulanouar
2016:60; Fallatah & Syed 2017:19; Hoeschele 2016:1; McLeod 2020) and
therefore, individuals will never cease to purchase goods and services. This is
supported by the finding that in 2020, 90% of businesses experienced an
increase in online sales (Ecommerce News 2021), which can be attributed to
the fact that during the COVID-19 pandemic some level of lockdown was
enforced in all countries around the world (Onyeaka, Anumudu, Al-Sharify,

42
Egele-Godswill & Mbaegbu 2021:1). One repercussion of lockdowns was the
restrictions placed on shopping in-stores (Heiberg & Winning 2020; OECD
2020). Moreover, Morris (2020) and Murphy (2020) opine that many
consumers will not return to shopping in traditional brick-and-mortar stores
(The wise marketer 2020), which may be due to consumers fear of contracting
the virus when shopping in-store (McCandless 2020).

Businesses can reap many benefits from e-commerce, including an enlarged

reachable target audience, decreased costs, the elimination of supply issues
and the improvement of supply chain strategies (Kinda 2019:3; Kumar &
Nagendra 2018:14). Furthermore, Hanson, Hitt, Ireland and Hoskisson
(2016:11) explain that e-commerce presents businesses with the opportunity
to enhance their competitive advantage through ease of information sharing.
However, Li, Jiang, Cheng, Yang, Yan and Wang (2018:3023) argue that this
can also pose a challenge to businesses as consumers experience
information overload. Morris (2020), along with Robertson (2020), adds that
as online shopping increases, consumer commitment to brands decreases.
Scarpi, Pizzi and Visentin (2014:258), further note that brand loyalty is
influenced by a consumer’s motivation when shopping online, or offline, where
those shopping for fun are seeking experiential activities and those shopping
based on necessity are seeking efficiency.

According to Afrashteh, Azad and Hanzayy (2014:2080), as well as Bhaskar

and Kumar (2015:489), e-loyalty also includes the consumer’s attitude to the
online store itself and Al-Adwan, Kokash, Aldwan, Alhorani and Yaseen
(2020:281), along with Bhaskar and Kumar (2015:489), opine that customer
loyalty is especially difficult to achieve online, resulting in lower levels of
customer loyalty, which Robertson (2020) attributes to the fact that there are
more avenues for error to occur. However, Al-Adwan et al (2020:280), Charm
et al (2020), as well as Morris (2020), report that the loss of brand loyalty that
is being observed with e-commerce is due to consumers having less
disposable income, intensified by the economic crisis brought on by COVID-
19. Additionally, convenience (Charm et al 2020; Morris 2020) and an increase
in competition both online and offline (Bhaskar & Kumar 2015:489) have been

43
identified as driving forces behind the decrease in consumer loyalty with
reference to e-commerce. Another theory that is posited by Foster (2020) and
Morris (2020), is that prior to the internet, consumers relied on the brand itself
to inform them of quality of the product offering. However now they have
access to other consumers who may have different information (Anastasiei &
Dospinescu 2019:1; Herrera, Leon & Vargas-Ortiz 2018:78; Li & Du 2017:338;
Li, Yang, Wu, He & Zhao 2018:512). However, a conflicting view is that
consumers have altered their brand preference based on necessity, and will
therefore transition back when they have the opportunity to do so (Foster 2020;
Morris 2020).

Given the ever-increasing importance of branding (Section 2.2.1), as well as

creating brand equity (Section 2.2.2) and the consideration of the shift to the
digital age, it becomes essential for brands to adapt their marketing approach,
and it should also be noted from Table 2.1 that only one study, executed by
Christodoulides et al (2006), focuses on digital dimensions in their CBBE
model. It was concluded by Christodoulides et al (2006:814) that emotional
connection, online experience, responsive service nature, trust and fulfilment
were all determinants of brand equity in a digital environment and noted the
importance of consumers’ role as cocreators of brand value. From the
literature above, it can be deduced that brands need to realise the difference
that exists between traditional and digital market spaces and adapt to ensure
success. Table 2.2 provides a brief summary of the differences that exist
between traditional and digital marketing.

TABLE 2.2
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRADITIONAL AND DIGITAL MARKETING
Traditional Marketing Digital Marketing
A closed system An open system
Not transparent Transparent
Mass communication Communication is on-to-one
Orientated to the product Focused on the consumer
The message is created by a professional Consumers are co-creators of messages
Formal communication Informal communication
Paid Free
Source: Adapted from Boric, Stanisavljev, Kavalic, Vlahovic & Tobolka
(2016:378)

44
Beig and Nika (2022:157) explain that brands should place emphasis on
creating memorable experiences if they wish to successfully create a loyal
customer base, which is supported by Kim and Chao (2019:10), who state
that, in a marketing context, how an individual experiences a brand is of
paramount importance.

2.2.4 Marketing or consumer experiences

Suardi (2019:15) asserts that consumers are no longer satisfied with the
tangible benefits of a product, but are rather becoming more persuaded by the
intangible benefits that they stand to gain when making a purchase. This
sentiment is supported by Beig and Nika (2022:157) who deliberate that efforts
to create memorable experience for consumers by businesses has increased
over the past decade. It can therefore be reasoned that consumers are looking
for consumer-centric experiences. Experiential marketing was first introduced
by Hirschman and Holbrook (1982),but is specifically rooted in the work of Pine
and Gilmore (1999:102), who proposed a model, the experience model, that
offered a way to understand and interpret the experiences that a person has
when purchasing and consuming a product, based on the interactions that
they have with that brand.

2.2.4.1 Pine and Gilmore’s Experience Model

As explained by Cassel, Jacobs and Graham (2021:79), experiences are

intangible and involve the creation of interaction on both an emotional and
sensory level. In the seminal work of Pine and Gilmore (1999:102), it is posited
that experiences can be made to be lucrative when they achieve all four realms
of experience, namely entertainment, educational, esthetic and escapist.
Through enriching the consumers experiences, it is possible to create loyalty
with a specific store or brand (Cassel et al 2021:79). In Figure 2.1, it can be
seen that the four realms of experience run along two dimensions of consumer
involvement, namely participation and connection (Cassel et al 2021:81).

45
 FIGURE 2.1
THE EXPERIENCE MODEL
Absorption

Entertainment Educational

Passive Active
Participation Participation

Esthetic Escapist

Immersion
Source: Adapted from Healy (2016)

Cassel et al (2021:81) go further to explain that passive participation does not

require the active involvement of an individual, whereas active participation
refers to events which require the individual to be actively involved in the
creation of their own experience. The second dimension of experience is
divided into absorption, which relates to situations where an individual views
an event or experience remotely, and immersion, which relates to the extent
to which the individual is submerged into an experience (Cassel et al 2021:81).
While experiences can form part of any one, or more, realms the most
memorable experiences will constitute all four. In the sections that follow, the
experience of shopping for skincare products will be utilised to conceptualise
the four realms of experience.

(a) The entertainment realm

An entertaining experience is defined by passive consumer participation and

absorption (Bolton et al 2018:783; Cassel 2015; Cassel et al 2021:80; Dieck
Jung & Rauschnabel 2017:47; Mastery 2017; Thanh & Kirova 2018:30) and
encompasses to what extent the consumer feels fulfilled and connected by the
activity (Cassel et al 2021:80). In the case of shopping for skincare products

46
in-stores, this could be linked to the atmosphere of the store where the product
is being sold or to any interactive activity being offered, such as a sales
representitive applying a sample to the consumer. With regards to shopping
for skincare online, this could include activities such as the use of virtual
technology to upload images of yourself to “try on” or establish which product
may be appropriate or including fun background noises.

(b) The educational realm

An educational experience is one where the consumer participates actively

and absorbs knowledge or learns something (Cassel 2015; Cassel et al
2021:80; Dieck et al 2017:47; Hwang & Lee 2019:316; Kastenholz, Carneiro,
Marques & Loureiro 2017:189; Sipe & Testa 2018:182; Suntikul & Jachna
2015:309; Thanh & Kirova 2018:30). With reference to the experience of
shopping for skincare in-store, this could relate to the information printed on
the product packaging or to the opportunity to sample the product. Whereas
when making reference to the experience of shopping for skincare online, this
could refer to the description of the product and on how the product should be
used.

(c) The esthetic realm

The esthetic experience refers to one where the consumer is passively

partaking in the activity but is completely immersed (Cassel et al 2021:80;
Cassel 2015; Dieck et al 2017:47; Hwang & Lee 2019:317; Mastery 2017;
Thanh & Kirova 2018:30) and encompasses all aspects of the physical
environment surrounding the consumer (Cassel et al 2021:80; Radder & Han
2015:457). With regards to the experience of shopping for skincare products
in-store, this could be the design and layout of the interior of the store as well
as the design of the exterior of the store. When shopping online or skincare,
this can include the layout and design of the website or the user friendliness
thereof.

47
(d) The escapist realm

An escapist experience refers to one where the individual is actively taking

part in an activity and is completely immersed therein (Cassel et al 2021:80;
Kastenholz et al 2017:189; Sipe & Testa 2018:182; Suntikul & Jachna
2015:309). Consumers seek out escapist experiences as it allows them to
escape their usual reality (Cassel 2015; Dieck et al 2017:47; Hwang & Lee
2019:317; Mastery 2017; Thanh & Kirova 2018:30), often through interacting
with a product or with other people (Cassel et al 2021:80). With regards to the
experience of shopping for skincare in-store, the escapist realm may refer to
the act of searching for a new product that may fit into the consumers desired
lifestyle, whereas with reference to online shopping, may include virtual malls
or gamification of the website (Newman 2020).

2.2.4.2 Experiential marketing

As defined by Carù and Cova (2016:272), Ferreira and Sousa (2020:572),

Homburg, Jozić and Kuehnl (2017:378) and Suardi (2019:15), experiential
marketing is any form of marketing effort that is customer-centric in nature,
and aims to create value through connection with consumers. Beig and Nika
(2022:157) add that the level of differentiation achievable through the use of
experiential marketing results in increased brand equity.

Beig and Nika (2022:157), along with Ferreira and Sousa (2020:572), go
further in stating that consumer connections can stem from a multitude of
different sources, including the product offering itself and the packaging, as
well as any form of interactions and communications by the business. As
explained by Beig and Nika (2022:158) and Eshelby (2019), as well as Zorfas
and Leemon (2016), experiences give rise to emotional involvement in the
shopping process through the utilisation of emotions, imagination and
sensation. Furthermore, experiences can be direct, such as through the
interaction with a physical product, or indirect, such as being exposed to an
advertisement (Beig & Nika 2022:157; Pogrebniak 2019), and while direct

48
experiences are more powerful, a combination of the two experiences is
needed to influence consumer behaviour.

Rather (2020:16) explains that experiences, unlike product features and

benefits, are internal and are subjectively formed in the minds of consumers
based on their own personal interaction with the product and brand.
Experiential marketing builds relationships with consumers by combining both
logic and emotion to generate desirable responses by consumers to the
product offering (Beig & Nika 2022:157; Le, Scott & Lohmann 2018:220;
Suardi 2019:15), thereby creating a competitive differentiation that cannot
easily be imitated (Suardi 2019:17). Furthermore, it has been found that
experiences, both positive and negative, will remain in the mind of consumers,
thereby influencing their purchasing behaviour (Murphy 2016; Rather
2020:16). Managing customer experiences is therefore of high concern if
organisations wish to gain a competitive advantage in the market. However,
Suardi (2019:5) contends that consumer experiences are inevitable, as when
making a purchase, it is impossible for the consumer to avoid coming into
contact with touch points, such as price, environment and staff, which will all
generate experiences. Therefore, there is a need to differentiate between the
term “consumer experiences”, which are unavoidable and may not be
intentional, and brand experience.

2.2.5 Brand experiences

As explained by Hollebeek and Macky (2019:163), Hollebeek et al

(2019:2019), Islam, Hollebeek, Rahman, Khan and Rasool (2019:7), Lemon
and Verhoef (2016:70) and Rather (2019:19), brand experiences are the result
of a number of consumer experiences. Ong et al (2018:5) clarify in stating that
brand experience considers the influence of a number of experiences that
constitute one dimension, whereas consumer experiences consider an
individual experience. Therefore, brand experience is a key concern for this
study as it will be an indicator of a sustainable competitive advantage.

49
In the seminal work of Hirschman and Holbrook (1982) it was hypothesized
that customer-centric experiences consist of three attributes, namely fun,
fantasies and feelings. However, more recently, Schmitt (1999:60) proposed
an experiential marketing framework (Strategic Experience Modules – SEMs),
which categorises experiences into five dimensions, namely feel-related
experiences, cognitive experiences, act experiences, relate experiences and
sensory experiences.

2.2.6 Feel-related experiences

Feel-related strategies target a consumer’s deepest feelings, thereby creating

affective experience (Beig & Nika 2022:158; Rather 2020:18; Suardi 2019:16).
Suardi (2019:16) explains that affective experiences are those that result in
positive feelings towards a brand that enhance pleasure and pride for
consumers, and Rather (2020:18) adds that affective experiences can range
from slightly positive to very positive.

2.2.7 Cognitive experiences

As discussed by Beig and Nika (2022:158), Rather (2020:18) and Suardi

(2019:16), cognitive experiences are those that ask a consumer to interact on
an intellectual level. Cognitive experiences are often in the form of visual,
verbal and conceptual stimuli (Suardi 2019:16), and encourage the consumer
to practice problem solving (Beig & Nika 2019:3; Rather 2020:18).

2.2.8 Act experiences

Act experiences simply aim to alter the lifestyle of consumers in some way by
creating interaction (Beig & Nika 2022:158; Suardi 2019:17). Suardi (2019:17)
notes that act experiences encompass the individual as a whole and Rather
(2020:18) adds that act experiences further aim to show consumers new ways
of doing things. This form of experience is often one which is inspirational or
motivational (Rather 2020:18).

50
2.2.9 Relate experiences

Relate experiences are formed through a combination of the other dimensions

of experience and target the consumer’s basic need for self-improvement,
socio-economic status and image (Beig & Nika 2022:158; Rather 2020:18;
Suardi 2019:17). As discussed by Rather (2020:18), relate experiences
include aspects that are outside of the consumer’s own feelings.

2.2.10 Sensory experiences

Lastly, sensory experiences refer to the use of the five human senses (sight,
smell, hearing, taste and touch) to create memorable interactions for the
consumer (Beig & Nika 2022:158; Ong et al 2018:5; Suardi 2019:16). Sensory
experiences have been highlighted as one of the strongest dimensions of
experience as for humans, senses are essential for engaging with the world
around them (Gao & Lan 2020:2; Hulten 2017:1). However, Harvey (2021),
along with Gao and Lan (2020:3), suggests that for sensory branding to be
effective, the brand stimuli should match those of the consumers in terms of
their gender, race and social class.

Experiences can range in intensity, with some being good and others being
negative in nature, however, as posited by Beig and Nika (2022:158), the
experiences created remain in the minds of consumers, thereby influencing
their commitment to a brand. Sensory branding and sensory marketing is
utilised to create positive and memorable brand experiences (Gao & Lan
2020:2; Hulten 2017:1), thereby enhancing brand loyalty (Harris et al 2017:1;
Kim & Chao 2019:10). Sensory branding is essential in controlling how
consumers feel when purchasing or consuming a product (Section 2.2.10).
Sensory experiences are powerful as they make use of the human sensorium
to create preference for a brand (Hulten 2020:14). Furthermore, Hulten
(2020:14) adds that because sensorial marketing is targeted at stimulating a
number of different senses simultaneously (multi-sensory marketing) (Section
2.2.11), it appeals to a large variety of consumers and has an influence on

51
consumers’ attitudes, learning and behaviour. Figure 2.2 depicts a model for
sensory marketing.

FIGURE 2.2
A MODEL OF SENSORY MARKETING

Sensation

Haptic Emotion
Attitude
Smell Learning/Memory
Sound Perception Behaviour
Taste
Vision Cognition

Source: Hulten (2020:14)

The sensory marketing model presented in Figure 2.2 signifies that based on
the perceptions made by individuals as a result of the sensory stimuli of a
product or brand, they will have certain emotional and cognitive reactions,
which in turn influence their overall attitudes, learning and behaviour.
However, as already mentioned, the most effective use of sensory marketing
and branding is when a number of the human senses are stimulated
simultaneously or throughout an experience to achieve a multi-sensory
experience.

2.2.11 Multi-sensory experiences

Kofka (1935) developed a theory that stated that the sum of a whole is not
necessarily equivalent to the parts which constitute it, but rather the whole may
take on a nature of its own, known as the Gestalt theory (Amanatiadis,
Kaburlasos & Kosmatopoulos 2018:1; Fang, Zhang, Yuan, Imamoglu & Liu
2019:4; Komura, Nakamura & Ohka 2021:2). The Gestalt theory, in a
marketing perspective in retail, translates to various sensory stimuli coexisting
and interacting to create memorable brand experiences (Hulten 2020:13).
Helmefalk and Berndt (2018:1081) and Hulten (2020:13), along with Imschloss
and Kuehnl (2017:931), explain that multi-sensory experiences facilitate the
ability to adjust individuals’ perceptions and purchasing decisions through

52
tapping into more than one human sense at a time. Multi-sensory experiences,
as stated by Hulten (2020:11), consist of three essential parts, namely
participation, emotions and cognition, and attendance. Furthermore, multi-
sensory marketing portrays that an experience does not occur in isolation, but
rather encompasses different aspects to create an overall holistic perception
of an experience, such as a shopping experience (Hulten 2020:16). Figure 2.3
presents a graphical representation of this.

FIGURE 2.3
A FRAMEWORK FOR MULTI-SENSORY EXPERIENCE AND SHOPPING
BEHAVIOUR

Affective
Visual
- General positivity
- Optimal stimulation

Taste Auditory Shopping

Behaviour
Cognitive
- Association
- Direct behavioural
Tactile Olfactory
effects

Source: Hulten (2020:16); Spence, Puccinelli, Grewal & Roggeveen

(2014:473)

From Figure 2.3 it can be seen that the interplay of sensual stimuli will result
in both affective and cognitive behaviour outcomes for an individual, which in
turn will influence their overall shopping behaviour, which is also depicted in
Figure 2.4.

53
 FIGURE 2.4
A GRAPHICAL DEPICTION OF A MULTI-SENSORY EXPERIENCE

Smell

Touch Sound
The multi-sensory
experience

Taste Sight

Source: Hulten (2020:16)

Table 2.3 presents a summary of the marketing, strategic marketing and

tactical marketing approaches that stem from the use of multi-sensory
experiences.

TABLE 2.3
SENSORY MARKETING APPROACHES
Sensory Marketing
Experience logic
Marketing Brand perspective
Identity creation
Sensory focus
Strategic Marketing Sensory experience
Sensory strategies
Dialogue and interactivity
Tactical Marketing Multi-dimensional communication
Digital technology
Source: Adapted from Hulten (2020:18)

Brand experiences, especially sensory experiences, are being used more and
more, which can be attributed to their relationship with brand loyalty. Specific
sensory strategies are discussed in Chapter 3: Section 3.5 - 3.9.

54
2.2.12 Brand experiences and brand loyalty

As reported by Brakus et al (2009:54), brand experience is directly related to

brand loyalty, which is supported by Ramaseshan and Stein (2014). It was
further determined by Mittal and Kamakura (2001) that brand experience has
the long-term effect of brand loyalty, which was agreed upon by Mascarenhas,
Kesavan and Bernacchi (2006). Figure 2.5 presents a graphical representation
of the proposed model of the influence that brand experience has on brand
equity.

FIGURE 2.5
A MODEL DEPICTING THE INFLUENCE OF BRAND EXPERIENCE ON
BRAND EQUITY

Source: Adapted from Beig & Nika (2022:161)

However, for the purpose of this study, the influence of brand experience,
specifically sensory experiences (discussed in Chapter 3), on brand loyalty is
focused on, as sensory experience has been highlighted as one of the
predominant dimensions of experience (Section 2.2.10) and brand loyalty as
the predominant determinant of brand equity (Section 2.2.2.4).

55
2.3 SUMMARY

From the above literature review there are various findings. In this section, the
literature findings are indicated with the abbreviation “LF” and the number of
the finding. From the above literature review, the following is indicated.

Within every product or service category there are hundreds of competitors

(LF1) and it is therefore important for brands to implement differentiation
strategies to achieve their desired brand position in the market (LF2). The
difference between differentiation and brand positioning is that brand
positioning is how the brand would like to be seen and thought of by their target
audience, whereas differentiation constitutes those strategies implemented to
achieve the desired brand position (LF3). Furthermore, brand positioning or
differentiation are directly linked to the ability to build a strong brand (LF4)
which allows consumers to distinguish competitors in the market (LF5).
Additionally, brands create the ability for customers to form emotional
attachments (LF6).

Creating a strong memorable brand is of the utmost importance, allowing for

a differential advantage in the market (LF7), as it provides the opportunity to
legally protect brand owners (LF8) and has the ability to impact consumer
behaviour and attitude (LF9), all of which contribute to building brand equity
(LF10). It has been found that a strong brand resulted in an increase in
perceived value of a product, and vice versa (LF11). Consumer based brand
equity is defined as the effect of consumers’ awareness and knowledge of a
brand on their response to marketing of a product offering from a brand (LF12).
There are five components for CBBE, namely brand awareness (LF13), brand
association (LF14), perceived quality (LF15), brand loyalty (LF16) and other
proprietary assets (LF17).

Brand awareness refers to the consumers’ ability to recognise a brand and

differentiate it in the market (LF18), whereas brand familiarity goes further than
just the consumers’ knowledge of the brand, and includes their experience of
the brand (LF19), classified as either informational familiarity (LF20) or

56
experiential familiarity (LF21). Brand association refers to any aspect of the
product offering that resonates within the minds of consumers when they think
of a certain brand (LF22) and positive associations result in strong brand
image (LF23). Brand associations constitute three separate forms, namely
attributes (LF24), benefits (LF25) and attitudes (LF26). Perceived quality is to
what extent consumers perceive a product offering to be superior to
alternatives in the market with reference to quality (LF27) and is subjective, as
it will differ between consumers based on personal preferences (LF28). It is
also accepted that as the price of an item increases, so do consumer
expectations of the product and brand (LF29). Moreover, brands that are
perceived as having higher levels of quality often experience higher levels of
consumer loyalty and it has further been proven that there is a direct
relationship between perceived quality and financial performance of a
business (LF30).

Brand loyalty is how attached a customer is to a certain brand (LF31), which

can be either attitudinal (LF32) or behavioural (LF33) and the successful
creation of brand loyalty should result in repurchase intention (RI) (LF34), the
generation of positive word of mouth (WOM) (LF35) as well as a consumer
being willing to pay more (WPM) (LF36). Brand loyalty should be measured
through the use of RI, WOM and WPM (LF37) as they can be utilised to
increase their profit margins as well as to gain a competitive advantage in the
market (LF38). Loyal customers are also known to purchase more regularly
than those consumers who are not loyal to a brand (LF39),

There is a definite decrease in consumer devotion to brands as online

shopping trends increase (LF40), which has become one of the most popular
forms of online activity (LF41). Brand loyalty is further influenced by gender,
where females are known to be more brand loyal (LF42), age, where older
consumers are known to be more brand loyal (LF43) and education level,
where more highly educated individuals have been found to be more loyal
(LF44). E-commerce is the sale of goods and services via the internet, or any
other digital platform, where payment may or may not be made online (LF45),
and the rise thereof is being fuelled by the effects of the global COVID-19

57
pandemic, due to financial implications as well as consumers being restricted
with regards to shopping in-store (LF46). However, it is predicted that
consumers will not return quickly to shopping in traditional brick-and-mortar
stores, which could be linked to the heightened risk of exposure to COVID-19
when shopping in-store (LF47). Benefits of e-commerce include an enlarged
reachable target audience (LF48), decreased costs (LF49), ease of
information sharing (LF50), the elimination of supply issues (LF51) and the
improvement of supply chain strategies (LF52). It is further notable that brand
loyalty is influenced by a consumer’s motivation when shopping, whereby
those shopping for fun are seeking experiential activities and those shopping
based on necessity are seeking efficiency (LF53).

As with traditional marketing, e-loyalty refers to the consumers’ attitude

towards the online store itself (LF54), but the loss of brand loyalty that is being
observed with e-commerce is due to consumers having less disposable
income (LF55), convenience (LF56), consumers are deterring other
consumers (LF57) and there are more avenues for error to occur (LF58).
Therefore, it is essential for brands to adapt their marketing approach for their
online platforms (LF59) to place emphasis on creating memorable
experiences (LF60) as consumers are looking for consumer-centric
experiences (LF61).

Modern consumers are more likely to be persuaded by the intangible benefits

that they stand to gain when making a purchase (LF162), which has given rise
to the need for consumer-centric experiences (LF63). Experiential marketing
is not a new concept and the experience model offers a way to understand
and interpret the experiences that a person has when purchasing and
consuming a product, based on the interactions that they have with that brand
(LF64). Within the experience model, four realms are identified, namely
entertainment, education, esthetic and escapist (LF65). These four realms run
along two dimensions of consumer involvement, namely participation and
connection (LF66) and while experiences can form part of any one, or more,
realms the most memorable experiences will constitute all four (LF67). It is

58
posited that memorable consumer experiences have the power to create
loyalty with a specific store or brand (LF68).

Experiential marketing is any form of marketing effort, that is customer-centric

in nature, and aims to create value through connection with consumers
through the interactions they have with a brand (LF69). The successful
implementation of experiential marketing results in increased brand equity
(LF70), which stems from consumer connections that can stem from a
multitude of different sources (LF71). Furthermore, experiences give rise to
emotional involvement in the shopping process through the utilisation of
emotions, imagination and sensation (LF72) and unlike product features and
benefits, are internal and are subjectively formed in the minds of consumers,
based on their own personal interaction with the product and brand (LF73).
Moreover, experiential marketing creates a competitive differentiation that
cannot easily be imitated, which explains why brands are attempting to
differentiate themselves by positioning the brand itself as an experience
(LF74). Brand experience constitutes the influence of a number of interactions
that interact to create one entire memorable experience (LF75), which can be
categorised into five dimensions, namely feel-related experiences (LF76),
cognitive experiences (LF77), act experiences (LF78), relate experiences
(LF79) and sensory experiences (LF80).

Feel-related strategies target a consumer’s deepest feelings, thereby creating

affective experience (LF81), whereas cognitive experiences are those that ask
a consumer to interact on an intellectual level (LF82). Act experiences aim to
alter the lifestyle of consumers in some way by creating interaction between
different consumers (LF83) and relate experiences target the consumer’s
basic need for self-improvement, socio-economic status and image (LF84),
while sensory experiences refer to the use of the five human senses (LF85).

Sensory experiences have been highlighted as one of the strongest

dimensions of experience for humans (LF86) and the use of numerous
sensory stimulations simultaneously, or multi-sensory marketing, appeals to a

59
large number of different consumers (LF87). Based on the perceptions made
by individuals as a result of the sensory stimuli of a product or brand, they will
have certain emotional and cognitive reactions (LF88), which in turn influence
their overall attitudes, learning and behaviour (LF89). It has been noted that
multi-sensory experiences are the most effective use of sensory marketing
and branding (LF90).

The Gestalt theory explains that the sum of a whole is not necessarily
equivalent to the parts which constitute it, but rather the whole may take on a
nature of its own (LF91). In a marketing perspective, the Gestalt theory means
that various sensory stimuli interact to create memorable brand experiences
(LF92). Sensory marketing is utilised to create positive and memorable brand
experiences (LF93), thereby enhancing brand loyalty (LF94), and brand
experience is directly related to brand loyalty (LF95).

In the chapter to follow (Chapter 3), sensory experience, or sensory branding,

will be conceptualised and the above discussed literature will be applied to the
topic of this study; namely, desired sensory branding strategies in-store versus
online, with specific reference to the skincare industry.

60
 CHAPTER 3

SENSORY BRANDING STRATEGIES AND THE SKINCARE INDUSTRY

3.1 INTRODUCTION

In the previous chapter, Chapter 2, an in-depth literature review pertaining to

brand experience and brand loyalty was provided. Chapter 2 focused on key
literature, which included a discussion on brands and how they differentiate
themselves; brand equity and the components thereof; the relationship
between e-commerce and brand loyalty; both consumer and brand
experiences, and, finally, the relationship between brand experience and
brand loyalty.

Within Chapter 3, an in-depth literature review of branding strategies is

provided. The chapter starts by providing an introduction to the beauty
industry, with a focus being placed on the skincare industry in South Africa.
Thereafter, the effects of the global COVID-19 pandemic on the skincare
industry are discussed and consequently, the growing online presence thereof
highlighted. Following this, it is explained that sensory branding and marketing
are imperative to brands within the skincare industry and both traditional and
digital sensory branding are deliberated. The next sections of Chapter 3
identify and discuss the independent variables of this study, namely sensory
branding strategies for the five human senses. Included in this discussion,
examples of sensory strategies utilised for each of the senses are provided in
the context of both traditional brick-and-mortar stores, as well as in the digital
marketspace. Lastly, the negative effects of sensory overload are
emphasised. The following section expands upon the literature relating to this
study.

3.2 SKINCARE INDUSTRY IN SOUTH AFRICA

Over the years, despite the effects of economic depressions, the global beauty
industry has been exceptionally resilient, evident from the growth observed
throughout the industry from 2012 – 2019 (Figure 3.1). More recently, there

61
 was a 5.8% growth from 2020 ($483 billion) to 2021 ($511 billion), which is
expected to reach $716 billion by 2025 and $785 billion by 2027 (Roberts
2021). The beauty industry comprises of four branches of industry, namely
cosmetics, skin care, personal care and fragrances (Roberts 2021). As
depicted in Figure 3.2, personal care constitutes the largest branch of industry
globally; however, the skincare industry presented one of the largest growth
rates from 2019 – 2025 (+24.3%) (Roberts 2021).

FIGURE 3.1
GROWTH STATISTICS RELATING TO THE BEAUTY INDUSTRY

* Amounts represent global beauty industry retail sales in $ billions.

Source: Gerstell, Marchessou, Schmidt & Spagnuolo (2020:3)

FIGURE 3.2
SEGMENT REVENUE AND GROWTH RATE OF THE BEAUTY INDUSTRY
(2019 – 2025)

300 268
226
Segment Revenue in $

250
200 169
118 136
150 90
billions

100 53 60 2019
50
0 2025
Cosmetics Skin care Personal care Fragrances
(+32.0%) (+24.3%) (+18.7%) (+13.7%)

Segments in the Beauty Industry

Source: Roberts (2021)

62
As reported by Statista (2022), the global skincare industry alone has an
estimated current market value of $155.8 billion, which has been forecasted
to reach $189.3 billion by 2025. Within the skincare industry, the largest target
audience is consumers between the ages of 18 years and 30 years and are
predominantly female (Djurovic 2021; Global Cosmetic Industry 2021). When
considering the South African skincare market in isolation, there is no
exception, with a calculated average growth rate of 7.4% from 2021 – 2026
(Mordor Intelligence 2021). Furthermore, the skincare industry in South Africa
is characterised by being highly competitive with many players (Mordor
Intelligence 2021).

Kestenbaum (2018) explains that the growth of the skincare industry can be
attributed to the generational shift whereby youth are opting to move away
from large commercial brands and are rather seeking out smaller artisanal
brands. Ridder (2021a) supports the claims by Kestenbaum (2018), stating
that there is an increase in demand from a younger consumer base, indicative
of the fact that people are starting to use skincare products at a younger age.
Furthermore, the surge in growth can be linked to the multitude of fads on “how
to get and stay beautiful” that arise (Kestenbaum 2018). Ridder (2020) adds
that by the year 2023, the skincare industry in South Africa will have a market
value of $839.2 million.

Skincare products are products that are developed with the aim of improving
the look and feel of one’s skin (Cosmetics Europe 2021) and according to
Ridder (2021b), skincare products are the predominant category within the
cosmetic industry, constituting 30% of beauty products sold (Romanowski
2020). As explained by Romanowski (2020), products that constitute the
skincare industry can be classified, based on their functionality and purpose.
The products can either remain on the skin, such as moisturisers, anti-aging
creams, tanners and over the counter drug products, or be designed to remove
something from the skin, such as cleansers, body soaps, toners, bubble bath
and exfoliation products (FDA 2020; Romanowski 2020). Due to the rapid
growth rate and competitiveness of the skincare industry, competitors are

63
under much pressure to be innovative, which has only been magnified by the
effects of the global COVID-19 pandemic.

3.2.1 The skin care industry and the global COVID-19 pandemic

While it has been noted that the global COVID-19 pandemic will have a larger
influence on retailers than any other economic recession recorded, evidence
has been presented that indicates that the skincare industry will remain
relatively resilient (Gerstell et al 2020:2). An example of this can be seen in
China, where sales declined by 80% in February 2020, but by March 2020
they had again increased to only a 20% decline (Gerstell et al 2020:2).
Additionally, Gerstell et al (2020:5) report that while individuals said that they
planned to spend less on personal skincare for the foreseeable future, they
were even more unwilling to spend money on other luxuries, such as apparel.
This indicates that consumers view skincare as an affordable luxury, with
consumers indicating that they spend between R200 and R800 per month on
skincare in South Africa (Rootman, Oosthuizen & Mabuyana 2019:452;
Stiehler & Jordaan 2019:75). Bowling (2020) adds that consumer spending on
skincare increases as they get older, which may be attributed to more
noticeable effects of aging.

Many segments of the beauty industry have suffered as a result of the COVID-
19. Contradictorily, skin care products may be benefiting from home selfcare
and pampering, with many stores reporting that their yearly sales of skincare
products have not declined. This has been attributed to the fact that salons
and beauty stores were closed in many parts of the world, and Gerstell et al
(2020:6) note that even when the stores opened, many individuals could no
longer afford the luxury. It should also be considered that while many of the
changes being seen in purchasing trends in the skincare industry may be
temporary, there are long-term impacts, such as where the products are being
bought.

64
3.2.2 The shift of sales from in-store to online for skin care products

Prior to the global COVID-19 pandemic, 85% of sales of beauty products were
in-store; however, in 2020 it was recorded that 30% of these stores closed
down, most of which will not be reopening. Therefore more consumers are
moving to online shopping (Gerstell et al 2020:2). Djordjevic (2021) agrees
and further reports that consumers are opting for online shopping over in-store
shopping, with a rise from 1.66 billion global digital buyers in 2016 to over 2.14
billion global digital buyers in 2021 (Coppola 2020). Gerstell et al (2020:3)
further emphasise that while there has been an estimated 20% - 30% growth
in recorded online sales of skincare products, online sales do not offset in-
store purchases. This may be linked to the fact that consumers are skeptical
when shopping online for skincare products (Beck & Jensen 2019) and Wylie
(2018) adds that consumers are especially partial to in-store shopping or
browsing when looking for a new product with reference to the beauty industry.
However, it is surmised that the migration back to in-store shopping will be
slow and differentiated (Gerstell et al 2020:2) and will differ based on age
groups. Figure 3.3 provides a comparison of shopping habits between age
groups with specific reference to skincare.

FIGURE 3.3
SALES IN-STORE VS ONLINE FOR SKIN CARE PRODUCTS BY
DIFFERENT AGE GROUPS

* Amounts represent the percentage (%) of consumers

Source: Gerstell et al (2020:6)

65
The popularity and growth of the online shopping industry have been attributed
to its association with affordability and convenience (Arora & Aggarwal
2017:92; Djordjevic 2021) and Roberts (2021) adds that with regards to online
shopping, consumers who place high value on the quality of the product will
shop directly from a brand’s website. This was also found by Donati (2020),
where 64% of consumers in the beauty industry who place high value on
quality, preferred to shop directly from a brand’s website when shopping
online. Furthermore, Duvall (2019) reports that consumers are more likely to
buy larger quantities when shopping online, attributed to the cost of shipping.

With the rise of online shopping, an already saturated skincare industry has
become even more inundated with products, which has led to consumers
having higher expectations of their personal care products (Cosmetics
Business 2020). As discussed in Chapter 2: Section 2.2.1, brands are relying
more on how their products make the consumer feel, which can be achieved
through the creation of memorable brand experiences (Chapter 2: Section
2.2.5). Aidnik (2013:4), Roberts (2022), Statista (2022b) and Zulqarnain, Zafar
and Shahzad (2015:1167) add that skincare products are often sold via retail
outlets, where low-end or cheaper skincare products are sold in different types
of stores than high-end or more expensive skincare products and based on
where a consumer shops they will have different expectations for their
experience. For example, artisan brands that are associated with higher prices
are normally sold via specialised stores, whereas lower end products, such as
mass market skincare products, would be sold in supermarkets or chain
stores.

However, within the skincare industry, regardless of the purchase being made
in-store or online, sensory experiences have been highlighted as being of
paramount importance (Cosmetics Business 2020; Whitehouse 2017) and
Singh (2020) adds that fragrance is a key factor in the buying decision made
by consumers when shopping for personal care products. Moreover, with
specific reference to the skincare industry, how the product packaging, as well
as the product itself, feels signifies quality to the consumer (McCormick
2014:4; Mohamed, Medina & Romo 2018:63; White 2020). Moeglin (2015)

66
adds that European consumers identify sensory branding aspects of beauty
products as highly important.

3.3 TRADITIONAL SENSORY BRANDING

While, for the most part, purchasing decisions made by consumers are
conscious processes, there is also an aspect of unconsciousness, which is
driven by inner motivations (Dani & Pabalkar 2013:300; Liegeois & Rivera
2011:16). Liegeois and Rivera (2011:16) further explain that inner motivations,
which govern buying behaviour, are linked to the five human senses (smell,
sight, hearing, touch and taste) (Foroudi & Palazzo 2019:136; Liegeois &
Rivera 2011:16; Upadhyaya 2017:353). The conscious purchasing decisions
made by consumers can be viewed as rational. However, Liegeois and Rivera
(2011:16) emphasise that humans are not solely rational beings, but are also
influenced by their emotions or feelings and will therefore favour a brand based
on the personality and experience it portrays.

Beig and Nika (2022:158), Cowen-Elstner (2018:18), Foroudi and Palazzo

(2019:131), Galande (2019:47), Hulten (2020:18; 2017:2), Manojkumar,
Vasavada and Sharma (2021:655), Ong et al (2018:5), Pogorzelski (2018:84),
Suardi (2019:16), Upadhyaya (2017:353) and Wala et al (2019:109) define
sensory branding as the use of the five human senses to engage consumers
with the brand in such a way that creates positive emotions, perceptions and
memories, ultimately resulting in favourable brand preference. However,
experiences can range in intensity and can be both positive and negative in
nature (Beig & Nika 2022:158), and once an individual makes a sensory
association to a product or brand, it is almost impossible to reverse it (Foroudi
& Palazzo 2019:132).

It can therefore be said that sensorial marketing and branding create long-term
experiences for consumers that remain in their minds well after the encounter.
Gao and Lan (2020:2) and Hulten (2020:19; 2017:1) attribute this to the fact
that the human senses are responsible for conveying the stimuli that an
individual is exposed to into perceptions. Hulten (2015) developed the sensory

67
marketing model to explain how brands can make use of sensory strategies to
distinguish themselves from competitors in the market (Figure 3.4).

FIGURE 3.4
SENSORY MARKETING MODEL

Source: Hulten (2020:27)

Other than sensory branding providing a brand with the opportunity to

differentiate themselves in the market, there are numerous other advantages
to implementing sensory strategies, including building brand associations;
forming emotional bonds with consumers; enhancing the familiarity that
consumers have with the brand; generating positive word of mouth; and
increasing the perceived quality and value of a product, thereby allowing for
higher pricing (Upadhyaya 2017:354). It stands to reason then, that the more
senses that a brand can positively stimulate, the more likely it is that a
consumer will differentiate and give preference to the brand. As Kovacevic
(2022) explains, GenXers (individuals born between the year 1965 and 1980,
which would make them between the ages of 42 and 57 years at the time of
this study) are a group of consumers who mostly shop in-store and while they
do make purchases online, they do not exhibit the same enthusiasm for online

68
shopping when compared to millennials (individuals born between 1981 and
1996, which would make them between the ages of 26 and 41 years at the
time of this study) (Beresford Research 2022).

In traditional marketing, sensory banding has been associated with the

interaction with in-store shoppers; however as digitalisation is expanding,
fuelled by the effects of COVID-19 (Chapter 2, Section 2.2.3 & Chapter 3,
Section 3.2.1), brands are having to embrace a whole new shopping platform
and create innovative ways to deliver sensory branding online (Griffith 2020;
Sarathy 2020).

3.4 DIGITAL SENSORY BRANDING

Technology is advancing at an exponential rate (Pathan 2018:189; Ricker &

Thatcher 2017:368) and individuals are spending more and more time online
(Deyan 2021; Koetsier 2020), indicating the importance of technology as a
communication tool (Hulten 2020:9). As the world has progressed, especially
in the digital space, people are becoming more mobile, both physically and
socially (Hulten 2020:9). Hulten (2020:9) adds that any time that individuals
make use of online or digital platforms to communicate or exchange
information, it should be considered a multi-sensory experience. However,
there is a lack of sensory branding being implemented online, which can be
viewed as a forgone opportunity in a marketing context (Kaushik & Gokhale
2021:5377; Petit et al 2018:42).

Sarathy (2020) adds that consumers are no less demanding of brands online,
and are still expecting engaging sensory experiences that they would receive
in-store. Hulten (2020:9) agrees and opines that with the array of new online
platforms, such as social media sites and smart phones, it is no longer
sufficient for businesses to practice traditional marketing techniques only.
Furthermore, Kaushik and Gokhale (2021:378) and Sarathy (2020) opine that
in order to do this, brands need to find creative ways to mimic the in-store
experience online, which will instil confidence and solidify the credibility of the

69
brand. Technology does not only influence shopping patterns and purchasing
behaviour online, but also in physical retail environments (Hulten 2020:9).

Another aspect of the online market-space that needs to be considered,

according to Hulten (2020:9), is that the number of consumers reached has
increased vastly and while this can lead to positive outcomes, it also amplifies
the possibility for negative feedback, such as negative ratings or comments. It
can therefore be concluded that while implementing sensory branding online
is perceived as being more difficult, it is necessary.

Most commonly, marketers make use of sight and hearing when utilising digital
sensory branding strategy (Griffith 2020; Petit et al 2018:42; Sarathy 2020),
however there are new interactive and sensory-enabling technologies being
developed that brands can use to create cohesion between their in-store
atmosphere and their online “webmosphere” (Petit et al 2018:42). To date,
there is no technology that can replace physical touch or taste online, but as
stated by Petit et al (2018:43), there are numerous strategies that can be used
to still stimulate these senses. However, many digital innovations fail due to
consumer resistance (Talwar, Talwar, Kaur & Dhir 2020:287), especially from
older consumers who are slower to new technology (Vaportzis, Clausen &
Gow 2017:2). It is further notable that millennials and Gen Z (consumers born
between 1997 and 2012, making them between the ages of 10 and 25 at the
time of this study) are the consumers who rely the most on digital commerce
(Smith 2020). The sections that follow discuss sensory branding strategies for
the five human senses, for both in-store and online application.

3.5 VISUAL SENSORY BRANDING

Sight as a sense in retail encompasses how consumers make use of their eyes
to experience a product or brand (Cowen-Elstner 2018:23; Hulten 2020:58;
Pogorzelski 2018:84). As seen in Figure 3.5, the human eye is a complex
organ, where the pupil regulates light and the cornea and lens refract the light
to create an image on the retina (Hulten 2020:61). Hulten (2020:61) adds that

70
the human brain uses existing imagery to contextualise new images created.
Therefore, all new images are unique to each individual.

FIGURE 3.5
THE HUMAN EYE

Source: Adapted from Hulten (2020:61)

Of the five senses, sight is the most commonly used by brands to create brand
identity and awareness (Foroudi & Palazzo 2019:136; Hulten 2020:59;
Pogorzelski 2018:85; Shanthi, Murari, Rafeeque Ahmed & Suganya
2019:205), as it is the most seductive of all the senses (Upadhyaya 2017:353).
Biswas, Labrecque, Lehmann and Markos (2014:114), along with Foroudi and
Palazzo (2019:136), Galande (2019:48), Hulten (2017:5) and Pogorzelski
(2018:85), add that visual cues are what consumers first notice, which is why
they comprise the largest focus in marketing strategies.

Visual cues have the ability to influence behaviour relating to brand

preference, consumption quantity and purchasing behaviour (Bjerk 2015:3;
Hulten 2020:58; 2017:5; Wang 2013:806). The translation of visual stimuli to
meaningful information in the human brain is known as visual perception and
provides the foundation for decision making (Hulten 2020:60; Yang, Wang,
Jiang, Song & Meng 2020:2204). Furthermore, as explained by Didehban,
Najar, Momeni and Attarian (2021:100), Dybala, Butterfield, Hendren-
Santiago and Hara (2020:1864) and Hulten (2020:60), even if an image is
incomplete, humans have the ability to interpret the message, which goes
back to the principles of the Gestalt theory, whereby an individual can create
a whole from separate parts (Chapter 2: Section 2.2.11). However, the more

71
visual cues that are excluded, the greater the difficulty in interpreting the
message, and the greater the chances of a misunderstanding occurring
(Hulten 2020:60). Uddin (2011:13) adds that visual cues will be interpreted
differently based on an individual’s context, such as their culture, gender or
beliefs. Furthermore, Kim and Lee (2021:8) opine that these factors, as well
as the age of consumers, have an influence on what visual stimuli will be
appealing or not.

As proclaimed by Turley and Milliman (2000:194), visual cues can be

categorised into interior and external variables as well as layout and design,
while Bitner (1992:66) surmises that visual cues should be seen as a segment
of ambient conditions. Hulten (2020:61/206) concurs with the statement that
visual sensory stimuli should be complemented with the use of other senses,
or the creation of multi-sensory experiences. Furthermore, Kotler (1973:51)
opines that visual cues consist also of colour and lighting.

The human eye allows people to differentiate between six colours, namely red,
orange, yellow, green, blue and violet (Hulten 2020:61). In Figure 3.6 a colour
wheel is provided. Colour wheels are used by artists to understand colour and
how the mixing thereof creates additional hues (Dodgson 2019:1). Colours, as
stated by Cowen-Elstner (2018:23), Galande (2019:48) and Huang and Jen
(2020:9904), influence consumer behaviour and are a key factor to consider
by marketers for businesses or brands. This is proved in the statistic that brand
recognition is increased by 80% with the effective use of colour (Hillier 2018).
It is therefore important that marketers understand which colours complement
each other.

However, as further argued by Cowen-Elstner (2018:23), Huang and Jen

(2020:9904), Hulten (2017:6) and Pogorzelski (2018:85), colours have
meanings which they allude to and marketers need to ensure that the colour’s
meaning is consistent with the message that they are trying to portray. Figure
3.6 provides the colour wheel and Table 3.1 a summary of colours and their
meanings.

72
 FIGURE 3.6
THE COLOUR WHEEL

Source: Adapted from Dodgson (2019:1); Kerry (2019)

TABLE 3.1
A SUMMARY OF THE MEANINGS OF DIFFERENT COLOURS

Colour Meanings

Yellow Happy; youthful; hope and positivity; caution.

Nature; growth; renewal; rebirth; taking action; prosperity and stability;
Green
soothing and relaxing.
Serene and calming; intelligence and responsibility; depth and power;
Blue
peaceful; trust and dependability.
Warmth; warning; energetic; health and vitality; vibrancy and fun;
Orange
youthfulness.
Red Heat; energy; passion; love; anger; blood; appetite; speed; call to action.

Violet Royalty; prestigious and luxurious; expensive; religion and spirituality.

White Virginity; clean; simple; purity.

Exclusivity; power; elegance; mysterious; unapproachable; mourning;
Black
intimidating.
Source: Adapted from Hulten (2020:69); Liegeois & Rivera (2011:18)

Lighting is also important in retail outlets as it has been found to have an

influence on the consumer’s perception of the store as a whole (Cowen-
Elstner 2018:25; Hulten 2020:70). Additionally, Hartman (2020:5) and Hulten
(2020:70) postulate that the brightness of a store can influence an individual’s
cognitive processes, which is linked to the fact that bright light increases
mental alertness. The choice of lighting will also be dependent on the nature
of the store. For example, a restaurant would make use of dimmer lighting,

73
whereas a pharmacy would make use of brighter lighting. Hartman (2020:6)
states that lighting can have an influence on the duration that consumers stay
in a store, which can be attributed to the effect that lighting has on peoples’
moods. Abimnwi and Njuguna (2015:35) present a framework (Figure 3.7) to
explain the relationship between lighting, emotions and consumer behaviour.

FIGURE 3.7
A FRAMEWORK FOR THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LIGHTING,
EMOTIONS AND CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR

Consumer Behaviour
Emotions
• Liking the store
Lighting
Pleasure, Desire, • Time spent in the store
Arousal • Money spent at the store
• Number of items bought

Source: Adapted from Abimnwi & Njuguna (2015:35)

Hulten (2020:70) further states that lighting offers marketers an easy way to
vary an environment, signifying different moods to consumers within one retail
store. It can therefore be concluded that visual stimuli have a significant impact
on the product or brand preference and in turn, on purchase intention.

3.5.1 Traditional in-store visual strategies

In traditional circumstances, visual sensory branding can incorporate colours

used by a brand, logo design, packaging design, lighting in the store, the
cleanliness of the store, the design and layout of the store itself (both internally
and externally), as well as visible signage and display features, such as
mannequins in a clothing store (Cowen-Elstner 2018:24; Foroudi & Palazzo
2019:136; Hulten 2020:59). Upadhyaya (2017:357), as well as Wala et al
(2019:112), adds that the uniform or clothing of staff members is also an
important visual cue. Of the numerous visual cues used in stores, it has been
noted that the design of the product itself as well as the décor, cleanliness and
lighting of the store have the largest influence on purchasing behaviour and
can even influence an individual’s mood (Foroudi & Palazzo 2019:136).

74
Štěchová (2017:14) further opines that the text on the product packaging,
especially with regards to the skincare industry, is important.

3.5.2 Digital online visual strategies

The digital space is placing increased worth on the use of visual stimuli in
marketing a brand or product, evident in the use of digital photos, movies,
trailers and all other internet advertising (Hulten 2020:59; Petit et al 2018:44).
An example of this is observable on Instagram, where the popularity of the app
is based solely on sharing visual imagery (pictures) with others. Digital sensory
strategies share some aspects that are used in traditional sensory strategy,
such as the colours used by a brand, logo design and packaging design.
However, instead of considering ambient features of a store, digital strategies
must consider the webmosphere of the digital platform, such as the layout and
user friendliness of websites. Additionally, the use of colour as backgrounds
on digital market spaces has been proved to influence consumers’ perception
of a site as well as their perceived download speed (Broeder & Snijder 2019:7;
Broeder & Wildeman 2020:76; Cowen-Elstner 2018:24; Patel 2021).

The digital world is rapidly advancing, bringing about new means to

incorporate online sensory strategy, that enables a richer consumer
experience (Griffith 2020). With specific reference to digital online visual
strategy, the use of 3D imaging (Algharabat, Alalwan, Rana & Dwivedi
2017:223), virtual reality environments (VR) (Griffith 2020; Petit et al 2019:44)
and virtual try-ons (VTO), or augmented interactive (AI/AR) technology (Griffith
2020; Huang & Liao 2017:449) are becoming popular. Algharabat et al
(2017:204) explain that, as opposed to a static 2-dimensional image, 3D
imaging allows consumers to have a 360-degree view as they move their
mouse over the product image (see Figure 3.8a). Furthermore, Petit et al
(2019:44) opine that VR environments provide consumers with a more
interactive and immersive experience (see Figure 3.8b). Finally, VTOs is an
AI technology, which enables a consumer to either create a look-alike avatar
of themselves, or to upload an image of themselves, so that they can better
evaluate what a product may look like, solidifying buying decisions (see Figure

75
3.8c) (Huang & Liao 2017:450; Petit et al 2019:48). All of the above change
the way that consumers interact in the online marketspace.

FIGURE 3.8
VISUAL ENABLING TECHNOLOGIES

A B

C
Source: (A) Algharabat et al (2017:224); (B) Petit et al (2019:44); (C) Huang &
Liao (2017:450)

3.6 AUDITORY SENSORY BRANDING

An environment is perceived differently by each individual, which is largely

attributed to the influence of sound (Hulten 2020:84). Simply explained, sound
waves from the environment travel to people’s eardrums, causing vibrations
that their brains transmit into sounds (Figure 3.9) (Hulten 2020:86; NIH 2015;
Stucki 2020:19; Union Hearing Aid Centre 2019). Sound is measured in
decibels (dB), with the minimum level tolerated by humans being 0dB and the
highest being 120dB (Hulten 2020:87; Stucki 2020:20). Additionally, there are
sounds that are of a high enough dB to hear, but that the human brain does
not acknowledge, known as background noise (Hulten 2020:87).

76
 FIGURE 3.9
THE HUMAN EAR

Source: Adapted from Hulten (2020:87)

Auditory stimuli are differentiated from other sensory stimuli in the way that
people interpret them. Sound is interpreted internally, whereas the other
senses are seen as being externally interpreted (Hulten 2020:87), and
therefore sound has powerful effects on an individual’s emotions. An important
aspect of sound is the melodic contour thereof, which refers to the change in
pitch of the sound (Hallam, Cross & Thaut 2016:144; Luo & Hayes 2019:2;
Simon 2017), as it explains the natural linkages between music and human
emotions (Benenti & Meini 2018:648; de Ceuster 2014:1; Hulten 2020:88).

According to Cowen-Elstner (2018:29) and Hulten (2020:85; 2017:6), the use

of auditory branding constitutes three main categories, namely ambient sound
(a sound that stems from nature or sound machines) (Chattopadhyay
2017:352); voice sound (which originates from a human) (Tiwari & Tiwari
2012:3; Zhang 2016:2614); and music sound (sound made through the use of
instruments or a combination of the different categories of sound, such as a
song) (Reybrouck, Podlipniak & Welch 2019:1). Cowen-Elstner (2018:29),
Hulten (2020:86) and Shaed, Chik, Aini and Nongchik (2015:34) add that
sound has a strong link to vision, as the brain makes use of both in unison to
make associations, creating a long-lasting memory and brand loyalty.

Auditory branding influences people’s moods, behaviour and feelings, making

it a powerful marketing tool that brands can use to shape buying decision and
brand preference, both in-store and online (Bartholme & Melewar 2016:420;

77
Cowen-Elstner 2018:28; Foroudi & Palazzo 2019:136; Galande 2019:48;
Hulten 107:6; PH Media 2021; Pogorzelski 2018:86; Shanthi et al 2019:205).
However, Cowen-Elstner (2018:28) argues that sound, when used
simultaneously with advertising, can influence an individual’s ability to process
information. As in the case with visual cues, auditory cues have been divided
into the type of sound or music (Areni & Kim 1993:338), the beat or tempo of
the sound (Hulten 2020:94; Knoeferle, Spangenberg, Herrmann & Landwehr
2011:326) and if consumers find the sound pleasurable (Cowen-Elstner
2018:28; Duncan & Herrington 2013:278). As posited by Stothart and
Kazanina (2016:23), the consumer’s age can play a part in whether or not they
find a sound pleasurable as older individuals do not regulate or perceive sound
as a younger individual would.

As posited by Foroudi and Palazzo (2019:137) and Galande (2019:48), the

tempo of music is of paramount importance, and can influence many aspects
of consumers’ purchasing behaviour. The following findings were made by
Garlin and Owen (2006:756) regarding the influence of sound on consumer
behavioural responses (Cowen-Elstner 2018:29; Foroudi & Palazzo
2019:137):
• pleasurable music in a store has a direct link to store traffic;
• the tempo of music is the most influential auditory factor on consumer
behaviour; and
• the tempo and volume of music can influence the length of time that
consumers will stay in a store (slow tempo with low volumes will encourage
longer stays and vice versa).

Foroudi and Palazzo (2019:137), however, warn that prior to selecting a brand
sound, the marketers of the brand should first establish what the consumers
actually want and need. Additionally, Hulten (2020:86) and Suarez and Gumiel
(2014:264) caution that not only does sound have the ability to give rise to
positive feelings, it also has the ability to give rise to feelings of fear and
anxiety, which would lead to negative sound experiences. Another benefit of
sound in differentiating a brand is that it is an affordable marketing tool that is

78
easily accessible (Hulten 2020:85; Suarez & Gumiel 2014:264). Furthermore,
the findings of Simha (2019:35) solidify that, when appropriately utilised, music
in brick and mortar stores has the ability to grab consumers’ attention and
increase persuasiveness.

Hulten (2020:94; 2017:6), along with Israel, Lehav and Ziv (2019:100232),
Randhir, Lataha, Tooraiven and Monishan (2016:280), Suarez and Gumiel
(2014:264) and Wollner, Hammerschmidt and Albrecht (2018:3), adds that
music can be used to increase sales volume and control the pace of consumer
shopping. In general, it has been found that fast paced music excites
individuals, while slower paced music creates a relaxing or calm environment,
which extends to the staff (Cabigas 2018:2; Feng, Suri & Bell 2014:491; Hulten
2020:94; Kim & Zauberman 2019:505; Pantoja & Borges 2021:102730;
Randhir et al 2016:281; Wala et al 2019:112). While auditory stimuli can be a
useful tool to marketers in creating a cohesive environment (Randhir et al
2016:281), Cowen-Elstner (2018:28) cautions that the success of auditory
sensory branding is dependent on the interaction of consumers. Furthermore,
Flowers (2020) suggest that the pronunciation and spelling of a brand name
should also be considered an important auditory factor.

3.6.1 Traditional in-store auditory strategies

In the context of traditional sensory branding strategies, sound cues refer to

the music in stores, the jingles used by a brand, the sound or pronunciation of
the brand’s name and even sounds associated with using the physical product
itself (Cowen-Elstner 2018:30; Foroudi & Palazzo 2019:136; Griffith 2020;
Hulten 2020:93; 2017:6; Wala et al 2019:112).

3.6.2 Digital online auditory strategies

In many cases, the strategies used in brick and mortar stores can be carried
through to digital stores, such as with brand jingles and the sound or
pronunciation of the brands name and Wala et al (2019:112) state that
traditionally, sound has been used by businesses to transfer messages or

79
information about a product or brand in the form of radio or television, but as
the internet has advanced so has the use of auditory stimuli. Another means
of making use of auditory sensory strategy online, is through video adverts
and background music (Hulten 2020:99).

3.7 OLFACTORY SENSORY BRANDING

According to Upadhyaya (2017:353), smell is the most sensitive of the five

human senses, the strength of which lies in its ability to create strong feelings
of reminiscence (Hulten 2017:7; Pogorzelski 2018:86; Shanthi et al 2019:206;
Vega-Gomez, Miranda-Gonzalez, Mayo, Gonzalez-Lopez & Pascual-Nebreda
2020:1). Olfactory stimuli are received through the olfactory cells in the nose,
which are all responsible for identifying specific odours, and are then carried
to the olfactory bulb in the brain (Cantone et al 2017:53; Hulten 2020:112;
Kumar 2020a; Marin 2015; Mennella, Bobowski & Liem 2018:58; NIH 2017).
From here, the electrical signals are redirected to the appropriate areas of the
brain where they are processed to make associations (Figure 3.10) (Hulten
2020:112; Kumar 2020a; Marin 2015; NIH 2017; Wala et al 2019:112).

FIGURE 3.10
THE HUMAN NOSE

Source: Adapted from Hulten (2020:113)

Additionally, Hulten (2020:112), Monell Chemical Senses Center (2019),

Nuwer (2013), Simon (2015), Suarez and Gumiel (2014:268) and Vega-
Gomez et al (2020:1) explain that the sense of smell is highly complex in that
not only is it synthetic, but that each individual has a slightly unique set of

80
receptors, meaning that a single fragrance will be perceived differently by each
individual. It is therefore impossible to know exactly how a fragrance will be
experienced. Another factor that makes it difficult to predict how an individual
will experience a new fragrance is that the human brain makes emotional
connections to different fragrances, known as trigeminal stimulation
(Hammond 2018; Hulten 2020:112; 2017:7; Licon, Manesse, Dantec, Fournel
& Bensafi 2018:1; Tremblay & Frasnelli 2018:611; Vega-Gomez et al 2020:1;
Walsh 2020).

Pogorzelski (2018:86), Randhir et al (2016:279) and Shanthi et al (2019:206)

add that humans can differentiate over 10 000 fragrances and Cowen-Elstner
(2018:30), Foroudi and Palazzo (2019:137), Hulten (2017:7), Pogorzelski
(2018:86), Suarez and Gumiel (2014:268), Vega-Gomez et al (2020:2) and
Walsh (2020) relate olfactory stimuli in branding to not only the fragrance of
the product itself, but also to those fragrances that constitute the ambiance of
the store where it is sold. Furthermore, a pleasurable fragrance can have an
influence on the recall of an experience, the time consumers spend in a store
and even the amount that they are willing to spend on a product (Cao & Duong
2021:134; Cowen-Elstner 2018:30; Foroudi & Palazzo 2019:137; Hulten
2017:7; Randhir et al 2016:280; Sliburyte & Vaitieke 2019:102; Srinivau, Balaji
& Rajendran 2021:12553; Suarez & Gumiel 2014:269; Vega-Gomez et al
2020:2). It is also notable that when setting a brand fragrance or a fragrance
of a product, the business needs to consider who its customers are, so as to
create cohesion with their brand (Foroudi & Palazzo 2019:137; Randhir et al
2016:280). For example, women are more sensitive to fragrances than men
are and the elderly are less sensitive to fragrances than youth are (Randhir et
al 2016:280).

Product fragrances can be used as a primary product attribute whereby the

fragrance is the physical product (such as with air fresheners or perfumes), a
secondary product attribute, whereby a fragrance is applied to an otherwise
odourless product (such as brand specific car fresheners) or for advertising or
sales promotion (Hulten 2020:127; van Niekerk 2020:46). The power of the
sense of smell lies in its longevity in the mind of an individual (Cowen-Elstner

81
2018:30; Hulten 2020:110; 2017:7; Randhir et al 2016:279; Suarez & Gumiel
2014:267; Vega-Gomez et al 2020:2), where humans can even remember
fragrances from their early childhood, which is unlike any of the other human
senses.

Fragrances have an influence on an individual’s cognitive processes,

emotional responses as well as their behaviour and can be consciously or
unconsciously administered and is explicitly linked to physical taste, forming
the foundation for taste experiences as a whole (Cowen-Elstner 2018:30;
Galande 2019:48; Hulten 2020:111; 2017:7; Pogorzelski 2018:87; Vega-
Gomez et al 2020:2; Wala et al 2019:112).

3.7.1 Traditional in-store olfactory strategies

In brick and mortar stores, in addition to the fragrance of the product itself,
fragrances are utilised to create a unique atmosphere that can help consumers
to differentiate brands, or a signature fragrance (Hulten 2020:121; Pogorzelski
2018:87; Upadhyaya 2017:357; Wala et al 2019:113; Walsh 2020). One
method being used that allows brick and mortar stores to effectively make use
of olfactory stimuli is nebulization technology, such as aerosols or air vents
(Hulten 2020:112). Additionally, the fragrance of staff in an establishment also
forms part of the ambient fragrance and should therefore be considered
(Hulten 2020:121). Moreover, many outlets and brands have created signature
fragrances that can be identified by consumers or that create a certain
atmosphere, known as a place marker (Hulten 2020:122; Pogorzelski
2018:87).

3.7.2 Digital online olfactory strategies

As of yet, there is no technology that can replace physical smell via an online
platform. However, many marketers still try to make use of product specific
olfactory strategies on their digital platforms by making use of imagery and
descriptive words (Alac 2017:143; Cowen-Elstner 2018:31; Hauser 2017;
Hulten 2020:127). By doing this, marketers hope that just seeing the image or

82
hearing about the smell, will enable individuals to make the same associations
as if they could physically smell the product.

Another strategy which is being used is the distribution of “scratch-and-sniff”

cards, where businesses provide a URL or scannable code for consumers to
visit, upon which they can scratch the card and actually smell the product while
they read about it (Hulten 2020:128). Finally, researchers are continuously
working on developing multisensory devices that will enable olfactory stimuli
to be delivered to consumers via the internet. An example of this is Season
Traveller, developed by Ranasinghe et al (2018), that is a Head Mounted
Display that can replicate smells, temperature as well as wind in a location,
which allows individuals to get a feel of a location without actually being there
(Figure 3.11) (Petitet al 2019:53).

FIGURE 3.11
SEASON TRAVELLER HMD DEVICE

Source: Ranasinghe et al (2018:1)

3.8 TACTILE SENSORY BRANDING

As stated by Foroudi and Palazzo (2019:137), as well as Hulten (2020:138)

and Pramudya and Seo (2019:2), the sense of touch constitutes one of the
principal sources of stimuli for humans and involves how humans interpret
touching and being touched (Cowen-Elstner 2018:25; Hulten 2020:142; Wala
et al 2019:114). The sense of touch is also known as haptics and occurs when
consumers use any part of their skin to touch an object or another person (Ali
& Ahmed 2019:118; Hulten 2020:138; Upadhyaya 2017:353; Serino &

83
Haggard 2010:225). Foroudi and Foroudi (2021:243), Hulten (2020:138) and
Upadhyaya (2017:353) further state that the skin is the largest organ of a
human, stretching out to about 2 square metres and when the touch receptors
in the skin receive stimuli, they transmit them to the sensory cortex in the brain
where they can be interpreted (Figure 3.12). Touch receptors are not evenly
located around the body, but are rather clustered in certain areas, with the
hands and fingertips being the most populated (Hulten 2020:139; Randhir et
al 2016:281; Rynette & Kjesbo 2017; Serino & Haggard 2010:229).

FIGURE 3.12
THE HUMAN SKIN STRUCTURE

Source: Adapted from Hulten (2020:138)

Hulten (2020:138; 2017:8), along with Pogorzelski (2018:88), Randhir et al

(2016:281), Shanthi et al (2019:206), Stach (2018:25), Suarez and Gumiel
(2014:269) and Wala et al (2019:114), further explains that touch relates to
factors such as texture, shape and temperature and notes that touch is
especially relevant for businesses who sell physical products. Touch is an
important aspect of sensory branding as it makes it easier for individuals to
perceive a product and often associate the feel of a product with quality
(Cowen-Elstner 2018:25; Hoang & Tuckova 2020:1286; Hulten 2020:136;
2017:8; Pogorzelski 2018:88; Shanthi et al 2019:206; Stach 2018:25; Suarez
& Gumiel 2014:269) and Cowen-Elstner (2018:25), along with Hulten (2017:8),
Peck (2020), Perry (2017) and Suarez and Gumiel (2014:269), adds that touch
also has a close relationship with ownership and valuation. Tactile sensory
stimuli work in close collaboration with sight, as an individual will first judge an

84
item based on sight and then will proceed to touch the item to further
investigate (Ali & Ahmed 2019:118; Galande 2019:48; Hulten 2020:137;
2017:8; Wala et al 2019:114). Additionally, as opined by Hoang and Tuckova
(2020:1286) and Hulten (2020:138; 2017:9), many individuals will refuse to
purchase a product if the feeling does not match what they expected from
seeing it.

Foroudi and Foroudi (2021:244), Foroudi and Palazzo (2019:138) and Stach
(2018:25) state that tactile stimuli can be divided into two groups, namely
diagnostics cues (when a consumer actively seeks tactile stimuli or information
when considering alternative brands) and non-diagnostic cues (those tactile
stimuli or information that do not form part of the product evaluation).
Furthermore, as explained by Foroudi and Foroudi (2021:244), as well as
Hulten (2020:137), touching is imperative as it allows consumers to build
confidence in a product or brand name. However, this could work in the
alternative situation as well, where a consumer can lose confidence in a brand
based on the feel of a product (Cowen-Elstner 2018:26; Ravaja, Harjunen,
Ahmed, Jacucci & Spape 2017:2), and the length of time that an individual
holds or touches an item can also have an influence on their perception
(Hulten 2020:141; Ringler, Sirianni, Gustafsson & Peck 2019:190).

Evidently, haptics allow brands to enhance positive emotional responses and

moods, thereby influencing purchasing behaviour (Cowen-Elstner 2018:26;
Foroudi & Foroudi 2021:244; Foroudi & Palazzo 2019:138; Hulten 2020:138;
2017:8; Iosifyan & Korolkova 2019:81). While touching a physical product is
most common, the physical touch from a staff member in a store will also
influence the perception that a consumer has of not only the store, but the
brand they associate it with (Cowen-Elstner 2018:25; Hulten 2020:137;
Johnson 2020:2; Williams & Ackerman 2011).

3.8.1 Traditional in-store tactile strategies

In traditional retail settings, tactile sensory branding is practiced every time a

consumer touches a product or product packaging (Foroudi & Palazzo

85
2019:138; Upadhyaya 2017:357). Furthermore, Hulten (2020:146), as well as
Wala et al (2019:114), explains that other than the act of touching a physical
product, aspects such as the temperature of a store can provide haptic stimuli
to an individual. In advertising, businesses are even incorporating different
textured paper to portray feeling to their consumers (Hulten 2020:151).
Pogorzelski (2018:88) adds that consumers can be enticed to interact and
touch a product with attention grabbing in store displays as well as tester
samples of the product and through the use of unusual packaging.

3.8.2 Digital online tactile strategies

From the above literature on tactile sensory branding, it can be concluded that
touch is crucial for product evaluation, and the lack thereof on digital spaces
is a major challenge that many businesses are facing (Hulten 2020:137;
Yoganathan et al 2019:388). This challenge is especially relevant to brands
with physical touch-related products. To address this challenge, brands make
use of high-quality images and descriptive words (Yoganathan et al 2019:388);
however, these can never compare to the physical feeling of a product. This
has led to the phenomenon of consumers evaluating brands in brick and
mortar stores and then actually purchasing the item online where it may be
cheaper. Skrovan (2017) adds that there is a correlation between age and this
phenomenon, where older consumers are more likely to first visit an
establishment to touch and assess the product before purchasing online.

Another strategy that businesses make use of to overcome the challenge of a

lack of touch, is the option of having the item delivered, and then allowing
return within a certain period of time should the consumer not be satisfied
(Hulten 2020:147; Peck 2020). However, it should still be noted that the
likelihood of consumers purchasing products, which require multi-sensory
analysis online, is not high. Yoganathan et al (2019:388) add that marketers
can also make use of the remaining human senses, such as hearing or sight
to stimulate deep rooted associations that people have in their memory,
thereby communicating the feel of a product.

86
Consumers interact hepatically when shopping online just by touching their
mouse or touchscreens (Petit et al 2019:49). However, Petit et al (2019:49)
reiterate that while these means may provide some compensation for the lack
of physical touch, they do not completely satisfy individuals’ need for touch
(NFT). The level of NFT, as depicted by Raushenbush (2018), differs in
general between Gen Z, millennials, Gen X and baby boomers, with baby
boomers followed by GenXers presenting the highest NFT. However,
millennials and GenZers are less motivated by NFT, which may be a reason
why online shopping is predominant for these two groups of consumers
(Raushenbush 2018).

Numerous technological developments have been made, which have been

found to improve the haptic interactions that individuals have when shopping
online (Brengman, Willems & Van Kerrebroeck 2019:272; Chung, Kramer &
Wong 2018:796; Van Kerrebroeck, Willems & Brengman 2017:894), such as
a program known as Shoogleit (Cano, Perry, Ashman & Waite 2017:116).
Shoogleit enables haptic experiences by mimicking consumers’ movements
on a touch screen virtually, such as scrunching the material of a piece of
clothing (Figure 3.13).

FIGURE 3.13
SHOOGLEIT MULTI-GESTURE INTERFACE

Source: Cano et al (2017:432)

Another haptic enabling technology, developed by Leithinger, Follmer, Olwal

and Ishii (2014), is inFORM, which posited that consumers could benefit from
interacting with products remotely. inFORM utilises a series of pins that are
connected to a laptop and can be manipulated to create basic 3D models,
providing consumers with an idea of how they might interact with a product

87
(Petit et al 2018:50). Figure 3.14 indicates how inFORM may be used to
interact with an object, such as a ball.

FIGURE 3.14
INFORM SHAPE-SHIFTING DISPLAY

Source: Leithinger et al (2014:463)

It can be deduced that these technologies go further than product interaction

and have been adapted to encourage human interaction. However, use of the
above discussed technologies is not yet widespread, and a more cost-effective
solution would need to be reached before they could become accessible to
more businesses, such as through the use of vibrations on a smartphone
(Olsson 2015:18; Petit et al 2018:51). While the applications of virtual reality
technology are endless, it is a nascent technology (Lin 2022).

3.9 TASTE SENSORY BRANDING

Ali and Ahmed (2019:118), Briand and Salles (2016:101), Foroudi and
Palazzo (2019:138), Melis and Barbarossa (2017:1), Ngugi, O’Sullivan and
Osman (2020:41), Pogorzelski (2018:87), Puputti, Aisala, Hoppu and Sandell
(2019:1), Randhir et al (2016:281) and Wala et al (2019:113) define taste
stimuli as those sensory cues that are initiated by the receptors on an
individual’s tongue, such as sweet, salty, sour, bitter and umami. The human
sense of taste, as explained by Hulten (2020:160; 2017:9), differs from other
senses as it is experienced both internally, via the tongue (gastronomic taste),
and externally, via the sense of sight (aesthetic taste). Figure 3.15 provides a

88
graphical depiction of how a taste experience is comprised of both
gastronomic and aesthetic taste.

FIGURE 3.15
TASTE AS A DUAL EXPERIENCE

Taste as a
concept

Inner Taste: Outer Taste:

Gastronomic Aesthetic
taste tatse

Taste as an
experience

Source: Hulten (2020:161)

Gastronomic taste is the result of taste buds on the tongue and the throat
transmitting information to the brain where it can be interpreted and
associations can be made (Chikazoe, Lee, Kriegeskorte & Anderson 2019:2;
Giove 2021; Hayes 2020; Hulten 2020:162; Lliades 2018; Melis & Barbarossa
2017:2; Puputti et al 2019:1). Figure 3.16 indicates where taste buds are
located on the tongue.

FIGURE 3.16
LOCATION OF TASTE BUDS ON THE HUMAN TONGUE

Source: Hulten (2020:163)

89
Gastronomic taste has the ability to stir both physiological and psychological
reactions for an individual (Jang & Lee 2019:2; Puputti et al 2019:1; Randhir
et al 2016:281) and people are the only beings that make use of taste as an
experience (Hulten 2020:161; Pogorzelski 2018:87). However, humans do not
develop preference for a taste that will last indefinitely, attributed to the fact
that taste buds regenerate on a weekly basis, which explains why human
gastronomic taste preference changes as the individual ages (Hulten
2020:163; Inui-Yamamoto et al 2017:2; Jacewicz 2017; Lanese 2021; Park
2014; Sullivan 2020).

Aesthetic taste is largely influenced by an individual’s own preference

(Fingerhut, Gomez-Lavin, Winklmayr & Prinz 2021:1; Hoyer & Stokburger-
Sauer 2012:168) and refers to both the aesthetics of consumable products
(food and beverages) as well as hedonic products (cars or interior design)
(Hulten 2020:162; Pogorzelski 2018:87). Furthermore, as explained by
Cowen-Elstner (2018:23), Crispin (2017:3); Hulten (2020:162; 2017:9) and
Suzen (2020:340), aesthetic taste is not objective, but rather subjective, and
therefore, people can experience the exact same object in different ways.

Taste is a sense that can be used by businesses who sell food and beverage
products (Shanthi et al 2019:206). Galande (2019:48), as well as Shanthi et al
(2019:206), adds that each business will aim to create a unique taste that
consumers will associate with the brand, thereby creating differentiation.
However, Hulten (2017:9), along with Randhir et al (2016:281), explains that
multi-national businesses will adjust their brand’s taste to accommodate the
preferences of the target audience in each country.

While the majority of businesses that utilise taste as a strategy are those in
the food and beverage industry, there are exceptions, such as the dental
industry, that also make use of taste to differentiate their products from
competitors in the market (Shanthi et al 2019:206). Additionally, the sense of
taste is one of the human senses that could not exist in isolation as a taste
experience is a combination of taste, smell, touch and sight, a concept known
as synaesthesia (Ali & Ahmed 2019:119; Cowen-Elstner 2018:27; Hulten

90
2020:164; Jang & Lee 2019:3; Korsmeyer 2017:20; Pogorzelski 2018:87;
Ranhir et al 2016:281). Cowen-Elstner (2018:27), along with Upadhyaya
(2017:353), adds that taste is one of the most difficult human senses to use
for communication.

3.9.1 Traditional in-store taste strategies

In the food and beverage industry, a popular example of taste sensory

branding are samples (Dunkovic 2016:5; Hulten 2020:172; Lesonsky 2017;
Oduguwa 2015:3; Randhir 2016:281). However, more and more retailers are
incorporating taste to enhance consumers’ experience of the store, for
example, a petrol station having a restaurant or the cinema selling popcorn
and other consumables. While gastronomic taste is traditionally associated
with the food and beverage industry, aesthetic taste is used throughout all the
different industries, which is done through combining the other senses, such
as smell, to portray a taste (Hulten 2020:172; Pogorzelski 2018:87).

3.9.2 Digital online taste strategies

Aesthetic taste in the digital marketspace refers to how aesthetically pleasing

a consumer finds a brand’s website and social media presence. However,
gastronomic taste is, to date, impossible to replicate virtually. This is not to say
that in the future technology will not have advanced enough, with programs
such as MetaCookie+ already being tested. MetaCookie+ makes use of an AR
device that allows consumers to virtually change the visual appearance of a
cookie as well as the fragrance they are exposed to, to manipulate how they
perceive the cookie will taste (Figure 3.17) (Petit et al 2018:53).

91
 FIGURE 3.17
METACOOKIE+

Source: Narumi, Nishizaka, Kajinami, Tanikawa & Hirose (2011:94)

3.10 SENSORY OVERLOAD

While shopping, individuals search for stimuli (Hulten 2020:190; Krishna

2011:346), meaning that should there be too little stimulation, an individual will
search elsewhere. However, as explained by Bielat (2020:7), Douce and
Adams (2020:102145), Hulten (2020:190) and Krishna (2011:346), as well as
Roose and Mulier (2020:18), should there be too much stimulation, individuals
will seek to reduce the stimuli that they are being exposed to, which in a retail
setting will lead to a decrease in time spent in a store as well as a decrease in
the number of products purchased. Pogorzelski (2018:88) adds that many
businesses make the mistake of trying to be present in the minds of their
consumers at all times. However, this results in sensory bombarding and
sensory overload. Furthermore, Bielat (2020:7), Pogorzelski (2018:89) and
Roose and Mulier (2020:18) opine that in the case of sensory branding, quality
sensory stimuli trump the quantity utilised. Moreover, stores located in
shopping malls or centres need to be aware that consumers are not only
exposed to the sensory marketing and branding within their store, but to that
of other stores, which increases the risk of overstimulation (Pogorzelski
2018:88).

It can therefore be concluded that should a brand want to make use of multi-
sensory branding, a balance needs to be achieved to avoid sensory
overloading, which can mean adjusting the intensity of the stimuli or creating

92
better cohesion between those stimuli (Bielat 2020:7; Hulten 2020:203;
Pogorzelski 2018:88; Roose & Mulier 2020:18).

3.11 SUMMARY OF VARIOUS SENSORY BRANDING STRATEGIES

As opined by Foroudi and Palazzo (2019:133), Liegeois and Rivera (2011:16),

Manojkumar et al (2021:655), Upadhyaya (2017:353) and Wala et al
(2019:109), brands that will be successful in their application of sensory
branding in the future, both in-store and online, will be those who implement a
multisensory approach, which implies a 5D sensory branding strategy that
includes the use of all five human senses. However, Pogorzelski (2018:88)
warns that there is the possibility of over stimulating consumers and opines
that while all senses should be used, they do not all need to be used
simultaneously.

Within traditional sensory branding, there are many different strategies or

stimuli that brands can make use of, relating to each of the five human senses.
Table 3.2 provides a summary of these strategies or stimuli.

TABLE 3.2
SENSES AND SENSORY STRATEGIES OR STIMULI
Senses Sensory Strategy/Stimuli
Sight Design; packaging and logo; colour; light; theme; graphics; exterior and interior
of the store.
Sound Jingle; voice; music; atmosphere; signature brand sound.

Smell Product congruence; intensity and sex; atmosphere; advertising and theme;
brand fragrance brand; signature fragrance.
Touch Material and surface; temperature and weight; form and steadiness.

Taste Name; presentation and environment; knowledge; lifestyle; delight; interplay;

symbiosis; synergies.
Source: Hulten (2020:24)

Table 3.3 provides a summary of common sensory-enabling technologies

utilised to implement digital sensory branding.

93
 TABLE 3.3
A SUMMARY OF COMMON SENSORY-ENABLING TECHNOLOGIES
Senses Cues Concepts Source
• Cian, Krishna & Elder (2014);
• Eelen, Siegfried & Warlop (2013);
Mental
imagery • Elder & Krishna (2012);
• Petit, Basso, Merunka, Spence, Cheok & Oullier
Screen: Font, icon, (2016).
picture, videos • Sunaga, Jaewoo & Spence (2016);
Sight • Velasco, Xiaoang, Klemens, Xi, Salgado-Montejo &
(colour, depth, size, Sensory
position, dynamic) Spence (2015);
congruency
• Velasco, Woods, Petit, Cheok & Spence (2016b);
• Woods & Spence (2016).
• Song & Zinkhan (2008);
Interactivity
• Van Noort, Voorveld, & Van Reijmersdal (2012).
Headphones, Loud music/
• Hagtvedt & Brasel (2016);
Hearing speaker sound, Sensory
• Knoeferle, Knoeferle, Velasco & Spence (2016).
jingle congruency
Mental
• Shen, Zhang & Krishna (2016).
imagery
Touch Mouse, touchscreen Ownership • Brasel & Gips (2014).
• Brasel & Gips (2015);
Affect
• Shen et al (2016).
Source: Adapted from Petit et al (2018:44)

Table 3.4 provides a summary of new sensory-enabling technologies utilised

to implement digital sensory branding.

TABLE 3.4
A SUMMARY OF NEW SENSORY-ENABLING TECHNOLOGIES
Senses Cues Concepts Source
Mental • Choi & Taylor (2014);
imagery • Huang & Liao (2017).
• Animesh, Pinsonneault, Yang & Wonseok
(2011);
Telepresence/
• Klein (2003);
immersion
• Nah, Eschenbrenner & Dewester (2011);
• Yim, Chu & Sauer (2017).
3D-interactive view, • Kim & Forsythe (2008a, b);
Sight virtual try-ons, • Lee & Chung (2008);
Enjoyment
augmented reality • Nah et al (2011);
• Yim et al (2017).
• Animesh et al (2011);
• Huang (2012);
• Huang & Liao (2017);
Flow • Jiang & Benbasat (2004);
• Nah et al (2011);
• Novak, Hoffman & Yung (2000);
• Van Noort et al (2012).

94
Senses Cues Concepts Source
• Huang (2012);
Interactivity
• Yim et al (2017).
Self-congruity • Merle, Senecal & St-Onge (2012).
• Brengman et al (2018);
Ownership
• Huang & Liao (2017).
• Brengman et al (2018);
Need for touch
• Choi & Taylor (2014).
Curiosity • Beck & Crié (2018).
Multisensory
experience with • Hashimoto, Inami & Kajimoto (2008);
Sensory
Hearing auditory inputs (Food • Ho, Jones, King, Murray & Spence (2013);
congruency
simulator, Straw-like • Liu, Hannum & Simons (2018).
User Interface)
• Brasel & Gips (2014);
Need for touch • Cano et al (2017);
• Jin (2011).
Vibrotactile interfaces,
• Leithinger et al (2014);
body-grounded tactile Telepresence
Touch • Sallnäs, Rassmus-Gröhn & Sjöström (2000).
actuators, mid-air
haptics Emotion • Rantala, Salminen, Raisamo & Surakka (2013).
• Haans & IJsselsteijn (2009);
Midas touch
• Haans, de Bruijn & IJsselsteijn (2014);
effect
• Spapé, Hoggan, Jacucci & Ravaja (2015).
Multisensory
experience with smell
Sensory • Ranasinghe et al (2018);
Smell inputs (Season
Traveller,
congruency • Liu et al (2018).
MetaCookie+)
Source: Adapted from Petit et al (2018:44)

Upadhyaya (2017:352) declares that sensory experiences cannot exist in

isolation, but should rather form part of a package of the functional product.
This ideology is becoming prominent in the skincare industry.

3.12 SUMMARY

It can be concluded from the above literature review that the topic of sensory
branding in the skincare industry is growing in popularity and that increased
attention needs to be placed on the topic. In this summary, the literature
findings are indicated with the abbreviation “LF” and the number of the finding.

The global beauty industry has been exceptionally resilient (LF96) and
comprises of four branches of industry, namely cosmetics (LF97); skin care
(LF98); personal care (LF99) and fragrances (LF100). Personal care
constitutes the largest branch of industry globally, whilst the skincare industry

95
presented the largest growth rate from 2019 – 2025 (+24.3%), with women
being the largest target audience (LF101). It was also found that the largest
number of skincare consumers are between the ages of 18 and 30 (LF102).
The South African skincare industry has an average growth rate of 7.4% from
2021 – 2026 (LF103), and is characterised by being highly competitive with
many players (LF104). From the research in this chapter it was also apparent
that youth are opting to move away from large commercial brands, rather
seeking out smaller artisanal brands (LF105) and that people are starting to
use skincare products at a younger age (LF106). The surge in growth can be
linked to the multitude of fads on “how to get and stay beautiful” (LF107).

Skincare products are those that are developed with the aim of improving the
look and feel of one’s skin (LF108) and due to the multitude of players in the
industry, as well as the effects of COVID-19, competitors in the skincare
industry are under pressure to be innovative (LF109). It was also determined
that despite the COVID-19 pandemic, the skincare industry will remain
relatively resilient (LF110), attributed to the fact that consumers view skincare
as an affordable luxury, spending on average between R200 and R800 per
month (LF111). It is notable that consumer spending on skincare increases as
they get older (LF112). However, a long-term impact of the COVID-19
pandemic on the skincare industry is where the products are being sold
(LF113).

Prior to the global COVID-19 pandemic, 85% of sales of beauty products were
in-store (LF114), but in 2020 it was recorded that more consumers are moving
to online shopping (LF115) and online shopping rose from 1.66 billion global
digital buyers in 2016 to over 2.14 billion global digital buyers in 2021 (LF116).
While there has been an estimated 20% - 30% growth in recorded online sales
of skincare products, online sales do not offset in-store purchases (LF117),
which has been attributed to the fact that consumers are sceptical when
shopping online for skincare products (LF118) and are generally more partial
to in-store shopping or browsing when looking for a new skincare product
(LF119). The popularity and growth of the online shopping industry has been
attributed to its association with affordability and convenience and, in addition,

96
it was found that with regards to online shopping, consumers who place a high
value on quality of a product will shop directly from a brand’s website (LF120).
It was further notable that consumers buy larger quantities when shopping
online (LF121).

Consumers have higher expectations than ever before of their personal care
products (LF122). Furthermore, based on where the product is sold, the
consumer will have different expectations for their shopping experience, which
is linked to the price they pay or the product (LF123). Moreover, brands are
relying more on how their products make the consumer feel, which can be
achieved through the creation of memorable brand experiences (LF124). To
create these experiences, sensory experiences have been highlighted as
being of paramount importance within the skincare industry (LF125).
Furthermore, fragrance is a key factor in the buying decision made by
consumers when shopping for personal care products (LF126) and with
specific reference to the skincare industry, how the product packaging, as well
as the product itself, feels signifies quality to the consumer (LF127). Many
purchasing decisions are driven by inner motivations, which govern buying
behaviour, and are linked to the five human senses (smell, sight, hearing,
touch and taste) (LF128) and as humans are not solely rational beings, but
are also influenced by their emotions or feelings, they will therefore favour a
brand based on the personality and experience it portrays (LF129).

Sensory branding is the use of the five human senses to engage consumers
with the brand in such a way that creates positive emotions, perceptions and
memories, ultimately resulting in favourable brand preference (LF130).
Moreover, experiences can range in intensity and can be both positive and
negative in nature (LF131) and, once an individual makes a sensory
association to a product or brand, it is almost impossible to reverse it (LF132),
indicative of long-term memory (LF133).

Senses are responsible for converting the stimuli that an individual is exposed
to into perceptions (LF134). There are numerous advantages to implementing
sensory strategies, including building brand associations (LF135); forming

97
emotional bonds with consumers (LF136); enhancing the familiarity that
consumers have with the brand (LF137); generating positive word of mouth
(LF138) and increasing the perceived quality and value of a product, thereby
allowing for higher pricing (LF139). While millennials favour online shopping,
GenXers still shop mostly in-store and GenZers are the consumers who rely
most heavily on digital commerce (LF140). These findings apply to both brick
and mortar stores as well as digital stores and when an individual makes use
of online or digital platforms to communicate or exchange information, it should
be considered a multi-sensory experience (LF141).

It can be concluded that there is a lack of sensory branding being implemented

online (LF142); however consumers are expecting engaging sensory
experiences both in-store and online (LF143). It is, therefore, no longer
sufficient for businesses to practice traditional marketing techniques only
(LF144). Sensorial experiences online are important as they instil confidence
and brand credibility (LF145) and the use of technology influences shopping
patterns and purchasing behaviour both in-store and online (LF146).
Additional benefits of businesses concentrating on improving their online
presence include the fact that the number of consumers reached is increased
online, which can have both positive and negative connotations (LF147). It is
common for marketers to make use of sight and hearing when utilising a digital
sensory branding strategy (LF148); however sensory-enabling technologies
are being developed that brands can use to create cohesion between their in-
store atmosphere and their online “webmosphere” (LF149). However,
consumers may be resistant to digital innovations (LF150), especially older
consumers who are slower to adopt new technology (LF151).

Sight, as a sense in retail, encompasses how consumers make use of their

eyes to experience a product or brand (LF152) and is the most commonly used
sense by brands to create a brand identity and awareness (LF153) because
they are what consumers first notice (LF154). Visual cues influence brand
preference, consumption quantity and purchasing behaviour (LF155) and it
should be noted that if visual cues are excluded, people will have difficulty
interpreting the message (LF156). Visual cues will be interpreted differently

98
based on an individual’s context, such as the culture or beliefs (LF157), gender
(LF158) or age (LF159) of consumers. Furthermore, it is advisable that visual
sensory stimuli should be complemented with the use of other senses (LF160).

Visual cues consist of colour and lighting (LF161), interior and external
variables (LF162), layout and design (LF163) and ambient conditions (LF164).
Colours influence consumer behaviour (LF165) and are a key factor to
consider by marketers for businesses or brands (LF166) as it has been
recorded that brand recognition is increased by 80% with the effective use of
colour (LF167) and 85% of consumers are persuaded to buy a product based
on colour (LF168). Additionally, colours allude to different meanings (LF169).

Lighting is important in retail outlets as it has been found to have an influence

on the consumers’ perceptions (LF170). Lighting includes the brightness of a
store as it can influence an individual’s cognitive processes (LF171). Lighting
can further have an influence on the duration that consumers stay in a store
(LF172). The use of lightening to influence consumers is commonly used by
marketers as it offers an easy way to vary an environment, signifying different
moods to consumers within one retail store (LF173).

Traditional in-store visual strategies can include colours used by a brand

(LF174), logo design (LF175), packaging design (LF176), lighting in the store
(LF177), the cleanliness of the store (LF178), the design and layout of the
store itself (LF179), visible signage and display features as well as text on the
product packaging itself (LF180) and the uniform of staff (LF181). The digital
space is placing increased worth on the use of visual stimuli (LF182) and can
include digital photos (LF183), movies and trailers (LF184), colours used by a
brand (LF185), logo design (LF186), packaging design (LF187), the layout
(LF188), user friendliness of websites (LF189), colour as backgrounds
(LF190), 3D imaging (LF191) and virtual reality environments (VR), such as
virtual try-ons (VTO), or augmented interactive (AI/AR) technology (LF192).

Sound influences how an individual perceives an environment (LF193) and

has a powerful effect on an individual’s emotions and moods, making it a

99
powerful marketing tool that brands can use to shape buying decisions and
brand preference, both in-store and online (LF194) because people have
personal associations with sound based on their own experiences (LF195).
Auditory stimuli include ambient sound (LF196), voice sound (LF197) and
music sound (LF198), and has also been found to have a strong link to vision
(LF199), which results in long-lasting memory (LF200) and brand loyalty
(LF201). Sound, when used simultaneously with advertising, can influence an
individual’s ability to process information (LF202) and the consumer’s age can
play a part in whether or not a sound is found to be pleasurable (LF203).

Furthermore, the tempo of music can influence many aspects of consumers’

purchasing behaviour (LF204). For example, pleasurable music in a store has
a direct link to store traffic, making tempo the most influential auditory factor
on consumer behaviour (LF205). Additionally, the tempo and volume of music
can influence the length of time that consumers will stay in a store (LF206)
and give rise to both positive and negative feelings (LF207). Marketers make
use of sound as it is easily accessible (LF208) and provides many benefits,
such as increasing sales volume and the pace of consumer shopping (LF209).
While auditory stimuli are powerful, they are dependent on the interaction of
consumers (LF210). Finally, the pronunciation and spelling of a brand’s name
should be considered as an important component of auditory stimuli (LF211).

Traditional in-store auditory strategies can include music in stores (LF212),

the jingles used by a brand (LF213), the sound or pronunciation of the brand’s
name (LF214) and sounds associated with using the physical product itself
(LF215). Traditional in-store auditory strategies used are also used online
(LF216) as well as radio, television (LF217) and video adverts (LF218) and
background music (LF219).

Smell is the most sensitive of the five human senses (LF220), the strength of
which lies in its ability to create strong feelings of reminiscence (LF221). The
human sense of smell is complex as each individual experiences a specific
fragrance uniquely (LF222), meaning that it is impossible to know exactly how
a fragrance will be experienced (LF223). It is further difficult to predict how a

100
fragrance will be received as the human brain makes emotional connections
to different fragrances (LF224).

Olfactory stimuli in branding relate to both the fragrance of the product itself
as well as the ambient fragrance of the store (LF225). A pleasurable fragrance
can have an influence on the recall of an experience (LF226), the time that
consumers spend in a store (LF227), the amount that they are willing to spend
on a product (LF228), as well as their intention to return (LF229). Brands
should create fragrances specific to their target audience (LF230), as
characteristics such as gender and age influence an individual’s perception of
a fragrance (LF231). Fragrance can refer to either the primary fragrance or the
physical smell of a product (LF232) or secondary fragrance that refers to
smells that are applied to an otherwise odourless product (LF233). The power
of the sense of smell lies in its longevity in the mind of an individual (LF234),
attributed to fragrances influence on an individual’s cognitive processes
(LF235), emotional responses (LF236), as well as their behaviour, both
consciously or unconsciously (LF237).

Traditional in-store olfactory strategies can include the fragrance of the

product itself (LF238), signature fragrances (LF239), nebulization technology,
such as aerosols or air vents (LF240), or the fragrance of staff in an
establishment (LF241). While there is no technology that can replace physical
smell online (LF242), digital online olfactory strategies can include the use of
imagery and descriptive words (LF243), the distribution of “scratch-and-sniff”
cards (LF244), multisensory devices that will enable olfactory stimuli to be
delivered to consumers via the internet (LF245).

Touch, or haptics, constitutes one of the principal sources of stimuli for

humans (LF246), relating to factors such as texture, shape and temperature
(LF247). Touch is therefore especially relevant for businesses who sell
physical products (LF248) as individuals often associate the feel of a product
with quality (LF249) as well as ownership and valuation (LF250). Tactile
sensory stimuli work in close collaboration with sight (LF251). However, there

101
is a lack of tactile sensory stimuli online, which presents a challenge for
businesses that sell physical products (LF252).

A tactile stimulus comprises of both diagnostic and non-diagnostic cues

(LF253) and allows consumers to build confidence in a product or brand name
(LF254). It has been proven that the length of time that an individual holds or
touches an item influences his/her perception (LF255). Haptics allow brands
to enhance positive emotional responses, thereby influencing purchasing
behaviour as well as the mood of an individual (LF256), including the touch of
a staff member (LF257).

It is also noteworthy that consumers have been found to evaluate brands in

brick and mortar stores and then purchase the item online where it may be
cheaper (LF258), allowing them to touch the product before making a
purchasing decision. This is especially true for older consumers (LF259). The
level of NFT differs in general between Gen Z, millennials, Gen X and baby
boomers, with baby boomers followed by GenXers presenting the highest NFT
(LF260). However, millennials and GenZers are less motivated by NFT, which
may be a reason why online shopping is predominant for these two groups of
consumers (LF261).

Traditional in-store tactile strategies can include touching of a product or

product packaging (LF262), the temperature of a store (LF263), different
textured paper in advertising (LF264), attention grabbing in store displays
(LF259), tester samples of the product (LF265) and the use of unusual
packaging (LF266). Digital online tactile strategies can include the use of high-
quality images and descriptive words (LF267), the option to have the item
delivered, and then returned within a certain period of time (LF268),
incorporating other human senses to stimulate deep rooted associations that
people have to communicate feel (LF269), consumers touching their mouse
or touchscreens (LF270) and numerous technological developments have
been made to try and improve the haptic interactions that individuals have
when shopping online (LF271). Virtual reality technology is relatively new and,
therefore, may not yet be widespread (LF272).

102
Taste can be sweet, salty, sour, bitter and umami and is experienced both
internally, via the tongue (gastronomic taste) (LF273), and externally, via the
sense of sight (aesthetic taste) (LF274). Gastronomic taste stirs both
physiological and psychological reactions in an individual (LF275); however,
humans do not develop preference for a taste that will last indefinitely, which
explains why human taste preference changes with time (LF276).

Aesthetic taste is largely influenced by an individual’s own preference (LF277)

and refers to both the aesthetics of consumable products (food and
beverages) as well as hedonic products (cars or interior design) (LF278) but
is not objective, meaning that people can experience the exact same object in
different ways (LF279). Taste is commonly used by food and beverage
businesses to differentiate their products (LF280) and multi-national
businesses will adjust their brand taste to accommodate the preferences of
the target audience in each country (LF281). Additionally, taste could not exist
in isolation (LF282) and is one of the most difficult human senses to use for
communication (LF283).

Traditional in-store taste strategies can include taste samples (LF284),

incorporation of taste into services (LF285), aesthetic taste is used throughout
all the different industries (LF286) and aroma can also be utilised by
businesses to create taste experiences (LF287). Digital online taste strategies
can include aesthetic taste in the digital marketspace which refers to how
aesthetically pleasing a consumer finds a brand’s website and social media
presence (LF288) and gastronomic taste which is, to date, impossible to
replicate virtually (LF289); however, AR technology is being researched to try
and bridge this gap online (LF290).

While shopping, individuals search for stimuli (LF291) and should there be too
little stimulation, an individual will search elsewhere (LF292); however, if there
is too much stimulation an individual will seek to reduce the stimuli that they
are being exposed to (LF293). Over stimulation leads to a decrease in time
spent in a store (LF294), as well as a decrease in the number of products
purchased (LF295). Therefore it is important to remember that quality sensory

103
stimuli trump the quantity utilised (LF296). This is why it is essential that a
balance be achieved to avoid sensory overload (LF297), which can mean
adjusting the intensity of the stimuli (LF298) or creating better cohesion
between those being utilised (LF299). While all senses should be used, they
do not all need to be used simultaneously (LF300).

In Chapter 4, the proposed framework for this study, which is based on the
variables discussed in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3, is presented and elaborated
on. However, for the purpose of this study, taste stimuli will be excluded from
the proposed framework as taste is not a sense with which consumers
evaluate skin care products.

104
 CHAPTER 4
CONCEPTUAL MODEL

4.1 INTRODUCTION

In Chapter 3 the literature review provided in Chapter 2, relating to the concept

of brand experience, was conceptualised for the topic of sensory branding in
the skincare industry. Within Chapter 3, an in-depth literature review pertaining
to the skincare industry, specifically in South Africa, the effects of the global
COVID-19 pandemic thereon and the shift of sales from in-store to online for
skin care products was provided. Hereafter, the importance of sensory
branding to the skincare industry was highlighted. The sections thereafter
deliberated the five human senses and sensory strategies for both traditional
brick-and-mortar stores, as well as for the digital marketspace, were detailed.
Finally, the negative effects of sensory overload were emphasised and a
summary of the numerous sensory strategies presented.

In this chapter (Chapter 4), the concept of a theoretical framework is

discussed, including the types available to researchers and the components
thereof. Hereafter, a conceptual model relevant to this study, which was
deduced from the literature review provided in Chapters 2 and 3, is presented
and an in-depth discussion provided. The discussion provides a short
description of each variable as well as a motivation for the inclusion within the
framework. Chapter 4 is concluded with a list of the hypotheses developed for
this study from the conceptual model.

4.2 ELEMENTS OF A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND

CONCEPTUAL MODEL

As opined by Crawford (2020:35), a framework is essential when conducting

research as it allows the researcher to prove the necessity of their work and
Shikalepo (2020) adds that a framework provides context for the study and the
variables thereof by merging all literature findings into one comprehensive
figure. Besides the framework being beneficial in convincing an audience of

105
the significance of the study, the framework assists the researcher in
organising their own information and understanding how the selected
variables interact (Crawford 2020:35; Grant & Osanloo 2015:12). When
discussing frameworks, two alternative types, namely conceptual and
theoretical frameworks are available to researchers (Collins & Stockton
2018:4; Crawford 2020:35; Davis 2021; Adom, Hussein & Agyem 2018:440;
Grant & Osanloo 2015:16; Mehta 2013).

A summary of the differences and similarities between theoretical frameworks

and conceptual frameworks is presented in Figure 4.1.

FIGURE 4.1
A SUMMARY OF THE DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES BETWEEN
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS
Existing
literature and
theories
(others’
Qualitative
perspectives) Research:
Credibility,
transferability,
confirmability,
Experience Literature
dependability
Theoretical
Framework

Quantitative
Research:
Internal and external
Validity,
generalizability,
objectivity, reliability
Conceptual
Framework

Argumentation Explanation Generation

Source: Adapted from Crawford (2020:46); Kivunja (2018:48)

The sections that follow provide a definition and discussion on the differences
of the opposing frameworks.

106
4.2.1 Theoretical framework

Maxwell (2013:39) is of the opinion that theoretical and conceptual frameworks

are synonymous, which is supported by Anfara and Mertz (2015:1), Merriam
and Tisdell (2016:1), as well as Robson and McCartan (2016:1). However,
Grant and Osanloo (2015:16) argue that the two terms are not interchangeable
and have distinct differences. As defined by Collins and Stockton (2018:3) and
Leeming (2018:668), as well as Merriam and Tisdell (2016:85), a theoretical
framework is the structure or foundation of a study. Grant and Osanloo
(2015:16) explain that the most apparent difference between conceptual and
theoretical frameworks is that conceptual frameworks are constructed based
on personal experience, supplemented by existing literature, whereas
theoretical frameworks are based solely on existing literature and accepted
theories. Ngulube (2018:9) adds that while a conceptual framework comprises
concepts from a variety of theories, a theoretical framework is based on a
single accepted theory. A theoretical framework is then an existing theory
which the researcher contextualises for the purpose of their own study (Grant
& Osanloo 2015:16; Kivunja 2018:47; Tight 2018:7).

Theoretical frameworks are utilised in both quantitative as well as qualitative

studies. With reference to qualitative research, theoretical frameworks
enhance the credibility and dependability of the study (Collins & Stockton
2018:1; Kivunja 2018:48). Additionally, Adom et al (2018:438) and Kivunja
(2018:48) add that theoretical frameworks increase the transferability of a
qualitative study through confirming that the findings are objective. From the
perspective of quantitative research, a theoretical framework proves the
internal validity and increases the reliability of the study (Kivunja 2018:48).
Furthermore, external validity is achieved through the use of a theoretical
framework in quantitative studies as it provides a means for the researcher to
prove that their findings are objective (Adom et al 2018:438; Kivunja 2018:48).

107
4.2.2 Conceptual framework

As previously stated, Maxwell (2013:39) is of the opinion that conceptual and

theoretical frameworks are akin, which he accredits to the fact that both
variations of a framework make reference to the context of the study. However,
Ravitch and Riggan (2017:5) argue that the main purpose of a conceptual
framework is for the researcher to reinforce why their study is significant as
well as that the means for conducting the study are fitting. Another definition
of a conceptual framework is an explanation, of either a written or graphical
nature, depicting the key variables of the study and how they are related
(Miles, Huberman & Saldana 2014:20; Ngulube 2019:29). This definition is
supported by Marshall and Rossman (2016:6), who add that the conceptual
framework is a means for a researcher to link their own study to the extant
research conducted, thereby highlighting the importance of the study.

All the above-mentioned definitions, while slightly different, fundamentally

acknowledge that a conceptual framework is linked to the purpose of the study
as well as the interaction between the variables (Crawford 2020:37).
Furthermore, from the definitions provided, it is apparent that a conceptual
framework serves three broad purposes. The first purpose can be categorised
as argumentation, which makes reference to the motivation for why the study
is significant or necessary (Marshall & Rossman 2016:67; Ravitch & Carl
2019:33; Ravitch & Riggan 2017:5). Secondly, a conceptual framework
provides an explanation for the selection of the key factors of the study (Anfara
& Mertz 2015:15; Hennink, Hutter & Bailey 2020:38; Miles et al 2014:20).
Lastly, Grant and Osanloo (2015:17), Hennink et al (2020:38), Merriam and
Tisdell (2016:86), Ravitch and Carl (2019:33) and Shikalepo (2020) argue that
the importance of a conceptual framework lies in its ability to assist the
researcher in generating appropriate research questions, data collection
methods and analysis thereof. All of the above purposes indicate the strategic
importance or use of a conceptual framework in research studies.

When constructing a conceptual framework, as explained by Crawford

(2020:42), the researcher draws from their own personal experience.

108
However, many authors, such as Booth, Colomb, Bizup and Fitzgerald
(2016:31), Marshall and Rossman (2016:26) and Ravitch and Riggan
(2017:15), as well as Robson and McCartan (2016:73), recognise that the use
of personal experience alone when constructing a conceptual framework is
insufficient. This statement is supported by Merriam and Tisdell (2016:84), as
well as Ravitch and Carl (2019:33), who state that the use of existing literature
and theories are essential in the development of a conceptual framework. It is
therefore recommended by Anfara and Mertz (2015:7), Marshall and Rossman
(2016:26), Ngulube (2020:30), Ravitch and Riggan (2017:15) and Robson and
McCartan (2016:74), as well as Shikalepo (2020), that researchers should
supplement their own personal experience with existing literature and theories
when developing the conceptual framework for a study. Hennink et al
(2020:38) and Shikalepo (2020) add that a conceptual framework can serve
as a reminder to the researcher about the focus of the study, and therefore the
resulting report.

Moreover, a researcher should take into account that the conceptual

framework, due to it being constructed based on personal experience, may be
viewed differently by their audience and it is therefore critical that they provide
ample explanation (Shikalepo 2020). This study draws on previous existing
literature and theories to construct a conceptual model. These theories are
presented and briefly discussed in the section that follows.

4.3 PREVIOUSLY EXISTING THEORIES

As previously explained, theoretical frameworks are based solely on existing

literature and accepted theories (Grant & Osanloo 2015:16). A number of
theories, frameworks and models have been identified and contextualised to
form the conceptual model of this study. In the sections that follow, Consumer
Behaviour Theory, the Experience Economy Theory and Brand Equity Theory
and relevant models are discussed, which are used to conceptualise the
conceptual model of this study.

109
4.3.1 Consumer Behaviour Theory

As posited by Comanescue (2019:590) consumer behaviour is a complex

ideology as it is influenced by a variety of different factors and is defined by
Comanescue (2019:590) along with Manuere, Chikazhe and Manyeruke
(2022:105) and Saeed (2019:3) as the study of how a consumer selects an
offering, which can relate to goods, services or experiences, to purchase in
order to satisfy their needs or desires. Needle (2021) adds that understanding
consumer behaviour is imperative to businesses as it allows them to predict
who their customers will be, and therefore, aid in targeting correctly. In an
attempt to simplify the processes of identifying what factors will influence the
consumers buying behaviour, and therefore more accurately attract and
engage consumers, a number of models have been developed. As stated by
Bray (2008:9), consumer behaviour models can be analytical, which provide a
guideline as to what factors will have an influence on behaviour, or
prescriptive, which explain the structure of altering behaviour. The most
prominent analytical models include the Buyer Behaviour Model and the
Consumer Decision Model, while prescriptive models include the Theory of
Reasoned Action Model and the Theory of Planned Behaviour Model.

4.3.1.1 The Buyer Behaviour Model

The Buyer Behaviour Model was developed by Howard and Sheth (1969) and
provides a clear sequence of how social psychological and marketing
strategies influence the consumers decision making process (Manuere et al
2022:106; Ohio University 2022). While the model is complex, the core
components include inputs, exogenous variables and outputs, as seen in
Figure 4.2. Input variables refer to any information supplied by the brand,
including aspects such as price, quality, distinctiveness and marketing
strategies (Anjali 2019; Manuere et al 2022:107). Exogenous variables refer
to external factors which may influence the consumers behaviour, such as
their personality, social class, culture, financial situation or existing
perceptions (Anjali 2019; Manuere et al 2022:107). Hypothetical constructs
encompass the psychological which influence buying behaviour, such as

110
motives, attitude, intention, knowledge and satisfaction (Anjali 2019; Manuere
et al 2022:107). Lastly, output variables are the result or final decision made
by the consumer in terms of making the purchase (Anjali 2019; Manuere et al
2022:108).

FIGURE 4.2
THE CORE COMPONENTS OF THE CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR MODEL

Exogenous variables

Hypothetical
Input variables constructs/ Output variables
Intervening variables

Source: Manuere et al (2022:107)

From this model, the input variables would relate to the independent variable
and sub-variables in the proposed conceptual model of this study, while the
output variables will relate to the dependent variable namely, brand loyalty
(Section 4.4: Figure 4.11).

4.3.1.2 The Consumer Decision Model

The Consumer Decision Model was developed by Engel, Kollat and Blackwell
in 1968 and while the model shares many similarities with the buyer behaviour
model discussed in Section 4.3.1.1, however it differs in that it is based on the
idea that the decision making process surrounds six points, namely; need
recognition, search for information, evaluation of alternatives, purchase, post
purchase and divestment (Bray 2008:15; Needle 2021). The core assumption
of the model is that the seven afore mentioned points are all influenced by
either external environmental factors or by the specific traits of an individual
(Bray 2008:16; Needle 2021), which can be seen in Figure 4.3.

This model relates to the proposed conceptual model of this study in that when
shopping for skincare, consumers have hundreds of options to choose from
and so brands need to firstly identify what their target audience specifically

111
wants before they can adjust the sensory information they provide. Morover,
based on the post purchase consumption of consumers, this could either lead
to brand loyalty or divestment (Section 4.4: Figure 4.11).

FIGURE 4.3
THE CONSUMER DECISION MODEL

Source: Solomon, Russell-Bennett & Previte (2012)

4.3.1.3 The Theory of Planned Behaviour Model and the Reasoned Action
Model

The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Model provides the bases for the
Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) Model (Bray 2008:20; Manuere et al
2022:109). Manuere et al (2022:108) explain that TPB Model was however
limited as it only assessed the consumers attitude or beliefs. When the model
was extended to include behaviour, it was renamed the TRA Model (Ajzen &
Fishbein 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen 1975). Bhattacharjee and Chetty (2019)
along with Hagger (2019:1) explain that the TRA Model aims to define the
relationship between consumer attitudes and their shopping behaviour.

112
Manuere et al (2022:107) stipulates that the behaviour of consumers is as a
result of number of aspects that stem from consumer attitudes and subjective
norms of behaviour, as seen in Figure 4.4. Yzer (2012:121) explains that the
model insinuates that the beliefs individuals have about behaviour is of
importance.

FIGURE 4.4
COMPONENTS OF REASONED ACTION THEORY

Source: Yzer (2012:121).

For the purpose of the conceptual model developed for this study, background
factors would relate to the demographics, cultue, religion, personality, values,
knowledge and identitiy of the respondents. Moreover, the background factor
of persuasive messages would be represented by the different sensory
branding strategies addressed. Finally, the the last stage of the model,
behaviour, relates to this study’s dependent variable (brand loyalty) (Section
4.4: Figure 4.11).

113
A limitation to the TRA Model is that it explains that marketers for brick and
mortar stores only will try to change the attitudes of consumers towards a
brand in order to achieve a desired behaviour (Bhattacharjee & Chetty 2019).
This excludes online or e-commerce.

4.3.1.4 The Technology Acceptance Model

The Technology Acceptance Model is founded on the ideology of the TRA

Model in that it also depicts that marketers will want to adjust the attitudes of
consumers to persuade them to behave in a certain way (Bhattacharjee &
Chetty 2019). However, Bhattacharjee and Chetty (2019) explain that the
technology acceptance model focuses solely on the process via digital
platforms, such as with e-commerce and Kamel, Shafiq and Kakria
(2020:101213), along with Salloum, Alhamad, Al-Emran, Monem & Shaalan
(2019:128446), add that the model essentially indicates the acceptance of
technology by consumers (Figure 4.5).

FIGURE 4.5
THE TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL

Perceived
Usefulness
Attitude Behavioural
External Actual
Towards Intention to
Variables System Use
Using Use
Perceived
Ease of
Use

Source: Bhattacharjee & Chetty (2019); Salloum et al (2019:128446)

The attitudes of consumers towards shopping online can be influenced by

convenience and cost friendliness as well as the user-friendliness of the digital
platform (Bhattacharjee & Chetty 2019; Salloum et al 2019:128446). However,
the attitudes towards use, is influenced by marketing strategies. This study
had the purpose of investigating the specific sensory strategies desired by
consumers when shopping for skincare products both in-store and online and
how this translates into brand loyalty, which relates to the use of sensory

114
stimuli in the marketing and sales of products. This explains the relevance of
the use of this model in the creation of the proposed conceptual model of this
study (Section 4.4: Figure 4.11). Sensory marketing, or branding, constitutes
a segment of the core category of experience marketing, which has roots in
the experience economy theory proposed by Pine and Gilmore (1998), which
is the second theory discussed in this chapter.

4.3.2 The Experience Economy Theory

The use of experiences in marketing is certainly not new, and can be dated
back to the 1980s (Foroudi & Palazzo 2019:132). However, with specific
reference to marketing the concept was first brought to light in the work of
Hirschman and Holbrook (1982), but was contained to in-store shopping (Pine
& Gilmore 1999). It was then posited by Schmitt (1999:11) that traditional
marketing did not provide a means to successfully capitalise the experience
economy as it disregarded human emotions. This led to the previously
accepted consumer decision-making process (need recognition, search for
information, evaluation of alternatives, purchase and post-purchase
evaluation) (Dewey 1910:72) being considered as incomplete (Foroudi &
Palazzo 2019:132).

As declared by Pine and Gilmore (1999:12), the experience economy is the

fourth level of an economic offering, whereby commodities, goods and
services account for the first three. Moreover, it is opined that while the latter
are all necessary, experiences are the most memorable to consumers (Pine &
Gilmore 1999:12; Same & Larimo 2012:482). However, Pine and Gimore
(1999:14) emphasis that the success of an experience is dependent on the
interaction of a consumer as well as the ability of the brand to provide either
an entertaining, educational, esthetic or escapist dimension to the experience
(Pine & Gilmore 1999:102; Same & Larimo 2012:483). To explain their theory,
Pine and Gilmore (1999) developed the experience model (see Chapter 2:
Section 2.2.4.1) through which it is possible to understand and interpret the
experiences that a person has when purchasing and consuming a product,
based on the interactions that they have with that brand. As discussed in

115
Chapter 2, Section 2.2.4.2, experience marketing is any form of marketing
effort that is customer-centric in nature, and aims to create value through
connection with consumers (Carù & Cova 2016:272; Ferreira & Sousa
2020:572; Homburg, Jozić & Kuehnl 2017:378; Suardi 2019:15).

4.3.2.1 Conceptual model of experience marketing

Same and Larimo (2012:484) as well as Sari and Rufaidah (2017:861) explain
that essentially, an experience with specific reference to marketing can occur
when there is interaction between a company or business and the consumer.
Moreover, the interaction between the two parties will be influenced by the
actions and processes involved in the experience, the environment in which
the experience takes place as well as the specific stimuli, or marketing mix,
utilized to create the experience (Same & Larimo 2012:484; Sari & Rufaidah
2017:861). Additionally, the experience may be perceived differently by a
consumer based on personal characteristics and traits, such as demographics
and culture, attitude and knowledge, motivations and past experiences (Same
& Larimo 2012:484; Sari & Rufaidah 2017:859). Same and Larimo (2012:484),
Sari and Rufaidah (2017:861) along with Yamamoto, Cordova and Mazzei
(2018:66) and Larocca, Ladeira, Silva and Mello (2020:4) go further to state
that as is the case for most marketing tactics, the desired end result from
experience marketing is value creation, either in the form of increased sales
or brand loyalty as well as value creation for the consumer through the
formation of relationships. Figure 4.6 provides a graphical illustration of the
components of experience marketing model.

It can be deduced that experience marketing progresses from exposure to

certain stimulus to a change in consumer behaviour, learning and attitude,
which relates it to consumer behaviour theory. As discovered in Chapter 2,
Section 2.2.10, sensory experiences have been highlighted as one of the
strongest dimensions of experience as for humans (Gao & Lan 2020:2; Hulten
2017:1).

116
 FIGURE 4.6
CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF EXPERIENCE MARKETING

Source: Same and Larimo (2012:484)

The independent variable and sub-variables of this study are the various
sensory marketing strategies utilised in the sale of skincare products both in-
store and online (Section 4.4: Figure 4.11), which are proposed to have a
relationship with brand loyalty, an observable consumer behaviour. This
portrays the link between the conceptual model of experience and the
proposed conceptual model developed for this study.

4.3.2.2 A model of sensory marketing

As discussed in Chapter 2, Section 2.2.10, sensory experiences are powerful

and have an influence on consumer attitudes, learning and behaviour. Figure
4.7 presents the model of sensory marketing. The model for sensory
marketing stipulates that consumers will have both emotional and cognitive
reactions to sensory stimuli provided by a brand, which will result in certain
attitude, learning and behaviour responses from that consumer. As previously
discussed, the various sensory marketing strategies utilised by skincare
brands both in-store and online constitute the independent variable and sub-
variables of this study which are propose to have an influence on brand loyalty,

117
which is a behavioural and attitudinal response of consumers (Section 4.4:
Figure 4.11).

FIGURE 4.7
A MODEL OF SENSORY MARKETING

Sensation

Haptic
Emotion Attitude
Smell
Learning/Memory
Sound Perception
Behaviour
Taste
Cognition
Vision

Source: Hulten (2020:14)

However, as discussed in Chapter 2, Section 2.2.11, sensory experiences do

not occur in isolation, but rather encompasses different aspects to create an
overall holistic perception of an experience, such as a shopping experience
(Hulten 2020:16).

4.3.2.3 A model for multi-sensory experience and shopping behaviour

Another theory which explains the relationship between sensory stimuli and
consumer shopping behaviour is the multi-sensory experience and shopping
behaviour framework (depicted in Figure 4.8). The framework for multi-
sensory experience and shopping behaviour is very similar to the model for
sensory marketing in that they both portray that, based on the sensory stimuli
provided by a brand, a consumer will have both emotional and cognitive
reactions, which in turn will influence their overall shopping behaviour.
However, the multi-sensory experience and shopping behaviour model puts
forward that consumers are exposed to a number of sensory stimuli
simultaneously (Chapter 2: Section 2.2.11).

118
 FIGURE 4.8
A MODEL FOR MULTI-SENSORY EXPERIENCE AND SHOPPING
BEHAVIOUR

Visual Affective
• General positivity
• Optimal stimulation
Taste Auditory Shopping
Behaviour
Cognitive
• Association
Tactile Olfactory • Direct behavioural effects

Source: Hulten (2020:16); Spence et al (2014:473)

As the proposed conceptual model of this study deals with the influence of
various sensory marketing strategies on brand loyalty with specific reference
to the skincare industry, the model for multi-sensory experience and shopping
behaviour is relevant as it explains that more than one of the sub-variables of
this study can be used similtaniously to achieve the desired response of brand
loyalty (Section 4: Figure 4.11). Brand experiences, especially sensory
experiences, are being used more and more, which can be attributed to their
relationship with brand loyalty, which in turn will contribute to brand equity
(Beig & Nika 2022:157) (Chapter 2: Section 2.12).

4.3.3 Brand equity theory

As discussed in Chapter 2, Section 2.2.2, brand equity refers to all brand

assets or liabilities that can either add value to, or take away value from, a
product offering (Aaker 1991:13). More specifically, consumer-based brand
equity (CBBE) is defined as the effect of consumers’ awareness and
knowledge of a brand on their response to marketing of a product offering from
a brand (Algharabat et al 2021:8; Chatzipanagiotou et al 2019:328; Koay, Ong,
Khoo & Yeoh 2019:55; Narteh 2018:381). To conceptualise this theory, Aaker
(1991; 1992) developed a model, whereby five components were identified,
known as the brand equity model (Figure 4.9). However, when debating brand
equity from a marketing perspective (CBBE) only brand awareness (Chapter

119
2: Section 2.2.2.1), brand association (Chapter 2: Section 2.2.2.2), perceived
quality (Chapter 2: Section 2.2.2.3) and brand loyalty (Chapter 2: Section
2.2.2.4) are relevant.

FIGURE 4.9
CONSUMER BASED BRAND EQUITY MODEL

Brand
Awareness

Brand Percieved
Loyalty Quality
Brand
Equity

Proprietary Brand
Assests Association

Source: Popovic (2021)

It has been noted that experiences, or experience marketing, has an

association with brand preference and therefore, on brand equity (Beig & Nika
2022:157).

4.3.3.1 A model of the influence of brand experience on brand equity

The final model utilised to form the conceptual model for this study is the model
of the influence of brand experience on brand equity. As opined by Cleff, Lin
and Walter (2014:9), the effects of different types of brand experience on
specific components of brand equity have been studied, as depicted in Figure
4.10.

In Figure 4.6, it can be seen that many aspects of brand experience influence
consumer brand equity and in Chapter 2, Section 2.2.12, traditionally, brand

120
experience has directly influenced brand loyalty. However, for the purpose of
constructing a conceptual model for this study, the influence of sensory
experiences on brand loyalty was highlighted. This model provides the bases
of the proposed conceptual model developed for the purpose of this study
(Section 4.4: Figure 4.11).

FIGURE 4.10
A MODEL OF THE INFLUENCE OF BRAND EXPERIENCE ON BRAND
EQUITY

Sensory
Experience Brand Loyalty

Affective
Experience Brand Association

Behavioral
Perceived Quality
Experience

Intellectual
Brand Awareness
Experience

Source: Adapted from Beig & Nika (2022:161)

4.4 THE CONCEPTUAL MODEL

For the purpose of this study a conceptual model was constructed by

contextualising the previously discussed theories and models, offering a
solution to the research question pertaining to: what sensory experiences are
desired by customers when purchasing skincare products in-store, as
opposed to online? (Chapter 1: Section 1.3). Following this, hypotheses were
created to identify relationships between the independent variables and the
dependent variable of this study. Figure 4.11 exhibits the conceptual model for
the relationship between visual, auditory, olfactory and tactile traditional and
digital branding strategies and brand loyalty.

121
 FIGURE 4.11
A CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF THE DESIRED SENSORY MARKETING
STRATEGIES WHEN PURCHASING SKINCARE PRODUCTS IN-STORE
VERSUS ONLINE

Independent Variables Dependent Variable

H1
Traditional Sensory Strategies

H1a
Visual Sensory Strategy
H1b
Auditory Sensory Strategy
H1c
Olfactory Sensory Strategy
H1d
Tactile Sensory Strategy

Brand Loyalty
H2
Digital Sensory Strategies

H2a
Visual Sensory Strategy
H2b
Auditory Sensory Strategy
H2c
Olfactory Sensory Strategy
H2d
Tactile Sensory Strategy

Source: Own construction

The conceptual model (Figure 4.11) constitutes two types of hypotheses, a

null hypothesis (Ho) and an alternative hypothesis (Ha). A null hypothesis
states that no relationship exists between the independent and the dependent
variable. Contradictorily, the alternative hypotheses signify that there is a
relationship that exists between the independent and dependent variable
(Taylor 2019:1).

For this study, hypotheses have been developed to test the influence of the
independent variables (traditional and digital sensory branding strategies) on

122
the dependent variable (brand loyalty) of this study. These hypotheses are
presented in Table 4.1.

TABLE 4.1
NULL AND ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESES
Hypotheses
# Ha Ho
Relationship between the independent and dependent variables of this study
Traditional sensory branding strategies
There is a significant relationship There is no significant relationship
H1 between traditional sensory branding between traditional sensory branding
strategies and brand loyalty. strategies and brand loyalty.
There is a significant relationship There is no significant relationship
H1a between traditional visual sensory between traditional visual sensory
strategies and brand loyalty. strategies and brand loyalty.
There is a significant relationship There is no significant relationship
H1b between traditional auditory sensory between traditional auditory sensory
strategies and brand loyalty. strategies and brand loyalty.
There is a significant relationship There is no significant relationship
H1c between traditional olfactory sensory between traditional olfactory sensory
strategies and brand loyalty. strategies and brand loyalty.
There is a significant relationship There is no significant relationship
H1d between traditional tactile sensory between traditional tactile sensory
strategies and brand loyalty. strategies and brand loyalty.
Digital sensory branding strategies
There is a significant relationship There is no significant relationship
H2 between digital sensory branding between digital sensory branding
strategies and brand loyalty. strategies and brand loyalty.
There is a significant relationship There is no significant relationship
H2a between digital visual sensory between digital visual sensory strategies
strategies and brand loyalty. and brand loyalty.
There is a significant relationship There is no significant relationship
H2b between digital auditory sensory between digital auditory sensory strategies
strategies and brand loyalty. and brand loyalty.
There is a significant relationship There is no significant relationship
H2c between digital olfactory sensory between digital olfactory sensory
strategies and brand loyalty. strategies and brand loyalty.
There is a significant relationship There is no significant relationship
H2d between digital tactile sensory between digital tactile sensory strategies
strategies and brand loyalty. and brand loyalty.
Source: Own construction

As explained by Kivunja (2018:45), along with de Trigueros (2018:1), a basic

conceptual model is built from independent, dependent and, in some cases,
mediating variables. Independent variables are those factors within a study
that the researcher has control over and can therefore change, whereas
dependent variables change as a result of the changes inflicted on the
independent variables, meaning the researcher has no control over this

123
variable (Dagar 2019:60; Rychlak 2017:16; Shukla 2018:1; Vijayalakshmi &
Sivapragasam 2019:30).

However, models can further comprise mediating variables. Andrew,

Pedersen and McEvoy (2019:42), Bhandari (2021), Hefner (2017:1852) and
Namazi and Namazi (2016:545) explain that mediating variables are used
when the independent variable has an indirect relationship with the dependent
variable, and a mediating variable therefore signifies the process linking the
independent and dependent variables of a study. The following sections
expand on the independent variables used in the conceptual model relevant
to this study.

4.5 THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

For the purpose of this study, two main independent variables were identified
and selected based on previous academic literature, namely traditional
sensory branding strategies and digital sensory branding strategies. These
two independent variables were selected based on previously existing
literature (see Chapter 3) as well as based on the Experience Economy Theory
(Section 4.3.2) and specifically the Model of Sensory Marketing (Section
4.3.2.2) and the Model of Multi-Sensory Marketing (Section 4.3.2.3). The
independent variables of this study were considered in conjunction with brand
experience.

4.5.1 Brand experience

Brand experiences (Chapter 2: Section 2.2.5) are the result of a number of

consumer experiences (Hollebeek & Macky 2019:163; Hollebeek et al 2019:7;
Islam et al 2019:7; Lemon & Verhoef 2016:70; Rather 2019:19). Consumer
experiences have been categorised into feel-related, cognitive, act, relate and
sensory experiences (Schmitt 1999:61). However, for the purpose of this
study, sensory brand experiences were focused on as it was determined that
they are one of the strongest dimensions of experience, as well as appealing

124
to and influencing a large variety of consumers (Gao & Lan 2020:2; Hulten
2017:1).

Sensory branding and sensory marketing are utilised to create positive and
memorable brand experiences (Gao & Lan 2020:2; Hulten 2017:1) and, while
ranging in intensity, remain in the minds of consumers, thereby influencing
their commitment to a brand (Beig & Nika 2022:158). Brand experience is a
key concern for this study as it will be an indicator of a sustainable competitive
advantage. Furthermore, brand experience has a direct relationship with brand
loyalty (Brakus et al 2009:54; Harris et al 2017:1; Kim & Chao 2019:10;
Ramaseshan & Stein 2014) as well as a lasting effect thereon (Mascarenhas
et al 2006; Mittal & Kamakura 2001).

Both traditional sensory branding strategies and digital sensory branding

strategies comprise four sub-variables categorised as visual, auditory,
olfactory and tactile sensory branding strategies. In the sections that follow,
the variables as well as sub-variables of the study are defined and their
inclusion in this study is motivated. Furthermore, the specific strategies, in both
a traditional and digital sense, will be provided.

4.5.2 Traditional sensory branding

Due to the immense competition in modern markets, brands are increasingly

attempting to differentiate themselves. One means to accomplish this, that has
proven successful, is to position the brand itself as an experience, which is
done through the use of sensorial branding and marketing (Foroudi & Palazzo
2019:132; Galande 2019:47). Sensory branding or marketing is widely
accepted as being the use of the five human senses to engage with customers
and create brand preference (Beig & Nika 2022:158; Cowen-Elstner 2018:18;
Foroudi & Palazzo 2019:131; Galande 2019:47; Hulten 2020:18; 2017:2;
Manojkumar et al 2021:655; Ong et al 2018:5; Pogorzelski 2018:84; Suardi
2019:16; Upadhyaya 2017:353; Wala et al 2019:109).

125
The power of sensory branding lies in the fact that once a consumer makes a
sensory association with a brand, it is unlikely they will forget it (Foroudi &
Palazzo 2019:132). It can therefore be said that sensorial marketing and
branding creates long-term experiences for consumers that remain in their
minds well after the encounter. It has further been found that consumers
indicate preference towards brands based on the brand’s personality and the
experience it offers them (Liegeois & Rivera 2011:16). From these literature
findings, it can be concluded that traditional sensory branding has an influence
on consumer experiences. For these reasons, traditional sensory branding
was identified as a variable of this study (Chapter 3: Section 3.3) and provides
an explanation to the formulation of hypothesis H1 (There is a significant
relationship between traditional sensory branding strategies and brand
loyalty).

4.5.3 Digital sensory branding

Technology has become an important communication tool (Hulten 2020:9),

evident by the amount of time that consumers are spending online (Deyan
2021; Koetsier 2020), which has been amplified by the exponential
advancement of technology (Pathan 2018:189; Ricker & Thatcher 2017:368).
Consumers are equivocally demanding of brands online as they are in-store
in terms of expecting engaging sensory experiences (Sarathy 2020). This
means that it is no longer sufficient for businesses to practice traditional
marketing techniques only. Brands must therefore find ways to mimic the
experience online that consumers have in-store, thereby increasing consumer
confidence and solidifying the credibility of the brand (Kaushik & Gokhale
2021:378; Sarathy 2020).

It has further been stated that each time that a consumer utilises a digital
platform to communicate or find information, it should be considered a sensory
experience (Hulten 2020:9). Digital sensory branding is however seen as a
forgone opportunity, due to the lack of its utilisation in creating brand
experiences (Kaushik & Gokhale 2021:5377; Petit et al 2018:42). It can
therefore be concluded that while implementing sensory branding online is

126
perceived as being more difficult, it is necessary. For these reasons, digital
sensory branding was identified as a variable of this study (Chapter 3: Section
3.4). This also offers an explanation as to the formulation of hypothesis H2
(There is a significant relationship between digital sensory branding strategies
and brand loyalty). For the purpose of this study, both traditional and digital
sensory branding comprised visual, auditory, olfactory and tactile sensory
branding strategies.

4.5.4 Visual sensory branding

Visual sensory branding (Chapter 3: Section 3.5) was selected as a sub-

variable as research found that sight is the sense most commonly used by
brands to create brand identity and awareness (Foroudi & Palazzo 2019:136;
Hulten 2020:59; Pogorzelski 2018:85; Shanthi et al 2019:205), attributed to it
being the most seductive (Upadhyaya 2017:353) and noticeable human sense
(Biswas et al 2014:114; Foroudi & Palazzo 2019:136; Galande 2019:48;
Hulten 2017:5; Pogorzelski 2018:85). Furthermore, visual cues are powerful
as they have an influence on brand preference, consumption quantity and
purchasing behaviour (Bjerk 2015:3; Hulten 2020:58; 2017:5; Wang
2013:806). It can therefore be concluded that visual stimuli have an impact on
product or brand preference and in turn, on purchase intention, through the
creation of brand experiences. As this study focuses on both in-store and
online sensory branding of skincare, this also offers an explanation as to the
formulation of hypothesis H1a (There is a significant relationship between
traditional visual sensory branding strategies and brand loyalty) and H2a (There
is a significant relationship between digital visual sensory branding strategies
and brand loyalty). The following sections provide specific visual sensory
branding strategies.

4.5.4.1 Traditional visual sensory branding strategies

Traditional visual sensory branding strategies constitute colours used by a

brand, logo design, packaging design, lighting in the store, the cleanliness of
the store, the design and layout of the store itself (both internally and

127
externally), visible signage and display features, such as mannequins in a
clothing store and the uniform or clothing of staff members (Chapter 3: Section
3.5.1).

4.5.4.2 Digital visual sensory branding strategies

Digital sensory strategies share some aspects that are used in traditional
sensory strategy, such as the colours used by a brand, logo design and
packaging design. Additionally, digital visual sensory branding strategies can
include the use of digital photos, movies, trailers and all other internet
advertising. Furthermore, digital strategies must consider the webmosphere of
the digital platform, such as the layout, user friendliness of websites, colour as
backgrounds and perceived download speed. Finally, as technology
advances, the use of 3D imaging, virtual reality environments (VR) and virtual
try-ons (VTO), or augmented interactive (AI/AR) technology are becoming
popular (Chapter 3: Section 3.5.2).

4.5.5 Auditory sensory branding

Auditory sensory branding (Chapter 3: Section 3.6) was selected as a sub-

variable as research found that auditory cues have a powerful influence on an
individual’s emotions, moods and behaviour (Hulten 2020:87), which allows
brands to influence a consumer’s brand preference (Bartholme & Melewar
2016:420; Cowen-Elstner 2018:28; Foroudi & Palazzo 2019:136; Galande
2019:48; Hulten 107:6; PH Media 2021; Pogorzelski 2018:86; Shanthi et al
2019:205). Furthermore, auditory cues have the ability to create long-lasting
memory and therefore, brand loyalty through their strong link to vision (Cowen-
Elstner 2018:29; Hulten 2020:86; Shaed et al 2015:34). Due to the influence
that auditory sensory branding has on behaviour and, in turn, brand
preference, the hypothesis H1b (There is a significant relationship between
traditional auditory sensory branding strategies and brand loyalty) and H2b
(There is a significant relationship between digital auditory sensory branding
strategies and brand loyalty) were formulated.

128
Auditory cues are further useful to marketers as they can be used to grab the
attention of consumers, increase persuasiveness and increase sales volume,
as well as control the pace of consumer shopping and create a cohesive
environment (Hulten 2020:94; 2017:6; Israel et al 2019:100232; Randhir et al
2016:280-281; Simha 2019:35; Suarez & Gumiel 2014:264; Wollner et al
2018:3). It is apparent from the above literature findings that auditory sensory
branding has the ability to influence consumer brand experience. The following
sections provide specific auditory sensory branding strategies.

4.5.5.1 Traditional auditory sensory branding strategies

Traditional auditory sensory branding strategies constitute the music in stores,

the jingles used by a brand, the sound or pronunciation of the brand’s name
and even sounds associated with using the physical product itself (Chapter 3:
Section 3.6.1).

4.5.5.2 Digital auditory sensory branding strategies

Digital auditory sensory branding strategies are similar to those used in brick
and mortar stores and include brand jingles, the sound or pronunciation of the
brand’s name, radio or television adverts as well as video adverts and
background music (Chapter 3: Section 3.6.2).

4.5.6 Olfactory sensory branding

Olfactory sensory branding (Chapter 3: Section 3.7) was selected as a sub-

variable as research found that fragrances have an influence on an individual’s
cognitive processes, emotional responses as well as their behaviour (Cowen-
Elstner 2018:30; Galande 2019:48; Hulten 2020:111; 2017:7; Pogorzelski
2018:87; Vega-Gomez et al 2020:2; Wala et al 2019:112). Smell is the most
sensitive of the human senses and has the ability to create strong feelings of
reminiscence (Hulten 2017:7; Pogorzelski 2018:86; Shanthi et al 2019:206;
Upadhyaya 2017:353; Vega-Gomez et al 2020:1). Additionally, it has been
found that the sense of smell is a useful marketing tool, attributed to its

129
longevity in the mind of an individual (Cowen-Elstner 2018:30; Hulten
2020:110; 2017:7; Randhir et al 2016:279; Suarez & Gumiel 2014:267; Vega-
Gomez et al 2020:2). Based on the significance that olfactory sensory
branding has with relation to the skincare industry, hypothesis H1c (There is a
significant relationship between traditional olfactory sensory branding
strategies and brand loyalty) and H2c (There is a significant relationship
between digital olfactory sensory branding strategies and brand loyalty) were
formulated.

Furthermore, it is notable that a pleasurable fragrance influences the ability of

consumers to recall an experience, the time consumers spend in a store and
even the amount that they are willing to spend on a product (Cao & Duong
2021:134; Cowen-Elstner 2018:30; Foroudi & Palazzo 2019:137; Hulten
2017:7; Randhir et al 2016:280; Sliburyte & Vaitieke 2019:102; Srinivau et al
2021:12553; Suarez & Gumiel 2014:269; Vega-Gomez et al 2020:2). The
literature pertaining to olfactory sensory stimuli provides evidence that
olfactory sensory branding will have an influence on a consumer’s brand
experience. The following sections provide specific olfactory sensory branding
strategies.

4.5.6.1 Traditional olfactory sensory branding strategies

Traditional olfactory sensory branding strategies can include the fragrance of

the product itself and signature fragrances utilised by stores as place markers
to differentiate themselves in the market through the use of nebulization
technology, as well as the fragrance of staff in an establishment (Chapter 3:
Section 3.7.1).

4.5.6.2 Digital olfactory sensory branding strategies

Digital olfactory sensory branding strategies are more difficult, as there is

currently no technology that can replace physical smell via an online platform.
However, marketers attempt to still provide an olfactory experience to
consumers by making use of imagery and descriptive words and distributing

130
“scratch-and-sniff” cards. Furthermore, as technology advances, multisensory
devices are being developed that will allow consumers to physically smell
through a digital screen (Chapter 3: Section 3.7.2).

4.5.7 Tactile sensory branding

Tactile sensory branding (Chapter 3: Section 3.8) was selected as a sub-

variable as research found that haptics allows brands to enhance positive
emotional responses and moods, thereby influencing purchasing behaviour
(Cowen-Elstner 2018:26; Foroudi & Foroudi 2021:244; Foroudi & Palazzo
2019:138; Hulten 2020:138; 2017:8; Iosifyan & Korolkova 2019:81). Touch
allows consumers to easily make decisions about the product, such as the
quality thereof (Cowen-Elstner 2018:25; Hoang & Tuckova 2020:1286; Hulten
2020:136; 2017:8; Pogorzelski 2018:88; Shanthi et al 2019:206; Stach
2018:25; Suarez & Gumiel 2014:269) and the duration that a consumer feels
a product will also influence their perception (Hulten 2020:141; Ringler et al
2019:190). Additionally, consumers build confidence in a product and brand
through the sense of touch (Foroudi & Foroudi 2021:244; Hulten 2020:137).
As this study focuses on both in-store and online sensory branding of skincare,
this also offers an explanation as to the formulation of hypothesis H1d (There
is a significant relationship between traditional tactile sensory branding
strategies and brand loyalty) and H2d (There is a significant relationship
between digital tactile sensory branding strategies and brand loyalty).

Furthermore, touch allows consumers to perceive ownership and valuation

(Cowen-Elstner 2018:25; Hulten 2017:8; Peck 2020; Perry 2017; Suarez &
Gumiel 2014:269) and it has been established that many individuals will refuse
to purchase a product if the feeling does not match what they expected from
seeing it (Hoang & Tuckova 2020:1286; Hulten 2020:138; 2017:9). It can
therefore be deduced that tactile sensory stimuli have an influence on brand
experience. The following section provide specific tactile sensory branding
strategies.

131
4.5.7.1 Traditional tactile sensory branding strategies

Traditional tactile sensory branding strategies encompass all touch points

between a consumer and a product or product packaging. Further aspects,
such as the temperature of a store, different textured paper, the touch from a
staff member and tester samples of a product, are also considered tactile
stimuli in marketing (Chapter 3: Section 3.8.1).

4.5.7.2 Digital tactile sensory branding strategies

As in the case with olfactory stimuli, there is no technology as of yet that can
digitally replace the physical sense of touch for consumers. However, to try
and compensate for this, marketers can make use of high-quality images and
descriptive words online; provide deliver and return options which allow
consumers the opportunity to physically touch a product before deciding to
keep it; and program haptic vibrations emitted via the mouse to consumers
while shopping. Finally, many researchers are trying to develop technology
that will, in the future, allow haptic interactions via a digital platform (Chapter
3: Section 3.8.2). The following section elaborates on the dependent variable
used in the conceptual model.

4.6 THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE: BRAND LOYALTY

For the purpose of this study, the dependent variable was identified as brand
loyalty, which may be influenced by the independent variables (traditional and
digital sensory branding strategies) of this study. This dependent variable was
selected based on the extant literature (see Chapter 2) as well as based on
the Brand Equity Theory (Section 4.3.3) and specifically the model depicting
the influence of brand experience on brand equity (Section 4.3.3.1).

Brand loyalty (Chapter 2: Section 2.2.2.4) refers to how attached a customer

is to a certain brand (Aaker 1991:39; Algharabat et al 2021:9; Beig & Nika
2022:160; Narteh 2018:385; Tasci 2018:149). Brand loyalty is an important
concept for consideration as it has a role in facilitating competitive advantage

132
and financial benefits (Aaker 1991:39; Beig & Nika 2022:160; Tartaglione et al
2019:1). This is due to the fact that successful brand loyalty building strategy
results in repurchase intention (RI), the generation of positive word of mouth
(WOM) as well as a consumer being willing to pay more (WPM) (Alexandra &
Cerchia 2018:423; Foroudi et al 2018:10; Giovanis & Anthanasopoulou
2016:2; Haung et al 2018:2132; Saif et al 2018:67; Tartaglione et al 2019:1)

Furthermore, increased consumer loyalty has been shown to lead to a surge

in sales, thereby increasing the profit or financial status of a business (Narteh
2018:385). However, due to an increase in online shopping or e-commerce,
brand loyalty has seen a significant decrease (Robertson 2020). It can be
concluded that brands can utilise brand loyalty to increase their profit margins
as well as to gain a competitive advantage, in the market, making brand loyalty
a necessary dependent variable to measure. The final section provides a
summary of the information provided in this chapter.

4.7 SUMMARY

It can be concluded that it is essential for researchers to construct a framework

in order to plan and efficiently execute their research. The findings relating to
this chapter are indicated with the abbreviation “PTF” and the number of the
finding.

A research framework allows the researcher to prove the necessity of their

work (PTF1) and provides the context for the study and the variables thereof
(PTF2). Furthermore, the framework assists the researcher in organising their
own information and understanding how the selected variables interact
(PTF3). There are two types of frameworks, namely theoretical frameworks
and conceptual frameworks (PTF4). A conceptual framework is linked to the
purpose of the study as well as the interaction between the variables (PTF5).
Furthermore, a conceptual framework serves three broad purposes, namely
argumentation (a motivation for why the study is significant) (PTF6);
explanation (why the variables have been included in the study) (PTF7); and
generation (assisting the researcher in developing appropriate research

133
questions, data collection methods and analysis) (PTF8). When constructing
a conceptual model, researchers will draw on their own personal experience
as well as the existing literature (PTF9). Furthermore, a conceptual model is
based on a variety of concepts that are rooted in different theories (PTF10).

Contradictorily, a theoretical framework draws on previously existing literature

as well as accepted theories (PTF11). A theoretical framework is the
foundation of a study (PTF12) and is utilised in both quantitative and qualitative
studies (PTF13). When used in qualitative studies, a theoretical framework
enhances the credibility and dependability of the study (PTF14), as well as
increasing the transferability of a qualitative study (PTF15). When used in
quantitative studies, a theoretical framework proves the internal and external
validity and increases the reliability of the study (PTF16). For the purpose of
this study, a conceptual model was developed, which offered a solution to the
research question pertaining to: what are the different sensory marketing
strategies desired by consumers when purchasing skincare products in-store
versus online? (PTF17). The conceptual model constituted independent
variables as well as a dependent variable (PTF18). The independent variables
pertaining to this study were traditional sensory branding (PTF19) and digital
sensory branding (PTF20), each of which comprised four sub-variables.

Visual sensory branding is the first sub-variable of this study and was selected
as research found that sight is the sense most commonly used by brands to
create brand identity and awareness (PTF21). It is further the most seductive
and noticeable sense (PTF22) and has an influence on brand preference
(PTF23), consumption quantity (PTF24) and purchasing behaviour (PTF25).
Visual sensory strategies have been found to have an influence on brand
experience (PTF26) and, with reference to traditional sensory strategies, can
include colours used by a brand (PTF27), logo design (PTF28), packaging
design (PTF29), lighting in the store (PTF30), the cleanliness of the store
(PTF31), the design and layout of the store itself (both internally and
externally) (PTF32), visible signage and display features (PTF33) and the
uniform or clothing of staff members (PTF34). Digital visual sensory strategies
constitute colours used by a brand (PTF35), logo design (PTF36), packaging

134
design (PTF37), digital photos (PTF38), movies (PTF39), trailers (PTF40), the
layout (PTF41), user friendliness of websites (PTF42), colour as backgrounds
(PTF43), perceived download speed (PTF44), the use of 3D imaging (PTF45),
virtual reality environments (VR) (PTF46) and virtual try-ons (VTO) (PTF46).

The second sub-variable of this study is auditory sensory branding, which was
selected as research determined that auditory cues have a powerful influence
on an individual’s emotions, moods and behaviour (PTF47), allowing brands
to influence a consumer’s brand preference (PTF48). Auditory cues also
create long-lasting memories (PTF49), gain the attention of consumers
(PTF50), increase persuasiveness (PTF51), increase sales volume (PTF52),
control the pace of consumer shopping (PTF53) and create cohesive
environments (PTF54). Traditional visual sensory branding strategies include
the music in stores (PTF55), the jingles used by a brand (PTF56), the sound
or pronunciation of the brand’s name (PTF57) and sounds associated with
using the physical product itself (PTF58). With reference to digital auditory
sensory branding strategies, they can include brand jingles (PTF59), the
sound or pronunciation of the brand’s name (PTF60), radio or television
adverts (PTF61), video adverts (PTF62) and background music (PTF63).

Olfactory sensory branding was the third sub-variable of the study and was
included as research proved that fragrances have an influence on an
individual’s cognitive processes and emotional responses, as well as their
behaviour (PTF64). Smell has the ability to create strong feelings of
reminiscence (PTF65) and last for a long time in the minds of consumers
(PTF66). Olfactory senses further have the ability to influence consumers’
recall of an experience (PTF67), the time consumers spend in a store (PTF68)
and the amount they are willing to spend on a product (PTF69). Traditional
olfactory sensory branding strategies include the fragrance of the product itself
(PTF70), signature fragrances (PTF71), the use of nebulization technology
(PTF72) and the fragrance of staff in an establishment (PTF73). There is
currently no technology that can replace physical smell via an online platform
(PTF74). However, marketers make use of imagery and descriptive words
(PTF75) and distributing “scratch-and-sniff” cards (PTF76) to deliver olfactory

135
sensory experiences. Multisensory devices are being developed that will one
day allow consumers to physically smell through a digital screen (PTF77).

The final sub-variable of this study was tactile sensory branding, which was
selected as research found that haptics allow brands to enhance positive
emotional responses and moods, thereby influencing purchasing behaviour
(PTF78). Touch allows consumers to evaluate the quality of a product (PTF79)
and consumers build confidence in a product and brand through the sense of
touch (PTF80). Additionally, touch creates the feeling of ownership and
valuation for consumers (PTF81). Traditional tactile sensory strategies include
all touch points between a consumer and a product or product packaging
(PTF82), the temperature of a store (PTF83), different textured paper (PTF84),
the touch from a staff member (PTF85) and tester samples of a product
(PTF86). With reference to digital tactile sensory branding, as of yet there is
no technology that can replace the physical sense of touch for consumers
(PTF87). However, digital strategies can make use of high-quality images and
descriptive words online (PTF88), provide deliver and return options (PTF89)
and program haptic vibrations emitted via the mouse to consumers while
shopping (PTF90). Researchers are trying to develop technology that will, in
the future, allow haptic interactions via a digital platform (PTF91).

The dependent variable of this study was identified as brand loyalty, which
was selected as research indicated that it has a role in facilitating competitive
advantage and financial benefits (PTF92). Successful brand loyalty building
strategy results in repurchase intention (RI) (PTF93), the generation of positive
word of mouth (WOM) (PTF94) and consumers being willing to pay more
(WPM) (PTF95). Additionally, brand loyalty leads to an increase in sales
(PTF96). However, brand loyalty is decreasing due to an increase in the
number of online or e-commerce shoppers (PTF97).

A conceptual framework comprises two categories of hypotheses, a null

hypothesis (Ho) (PTF98) and an alternative hypothesis (Ha) (PTF99). For the
purpose of this study, hypotheses have been developed to test the influence
of the independent variables of this study on the dependent variable (PTF100).

136
The following null hypotheses relating to traditional sensory branding were
formulated for this study: H1o (There is no significant relationship between
traditional sensory branding strategies and brand loyalty) (PTF101); H1ao
(There is no significant relationship between traditional visual sensory
strategies and brand loyalty) (PTF102); H1bo (There is no significant
relationship between traditional auditory sensory strategies and brand loyalty)
(PTF103); H1co (There is no significant relationship between traditional
olfactory sensory strategies and brand loyalty) (PTF104); and H1do (There is
no significant relationship between traditional tactile sensory strategies and
brand loyalty) (PTF105).

The following alternative hypotheses relating to traditional sensory branding

were formulated for this study: H1a (There is a significant relationship between
traditional sensory branding strategies and brand loyalty) (PTF106); H1aa
(There is a significant relationship between traditional visual sensory
strategies and brand loyalty) (PTF107); H1ba (There is a significant relationship
between traditional auditory sensory strategies and brand loyalty) (PTF108);
H1ca (There is a significant relationship between traditional olfactory sensory
strategies and brand loyalty) (PTF109: and H1da (There is a significant
relationship between traditional tactile sensory strategies and brand loyalty)
(PTF110).

The following null hypotheses relating to digital sensory branding were

formulated for this study: H2o (There is no significant relationship between
digital sensory branding strategies and brand loyalty) (PTF111); H2ao (There is
no significant relationship between digital visual sensory strategies and brand
loyalty) (PTF112); H2bo (There is no significant relationship between digital
auditory sensory strategies and brand loyalty) (PTF113); H2co (There is no
significant relationship between digital olfactory sensory strategies and brand
loyalty) (PTF114); and H2do (There is no significant relationship between digital
tactile sensory strategies and brand loyalty) (PTF115).

The following alternative hypotheses relating to digital sensory branding were

formulated for this study: H2a (There is a significant relationship between digital

137
sensory branding strategies and brand loyalty) (PTF116); H2aa (There is a
significant relationship between digital visual sensory strategies and brand
loyalty) (PTF117); H2ba (There is a significant relationship between digital
auditory sensory strategies and brand loyalty) (PTF118); H2ca (There is a
significant relationship between digital olfactory sensory strategies and brand
loyalty) (PTF119); and H2da (There is a significant relationship between digital
tactile sensory strategies and brand loyalty) (PTF120).

Chapter 5 elaborates on the research methodology, as identified in Chapter 1.

138
 CHAPTER 5
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

5.1 INTRODUCTION

Chapter 4 addressed the conceptual model of this study and commenced by

introducing the concept of both theoretical frameworks and conceptual
models, which included a distinction between the types, and components
thereof. Hereafter, previously existing theories and models, which were used
to construct the conceptual model of this study, were briefly explained.
Following this, the conceptual model put forward by this study was presented,
together with an in-depth discussion thereof, as well as the hypotheses
thereof. The variables selected for the conceptual model of this study were
included in the discussion, as well as the reason for their selection. Chapter 5
explains the research methodology employed to conduct this study. According
to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2019:130) as well as Saunders, Lewis,
Thornhill and Bristow (2016:124), the research methodology of any study can
be broken down into separate parts, which they explain through the use of the
“research onion”, depicted in Figure 5.1.

FIGURE 5.1
THE RESEARCH ONION

Source: Saunders et al (2019:130); Saunders et al (2016:124)

139
The research onion provides a means to understand the creation of an
appropriate structured research methodology for a study (Boucher 2021:25).
Within Chapter 5, each layer of the research onion will be contextualised
specifically to this study, whereby research paradigms and designs are first
discussed and the specific types utilised for this study identified. Thereafter,
data collection and sampling techniques are expanded upon, the specific
sampling technique employed in this study is discussed and the measuring
instrument is reviewed in depth. The chapter then describes the methods used
for determining the validity and reliability of the measuring instrument and
finally, the statistical analysis techniques employed for data assessment are
described.

5.2 THE RESEARCH PARADIGM

A research paradigm can be described as how a researcher contextualises

his/her knowledge on a research topic based on his/her own personal beliefs
and assumptions (Blaiki & Priest 2017:9; Kivunja & Kuyini 2017:26; Rehman
& Alharthi 2016:51; Goodyear-Smith & Mash 2018:11; Saunders et al
2019:130). According to Pham (2018:2), Ryan (2018:42) and Goodyear-Smith
and Mash (2018:12), along with Ikudayisi (2021:53), there are two main
research paradigms, namely an interpretivist and a positivist paradigm. As
explained by Blaiki and Priest (2017:104), Goodyear-Smith and Mash
(2018:12), Ikudayisi (2021:53), Ryan (2018:48) and Struwig and Stead
(2015:12), while an interpretivist paradigm is concerned with qualitative or
non-numerical data (Park, Lars & Artino 2018:5; Struwig & Stead 2015:12), a
positivistic paradigm is associated with quantitative or numerical data (Nel
2016; Park et al 2018:4).

Qualitative research, as stated by Ikudayisi (2021:56), aims to understand a

topic from the stance of the respondent, rather than trying to quantify the
findings. The researcher will, therefore, make use of open-ended or
unstructured means to collect data, giving the respondents the opportunity to
provide more in-depth answers, from which the researcher can draw insight
on the topic (Gopaldas 2016:118; Levitt, Motulsky, Wertz, Morrow &

140
Ponterotto 2017:13; Merriam & Grenier 2019:6; Mohajan 2018:23; O’Cathain
2018:4; Tracy 2019:3). Table 5.1 provides a summary of the characteristics
associated with qualitative research.

TABLE 5.1
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH CHARACTERISTICS

Research
Qualitative Research Source
Aspect

Discover ideas, used in exploratory Brenan (2017:15); McLanghlin, Bush &

Common
research with general research Zeeman (2016:716); Merriam & Grenier
Purpose
objectives in a social context (2019:6)

McLanghlin et al (2016:716); Merriam &

Approach Observe and interpret
Grenier (2019:6); O’Cathain (2018:3)

McLanghlin et al (2016:716); Merriam &

Data
Unstructured, semi-structured or free Grenier (2019:15); O’Cathain (2018:4);
Collection
form Tracy (2019:3); Wiid & Diggines
Methods
(2015:95)

Researcher Researcher is intimately involved Results Brenan (2017:5); Merriam & Grenier
Independence are subjective (2019:16)

Small samples – often in natural settings

and somewhat dependent on the Boddy (2016:430); Vasileiou et al
Samples
research paradigm of the study under (2018:2)
question

Most Often
Exploratory research designs O’Cathain (2018:3)
Used

Trustworthiness, credibility, Korstjens & Mosetr (2018:120);

Quality
dependability, confirmability and Lumsden (2022); McLanghlin et al
Criteria
transferability (2016:716)

Korstjens & Mosetr (2018:122);

Analysis Coding and document analysis Lumsden (2022); McLanghlin et al
(2016:716)
Source: Own construction

In contrast to qualitative research, quantitative research uses numerical data,

collected by means of empirical investigation, to interpret and draw
conclusions about a topic (Brenan 2017:5; Goertzen 2017:12; Ikudayisi
2021:54; Lucas-Alfieri 2015:20; McLanghlin et al 2016:716; Sheard
2018:430). Goertzen (2017:12), along with Wiid and Diggines (2015:95), adds

141
that, due to the results being interpreted via statistical analysis, quantitative
research is more efficient than qualitative research. Furthermore, Ikudayisi
(2021:54) notes that an important benefit of quantitative research is that
statistics can be utilised to test correlations between variables, and therefore,
relationships can be determined. Table 5.2 provides a summary of the
characteristics associated with quantitative research.

TABLE 5.2
QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH CHARACTERISTICS

Research Aspect Quantitative Research Source

Test hypotheses or specific research Bhandari (2022); Brenan (2017:4);

Common Purpose
questions Goertzen (2017:13); Morrow (2021)
Bhasin (2019); Cornell (2022);
Approach Measure and test Goertzen (2017:12); Sheard
(2018:430)
Bhasin (2019); Cornell (2022);
Data Collection Structured response categories
Lucas-Alfieri (2015:20); Morrow
Methods provided
(2021); Wiid & Diggines (2015:95)
Brenan (2017:5); Goertzen
Researcher Researcher uninvolved observer
(2017:12); Lucas-Alfieri (2015:20);
Independence Results are objective
Morrow (2021)
Large samples to produce Bhandari (2022); Bhasin (2019);
Samples generalisable results (results that Cornell (2022); Goertzen (2017:13);
apply to other situations) Morrow (2021); Rahman (2016:102)
Descriptive and causal research Bhandari (2022); Cornell (2022);
Most Often Used
designs Grove, Gray & Burns (2015:212)

Bhandari (2022); McLanghlin et al

Quality Criteria Reliability and validity
(2016:716); Morrow (2021)
Bhandari (2022); Bhasin (2019);
Analysis Descriptive and inferential statistics Cornell (2022); McLanghlin et al
(2016:716)
Source: Own construction

This study made use of a positivistic paradigm and a quantitative research

approach, which were selected as this research study aimed to answer the
question of “what are the different sensory marketing strategies desired by
consumers when purchasing skincare products in-store versus online?”. This
was achieved by means of testing the constructed hypotheses relevant to this
study. The following section discusses research designs.

142
 5.3 THE RESEARCH DESIGN

Akhtar (2016:68), Bruinders (2021:30), Creswell and Creswell (2017:11) and

McCombes (2020b), along with Sileyew (2019:2), maintain that a research
design is the researchers’ plan to investigate their chosen topic, including the
primary data that is needed, the methods for collecting as well as analysing
the data, and how they intend to use this information to answer their research
question (Boru 2018:1). Akhtr (2016:68) and Bruinders (2021:30), as well as
Creswell and Creswell (2017:11), add that the selection of an appropriate
research approach is imperative as it will signify the relevance of the study to
both the researcher as well as to the intended audience. There are three types
of research designs, namely an exploratory research design, an explanatory
or causal research design and a descriptive research design (Boru 2018:2;
Pratap 2019; Wiid & Diggines 2015:42).

TABLE 5.3
RESEARCH DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS
Explanatory
Exploratory Descriptive
Factor Source (causal) Source Source
Design Design
Design
Used to Boru
Aims to
investigate (2018:2);
Amoah, answer
if two Cook &
Aims to Ferreira & questions of
variables Cook
explore fields Potgieter who?, what?,
have a Boru (2018:2); (2016:2);
of uncertainty (2020:72); when? and
causal Kabir (2016:130); Grove et al
and how they Boru how? relating
relationship, Polonsky & (2015:191);
Purpose can be (2018:2); to a
meaning Waller Hunziker &
studied. It Gomez & phenomenon.
that the (2019:182); Blankenagel
answers the Mouselli Used to find
independent Pratap (2019) (2021:3);
question of (2018:47); relationships
variable Nassaji
“why?” Pratap between
impacts the (2015:129);
(2019) variables of a
dependent Pratap
study
variable (2019)
Data
collection
methods are
Amoah et
highly rigid
Data Flexible al Structured Erickson
and
Collection means of data (2020:72); means to (2017:79); Pratap Pratap (2019)
structured, in
Methods collection Pratap collect data (2019)
that
(2019)
standardised
methods are
utilised
No conclusive Boru Causal Kabir (2016:131); It does not Cook & Cook
Limitation
answers can (2018:2); results are Volchok (2015) explain the (2016:2);

143
 Explanatory
Exploratory Descriptive
Factor Source (causal) Source Source
Design Design
Design
be reached, it Gomez & difficult to outcome, but Pratap (2019);
only allows Mouselli administer rather just Taylor
the (2018:47) as they can makes use of (2017:244)
researcher to infer but not descriptive
gain a deeper prove data to
understanding indicate such
of the topic
Source: Own construction

This study uses the descriptive research design. A study that is based on a
descriptive research design investigates a topic that there is some
understanding of already; however, there is insufficient information to answer
the research question (Boru 2018:2; Boudah 2019:155; Miksza & Elpus
2018:17; Polonsky & Waller 2019:182; Taylor 2017:244). Furthermore, as
explained by Cook and Cook (2016:2), Hunziker and Blankenagel (2021:3)
and Wiid and Diggines (2015:67), descriptive research design makes use of
statistics to identify patterns and meticulous collection and analysis of primary
data is therefore essential. Boru (2018:2) adds that after exploratory research
has been conducted, researchers often make use of descriptive research to
prove their findings.

With regard to this study, there was minimal academic literature pertaining to
sensory branding, especially when considering the skincare industry, as
declared by Almomani (2020), Grandin et al (2020), Huang and Lu (2020),
Levrini and dos Santos (2021) and Sakhawat (2019) and, to the researchers’
knowledge, no research specifically on the use of sensory branding online for
skincare. Due to the lack of information, the researcher’s ability to answer the
research question was inhibited. Additionally, this study aimed to investigate
the relationship between the independent variables of this study (traditional
sensory branding and digital sensory branding) and the dependent variable of
the study (brand loyalty). Finally, the primary data required for this study was
collected via a structured questionnaire and then analysed through the use of
descriptive and inferential statistics, which allowed the researcher to identify
patterns relating to the desired sensory branding strategies of consumers,
both in brick-and-mortar stores and online. Due to the aforementioned points,

144
a descriptive research design was selected for the purpose of this study. The
following section elaborates on the sampling pertaining to this study.

5.4 SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION

As is the case in most research studies, it would be impossible for the

researcher to access all members of the target audience (Alvi 2016:11;
Bhardwaj 2019:158; Elfil & Negida 2017:1; Sharma 2017:749; Taherdoost
2016a:20; Turner 2020:833). Therefore, in order to collect accurate
information that can be used to generalise for an entire population, the
researcher must make use of sampling, which entails collecting data from a
portion of the identified population (Alvi 2016:11; Arnab 2017:4; Berndt
2020:224; Bhardwaj 2019:158; Cash, Isaksson, Maier & Summers 2022:3;
Elfil & Negida 2017:1; Sekaran & Bougie 2016:235; Sharma 2017:749;
Taherdoost 2016a:20; Turner 2020:833; Vasileiou, Barnett, Thorpe & Young
2018:2). As explained by Berndt (2020:225), Bhardwaj (2019:157), Cash et al
(2022:11), Elfil and Negida (2017:1), Marchi, Ferrara, Bertini, Fares and
Salvati (2017:183), Sharma (2017:749) and Vasileiou et al (2018:13) it is
imperative that the number of respondents constituting the sample be large
enough and that the characteristics thereof are well defined so that the
generalisations made are as accurate as possible. Sharma (2017:749) affirms
that the two most noticeable benefits of making use of sampling are time
efficiency and cost effectiveness; however, Bhardwaj (2019:158) cautions that
while there are many advantages to sampling, a disadvantage is that the
chance of bias occurring is heightened. The following sections discuss the
sampling of this study, including the sample method, the target population,
sample size and response rate.

5.4.1 Target population

The target population of a study can be described as the subset of individuals

from which information is needed (Adwok 2015:95; Allen 2017:1283; Asiamah,
Mensah & Oteng-Abayie 2017:1610; Pace 2020:3; Wu & Thompson 2020:5).
Distinguishing the target population of a study should be a top priority to the

145
researcher as this will influence the accuracy of the data collected (Adwok
2015:95; Bharswaj 2019:158; Taherdoost 2016a:19; Wallach, Makowski,
Jones & Brun 2018:344). The target population for the purpose of this study
constituted consumers who have purchased skincare products both in-store
as well as online, who were between the ages of 18 and 60 years, of any race,
gender and nationality during the time of the study.

The size of a sample of a study, as explained by Ahmad, Samsudin, Adnan

and Husein (2019:1), is important as it can influence the accuracy of the
assumptions and recommendations made to the entire population, which is
agreed upon by Allen (2017:1545), (Berndt 2020:224), Chow, Shao, Wang
and Lokhnygina (2017:11), Kranzler (2017:113), Malone, Nicholl and Coyne
(2016:21), Pace (2021:5), Taherdoost (2017:237), Taherdoost (2016a:23) as
well as Vasileiou et al (2018:2). Crossman (2020), Faber and Fonseca
(2014:27), Zamboni (2018) and Vasileiou et al (2018:2) add that by making
use of a large sample size, the researcher can better avoid bias.

In most cases, to determine the sample for a study, a sample frame will be
consulted, which as explained by Turner (2020:833), as well as Watson,
Porteous, Bolt and Ryan (2019:828), is a list of all components in a population.
However, in the case of this study where the respondents were individuals
who had purchased skincare both in-store and online, no such sample frame
exists. Therefore, in order to establish an acceptable sample size for the study,
the guidelines provided in Table 5.4 were consulted.

TABLE 5.4
SAMPLE SIZE GUIDELINES
Number of Respondents Acceptability of Sample Size
50 respondents Very poor
100 Respondents Poor
200 Respondents Reasonable
300 Respondents Good
500 Respondents Very good
1000 Respondents Excellent
Source: Comrey & Lee (2013:217); Rahi (2017:4)

146
Based on the above guidelines, this study set a minimum sample size of 300
respondents. The following section addresses the response rate pertaining to
this study.

5.4.2 Sampling

As defined by Berndt (2020:225), Elfil and Negida (2017:1) and Martinez-

Mesa, Duquia, Bastos, Gonzalez-Chica and Bonamigo (2016:327), the
sampling method of a study explains how the researcher intends to identify
respondents from the target population. Berndt (2020:225), Bhardwaj
(2019:158), Martinez-Mesa et al (2016:327) and Vasileiou (2018:3) add that
the researcher should take care when selecting the sampling method as the
selected sample will in turn affect the sample size as well as the credibility of
the data collected. When conducting research, there are two broad forms of
sampling methods that a researcher can make use of, as declared by Berndt
(2020:224), Bhardwaj (2019:158), Cash et al (2022:9), Elfil and Negida
(2017:1), Etikan and Bala (2017:215) and Martinez-Mesa et al (2016:327), as
well as Sharma (2017:750), namely probability sampling and non-probability
sampling, both of which comprise of more specific techniques of sampling,
which is summarised in Figure 5.2.

As explained by Berndt (2020:224), Bhardwaj (2019:158), Parveen and

Showkat (2017:2) and Surbhi (2022), when making use of probability
sampling, each individual that constitutes the target population has an equal
chance of being included in the study. Berndt (2020:224), Bhardwaj
(2019:158), Elfil and Negida (2017:1), Etikan and Bala (2017:216), Pace
(2021:4), Parveen and Showkat (2017:3), Sharma (2017:749), Singh
(2015:15), Surbhi (2022) and Wu and Thompson (2020:11) further claim that
the sampling methods synonymous with probability sampling are random in
nature. Due to the random nature of the sampling techniques of probability
sampling, the researcher is provided with the probability that the sample of the
study is representative of the target population (Parveen & Showkat 2017:2;
Surbhi 2022). Probability sampling is attractive to researchers as some
benefits include increased validity of the study as well as efficient access to,

147
and administration of, data (Devkota 2020; Pace 2021:4; Sharma 2017:750;
Singh 2015:16; Wu & Thompson 2020:11).

FIGURE 5.2
SAMPLING METHODS AND TECHNIQUES

Source: Own construction

Non-probability sampling differs from probability sampling in that the sampling

techniques are non-random, meaning the possibility of a respondent being
included in the study is undefined (Surbhi 2022; Suresh 2018:265). This can
be attributed to the fact that non-probability sampling techniques are at the
discretion of the researcher’s subjective judgement and therefore not all
members of the target population will be given the opportunity to take part in
the study (Parveen & Showkat 2017:6; Semasinghe 2019:4; Suresh
2018:265). Furthermore, as opined by Akinkunmi (2019:122), Bhardwaj
(2019:161), Lehdonvirta, Oksanen, Rasanen and Blank (2020:137),
Semasinghe (2019:4) and Singh (2015:15), as well as Wolf et al (2016:342),
the benefits of non-probability sampling are cost effectiveness and time
efficiency.

148
With regard to this study, due to the fact that no sampling frame was available,
the sampling method selected was non-probability sampling. More specifically,
the technique selected was convenience sampling, which implies that
respondents are included in the study based on their availability and
accessibility (Baxter, Courage & Caine 2015:97; Bhardwaj 2019:161; Cash et
al 2022:10; Edgar & Manz 2017:213; Elfil & Negida 2017:2; Etikan et al 2016:2;
Martinez-Mesa et al 2016:327; Parveen & Showkat 2017:7; van de Vijver
2015:322; Wu & Thompson 2020:6). Furthermore, while the researcher made
use of a mailing list to distribute the questionnaire, it was also distributed via
social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn. Therefore,
there was no actual list of respondents, which lends support to the use of
convenience sampling rather then quota sampling. Moreover, this also
explains why it was determined that convenience sampling was more
appropriate then purposive sampling.

5.4.3 Completion rate

A response rate, as defined by Lindemann (2019), as well as Sekaran and

Bougie (2016:237), refers to the number of respondents who fully complete a
questionnaire, divided by the total number of respondents approached, which
is then multiplied by 100 so that a percentage can be reached (Figure 5.3).

FIGURE 5.3
RESPONSE RATE CALCULATION
&'()*+ -. +*/0-12*13/ 4ℎ- .'667 8-(06*3*2 3ℎ* 9'*/3:-11;:+*
× 100
<-3;6 1'()*+ -. +*/0-12*13/ ;00+-;8ℎ*2
Source: Adapted from Lindemann (2019) and Sekaran & Bougie (2016:237)

A response rate is an important calculation for a study as it aids in proving the

accuracy of the primary data obtained (Lindemann 2019; Sekaran & Bougie
2016:237; Weaver, Beebe & Rockwood 2019:1). However, as this study made
use of non-probability sampling, as well as an online questionnaire, the exact
total number of respondents approached is not known. Therefore, for the
purposes of this study, the ratio between the number of respondents who fully

149
completed the questionnaire and the number of respondents starting the
questionnaire was used as the response or completion rate. In total, 321
respondents successfully completed the questionnaire, exceeding the target
sample size of 300 and the resultant completion rate of this study was
calculated as 86.3%.

5.5 PRIMARY DATA

As discussed by Ajayi (2017:2), Allen (2017:336), Bouchrika (2021), Dlepu

(2021:69) and Worthy (2021), primary research in a study refers to the original
raw data that a researcher collects in an attempt to answer their research
question. Ainsworth (2020), Bhasin (2018), Dlepu (2021:69), Metcalf (2020)
and Struwig and Stead (2015:89) clarify that primary data can be collected via
a number of data collection methods and tools, such as conducting interviews,
making observations, distributing questionnaires and other unobtrusive
means. While many of the aforementioned data collection techniques are still
made use of, technology driven options for primary data collection have also
become popular, which encompass online or internet-based surveys,
observation and online interviews (Amoah et al 2020:123; Struwig & Stead
2015:106; Sylvia & Terhaar 2018:88; Toepoel 2015:2).

The primary data collection method, measuring instrument, reliability and

validity, collection procedure, data preparation and analysis of the data
collected pertaining to this study are discussed in the following sections.

5.5.1 Data collection methods

Data collection refers to the processes of collecting data linked to a specific

topic, which can include either primary or secondary data (Kishore 2022:1).
Kishore (2022:1), Schuurman (2020:1015), Jovancic (2019), Kabir (2016:202)
and Sekaran and Bougie (2016:158) state that primary data collection refers
to data collected directly by the researcher, through which the researcher can
test hypotheses and draw conclusions. Flick (2017:7) adds that the desired
outcome of data collection is to create a set of findings that can be generalised

150
for an entire population. Either the quantitative or qualitative approach drive
the data collection process (Amoah et al 2020:12; Jovancic 2019; Parveen &
Showkat 2017:1; Techo 2016:1). With regard to the qualitative approach, data
collection techniques include in-depth interviews, focus groups and projective
techniques (Ainsworth 2020; Amoah et al 2020:133; Bhasin 2018; Struwig &
Stead 2015:89; Wiid & Diggines 2015:86). Data collection techniques
associated with quantitative research include observations, experiments and
surveys (Ainsworth 2020; Amoah et al 2020:133; Bhasin 2018; Metcalf 2020;
Struwig & Stead 2015:89; Wiid & Diggines 2015:86).

To suit the needs of this study, an online survey was selected as the data
collection method. An online survey, as distinguished by Braun, Clarke,
Boulton, Davey and McEvoy (2021:642), Liew, Kui, Wu and Gan (2020:1),
Nayak and Narayan (2019:31), Rice, Winter, Doherty and Milner (2017:59)
and Vanette and Krosnick (2017:22), refers to any survey which is completed
digitally on either a computer, cell phone or other mobile device. Benefits
associated with online surveys are that they have relatively fast turn-around
times; have the ability to reach respondents that would otherwise be
unreachable; can be targeted at techno-friendly respondents;, and are
relatively cheap to conduct and process data from (Bethlehem & Biffignandi
2021:2; Brace 2018:26; Nayak & Narayan 2019:33; Rice et al 2017:59; Saleh
& Bista 2017:65; Shalin 2019:2). Saleh and Bista (2017:64) add that
conducting an online survey also allows accurate data to be collected more
efficiently than with a paper survey, but caution that the response rate of online
surveys can be poor should the researcher not have an up-to-date mailing list
or access to respondents.

With reference to this study, there was a strict time limit that the researcher
had to abide by, such as meeting submission deadlines for the proposal of the
study as well as ethical clearance. Furthermore, the respondents of this study
were geographically widely dispersed as there was no restriction on where
they were based. Additionally, it can be concluded that the respondents of this
study are tech--savvy as they must have purchased skincare products online
and finally, the researcher had the means to create an online survey as she is

151
well-versed in technology herself, and was provided with a platform to do so
by the university. All of the aforementioned priorities for data collection
pertaining to this study were congruent with the benefits offered by an online
survey and the researcher had access to an up-to-date mailing list as she
works for a skincare company. For these reasons, an online survey was
selected for the purpose of this study as the data collection technique.

5.5.2 Measuring instrument

Each data collection method can be associated with different data collection
instruments (Boswell & Cannon 2018:249; Kabir 2016:208; Madondo 2021:79;
Trigueros et al 2017:5). According to Boswell and Cannon (2018:264), along
with Durdella (2017:265), Ebrahim (2016:3), Madondo (2021:79) and Pandey
and Pandey (2015:57), a data collection instrument is the specific tool that a
researcher utilises to collect their primary data. The research instrument has
an influence on the reliability and relevance of the information collected and
therefore the ability for the researcher to accurately analyse the data (Adosi
2020:2; Ary, Jacobs, Irvine & Walker 2018:67; Ebrahim 2016:3; Edwin 2019:1;
Kabir 2016:208; Middelton 2022; Ngulube 2019:396; Trigueros et al 2017:5).
Adosi (2020), Cote (2022) as well as Pandey and Pandey (2015:57) stipulate
that data collection instruments can include questionnaires, interviews,
schedules, observation techniques and rating scales; however, an online
survey is synonymous with questionnaires (Boswell & Cannon 2018:264;
Mbachu 2018; Ndukwu 2022; Ngulube 2019:396; Pajo 2018:157).

A questionnaire is designed to collect information relevant to a study from the

desired target population via a number of systematic questions, as defined by
Ary et al (2018:323), Browne (2019:73), Pandey and Pandey (2015:57),
Stone, Chaparro, Keebler, Chaparro and McConnell (2017:150) and Young
(2015:4). As technology has advanced and the internet has become more
widely available, web-based self-administered questionnaires have grown in
popularity (Ary et al 2018:323; Mahmutovic 2021; Makaleng 2022:141;
Howard 2021; White 2014:301), which Candido, Perini, de Padua and
Junqueira (2017:2), Debois (2019), Dudovskiy (2018), Howard (2019),

152
Howard (2021), Mahmutovic 2021; Makaleng (2022:141), Nayak and Narayan
(2017:32), Pandey and Pandey (2015:59), Rice et al (2017:59), Sincero
(2020), Sutherland (2019) and Young (2015:168) attribute to the cost
effectiveness, time efficiency and ease in administrating the results associated
with this data collection instrument. Candido et al (2017:2) and Mahmutovic
(2021) add that other benefits associated with online questionnaires are that
the anonymity of respondents is preserved more easily and the reach of the
study can be broadened.

This study made use of a web-based, self-administered questionnaire, as

presented in Annexure A. This measuring instrument was selected for the
purpose of this study as it allowed the researcher to reach a larger number of
respondents as well as aiding the researcher in keeping the budget needed
for this research to a minimum. Further than for time and cost efficiency, the
respondents of this study are assumed to be tech-savvy as they would have
shopped online for skincare products, making a web-based, self-administered
questionnaire appropriate for this target audience.

5.5.3 Questionnaire structure

The aim of this study was to conduct an investigation into the desired sensory
branding strategies in-store versus online. To collect primary data relating to
this topic from the respondents of this study, a questionnaire was constructed,
which constituted six sections, namely demographics, visual stimuli, auditory
stimuli, olfactory stimuli, tactile stimuli and brand loyalty. Prior to the main
sections of the questionnaire, respondents were also asked to answer
screening questions which related to consent as well as whether they had
purchased skincare both in-store and online to ensure they met the
requirements of the target audience for this study. The sections of the
questionnaire are discussed in the next section, and the sources of the items
provided in Annexure C.

153
5.5.3.1 The demographic details of the respondents

In order to ensure that the respondents of a study are appropriate, the

researcher should collect demographic information (Connelly 2013:269; Gray
2019:376; Hughes, Camden & Yangchen 2016:138). The demographic data
pertaining to the respondents of this study were collected in Section A of the
questionnaire, which comprised previously tested items from Brook (2019),
Botha (2014:138), Eurostudent.eu (2008:3:13), Grelecka (2016:96:97), Hung
(2016:163), Liegeois and Rivera (2011:88), OECD (2018:3), Potgieter,
Berman & Verity (2019:1), Swardt (2008:106), Tapson (2009:146), Thornberry
(2015:114) and Wang and Wu (2017:69). Items in this section of the
questionnaire related to the gender of the respondent, the age of the
respondent, the average monthly budget for skincare of the respondent and
the frequency of shopping for skincare products both in-store and online, all of
which were closed-ended questions that asked the respondent to select one
option from the predefined list provided.

5.5.3.2 Items relating to the variables specific to this study

Section B of the questionnaire comprised previously tested items from Anvar

(2016:108), Botha (2014:137), Fritz (2018:177), Grzybowska-Brezezinska,
Rudzewicz and Kowalkowski (2013:40), Hewawalpita and Perera (2017:4),
Hung (2016:168), Jiang and Benbasat (2007:466), Kokoi (2011:86), Li and
Meshkova (2013:454), Liegeois and Rivera (2011:86), Maneti (2014:116),
Matterport (2020), Nel (2003:182), Pillay (2003:68), Smith (2020),
Theofanides and Kerasidou (2012:44), Wang and Wu (2017:70) and Zhang
(2021). The items in this section relate to the independent variable, visual
stimuli both in-store and online, which influence the experience of shopping
for skincare products.

Section C addressed the second variable identified in this study, which has an
influence on the experience of shopping for skincare products, namely
auditory stimuli. Previously tested items from Botha (2014:137), Cowen-
Elstner (2018:230), Engelen (2016:18), Fiore and Kelly (2007:606), Foroudi

154
and Palazzo (2019:136), Geci, Nagyova and Rybanska (2017:713), Griffith
(2020), Hulten (2020:93; 2017:6), Kim (2017a:21), Liegeois and Rivera
(2011:86), Maneti (2014:115), Nel (2003:181), Pogar, Plant, Rosulek and
Kouril (2015:559), Shenje (2018:226), Subkowski (2019:47), Tapson
(2009:148), Threadgill, Ryan, Jordan and Hajcak (2020:2), Turner (2012:56),
Upadhyaya (2017:357), Vida, Obadia and Kunz (2007:476), Wang and Wu
(2017:69) and Wala et al (2019:112) were utilised.

The fourth section, Section D, referred to the independent variable of olfactory

stimuli that influence the experience of shopping for skincare products both in-
store and online, and included previously tested items from Alac (2017:143),
Anvar (2016:110), Cowen-Elstner (2018:31), Hauser (2017), Hulten
(2020:127), Hung (2016:169), Liegeois and Rivera (2011:86), Maneti
(2014:115), Ranasinghe et al (2018), Reader (2016:16), Silva and Duarte
(2017:101), Spangenberg, Crowley and Henderson (1996:70), Wang and Wu
(2017:69), Wrzesniewski, McCauley and Rozin (1999:714) and WSJ (2013).
Section E constituted the tactile stimuli (independent variable) which may have
an influence on the experience of shopping for skincare products both in-store
and online. Previously tested items were utilised from Anvar (2016:109), Botha
(2014:137), Cunningham (2012:177), Fritz (2018:178), Geci et al (2017:713),
Grzybowska-Brezezinska et al (2013:40), Hulten (2020:141), Hung
(2016:168), King (2012), Kokoi (2011:86), Liegeois and Rivera (2011:86), Liu,
Liu, Xu, Cheng, Masuko and Tanaka (2020:1820), Maneti (2014:115),
Manshad and Brannon (2021:91), Matterport (2020), Nel (2003:180), Pillay
(2003:70), Ringler et al (2019:190), Silva and Duarte (2017:101), Theofanides
and Kerasidou (2012:44) and Wang and Wu (2017:70), as well as Zhang
(2021) in this section.

The final section, Section F, made reference to brand loyalty (the dependent
variable). Previously tested items from Awuor (2010:iii), Dehghan and Shahin
(2011:12), Ergin, Ozdemir and Parilti (2005:11) and Wang and Wu (2017:71),
were utilised.

155
5.5.4 Question format

The success of a questionnaire is dependent on the respondents’ ability to

clearly understand what information is being asked of them and if they have
the necessary knowledge (Boucher 2021:44; Crossman 2020; Landy, Zedeck
& Cleveland 2017:113). The researcher needs to therefore ensure that the
questionnaire is written in such a way that matches the literacy level of the
intended audience (Gray 2019:371; Hyman & Sierra 2016:1) and that no
prejudicial language, ambiguity, jargon, leading questions or hypothetical
questions are used (Crossman 2020; Fauvelle 2019). Bridger (2018:24),
Crossman (2020) and Gray (2019:370) add that how the questionnaire is
structured can also have an impact on the likelihood of respondents
completing the questionnaire as well as the reliability and validity of the data
collected.

When compiling a questionnaire, a researcher can make use of either open-

ended questions or closed-ended questions. As explained by Bonner and
Chen (2019:29), Farrell (2016), Gray (2019:378), Hyman and Sierra (2016:1),
Martinez and Scherer (2020:113) and Singer and Couper (2017:116), open-
ended questions refer to those that do not have a predetermined list of
responses to select from and therefore the responses collected are not limited
(Benzo, Mohsen & Fourali 2017:307; Bonner & Chen 2019:30; Coolican
2017:169; Robinson & Leonard 2018:92; Stockemer 2018:42; Zikmund et al
2017:136). In comparison, a structured question limits the respondent’s
answers to a list which is predetermined by the researcher (Bonner & Chen
2019:29; Benzo et al 2017:307; Farrell 2016; Gray 2019:378; Hyman & Sierra
2016:1; Martinez & Scherer 2020:113; Singer & Couper 2017:116; Stockemer
2018:42; Zikmund et al 2017:136), such as with dichotomous, multiple choice,
checklists, rankings, grids and scaled questions (Amoah et al 2020:162;
Benzo et al 2017:307; Wiid & Diggines 2015:170).

Furthermore, Amoah et al (2020:163), Coolican (2017:169), Stockemer

(2018:42), Jackson (2019:233), Wiid and Diggines (2015:169), Wilson
(2021:363) and Zikmund, D’Alessandro, Winzar, Lowe and Babin (2017:136)

156
add that open-ended questions are associated with unstructured questions,
while closed-ended questions are associated with structured questions. Table
5.5 provides a summary of the advantages and disadvantages associated with
unstructured and structured questions.

TABLE 5.5
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF UNSTRUCTURED AND
STRUCTURED QUESTIONS
Unstructured Questions Structured Questions
• Respondents’ answers are not
restricted • Structured questions
• They allow researchers to gain are more economical
more insight on topics where little and time efficient
Advantages
information is known • Easy to apply as they
• A larger variety of answers can be are pre-coded
collected, which provides insight
into motives of the respondent
• Time consuming and relatively • Respondents can feel
more expensive to collect and frustrated when they
analyse data are unable to provide
• The data collected cannot be their full opinion
statistically analysed • Structured questions
Disadvantages can lead to bias, as the
• The data collected may be difficult
to interpret and analyse due to researcher has the
misinterpretation ability to lead the
• Unstructured questions generally respondent to a desired
present a low response rate answer

Source: Adapted from Amoah et al (2020:163); Coolican (2017:170);

Stockemer (2018:42); Wiid & Diggines (2015:171)

The questionnaire linked to this study comprised closed-ended questions,

which are summarised in Table 5.6.

TABLE 5.6
A SUMMARY OF THE TYPES OF QUESTIONS UTILISED IN THE
QUESTIONNAIRE OF THIS STUDY
Type of Question Item in the Questionnaire

Dichotomous questions Screening questions; the respondents’ gender (Q1)

The respondents’ age (Q2); the respondents’ monthly

budget for skincare products (Q3); the frequency with
Multiple choice questions
which the respondent buys skincare products in-store
(Q4) as well as online (Q5)

157
 Type of Question Item in the Questionnaire

5-point Likert scale questions All items relating to the variables of this study (Q6 – Q14)

Source: Own construction

Where necessary, an “other” option was provided in the questionnaire to

ensure that should the respondent have another opinion, they could provide
it, thereby allowing the researcher to collect accurate information. For the
purpose of this study, a 5-point Likert scale was chosen as it is easier for
respondents to understand, which in turn results in a higher response rate
(Khandelwal 2021). Additionally, a 5-point Likert scale is most appropriate
when collecting and analysing data from a larger sample size (Khandelwal
2021). Furthermore, the 5-point Likert scale questions utilised to collect
information pertaining to the variables of this study asked respondents to note
to what extent they either agreed or disagreed (on a scale from 1 - strongly
agree, to 5 - strongly disagree) that each factor had an influence on their
experience of shopping for skincare products both in-store and online. A
neutral response (3) would indicate that the respondent was indifferent
regarding how a certain factor influenced their experience of shopping for
skincare products both in-store and online.

The use of 5-point Likert scale questions was appropriate as it allowed the
researcher to determine to what extent each factor influenced the experience
of shopping for skincare products both in-store and online, rather than just
whether they did or did not. From the data collected, mean scores could then
be calculated per question.

5.5.5 Reliability of the measuring instrument

While validity of research refers to the ability of the findings to be applied to

real-life situations, the reliability of the research makes reference to how
consistently the results can be reached when making use of the same
measuring instrument in different studies (Ahmed, Opoku, Olanipekun &
Sutrisna 2022:16; Alston & Bowles 2019:64; Andrade 2018:499; Bolarinwa

158
2015:195; Bonett & Wright 2014:3; Bryman & Bell 2015:168; Cypress 2021:85;
Ghazali 2016:149; Kraska, Brent & Neuman 2020:150; Kumar 2019:278;
Leander 2021:41; Middleton 2020; Mohajan 2017:58; Riezler & Hagmann
2021:55; Surucu & Maslakci 2020:2695; Taber 2018:1273; Taherdoost
2016a:33), which alludes to the credibility of the study (Leung 2015:325;
Mohajan 2017:58). For the purpose of this study, Cronbach alpha coefficients
were calculated to ensure reliability of the measuring instrument, as Bonett
and Wright (2014:3), Ghazali (2016:149), Heale and Twycross (2015:66),
Surucu and Maslakci (2020:2710), Taber (2018:1274) and Taherdoost
(2016a:33) aver that it is the most appropriate means of determining reliability.

Therefore, after CFA was conducted, where Cronbach alpha coefficients were
calculated for each of the remaining variables to measure their reliability.
When interpreting the results of Cronbach alpha coefficients, a result of 0.90
and above proves excellent reliability, 0.70 – 0.90 proves high reliability, 0.50
– 0.70 proves moderate reliability and 0.50 and below proves low reliability
(Bonett & Wright 2014:5; Bryman & Bell 2015:169; Ekolu & Quainoo 2019:25;
Frost 2022c; Ghazali 2016:149; Goforth 2015; Heale & Twycross 2015:66;
Heidel 2022; Leander 2021:41; Namdeo & Rout 2016:1374; Taherdoost
2016a:33). It is further stipulated by Nunnally (1978:270) that a result lower
than 0.70 should be considered as unreliable.

5.5.6 Validity of the measuring instrument

As stated by Leander (2021:41) and Middleton (2020), validity in research

refers to the ability of the findings to be utilised in tangible situations and
Haradhan (2017:73), along with Patino and Ferreira (2018:183), asserts that
any study should address content, face and construct validity.

According to Haradhan (2017:74), Hopkins (2021) as well as Koller, Levenson

and Gluck (2017), content validity makes reference to whether or not the
measuring instrument of a study encompasses a broad enough array of items
to collect content relevant to the underlying topic of the study. Haradhan
(2017:74) and Hopkins (2021) add that content validity is ensured through the

159
researchers’ dependence on the judgement of experts on the topic and Koller
et al (2017) argue that content validity is a necessary condition to achieve
construct validity. For the purpose of this study, the researcher made use of
previously tested items in the questionnaire (Annexure C) to ensure content
validity.

Face validity in research refers to whether the measuring instrument does in

fact measure what the researcher claims it to (Connell et al 2018:1894;
Haradhan 2017:75; Hopkins 2021; McLeod 2013). Face validity, as stated by
Haradhan (2017:75) and Hopkins (2021), is the least objective means of
establishing validity as it is based on the personal judgement of the researcher.
For the purpose of this study, statistical, language and content experts were
consulted in order to ensure face validity of the questionnaire items.

The last type of validity addressed in this study is construct validity, which
Andrade (2018:499), Ghazali (2016:149), Hopkins (2021), Koller et al (017),
Kumar (2019:276), Middleton (2020), Mohajan (2017:58) and Taherdoost
(2016b:29) define as how well the measuring instrument actually measures
the construct of the study. For the purpose of this study, confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) was utilised to ensure construct validity. CFA is a statistical tool
that can be utilised to validate a measuring instrument, which measures to
what extent a variable is represented by a number of constructs (Bastos 2021;
Frey 2018). Bastos (2021) further explains that CFA is commonly used when
the items within a questionnaire have previously been used to test a specific
variable and is used when hypothesis testing is necessary (Glen 2022b). The
CFA results of the relevant goodness-of-fit indices were consulted to assess
model fit, namely CMIN/df, CFI, SRMR and RMSEA, and interpreted in
accordance with the guidelines set out by Brown (2015:86), Hair, Black, Babin,
and Anderson (2019:636) and the UCLA (2021). If a measuring instrument is
valid then it is generally reliable; however, as explained by Ahmed (2022:16),
Cypress (2021:85), Ghazali (2016:150), Heale and Twycross (2015:66),
Kraska et al (2020:150), Middleton (2020) as well as Riezler and Hagmann
(2021:55), a measuring instrument can be reliable but not valid.

160
5.5.7 Data collection procedure

As previously stated, this study made use of a web-based, self-administered

questionnaire to collect data from the respondents. Prior to distributing the
questionnaire, it was reviewed by by both academic and industry experts to
ensure correct use of terminology, structure and layout for the purpose of this
study. The questionnaire was then distributed via online social media
platforms, such as Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn, as well as by
distributing the questionnaire via email to an existing mailing list. The
researcher abided by the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPI Act).
When consumers subscribed to the skincare companie’s mailing list, they
provided consent for their email address to be used for the distribution of
marketing and research material. To ensure that there were no problems with
ethical consideration for minors or vulnerable groups, an item in the
demographic section of the questionnaire was dedicated to the respondent’s
age.

Accompanying the questionnaire, the respondents were provided with a cover

letter, which detailed the purpose of the study and information required from
them. It was further explained in the cover letter that the respondents would
remain anonymous and the results confidential. The anonymity of the
respondents was further protected by the researcher through the use of codes
per item. Respondents were also provided with instructions regarding how to
complete the questionnaire and a table of definitions to assist them in
understanding the questions. Finally, the cover letter highlighted that the
respondent’s participation was of a voluntary nature and that they could
withdraw from the study at any time at no cost to themselves. The cover letter
of this study can be found in Annexure B.

Once the respondents had made the decision to click on the link provided,
they were re-directed to the web-based, self-administered questionnaire and
the cover letter was again presented. Prior to the questionnaire commencing,
the respondent was asked to provide written consent and if the respondent
chose to decline, then the questionnaire was terminated and they were re-

161
directed to the end “thank you” page. Additionally, upon the submission of the
completed questionnaire, implied consent was also assumed. The researcher
further had access to respondents who purchase skincare products as she is
currently working for an all-natural skincare company, Katavi Botanicals, and
therefore has access to their mailing list.

5.5.8 Data preparation

Before data can be interpreted, it needs to be refined or structured, which is a

process known as data preparation (Abdallah et al 2017:11). A large focus of
data preparation is editing and coding of the collected information (Amoah et
al 2020:215; Harris 2020), which can be done manually or via the use of a
digital platform (Kumar 2019:49).

For the purpose of this study, the researcher made use of the digital platform,
“QuestionPro”, to create as well as distribute the questionnaire used to collect
the primary data pertaining to this study. QuestionPro offers the researcher an
analytics function, which keeps a record of the number of respondents who
complete the questionnaire as well as the completion rate. An additional
function offered by QuestionPro for the analysis of the data collected, is a basic
summary of statistical information per item in the questionnaire, which is also
presented in the form of graphical representations, which the researcher has
the option to download in either MS Word, MS Excel or PDF formats.

To ensure that the data analysis is accurate, the researcher needs to eliminate
those questionnaires that are incomplete. For the purpose of this study, a
setting within QuestionPro was utilised, which only allows completed
questionnaires to be included in the results, thereby also allowing the
researcher to detect any omissions and errors. Hereafter, the results were
downloaded in an MS Excel format, from which the raw data could be used to
calculate both descriptive and inferential statistics as well as to construct the
desired graphical representations for the study.

162
5.5.9 Data analysis techniques used

Statistical analysis, according to Bergin (2018:75) and Kumar (2019:442),

allows a researcher to compare and describe the primary data that they collect.
For the purpose of this study, descriptive statistics were utilised to explain the
data, constituting frequency distributions, means and associated standard
deviations to summarise the sample data. Additionally, the following
inferential statistics were utilised.
• Cronbach Alpha Coefficient was used to test for reliability of the variables
in the study of correlations between the factors used in CFA (Leppink
2019:60; Tavakol & Dennick 2011:53).
• Confirmatory Factor Analysis was used to assess model fit (Alavi, Visentin,
Thape, Hunt, Watson & Cleary 2020:2209; Finch 2020:223), based on the
recommended interpretation guidelines (Brown 2015:86; Hair et al
2019:636; UCLA 2021).
• SEM Models were used to investigate the relationships that may exist
between the independent variables (traditional and digital sensory
branding) and the dependent variable (brand loyalty) of this study, thereby
testing the formulated null (Ho) and alternative (Ha) hypotheses.
• Primary Models were utilised to identify which sub-variables (traditional and
digital visual, auditory, olfactory and tactile stimuli) specifically had a
relationship with the dependent variable (brand loyalty) of the study, thereby
testing the formulated null (Ho) and alternative (Ha) hypotheses.
• The Pearson’s correlation coefficient tests was used to measure the
correlation between the various variables and sub-variables of the study
(Akoglu 2019:92; Goftay & Thatte 2017:78; Onilor & Amadi 2018:15;
Schober, Boer & Schwarte 2018:1763).
• The Chi-Square Test of Association as well as the cross tabulation was
used to determine the association between the respondents’ age and their
average monthly budget for skincare.
• ANOVAs and Welch Robust Test were calculated to identify differences in
group means (Delacre, Leys, Mora & Lakens 2019:1; Glen 2022b; Goftay
& Thatte 2017:78; Gravetter & Wallnau 2016:394; Holmes et al 2017:274).

163
• Tukey Test and Games-Howell were used to identify significant differences
between sample means (Chen, Xu, Tu, Wangg & Niu 2018:60; Lee & Lee
2018:353; Sun 2016:1).
• Cohen’s d were calculated to quantify the relationship between two groups,
allowing the identification of statistically significant variances on p < 0.1 and
p < 0.05 (Goulet-Pelletier & Cousineau 2018:243).

Through the use of inferential statistics, inferences could be made about the
population of the study (Wilson & Joye 2017:78). All primary data of this study
were statistically analysed using the latest edition of IBM SPSS Statistics
version 28.

5.6 PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED

Problems encountered in a research study constitute the barriers or

challenges that a researcher is faced with during the process of conducting
their research (Matin & Khan 2017:23). The problems encountered by the
researcher during this study included the following.
• Response speed – A relatively large number of respondents were required
for this study (a minimum of 300), and due to the distribution of the
questionnaire being on online platforms, the response speed was slow.
• Lockdown – During the time of conducting this research, the country was
still in the midst of the adjusted level 1 lockdown. This had an influence on
the access to respondents. Furthermore, during lockdown individuals were
restricted with regards to shopping in-store, which also could have had an
influence on the results.
• Access to new, relevant information – There were very limited academic
sources pertaining to sensory branding of skincare products as well as
sensory branding in the digital shopping landscape.

164
5.7 SUMMARY

In this conclusion, the research methodology relevant to this study is indicated

with the abbreviation “RMF” and the number of the finding.

A research paradigm describes the context from which the study is written
(RMF1) and can be either an interpretivist or a positivist paradigm (RMF2). An
interpretivist paradigm is generally concerned with non-numerical data
(RMF3), whereas a positivistic paradigm in general focusses on numerical
data (RMF4). Qualitative research makes use of unstructured means to collect
data (RMF5) and the researcher can draw insight on the topic (RMF6).
Quantitative research uses numerical data, collected by means of empirical
investigation (RMF6), to interpret and draw conclusions about a topic (RMF7).
Furthermore, quantitative research is more efficient than qualitative research
(RMF8) and statistics can be utilised to test correlations between variables
(RMF9). This study made use of a positivistic paradigm (RMF10) and a
quantitative research approach (RMF11).

A research design is the researcher’s plan to investigate the chosen topic

(RMF12) and will signify the relevance of the study to both the researcher as
well as to the intended audience (RMF13). There are three types of research
designs, namely an exploratory research design (RMF14), an explanatory
research design (RMF15) and a descriptive research design (RMF16). A
descriptive research design was selected for the purpose of this study
(RMF17), which was due to the fact that; there was minimal academic
literature pertaining to sensory branding, especially when considering the
skincare industry (RMF18). This study aimed to investigate the relationship
between the independent variables of this study and the dependent variable
of the study (RMF19), and the primary data required for this study was
collected via a structured questionnaire (RMF20) and then analysed through
the use of descriptive and inferential statistics (RMF21).

Sampling allows the researcher to collect generalisable information from a

portion of the population (RMF22). The two most noticeable benefits of making

165
use of sampling are time efficiency (RMF23) and cost effectiveness (RMF24);
however the chance of bias occurring is heightened (RMF25).

The sampling method of a study explains how the researcher intends to

identify respondents from the target population (RMF26) and there are two
types, namely probability sampling and non-probability sampling (RMF27).
Probability sampling means that each individual that constitutes the target
population has an equal chance of being included in the study (RMF28). This
means that the researcher is provided with the probability that the sample of
the study is representative of the target population (RMF29). Benefits of
probability sampling include increased validity of the study (RMF30) as well as
efficient access to, and administration of, data (RMF31). Non-probability
sampling differs from probability sampling in that the sampling techniques are
non-random (RMF32). The sampling techniques include non-random
(RMF33) and the benefits of non-probability sampling are cost effectiveness
(RMF34) and time efficiency (RMF35). This study made use of non-probability
sampling (RMF36), more specifically, the technique selected was convenience
sampling (RMF37).

The target population of a study is the subset of individuals which information

is needed from (RMF38) and the target population for the purpose of this study
constituted consumers who have purchased skincare products both in-store
as well as online (RMF39). Furthermore, a large enough sample size is
needed to ensure that the researcher can better avoid bias (RMF40) and in
most cases, to determine the sample for a study, a sample frame will be
consulted (RMF41). In the case of this study where the respondents were
individuals who had purchased skincare both in-store and online, no such
sample frame exists (RMF42) and a minimum sample size of 300 respondents
was set (RMF43).

For the purpose of this study, completion rate was calculated by dividing the
number of respondents who fully completed the questionnaire by the total
number of respondents who started the questionnaire (RMF44). The
completion rate of this study was 86.3% (RMF45). Primary data in a study

166
refers to the original raw data that a researcher collects in an attempt to answer
the research question (RMF46) and as technology advances, internet-based
surveys, observation and online interviews are growing in popularity (RMF48).
With regard to qualitative data collection, data collection techniques include
in-depth interviews, focus groups and projective techniques (RMF49), while
data collection techniques associated with quantitative research include
observations, experiments and surveys (RMF50).

An online survey was selected as the data collection method for this study
(RMF51), which is any survey which is completed digitally on either a
computer, cell phone or other mobile device (RMF52). Benefits associated
with online surveys are that they have relatively fast turn-around times
(RMF53); have the ability to reach respondents that would otherwise be
unreachable (RMF54); can be targeted at tech-savvy respondents (RMF55);
and are relatively cheap to conduct and process data from (RMF56); however
the response rate does tend to be lower with online surveys (RMF57). An
online survey was selected because there was a strict time limit (RMF58); the
respondents of this study were geographically widely dispersed (RMF59); the
respondents of this study are tech-savvy (RMF60); and the researcher had the
means to create an online survey (RMF61).

A data collection instrument is the specific tool that a researcher utilises to

collect the primary data (RMF62) and can include questionnaires, interviews,
schedules, observation techniques and rating scales; however an online
survey is synonymous with questionnaires (RMF63). A questionnaire is
designed to collect information relevant to a study from the desired target
population via a number of systematic questions (RMF64) and web-based
self-administered questionnaires have grown in popularity (RMF65) because
they are cost effective, time efficient and easy to administer and the anonymity
of respondents is preserved more easily (RMF66). This study made use of a
web-based, self-administered questionnaire (RMF67).

To collect primary data relating to this topic from the respondents of this study,
a questionnaire was constructed, which constituted six sections, namely

167
demographics, visual stimuli, auditory stimuli, olfactory stimuli, tactile stimuli
and brand loyalty (RMF68). The respondents were provided with a cover letter,
which detailed the purpose of the study and information required from them
(RMF69). The demographic information required from respondents included
the gender of the respondent (RMF70), the age of the respondent (RMF71),
the average monthly budget for skincare of the respondent (RMF72) and the
frequency of shopping for skincare products both in-store and online (RMF73),
all of which were closed-ended questions that asked the respondent to select
one option from the predefined list provided (RMF74). The remaining sections
of the questionnaire made use of Likert-scale questions pertaining to each of
the variables of the study (RMF75).

To ensure that respondents can clearly understand and accurately answer the
questions, the researcher needs to therefore ensure that the questionnaire is
written in such a way that matches the literacy level of the intended audience
(RMF76) and that no prejudicial language, ambiguity, jargon, leading
questions or hypothetical questions are used (RMF77). Either open-ended
questions or closed-ended questions can be used in a questionnaire (RMF78).
Open-ended questions refer to those that do not have a predetermined list of
responses to select from (RMF79), while closed-ended questions limit the
respondent’s answers to a list which is predetermined by the researcher
(RMF80). Open-ended questions are associated with unstructured questions
(RMF81), while closed-ended questions are associated with structured
questions (RMF82). The questionnaire linked to this study comprised closed-
ended questions (RMF83) and where necessary, an “other” option was
provided in the questionnaire (RMF84).

Furthermore, the 5-point Likert scale questions utilised to collect information

pertaining to the variables of this study asked respondents to note to what
extent they either agreed or disagreed that each factor had an influence on
their experience of shopping for skincare products both in-store and online
(RMF85). A neutral response (3) would indicate that the respondent was
indifferent regarding how a certain factor had an influence on their experience
of shopping for skincare products both in-store and online (RMF86).

168
Validity in research refers to the ability of the results to be utilised in tangible
situations (RMF87) and a study should address content, face and construct
validity (RMF88). Content validity makes reference to whether or not the
measuring instrument of a study encompasses a broad enough array of items
to collect content relevant to the underlying topic of the study (RMF89) and
this study made use of previously tested items in the questionnaire to ensure
content validity (RMF90). Face validity in research refers to whether the
measuring instrument does, in fact, measure what the researcher claims it to
(RMF91) and for the purpose of this study, statistical, language and content
experts were consulted in order to ensure face validity (RMF92). Finally,
construct validity is defined as how well the measuring instrument actually
measures the construct of the study (RMF93), and for the purpose of this
study, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was utilised to ensure construct
validity (RMF94). If a measuring instrument is valid then it is generally reliable
(RMF95); however a measuring instrument can be reliable but not valid
(RMF96).

The reliability of the research makes reference to how consistently the results
can be reached making use of the same measuring instrument for different
studies (RMF97). For the purpose of this study, Cronbach alpha coefficients
were calculated to ensure reliability of the measuring instrument (RMF98),
where Cronbach alpha coefficients were calculated for each of the remaining
variables to measure their reliability (RMF99). When interpreting the Cronbach
Alpha results in this study, a result lower than 0.70 was considered as
unreliable (RMF100).

The web-based, self-administered questionnaire utilised in this study was

distributed via online social media platforms, such as Facebook, Instagram
and LinkedIn, as well as by distributing the questionnaire via email to an
existing mailing list (RMF101) and to ensure that there were no problems with
ethical consideration for minors or vulnerable groups, an item in the
demographic section of the questionnaire was dedicated to the respondent’s
age (RMF102).

169
For the purpose of this study, the researcher made use of the digital platform,
“QuestionPro”, to create as well as distribute the questionnaire used to collect
the primary data pertaining to this study (RMF103). Statistical analysis allows
a researcher to compare and describe the primary data that they collect
(RMF104) and this study made use of descriptive statistics (RMF105), as well
as inferential statistics (RMF106). Additional inferential statistics calculated
included Cronbach Alpha Coefficient (RMF107); Confirmatory Factor Analysis
(RMF108); SEM Models (RMF109); Primary Models (RMF110); Pearson’s
Correlation Coefficients (RMF111); Chi-Square Test of Association (RMF112);
ANOVAs and Welch Robust (RMF113); Tukey Test and Games-Howell
(RMF114); and Cohen’s d (RMF115). Through the use of inferential statistics,
inferences could be made about the population of the study (RMF116) and
primary data of this study was statistically analysed using the latest edition of
IBM SPSS Statistics version 28 (RMF117).

Problems encountered in this study included that a relatively large number of

respondents were required for this study and due to the distribution of the
questionnaire being on online platforms, the response was slow (RMF118);
during the time of conducting this research, the country was still in the midst
of a lockdown (RMF119); and there were very limited academic sources
pertaining to sensory branding of skincare products, as well as sensory
branding in the digital shopping landscape (RMF120).

Chapter 6 presents the results from the empirical investigation of this study.

170
 CHAPTER 6
REPORTING THE RESULTS

6.1 INTRODUCTION

In Chapter 5, the research methodology employed to conduct this study was

addressed, which commenced with a discussion and motivation for the
research paradigm and design selected for the purpose of this study.
Hereafter, sampling was discussed, which included the identification of the
target population of this study as well as the completion rate. Following this,
the specific data collection method and measuring instrument utilised in this
study were highlighted and the questionnaire structure and format expanded
upon. It was further detailed how the researcher ensured that the measuring
instrument utilised was reliable and valid and how it would be distributed to
collect primary data. Finally, the preparation of the data was detailed and the
data analysis to be used deliberated. The chapter concluded by listing
problems encountered through the duration of the study and a summary was
provided.

Chapter 6 describes how the primary data collected through the use of the
web-based self-administered questionnaire relative to this study, was
prepared for further analysis and interpretation and provides a discussion
relating to the results in the form of Tables and Figures. Chapter 6 addresses
the primary objective of this study as determined in Chapter 1: Section 1.3.1
(to investigate the sensory experiences desired by customers, when
purchasing skincare products in-store, as opposed to online). It is also stated
in Chapter 6, based on the results, whether the hypotheses developed in
Chapter 1: Table 1.1 are rejected or supported.

Before the primary data collected for the purpose of this study is interpreted
and discussed, the completion rate will be given (Section 6.2.1). Hereafter, the
internal reliability relating to the variables (Section 6.2) and sub-variables
(Section 6.2.2) of this study are provided in the form of Cronbach Alpha values.

171
The first set of results reported on in Chapter 6 relate to the demographic
profile of the respondents (Section 6.4) or Section A of the questionnaire
(Annexure A). Following this, descriptive statistics, including mean, median,
mode, standard deviation and skewness of the data, are calculated for each
of the questionnaire items, which are presented in Tables and then further
discussed (Section 6.5). The section that follows, Section 6.6.2, presents the
calculated Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) results. In Section 6.6.3 the
results of the SEM models created between the independent and dependent
variables of this study are presented, followed by the Primary Models
calculated between the sub-variables and dependent variables of the study
and discussed in Section 6.6.4. Within Sections 6.6.5 and 6.6.6 evidence was
given to either reject or support the formulated hypotheses of the study and
subsequently, in Section 6.6.7, the Pearson’s correlation coefficient is
presented, used to test the correlation between the independent variables of
the study (traditional and digital sensory branding strategies) and the
dependent variable of the study (brand loyalty). Additionally, in Section 6.6.8,
the Chi-Square Test of Association as well as the cross tabulation conducted
is provided, which is used to determine the association between the
respondents’ age and their average monthly budget for skincare.

The final statistical analysis is presented in Section 6.6.9, where significant

differences between certain groups are identified through the use of ANOVAs
and Welch Robust and then Tukey’s test, Cohen’s d and Games-Howell is
utilised to determine any statistically or practically significant differences. The
last section, constituting Chapter 6 (Section 6.7), consists of a summary of the
chapter, where the results are represented by “EF” followed by the number of
the result being reported. This is done as the “EF” results will be referred to in
Chapter 7 to make suppositions and draw conclusions.

6.2 COMPLETION RATE AND INTERNAL RELIABILITY OF THE

VARIABLES IN THE STUDY

In this study, individuals who had purchased skincare products in brick-and-

mortar stores as well as via online platforms were included in the target

172
population. These individuals were reached by posting a link to the
questionnaire, which was accompanied by the cover letter, on social media
platforms, such as Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn, as well as by
distributing the questionnaire via email to an existing mailing list. The
researcher has access to an appropriate mailing list as she currently works for
an all-natural skincare company.

6.2.1 Completion rate

The completion rate of a study is an essential component for consideration as

it can determine if there was any bias (Lindemann 2021;2019) and can be
calculated by dividing the number of respondents who fully completed the
questionnaire by the number of respondents who started but did not fully
complete the questionnaire (Lindemann 2021; Phillips, Friedman & Durning
2017:269). Willott (2019) adds that the response rate of a questionnaire should
generally be 50% or higher to be acceptable. However, Saleh and Bista
(2017:64) argue that when making use of online surveys, the response rate is
generally much lower, which is supported by Lindemann (2021) who states
that while the average survey response rate is 33%, email surveys only
present an average response rate of 30% and online surveys 29%.

As determined in Chapter 5: Section 5.4.1, in the case of this study no sample

frame exists and therefore, to establish an acceptable sample size for the
study, set guidelines were consulted (Chapter 5: Table 5.4). The guideline
stipulated that 300+ respondents yielded a good study sample size (Comrey
& Lee 2013:217; Rahi 2017:4), which is why it was decided that this study
would make use of a minimum sample size of 300 respondents. However,
after the data was cleaned and processed for statistical purposes, a total
number of 321 usable questionnaires were collected. Additionally, a total of
372 potential respondents started the questionnaire, indicting a response rate
?@A
of 86.3% (?B@ C100). It can therefore be concluded that the response rate of

this study is acceptable. The section that follows discusses the internal
reliability of the variables of this study.

173
6.2.2 Internal reliability of the variables of the study

To determine the internal reliability of the variables of the study, Cronbach

Alpha coefficients and the inter-item relatedness of the variables of the study
were utilised, which were calculated through the use of IBM SPSS Statistics
version 28. Internal consistency, as depicted by Ahmed et al (2022:16), Alston
and Bowles (2019:64), Andrade (2018:499), Cypress (2021:85), Goforth
(2015), Kraska et al (2020:150), Kumar (2019:278), Leander (2021:41),
Middleton (2020), Riezler and Hagmann (2021:55), Surucu and Maslakci
(2020:2695) and Taber (2018:1273), relates to the ability of a set of items to
reproduce similar results should a study be repeated. Simply, Cronbach Alpha
coefficients allow the researcher to identify how closely related a set of items
in a questionnaire are to each other (American Psychological Association
2020; Michalos 2014:143; Tang, Cui & Babenko 2014:205). It is also
noteworthy that the Cronbach Alpha value is relative to the number of items in
a set, meaning that should the number of items in a set increase or decrease,
so will the Cronbach Alpha values (Hoekstra, Vugteveen, Warrens & Kruyen
2018:352; UCLA: Statistical Consulting Group 2020). Plummer and Tanis
Ozcelik (2015:940), along with Taber (2018:1278), therefore conclude that
when interpreting Cronbach Alpha values, one must take into consideration
the size of the item set. There is however, a set of guidelines which
researchers should make use of when interpreting Cronbach Alpha, presented
in Table 6.1.

TABLE 6.1
GUIDELINES FOR INTERPRETING CRONBACH ALPHA VALUES
Cronbach Alpha Coefficient Value Interpretation
α ≥ 0.9 Excellent
0.9 > α ≥ 0.8 Acceptable
0.8 > α ≥ 0.7 Good
0.7 > α ≥ 0.6 Questionable
0.6 > α ≥ 0.5 Poor
0.5 > α Unacceptable
Source: Briggs & Cheek (1986:115); Ekolu & Quainoo (2019:25); Frost
(2022c); Heidel (2022); Leander (2021:41); Namdeo & Rout (2016:1374) &
Taber (2018:1278)

174
 While Nunnally (1978:270) suggests that the cut off rate when interpreting
Cronbach Alpha is 0.7, Hulin, Netemeyer and Cudeck (2001:56), along with
Taber (2018:1288), argue that Cronbach Alpha values above 0.95 indicate
redundancy rather than excellence and Tavakol and Dennick (2011:54)
suggest that a maximum Cronbach Alpha value of 0.9 should be observed
before redundancy can be assumed. The outcomes of the calculation of the
Cronbach Alpha values and average inter-item relatedness for the variables
of this study are presented in Table 6.2.

TABLE 6.2
CRONBACH ALPHA AND INTER-ITEM CORRELATIONS CALCULATED
FOR THE VARIABLES OF THIS STUDY
Number For This Study After Deletion Of
Variables/ Sub-
of Items For This Study Items With Negative Or Small
Variables
(N) Item-Total Correlations
Average
Cronbach Cronbach Average Inter-
Inter-Item
Alpha Alpha Item Correlation
Correlation
Visual Stimuli
No items
In-store visual stimuli 6 0.90 0.60
were deleted

No items
Digital visual stimuli 6 0.88 0.57
were deleted

Auditory Stimuli
In-store auditory No items
5 0.83 0.49
stimuli were deleted
Digital auditory No items
5 0.81 0.46
stimuli were deleted

Olfactory Stimuli

In-store olfactory No items

5 0.81 0.46
stimuli were deleted
Digital olfactory No items
5 0.78 0.42
stimuli were deleted

Tactile Stimuli

No items
In-store tactile stimuli 6 0.85 0.49
were deleted

Digital tactile stimuli 5 0.70 0.34 0.82 0.55

Brand Loyalty

175
 Number For This Study After Deletion Of
Variables/ Sub-
of Items For This Study Items With Negative Or Small
Variables
(N) Item-Total Correlations
Average
Cronbach Cronbach Average Inter-
Inter-Item
Alpha Alpha Item Correlation
Correlation
No items
Brand loyalty 9 0.78 0.33
were deleted

As seen in Table 6.1, the Cronbach Alpha values calculated for this study
ranged from 0.78 to 0.90. The conclusion can be drawn, based on the
Cronbach Alpha values calculated for this study that the measuring instrument
was reliable and valid (EF1). In the sections that follow, the descriptive
statistics calculated through the use of IBM SPSS Statistics version 28, are
presented and discussed, which include the measures of central tendency as
well as the standard deviation and skewness of the data.

6.3 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

Descriptive statistics make use of the measures of central tendency to

summarise a data set (Bhandari 2022; Frost 2020; Singh 2018b). However,
Frost (2020) cautions that a drawback of descriptive statistics is that they
cannot be used to draw inferences or make conclusions about the topic being
studied, but rather are only able to summarise the raw data collected.
Researchers must therefore subsequently make use of inferential statistics
(Section 6.6) to contextualise the results to the relevant topic. The following
section reports on the descriptive statistics pertaining to the demographic
profile of the respondents of this study.

6.4 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF THE RESPONDENTS

As detailed by Allen (2017:1704), as well as Hughes et al (2016:138) and

Kumar (2020b), collecting demographic information is essential in any
research study as it allows the researcher to ensure that their respondents are
appropriate for their target population, which allows for generalisations to be
made. Additionally, collecting demographic information safeguards against the

176
inclusion of vulnerable groups (such as minors or the elderly), as well as bias
(Allen 2017:1704; Hughes et al 2016:138; Connelly 2013:269).

The data set relevant to the demographic profile of the respondents was
collected in the first section (Section A) of the questionnaire of this study
(Annexure A), which constituted five closed-ended questions where
respondents could select one answer from a predefined list. The five questions
related to the gender and age of the respondents, the respondents’ average
budget for skincare products and how often, on average, they purchase
skincare products both in-store and online.

Another limitation of descriptive statistics is that they cannot be applied to all

types of data (Kaliyadan & Kulkarni 2019:83), which is the case for item 1
(gender of the respondent), item 4 (how often, in general, the respondents
purchase skincare products in-store) and item 5 (how often, in general, the
respondents purchase skincare products online). From the data collected,
80% of the 379 respondents were female and 20% of respondents were male
(EF2). The results of the demographic profile of the respondents of this study
are graphically displayed in Figures 6.1 to 6.5.

FIGURE 6.1
AGE GROUP OF RESPONDENTS

9%
25% 18-24 years (29)
25-34 years (91)
28%
35-44 years (31)
45-54 years (91)

28% 55-60 years (79)

10%

From Table 6.1 it can be seen that the two largest groups of respondents were
between the ages of 25 – 34 years and 45 – 54 years, both accounting for
28% respectively of the sample. Moreover, only 10% of the respondents were

177
 between the ages of 35 – 44 years (EF3). Figure 6.2 presents the average
monthly budget that respondents spend on skincare.

FIGURE 6.2
AVERAGE MONTHLY BUDGET FOR SKINCARE PRODUCTS

5%2%
17% R50 - R500 p/m (56)

R501 - R1000 p/m (134)

34% R1001 - R1500 p/m (109)

R1501 - R2000 p/m (16)

42% More than R2000 p/m (6)

As seen in Table 6.2, the majority of the respondents (76%) were willing to
spend between R501 – R1500 p/m on skincare, while only a minority of
respondents (2%) reported that that were willing to spend more than
R2000p/m on their skincare (EF4). Figure 6.3 presents the results relating to
the frequency with which respondents purchase skincare products in-store.

FIGURE 6.3
FREQUENCY OF IN-STORE PURCHASES

50% 44%
Number of respondents

40% 37%

30%
20%
10%
10% 6%
1% 2% 1%
0%
Once a A few times Once a A few times Once every Once or Less than
week (2) a week (5) month (118) a month few months twice a year once a year
(33) (141) (20) (2)

Frequency of in-store purchases

From Figure 6.3, almost half of the respondents reported that they purchased
skincare in-store only once every few months (44%) while an additional 37%
of respondents bought skincare in-store once every month. Only 1% of the

178
respondents bought skincare in-store once a week or less than once a year
(EF5). Figure 6.4 presents the results relating to the frequency with which
respondents purchase skincare products online.

FIGURE 6.4
FREQUENCY OF ONLINE PURCHASES

45%
Number of respondents

50%
40%
30% 23%
20%
10% 11% 10%
10%
0% 1%
0%
Once a A few times Once a A few times Once every Once or Less than
week (0) a week (2) month (74) a month few months twice a year once a year
(31) (146) (35) (33)

Frequency of online purchases

In Table 6.4 it can be seen that the majority of respondents either purchase
skincare online once every few months (45%) or once a month (23%). There
was only 1% of the respondents who indicated that they purchased skincare
online a few times a week and no respondents who purchased skincare online
once a week (EF6). The sections that follow present and discuss the
descriptive statistics calculated for the variables of this study.

6.5 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR THE VARIABLES OF THE STUDY

This study specifically comprised two independent variables, namely

traditional sensory branding strategies and digital sensory branding strategies,
each of which constituted the sub-variables of visual, auditory, olfactory and
tactile stimuli. The questionnaire of this study was constructed such that each
sub-variable was represented by a 5-point Likert scale question, where
respondents were asked to indicate on a scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5
(strongly disagree) to what extent factors associated with the respective sub-
variable influences their experience of shopping for skincare products. A
response by the respondents of 3 (indifferent) indicated that the respondent

179
 was indifferent about how the factor associated with the respective sub-
variable influenced their experience of shopping for skincare products.

For data analysing and reporting purposes, answers of 1 (strongly agree) and
2 (agree), as well as 4 (disagree) and 5 (strongly disagree) were grouped to
form a “level of agreement”, whereby consumers agreed that the factor had
an influence on their experience or a “level of disagreement”, where
respondents disagreed that the factor had any influence on their experience.
The sections that follow present and discuss the descriptive statistics
calculated for each of the variables and sub-variables of this study.

6.5.1 Traditional sensory branding strategies

For the purpose of this study, traditional sensory branding strategies

constituted the sub-variables traditional visual, auditory, olfactory and tactile
stimuli.

6.5.1.1 Traditional visual stimuli

The descriptive results pertaining to traditional visual stimuli are summarised

in Table 6.3.

TABLE 6.3
SUMMARY OF THE RESPONSES REGARDING THE TRADITIONAL
VISUAL STIMULI
Skew-ness

Disagreed

Indifferent
Std. Dev.
Value N

Median

Agreed
Mean

Mode

(%)

(%)

(%)

# Question

The layout of the store

influences my experience of
B1 321 1.45 1 1 0.71 1.60 90 8 2
shopping for skincare products
in-store
The positioning of the products
influences my experience of
B2 321 1.64 2 1 0.75 0.75 88 10 2
shopping for skincare products
in-store

180
 Skew-ness

Disagreed

Indifferent
Std. Dev.
Value N

Median

Agreed
Mean

Mode

(%)

(%)

(%)
# Question

The colours used in the store

influence my experience of
B3 321 1.73 2 2 0.77 1.07 87 11 2
shopping for skincare products
in-store
The aesthetics of the product
packaging influence my
B4 321 1.47 1 1 0.67 94 5 1
experience of shopping for 1.65
skincare products in-store
The lighting in the store
influences my experience of
B5 321 1.79 2 2 0.72 0.68 86 13 1
shopping for skincare products
in-store
The design of the store
influences my experience of
B6 321 1.65 2 1 0.74 0.99 88 11 1
shopping for skincare products
in-store

In Table 6.3, it can be seen that the mean scores of the items relating to
traditional visual stimuli ranged from 1.45 to 1.79 (EF7). Moreover, it can be
concluded that there is a relatively small standard deviation, with scores
varying from 0.67 to 0.77, indicating that the respondents had similar
assumptions regarding whether or not visual stimuli had an influence on their
experience of shopping for skincare products in-store (EF8). Also notable from
Table 6.3 is that the mode as well as the median of each item in the data set
is either 1 (Strongly agreed) or 2 (agreed), which indicates that, in general,
respondents agreed to a large extent that factors in this sub-section,
constituting traditional visual stimuli, had a positive influence on their
experience of shopping for skincare products in-store (EF9). This implies that
all factors represent desirable sensory branding strategies for consumers who
shop in-store for skincare products (EF10).

Bitner (1992:66), Kotler (1973:51) and Turley and Milliman (2000:194) surmise
that ambient conditions of a store constitute visual cues, such as interior and
external variables, layout and design as well as colour and lighting (Chapter
3: Section 3.5) (LF161 – LF163). Items B1, B3, B5 and B6 in this data set
relate to the afore mentioned visual cues, and based on the distribution of
responses seen in Table 6.3, it can be deduced that the ambiance of the store
is an important aspect when considering the experience of shopping for

181
 skincare products in-store (EF11). Furthermore, relating specifically to the
product itself, it can be concluded that how eye catching or aesthetically
pleasing the packaging is has an influence on purchasing behaviour (EF12),
deduced by the high level of agreement shown by respondents towards items
B4 (94%). The high level of agreement towards item B2 (88%) also led to the
conclusion that purchasing behaviour is further influenced by the placement of
the product on the shelf (EF13), which could relate to which shelf or next to
which competitors the product is displayed (Ellsworth 2021) (EF14). The
following section reports on the results relating to traditional auditory stimuli.

6.5.1.2 Traditional auditory stimuli

The descriptive results pertaining to traditional auditory stimuli are

summarised in Table 6.4.

TABLE 6.4
SUMMARY OF THE RESPONSES REGARDING THE TRADITIONAL
AUDITORY STIMULI
Skew-ness

Disagreed

Indifferent
Std. Dev.
Value N

Median

Agreed
Mean

Mode

(%)

(%)

(%)
# Question

The music played in the store

influences my experience of
C1 321 1.83 2 1 0.93 0.95 76 6 16
shopping for skincare products in-
store
The natural noises associated with
stores (such as other consumers
C2 or staff chatting) influence my 321 2.34 2 2 0.78 0.56 68 5 27
experience of shopping for
skincare products in-store
The sound or pronunciation of the
brand’s name influences my
C3 321 2.60 3 3 0.83 -0.02 41 10 48
experience of shopping for
skincare products in-store
The volume of the music that is
played in the store influences my
C4 321 1.73 2 1 0.80 85 3 12
experience of shopping for 1.01
skincare products in-store
The tempo of music played in the
store influences my experience of
C5 321 1.76 2 1 0.85 1.02 82 4 14
shopping for skincare products in-
store

182
From Table 6.4 it can be seen that the mean values of items C1, C2, C4 and
C5 varied between 1.73 and 2.34 (EF15), while the mean value of item C3 is
2.60 (EF16). This divide in opinions regarding traditional auditory stimuli may
explain the range of standard deviation values (varying between 0.78 and
0.93) (EF17). Moreover, it can be seen that the mode and median values for
items C1, C2, C4 and C5 is either 1 (strongly agreed) or 2 (agreed), indicating
that in general respondents agreed to a large extent that factors in this sub-
section, which relate to traditional auditory stimuli, had a positive influence on
their experience of shopping for skincare products in-store, implying that these
factors represent desirable sensory branding strategies for consumers who
shop in-store for skincare products (EF18). However, in item C3, the mode as
well as the median was 3, indicating that the majority of the responses noted
an indifference towards the influence of the sound or pronunciation of the
brand’s name (EF19).

Further seen from the distribution of responses indicated in Table 6.3,

respondents were in a high level of agreement that the music in the store
(76%, item C1), the tempo (82%, item C5) and volume (85%, item C4) of the
music and the natural noises associated with the store (68%) all had a positive
influence on their experience of shopping for skincare in-store (EF20). The
afore mention auditory stimuli constitute the ambient sound of a store (Areni &
Kim 1993:338; Chattopadhyay 2017:352; Hulten 2020:94; Knoeferle et al
2011:326) (Chapter 3: Section 3.6) (LF196 - EF198, LF204, LF205, LF212),
and it can therefore be concluded that the stores ambient sound has an
influence on consumer behavioural responses when shopping for skincare
products in-store. More than half of the respondents were in agreement that
the sound or pronunciation of the brand’s name either had no influence on
their experience (10%) or that they were indifferent towards how this factor
influenced their experience (48%) (EF21). This suggest that the sound or
pronunciation of the brand’s name is not necessarily a desired sensory
branding strategy for consumers shopping in-store for skincare products
(EF22). The following section reports on the results relating to traditional
olfactory stimuli.

183
 6.5.1.3 Traditional olfactory stimuli

The descriptive results pertaining to traditional olfactory stimuli are

summarised in Table 6.5.

TABLE 6.5
SUMMARY OF THE RESPONSES REGARDING THE TRADITIONAL
OLFACTORY STIMULI

Disagreed

Indifferent
Std. Dev.
Value N

Median

Agreed
Skew-
Mean

Mode

ness

(%)

(%)

(%)
# Question

Diffused atmospheric smells

influence my experience of
D1 321 1.53 1 1 0.63 0.86 93 0 7
shopping for skincare products
in-store
The intensity of the diffused
smells influences my
D2 321 1.56 1 1 0.62 0.72 94 0 6
experience of shopping for
skincare products in-store
The smell of the product itself
influences my experience of
D3 321 1.40 1 1 0.54 0.95 97 0 3
shopping for skincare products
in-store
Signature smells of stores
influence my experience of
D4 321 2.01 2 2 0.60 84 1 15
shopping for skincare products 0.35
in-store
The fragrance of staff
members in the store
D5 influences my experience of 321 1.89 2 2 0.71 0.64 85 2 13
shopping for skincare products
in-store

From Table 6.5 it can be seen that the mean scores for all items varied
between 1.40 and 2.01 (EF23). Additionally, the standard deviation scores
varied from 0.54 to 0.71, implying that in general, respondents felt similarly
about whether or not olfactory stimuli influenced their experience of shopping
for skincare products in-store (EF24). Moreover, the mode as well as the
median for items D1 – D3 was 1 (strongly agreed) (EF25), while the mode and
median for item D4 and D5 are both 2 (agreed) (EF26). It can therefore be
concluded that the respondents were in a high level of agreement towards the
fact that the factors constituting traditional olfactory stimuli had a positive
influence on their experience, which implies that all factors represent desirable

184
 sensory branding strategies for consumers who shop in-store for skincare
products (EF27).

Almost all of the respondents (97%) were in agreement that the fragrance of
the product itself had an influence on their experience of shopping for skincare
in-store (EF28), which supports the claim that fragrance is a key factor in the
buying decision made by consumers when shopping for personal care
products (Singh 2020) (Chapter 3: Section 3.2.2) (LF126). Furthermore,
olfactory stimuli in branding relates to not only the physical fragrance of the
product, but to the ambient fragrance of the store as well (LF225), which can
include signature fragrances (LF239), diffused atmospheric fragrances
(LF240) or the fragrance of the staff members (LF241) (Chapter 3: Section
3.7). From the results of this study presented in Table 6.5, it is apparent that
there was a high level of agreement by the respondents that the ambient
fragrance of a store was important when shopping for skincare in-store (EF29).
The following section reports on the results relating to traditional tactile stimuli.

6.5.1.4 Traditional tactile stimuli

The descriptive results pertaining to traditional tactile stimuli are summarised

in Table 6.6.

TABLE 6.6
SUMMARY OF THE RESPONSES REGARDING THE TRADITIONAL
TACTILE STIMULI
Skew-ness

Disagreed

Indifferent
Std. Dev.
Value N

Median

Agreed
Mean

Mode

(%)

(%)

(%)

# Question

The possibility to touch the

physical product influences my
E1 321 1.33 1 1 0.61 2.07 96 2 2
experience of shopping for
skincare products in-store
The possibility to sample the
physical product influences my
E2 321 1.36 1 1 0.54 1.31 98 0 2
experience of shopping for
skincare products in-store

185
 Skew-ness

Disagreed

Indifferent
Std. Dev.
Value N

Median

Agreed
Mean

Mode

(%)

(%)

(%)
# Question

The feel or texture of the

product’s packaging influences
E3 321 1.43 1 1 0.64 1.37 93 1 6
my experience of shopping for
skincare products in-store
The temperature of the store
influences my experience of
E4 321 1.78 2 2 0.74 86 2 12
shopping for skincare products 0.84
in-store
The texture of the skincare
product itself influences my
E5 321 1.43 1 1 0.61 1.44 96 1 3
experience of shopping for
skincare products in-store
The duration that I touch or
feel the product influences my
E6 321 2.04 2 2 0.66 0.29 80 1 19
experience of shopping for
skincare products in-store

In Table 6.6 it can be seen that the mean scores for all items ranged between
1.33 and 2.04 (EF30). Additionally, the items in this section presented
standard deviation values ranging from 0.54 to 0.74, indicating that
respondents felt similarly regarding whether or not traditional tactile stimuli had
an influence on their experience (EF31). All items in the data set relating to
traditional tactile stimuli presented modes and median values of either 1
(strongly agreed) or 2 (agreed), indicating that, in general, respondents were
in a high level of agreement that the factors constituting traditional tactile
stimuli had a positive influence on their experience of shopping for skincare
products in-store, implying that all factors represent desirable sensory
branding strategies for consumers who shop in-store for skincare products
(EF32).

Further deducible from the results in Table 6.6 is that both diagnostic cues
(when a consumer actively seeks tactile stimuli or information when
considering alternative brands) and non-diagnostic cues (those tactile stimuli
or information that do not form part of the product evaluation) (Foroudi &
Foroudi 2021:244; Foroudi & Palazzo 2019:138; Stach 2018:25) (Chapter 3:
Section 3.8) (LF253) play a role in the experience of shopping for skincare
products in-store, as determined by the distribution of responses. It is however
notable that respondents signified a stronger level of agreement towards how

186
 diagnostic cues influence their experience, supported by the mode scores
being 1 (Strongly agreed) (items E1 – E3 & E5), whereas factors relating to
non-diagnostic cues presented mode scores of 2 (agreed) (items E4 & E6)
(EF33). The following section reports on the results relating to digital visual
stimuli.

6.5.2 Digital sensory branding strategies

For the purpose of this study, digital sensory branding strategies constituted
the sub-variables digital visual, auditory, olfactory and tactile stimuli.

6.5.2.1 Digital visual stimuli

The descriptive results pertaining to digital visual stimuli are summarised in

Table 6.7.

TABLE 6.7
SUMMARY OF THE RESPONSES REGARDING THE DIGITAL VISUAL
STIMULI

Agreed (%)
Skew-ness

Disagreed

Indifferent
Std. Dev.
Value N

Median
Mean

Mode

(%)

(%)
# Question

The aesthetics of the product

packaging influence my
B7 321 1.49 1 1 0.67 1.39 93 1 6
experience of shopping for
skincare products online
High quality digital images
influence my experience of
B8 321 1.46 1 1 0.70 1.73 92 1 7
shopping for skincare products
online
The layout and user friendliness
of the website influence my
B9 321 1.37 1 1 0.55 1.26 97 0 2
experience of shopping for
skincare products online
How aesthetically pleasing the
website is influences my
B10 321 1.47 1 1 0.62 95 1 4
experience of shopping for 1.37
skincare products online
The use of interactive
B11 technology (such as 360 – 321 1.70 2 1 0.82 0.93 82 2 16
degree imaging) influences my

187
 Agreed (%)
Skew-ness

Disagreed

Indifferent
Std. Dev.
Value N

Median
Mean

Mode

(%)

(%)
# Question

experience of shopping for

skincare products online

The use of videos influences my

B12 experience of shopping for 321 1.81 2 1 0.81 0.68 81 3 16
skincare products online

From Table 6.7 it can be seen that the mean scores of all the items in the sub-
section varied between 1.37 and 1.81 (EF34). Furthermore, the standard
deviation scores varied from 0.55 to 0.82, indicating that respondents feel
similarly regarding how the factors, relating to digital visual stimuli, influence
their experience (EF35). Moreover, the respondents, in general, indicated that
the factors constituting digital visual stimuli had a positive influence on the
experience of shopping for skincare products online, as determined by the
mode and median values for all items in the data set being either 1 (strongly
agreed) or 2 (agreed) (EF36), This result implies that digital visual stimuli
represent desirable sensory branding strategies for consumers who shop
online for skincare products (EF37). It can therefore be deduced that visual
stimuli are imperative to the sales of skincare products online (EF38).

Items B8 – B12 in this data set make reference to factors associated with the
webmosphere (Chapter 3: Section 3.5.2) (LF183, LF185, LF188 – LF192) and,
as deducible from the distribution of responses indicated in Table 6.7, it can
be concluded that the webmosphere created is an important consideration for
the sales of skincare online (EF39). The following section reports on the results
relating to digital auditory stimuli.

6.5.2.2 Digital auditory stimuli

The descriptive results pertaining to digital auditory stimuli are summarised in

Table 6.8.

188
 TABLE 6.8
SUMMARY OF THE RESPONSES REGARDING THE DIGITAL AUDITORY
STIMULI

Skew-ness

Disagreed

Indifferent
Std. Dev.
Value N

Median

Agreed
Mean

Mode

(%)

(%)

(%)
# Question

The use of background music

or sounds on the website
C6 influence my experience of 321 2.23 2 2 0.85 0.73 70 7 21
shopping for skincare
products online
The reactive sounds
influence my experience of
C7 321 2.26 2 2 0.83 0.88 71 8 21
shopping for skincare
products online
The use of video adverts or
clips influence my experience
C8 321 1.86 2 2 0.82 0.98 83 4 13
of shopping for skincare
products online
The use of brand jingles
influences my experience of
C9 321 2.76 3 3 0.82 33 15 52
shopping for skincare -0.17
products online
The use of digital sounds to
portray the actual sound of
C10 using the product influences 321 2.36 2 2 0.84 0.62 64 10 26
my experience of shopping
for skincare products online

From Table 6.8 it can be seen that the mean scores for items C6 – C8 as well
as C10 varied between 1.86 and 2.36 (EF40). Moreover, the mode and median
scores for items C6 – C8 as well as C10 were 2 (agreed), which is indicative
of the fact that respondents were in agreement regarding the influence of
digital auditory stimuli on their experience of shopping for skincare products
online and implies that these factors represent desirable sensory branding
strategies for consumers who shop online for skincare products (EF41).
However, in item C9, the mean value is 2.76 and both the mode and the
median are 3, which indicates that respondents were, in general, indifferent
towards how brand jingles influenced their experience of shopping for skincare
products online (EF42). This may suggest that brand jingles are becoming
irrelevant in the digital market space with specific reference to skincare
(EF43).

189
 Further notable from the results presented in Table 6.8 is that respondents
were in a high level of agreement (83%) regarding the influence of video clips
on their experience of shopping for skincare online. From this result, the
conclusion can be drawn that audio and visual cues should be used
simultaneously to create multi-sensory experiences for consumers (EF44), as
stipulated by Cowen-Elstner (2018:28), Hulten (2020:86) and Shaed et al
(2015:34) (Chapter 3: Section 3.6) (LF199 & LF202). The following section
reports on the results relating to digital olfactory stimuli.

6.5.2.3 Digital olfactory stimuli

The descriptive results pertaining to digital olfactory stimuli are summarised in

Table 6.9.

TABLE 6.9
SUMMARY OF THE RESPONSES REGARDING THE DIGITAL
OLFACTORY STIMULI

Skew-ness

Disagreed

Indifferent
Std. Dev.
Value N

Median

Agreed
Mean

Mode

(%)

(%)

(%)
# Question

The use of descriptive

language on a website
D6 influences my experience of 321 1.50 1 1 0.66 1.17 93 1 7
shopping for skincare
products online
The use of scratch-and-sniff
cards given out in stores
D7 influences my experience of 321 2.37 2 2 0.78 0.33 59 6 36
shopping for skincare
products online
The use of imagery
association influences my
D8 321 1.70 2 1 0.73 0.72 87 1 12
experience of shopping for
skincare products online
The use of virtual reality
technology to replicate the
D9 olfactory stimuli influences 321 1.95 2 2 0.74 80 2 18
0.41
my experience of shopping
for skincare products online
The use of third-party
technology influences my
D10 321 1.99 2 2 0.83 0.47 74 3 23
experience of shopping for
skincare products online

190
From Table 6.9 it can be seen that the mean scores of all items varied between
1.50 and 1.99 (EF45), while the standard deviation scores varied from 0.66 to
0.83, implying that respondents felt similarly regarding whether or not digital
olfactory stimuli have an influence on their experience for shopping for
skincare products online (EF46). Further observable from Table 6.9 is that the
mode and median of all items in the data set relating to digital olfactory stimuli
were either 1 (strongly agreed) or 2 (agreed), which indicates that, in general,
respondents were in agreement that these factors had a positive influence on
the experience of shopping for skincare online (EF47). This would then imply
that these factors, constituting digital olfactory stimuli, represent desirable
sensory branding strategies for consumers who shop online for skincare
products (EF48).

One factor which less respondents agreed was influential on their experience
of shopping for skincare online was the use of scratch-and-sniff cards (item
D7) (EF49). Furthermore, the deduction can be made that consumers who are
purchasing skincare products online are still wanting to experience olfactory
stimulation, as determined by the distribution of responses for items D6 and
D8 (EF50). Finally, consumers are interested in new virtual reality technology
with regards to olfactory stimulation, as indicated by the positive distribution of
responses in items D9 and D10 (EF51). The following section reports on the
results relating to digital tactile stimuli.

6.5.2.4 Digital tactile stimuli

The descriptive results pertaining to digital tactile stimuli are summarised in

Table 6.10.

191
 TABLE 6.10
SUMMARY OF THE RESPONSES REGARDING THE DIGITAL TACTILE
STIMULI
# Question

Skew-ness

Disagreed

Indifferent
Std. Dev.
Value N

Median

Agreed
Mean

Mode

(%)

(%)

(%)
E7 The use of high-quality 321 1.45 1 1 0.67 1.44 93 1 6
images influences my
experience of shopping for
skincare products online
E8 The use of descriptive 321 1.49 1 1 0.71 1.35 90 2 8
words to describe the feel of
the product influences my
experience of shopping for
skincare products online
E9 The availability of a return 321 1.46 1 1 0.66 1.23 92 1 7
policy influences my
experience of shopping for
skincare products online
E10 Haptic responses when 321 2.23 2 2 0.75 72 7 22
clicking on certain icons or 0.66
making a purchase
influence my experience of
shopping for skincare
products online
E11 The use of interactive 321 2.58 3 3 0.84 0.06 47 13 39
software influences my
experience of shopping for
skincare products online

From Table 6.10, it can be seen that the standard deviation scores varied from
0.66 to 0.84, meaning those respondents felt similarly regarding whether or
not digital tactile stimuli have an influence on their experience of shopping for
skincare products online (EF52). Moreover, the mean scores for items E7 –
E10 varied between 1.45 and 2.23 (EF53) and the mode and median scores
for items E7 – E10 were either 1 (strongly agreed) or 2 (agreed) (EF54). This
result implies that, in general, respondents were in agreement that the factors
relating to digital tactile stimuli had a positive influence on their experience of
shopping for skincare products online (EF55). Moreover, it can be concluded
then that these factors represent desirable sensory branding strategies for
consumers who shop online for skincare products (EF56).

However, in item E11, the majority of responses were indicative of an

indifferent response to the influence of interactive technology on the

192
 experience of shopping for skincare products online (EF57). This is supported
by a mode and median value of 3 (indifferent) (EF58), which indicates that
respondents, were in general, divided regarding the influence that interactive
technology had on their experience of shopping for skincare online. The use
of interactive technology is still relatively new and no yet widespread or cost
effective (Olsson 2015:18; Petit et al 2018:51) (Chapter 3: Section 3.8.2)
(LF272). Therefore, it can be assumed that not everyone has been exposed
to interactive technology when shopping online, which could explain the divide
seen in the respondents’ answers (EF59). The following section reports on the
results relating to the dependent variable of the study, brand loyalty.

6.5.3 Brand loyalty

The dependent variable of this study is brand loyalty, and the descriptive
results pertaining to brand loyalty are summarised in Table 6.11.

TABLE 6.11
SUMMARY OF THE RESPONSES REGARDING BRAND LOYALTY

Disagreed

Indifferent
Std. Dev.
Value N

Median

Agreed
Skew-
Mean

Mode

ness

(%)

(%)

(%)
# Question

Should my preferred brand

F1 increase their prices, I would 321 2.51 2 2 1.05 0.32 62 28 10
still purchase their brand
If my preferred brand’s
F2 products are unavailable, I 321 2.47 2 2 1.01 0.58 67 25 8
will not try an alternative
I say positive things about
F3 my preferred brand to other 321 1.72 2 2 0.57 0.58 96 1 3
people
I will recommend my
F4 preferred brand to someone 321 1.69 2 2 0.54 97 0 3
0.05
who seeks my advice
I have a positive emotional
F5 relation (feel attached) to my 321 2.13 2 2 0.70 0.47 76 3 21
preferred brand
I am loyal to my preferred
F6 brand due to the quality of 321 1.69 2 2 0.57 0.31 96 1 3
their products

193
 Disagreed

Indifferent
Std. Dev.
Value N

Median

Agreed
Skew-
Mean

Mode

ness

(%)

(%)

(%)
# Question

I am loyal to my preferred
F7 brand due to the experiences 321 1.87 2 2 0.54 0.26 93 1 6
I have had with them
My loyalty to my preferred
brand is strengthened by the
F8 value-added services they 321 2.09 2 2 0.64 0.99 82 3 15
provide, above the product
itself
My preferred brand provides
a different experience than
F9 321 2.16 2 2 0.61 0.67 78 3 19
any of the alternative brands
available

From Table 6.11, it can be seen that the mean scores of all items varied
between 1.69 and 2.51 (EF60). Moreover, the standard deviation scores
varied from 0.54 to 1.05, meaning that the respondents felt similarly about the
statements relating to brand loyalty (EF61). Further observable in Table 6.11,
the mode and median value for all items in this data set is 2 (agreed), indicating
that, in general, respondents were in agreement regarding the statements
relating to brand loyalty (EF62).

With reference to a brand increasing their prices (item F1), 62% of the
respondents agreed that they would continue to purchase their products,
which may speak to the literature finding of Gerstell et al (2020:5) that skincare
is considered an affordable luxury (LF111). However, 10% of respondents
were indifferent regarding this factor and 28% disagreed, indicating that they
would not continue to purchase their products (EF63). This result would
indicate that these respondents are price sensitive, which could be linked to
the age of the respondents (see section 6.6.8), whereby older consumers are
willing, or can afford, to spend more per month on their skincare products
(EF163).

Similarly, in item F2 that relates to whether or not the brand’s product was
available, 67% of respondents noted that they would not try an alternative,
whereas 8% were indifferent and 25% of respondents disagreed, which
indicates that they would try an alternative should their preferred brand’s

194
product not be available (EF64). The differing views regarding this factor of
brand loyalty may be linked to the fact that based on the respondents gender
(Osselaer & Bijmolt 2009:83; Ndubisi 2006:50), age (Klopotan et al 2014:488;
McDougall 2015; Paricha 2019) and level of education (Klopotan et al
2014:488; McDougall 2015; Sun, Foscht & Eisingerich 2021:2; Vince 2021),
their likelihood of being loyal to a skincare brand may differ (EF65).

Additionally, as seen in Table 6.11, respondents indicated a high level of

agreement with the statements relating to spreading word-of mouth (item F3)
(EF66) as well as making references to other people (item F4) (EF67). These
two results concur with the Alexandra and Cerchia (2018:423), Foroudi et al
(2018:10), Giovanis and Anthanasopoulou (2016:2), Haung et al (2018:2132),
Saif et al (2018:67) as well as Tartaglione et al (2019:1), who state that
increased brand loyalty results in the generation of positive word of mouth
(Chapter 2: Section 2.2.2.4)(LF35).

Furthermore, in item F7, 93% of respondents indicated that they are loyal to
their preferred brand due to the experiences that they have with them (EF68)
and in item F8 a large proportion (82%) of respondents indicated that their
loyalty to their preferred brand is strengthened by the value-added services
(EF69). From these three results it was deduced that consumers are wanting
different experiences when shopping for skincare both in-store and online.
However, in the final item of the sub-section (item F9), 19% of respondents
indicated that there preferred brand did not offer a different experience (EF70).
This result may suggest that some brands are not fully utilising experiences to
differentiate themselves in the market (EF71). Finally, tangible and functional
aspects of the product, such as quality, are influences of overall brand loyalty,
as determined by the distribution of responses in item F6 (EF72). The sections
that follow report on the inferential statistics calculated for this study.

6.6 INFERENTIAL STATISTICS

Inferential statistics, as explained by Frost (2020) and Selvanathan,

Selvanathan and Keller (2020:4), Singh (2018b) and Wagh, Bhende and

195
Thakare (2021:9), are used to make inferences about a population based on
the collected sample. Wagh et al (2021:10) emphasise that in order to be able
to generalise from a data set onto an entire population, the sample should be
adequate, and Frost (2020) adds that it is also essential that the researcher
ensures that his/her study is reliable and valid so that generalisations made
are true. The inferential statistics utilised in this study, as discussed in Chapter
5: Section 5.5.9, are presented in Table 6.12.

TABLE 6.12
INFERENTIAL STATISTICS EMPLOYED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS
STUDY
Inferential Statistic Motivation for use in this Study
Confirmatory Factor Analysis Used in this study to validate the measuring instrument
(CFA) as well as test the hypotheses of this study
Used to determine if significant relationships existed
between the variables of the study and the dependent
SEM Models
variable, which aided in testing the hypotheses of this
study
Used to determine if significant relationships existed
between the sub-variables of the study and the
Primary Models
dependent variable, which aided in testing the
hypotheses of this study
Pearson’s correlation Used to identify the relationships between the variables
coefficient and sub-variables of the study
Used to determine whether two demographic variables
Chi-square test of association
of the respondents are independent or related
Used to determine if significant differences in means
ANOVAs
existed between certain groups
Used to identify specifically where significant
Tukey test & Games-Howell
differences in means existed
Used to identify practical significant differences
Cohen’s d
between groups

6.6.1 The results of the descriptive statistics of the second order factors of
the variables of this study

Table 6.13 presents the descriptive statistics of the second order factors of the
variables of this study. When interpreting the Table below, yellow highlighting
represents the highest std. dev. values, while green highlighting represents
the lowest std. dev. values. Additionally, the mean value indicative of the most
positive response is highlighted in pink, and that representing the most
negative is highlighted in blue.

196
 TABLE 6.13
THE RESULTS OF THE DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF FIRST ORDER
FACTORS OF THE VARIABLES OF THE STUDY
Std.
First Order Factors Valid N Min Max Mean
Dev.

Traditional Visual Stimuli 321 1 5 1.62 0.59

Traditional Auditory Stimuli 321 1 5 2.03 0.65

Traditional Olfactory Stimuli 321 1 5 1.68 0.47

Traditional Tactile Stimuli 321 1 5 1.56 0.48

Traditional sensory branding 321 1 5 1.72 0.45

Digital Visual Stimuli 321 1 5 1.55 0.56

Digital Auditory Stimuli 321 1 5 2.29 0.63

Digital Olfactory Stimuli 321 1 5 1.90 0.55

Digital Tactile Stimuli 321 1 5 1.66 0.56

Digital sensory branding 321 1 5 1.85 0.48

As seen in Table 6.13, the variable digital visual stimuli presented the mean
value indicative of the most positive response (1.55) (EF73), followed closely
by traditional tactile stimuli (1.56) (EF74). This indicates that in general,
respondents agreed that both digital visual and traditional tactile stimuli have
the most positive influence on their experience of shopping for skincare
products (EF75). Respondents were least in agreement towards how digital
auditory stimuli influenced their experience of shopping for skincare products
online (EF76).

Further seen in Table 6.13, it is indicated that traditional sensory branding has
the lowest standard deviation (std. dev.) (0.45) (EF77), indicating that the

197
answers of the respondents relating to traditional sensory branding were
condensed, or that on average, they felt similarly regarding how this variable
influenced their experience (EF78). When considered in conjunction with the
mean score of 1.72, it is apparent that the general consensus between
respondents was that traditional sensory branding positively influences their
experience of shopping for skincare products in-store (EF79). Contradictorily,
the highest standard deviation (0.65) is observed for traditional auditory stimuli
(EF80), indicating that respondents have the widest range of answers for this
sub-variable (EF81). Nevertheless, the mean value for traditional auditory
stimuli (2.03) indicates that in general, respondents still agreed that traditional
auditory stimuli positively influence their experience of shopping for skincare
products in-store (EF82).

6.6.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is a statistical tool that can be utilised to

validate a measuring instrument and is a multivariate calculation, which
measures to what extent a variable is represented by a number of constructs
(Bastos 2021; Frey 2018). While CFA has similarities to exploratory factor
analysis (EFA), the main difference lies in the fact that the researcher can
predefine the exact number of factors needed to link measured variables to
latent variables (Bastos 2021; Frey 2018; Glen 2022a) and Glen (2022a) adds
that CFA is used when hypothesis testing is necessary. Bastos (2021) further
explains that CFA is commonly used when the items within a questionnaire
have previously been used to test a specific variable.

When interpreting CFA, one firstly examines chi-square (X2) as this value
indicates the difference between the observed and estimated covariance
matrix and is the fundamental measure of CFA (Hair, Black, Babin & Anderson
2019:635; UCLA 2021). Following this, the degrees of freedom (df) should be
considered as this will indicate to the researcher the amount of mathematical
information that can be obtained (Hair et al 2019:636). Once the researcher
has considered the basic measures of goodness-of-fit, the absolute fit indices
should be observed, which include the Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI), Root

198
 Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and the Standardised Root
Mean Residual (SRMR). These goodness-of-fit measures were applied for the
purpose of this study based on the recommendation of the employed
statistician.

GFI, according to Hair et al (2019:637), is a fit statistic that does not take into
consideration the sample size of the study, which can range from 0 to 1, where
the higher the value observed is, the better the model fit is assumed to be.
RMSEA is used by researchers to determine how well a model actually fits a
population, as it does not reject models that consist of larger numbers of
variables, and lower values are indicative of better fit (Hair et al 2019:637;
UCLA 2021). When studying covariances, the error in prediction creates a
residual, which makes interpretation of the results challenging. However,
SRMR provides a solution to this, as they are directly comparable (Hair et al
2019:637). Finally, the researcher can examine the incremental fit indices
relevant to the study, such as the comparative fit index (CFI). Hair et al
(2019:639) define CFI as an incremental fix index that has been normed in
such a way that the outcomes range from 0 to 1, where higher values are
representative of better fit. For the purpose of this study, it was firstly
determined whether or not all the parameter estimates were statistically
significant (p < 0.05). Thereafter, the relevant goodness-of-fit indices were
consulted to assess model fit, namely CMIN/df, CFI, SRMR and RMSEA.
Table 6.14 provides the rule of thumb cut-off values for interpretation of the
goodness-of-fit indices utilised in this study.

TABLE 6.14
INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES FOR THE GOODNESS-OF-FIT INDICES

Index Cut-off for good model fit Cut-off for adequate model fit Source

• Hair et al (2019:636)
CMIN/df < 3.00 < 5.00
• UCLA (2021)
• Brown (2015:86);
CFI > 0.95 > 0.90 • Hair et al (2019:639);
• UCLA (2021)
• Hair et al (2019:637)
GFI > 0.95 > 0.90 • UCLA (2021)

199
Index Cut-off for good model fit Cut-off for adequate model fit Source

• Brown (2015:86);
SRMR < 0.05 < 0.08 • Hair et al (2019:637);
• UCLA (2021)
• Brown (2015:86);
RMSEA < 0.08 < 0.10 • Hair et al (2019:637);
• UCLA (2021)

Furthermore, where appropriate, modification indices (MI) were utilised. The

use of MI was deemed necessary where two items were highly related (MI >
0.10) and the researcher therefore allowed them to correlate with one another.
In the sections that follow, the CFA results calculated for each primary factor,
namely traditional and digital sensory branding, are reported on. Following
this, the CFA results calculated for the second-order factors, namely visual,
auditory, olfactory and tactile stimuli, are reported on.

6.6.2.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis for traditional sensory branding

strategies

CFA was computed to test the measurement models relating to traditional

sensory branding. As part of CFA, factor loadings were assessed for each
item, and with reference to the model relating to traditional sensory branding,
no items were removed (EF83). Thereafter, the model-fit measures were used
to assess the model’s overall goodness of fit (CMIN/df, SRMR/GFI, CFI and
RMSEA), which are presented in Table 6.15.

TABLE 6.15
MODEL FIT SUMMARY FOR TRADITIONAL SENSORY BRANDING
Model fit summary at start Model fit summary at end Parameters
Factor
CMIN SRMR CFI RMSEA CMIN SRMR CFI RMSEA P < 0.05
Traditional
All parameters
visual 6.16 0.04 0.96 0.13 2.65 0.02 0.99 0.07
were significant
stimuli
Traditional
All parameters
auditory 26.07 0.10 0.84 0.28 2.10 0.01 1.00 0.06
were significant
stimuli
Traditional
All parameters
olfactory 9.74 0.06 0.93 0.17 3.87 0.03 0.98 0.10
were significant
stimuli

200
 Traditional
All parameters
tactile 6.69 0.05 0.94 0.13 2.24 0.03 0.99 0.06
were significant
stimuli

The following modifications were made with reference to the sub-variables

constituting traditional sensory branding:
• From the CFA calculation conducted for traditional visual stimuli, it was
found that item B1 (The layout of the store influences my experience of
shopping for skincare products in-store) and item B2 (The positioning of
the products influences my experience of shopping for skincare products
in-store) had a high MI (30.01) and they were therefore co-varied (EF84).
• From the CFA calculation conducted for traditional auditory stimuli, it was
found that item C2 (The natural noises associated with stores influence my
experience of shopping for skincare products in-store) and item C3 (The
sound or pronunciation of the brand’s name influences my experience of
shopping for skincare products in-store) had a high MI (50.91) and they
were therefore co-varied (EF85); item C1 (The music played in the store
influences my experience of shopping for skincare products in-store) and
item C2 had a high MI (30.67) and they were therefore co-varied (EF86),
and item C1 and item C3 had a high MI (19.04) and they were therefore
co-varied (EF87).
• From the CFA calculation conducted for traditional olfactory stimuli, it was
found that item D4 (Signature fragrances of stores influence my experience
of shopping for skincare products in-store) and item D5 (The fragrance of
staff members in the store influences my experience of shopping for
skincare products in-store) had a high MI (30.48) and they were therefore
co-varied (EF88).
• From the CFA calculation conducted for traditional tactile stimuli, it was
found that item E2 (The possibility to sample the physical product
influences my experience of shopping for skincare products in-store) and
item E6 (The duration that I touch or feel the product influences my
experience of shopping for skincare products in-store) had a high MI
(32.43) and they were therefore co-varied (EF89).

201
From Table 6.15 it can be seen that all the model-fit measure values, after the
necessary MI were applied (model fit summary at end), are within their
respective common acceptance levels (Table 6.14) (EF90). Therefore, it can
be deduced that the four-factor model (traditional sensory branding) yielded
good fit (EF91).

6.6.2.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis for digital sensory branding

CFA was computed to test the measurement models relating to digital sensory
branding. As part of CFA, factor loadings were assessed for each item, and
with reference to the model relating to digital sensory branding, only one item
(E11 - The use of interactive software influences my experience of shopping
for skincare products online) was removed (EF92). Thereafter, the model-fit
measures were used to assess the model’s overall goodness of fit (CMIN/df,
SRMR/GFI, CFI and RMSEA), which are presented in Table 6.16.

TABLE 6.16
MODEL FIT SUMMARY FOR DIGITAL SENSORY BRANDING
Model fit summary at start Model fit summary at end Parameters
Factor
CMIN SRMR CFI RMSEA CMIN SRMR CFI RMSEA P < 0.05
Digital
All parameters
visual 16.14 0.07 0.87 0.22 2.90 0.02 0.99 0.08
were significant
stimuli
Digital
All parameters
auditory 18.80 0.09 0.85 0.24 2.89 0.02 0.99 0.08
were significant
stimuli
Digital
All parameters
olfactory 15.19 0.06 0.88 0.21 4.32 0.03 0.98 0.10
were significant
stimuli
Digital Item E11
tactile 8.90 0.08 0.94 0.16 4.55 0.03 0.99 0.11 deleted
stimuli (p = 0.70)

The following modifications were made with reference to the sub-variables

constituting digital sensory branding:
• From the CFA calculation conducted for digital visual stimuli, it was found
that item B11 (The use of interactive technology influences my experience
of shopping for skincare products online) and item B12 (The use of videos
influences my experience of shopping for skincare products online) had a

202
 high MI (60.29) and they were therefore co-varied (EF93) as well as that
item B9 (The layout and user friendliness of the website influence my
experience of shopping for skincare products online) and item B10 (How
aesthetically pleasing the website is influences my experience of shopping
for skincare products online) had a high MI (42.94) and they were therefore
co-varied (EF94).
• From the CFA calculation conducted for digital auditory stimuli, it was found
that item C9 (The use of brand jingles influences my experience of
shopping for skincare products online) and item C10 (The use of digital
sounds to portray the actual sound of using the product influences my
experience of shopping for skincare products online) had a high MI (73.62)
and they were therefore co-varied (EF95).
• From the CFA calculation conducted for digital olfactory stimuli, it was
found that item D6 (The use of descriptive language on a website
influences my experience of shopping for skincare products online) and
item D8 (The use of imagery association influences my experience of
shopping for skincare products online) had a high MI (40.61) and they were
therefore co-varied (EF96).
• From the CFA calculation conducted for digital tactile stimuli, it was found
that item E11 (The use of interactive software influences my experience of
shopping for skincare products online) was insignificant (p < 0.05), where
p = 0.70 (EF97), and the item was therefore removed.

From Table 6.16 it can be seen that all the model-fit measure values, after the
necessary MI were applied (model fit summary at end), are within their
respective common acceptance levels (Table 6.14) (EF98). Therefore, it can
be deduced that the four-factor model (digital sensory branding) yielded good
fit (EF99). The following section discusses the SEM models created for this
study.

203
6.6.3 SEM models

As explained by Ockey and Choi (2015:305), structural equation modelling

(SEM) is a statistical analysis technique which is linked to CFA. Boon
(2013:116), Shaheen, Ahmed, Waqas, Waheed and Farooq (2017:136) and
Tarka (2018:314) add that the widespread application of SEM to social studies
can be attributed to the fact that it is possible to apply modifications as well as
allow for evaluation of a theoretical model. Furthermore, SEM allows a
researcher to investigate the relationships that may exist between latent
variables and to what extent a structural or conceptual model fits the primary
data collected (Boon 2013:116; Saheen et al 2017:133; Tarka 2018:314).
However, for SEM to be appropriate, a relatively large sample size is needed,
and while there is no exact recommendation on sample size, it is advised that
a minimum of 100 respondents are needed (Lambert 2015:93). For reporting
purposes, SEM models follow the same recommended cut-off values
proposed for CFA (discussed in Section 6.6.2: Table 6.14). Additionally, SEM
focuses more on regression and standardised regression estimates than CFA
does, which ranges between 0, which is indicative of no significant
relationship, to 1, which is indicative of a very significant relationship (Goyal
2021). The sections that follow report on the SEM models conducted for the
independent variables (traditional and digital sensory branding strategies) and
dependent variable (brand loyalty) of this study.

6.6.3.1 SEM model for traditional sensory branding and brand loyalty

The first SEM model created relates to the relationship between traditional
sensory branding and brand loyalty. With reference to the SEM model created
for traditional sensory branding and brand loyalty, there were no MI needed
(EF100). Table 6.17 presents a summary of the regression weights table
output.

204
 TABLE 6.17
REGRESSION WEIGHTS FOR TRADITIONAL SENSORY BRANDING
Regression weight summary
Factor
Est. S.E. C.R. P Std. Est.
Brand loyalty <--- Traditional sensory branding 0.32 0.08 3.75 <0.01 0.351

From Table 6.17, it can be seen that there was a significant (p < 0.05)
relationship between traditional sensory branding and brand loyalty, where p
< 0.01 (EF101). However, the relationship is relatively weak, as determined by
a standardized regression weight estimate of 0.351 (EF102). It has been noted
that in order for a brand to create a loyal customer base, they should place
emphasis on experiential marketing (Chapter 2: Section 2.2.3) and traditional
sensory branding has been a quintessential factor in implementing experiential
marketing (Chapter 3: Section 3.3). This could explain the relationship
observed between traditional sensory branding and brand loyalty.
Furthermore, the model-fit measures were used to assess the model’s overall
goodness of fit (CMIN/df, SRMR/GFI, CFI and RMSEA), presented in Table
6.18.

TABLE 6.18
MODEL FIT SUMMARY FOR TRADITIONAL SENSORY BRANDING
Model fit summary
Factor
CMIN SRMR CFI RMSEA
Traditional sensory branding 3.02 0.09 0.85 0.08

It can be seen that the CMIN and RMSEA values are within their common
acceptance levels for adequate model fit (Table 6.14) (EF103). However, the
SRMR and CFI values are outside of their common acceptance levels (Table
6.14) (EF104). Therefore, it can be deduced that the model yielded a marginal
to poor fit (Table 6.14) (EF105). This could be attributed to the fact that not all
factors proved to be significant, and will therefore worsen the model fit. Figure
6.5 provides the graphical representation of the SEM model for traditional
sensory branding and brand loyalty. In Figure 6.5 and 6.7 the following
abbreviations are utilised; traditional sensory strategies (traditional); traditional
tactile stimuli (TTS); traditional visual stimuli (TVS); traditional olfactory stimuli
(TOS), and; traditional auditory stimuli (TAS).

205
 FIGURE 6.5
THE SEM MODEL FOR TRADITIONAL SENSORY BRANDING

F1

F2

F3

F4

F5
E6

E5 F6

E4
F7
E3
F8
E2

E1 F9

B6

B5

B4

B3

B2

B1

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5

6.6.3.2 SEM model for digital sensory branding and brand loyalty

The second SEM model created relates to the relationship between digital
sensory branding and brand loyalty. With reference to the SEM model created
for digital sensory branding and brand loyalty, it was found that item D9 (the
use of virtual reality technology to replicate the olfactory stimuli influences my
experience of shopping for skincare products online) and item D10 (the use of
third-party technology influences my experience of shopping for skincare
products online) had a high MI (68.98) and they were therefore co-varied (see
Figure 6.15) (EF106). This may have occurred as both items referred to the
use of innovative technology in delivering olfactory stimuli online. Table 6.19
presents a summary of the regression weights table output.

206
 TABLE 6.19
REGRESSION WEIGHTS FOR DIGITAL SENSORY BRANDING
Regression weights summary at start Regression weights summary at end
Factor Std. Std.
Est. S.E. C.R. P Est. S.E. C.R. P
Est. Est.
Brand loyalty
<--- Digital
0.25 0.07 3.64 <0.01 0.34 0.26 0.07 3.66 <0.01 0.34
sensory
branding

From Table 6.19, it can be seen that there was a significant relationship
between digital sensory branding and brand loyalty, where p < 0.01 (EF107).
However, the relationship is relatively weak, as determined by the
standardized regression weight estimates of 0.34 and 0.34 respectively
(EF108). The literature relating to digital sensory branding indicates that
consumers are no less demanding of a brand online than they are in-store with
regard to sensory stimuli (Chapter 3: Section 3.4) and as already discussed in
the previous section, sensory marketing is essential in implementing
experiential marketing (Chapter 3: Section 3.3) and therefore, brand loyalty.
This could explain the significant relationship between digital sensory branding
and brand loyalty observed. Furthermore, the model-fit measures were used
to assess the model’s overall goodness of fit (CMIN/df, SRMR/GFI, CFI and
RMSEA), presented in Table 6.20.

TABLE 6.20
MODEL FIT SUMMARY FOR DIGITAL SENSORY BRANDING
Model fit summary at start Model fit summary at end
Factor
CMIN SRMR CFI RMSEA CMIN SRMR CFI RMSEA
Digital
sensory 3.78 0.11 0.82 0.93 3.58 0.11 0.83 0.09
branding

It can be seen that the CMIN and RMSEA values, both at the start and at the
end, are within their common acceptance levels for adequate model fit (Table
6.14) (EF109). However, the SRMR and CFI values, both at the start and at
the end, are outside of their common acceptance levels (Table 6.14) (EF110).
Therefore, it can be deduced that the model yielded a marginal to poor fit
(Table 6.14) (EF111). This could be attributed to the fact that not all factors
proved to be significant, and will therefore worsen the model fit. Following this,

207
a full SEM model was created to determine whether a stronger relationship
existed between traditional or digital sensory branding and brand loyalty.
Figure 6.6 provides the graphical representation of the SEM model for
traditional sensory branding and brand loyalty. In Figure 6.6 and 6.7 the
following abbreviations are utilised; digital sensory strategies (digital); digital
auditory stimuli (DAS); digital olfactory stimuli (DOS); digital tactile stimuli
(DTS), and; digital visual stimuli (DVS).

FIGURE 6.6
THE SEM MODEL FOR DIGITAL SENSORY BRANDING

C1
0
C9

C8

C7

C6

D1
0
D9

D8
F1
D7
F2
D6

E10 F3

E9
F4
E8
F5
E7

B12 F6

B11
F7
B10
F8
B9

B8 F9

B7

6.6.3.3 SEM model for both traditional and digital sensory branding and brand
loyalty

With reference to the full SEM model created, it was determined that the
significance of the relationships between both traditional and digital sensory
branding and brand loyalty became weaker, as seen in Table 6.21, (EF112),

208
which is a common outcome when adding additional factors into a SEM
calculation.

TABLE 6.21
THE REGRESSION WEIGHTS RELATING TO THE FULL SEM MODEL
Regression weights summary
Factor Std.
Est. S.E. C.R. P
Est.
Brand loyalty <--- Traditional sensory branding 0.18 0.07 2.71 0.01 0.20
Brand loyalty <--- Digital sensory branding 0.14 0.05 2.66 0.01 0.19

From Table 6.21 it can be seen that there is a significant (p < 0.05) relationship
between both traditional (p = 0.01) and digital (p = 0.01) sensory branding and
brand loyalty (EF113). However, both are very weak relationships, as
determined by the standardised regression weight values of 0.20 and 0.19
respectively (EF114). It can therefore be concluded that both traditional and
digital sensory branding are related to brand loyalty, albeit weakly (EF115).
Moreover, there was only a very small change in the significance level of the
relationships between both traditional and digital sensory branding and brand
loyalty as a result of including both independent variables to the SEM model
(EF116). The model-fit measures were used to assess the model’s overall
goodness of fit (CMIN/df, SRMR/GFI, CFI and RMSEA) (Table 6.22).

TABLE 6.22
MODEL FIT SUMMARY FOR FULL SEM MODEL
Model fit summary at start
Factor
CMIN SRMR CFI RMSEA
Traditional and digital sensory branding 3.25 0.23 0.76 0.08

It can be seen that the CMIN and RMSEA values are within their common
acceptance levels for adequate model fit (Table 6.14) (EF117). However, the
SRMR and CFI values are outside of their common acceptance levels (Table
6.14) (EF118). Therefore, it can be deduced that the model yielded a marginal
to poor fit (Table 6.14) (EF119). Additionally, it was found that there was an
extremely high MI (200.43) between traditional sensory branding and digital
sensory branding and they were therefore co-varied (EF120). However, this
resulted in the relationship between both traditional and digital sensory

209
branding and brand loyalty became insignificant (EF121). Figure 6.7 provides
the graphical representation of the full SEM model for both traditional and
digital sensory branding and brand loyalty.

FIGURE 6.7
THE FULL SEM MODEL

D6 D7 D8 D9 D1 C6
0
E10 C7
E10
E9 C8
C9
E8
C1
E7

B12

B11

B10

B9

B8
F1
B7
F2
E6
F3
E5
F4
E4
F5
E3
E2 F6

E1 F7
F8
B6
F9
B5
B4
B3
B2
B1

D5 D4 D3 D2 D1 C5 C4 C3 C2 C1

6.6.4 Primary factor model models

As previously stated, the independent variables of this study (traditional and

digital sensory branding) constituted four sub-variables (visual, auditory,
olfactory and tactile stimuli). Therefore, the consistently weak relationship

210
observed between traditional and digital sensory branding and brand loyalty
could indicate that one or more of the sub-variables were not related to brand
loyalty (EF122). To investigate the relationship between the various sub-
variables of this study and the dependent variable, primary models were
conducted, which are presented in the sections to follow.

6.6.4.1 Primary model for traditional sensory stimuli

The first primary model created was for traditional visual, auditory, olfactory
and tactile stimuli and brand loyalty, the results of which are presented in Table
6.23.

TABLE 6.23
REGRESSION WEIGHTS FOR TRADITIONAL SENSORY STIMULI
Regression weights summary
Factor Std.
Est. S.E. C.R. P
Est.
Brand loyalty <--- Traditional visual stimuli 0.01 0.04 0.37 0.71 0.02
Brand loyalty <--- Traditional auditory stimuli -0.03 0.03 -1.00 0.32 -0.06
Brand loyalty <--- Traditional olfactory branding 0.06 0.04 1.55 0.12 0.09
Brand loyalty <--- Traditional tactile branding 0.27 0.07 4.01 <0.01 0.38

From Table 6.23, it can be seen that of all of the traditional sensory stimuli,
only traditional tactile stimuli had a significant (p < 0.05) relationship with brand
loyalty, where p < 0.01 (EF123). However, the relationship observed between
traditional tactile stimuli and brand loyalty is relatively weak, as determined by
the standardized regression weight value of 0.38 (EF124). Haptics, or the
sense of touch, has been identified as one of the principal sources of stimuli
and is linked to ownership and valuation of a product (Chapter 3: Section 3.8).
Additionally, touch is especially relevant to physical products (Chapter 3:
Section 3.8), which could explain why tactile stimuli was identified as the most
significant sub-variable. An explanation as to why the remaining sub-variables
had no influence on brand loyalty is because they constitute sensory
experiences (Chapter 2: Section 2.2.10), which then has a relationship with
brand loyalty (Chapter 2: Section 2.2.11: Figure 2.4). Therefore, their
relationship with brand loyalty may be through brand experience, rather than

211
a direct relationship. Figure 6.8 provides the graphical representation of the
Primary model for traditional sensory stimuli and brand loyalty. In Figure 6.8
and 6.10 the following abbreviations are utilised; traditional sensory strategies
(traditional); traditional tactile stimuli (TTS); traditional visual stimuli (TVS);
traditional olfactory stimuli (TOS), and; traditional auditory stimuli (TAS).

FIGURE 6.8
THE PRIMARY MODEL FOR TRADITIONAL SENSORY STIMULI

F1

F2

F3

F4

F5

E6
F6
E5

E4 F7

E3
F8
E2

E1 F9

B6

B5

B4

B3

B2

B1

D5 D4 D3 D2 D1 C5 C4 C3 C2 C1

212
6.6.4.2 Primary model for digital sensory stimuli

The second primary model created was for digital visual, auditory, olfactory
and tactile stimuli and brand loyalty, the results of which are presented in Table
6.24.

TABLE 6.24
REGRESSION WEIGHTS FOR DIGITAL SENSORY STIMULI
Regression weights summary
Factor Std.
Est. S.E. C.R. P
Est.
Brand loyalty <--- Digital visual stimuli -0.02 0.04 -0.58 0.56 -0.03
Brand loyalty <--- Digital auditory stimuli -0.01 0.03 -0.30 0.76 -0.02
Brand loyalty <--- Digital olfactory branding -0.03 0.06 -0.49 0.62 -0.03
Brand loyalty <--- Digital tactile branding 0.21 0.05 4.23 <0.01 0.40

From Table 6.24, it can be seen that of all of the digital sensory stimuli, only
digital tactile stimuli had a significant (p < 0.05) relationship with brand loyalty,
where p < 0.01 (EF125). However, the relationship observed between digital
tactile stimuli and brand loyalty is relatively weak, as determined by the
standardized regression weight value of 0.40 (EF126). Once again, tactile
stimuli are highlighted as the only sub-variable to have a significant
relationship with brand loyalty (EF127), and as the case with traditional tactile
stimuli, this may be attributed to the fact that touch is one of the principal
sources of stimuli and is linked to ownership and valuation of a product
(Chapter 3: Section 3.8). It can therefore be deduced that consumers are
seeking tactile stimuli even when shopping online, solidifying the literature that
posits that the lack of tactile stimuli online is a challenge for brands with
physical touch-related products (Chapter 3: Section 3.8.2). Once again, the
remaining sub-variables constitute sensory experiences, a segment of brand
experience, and therefore do not have a significant relationship with brand
loyalty. Figure 6.9 provides the graphical representation of the primary model
for digital sensory stimuli and brand loyalty. In Figure 6.9 and 6.10 the following
abbreviations are utilised; digital sensory strategies (digital); digital auditory
stimuli (DAS); digital olfactory stimuli (DOS); digital tactile stimuli (DTS), and;
digital visual stimuli (DVS).

213
 FIGURE 6.9
THE PRIMARY MODEL FOR DIGITAL SENSORY STIMULI

C6

C7

C8

C9

C10

D10

D9

D8
F1
D7

F2
D6

E10 F3

E9
F4
E8

F5
E7

B11 F6

B11
F7
B10
F8
B9

B8 F9

B7

6.6.4.3 Full primary model for both traditional and digital sensory stimuli

The final primary model created included both traditional and digital visual,
auditory, olfactory and tactile stimuli and brand loyalty, the results of which are
presented in Table 6.25.

214
 TABLE 6.25
REGRESSION WEIGHTS FOR THE FULL PRIMARY MODEL
Regression weights summary
Factor Std.
Est. S.E. C.R. P
Est.
Brand loyalty <--- Traditional visual stimuli 0.03 0.04 0.71 0.48 0.04
Brand loyalty <--- Traditional auditory stimuli -0.03 0.03 -1.26 0.21 -0.07
Brand loyalty <--- Traditional olfactory branding 0.06 0.04 1.65 0.10 0.10
Brand loyalty <--- Traditional tactile branding 0.23 0.06 3.85 <0.01 0.33
Brand loyalty <--- Digital visual stimuli -0.07 0.04 -1.82 0.07 -0.11
Brand loyalty <--- Digital auditory stimuli 0.00 0.03 -0.01 0.99 0.00
Brand loyalty <--- Digital olfactory branding -0.10 0.06 -1.77 0.08 -0.11
Brand loyalty <--- Digital tactile branding 0.13 0.04 3.32 <0.01 0.24

From the results relating to the full Primary Model presented in Table 6.25, it
can be seen that of all the traditional and digital sub-variables, only traditional
(p < 0.01) and digital (p < 0.01) tactile stimuli had a significant relationship with
brand loyalty (EF128), the possible reasoning for this is discussed in Sections
6.6.4.1 and 6.6.4.2. Both of these relationships were however weak, as
determined by the standardised regression weight values of 0.33 and 0.24
respectively (EF129). It can further be seen that significant relationships at a
10% level exist between traditional olfactory stimuli (p < 0.10) (EF130), digital
visual stimuli (p < 0.07) (EF131) and digital olfactory stimuli (p < 0.08) (EF132)
and brand loyalty.

Visual stimuli are the most common sensory stimuli made use of online
(Chapter 3: Section 3.4), which may explain why this had some direct
relationship with brand loyalty. Furthermore, this study makes specific
reference to the skincare industry, where fragrance is a key factor in the
decision on which product to purchase made by consumers (Chapter 3:
Section 3.2.2), which could explain why both traditional and digital olfactory
stimuli were highlighted in relation to brand loyalty. The remaining sub-
variables indicated no significant relationship with brand loyalty (EF133);
possible attributions for this finding are also discussed in Sections 6.6.4.1 and
6.6.4.2. Figure 6.10 provides the graphical representation of the full primary
model for both traditional and digital sensory stimuli and brand loyalty.

215
 FIGURE 6.10
THE FULL PRIMARY MODEL

C6
D6 D7 D8 D9 D10
C7
E10
C8
E9

E8 C9

E7 C10

B12

B11

B10

B9

B8

B7

F1

E6 F2
F3
E5
F4
E4
F5
E3
F6
E2
F7
E1 F8

B6 F9

B5

B4

B3

B2

B1

D5 D4 D3 D2 D1 C5 C4 C3 C2 C1

This study had the purpose of investigating the relationships between the
independent variables (traditional and digital sensory branding strategies) and

216
the dependent variable (brand loyalty) relative to this study, as illustrated in
the conceptual model (Chapter 4: Figure 4.7). The sets of hypotheses of this
study consist of a primary hypothesis as well as a number of secondary
hypotheses. The following sections utilise the above-discussed SEM and
Primary Models to test the sets of hypotheses of the study (Chapter 4: Table
4.1).

6.6.5 Traditional sensory branding strategies (independent variable) and

brand loyalty (dependent variable)

The first set of hypotheses relate to how traditional sensory branding

strategies influence brand loyalty in-store, with specific reference to the
skincare industry, which constitutes the primary hypothesis:

H1 There is a significant relationship between traditional sensory

branding strategies and brand loyalty (Chapter 4: Section 4.4: Table 4.1)

From the SEM model created in Section 6.6.3.1, it was found that there was a
significant (p < 0.05) relationship between traditional sensory branding and
brand loyalty, where p = 0.01 (EF113). However, the relationship is relatively
weak, as determined by a standardized regression weight estimate of 0.20
(EF114) (Table 6.21).

Hypothesis H1 is supported through the above discussed

statistics (EF134).

The first set of hypotheses constitutes four secondary hypotheses, that relate
to traditional visual, auditory, olfactory and tactile stimuli:

H1a There is a significant relationship between traditional visual stimuli

and brand loyalty (Chapter 4: Section 4.4: Table 4.1)

217
From the full Primary Model created (Section 6.6.4.3), there was no significant
(p < 0.05) relationship between traditional visual stimuli and brand loyalty
(EF133), where p = 0.48 (Table 6.25).

Hypothesis H1a is rejected through the above discussed

statistics (EF135).

H1b There is a significant relationship between traditional auditory

stimuli and brand loyalty (Chapter 4: Section 4.4: Table 4.1)

From the full Primary Model created (Section 6.6.4.3), there was no significant
(p < 0.05) relationship between traditional auditory stimuli and brand loyalty
(EF133), where p = 0.21 (Table 6.25).

Hypothesis H1b is rejected through the above discussed

statistics (EF136).

H1c There is a significant relationship between traditional olfactory

stimuli and brand loyalty (Chapter 4: Section 4.4: Table 4.1)

From the full Primary Model created (Section 6.6.4.3), there was a significant
(p < 0.10) relationship between traditional olfactory stimuli and brand loyalty
(p = 0.10) (Table 6.25) (EF130). However, the relationship is relatively weak,
as determined by a standardized regression weight estimate of 0.10 (Table
6.25).

Hypothesis H1c is supported through the above discussed

statistics (EF137).

H1d There is a significant relationship between traditional tactile

stimuli and brand loyalty (Chapter 4: Section 4.4: Table 4.1)

218
From the full Primary Model created (Section 6.6.4.3), there was a significant
(p < 0.05) relationship between traditional tactile stimuli and brand loyalty
(EF128), where p < 0.01 (Table 6.25). However, the relationship is relatively
weak, as determined by a standardized regression weight estimate of 0.33
(EF129) (Table 6.25).

Hypothesis H1d is supported through the above discussed

statistics (EF138).

6.6.6 Digital sensory branding strategies (independent variable) and brand

loyalty (dependent variable)

The second set of hypotheses relates to how digital sensory branding

strategies influence brand loyalty online, with specific reference to the skincare
industry, which constitutes the primary hypothesis:

H2 There is a significant relationship between digital sensory

branding strategies and brand loyalty (Chapter 4: Section 4.4: Table
4.1)

From the SEM model created in Section 6.6.3.2, it was found that there was a
significant (p < 0.05) relationship between digital sensory branding and brand
loyalty, where p = 0.01 (EF113) (Table 6.21). However, the relationship is
relatively weak, as determined by a standardized regression weight estimate
of 0.19 (EF114) (Table 6.21).

Hypothesis H2 is supported through the above discussed

statistics (EF139).

The second set of hypotheses constitutes four secondary hypotheses, that

relate to digital visual, auditory, olfactory and tactile stimuli:

H2a There is a significant relationship between digital visual stimuli

and brand loyalty (Chapter 4: Section 4.4: Table 4.1)

219
From the full Primary Model created (Section 6.6.4.3), there was a significant
(p < 0.10) relationship between digital visual stimuli and brand loyalty (p =
0.10) (Table 6.25) (EF131) However, the relationship is relatively weak, as
determined by a standardized regression weight estimate of 0.11 (Table 6.25).

Hypothesis H2a is supported through the above discussed

statistics (EF140).

H2b There is a significant relationship between digital auditory stimuli

and brand loyalty (Chapter 4: Section 4.4: Table 4.1)

From the full Primary Model created (Section 6.6.4.3), there was no significant
(p < 0.05) relationship between digital auditory stimuli and brand loyalty
(EF133), where p = 0.99 (Table 6.25).

Hypothesis H2b is rejected through the above discussed

statistics (EF141).

H2c There is a significant relationship between digital olfactory stimuli

and brand loyalty (Chapter 4: Section 4.4: Table 4.1)

From the full Primary Model created (Section 6.6.4.3), there was a significant
(p < 0.10) relationship between digital olfactory stimuli and brand loyalty (p =
0.08) (Table 6.25) (EF132). However, the relationship is relatively weak, as
determined by a standardized regression weight estimate of 0.11 (Table 6.25).

Hypothesis H2c is supported through the above discussed

statistics (EF142).

H2d There is a significant relationship between digital tactile stimuli

and brand loyalty (Chapter 4: Section 4.4: Table 4.1)

220
From the full Primary Model created (Section 6.6.4.3), there was a significant
(p < 0.05) relationship between digital tactile stimuli and brand loyalty (p <
0.01) (Table 6.25) (EF128). However, the relationship is relatively weak, as
determined by a standardized regression weight estimate of 0.24 (EF129)
(Table 6.25).

Hypothesis H2d is supported through the above discussed

statistics (EF143).

The following section discusses the correlations identified between the

variables of the study.

6.6.7 Pearson’s correlations between variables of this study

As stated by Schober, Boer and Schwarte (2018:1763), correlations signify a

monotonic measurement of association between two variables in a study. This
implies that as the magnitude of change occurs in one variable, so will that of
the second variable, which could be either in the same or opposite direction
(Schober et al 2018:1763). Pearson’s correlation coefficient, denoted by “r”, is
often made use of to interpret correlations and can have a value between +1
and -1, where a value of 0 implies that there is no correlation between the
variables (Laerd Statistics 2018; Okwonu, Asaju & Arunaye 2020:1; Schober
et al 2018:1763; Stapor 2020:148; Walker & Maddan 2019:212). Ramzai
(2020), along with Schober et al (2018:1763), Stapor (2020:148) and Walker
and Maddan (2019:212), further explain that the closer the value is to being a
perfect correlation, the stronger the correlation becomes, which can be either
positive or negative in nature. An acceptable guideline for interpreting
Pearson’s correlation coefficient values is put forward by Akoglu (2018:92) and
Ramzai (2020), as well as Schober et al (2018:1765), where a value of <0.30
indicates a weak correlation, 0.30-0.49 indicates a moderate correlation and
0.50+ a strong correlation.

This study made use of Pearson’s correlation coefficients (presented in Table

6.26) in order to test the relationships that existed amongst the various

221
 variables and sub-variables of this study. Furthermore, it was used to
determine the relationship between the various variables and sub-variables of
the study and the dependent variable, thereby testing the formulated
hypotheses (Chapter 5: Figure 5.3).

TABLE 6.26
PEARSON’S CORRELATIONS BETWEEN THE VARIABLES OF THE
STUDY

Dig. Tactile Stimuli

Trad. Olfactory

Trad. Sensory
Trad. Auditory

Brand Loyalty
Dig. Olfactory

Dig. Auditory

Dig. Sensory
Trad. Tactile
Trad. Visual

Dig. Visual

Strategies

Strategies
Variable

Stimuli

Stimuli

Stimuli

Stimuli

Stimuli

Stimuli

Stimuli
Trad. Visual Stimuli 1.00 .68* .52* .65* .55* .60* .58* .17 .34* .64* .85*

Dig. Visual Stimuli 1.00 .54* .57* .67* .66* .79* .20 .39* .85* .74*

Trad. Auditory Stimuli 1.00 .59* .54* .47* .57* .08 .69* .70* .81*

Trad. Olfactory Stimuli 1.00 .58* .62* .59* .13 .50* .67* .85*

Dig. Olfactory Stimuli 1.00 .60* .72* .16 .51* .86* .68*

Trad. Tactile Stimuli 1.00 .70* .28 .33* .68* .79*

Dig. Tactile Stimuli 1.00 .22 .48* .89* .73*

Brand Loyalty 1.00 .08 .19* .19*

Dig. Auditory Stimuli 1.00 .73* .57*

Dig. Sensory Strategies 1.00 .81*

Trad. Sensory Strategies 1.00

* Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

For practical significance of the correlation;
If correlation coefficient is
<0.30: Weak correlation
0.30-0.49: Moderate correlation
0.50+: Strong correlation

It is notable from Table 6.26 that traditional visual (0.85) (EF144), auditory
(0.81) (EF145), olfactory (0.85) (EF146) and tactile (0.79) (EF147) stimuli are

222
all strongly correlated with traditional sensory branding. Likewise, digital visual
(0.85) (EF148), auditory (0.73) (EF149), olfactory (0.86) (EF150) and tactile
(0.89) (EF151) stimuli are all strongly correlated with digital sensory strategies.
These correlations can be attributed to the fact that both of the main
independent variables (traditional and digital sensory branding) constituted the
sub-variables visual, auditory, olfactory and tactile stimuli (EF152).

Additionally, it can be seen in Table 6.26 that there was a strong correlation
(0.81) between digital sensory strategies and traditional sensory strategies
(EF153). This result may be attributed to the fact that within each of the sub-
variables (visual, auditory, olfactory and tactile stimuli) for traditional sensory
branding and digital sensory branding, there are some strategies which
overlap or that are similar (EF154). For example, with reference to visual
stimuli, the aesthetics of the products packaging is a sensory strategy utilised
for both in-store and online shopping. Moreover, regardless of the experience
being in-store or online, consumers who are purchasing skincare are wanting
sensory experiences (Cosmetics Business 2020; Whitehouse 2017) (Chapter
3: Section 3.2.2) (LF143) and because this study is comparing the same type
of sensory stimulation in-store versus online (for example, traditional visual
stimuli versus digital visual stimuli) it may explain why a high correlation
between the two variables exists (EF155).

Of further interest from Table 6.26 is that both traditional (0.28) and digital
(0.22) tactile stimuli had the strongest correlation with brand loyalty of all the
variables and sub-variables of this study (EF156), which was also found in the
full Primary Model conducted in Section 6.6.4.3. Furthermore, it can be seen
that both traditional (0.8) and digital (0.8) auditory stimuli presented the
weakest correlation with brand loyalty (EF157). These results provide
affirmation for the respective values indicated in the Primary Model conducted
in Section 6.6.4.3. Finally, traditional (0.19) and digital (0.19) sensory
strategies only correlated weakly with brand loyalty (EF158). In the SEM
models conducted in Sections 6.6.6.3.1 and 6.6.3.2 the relationship between
traditional and digital sensory strategies was also found to be weak, apparent

223
from the standardised regression weight values of 0.20 and 0.19 respectively
(Table 6.21) (EF114).

The overall weak correlations between the variables and sub-variables of this
study may be attributed to the fact that sensory branding directly aids in the
creation of memorable brand experiences (Hulten 2020:13) (Chapter 2:
Section 2.2.11) (LF93), which in turn has an impact on brand loyalty (Brakus
et al (2009:54) (Chapter 2: Section 2.2.12) (LF94 & LF95). Therefore the
relationship may be weak due to the relationship being indirect, rather than
direct.

In the section that follows, the results of the calculation of the Chi-Square Test
of Association are presented, which was utilised to assess the association
between age and budget of the respondents. This statistical calculation was
deemed necessary as literature suggested that these two demographic factors
may be related. Additionally, the outcomes of the ANOVA’s calculated for
budget as well as age group of the respondents (Chapter 6: Section 6.6.8.3 &
Section 6.6.8.2), suggested that there may be a relation between the two.

6.6.8 Chi-Square Test of Association between age and budget of the

respondents

The Chi-square test of association provides researchers with the means to test
hypothesis by determining whether two variables are independent or related
(Berman & Wang 2017:178; Frost 2022a; Kent State University 2021; Rana &
Singhal 2015:69; Turney 2022). Furthermore, Turney (2022) explains that the
Chi-square test allows a researcher to make conclusions about an entire
population based on a sample thereof. Frost (2022a) adds that the Chi-square
test has both a null hypothesis, whereby the value of one variable does not
allow the researcher to predict the value of the other, and an alternative
hypothesis, whereby the value of one variable allows the researcher to predict
the value of another.

224
 When interpreting the Chi-square test results, should the significance level be
less than or equal to 1, then it can be assumed that the two variables are
related (Frost 2022a). Berman and Wang (2017:180) go further to state that
the greater the value of chi-square (K @ ), the stronger the observed relationship
will be, while an K @ value of 0 will imply that no relationship exists between the
two varibles. For the purpose of this study the Chi-Square test of association
is used to determine whether two variables of the population, namely age and
average monthly budget for skincare, are related. From the calculation of the
Chi-Square test of association between the age of the respondents and their
average monthly budget for skincare, it was found that that there is a
significant association (K @ =128.175, df = 12, p < 0.001, Cramer's V = 0.365)
between the age of respondents and their average monthly budget for
skincare products (EF159). To determine the specific association, a cross
tabulation was conducted, which is presented in Table 6.27.

TABLE 6.27
CROSS TABULATION BETWEEN AGE AND BUDGET
Budget
R50-R500 R501-R1000 R1001-R1500 R1501+ Total
Age 18-24 years Count 20 9 0 0 29
% of Total 6,20% 2,80% 0,00% 0,00% 9,00%
25-34 years Count 19 55 13 4 91
% of Total 5,90% 17,10% 4,00% 1,20% 28,30%
35-44 years Count 5 18 7 1 31
% of Total 1,60% 5,60% 2,20% 0,30% 9,70%
45-54 years Count 6 23 57 5 91
% of Total 1,90% 7,20% 17,80% 1,60% 28,30%
55-60 years Count 6 29 32 12 79
% of Total 1,90% 9,00% 10,00% 3,70% 24,60%
Total Count 56 134 109 22 321
% of Total 17,40% 41,70% 34,00% 6,90% 100,00%

From Table 6.27 it can be seen that respondents constituting the younger age
categories (18 – 44 years) accounted for 47% of the 321 respondents of this
study, while respondents constituting the older age categories (45 – 60 years)
accounted for 53% of the respondents of the 321 respondents (EF160). Of the
47% of younger respondents, the majority had a monthly budget for skincare
of between R50 – R1000 (39%) (EF161). Contradictorily, the majority of older

225
respondents had a monthly budget for skincare of between R501 – R1500
(44%) (EF162). It can therefore be concluded that, in general, older
respondents of this study were willing to, or were able to, spend larger
amounts on skincare products monthly than younger respondents (EF163).
The following section discusses ANOVAs relevant to this study.

6.6.9 ANOVAs, Welch Robust, Tukey’s and Games-Howell post hoc tests
and Cohen’s d

For the purpose of this study, based on the results of the assumption of
homogenous variance, either ANOVA tables or the Welch Robust test were
utilised to assess the overall difference between groups. Should the
assumption of homogeneity be accurate, or the result be insignificant (sig >
0.05), an ANOVA table was utilised to assess whether there is an overall
difference between groups.

As declared by Favero and Belfiore (2019:232), Kim (2017b:22), Mackenzie

(2018), as well as (Singh 2018a), ANOVAs make use of sample variances to
identify differences in means between three or more groups of people, and
Gursoy and Nunkoo (2019:458) add that ANOVA is the most popular means
to analyse group means. Further than just identifying differences in means,
ANOVAs aim to determine if these differences are significant or just
coincidental (Favero & Belfiore 2019:232; Taylor 2018). Another benefit of
making use of ANOVA is that it allows researchers to test their hypotheses
(Kim 2017b:23; Singh 2018a). In addition, Favero and Belfiore (2019:232),
along with Mackenzie (2018), Mood, Morrow and McQueen (2019:209) and
Ostertagova, Ostertag and Kovac (2014:115), explain that in order for ANOVA
calculations to be appropriate, the samples being compared must be
independent, the dependent variables should be continuous and the variances
must be homogeneous. While the use of ANOVA is robust, for the results to
be of value, the researcher needs to interpret them correctly. The guidelines
which a researcher should follow when interpreting ANOVA results are
detailed by Filho et al (2013:34), where a value of p > 0.10 indicates no

226
statistical significance, a value of p ≤ 0.05 indicates marginal significance and
a value of p ≤ 0.01 indicates a high level of significance.

However, should the assumption of homogeneity be violated, or the result be

significant (sig < 0.05), the Welch Robust test will be used to assess overall
difference between groups. The Welch Robust test, or Welch ANOVA,
essentially is used for the same reasons as one-way ANOVA; however, the
benefit lies in the fact that the Welch Robust test can be utilised when the
different groups being tested have differing or unequal variances (Frost 2022b;
Lu & Yuan 2010:1620). As in the case when considering the results of ANOVA,
if the result is significant (sig < 0.05), it is indicative of the fact that there is an
overall difference in the factor score (Frost 2022b; Lu & Yuan 2010:1620).
ANOVA and Welch Robust test do however present a limitation in that, while
they can be used to identify significant differences, they do not specifically
locate between which groups the difference lies (Singh 2018a). For this
reason, additional post hoc tests should be conducted, such as Tukey’s,
Games-Howell and Cohen’s d test.

The Tukey post hoc test, goes further than ANOVA by identifying specifically
between which groups of respondents the detected significant difference lies
(Foster et al 2021; Kim 2017b:26; Lee & Lee 2018:355; Schlegel 2018) and is
appropriate when a large number of differences are being tested (Freeman &
Obasohan 2020:3). Additionally, Beck (2018) explains that Tukey’s post hoc
test establishes causality between values and a statistically significant
difference can be assumed where p < 0.05 (Kim 2015:172). The Games-
Howell test, similarly to Tukey’s post hoc test, aids in determining specifically
between which groups of respondents the detected significant difference lies,
as determined by Welch Robust Test (Bourne, James, Wilson-smith &
Fairlamb 2021:166; Grande 2015). However, Bourne et al (2021:166) and
Grande (2015) further explain that the Games-Howell post hoc test is utilised
when the assumption of homogeneous variance has been violated. Erdem,
Nilufer and Gunduz (2021:351), along with Grande (2015), add that as the
case with Tukey’s post hoc test, Games-Howell output values can be assumed
to be significant where p<0.05.

227
As stipulated by Goulet-Pelletier and Cousineau (2018:243), Lenhard and
Lenhard (2017:1), Magnusson (2020) and McLeod (2019), Cohen’s d is a
statistical calculation that can be used to determine effect size or magnitude
of difference. As with interpreting ANOVA or Tukey post hoc test results, there
are guidelines for interpreting Cohen’s d, namely a result of 0.2 indicates a
small effect, a result of 0.5 indicates a medium effect and a result larger than
0.8 indicates a large effect (Goulet-Pelletier & Cousineau 2018:243;
Magnusson 2020). For the purpose of this study, ANOVAs were calculated in
order to determine the significant differences between gender, age, monthly
budget for skincare products as well as frequency with which the respondent
purchases skincare products in-store and online. Following the calculation of
ANOVAs, post hoc tests were conducted for the variables where significant
differences were identified. The statistical differences of the individual factors
of the study are presented and discussed in the sections that follow, where p
< 0.05 and p < 0.10.

6.6.9.1 Independent sample t-test comparing mean factor scores of the

gender groups

Independent sample t-test was performed to identify if any of the factors

differed significantly between gender and the factors of the variables exist.
Additionally, Cohen’s d was calculated to determine the practical significance.
The independent sample t-test results were calculated to compare mean factor
scores of the factors of the various gender groups are illustrated in Table 6.28.

TABLE 6.28
ANOVAS COMPARING THE MEAN FACTOR SCORES OF THE FACTORS
OF THE VARIABLES AND THE GENDER GROUPS

Mean T- Cohens Practical

P
value d sig.
Male Female
Traditional visual stimuli 1.92 1.55 4.55 0.03 0.64 Medium
Digital visual stimuli 1.88 1.47 5.45 0.25 0.76 Medium
Traditional auditory stimuli 2.19 1.99 2.23 0.84 0.31 Small
Traditional olfactory stimuli 1.91 1.62 4.66 0.41 0.65 Medium
Digital olfactory stimuli 2.12 1.85 3.57 0.55 0.50 Medium

228
 Mean T- Cohens Practical
P
value d sig.
Male Female
Traditional Tactile stimuli 1.86 1.48 5.98 0.22 0.84 Large
Digital tactile stimuli 1.96 1.59 4.87 0.30 0.68 Medium
Digital auditory stimuli 2.39 2.27 1.38 0.09
Brand loyalty 2.15 2.01 2.44 0.00 0.34 Small
Digital sensory branding 2.09 1.79 4.51 0.34 0.63 Medium
Traditional sensory
1.97 1.66 5.12 0.18 0.72 Medium
branding
Marked effects (in pink) are statistically significant at p < 0.05
Marked effects (in orange) are statistically significant at p < 0.10
Marked effects (in blue) have a small effect where d ≤ 0.2
Marked effects (in green) have a medium effect where d ≤ 0.5
Marked effects (in red) have a large effect where d ≤ 0.8

As seen in Table 6.28, there was a statistically significant (p < 0.05) difference
between how males (mean = 1.92) and females (mean = 1.55) felt regarding
traditional visual stimuli, where p = 0.03 (EF164). From the mean values
observed it can be deduced that female respondents of this study agreed more
strongly that traditional visual stimuli had a positive influence on their
experience of shopping for skincare in-store than the male respondents
(EF165). Additionally, there is a statistically significant (p < 0.10) difference
between how males (mean = 2.39) and females (mean = 2.27) felt regarding
digital auditory stimuli, where p = 0.09 (EF166) and based on the mean values
observed, females felt slightly more strongly regarding the positive influence
that digital auditory stimuli had on the experience of shopping for skincare
online then males (EF167). The differing views observed between gender and
sensory stimuli can be attributed to the fact that consumers’ perception of
sensory stimuli is guided by their own personal context, such as their gender
(Chapter 2: Section 2.2.10; Chapter 3: Section 3.5).

Finally, a statistically significant (p < 0.05) difference can be observed between

how males (mean = 2.15) and females (mean = 2.01) felt regarding brand
loyalty, where p = 0.00 (EF168). Again, from the mean values it can be seen
that females felt more strongly regarding brand loyalty then males (EF169).
The difference between gender and brand loyalty observed can be explained
by the fact that females have been found to be more likely to be loyal to a
brand than men (Chapter 2: Section 2.2.2.4).

229
Moreover, with the exception of digital auditory stimuli, all variables and sub-
variables of this study presented practical significance, according to Cohen’s
d (EF170). qTraditional tactile stimuli presented the only large (d ≤ 0.8)
practical significant difference between gender, where d = 0.84 (EF171). From
Table 6.28 it is evident that medium (d ≤ 0.5) practically significant differences
were observed between gender and traditional visual stimuli (d = 0.64)
(EF172); traditional olfactory stimuli (d = 0.65) (EF173); and traditional sensory
branding (d = 0.72) (EF174). Additionally, medium (d ≤ 0.5) practically
significant differences were observed between gender and digital visual stimuli
(d = 0.76) (EF175); digital olfactory stimuli (d = 0.50) (EF176); digital tactile
stimuli (d = 0.68) (EF177); digital sensory branding (d = 0.63) (EF178). There
are further small (d ≤ 0.2) practically significant difference between gender
and traditional auditory stimuli (0.31) (EF179), as well as between gender and
brand loyalty (0.34) (EF180). As traditional and digital sensory branding
comprise the sub-variables of this study, this explains the practical difference
observed between gender and traditional sensory branding, as well as digital
sensory branding (EF181).

The following conclusions, regarding the ANOVAs and Cohen’s d calculated

between the different gender groups and the variables of this study, can be
drawn.
• It can be concluded that there were statistically significant (p < 0.05)
differences between how males and females felt regarding traditional
visual stimuli, where p = 0.03 (EF164), as well as brand loyalty, where p =
0.00 (EF168).
• There was a further statistically significant (p < 0.10) difference between
how males and females felt regarding digital auditory stimuli, where p =
0.09 (EF166).
• Moreover, with the exception of digital auditory stimuli, all variables and
sub-variables of this study presented practical significance, according to
Cohen’s d (EF170), which is linked to the fact that consumers’ perception
of sensory stimuli is guided by their own personal context as well as by the

230
 fact that females have been found to be more likely to be loyal to a brand
than men.

6.6.9.2 ANOVAs comparing mean factor scores of the age groups

In this section, the descriptive statistics of the various age groups are
compared and the mean factor scores determined. In Table 6.29, the
descriptive statistics comparing the mean factor scores of the various age
groups are illustrated. Smallest standard deviations (std. dev.) are represented
in green while the highest std. dev. is represented in yellow. Moreover, the
lowest mean values, which represent a positive response, are highlighted in
blue and the highest mean values, which represent a negative response, in
pink.

TABLE 6.29
ANOVAS COMPARING THE MEAN FACTOR SCORES OF THE
VARIABLES AND AGE GROUPS
18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-60
years years years years years
Means 1.61 1.69 1.92 1.42 1.67
Traditional
N 29 91 31 91 79
visual stimuli
Std. Dev 0.43 0.46 0.61 0.61 0.69
Means 2.00 2.00 2.08 1.90 2.18
Traditional
N 29 91 31 91 79
auditory stimuli
Std. Dev 0.68 0.65 0.73 0.57 0.68
Traditional Means 1.59 1.70 1.86 1.51 1.80
olfactory N 29 91 31 91 79
stimuli Std. Dev 0.38 0.39 0.51 0.38 0.58
Means 1.45 1.70 1.79 1.35 1.58
Traditional
N 29 91 31 91 79
tactile stimuli
Std. Dev 0.37 0.39 0.59 0.45 0.50
Traditional Means 1.67 1.78 1.91 1.55 1.81
sensory N 29 91 31 91 79
branding Std. Dev 0.32 0.36 0.49 0.43 0.53
Means 1.53 1.68 1.76 1.30 1.63
Digital visual
N 29 91 31 91 79
stimuli
Std. Dev 0.52 0.44 0.51 0.54 0.63
Means 2.12 2.20 2.30 2.26 2.50
Digital auditory
N 29 91 31 91 79
stimuli
Std. Dev 0.55 0.65 0.72 0.58 0.60
Digital Means 1.65 1.90 1.97 1.83 2.05
olfactory N 29 91 31 91 79
stimuli Std. Dev 0.41 0.50 0.61 0.53 0.59
Digital tactile Means 1.44 1.73 1.81 1.52 1.77
stimuli N 29 91 31 91 79

231
 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-60
years years years years years
Std. Dev 0.37 0.43 0.60 0.61 0.64
Means 1.69 1.88 1.96 1.73 1.99
Digital sensory
N 29 91 31 91 79
branding
Std. Dev 0.34 0.37 0.50 0.50 0.54
Means 2.33 2.11 2.25 1.98 1.92
Brand loyalty N 29 91 31 91 79
Std. Dev 0.33 0.41 0.43 0.39 0.41

As seen in Table 6.29, the lowest mean values, which represent a positive
response, for most groups of respondents, occurred in digital visual stimuli,
with the exception of those respondents between the ages of 18 and 24 years
and 25 and 34 years (EF182). While the lowest mean value for the ages of 18-
24 years and 25-34 years occurred in digital tactile stimuli (1.44) and traditional
visual stimuli (1.69) respectively, both groups of respondents both still agreed
that digital visual stimuli have a positive influence on their experience of
shopping for skincare products (EF183). These sub-variables were similarly
highlighted in the full Primary Model conducted in Section 6.6.4.3 (Table 6.25).
From the literature review of this study, it was concluded that visual cues are
the most common form of sensory marketing used and are amongst the most
influential stimuli of sensory branding (Chapter 3: Section 3.5). In addition,
visual stimuli are the most widely used form of sensory marketing when
considering digital spaces (Chapter 3: Section 3.5.2). It is, therefore,
understandable that respondents of this study in general agreed that digital
visual stimuli have the most positive influence on their experience (EF184).
This would also provide an explanation for traditional visual stimuli presenting
a more positive mean value (EF185). The positive response by the younger
generation of respondents (18-24 years) towards digital tactile stimuli may be
attributed to the fact that younger individuals are perceived to be more
technology friendly and accepting of innovative technology (EF186).

Interestingly, as seen from Table 6.29, the highest mean values, which
represent a more negative response, occurred in digital auditory stimuli, where
all groups of respondents agreed that digital auditory stimuli have the least
positive influence on their experience (EF187). However, the mean values
varied between 2.12 – 2.50, which is still indicative of agreement amongst
respondents that the factor has an influence on their experience (EF188). This

232
was also found in the Pearson’s correlation calculated (Section 6.6.7: Table
6.26), whereby both traditional and digital auditory stimuli had the weakest
influence on brand loyalty.

In Table 6.29, it can be seen that the smallest std. dev. for respondents aged
18 – 24 years (0.32), 25 – 34 years (0.36) and 35 – 44 years (0.49) occurs in
traditional sensory branding (EF189). Additionally, the smallest std. dev. for
respondents between the ages of 45 and 54 years (0.38) occurs in traditional
olfactory stimuli (EF190), while the smallest std. dev. for respondents aged 55
– 60 years (0.50) occurs in traditional tactile stimuli (EF191), both of which
constitute traditional sensory branding. It is also notable that while not their
lowest std. dev, respondents in the age groups of 45 – 54 years (0.43) and 55
– 60 years (0.53) also present low std. dev. values for traditional sensory
branding. This indicates that, in general, answers differed the least from
respondents with regard to traditional sensory branding (EF192). Traditional
sensory branding has been successfully used as a marketing tool for centuries
to adjust consumer behaviour through the understanding of human inner
motivations, which is linked to the five human senses (Chapter 3: Section 3.3).
Therefore, it can be deduced that most consumers would have been exposed
to traditional sensory branding strategies while shopping, and this would
therefore explain why the respondents felt similarly regarding this variable,
regardless of their age. The clustered answers by respondents between the
ages of 55 and 60 years with regard to traditional tactile stimuli may also be
explained by the finding that older consumers more commonly visit stores to
feel and assess a product before being ready to purchase it online (Chapter 3:
Section 3.8.2).

Further seen in Table 6.29, the highest std. dev. for respondents aged 18 – 24
years (0.68), 25 – 34 years (0.65) and 35 – 44 years (0.73) occurs in traditional
auditory stimuli (EF193). While not their lowest std. dev, respondents in the
age groups of 45 – 54 years (0.57) and 55 – 60 years (0.68) also presented
high std. dev. values for traditional auditory stimuli (EF194). This indicates that
in general, respondents’ answers were not clustered around the mean answer
with regard to traditional auditory stimuli (EF195). The differing views with

233
regard to traditional auditory stimuli could be linked to the way that each
individual perceives an environment differently based on how they interpret
sounds (Chapter 3: Section 3.6). When considering the outcome in Table 6.6,
it was found that in general, respondents agreed that all factors constituting
traditional auditory stimuli have an influence on their experience of shopping
for skincare products in-store, with the exception of the sound or pronunciation
of the brand’s name. This may also explain the higher std. dev results
observed.

Lastly, it was observed that there is be a correlation between age and digital
tactile stimuli, whereas age increased so did the std. dev observed: 18 – 24
years (0.37); 25 – 34 years (0.43); 35 – 44 years (0.60); 45 – 54 years (0.61);
and 55 – 60 years (0.64) (EF196). The trend indicated by respondents
regarding this factor may be linked to the fact that technology being used to
replicate touch in the digital space is not yet widespread and older consumers
often show resistance towards it as they are not considered to be as tech-
savvy as younger consumers (Chapter 3: Section 3.8; 3.8.2).

Based on the results of the tests of homogeneity of variances, ANOVA was

performed for the variables, and sub-variables of traditional auditory stimuli
(sig = 0.1), digital auditory stimuli (sig = 0.18) and brand loyalty (sig = 0.43)
(EF197). The remainder of the variables and sub-variables were subjected to
the Welch Robust test as they conformed with the assumption of homogeneity
(sig < 0.05) (EF198). Table 6.30 indicates the results of the ANOVAs of the
variables of the study and the age groups of respondents.

TABLE 6.30
RESULTS OF THE ANOVAS OF THE VARIABLES OF THE STUDY AND
THE AGE GROUPS OF RESPONDENTS
Marked effects (in red) are significant at p<.05
F Value P Value
Traditional auditory stimuli 2.01 0.09
Digital auditory stimuli 3.29 0.01
Brand loyalty 13.10 0.00

234
There were statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences between group means
for digital auditory stimuli (F(4,316) = 2.01, p = 0.01) (EF199) as well as for
brand loyalty (F(4,316) = 3.29, p = 0.00) (EF200) between age groups as
determined by one-way ANOVA. Therefore, it can be said that respondents
had differing views regarding both of these factors (EF201). The differing
views of respondents towards digital auditory stimuli may be attributed to how
older individuals perceive sound differently than younger individuals (Chapter
3: Section 3.6). Additionally, it was discussed in Chapter 2: Section 2.2.2.4
that brand loyalty was found to differ between consumers based on their age,
which could explain the difference observed.

The results of the Tukey test performed for digital auditory stimuli and the age
of respondents indicates a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between
two groups, namely group one (18 – 24 years, mean = 2.12, Table 6.29) and
group 5 (55 – 60 years, mean = 2.50, Table 6.29), where p = 0.05 (EF202);
and group 2 (25 – 34 years, mean = 2.20, Table 6.29) and group 5 (55 – 60
years, mean = 2.50, Table 6.29), where p = 0.02 (EF203). The statistically
significant differences between answers from respondents regarding digital
auditory stimuli are all with respondents between the ages of 55 and 60 years
(EF204). This may be explained by the fact that consumers of different ages
perceive sound differently (Chapter 3: Section 3.6). It is also notable that the
younger respondents indicated a stronger level of agreement that digital
auditory stimuli have an influence on their experience of shopping for skincare
products online than the older respondents, as determined by the mean values
for each group (EF205). Table 6.31 provides the results of the Tukey test of
digital auditory stimuli and the age group of respondents, where p values are
provided in the bottom diagonal.

235
 TABLE 6.31
THE RESULTS OF THE TUKEY-TEST OF BRAND LOYALTY AND THE
AGE OF RESPONDENTS
Tukey HSD test; Variable: Brand loyalty
{1} {2} {3} {4} {5}
18-24 years {1}
25-34 years {2} 0.09
35-44 years {3} 0.96 0.43
45-54 years {4} 0.00 0.16 0.01
55-60 years {5} 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08
Marked effects (in red) are significant where p < 0.05
Marked effects (in blue) are significant where p < 0.10

Table 6.31 indicates a statistically significant difference (p < 0.5) between five
groups, namely group 1 (18 – 24 years, mean = 2.33, Table 6.29) and group
4 (45 – 54 years, mean = 1.98, Table 6.29), where p = 0.00 (EF206); group 1
(18 – 24 years, mean = 2.33, Table 6.29) and group 5 (55 – 60 years, mean =
1.92, Table 6.29), where p = 0.00 (EF207); group 2 (25 – 34 years, mean =
2.11 Table 6.29) and group 5 (55 – 60 years, mean = 1.92, Table 6.29), where
p = 0.00 (EF208); group 3 (35 – 44 years, mean = 2.25, Table 6.29) and group
4 (45 – 54 years, mean = 1.98, Table 6.29), where p = 0.01 (EF209); and
group 3 (35 – 44 years, mean = 2.25, Table 6.29) and group 5 (55 – 60 years,
mean = 1.92, Table 6.29), where p = 0.00 (EF210).

The statistically significant differences between answers from respondents

with reference to brand loyalty are mainly with those aged 55 – 60 years
(EF211). It is further notable from the mean values observed for each age
group that, while all respondents were in agreement regarding brand loyalty,
the older respondents were more positive towards the variable, which could
be attributed to the fact that older consumers are, in general, more loyal to
brands (Chapter 2: Section 2.2.2.4). Table 6.32 indicates the results of the
Welch Robust test of the variables of the study and the age groups of
respondents.

236
 TABLE 6.32
RESULTS OF THE WELCH ROBUST TEST OF THE VARIABLES OF THE
STUDY AND THE AGE GROUPS OF RESPONDENTS
Marked effects (in red) are significant at p<.05
Sig. value
Traditional visual stimuli 0.00
Digital visual stimuli 0.00
Traditional olfactory stimuli 0.00
Digital olfactory stimuli 0.00
Traditional tactile stimuli 0.00
Digital tactile stimuli 0.00
Digital sensory branding 0.00
Traditional sensory branding 0.00

There were statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences between group means
for traditional visual stimuli FWELCH(4, 107.67) = 5.01, p = 0.00 (EF212); digital
visual stimuli FWELCH(4, 105.38) = 8.39, p = 0.00 (EF213); traditional olfactory
stimuli FWELCH(4, 104.93) = 6.19 p = 0.00 (EF214); digital olfactory stimuli
FWELCH(4, 107.92) = 4.33, p = 0.00 (EF215); traditional tactile stimuli FWELCH(4,
105.26) = 9.39, p = 0.00 (EF216); digital tactile stimuli FWELCH(4, 108.87) =
5.30, p = 0.00 (EF217); digital sensory branding FWELCH(4, 107.52) = 4.68, p =
0.00 (EF218); and traditional sensory branding FWELCH(4, 107.17) = 6.31, p =
0.00 (EF219) between age groups as determined by one-way ANOVA.
Therefore, it can be concluded that respondents in different age groups had
differing reviews regarding all factors (EF220).

The results of Games-Howell calculated for traditional visual stimuli and the
age of respondents indicates a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05)
between two groups, namely group 2 (25 – 34 years, mean = 1.69, Table 6.29)
and group 4 (45 – 54 years, mean = 1.42, Table 6.29), where p = 0.01 (EF221)
as well as between group 3 (35 – 44 years, mean = 1.92, Table 6.29) and
group 4 (45 – 54 years, mean = 1.42, Table 6.29), where p = 0.00 (EF222). As
can be seen, both statistically significant differences in respondents’ answers
occur between younger respondents and those aged 45 – 54 years (EF223),
deduced by the mean values provided, older respondents agreed more
strongly that traditional visual stimuli have a positive influence on their
experience of shopping for skincare products in-store (EF224).

237
The results of Games-Howell calculated for digital visual stimuli and the age
of respondents indicates a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between
three groups, namely group 2 (25 – 34 years, mean = 1.68, Table 6.29) and
group 4 (45 – 54 years, mean = 1.30, Table 6.29), where p = 0.00 (EF225);
group 3 (35 – 44 years, mean = 1.76, Table 6.29) and group 4 (45 – 54 years,
mean = 1.30, Table 6.29), where p = 0.00 (EF226); and group 4 (45 – 54 years,
mean = 1.30, Table 6.29) and group 5 (55 – 60 years, mean = 1.63, Table
6.29), where p = 0.00 (EF227). While one may assume that younger
respondents would be more positive towards digital visual stimuli, a mean
value of 1.30 for respondents between the ages of 45 and 54 years indicates
that this age group of respondents felt the most strongly about digital visual
stimuli having a positive influence on their experience of shopping for skincare
products online (EF228). This could be due to the fact that based on
demographic factors, such as age, consumers are differently influenced by
visual stimuli (Chapter 3: Section 3.5). Another explanation to this may be that
visual stimuli is the oldest form of sensory marketing or branding online, and
so older consumers would have had more exposure to this stimuli, and
therefore, place more worth on it (EF229).

The results of Games-Howell calculated for traditional olfactory stimuli and the
age of respondents indicates a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05)
between three groups, namely group 2 (25 – 34 years, mean = 1.70, Table
6.29) and group 4 (45 – 54 years, mean = 1.51, Table 6.29), where p = 0.01
(EF230); group 3 (35 – 44 years, mean = 1.86, Table 6.29) and group 4 (45 –
54 years, mean = 1.51, Table 6.29), where p = 0.01 (EF231); and group 4 (45
– 54 years, mean = 1.51, Table 6.29) and group 5 (55 – 60 years, mean =
1.80, Table 6.29), where p = 0.00 (EF232). The statistically significant
differences between answers from respondents with reference to traditional
olfactory stimuli are mainly with the respondents who are aged 45 – 54 years
(EF233). It can also be seen by the mean value of 1.51 that respondents aged
45 – 54 years felt most strongly that traditional olfactory stimuli have a positive
influence on their experience of shopping for skincare products in-store
(EF234). Respondents between the ages of 45 and 54 years constitute
“GenXers”, while respondents between the ages of 25 and 44 constitute

238
“millennials”, with the former being known to do more in-store shopping than
the latter (Chapter 3: Section 3.3). Therefore, the Gen X respondents may be
more influenced by traditional sensory stimuli than the millennial respondents
(EF235).

The results of Games-Howell calculated for digital olfactory stimuli and the age
of respondents indicates that only one statistically significant difference (p <
0.05) existed between group 1 (18 – 24 years, mean = 1.65, Table 6.29) and
group 5 (55 – 60 years, mean = 2.05, Table 6.29), where p = 0.00 (EF236).
Furthermore, as seen in Table 6.29, the mean value for group 1 = 1.65, while
the mean value for group 5 = 2.05. This implies that respondents in the age
group 18 – 24 years felt more strongly than those between the ages of 55 and
60 years that digital olfactory stimuli have a positive influence on their
experience of shopping for skincare products online (EF237). This can be
ascribed to the fact that younger shoppers are more accepting of new
technology (Chapter 3: Section 3.4) as well as being more frequent online
buyers (Chapter 3: Section 3.3). Table 6.33 provides the results of Games-
Howell calculated for traditional tactile stimuli and the age group of
respondents, where p values are provided in the bottom diagonal.

TABLE 6.33
THE RESULTS OF GAMES-HOWELL OF TRADITIONAL TACTILE
STIMULI AND THE AGE OF RESPONDENTS
Games-Howell test; Variable: Traditional tactile stimuli
{1} {2} {3} {4} {5}
18-24 years {1}
25-34 years {2} 0.03
35-44 years {3} 0.08 0.94
45-54 years {4} 0.75 0.00 0.01
55-60 years {5} 0.62 0.39 0.42 0.02
Marked effects (in red) are significant where p < 0.05
Marked effects (in blue) are significant where p < 0.10

Table 6.33 indicates a statistically significant difference (p < 0.5) between four
groups, namely group 1 (18 – 24 years, mean = 1.45, Table 6.29) and group
2 (25 – 34 years, mean = 1.70, Table 6.29), where p = 0.03 (EF238); group 2
(25 – 34 years, mean = 1.70, Table 6.29) and group 4 (45 – 54 years, mean =

239
1.35, Table 6.29), where p = 0.00 (EF239); group 3 (35 – 44 years, mean =
1.79, Table 6.29) and group 4 (45 – 54 years, mean = 1.35, Table 6.29), where
p = 0.01 (EF240); and group 4 (45 – 54 years, mean = 1.35, Table 6.29) and
group 5 (55 – 60 years, mean = 1.58, Table 6.29), where p = 0.02 (EF241).
Once again, the difference in respondents’ answers is mainly with group 4, or
respondents between the ages of 45 and 54 years (EF242), which is also
observable in the mean value being substantially lower than that of the other
age groups (mean = 1.35, Table 6.29) (EF243). It was further discussed in
Chapter 3: Section 3.8.2, that GenXers have a high need for touch (NFT) when
assessing products, which could explain why this age group indicated a strong
agreement that traditional tactile stimuli have a positive influence on their
experience of shopping for skincare products in-store. Interestingly, the group
of respondents who presented the second strongest level of agreement that
traditional tactile stimuli have an influence on their experience of shopping for
skincare products in-store were between the ages of 18 and 24 years (EF244).
However, literature in Chapter 3: Section 3.8.2, indicates that these
consumers have little NFT and shop predominantly online (Chapter 3: Section
3.4).

The results of Games-Howell calculated for digital tactile stimuli and the age
of respondents indicates a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between
three groups, namely group 1 (18 – 24 years, mean = 1.44, Table 6.29) and
group 2 (25 – 34 years, mean = 1.73, Table 6.29), where p = 0.01 (EF245);
group 1 (18 – 24 years, mean = 1.44, Table 6.29) and group 3 (35 – 44 years,
mean = 1.81, Table 6.30), where p = 0.04 (EF246); and group 1 (18 – 24 years,
mean = 1.44, Table 6.30) and group 5 (55 – 60 years, mean = 1.77, Table
6.29), where p = 0.01 (EF247). The statistically significant differences between
answers from respondents regarding digital tactile stimuli are all with
respondents between the ages of 18 and 24 years (EF248). It is further
noteworthy that the age group 18 – 24 years presented the lowest mean for
digital tactile stimuli, implying that this group of respondents felt most strongly
that this factor has a positive influence on their experience of shopping for
skincare products online (EF249). This could be accredited to two factors.
Firstly, GenZers prefer to shop via online platforms (Chapter 3: Section 3.4).

240
Secondly, younger consumers are more accepting of new technology
(Chapter 3: Section 3.4). Therefore, these consumers would appreciate new
technology that simulates touch online more so than the older respondents of
this study, explaining the differences seen.

The results of Games-Howell calculated for digital sensory branding and the
age of respondents indicates a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05)
between two groups, namely group 1 (18 – 24 years, mean = 1.69, Table 6.29)
and group 5 (55 – 60 years, mean = 1.99, Table 6.29), where p = 0.01 (EF250)
as well as group 4 (45 – 54 years, mean = 1.55, Table 6.22) and group 5 (55
– 60 years, mean = 1.99, Table 6.29), where p = 0.01 (EF251). It can be seen
that the statistically significant differences between answers from respondents
regarding digital sensory branding are all with respondents in the age group
55 – 60 years (EF252). Mirroring the statistically significant differences
between answers from respondents with reference to digital sensory stimuli,
the differences in answers noted for digital sensory branding are between
younger respondents and more mature respondents (EF253). As this variable
comprises digital auditory, visual, olfactory and tactile stimuli, the observed
statistically significant differences are expected.

The results of Games-Howell calculated for traditional sensory branding and

the age of respondents indicates a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05)
between three groups, namely group 2 (25 – 34 years, mean = 1.78, Table
6.29) and group 4 (45 – 54 years, mean = 1.55, Table 6.29), where p = 0.00
(EF254); group 3 (35 – 44 years, mean = 1.91, Table 6.22) and group 4 (45 –
54 years, mean = 1.55, Table 6.29), where p = 0.01 (EF255); and group 4 (45
– 54 years, mean = 1.55, Table 6.29) and group 5 (55 – 60 years, mean =
1.81, Table 6.29), where p = 0.01 (EF256). The statistically significant
differences in answers from respondents are between younger respondents
and older respondents (EF257), which mirrors the results above relating to
traditional auditory, visual, olfactory and tactile stimuli. As these sub-variables
constitute traditional sensory branding, the observed statistically significant
differences are not surprising.

241
Considering the ANOVAs and Tukey tests as well as Welch Robust and
Games-Howell tests conducted between the different age groups and the
variables of the study. For reference purposes abbreviation EF is used.

• Through the calculation of ANOVAs between the respondents’ age and the
variables of this study, it can be concluded that the different groups of
respondents had differing views regarding digital auditory stimuli and brand
loyalty (EF197).
• It was concluded from the results of the Tukey Test calculated for both
digital auditory stimuli as well as brand loyalty and the respondents’ age,
that the statistically significant differences between answers were all with
respondents aged between 55 and 60 years (EF204 & EF211).
• Through the calculation of Welch Robust between the respondents’ age
and the variables of this study, it can be concluded that the different groups
of respondents had differing views regarding traditional visual, olfactory
and tactile stimuli, digital visual, olfactory and tactile stimuli, as well as
digital and traditional sensory branding (EF212 – EF220).
• It was concluded from the results of Games-Howell calculated for
traditional visual, olfactory and tactile stimuli, as well as for digital visual
stimuli and the respondents’ age, that the statistically significant
differences between answers were mainly with respondents in the age
group 45 – 54 years (EF223, EF228, EF233, EF242).
• However, the Games-Howell calculated for digital olfactory stimuli and the
respondents’ age indicated that the statistically significant difference in
answers occurred between respondents in the 18 – 24 years and 55 – 60
years age groups (EF237). Although between different groups, the
difference still lies between younger and older respondents.
• Finally, the Games-Howell calculated for digital tactile stimuli and the
respondents’ age indicated that all statistically significant differences
between answers from respondents were with respondents between the
ages of 18 and 24 years (EF248), which again signifies a difference
between younger and older respondents.

242
6.6.9.3 ANOVAs comparing mean factor scores of respondents’ monthly
budget for skincare products

In the section that follows, the descriptive statistics of the various budget
groups are compared and the mean factor scores determined. In Table 6.34,
the descriptive statistics comparing the mean factor scores of the various
budget groups are illustrated. Smallest standard deviations (std. dev.) are
represented in green while the highest std. dev. is represented in yellow. The
lowest mean values, which represent a positive response, are highlighted in
blue and the highest mean values, which represent a negative response, in
pink.

TABLE 6.34
ANOVAS COMPARING THE MEAN FACTOR SCORES OF THE
VARIABLES AND BUDGET
R50 – R501 – R1001 – R1501 +
R500 R1000 R1500
Means 1.83 1.75 1.35 1.68
Traditional
N 56 134 109 22
visual stimuli
Std. Dev 0.49 0.59 0.53 0.71
Means 2.33 2.02 1.86 2.25
Traditional
N 56 134 109 22
auditory stimuli
Std. Dev 0.83 0.60 0.47 0.86
Traditional Means 1.79 1.75 1.49 1.81
olfactory N 56 134 109 22
stimuli Std. Dev 0.54 0.47 0.37 0.49
Means 1.75 1.63 1.34 1.72
Traditional
N 56 134 109 22
tactile stimuli
Std. Dev 0.54 0.46 0.36 0.55
Traditional Means 1.92 1.79 1.51 1.86
sensory N 56 134 109 22
branding Std. Dev 0.46 0.44 0.35 0.54
Means 1.82 1.64 1.29 1.64
Digital visual
N 56 134 109 22
stimuli
Std. Dev 0.64 0.53 0.40 0.63
Means 2.43 2.28 2.22 2.41
Digital auditory
N 56 134 109 22
stimuli
Std. Dev 0.81 0.60 0.53 0.69
Digital Means 2.01 1.93 1.79 1.99
olfactory N 56 134 109 22
stimuli Std. Dev 0.63 0.55 0.47 0.60
Means 1.92 1.71 1.42 1.83
Digital tactile
N 56 134 109 22
stimuli
Std. Dev 0.71 0.51 0.42 0.71
Means 2.02 1.89 1.68 1.97
Digital sensory
N 56 134 109 22
branding
Std. Dev 0.58 0.45 0.37 0.58

243
 R50 – R501 – R1001 – R1501 +
R500 R1000 R1500
Means 2.81 2.11 1.89 1.73
Brand loyalty N 56 134 109 22
Std. Dev 0.48 0.35 0.37 0.55

As seen in Table 6.34, traditional tactile stimuli presented the lowest mean
values for a budget of both R50 – R500/month (1.75) and R501 –
R1000/month (1.63) (EF257). However, the mean values observed for the
budget range of R1001 – R1500/month (1.34) as well as R1501+/month (1.72)
are still relatively low (EF258), which implies that overall, respondents agreed
that traditional tactile stimuli have a positive influence on their experience of
shopping for skincare products in-store, regardless of their budget (EF259).
This finding coincides with the literature which claims that touch is especially
relevant for businesses who sell physical products (Chapter 3: Section 3.8).
This may also lend support to the fact that consumers utilise touch to evaluate
the quality of a product (Chapter 3: Section 3.8). Further seen from Table 6.34,
the lowest mean values for a budget of R1001 – R1500/month (1.29) and
R1500+/month (1.64) occurred in digital visual stimuli (EF260). When
considering this finding in unison with the low mean values observed for
traditional tactile stimuli, it becomes apparent that tactile stimuli have a strong
link with visual stimuli (Chapter 3: Section 3.8). This result is strengthened by
the fact that in Section 6.6.7 (Table 6.26), it was found that digital visual stimuli
and traditional tactile stimuli correlated strongly (0.66) (EF261). Furthermore,
in Chapter 3, Section 3.5.2, it was discussed that increased worth is being
placed on digital visual stimuli as they allow consumers to better evaluate
products and, thereby, solidify buying decisions, which this finding also lends
support to.

The highest mean values were mostly indicated for digital auditory stimuli
(EF262), where a budget of R501 – R1000/month presented a mean value of
2.28, a budget of R1001 – R1500/month presented a mean value of 2.22 and
a budget of R1500+/month presented a mean value of 2.41 (EF263). While a
budget of R50 – R500/month presented its highest mean value for brand
loyalty (2.81), a relatively high mean value can still be seen for digital auditory
stimuli (2.43) (EF264). This indicates that, in general, respondents agreed that

244
digital auditory stimuli have a positive influence on their experience of
shopping for skincare products online (EF265). However, this consensus is
considerably lower than observed for other sub-variables, which implies that
respondents felt less strongly about digital auditory stimuli (EF266). It is also
interesting that the respondents’ opinion of brand loyalty becomes more
positive as their monthly budget increases (EF267), with respondents who
have a budget of R50 – R500/month indicating that they are indifferent to
brand loyalty (EF268). This finding may link with the fact that consumers, in
general, are willing to pay more for a brand that they are loyal to and that
brands can increase their profit margin by creating loyal consumers (Chapter
2: Section 2.2.2.4). Additionally, from Table 6.27 it was established that
younger respondents were more likely to spend between R50 – R500/month
on skincare, and the fact that this budget category of respondents indicated
that they were, in general, indifferent to brand loyalty supports the claim by
(Klopotan et al 2014:488; McDougall 2015) (Chapter 2: Section 2.2.2.4) (LF43)
that older consumers are more likely to be loyal to a brand.

Also highlighted from Table 6.34, the smallest std. dev. occurred in traditional
sensory branding for most groups, with the exception of respondents with a
budget of R501 – R1000/month (EF269). However, this group still presented
a relatively small std. dev. For traditional sensory branding (0.44), which
indicates that respondents of this study differed the least in their opinions
regarding how this variable influences their experience of shopping for
skincare products in-store (EF270). The variable, traditional sensory branding,
constitutes four of the five human senses (visual, auditory, olfactory and tactile
stimuli), which all govern buying behaviour (Chapter 3: Section 3.3). This could
explain why respondents had similar views regarding this variable. The
smallest std. dev. for the budget range of R501 – R1000/month (0.35) occurs
in brand loyalty (EF271), which indicates that these respondents have similar
opinions regarding brand loyalty (EF272).

Lastly, as seen from Table 6.34, the highest std. dev. for a budget of R50 –
R500/month (0.83), a budget of R501 – R1000/month (0.60) and a budget of
R1500+/month (0.86) occur in traditional auditory stimuli (EF273), indicating

245
that respondents in these three groups had differing feelings regarding how
traditional auditory stimuli influence their experience of shopping for skincare
products in-store (EF274). Consumer spending on skincare has been noted to
increase in relation to the age of the consumer (Chapter 3: Section 3.2.1),
which was also found in this study (Section 6.6.5.2), so it may be the case that
respondents in this study who indicated that they spend between R50 –
R500/month fall into the younger age categories. Additionally, younger
consumers rely more heavily on digital commerce (Chapter 3: Section 3.4),
which may explain why traditional stimuli, such as auditory stimuli, would
present differing opinions from respondents.

Based on the results of the tests of homogeneity of variances, all variables,

and sub-variables, were subjected to the Welch Robust test as they conformed
with the assumption of homogeneity (sig < 0.05) (EF275). Table 6.35 indicates
the results of the Welch Robust test of the variables of the study and the
respondents’ monthly budget for skincare products.

TABLE 6.35
RESULTS OF THE WELCH ROBUST TEST OF THE VARIABLES OF THE
STUDY AND THE RESPONDENTS’ MONTHLY BUDGET FOR SKINCARE
PRODUCTS
Marked effects (in red) are significant at p<.05
Sig. value
Traditional visual stimuli 0.00
Digital visual stimuli 0.00
Traditional auditory stimuli 0.00
Traditional olfactory stimuli 0.00
Digital olfactory stimuli 0.05
Traditional tactile stimuli 0.00
Digital tactile stimuli 0.00
Digital auditory stimuli 0.26
Brand loyalty 0.00
Digital sensory branding 0.00
Traditional sensory branding 0.00

As seen in Table 6.35, there were statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences
between group means for traditional visual stimuli FWELCH(3, 81.34) = 14.45, p
= 0.00 (EF276); digital visual stimuli FWELCH(3, 78.15) = 18.22, p = 0.00
(EF277); traditional auditory stimuli FWELCH(3, 76.62) = 6.30, p = 0.00 (EF278);

246
traditional olfactory stimuli FWELCH(3, 81.34) = 14.45, p = 0.00 (EF279);
traditional tactile stimuli FWELCH(3, 78.50) = 15.91, p = 0.00 (EF280); digital
tactile stimuli FWELCH(3, 77.10) = 13.11, p = 0.00 (EF281); brand loyalty
FWELCH(3, 77.36) = 14.58, p = 0.00 (EF282); digital sensory branding FWELCH(3,
77.92) = 9.39, p = 0.00 (EF283) and traditional sensory branding FWELCH(3,
79.06) = 16.82, p = 0.00 (EF284) for monthly budget as determined by one-
way ANOVA. Therefore, it can be concluded that respondents with different
monthly budgets for skincare products had differing reviews regarding all
variables and sub-variables, with the exception of digital olfactory and digital
auditory stimuli (EF285).

The results of Games-Howell calculated for traditional visual stimuli and the
respondents’ monthly budget for skincare products indicates a statistically
significant difference (p < 0.05) between two groups, namely group 1 (R50 –
R500/month, mean = 1.83, Table 6.34) and group 3 (R1001 – R1500/month,
mean = 1.35, Table 6.34), where p = 0.00 (EF286) as well as group 2 (R501
– R1000/month, mean = 1.75, Table 6.8) and group 3 (R1001 – R1500/month,
mean = 1.35, Table 6.34), where p = 0.00 (EF287). Interestingly, the same is
true from the results of Games-Howell calculated for digital visual stimuli and
the respondents’ monthly budget for skincare, where the statistically significant
(p < 0.05) differences were also between group 1 (R50 – R500/month, mean
= 1.82, Table 6.34) and group 3 (R1001 – R1500/month, mean = 1.29, Table
6.34), where p = 0.00 (EF288), as well as group 2 (R501 – R1000/month,
mean = 1.64, Table 6.8) and group 3 (R1001 – R1500/month, mean = 1.29,
Table 6.34), where p = 0.00 (EF289).

It can be seen that in all cases the statistically significant differences in

answers from respondents with regard to traditional and digital visual stimuli
were with respondents who have a monthly budget of R1001 – R1500/month
(EF290). Consumers who spend an increased amount on a product have
higher expectations (Chapter 2: Section 2.2.2.3). This may explain why, with
all the variables (Table 6.35), this group of respondents felt more strongly
about how the factors influenced their experience of shopping for skincare
products (EF291). It may also be linked to the age of the respondents (Chapter

247
3: Section 3.2.1), as depending on the age of the consumer they would
appreciate stimuli differently.

The results of Games-Howell calculated for traditional auditory stimuli and the
respondents’ monthly budget for skincare products indicated that only one
statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between two groups existed,
namely between group 1 (R50 – R500/month, mean = 2.33, Table 6.34) and
group 3 (R1001 – R1500/month, mean = 1.86, Table 6.34), where p = 0.00
(EF292). There was also a statistically significant difference (p < 0.10)
between group means between group 1 (R50 – R500/month, mean = 2.33,
Table 6.34) and group 2 (R501 – R1000, mean = 2.02, Table 6.34), where p
= 0.07 (EF293). From the mean value of 1.86, it can be concluded that
respondents who have a monthly budget of R1001 – R1500/month felt more
strongly about the influence that traditional auditory stimuli have on their
experience of shopping for skincare products in-store than those who have a
budget of R50 – R500/month (EF294). This can again be linked to the fact that
respondents who are spending larger amounts on skincare products can be
assumed to be older than those spending less (Chapter 3: Section 3.2.1)
(Section 6.6.5.2) and would therefore shop in-store more soften than younger
respondents and be exposed to traditional sensory stimuli more often (Chapter
3: Section 3.4). Table 6.36 provides the results of Games-Howell calculated
for traditional olfactory stimuli and respondents’ monthly budget for skincare
products, where p values are provided in the bottom diagonal.

TABLE 6.36
THE RESULTS OF GAMES-HOWELL OF TRADITIONAL OLFACTORY
STIMULI AND THE RESPONDENTS’ MONTHLY BUDGET
Games-Howell test; Variable: Traditional olfactory stimuli
{1} {2} {3} {4}
R50 – R500/month {1}
R501 – R1000/month {2} 0.97
R1001 – R1500/month {3} 0.00 0.00
R1500+ {4} 0.99 0.96 0.04
Marked effects (in red) are significant where p < 0.05
Marked effects (in blue) are significant where p < 0.10

248
Table 6.36 indicates a statistically significant difference (p < 0.5) between
three groups, namely group 1 (R50 – R500/month, mean = 1.79, Table 6.34)
and group 3 (R1001 – R1500/month, mean = 1.49, Table 6.34), where p =
0.00 (EF295); group 2 (R501 – R1000/month, mean = 1.75, Table 6.34) and
group 3 (R1001 – R1500/month, mean = 1.49, Table 6.34), where p = 0.00
(EF296), and group 3 (R1001 – R1500/month, mean = 1.49, Table 6.34) and
group 4 (R1500+/month, mean = 1.81, Table 6.34), where p = 0.04 (EF297).
From the results, it can be seen that the statistically significant differences
between respondents’ answers regarding traditional olfactory stimuli were
again all with respondents who had a budget of R1001 – R1500/month
(EF298). From the mean values, it can further be deduced that respondents
who have a budget of R1001 – R1500/month felt more strongly about the
influence that traditional olfactory stimuli have on their experience of shopping
for skincare products in-store than any of the other groups (EF299). As
previously discussed, if it is assumed that consumers who have a budget of
R1001 – R1500/month are likely to be older consumers (Chapter 3: Section
3.2.1) (Section 6.6.5.2), then it may also be deduced that these consumers
shop in-store more often than younger consumers would (Chapter 3: Section
3.4). Therefore, these consumers would be exposed to ambient fragrances as
well as the fragrance of the physical product, which may explain why they have
a stronger level of agreement that traditional olfactory stimuli have a positive
influence on their experience. Table 6.37 provides the results of Games-
Howell calculated for traditional tactile stimuli and respondents’ monthly
budget for skincare products, where p values are provided in the bottom
diagonal.

249
 TABLE 6.37
THE RESULTS OF GAMES-HOWELL OF TRADITIONAL TACTILE
STIMULI AND THE RESPONDENTS’ MONTHLY BUDGET
Games-Howell test; Variable: Traditional tactile stimuli
{1} {2} {3} {4}
R50 – R500/month {1}
R501 – R1000/month {2} 0.46
R1001 – R1500/month {3} 0.00 0.00
R1500+ {4} 1.00 0.90 0.02
Marked effects (in red) are significant where p < 0.05
Marked effects (in blue) are significant where p < 0.10

Table 6.37 indicates a statistically significant difference (p < 0.5) between

three groups, namely group 1 (R50 – R500/month, mean = 1.75, Table 6.34)
and group 3 (R1001 – R1500/month, mean = 1.34, Table 6.34), where p =
0.00 (EF300); group 2 (R501 – R1000/month, mean = 1.63, Table 6.34) and
group 3 (R1001 – R1500/month, mean = 1.34, Table 6.34), where p = 0.00
(EF301), and group 3 (R1001 – R1500/month, mean = 1.34, Table 6.34) and
group 4 (R1500+/month, mean = 1.72, Table 6.34), where p = 0.02 (EF302).
Additionally, the results of Games-Howell calculated for digital tactile stimuli
and the respondents’ monthly budget for skincare products indicates a
statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between two groups, namely group
1 (R50 – R500/month, mean = 1.92, Table 6.34) and group 3 (R1001 –
R1500/month, mean = 1.42, Table 6.34), where p = 0.00 (EF303) as well as
between group 2 (R501 – R1000/month, mean = 1.71, Table 6.34) and group
3 (R1001 – R1500/month, mean = 1.42, Table 6.34), where p = 0.00 (EF304).
It can be seen that all statistically significant differences in answers between
respondents with regard to both traditional and digital tactile stimuli, were with
those who have a budget of R1001 – R1500/month (EF305).

While all respondents agreed that both traditional and digital tactile stimuli
have a positive influence on their experience, only respondents who have a
budget of R1001 – R1500/month strongly agreed that these sub-variables
have an influence on their experience, as determined by the mean values of
1.34 and 1.42 respectively (Table 6.34) (EF306). From the literature in Chapter
3; Section 3.8, consumers use the sense of touch to evaluate the quality of the
product, which may explain why consumers who spend more on products

250
would be more sensitive to how the physical product or product packaging
feels. However, the fact that all respondents agreed that these sub-variables
have an influence on their experience, may support the fact that the sense of
touch is the principal source of stimuli for humans (Chapter 3: Section 3.8). It
is of interest that with regard to digital tactile stimuli, older consumers still
indicated a stronger influence, when younger consumers are known to rely
more heavily on online shopping platforms (Chapter 3: Section 3.4) (Section
6.6.5.2). Table 6.38 provides the results of Games-Howell calculated for
brand loyalty and respondents’ monthly budget for skincare products, where p
values are provided in the bottom diagonal.

TABLE 6.38
THE RESULTS OF GAMES-HOWELL OF BRAND LOYALTY AND THE
RESPONDENTS’ MONTHLY BUDGET
Games-Howell test; Variable: Brand loyalty
{1} {2} {3} {4}
R50 – R500/month {1}
R501 – R1000/month {2} 0.07
R1001 – R1500/month {3} 0.00 0.00
R1500+ {4} 0.00 0.03 0.59
Marked effects (in red) are significant where p < 0.05
Marked effects (in blue) are significant where p < 0.10

Table 6.38 indicates a statistically significant difference (p < 0.5) between four
groups, namely group 1 (R50 – R500/month, mean = 2.81, Table 6.34) and
group 3 (R1001 – R1500/month, mean = 1.89, Table 6.34), where p = 0.00
(EF307); group 1 (R50 – R500/month, mean = 2.81, Table 6.34) and group 4
(R1500+/month, mean = 1.73, Table 6.34), where p = 0.00 (EF308); group 2
(R501 – R1000/month, mean = 2.11, Table 6.34) and group 3 (R1001 –
R1500/month, mean = 1.89, Table 6.34), where p = 0.00 (EF309), and group
2 (R501 – R1000/month, mean = 2.11, Table 6.34) and group 4
(R1500+/month, mean = 1.73, Table 6.34), where p = 0.03 (EF310). All
statistically significant differences are between respondents who have a
smaller monthly budget for skincare and those who had a larger monthly
budget for skincare (EF311). It is also apparent from the mean values
presented in Table 6.34 that respondents who have a monthly budget of
R1001+, agreed more strongly with the statements relating to brand loyalty

251
(EF312), implying that they are more loyal to their preferred brand, while
respondents who have a smaller budget (R50 – R500/month) indicated that
they are indifferent towards brand loyalty (mean = 2.81) (EF313).

Within the section of the questionnaire that focused on brand loyalty, the
statement for item 1 was “should my preferred brand increase their prices, I
would still purchase their brand”. This item presented a mean value of 2.51
(Table 6.11), which indicates that in general, respondents are indifferent
regarding whether they would continue to purchase a product should the price
thereof increase. This is the only item in the section which respondents are
indifferent towards, which could explain why consumers who have a higher
monthly budget for skincare presented a higher level of brand loyalty (EF314).
Additionally, the respondents of this study who had higher monthly budgets for
skincare also indicated that they were more loyal to a brand then those
respondents who spent less, which could be linked to the difference between
attitudinal and behavioural loyalty (Chapter 2: Section 2.2.2.4). Furthermore,
a predominant reason for brands wanting to build loyal consumers is that they
are less price sensitive (Chapter 2: Section 2.2.2.4), which could also explain
the significant differences in answers between respondents with higher
budgets and those with lower budgets. Finally, the level of brand loyalty shown
by a consumer is influenced by their age (Chapter 2: Section 2.2.2.4) and as
seen in Section 6.6.5.2, in general, respondents who have larger budgets for
skincare are mostly in the older age categories. Therefore, it can be deduced
that with specific reference to the skincare industry, older consumers are more
likely to be loyal to a brand (EF315).

The results of Games-Howell calculated for digital sensory branding and the
respondents’ monthly budget for skincare indicates a statistically significant
difference (p < 0.05) between two groups, namely group 1 (R50 – R500/month,
mean = 2.02, Table 6.34) and group 3 (R1001 – R1500/month, mean = 1.68,
Table 6.34), where p = 0.00 (EF316), as well as between group 2 (R501 –
R1000/month, mean = 1.89, Table 6.8) and group 3 (R1001 – R1500/month,
mean = 1.68, Table 6.34), where p = 0.00 (EF317). Digital sensory branding
comprises both digital visual and digital tactile stimuli, and the above

252
statistically significant differences in respondents’ answers regarding digital
sensory branding mirrors those observed for these two sub-variables (EF318).
Therefore, as digital visual and digital tactile stimuli constitute the variable
digital sensory branding, this would be expected. This is also deducible from
the mean values provided (Table 6.34). Table 6.39 provides the results of
Games-Howell calculated for traditional sensory branding and respondents’
monthly budget for skincare products, where p values are provided in the
bottom diagonal.

TABLE 6.39
THE RESULTS OF GAMES-HOWELL OF TRADITIONAL SENSORY
BRANDING AND THE RESPONDENTS’ MONTHLY BUDGET
Games-Howell test; Variable: Traditional sensory branding
{1} {2} {3} {4}
R50 – R500/month {1}
R501 – R1000/month {2} 0.24
R1001 – R1500/month {3} 0.00 0.00
R1500+ {4} 0.97 0.92 0.03
Marked effects (in red) are significant where p < 0.05
Marked effects (in blue) are significant where p < 0.10

Table 6.39 indicates a statistically significant difference (p < 0.5) between

three groups, namely group 1 (R50 – R500/month, mean = 1.92, Table 6.34)
and group 3 (R1001 – R1500/month, mean = 1.51, Table 6.34), where p =
0.00 (EF319); group 2 (R501 – R1000/month, mean = 1.79, Table 6.34) and
group 3 (R1001 – R1500/month, mean = 1.51, Table 6.34), where p = 0.00
(EF320); and group 3 (R1001 – R1500/month, mean = 1.51, Table 6.34) and
group 4 (R1500+/month, mean = 1.86, Table 6.34), where p = 0.03 (EF321).
As in the case with the sub-variables of traditional sensory branding discussed
in this section (traditional visual, auditory, olfactory and tactile stimuli), the
statistically significant differences in respondents’ answers regarding
traditional sensory branding were all with respondents who have a monthly
budget of R1001 – R1500/month (EF322). As traditional sensory branding
constitutes the four sub-variables traditional visual, auditory, olfactory and
tactile stimuli, it would be expected that the statistically significant differences
are between the same groups of respondents (EF323).

253
Considering the Welch Robust and Games-Howell tests conducted between
the different budget groups and the variables of the study, the following
conclusions can be drawn. For reference purposes abbreviation EF is used.

• Through the calculation of Welch Robust between the respondents’

monthly budget and the variables of this study, it can be concluded that the
different groups of respondents have differing views regarding traditional
visual, auditory, olfactory and tactile stimuli, digital visual and tactile stimuli,
brand loyalty as well as traditional sensory branding and digital sensory
branding (EF276 – EF284).
• It was concluded from the results of Games-Howell calculated for all of the
above mentioned variables and sub-variables that the statistically
significant differences in respondents’ answers were mainly with
respondents who had a monthly budget of R1001 to R1500/month (EF290,
EF305, EF322). Overall this was attributed to the fact the consumers who
spend a larger amount on skincare products per month have higher
expectations and would therefore, be more influenced by the sensory
branding tactics utilised. This difference was further linked to the possibility
that consumers who have a larger monthly budget for skincare products
may be older consumers, and would shop in-store more often than younger
consumers, and would therefore be more exposed to traditional sensory
stimuli.
• From the Games-Howell test performed for brand loyalty and the
respondents’ monthly budget for skincare, it was concluded that the
statistically significant (p < 0.5) difference was between group 1 (R50 –
R500/month) and group 3 (R1001 – R1500/month) as well as group 4
(R1500+/month), group 2 (R501 – R1000/month) and group 3 (R1001 –
R1500/month) as well as group 4 (R1500+/month) (EF307 – EF310). It was
deduced that respondents who have a larger monthly budget are more
loyal to their preferred brand (EF313). This was attributed to the fact that
consumers who have a larger monthly budget for skincare are less price
sensitive. It was further deduced that older consumers, with specific
reference to the skincare industry, are in general more loyal to brands
(EF315).

254
• From the results of Games-Howell calculated for digital sensory branding,
as well as for traditional sensory branding and the respondents’ monthly
budget for skincare products, it was concluded that the statistically
significant (p < 0.5) differences all involved group 3 (R1001 –
R1500/month) (EF316 & EF317). The statistically significant differences in
respondents’ answers were attributed to the fact that both digital and
traditional sensory branding constitute the sub-variables discussed in this
section, and the differences observed therefore mirror those observed for
the relevant sub-variables (EF318 & EF323).

6.6.9.4 ANOVAs comparing mean factor scores of the frequency with which
respondents purchase skincare products in-store

In this section, the descriptive statistics of the frequency with which

respondents purchase skincare products in-store are compared and the mean
factor scores determined. For statistical analysis and reporting purposes,
answers given by respondents were categorised into “very often”, “frequently”
and “seldom”. In Table 6.40, the descriptive statistics comparing the mean
factor scores of the frequency with which respondents purchase skincare
products in-store are illustrated. Smallest standard deviations (std. dev.) are
represented in green while the highest std. dev. is represented in yellow. The
lowest mean values, which represent a positive response, are highlighted in
blue and the highest mean values, which represent a negative response, in
pink.

TABLE 6.40
ANOVAS COMPARING THE MEAN FACTOR SCORES OF THE
VARIABLES AND FREQUENCY WITH WHICH RESPONDENTS
PURCHASE SKINCARE PRODUCTS IN-STORE
Very Frequently Seldom
Often
Means 1.61 1.60 1.64
Traditional
N 125 33 163
visual stimuli
Std. Dev 0.66 0.40 0.57
Means 2.04 1.73 2.09
Traditional
N 125 33 163
auditory stimuli
Std. Dev 0.67 0.50 0.64

255
 Very Frequently Seldom
Often
Traditional Means 1.69 1.58 1.68
olfactory N 125 33 163
stimuli Std. Dev 0.48 0.31 0.48
Means 1.55 1.58 1.56
Traditional
N 125 33 163
tactile stimuli
Std. Dev 0.42 0.41 0.54
Traditional Means 1.72 1.62 1.74
sensory N 125 33 163
branding Std. Dev 0.46 0.29 0.47
Means 1.55 1.62 1.54
Digital visual
N 125 33 163
stimuli
Std. Dev 0.53 0.39 0.60
Means 2.22 2.02 2.41
Digital auditory
N 125 33 163
stimuli
Std. Dev 0.64 0.48 0.62
Digital Means 1.85 1.68 1.98
olfactory N 125 33 163
stimuli Std. Dev 0.52 0.43 0.57
Means 1.66 1.62 1.67
Digital tactile
N 125 33 163
stimuli
Std. Dev 0.51 0.43 0.63
Means 1.82 1.74 1.90
Digital sensory
N 125 33 163
branding
Std. Dev 0.44 0.30 0.53
Means 1.93 2.20 2.09
Brand loyalty N 125 33 163
Std. Dev 0.44 0.25 0.43

As seen in Table 6.40, all groups of respondents agreed that traditional tactile
stimuli have a positive influence on the experience of shopping for skincare
products in-store (EF324). However, respondents who purchase skincare
products in-store very often further indicated that digital visual stimuli (1.55)
have a strong positive influence on their experience of shopping for skincare
products in-store (EF325). Furthermore, respondents who indicated that they
purchase skincare products in-store frequently also highlighted traditional
olfactory stimuli (1.58) as having a strong positive influence on their
experience (EF326) and respondents who purchase skincare products in-
store seldom felt that digital visual stimuli have a strong positive influence on
their experience (EF327). It can therefore be deduced that respondents of this
study felt that traditional tactile, digital visual and traditional olfactory stimuli
have the largest influence on their experience of shopping for skincare
products via brick-and-mortar stores (EF328). These three sub-variables were
similarly noted in the results of the full Primary Model conducted in Section
6.6.4.3 (Table 6.25).

256
As the item related to in-store shopping, it is logical that traditional tactile and
olfactory stimuli were highlighted. The importance of tactile stimuli when
shopping via in-store avenues may be attributed to the fact that consumers
who prefer to shop via brick-and-mortar stores are often driven by a need for
touch (NFT) (Chapter 3: Section 3.8.2). Furthermore, it has been found that
tactile stimuli are especially relevant for businesses who sell physical products
as consumers use this as a means to evaluate quality (Chapter 3: Section 3.8),
and as this would apply to skincare products, this may explain the low means
seen. It also stands to reason that respondents who felt that traditional tactile
stimuli were important, felt the same about digital visual stimuli, as there is a
strong link between tactile stimuli and sight (Chapter 3: Section 3.8). Lastly,
olfactory stimuli have been determined to be one of the most sensitive of the
human senses (Chapter 3: Section 3.7), and while there is no way to replicate
fragrances online, olfactory stimuli are a predominant sensory strategy utilised
in brick-and-mortar stores.

It can be further seen in Table 6.40 that while respondents were still in
agreement that both traditional and digital auditory stimuli have an influence
on their experience of shopping for skincare products in-store, they have a
considerably smaller influence than some of the other stimuli (EF329). This
result corresponds with the results of the Pearsons correlation conducted in
Section 6.6.7 (Table 6.26), where both traditional and digital auditory stimuli
presented the weakest correlations with brand loyalty (0.8). It can also be seen
that respondents who indicated that they purchase skincare products in-store
frequently (2.20) and seldom (2.09) felt the least strongly about brand loyalty
(EF330). With regard to auditory stimuli, sound is used by stores to influence
people’s moods, behaviour and feelings (Chapter 3: Section 3.8), which
provides a reason why consumers reported that the stimuli have an influence
on their experience. Similarly, while respondents still agreed with the
statements relating to brand loyalty, it presented the highest, or least positive,
mean values (EF331), which may allude to the fact that consumer commitment
to brands is decreasing (Chapter 2: Chapter 2.2.3).

257
Brand loyalty also presented the smallest std. dev. for respondents who
purchase skincare products in-store frequently (0.25) and seldom (0.43)
(EF332), and while the smallest std. dev. occurs in traditional tactile stimuli
(0.42) for respondents who buy skincare products in-store very often (EF333),
a relatively small std. dev was still observed for this group in brand loyalty
(0.44) (EF334). This indicates that respondents of this study differed the least
in their opinions regarding brand loyalty and traditional tactile stimuli (EF335).
The mean values relating to the items constituting brand loyalty ranged from
1.69 to 2.50 (Table 6.11). These are all rounded to 2 (agreed), which indicates
that respondents, in general, felt similarly regarding all items in this section,
which would explain the small std. dev. observed.

The respondents of this study differed the most in their opinions regarding
traditional auditory stimuli, as depicted by the std. dev. for respondents who
purchased skincare very often (0.67), frequently (0.50) and seldom (0.64)
(EF336). Sound is one of the more complex sensory stimuli as it is interpreted
by each individual differently, attributed to the fact that it is based on subjective
taste (Chapter 3: Section 3.6). This may explain why respondents of this study,
based on the frequency with which they buy skincare products, all had different
opinions regarding the factors relating to auditory stimuli. Additionally, as seen
from Table 6.4, the response to item C3 (the sound or pronunciation of the
brand’s name influences my experience of shopping for skincare products in-
store) was an outlier when compared to the rest of the data set (EF337). While
respondents agreed with all other factors relating to traditional auditory stimuli,
they were indifferent regarding whether the sound or pronunciation of the
brand’s name have an influence on their experience of shopping for skincare
products in-store (mean = 2.60), which may explain why the answers of
respondents with regard to overall traditional auditory stimuli was widely
dispersed.

Based on the results of the tests of homogeneity of variances, ANOVA was

performed for the variables, and sub-variables, traditional auditory stimuli (sig
= 0.14), digital olfactory stimuli (sig = 0.12), traditional tactile stimuli (sig = 0.07)
and digital auditory stimuli (sig = 0.12) (EF338). The remainder of the

258
variables, and sub-variables, were subjected to the Welch Robust test as they
conformed with the assumption of homogeneity (sig < 0.05) (EF339). Table
6.41 indicates the results of the ANOVAs of the variables of the study and the
frequency with which the respondents purchase skincare products in-store.

TABLE 6.41
RESULTS OF THE ANOVAS OF THE VARIABLES OF THE STUDY AND
THE FREQUENCY WITH WHICH RESPONDENTS PURCHASE
SKINCARE PRODUCTS IN-STORE
Marked effects (in red) are significant at p<.05
F Value P Value
Traditional auditory stimuli 4.23 0.02
Digital olfactory stimuli 5.13 0.01
Traditional tactile stimuli 0.04 0.96
Digital auditory stimuli 6.97 0.00

There were statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences between group means
for traditional auditory stimuli (F(2,318) = 4.23, p = 0.02) (EF340), digital
olfactory stimuli (F(2,318) = 5.13, p = 0.01) (EF341) and digital auditory stimuli
(F(2,318) = 6.97, p = 0.00) (EF342) and frequency of in-store purchases of
skincare products, as determined by one-way ANOVA. Therefore, it can be
said that respondents who purchase skincare products with different
frequencies had differing views regarding all three of these factors (EF343).
Based on how often a consumer shops in-store, they may be influenced at a
different level by certain sensory stimuli, which could explain the differing
opinions observed (EF344). Furthermore, auditory stimuli are perceived
differently by each individual (Chapter 3: Section 3.6), which could explain why
respondents had differing views regarding both traditional and digital auditory
stimuli. Finally, when shopping in-store, consumers would be exposed to
traditional olfactory stimuli rather than digital olfactory stimuli.

The results of the Tukey test performed for traditional auditory stimuli and the
frequency with which respondents purchase skincare products in-store
indicates a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between two groups,
namely group 1 (very often, mean = 2.04, Table 6.40) and group 2 (frequently,
mean = 1.73, Table 6.40), where p = 0.04 (EF345), as well as between group

259
2 (frequently, mean = 1.73, Table 6.40) and group 3 (seldom, mean = 2.09,
Table 6.40), where p = 0.01 (EF346). It can be seen that both statistically
significant differences in answers are with respondents who purchase skincare
products in-store frequently (EF347). However, as deduced from the mean
values observed, all respondents agreed that traditional auditory stimuli have
a positive influence on their experience of shopping for skincare products in-
store (EF348). This may be attributed to the fact that auditory stimuli have
been used in traditional sensory branding and marketing extensively and have
been proven to be a powerful marketing tool that brands can use to shape
buying decision and brand preference (Chapter 3: Section 3.6).

The results of the Tukey test performed for digital olfactory stimuli and the
frequency with which respondents purchase skincare products in-store
indicated that only one statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) exists -
between group 2 (frequently, mean = 1.68, Table 6.40) and group 3 (seldom,
mean = 1.98, Table 6.40), where p = 0.01 (EF349). It can be seen that the
statistically significant difference in answers is between respondents who
purchase skincare products in-store more often and those who purchase
skincare products in-store less often (EF350). It can be assumed that those
who purchase more frequently would be exposed to digital olfactory stimuli
more often than those who purchase less often, which may explain why
respondents of this study who indicated that they purchase skincare products
in-store frequently felt more strongly regarding how this factor influences their
experience.

The results of the Tukey test performed for digital auditory stimuli and the
frequency with which respondents purchase skincare products in-store
indicate a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between two groups,
namely group 1 (very often, mean = 2.22, Table 6.40) and group 3 (seldom,
mean = 2.41, Table 6.40), where p = 0.02 (EF351), as well as between group
2 (frequently, mean = 2.02, Table 6.40) and group 3 (seldom, mean = 2.41,
Table 6.40), where p = 0.00 (EF352). It can be seen that both statistically
significant differences in answers from respondents with regard to digital
auditory stimuli were between respondents who purchase skincare products

260
in-store more often than those who purchase less often (EF353). While
respondents who purchase skincare products in-store frequently indicated that
they agreed that digital auditory stimuli have an influence on their experience,
those who purchase skincare products in-store seldom were indifferent
towards how this factor influences their experience, as determined by the
mean value calculated (EF354). This could again be linked to the fact that
consumers who shop more often would be exposed to more sensory branding
strategies and would therefore expect more from the platforms they shop from.
It may also be due to the fact that, when shopping in-store, consumers would
be exposed to traditional auditory stimuli rather than digital auditory stimuli.
Table 6.42 indicates the results of the Welch Robust test of the variables of
the study and the frequency with which the respondents shop for skincare
products in-store.

TABLE 6.42
RESULTS OF THE WELCH ROBUST TEST OF THE VARIABLES OF THE
STUDY AND THE FREQUENCY WITH WHICH THE RESPONDENTS
SHOP FOR SKINCARE PRODUCTS IN-STORE
Marked effects (in red) are significant at p<.05
Sig. value
Traditional visual stimuli 0.87
Digital visual stimuli 0.55
Traditional olfactory stimuli 0.23
Digital tactile stimuli 0.88
Brand loyalty 0.00
Digital sensory branding 0.06
Traditional sensory branding 0.15

Table 6.42 shows that there was only one statistically significant (p < 0.05)
difference between group means, which was for brand loyalty FWELCH(2,
114.14) = 10.51, p = 0.00 (EF355) between the frequency with which the
respondents shop for skincare products in-store. Therefore, it can be
concluded that respondents only had differing reviews regarding brand loyalty
(EF356). It has been noted that brand loyalty has seen a significant decrease,
mirroring the rise of online shopping or e-commerce (Chapter 2: Section
2.2.3). Furthermore, brand loyalty has also been found to be influenced by
consumer motivations, whereby those shopping for fun are seeking

261
experiential activities and those shopping based on necessity are seeking
efficiency (Chapter 3: Section 3.2.1). These two literature results could explain
the difference in respondents’ opinions with regard to brand loyalty.

The results of Games-Howell calculated for brand loyalty and the frequency
with which the respondents shop for skincare products in-store indicates a
statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between two groups, namely group
1 (very often, mean = 1.93, Table 6.40) and group 2 (frequently, mean = 2.20,
Table 6.40), where p = 0.00 (EF357) as well as group 1 (very often, mean =
1.93, Table 6.40) and group 3 (seldom, mean = 2.09, Table 6.40), where p =
0.00 (EF358). Once again, the difference in opinions is between respondents
who purchase skincare products in-store more often and those who purchase
less often, where respondents who purchase very often felt more strongly
regarding brand loyalty (EF359). This could be linked to the fact that loyal
customers have been found to purchase from a brand more regularly (Chapter
2: Section 2.2.2.4).

Considering the ANOVAs and Tukey tests as well as Welch Robust and
Games-Howell tests performed between the frequency with which the
respondents purchase skincare products in-store and the variables of the
study, the following conclusions can be drawn. For reference purposes
abbreviation EF is used.

• Through the calculation of ANOVAs between the frequency with which the
respondents purchase skincare products in-store and the variables of this
study, it can be concluded that the different groups of respondents had
differing views regarding traditional auditory stimuli, digital olfactory stimuli
and digital auditory stimuli (EF340 – EF342).
• It was concluded from the results of the Tukey Test performed for all three
of the above mentioned sub-variables and the frequency with which the
respondents purchase skincare products in-store that the statistically
significant differences between answers were all between respondents
who purchase skincare products in-store more often and those who
purchase less often (EF350, EF353, EF354).

262
• Overall, the significant differences seen between the respondents’ opinions
regarding traditional auditory stimuli, digital olfactory stimuli and digital
auditory stimuli were attributed to the fact that consumers who shop more
frequently in-store would be exposed to more sensory branding strategies
for longer periods of time and would therefore have higher expectations
while shopping as well as be more influenced by the stimuli presented.
• However, it was noted that, although respondents indicated that traditional
auditory stimuli have an influence on their experience of shopping for
skincare products in-store, a stronger positive response may have been
expected. This was attributed to the fact that while auditory stimuli can be
a useful tool to marketers in creating a cohesive environment, it is
dependent on the interaction of consumers.
• Through the performance of the Welch Robust test for the frequency with
which the respondents purchase skincare products in-store and the
variables of this study, it can be concluded that the different groups of
respondents only had differing views regarding brand loyalty (EF356). This
was linked to the literature results that not only has consumer loyalty been
decreasing, but that brand loyalty is influenced by consumer motivations,
where those shopping for fun are seeking experiential activities and those
shopping based on necessity are seeking efficiency.
• It was concluded from the results of the Games-Howell test performed for
brand loyalty and the frequency with which the respondents purchase
skincare products in-store, that the statistically significant differences
between answers were with those respondents who purchase skincare
products in-store more often and those who purchase less often (EF359).
This was attributed to the fact that loyal customers have been found to
purchase from a brand more regularly, which would explain why those
respondents who purchase skincare products in-store very often felt the
most strongly about brand loyalty.

263
6.6.9.5 ANOVAs comparing mean factor scores of the frequency with which
respondents purchase skincare products online

In this section, the descriptive statistics of the frequency with which

respondents purchase skincare products online are compared and the mean
factor scores determined. For statistical analysis and reporting purposes,
answers given by respondents were categorised into “very often”, “frequently”
and “seldom”. In Table 6.43, the descriptive statistics comparing the mean
factor scores of the frequency with which respondents purchase skincare
products online are illustrated. Smallest standard deviations (std. dev.) are
represented in green while the highest std. dev. is represented in yellow. The
lowest mean values, which represent a positive response, are highlighted in
blue and the highest mean values, which represent a negative response, in
pink.

TABLE 6.43
ANOVAS COMPARING THE MEAN FACTOR SCORES OF THE
VARIABLES AND FREQUENCY WITH WHICH RESPONDENTS
PURCHASE SKINCARE PRODUCTS ONLINE
Very Frequently Seldom
Often
Means 1.64 1.62 1.62
Traditional
N 76 31 214
visual stimuli
Std. Dev 0.64 0.40 0.60
Means 1.92 1.71 2.12
Traditional
N 76 31 214
auditory stimuli
Std. Dev 0.60 0.48 0.67
Traditional Means 1.68 1.66 1.67
olfactory N 76 31 214
stimuli Std. Dev 0.47 0.31 0.49
Means 1.59 1.76 1.52
Traditional
N 76 31 214
tactile stimuli
Std. Dev 0.44 0.50 0.49
Traditional Means 1.71 1.69 1.73
sensory N 76 31 214
branding Std. Dev 0.44 0.33 0.47
Means 1.56 1.75 1.52
Digital visual
N 76 31 214
stimuli
Std. Dev 0.52 0.43 0.58
Means 2.10 2.05 2.40
Digital auditory
N 76 31 214
stimuli
Std. Dev 0.54 0.50 0.65
Means 1.92 1.74 1.92
N 76 31 214

264
 Very Frequently Seldom
Often
Digital Std. Dev 0.51 0.37 0.58
olfactory
stimuli
Means 1.65 1.68 1.66
Digital tactile
N 76 31 214
stimuli
Std. Dev 0.48 0.37 0.62
Means 1.81 1.80 1.88
Digital sensory
N 76 31 214
branding
Std. Dev 0.42 0.29 0.51
Means 1.92 2.14 2.06
Brand loyalty N 76 31 214
Std. Dev 0.39 0.28 0.45

As seen in Table 6.43, respondents had relatively mixed feelings regarding

which stimuli have the most positive influence on their experience of shopping
for skincare products online (EF360). Respondents who purchase skincare
products online very often (1.56) as well as those who purchased seldom
(1.52) felt the most strongly about the influence that digital visual stimuli have
on their experience (EF361). Traditional tactile stimuli (1.52) were also
highlighted by respondents who seldom purchase skincare products online
(EF362). These two sub-variables were also pointed out in the full Primary
Model conducted in Section 6.6.4.3 (Table 6.25). Furthermore, respondents
who frequently purchase skincare products online indicated that they felt most
strongly about the influence that traditional visual stimuli have on their
experience (EF363). With regard to digital visual stimuli, this would be
expected as visual stimuli are one of the primary methods of sensory branding
or marketing utilised by online platforms (Chapter 3: Section 3.4).
Furthermore, it has been determined that vision and touch are closely linked
(Chapter 3: Section 3.8), which may explain why these two sub-variables were
highlighted by the respondents of this study.

Contradictorily, respondents of this study who both very often (2.10) as well
as seldom (2.40) purchase skincare products online reported that they felt less
strongly regarding the influence that digital auditory stimuli have on their
experience of shopping for skincare products online (EF364). Furthermore,
respondents who frequently purchase skincare products online felt the least
strongly regarding brand loyalty, as determined by the mean value of 2.14

265
(EF365). Interestingly, respondents who seldom purchase skincare products
online also presented a relatively high mean for brand loyalty (2.06) (EF366),
which may allude to the fact that consumers who purchase more often are, in
general, more loyal to brands (Chapter 2: Section 2.2.2.4). With regard to
digital auditory stimuli, the difference in opinions may be linked to the literature
that confirms that auditory sensory branding depends on the interaction of
consumers as well as that sound is interpreted subjectively (Chapter 3:
Section 3.6).

Further seen in Table 6.43, the smallest std. dev. for all groups of respondents
occurred in brand loyalty (EF367), implying that respondents differed least in
their opinions regarding this variable (EF468). Additionally, the mean values
calculated for brand loyalty ranged between 1.92 and 2.14, indicating that in
general, respondents agreed with the statements relating to brand loyalty
(EF369). Brand loyalty has been highlighted throughout this section when
making reference to the smallest std. dev. (EF370). The first item relating to
brand loyalty in the questionnaire asked respondents to what extent they
agreed or disagreed with the statement, “should my preferred brand increase
their prices, I would still purchase their brand”, and as seen in Table 6.11, in
general, respondents were indifferent regarding this (mean = 2.51). This may
be linked to the current economic conditions, where consumers have less
disposable income to spend on luxury goods (Chapter 3: Section 3.2.1).
However, with regard to all other items in the questionnaire which focused on
brand loyalty, respondents agreed with the statements that they were
presented with (mean ranged from 1.69 to 2.47, Table 6.11), further supported
by the mode value being “2 - agreed” for all items. This finding may contradict
the literature which states that brand loyalty is decreasing as a result of e-
commerce, and suggests that it may rather be due to economic hardship with
specific reference to the skincare industry (EF371).

Respondents in this study who very often purchase skincare products online
presented their highest std. dev. in traditional visual stimuli (0.64) (EF372),
which is not surprising as, when shopping online, they would be exposed to
digital sensory stimuli rather than traditional sensory stimuli. Furthermore,

266
respondents who indicated that they frequently purchase skincare products
online had their highest std. dev. occur in digital auditory stimuli (0.50)
(EF373). From Table 6.8, it can be seen that respondents of this study in
general agreed that most factors constituting digital auditory stimuli have a
positive influence on their experience of shopping for skincare products online
(mean ranged between 1.86 and 2.36). However, there is an exception, where
respondents indicated that they were indifferent regarding how brand jingles
influence their experience, which may explain the difference in opinions of
respondents. The difference in opinions regarding digital auditory stimuli may
also be linked to the fact that the sense of hearing is subjective, and is
therefore interpreted differently by each individual (Chapter 3: Section 3.6).
Lastly, respondents who seldom purchase skincare products online presented
their highest std. dev. in traditional auditory stimuli (0.64), and while this could
also be linked to the fact that sound is a subjective sense (Chapter 3: Section
3.6), it may also be attributed to the fact that, when shopping online, the
respondent would be exposed to digital sensory stimuli rather than traditional
sensory stimuli.

Based on the results of the tests of homogeneity of variances, an ANOVA test

was performed for the variables, and sub-variables, digital visual stimuli (sig =
0.07), traditional auditory stimuli (sig = 0.16) and traditional tactile stimuli (sig
= 0.56) (EF374). The remainder of the variables, and sub-variables, were
subjected to the Welch Robust test as they conformed with the assumption of
homogeneity (sig < 0.05) (EF375). Table 6.44 indicates the results of the
ANOVAs of the variables of the study and the frequency with which the
respondents purchase skincare products online.

267
 TABLE 6.44
RESULTS OF THE ANOVAS OF THE VARIABLES OF THE STUDY AND
THE FREQUENCY WITH WHICH RESPONDENTS PURCHASE
SKINCARE PRODUCTS ONLINE
Marked effects (in red) are significant at p<.05
F Value P Value
Digital visual stimuli 2.42 0.09
Traditional auditory stimuli 7.06 0.00
Traditional tactile stimuli 3.58 0.03

There were statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences between group means
for traditional auditory stimuli (F(2,318) = 7.06, p = 0.00) (EF376) and
traditional tactile stimuli (F(2,318) = 3.58, p = 0.03) (EF377) and frequency of
online purchases of skincare, as determined by one-way ANOVA. Therefore,
it can be said that respondents had differing views regarding both traditional
auditory and tactile stimuli (EF378). As this section makes reference to how
often the respondent shops for skincare products online, they would be
exposed to digital sensory branding rather than traditional sensory branding,
which may explain the differing opinions seen (EF379). From Table 6.8, it can
be seen that with reference to traditional auditory stimuli, respondents differed
in their opinions regarding how the sound or pronunciation of the brand’s name
influences their experience of shopping for skincare products in-store, which
is also known to be an auditory branding technique used online (Chapter 3:
Section 3.6.2). Therefore, this may explain the difference observed. Lastly, it
was found that many times when consumers shop via online platforms, they
will go to a physical store to evaluate the item and then find a supplier online
which may be cheaper (Chapter 3: Section 3.8.2), which may explain why
respondents still highlighted traditional sensory stimuli in this section.

The results of the Tukey test performed for traditional auditory stimuli and the
frequency with which respondents purchase skincare products online indicate
a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between two groups, namely
group 1 (very often, mean = 1.92, Table 6.43) and group 3 (seldom, mean =
2.12, Table 6.43), where p = 0.05 (EF380) and between group 2 (frequently,
mean = 1.71, Table 6.43) and group 3 (seldom, mean = 2.12, Table 6.43),
where p = 0.00 (EF381). Therefore, it can be deduced that the significant

268
difference in opinions is between respondents who purchase skincare
products online more often and those who purchase skincare products online
less often (EF382). The mean values indicate that while all groups of
respondents in this section still agree that traditional auditory stimuli have a
positive influence on their experience of shopping for skincare products online,
those who seldom purchase skincare products online, felt the least strongly
(mean = 2.40) (EF383). The difference in opinions may be linked to the fact
that consumers are motivated by different things when shopping and those
individuals who mostly shop in-store may be more motivated by other sensory
stimuli, such as touch, than auditory sensory stimuli. Respondents who value
auditory stimuli when shopping in-store, will also value it when shopping online
as many of the same techniques or tactics are utilised in both shopping
avenues (Chapter 3: Section 3.6.2). This may explain why consumers who
shop more frequently online indicated that they felt more strongly about the
positive influence that traditional auditory stimuli have on their experience.

The results of the Tukey test performed for traditional tactile stimuli and the
frequency with which respondents purchase skincare products online indicate
that only one statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) occurred between
group 2 (frequently, mean = 1.76, Table 6.43) and group 3 (seldom, mean =
1.52, Table 6.43), where p = 0.03 (EF384). The significant difference in
opinions of respondents is once again between those who purchase skincare
products online more often and those who purchase skincare products online
less often (EF385). This may be attributed to the fact that those respondents
who only seldom shop online for skincare products, are shopping mostly in-
store due to their level of need for touch (NFT), as determined by the mean
value calculated (mean = 1.52). Table 6.45 indicates the results of the Welch
Robust test of the variables of the study and the frequency with which the
respondents shop for skincare products online.

269
 TABLE 6.45
RESULTS OF THE WELCH ROBUST TEST OF THE VARIABLES OF THE
STUDY AND THE FREQUENCY WITH WHICH THE RESPONDENT’S
SHOP FOR SKINCARE PRODUCTS ONLINE
Marked effects (in red) are significant at p<.05
Sig. value
Traditional visual stimuli 0.97
Traditional olfactory stimuli 0.97
Digital olfactory stimuli 0.06
Digital tactile stimuli 0.94
Brand loyalty 0.01
Digital auditory stimuli 0.00
Digital sensory branding 0.37
Traditional sensory branding 0.79

As seen in Table 6.45, there were two statistically significant (p < 0.05)
differences between group means for brand loyalty FWELCH(2, 90.26) = 5.71, p
= 0.01 (EF386) and digital auditory stimuli FWELCH(2, 82.69) = 11.19, p = 0.00
(EF387) between the frequency with which the respondents shop for skincare
products online, as determined by the Welch Robust test. Therefore, it can be
concluded that respondents only had differing reviews regarding brand loyalty
and digital auditory stimuli (EF388). Brand loyalty has been found to be
decreasing as a result of the rise of online shopping or e-commerce. This could
be due to the impact that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on the financial
status of many individuals as well as creating an inability to shop-instore during
the lockdown (Chapter 2: Section 2.2.3), which may explain the differing views
that respondents have towards this variable. With regard to digital auditory
stimuli, it was identified in Table 6.8 that respondents were, in general,
indifferent regarding how the use of brand jingles influences their experience
of shopping online for skincare products, which may explain the differing
views.

The results of the Games-Howell test performed for brand loyalty and the
frequency with which the respondents shop for skincare products in-store
indicates a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between two groups,
namely group 1 (very often, mean = 1.92, Table 6.43) and group 2 (frequently,
mean = 2.14, Table 6.43), where p = 0.00 (EF389), as well as between group
1 (very often, mean = 1.92, Table 6.43) and group 3 (seldom, mean = 2.06,

270
Table 6.43), where p = 0.03 (EF390). This indicates that the significant
difference in opinions by respondents is between those who purchase
skincare products online more often and those who purchase skincare
products online less often (EF391). When considering brand loyalty, it is
accepted that consumers who are loyal to a brand will purchase more regularly
(Chapter 2: Section 2.2.2.4), which may explain why respondents of this study
who purchase skincare products online very often agreed the most strongly
with the statements relating to brand loyalty (mean = 1.92).

The results of the Games-Howell test performed for digital auditory stimuli and
the frequency with which the respondents shop for skincare products in-store
indicates a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between two groups,
namely group 1 (very often, mean = 2.10, Table 6.43) and group 3 (seldom,
mean = 2.40, Table 6.43), where p = 0.00 (EF392) as well as between group
2 (frequently, mean = 2.05, Table 6.43) and group 3 (seldom, mean = 2.40,
Table 6.43), where p = 0.00 (EF393). Again, it can be deduced that the
significant difference in opinions is between those respondents who indicated
that they purchase skincare products online more and less often (EF394). In
addition, it can be concluded that consumers who shop online for skincare
products more often are more strongly influenced by auditory stimuli than
those who shop online for skincare products less often (EF395). As auditory
stimuli are one of the primary sources of sensory branding used online
(Chapter 3: Section 3.4), consumers who shop mostly online may be more
influenced by it as there is a lack of other sensory stimuli being presented.
Furthermore, those consumers who opt to shop online more often may not be
motivated to shop by other sensory stimuli, such as touch, explaining their
preference for online shopping.

Considering the ANOVAs and Tukey tests performed between the frequency
with which respondents purchase skincare products online and the variables
of the study, the following conclusions can be drawn. For reference purposes
abbreviation EF is used.

271
• Through the calculation of ANOVAs between the frequency with which the
respondents purchase skincare products online and the variables of this
study, it can be concluded that the different groups of respondents had
differing views regarding traditional auditory stimuli as well as traditional
tactile stimuli (EF378).
• It was concluded from the results of the Tukey Test performed for both
traditional auditory and tactile stimuli and the frequency with which the
respondents purchase skincare products online that the statistically
significant differences between answers were all between respondents
who purchase skincare products online more often and those who
purchase less often (EF382 & EF385).
• With regard to traditional auditory stimuli, the significant differences in the
opinions of the respondents were linked to the fact that consumers who
shop online are motivated by different sensory stimuli than those who opt
to shop in-store. Furthermore, it was deduced that respondents who shop
online more frequently indicated that they felt more strongly about the
positive influence that traditional auditory stimuli have on their experience
(EF383), which was attributed to the fact that consumers who value
auditory stimuli when shopping in-store, will also value it when shopping
online as many of the same techniques are utilised in both shopping
avenues.
• With regard to traditional tactile stimuli, the significant differences in the
opinions of the respondents were attributed to the fact that those
respondents who only seldom shop online for skincare products are
shopping mostly in-store due to their level of need for touch (NFT), as they
exhibited the lowest mean for traditional tactile stimuli (1.52).
• Through the performance of the Welch Robust test between the frequency
with which the respondents purchase skincare products online and the
variables of this study, it can be concluded that the different groups of
respondents had differing views regarding brand loyalty as well as digital
auditory stimuli (EF388). With reference to brand loyalty, this was linked to
the fact that brand loyalty has been found to be decreasing. The difference
in opinions relating to digital auditory stimuli was linked to how indifferent

272
 respondents were towards the influence that brand jingles have on their
experience.
• It was concluded from the results of the results of the Games-Howell test
performed for both traditional brand loyalty and digital auditory stimuli and
the frequency with which the respondents purchase skincare products
online, that the statistically significant differences between answers were
with those respondents who purchase skincare products online more often
and those who purchase less often (EF391 & EF394).
• Further deduced was the fact that respondents who very often purchase
skincare products online agreed the most strongly with the statements
relating to brand loyalty (EF395), which was attributed to consumers who
are loyal to a brand purchasing more regularly.
• Lastly, the significant difference in answers with reference to digital
auditory stimuli were attributed to the fact that consumers who shop mostly
online may be more influenced by the stimuli as there is a lack of other
sensory stimuli being presented. Furthermore, those consumers who opt
to shop online more often may be influenced by different stimuli than those
who opt to shop in-store.

6.7 SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESES AND RELATED STATISTICAL TESTS

PERFORMED TO SUPPORT THE HYPOTHESES

A summary of the hypothesis testing is depicted in Table 6.46.

TABLE 6.46
SUMMARY OF THE HYPOTHESIS TESTING
Statistical test

SEM/Primary
Pearson’ s
Hypothesis

correlation
Evidence

Evidence
P > 0.30

P < 0.10
Status

Model
#

Traditional sensory branding strategies

Pearson’s There is a statistically There is a significant
There is a significant
correlation weak correlation between relationship between
relationship between
coefficients; traditional sensory traditional sensory
traditional sensory Supported 0.19 <0.01
H1

SEM model; branding strategies and branding and brand

branding strategies
Primary brand loyalty. loyalty.
and brand loyalty.
model

273
 Statistical test

SEM/Primary
Pearson’ s
Hypothesis

correlation
Evidence

Evidence
P > 0.30

P < 0.10
Status

Model
#

Pearson’s
There is a significant There is a statistically There is no significant
correlation
relationship between weak correlation between relationship between
coefficients;
H1a

traditional visual Rejected traditional visual stimuli 0.17 traditional visual 0.48
SEM model;
sensory strategies and brand loyalty. stimuli and brand
Primary
and brand loyalty. loyalty.
model
Pearson’s There is a statistically There is no significant
There is a significant
correlation very weak correlation relationship between
relationship between
coefficients; between traditional traditional auditory
H1b

traditional auditory Rejected 0.08 0.21

SEM model; auditory stimuli and stimuli and brand
sensory strategies
Primary brand loyalty. loyalty.
and brand loyalty.
model
Pearson’s There is a significant
There is a significant There is a statistically
correlation relationship between
relationship between weak correlation between
coefficients; traditional olfactory
H1c

traditional olfactory Supported traditional olfactory and 0.13 0.10

SEM model; stimuli and brand
sensory strategies brand loyalty.
Primary loyalty.
and brand loyalty.
model
Pearson’s There is a significant
There is a significant There is a statistically
correlation relationship between
relationship between weak correlation between
coefficients; traditional tactile
H1d

traditional tactile Supported traditional tactile stimuli 0.28 <0.01

SEM model; stimuli and brand
sensory strategies and brand loyalty.
Primary loyalty.
and brand loyalty.
model
Digital sensory branding strategies
Pearson’s There is a statistically There is a significant
There is a significant
correlation weak correlation between relationship between
relationship between
coefficients; digital sensory branding digital sensory
digital sensory Supported 0.19 <0.01
H2

SEM model; strategies and brand branding and brand

branding strategies
Primary loyalty. loyalty.
and brand loyalty.
model
Pearson’s There is a significant
There is a significant There is a statistically
correlation relationship between
relationship between weak correlation between
coefficients; digital visual stimuli
H2a

digital visual sensory Supported digital visual stimuli and 0.20 0.07
SEM model; and brand loyalty.
strategies and brand brand loyalty.
Primary
loyalty.
model
Pearson’s There is no significant
There is a significant There is a statistically
correlation relationship between
relationship between very weak correlation
coefficients; digital auditory stimuli
H2b

digital auditory Rejected between digital auditory 0.08 0.99

SEM Model; and brand loyalty.
sensory strategies stimuli and brand loyalty.
Primary
and brand loyalty.
Model
Pearson’s There is a significant
There is a significant There is a statistically
correlation relationship between
relationship between weak correlation between
coefficients; digital olfactory stimuli
H2c

digital olfactory Supported digital olfactory stimuli 0.16 0.08

SEM model; and brand loyalty.
sensory strategies and brand loyalty.
Primary
and brand loyalty.
model
Pearson’s There is a significant
There is a significant There is a statistically relationship between
correlation
relationship between weak correlation between digital tactile stimuli
coefficients;
H2d

digital tactile sensory Supported digital tactile stimuli and 0.22 and brand loyalty. <0.01
SEM model;
strategies and brand brand loyalty.
Primary
loyalty.
model

274
The section that follows provides a summary of and conclusion to Chapter 6
of this study.

6.8 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS

In this conclusion, the empirical results relevant to this study are indicated with
the abbreviation “EF” and the number of the finding. The following conclusions
can be drawn regarding the major results of the study.

• The high Cronbach Alpha values of the variables of this study concluded
that the measuring instrument was reliable and valid (EF1).
• The demographic profile of the respondents was reported in Section 6.4
and was graphically depicted in Figures 6.1 to 6.4 (EF2 – EF6).
• The results associated with traditional visual stimuli were reported on in
Section 6.5.1.1 (EF7 – EF14).
• The results associated with traditional auditory stimuli were reported on
in Section 6.5.1.2 (EF15 – EF22).
• The results associated with traditional olfactory stimuli were reported on
in Section 6.5.1.3 (EF23 – EF29).
• The results associated with traditional tactile stimuli were reported on in
Section 6.5.1.4 (EF30 – EF33).
• The results associated with digital visual stimuli were reported on in
Section 6.5.2.1 (EF34 – EF39).
• The results associated with digital auditory stimuli were reported on in
Section 6.5.2.2 (EF40 – EF44).
• The results associated with digital olfactory stimuli were reported on in
Section 6.5.2.3 (EF45 – EF51).
• The results associated with digital tactile stimuli were reported on in
Section 6.5.2.4 (EF52 – EF59).
• The results associated with brand loyalty were reported on in Section
6.5.3 (EF60 – EF72).
• The results of the descriptive statistics of second order factors of the
variables were reported in Section 6.6.1 (EF73 – EF82).

275
• Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) for traditional sensory branding was
presented in Section 6.6.2.1 (EF83 – EF91).
• Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) for digital sensory branding was
presented in Section 6.6.2.2 (EF92 – EF99).
• The SEM model for traditional sensory branding and brand loyalty was
presented in Section 6.6.3.1 (EF100 – EF105).
• The SEM model for digital sensory branding and brand loyalty was
presented in Section 6.6.3.2 (EF106 – EF111).
• The full SEM model for both traditional and digital sensory branding and
brand loyalty was presented in Section 6.6.3.3 (EF112 – EF120).
• The Primary Model for traditional sensory stimuli was presented in
Section 6.6.4.1 (EF123 & EF124).
• The Primary Model for digital sensory stimuli was presented in Section
6.6.4.2 (EF125 & EF127).
• The full Primary Model for both traditional and digital sensory stimuli was
presented in Section 6.6.4.3 (EF128 & EF133).
• The results from the SEM and Primary Models conducted were utilised
to test the hypotheses of the study relating to traditional sensory branding
in Section 6.6.5 (EF134 – EF138).
• The results from the SEM and Primary Models conducted were utilised
to test the hypotheses of the study relating to digital sensory branding in
Section 6.6.6 (EF139 – EF143).
• Pearson’s correlations between the independent variables, and the sub-
variables thereof (EF144 – EF155), as well as the correlations between
the variables and sub-variables and the dependent variable (EF156 –
EF158), were presented in Section 6.6.7.
• The results from the Chi-Square Test of Association (EF159) as well as
the cross tabulation (EF160 – EF163) relating to the respondents’ age
and their average monthly budget for skincare products is presented in
Section 6.6.8.
• The results of the ANOVA tests performed between the different gender
groups and the variables of this study were presented and concluded on
in Section 6.6.9.1 (EF164 – EF181).

276
• The results of the ANOVA tests (EF199 – EF201) and the Tukey tests
(EF202 – EF211) as well as Welch Robust tests (EF212 – EF220) and
Games-Howell tests (EF221 – EF257) performed for the different age
groups and the variables were presented in Section 6.6.9.2.
• The results of Welch Robust tests (EF276 – EF285) and Games-Howell
tests (EF286 – EF323) performed for the average monthly budget for
skincare products and the variables were presented in Section 6.6.9.3.
• The results of the ANOVA tests (EF340 – EF344) and the Tukey tests
(EF345 – EF354), as well as Welch Robust test (EF355 & EF356) and
Games-Howell test (EF357 – EF359), performed for the frequency with
which the respondents shop for skincare products in-store and the
variables were presented in Section 6.6.9.4.
• The results of the ANOVA tests (EF376 – EF379) and the Tukey tests
(EF380 – EF385), as well as Welch Robust tests (EF386 & EF388) and
the Games-Howell tests (EF389 – EF395), performed for the frequency
with which the respondents shop for skincare products online and the
variables were presented in Section 6.6.9.5.
• A summary relating to whether the hypotheses of this study were
supported or not is presented in Section 6.7 (Table 6.46). This included
the various statistical techniques utilised as well as the specific evidence
consulted in the testing of the hypotheses of this study.

In Chapter 7, a synopsis is provided and the results from the empirical section
of this study are utilised in collaboration with the literature findings, to draw
conclusions. From the conclusions drawn, recommendations could be
developed appropriate for the stakeholders of the study. Structural constraints
of the study as well as recommendations for future areas of study conclude
the chapter.

277
 CHAPTER 7
SYNOPSIS, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 INTRODUCTION

In Chapter 6, the raw data collected on the topic of this study, namely “desired
sensory branding strategies in-store versus online: The skincare industry”,
was coded, analysed and then presented in the form of graphs and tables from
where significant results were discussed.

The problem statement of this study surrounds the fact that consumers are
migrating to online shopping platforms over traditional in-store purchasing and
are expecting more than just functionality from their skincare products. To
meet the expectations of consumers, it has become common practice for
skincare businesses to make use of sensory marketing in-stores, however,
with the rise of technology and online shopping, it is essential for skincare
brands to extend these strategies to their online presence. It can therefore be
deduced that the use of digital sensory branding by skincare brands is an
important concern and more research is needed.

Chapter 7 concludes the study by summarising the foregoing chapters which

includes an explanation on how the primary, secondary and methodological
objectives were accomplished through conducting this study. Following the
synopsis, conclusions, recommendations and practical implications are
provided relating to the conceptual and empirical results of this study. The final
sections of the chapter detail the contributions, limitations and further
suggested research in the field of sensory marketing.

7.2 SUMMARY OF THE RESEARCH

The secondary research consists of a literature review on brand experience

and brand loyalty (Chapter 2), as well as a literature review on sensory
branding strategies, which included visual, auditory, olfactory, tactile and taste
sensory stimuli as the independent variables of this study (Chapter 3). The

278
conceptual model is fortified by the literature reviews of this study and was
presented in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 outlines the methodology used to conduct
the study and, in Chapter 6, the empirical results collected were presented and
then used to either reject the null hypothesis or accept the alternative
hypothesis formulated in Chapter 4.

Chapter 1 of the study commenced by providing a brief background to the

study (Section 1.1). This was followed by an explanation of the problem
statement, which this study addressed (Section 1.2). Hereafter, the aim of the
study, which was to conduct an investigation into what sensory experiences
customers want to have when purchasing skincare products in-store versus
online, was given (Section 1.3). To accomplish this aim, the primary objective
was set to investigate what sensory experiences customers want to have
when purchasing skincare products in-store versus online (Chapter 1: Section
1.3.1). Additionally, a collection of secondary objectives were set (Chapter 1:
Section 1.3.2), as listed below.

Secondary objectives of this study were to:

SO1: determine how multi-sensory branding lends support to the creation of

positive and memorable brand experiences for consumers, thereby
increasing their brand loyalty;
SO2: explore the possible traditional and digital sensory branding strategies that
brands can utilise;
SO3: investigate the relationship between the various traditional sensory branding
strategies and brand loyalty;
SO4: investigate the relationship between the various digital sensory branding
strategies and brand loyalty, and
SO5: investigate consumer loyalty in the skincare industry.

In order to achieve the primary and secondary objectives of this study, a

number of methodological objectives were set (Chapter 1: Section 1.3.3),
namely to:

279
 MO1: conduct a comprehensive literature review into the relationship that exists
between the various traditional and digital sensory branding strategies and
brand experience, and the relationship between brand experience and brand
loyalty, with specific relation to skincare products;
MO2: develop a conceptual model of the identified variables’ relationship with
brand loyalty;
MO3: determine the appropriate research design and methodology to empirically
test the relationships as proposed in the conceptual model;
MO4: undertake an empirical investigation by means of an online questionnaire to
test the relationship between the identified independent variables and
dependent variable;
MO5: analyse data through various statistical methods; and
MO6: provide recommendations, based on the results obtained in the empirical
research of this study, to skincare brands who have both online and offline
presences.

The chapter then provided a brief literature review, which focused on brand
experience, brand loyalty and sensory branding (Section 1.4). Following this,
the conceptual model of this study was introduced (Section 1.5: Figure 1.2),
as well as the relevant hypotheses (Table 1.1). Hereafter, the research
methodology (Chapter 1: Section 1.6) employed to conduct the study was
expanded upon as were the statistical methods utilised to analyse the primary
data collected (Chapter 1: Section 1.6.11). The final sections of Chapter 1
addressed the delimitations of the study (Section 1.7), ethical considerations
(Section 1.8), contributions (Section 1.9), definitions of key concepts related
to the study (Section 1.10) and the outline (Section 1.11) of the study.

Chapter 2 of this study provided a literature review relating to the concept of

brand experience. Modern market places have become heavily saturated,
leaving retailers with the task of differentiating themselves in the minds of
consumers (Chapter 2: Section 2.2). Brand differentiation is directly linked to
the ability to build a brand that is notable from the perspective of a target
audience (Blankson 2016:162; Davcik & Sharma 2015:766; Paunovic 2018).
The importance of creating a strong and successful brand is that it will make

280
the product offering preferential to customers, thereby achieving a competitive
advantage and aid in building brand equity (Chapter 2: Section 2.2.1). It can
further be concluded that from a marketing perspective, brand equity
constitutes brand awareness (Chapter 2: Section 2.2.2.1), brand association
(Chapter 2: Section 2.2.2.2), perceived quality (Chapter 2: Section 2.2.2.3)
and brand loyalty (Chapter 2: Section 2.2.2.4). Brand loyalty is of significance
as it can be utilised to increase profit margins as well as gain competitive
advantage (Aaker 1991:39; Beig & Nika 2019:5; Narteh 2018:385), however,
there is a clear decrease in brand loyalty by consumers, attributed to the
increase in e-commerce (Robertson 2020). To counteract this, brands should
place emphasis on creating memorable brand experiences, as they are an
indicator of sustainable competitive advantage (Chapter 2: Section 2.2.5) and
are directly linked to brand loyalty (Chapter 2: Section 2.2.11). Schmitt
(1999:61) proposed an experiential marketing framework, which categorises
experiences into five dimensions, namely feel-related experiences, cognitive
experiences, act experiences, relate experiences and sensory experiences. In
this study, the influence of brand experience, specifically sensory experiences
(Chapter 3), on brand loyalty was focused on, as sensory experience has been
highlighted as one of the predominant dimensions of experience (Chapter 2:
Section 2.2.10) and brand loyalty as the predominant determinant of brand
equity (Chapter 2: Section 2.2.2.4).

In Chapter 3, the literature review relating to sensory branding strategies and

the skincare industry was presented. Despite the effects of economic
depressions, the global beauty industry has been exceptionally resilient
(Chapter 3: Section 3.2) and within that, the skincare industry is expecting its
largest growth rate from 2019 – 2025 (Roberts 2021). Due to the rapid growth
rate and competitiveness of the skincare industry, competitors are under a
great deal of pressure to be innovative, which has only been magnified by the
effects of the global COVID-19 pandemic (Chapter 3: Section 3.2.1). Prior to
the global COVID-19 pandemic, most sales of beauty products were in-store;
however, in 2020, it was recorded that more consumers were moving to online
shopping (Gerstell et al 2020:2). The migration of consumers towards online
shopping has led to consumers having higher expectations of their personal

281
care products (Cosmetics Business 2020) (Chapter 3: Section 3.2.2).
Moreover, brands are relying more on how their products make the consumer
feel to differentiate themselves in the market (Chapter 2: Section 2.2.1). One
means which allows brands to build relationships with consumers, and
therefore differentiate themselves, by combining both logic and emotion to
generate desirable responses by consumers to the product offering is
experiential marketing (Beig & Nika 2022:157; Le et al 2018:220; Suardi
2019:15) (Chapter 2: Section 2.2.4), which includes the creation of
memorable brand experiences (Chapter 2: Section 2.2.5). However, within the
skincare industry, regardless of the purchase being in-store or online, sensory
experiences have been highlighted as being of paramount importance
(Cosmetics Business 2020; Whitehouse 2017). It was therefore concluded that
both traditional (Chapter 3: Section 3.3) and digital (Chapter 3: Section 3.4)
sensory branding strategies were of concern to the skincare industry. From
this deduction, visual (Chapter 3: Section 3.5), auditory (Chapter 3: Section
3.6), olfactory (Chapter 3: Section 3.7), tactile (Chapter 3: Section 3.8) and
taste (Chapter 3: Section 3.9) sensory branding were introduced and
numerous specific traditional sensory strategies (Chapter 3: Sections 3.5.1;
3.6.1; 3.7.1; 3.8.1; 3.9.1) as well as digital sensory strategies (Chapter 3:
Sections 3.5.2; 3.6.2; 3.7.2; 3.8.2; 3.9.2) were discussed. It should be noted
however, that, for the purpose of this study, taste stimuli were excluded, as it
was found to have no relevance to the skincare industry (Chapter 3: Section
3.12).

Chapter 4 of this study introduced the concepts of a theoretical framework

(Section 4.2.1) and a conceptual framework (Section 4.2.2). Following this,
previously existing theories, models and frameworks upon which the
conceptual model pertaining to this study was built, were highlighted and
discussed. The first theory addressed was the Consumer Behaviour Theory
(Chapter 4: Section 4.3.1), which included the Buyer Behaviour Model
(Section 4.3.1.1), the Consumer Decision Model (Section 4.3.1.2), the Theory
of Reasoned Action Model as well as the Theory of Planned Behaviour Model
(Section 4.3.1.3) and the Technology Acceptance Model (Section 4.3.1.4).
The second theory discussed was the Experience Economy Theory (Chapter

282
4: Section 4.3.2), which included the Conceptual Model of Experience
Marketing (Section 4.3.2.1), a Model of Sensory Marketing (Section 4.3.2.2)
and a Model for Multi-Sensory Experience and Shopping Behaviour (Section
4.3.2.3). Lastly, the Brand Equity Theory is discussed (Chapter 4: Section
4.3.3), which included a Model of the Influence of Brand Experience on Brand
Equity (Section 4.3.3.1). Hereafter, the chapter introduced the conceptual
model of the study, offering a solution to the research question pertaining to:
what are the different sensory marketing strategies desired by consumers
when purchasing skincare products in-store versus online? (Chapter 4:
Section 4.4). The conceptual model included the independent and dependent
variables of this study (Chapter 4: Section 4.4: Figure 4.11), from which the
hypotheses of the study were formulated (Chapter 4: Section 4.4: Table 4.1).
The independent variables were highlighted, which constituted traditional
sensory branding (Chapter 4: Section 4.5.2) and digital sensory branding
(Chapter 4: Section 4.5.3), both of which consisted of four sub-variables,
namely visual (Chapter 4: Section 4.5.4), auditory (Chapter 4: Section 4.5.5),
olfactory (Chapter 4: Section 4.5.6) and tactile (Chapter 4: Section 4.5.7)
sensory branding strategies. The final section of Chapter 4 discussed the
dependent variable, namely brand loyalty (Section 4.6).

Chapter 5 focussed on the research methodology employed to conduct this

study. It was decided that a positivistic research paradigm (Chapter 5: Section
5.2) and a descriptive research design (Chapter 5: Section 5.3) would be
utilised as they were appropriate for quantitative research. Non-probability
sampling was selected as the sampling procedure and convenience sampling
as the specific technique (Chapter 5: Section 5.4.2). Furthermore, it was
identified that the target population of this study constituted consumers who
had purchased skincare products from both brick-and-mortar stores as well as
via digital platforms (Chapter 5: Section 5.4.2) and the final sample consisted
of 321 respondents, which equated to a completion rate of 86.3% (Chapter 5:
Section 5.4.3). It was detailed that the primary data would be collected via an
online survey (Chapter 5: Section 5.5.1) and a web-based, self-administered
questionnaire would be utilised as the specific measuring instrument (Chapter
5: Section 5.5.2). It was further discussed in Chapter 5 that Confirmatory

283
Factor Analysis (CFA) were conducted to prove construct validity of the
questionnaire (Chapter 5: Section 5.5.6), while Cronbach alpha coefficients
were utilised to test reliability (Chapter 5: Section 5.5.5). It was also detailed
within Chapter 5 that both descriptive and inferential statistics were calculated
to analyse and interpret the data collected (Chapter 5: Section 5.5.9) and the
chapter concluded by listing the problems encountered during the completion
of the study (Chapter 5: Section 5.6).

Chapter 6 of this study was dedicated to reporting the primary data collected.
Section 6.2.1 of Chapter 6 provided the response rate to the questionnaire and
Section 6.2.2 provided an in-depth discussion on the internal reliability of the
data collection instrument used in this study. Following this, the descriptive
statistics calculated for the study were addressed (Chapter 6: Section 6.3),
which included the demographic details of the respondent (Chapter 6: Section
6.4) and the descriptive statistics calculated relating to each variable of the
study (Chapter 6: Section 6.5). The descriptive statistics calculated for the
variables of the study constituted the measures of central tendency, standard
deviation and skewness of the data sets. The sections of Chapter 6 that
followed introduced the inferential statistics used in this study to draw
conclusions from the data collected. This included:

• CFA calculations, which allowed the researcher to validate the measuring

instrument (Chapter 6: Section 6.6.2);
• SEM Models, which allowed the researcher to determine whether or not a
relationship existed between the independent variables of the study
(traditional and digital sensory branding) and the dependent variable
(brand loyalty) (Chapter 6: Section 6.6.3);
• Primary Models, which allowed the researcher to determine whether or not
a relationship existed between the sub-variables of the study (traditional
and digital visual, auditory, olfactory and tactile stimuli) and the dependent
variable (brand loyalty) (Chapter 6: Section 6.6.4);
• Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient, which was calculated to identify
relationships between the various variables for the study and to test the
hypotheses formulated (Chapter 6: Section 6.6.7);

284
• Chi-Square Test of Association, which was used to identify the association
between the respondents’ age and their average monthly budget for
skincare (Chapter 6: Section 6.6.8), which was done as it was indicated in
the literature review that consumer spending on skincare increases as they
get older (Chapter 3: Section 3.2.1). Furthermore, there was differences in
opinions between respondents who had higher and lower monthly budgets
for skincare (Chapter 6: Section 6.6.9.3) and due to the afore-mentioned
literature finding, the researcher wanted to establish whether the
differences could be linked to the age of the respondents;
• ANOVAs and Welch Robust, which were used to detect significant
differences between group means (Chapter 6: Section 6.6.9.2 – 6.6.9.5);
• Tukey Test and Games-Howell, which were used to identify between which
specific groups the significant differences in means detected through the
calculation of ANOVA’s were (Chapter 6: Section 6.6.9.2 – 6.6.9.5); and
• Cohen’s d, which was used to quantify the relationships between two
groups, as determined through the calculation of ANOVA (Chapter 6:
Section 6.6.9.1).

MO4 was achieved through the statistical analysis conducted on the empirical
results of this study. Preluding the items referring to the variables, the
respondents were asked to report on their demographic factors.

7.3 MAIN RESULTS: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS

The demographic details of respondents collected for the purpose of this study
included the gender and age group of the respondents, their average monthly
budget for skincare products and the frequency with which they purchase
skincare products in-store as well as online. Throughout this section, the
empirical result (EF) presented in Chapter 6 are linked to the relevant literature
findings (LF) discussed in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3.

285
7.3.1 Gender of respondents

With regards to the gender of respondents, it was determined that the majority
were female (Chapter 6: Section 6.4) (EF2). This result supports the claim by
Djordjevic (2021) that the skincare industry’s main target market is women
(Chapter 3: Section 3.2) (LF101).

7.3.2 Age of respondents

Although the majority of respondents in this study were over the age of 45,
there was a number of respondents who were between the ages of 18 years
and 34 years (EF3). This contradicts the findings of Djurovic (2021) and Global
Cosmetic Industry (2021) who state that the predominant target group in the
skincare industry are consumers between the ages of 18 years and 30 years
(Chapter 3: Section 3.2) (LF102). However, as the questionnaire was online,
one cannot generalise this result to be the predominant target group for South
Africa, which may be the cause of the discrepancy.

7.3.3 Average monthly budget for skincare products

Literature suggests, on average, consumers spend between R200 and R800

per month on skincare in South Africa (Rootman et al 2019:452; Stiehler &
Jordaan 2019:75) (Chapter 3: Section 3.2.1) (LF111). This is supported by the
results of this study that the majority of respondents spent between R50 and
R1000 per month on skincare (EF4). However, there were a substantial
number of respondents who spent upwards of R1000 per month on skincare
(EF4). Furthermore, as discussed in Section 7.3.2, the majority of respondents
in this study were over the age of 45 (EF3) and it was additionally found that
there is a significant association between the age of respondents and their
average monthly budget for skincare (EF159); as the age category of the
respondent increased, so did their average monthly budget for skincare
(EF163). This empirical result is in line with the literature finding that consumer
spending on skincare increases as they get older (Bowling 2020) (Chapter 3:

286
Section 3.2.1) (LF112), which would also explain why a substantial number of
respondents in this study had a budget of upwards of R1000 per month.

7.3.4 Frequency of purchasing skincare products in-store and online

From the results of this study, it was found that, in general, respondents bought
more frequently from brick-and-mortar stores than they did from online
platforms (EF5 & EF6). This result supports that of Gerstell et al (2020:3) who
state that while there has been an estimated 20% - 30% growth in recorded
online sales of skincare products, online sales do not exceed in-store
purchases (Chapter 3: Section 3.2.2) (LF109). With specific reference to the
skincare industry, the result that consumers shop more frequently from brick-
and-mortar stores than they do from online platforms (EF5 & EF6) may also
be linked to the fact that many consumers are skeptical when shopping online
for these types of products (Beck & Jensen 2019) (Chapter 3: Section 3.2.2)
(LF118). Wylie (2018) adds that consumers are especially partial to in-store
shopping or browsing when looking for a new product with reference to the
beauty industry (Chapter 3: Section 3.2.2) (LF119).

7.4 MAIN RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM SECONDARY

OBJECTIVES

Throughout this section, the empirical result (EF) presented in Chapter 6 are
linked to the relevant literature findings (LF) discussed in Chapter 2 and
Chapter 3. Both the empirical results and literature findings aided in achieving
the secondary objectives of this study (SO1 – SO5) (Chapter 1: Section 1.4.2).
Recommendations are provided to the parties of this study (skincare
businesses), based on the discussed literature findings and empirical results.
Furthermore, within this section, the relevant hypotheses are linked to the
secondary objectives.

287
7.4.1 Secondary objective 1: The use of multi-sensory branding to create
memorable brand experiences and enhance brand loyalty

The first secondary objective of the study was:

SO1: To determine how multi-sensory branding lends support to the creation of

positive and memorable brand experiences for consumers, thereby increasing
their brand loyalty

The literature findings (LF) have reference to Chapter 2.

In Chapter 2, a review of the extant literature was provided, from which it was
established that creating a strong memorable brand is of the utmost
importance as it allows for a differential advantage in the market (LF7).
Furthermore, it was determined that consumers are looking for consumer-
centric experiences (LF61), which implies that emphasis should be placed on
creating memorable brand experiences (LF60). One of the strongest
dimensions for creating memorable brand experiences is through the
utilisation of sensory experiences (LF86).

Individuals will have certain emotional and cognitive reactions based on their
perceptions of the sensory stimuli of a product or brand (LF88), which in turn
influence their overall attitudes, learning and behaviour (LF89). It has
additionally been noted that multi-sensory experiences are the most effective
use of sensory marketing and branding when creating a memorable brand
(LF90) as they appeal to a large number of different consumers (LF87). The
effectiveness of making use of multi-sensory branding can be explained with
the aid of the Gestalt theory, which in a marketing context explains that various
sensory stimuli interact to create memorable brand experiences (LF92). It can
therefore be concluded that sensory marketing should be utilised to create
positive and memorable brand experiences (LF93), and due to the fact that
brand experience is directly related to brand loyalty (LF94), enhances brand
equity (LF95).

288
7.4.2 Secondary objective 2: Traditional and digital sensory branding
strategies

The second secondary objective of the study was:

SO2: Explore the possible traditional and digital sensory branding strategies
that brands can utilise

The literature findings (LF) have reference to Chapter 3.

Within Chapter 3 of this study, it was discussed that there are numerous
advantages to implementing sensory strategies, including building brand
associations (LF135); forming emotional bonds with consumers (LF136);
enhancing the familiarity that consumers have with the brand (LF137);
generating positive word of mouth (LF138); and increasing the perceived
quality and value of a product, thereby allowing for higher pricing (LF139).
These findings apply to both brick and mortar stores as well as digital stores
and when an individual makes use of online or digital platforms to
communicate or exchange information, it should be considered a multi-
sensory experience (LF141). Specific traditional sensory branding strategies
include:

• visual strategies (Chapter 3: Section 3.5.1) - colours used by a brand

(LF174), logo design (LF175), packaging design (LF176), lighting in the
store (LF177), the cleanliness of the store (LF178), the design and layout
of the store itself (LF179), visible signage and display features (LF180) and
the uniform of staff (LF181);
• auditory strategies (Chapter 3: Section 3.6.1) - music in stores (LF212), the
jingles used by a brand (LF213), the sound or pronunciation of the brand’s
name (LF214) and sounds associated with using the physical product itself
(LF215);
• olfactory strategies (Chapter 3: Section 3.7.1) – the smell of the product
itself (LF238), signature fragrances (LF239), nebulization technology, such

289
 as aerosols or air vents (LF240) and the fragrance of staff in an
establishment (LF241);
• tactile strategies (Chapter 3: Section 3.8.1) - touching of a product or
product packaging (LF262), the temperature of a store (LF263), different
textured paper in advertising (LF264), attention grabbing in store displays
(LF265), tester samples of the product (LF266) and the use of unusual
packaging (LF267); and
• taste strategies (Chapter 3: Section 3.9.1) – taste samples (LF284),
incorporation of taste into services (LF285), aesthetic taste used
throughout all the different industries (LF286) and aroma utilised by
businesses to create taste experiences (LF287).

Specific digital sensory branding strategies include:

• visual strategies (Chapter 3: Section 3.5.2) - digital photos (LF183), movies

and trailers (LF184), colours used by a brand (LF185), logo design (LF186)
and packaging design (LF187), the layout (LF188) and user friendliness of
websites (LF189), colour as backgrounds (LF190), 3D imaging (LF191),
virtual reality environments (VR) and virtual try-ons (VTO), or augmented
interactive (AI/AR) technology (LF192);
• auditory strategies (Chapter 3: Section 3.6.2) - traditional in-store auditory
strategies used are also used online, (LF216) as well as radio or television
(LF217), video adverts (LF218) and background music (LF219);
• olfactory strategies (Chapter 3: Section 3.7.2) - there is no technology that
can replace physical smell online (LF242), use of imagery and descriptive
words (LF243), the distribution of “scratch-and-sniff” cards (LF244),
researchers are continuously working on developing multisensory devices
that will enable olfactory stimuli to be delivered to consumers via the
internet (LF245);
• tactile strategies (Chapter 3: Section 3.8.2) - the use of high-quality images
and descriptive words (LF267), the option to have the item delivered, and
then returned within a certain amount of time (LF268), incorporating other
human senses to stimulate deep rooted associations that people have to

290
 communicate feel (LF269), consumers touching their mouse or
touchscreens (LF270) and numerous technological developments have
been made to try and improve the haptic interactions that individuals have
when shopping online (LF271); and
• taste strategies (Chapter 3: Section 3.9.2) – aesthetic taste in the digital
market space refers to how aesthetically pleasing a consumer finds a
brand’s website and social media presences (LF288), gastronomic taste
is, to date, impossible to replicate virtually (LF289), however, AR
technology is being researched to try and bridge this gap online (LF290).

7.4.3 Secondary objective 3: The relationship between traditional sensory

branding and brand loyalty

The third secondary objective of the study was:

SO3: To investigate the relationship between the various traditional sensory

branding strategies and brand loyalty

In the sections that follow, the empirical results (EF) relate to Chapter 6 and
the literature findings (LF) have reference to Chapter 2 and Chapter 3.

7.4.4 The influence of traditional sensory branding on brand loyalty

As discussed in Chapter 6: Section 6.6.2.1, CFA was computed to test the

measurement models relating to traditional sensory branding. From the
calculation of CFA for traditional sensory branding, it was established that no
items had to be removed (EF83) and that a number of MI had to be applied
(EF84 – EF89). Thereafter, it was concluded that the four-factor model
(traditional sensory branding) yielded a good fit (EF91), as determined by the
model fit information for traditional visual stimuli (CMIN = 2.65; SRMR = 0.02;
CFI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.07), auditory stimuli (CMIN = 2.10; SRMR = 0.01; CFI
= 1.00; RMSEA = 0.06), olfactory stimuli (CMIN = 3.87; SRMR = 0.03; CFI =
0.98; RMSEA = 0.10) and tactile stimuli (CMIN = 2.24; SRMR = 0.03; CFI =
0.99; RMSEA = 0.06). Moreover, from the full SEM model constructed
(Chapter 6: Section 6.6.3.3), it was established that there was a significant (p

291
< 0.05) relationship between traditional sensory branding (p = 0.01) and brand
loyalty (EF113). The following hypothesis is linked to traditional sensory
branding:

H1: There is a significant relationship between traditional sensory branding

strategies and brand loyalty. From the SEM model constructed in Section
6.6.3.1, Table 6.17, it was found that there was a significant (p < 0.05)
relationship between traditional sensory branding and brand loyalty, where p
= 0.01 (EF113). However, the relationship is relatively weak, as determined by
a standardized regression weight estimate of 0.20 (EF114) (Table 6.21).

Hypothesis H1 is supported (EF134)

The sections that follow elaborate on the main results relating to the four sub-
variables that constitute the variable traditional sensory branding.

7.4.4.1 Main empirical and literature results relating to the influence of

traditional visual stimuli on brand loyalty

The descriptive results that relate to the influence of traditional visual stimuli
(Chapter 6: Table 6.3) indicate that, in general, respondents agreed to a large
extent that all factors in this sub-section, constituting traditional visual stimuli,
had a positive influence on their experience of shopping for skincare products
in-stores (EF9), implying that all factors represent desirable sensory branding
strategies for consumers who shop in-store for skincare products (EF10). It
was further deduced that the overall aesthetic ambiance of the store is an
important consideration when considering the experience of shopping for
skincare products in-store (EF11), which proves the statement by Bitner
(1992:66) that visual cues are a segment of ambient conditions (LF164)
(Chapter 3: Section 3.5). This conclusion was further supported by Turley and
Milliman (2000:194) and Bitner (1992:66), who state that visual cues include
layout and design (LF163) (Chapter 3: Section 3.5). Additionally, as seen in
Chapter 3: Section 3.5, Cowen-Elstner (2018:23) and Galande (2019:48),
along with Huang and Jen (2020:9904), state that colours influence consumer

292
behaviour (LF165) and finally, it was established that lighting is important in
retail outlets (Cowen-Elstner 2018:25; Hulten 2020:70) (LF170).

Cowen-Elstner (2018:24) and Foroudi and Palazzo (2019:136), as well as

Hulten (2020:59), recognise that packaging design and colour (LF174 &
LF176), as well as display features (LF180), are effective sensory marketing
strategies (Chapter 3: Section 3.5.1). These factors are supported by this
study, where it was concluded that eye catching or aesthetically pleasing
packaging has an influence on purchasing behaviour (EF12) as does the
placement of the product on the shelf (EF13). The following are the main
conclusions relating to traditional visual stimuli as a result of the inferential
statistics calculated.

It was established from the results of this study that a strong correlation exists
between traditional visual stimuli and digital visual stimuli (0.68) (Chapter 6:
Table 6.26). This is understandable as both represent the sense of sight and
strategies to deliver visual sensory stimuli in-store and online overlap (LF174
- LF176, LF179, LF183, LFLF185 - LF188, LF190) (Chapter 3: Section 3.5.1
& 3.5.2). Furthermore, as seen in Table 6.26, there was a strong correlation
between traditional visual stimuli and digital olfactory stimuli (0.55) and as
stipulated by Alac (2017:143), Cowen-Elstner (2018:31), Hauser (2017) and
Hulten (2020:127), marketers make use of imagery and descriptive words in
an attempt to deliver olfactory stimuli via online platforms (LF243) (Chapter 3:
Section 3.7.2), which could explain the correlation that exists. Finally, the
strong correlation observed in Table 6.26, that exists between traditional visual
stimuli and traditional tactile stimuli (0.60), as well as digital tactile stimuli
(0.58), can be attributed to the fact that tactile sensory stimuli work in close
collaboration with sight (Ali & Ahmed 2019:118; Galande 2019:48; Hulten
2020:137; 2017:8; Wala et al 2019:114) (LF251) (Chapter 3: Section 3.8).

The results of the study indicated that there was a medium practically
significant (d ≤ 0.5) difference in answers between males and females
regarding traditional visual stimuli (d = 0.64) (Chapter 6: Table 6.28) (EF164).
This result supports the claim made by Uddin (2011:13) in Chapter 3: Section

293
3.5, that visual cues will be interpreted differently based on an individual’s
context, such as their gender (LF158). With regards to the age of respondents,
the statistically significant (p < 0.05) difference in respondents’ answers, with
reference to traditional visual stimuli, were mainly between younger
respondents and those between the ages of 45 and 54 years (Chapter 6:
Section 6.6.9.2) (EF223). Furthermore, from the mean values presented in
Table 6.29, it was deduced that older respondents agreed more strongly that
traditional visual stimuli had a positive influence on their experience of
shopping for skincare products in-store (EF224). In Chapter 3: Section 3.3, it
is explained that, in general, GenXers shop mostly in-store rather than online
(LF140), which could explain the difference in answers observed.

With regards to the average monthly budget for skincare of the respondents,
the statistically significant (p < 0.05) difference in respondents’ answers, with
reference to traditional visual stimuli, were all with respondents who have a
monthly budget of R1001 – R1500/month (EF290) (Chapter 6: Section
6.6.9.3). As determined in Chapter 6: Section 6.6.8, most respondents who
had an average monthly budget of R501 – R1500 for skincare were older
consumers (EF162) and it can therefore be assumed that the difference in
answers can be linked to the age of the respondents, as this would affect how
they perceive visual stimuli (Uddin 2011:13) (Chapter 3: Section 3.2.1)
(LF159). Additionally, consumers who spend an increased amount on a
product have higher expectations (Zhao et al 2021:21) (Chapter 2: Section
2.2.2.3) (LF29), which may explain why respondents of this study who had
higher monthly budgets placed higher worth on sensory stimuli throughout
(EF291).

(a) Hypothesis linked to traditional visual stimuli

The following hypothesis is linked to traditional visual stimuli (Chapter 4: Table

4.1):

H1a: There is a significant relationship between traditional visual sensory

strategies and brand loyalty. From the full Primary Model constructed in

294
Section 6.6.4.3: Table 6.25, there was no significant (p < 0.05) relationship
between traditional visual stimuli and brand loyalty (EF133), where p = 0.48
(Table 6.25).

Hypothesis H1a is rejected (EF135)

(b) Implications of the influence of traditional visual stimuli on brand

loyalty

Traditional visual stimuli is one of the most frequently used means of

implementing sensory marketing or branding, attributed to the fact that it is the
most seductive of all the senses. Furthermore, visual cues have the ability to
influence behaviour relating to brand preference, consumption quantity and
purchasing behaviour. It is also accepted that visual stimuli are utilised by
brands to create brand experiences. However, while respondents of this study
agreed that traditional visual stimuli positively influenced their experience of
shopping for skincare products in-store, the results indicate that there is only
a weak relationship between traditional visual stimuli and consumer brand
loyalty.

However, Harris et al (2017:1) and Kim and Chao (2019:10) insist that
experience has a direct relationship with brand loyalty (Chapter 2: Section
2.2.10) (LF94). Therefore, the results of this study may suggest an indirect or
mediating effect of consumer experience on brand loyalty. So, while the
relationship between visual stimuli and experience is evident from the results
of this study, the relationship between visual stimuli and brand loyalty is
indirect through brand experience, which would explain the weaker correlation.
This would suggest that visual stimuli is important with regards to the shopping
experience, specifically when considering the skincare industry, but may not
be as important as an individual factor towards brand loyalty.

It is also known that while colours and design of packaging is important, the
text accompanying it is just as, if not more, important (Štěchová 2017:14)
(Chapter 3: Section 3.5.1) (LF180). With reference to skincare products,

295
consumers seek products based on the function that they claim to perform
(Romanowski 2020).

(c) Recommendations and practical implications for businesses

operating in the skincare industry

RE1: Skincare brands should realise the influence that traditional visual stimuli
have on consumer buying behaviour and find innovative ways to exploit the
benefits that they can offer, which are specific to their target audience.

With reference to product packaging, visual cues can further relate to the
wording used on the product packaging, and since consumers seek skincare
products based on the function that they claim to perform, skincare brands
should research key words that their specific target audience would resonate
with. For example, if a skincare brand is targeting older consumers, they
should conduct extensive market research on key-words that entice that age
group of respondents, such as “anti-aging” or “reduce wrinkles and fine-lines”.
Contradictorily, should the skincare brand be targeting younger consumers
they would be more enticed by key-words such as “reduce acne”, “reduce dark
spots” or “prevent breakouts”. By highlighting these desired functions on the
product packaging, consumers may be more enticed to pick the product up
and read further, allowing the brand to better influence consumer decision
making.

7.4.4.2 Main empirical and literature results relating to the influence of

traditional auditory stimuli on brand loyalty

The descriptive results that relate to the influence of traditional auditory stimuli
(Chapter 6: Table 6.4) indicate that, on average, respondents agreed to a large
extent that the factors constituting traditional auditory stimuli had a positive
influence on their experience of shopping for skincare products from brick-and-
mortar stores, implying that these factors represent desirable sensory
branding strategies for consumers who shop in-store for skincare products
(EF18). This result validates the claim made by Hulten (2020:84) that how an

296
individual perceives an environment is largely attributed to sound (Chapter 3:
Section 3.6) (LF193). One factor relating to traditional auditory stimuli, which
respondents identified as significant, was the tempo of the music (EF204),
which was also identified by Cowen-Elstner (2018:29), as well as by Foroudi
and Palazzo (2019:137), as being one of the most influential auditory factors
on consumer behaviour (Chapter 3: Section 3.6) (LF205). Cowen-Elstner
(2018:29) and Foroudi and Palazzo (2019:137) add that the volume of the
music is also an essential consideration (Chapter 3: Section 3.6) (LF207),
which is proven through the result of this study that respondents agreed that
the volume of the music in-store positively influenced their experience (EF20).
From these individual results, the conclusion was drawn that the store
ambience with reference to auditory stimuli has an influence on consumer
behavioural responses when shopping for skincare products in-store (EF20),
which was also suggested by Cowen-Elstner (2018:29) along with Foroudi and
Palazzo (2019:137) (Chapter 3: Section 3.6) (LF196 – LF198, LF204, LF205,
LF212). Finally, as posited by Harris (2016) and Flowers (2020) in Chapter 3:
Section 3.6.1, the sound or pronunciation of a brand name is important
(LF211), which contradicts the results of this study that suggest that
consumers’ in-store shopping experience is not influenced by the sound or
pronunciation of a brand name (EF22). The following are the main conclusions
relating to traditional auditory stimuli as a result of the inferential statistics
calculated.

From the results in Chapter 6: Table 6.26, it was found that a strong correlation
exists between traditional auditory stimuli and digital auditory stimuli (0.69).
This strong correlation may be explained by the fact that, in many cases, the
strategies used in brick and mortar stores can be carried through to digital
stores (Chapter 3: Section 3.6.2) (LF216). A further strong correlation was
found to exist between traditional auditory stimuli and traditional visual stimuli
(0.52), which can be attributed to the fact that the brain makes use of both
sound and vision in unison to make associations (Chapter 3: Section 3.6)
(LF199). With regards to the average monthly budget of the respondents for
skincare, the statistically significant (p < 0.05) difference in respondents’
answers, with reference to traditional auditory stimuli, was identified between

297
respondents who spent between R50 – R500/month (mean = 2.33) and those
who spent between R1001 – R1500/month (mean = 1.86) (Chapter 6: Section
6.6.9.3) (EF294). As explained by Aidnik (2013:4), low-end or cheaper
skincare products are sold in different types of stores than high-end or more
expensive skincare products (Chapter 3: Section 3.2.2) (LF123). For example,
low-end skincare products may be sold in grocery stores or pharmacies and
high-end skincare products in speciality or brand specific stores. Each of these
types of outlets signifies a different level of luxury and will therefore make use
of differing auditory stimuli or music. Therefore, based on the budget that the
consumer has for skincare, they are likely to shop in different outlets and would
be exposed to different auditory stimuli.

Further deducible from the above-mentioned mean values, respondents of this

study with a higher monthly budget for skincare were more influenced by
traditional auditory stimuli (EF294) and as determined in Chapter 6: Section
6.6.8, respondents of this study who spent higher amounts per month on
skincare were, in general, of an older age group (EF163). This may be linked
to the fact that older consumers rely more on traditional or in-store shopping
than on online shopping (Chapter 3: Section 3.4) (LF140) and would therefore
be more exposed to traditional sensory stimuli. This result may also be linked
to the fact skincare brands often do not have their own physical store, but
rather occupy a space within a chain store or retail outlet (Aidnik 2013:4;
Roberts 2022; Statista 2022b) (Chapter 3: Section 3.2.2) (LF123) and
therefore, the auditory stimuli provided are not brand specific and would vary
based on the store visited. Furthermore, consumers would shop at different
outlets, based on their budget (Aidnik 2013:4; Zulqarnain et al 2015:1167)
(Chapter 3: Section 3.2.2) (LF123), which may explain the difference in
opinions observed between respondents who had higher monthly budgets for
skincare and those who had smaller budgets (EF292 & EF294).

With regards to the frequency with which respondents purchase skincare

products in-store, the statistically significant (p < 0.05) difference in
respondents’ answers, with reference to traditional auditory stimuli, was with
respondents who purchased skincare products in-store frequently (Chapter 6:

298
Section 6.6.9.4) (EF347). Bartholme and Melewar (2016:420), Cowen-Elstner
(2018:28), Foroudi and Palazzo (2019:136), Galande (2019:48), Hulten
(107:6), PH Media (2021), Pogorzelski (2018:86) and Shanthi et al (2019:205)
posit that auditory stimuli have been proven to be a powerful marketing tool
that brands can use to shape buying decision and brand preference (Chapter
3: Section 3.6) (LF194). In this study, it was found that all respondents agreed
that traditional auditory stimuli had a positive influence on their experience of
shopping for skincare products in-store (EF348). Therefore, it can be
concluded that with specific reference to the skincare industry, auditory stimuli
can be used by brands to shape consumer decision making. However, this
consensus is considerably lower than observed for other sub-variables of this
study, which implies that respondents felt less strongly about traditional
auditory stimuli.

(a) Hypothesis linked to traditional auditory stimuli

The following hypothesis is linked to traditional auditory stimuli (Chapter 4:

Table 4.1):

H1b: There is a significant relationship between traditional auditory sensory

strategies and brand loyalty. From the full Primary Model constructed in
Section 6.6.4.3: Table 6.25, there was no significant (p < 0.05) relationship
between traditional auditory stimuli and brand loyalty (EF133), where p = 0.21
(Table 6.25).

Hypothesis H1b is rejected (EF136)

(b) Implications of the influence of traditional auditory stimuli on brand

loyalty

It is accepted that sound influences how an individual perceives an

environment and has a powerful effect on an individual’s emotions and moods,
making it a powerful marketing tool that brands can use to shape buying
decision and brand preference, both in-store and online. Traditional auditory

299
stimuli have further been used to aid in creating memorable brand
experiences. However, throughout this study respondents indicated that they
felt the least positively influenced by auditory stimuli when shopping for
skincare products and it was determined that only a very weak relationship
exists between traditional auditory stimuli and consumer brand loyalty.

(c) Recommendations and practical implications for businesses

operating in the skincare industry

RE2: It is recommended that skincare brands should utilise auditory stimuli in-
stores to form multi-sensory experiences, rather than rely solely on the use of
auditory stimuli to yield brand loyalty.

Skincare brands should realise that unless their product is being sold at a
brand specific outlet, they have little to no control over the auditory stimuli that
consumers will be exposed to while shopping for their products. Should a
product be sold via brand specific outlets, then the brand can adjust the
auditory stimuli of the store to match their target audience, such as in terms of
type, volume and tempo of music played in the store. However, as this is rarely
the case, it is advisable that skincare brands acknowledge that, while auditory
stimuli are useful in the creation of multi-sensory experiences for consumers
who shop in-store, they should place larger focus on other avenues of sensory
marketing, such as sight, smell and touch or feel.

7.4.4.3 Main empirical and literature results relating to the influence of

traditional olfactory stimuli on brand loyalty

The results that relate to the influence of traditional olfactory stimuli (Chapter
6: Table 6.5) indicate that, in general, respondents were in a high level of
agreement towards the fact that the factors constituting traditional olfactory
stimuli had a positive influence on their experience, which implies that all
factors represent desirable sensory branding strategies for consumers who
shop in-store for skincare products (EF27). This result proves the claim made
by Cowen-Elstner (2018:30), Foroudi and Palazzo (2019:137) and Hulten

300
(2017:7), along with Pogorzelski (2018:86), Suarez and Gumiel (2014:268),
Vega-Gomez et al (2020:2) and Walsh (2020), that olfactory stimuli in branding
relate to both the fragrance of the product itself and to those fragrances that
constitute the ambiance of the store where it is sold (Chapter 3: Section 3.7)
(LF225).

Respondents of this study indicated that olfactory stimuli constituting ambient

fragrances had a positive influence on their experience (Chapter 6: Table 6.5)
(EF29), which is in line with the claim that a pleasurable fragrance can have
an influence on the recall of an experience, as well as on other consumer
behaviour (Cao & Duong 2021:134; Cowen-Elstner 2018:30; Foroudi &
Palazzo 2019:137; Hulten 2017:7; Randhir et al 2016:280; Sliburyte & Vaitieke
2019:102; Srinivau et al 2021:12553; Suarez & Gumiel 2014:269; Vega-
Gomez et al 2020:2) (Chapter 3: Section 3.7) (LF226 – LF229). Another major
olfactory strategy, according to Hulten (2020:121), is the fragrance worn by
the staff of an establishment, as this will contribute towards the ambient
fragrance of the store (Chapter 3: Section 3.7.1) (LF241), which is validated
by the fact that most respondents of this study agreed that their in-store
shopping experience was influenced by the fragrance worn by the staff
members (EF241). The following are the main conclusions relating to
traditional auditory stimuli as a result of the inferential statistics conducted.

In Chapter 6: Table 6.25, it was found that a significant (p < 0.10) relationship
existed between traditional olfactory stimuli and brand loyalty (p < 0.10)
(EF130). This result was linked to the fact that with specific reference to the
skincare industry, fragrance is a key factor in the consumer decision-making
process (Singh 2020) (Chapter 3: Section 3.2.2) (LF126). This literature
finding may also explain the strong correlation that exists between traditional
olfactory stimuli and digital olfactory stimuli (0.58) (Chapter 6: Table 6.26), as
consumers are no less demanding of brands online than they are in-store with
reference to sensory branding (Sarathy 2020) (Chapter 3: Section 3.4)
(LF143).

301
Additionally, the strong correlations that exist between traditional olfactory
stimuli and traditional tactile stimuli (0.62) as well as digital tactile stimuli (0.59)
(Chapter 6: Table 6.26) can be attributed to the fact that consumers will
interact with a skincare product by picking it up to smell it, such as through the
use of testers in retail stores (Khatib 2020; Lim 2020). Furthermore, to deliver
tactile stimuli online, marketers make use of descriptive words to draw on
consumer associations (Yoganathan et al 2019:388) (Chapter 3: Section
3.8.2) (LF267), which may explain why these two factors would correlate.
Moreover, a strong correlation was found between traditional olfactory stimuli
and traditional visual stimuli (0.65). This can again be linked to the fact that
consumers are drawn to a product based on the product packaging, both
aesthetics and text (Štěchová 2017:14), and will choose to interact with it
further (Ali & Ahmed 2019:118; Galande 2019:48; Hulten 2020:137; 2017:8;
Wala et al 2019:114) (Chapter 3: Section 3.8 & Section 3.5.1) (LF176, LF180
& LF251).

The results of the study indicated that there was a medium practically
significant (d ≤ 0.5) difference between answers from males and females,
regarding traditional olfactory stimuli (d = 0.65) (Chapter 6: Table 6.28)
(EF173), which was attributed to the fact that consumer perceptions of sensory
stimuli are guided by their own personal context, such as their gender (Uddin
2011:13) (Chapter 3: Section 3.5) (LF158). Additionally, in Chapter 6; Section
6.6.9.2, with regards to the age of respondents, the statistically significant (p
< 0.05) difference in respondents’ answers, with reference to traditional
olfactory stimuli, is mainly with the respondents who are between the ages of
45 and 54 years (EF233). It was further deduced that respondents aged 45 –
54 years felt most strongly that traditional olfactory stimuli had a positive
influence on their experience of shopping for skincare products in-store
(EF234). This group of respondents constitute “GenX” who are known to
predominantly shop in-store (Kovacevic 2022) (Chapter 3: Section 3.3)
(LF140) and therefore may be more influenced by traditional sensory stimuli
than those respondents who shop mostly online (EF235).

302
With regards to the average monthly budget of the respondents for skincare,
the statistically significant (p < 0.05) difference in respondents’ answers, with
reference to traditional olfactory stimuli, was only with respondents who had a
budget of R1001 – R1500/month (Chapter 6: Table 6.36) (EF298). Moreover,
it was concluded from the mean values presented in Table 6.34, that this group
of respondents felt the most strongly about the influence that traditional
olfactory stimuli had on their experience of shopping for skincare products in-
store (EF299) and that they are, in general, older consumers (Section 6.6.8)
(EF163). Therefore, the GenX respondents may be more influenced by
traditional sensory stimuli as they shop more frequently in-store (Kovacevic
2022) (Chapter 3: Section 3.3) (LF140) and might be exposed to ambient
fragrances as well as the fragrance of the physical product, which could
explain why they have a stronger level of agreement towards the fact that
traditional olfactory stimuli have a positive influence on their experience.

(a) Hypothesis linked to traditional olfactory stimuli

The following hypothesis is linked to traditional olfactory stimuli (Chapter 4:

Table 4.1):

H1c: There is a significant relationship between traditional olfactory sensory

strategies and brand loyalty. From the full Primary Model constructed in
Section 6.6.4.3: Table 6.25, there was a significant p < 0.10) relationship
between traditional olfactory stimuli and brand loyalty (p = 0.10) (Table 6.25)
(EF130). However, the relationship is relatively weak, as determined by a
standardized regression weight estimate of 0.10 (Table 6.25).

Hypothesis H1c is supported (EF137)

(b) Implications of the influence of traditional olfactory stimuli on brand

loyalty

The sense of smell has been identified as the most sensitive of the five human
senses. Furthermore, olfactory stimuli in branding relate to both the fragrance

303
of the product itself as well as the ambient fragrance of a store, the power of
which lies in its longevity in the mind of an individual. This has been attributed
to fragrances’ influence on an individual’s cognitive processes and emotional
responses, as well as on their behaviour. Olfactory stimuli have been used to
create memorable brand experiences, and are especially relevant in the
skincare industry.

(c) Recommendations and practical implications for businesses

operating in the skincare industry

RE3: Skincare brand managers should be aware of the impact that fragrance
can have on consumer brand loyalty, with reference to both ambient fragrance
as well as the fragrance of the product itself. Furthermore, brand managers
should ensure that they completely understand their target audience prior to
formulating the fragrance of a product or placing it in a retail store.

As most skincare products are sold via retail outlets, skincare brands have
very little to no control over the ambient fragrance of the store itself. Therefore,
they should rather focus on the fragrance of the product itself. Skincare brands
whose products are sold in high-end stores could provide a sample product,
allowing consumers to smell the product prior to purchasing it, while those sold
in lower-end outlets could provide fragrance strips where their product is being
displayed, as this would be a cheaper option than full-size samples.

7.4.4.4 Main empirical and literature results relating to the influence of

traditional tactile stimuli on brand loyalty

The descriptive results that relate to the influence of traditional tactile stimuli
(Chapter 6: Table 6.6) indicate that, in general, respondents were in a high
level of agreement that the factors constituting traditional tactile stimuli had a
positive influence on their experience of shopping for skincare products in-
store, implying that all factors represent desirable sensory branding strategies
for consumers who shop in-store for skincare products (EF32). This result
validates Cowen-Elstner (2018:26), Foroudi and Foroudi (2021:244), Foroudi

304
and Palazzo (2019:138) and Hulten (2020:138; 2017:8), as well as Iosifyan
and Korolkova (2019:81), who opine that haptics allow brands to enhance
positive emotional responses thereby influencing purchasing behaviour
(Chapter 3: Section 3.8) (LF256).

From this study it was deduced that both diagnostic and non-diagnostic cues
play a role in the experience of shopping for skincare products in-store (EF32).
This conclusion supports Foroudi and Foroudi (2021:244) and Foroudi and
Palazzo (2019:138), along with Stach (2018:321), who state that tactile
stimulus comprises of both diagnostic and non-diagnostic cues (Chapter 3:
Section 3.8) (LF253). It was, however, noted that respondents signified a
stronger opinion regarding the fact that diagnostic cues had an influence on
their experience than non-diagnostic cues (EF33). This could be linked to the
fact that consumers make use of touch to evaluate the quality of a product and
that touch is associated with valuation and ownership of a product (Cowen-
Elstner 2018:25; Hoang & Tuckova 2020:1286; Hulten 2020:136; 2017:8;
Peck 2020; Perry 2017; Pogorzelski 2018:88; Shanthi et al 2019:206; Stach
2018:320; Suarez & Gumiel 2014:269) (Chapter 3: Section 3.8) (LF249 &
LF250). The following are the main conclusions relating to traditional tactile
stimuli as a result of the inferential statistics calculated.

From the Primary Model constructed in Chapter 6: Table 6.25, it was deduced
that traditional tactile stimuli (p < 0.01) had a significant (p < 0.05) relationship
with brand loyalty (EF128). This result was linked to the fact that haptics have
been identified as one of the principal sources of stimuli for consumers and
are linked to ownership and valuation of a product (Foroudi & Palazzo
2019:137; Hulten 2020:138; Pramudya & Seo 2019:2) (Chapter 3: Section 3.8)
(LF250). Additionally, touch is especially relevant to brands who sell physical
products, such as skincare products (Hulten 2020:138; Pogorzelski 2018:88;
Randhir et al 2016:281; Shanthi et al 2019:206; Stach 2018:320; Suarez &
Gumiel 2014:269; Wala et al 2019:114) (Chapter 3: Section 3.8) (LF248),
which could explain why tactile stimuli were identified as the most significant
sub-variable of this study.

305
Furthermore, in Chapter 6: Table 6.26, it was found that a strong correlation
existed between traditional tactile stimuli and digital tactile stimuli (0.70) and,
as determined in Chapter 3: Section 3.8.2, marketers make use of descriptive
language and images (LF267) as well as the other human senses (LF269) to
stimulate deep rooted associations that people have in their memory, thereby
communicating the feel of a product (Yoganathan et al 2019:388).
Furthermore, a strategy that brands make use of is to offer the option to have
the item delivered and then returned within a certain amount of time (Hulten
2020:147; Peck 2020) (LF268). However, the phenomenon still exists where
consumers evaluate brands in brick and mortar stores and then actually
purchase the item online where it may be cheaper (Skrovan 2017) (LF258).
These literature findings may explain the strong correlation that exists between
traditional and digital tactile stimuli.

Moreover, it was determined that strong correlations exist between traditional

tactile stimuli and traditional visual stimuli (0.60), as well as digital visual stimuli
(0.66) (Chapter 6: Table 6.26). Once again, the relationship that exists
between these sub-variables can be attributed to the fact that tactile sensory
stimuli work in close collaboration with sight to create multi-sensory
experiences (Ali & Ahmed 2019:118; Galande 2019:48; Hulten 2020:137;
2017:8; Wala et al 2019:114) (LF251) (Chapter 3: Section3.8). The strong
correlation between traditional tactile stimuli and traditional visual stimuli could
also be linked to the fact that when evaluating a skincare product, a consumer
will be drawn to it based on visual stimuli and then proceed to pick it up or
interact with it to gain further information, such as ingredient lists and how the
product feels or smells (Ali & Ahmed 2019:118; Galande 2019:48; Hulten
2020:137; 2017:8; Wala et al 2019:114) (Chapter 3: Section 3.8) (LF251),
often through the use of testers (Khatib 2020; Lim 2020). This literature could
also explain the strong correlation that exists between traditional tactile stimuli
and traditional olfactory stimuli (0.62) (Chapter 6: Table 6.26). It may be of
interest that during the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of testers or samples
was banned (Koenig 2020), and since the sense of touch and smell is so
essential in the sale of skincare products in-store, this could have an influence
on shopping behaviour.

306
The results of the study indicated that there was a large practically significant
(d ≤ 0.8) difference in answers between males and females regarding
traditional tactile stimuli (d = 0.84) (Chapter 6: Table 6.28) (EF171), which was
attributed to the fact that consumer perceptions of sensory stimuli are guided
by their own personal context, such as their gender (Uddin 2011:13) (Chapter
3: Section 3.5) (LF158). Additionally, in Chapter 6: Table 6.33, with regards to
the age of respondents, the statistically significant (p < 0.05) difference in
respondents’ answers, with reference to traditional tactile stimuli, is mainly with
respondents between the ages of 45 and 54 years (EF242). It was also
determined that this group of respondents felt the most strongly about the
positive influence that traditional tactile stimuli had on their experience of
shopping for skincare products in-store (EF243) (Chapter 6: Table 6.29). In
Chapter 3: Section 3.9.2, it was noted that GenX individuals have a high need
for touch (NFT) when assessing products (Raushenbush 2018) (LF260),
which explains the strong feelings that this group of respondents has towards
traditional tactile stimuli. However, respondents who were between the ages
of 18 and 24 years also indicated that they felt strongly about the positive
influence that traditional tactile stimuli have on their experience (EF244)
(Chapter 6: Table 6.29), which contradicts the literature that claims that this
age group of consumers have little NFT (Raushenbush 2018) (Chapter 3:
Section 3.4) (LF261).

With regards to the average monthly budget of the respondents for skincare,
the statistically significant (p < 0.05) difference in respondents’ answers, with
reference to traditional tactile stimuli, was all with respondents who had a
budget of R1001 – R1500/month (Chapter 6: Table 6.37) (EF305).
Furthermore, of the respondents of this study, only those who had a budget of
R1001 – R1500/month indicated that they felt strongly regarding the positive
influence that the sub-variable had on their experience, as determined by the
mean value of 1.34 (EF306) (Chapter 6: Table 6.34). Consumers will shop for
cosmetics and skincare at different stores based on the budget that they have
(Aidnick 2013:4) (LF123). Furthermore, as explained by Aidnick (2013:6),
high-end cosmetic stores often employ trained sales associates to assist
consumers as well as provide testers or samples, which is not the case for

307
lower-end cosmetic stores. Therefore, consumers who have a larger budget
may be shopping at higher-end stores and would be exposed to more tactile
stimuli than those shopping in lower-end stores.

From the literature in Chapter 3: Section 3.8, consumers use the sense of
touch to evaluate the quality of a product (Cowen-Elstner 2018:25; Hoang &
Tuckova 2020:1286; Hulten 2020:136; Pogorzelski 2018:88; Shanthi et al
2019:206; Stach 2018:320; Suarez & Gumiel 2014:269) (LF249). With specific
reference to the skincare industry, how the product packaging, as well as the
product itself, feels signifies quality to the consumer (McCormick 2014:4;
Mohamed et al 2018:63; White 2020) (Chapter 3: Section 3.2.2) (LF127).
Higher quality products are associated with higher prices (Upadhyaya
2017:354) (Chapter 3: Section 3.3) (LF139), and consumers expect more from
products that they pay an increased amount for (Zhao et al 2021:21) (Chapter
2: Section 2.2.2.3) (LF29). This may also explain why respondents of this study
who had larger monthly budgets, were more sensitive to how the physical
product, or product packaging, felt.

In Chapter 6: Table 6.40, it was found that all groups of respondents agreed
that traditional tactile stimuli had one of the largest influences on their
experience of shopping for skincare products via brick-and-mortar stores
(EF324). The importance of tactile stimuli when shopping via in-store avenues
may be attributed to the fact that consumers who prefer to shop via brick-and-
mortar stores are often driven by a need for touch (NFT) (Raushenbush 2018)
(Chapter 3: Section 3.8.2) (LF260 & LF261). Furthermore, it has been found
that tactile stimuli are especially relevant for businesses who sell physical
products as consumers use this as a means to evaluate quality (Cowen-
Elstner 2018:25; Hoang & Tuckova 2020:1286; Hulten 2020:136; 2017:8;
Pogorzelski 2018:88; Shanthi et al 2019:206; Stach 2018:320; Suarez &
Gumiel 2014:269) (Chapter 3: Section 3.8) (LF249), and as this would apply
to skincare products, this may explain why all respondents of this study felt
similarly regarding the influence that traditional tactile stimuli had on their
experience. This result also supports the claim that the sense of touch is one

308
of the principal sources of stimuli for humans (Cowen-Elstner 2018:25; Hulten
2020:142; Wala et al 2019:114) (Chapter 3: Section 3.8) (LF246).

With regards to the frequency with which respondents purchase skincare

products online, the statistically significant (p < 0.05) difference in
respondents’ answers, with reference to traditional tactile stimuli, was between
respondents who purchased skincare products online more often and those
who purchased skincare products online less often (Chapter 6: Section
6.6.9.5) (EF385). It was further determined that those respondents who
seldom purchased skincare products online felt the most strongly regarding
the positive influence that traditional tactile stimuli had on their experience
(Chapter 6: Table 6.43). It can be assumed that respondents who seldom shop
online for skincare products, are shopping mostly in-store, which could imply
that they have a high level of need for touch, when compared with those
respondents who shop more frequently online.

(a) Hypothesis linked to traditional tactile stimuli

The following hypothesis is linked to traditional tactile stimuli (Chapter 4: Table

4.1):

H1d: There is a significant relationship between traditional tactile sensory

strategies and brand loyalty. From the full Primary Model constructed in
Section 6.6.4.3: Table 6.25, there was a significant (p < 0.05) relationship
between traditional tactile stimuli and brand loyalty (EF128), where p < 0.01
(Table 6.25). However, the relationship is relatively weak, as determined by a
standardized regression weight estimate of 0.33 (EF129) (Table 6.25).

Hypothesis H1d is supported (EF138)

309
(b) Implications of the influence of traditional tactile stimuli on brand
loyalty

Tactile stimuli are one of the principal sources of stimuli for humans and it has
been found that consumers make use of touch to assess the quality of a
product. Haptics, or the sense of touch, is especially relevant to brands that
sell physical products, such as skincare products. With specific reference to
the skincare industry, touch has close links to both sight and smell, which in
unison, can be used to build consumer brand loyalty.

(c) Recommendations and practical implications for businesses

operating in the skincare industry

RE4: Skincare brands should make use of tactile, visual and olfactory stimuli
to create a multi-sensory experience for their target audience.

Firstly, brands should be conscious of the fact that consumers who spend
more on skincare, are expecting a higher level of quality. Therefore, the
product itself, as well as the product packaging, in terms of feel and aesthetics,
should match the expected quality level signified by the price. It is also
recommended that brands understand the connection that exists between
visual stimuli and consumer interaction. Therefore, marketers should find ways
to differentiate their product packaging or display features in retail outlets in
such a way that is specific to their target audience, to entice the consumer to
interact with the product. This can be done through providing testers for
consumers or incorporating digital visual stimuli to catch their attention.

With reference to higher-end skincare brands that are being sold via cosmetic
specialty and brand specific stores, the brand can provide samples or test
products for consumers. Additionally, brand managers can train sales
associates who can recommend their products to appropriate consumers. This
could be taken even further in brand specific stores where trained personnel
could give mini-treatments to consumers so they could feel the product and
see the result on their skin.

310
The afore-mentioned recommendation would not be appropriate for lower-end
skincare products that are being sold via mass retail outlets, such as
pharmacies and grocery stores. It would be more beneficial for these skincare
brands to focus on standing-out alongside their competitors. Therefore, it may
be helpful to use traditional visual stimuli, such as brightly coloured “pop-out”
tags asking the consumer to try the product or announcing the most desirable
features of the product.

7.4.5 Secondary objective 4: The relationship between digital sensory

branding and brand loyalty

The fourth secondary objective of the study was:

SO4: To investigate the relationship between the various digital sensory branding
strategies and brand loyalty

In the sections that follow, the empirical results (EF) relate to Chapter 6 and
the literature findings (LF) have reference to Chapter 2 and Chapter 3.

7.4.6 The influence of digital sensory branding on brand loyalty

As discussed in Chapter 6: Section 6.6.2.2, CFA was computed to test the

measurement models relating to digital sensory branding. From the calculation
of CFA for digital sensory branding, it was established that only one item, E11,
was removed (EF92) and that a number of MI had to be applied (EF93 –
EF97). Thereafter, it was concluded that the four-factor model (digital sensory
branding) yielded a good fit (EF99), as determined by the model fit information
for digital visual stimuli (CMIN = 2.90; SRMR = 0.02; CFI = 0.99; RMSEA =
0.08), auditory stimuli (CMIN = 2.89; SRMR = 0.02; CFI = 0.99; RMSEA =
0.08), olfactory stimuli (CMIN = 4.32; SRMR = 0.03; CFI = 0.98; RMSEA =
0.10) and tactile stimuli (CMIN = 4.55; SRMR = 0.03; CFI = 0.99; RMSEA =
0.11). Moreover, from the full SEM model constructed (Chapter 6: Section
6.6.3.3), it was established that there was a significant (p < 0.05) relationship
between digital sensory branding (p = 0.01) and brand loyalty (EF113). The
following hypothesis is linked to traditional sensory branding:

311
H2: There is a significant relationship between digital sensory branding
strategies and brand loyalty. From the SEM model constructed in Section
6.6.3.2: Table 6.19, it was found that there was a significant (p < 0.05)
relationship between digital sensory branding and brand loyalty, where p =
0.01 (EF113) (Table 6.21). However, the relationship is relatively weak, as
determined by a standardized regression weight estimate of 0.19 (EF114)
(Table 6.21).

Hypothesis H2 is supported (EF139)

The sections that follow elaborate on the main results relating to the four sub-
variables that constitute the variable digital sensory branding.

7.4.6.1 Main empirical and literature results relating to the influence of digital
visual stimuli on brand loyalty

From the descriptive results that relate to the influence of digital visual stimuli
(Chapter 6: Table 6.7) it can be seen that, in general, respondents indicated a
high level of agreement towards the fact that factors constituting digital visual
stimuli had a positive influence on their experience of shopping for skincare
products online, implying that all factors represent desirable sensory branding
strategies for consumers who shop online for skincare products (EF37). This
result validates the claim by Sarathy (2020) that consumers expect engaging
sensory experiences both in-store and online (LF143) and that the use of
technology influences shopping patterns and purchasing behaviour both in-
store and online (Hulten 2020:9) (LF146) (Chapter 3: Section 3.4). This result,
along with the result that visual stimuli are imperative to the sales of skincare
products online (EF38), further supports the ideology that the digital space is
placing increased worth on the use of visual stimuli, which is stipulated by
Hulten (2020:59) as well as by Petit et al (2018:44) (Chapter 3: Section 3.8.2)
(LF182).

Furthermore, from the results of this study it was concluded that the
webmosphere created is an important consideration (EF39), which was also

312
found by Petit et al (2018:42) (LF149). In Chapter 6, Section 6.5.2.1, Table
6.7, it can be seen that, with regards to digital visual stimuli, respondents were
in the least level of agreement towards the influence that interactive
technology (item B11) had on their experience of shopping for skincare
products online. This leads to the conclusion that due to the relative newness
of interactive technology, consumers may have differing views regarding how
this factor influences their experience of shopping for skincare products online,
which may speak to the claim by Talwar et al (2020:287) that consumers often
show resistance to digital innovations (LF150 & LF151). The following are the
main conclusions relating to digital visual stimuli as a result of the inferential
statistics calculated.

In Chapter 6: Table 6.13, it was established that respondents of this study

agreed that digital visual stimuli had the most positive influence on their
experience of shopping for skincare products (EF73), which could be
attributed to the fact that digital visual stimuli are utilised in sensory branding
both in-store and online (Hulten 2020:9) (Chapter 3: Section 3.4) (LF148). This
literature also may explain the strong correlation that exists between digital
visual stimuli and traditional visual stimuli (0.68) (Chapter 6: Table 6.26).
Additionally, the strategies to deliver visual sensory stimuli in-store and online
overlap (LF174 - LF176, LF179, LF183, LFLF185 - LF188, LF190) (Chapter 3:
Section 3.5.1 & 3.5.2), which could provide a reason for the strong correlation
observed.

Furthermore, a strong correlation exists between digital visual stimuli and

digital olfactory stimuli (0.67). As there is no way to deliver olfactory stimuli via
online platforms (LF242), marketers make use of descriptive language and
images in hopes that just seeing the image or reading about the smell, will
enable individuals to make the same associations as if they could physically
smell the product (Alac 2017:143; Cowen-Elstner 2018:31; Hauser 2017;
Hulten 2020:127) (Chapter 3: Section 3.7.2) (LF243), which could explain the
correlation between the two sub-variables. Moreover, the fact that marketers
draw on consumer associations with reference to how a product smells, could
further explain the strong correlation that exists between digital visual stimuli

313
and traditional olfactory stimuli (0.57) (Chapter 6: Table 6.26). This correlation
may further be attributed to the fact that digital visual stimuli are made use of
in brick-and-mortar stores (Hulten 2020:9) (Chapter 3: Section 3.4) (LF146).

Finally, in Chapter 6: Table 6.26, strong correlations were evident between

digital visual stimuli and digital tactile stimuli (0.79) as well as traditional tactile
stimuli (0.66). In both cases, the correlations may be connected to the fact that
the sense of sight is closely linked to the sense of touch (Ali & Ahmed
2019:118; Galande 2019:48; Hulten 2020:137; 2017:8; Wala et al 2019:114)
(Chapter 3: Section 3.8) (LF246). Additionally, the correlation between digital
visual stimuli and digital tactile stimuli may be attributed to the fact that
marketers make use of images and descriptive words to try and simulate that
sense of smell online (Alac 2017:143; Cowen-Elstner 2018:31; Hauser 2017;
Hulten 2020:127) (Chapter 3: Section 3.7.2) (LF251).

It was further found that there was a medium practically significant (d ≤ 0.5)
difference in answers between males and females regarding digital visual
stimuli (d = 0.76) (Chapter 6: Table 6.28) (EF175), which was attributed to the
fact that consumer perceptions of sensory stimuli are guided by their own
personal context, such as their gender (Uddin 2011:13) (Chapter 3: Section
3.5) (LF158). Additionally, as seen in Chapter 6; Section 6.6.9.2, with regards
to the age of respondents, the statistically significant (p < 0.05) difference in
respondents’ answers, with reference to digital visual stimuli, lies only with
respondents who were between the ages of 45 and 54 years (EF225 – EF227).
It was further determined from Table 6.29, that this group of respondents felt
the most strongly about digital visual stimuli having a positive influence on their
experience of shopping for skincare products online (EF228). This could be
due to the fact that based on demographic factors, such as age, consumers
are differently influenced by visual stimuli (Kim & Lee 2021:8) (Chapter 3:
Section 3.5) (LF159). Another explanation to this may be that visual stimuli are
the oldest and most commonly used form of sensory marketing or branding
online (Griffith 2020; Petit et al 2018:42; Sarathy 2020) (Chapter 3: Section
3.4) (LF148), and so older consumers would have had more exposure to this
stimulus, and therefore, place more worth on it.

314
With regards to the average monthly budget of the respondents for skincare,
the statistically significant (p < 0.05) difference in respondents’ answers, with
reference to digital visual stimuli, lies only with respondents who have a
monthly budget of R1001 – R1500/month (EF290). Consumers who are
spending an increased amount on skincare products online may be shopping
directly from the brand’s website, as higher priced products are associated
with higher quality prices (Upadhyaya 2017:354) (Chapter 3: Section 3.3)
(LF139) and, as found by Donati (2020), 64% of consumers in the beauty
industry who value quality, prefer to shop directly from a brand’s website
(Chapter 3: Section 3.5.1) (LF120). As skincare brands would have control
over their own website, consumers may have a better online shopping
experience than if they were to purchase skincare via retail outlet websites.
This could be linked to the layout, design or user-friendliness of the different
sites.

Additionally, as determined in Chapter 6: Section 6.8, older consumers spend

an increased amount on skincare (EF163), and depending on the age of the
consumer, they would appreciate stimuli differently (Uddin (2011:13) (Chapter
3: Section 3.5) (LF159). It could be that older consumers of skincare products
have higher expectations of a brand and would therefore be more influenced
by the various sensory stimuli provided.

(a) Hypothesis linked to digital visual stimuli

The following hypothesis is linked to digital visual stimuli (Chapter 4: Table

4.1):

H2a: There is a significant relationship between digital visual sensory strategies

and brand loyalty. From the full Primary Model constructed in Section 6.6.4.3:
Table 6.25, there was a significant (p < 0.10) relationship between digital visual
stimuli and brand loyalty (p = 0.10) (Table 6.25) (EF131) However, the
relationship is relatively weak, as determined by a standardized regression
weight estimate of 0.11 (Table 6.25).

315
 Hypothesis H2a is supported (EF140)

(b) Implications of the influence of digital visual stimuli on brand loyalty

Visual stimuli are one of the most common forms of sensory branding utilised
online and encompass the entire webmosphere associated with a brand.
Digitalisation is rapidly advancing and new means to incorporate online
sensory strategy are being created. However, the technology is not yet
widespread and consumers are often resistant to the technology that is
available to marketers. The importance of digital visual stimuli lies in the fact
that it is further used to simulate other sensory stimuli online, such as the feel
or smell of the product. Furthermore, the use of digital visual stimuli extends
to in-store application and has a direct influence on brand loyalty.

(c) Recommendations and practical implications for businesses

operating in the skincare industry

RE5: Skincare brands should incorporate digital visual stimuli both in-store and
online, which is specific to their target audience, so as to avoid consumer
resistance.

Skincare brands should consider the level of resistance their target audience
will have to innovative technology prior to incorporating it into their sensory
branding strategy. For example, a skincare brand targeted at older consumers
would gain less from utilising third party technology, such as virtual reality,
than those who target younger consumers. However, as indicated by the
respondents of this study, skincare brands should make use of high-quality
images as well as 360-degree imaging on online platforms to display their
products. It is also advisable that brands embrace the benefit that visual stimuli
can offer online in terms of portraying the sense of touch and smell. One way
that skincare brands could do this is to make use of short “unboxing videos”
where a brand ambassador receives, unpacks and gives some information on
how the product smells and feels. This will not only portray the information but
instil confidence for the consumers. Additionally, skincare brands could make

316
use of “live photos” of the product being used or of someone putting the
product on their skin, which will again make it easier for consumers to imagine
or visualise the feel of the product itself.

7.4.6.2 Main empirical and literature results relating to the influence of digital
auditory stimuli on brand loyalty

The descriptive results that relate to the influence of digital auditory stimuli
(Chapter 6: Table 6.8) indicate that, in general, respondents were in
agreement regarding the influence of digital auditory stimuli on their
experience of shopping for skincare products online and implies that these
factors represent desirable sensory branding strategies for consumers who
shop online for skincare products (EF41). This result lends support to the claim
that auditory branding has the ability to shape buying decision and brand
preference both in-store and online (Bartholme & Melewar 2016:420; Cowen-
Elstner 2018:28; Foroudi & Palazzo 2019:136; Galande 2019:48; Hulten
107:6; PH Media 2021; Pogorzelski 2018:86; Shanthi et al 2019:205) (Chapter
3: Section 3.6) (LF194). However, there was an exception whereby
respondents of this study felt that brand jingles either had no influence on their
experience or were indifferent regarding how this factor influenced their
experience (EF42). This may suggest that brand jingles are becoming
irrelevant in the digital market space with specific reference to skincare
(EF43). It can therefore be said that the results of this study contradicts the
respective studies of Biswas (2016:219), Cowen-Elstner (2018:230), Foroudi
and Palazzo (2019:136), Griffith (2020), Hulten (2020:93; 2017:6) and
Upadhyaya (2017:357), along with Wala et al (2019:112), who found that
jingles associated with a brand are a useful auditory cue (Chapter 3: Section
3.6.2) (LF213).

It was further highlighted in the results of this study that the majority of
respondents agreed that video advert clips had a positive influence on their
experience (Chapter 6: Table 6.8), from which the conclusion was drawn that
audio and visual cues should be used simultaneously to create multi-sensory
experiences for consumers (EF44). The link between auditory and visual cues

317
was also highlighted in the work of Cowen-Elstner (2018:29) and Hulten
(2020:86), as well as Shaed et al (2015:34) (Chapter 3: Section 3.6) (LF202 &
LF218). Furthermore, this conclusion was drawn from the fact that multi-
sensory experiences have been proven to be the most effective use of sensory
marketing or branding (Helmefalk & Berndt 2018:1081; Hulten 2020:13;
Imschloss & Kuehnl 2017:931) (Chapter 2: Section 2.2.10) (LF90). The
following are the main conclusions relating to digital visual stimuli as a result
of the inferential statistics calculated.

Of all of the variables and sub-variables of this study, digital auditory stimuli
were identified by the respondents of this study as having the least positive
influence on their experience of shopping for skincare products (Chapter 6:
Table 6.25). Furthermore, in Chapter 6: Table 6.26, a strong correlation exists
between digital auditory stimuli and traditional auditory stimuli (0.69), which
may be attributed to the fact that in many cases strategies used to implement
traditional auditory stimuli in brick-and-mortar stores are also used online
(Biswas 2016:219; Cowen-Elstner 2018:230; Foroudi & Palazzo 2019:136;
Griffith 2020; Hulten 2020:93; 2017:6; Upadhyaya 2017:357; Wala et al
2019:112 ) (Chapter 3: Section 3.6.2) (LF216).

Additionally, as seen in Table 6.29 (Chapter 6: Section 6.6.9.2), while all age
groups of respondents agreed that digital auditory stimuli had an influence on
their experience (EF188), it was found to have the least positive influence of
all the factors in this study (EF187). This was also found to be the case in
Table 6.34 (Chapter 6: Section 6.6.9.3), where respondents of all budget
groups agreed, in general, that digital auditory stimuli had the least positive
influence on their experience of shopping for skincare products online (EF262
& LF266). It is interesting that, in general, the respondents of this study did not
highlight digital auditory stimuli as important, as it is commonly used as a
sensory branding tactic online (Griffith 2020; Petit et al 2018:42; Sarathy 2020)
(Chapter 3: Section 3.4) (LF148).

With regards to the frequency with which respondents purchase skincare

products in-store, the statistically significant (p < 0.05) difference in

318
respondents’ answers, with reference to digital auditory stimuli, was between
respondents who purchased skincare products in-store more often than those
who purchased less often (Chapter 6: Section 6.6.9.4) (EF353). Additionally,
those respondents who seldom purchased skincare products in-store were
indifferent towards how this factor influenced their experience, as determined
by the mean value calculated (Chapter 6: Table 6.40) (EF354). This could be
linked to the fact that consumers who shop more often would be exposed to
more and therefore expect more from the platforms that they shop from. It may
also be due to the fact that when shopping in-store, consumers would be
exposed to traditional auditory stimuli rather than digital auditory stimuli.

With regards to the frequency with which respondents purchase skincare

products online, the statistically significant (p < 0.05) difference in
respondents’ answers, with reference to digital auditory stimuli, was between
those respondents who indicated that they purchase skincare products online
more often than those who purchase skincare products online less often
(Chapter 6: Section 6.6.9.5) (EF394). In addition, from Chapter 6, Table 6.43,
it was determined that consumers who shop online for skincare products more
often are more strongly influenced by auditory stimuli than those who shop
online for skincare products less often (EF364). As auditory stimuli are one of
the primary sources of sensory branding used online (Griffith 2020; Petit et al
2018:42; Sarathy 2020) (Chapter 3: Section 3.4) (LF148), consumers who
shop mostly online may be more influenced by it as there is a lack of other
sensory stimuli being presented.

(a) Hypothesis linked to digital auditory stimuli

The following hypothesis is linked to digital auditory stimuli (Chapter 4: Table

4.1):

H2b: There is a significant relationship between digital auditory sensory

strategies and brand loyalty. From the full Primary Model constructed in
Section 6.6.4.3: Table 6.25, there was no significant (p < 0.05) relationship

319
between digital auditory stimuli and brand loyalty (EF133), where p = 0.99
(Table 6.25).

Hypothesis H2b is rejected (EF141)

(b) Implications of the influence of digital auditory stimuli on brand loyalty

Auditory stimuli have commonly been used online as one of the primary means
of sensory branding. However, evident from the results of this study, with
reference to the skincare industry, auditory stimuli online do not have a
powerful impact on consumer experience or brand loyalty.

(c) Recommendations and practical implications for businesses

operating in the skincare industry

RE6: Skincare brands should incorporate auditory stimuli online but

acknowledge that with specific reference to the skincare industry, digital
auditory stimuli are not a powerful sensory marketing tool.

Auditory stimuli, with reference to the skincare industry, is most powerful in the
form of video adverts or clips and skincare brands should therefore include
these into their online sensory branding strategy. Furthermore, skincare
brands can include reactive sounds to interact with their consumers online.
For example, when a consumer adds an item into their basket, a celebratory
tone could play. Skincare brands should also assess their target audience and
realise that the consumers’ age will play a role in whether or not they
appreciate auditory stimuli when shopping online.

7.4.6.3 Main empirical and literature results relating to the influence of digital
olfactory stimuli on brand loyalty

The descriptive results that relate to the influence of digital olfactory stimuli
(Chapter 6: Table 6.9) indicate that in general, respondents were in agreement

320
that these factors had a positive influence on the experience of shopping for
skincare online (EF47). This would then imply that these factors, constituting
digital olfactory stimuli, represent desirable sensory branding strategies for
consumers who shop online for skincare products (EF48). One factor which
less respondents agreed was influential on their experience of shopping for
skincare online was the use of scratch-and-sniff cards (item D7) (EF49). From
this result it was deduced that the divide in respondents’ answers regarding
the use of scratch-and-sniff cards could be attributed to the fact that some
consumers may not have been exposed to this marketing tactic and would
therefore, be indifferent towards the influence it could have on the experience
of shopping for skincare products online. This deduction was supported by
Hultens’ (2020:128) statement that “scratch-and-sniff” cards are a relatively
new sensory branding strategy (Chapter 3: Section 3.7.2) (LF244).

It was further determined in the literature review that marketers make use of
imagery and descriptive words to lead consumers to make associations
regarding fragrance (Alac 2017:143; Cowen-Elstner 2018:31; Hauser 2017;
Hulten 2020:127) (Chapter 3: Section 3.7.2) (LF243). This was affirmed by the
result of this study, where the majority of respondents indicated that
descriptive language and imagery association (EF50) had a positive influence
on their experience. Additionally, Ranasinghe et al (2018), along with Petit et
al (2019:53), explain that new technology is being created to deliver olfactory
stimuli via the internet (Chapter 3: Section 3.7.2) (LF245) and the majority of
respondents in this study indicated that they felt that virtual reality technology
and third-party technology devices (EF51) had a positive influence on their
experience. The following are the main conclusions relating to digital visual
stimuli as a result of the inferential statistics conducted.

In Chapter 6, Table 6.25, it was determined that a significant (p < 0.10)

relationship exists between digital olfactory stimuli and brand loyalty (p < 0.08)
(EF1432), which was attributed to the fact that fragrance is a key factor in the
decision on which product to purchase, with specific reference to the skincare
industry (Singh 2020) (Chapter 3: Section 3.2.2) (LF126). Furthermore, in
Chapter 6: Table 6.26, it was concluded that a strong correlation exists

321
between digital olfactory stimuli and traditional olfactory stimuli (0.58), which
may be linked to the fact that online, marketers attempt to get consumers to
make the same associations, through the use of images, as if they could
physically smell the product (Alac 2017:143; Cowen-Elstner 2018:31; Hauser
2017; Hulten 2020:127) (Chapter 3: Section 3.7.2) (LF243). Additionally,
strong correlations exist between digital olfactory stimuli and digital tactile
stimuli (0.72) as well as digital visual stimuli (0.67) (Chapter 6: Table 6.26).
With reference to the correlation between digital olfactory stimuli and digital
tactile stimuli, in both cases, marketers make use of descriptive language and
high-quality images as strategies online (Alac 2017:143; Cowen-Elstner
2018:31; Hauser 2017; Hulten 2020:127; Yoganathan et al 2019:388)
(Chapter 3: Section 3.7.2 & Section 3.8.2) (LF243 & LF267). Moreover, the
fact that marketers make use of high-quality images in an attempt to provide
online shoppers with olfactory stimuli may explain the strong correlation
between digital olfactory stimuli and digital visual stimuli (Hulten 2020:59; Petit
et al 2018:44) (Chapter 3: Section 3.5.2) (LF183).

Finally, the strong correlation that exists between digital olfactory stimuli and
digital auditory stimuli (0.51) (Chapter 6: Table 6.26), could be linked to the
fact that brands make use of video adverts online (Hulten 2020:99) (Chapter
3: Section 3.6.2) (LF218) that would have sound and allow consumers to
imagine what the smell of a product is. It was further found that there was a
medium practically significant (d ≤ 0.5) difference in answers between males
and females regarding digital olfactory stimuli (d = 0.50) (Chapter 6: Table
6.29) (EF176), which was attributed to the fact that consumer perceptions of
sensory stimuli are guided by their own personal context, such as their gender
(Uddin 2011:13) (Chapter 3: Section 3.5) (LF158).

Additionally, in Chapter 6: Section 6.6.9.2, with regards to the age of

respondents, the statistically significant (p < 0.05) difference in respondents’
answers, with reference to digital olfactory stimuli, was with respondents aged
18 – 24 years (mean = 1.65, Table 6.29) and those between the ages of 55
and 60 years (mean = 2.05, Table 6.29) (EF2336). The mean values provided
imply that younger respondents felt more strongly than the older respondents

322
that digital olfactory stimuli had a positive influence on their experience of
shopping for skincare products online (EF237). With reference to digital
olfactory stimuli, two items in the questionnaire related to the use of virtual
reality (item D9) and third-party technology (item D10) to convey olfactory
stimuli online. The fact that younger shoppers are known to be more accepting
of new technology than older consumers (Vaportzis et al 2017:2) (Chapter 3:
Section 3.4) (LF151) may explain the difference in opinions. Additionally,
younger consumers are known to shop more frequently online (Kovacevic
2022) (Chapter 3: Section 3.3) (LF140), and may therefore be more influenced
by digital olfactory stimuli.

With regards to the frequency with which respondents purchase skincare

products in-store, the statistically significant (p < 0.05) difference in
respondents’ answers, with reference to digital olfactory stimuli, was between
respondents who purchased skincare products in-store more often and those
who purchased skincare products in-store less often (Chapter 6: Section
6.6.9.4) (EF350). This may be linked to the fact that consumers who place
high value on the sense of smell, may prefer to shop in-store for a physical
product, such as for skincare products, which would explain why respondents
who shop in-store more often felt more strongly regarding olfactory stimuli.

(a) Hypothesis linked to digital olfactory stimuli

The following hypothesis is linked to digital olfactory stimuli (Chapter 4: Table

4.1):

H2c: There is a significant relationship between digital olfactory sensory

strategies and brand loyalty. From the full Primary Model constructed in
Section 6.6.4.3: Table 6.25, there was a significant (p < 0.10) relationship
between digital olfactory stimuli and brand loyalty (p = 0.08) (Table 6.25)
(EF132). However, the relationship is relatively weak, as determined by a
standardized regression weight estimate of 0.11 (Table 6.25).

Hypothesis H2c is supported (EF142)

323
(b) Implications of the influence of digital olfactory stimuli on brand loyalty

Fragrance is especially important with regards to the skincare industry and

consumers are no less demanding of brands online than they are in-store.
Furthermore, delivering olfactory stimuli online can help a brand in building
brand loyalty and while currently there are no direct substitutes for physical
smell online, there are strategies that marketers can utilise to aid consumers
in imagining a smell.

(c) Recommendations and practical implications for businesses

operating in the skincare industry

RE7: Skincare brands should implement strategies to aid consumers imagine

what their products smell like online.

To get consumers to imagine the fragrance of a product, brands can make use
of brand ambassador video clips whereby they explain the fragrance of the
product. This will not only deliver olfactory stimuli but provide confidence for
the consumer towards the brand and product. Additionally, further than just
using descriptive language to describe the fragrance of the product, skincare
brands could include icons or images of what it smells like. For example,
should the product have rose in the fragrance, an animated image of a rose
could be inserted. It may also be helpful for skincare brands to make use of
“scratch-and-sniff” cards that are linked to certain products via URL links or
scannable QR codes, which would be distributed in-store or via magazines.
The consumer could then look the product up online, scratch the card, and be
able to physically smell the product while viewing it.

7.4.6.4 Main empirical and literature results relating to the influence of digital
tactile stimuli on brand loyalty

The descriptive results that relate to the influence of digital tactile stimuli
(Chapter 6: Table 6.10) indicate that, in general, respondents were in

324
agreement that the factors relating to digital tactile stimuli had a positive
influence on their experience of shopping for skincare products online (EF55).
Moreover, it can be concluded then that these factors represent desirable
sensory branding strategies for consumers who shop online for skincare
products (EF56). However, in item E11, the majority of responses were
indicative of an indifferent response to the influence of interactive technology
on the experience of shopping for skincare products online (EF57). The divide
seen in the respondents’ answers could be attributed to the fact that interactive
technology is still relatively new and no yet widespread or cost effective
(Olsson 2015:18; Petit et al 2018:51) (Chapter 3: Section 3.8.2) (LF272). It
was also determined by the results of this study that respondents felt that high
quality images and descriptive language (Table 6.10: Item E7 & E8) had a
positive influence on their experience of shopping online for skincare products,
which was also postulated by Yoganathan et al (2019:388) (Chapter 3: Section
3.8.2) (LF267).

From the review of the literature, it was highlighted that an effective strategy
that businesses use to overcome the challenge of a lack of touch, is the option
to have the item delivered, and then returned within a certain amount of time
should the consumer not be satisfied (Hulten 2020:147; Peck 2020) (Chapter
3: Section 3.8.2) (LF268). This strategy was also identified by the majority of
respondents in this study as having a positive influence on their experience
(Table 6.10: item E9). The following are the main conclusions relating to digital
tactile stimuli as a result of the inferential statistics calculated.

In Chapter 6, Table 6.25, it was established that digital tactile stimuli had a
significant (p < 0.05) relationship with brand loyalty (p < 0.01) (EF128). This
may be attributed to the fact that touch is one of the principal sources of stimuli
(Foroudi & Palazzo 2019:137; Hulten 2020:138; Pramudya & Seo 2019:2)
(LF246) and is linked to ownership and valuation of a product (Cowen-Elstner
2018:25; Hulten 2017:8; Peck 2020; Perry 2017; Suarez & Gumiel 2014:269)
(LF250) (Chapter 3: Section 3.8). It can therefore be deduced that consumers
are seeking tactile stimuli even when shopping online, solidifying the literature
that posits that the lack of tactile stimuli online is a challenge for brands with

325
physical touch-related products (Hulten 2020:137; Yoganathan et al
2019:388) (Chapter 3: Section 3.8.2) (LF248 & LF252).

Furthermore, in Chapter 6, Table 6.26, it was found that a strong correlation

exists between digital tactile stimuli and traditional tactile stimuli (0.70). From
the literature, there may be two possible explanations for this strong
correlation. Firstly, in an attempt to overcome the challenge of a lack of tactile
stimuli online, marketers make use of visual aids to help consumers envisage
how the actual product may feel (Yoganathan et al 2019:388) (Chapter 3:
Section 3.8.2) (LF267 & LF269), and secondly, brands often offer the option
to have the item delivered and then returned within a certain amount of time
(Hulten 2020:147; Peck 2020) (Chapter 3: Section 3.8.2) (LF268). An
additional strong correlation was found to exist between digital tactile stimuli
and digital visual stimuli (0.79), which is supported by the fact that the sense
of sight is closely linked to the sense of touch (Ali & Ahmed 2019:118; Galande
2019:48; Hulten 2020:137; 2017:8; Wala et al 2019:114) (Chapter 3: Section
3.8) (LF251), and could be connected to the fact that marketers make use of
images and descriptive words to try and simulate that sense of smell online
(Alac 2017:143; Cowen-Elstner 2018:31; Hauser 2017; Hulten 2020:127)
(Chapter 3: Section 3.7.2) (LF243). The results mentioned above that touch
works in close collaboration with sight may also explain the strong correlation
that exists between digital tactile stimuli and traditional visual stimuli (0.58)
(Chapter 6: Table 6.26).

Finally, a strong correlation was found to exist between digital tactile stimuli
and digital olfactory stimuli (0.72). With reference to both digital tactile stimuli
and digital olfactory stimuli, marketers make use of descriptive language and
high-quality images as strategies online (Alac 2017:143; Cowen-Elstner
2018:31; Hauser 2017; Hulten 2020:127; Yoganathan et al 2019:388)
(Chapter 3: Section 3.7.2 & Section 3.8.2) (LF243 & LF267), which may
explain the correlation that exists between the two sub-variables.

It was further found that there was a medium practically significant (d ≤ 0.5)
difference in answers between males and females regarding digital tactile

326
stimuli (d = 0.68) (Chapter 6: Table 6.28) (EF177), which was attributed to the
fact that consumer perceptions of sensory stimuli are guided by their own
personal context, such as their gender (Uddin 2011:13) (Chapter 3: Section
3.5) (LF158). Additionally, in Chapter 6: Section 6.6.9.2, with regards to the
age of respondents, the statistically significant (p < 0.05) difference in
respondents’ answers, with reference to digital tactile stimuli, lie only with
respondents who were between the ages of 18 and 24 years (EF248). It is
further noteworthy that this age group of respondents felt most strongly that
this factor had a positive influence on their experience of shopping for skincare
products online (EF249). This could be accredited to two factors. Firstly, GenZ
consumers prefer to shop via online platforms (Smith 2021) (Chapter 3:
Section 3.4) (LF140). Secondly, younger consumers are more accepting of
new technology (Vaportzis et al 2017:2) (Chapter 3: Section 3.4) (LF151).
Therefore, these consumers would appreciate new technology that simulates
touch online more so than the older respondents of this study, explaining the
difference seen.

With regards to the average monthly budget of the respondents for skincare,
the statistically significant (p < 0.05) difference in respondents’ answers, with
reference to digital tactile stimuli, lie only with respondents who have a monthly
budget of R1001 – R1500/month (Chapter 6: Section 6.6.8.3) (EF305). This
group of respondents were also found to be the only group who strongly
agreed that digital tactile stimuli had a positive influence on their experience
(EF306). In Chapter 2: Section 2.2.2.3, it was posited that consumers’
expectations, in terms of quality and service, are heightened when they spend
an increased amount on a product (Zhao et al 2021:21) (LF29). Furthermore,
in Chapter 3: Section 3.8, it was discussed that consumers use the sense of
touch to evaluate the quality of a product (Cowen-Elstner 2018:25; Hoang &
Tuckova 2020:1286; Hulten 2020:136; 2017:8; Pogorzelski 2018:88; Shanthi
et al 2019:206; Stach 2018:320; Suarez & Gumiel 2014:269) (LF249). When
considered in unison, these two literature findings may explain why consumers
who spend more on products would be more sensitive to how the physical
product or product packaging feels.

327
(a) Hypothesis linked to digital tactile stimuli

The following hypothesis is linked to digital tactile stimuli (Chapter 4: Table

4.1):

H2d: There is a significant relationship between digital tactile sensory strategies

and brand loyalty. From the full Primary Model constructed in Section 6.6.4.3,
Table 6.25, there was a significant (p < 0.05) relationship between digital
tactile stimuli and brand loyalty (p < 0.01) (Table 6.25) (EF128). However, the
relationship is relatively weak, as determined by a standardized regression
weight estimate of 0.24 (EF129) (Table 6.25).

Hypothesis H2d is supported (EF143)

(b) Implications of the influence of digital tactile stimuli on brand loyalty

The sense of touch is especially relevant to brands who sell physical products,
which presents a challenge to marketers when selling via online channels or
e-commerce. While there are strategies to simulate the sense of touch online,
there is no equivalent replacement. Therefore, brands need to find innovative
ways to get consumers to envision what a product may feel like when shopping
online as this has a direct relationship with consumer brand loyalty

(c) Recommendations and practical implications for businesses

operating in the skincare industry

RE8: Skincare brands should realise that consumers are no less demanding
with reference to the sense of touch when shopping online, and they therefore
need to implement strategies which are suited to their target audience to
simulate physical touch.

Prior to implementing digital tactile sensory branding, the skincare brands

need to establish the age group of their target audience, as this will influence
how accepting the consumer will be of innovative technology. For example,

328
making use of interactive software may be wasteful when engaging with older
consumers. It is also apparent that the ability to return the product is important
to consumers who shop online. However, in the case of skincare, returns
would not be viable as once the product has been opened it cannot be resold.
Therefore, skincare brands could alternately offer a “30-day money back
guarantee” should there be something faulty with the product or should it not
do what it claims to.

Additionally, further than the common use of high-quality images and

descriptive words to portray the feel of a product, unboxing videos could be
used, where a brand ambassador or spokesperson describes the feel of the
product as well as the packaging. It may also be helpful to make use of Gifs,
showing the product being pumped or poured out onto the hand of a user,
which would be accompanied by a description of the feeling thereof, as this
will also aid the consumer in imagining the feel of the product when shopping
online. Furthermore, to entice new consumers to try the products, affordable
sample packs could be offered, which could be created based on skin type,
age or gender. This would enable the consumer to test the product without
being wary of over spending on a skincare product that they have not tried
before.

Finally, brands can offer consumers the option to amortise their order over a
period of months through the use of Payflex. PayFlex allows consumers to pay
for their order over a number of months, rather than paying a lump sum, which
they may not have all at once. This system does not cost the consumer any
extra and does not put the brand in debt as they receive their money upfront.

7.4.7 Secondary objective 5: Consumer brand loyalty

The fifth secondary objective of the study was:

SO5: To investigate consumer brand loyalty in the skincare industry

329
In the sections that follow, the empirical results (EF) relate to Chapter 6 and
the literature findings (LF) have reference to Chapter 2 and Chapter 3.

The descriptive results that relate to brand loyalty (Chapter 6: Table 6.11)
indicate that, in general, respondents were in agreement regarding the
statements relating to brand loyalty (EF62). More specifically, more than half
of the respondents agreed that they would continue to purchase a skincare’s
brands product should they increase the price, which lends support to the
literature finding of Gerstell et al (2020:5) that skincare is considered an
affordable luxury (Chapter 3: Section 3.2.1) (LF111). However, a substantial
number of respondents reported that they were either indifferent towards, or
disagreed with, the fact that they would continue to purchase a product should
the price increase (EF63). This result would indicate that these respondents
are price sensitive, which could be linked to the age of the respondents (see
section 6.6.8), whereby older consumers are willing, or can afford, to spend
more per month on their skincare products (EF163).

The results of this study indicated that respondents were in a high level of
agreement regarding spreading word-of mouth (EF66) as well as making
references to other people (EF67). These results affirm the literature findings
of Alexandra and Cerchia (2018:423), Foroudi et al (2018:10), Giovanis and
Anthanasopoulou (2016:2), Haung et al (2018:2132), Saif et al (2018:67) as
well as Tartaglione et al (2019:1), who state that increased brand loyalty
results in the generation of positive word of mouth (Chapter 2: Section 2.2.2.4)
(LF35).

From the literature review conducted, it was determined that technology is

advancing at an exponential rate (Pathan 2018:189; Ricker & Thatcher
2017:368) and that individuals are spending more and more time online
(Deyan 2021; Koetsier 2020) (Chapter 3: Section 3.4). However, there is a
lack of sensory branding being implemented online (Kaushik & Gokhale
2021:5377; Petit et al 2018:42) (Chapter 3: Section 3.4) (LF142). This is in-
line with the conclusion of this study that consumers are seeking experiences
(EF69), however brands may not be fully utilising experiences to differentiate

330
themselves in the market (EF71). Finally, it was concluded from this study that
tangible and functional aspects of the product, such as quality, are influences
of overall brand loyalty (EF72), which has likewise been found by Keller
(2013:187), Kotler and Armstrong (2010:243) and Narteh (2018:384) (Chapter
2: Section 2.2.2.3) (LF30). The following are the main conclusions relating to
brand loyalty as a result of the inferential statistics calculated.

It was found that there was a small practically significant (d ≤ 0.2) difference
in answers between males and females regarding brand loyalty (d = 0.34)
(Chapter 6: Table 6.28) (EF180). Further reflected in Table 6.28, female
respondents of this study indicated a slightly more positive response towards
brand loyalty when compared with their male counterparts (EF169). This result
validates the statement that females have been found to be more likely to be
loyal to a brand than men (Melnyk et al 2009:83; Ndubisi 200:50) (Chapter 2:
Section 2.2.2.4) (LF42).

Additionally, in Chapter 6: Table 6.31, with regards to the age of respondents,

the statistically significant (p < 0.05) difference in respondents’ answers, with
reference to brand loyalty, is mainly with those who are between the ages of
55 and 60 years (EF211). It is also interesting that this group of respondents
were more positive towards brand loyalty (Chapter 6: Table 6.29). This
difference could be accredited to the literature finding showing that older
consumers are, in general, more brand loyal (McDougall 2015) (Chapter 2:
Section 2.2.2.4) (LF43).

With regards to the average monthly budget of the respondents for skincare
products, the statistically significant (p < 0.05) difference in respondents’
answers, with reference to brand loyalty, was between respondents who have
a smaller monthly budget for skincare products and those who had a larger
monthly budget for skincare products (Chapter 6: Table 6.38) (EF311). It is
also apparent from Table 6.34 that respondents who have a monthly budget
of R1001+ are, in general, more loyal to their preferred brand (EF312), while
respondents who had a smaller budget were, in general, indifferent towards
brand loyalty (EF313). In Chapter 6: Table 6.11, it was indicated that, in

331
general, respondents were indifferent regarding whether they would continue
to purchase a product should the price thereof increase (EF63). This was the
only item in the section towards which respondents were indifferent, which
could explain why consumers who have a higher monthly budget for skincare
presented a higher level of brand loyalty (EF314). Additionally, the fact that
respondents who spent more on skincare per month were more loyal to a
brand than those who spent less, as well as the results in Table 6.11, could
be linked to the difference between attitudinal and behavioral loyalty (Beig &
Nika 2019:5) (Chapter 2: Section 2.2.2.4) (LF32 & LF33).

Furthermore, in Chapter 2: Section 2.2.2.4, it is discussed that a predominant

reason for brands wanting to build loyal consumers is that they are less price
sensitive (Alexandra & Cerchia 2018:423; Foroudi et al 2018:10; Giovanis &
Anthanasopoulou 2016:2; Haung et al 2018:2132; Saif et al 2018:67;
Tartaglione et al 2019:1) (LF36), which is validated by the above empirical
results. Finally, it is known that the level of brand loyalty shown by a consumer
is influenced by their age (Klopotan et al 2014:488; McDougall 2015) (Chapter
2: Section 2.2.2.4) (LF43) and as seen in Chapter 6: Section 6.6.8, in general,
respondents who had larger budgets for skincare were mostly in the older age
categories. Therefore, it can be deduced that with specific reference to the
skincare industry, older consumers are more likely to be loyal to a brand
(EF315).

With regards to the frequency with which respondents purchase skincare

products in-store, the statistically significant (p < 0.05) difference in
respondents’ answers, with reference to brand loyalty, was between
respondents who purchased skincare products in-store more often and those
who purchased less often, where respondents who purchased very often felt
more strongly regarding brand loyalty (Chapter 6: Section 6.6.9.4) (EF359).
This could be linked to the fact that loyal customers have been found to
purchase from a brand more regularly (Peek 2022) (Chapter 2: Section
2.2.2.4) (LF39).

332
With regard to the frequency with which respondents purchase skincare
products online, the statistically significant (p < 0.05) difference in
respondents’ answers, with reference to brand loyalty, was between
respondents who purchased skincare products online more often than those
who purchase skincare products online less often (Chapter 6: Section 6.6.9.5)
(EF391). Additionally, respondents of this study who purchased skincare
products online very often, in general, agreed the most strongly with the
statements relating to brand loyalty (Chapter 6: Table 6.43), implying that they
were more loyal towards their preferred brand. In Chapter 2: Section 2.2.2.4,
it was noted that consumers who are loyal to a brand will purchase more
regularly (Peek 2022) (LF39), which could explain the difference in opinions
between respondents who purchased skincare products online more often
than those who purchase skincare products online less often.

7.5 MAIN RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF

METHODOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES

To justify how the methodological objectives set in Chapter 1 (Section 1.4.3)

were achieved, this section makes reference to the empirical results (EF)
identified in Chapter 6, the literature findings (LF) identified throughout
Chapters 2 and 3, as well as to the findings relating to the conceptual model
(PTF) in Chapter 4 and research methodology findings (RMF) in Chapter 5.
Reference is also made to specific sections in this chapter (Chapter 7).

7.5.1 Methodological objective 1: Literature review on the relationships

between sensory branding strategies and brand experience and
consequently on brand loyalty

The first methodological objective of the study was:

MO1: To conduct a comprehensive literature review into the relationship that

exists between the various traditional and digital sensory branding strategies and
brand experience, and the relationship between brand experience and brand
loyalty, with specific relation to skincare products

The literature findings (LF) have reference to Chapters 2 and 3.

333
To achieve this methodological objective, firstly a comprehensive literature
review was conducted on the concept of brand experience in Chapter 2 of this
study. This literature review included a brief introduction to the influence of
sensory branding on brand experience as well as a discussion on brand
loyalty. Finally, a link was drawn between brand experience and brand loyalty.
A summary of what was discussed within Chapter 2 can be found in Section
7.2.

Following this, Chapter 3 presented a comprehensive literature review, which

introduced the concepts of both traditional and digital sensory branding and
then contextualised the information to the skincare industry. Furthermore,
each of the four human senses relevant to this study, namely visual, auditory,
olfactory and tactile stimuli, were discussed and specific strategies that can be
employed were listed. A summary of what was discussed within Chapter 3
relating to specific sensory branding strategies with specific reference to the
skincare industry can be found in Section 7.2.

7.5.2 Methodological objective 2: Conceptual model

The second methodological objective of the study was:

MO2: To develop a conceptual model of the identified variables’ relationship with

brand loyalty

The literature findings (LF) have reference to Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 as well
as to the findings on the conceptual model (PFF), identified in Chapter 4. The
empirical results (EF) have reference to Chapter 6.

The literature review conducted on the dependent variable of brand loyalty

(Chapter 2), as well as on the independent variables, and the sub-variables
thereof, namely traditional sensory branding (Chapter 3: Section 3.3),
traditional visual stimuli (Chapter 3: Section 3.5.1), traditional auditory stimuli
(Chapter 3: Section 3.6.1), traditional olfactory stimuli (Chapter 3: Section
3.7.1), traditional tactile stimuli (Chapter 3: Section 3.8.1), digital sensory
branding (Chapter 3: Section 3.4), digital visual stimuli (Chapter 3: Section

334
3.5.2), digital auditory stimuli (Chapter 3: Section 3.6.2), digital olfactory stimuli
(Chapter 3: Section 3.7.2) and digital tactile stimuli (Chapter 3: Section 3.8.2)
were used to create a conceptual model in Chapter 5.

The independent variables pertaining to this study were traditional sensory

branding (Chapter 3: Section 3.3) (PTF19) and digital sensory branding
(Chapter 3: Section 3.4) (PTF20). Traditional sensory branding was selected
as a variable of this study as it has been found that sensorial branding creates
long-term experiences for consumers that remain in their minds well after the
encounter (Foroudi & Palazzo 2019:132) (LF132; LF133) (Chapter 4: Section
4.5.1). Furthermore, consumers gravitate towards favourable brand
personalities and experiences (Liegeois & Rivera 2011:16) (LF124) (Chapter
4: Section 4.5.1). Digital sensory branding was selected as a variable of this
study as technology has become an important communication tool (Hulten
2020:9) (LF141) and consumers are as demanding of brands online as they
are in-store, in terms of expecting engaging sensory experiences (Sarathy
2020) (LF143) (Chapter 4: Section 4.5.2). However, there is a definite lack of
digital sensory strategies being employed by businesses, which can be seen
as a forgone opportunity (Kaushik & Gokhale 2021:5377; Petit et al 2018:42)
(LF142) (Chapter 4: Section 4.5.2). Each of the aforementioned independent
variables comprised four sub-variables, namely visual, auditory, olfactory and
tactile stimuli.

Visual sensory branding is the first sub-variable of this study (Chapter 4:

Section 4.5.3) and was selected as research found that sight is the most
commonly used sense by brands to create brand identity and awareness
(Foroudi & Palazzo 2019:136; Hulten 2020:59; Pogorzelski 2018:85; Shanthi
et al 2019:205) (PTF21). It is further the most seductive and noticeable sense
(Biswas 2014:114; Foroudi & Palazzo 2019:136; Galande 2019:48; Hulten
2017:5; Pogorzelski 2018:85; Upadhyaya 2017:353) (PTF22) and has an
influence on brand preference (PTF23), consumption quantity (PTF24) and
purchasing behaviour (PTF25) (Bjerk 2015:3; Hulten 2020:58; 2017:5; Wang
2013:806). Therefore, visual sensory strategies have been found to have an
influence on brand experience (PTF26).

335
The second sub-variable of this study is auditory sensory branding (Chapter
4: Section 4.5.4), which was selected as research determined that auditory
cues have a powerful influence on an individual’s emotions, moods and
behaviour (Hulten 2020:87) (PTF47), allowing brands to influence a
consumer’s brand preference (Bartholme & Melewar 2016:420; Cowen-
Elstner 2018:28; Foroudi & Palazzo 2019:136; Galande 2019:48; Hulten
107:6; PH Media 2021; Pogorzelski 2018:86; Shanthi et al 2019:205) (PTF48).
Auditory cues also create long-lasting memories (PTF49), gain the attention
of consumers (PTF50), increase persuasiveness (PTF51), increase sales
volume (PTF52), control the pace of consumer shopping (PTF53) and create
cohesive environments (PTF54) (Cowen-Elstner 2018:29; Gumiel 2014:264;
Hulten 2020:86:94; 2017:6; Israel et al 2019:100232; Randhir et al 2016:280-
281; Shaed et al 2015:34; Simha 2019:35; Suarez & Wollner et al 2018:3).

Olfactory sensory branding (Chapter 4: Section 4.5.5) was the third sub-
variable of the study and was included as research proved that fragrances
have an influence on an individual’s cognitive processes, emotional responses
as well as their behaviour (Cowen-Elstner 2018:30; Galande 2019:48; Hulten
2020:111; Pogorzelski 2018:87; Vega-Gomez et al 2020:2; Wala et al
2019:112) (PTF64). The sense of smell has the ability to create strong feelings
of reminiscence (PTF65) and last for a long time in the minds of consumers
(PTF66) (Cowen-Elstner 2018:30; Gomez et al 2020:2; Hulten 2020:110;
Pogorzelski 2018:86; Randhir et al 2016:279; Shanthi et al 2019:206; Suarez
& Gumiel 2014:267; Upadhyaya 2017:353; Vega-Gomez et al 2020:1).
Olfactory senses further have the ability to influence consumers’ recall of an
experience (PTF67), the time consumers spend in a store (PTF68) and the
amount they are willing to spend on a product (PTF69) (Cao & Duong
2021:134; Cowen-Elstner 2018:30; Foroudi & Palazzo 2019:137; Hulten
2017:7; Randhir et al 2016:280; Sliburyte & Vaitieke 2019:102; Srinivau et al
2021:12553; Suarez & Gumiel 2014:269; Vega-Gomez et al 2020:2).

The final sub-variable of this study was tactile sensory branding (Chapter 4:
Section 4.5.6), which was selected as research found that haptics allow
brands to enhance positive emotional responses and moods, thereby

336
influencing purchasing behaviour (PTF78) (Cowen-Elstner 2018:26; Foroudi
& Foroudi 2021:244; Foroudi & Palazzo 2019:138; Hulten 2020:138; Iosifyan
& Korolkova 2019:81). Touch allows consumers to evaluate the quality of a
product (PTF79) (Cowen-Elstner 2018:25; Hoang & Tuckova 2020:1286;
Hulten 2020:136; 2017:8; Pogorzelski 2018:88; Shanthi et al 2019:206; Stach
2018:320; Suarez & Gumiel 2014:269) and consumers build confidence in a
product and brand through the sense of touch (PTF80) (Foroudi & Foroudi
2021:244; Hulten 2020:137). Additionally, touch creates the feeling of
ownership and valuation for consumers (PTF81) (Cowen-Elstner 2018:25;
Hulten 2017:8; Peck 2020; Perry 2017; Suarez & Gumiel 2014:269).

The dependent variable of this study was identified as brand loyalty (Chapter
4: Section 4.6.1), which was selected as research indicated that it has a role
in facilitating competitive advantage and financial benefits (PTF92) (Aaker
1991:39; Beig & Nika 2019:5; Tartaglione et al 2019:1). A successful brand
loyalty building strategy results in repurchase intention (RI) (PTF93), the
generation of positive word of mouth (WOM) (PTF94) and consumers being
willing to pay more (WPM) (PTF95) (Alexandra & Cerchia 2018:423; Foroudi
et al 2018:10; Giovanis & Anthanasopoulou 2016:2; Haung et al 2018:2132;
Saif et al 2018:67; Tartaglione et al 2019:1). Additionally, brand loyalty leads
to surges in sales (PTF96) (Narteh 2018:385). Brand loyalty is decreasing due
to an increase in the number of online or e-commerce shoppers (PTF97)
(Robertson 2020). For easy reference, the conceptual model is again depicted
in Figure 7.1.

337
 FIGURE 7.1
THE CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF THIS STUDY

Independent Variables Dependent Variable

H1
Not Rejected (P = 0.01)
Traditional Sensory Strategies
H1a
Visual Sensory Strategy
Rejected (P = 0.48)
H1b
Auditory Sensory Strategy Rejected (P = 0.21)
H1c
Not Rejected (P = 0.10)
Olfactory Sensory Strategy
H1d
Tactile Sensory Strategy
Not Rejected (p < 0.01)

H2 Brand Loyalty
Not Rejected (P = 0.01)
Digital Sensory Strategies
H2a
Not Rejected (P = 0.07)
Visual Sensory Strategy
H2b
Rejected (P = 0.99)
Auditory Sensory Strategy
H2c
Not Rejected (P = 0.08)
Olfactory Sensory Strategy
H2d
Not Rejected (P < 0.01)
Tactile Sensory Strategy

In Chapter 6 (Section 6.2.2), it was further determined through the use of

Cronbach Alpha values that the measuring instrument was reliable and valid
(EF1). The hypotheses formed from the conceptual model were also tested in
Chapter 6 (Section 6.6.5) and it was found that all were supported (EF134,
EF137, EF138, EF251, EF139, EF140 & EF142), with the exception of H1a,
relating to traditional visual sensory strategies (EF135); H1b, relating to
traditional auditory sensory strategies (EF136) and H2b, relating to digital
auditory sensory strategies (EF141), which were rejected (Chapter 6: Section
6.7: Table 6.46).

CFA was computed to test the measurement models relating to traditional

sensory branding (EF83 – EF89), and all the model-fit measure values, after
the necessary MI were applied, were within their respective common
acceptance levels (Chapter 6: Section 6.6.2.1: Table 6.15) (EF90). Therefore,
it was deduced that the four-factor model (traditional sensory branding) yielded
a good fit (EF91). Furthermore, CFA was computed to test the measurement

338
models relating to digital sensory branding (EF92 – EF97), and all the model-
fit measure values, after the necessary MI were applied, were within their
respective common acceptance levels (Chapter 6: Section 6.6.2.2: Table 6.16)
(EF98). Therefore, it was deduced that the four-factor model (digital sensory
branding) yielded a good fit (EF99).

Furthermore, a SEM model was constructed for the relationship between

traditional sensory branding and brand loyalty (Chapter 6: Section 6.6.3.1)
(EF100 – EF105) as well as for the relationship between digital sensory
branding and brand loyalty (Chapter 6: Section 6.6.3.2) (EF106 – EF111). For
easy reference, the full SEM Model conducted in Chapter 6, Section 6.6.3.3,
again depicted in Figure 7.2.

Lastly, Primary Models were constructed between traditional visual, auditory,

olfactory and tactile stimuli and brand loyalty (Chapter 6: Section 6.6.4.1)
(EF123 – EF124) as well as between digital visual, auditory, olfactory and
tactile stimuli and brand loyalty (Chapter 6: Section 6.6.4.2) (EF125 – EF127).
For easy reference, the full Primary Model conducted in Chapter 6, Section
6.6.4.3, again depicted in Figure 7.3.

339
 FIGURE 7.2
THE FULL SEM MODEL CONDUCTED FOR BOTH TRADITIONAL AND
DIGITAL SENSORY BRANDING AND BRAND LOYALTY

D6 D7 D8 D9 D10 C6

E10 C7
E10
C8
E9
C9
E8
C10
E7

B12

B11

B10

B9

B8
F1
B7
F2
E6
F3
E5
F4
E4
F5
E3

E2 F6

E1 F7

F8
B6
F9
B5

B4

B3

B2

B1

D5 D4 D3 D2 D1 C5 C4 C3 C2 C1

340
 FIGURE 7.3
THE FULL PRIMARY MODEL CONDUCTED FOR BOTH TRADITIONAL
AND DIGITAL SENSORY BRANDING AND BRAND LOYALTY

C6
D6 D7 D8 D9 D10
C7
E10
C8
E9

E8 C9

E7 C10

B12

B11

B10

B9

B8

B7

F1

E6 F2
F3
E5
F4
E4
F5
E3
F6
E2
F7
E1 F8

B6 F9

B5

B4

B3

B2

B1

D5 D4 D3 D2 D1 C5 C4 C3 C2 C1

The conceptual model can therefore be deemed significant and can be viewed
as reliable for use as a research tool.

341
7.5.3 Methodological objective 3: Research design and methodology

The third methodological objective of the study was:

MO3: To determine the appropriate research design and methodology to

empirically test the relationships as proposed in the conceptual model

The literature findings (RMF) have reference to Chapter 5.

As detailed in Section 7.2, Chapter 5 focused on the research methodology

utilised to conduct this study. Briefly, Chapter 5 discussed and identified the
specific research paradigm and design, data collection and sampling
technique, measuring instrument, methods utilised to assess the validity and
the reliability of the measuring instrument and means for statistical analysis
employed in this study. The following research methodology was decided
upon:

• a positivistic paradigm (RMF10) and a quantitative research approach

(RMF11) was utilised (Chapter 5: Section 5.2);
• a descriptive research design was utilised (RMF17) (Chapter 5: Section
5.3);
• non-probability sampling was selected as the sampling procedure
(RMF36), and the specific sub-category of non-probability sampling that
this study made use of is convenience sampling (RMF37) (Chapter 5:
Section 5.4.2);
• the target population was consumers who have purchased skincare
products both in-store as well as online (RMF39) and a minimum sample
size of 300 respondents was required (RMF43) (Chapter 5: Section 5.4.1);
• online surveys were selected as the data collection method for this study
(RMF51) (Chapter 5: Section 5.5.1) and a web-based, self-administered
questionnaire was selected as the specific data collection instrument
(RMF67) (Chapter 5: Section 5.5.2);
• this study made use of Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to ensure
construct validity of the questionnaire (RMF94) (Chapter 5: Section 5.5.6);

342
• face validity was addressed through consulting statistical, language and
content experts (RMF92), and content validity was addressed through the
use of previously tested items in the questionnaire (RMF90) (Chapter 5:
Section 5.5.6);
• the demographic details section of the questionnaire (Section A) consisted
of previously tested items from Brook (2019), Botha (2014:138),
Eurostudent.eu (2008:3:13), Grelecka (2016:96:97), Hung (2016:163),
Liegeois and Rivera (2011:88), OECD (2018:3), Potgieter et al (2019:1),
Swardt (2008:106), Tapson (2009:146), Thornberry (2015:114) and Wang
and Wu (2017:69) (Chapter 5: Section 5.5.3.1);
• Section B of the questionnaire related to the independent variable, visual
stimuli both in-store and online, and comprised previously tested items
from Anvar (2016:108), Botha (2014:137), Fritz (2018:177), Grzybowska-
Brezezinska et al (2013:40), Hewawalpita and Perera (2017:4), Hung
(2016:168), Jiang and Benbasat (2007:466), Kokoi (2011:86), Li and
Meshkova (2013:454), Liegeois and Rivera (2011:86), Maneti (2014:116),
Matterport (2020), Nel (2003:182), Pillay (2003:68), Smith (2020),
Theofanides and Kerasidou (2012:44), Wang and Wu (2017:70) and
Zhang (2021) (Chapter 5: Section 5.5.3.);
• Section C of the questionnaire related to the independent variable, auditory
stimuli both in-store and online, and comprised previously tested items
from Botha (2014:137), Cowen-Elstner (2018:230), Engelen (2016:18),
Fiore and Kelly (2007:606), Foroudi and Palazzo (2019:136), Geci et al
(2017:713), Griffith (2020), Hulten (2020:93; 2017:6), Kim (2017a:21),
Liegeois and Rivera (2011:86), Maneti (2014:115), Nel (2003:181), Pogar
et al (2015:559), Shenje (2018:226), Subkowski (2019:47), Tapson
(2009:148), Threadgill et al (2020:2), Turner (2012:56), Upadhyaya
(2017:357), Vida et al (2007:476), Wang and Wu (2017:69) and Wala et al
(2019:112) (Chapter 5: Section 5.5.3.);
• Section D of the questionnaire related to the independent variable,
olfactory stimuli both in-store and online, and comprised previously tested
items from Alac (2017:143), Anvar (2016:110), Cowen-Elstner (2018:31),
Hauser (2017), Hulten (2020:127), Hung (2016:169), Liegeois and Rivera

343
 (2011:86), Maneti (2014:115), Ranasinghe et al (2018), Reader (2016:16),
Silva and Duarte (2017:101), Spangenberg et al (1996:70), Wang and Wu
(2017:69), Wrzesniewski et al (1999:714) and WSJ (2013) (Chapter 5:
Section 5.5.3.);
• Section E of the questionnaire related to the independent variable, tactile
stimuli both in-store and online, and comprised previously tested items
from Anvar (2016:109), Botha (2014:137), Cunningham (2012:177), Fritz
(2018:178), Geci et al (2017:713), Grzybowska-Brezezinska et al
(2013:40), Hulten (2020:141), Hung (2016:168), King (2012), Kokoi
(2011:86), Liegeois and Rivera (2011:86), Liu et al (2020:1820), Maneti
(2014:115), Manshad and Brannon (2021:91), Matterport (2020), Nel
(2003:180), Pillay (2003:70), Ringler et al (2019:190), Silva and Duarte
(2017:101), Theofanides and Kerasidou (2012:44) and Wang and Wu
(2017:70), as well as Zhang (2021) (Chapter 5: Section 5.5.3.);
• Section F of the questionnaire related to the dependent variable, brand
loyalty, and comprised previously tested items from Awuor (2010:iii),
Dehghan and Shahin (2011:12), Ergin et al (2005:11) and Wang and Wu
(2017:71) (Chapter 5: Section 5.5.3.);
• to test the reliability of the data obtained for this study, Cronbach alpha
coefficients were calculated (RMF98 & RMF99) (Chapter 5: Section 5.5.5);
• descriptive statistics were used to explain the data, which included
frequency distributions, means and associated standard deviations to
summarise the sample data (RMF105) (Chapter 5: Section 5.5.9); and
• inferential statistics, calculated through the use of IBM SPSS Statistics
version 28 (RMF117), included SEM Models, Primary Models, Pearson’s
Correlation coefficient, Chi-Square Test of Association, ANOVAs and
Welch-Robust Tests, Tukey’s Test, Games-Howell and Cohens d
(RMF109 – RMF115) (Chapter 5: Section 5.5.9).

7.5.4 Methodological objective 4: Empirical investigation

The fourth methodological objective of the study was:

MO4: To undertake an empirical investigation by means of an online

questionnaire to test the relationship between the identified independent
variables and the dependent variable

344
The literature findings (RMF) have reference to Chapter 5.

As stated in the preceding section, a web-based self-administered

questionnaire (RMF67) (Chapter 5: Section 5.5.2) was used to collect primary
data. To ensure that the study complied with ethical standards, a cover letter
accompanied the questionnaire (Annexure B – Cover letter), which provided a
brief introduction to the purpose of the study, what kind of information the
respondent would be required to provide, clear instructions on how to
complete the questionnaire, a table of key definitions to aid the respondent
when answering the various questions and a reassurance that the respondent
would remain completely anonymous and could withdraw from the study at
any time without penalty (RMF69).

The questionnaire of this study was structured and constituted six sections,
namely demographics, visual stimuli, auditory stimuli, olfactory stimuli, tactile
stimuli and brand loyalty (RMF68). The demographic information required from
respondents included the gender of the respondent (RMF70), the age of the
respondent (RMF71), the average monthly budget for skincare of the
respondent (RMF72) and the frequency of shopping for skincare products both
in-store and online (RMF73), all of which were closed-ended questions that
asked the respondent to select one option from the predefined list provided
(RMF74).

The remaining sections of the questionnaire (B – F) (Chapter 5: Section

5.5.3.2) made use of Likert-scale questions pertaining to each of the variables
of the study (RMF75). The 5-point Likert scale questions utilised to collect
information pertaining to the variables of this study asked respondents to note
to what extent they either agreed or disagreed that each factor had an
influence on their experience of shopping for skincare products both in-store
and online (RMF85). A neutral response (3) would indicate that the respondent
was indifferent with regards to how a certain factor influenced their experience
of shopping for skincare products both in-store and online (RMF86). The
questionnaire was structured as follows (Chapter 5: Section 5.5.3.2)
(Annexure A – questionnaire); Section B - visual stimuli both in-store and

345
online; Section C - auditory stimuli both in-store and online; Section D -
olfactory stimuli both in-store and online; Section E - tactile stimuli both in-
store and online, and Section F – brand loyalty.

7.5.5 Methodological objective 5: Data analysis

The fifth methodological objective of the study was:

MO5: To analyse data through various statistical methods

The empirical results (EF) have reference to Chapter 6.

Chapter 6 of this study presented the results from the empirical investigation.
The first section (Section 6.2.1) provided a discussion on completion rate,
which was 86.3% for this study. Hereafter, in Section 6.2.2, the internal
reliability of the data collection instrument of this study was detailed, from
which it was determined that the measuring instrument was reliable (EF1). The
sections that followed introduced the descriptive statistics calculated from the
data collected pertaining to the demographic details of the respondents
(Chapter 6: Section 6.4) (EF2 – EF6), after which the descriptive statistics
relating to each variable and sub-variable thereof were presented and
discussed (Chapter 6: Section 6.5).

The descriptive statistical results relating to traditional sensory branding

strategies (Chapter 6: Section 6.5.1) included traditional visual stimuli (Section
6.5.1.1: EF7 – EF14); traditional auditory stimuli (Section 6.5.1.2: EF15 –
EF22); traditional olfactory stimuli (Section 6.5.1.3: EF23 – EF29), and
traditional tactile stimuli (Section 6.5.1.4: EF30 – EF33). With reference to
digital sensory branding strategies (Chapter 6: Section 6.5.2), the reporting
included digital visual stimuli (Section 6.5.2.1: EF34 – EF39); digital auditory
stimuli (Section 6.5.2.2: EF40 – EF44); digital olfactory stimuli (Section 6.5.2.3:
EF45 – EF51), and digital tactile stimuli (Section 6.5.2.4: EF52 – EF59). The
final section constituting descriptive statistical results related to brand loyalty
and was reported on in Chapter 6: Section 6.5.3 (EF60 – EF72).

346
Subsequently, the inferential statistics used in this study to make inferences
from the primary data were introduced in Chapter 6: Section 6.6. The first
inferential statistic calculated was Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
(Chapter 6: Section 6.6.2). The CFA for traditional sensory branding was
presented in Section 6.6.2.1 (EF83 – EF91), while the CFA for digital sensory
branding was presented in Section 6.6.2.2 (EF92 – EF99). Secondly, SEM
models were constructed to identify whether or not relationships existed
between traditional sensory branding and brand loyalty (Chapter 6: Section
6.6.3.1) (EF100 – EF105) as well as between digital sensory branding and
brand loyalty (Chapter 6: Section 6.6.3.2) (EF106 – EF111). Following this, a
full model was constructed to test whether the strength of the relationships that
existed between traditional and digital sensory branding and brand loyalty
would change (Chapter 6: Section 6.6.3.3) (EF112 – EF121).

Following this, Primary Models were constructed to determine whether or not

relationships existed between the sub-variables of the study and brand loyalty
(Chapter 6: Section 6.6.4). The Primary Model for the traditional sensory
stimuli was presented in Section 6.6.4.1 (EF123 – EF124), while the Primary
Model for the digital sensory stimuli was presented in Section 6.6.4.2 (EF125
– EF127), and a full Primary Model was presented in Section 6.6.4.3 (EF128
– EF133). Hereafter, Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated to
identify relationships between the variables of the study, and therefore aid in
testing the hypotheses of the study (Chapter 6: Section 6.6.7) (EF144 –
EF158). After this, Chi-Square Test of Association was calculated to determine
whether there was a correlation between the respondents’ average monthly
budget for skincare and their age (Chapter 6: Section 6.6.8) (EF159 – EF163).

The section that followed introduced the ANOVA’s, Welch-Robust, Cohen’s d,

Tukey and Games-Howell tests conducted on the primary data collected
(Chapter 6: Section 6.6.9), where ANOVA’s and Cohen’s d conducted on the
gender groups of respondents and the variables of the study were presented
in Section 6.6.9.1 (EF164 – EF181). After this, ANOVA’s and Tukey tests were
conducted on the different age groups (EF182 – EF257) (Section 6.6.9.2); the
average budget for skincare products (EF258 – EF323) (Section 6.6.9.3); the

347
frequency with which respondents purchase skincare products in-store
(EF324 – EF359) (Section 6.6.9.4), and the frequency with which respondents
purchase skincare products online (EF360 – EF395) (Section 6.6.9.5) and the
variables of the study.

7.5.6 Methodological objective 6: Recommendations to businesses operating

within the skincare industry

The sixth methodological objective of the study was:

MO6: To provide recommendations, based on the results obtained in the empirical

research of this study, to skincare brands who have both online and offline
presences

In previous sections of Chapter 7, recommendations to institutions operating

within the skincare industry were provided. With reference to traditional
sensory branding (Section 7.4.3), four recommendations were made: RE1
(Section 7.4.4.1c), RE2 (Section 7.4.4.2c), RE3 (Section 7.4.4.3c) and RE4
(Section 7.4.4.4c). Additionally, with reference to digital sensory branding
(Section 7.4.6), four recommendations were made: RE5 (Section 7.4.6.1c),
RE6 (Section 7.4.6.2c), RE7 (Section 7.4.6.3c) and RE8 (Section 7.4.6.4c).

7.6 PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

The primary objective of the study was to conduct an investigation into what
sensory experiences customers want to have when purchasing skincare
products in-store versus online. The primary objective of the study was
accomplished through the realisation of all the secondary objectives of the
study as discussed in previous paragraphs. Figure 7.4 provides a summary of
the relationships between the primary and secondary objectives, the questions
in the questionnaire, the main empirical results and literature findings, related
hypotheses and recommendations. Figure 7.5 provides a summary of the
relationships between the primary and methodological objectives, the
questions in the questionnaire, the main empirical results and literature
findings, related hypotheses and recommendations.

348
 FIGURE 7.4
A SUMMARY OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OBJECTIVES
Primary Secondary Items in the Empirical Literature Related
Recommendations
Objective Objective questionnaire results findings hypotheses

Determine how multi-sensory branding lends support to the creation of

Secondary
The primary objective of this study was to conduct an investigation into

positive and memorable brand experiences for consumers, thereby

what sensory experiences customers want to have when purchasing

objective 1
increasing their brand loyalty

LF7 – LF92
skincare products in-store versus online

Secondary Explore the possible traditional and digital sensory branding strategies that
objective 2 brands can utilise

LF152 –
LF290

Secondary Investigate the relationship between the various traditional sensory branding
objective 3 strategies and brand loyalty

Traditional sensory branding

LF152 –
Visual Section B: EF7 – EF14;
LF173; LF174 H1a RE1
stimuli Items 1 - 6 EF133, EF135
– LF181

EF15 – EF22; LF193 –

Auditory Section C:
EF133, LF211; LF212 H1b RE2
stimuli Items 1 - 5
EF136; EF157 – LF215

349
 LF220 –
Olfactory Section D: EF23 – EF29;
LF237; LF238 H1c RE3
stimuli Items 1 - 5 EF130, EF137
– LF241

EF30 – EF33; LF246 –

Tactile Section E:
EF128, LF261; LF262 H1d RE4
stimuli Items 1 - 6
EF138; EF156 – LF266

Secondary Investigate the relationship between the various digital sensory branding
objective 4 strategies and brand loyalty

Digital sensory branding

LF152 –
Visual Section B: EF34 – EF39;
LF173; LF182 H2a RE5
stimuli Items 7 - 12 EF131, EF140
– LF192

EF40 – EF44; LF193 –

Auditory Section C:
EF133, LF211; LF216 H2b RE6
stimuli Items 6 - 10
EF141; EF157 – LF219

LF220 –
Olfactory Section D: EF45 – EF51;
LF237; LF242 H2c RE7
stimuli Items 6 - 10 EF132, EF142
– LF245

EF52 – EF59; LF246 –

Tactile Section E:
EF128, LF261; LF267 H2d RE8
stimuli Items 7 - 11
EF134; EF156 – LF272

350
 Secondary
Investigate consumer brand loyalty in the skincare industry
objective 5

Brand loyalty

EF60 – EF72;
EF168, EF211;
Brand Section F:
EF311 – LF31 – LF61
loyalty Items 1 - 9 EF315; EF359;
EF391

FIGURE 7.5
A SUMMARY OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE PRIMARY AND METHODOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES

Primary Methodological Items in the Related

Empirical results Literature findings Recommendations
Objective objective questionnaire hypotheses

Conduct a comprehensive literature review into the relationship that exists between the various traditional
The primary objective of this study

purchasing skincare products in-

Methodological
was to conduct an investigation
into what sensory experiences

and digital sensory branding strategies and brand experience, and the relationship between brand
customers want to have when

objective 1
experience and brand loyalty, with specific relation to skincare products
store versus online

LF86 – LF90;
LF122 – LF272;
LF291 – LF300;
LF1 – LF75

Methodological Develop a conceptual model of the identified variables’ relationship with overall brand experience and with
objective 2 brand loyalty

351
 EF134; EF135;
EF136; EF137;
H1 (H1a - H1d); Chapter 4: Figure
EF138; EF139; PTF17 – PTF120
H2 (H2a - H2d) 4.11
EF140; EF141;
EF142; EF143

Methodological Determine the appropriate research design and methodology to empirically test the relationships as
objective 3 proposed in the conceptual model

RMF1 – RMF117

Methodological Undertake an empirical investigation by means of an online questionnaire to test the relationship between the
objective 4 identified independent variables and dependant variable

Section B - F (52
Items)

Methodological
To analyse data through various statistical methods
objective 5

EF1 – EF395

Methodological Provide recommendations, based on the results obtained in the empirical research of this study, to skincare
objective 6 brands who have both online and offline presences

RE1 – RE8

The following section addresses the limitations of this study.

352
7.7 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

For the purpose of this study, the most profound structural constraints
included: a lack of availability of reliable resources to support the study, as the
concept of digital sensory branding is still relatively new; that due to the study
being focused on the skincare industry, taste stimuli were excluded as they
were found to not have any relevance; and due to the nature of the study as
well as the effects of the global COVID-19 pandemic, the data was collected
solely via online questionnaires.

As discussed in Chapter 1 (Section 1.2), there is only a very limited amount of

research relating to the topic of sensory branding in the skincare industry
(Almomani 2020; Grandin et al 2020; Huang & Lu 2020; Levrini & dos Santos
2021; Sakhawat 2019). This, coupled with the fact that there is also a lack of
academic writing on the topic of digital sensory branding (Abdullah et al 2018;
Petit et al 2019), led to the first structural constraint faced by the researcher,
namely finding academic research to support the study.

The second constraint faced by the researcher was that the study only
considered the skincare industry, meaning that other industries were
excluded. Additionally, as found in Chapter 3: Section 3.12, taste stimuli have
no relevance to the skincare industry and were therefore excluded from this
study.

The final constraint related to the fact that, due to this study being conducted
during the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, the questionnaires were solely
distributed via online channels. Therefore, respondents may have experienced
questionnaire fatigue. The results of this study may also be swayed by the fact
that at this time, consumers were limited with regards to shopping via retail
outlets, and were therefore more inclined to be shopping online. However, due
to the nature of this study, a web-based self-administered questionnaire was
appropriate.

353
7.8 CONTRIBUTION OF THE STUDY

With regards to academic contributions made by this study, it can be

concluded that the significance of the study is that it will add to the academic
literature on sensory branding. The study makes various contributions to the
field of experience marketing. It was firstly established that there is ample
research done on the topic of sensory branding (Akarsu et al 2019; Alaxander
& Nobbs 2016; Castillo-villar & Villasante-Arellano 2020; Chathuranga &
Lakshika 2019; El-Sherbiny 2019; Hulten 2017; Kim & Sullivan 2019;
Rodrigues 2018; Rubio & Vidal 2019; Tanasic & Tanasic 2019; Thatte 2019;
Tia-Elina 2019; Wala et al 2019; Viktoriia 2019). However, research pertaining
to sensory marketing online is scarcer (Abdullah et al 2018; Petit et al 2019).
Therefore, this study addressed the lack of information with reference to
sensory marketing in the digital space, which was called for by Petit et al
(2019:12:14).

Furthermore, there is only a limited amount of research done on the use of

sensory branding with reference to skincare (Almomani 2020; Grandin et al
2020; Huang & Lu 2020; Levrini & dos Santos 2021; Sakhawat 2019), and
there is no research, as far as could be determined, that specifically
investigates the use of sensory branding of skincare products via online
platforms. Therefore, the study addressed the shortage of previous research
on sensory branding of skincare products both in-store and online.

Additionally, while it has been proven that multi-sensory experience should be

utilised to enhance a brand, thereby creating a brand image and awareness
(Makela 2020:15-19), this research fills the gap in knowledge about the
inconsistent relationship between brand experience and brand loyalty
(Hussein 2018:2).

The study additionally added to the topic of sensory branding in the skincare
industry by conceptualising a conceptual model from the literature study to
demonstrate the relationship between traditional and digital sensory branding
on the experience of shopping for skincare products both in-store and online.

354
Moreover, this study adds to the field of experience marketing through the use
of a relatively large sample size combined with advanced statistical analysis
techniques.

Based on the above mentioned academic contribution, research findings and

conclusions drawn, industry contributions could be made in terms of
stimulating thinking and influencing decision making amongst skincare brands
who distribute their products via traditional brick-and-mortar stores as well as
via online platforms. Moreover, specific reccomendations could be made (see
Section 7.10). From the discussion on the contributions made by this study, it
can be concluded that relevant and practical recommendations can be made
to institutions who operate within the skincare industry.

7.9 AREAS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Literature reviews relating to the topic of traditional and digital sensory

branding, with specific reference to the skincare industry, are provided in
Chapters 2 and 3, which were utilised to substantiate the constructs of the
conceptual model. It is recommended that future research be conducted in the
following areas.

• It would be of interest to conduct a similar study on the desired sensory

branding strategies, both in-store and online, with specific reference to
another industry, such as the textile industry.
• It is further advisable that research be done on digital sensory branding
strategies with reference to taste stimuli, as this was not included in this
study.
• It may be necessary to conduct separate studies which focus on each of
the human senses mentioned in this study (visual, auditory, olfactory and
tactile stimuli) to gain a deeper knowledge of their relationship with specific
consumer behaviour or responses in various product categories.
• A comparative study could be conducted on the desired digital sensory
branding strategies, between millennials and GenXers, to investigate if the
different age groups of consumers seek different stimuli.

355
• Individual studies should be conducted which relate specifically to the
desired sensory branding strategies, both in-store and online, for females
versus males.
• It may be of interest to further investigate consumer preferences in terms
of sensory branding based on their budget.
• As this study was conducted at a time of economic instability, due to the
effects of the global COVID-19 pandemic, it may be interesting to conduct
a similar study in the future to compare the results.
• It may be of interest to conduct a study comparing the desired sensory
branding tactics for two specific products, one being sold in a high-end
store (such as a cosmetic or brand specific store) and one in a low-end
store (such as a grocery store). This could also be done as two separate
studies.
• An additional study could be conducted on key words that would resonate
with different consumers relating to skincare products. This could be based
on demographic details such as age or gender.

7.10 RECOMMENDATIONS

A number of recommendations are made to businesses operating within the

skincare industry, with reference to both in-store and online trading.

7.10.1 Practical recommendations

With regards to in-store trading, consumers are mostly shopping for skincare
brands via retail outlets, which means that the brand itself does not have
control over all sensory stimuli to which the consumer is exposed. Therefore,
consumers may be subject to sensory overload and skincare brands should
therefore keep their sensory branding in-store simple. This also implies that
the skincare brand needs to differentiate their product positioning, packaging
or display features in such a way that they are appealing to their target
audience, in terms of gender, age and budget, but do not overwhelm the
consumer. As touch is imperative for consumers when shopping in-store for

356
skincare products, skincare brands must find ways to facilitate interaction
between the consumer and the product. A recommendation to skincare brands
that could help achieve this, is through the use of an in-store aesthetician or
beautician. This individual would approach potential consumers, based on the
targeted demographics, and apply the product to their hand and show them
how it works or could even offer mini-treatments, such as facials. This will allow
the consumer to physically feel how their skin reacts to the product as well as
learn highlighted features about the brand from a professional. Through doing
this, skincare brands can increase consumer interaction as well as instil
confidence in the consumer, as the information would be coming from an
accredited person, which would in turn boost brand loyalty.

With regards to online trading, brands need to find ways to still deliver the key
sought after sensory stimuli, namely visual, olfactory and tactile stimuli, in a
viable way and that is appealing to their target audience. While more common
means of doing this, such as through the use of descriptive language and high-
quality images, should constitute the online sensory branding strategy of a
skincare brand, additional strategies should be included. A recommendation
for skincare brands would be to use moving images or GIFs, where the
consumer can physically see the product being pumped or poured onto an
individual’s skin, which will allow the consumer to more easily imagine the feel
of the product. Moreover, skincare brands can make use of brand
ambassadors to create “unboxing” videos, where the ambassador films a short
clip of themselves receiving their order of a brand’s product. From here the
ambassador would explain the feel of the product packaging, the feel of the
actual product, as well as the smell thereof, and provide some information on
how to apply the product. Further than conveying the sensory information, this
will instil confidence in consumers with reference to the brand, as the
information would be coming from an accredited source.

Furthermore, as consumers have been found to be price sensitive, skincare

brands need to find ways to make their products affordable, without over
extending themselves. One means to do this would be to offer very affordable
sample packs online of their products. These packs could be created based

357
on skin type, age or gender, and would include a number of sample size
products that would last 1 - 2 weeks and would include instructions on how to
use the products. This would enable consumers to physically test the products
prior to spending larger amounts, which would boost initial sales and hopefully
lead to an increase in consumer loyalty.

Additionally, as consumers have less disposable income per month due to the
current state of the economy, skincare brands could offer layby payment
options through the use of PayFlex. PayFlex allows consumers to pay for their
order over a number of months, rather than paying a lump sum, which they
may not have all at once. This system does not cost the consumer any extra
and does not put the brand in debt as they receive their money upfront.
Consumers are also reassured when shopping online by the option to return
a product should they not be satisfied, which in the case of skincare, is not
possible. A solution to this would be to offer a money-back guarantee within a
specified time, should the consumer not be happy with the product or should
it arrive with a fault.

7.10.2 Concuding remarks

This study provides evidence that both traditional and digital sensory branding
strategies have an influence, or relationship with, brand loyalty. However, it
was further notable that, with specific reference to the skincare industry, the
sense of sight, smell and touch are key factors for sensory branding, whereas
auditory stimuli were found to only be useful when used in unison with the
other senses. Moreover, with reference to in-store shopping, it was deduced
that consumers shop for skincare products mostly via retail outlets, which
could lead to sensory overload. Furthermore, the findings of this study suggest
that younger consumers are price sensitive. From the above highlighted points
recommendations were made to skincare brands who operate both in-store as
well as online.

358
REFERENCE LIST

Aaker, D.A. & Joachimsthaler, E. 2000. Brand leadership. New York: The Free
Press.

Aaker, D.A. 1991. Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand
name. New York: The Free Press.

Aaker, D.A. 1992. The value of brand equity. Journal of Business Strategy,
13(4):27-32.

Aaker, D.A. 1996. Measuring brand equity across products and markets.
California Management Review, 38(3):102.

Abdallah, Z.S., Du, L. & Webb, G.I. 2017. Data preparation, in Encyclopaedia
of Machine Learning and Data Mining. Edited by Sammut, C. & Webb,
G.I. USA: Springer. 11.

Abdullah, M., Hassan, W., Raza, A. & Jeon, S. 2018. Haptic logos: Insight
into the feasibility of digital haptic branding, in Prattichizzo D.,
Shinoda H., Tan H., Ruffaldi E. & Frisoli A. Haptics: Science,
Technology, and Applications. EuroHaptics 2018. Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, vol 10894. Cham: Springer.

Abdullah, M.M.B. & Tari, J.J. 2012. The influence of soft and hard quality
management practices on performance. Asia Pacific Management
Review, 17:177-193.

Abimnwi, N. & Njuguna, R.K. 2015. An analysis of in store environment

ambience factor influence on consumer behaviour. International
Journal of Sales, Retailing and Marketing, 4(6):31-44.

Achari, P.D. 2014. Research methodology. Asia: Horizon Books.

359
Adams, D. 2020. Awareness vs. familiarity. [Online]. Available:
https://www.mertonadams.com/2020/06/awareness-vs-familiarity/
[Accessed 10 November 2021].

Adom, D., Hussein, E.K. & Agyem, J.A. 2018. Theoretical and conceptual
framework: Mandatory ingredients of a quality research. International
Journal of Scientific Research, 7(1):438-441.

Adosi, C.M. 2020. Qualitative data collection instruments: The most

challenging and the easiest to use. Unpublished Doctorate Dissertation.
University of Cape Coast. 1-6.

Adwok, J. 2015. Probability sampling: A guideline for quantitative health care

research. The Annals of African Surgery, 12(2):95-99.

Afrashteh, h., Azad, N. & Hanzayy, V.T. 2014. The effects of online shopping
on the customer loyalty. Management Sciences Letters, 4:2077-2086.

Ahmed, V., Opoku, A., Olanipekun, A. & Sutrisna, M. 2022. Validity and
reliability in built environmental research: A declaration of case studies.
Oxfordshire: Routledge.

Ahmad, W.M.A.W., Samsudin, N.A., Adnan, M.M. & Husein, A. 2019. Sample
size calculation (study design based) using UP software and sampling
selection (Penerbit USM). Malaysia: Penerbit USM.

Aidnik, S. 2013. The effect of cosmetic packaging on consumer perceptions.

[Unpublished Senior Project]. California Polytechnic State University.
1-54.

Ainsworth, Q. 2020. Data collection methods. [Online]. Available:

https://www.jotform.com/data-collection-methods/ [Accessed 28 March
2020].

360
Ajayi, O.V. 2017. Distinguish between primary sources of data and secondary
sources of data. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Benue State University,
Makurdi, Nigeria.

Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. 1991. The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Making, 50:179-211.

Akarsu, T.N., Melewar, T.C. & Foroudi, P. 2019. Sensory branding: What is it,
why it matters, and how to use it, in Foroudi, P. & Palazzo, M. (eds).
Contemporary issues in branding. New York: Routledge.

Akhtar, I. 2016. Research design, in Social Science: Interdisciplinary

Perspectives. Edited by Rata, G., Arslan, H., Runcan, PL. & Akdemir,
A. UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 68-84.

Akinkunmi, M.A. 2019. Business statistics with solutions in R. Boston: Walter

de Gruyter.

Akoglu, H. 2018. User’s guide to correlation coefficients. Turkish Journal of

Emergency Medicine, 18(3):91-93.

Al-Adwan, A.S., Kokash, H., Aldwan, A., Alhorani, A. & Yaseen, H. 2020.
Building customer loyalty in online shopping: The role of online trust,
online satisfaction and electronic word of mouth. International Journal
of Electronic Marketing and Retailing, 11(3):278-306.

Alac, M. 2017. We like to talk about smell: A worldly take on language, sensory
experience and the internet. Semotica, 215:143-192.

Alavi, M., Visentin, D.C., Thappe, D.K., Hunt, G.E., Watson, R. & Cleary, M.
2020. Chi-square for model fit in confirmatory factor analysis. Journal
of Advanced Nursing, 76(9):2209-2211.

361
Alaxander, B. & Nobbs, K. 2016. Multi-sensory fashion retail experiences: The
impact of sound, smell, sight and touch on consumer-based brand
equity, in Vecchi, A. & Buckley, C. (eds). Handbook of research on
global fashion management merchandising. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Alexandra, Z. & Cerchia, A.E. 2018. The influence of brand awareness and
other dimensions of brand equity in consumer behaviour: The
“affordable luxury” strategy. University Annals, Economic Sciences
Series, 18(1):422-427.

Algharabat, A., Rana, N.P., Alalwan, A.A., Baabdullah, A.M. & Gupta, A. 2021.
Investigating the antecedents of consumer-based brand equity in social
media. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 53:1-30.

Algharabat, R., Alalwan, A.A., Rana, N.P. & Dwivedi, Y.K. 2017. Three
dimensional product presentation quality antecedents and their
consequences for online retailers: The moderating role of virtual
product experience. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
36:203-17.

Ali, E.H.M. & Ahmed, M.O. 2019. Sensory marketing and its effect on hotel
market-share: Perception of hotel customers. Journal of Tourism and
Hospitality Management, 7(1):116-126.

Alirezaeslambolchi, S. & Erfanalhoseynihamedani. 2017. Sensory branding.

International Journal of Research in Business Management, 5(8):41-
56.

Allen, M. 2017. The SAGE encyclopaedia of communication research

methods. USA: SAGE.

362
Almomani, S.K. 2020. Assessment of virtual reality technology as a tool to
enhance beauty and skincare e-commerce targeting Gen X, millennials
and Gen Z in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Unpublished Masters
Dissertation. The British University of Dubai.

Alston, M. & Bowles, W. 2019. Research for social workers: An introduction to

methods. 3rd ed. USA: Routledge.

Alvi, M.H. 2016. A manual for selecting sampling techniques in research.

[Onlne]. Available: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/70218/1/
[Accessed 20 March 2021].

Amanatiadis, A., Kaburlasos, V.G. & Kosmatopoulos, E.B. 2018.

Understanding deep convolutional networks through Gestalt Theory.
IEEE International Conference on Imaging Systems and Techniques
(IST). 1-6.

Amar, M.Y. 2016. The influence of product differentiation strategy on

operational performance at small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in
South Sulawesi, Indonesia. Journal of Economic, Business, and
Accountancy Ventura, 18(3):343-350.

American Psychological Association. 2020. Internal consistency. [Online].

Available: https://dictionary.apa.org/internal-consistency [Accessed 14
February 2022].

Amoah, F., Ferreira, R. & Potgieter, A. 2020. Business research principles. 2nd
ed. UK: Pearson.

Anastasiei, B. & Dospinescu, N. 2019. Electronic word-of-mouth for online

retailers: Predictors of volume and valence. Sustainability, 11(814):1-
18.

363
Ande, R.A., Gunasekaran, A., Murugesan, P. & Natarajan, T. 2016. Brand
resonance scope for CBBE model: An application in financial
services. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 24(6):1490-1507.

Anderson, J. 2011. Measuring the financial value of brand equity: The

perpetuity perspective. Journal of Business Administration Online,
10(1):1-11.

Andrade, C. 2018. Internal, external and ecological validity in research design,

conduct and evaluation. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine,
40(5):498-499.

Andrew, D.P.S., Pedersen, P.M. & McEvoy, C.D. 2018. Research methods
and design in sport management. 2nd ed. USA: Human Kinetics.

Anfara, V.A. & Mertz, N. T. (Eds.). 2015. Theoretical frameworks in qualitative

research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Animesh, A., Pinsonneault, A., Yang, A.B. & Wonseok, O. 2011. An odyssey
into virtual worlds: Exploring the impacts of technological and spatial
environments on intention to purchase virtual products. MIS Quarterly,
35(3):789–810.

Anjali, J. 2019. Howard Sheth Model. [Online]. Available:

https://theinvestorsbook.com/howard-sheth-model.html#Variables
[Accessed January 2022].

Anuj, K., Fayaz, F. & Kapoor, N. 2018. Impact of e-commerce in Indian

economy. Journal of Business Management, 20(5):59-71.

Anvar, M. 2016. The effect of multi-sensory branding on purchase intention at

coffee shops in South Africa. Unpublished Masters Dissertation.
University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.

364
Areni, C.S. & Kim, D. 1993. The influence of background music on shopping
behaviour: Classical versus top-forty music in a wine store. Advances
in Consumer Research, 20:336-340.

Arnab, R. 2017. Survey sampling theory and application. UK: Academic Press.

Arora, N. & Aggarwal, A. 2017. The role of perceived benefits in formation of

online shopping attitude among women shoppers in India. South
African Journal of Business Sciences, 7(1):91-110.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C., Irvine, C.K.S. & Walker, D. 2018. Introduction to
research in education. USA: Cengage Learning.

Asiamah, N., Mensah, H.K. & Oteng-Abayie, E.F. 2017. General target and
accessible population: Demystifying the concept for effective sampling.
The Qualitative report, 22(6):1607-1622.

Awuor, P. 2010. A survey of consumer brand loyalty in the mobile telephony

industry in Kenya. Unpublished Masters Dissertation. University of
Nairobi.

Bairagi, V. & Munot, M.V. 2019. Research methodology: A practical and

scientific approach. New York: CRC Press.

Bartholme, R.H. & Melewar, T.C. 2016. The end of silence? Qualitative
findings on corporate auditory identity from the UK. Journal of
Marketing Communications, 22:419-436.

Bastos, R.V.S. 2021. Confirmatory factor analysis fundamentals: How it works

and can be used in your research. [Online]. Available:
https://towardsdatascience.com/confirmatory-factor-analysis-theory-
aac11af008a6 [Accessed 19 May 2022].

365
Baxter, K., Courage, C. & Caine, K. 2015. Understanding your users: A
practical guide to user research methods. 2nd ed. California: Morgan
Kaufmann.

Beck, K. 2018. What is the Tukey HSD test? [Online]. Available:

https://sciencing.com/what-is-the-tukey-hsd-test-12751748.html
[Accessed 7 September 2020].

Beck, M. & Crié, D. 2018. I virtually try it... I want it! Virtual fitting room: A Tool
to increase on-line and off-line exploratory behaviour, patronage and
purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
40:279-286.

Beck, C. & Jensen, C. 2019. Trust issues: Why customers avoid buying
cosmetics online & how brands can win trust back. [Online]. Available:
https://medium.com/latitude-elevates/trust-issues-why-customers-
avoid-buying-cosmetics-online-how-brands-can-win-trust-back-
f3d1f27662f4 [Accessed 26 July 2022].

Beig, F.A. & Nika, F.A. 2022. Impact of brand experience on brand equity of
online shopping portals: A study of select E-commerce sites in the state
of Jammu and Kasmir. Global Business Review,:23(1):156-175.

Benenti, M. & Meini, C. 2018. The recognition of emotions in music and

landscapes: Extending Contour Theory, Philosophia, 46:647-664.

Benzo, R., Mohsen, M.G. & Fourali, C. 2017. Marketing research: Planning,
process, practice. UK: SAGE.

Beresford Research. 2022. Age range by generation. [Online]. Available:

https://www.beresfordresearch.com/age-range-by-generation/
[Accessed 25 May 2022].

366
Bergin, T. 2018. An introduction to data analysis: Quantitative, qualitative and
mixed methods. UK: SAGE.

Berman, E. & Wang, X. 2017. Essential statistics for public managers and
policy analysts. 4th ed. USA: SAGE Publishing.

Berndt, A.E. 2020. Sampling methods. Journal of Human Lactation, 36(2):224-

226.

Berry, L.L. 2000. Cultivating service brand equity. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Sciences, 28(1):128-137.

Bethlehem, J. & Biffignandi, S. 2021. Handbook of web surveys. 2nd ed. USA:
Wiley.

Bhandari, P. 2021. Mediator vs moderator variables. [Online]. Available:

https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/mediator-vs-moderator/
[Accessed 18 November 2021].

Bhandari, P. 2022. What is quantitative research? Definition, uses & methods.

[Online]. Available: https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/quantitative-
research/ [Accessed 10 October 2021].

Bhandari, P. 2022. Central tendency: Understanding the mean, median and

mode. [Online]. Available: https://www.scribbr.com/statistics/central-
tendency/ [Accessed 14 February 2022].

Bhardwaj, P. 2019. Types of sampling in research. Journal of the Practice of

Cardiovascular Sciences, 5(3):157-163.

Bhasin, H. 2018. How to collect primary data for market research. [Online].
Available: https://www.marketing91.com/collect-primary/ [Accessed 17
April 2020].

367
Bhasin, H. 2019. What are the characteristics of quantitative research?
[Online]. Available: https://www.marketing91.com/characteristics-of-
quantitative-research/ [Accessed 10 October 2021].

Bhaskar, P.P. & Kumar, P. 2015. E-loyalty and e-satisfaction of e-commerce.

International Journal in Management and Social Science, 3(11):489-
496.

Bhattacharjee, J. & Chetty, P. 2019. An overview of online consumer

behaviour theory and model. [Online]. Available:
https://www.projectguru.in/online-consumer-behaviour-theory-model/
[Accessed 14 December 2021].

Bielat, C. 2020. Comparative analysis of the best practices of experimental

marketing: A look into sensory marketing. Unpublished Bachelors
Treatise. California Polytechnic State University.

Bii, M.K. & Kiptoo, S.B. 2019. Branding strategy on consumer choice:
Empirical review of bottled water. East African Journal of Business &
Economics, 4(1):22-33.

Biswas, D., Labrecque, L.I., Lehmann, D.R. & Markos, E. 2014. Making
choices while smelling, tasting and listening: The role of sensory
(dis)similarity when sequentially sampling products. Journal of
Marketing, 78(1):112-126.

Bitner, M.J. 1992. Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on

customers and employees. Journal of Marketing, 56(2):57-71.

Bjerk, T. 2015. The impact of visual cues and service behaviour on the
consumer retail experience. Unpublished Honours Treatise. Utah State
University.

Blaiki, N. & Priest, J. 2017. Social research: Paradigms in action. USA: Wiley.

368
Blankson, C. 2016. Brand positioning, in The Routledge companion to
contemporary brand management. Edited by Riley, F.D., Singh, J. &
Blankson, C. UK: Routledge. 162-183.

Boddy, C.R. 2016. Sample size for qualitative research. Qualitative Market
Research, 19(4):426-432.

Bolarinwa, O.A. 2015. Principles and methods of validity and reliability testing
of questionnaires used in social and health science researches.
Nigerian Postgrad Medical Journal, 22(4):195-201.

Bolton, R.N., McColl-Kennedy, J.R., Cheung, L., Gallan, A., Orsingher, C.,
Witell, L. & Zaki, M. 2018. Customer experience challenges: Bringing
together digital, physical and social realms. Journal of Service
Management, 29(5):776-808.

Bonett, D.G. & Wright, T.A. 2014. Cronbach’s Alpha reliability: Interval
estimation, hypothesis testing and sample size planning. Journal of
Organizational Behaviour, 36(1):3-15.

Bonner, S.M. & Chen, P.P. 2019. Systematic classroom assessment: An

approach for learning and self-regulation. UK: Routledge.

Boon, O.K. 2013. Total quality management and knowledge management in

Malaysian manufacturing and service firms: A structural equation
modelling approach. Unpublished PhD Thesis. University of Malaya,
Kuala Lumpur.

Booth, W.C., Colomb, G.G., Williams, J.M., Bizup, J. & Fitzgerald, W.T. 2016.
The craft of research. 4th ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Borgna, I. 2018. Cosmetic and male consumers. [Online]. Available:

https://www.kosmeticaworld.com/2018/04/04/cosmetics-male-
consumers/ [Accessed 13 January 2022].

369
Boric, S., Stanisavljev, S., Kavalic, M., Vlahovic, M. & Tobolka, E. 2016.
Analysis of digital marketing and branding for the purpose of
understanding the consumers in digital age, in International Conference
on Applied Internet and Information Technologies. Indonesia. 375-381.

Boru, T.2018. Research design and methodology. Unpublished PhD Thesis.

University of South Africa.

Boswell, C. & Cannon, S. 2018. Introduction to nursing research. 5th ed. USA:
Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Botha, D.H. 2014. The determinants of South African consumers’ online

shopping satisfaction. Unpublished Masters Dissertation. University of
Pretoria.

Boucher, S.M. 2021. An entrepreneurial ecosystem framework for Nelson

Mandela Bay. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Nelson Mandela University,
Port Elizabeth.

Bouchrika, I. 2021. Primary research vs. secondary research: Definitions,

differences and examples. [Online]. Available:
https://research.com/research/primary-research-vs-secondary-
research [Accessed 10 January 2022].

Boudah, D.J. 2019. Conducting educational research: Guide to completing a

thesis, dissertation or action research project. USA: SAGE.

Bourne, V., James, A.I., Wilson-Smith, K. & Fairlamb, S. 2021. Understanding

quantitative and qualitative research in psychology: A practical guide to
methods, statistics and analysis. UK: Oxford University Press.

Bouzenita, A.I. & Boulanouar, A.W. 2016. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: An

Islamic critique. Intellectual Discourse, 24(1):59-81.

370
Bowling, L. 2020. Cost of beauty at 25 vs. 45: Why we spend more as we age.
[Online]. Available: https://www.realself.com/news/the-cost-of-beauty-
why-we-spend-more-as-we-age [Accessed 24 May 2022].

Brace, I. 2018. Questionnaire design: How to plan, structure and write survey
material for effective market research. 4th ed. USA: Kogan Page
Publishing.

Brakus, J.J., Schmitt, B.H. & Zarantonello, L. 2009. Brand experience: What
is it? How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty? Journal of Marketing,
73(3):52-68.

Brasel, S.A. & Gips, J. 2014. Tablets, touchscreens, and touchpads: How
varying touch interfaces trigger psychological owner-ship and
endowment. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(2):226–33.

Brasel, S.A. & Gips, J. 2015. Interface psychology: Touchscreens change

attribute importance, decision criteria, and behaviour in online choice.
Cyberpsychology, Behaviour, and Social Networking, 18(9):534-8.

Braun, V., Clarke, V., Boulton, E., Davey, L. & McEvoy, C. 2021. The online
survey as a qualitative research tool. International Journal of Social
Research Methodology, 24(6):641-654.

Bray, J.P. 2008. Consumer behaviour Theory: Approaches and models.

Discussion paper. Unpublished. Bournemouth University. 1-29.

Brenan, J. 2017. Mixing methods: Qualitative and quantitative research. 2nd

ed. USA: Routledge.

Brengman, M., Willems, K. & Van Kerrebroeck, H. 2018. Can't touch this: The
impact of augmented reality versus touch and non-touch interfaces on
perceived ownership. Virtual Reality, 23(1):269-280.

371
Briand, L. & Salles, C. 2016. Flavour. UK: Woodhead Publishing.

Bridger, R.S. 2018. Introduction to human factors and ergonomics. 4th ed.
USA: CRC Press.

Briggs, S.R. & Cheek, J.M. 1986. The role of factor analysis in the
development and evaluation of personality scales. Journal of
Personality, 54(1):106-148.

Broeder, P. & Snijder, H. 2019. Colour in online advertising: Going for trust,
which blue is a must? Marketing from Information to Decision Journal,
2(1):5-15.

Broeder, P. & Wildeman, N. 2020. The colour red for emotion in cross-cultural
e-commerce. Eurasian Journal of Business and Economics, 13(25):75-
89.

Brook, C. 2019. Beauty ecommerce trends: Why female consumers buy online
in 2019. [Online]. Available: https://hi.photoslurp.com/blog/ecommerce-
trends-beauty-cosmetics-report/ [Accessed 8 September 2021].

Brown, T. A. 2015. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for applied research. New

York: The Guilford Press.

Browne, K. 2019. An introduction to sociology. 2nd ed. UK: Wiley.

Bruinders, B.B. 2021. A causal analysis to investigate low production

efficiency in the tyre manufacturing industry in South Africa.
Unpublished Masters Dissertation. Nelson Mandela University, Port
Elizabeth.

Bryman, A. & Bell, E. 2015. Business research methods. 4th ed. UK: Oxford
University Press.

372
Burke, M. 2021. Men vs women shopping statistics, behaviours & other trends.
[Online]. Available: https://www.junglescout.com/blog/men-vs-women-
shopping/ [Accessed 13 January 2022].

Burkholder, G.J., Cox, K.A., Crawford, L.M. & Hitchcock, J.H. 2019. Research
designs and methods: An applied guide for the scholar-practitioner. UK:
SAGE.

Buzzell, R.D. & Gale, B.T. 1987. The PIMS principles: Linking strategy to
performance. New York: The Free Press.

Cabigas, J. 2018. The influence of music on online shopping behaviour.

Unpublished Honours Treatise. Western University, Canada.

Candido, R., Perini, E., de Padua, C.M. & Junqueira, D. 2017. Web-based
questionnaires: Lessons learned from practical implementation of a
pharmacoepidemiologic study. F1000Research, 6(135):1-5.

Cano, M.B., Perry, P., Ashman, R. & Waite, K. 2017. The influence of image
interactivity upon user engagement when using mobile touch screens.
Computers in Human Behaviour, 77:406–433.

Cantone, E., Ricciardiello, F., Cuofano, R., Castagna, G., Olivia, F., Giulio, S.,
Abate, T., Villani, R. & Iengo, M. 2017. The human sense of smell.
Translational Medicine Reports, 1(6579):53-57.

Cantor, A.M. 2020. A brief history of branding. [Online]. Available:

https://99designs.com/blog/design-history-movements/history-of-
branding/ [Accessed 13 March 2023].

Cao, M.Y. & Duong, Q.N. 2021. Effect of ambient scents and behaviour
responses of customers. Revista Argentina de Clinica Pisicologica,
2:133-144.

373
Carù, A. & Cova, B. 2016. Revisiting consumption experience: A more humble
but complete view of the concept. Marketing Theory, 3(2):267-286.

Cash, P., Isaksson, O., Maier, A. & Summers, J. 2022. Sampling in design
research: Eight key considerations. Design Studies, 101077:1-21.

Castillo-Villar, R. & Villasante-Arellano, A.J. 2020. Applying multisensory

sculpture technique to explore the role of brand usage on multisensory
brand experiences. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 57:1-
7.

Cassel, E., Jacobs, B. & Graham, M. 2021. Effects of the four realms of
experience and pleasurable experiences on consumer intention to
patronise pop-up stores. Journal of Consumer Sciences, 49(1):78-93.

Cassel, R. 2015. Effects of the four realms of experience on pleasurable popup

retail and patronage intention. [Online]. Available: https://repository
.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/50850/Cassel_Effects_2015.pdf?se
quence=1 [Accessed February 2022].

Charm, T., Grimmelt, A., Kim, H., Lu, N., Ortega, M., Staack, Y. & Yamakawa,
N. 2020. Consumer sentiment and behaviour continue to reflect the
uncertainty of the COVID-19 crisis. [Online]. Available:
https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/marketing-and-
sales/our-insights/a-global-view-of-how-consumer-behavior-is-
changing-amid-covid-19 [Accessed 7 April 2021].

Chathuranga, B.T.K. & Lakshika, V.G.P. 2019. Multi-sensory brand

experience and impulse buying tendency: An exploration of Sri Lanka
supermarkets. International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and
Development, 3(5):2497-2501.

Chattopadhyay, B. 2017. Reconstructing atmospheres: Ambient sound in film

and media production. Communication and the Public, 2(4):352-364.

374
Chatzipanagiotou, K., Christodoulides, G. & Veloutsou, C. 2019. Managing the
consumer-based brand equity process: A cross-cultural perspective.
International Business Review, 28:328-343.

Chaudhuri, A. & Holbrook, M.B. 2001. The chain of effect from brand trust and
brand affect to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of
Marketing, 65:81-93.

Chen, M.R.A., Chen, S. & Wu, C. 2015. Motivational orientation and brand
familiarity: Positive emotions and skepticism toward online advertising
using the English language. Journal of Literature and Art Studies,
5(4):282-300.

Chen, T., Xu, M., Tu, J., Wang, H. & Niu, X. 2018. Relationship between
Omnibus and post-hoc tests: An investigation of performance of the F
test in ANOVA. Shanghai Archives of Psychiatry, 30(1):60-64.

Chikazoe, J., Lee, D.H., Kriegeskorte, N. & Anderson, A.k. 2019. Distinct
representations of basic taste qualities in human gustatory cortex.
Nature Communications, 10(1048):1-8.

Chinomona, E. & Maziriri, E.T. 2017. The influence of brand trust and brand
experience on brand attachment: A case of consumers in the Gauteng
Province of South Africa. Journal of Economics and Behavioural
Studies, 9(1):69-81.

Choi, Y.K. & Taylor, C.R. 2014. How do 3-dimensional images promote
products on the internet?. Journal of Business Research, 67(10):2164–
70.

Chow, S.C., Shao, J., Wang, H. & Lokhnygina, Y. 2017. Sample size
calculation in clinical research. (3rd ed.). New York: Chapman and Hall.

375
Christodoulides, G., de Chernatony, L., Furrer, O. & Abimbola, T. 2006.
Conceptualising and measuring the equity of online brands. Journal of
Marketing Management, 22(7/8):799-825.

Chung, S., Kramer, T. & Wong, E.M. 2018. Do touch interface users feel more
engaged? The impact of input device type on online shoppers’
engagement, affect, and purchase decisions. Psychology & Marketing,
35(11):795-806.

Cian, L., Krishna, A. & Elder, R.S. 2014. This logo moves me: Dynamic
imagery from static images. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(2):184-
97.

Çınar, K. 2020. Customer based brand equity models in hotel industry: A

literature review, in Kavoura A., Kefallonitis E., Theodoridis P. (eds).
Strategic Innovative Marketing and Tourism. Springer Proceedings
in Business and Economics. Cham: Springer. 281-288.

Cleff, T., Lin, I.C. & Walter, N. 2014. Can you feel it? – The effect of brand
experience on brand equity. The IUP Journal of Brand Management,
XI(2):7-27.

Cobb-Walgren, C.J., Ruble, C.A. & Donthu, N. 1995. Brand equity, brand
preference and purchase intent. Journal of Advertising, 24:25-40.

Collins, C.S. & Stockton, C.M. 2018. The central role of theory in qualitative
research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17:1-10.

Collis, J. & Hussey, R. 2014. Business research: A practical guide for

undergraduate and postgraduate students. 4th ed. Hampshire:
Macmillan.

376
Comanescu, A.S. 2019. Current consumer behaviour. Ovidius University
Annals, Economic Sciences Series, XIX(2):589-597.

Comrey, A.L. & Lee, H.B. 2013. A first course in Factor Analysis. 2nd ed. New
Jersey: Psychology Press.

Connell, J., Carlton, J., Grundy, A., Buck, E.T., Keetharuth, A.D., Ricketts, T.,
Barkham, M., Robotham, D., Rose D. & Brazier, J. 2018. The
importance of content and face validity in instrument development:
Lessons learnt from service users when developing the recovering
quality of measure (ReQoL). Quality of Life Research, 27(7):1893-
1902.

Connelly, L.M. 2013. Demographic data in research studies. MedSurg

Nursing, 22(4): 269-274.

Cook, B.G. & Cook, L. 2016. Research designs and special education
research: Different designs address different questions. Learning and
Disabilities Research & Practice, 31(4):1-9.

Coolican, H. 2017. Research methods and statistics in psychology. 6th ed. UK:
Psychology Press.

Coppola, D. 2020. Global number of digital buyers 2014-2021. [Online].

Available: https://www.statista.com/statistics/251666/number-of-
digital-buyers-worldwide/ [Accessed 15 March 2021].

Coppola, D. 2021. E-commerce worldwide: Statistics & facts. [Online].

Available: https://www.statista.com/topics/871/online-shopping/
[Accessed 7 April 2021].

377
Cornell, J. 2022. Quantitative research: Types, characteristics, methods &
examples. [Online]. Available:
https://www.proprofssurvey.com/blog/quantitative-
research/#Characteristics_of_Quantitative_Research [Accessed 10
October 2022].

Cosmetics Business. 2020. Why texture and sensory analysis are essential.
[Online]. Available: https://www.cosmeticsbusiness.com/news/article_
page/Why_texture_and_sensory_analysis_are_essential/169206
[Accessed 21 July].

Cosmetics Europe. 2021. Cosmetic products. [Online]. Available:

https://cosmeticseurope.eu/cosmetic-products/ [Accessed 6 November
2021].

Cote, C. 2022. 7 Data collection methods in business analytics. [Online].

Available: https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/data-collection-methods
[Accessed 10 October 2021].

Cowen-Elstner, C. 2018. Impacting the sensory experience of products:

Experimental studies on perceived quality. USA: Springer.

Crawford, L.M. 2020. Conceptual and theoretical framework in research, in

The scholar-practitioner’s guide to research design. Edited by
Burkholder, G.J., Cox, K.A. & Crawford, L.M. Baltimore: Laureate
Publishing. 35-48.

Crescitelli, E. & Figueiredo, J.B. 2009. Brand equity evolution: A system

dynamics model. Brazilian Administration Review, 6(2):101-117.

Creswell, J.W. & Creswell, J.D. 2017. Research design: Qualitative,

quantitative and mixed methods approaches. 5th ed. USA: SAGE
Publications.

378
Crispin, S. 2017. Beauty, in Zalta, E.N. (eds) The Stanford Encyclopaedia of
Philosophy. USA: Stanford University.

Crossman, A. 2018. Understanding purposive sampling. [Online]. Available:

https://www.thoughtco.com/purposive-sampling-3026727 [Accessed
20 March 2021].

Crossman, A. 2020. Constructing a questionnaire. [Online]. Available:

https://www.thoughtco.com/constructing-a-questionnaire-3026540
[Accessed 18 April 2020].

Cunningham, N. 2012. Consumer perceptions of shopping channel attributes

and risk factors influencing apparel purchases. Unpublished Masters
Dissertation. University of Johannesburg.

Cypress, B.S. 2021. Fundamentals of qualitative phenomenological nursing

research. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Dagar, S. 2019. Instant notes on research methods. New Delhi: The Readers
Paradise.

Dani, V. & Pabalkar, V. 2013. Branding through sensory marketing.

International Journal of Scientific Research, 2(11):300-302.

Das, B. & Tripathi, D. 2017. Research ethics. Delhi: e-PG Pathshala.

Das, G., Agarwal, J., Malhotra, N.K. & Varshneya, G. 2019. Does brand
experience translate into brand commitment? A mediated-moderation
model of brand passion and perceived brand ethicality. Journal of
Business Research, 95:479-490.

Davcik, N.S. & Sharma, P. 2015. Impact of product differentiation, marketing

investments and brand equity on pricing strategies: A brand level
investigation. European Journal of Marketing, (5-6):760-781.

379
Davcik, N.S. & Rundquist, J. 2012. An exploratory study of brand success:
Evidence from the food industry. Journal of International Food &
Agribusiness Marketing, 24(1):91-109.

Davis, B. 2021. What are the theoretical frameworks? [Online]. Available:

https://www.mvorganizing.org/what-are-the-theoretical-frameworks/
[Accessed 19 November 2021].

De Ceuster. 2014. Emotions in music: A critical review of prevailing arousal

theories in musicology. Unpublished Bachelors Treatise. Utrecht
University.

De Trigueros, R.L.V. 2018. Conceptual framework, theoretical framework,

state of the art and referenced framework. Unpublished Masters
Dissertation. University of El Salvador.

Debois, S. 2019. 10 Advantages and disadvantages of questionnaires.

[Online]. Available: https://surveyanyplace.com/questionnaire-pros-
and-cons/ [Accessed 20 March 2021].

Dodgson, N.A. 2019. What is the “opposite” of “blue”? The language of colour
wheels. Journal of Perceptual Imaging, 2(1):1-13.

Dehghan, A. & Shahin, A. 2011. A case study in Maddiran: The distributor of

LG electronics in Iran. Business Management and Strategy, 2(1):1-23.

Devkota, B.R. 2020. Probability sampling advantages and disadvantages.

[Online]. Available: https://www.mathstopia.net/sampling/probability-
sampling-advantages-disadvantages [Accessed 17 April 2020].

Delacre, M., Leys, C., Mora, Y.L. &bLakens, D. 2019. Taking parametric
assumptions seriously: Arguments for the use of Welch’s F-test instead
of the classical F-test in One-Way ANOVA. International Review of
Social Psychology, 32(1):1-13.

380
Dewey, J. 1910. How we think, New York: Heath.

Deyan, G. 2021. How much time do people spend on social media in 2021.
[Online]. Available: https://techjury.net/blog/time-spent-on-social-
media/#gref [Accessed 21 July 2021].

Adom, D., Hussein, E.K. & Agyem, J.A. 2018. Theoretical and conceptual
framework: Mandatory ingredients of a quality research. International
Journal of Scientific Research, 7(1):438-440.

Didehban, M., Najar, B.S.A., Momeni, K. & Attarian, K. 2021. Evaluation visual
perception of Desful City’s vernacular urban spaces between expert
and non-expert based Gestalt Theory. Armanshahr Architecture &
Urban Development, 13(33):99-109.

Dieck, C.T., Jung, T. & Rauschnabel, P.A. 2017. Determining visitor

engagement through augmented reality at science festivals: An
experience economy perspective. Computers in Human Behaviour,
82:44-53.

Djordjevic, M. 2021. 26 Useful statistics on online shopping vs in-store

shopping [The 2021 edition]. [Online]. Available:
https://savemycent.com/statistics-on-online-shopping-vs-in-store-
shopping/ [Accessed 15 March 2021].

Dlepu, A.L. 2021. A framework for an integrated transport system towards

improving public transport efficiency in the Buffalo City Metropolitan
Municipality. Unpublished Masters Dissertation. Nelson Mandela
University, Port Elizabeth.

Dobric, M. 2021. 31 Beauty industry statistics for fabulous 2021. [Online].

Available: https://disturbmenot.co/beauty-industry-statistics/ [Accessed
15 March 2021].

381
Donati, T. 2020. 14 Beauty industry trends to help merchants drive growth.
[Online]. Available: https://www.octaneai.com/blog/beauty-industry-
trends-drive-growth [Accessed 1 August 2022].

Dooly, M., Moore, E. & Vallejo, C. 2017. Research ethics, in Moore, E. &
Dooly, M. (eds). Qualitative approaches to research on plurilingual
education. Research-publishing.net. 351-362.

Douce, L. & Adams, C. 2020: Sensory overload in a shopping environment:

Not every sensory modality leads to too much stimulation. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 57:102154-102168.

Duarte, A.L.D.C.M., Brito, L.A.L., Serio, L.C.D. & Martins, G.S. 2011.
Operational practices and financial performance: An empirical analysis
of Brazilian manufacturing companies. Brazilian Administration Review,
8:395-411.

Dube, J.P. & Rossi, P.E. 2019. Handbook of the economics of marketing. UK:
Elsevier.

Dudovskiy, J. 2018. Questionnaires. [Online]. Available: https://research-

methodology.net/research-methods/survey-method/questionnaires-2/
[Accessed 16 March 2020].

Duncan, T. & Herrington, C. 2013. The concept, process and evolution of

integrated marketing communications, in Integrated communication,
Edited by Thorson, E. & Moore, J. New York: Psychology Press. 13-35.

Dunkovic, D. 2016. The effectiveness of offering food samples to increase

purchase involvement in supermarket settings. EFZG Working Paper
Series, 16(4):1-10.

Durdella, N. 2017. Qualitative dissertation methodology: A guide for research

design and methods. USA: SAGE.

382
Durmaz, Y. & Yasar, H.V. 2016. Brand and brand strategies. International
Business Research, 9(5):48-56.

Duvall, J. 2019. Shipping is critical to keeping online shoppers happy. [Online].

Available:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2019/08/27/shipping-
is-critical-to-keeping-online-shoppers-happy/?sh=3fe9bc50178c
[Accessed 10 April 2022].

Dybala, M.P., Butterfield, J.K., Hendren-Santiago, B.K. & Hara, M. 2020.

Pancreatic islets and Gestalt principles. Diabetes, 69:1864-1874.

Ebrahim, N.A. 2016. Introduction to the research tools for research

methodology course, in Effective use of research & Publication tools and
Resources. Kuala Lumpur. 1-127. Available:
https://www.academia.edu/25071436/Introduction_to_the_Research_T
ools_for_Research_Methodology_course [Accessed 10 May 2021].

Ecommerce News. 2021. The impact of COVID-19 on ecommerce. [Online].

Available: https://ecommercenews.eu/the-impact-of-covid-19-on-
ecommerce/ [Accessed 7 April 2021].

Edgar, T.W. & Manz, D.O. 2017. Research methods for cyber security. USA:
Syngress.

Edwin, K. 2019. Reliability and validity of research instruments. Proceedings

of the NMK Conference. North Macedonia. 1-9.

Eelen, J., Siegfried, D. & Warlop, L. 2013. Situated embodied cognition:

Monitoring orientation cues affects product evaluation and choice.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(4):424-33.

Ekolu, S.O. & Quainoo, H. 2019. Reliability of assessments in engineering

education using Cronbach’s alpha, KR and split-half methods. Global
Journal of Engineering Education, 21(1):24-29.

383
El-Sherbiny, H.M.F. 2019. Designing brand identity through sensory branding.
Unpublished PhD Thesis. Helwan University, Egypt.

Elder, R.S. & Krishna, A. 2012. The “Visual Depiction Effect” in advertising:
Facilitating embodied mental simulation through product orientation.
Journal of Consumer Research, 38(6):988-1003.

Elfil, M. & Negida, A. 2017. Sampling methods in clinical research: An

educational review. Emergency, 5(1):1-3.

Ellsworth, M. 2021. Shelf placement: How to get your products where they
need to be. [Online]. Available: https://blog.wiser.com/shelf-placement-
how-to-get-your-products-where-they-need-to-be/ [Accessed 7 April
2022].

Engelen, M. 2016. The influence of music on purchasing behaviour of

consumers in a supermarket. Unpublished Bachelor’s Treatise.
Wageningen University & Research, Netherlands.

Erdem, O., Nilufer, P. & Gunduz, U. 2021. Handbook of research on digital

citizenship and management during crisis. Pennsylvania: IGI Global.

Ergin, E.., Ozdemir, H. & Parilti, N. 2005. Brand loyalty in the cosmetic
industry: A field study on Turkish women’s brand loyalty among
cosmetics products. Journal of Business & Economic Research, 3(5):5-
16.

Erickson, G.S. 2017. Chapter 4: Causal research, in New Methods of Market

Research and Analysis. Edited by Erickson, G.S. UK: Edward Elgar
Publishing. 78-105.

384
Eshelby, T. 2019. In our feelings: How emotion elevates customer experience.
[Online]. Available: https://www.deloittedigital.com/us/en/blog-
list/2019/in-our-feelings--how-emotion-elevates-customer-
experience.html [Accessed 10 November 2021].

Etikan, I. & Bala, K. 2017. Sampling and sampling methods. Biometrics &
Biostatistics International Journal, 5(6):215-217.

Etikan, I., Musa, S.A. & Alkassim, R.S. 2016. Comparing convenience
sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and
Applied Statistics, 5(1):1-4.

Eurostudent.eu. 2008. Eurostudent IV: Definition of target group

questionnaire. [Online]. Available: https://www.eurostudent.eu/
download_files/documents/Question naire_EIV.pdf [Accessed 25 May
2020].

Faber, J. & Fonseca, L.M. 2014. How sample size influences research
outcomes. Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics, 19(4): 27-29.

Fallatah, R.H.M. & Syed, J. 2017. A critical review of Maslow’s Hierarchy of

Needs, in Employee Motivation in Saudi Arabia. Camden: Palgrave
Macmillan. 19-59.

Fang, Y., Zhang, X., Yuan, F., Imamoglu, N. & Liu, H.2019. Video saliency
detection by Gestalt theory. Pattern Recognition, 96:1-11.

Farquhar, O.H., Han, J.Y. & Ijiri, Y. 1991. Recognizing and measuring brand
assets. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

Farrell, S. 2016. Open-ended vs. closed-ended questions in user research.

[Online]. Available: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/open-ended-
questions/ [Accessed 18 April 2020].

385
Fauvelle, L. 2019. Qualitative research: Open-ended and closed-ended
questions. [Online]. Available: https://www.intotheminds.com
/blog/en/qualitative-research-open-and-closed-ended-questions/
[Accessed 18 April 2020].

Favero, L. & Belfiore, O. 2019. Data science for business and decision making.
USA: Academic Press.

Fayvishenko, D. 2018. Formation of brand positioning strategy. Baltic Journal

of Economic Studies, 4(2):245-248.

FDA. 2020. Cosmetic product category codes. [Online]. Available:

https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/paper-registration-voluntary-cosmetic-
registration-program-vcrp/cosmetic-product-category-codes [Accessed
6 November 2021].

Feng, S., Suri, R. & Bell, M. 2014. Does classical music relieve math anxiety?
Role of tempo on price computation avoidance. Psychology &
Marketing, 31(7):489-499.

Ferreira, J. & Sousa, B. 2020. Experiential marketing as a leverage for growth

of creative tourism: A co-creative process, in: Rocha, Á., Abreu, A., de
Carvalho, J., Liberato, D., González E. & Liberato, P. (eds).
Advances in Tourism, Technology and Smart Systems: Smart
Innovation, systems and technologies. Singapore: Springer. 567-577.

Filho, D.B.F., Paranhos, R., Rocha, E.C., Batista, M., da Silva, J.A., Santos,
M.W. & Marino, J.G. 2013. When is statistical significance not
significant? Brazilian Political Science Review, 7(1):31-55.

Finch, W.H. 2020. Using fit statistic differences to determine the optimal
number of factors to retain in an exploratory factor analysis. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 80(2):217-241.

386
Fingerhut, J., Gomez-Lavin, J., Winklmayr, C. & Prinz, J.J. 2020. The aesthetic
self. The importance of aesthetic taste in music and for our perceived
identity. Frontiers in Psychology, 11:1-18.

Fiore, S.G. & Kelly, S. 2007. Surveying the use of sound in online stores:
Practices, possibilities and pitfalls for user experience. International
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 35(7):600-611.

Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. 1975. Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: An

introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Flamez, B., Lenz, A.S., Balkin, R.S. & Smith, R.L. 2017. A counsellor’s guide
to the dissertation process: Where to start, how to finish. USA: John
Wiley & Sons.

Flick, U. 2017. The SAGE handbook of qualitative data collection. UK: SAGE.

Flowers, B. 2020. Why spelling, pronunciation and sound matter when you
name your business. [Online]. Available:
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/345794 [Accessed 10 November
2021].

Fokina, M. 2023. Online shopping statistics: Ecommerce trends for 2023.

[Online]. Available: https://www.tidio.com/blog/online-shopping-
statistics/#how-many-people-shop-online [Accessed 13 March 2023].

Forister, J.G. & Blessing, J.D. 2019. Introduction to research and medical
literature for health professionals. Burlington: Jones and Bartlett
Learning.

Foroudi, M.M. & Foroudi, P. 2021. Corporate brand design: Developing and
managing brand identity. New York: Routledge.

387
Foroudi, P. & Palazzo, M. 2019. Contemporary issues in branding. UK:
Routledge.

Foroudi, P., Jin, Z., Gupta, S. & Foroudi, M.M. 2018. Perceptual components
of brand equity: Configuring the symmetrical and asymmetrical paths to
brand loyalty and brand purchase intention. Journal of Business
Research, 89:462-474.

Foster, G.C., Lane, D., Scott, D., Hebl, M., Guerra, R., Osherson, D. & Zimmer,
H. 2021. Post hoc tests. [Online]. Available:
https://stats.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Applied_Statistics/Book%3A_A
n_Introduction_to_Psychological_Statistics_(Foster_et_al.)/11%3A_A
nalysis_of_Variance/11.08%3A_Post_Hoc_Tests [Accessed 23
February 2022].

Foster, L. 2020. Brand loyalty is changing due to the pandemic. [Online].

Available: https://blackbizdaily.com/business/brand-loyalty-is-
changing-due-to-the-pandemic/ [Accessed 7 April 2021].

Frambach, R.T., Prabhu, J. & Verhallen, T.M.M. 2003. The influence of

business strategy on new product activity: The role of market
orientation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 20(4):377-
397.

Freeman, J. & Obasohan, P. 2020. Multiple testing including post hoc tests.
[Online]. Available:
https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.936613!/file/20_Post_hoc_te
sts.pdf [Accessed 23 February 2022].

Frey, B. 2018. The SAGE encyclopaedia of educational research,

measurement, and evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.

388
Fritz, K.T. 2018. Electronic service quality and customer satisfaction in South
African online stores: The role of psychographics on perceptions.
Unpublished PhD Thesis. University of the Western Cape, Cape Town.

Frost, J. 2020. Difference between descriptive and inferential statistics.

[Online]. Available: https://statisticsbyjim.com/basics/descriptive-
inferential-statistics/ [Accessed 1 September 2020].

Frost, J. 2022a. Chi-Square Test of independence and an example. [Online].

Available: https://statisticsbyjim.com/hypothesis-testing/chi-square-
test-independence-example/ [Accessed 20 August 2022].

Frost, J. 2022b. Benefits of Welch’s ANOVA compared to the classic one-way

ANOVA. [Online]. Available:
https://statisticsbyjim.com/anova/welchs-anova-compared-to-classic-
one-way-anova/ [Accessed 23 May 2022].

Frost, J. 2022c. Cronbach’s alpha: Definition, calculations & example. [Online].

Available: https://statisticsbyjim.com/basics/cronbachs-alpha/
[Accessed 10 May 2022].

Fullerton, G. 2003. When does commitment lead to loyalty? Journal of Service

Research, 5(4):333-344.

Galande, S. 2019. The study of impact of sensory branding on consumers

with special reference to Starbucks & KFC. International Journal of
Creative and Innovative Research in All Studies, 1(10):47-54.

Gao, F. & Lan, X. 2020. Sensory brand experience: Development and

validation in the Chinese context. Frontier Psychology, 11(1436):1-11.

Garlin, F.V. & Owen, K. 2006. Setting the tone with the tune: A meta-analytic
review of the effects of background music in retail settings. Journal of
Business Research, 59(6):755-764.

389
Geci, A., Nagyova, L. & Rybanska, J. 2017. Impact of sensory marketing on
consumer’s buying behaviour. Potravinarstvo Slovak Journal of Food
Sciences, 11(1):709-717.

Geider, P. 2021. What is a brand? A brief history. [Online]. Available:

https://www.patrickgeider.com/post/what-is-a-brand-a-brief-history
[Accessed 13 March 2023].

Gerstell, E., Marchessou, S., Schmidt, J. & Spagnuolo, E. 2020. How COVID-
19 is changing the world of beauty: The beauty industry has been
resilient in the past. Could this crisis have a different outcome? (Report
no. 1). New York, IN: McKinsey & Company.

Ghazali, N.H.M. 2016. A reliability and validity of an instrument to evaluate the

school-based assessment system: A pilot study. International Journal
of Evaluation and Research in Education, 5(2):148-157.

Giovanis, A.N. & Anthanasopoulou, P. 2016. Consumer-brand relationships

and brand loyalty in technology-mediated services. Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, Article in Press: 1-8.

Giove, V. 2021. Take a tour of the tongue. [Online]. Available:

https://www.science.org.au/curious/people-medicine/how-do-our-
tastebuds-work [Accessed 9 November 2021].

Glen, S. 2022a. Factor analysis: Easy definition. [Online]. Available:

https://www.statisticshowto.com/factor-analysis/ [Accessed 19 May
2022].

Glen, S. 2022b. Welch ANOVA: Definition, assumptions. [Online]. Available:

https://www.statisticshowto.com/welchs-anova/ [Accessed 19 May
2022].

390
Global Cosmetic Industry. 2021. Skincare 2021. [Online]. Available:
https://www.gcimagazine.com/ingredients/regulatory/article/21849214/
skin-care-2021 [Accessed 9 November 2021].

Goertzen, M.J. 2017. Applying quantitative methods to e-book collections.

Library Technology Reports, 53(4):12-18.

Goforth, C. 2015. Using and interpreting Cronbach Alpha. [Online]. Available:

https://data.library.virginia.edu/using-and-interpreting-cronbachs-
alpha/ [Accessed 5 September 2020].
Goftay, N.J. & Thatte, U.M. 2017. Principles of correlation analysis. Journal of
Association of Physicians of India, 65:78-81.

Gomez, J.M. & Mouselli, S. 2018. Modernizing the academic teaching and
research environment. USA: Springer.

Goodyear-Smith, F. & Mash, R. 2018. How to do primary care research. USA:

CRC Press.

Gopaldas, A. 2016. A front-to-back guide to writing a qualitative research

article. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal,
19(1):115-121.

Goulet-Pelletier, J.C. & Cousineau, D, 2018. A review of effect sizes and their
confidence intervals part I: The Cohen’s d family. The Quantitative
Methods for Psychology, 14(4): 242-265.

Gournelos, T., Hammonds, J.R. & Wilson, M.A. 2019. Academic research: A
practical guide to research methods and analysis. New York:
Routledge.

391
Goyal, C. 2021. Standardized vs unstandardized regression coefficient.
[Online]. Available:
https://www.analyticsvidhya.com/blog/2021/03/standardized-vs-
unstandardized-regression-coefficient/ [Accessed 10 June 2022].

Grande, T. 2015. ANOVA with Games-Howell post hoc test in SPSS. [Online
Video]. Available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oagLeAOaevk
[Accessed 23 May 2022].

Grandin, V., Jonsson, J. & Kessen, J. 2020. Approaches to sensory marketing

strategies within the beauty retail stores in Sweden: A qualitative insight
concerning sensory interplay and sensory overload. Unpublished
Bachelors Treatise. Linnaeus University, Sweden.

Grant, C. & Osanloo, A. 2015. Understanding, selecting and integrating a

theoretical framework in dissertation research: Developing a “blueprint”
for your “house”. Administrative Issues Journal of Education Practice
and Research, 4(2):12-26.

Gravetter, F.J. & Wallnau, L.B. 2016. Statistics for behavioural sciences. 10th
ed. USA: Cengage Learning.

Gray, D.E. 2019. Doing research in the business world. 2nd ed. UK: SAGE.

Grelecka, J.D. 2016. What factors affect expatriate adjustments? Study of

differences between self-initiated and assigned expatriates in Poland.
Unpublished Masters Dissertation. Instituto Universitario de Lisboa,
Portugal.

392
Griffith, W. 2020. How digital sensory marketing is key to appealing to today’s
consumer. [Online]. Available:
https://www.marketingmag.com.au/hubs-c/how-digital-sensory-
marketing-is-key-to-appealing-to-todays-consumer/ [Accessed 21 July
2021].

Grove, S.K., Gray, J.R. & Burns, N. 2015. Understanding nursing research. 6th
ed. Missouri: Elsevier.

Grubor, A. & Milovanov, O. 2017. Brand strategies in the era of sustainability.

Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems, 15(1):78-88.

Grzybowska-Brezezinska, M., Rudzewicz, A. & Kowalkowski, A. 2013.

Sensory marketing and customers’ decisions on the food market.
Socio-Economic Research Bulletin, 3(50):38-43.

Gudat, S. 2018. How age and life stage affect retail consumer loyalty. [Online].
Available: https://www.customer.com/blog/retail-marketing/shopping-
personalities-customer-loyalty-statistics/ [Accessed 13 January 2022].

Gürhan-Canli, Z., Sarial-Abi, G. & Hayran, C. 2018. Consumers and brands

across the globe: Research synthesis and new directions. Journal of
International Marketing, 26(1):96-117.

Gursoy, D. & Nunkoo, R. 2019. The Routledge handbook of tourism impacts:

Theoretical and applied perspectives. UK: Routledge.

Haans, A. & IJsselsteijn, A.W. 2009. The virtual Midas touch: Helping
behaviour after a mediated social touch. IEEE Transactions on Haptics,
2(3):136-40.

Haans, A., de Bruijn, R. & IJsselsteijn, W.A. 2014. A virtual Midas touch?
Touch, compliance, and confederate bias in mediated communication.
Journal of Nonverbal Behaviour, 38(3):301-11.

393
Hagger, M.S. 2019. The reasoned action approach and the theories of
reasoned action and panned behaviour, in Oxford Bibliographies in
Psychology. Dunn, D.S (ed). New York: Oxford University Press. 1-29.

Hagtvedt, H. & Brasel, S.A. 2016. Cross-modal communication: Sound

frequency influences consumer responses to colour lightness. Journal
of Marketing Research, 53(4):551–62.

Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. & Anderson, R.E. 2019. Multivariate data
analysis. 8th edBoston: Cengage.

Hallam, S., Cross, I. & Thaut, M.H. 2016. The Oxford handbook of music
psychology. 2nd ed. UK: Oxford University Press.

Hammond, N. 2018. Trigeminal nerve overview. [Online]. Available:

https://www.healthline.com/human-body-maps/trigeminal-nerve
[Accessed 8 November 2021].

Hanson, D., Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D. & Hoskisson, R.E. 2016. Strategic
management: Competitiveness and globalisation. Australia: Cengage
Learning Inc.

Haradhan, M. 2017. Two criteria for good measurements in research: Validity

and reliability. Munich Personal RePEc Archive, 17(3):58-82.

Harris, J. 2020. The five D’s of data preparation. [Online]. Available:

https://www.sas.com/en_us/insights/articles/data-management/the-
five-d-s-of-data-preparation.html#/ [Accessed 20 March 2021].

Harris, P., Kluppel-Strobel, C. & Shakhiry, R. 2017. An exploration of brand

experience development and management, in Academy of Marketing
Science 20th World Marketing Congress. New Zealand. 1-7.

394
Hartman, S.E.2020. The impact of lighting type on consumer behaviour in
purchase of healthy products. [Unpublished Honours Thesis]. Georgia
Southern University. 1-30.

Harvey, S. 2021. Sensory marketing: Strategies for a sensational campaign.

[Online]. Available: https://fabrikbrands.com/sensory-marketing/
[Accessed 20 March 2021].

Hashimoto, Y., Inami, M. & Kajimoto, H. 2008. Straw-Like User Interface (Ii):
A new method of presenting auditory sensations for a more natural
experience, in International Conference on Human Haptic Sensing and
Touch Enabled Computer Applications. Berlin: Springer. 484–93.

Haung, T.K., Liao, C.Y., Wang, Y.T. & Lin, K.Y. 2018. How does social media
interactivity affect brand loyalty? Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences.

Hauser, E. 2017. Here’s why perfume descriptions are never about smell.
[Online]. Available:
https://www.racked.com/2017/12/15/16733888/perfume-descriptions
[Accessed 9 November 2021].

Hayes, K. 2020. How the sense and smell of taste works. [Online]. Available:
https://www.verywellhealth.com/how-the-sense-of-taste-works-
1191869 [Accessed 10 November 2021].

Heale, R. & Twycross, A. 2015. Validity and reliability in quantitative studies.

Evidence Based Nursing, 18(3):66-67.

Healy, M. 2016. Servicescapes, customer experience, and the modern café.

[Online]. Available: https://medium.com/@mhealy/servicescapes-
customer-experience-and-the-modern-cafe-cec12ba6b4f0
[Accessed February 2022].

395
Hefner, V. 2017. Variables, mediating types, in The SAGE encyclopaedia of
communication research methods. Edited by Allen, M. Thousand Oaks:
SAGE Publications. 1852-1856.

Heiberg, T. & Winning, A. 2020. South Africa to impose 21-day lockdown as

coronavirus cases jump. [Online]. Available:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-safrica-
idUSKBN21A1SZ [Accessed 7 April 2021].

Heidel, E. 2022. Cronbach alpha. [Online]. Available:

https://www.scalestatistics.com/cronbachs-alpha.html [Accessed 2
February 2022].

Helmefalk, M. & Berndt, A. 2018. Shedding light on the use of single and
multisensory cues ad their effect on consumer behaviours.
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,
46(11/12):1077-1091.

Hendricks, K.B. & Singhal, V.R. 1996. Quality awards and the market value of
the firm: An empirical investigation. Management Sciences, 42:415-
436.

Hendricks, K.B. & Singhal, V.R. 1997. Does implementing an effective TQM
program actually improve operating performance? Evidence from firms
that have won quality awards. Management Sciences, 43:1258-1274.

Hendricks, K.B. & Singhal, V.R. 2000. Firm characteristics, total quality
management, and financial performance. Journal of Operations
Management, 238:1-17.

Hennink, M., Hutter, I. & Bailey, A. 2020. Qualitative research methods. 2nd
ed. UK: SAGE.

396
Herrera, M.M., Leon, L.S. & Vargas-Ortiz, L.K. 2018. A dynamic analysis of
the effects of word of mouth on online brand. Suma De Negocios,
9(20):77-85.

Hewawalpita, S. & Perera, I. 2017. Effect of 3D product presentation on

consumer preference in e-commerce, in 2017 Moratuwa Engineering
Research Conference (MERCon). Moratuwa, Sri Lanka. 1-5.

Hillier, L. 2018. Colour psychology. [Online]. Available:

https://econsultancy.com/how-brands-use-colour-psychology-to-
reinforce-their-identities/ [Accessed 15 August 2021].

Hirschman, E.C. & Holbrook, M.B. 1982. Hedonic consumption: Emerging

concepts, methods, and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46(3):92-
101.

Ho, C., Jones, R., King, S., Murray, L. & Spence, C. 2013. Multisensory
augmented reality in the context of a retail clothing application, in
(((ABA))) Audio Branding Academy Yearbook 2012/2013. Edited by
Bronner, K., Hirt, R. & Ringe, C. Baden-Baden: Nomos. 167–75.

Hoang, S.D. & Tuckova, Z. 2020. The impact of sensory marketing on street
food for the return of international visitors: Case study in Vietnam.
Scientific Papers, 29(2):1282-1296.

Hoekstra, R., Vugteveen, J., Warrens, M.J. & Kruyen, P.M. 2018. An empirical
analysis of alleged misunderstandings of coefficient alpha. International
Journal of Social Research Methodology, 22(4):351-364.

Hoeschele, W. 2016. The economics of abundance. London: Routledge.

Holbrook, M.B. & Hirschman, E.C. 1982. The experiential aspects of

consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings and fun. Journal of
Consumer Research, 9:132-40.

397
Hollebeek, L.D. & Macky, K. 2019. Digital content marketing’s role in fostering
consumer engagement, trust, and value: Framework, fundamental
propositions, and implications. Journal of Interactive Marketing,
45(1):27-41.

Hollebeek, L.D., Sprott, D.E., Andreassen, T.W., Costley, C., Klaus, P.,
Kuppelwieser, V. & Rather, R. A. 2019. Customer engagement in
evolving technological environments: Synopsis and guiding
propositions. European Journal of Marketing, 53(9):2018-2023.

Holmes, D., Moody, P., Dine, D. & Trueman, L. 2017. Research methods for
the biosciences. 3rd ed. UK: Oxford University Press.

Homburg, C., Jozić, D. & Kuehnl, C. 2017. Customer experience

management: Toward implementing an evolving marketing concept.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(3):377-401.

Hopkins, S. 2021. The 4 types of validity in research design (+3 more to

consider). [Online]. Available:
https://www.activecampaign.com/blog/validity-in-research-design
[Accessed 2 February 2022].

Howard, C. 2019. Advantages and disadvantages of online surveys. [Online].

Available: https://www.cvent.com/en/blog/events/advantages-
disadvantages-online-surveys [Accessed 17 April 2020].

Howard, C. 2021. Advantages and disadvantages of online surveys. [Online].

Available: https://www.cvent.com/ae/blog/events/advantages-
disadvantages-online-surveys [Accessed 10 October 2021].

Howard, J.A. & Sheth, J.N. 1969. The Theory of Buyer Behaviour. New York:
John Wiley. 12-15

398
Hoyer, W.D. & Stokburger-Sauer, N.E. 2012. The role of aesthetic taste in
consumer behaviour. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences,
40:167-180.

Huang, E. 2012. Online experiences and virtual goods purchase intention.

Internet Research, 22(3):252-74.

Huang, G. 2016. Moderating role of brand familiarity in cross-media effects:

An information processing perspective. Journal of Promotion
Management, 22(5):665-683.

Huang, T.L. & Liao, S.L. 2017. Creating e-Shopping multisensory flow
experience through augmented-reality interactive technology. Internet
Research, 27(2):449–75.

Huang, W. & Jen, L. 2020. Color place marketing – The role of atmospheric
colours on place product association and consumer choices in
Luoyang, China. Sustainability, 12(23):9902-9922.

Huang, Y. & Lu, S. 2020. Influencing factors for willingness to pay of Chinese
consumers for organic skin care products from product quality in
Wuhan City. Asian Journal of Science and Technology, 11(9):11221 –
11228.

Hughes, J.L., Camden, A.A. & Yangchen, T. 2016. Rethinking and updating
demographic questions: Guidance to improve descriptions of research
samples. Journal of Psychological Research, 21(3):138-151.

Hulin, C., Netemeyer, R.G. & Cudeck, R. 2001. Can reliability coefficient be
too high? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10(1):55-58.

Hulten, B. 2015. Sensory marketing: Theoretical and empirical grounds. New

York: Routledge.

399
Hulten, B. 2017. Branding by the five senses: A sensory branding framework.
Journal of Brand Strategy, 6(3):1-12.

Hulten, B. 2020. Sensory marketing: An introduction. USA: SAGE.

Hung, Y.T. 2016. Website quality factors influencing online shopping: A South
African perspective. Unpublished Masters Dissertation. University of
South Africa.

Hunziker, S. & Blankenagel, M. 2021. Research design in business and

management: A practical guide for students and researchers.
Germany: Springer.

Hussein, A.S. 2018. Effects of brand experience on brand loyalty in Indonesian

casual dining restaurant: Roles of customer satisfaction and brand
origin. Tourism and Hospitality Journal, 24(1):1-14.

Hwang, J. & Lee, J. 2019. A strategy for enhancing senior tourists’ well-being
perception: Focusing on the experience economy. Journal of Travel
and Tourism Marketing, 36(3):314-329.

Hyman, M.R. & Sierra, J.J. 2016. Open- versus close-ended survey questions.
Business Outlook, 14(2):1-5.

Idris, F. 2011. Total quality management (TQM) and sustainable business

performances: Examining the relationship in Malaysian firms.
International Journal of Business Social Research, 12:31-52.

Ifeanyichukwu, C.D. & Peter, A. 2018. The role of sensory marketing in

achieving customer patronage in fast food restaurants in Awka.
International Research Journal of Management, IT & Social Sciences,
5(2):155-163.

400
Iglesias, O., Markovic, S. & Rialp, J. 2019. How does sensory brand
experience influence brand equity? Considering the roles of customer
satisfaction, customer affective commitment and employee empathy.
Journal of Business Research, 96:343-354.

Iglesias, O., Singh, J.J. & Batista-Foguet, J.M. 2011. The role of brand
experience and affective commitment in determining brand loyalty.
Journal of Brand Management, 18(8):570–582.

Ikudayisi, A.M. 2021. An analysis of the employability of civil engineering

graduate technicians. Unpublished Masters Dissertation. Nelson
Mandela University, Port Elizabeth.

Imschloss, M. & Kuehnl, C. 2017. Don't ignore the floor: Exploring

multisensory atmospheric congruence between music and flooring in
a retail environment. Psychology & Marketing, 34(10):931-945.

Infante, V.H.P., Calixto, L.S. & Campos, P.M.B.G.M. 2016. Cosmetic

consumption behaviour among men and women and the importance in
products indication and treatment adherence. Surg Cosmet Dermatol,
8(2):134-41.

Internet World Stats. 2018. Internet Users in the World by Region – June 30,
2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
[Accessed 7 April 2021].

Inui-Yamamoto, C., Yamamoto, T., Ueda, K., Nakatsuka, M., Kumabe, S., Inui,
T. & Iwai, Y. 2017. Taste preference changes throughout different life
stages in male rats. PLoS ONE, 12(7):1-15.

Iosifyan, M. & Korolkova, O.A. 2019. Emotions associated with different

textures during touch. Consciousness and Cognition, 71(1):79-85.

401
Islam, J.U., Hollebeek, L.D., Rahman, Z., Khan, I. & Rasool, A. 2019.
Customer engagement in the service context: An empirical
investigation of the construct, its antecedents and consequences.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 50:277-285.

Isoraite, M. 2018. Brand image theoretical aspects. Integrated Journal of

Business and Economics, 2(1):116-122.

Israel, A., Lahav, E. & Ziv, N. 2019. Stop the music? The effect of music on
risky financial decisions: An experimental study. Journal of Behavioural
and Experimental Finances, 24:100231-100246.

Jacewicz, N. 2017. Why taste buds dull as we age. [Online]. Available:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/05/05/526750174/why-
taste-buds-dull-as-we-age {Accessed 10 November 2021].

Jackson, B. 2019. Business research methods. UK: ED-Tech Press.

Jallad, R. 2019. To convert more customers, focus on brand awareness.

[Online]. Available: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesagencycouncil/
2019/10/22/to-convert-more-customers-focus-on-brand-awareness/
?sh=59c8111b2075 [Accessed 10 November 2021].

Jang, H.W. & Lee, S.B. 2019. Applying effective sensory marketing to
sustainable coffee shop business management. Sustainability,
11(6430):1-17.

Janiszewska, K. & Insch, A. 2012. The strategic importance of brand

positioning in the place brand concept: Elements, structure and
application capabilities. Journal of International Studies, 5(1):9-19.

Jiang, Z. & Benbasat, I. 2004. Virtual product experience: Effects of visual and
functional control of products on perceived diagnostic and flow in
electronic shopping. Journal of Management Information Systems,
21(3):111-47.

402
Jiang, Z. & Benbasat, I. 2007. Investigating the influence of the functional
mechanisms of online product presentations. Information Systems.
Research, 18:454-470.

Jin, S.A.A. 2011. The impact of 3d virtual haptics in marketing. Psychology &
Marketing, 28(3):240–55.

Johnson, R.J. 2020. Tactile contact as a marketing tool for improving an

HIV/STD education program’s compliance/ retention with crack cocaine
users. Psychology Mental Health Care, 4(1)1-11.

Jovancic, N. 2019. 5 Data collection methods for obtaining quantitative and

qualitative data. [Online]. Available: https://www.leadquizzes.com
/blog/data-collection-methods/ [Accessed 17 April 2020].

Kabir, S.M.S. 2016. Basic guidelines for research: An introductory approach

for all disciplines. Bangladesh: Book Zone Publications.

Kaliyadan, F. & Kulkarni, V. 2019. Types of variables, descriptive statistics and

sample size. Indian Dermatology Online Journal, 10(1):82-86.

Kamel, S.A., Shafiq, M. & Kakria, P. 2020. Investigating acceptance of

telemedicine services through extended technology acceptance model
(TAM). Technology in Society, 60:101212-101222.

Kandampully, J., Zhang, T. & Bilgihan, A. 2015. Customer loyalty: A review

and future directions with a special focus on the hospitality industry.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
27(3):379-414.

Kapferer, J.N. 1992. Strategic brand management. London: Kogan Page.

403
Kashuba, M. 2021. The impact of COVID-19 on e-commerce. [Online].
Available: https://customerthink.com/the-impact-of-covid-19-on-e-
commerce/ [Accessed 7 April 2021].

Kastenholz, E., Carneiro, M.J., Marques, C.P. & Loureiro, S.M.C. 2017. The
dimensions of rural tourism experience: Impacts on arousal, memory
and satisfaction. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing,
35(2):189201.

Kaushik, S. & Gokhale, N. 2021. Online sensory marketing: Developing five-

dimensional multi-sensory experiences and its effectiveness. Geintec,
11(4): 5375-5391.

Keller, K.L. 1993. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-

based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1):1-22.

Keller, K.L. 2003. Understanding brands, branding and brand equity.

Interactive Marketing, 5(1):7-20.

Keller, K.L. 2013. Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and

managing brand equity. 4th ed. Essex: Pearson.

Keller, K.L. 2020. Leveraging secondary associations to build brand equity:

Theoretical perspectives and practical applications. International
Journal of Advertising, 39(4):448-465.

Kent State University. 2021. SPSS tutorials: Chi-square test of independence.

[Online]. Available: https://libguides.library.kent.edu/spss/chisquare
[Accessed 20 August 2022].

404
Kestenbaum, R. 2018. The biggest trends in the beauty industry. [Online].
Available:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardkestenbaum/2018/09/09/beauty-
industry-biggest-trends-skin-care-loreal-shiseido-
lauder/?sh=5d225ae69823 [Accessed 21 July 2021].

Khandelwal, M. 2021. Everything you need to know about the Likert scale.
[Online]. Available: https://www.surveysensum.com/blog/everything-
you-need-to-know-about-the-likert-scale/#5-point%20likert [Accessed
10 February 2022].

Khanna, M., Jacob, I. & Chopra, A. 2019. Promoting business school brands
through alumni (past customer): Analysing factors influencing brand
resonance. Journal of Promotional Management, 24(3):337-353.

Khatib, H. 2020. No tests, no touching: What will shopping for beauty products
look like in the post-COVID world? [Online]. Available:
https://www.vogue.in/beauty/content/beauty-product-shopping-india-
makeup-testers-ban-post-covid-19 [Accessed 28 June 2022].

Kim, H.Y. 2015. Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Post-hoc multiple
comparisons. Restorative Density & Endodontics, 40(2):172-176.

Kim, J. & Forsythe, S. 2008a. Sensory Enabling Technology Acceptance

Model (SE-TAM): A multiple-group structural model comparison.
Psychology & Marketing, 25(9):901-22.

Kim, J. & Forsythe, S. 2008b. Adoption of virtual try-on technology for online
apparel shopping. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 22(2):45-59.

Kim, J.M. 2017a. Phonology of brand naming. Korean Open Access Journals,
23(1):3-26.

405
Kim, K. & Zauberman, G. 2019. The effect of music tempo on consumer
impatience in intertemporal decisions. European Journal of Marketing,
53(3):504-523.

Kim, N. & Lee, H. 2021. Assessing consumer attention and arousal using eye-
tracking technology in virtual retail environment, Frontiers in
Psychology, 12:1-69.

Kim, R.B. & Chao, Y. 2019. Effects of brand experience, brand image and
brand trust on brand building process: The case of Chinese millennial
generation consumers. Journal of International Studies, 12(3):9-21.

Kim, T.K. 2017b. Understanding one-way ANOVA using conceptual figures.

Korean Journal of Anaesthesiology, 70(1):22-26.

Kim, Y.K. & Sullivan, P. 2019. Emotional branding speaks to consumers’ heart:
The case of fashion brands. International Journal of Interdisciplinary
Research, 6(2):1-16.

Kinda, T. 2019. E-commerce as a potential new engine for growth in Asia. IMF
Working Paper, 19(35):1-28.

King, R. 2012. Adding a sense of touch to online shopping. [Online]. Available:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-CIOB-1328 [Accessed 10 October
2021].

Kishore, P. 2022. Methods of data collection in legal research. Supremo

Amicus, 28(54):1-9.

Kivunja, C. & Kuyini, A.B. 2017. Understanding and applying research

paradigms in educational contexts. International Journal of Higher
Education, 6(5):26-41.

406
Kivunja, C. 2018. Distinguishing between theory, theoretical framework, and
conceptual framework: A systematic review of lessons from the field.
International Journal of Higher Education, 7(6):44-53.

Klein, L.R. 2003. Creating virtual product experiences: The role of

telepresence. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 17(1):41-55.

Klingenberg, B., Timberlake, R., Geurts, T.G. & Brown, R.J. 2013. The
relationship of operational innovation and financial performance: A
critical perspective. International Journal of Production Economics,
142:317-323.

Klopotan, I., Buntak, K. & Drozdjek, I. 2014. Impact of education, gender and
age on consumer loyalty. International Journal for Quality Research,
8(4):481-494.

Knoeferle, K.M., Knoeferle, P., Velasco, C. & Spence, C. 2016. Multisensory

brand search: How the meaning of sounds guides consumers' visual
attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 22(2):196-210.

Knoeferle, K.M., Spangenberg, E.R., Herrmann A. & Landwehr, J.R. 2011. It

is all in the mix: The interactive effect of music tempo and mode on in-
store sales. Marketing Letters, 23(1):325-337.

Knowles, J. 2001. Brands: Visions and values. UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Koay, K.Y., Ong, D.L.T., Khoo, K.L. & Yeoh, H.Y. 2019. Perceived social
media marketing activities and consumer-based brand equity: Testing
a moderated mediation model. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and
Logistics, 33(2):53-72.

Koelzer, T. 2020. Brand positioning strategy. [Online]. Available:

http://equibrandconsulting.com/services/brand-consultant/brand-
positioning/strategy [Accessed 5 April 2021].

407
Koenig, R. 2020. Miss grocery store samples? Here’s what grocers say to
expect in a post-COVID-19 world. [Online]. Available:
https://www.today.com/food/has-covid-19-put-end-grocery-store-
samples-good-retailers-t203058 [Accessed 30 October 2022].

Koetsier, J. 2020. Global online content consumption doubles in 2020.

[Online]. Available:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2020/09/26/global-online-
content-consumption-doubled-in-2020/?sh=58bfc3192fde [Accessed
21 July 2021].

Kofka, K. 1935. Principles of Gestalt psychology. London: Lund Humphries.

Kokoi, I. 2011. Female buying behaviour related to facial skin care products.
Unpublished Bachelor’s Treatise. HAAGA-HELIA University of Applied
Sciences, Finland.

Koller, I., Levenson, M.R. & Gluck, J. 2017. What do you think you are
measuring? A mixed methods procedure for assessing the content
validity of test items and theory-based scaling. [Online]. Available:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00126/full
[Accessed 2 February 2022].

Komura, H., Nakamura, T. & Ohka, M. 2021. Investigation of tactile illusion

based on Gestalt theory. Philosophies, 6(60):1-13.

Korsmeyer, C. 2017. Taste and other senses: Reconsidering the foundations

of aesthetics. The Nordic Journal of Aesthetics, 54:20-34.

Korstjens, I. & Moser, A. 2018. Series: Practical guidance to qualitative

research. Part 4: Trustworthiness and publishing. European Journal of
General Practice, 24(1):120-124.

408
Kotler, P. & Armstrong, G. 2010. Principles of marketing. New Jersey: Pearson
Education.

Kotler, P. & Keller, K.L. 2016. Marketing management. 15th ed. USA: Pearson
Education.

Kotler, P. 1973. Atmospherics as a marketing tool. Journal of Retailing,

49(4):48-64.

Kovacevic, M. 2022. How generations shop: Online shopping according to

baby boomers, Gen X, Millenials and Gen Z. [Online]. Available:
https://wolf-wolf.net/blog/how-generations-shop-online-shopping-
according-to-baby-boomers-gen-x-millennials-and-gen-z/ [Accessed
25 May 2022].

Kranzler, J.H. 2017. Statistics for the terrified. 6th ed. UK: Rowman & Littlefield.

Kraska, P.B., Brent, J.J. & Neuman, W.L. 2020. Criminal justice and
criminology research methods. Oxfordshire: Routledge.

Krishna, A. 2011. An integrative review of sensory marketing: Engaging the

senses to affect perception, judgement and behaviour. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 22:332-351.

Kumar, K. 2020a. What are the ten basic smells? [Online]. Available:
https://www.medicinenet.com/what_are_the_ten_basic_smells/article.
htm [Accessed 9 November 2021].

Kumar, P. 2020b. Demographic data: Role and importance of market

research. [Online]. Available: https://edifo.in/demographic-data-role-
and-importance-in-market-research/ [Accessed 14 February 2022].

409
Kumar, R. & Nagendra, A. 2018. Digital India: Transforming customer
relationship management in higher education. Journal of Applied
Management-Jidnyasa, 10(1):12-20.

Kumar, R. 2019. Research methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners.

5th ed. UK: SAGE.

Laerd Statistics. 2018. Spearman’s rank-order correlation. [Online]. Available:

https://statistics.laerd.com/statistical-guides/spearmans-rank-order-
correlation-statistical-guide.php [Accessed 17 October 2020].

Lakhal, L., Pasin, F. & Limam, M. 2006. Quality management practices and
their impact on performance. International Journal of Quality and
Reliability Management, 23:625-646.

Lambert, K. 2017. Awareness versus familiarity. [Online]. Available:

http://www.ryanadamsgroup.com/2017/03/01/awareness-familiarity/
[Accessed 10 November 2021].

Lambert, T.I.N. 2015. A structural equation model of the influence of personal,

behaviour and environmental factors on the writing performance of
first-year students at a selected Michigan community college.
Unpublished Masters Dissertation. Andrews University, Michigan.

Landy, F., Zedeck, S. & Cleveland, J. 2017. Performance measurement and

theory. London: Routledge.

Lanese, N. 2021. Why do our flavour preferences change over time? [Online].
Available: https://www.livescience.com/taste-preferences-change
[Accessed 10 November 2021].

410
Larocca, M.T.G., Ladeira, R., Silva, A.L.L. & Mello, R.C. 2020. Experience
marketing: A study of the conceptual aspects. Cadernos EBAPE BR,
18:1-17.

Lau, Y.H.F. 2018. The effect of brand crowding on brand differentiation: The
moderating effect of product. Unpublished Masters Dissertation. Brock
University, Ontario, Canada.

Lavrakas, P.J., Traugott, M.W., Kennedy, C., Holbrook, A.L., Leeuw, E.D. &
West, B.T. 2019. Methods in survey research: Techniques that combine
random sampling with random assignment. USA: Wiley.

Le, D., Scott, N. & Lohmann, G. 2019. Applying experiential marketing in

selling tourism dreams. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing,
1(16):220-235.

Leander, D. 2021. Customer experience in the grocery retail sector in South

Africa.[Unpublished Masters Dissertation. Nelson Mandela University,
Port Elizabeth.

Leavy, P. 2017. Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods,

arts-based and community participatory research approaches. New
York: Guilford Publications.

Lederman, N.G. & Lederman, J.S. 2015. What is a theoretical framework? A

practical answer. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26:593-597.

Lee, K.C. & Chung, N. 2008. Empirical analysis of consumer reaction to the
virtual reality shopping mall. Computers in Human Behaviour, 24(1):88-
104.

Lee, S. & Lee, D.K. 2018. What is the proper way to apply the multiple
comparison test? Korean Journal of Anaesthesiology, 71(5):353-360.

411
Leeming, D. 2018. The use of theory in qualitative research. Journal of Human
Lactation, 34(4):668-673.

Lehdonvirta, V., Oksanen, A., Rasanen, P. & Blank, G. 2020. Social media,
web and panel surveys: Using non-probability samples in social and
policy research. Policy and Internet, 13(1):134-155.

Leithinger, D., Follmer, S., Olwal, A. & Ishii, H. 2014. Physical telepresence:
Shape capture and display for embodied, computer-mediated remote
collaboration, in Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on
User Interface Software and Technology. ACM. 461–70.

Lemon, K.N. & Verhoef, P.C. 2016. Understanding customer experience

throughout the customer journey. Journal of Marketing, 80(6):69-96.

Lenhard, W. & Lenhard, A. 2017. Computation of effect size. [Online].

Available:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336836189_Computation_of
_Effect_Sizes [Accessed 23 February 2022].

Leppink, J. 2019. Statistical methods for experimental research in education

and psychology. UK: Springer.

Lesonsky, R. 2017. How to use free samples to sell more at your store.
[Online]. Available: https://smallbiztrends.com/2017/09/use-free-
samples-to-sell-more.html [Accessed 10 November 2021].

Leung, L. 2015. Validity, reliability and generalization in qualitative research.

Journal of Family Medicine and Prime Care, 4(3):324-327.

Levitt, H.M., Motulsky, S.L., Wertz, F.J., Morrow, S.L. & Ponterotto, J.G. 2017.
Recommendations for designing and reviewing qualitative research in
psychology: Promoting methodological integrity. Qualitative
Psychology, 4(1): 2-22.

412
Levrini, G.R.D. & Jeffman dos Santos, M. 2021. The influence of price on
purchase intentions: Comparative study between cognitive, sensory,
and neurophysiological experiments. Behavioural Sciences, 11(16):1-
16.

Li, F. & Du, T. C. 2017. The effectiveness of word of mouth in offline and online
social networks. Expert System with Applications, 88:338–351.

Li, J., Jiang, L., Cheng, Y., Yang, L., Yan, H. & Wang, X. 2018. A trust-based
collaborative filtering algorithm for e-commerce recommendation
system. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing,
10:3023-3034.

Li, P., Yang, X., Wu, yY., He, W. & Zhao, P. 2018a. Discount pricing in word-
of-mouth marketing: An optimal control approach. Physica A: Statistical
Mechanics its Applications, 505:512–522.

Li, T. & Meshkova, Z. 2013. Examining the impact of rich media on consumer
willingness to pay in online stores. Electronic Commerce Research
and Applications, 12:449-461.

Licon, C.C., Manesse, C., Dantec, M., Fournel A. & Bensafi, M. 2018.
Pleasantness and trigeminal sensations as a salient dimension in
organising the semantic and physiological spaces of doors. Scientific
Reports, 8(8444):1-12.

Liegeois, M. & Rivera, C. 2011. Sensory marketing on the natural cosmetics

market: The impact of generation X and generation Y. Unpublished
Bachelors Treatise. Hogskolan School of Business and Engineering,
Sweden.

Liew, K.C., Kui, K.W.J., Wu, W.L. & Gan, S.K.E. 2020. Application notes:
PsychVey Ver2 – Improving online survey data collection. Scientific
Phone Apps and Mobile Devices, 6(5):1-5.

413
Lim, A. 2020. Testers are over, but can the “touch-and-try” cosmetics business
rely on virtual testing post-pandemic? [Online]. Available:
https://www.cosmeticsdesign-asia.com/Article/2020/07/14/Testers-
are-over-but-can-the-touch-and-try-cosmetics-business-rely-on-
virtual-testing-post-pandemic [Accessed 28 June 2022].

Lin, C., Chow, W.S., Madu, C.N., Kuei, C.-H. & Yu, P.P. 2005. A structural
equation model of supply chain quality management and organizational
performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 96:355-
365.

Lin, L. 2010. The relationship of consumer personality trait, brand personality

and brand loyalty: An empirical study of toys and video games buyers.
Journal of Product and Brand Management, 19(1):4-17.

Lindemann, N. 2019. What’s the average survey response rate [2019

benchmark]? [Online]. Available: https://surveyanyplace.com/average-
survey-response-rate/ [Accessed 17 April 2020].

Lindemann, N. 2021. What’s the average survey response rate? [2021

benchmark] [Online]. https://pointerpro.com/author/nigel-lindemann/
[Accessed 17 April 2020].

Liu, R., Hannum, M. & Simons, C.T. 2018. Using immersive technologies to
explore the effects of congruent and incongruent contextual cues on
context recall, product evaluation time, and preference and liking during
consumer hedonic testing. Food Research International, 117:19-29.

Liu, Y., Liu, Y., Xu, S., Cheng, K., Masuko, S. & Tanaka, J. 2020. Comparing
VR- and AR- based try-on systems using personalised avatars.
Electronics, 9(11):1814-829.

414
Lliades, C. 2018. The science of taste. [Online]. Available:
https://foodinsight.org/the-science-of-taste/ [Accessed 10 November
2021].

Longley, R. 2019. An introduction to sensory marketing. [Online]. Available:

https://www.thoughtco.com/sensory-marketing-4153908 [Accessed 15
March 2021].

Lu, Z.L. & Yuan, K.H. 2010. Encyclopaedia of research design. CA: SAGE.

Lucas-Alfieri, D. 2015. Marketing plan research and assessment, in Marketing

the 21st Century Library: The time is Now. Edited by Lucas-Alfieri, D.
UK: Chandos Publishing. 19-30.

Lumsden, K. 2022. Qualitative research, research methods: Assessing the

“quality” of qualitative research. [Online]. Available:
https://qualitativetraining.com/2022/01/21/assessing-the-quality-of-
qualitative-research/ [Accessed 10 May 2022].

Luo, X. & Hayes, L. 2019. Vibrotactile stimulation based on the fundamental

frequency can improve melodic contour identification of normal-hearing
listeners with a 4-channel cochlear implant simulation. Frontiers in
Neuroscience, 13(1145):1-13.

Mackenzie, R. 2018. One-way vs two-way ANOVA: Differences, assumptions

and hypotheses. [Online]. Available:
https://www.technologynetworks.com/informatics/articles/one-way-vs-
two-way-anova-definition-differences-assumptions-and-hypotheses-
306553 [Accessed 23 February 2022].

Madondo, S.M. 2021. Data analysis and methods of qualitative research:

Emerging research and opportunities. Hershey: IGI Global.

415
Magnusson, K. 2020. Interpreting Cohen’s d effect size. [Online]. Available:
https://rpsychologist.com/d3/cohend/ [Accessed 7 September 2020].

Mahmutovic, J. 2021. 14 Advantages of online surveys (and 4 disadvantages).

[Online]. Available: https://www.surveylegend.com/online-
survey/advantages-of-online-surveys/ [Accessed 10 October 2021].

Makaleng, M.S.P. 2022. A reverse logistics competitiveness framework for

fast-moving consumer goods retailers in Pretoria. Unpublished
Doctorate Thesis. Port Elizabeth: Nelson Mandela University. 1-294.

Makela, A. 2020. Designing multi-sensory experience for museums.

Unpublished Bachelors Treatise. Haaga-Helia University of Applied
Sciences, Finland.

Malone, H.E., Nicholl, H. & Coyne, I. 2016. Fundamentals of estimating

sample size. Nurse Researcher, 23(5):21-25.

Maneti, M. 2014. An analysis of the sensorial marketing methods in fashion

retail sector. Unpublished Masters Dissertation. Dublin Business
School.

Manojkumar, S.S., Vasavada, M. & Sharma, M.S. 2021. Influence of sensory

branding on consumer buying behaviour: An empirical evidence with
reference to the coffee outlets of India. International Journal of
Management, 12(3):654-668.

Manuere, H.T., Chikazhe, C. & Manyeruke, J. 2022. Theoretical models of

consumer behaviour: A literature review. International Journal of
Education Humanities and Social Science, 5(2):105-112.

Manshad, M.S. & Brannon, D. 2021. Haptic-payment: Exploring vibration

feedback as a means of reducing overspending in mobile payment.
Journal of Business Research, 122:88-96.

416
Marchi, M., Ferrara, C., Bertini, G., Fares, S. & Salvati, L. 2017. A sampling
design strategy to reduce survey costs in forest monitoring.
Ecological Indicators, 81:182-191.

Marin, A. 2015. Making sense of scents: Smell and the brain. [Online].
Available: https://www.brainfacts.org/thinking-sensing-and-
behaving/smell/2015/making-sense-of-scents-smell-and-the-brain
[Accessed 8 November 2021].

Marketing Charts. 2018. Older, affluent adults more likely you describe
themselves as brand loyal. [Online]. Available:
https://www.marketingcharts.com/brand-related/brand-loyalty-105930
[Accessed 13 January 2022].

Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. B. 2016. Designing qualitative research. 6th ed.

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Mastery, C. 2017. Realms of experience. [Online Video]. Available

:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nty1usTfXml [Accessed February
2022].

Matin, M.A. & Khan, M.A.W. 2017. Common problems faced by postgraduate
students during their thesis works in Bangladesh. Bangladesh Journal
of Medical Education, 8(1):22-27.

Martinez-Mesa, J., Duquia, R.P., Bastos, J.L., Gonzalez-Chica, D.A. &

Bonamigo, R.R. 2016. Sampling: How to select participants in my
research study. An Bras Dermatol, 91(3):326-330.

Martinez, M. & Scherer, R. 2020. eWork and eBusiness in architecture,

engineering and construction. 3rd ed. USA: CRC Press.

Mascarenhas, O.A., Kesavan, R. & Bernacchi, M. 2006. Lasting customer

loyalty: A total customer experience approach. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 23(7):397-405.

417
Matterport. 2020. Survey: Retail stores go virtual. [Online]. Available:
https://matterport.com/blog/survey-retail-stores-go-virtual [Accessed
10 October 2021].

Matthews, I. 2015. Yeah, but how does it make you feel? [Online]. Available:
https://www.happi.com/issues/2015-01-01/view_features/yeah-but-
how-does-it-make-you-feel/ [Accessed 20 March 2021].

Maxwell, J. 2013. Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. 3rd ed.

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Mbachu, C. 2018. 6 methods of data collection. [Online]. Available:

https://callygood.medium.com/6-methods-of-data-collection-
e946e993b930 [Accessed 10 October 2021].

Mbah, P.C., Ekechukwu, C., Ede, T.E., Ugorji, O.S. & Egbudu, P.C. 2020.
Does product differentiation strategy influence output: An assessment
of food, beverage and tobacco manufacturing firms in South-East,
Nigeria. Journal of Archaeology of Egypt/Egyptology, 17(9):6257-6269.

McCandless, M. 2020. The COVID-19 impact: Are consumers still afraid to

shop in stores? [Online]. Available:
https://facilityexecutive.com/2020/07/the-covid-19-impact-are-
consumers-still-afraid-to-shop-in-stores/ [Accessed 7 April 2021].

McCombes, S. 2020a. Descriptive research. [Online]. Available:

https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/descriptive-research/ [Accessed
20 March 2021].

McCombes, S. 2020b. How to create a research design. [Online]. Available:

https://www.scribbr.com/research-process/research-design/
[Accessed 16 April 2020].

418
McCormick, M. 2014. Consumer opinions with quality of cosmetic packaging
designs. [Unpublished Senior Project]. California Polytechnic State
University. 1-30.

Mcconnell, T.H. & Hull, K.L. 2020. Human form, human function: Essentials of
anatomy and physiology enhanced edition. USA: Jones & Bartlett
Learning.

McDonald, N. 2018. Digital in 2018: World’s internet users pass the billion
mark. [Online]. Available: https://wearesocial.com/us/blog/2018/01/
global-digital-report-2018 [Accessed 7 April 2021].

McDougall, A. 2015. Older consumers are generally more brand loyal while
millennials seek innovation. [Online]. Available:
https://www.cosmeticsdesign-europe.com/Article/2015/08/27/Older-
consumers-are-generally-more-brand-loyal-while-millennials-seek-
innovation [Accessed 7 April 2021].

McLanghlin, J.E., Bush, A.A. & Zeeman, J.M. 2016. Mixed methods:
Expanding research methodologies in pharmacy education. Currents
in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 8(5):715-721.

McLeod, S. 2013. What is validity? [Online]. Available:

https://www.simplypsychology.org/validity.html [Accessed 2 February
2022].

McLeod, S. 2018. Questionnaire: Definition, examples, designs and types.

[Online]. Available: https://www.simplypsychology.org/
questionnaires.html [Accessed 20 March 2021].

McLeod, S. 2019. What does effect size tell you? [Online]. Available:
https://www.simplypsychology.org/effect-size.html [Accessed 7
September 2020].

419
McLeod, S. 2020. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. [Online]. Available:
https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html [Accessed 4 June
2020].

Mehta, R.S. 2013. Theoretical and conceptual framework. [Online]. Available:

https://www.slideshare.net/rsmehta/theoretical-conceptual-framework
[Accessed 19 November 2021].

Melis, M. & Barbarossa, I.T. 2017. Taste perception of sweet, sour, salty, bitter
and umami and changes due to L-Arginine supplementation, as a
function of genetic ability to taste 6-n-Propylthiouracil. Nutrients,
9(541):1-17.

Melnyk, V., Osselaer, S.M.J. & Bijmolt, T.H.A. 2009. Are women more loyal
customers that men? Gender differences in loyalty to firms and
individual service providers. Journal of Marketing, 73:82-96.

Mennella, J.A., Bobowski, N. & Liem, D.G. 2018. Swaiman’s paediatric

neurology. 6th ed. Netherlands: Elsevier.

Merle, A., Senecal, S. & St-Onge, A. 2012. Whether and how virtual try-on
influences consumer responses to an apparel web site. International
Journal of Electronic Commerce, 16(3):41-64.

Merriam, S. B. & Tisdell, E.J. 2016. Qualitative research: A guide to design

and implementation. 4th ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S.B. & Grenier, R.S. 2019. Qualitative research in practice:

Examples for discussion and analysis. 2nd ed. USA: Wiley.

Metcalf, T. 2020. How to collect primary data for research in business. [Online].
Available: https://smallbusiness.chron.com/collect-primary-data-
research-business-66217.html [Accessed 17 April 2020].

420
Michalos, A.C. 2014. Encyclopaedia of quality of life and well-being research.
USA: Springer.

Middleton, F. 2020. Reliability vs validity: What’s the difference? [Online].

Available: https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/reliability-vs-validity/
[Accessed 18 April 2020].

Middelton, F. 2022. Reliability vs. validity in research: Difference, types and

examples. [Online]. Available:
https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/reliability-vs-validity/ [Accessed
10 May 2022].

Miksza, P. & Elpus, K. 2018. Design and analysis for quantitative research in
music education. UK: Oxford University Press.

Miles, D.A. 2017. Workshop: Confessions of a dissertation chair, part 1: The

six mistakes doctoral students make with the dissertation. Presented at
the 5th annual Doctoral Network Conference in Atlanta, GA on October
26 – 29, 2017.

Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M. & Saldaña, J. 2014. Qualitative data analysis: A
methods sourcebook. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Miller, C. 2020. Human biology: Human anatomy and physiology. Canada:

Thompson Rivers University.

Mishra, S.B. & Alok, S. 2017. Handbook of research methodology. India:

Educreation Publishing.

Mittal, V. & Kamakura, W.A. 2001. Satisfaction, repurchase intent, and

repurchase behaviour: Investigating the moderating effect of customer
characteristics. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(1):131-142.

421
Moeglin, E. 2015. Experience is all: Sense is sensible for today’s beauty
consumer. [Online]. Available:
https://www.mintel.com/blog/experience-is-all-sense-is-sensible-for-
todays-beauty-consumer [Accessed 31 August 2021].

Mohajan, H.K. 2017. Two criteria for good measurement in research: Validity
and reliability. Annals of Spiru Haret University, 17(3):58-82.

Mohajan, H.K. 2018. Qualitative research methodology in social sciences and

related subjects. Journal of Economic Development, Environment and
People, 7(1):23-48.

Mohamed, N., Medina, I.G. & Romo, Z.G. 2018. The effect of cosmetics
packaging design on consumers’ purchase decisions. Indian Journal of
Marketing, 48(12):50-72.

Monell Chemical Senses Center. 2019. Do you smell what I smell? From
genes to receptors to perception: Olfaction unravelled. [Online].
Available:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190430164208.htm
[Accessed 9 November 2021].

Mood, D.P., Morrow, J.R. & McQueen, M.B. 2019. Introduction to statistics in
human performances: Using SPSS and R. UK: Routledge.

Mordor Intelligence. 2021. South Africa skincare market: Growth, trends,

COVID-19 impact and forecasts. [Online]. Available:
https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/south-africa-
professional-skincare-product-market# [Accessed 21 July 2021].

Moriset, B. 2018. E-business and e-commerce. 2nd ed. France: International

Encyclopaedia of Human Geography.

422
Morris, C. 2020. Brand loyalty is changing due to the pandemic. [Online].
Available: https://fortune.com/2020/10/21/brand-loyalty-retail-trends-
covid/ [Accessed 7 April 2021].

Morrow, K. 2021. What is quantitative research? Usage, characteristics & best

practice. [Online]. Available: https://zipreporting.com/en/quantitative-
research/what-is-quantitative-research.html [Accessed 13 May 2022].

Murphey, M. 2016. Population definitions for comparative surveys in

education. AUSustralia The Australian Council for Educational
Research LTD.

Murphy, R. 2020. Retail sales, Great Britain: August 2020. [Online]. Available:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/retailindustry/bulleti
ns/retailsales/august2020 {accessed 7 April 2021].

Murphy, V.L. 2016. Do we remember negative events more vividly than

positive ones?. [Online]. Available:
https://sites.psu.edu/siowfa16/2016/10/14/do-we-remember-negative-
events-more-vividly-than-positive-ones/ [Accessed 10 November
2021].

Nah, F.F.H., Eschenbrenner, E. & Dewester, D. 2011. Enhancing brand equity

through flow and telepresence: A comparison of 2d and 3d virtual
worlds. MIS Quarterly, 35(3):731–47.

Nam, J., Ekinci, Y. & Whyatt, G. 2011. Brand equity, brand loyalty and
consumer satisfaction. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(3):1009-1030.

Namazi, M. & Namazi, N.R. 2016. Conceptual analysis of moderator and

mediator variables in business research. Procedia Economic and
Finance, 36:540-554.

423
Namdeo, S.K. & Rout, S.D. 2016. Calculating and interpreting Cronbach alpha
using Rosenberg’s assessment scale on paediatrician’s attitude and
perception on self-esteem. International Journal of Community
Medicine and Public Health, 3(6):1371-1374.

Nardi, P. 2017. Critical thinking: Tools for evaluating research. California:

University of California Press.

Narteh, B. 2018. Brand equity and financial performance: The moderating role
of brand likability. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 36(3):381-395.

Narumi, T., Nishizaka, S., Kajinami, T., Tanikawa, T. & Hirose, M. 2011.
Augmented reality flavours: Gustatory display based on edible marker
and cross-modal interaction. Paper presented at SIGCHI Conference
on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM. 93–102.

Nassaji, H. 2015. Qualitative and descriptive research: Data type versus data
analysis. Language teaching research, 19(2):129-132.

Nayak, M.S.D.P. & Narayan, K.A. 2019. Strengths and weaknesses of online
surveys. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 24(5):31-38.

Ndubisi, N.O. 2006. Effects of gender on consumer loyalty: A relationship

marketing approach. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 24(1):48-61.

Ndukwu, D. 2022. 7 Data collection methods for qualitative and quantitative

data. [Online]. Available: https://www.kyleads.com/blog/data-
collection-methods/ [Accessed 10 October 2021].

Needle, F. 2021. 10 consumer behaviour models (& which one applies to your
business). [Online]. Available:
https://blog.hubspot.com/service/consumer-behavior-model [Accessed
January 2022].

424
Nel, J. 2003. Contact efficiency of web sites: A marketing perspective.
Unpublished Honours Treatise. University of the Free State,
Bloemfontein.

Nel, J.P. 2016. The research paradigms: Positivism. [Online]. Available:

http://www.intgrty.co.za/2016/07/19/the-research-paradigms-
positivism/ [Accessed 16 April 2020].

Newman, D. 2020. Required escapism: Gamify the retail experience. [Online].

Available: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/required-escapism-gamify-
retail-experience-danny-newman [Accessed February 2022].

Ngugi, I.K., O’Sullivan, H. & Osman, H. 2020. Consumer behaviour in food

and healthy living: A global perspective. USA: CABI.

Ngulube, P. 2018. Handbook of research on heritage management and

preservation. USA: IGI Global.

Ngulube, P. 2019. Handbook on connecting research methods for information

science research. USA: IGI Global.

NIH. 2015. How do we hear? [Online]. Available:

https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/how-do-we-hear [Accessed 6
November 2021].

NIH. 2017. Smell disorders. [Online]. Available:

https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/smell-disorders#2 [Accessed 8
November 2021].

Novak, T.P., Hoffman, D. & Yung, Y.F. 2000. Measuring the customer
experience in online environments: A structural modelling approach.
Marketing Science, 19(1):22-42.

425
Novikov, A.M. & Novikov, D.A. 2013. Research methodology: From philosophy
of science to research design. UK: CRC Press.

Nunnally, J.C. 1978. Psychometric theory. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Nuwer, R. 2013. We all experience smell differently from one another. [Online].
Available: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/we-all-
experience-smells-differently-from-one-another-180948156/
[Accessed 9 November 2021].

Nyrop, M., Nathan, A., Lindquist, M.B. & Karlsen, J.T. 2020. Deloitte: Covid-
19 will permanently change e-commerce in Denmark. [Brochure].

O’Cathain, A. 2018. A practical guide to using qualitative research with

randomized controlled trials. UK: Oxford University Press.

O’Neill, P., Sohal, A. & Teng, C.W. 2016. Quality management approaches
and their impact on firms’ financial performance: An Australian study.
International Journal of Production Economics, 171(3):381-393.

Oberlo. 2023. How many people shop online? [Online]. Available:

https://www.oberlo.com/statistics/how-many-people-shop-online
[Accessed 13 March 2023].

Obilor, E.I. & Amadi, E.C. 2018. Test for significance of Pearson’s correlation
coefficient (r). International Journal of Innovative Mathematics,
Statistics & Energy Policies, 6(1):11-23.

Ockey, G. & Choi, I. 2015. Structural equation modelling reporting practices

for language assessment. Language Assessment Quarterly,
12(3):305-319.

Oduguwa, E. 2015. How taste and sight impact brand loyalty in sensory
marketing. [Undergraduate Student Research Awards]. Trinity
University. 1-19.

426
OECD. 2018. Teaching and learning international survey (TALIS) 2018:
Teacher questionnaire. [Online]. Available: http://www.oecd.org
/education/ school/TALIS-2018-MS-Teacher-Questionnaire-ENG.pdf
[Accessed 25 May 2020].

OECD. 2020. COVID-19 and the retail sector: Impact and policy responses.
[Online]. Available: https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-
responses/covid-19-and-the-retail-sector-impact-and-policy-
responses-371d7599/ [Accessed 7 April 2021].

Oflazoglu, S. 2017. Qualitative versus quantitative research. Croatia: Intech.

Ohio University. 2022. 5 consumer behaviour theories every marketer should

know. [Online]. Available:
https://onlinemasters.ohio.edu/blog/consumer-behavior-theories-
every-marketer-should-know/ [Accessed January 2022].

Okwonu, F.Z., Asaju, B.L. & Arunaye, F.I. 2020. Breakdown analysis of
Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients and robust correlation methods, In:
International Conference on Technology, Engineering and Sciences
(ICTES). IOP Publishing.

Olsson, T. 2015. Investigating affordances of haptic technology. Unpublished

Masters Dissertation. Malmo Hogskola, Sweden.

O’Neill, E. 2015. History of branding. [Online]. Available:

https://www.lcca.org.uk/blog/education/history-of-branding/ [Accessed
13 March 2023].

Ong, C.H., Lee, H.W. & Ramayah, T. 2018. Impact of brand experience on
loyalty. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 27(7):755-
774.

427
Ong, C.H., Salleh, S.M. & Yusoff, R.Z. 2015. Influence of brand experience on
loyalty dimensions: Evidence from successful Malaysian SME brands.
International Journal of Business and Commerce, 4(7):51-75.

Onyeaka, H., Anumudu, C.K., Al-Sharify, Z.T., Egele-Godswill, E. & Mbaegbu,

P. 2021. COVID-19 Pandemic: A review of the global lockdown and its
far-reaching effects. Science Progress, 104(2):1-18.

Ostertagova, E., Ostertag, O. & Kovac, J. 2014. Methodology and application

of the Kruskal-Wallis test. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 611:115-
120.

Pace, D.S. 2021. Probability and non-probability sampling: An entry point for
undergraduate researchers. International Journal of Quantitative and
Qualitative Research, 9(2):1-15.

Pahwa, A. 2019. Questionnaire: Definitions, types, examples and how to

design. [Online], Available: https://www.feedough.com/what-is-
questionnaire/ [Accessed 20 March 2021].

Pajo, B. 2018. Introduction to research methods: A hands-on approach. USA:

SAGE.

Pandey, P. & Pandey, M, M. 2015. Research methodology: Tools and

techniques. Romania: Bridge Center.

Pantoja, F. & Borges, A. 2021. Background music tempo effects on food

evaluations and purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, 63:102730-102736.

Paradis, E., O’Brien, B., Nimmon, L., Bandiera, G. & Martimianakis, M.A.
2016. Design: Selection of data collection methods. Journal of
Graduate Medical Education, 8(2):263-264.

428
Pardede, P. 2018. Identifying and formulating the research problem.
Indonesia: Universitas Kirsten.

Park, M.Y. 2014. How our sense of taste changes as we age. [Online].
Available: https://www.bonappetit.com/entertaining-style/trends-
news/article/sense-of-taste-changes-aging [Accessed 10 November
2021].

Park, Y.S., Lars, M.D. & Artino, A.R. 2019. The positivism paradigm of
research. Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges,
Ahead of Print:1-19.

Parveen, H. & Showkat, N. 2017. Communications research. Aligarh:

Athshala.

Pasricha, N. 2019. Older consumers – Don’t take their brand loyalty for
granted. [Online]. Available: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/older-
consumers-dont-take-brand-loyalty-granted-navin-pasricha [Accessed
13 January 2022].

Patel, N. 2021. How to use the psychology of colour to increase website

conversions. [Online]. Available: https://neilpatel.com/blog/psychology-
of-color-and-conversions/ [Accessed 6 November 2021].

Pathan, A.S.K. 2018. Technological advancements and innovations are often

detrimental for concerned technology companies. International Journal
of Computers and Applications, 40(4):189-191.

Patino, C.M. & Ferreira, J.C. 2018. Internal and external validity: Can you
apply research study results to your patients? Sociedade Brasileira de
Pneumologia e Tisiologia, 44(3):183.

429
Paunovic, G. 2018. Brand authenticity: Why differentiation is a game changer.
[Online]. Available: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesagencycouncil
/2018/11/16/brand-authenticity-why-differentiation-is-a-game-
changer/?sh=5f53b77d560b [Accessed 5 April 2021].

Peck, J. 2020. How can brands harness the power of touch and increase
sales? [Online]. Available:
https://www.sappipapers.com/insights/marketing-mix/how-can-brands-
harness-the-power-of-touch-and-increase-sales [Accessed 9
November 2021].

Peek, S. 2022. 7 Tips on how to build customer loyalty. [Online]. Available:

https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/16017-build-customer-
loyalty.html [Accessed 6 June 2022].

Perry, P. 2017. What we touch while shopping affects what we buy,

researchers say. [Online]. Available: https://bigthink.com/surprising-
science/what-we-touch-while-shopping-affects-what-we-buy-study-
shows/ [Accessed 9 November 2021].

Petit, O., Basso, F., Merunka, D., Spence, C., Cheok, A.D. & Oullier, A. 2016.
Pleasure and the control of food intake: An embodied cognition
approach to consumer self-regulation. Psychology & Marketing,
33(8):608-19.

Petit, O., Velasco, C. & Spence, C. 2018. Digital sensory marketing:

Integrating new technologies into multisensory online experience.
Journal of Interactive Marketing, 45:42-61.

PH Media. 2021. Multi-sensory marketing: Finding balance through self-care

and sound. [Online]. Available: https://www.phmg.com/blog-single-
post/phmg-blog/2020/11/23/multi-sensory-marketing-finding-balance-
through-self-care-and-sound [Accessed 31 August 2021].

430
Pham, L.T.M. 2018. Qualitative approach to research: A review of advantages
and disadvantages of three paradigms: Positivism, interpretivism and
critical inquiry. Unpublished Masters Dissertation. The University of
Adelaide, Australia.

Phan, A.C., Abdallah, A.B. & Matsui, Y. 2011. Quality management practices
and competitive performance: Empirical evidence from Japanese
manufacturing companies. International Journal of Production
Economics, 133:518-529.

Phillips, A.W., Friedman, B.T. & Durning, S.J. 2017. How to calculate survey
response rate: Best practices. Journal of the Association of American
Medical Colleges, 92(2):269.

Pillay, K.N. 2003. Evaluation of four ecommerce websites for specific website
design features. Unpublished Masters Dissertation. University of
Durban.

Pine, B.J. & Gilmore, J.H. 1999. The experience economy: Work is theatre &
every business a stage. [Online e-Book]. Available:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/33727940/pine_
__gilmore_welcome_to_experience_economy.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId
=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&ExpiresDPine_and_gilmore_welcome
_to_experience_e.pdf [Accessed 24 February 2020].

Plummer, J.D. & Tanis Ozcelik, A. 2015. Preservice teachers developing

coherent inquiry investigations in elementary astronomy. Science
Education, 99(5): 932-957.

Pogar, R., Plant, E., Rosulek, L.F. & Kouril, M. 2015. Sounds good: Phonetic
sound patterns in top brand names. Marketing Letters, 26:549-563.

Pogorzelski, J. 2018. Managing brands in 4D: Understanding perceptual,

emotional, social and cultural branding. UK: Emerald Group Publishing.

431
Pogrebniak, A. 2019. What is customer experience in 2019 according to 15 cx
experts. [Online]. Available: https://lumoa.me/blog/customer-
experience [Accessed 10 November 2021].

Polonsky, M.J. & Waller, D.S. 2019. Designing and managing a research
project: A business student’s guide. (4th ed.). California: SAGE
Publications.

Popovic, D. 2021. 2 Top brand awareness models explained. [Online].

Available: https://www.manypixels.co/blog/post/brand-awareness-
models [Accessed January 2022].

Porter, M.E. 1985. Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior

performance. New York: FreePress.

Potgieter, A., Berman, G.K. & Verity, J.M. 2019. Socio-cultural, geographical
and financial factors that influence a tourist’s overall experience of
Township Tours in the Western Cape. African Journal of Hospitality,
Tourism and Leisure, 8(2):1-14.

Prajogo, D., Chowdhury, M., Yeung A.C.L. & Cheng, T.C.E. 2012. The
relationship between supplier management and firm's operational
performance: A multi-dimensional perspective. International Journal of
Production Economics, 136:123-130.

Prajogo, D.I. & Brown, A. 2006. Approaches to adopting quality in SMEs and
the impact on quality management practices and performance. Total
Quality Management, 17:555-566.

Pramudya, R.C. & Seo, H.S. 2019. Hand-feel touch cues and their influences
on consumer perception and behaviour with respect to food products:
A review. Foods, 8(259):1-31.

432
Pratap, A. 2019. Research designs in marketing research and their types:
Exploratory, descriptive and causal. [Online]. Available:
https://notesmatic.com/2018/07/research-design-and-its-
typesexploratory-descriptive-and-causal/ [Accessed 16 April 2020].

Puputti, S., Aisala, H., Hoppu, U. & Sandell, M. 2019. Factors explaining
individual differences in taste sensitivity and taste modality recognition
among Finnish adults. Journal of Sense Study, 34:1-11.

Radder, L. & Han, X. 2015. An examination of the museum experience based

on Pine and Gilmore’s Experience Economy realms. Journal of
Applied Business Research, 31(2):455-470.

Rahi, S. 2017. Research design methods: A systematic review of research

paradigms, sampling issues and instruments development.
International Journal of Economics and Management Sciences, 6(2):1-
5.

Ramaseshan, B. & Stein, A. 2014. Connecting the dots between brand

experience and brand loyalty: The mediating role of brand personality
and brand relationships. Journal of Brand Management, 21(7/8):664-
683.

Ramzai, J. 2020. Clearly explained: Pearson vs Spearman correlation

coefficient. [Online]. Available: https://towardsdatascience.com/clearly-
explained-pearson-v-s-spearman-correlation-coefficient-ada2f473b8
[Accessed 17 October 2020].

Rana, R. & Singhal, R. 2015. Cho-square test and its application in hypothesis
testing. Journal of the Practice if Cardiovascular Sciences, 1(1):69-
71.

433
Ranasinghe, N., Jain, P., Tram, N.T.N., Koh, K.C., Tolley, D., Karwita, S., Lien-
Ya, L., Liangkun, Y., Shamaiah, K., Tung, C.E.W., Yen, C.C. & Do,
E.Y.L. 2018. Season Traveller: Multisensory narration for enhancing
the virtual reality experience. Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference
on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Canada. 1-13.

Randhir, R., Latasha, K., Tooraiven, P. & Monishan, B. 2016. Analysing the
impact of sensory marketing on consumers: A case study of KFC.
Journal of US-China Public Administration, 13(4):278-292.

Rantala, J., Salminen, K., Raisamo, R. & Surakka, V. 2013. Touch gestures in
communicating emotional intention via vibrotactile stimulation.
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 71(6):679-690.

Rather, R.A. 2019. Customer experience and engagement in tourism

destinations: The experiential marketing perspective. Journal of Travel
and Tourism Marketing, 37(1):15-32.

Raushenbush, N. 2018. The 2018 omni-channel retail report: Generational

consumer shopping behavior comes into focus. [Online]. Available:
https://www.cms-connected.com/News-Archive/October-
2018/Generational-Consumer-Shopping-Behavior-Comes-Into-Focus
[Accessed 25 May 2022].

Ravaja, N., Harjunen, V., Ahmed, I., Jacucci, G. & Spape, M.M. 2017. Feeling
touched: Emotional modulation of somatosensory potentials to
interpersonal touch. Scientific Reports, 7(40504):1-11.

Ravitch, S.M. & Riggan, M. 2017. Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks
guide research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Ravitch, S.M. & Carl, N.M. 2019. Qualitative research: Bridging the
conceptual, theoretical and methodological. 2nd ed. USA: SAGE.

434
Reader, M. 2016. The business impact of scent. [Brochure]. Ambius: 1-24.

Rehman, A.A. & Alharthi, K. 2016. An introduction to research paradigms.

International Journal of Educational Investigations, 3(8):51-59.

Reybrouck, M., Podlipniak, P. & Welch, D. 2019. Music and noise: Same or
different? What our body tells us. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(1153):1-
13.

Riezler, S. & Hagmann, M. 2021. Validity, reliability and significance: Empirical

methods for NLP and data. California: Morgan & Claypool Publishers.

Rice, S., Winter, S.R., Doherty, S. & Milner, M. 2017. Advantages and
disadvantages of using internet-based survey methods in aviation-
related research. Journal of Aviation Technology and Engineering,
7(1):58-65.

Ricker, B. & Thatcher, J. 2017. Evolving technology, shifting expectations:

Cultivating pedagogy for a rapidly changing GIS landscape. Journal of
Geography in Higher Education, 41(3):368-382.

Ridder, M. 2020. South African skin care industry market value 2017 – 2023.
[Online]. Available: https://www.statista.com/statistics/863832/skin-
care-market-value-south-africa/ [Accessed 21 July 2021].

Ridder, M. 2021a. Cosmetic industry: Statistics and facts. [Online]. Available:

https://www.statista.com/topics/3137/cosmetics-industry/ [Accessed 6
November 2021].

Ridder, M. 2021b. Global skincare market size 2012 – 2025. [Online].

Available: https://www.statista.com/statistics/254612/global-skin-care-
market-size/ [Accessed 21 July 2021].

435
Ringler, C., Sirianni, N.J., Gustafsson, A. & Peck, J. 2019. Look but don’t
touch! The impact of active interpersonal haptic blocking on
compensatory touch and purchase behaviour. Journal of Retailing,
95(4):186-203.

Roberts, R. 2021. 2021 Beauty industry trends & cosmetic marketing:

Statistics and strategies for your ecommerce growth. [Online].
Available: https://commonthreadco.com/blogs/coachs-corner/beauty-
industry-cosmetics-marketing-ecommerce#statistics [Accessed 21 July
2021].

Roberts, R. 2022. 2022 Beauty industry trends & cosmetics marketing:

Statistics and strategies for your ecommerce growth. [Online].
Available: https://commonthreadco.com/blogs/coachs-corner/beauty-
industry-cosmetics-marketing-ecommerce [Accessed 23 June 2022].

Robertson, T. 2020. How retailers can salvage customer loyalty. [Online].

Available: https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/retailers-can-
salvage-customer-loyalty/ [Accessed 7 April 2021].

Robinson, S.B. & Leonard, K.F. 2018. Designing quality survey questions.
USA: SAGE.

Robson, C. & McCartan, K. 2016. Real world research. 4th ed. Chichester, UK:
Wiley.

Rodrigues, C. 2018. The destination branding through multisensory

experiences: Case studies from Sweden, in Camiller, M.A. (eds). The
branding of tourist destinations: Theoretical and empirical insights. UK:
Emerald Publishing. 61-82.

Romanowski, P. 2020. Product categories in the cosmetic industry. [Online].

Available: https://chemistscorner.com/product-categories-in-the-
cosmetic-industry/ [Accessed 21 July 2021].

436
Roose, G. & Mulier, L. 2020. Healthy advertising coming to its senses: The
effectiveness of sensory appeals in healthy food advertising. Foods,
9(51):1-22.

Rootman, C., Oosthuizen, N. & Mabuyana, B. 2019. Selected product

variables and consumer buying behaviour in the South African skin care
industry, in 31st South African Institute of Management Sciences
(SAIMS) conference. Port Elizabeth. 444-462.

Rose, H., McKinley, J. & Baffoe-Djan, J.B. 2019. Data collection research
methods in applied linguistics. USA: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Rubio, P.R. & Vidal, A.V. 2019. Sensory branding and advertising campaigns
for brand success in Mexico. Global Journal of Emerging Trends in e-
Business, Marketing and Consumer Psychology, 1(5):653-669.

Ruel, E. 2018. 100 Questions (and answers) about survey research. 6th ed.
USA: SAGE.

Ryan, G. 2018. Introduction to positivism, interpretivism and critical theory.

Nurse Researcher, 25(4):41-49.

Rychlak, J.F. 2017. Personality and life-style of young male managers: A

logical learning theory analysis. USA: Academic Press.

Rynette, R. & Kjesbo, M.S. 2017. Get a cue! [Online]. Available:

https://www.superduperinc.com/handouts/pdf/473_Get%20Cue.pdf
[Accessed 9 November 2021].

Sabanoglu, T. 2021. Global retail e-commerce sales 2014-2024. [Online].

Available: https://www.statista.com/statistics/379046/worldwide-retail-
e-commerce-sales/ [Accessed 7 April 2021].

437
Sadikoglu, E. & Zehir, C. 2010. Investigating the effects of innovation and
employee performance on the relationship between total quality
management practices and firm performance: An empirical study of
Turkish firms. International Journal of Production Economics, 127:13-
26.

Saeed, Z. 2019. A study of theories on consumer behaviour. Journal of

Computing and Management Sciences, 1(3):1-29.

Saif, T., Ahmed, M., Shareef, S. & Khalid, R. 2018. Characteristics of brand
loyalty: A study on apparel industry. Mediterranean Journal of Basic
and Applied Sciences, 2(2):64-91.

Sakhawat, M. 2019. Sensory marketing in organic cosmetic industry of

Pakistan: Viewing the mediating role of green attitude. Unpublished
Masters Dissertation. Capital University of Science and Technology,
Islamabad.

Saleh, A. & Bista, K. 2017. Examining factors impacting online survey

response rates in educational research: Perceptions of graduate
students. Journal of Multi-Disciplinary Evaluation, 13(29): 63-74.

Sallnäs, E.L., Rassmus-Gröhn, K. & Sjöström, C. 2000. Supporting presence

in collaborative environments by haptic force feedback. ACM
Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 7(4):461-76.

Salloum, S.A., Alhamad, A.Q.M., Al-Emran, M., Monem, A.A. & Shaalan, K.
2019. Exploring students’ acceptance of E-learning through the
development of a comprehensive technology acceptance model. IEEE
Access, 7:12845-128462.

438
Same, S. & Larimo, J. 2012. Marketing theory: Experience marketing and
experiential marketing. 7th International Scientific Conference
“Business and Management 2012”. Vilnius, Lithuania.

Sarathy, S. 2020. How to use sensory marketing online. [Online]. Available:

https://www.cmswire.com/digital-marketing/how-to-use-sensory-
marketing-online/ [Accessed 21 March 2021].

Sari, A. & Rufaidah, P. 2017. Conceptual model of consumer experiences and

brand experiences, in Proceedings of the 2st International Conference
on Islamic Economics, Business and Philanthropy (ICIEBP). 858-863.

Saunders, M.N.K., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. 2019. Research methods for

business students. 8th ed. UK: Pearson.

Saunders, M.N.K., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A. & Bristow, A. 2016. Understanding

research philosophy and approaches to theory development. In
Research Methods for Business Students. Saunders, M., Lewis, P. &
Thornhill, A. (Eds.). 7th ed. Harlow, UK: Pearson. 122–161.

Sawyer, S. 2009. Analysis of Variance: The fundamental concepts. The

Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, 17(2):27-38.

Scarpi, D., Pizzi, G. & Visentin, M. 2014. Shopping for fun or shopping to buy:
Is it different online and offline? Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 21(3):258-267.

Schlegel, A. 2018. Tukey’s test for post-hoc analysis. [Online]. Available:

https://aaronschlegel.me/tukeys-test-post-hoc-analysis.html [Accessed
7 September 2020].

Schmitt, B. 1999. Experiential marketing. Journal of Business Management,

15(1-3):53-67.

439
Schober, P., Boer, C. & Schwarte, L. 2018. Correlation coefficients:
Appropriate use and interpretation. Anaesthesia & Analgesia,
126(5):1763-1768.

Schuurman, B. 2020. Research on terrorism, 2007-2016: A review of data,

methods and authorship. Terrorism and Political Violence, 32(5):1011-
1026.

Scott, R.O. & Uncles, M.D. 2018. Bringing sensory anthropology to consumer
research. European Journal of Marketing, 52(1/2):302-327.

Sekaran, U. & Bougie, R. 2016. Research methods for business: A skill

building approach. 7th ed. UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Selvanathan, E.A., Selvanathan, S. & Keller, G. 2020. Business statistics:

Australia and New Zealand edition. Australia: Cengage AU.

Semasinghe, W.M. 2019. Non-probability sampling methods. [Power Point

Presentation]. Available:
https://ss.kln.ac.lk/depts/econ/media/attachments/2019/08/19/non-
probability-sampling-english-2019.pdf [Accessed 7 January 2022].

Serino, A. & Haggard, P. 2010. Touch and the body. Neuroscience

Biobehavioural Review, 34(2):224-236.

Shabbir, M.Q., Khan, A.A. & Khan, S.R. 2017. Brand loyalty brand image and
brand equity: The mediating role of brand awareness. International
Journal of Innovation and Applied Studies, 19(2):416-423.

Shaed, M.M., Chik, C.T., Aini, N. & Nongchik, N. 2015. The influence of sound
and vision in sensory marketing towards customer purchasing
behaviour in institutional food service. Journal of Tourism, Hospitality &
Culinary Arts, 7(2):35-51.

440
Shaheen, F., Ahmed, N., Waqas, M., Waheed, A. & Farooq, O. 2017.
Structural equation modelling (SEM) in social sciences & medical
research: A guide for improved analysis. International Journal of
Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 7(5):132-143.

Shalin, H.J. 2019. Online survey design and data analytics: Emerging
research and opportunities. USA: IGI Global.

Shanthi, R., Murari, P., Rafeeque Ahmed, M. & Suganya, M.P. 2019. Brand:
Sculpting corporate identity. India: MJP Publisher.

Sharma, G. 2017. Pros and cons of different sampling techniques.

International Journal of Applied Research, 3(7):749-752.

Shaw, A.W. 1912. Some problems in market distribution. The Quarterly

Journal of Economics, 26(4):703-765.

Sheard, J. 2018. Quantitative data analysis, in Research Methods:

Information, Systems and Contexts. Edited by Williamson, K. &
Johanson, G. 2nd ed. UK: Chandos Publishing. 429-453.

Shen, H., Zhang, M. & Krishna, A. 2016. Computer interfaces and the “direct-
touch” effect: Can iPads increase the choice of hedonic food? Journal
of Marketing Research, 53(5):745-58.

Shenje, J. 2018. The impact of background music on customer purchase

intentions: The case study of retail supermarkets in Harare, Zimbabwe.
Journal of Economics and Management Sciences, 1(1):220-229.

441
Shikalepo, E.E. 2020. Defining a conceptual framework in education research.
[Online]. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Elock-
Shikalepo/publication/342010918_Defining_a_Conceptual_Framewor
k_in_Educational_Research/links/5ede593492851cf13869825a/Defini
ng-a-Conceptual-Framework-in-Educational-Research.pdf? [Accessed
19 November 2021].

Shukla, S. 2018. Variables, hypotheses and stages of research, in The ICSSR

sponsored Capacity Building Programme for Social Science Faculty
Members. Saurashtra University: India. 1-14.

Sila, I. 2007. Examining the effects of contextual factors on TQM and

performance through the lens of organizational theories: An empirical
study. Journal of Operational Management, 25:83-109.

Sileyew, K.J. 2019. Research design and methodology, in Cyberspace. Edited

by Abu-Taieh, E.M.O., Al Hadid, I.H. & Mouatasim, A.E. UK: IntechOpen.
1-13.

Silva, S.C. & Duarte, P. 2017. The value of textual haptic information in online
shopping. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 21(1):88-
102.

Simha, S. 2019. Study of sensory marketing strategies in retailing business,

in Proceedings of the 3rd Asia Pacific Management Research
Conference. 34-38.

Simion, K. 2016. Qualitative and quantitative approaches to rule of law

research. Australia: International Network to Promote the Rule of Law:
Australian National University.

442
Simon, B. 2015. Everyone’s sense of smell is unique, says new study. [Online].
Available: https://www.inquisitr.com/2194466/everyones-sense-of-
smell-is-slightly-different-says-new-study/ [Accessed 9 November
2021].

Simon, G. 2017. Melodic contour: Definition and examples. [Online]. Available:

https://study.com/academy/lesson/melodic-contour-definition-
examples.html [Accessed 7 November 2021].

Sincero, S.M. 2020. Online surveys. [Online]. Available:

https://explorable.com /online-surveys [Accessed 17 April 2020].

Singer, E. & Couper, M.P. 2017. Some methodological uses of responses to

open questions and other verbatim comments in quantitative surveys.
Methods, Data, Analyses, 11(2):115-134.

Singh, G. 2018a. A simple introduction to ANOVA (with applications in Excel).

[Online]. Available: https://www.analyticsvidhya.com/blog/2018
/01/anova-analysis-of-variance/ [Accessed 7 September 2020].

Singh, S. 2018b. Statistics: Descriptive and inferential. [Online]. Available:

https://towardsdatascience.com/statistics-descriptive-and-inferential-
63661eb13bb5 [Accessed 1 September 2020].

Singh, S.K. 2015. Advantages and disadvantages of probability sampling

methods in social research, in National Conference on Innovative
Research in Chemical, Physical, Mathematical Sciences, Applied
statistics and Environmental Dynamics. New Delhi. 14-18.

Singh, V.K. 2020. Back to basics: Fragrance in cosmetics: “Simple” and

psychological. [Online]. Available:
https://www.cosmeticsandtoiletries.com/research/methods-
tools/article/21835755/back-to-basics-fragrance-in-cosmeticssimple-
and-psychological [Accessed 10 June 2022].

443
Sipe, L.J. & Testa, M.R. 2018. From satisfied to memorable: An empirical
study of service and experience dimensions on guest outcomes in the
hospitality industry. Journal of Hospitality and Marketing
Management, 27(2):178-195.

Skrovan, S. 2017. Why many shoppers go to stores before buying online.

[Online]. Available: https://www.retaildive.com/news/why-many-
shoppers-go-to-stores-before-buying-online/441112/ [Accessed 23
May 2022].

Sliburyte, L. & Vaitieke, J. 2019. Exploring the effect of ambient scent on

consumer impulsive buying behaviour: Theoretical insights. Sciendo,
81:101-118.

Smilansky, S. 2017. Experiential marketing: A practical guide to interactive

brand experiences. London: Kogan Page Publishers.

Smith, A. 2021. Millennial shoppers & reviews: A deep dive. [Online].

Available: https://www.powerreviews.com/blog/generate-more-
reviews-millennials/ [Accessed 25 May 2022].

Smith, M. 2020. Survey: 60% of online shoppers say they’re more likely to buy
a product if it’s shown in 3D or augmented reality. [Online]. Available:
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-
release/2020/09/01/2087088/0/en/Survey-60-of-Online-Shoppers-
Say-They-re-More-Likely-to-Buy-a-Product-If-It-s-Shown-in-3D-or-
Augmented-Reality.html [Accessed 10 October 2021].

Solomon, M., Russell-Bennett, T. & Previte, J. 2012. Consumer

behaviour. Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Australia.

Song, J.H. & Zinkhan, G.M. 2008. Determinants of perceived web site
interactivity. Journal of Marketing, 72(2):99-113.

444
Spangenberg, E.R., Crowley, A.E. & Henderson, P.W. 1996. Improving the
store environment: Do olfactory cues affect evaluations and
behaviours? The Journal of Marketing, 60(2):67-80.

Spapé, M.M., Hoggan, E.E., Jacucci, G. & Ravaja, N. 2015. The meaning of
the virtual Midas touch: An ERP study in economic decision making.
Psychophysiology, 52(3):378-87.

Spence, C., Puccinelli, N.M., Grewal, D. & Roggeveen, A.L. 2014. Store
atmospherics: A multisensory perspective. Psychology and Marketing,
31(7):472–488.

Srinivasan, V. 1979. Network models for estimating brand-specific effects in

multi-attribute marketing models. Management Science, 25(1):11-21.

Srinivau, R., Balaji, S. & Rajendran, K. 2021. An analysis of in store ambience

and design factors influence on consumer behaviour. Turkish Journal
of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, 32(3):12549-12554.

Stach, J. 2018. The influence of brand experiences onto brand preferences,

brand meaning and haptic product evaluation: Essays in experiential
marketing research. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Leipzig Graduate
School of Management, Germany.

Stapor, K. 2020. Introduction to probabilistic and statistical methods with

examples in R. USA: Springer.

Statista. 2022. Global skin care market size 2012-2025. [Online]. Available:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/254612/global-skin-care-market-

size/ [Accessed March 2022].

445
Statista. 2022b. Distribution of consumers who shopped for skincare and
cosmetics products at selected retailers in the United States as of July
2017, by age group. [Online]. Available:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/754049/us-consumers-shopping-
location-skin-care-cosmetics/ [Accessed 1 August 2022].

Statista. 2023. Skin care – South Africa. [Online]. Available:

https://www.statista.com/outlook/cmo/beauty-personal-care/skin-
care/south-africa [Accessed 14 March 2023].

Štěchová, P. 2017. The effect of cosmetic products packaging on consumer

choices. [Unpublished Diploma Project]. Brno: Mendel University. 1-
107.

Steenkamp, P., Herbst, F, de Villiers, K. & Terblanche-Smit, M. 2016. The

importance of client relationships and service brand personification
dimensions in a short-term business insurance market. [Working
Paper]. IMP Asia in Africa.

Steenkamp, P., Herbst, F, de Villiers, K. & Terblanche-Smit, M. 2020.

Servbrand framework: A business-to-business services brand equity.
Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 27(1):55-69.

Stiehler, B.E. & Jordaan, Y. 2019. Profiling South African female consumers’
involvement in skincare and colour cosmetics. The Retail and
Marketing Review, 15(2): 65-76.

Stockemer, D. 2019. Quantitative methods for social science. USA: Springer.

Stone, N.J., Chaparro, A., Keebler, J.R., Chaparro, B.S. & McConnell, D.S.
2017. Introduction to human factors: Applying psychology to design.
Boca Raton: CRC Press.

446
Stothart, G. & Kazanina, N. 2016. Auditory perception in the aging brain: The
role of inhibition and facilitation in early processing. Neurobiology of
Aging, 47:23-34.

Struwig, F.W. & Stead, G.B. 2015. Research: Planning, designing and
reporting. 2nd ed. Cape Town: Pearson Education.

Stucki, A. 2020. Restore hearing naturally: How to use your inner resources to
bring back full hearing. USA: Healing Arts Press.

Suardi, R.F.P. 2019. The analysis of experiential marketing, emotional

branding, service quality, and word of mouth towards repurchase
intention in Ikea Alam Sutera. Unpublished Bachelors Treatise.
President University, West Java, Indonesia.

Suarez, M. & Gumiel, C.G. 2014. The use of sensorial marketing in stores:
Attracting clients through their senses, in Handbook of research on
retailer-consumer relationship development. Edited by Druica, M. USA:
IGI Global. 258-274.

Subkowski, E. 2019. Brand linguistics: Study of sound symbolism and

consumer language fluency on brand name attitudes and perceptions.
Unpublished Honours Treatise. North Eastern Illinois University.

Sullivan, D. 2020. 7 Reasons your taste buds can change. [Online]. Available:
https://www.healthline.com/health/dental-and-oral-health/taste-buds-
change#causes [Accessed 10 November 2021].

Sun, C. 2016. F-distribution and one-way Anova – Tukeys Test – STAT 217.
[Online]. Available: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=
&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwia47-l6ztAhUCQxUIHQx-
B5oQFjAAegQIAhAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fptop.only.wip.la%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fcnx.org%2Fexports%2
F4bf51751-3045-465e-89b1-102abccda7d2%402.pdf%2Ff-
distribution-and-one-way-anova---tukeys-test---stat-217---university-

447
 of-calgary---v2015-2.pdf&usg=AOvVaw07MFsMfEx2PfV8IWEeDIlY
[Accessed 14 September 2020].

Sun, X., Foscht, T. & Eisingerich, A.B. 2021. Does educating customers create
positive word of mouth? Journal of Retailing Consumer Services,
102638(62):1-9.

Sunaga, T., Jaewoo, P. & Spence, S. 2016. Effects of lightness-location

consumers' purchase decision-making. Psychology & Marketing,
33:934–50.

Suntikul, W. & Jachna, T. 2015. Profiling the heritage experience in Macao’s

historic centre. International Journal of Tourism Research,
18(4):308318.

Suresh, S. 2018. Nursing research and statistics. 3rd ed. USA: Elsevier.

Surucu, L. & Maslakci, A. 2020. Validity and reliability in quantitative research.

Business and Management Studies: An International Journal,
8(3):2694-2726.

Sutherland, C. 2019. 10 Key advantages of using online surveys. [Online].

Available: https://explorance.com/blog/10-key-advantages-of-using-
online-surveys-2-2/ [Accessed 17 April 2020].

Suzen, H.N. 2020. Art and aesthetics in higher education. European Journal
of Education Studies, 7(6):335-350.

Swardt, M.D. 2008. Factors influencing the choice to shop online: A

psychological study in a South African context. Unpublished Masters
Dissertation. University of Pretoria.

Sylvia, M.L. 2018. Clinical analytics and data management for the DNP. 2nd
ed. Edited by Terhaar, M.F. USA: Springer.

448
Taber, K.S. 2018. The use of Cronbach alpha when developing and reporting
research instruments in science education. Research in Science
Education, 48(1):1273-1296.

Taherdoost, H. 2016a. Sampling methods in research methodology: How to

choose a sampling technique for research. International Journal of
Academic Research in Management, 5(2):18-27.

Taherdoost, H. 2016b. Validity and reliability of the research instrument: How

to test the validation of a questionnaire/survey in a research.
International Journal of Academic Research in Management, 5(3):28-
36.

Taherdoost, H. 2017. Determining sample size: How to calculate survey

sample size. International Journal of Economics and Management
Systems, 2:237-239.

Talwar, S., Talwar, M., Kaur, P. & Dhir, A. 2020. Consumers’ resistance to
digital innovations: A systematic review and framework development.
Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 28(4):286-299.

Tanasic, B.R. & Tanasic, N.B. 2019. Sensory branding in tourism promotion.
Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 5(2):65-69.

Tang, W., Cui, Y. & Babenko, O. 2014. Internal consistency: Do we really know
what it is and how to assess it? Journal of Psychology and Behavioural
Science, 2(2): 205-220.

Tapson, M.J. 2009. Demographical diversity on online shopping orientation

and propensity to buy online. Unpublished Masters Dissertation.
Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa.

449
Tarka, P. 2018. An overview of structural equation modelling: Its beginning,
historical development, usefulness and controversies in the social
sciences. Qual Quant, 52:313-354.

Tartaglione, A.M., Cavacece, Y., Russo, G. & Granata, G. 2019. A systematic

mapping study on customer loyalty and brand management.
Administrative Sciences, 9(8):1-20.

Tasci, A.D.A. 2020. Exploring the analytics for linking consumer-based brand
equity (CBBE) and financial-based brand equity (FBBE) of destination
or place brands. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 16:36-59.

Tasci, A. 2018. Testing the vross-brand and cross-market validity of consumer

based brand equity (CBBE) moel for destination brands. Tourism
Management, 65:143-159.

Tavakol, M. & Dennick, R. 2011. Making sense of Cronbach’s Alpha.

International Journal of Medical Education, 2:53-55.

Taylor, C. 2018. Example of ANOVA calculation. [Online]. Available:

https://www.thoughtco.com/example-of-an-anova-calculation-3126404
[Accessed 7 September 2020].

Taylor, C. 2019. Null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. [Online].

Available: https://www.thoughtco.com/null-hypothesis-vs-alternative-
hypothesis-3126413 [Accessed 12 July 2020].

Taylor, R.R. 2017. Kielhofner’s research in occupational therapy: Methods of

inquiring for enhancing practice. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis.

Techo, V. 2016. Research methods – quantitative, qualitative and mixed

methods. Unpublished Doctors Thesis. Horizons University, Paris.

450
Thanh, T.V. & Kirova, V. 2018. Wine tourism experience: A netnography study.
Journal of Business Research, 83:30-37.

Thatte, M.R. 2019. Sensory branding and its impact on consumer behaviour,
in Brand: Sculpting corporate identity. Shanthi, R., Murari, M. &
Rafeeque Ahmed, M.P. (eds). India: MJP Publishers. 203-208.

The wise marketer. 2020. Increase in online shopping accelerating race for
customer loyalty, research finds. [Online]. Available:
https://thewisemarketer.com/customer-engagement/increase-in-
online-shopping-accelerating-race-for-customer-loyalty-research-finds/
[Accessed 7 April 2021].

Theofanides, F. & Kerasidou, E. 2012. The role of sensory stimuli on perceived

quality of cosmetic products: An empirical examination of the buying
process of pharmaceutical face creams. International Conference on
Contemporary Marketing Issues. Thessalooniki, Greece.

Thornberry, N.R. 2015. Counselling and expatriate adjustment. Unpublished

Doctoral Thesis. Kent State University College, Ohio.

Threadgill, A.H., Ryan, J., Jordan, C. & Hajcak, G. 2020. The reward positivity:
Comparing visual and auditory feedback. Biological Psychology, 154:1-
6.

Tia-Elina, K. 2019. Internal and external multisensory branding: A framework

and method for establishing multisensory brand image. Unpublished
Masters Dissertation. University of Jyvaskyla, Finland.

Tight, M. 2018. Higher education research: The developing field. UK:

Bloomsbury Academic.

Tiwari, M. & Tiwari, M. 2012. Voice: How humans communicate? Journal of

Natural Science, Biology and Medicine, 3(1):1-11.

451
Toepoel, V. 2015. Doing surveys online. UK: SAGE.

Tracy, S.J. 2019. Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting

analysis, communicating impact. 2nd ed. USA: Wiley.

Tremblay, C. & Frasnelli, J. 2018. Olfactory and trigeminal systems interact in

the periphery. Chemical Senses, 43(8):611-616.

Trigueros, R., Sandoval, F.H. & Juan, M. 2017. Qualitative and quantitative
research instruments: Research tools. Universidad de El Salvador,
1(1):1-14.

Turley, L. & Milliman, R.E. 2000. Atmospheric effects on shopping behaviour.

Journal of Business Research, 49(2):193-211.

Turner, D.P. 2020. Sampling methods in research design. The Journal of Head
and Face Pain, 60(5):826-832.

Turner, L.J. 2012. The impact of music on the shopping behaviours of

generation Y consumers in a college campus bookstore. Unpublished
Masters Dissertation. University of North Texas.

Turney, S. 2022. Chi-Square test of independence- Formulae, guide and

examples. [Online]. Available: https://www.scribbr.com/statistics/chi-
square-test-of-independence/ [Accessed 20 August 2022].

UCLA: Statistical Consulting Group. 2020. What does Cronbach’s Alpha

mean? [Online]. Available: https://stats.idre.ucla.edu/spss/faq/what-
does-cronbachs-alpha-mean/ [Accessed 5 September 2020].

452
UCLA. 2021. A practical introduction to factor analysis: Confirmatory factor
analysis. [Online]. Available:
https://stats.oarc.ucla.edu/spss/seminars/introduction-to-factor-
analysis/a-practical-introduction-to-factor-analysis-confirmatory-factor-
analysis/ [Accessed 19 May 2022].

Uddin, S. 2011. The impact of sensory branding (five senses) on consumer: A

case study on “Coca Cola”. Unpublished Masters Dissertation. Karlstad
Business School, Sweden.

Umair, M. 2018. Research fundamentals: Study design, population and

sample size. Undergraduate Research in Natural and Clinical Science
and Technology, 2(1):1-7.

UNCTAD. 2020. COVID-19 has changed online shopping forever, survey

shows. [Online]. Available: https://unctad.org/news/covid-19-has-
changed-online-shopping-forever-survey-shows [Accessed 15 March
2021].

Union Hearing Aid Centre. 2019. The hearing process. [Online]. Available:
https://www.uhac.ca/hearing-loss/how-we-hear/ [Accessed 6
November 2021].

Upadhyaya, M. 2017. Emotional connect between brand and consumer

through sensory branding. American Journal of Industrial and Business
Management, 7:352-359.

US Government General Accounting Office. 1991. Management practices:

U.S. companies improve performance through quality efforts.
GA/NSIAD-91-190 190, 1-53.

Van de Vijver, F. 2015. Cross-cultural research methods in sociology, in

International Encyclopaedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences.
Edited by Wright, J.D. 2nd ed. USA: Elsevier. 101-160.

453
Van Kerrebroeck, H., Willems, K. & Brengman, M. 2017. Touching the void:
Exploring consumer perspectives on touch-enabling technologies in
online retailing. International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management, 45(7/8):892–909.

Van Niekerk, C. 2020. Exploring the influence of scent marketing on

consumers’ buying behaviour in the high-end fashion industry.
Unpublished Masters Dissertation. North-West University,
Potchefstroom, South Africa.

Van Noort, G., Voorveld, H.A.M. & Van Reijmersdal, E.A. .2012. Interactivity
in brand web sites: Cognitive, affective, and behavioural responses
explained by consumers' online flow experience. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 26(4):223-34.

Vanette, D.L. & Krosnick, J.A. 2017. The Palgrave handbook of survey
research. Switzerland: Springer.

Vaportzis, E., Clausen, M.G. & Gow, A.J. 2017. Older adults’ perceptions of
technology and barriers to interacting with tablet computers: A focus
group study. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(1687):1-11.

Vasileiou, K., Barnett, J., Thorpe, S. & Young, T. 2018. Characterising and
justifying sample size sufficiency in interview-based studies:
Systematic analysis of qualitative health research over a 15-year
period. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(148):1-18.

Vazquez, R., Del Rio, A.B. & Iglesias, V. 2002. Consumer-based brand equity:
Development and validation of a measurement instrument. Journal of
Marketing Management, 18(1-2):27-48.

454
Vega-Gomez, F.I., Miranda-Gonzalez, F.J., Mayo, J.P., Gonzalez-Lopez, O.R.
& Pascual-Nebreda, L. 2020. The scent of art: Perception, evaluation
and behaviour in a museum in response to olfactory marketing.
Sustainability, 12(1384):1-15.

Velasco, C. 2020. Multisensory experiences: Where the senses meet

technology. UK: Oxford.

Velasco, C., Woods, A.T., Petit, O., Cheok, A.D. & Spence, C. 2016b.
Crossmodal correspondences between taste and shape, and their
implications for product packaging: A review. Food Quality and
Preference, 52:17-26.

Velasco, C., Xiaoang, W., Klemens, K., Xi, Z., Salgado-Montejo, A. & Spence,
C. 2015. Searching for flavor labels in food products: The influence of
color-flavor congruence and association strength. Frontiers in
Psychology, 6:301.

Vida, I., Obadia, C. & Kunz, M. 2007. The effects of background music on
consumer responses in a high-end supermarket. The International
Review of Retail Distribution and Consumer Research, 17(5):469-482.

Vijayalakshmi, G. & Sivapragasam, C. 2019. Research methods, tips and

techniques. India: MJP Publisher.

Viktoriia, K. 2019. Multi-sensory brand experience in an airport restaurant.

Unpublished Bachelors Treatise. Haaga-Helia University of Applied
Sciences, Finland.

Vince, I. 2021. Customer education: Use t to gain trust and loyalty. [Online].
Available: https://textexpander.com/blog/customer-education-use-it-to-
gain-trust-and-loyalty [Accessed 13 January 2022].

455
Volchok, E. 2015. Limitations of causal research. [Online]. Available:
http://media.acc.qcc.cuny.edu/faculty/volchok/causalMR/CausalMR9.h
tml [Accessed 16 April 2020].

Wagh, S.J., Bhende, M.S. & Thakare, A.D. 2021. Fundamentals of data
science. USA: CRC Press.

Wala, A., Czyrka, K. & Fras, J. 2019. Sensory branding and marketing in
stimulating the relation between the buyer and the brand. Scientific
Quarterly: Organization and Management, 1(45):109-120.

Walker, J.T. & Maddan, S. 2019. Statistics in criminology and criminal justice.
5th ed. UK: Jones & Bartlett.

Wallach, D., Makowski, D., Jones, J.W. & Brun, F. 2018. Working with dynamic
crop models: Methods, tools and examples for agriculture and
environment. 3rd ed. UK: Academic Press.

Waller, T. 2020. Personal brand management: Marketing human value. USA:

Springer.

Walsh, C. 2020. What the nose knows. [Online]. Available:

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/02/how-scent-emotion-
and-memory-are-intertwined-and-exploited/ [Accessed 8 November
2021].

Wang, E.S.T. 2013. The influence of visual packaging design on perceived

food product quality, value and brand preference. International Journal
of Retail and Distribution Management, 11(10):805-816.

Wang, H-M. 2010. Corporate social performance and financial-based brand

equity. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 19(5):335-345.

456
Wang, Y. & Wu, J. 2017. Retail in-store design and sensory cues. Unpublished
Masters Dissertation. Jonkoping University, Sweden.

Watson, V., Porteous, T., Bolt, T. & Ryan, M. 2019. Mode and frame matter:
Assessing the impact of survey mode and sample frame in choice
experiments. Medical Decision Making, 39(7):827-841.

Weaver, L., Beebe, T.J. & Rockwood, T. 2019. The impact of survey mode on
the response rate in a survey of the factors that influence Minnesota
physicians’ disclosure practices. BMC Medical Research Methodology,
19(73):1-7.

Weir, M. 2021. A guide to haptics, the technology that makes your devices
vibrate, shake and more. [Online]. Available:
https://www.businessinsider.com/what-are-haptics?IR=T [Accessed 5
July 2021].

White, K. 2014. Web-based questionnaire, In Encyclopaedia of quality of

life and well-being research. Michalos, A.C. (eds). Dordrecht:
Springer.

White, J. 2020. The importance of product packaging in the cosmetic industry.

[Online]. Available: https://www.ptpackaging.com/blog/the-
importance-of-product-packaging-in-the-cosmetic-industry/
[Accessed 1 August 2022].

Whitehouse, L. 2017. Touch, smell and look: Why do sensory aspects of

beauty formulations matter? [Online]. Available:
https://www.cosmeticsdesign-europe.com/Article/2017/12/05/Touch-
smell-and-look-why-do-sensory-aspects-of-beauty-formulations-matter
[Accessed 20 March 2021].

Wiid, J. & Diggines, C. 2015. Marketing research. 3rd ed. Cape Town: Juta and
Company Ltd.

457
Williams, L. & Ackerman, J. 2011. Please touch the merchandise. [Online].
Available: https://hbr.org/2011/12/please-touch-the-merchandise
[Accessed 9 November 2021].

Willott, L. 2019. Average survey response rate: What you need to know.
[Online]. Available: https://www.customerthermometer.com/customer-
surveys/average-survey-response-rate/ [Accessed 14 February 2022].

Wilson, J.H. & Joye, S.W. 2017. Research methods and statistics: An
integrated approach. USA: SAGE.

Wilson, J. 2021. Understanding research for business students: A complete

student’s guide. USA: SAGE.

Wolf, C., Joye, D., Smith, T.W. & Fu, Y.C. 2016. The SAGE handbook of
survey methodology. UK: SAGE.

Wollner, C., Hammerschmidt, D. & Albrecht, H. 2018. Slow motion in films and
video clips: Music influences perceived duration and emotion,
autonomic physiological activation and pupillary responses. PloS One,
13(6):1-16.

Woods, A.T. & Spence, C. 2016. Using single colours and colour pairs to
communicate basic tastes. i-Perception, 7(4):2041669516658817.

World Economic Forum. 2019. Fourth Industrial Revolution. [Online].

Available: https://www.weforum.org/focus/fourth-industrial-revolution
[Accessed 7 April 2021].

World Health Organization. 2020. Ethics and health. [Online]. Available:

https://www.who.int/ethics/research/en/ [Accessed 15 March 2021].

458
Worthy, B. 2021. What are the key differences between primary and
secondary research? [Online]. Available:
https://www.gmrtranscription.com/blog/key-differences-between-
primary-secondary-research [Accessed 10 January 2022].

Wrzesniewski, A., McCauley, C. & Rozin, P. 1999. Odour and affect: Individual
differences in the impact of odour on liking for places, things and
people. Chemical Senses, 24:713-721.

WSJ. 2013. Send a scent around the world with your smartphone. [Online].
Available: https://www.wsj.com/video/send-a-scent-around-the-world-
with-your-smartphone/CBDC5EE6-3D06-46D2-A51D-
E8CD1535963C.html [Accessed 30 November 2021].

Wu, C. & Thompson, M.E. 2020. Sampling theory and practice. Switzerland:
Springer Nature.

Wylie, C. 2018. Consumers prefer to discover brands than be subject to

advertising. [Online]. Available:
https://www.marketingweek.com/consumers-do-not-trust-traditional-
advertising-channels/ [Accessed 26 July 2022].

Xiao, M. 2020. Factors influencing eSports viewership: An approach based on

the theory of reasoned action. Communication & Sport, 8(1):92-122.

Yamamoto, P., Cordova, M. & Mazzei, L. 2018. Description of a case involving

experiential marketing through sports sponsorship in the B2B segment.
PODIUM Sport, Leisure and Tourism Review, 7(1):64-78.

Yang, J., Wang, C., Jiang, B., Song H. & Meng, Q. Visual Perception enabled
industry intelligence: State of the art, challenges and prospects. IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 17(3):2204-2219.

459
Yang, J., Zhang, M. & Zou, Z. 2015. The effect of In-Game advertising in SNS
on brand equity. Journal of Service Science and Management,
8(01):107-114.

Yean, G.L.H. 2022. The pandemic, online shopping, and the shift towards ‘re-
commerce’. [Online]. Available: https://lens.monash.edu/@business-
economy/2022/07/25/1384493/the-pandemic-online-shopping-and-
the-shift-towards-re-commerce [Accessed 13 March 2023].

Yim, M.Y.C., Chu, S.C. & Sauer, P.L. 2017. Is augmented reality technology
an effective tool for e-Commerce? An interactivity and vividness
perspective. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 39:89-103.

Yoganathan, V., Osburg, V.S. & Akhtar, P. 2019. Sensory stimulation for
sensible consumption: Multisensory marketing for e-tailing of ethical
brands. Journal of Business Research, 96:386-396.

Yoo, B., Donthu, N. & Lee, S. 2000. An examination of selected marketing mix
elements and brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 28(2):195-211.

Young T.J. 2015. Questionnaires and surveys, In Research methods in

intercultural communication: A practical guide. Hua, Z. (eds). Oxford:
Wiley. 165-180.

Yu, X., Yuan, C., Kim, J. & Wang, S. 2020. A new form of brand experience in
online social networks: An empirical analysis. Journal of Business
Research, 130:426-435.

Yzer, M. 2012. Reasoned action theory: Persuasion as belief-based

behaviour change. In The SAGE Handbook of Persuasion:
Developments in Theory and Practice. Sage Publications Inc. 120-136.

460
Zahari, A.R., Esa, E., Rajadurai, J., Azizan, N.A. & Muhhamed Tamyez, P.F.
2019. The effects of corporate social responsibility practices on brand
equity: An examination of Malaysia’s top 100 brands. Journal of Asian
Finance, Economics and Business, 7(2):271-280.

Zamboni, J. 2018. The advantage of a large sample size. [Online]. Available:

https://sciencing.com/advantages-large-sample-size-7210190.html
[Accessed10 January 2022].

Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. & Parasuraman, A. 1996. The behavioural

consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(2):31-46.

Zhang, J. & Bloemer, J.M.M. 2008. The impact of value congruence on

consumer-service brand relationships. Journal of Service Research,
11(2):161-178.

Zhang, Y. 2021. 2D vs 3D: Which works better for your commerce? [Online].
Available: https://hapticmedia.com/blog/2d-vs-3d/ [Accessed 10
October 2021].

Zhang, Yi. 2015. The impact of brand image on consumer behaviour: A

literature review. Open Journal of Business and Management, (3
January):58-62.

Zhang, Z. 2016. Mechanics of human voice production and control. The

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 140(4):2614-2635.

Zhao, H., Yao, X., Liu, Z. & Yang, Q. 2021. Impact of pricing and product
information on consumer buying behaviour with customer satisfaction
in a mediating role. Frontiers in Psychology, 12(720151):1-53.

Zikmund, W.G., D’Alessandro, S., Winzar, H., Lowe, B. & Babin, B. 2017.
Marketing research: Asia-pacific edition. 4th ed. Australia: Cengage.

461
Zorfas, A. & Leemon, D. 2016. An emotional connection matters more than
customer satisfaction. [Online]. Available: https://hbr.org/2016/08/an-
emotional-connection-matters-more-than-customer-satisfaction
[Accessed 10 November 2021].

ZoriBari-Nwitambu, B. & Kalu, S.E. 2018. Traditional market days and

branding strategies in marketing. International Journal of Contemporary
Applied Researches, 5(1):36-48.

Zulqarnain, H., Zafar, A. & Shahzad, M. 2015. Factors that affect the choice of
consumers in selecting retail store, for grocery shopping. International
Journal of Multidisciplinary and Current Research, 3:1167-1172.

462
 ANNEXURE A
QUESTIONNAIRE OF THE STUDY

463
464
465
466
467
468
 ANNEXURE B
COVER LETTER ACCOMPANYING THE QUESTIONNAIRE OF THIS STUDY

Department of Marketing Management

Second Avenue Campus
Faculty of Business and Economic Sciences
Tel. +27 (0) 76 181 9042

Dear respondent,

I am a student of Nelson Mandela University, George Campus, conducting a Doctor

of Philosophy (PhD) (Marketing) thesis in the Faculty of Business and Economic
Sciences. This research study investigates the desired sensory branding strategies in-
store versus online, with specific reference to the skincare industry. In order to gain
insight into this topic, you are kindly requested to answer the questions in the
questionnaire. The questionnaire will help us to understand how various sensory
marketing strategies influence brand experience, and in turn overall brand loyalty, for
both in-store and online shopping. The questionnaire will not take more than 15
minutes of your time. Your participation is voluntary and you can withdraw at any time
without penalty. All data will remain strictly confidential and be used solely for the
purpose of the study. By completing this survey, you indicate implied consent to
participating in this research. If you have concerns, please feel free to contact myself
or my supervisors. Our details are given below. Thank you for your participation.

Gabriella Berman Dr. Adele Potgieter Prof. Madele Tait

s215032950@mandela [email protected] [email protected]
Tel: 044 801 5583 Tel: +27415042202
.ac.za
Supervisor Co-Sup
Tel: 076 1819 042
PhD Candidate

469
Before completing the questionnaire, please ensure you understand the
following terminology:

Scentee Device (Referred to in Question 11.5 of the questionnaire in

Annexure A).

470
 ANNEXURE C
QUESTIONNAIRE ITEM SOURCE LIST
WRITTEN As previously stated, all data will remain strictly confidential and be used
CONSENT solely for the purpose of this study. Should you consent to participating in
this anonymous research study, please select the "I consent" option below.
If not, please select the "I do not consent" option below.
SCREENING This study is aimed at investigating desired sensory branding strategies in-
QUESTION store versus online, with specific reference to the skincare industry. Have
you purchased skincare products in-store as well as via online platforms?
(IF YES, THE QUESTIONNAIRE WILL CONTINUE. IF NO, THEN THE
RESPONDENT WILL BE REDIRECTED TO THE END “THANK YOU”
PAGE)

ITEM CODE ITEM FROM THE SOURCE

QUESTIONNAIRE
SECTION A: DEMOGRAPHIC DETAILS
A1 Eurostudent.eu (2008:13);
What gender do you identify as? Grelecka (2016:96); Potgieter et al
(2019b:1); Thornberry (2015:114)
A2 OECD (2018:3); Grelecka
(2016:96); Potgieter et al (2019:3);
In which age group do you fall?
Thornberry (2015:114)

A3 What, on average, is your monthly

Liegeois & Rivera (2011:88)
budget for skincare products?
A4 On average how often do you
Brook (2019); Liegeois & Rivera
purchase skincare products in-
(2011:88); Wang & Wu (2017:69)
store?
A5 Botha (2014:138); Brook (2019);
On average, how often do you Hung (2016:163); Liegeois &
purchase skincare products online? Rivera (2011:88); Swardt
(2008:106); Tapson (2009:146)
SECTION B: VISUAL STIMULI
The influence that visual stimuli has on the experience of shopping for skincare products
Please indicate to what extent each of the following visual stimuli influence your
experience of shopping for skincare products in-store. A neutral response will indicate
that the specific stimuli does not influence your experience.
B1 The layout of the store. Liegeois & Rivera (2011:86);
Wang & Wu (2017:70)
B2 The layout of the products on the Liegeois & Rivera (2011:86);
shelf. Theofanides & Kerasidou
(2012:44)
B3 The colours used in the store. Anvar (2016:108); Grzybowska-
Brezezinska et al (2013:40);
Liegeois & Rivera (2011:86);
Maneti (2014:116); Wang & Wu
(2017:70)
B4 The aesthetics of the product Grzybowska-Brezezinska et al
packaging. (2013:40); Kokoi (2011:86);
Theofanides & Kerasidou
(2012:44)
B5 The lighting within the store. Anvar (2016:108); Maneti
(2014:116); Wang & Wu (2017:70)
B6 The design of the store. Anvar (2016:108); Grzybowska-
Brezezinska et al (2013:40);
Liegeois & Rivera (2011:86);

471
 Maneti (2014:116); Wang & Wu
(2017:70)

Please indicate to what extent each of the following visual stimuli influence your
experience of shopping for skincare products online. A neutral response will indicate that
the specific stimuli does not influence your experience.
B6 The aesthetics of the product Grzybowska-Brezezinska et al
packaging. (2013:40)
B7 High quality digital images. Botha (2014:137); Hung
(2016:168); Zhang (2021)
B8 The layout and user friendliness of Botha (2014:135); Fritz (2018:177);
website. Hung (2016:166); Pillay (2003:68)
B9 An aesthetically pleasing website. Botha (2014:137); Hung
(2016:166); Nel (2003:182)
B10 The use of interactive technology Hewawalpita & Perera (2017:4); Li
(such as 360-degree imaging). & Meshkova (2013:454); Matterport
(2020); Smith (2020); Zhang (2021)
B11 The use of videos. Botha (2014:137); Jiang &
Benbasat (2007:466); Li &
Meshkova (2013:456)
SECTION C: AUDITORY STIMULI
The influence that auditory stimuli has on the experience of shopping for skincare
products
Please indicate to what extent each of the following auditory stimuli influence your
experience of shopping for skincare products in-store. A neutral response will indicate
that the specific stimuli does not influence your experience.
C1 The music played in the store. Maneti (2014:115); Liegeois &
Rivera (2011:86); Wang & Wu
(2017:69); Vida (2007:476)
C2 The natural noises associated with Geci, Nagyova & Rybanska
stores (such as other consumers or (2017:713)
staff chatting).
C3 The sound or pronunciation of the Kim (2017a:21); Pogar, Plant,
brands name. Rosulek & Kouril (2015:559);
Subkowski (2019:47)
C4 The volume of the music is played in Engelen (2016:18); Shenje
the store. (2018:226); Turner (2012:56)
C5 The tempo of the music played in the Engelen (2016:18); Shenje
store. (2018:226); Turner (2012:56)
Please indicate to what extent each of the following auditory stimuli influence your
experience of shopping for skincare products online. A neutral response will indicate that
the specific stimuli does not influence your experience.
C6 The use of background music or Botha (2014:137); Fiore & Kelly
sounds on the website. (2007:607)
C7 Reactive sounds (such as when Threadgill, Ryan, Jordan & Hajcak
confirming a purchase and a (2020:2)
celebratory sound is played).
C8 The use of video adverts or clips. Botha (2014:137); Fiore & Kelly
(2007:606); Nel (2003:181);
Tapson (2009:148)
C9 The use of brand jingles. Cowen-Elstner (2018:30); Foroudi
& Palazzo (2019:136); Griffith
(2020); Hulten (2020:93; 2017:6);
Wala we al (2019:112)
C10 The use of digital sounds to portray
the actual sound of using a product
OWN CONSTRUCTION
(such as the sound of a bottle cap
opening on a Coca-Cola Bottle).

472
 SECTION D: OLFACTORY STIMULI
THE INFLUENCE THAT OLFACTORY STIMULI HAS ON THE EXPERIENCE OF
SHOPPING FOR SKINCARE PRODUCTS
Please indicate to what extent each of the following olfactory stimuli influence your
experience of shopping for skincare products in-store. A neutral response will indicate
that the specific stimuli does not influence your experience.
D1 Diffused smell within the store. Maneti (2014:115); Liegeois &
Rivera (2011:86); Wang & Wu
(2017:69)
D2 The intensity of the scent in the store. Anvar (2016:110); Spangenberg,
Crowley & Henderson (1996:70)
D3 The smell of the product itself. Wrzesniewski, McCauley & Rozin
(1999:714)
D4 Signature fragrances used by the Reader (2016:16)
store.
D5 The scent of the staff of the store. Wrzesniewski, McCauley & Rozin
(1999:714)
Please indicate to what extent each of the following olfactory stimuli influence your
experience of shopping for skincare products online. A neutral response will indicate that
the specific stimuli does not influence your experience.
D6 The use of descriptive words. Hung (2016:169); Silva & Duarte
(2017:101)
D7 The use of scratch-and-sniff cards Hulten (2020:128)
given out in stores.
D8 The use of imagery association. Alac (2017:143); Cowen-Elstner
(2018:31); Hauser (2017); Hulten
(2020:127)
D9 The use of Virtual Reality Technology Ranasinghe et al (2018)
to replicate olfactory stimuli.
D10 The use of third-party technology WSJ (2013)
which plugs in to your device and
allows the distribution of scent so that
you could physically smell a virtual
product when making a purchase
(See Annexure B).
SECTION E: TACTILE STIMULI
THE INFLUENCE THAT TACTILE STIMULI HAS ON THE EXPERIENCE OF SHOPPING
FOR SKINCARE PRODUCTS
Please indicate to what extent each of the following tactile stimuli influence your
experience of shopping for skincare products in-store. A neutral response will indicate
that the specific stimuli does not influence your experience.
E1 The possibility to touch the physical Anvar (2016:109); Maneti
product. (2014:115); Liegeois & Rivera
(2011:86)
E2 The possibility to sample the physical Geci, Nagyova & Rybanska
product. (2017:713); Liegeois & Rivera
(2011:86)
E3 The feel or texture of the products Grzybowska-Brezezinska et al
packaging. (2013:40); Kokoi (2011:86); Wang
& Wu (2017:70)
E4 The temperature of the store. Geci, Nagyova & Rybanska
(2017:713)
E5 The texture of the skincare product Kokoi (2011:86); Theofanides &
itself. Kerasidou (2012:44)
E6 The duration that you touch or feel Hulten (2020:141); Ringler et al
the product. (2019:190)
Please indicate to what extent each of the following tactile stimuli influence your
experience of shopping for skincare products online. A neutral response will indicate that
the specific stimuli does not influence your experience.

473
E7 The use of high-quality images. Botha (2014:137); Hung
(2016:168); Zhang (2021)
E8 The use of descriptive words to Hung (2016:169); Silva & Duarte
describe the feel of the product. (2017:101)
E9 The availability of a return policy to Cunningham (2012:177); Fritz
online stores. (2018:178); Pillay (2003:70)
E10 Haptic responses when clicking on King (2012); Manshad & Brannon
certain icons or making purchases (2021:91)
(such as phone or mouse vibrations).
E11 The use of interactive software (such Liu, Liu, Xu, Cheng, Masuko &
as virtual walk throughs or ty-on’s). Tanaka (2020:1820); Matterport
(2020); Mel (2003:180)
SECTION F: BRAND EXPERIENCE & BRAND LOYALTY
Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with each of the following
statements relating to brand loyalty.
F1 Should the brand increase their Dehghan & Shahin (2011:12);
prices, I would still purchase their Ergin, Ozdemir & Parilti (2005:11)
products.
F2 If a brand’s products are unavailable, Dehghan & Shahin (2011:12);
I will not try an alternative. Ergin et al (2005:11)
F3 I say positive things about my Dehghan & Shahin (2011:12)
preferred brand to other people.
F4 I will recommend my preferred brand Dehghan & Shahin (2011:12);
to someone who seeks my advice. Ergin et al (2005:11)
F5 I have a positive emotional relation Dehghan & Shahin (2011:12)
(feel attached) to my preferred brand.
F6 I am loyal to my preferred brand due Ergin et al (2005:11)
to the quality of their products.
F7 I am loyal to my preferred brand due Wang & Wu (2017:71)
to the experiences I have had with
them.
F8 My loyalty to my preferred brand is Awuor (2010:iii)
strengthened by the value-added
services they provide on top of the
product itself.
F9 My brand provides a different Dehghan & Shahin (2011:12)
experience than any of the
alternative brand’s available.

474
 ANNEXURE D
PERMISSION LETTER TO SUBMIT TO TURNITIN

475
 ANNEXURE E
TURNITIN PLAGIARISM REPORT

476