The effect of brand experience on brand relationship quality.
Jung, Hee ; Lee ; Soo, Myung 等
INTRODUCTION
In marketing practice, brand experience has attracted much
attention(Brakus, Schmitt & Zarantonello, 2009). It is important for
marketing professionals to understand how customers experience brands
and how the brand experience affects marketing strategies for services
and products. Nowadays, customers are not satisfied with buying products
for functional benefits. Many researchers suggested that the pervasive
influence of emotional response in product consumption and
shopping(Holbrook, Chestnut, Oliva & Greenleaf, 1984; Batra &
Ray, 1986; Westbrook, 1987; Batra & Holbrook, 1990; Cohen, 1990).
Schmitt(1999) said consumers increasingly make choices based on the
experiential factor that the product offers. It has been suggested that
an emotion-rich experience provides not only brand differentiation and
consumer loyalty but also sales increase and promotion of the
brands(Morrison & Crane, 2007). It means that brand experience can
affect the customer-brand relationship.
Relationship Marketing has been studied by using
Fournier(1998)'s conceptualization of Brand relationship quality
(BRQ). Brand relationship has arrived a new stage to be one of the
principal focus of research on consumers and brands(Aaker, Fournier
& Brasel, 2004; Breivik & Thorbjornsen, 2008; Chang &
Chieng, 2006; Hass, 2007; Huber, Collhardt, Matthes & Vogel, 2009).
Brand relationship quality is usually used to evaluate the relationship
strength and the depth of consumer-brand relationship(Xie & Heung,
2009). The advantage of studying brand relationship is the ability to
provide insights into the impact of brands on customers and their needs
(Breivik & Thorbjornsen, 2008; Fournier, 1998; Monga, 2002). But
empirical studies that deal with whether brand relationship quality
could influence consumers' purchase intentions and behaviors are
scant(Xie & Heung, 2009). Researches regarding the correlation
between consumers' experiences of brands and brand relationship
quality are also limited.
Therefore the purpose of this study is to examine how brand
experience affects customer-brand relationship quality. This could be a
contribution for marketing managers to improve their knowledge about the
relationship between their brands and customers and to understand their
customers more accurately.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND PROPOSITION
Brand Experience
Brand experiences are "subjective, internal consumer
responses(sensations, feelings, and cognitions) and behavioral responses
evoked by brand-related stimuli that are part of a brand' s
identity, packaging, design, environments and communications"
(Brakus, Schmitt & Zarantonello, 2009). Consumer and marketing
research has shown that experiences happen when consumers search for
products, when they are shopping for products or receive services, and
when they consume products or services (Arnould, Price, & Zinkhan,
2002; Brakus, Schmitt, & Zhang, 2008; Holbrook, 2000).
The types of brand experience are related with product, shopping
and service, and consumption experience. Product experiences occur when
consumers interact with products (Hoch 2002). First, the product
experience happens directly when there is physical contact with the
product (Hoch & Ha, 1986) or indirectly when a product is presented
virtually or in an advertisement(Hoch & Ha, 1986; Kempf & Smith,
1998).
Second, shopping and service experiences happen when consumers
interact with a store' s physical environments, its policies and
practices (Hui & Bateson, 1991; Kerin, Jain & Howard, 1992).
Thus, research in this area investigates how atmospheric variables and
salespeople affect the consumer' s experience (Arnold et al., 2005;
Boulding et al., 1993; Jones, 1999; Ofir & Simonson, 2007).
Third, consumption experiences arise when consumers consume and use
products. These are multidimensional and contain hedonic dimensions,
such as feelings, fun and fantasies(Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982). Many
interpretive studies about consumption experiences have investigated
hedonic goals that happen during and after the consumption such as at
concerts and sports games (Arnould & Price, 1993; Celsi, Rose, &
Leigh, 1993; Holt, 1995; Joy & Sherry, 2003).
Brand experiences vary in intensity and strength(Brakus, Schmitt
& Zarantonello, 2009). Also, brand experiences vary in valence.
Customer can face positive or negative brand experiences and short-lived
or long-lasting brand experiences. Long lasting brand experiences,
stored in the customer' s memory, should affect customer loyalty
and satisfaction(Oliver, 1997; Reicheld, 1996). These kinds of brand
experience are different from brand image and brand association(Keller,
1993).
Brand experiences are different from other brand constructs.
Attitudes are related evaluations based on affective reactions or
beliefs(Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Murphy & Zajonc, 1993). However,
brand experiences include specific sensations, cognitions, and
behavioral responses caused by specific brand related stimuli (Brakus,
Schmitt & Zarantonello, 2009). Brand experiences also distinguish
between affective and motivational notions like involvement
(Zaichkowsky, 1985) and customer delight (Oliver, Rust & Varki,
1997) because brand experiences can take place when customers are not
interested in or do not have a personal connection with a brand.
Finally, brand experiences are different from brand image and brand
associations(Keller, 1993). A typical construct of brand association is
brand personality (Aaker, 1997). Brand personality is processed
inferentially (Johar, Sengupta, & Aaker, 2005), but brand
experiences deal with actual sensations, cognitions, and behavioral
responses.
Brand Experience Dimensions
Dimensions of brand experiences are studied in philosophy,
cognitive science, and experiential marketing and management (Brakus,
Schmitt & Zarantonello, 2009). In the experiential marketing and
management area, Schmitt(1999) suggested five experiences : when
consumers sense, feel, think, act, and relate. These five experiences
are related to Dewey' s (1922, 1925) categorization, and Dube and
Lebel' s (2003) pleasure construct. Based on these researches,
Brakus, Schmitt and Zarantonello(2009) developed four dimensions of
brand experience. These are composed of sensory, affective,
intellectual, and behavioral dimensions. 1) The sensory dimension means
that brands can make strong visual impression on the customer.
Zarantonello and Schmitt(2010) said a sensory dimension is "visual,
auditory, tactile, gustative, and olfactory stimulations provided by a
brand" . 2) The affective dimension means that brands induce
feelings or sentiments. The affective dimension includes feelings
produced by brands and their emotional tie with consumers (Zarantonello
& Schmitt, 2010). 3) The intellectual dimension refer to
brands' ability of making customers think or feel curious. 4) The
behavioral dimension means when a customer uses a brand, it makes the
customer physically active. The behavioral dimension includes bodily
experiences, lifestyles, and interaction with brands(Zarantonello &
Schmitt, 2010). According to brand experiences aroused and the intensity
of stimuli, results of brand experiences can be more or less powerful.
Lee, Jeon and Yoon(2010) suggested that affective and behavioral
dimensions have a decisive effect on the brand attachment. Based on Lee
et al.(2010), we chose an affective dimension and a behavioral dimension
to investigate the relationship with brand relationship quality.
Therefore, we conceptualize brand experience with two dimensions :
affective and behavioral.
Brand Relationship Quality
Fournier (1998) suggested that consumers perceive a brand as a
behavioral entity. The core proposition that the framework of
consumer-brand relationships is built is the assumption that consumers
translate a brand' s behavior into trait language(Bengtsson, 2003).
Brand relationship has reached a new stage to be one of the principal
focus of research on consumers and brands (Aaker, Fournier & Brasel,
2004; Breivik & Thorbjornsen, 2008; Chang & Chieng, 2006; Hass,
2007; Huber, Collhardt, Matthes & Vogel, 2009). Brand relationship
quality is usually used to evaluate the relationship strength and the
depth of consumer-brand relationship(Xie & Heung, 2009). Consistent
with previous studies (Aaker, Fournier, & Brasel, 2004;
Hennig-Thurau, Gwinner, & Gremler, 2002), we apply a brand
relationship quality concept to identify the strength of the
relationship. Generally, relationship quality plays a role of reducing
uncertainty, transaction cost and improving interaction efficiency,
social need fulfillment (Hennig-Thurau & Klee, 1997).
In early research of relationship quality, Hennig-Thurau and Klee
(1997) suggested that relationship quality is a concept related
"salesperson' s ability to reduce perceived uncertainty"
(Crosby et al., 1990). They considered relationship quality consisted of
two dimensions, 1) trust in the salesperson and 2) satisfaction with the
salesperson (Crosby et al., 1990). Relationship Quality is described as
a second-order construct consisting of trust, commitment and social
benefits (Gregoire, Tripp & Legoux, 2009). Trust means that
consumers have confidence that a brand is dependable and can be relied
on. Commitment is the willingness to maintain a relationship with a
brand. Social benefits means that consumers perceive that brand and have
one-to-one close connections by means of the personalization and
customization of services. Hennig-Thurau and Klee (1997) said a product
or service-related quality perception is a component of the more complex
construct relationship quality. Relationship quality consists of the
customer' s trust and commitment to the marketer.
Consumers who perceive a high level of relationship quality are
more likely to take offense if they have a negative incident with a
brand. When a consumer feels good about their relationship with a brand,
a high level of commitment and loyalty results(Anderson & Sullivan,
1993; Mittal & Kamakura, 2001; Oliver, 1997). Horppu, Kuivalainen,
Tarkiainen and Ellonen(2008) suggested that a customer' s positive
brand experiences can affect brand cognition, commitment, purchase
intentions and brand reputation. Relationship quality can serve as a
predictor variable for customer retention and purchase decision.
Based on these researches, we choose two components among three
brand relationship quality concepts : trust and commitment. Moorman et
al.(1992) defined trust as the willingness of general consumer to rely
on the capability of the brand to carry out its stated function. Other
explanations of trust also stress the concept of reliance as decisive to
the trust(Morgan & Hunt, 1994). According to Morgan and Hunt(1994),
brand commitment is another key relational variable that inspire the
relevant partners in a relationship. Also brand commitment reduces
uncertainty and saves a customer the cost of seeking new relational
exchanges with other brand. In addition, we hypothesize that customers
who have a high level of brand experience can have a strong relationship
with a brand.
H1 Brand experience affects a consumer's brand relationship
quality positively.
H1-1 Affective brand experience affects a consumer's brand
trust positively.
H1-2 Behavioral brand experience affects a consumer's brand
trust positively.
H1-3 Affective brand experience affects a consumer's brand
commitment positively.
H1-4 Behavioral brand experience affects a consumer's brand
commitment positively.
Morgan and Hunt(1994) suggested that the commitment-trust theory.
They theorized that the existence of relationship commitment and trust
is critical to successful relationship marketing. We defined brand trust
as the willingness of the general consumer to rely on the capability of
the brand to carry out its stated function (Chaudhuri & Holbrook,
2001). Brand commitment is related to the loyalty of consumers towards a
specific brand and is getting increasing importance in consumer behavior
(Martinand & Goodell, 1991). Delgodo-Ballester and
Munuera-Aleman(2001) suggested that brand trust acts a critical role as
a variable that causes customer' s commitment. So brand trust could
affect brand commitment and this allows us to examine the following
hypothesis.
H2 Brand trust affects brand commitment positively.
Brand trust is extremely important for increasing customers'
loyalty toward brands(Ha, 2004). Brand loyalty means consumers are
satisfied with some brand, purchase the brand and then repurchase the
same brand continuously (Aaker, 1991). Therefore, brand loyalty can be
defined as the degree of consumer' s attachment to a specific
brand. We consider that a consumer' s brand attachment is composed
of brand preference, brand favorableness and purchase intention.
Chaudhuri and Holbrook(2001) suggested that brand trust and brand
commitment affect brand loyalty positively. Based on these researches,
we suggest following hypothesis.
H3 Brand relationship quality affects brand loyalty positively.
H3-1 Brand relationship quality of trust affects brand loyalty
positively.
H3-2 Brand relationship quality of commitment affects brand loyalty
positively.
METHODS
174 samples were collected from universities throughout South
Korea. After excluding samples containing missing data, we were left
with use 169 samples. In the final sample of 169 respondents, 53.3% were
female, and 61.8% were between 20 and 29 years old.
We measured a brand experience using scales that Brakus, Schimitt
and Zarantonello(2009) suggested. And trust and commitment as brand
relationship quality are measured by scales that Gregoire, Tripp and
Legoux(2009) used. We measured brand loyalty with the degree of brand
preference, brand favorableness and purchase intention which are
properly selected scales used by Aaker(1991) and Chaudhuri and
Holbrook(2001)
We used structural equation modeling, which is a multivariate
statistical technique for structural theory. Also, we adopted
measurement scales from previous researches. Table 1 shows the
exploratory factor analysis of measurement scales of Brand Experience
Dimensions. Factor analysis uses Varimax rotation. Brakus, Schmitt and
Zarantonello(2009) suggested 12 items to identify brand experience
dimensions. However, according to the result of this factor analysis, we
can chose 5 items to identify two brand experience dimensions. Table 2
shows the reliability and Brakus, Schmitt and Zarantonello(2009)' s
construct validity of Brand Relationship Quality measurement scales.
Reliability indices are commonly used when they are over 0.6 (Palmatier,
Dant, Grewal, & Evans 2006).
RESULTS
Many goodness-of-fit-criteria can be used to assess an acceptable
model fit. Among them, the comparative fit index (CFI) and normed fit
index (NFI) are preferred measures(Bentler, 1992). We used Amos 18.0 to
analyze the hypothesized model, and we adopted a two-step model-building
approach. The confirmatory factor models were tested prior to testing
the structural model, and then the maximum likelihood (ML) estimation
method was used.
In this study, we examine model validity by using confirmatory
factor analysis. Structural model results are shown in Table 3. There
are several commonly used goodness of fit indices in structural equation
model analysis : GFI, AGFI, RMR, and CFI. We used Amos 18.0 to examine
the structural model test, and we adopted CFI, IFI, and TLI as adequate
fit indices. CFI may display little standard error with regard to sample
size, IFI does not consider the sample size, and TLI is related to
degrees of freedom. A model is considered appropriate when its GFI,
AGFI, and CFI are greater than 0.9 and its RMR and RMSEA are between
0.05 and 0.08. All goodness of fit indices of the model in this study
was satisfactory : -[chi square] = 125.724 (df = 69), GFI = 0.903, AGFI
= 0.849, RMR = 0.041, CFI = 0.963, RMSEA = 0.070. As a result, these fit
indices are appropriate for any sample size.
Figure 1 shows the results. After the hypothesis test, we can find
that H1-1, H1-3, H1-4 and H2 and H3(H3-1, H3-2) are supported. But H1-2
is not supported. Table 4 shows the results of the hypotheses tests.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
DISCUSSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH
Brand experiences receive much attention from many marketing
researchers. Accordingly, we examine brand experience dimensions, and
investigate the relation between brand experience and brand relationship
quality. Brand experience is composed of sensory, affective, behavioral,
and intellectual dimensions( Brakus, Schmitt & Zarantonello, 2009).
Brakus, Schmitt and Zarantonello(2009) examined whether brand experience
affects customer satisfaction and loyalty. In this research, they found
brand experience affects consumer's satisfaction and loyalty and
have a relationship with brand personality dimensions. However, they did
not examine the effect of each brand experience dimension on brand
relationship quality. Overall brand experience might affect a
customer-brand relationship positively. But each dimensions of brand
experience may not affect a customer-brand relationship quality
positively. Therefore, we composed a model to find the effect of each
dimension of brand experience on the brand relationship qualities of
trust and commitment.
According to this study, all kinds of brand experiences do not
affect the brand relationship quality construct. First of all, a
customer who enjoys greater affective brand experiences thinks that the
brand is more trustful. That is, when customers feel brands are
affective, their relationships with brands are strengthened and they
come to trust the brands. Also when the customer enjoys greater
affective and behavioral brand experiences, the brand's commitment
level also highly increases.
However, a behavioral brand experience does not affect brand trust
meaningfully. According to Morgan and Hunt(1994), commitment is defined
that an exchange partner believe that a relationship with another. And
they suggested that commitment is main to all the relational exchanges
between the firm and consumers. Moorman, Deshpande, and Zaltman(1993)
defined that trust is a willingness to rely on an trade partner in whom
one has faith. However, Morgan and Hunt(1994) demonstrated that the
behavioral intention of "willingness" is unnecessary.
"Willingness to rely" should be rather viewed as an
outcome of trust, because behavioral intention is best viewed as outcome
of attitude(Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). According to these researches,
we think that a behavioral brand experience may be related outcome of
attitude. This could explains that a behavioral brand experience affects
brand commitment, not brand trust. Because a behavioral brand experience
leads customers into behavioral and physical responses, brand trust may
be less related to the behavioral brand experience. Future researches
are needed to explore this issue further.
Secondly, the brand trust affects the brand commitment positively.
And we also find that brand relationship quality affects brand loyalty
positively. High levels of trust and commitment give a positive
influence on the brand preference, the brand favorableness, and a
purchase intension. Therefore we can bring to a conclusion that some
kinds of brand experiences can affect brand relationship quality and
consumer's brand loyalty eventually.
In this study, we suggest that not all brand experiences are
effective to promote brand relationship quality. According to the goal
of a company or a brand, marketing managers should implement brand
experience strategies. Also, it is important to choose a brand
experience activity that is well-matched with the pursuing brand
relationship quality and brand loyalty.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research was financially supported by Hansung University.
REFERENCES
Aaker D. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value
of a brand name. New York : The Free Press.
Aaker J.L. (1997). Dimension of brand personality. Journal of
Marketing Research, 34(August), 347-56.
Aaker J., S. Fournier & S. Brasel (2004). When Good Brands Do
Bad. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 1-16.
Anderson E.W. & M.W. Sullivan (1993). The antecedents and
consequences of customer satisfaction for firms. Marketing Science,
12(2), 125-143.
Arnold M.J., K.E. Reynolds, N. Ponder & J.E. Lueg (2005).
Customer delight in a retail context: Investigating delightful and
terrible shopping experiences. Journal of Business Research, 58(8),
1132-45.
Arnould E.J. & L.L. Price (1993). River magic: Extraordinary
experience and the extended service. Journal of Consumer Research,
20(June), 24-45.
Arnould E.J., L.L. Price & G.L. Zinkhan (2002). Consumers, 2d
ed. New York: McGraw-Hill/Richard D. Irwin.
Batra, R. & M.B. Holbrook (1990). Developing a typology of
affective responses to advertising: A test of validity and reliability.
Psy chology and Marketing, 7, 11-25.
Batra R. & M.L. Ray (1986). Affective responses mediating
acceptance of advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 234-49.
Bengtsson A. (2003). Towards a critique of brand relationships.
Advances in Consumer Research, 30, 154-154.
Bentler P.M. (1992). On the fit of models to covariances and
methodology to the bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 112(3), 400-404.
Boulding W., A. Kalra, R. Staelin & V. Zeithaml (1993). A
dynamic process model of service quality: From expectations to
behavioral intentions. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(February),
7-27.
Brakus J., B. Schmitt & S. Zhang (2008). Experiential
attributes and consumer judgments in Handbook on Brand and Experience
Management, Bernd H. Schmitt and David Rogers, eds. Northampton, MA:
Edward Elgar.
Brakus J.J., B.H. Schmitt & L. Zarantonello (2009). Brand
experience : What is it? How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty?.
Journal of Marketing, 73, 52-68.
Breivik E. & H. Thorbjornsen (2008). Consumer brand
relationships: An investigation of two alternative models. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 3<5(4), 443-72.
Celsi R.L., R.L. Rose & T. Leigh (1993). An exploration of
high-risk leisure consumption through skydiving. Journal of Consumer
Research, 20(June), 1-23.
Chaudhuri A. & M.B. Holbrook (2001). The chain of effects from
brand trust and brand affect to brand performance : The role of brand
loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 81-93.
Chang P.L. & M.H. Chieng (2006). Building consumer-brand
relationship: A cross-cultural experiential view. Psychology &
Marketing, 23(11), 927-59.
Cohen, J.B. (1990). Attitude, affect and consumer behavior, in
Affect and Social Behavior, B. S. Moore and A. M. Isen, eds., Cambridge
University Press, New York. 152-206.
Crosby L.A., K.R. Evans & D. Cowles (1990). Relationship
quality in services selling: An interpersonal influence perspective.
Journal of Marketing, 54, 68-81.
Delgodo-Ballester E. & J.L. Munuera-Aleman (2001). Brand trust
in the context of consumer loyalty. European Journal of Marketing, 35,
1238-58.
Dewey J. (1922). Human nature and conduct. New York: The Modern
Library.
Dewey J. (1925). Experience and nature, rev.ed. New York: Dover.
Dube L. & J.L. LeBel (2003). The content and structure of
laypeople's concept of pleasure. Cognition and Emotion, 17(2),
263-95.
Fishbein M. & I. Ajzen (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and
behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading,MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Fournier S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing
relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research,
24(4), 343-73.
Gregoire Y., M.T. Thomas & R. Legoux (2009). When customer love
turns into lasting hate : The effects of relationship strength and time
on customer revenge and avoidance. Journal of Marketing, 73(6), 18-32.
Ha H.Y (2004). Factors influencing consumer perceptions of brand
trust online. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 13(5), 329-342.
Haas S.M. (2007). Evaluating brand relationships in the context of
brand communities. School of Saint Louis University in Partial.
Hennig-Thurau T. & A. Klee (1997). The impact of customer
satisfaction and relationship quality on consumer retention : A critical
reassessment and model development. Psychology and Marketing, 14(8),
737-64.
Hennig-Thurau T., K.P. Gwinner & D.D. Gremler (2002).
Understanding relationship marketing outcomes. Journal of Service
Research, 4(3), 230-47.
Hoch S.J. (2002). Product Experience Is Seductive. Journal of
Consumer Research, 29(December), 448-54.
Hoch S.J. & Y.W. Ha (1986). Consumer learning: Advertising and
the ambiguity of product experience. Journal of Consumer Research,
13(September), 221-33.
Holbrook M.B., R.W. Chestnut, T.A. Oliva & E.A. Greenleaf
(1984). Play as a consumption experience : The roles of emotions,
performance, and personality in the enjoyment of games. Journal of
Consumer Research, 11(2), 728-39.
Holbrook M.B. (2000). The millennial consumer in the texts of our
times: Experience and entertainment. Journal of Macromarketing, 20(2),
178-92.
Holbrook M.B. & E.C. Hirschman (1982). The experiential aspects
of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of
Consumer Research, P(September), 132-40.
Holt D.B. (1995). How consumers consume: A typology of consumption
practices. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(June), 1-16.
Horppu M., O. Kuivalainen, A. Tarkiainen & H.K. Ellonen (2008).
Online satisfaction, trust and loyalty and the impact of the offline
parent brand. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 17(6), 403-13.
Huber F., K. Vollhardt, I. Matthes & J. Vogel (2009). Brand
misconduct: Consequences on consumer brand relationship. Journal of
Business Research. 11, 1113-1120.
Hui M.K. & J.E.G. Bateson (1991). Perceived control and the
effects of crowding and consumer choice on the service experience.
Journal of Consumer Research, 18(September), 174-84.
Johar G., J. Sengupta & J. Aaker (2005). Two roads to updating
brand personality impressions: Trait versus evaluative inferencing.
Journal of Marketing Research, 42(November), 458-69.
Jones M.A. (1999). Entertaining shopping experiences: An
exploratory investigation. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
6(3), 129-39.
Joy, A. & Jr. J.F. Sherry (2003). Speaking of art as embodied
imagination: A multisensory approach to understanding aesthetic
experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(September), 259-82.
Keller K.L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing
customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(January),1-22.
Kempf D.S. & R.E. Smith (1998). Consumer processing of product
trial and the influence of prior advertising: A structural modeling
approach. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(August), 325-38.
Kerin R.A., A. Jain & D.J. Howard (1992). Store shopping
experience and consumer price-quality-value perceptions. Journal of
Retailing, 68(4), 376-97.
Lee J.E., J.E. Jeon & J.Y. Yoon (2010). Does brand experience
affect consumer's emotional attachments?. Korean Journal of
Marketing, 12(2), 53-81.
Martinand L.C. & P.N. Goodell (1991). Historical, descriptive
and strategic perspectives on the construct of product commitment.
European Journal of Marketing, 25, 53-60.
Mittal V. & W.A. Kamakura (2001). Satisfaction, repurchase
intent and repurchase behavior : Investigating the moderating effect of
customer characteristics. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(1), 131-42.
Monga A.B. (2002). Brand as a relationship partner: Gender
differences in perspective. Advances in Consumer Research, 29, 36-41.
Moorman C., G. Zaltman & R. Deshpande (1992). Relationship
between providers and users of market research : The dynamics of trust
within and between organizations. Journal of Marketing Research, 29,
314-28.
Moorman C., R. Deshpande & G. Zaltman (1993). Factors affecting
trust in market research relationships. Journal of Marketing, 57,
81-101.
Morgan R.M. & S.D. Hunt (1994). The commitment-trust theory of
relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20-38.
Morrison S. & F. Crane (2007). Building the service brand by
creating and managing an emotional brand experience, Journal of Brand
Management, 14(5), 410-21.
Murphy S.T. & R.B. Zajonc (1993). Affect, cognition and
awareness: Affective priming with optimal and suboptimal stimulus
exposures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(5), 723-39.
Ofir C. & I. Simonson (2007). The effect of stating
expectations on consumer satisfaction and shopping experience. Journal
of Marketing Research, 44(February), 164-74.
Oliver R.L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the
consumer. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Oliver R.L., R.T. Rust & S. Varki (1997). Customer delight:
foundations, findings, and managerial insight. Journal of Retailing,
73(3), 311-36.
Palmatier R.W., R.P. Dant, D. Grewal & K.R. Evans (2006).
Factors influencing the effectiveness of relationship marketing : A
meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 70(October), 136-53.
Reicheld F. (1996). The loyalty effect: The hidden force behind
growth, profits, and lasting value. Boston: Harvard Business School
Press.
Petty R. & J. Krosnick (1995), Attitude strength: antecedents
and consequences, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schmitt B.H. (1999). Experiential marketing: How to get customers
to sense, feel, think, act, relate to your company and brands. New York:
The Free Press.
Westbrook, R.A. (1987). Product/consumption-based affective
responses and postpurchase processes. Journal of Marketing Research, 24,
258-70.
Xie D.D.H. & V.C.S. Heung (2009). The effects of brand
relationship quality on hotel consumers' responses to service
failure. International Journal of Business Research, 10(4), 120-125.
Zaichkowsky J.L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct.
Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 341-52.
Zarantonello L. & B.H. Schmitt (2010). Using the brand
experience scale to profile consumers and predict consumer behaviour.
Journal of Brand Management, 17(February), 532-40.
Hee Jung, Lee, Seoul National University
Myung Soo, Kang, Hansung University
Table 1: Brand Experience Exploratory Factor Analysis
Construct Item Affective Behavioral Reliability
Brand This brand induces .829 .674
Experience feelings and
sentiments.
I do not have strong .748
emotions for
this brand. (a)
This brand is an .741
emotional brand.
I engage in physical .948 .913
actions and
behaviors when I
use this brand.
This brand results .944
in bodily
experiences.
(a) Items are done reverse coding.
Table 2: Validity of Brand Relationship Quality Constructs
Construct Item C1 C2
Brand trust I felt that the firm was very .813
dependable.
I felt that the firm was of .687
high integrity.
I felt that the firm was of .810
high integrity
Brand I was very committed to my .895
Commitment relationship with the
service firm.
I put the efforts into .820
maintaining this
relationship.
I put the efforts into .896
maintaining this
relationship.
Brand Loyalty Brand Preference
Brand favorableness
Purchase intention
Construct Item C3 reliability
Brand trust I felt that the firm was very .829
dependable.
I felt that the firm was of
high integrity.
I felt that the firm was of
high integrity
Brand I was very committed to my .920
Commitment relationship with the
service firm.
I put the efforts into
maintaining this
relationship.
I put the efforts into
maintaining this
relationship.
Brand Loyalty Brand Preference .863 .917
Brand favorableness .872
Purchase intention .796
Table 3: Confirmatory factor analysis fitness
Model Chi-square df GFI TLI AFGI NFI PNFI
125.724 69 0.903 0.952 0.849 0.923 0.700
(p=0.000)
Model CFI IFI RMR RMSEA
0.963 0.964 0.056 0.070
Table 4: Test of Hypotheses
Hypotheses Path Regression p-value
weight
H1 : Brand experience [right arrow] brand relationship quality
H1-1 Affective brand experience .674 .000
[right arrow] brand trust
H1-2 Behavioral brand experience -.807 .294
[right arrow] brand trust
H1-3 Affective brand experience .296 .028
[right arrow] brand commitment
H1-4 Behavioral brand experience .154 .037
[right arrow] brand commitment
H2 H2 : Brand trust [right arrow] .499 .000
brand commitment
H3 : Brand relationship quality [right arrow] brand loyalty
H3-1 Brand relationship quality of .718 .000
trust [right arrow] brand
loyalty
H3-2 Brand relationship quality of .209 .014
commitment [right arrow] brand
loyalty
Hypotheses Results of test
H1 : Brand experience [right arrow] brand relationship quality
H1-1 Supported
H1-2 not supported
H1-3 Supported
H1-4 Supported
H2 Supported
H3 : Brand relationship quality [right arrow] brand loyalty
H3-1 Supported
H3-2 Supported
