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

2013

Nadine Walter et al., 2013

ISSN 2319-345X www.ijmrbs.com
Vol. 2, No. 1, January 2013
2013 IJMRBS. All Rights Reserved

BRAND EXPERIENCE'S INFLUENCE ON

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION AND LOYALTY:
A MIRAGE IN MARKETING RESEARCH?
Nadine Walter1*, Thomas Cleff2 and Grandy Chu3

*Corresponding Author: Nadine Walter, nadine.walter@hs-pforzheim.de

Brand experience has attracted a lot of attention in the Marketing practice. With consumers
seeking not only functional benefits of a brand but also emotional experiences, brand experience
theory needs to provide answers on how brand experience can be measured and how it effects
consumer behavior. J Josko Brakus, Bernd H Schmitt and Lia Zarantonello prove in their article
Brand experience: What is it? How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty? in the Journal of
Marketing that brand experience positively affects consumer satisfaction and loyalty. In addition,
they provide an empirically validated brand experience scale based on the dimensions sensory,
affective, intellectual and behavioral. The authors of this article apply Brakus et al. (2009) model
of four brand dimensions and the impact on customer satisfaction and loyalty to the BMW brand
in order to verify these findings. The authors conducted an empirical research during July 2011
with 57 University students at Pforzheim University in Pforzheim, Germany, and Simon Fraser
University in Vancouver, Canada, through an online questionnaire. The authors could only verify
the model of Brakus et al. (2009) partially: Severe deviations were discovered in the factor
analysis especially for the behavioral dimension of the brand experience scale, and a lack of
correlation of the items brand experience and brand personality with customer satisfaction has
been found. Additional research is needed to further test the brand experience model of Brakus
et al. (2009).
Keywords: Experience marketing, Experiential marketing, Brand experience, BMW

INTRODUCTION

and Schmitt, 2010). For the Starbucks experience consumers are willing to pay almost $3 for
a small cup of coffee double the price compared
to a traditional eatery. Experience marketing
theory tries to find answers to what exactly makes

Consumers nowadays no longer buy products

and services in order to fulfill a functional need
but instead purchase the emotional experiences
around it (Morrison and Grane, 2007; Zarantonello
1

Pforzheim University, International Marketing, Tiefenbronner Strae 65, 75175 Pforzheim, Germany.

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

Ex-Student, Simon Fraser University, Canada.

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

130

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

Nadine Walter et al., 2013

the existing theory of the rational consumer needs

to be supplemented by emotional components
of buying behavior. This pioneering article
launched an academic debate and encouraged
further research on this subject. Since then,
experience marketing has established itself within
marketing theory and plays nowadays an
essential role within consumer marketing.

a purchase an experience and what impact

experience marketing has. The brand experience
model of Brakus et al. (2009) provides meaningful
answers to these two questions. On the one hand
it proves that brand experience positively affects
consumer satisfaction and loyalty. On the other
hand it provides an empirically validated brand
experience scale based on the dimensions
sensory, affective, intellectual and behavioral. The
scale is meaningful in academic research, but
even more important as marketers engage in
projects to understand and improve the
experience their brand provides for their
customers, they can use the scale for
assessment, planning, and tracking purposes.
(Brakus et al., 2009).

The grounds for this growing phenomenon are

based on three reasons: Firstly, overexposure to
advertising from traditional media channels forces
communication to focus on new ways to gain
consumers attention and reach them with their
messages (Mortimer, 2009). Secondly, globalization and saturation of markets has led to fierce
competition for limited market share and
increased level of competition. This is driven by
the fact that functional product benefits are
becoming interchangeable which makes it more
difficult for companies to differentiate on functional
product features (Fransen and Lodder, 2010).
Pine and Gilmore (1998) claim that since goods
and services become commoditized, the
customer experiences that companies create will
matter most. Thirdly, consumers with more
hedonistic lifestyles are seeking consumption that
recognizes their need of new and exciting
experiences (Fransen and Lodder, 2010).

This article attempts to examine the

relationship between Brakus et al.s (2009) four
brand experience dimensions and customer
satisfaction and loyalty for the BMW brand.
However, the findings of this research reveal that,
when applied to the BMW brand, the questions
developed by Brakus et al. (2009) to test for
intensity in different experience dimensions may
encompass some short-comings that returns
biased results. Specifically, the behavioral
dimension questions yielded responses that
suggest survey subjects were indeed confused
by its meaning.

Although experience-based marketing has

received continuous attention, there is no
common definition or usage of a dominant term.
Several terms have been proposed, such as
experiential consumption (Addis and Holbrook,
2001; Lofman, 1991), experience marketing
(Pine and Gilmore, 1998), experiential marketing
(Schmitt, 1999) or brand experience (Brakus et
al., 2009). Brakus et al. (2009) define brand
experience as subjective, internal consumer
responses (sensations, feelings, and cognitions)

LITERATURE REVIEW
30 years ago Holbrook and Hirschman (1982)
published their iconic paper (Tynan and
McKechnie, 2009) The Experiential Aspects of
Consumption: Consumer Fantasies, Feelings,
and Fun. The authors identified new consumption
behaviors that relate to the multi-sensory,
fantasy, and emotive aspects of product use
(Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982). They claim that

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

131

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

Nadine Walter et al., 2013

experiences (Think), physical experiences,

behaviors and lifestyles (Act) and social-identity
experiences that result from relating to a
reference group or culture (Relate). These
categories are especially suitable to create brand
experiences (Sands et al., 2008). Brakus et al.
(2009) constructed a brand experience scale with
four dimensions: sensory, affective, behavioral
and intellectual. In contrast to Pine and Gilmore
(1998) and Schmitt (1999), Brakus et al. (2009)
did not derive their four factors from literature,
but gathered them by empirical evidence through
explorative and confirmatory factor analysis. In
addition to the factor analysis, six further studies
were conducted to proof the reliability of the scale.

and behavioral responses evoked by brandrelated stimuli that are part of a brands design
and identity, packaging, communications, and
environments.
Various studies have analyzed the effect of
experience marketing and tried to measure its
outcomes. Fransen and Lodder (2010) have
empirically examined the effects of experience
marketing communication tools on consumer
responses, and identified a positive influence on
brand attitude and brand relation. Tsaur et al.
(2006) confirm in their study on the Taipei Zoo
that experiences have positive effects on emotion
and emotion has a positive effect on the behavioral
intention through the means of satisfaction.
Brakus et al. (2009) confirm that brand
experience affects consumer satisfaction and
loyalty directly and indirectly through brand
personality associations. Sands et al. (2008)
found that in-store experiential events positively
influence perceived shopping value and shopping
behavior intention.

In conceptualizing brand experience, Brakus

et al. (2009) concluded that brand experience is
shaped by brand-related stimuli that constitute
subjective, internal consumer responses, such
as sensations, feelings and cognitions, as well
as behavioral responses. They began with five
dimensions selected through literature review,
namely, sensory, affective, intellectual, behavioral
and social. Through data collection and analysis
the authors reduced their findings to four
dimensions sensory, affective, behavioral, and
intellectual. As Figure 1 depicts, each of the four
dimensions are tested by three items, to gauge
the intensity of the consumers brand experience.
The research findings also led the authors to
conclude that brand experience seems to be a
stronger predictor of actual buying behavior
compared to brand personality, a more effective
measure of customer satisfaction (Brakus et al.,
2009).

In addition to analyzing the impact of

experience marketing, various efforts have been
made to develop operational typologies for
experiences. These dimensions provide a
framework by which companies and brands can
engage consumers in an experiential manner
(Sands et al., 2008). Pine and Gilmore (1998) sort
experiences into four broad categories according
to where they fall along the spectra of the two
dimensions level of active/passive participation
and level of immersion versus absorption: the
entertainment, educational, aesthetic and
escapist realm. These are well suited to analyze
to explore retail settings (Sands et al., 2008).
Schmitt (1999) identifies five different types of
experiences: sensory experiences (Sense),
affective experiences (Feel), creative cognitive

Brakus et al.s (2009) provide a well-defined

framework from which more confirmatory
research can be conducted to measure the
intensity of consumers experience with brands

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

132

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

Nadine Walter et al., 2013

Figure 1: Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The Four-Factor Model

Note: a Reverse coded; * p < .01; and All coefficient values are standardized and appear above the associated path. Dotted lines are represent
correlations.
Source: Brakus et al. (2009), p. 60

it lend credence to brand experience as an

independent attribute of the brand construct,
moreover, the linkage between brand experience
dimensions and loyalty could help marketers

and its effects on satisfaction and loyalty. Should

this framework prove to be valid and consistent
after further testing, the implications for marketing
practitioners could be significant. Not only would

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

133

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

Nadine Walter et al., 2013

improve customer retention. In addition, the brand

scale with the four dimensions would give
significant guidance on how to create and
measure brand experience.

the same hypothesis, except they are specific to

the BMW brand. The data collected will analyze
brand experiences direct influence on satisfaction
and loyalty:

This report attempts to validate the relationship

between the four brand experience dimensions
sensory, affective, behavioral, and intellectual
and customer satisfaction and loyalty.

H 1 : Brand experience affects consumer

satisfaction positively for BMW.
H2: Brand experience affects consumer loyalty

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
AND HYPOTHESES

positively for BMW.

The research paper by Brakus et al. (2009)

culminated in the consumer behavior model
depicted in Figure 2. It shows brand experience
being a directly and indirectly (through brand
personality and customer satisfaction) influencing
factor on customer satisfaction and loyalty.

experience has an indirect impact on satisfaction

As well, Brakus et al. (2009) found that brand

through its impact on brand personality. To verify
this relationship, the results must first indicate
that brand experience influences brand
personality:
H3: Brand experience affects brand personality

With the purpose to verify consistency of

Brakus et al.s (2009) findings, this report tests

positively for BMW.

Figure 2: Discriminant and Predictive Validity of the Brand Experience Scale

Note: a Reverse coded; * p < 0.01; All coefficient values are standardized and appear near the associated path.
Source: Brakus et al. (2009), p. 60

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

134

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

Nadine Walter et al., 2013

are used. However, the questionnaire does

request demographic information that serves as
indication that those completing the survey
generally belong to the desired sample of
university students. Participants are only allowed
to proceed in progression, meaning they were
unable to skip questions. They could, however,
leave the survey at any time, leaving it incomplete.

In addition, the results must also show brand

personalitys direct influence on satisfaction and
loyalty:
H 4 : Brand personality affects consumer
satisfaction positively for BMW.
H5: Brand personality affects consumer loyalty
positively for BMW.
Brakus et al. (2009) also tested for
satisfactions effect on loyalty to examine if brand
experience also influences loyalty indirectly
through satisfaction:

Due to the time constraint of the project (2week-sampling), no pre-testing of the questionnaire was conducted. To ensure that the brand
experience measurements of BMW are based
on personal experience with the product rather
than on prejudice derived from marketing
campaigns and other media, respondents are first
asked a fielding question about their past
experience with BMW products. Subjects are
grouped according to whether they are an owner,
a regular driver, an occasional driver, a passenger, or have no past experience at all. Only
respondents with some form of past experience
were directed to the questions on BMWs brand
experience, personality, satisfaction and loyalty.
To more precisely examine brand loyalty, subjects
are asked to indicate whether they hold a valid
drivers license.

H6: Consumer satisfaction affects consumer

loyalty positively for BMW.
Obtaining statistically significant results which
confirm these hypotheses would prove that the
brand experience model developed by Brakus et
al. is valid when applied to BMW. More importantly,
it would indicate that the model exhibits some
consistency when applied by other researchers
to other brands, which would give the model
added credibility.

DATA COLLECTION AND

SAMPLING
The brand chosen for this study is BMW because
it surfaced as a brand that has relatively intense
consumer experience in Brakus et al.s (2009)
research. The results are collected through an
online questionnaire, as it is both cost-effective
and easy to distribute.

In attempting to test the four dimensions

discussed by Brakus et al. (2009), the twelve
statements, as outlined in Figure 1, were used
as the measurements to test intensity of brand
experience. Respondents were asked to rate
each of the twelve statements on a 5-point Lickert
scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly
agree). In order to test brand experience similar
to Brakus et al. (2009), the questionnaire uses
Aakers (1997) five brand personality dimensions.
However, instead of using the 15 items that
describe the five dimensions, this research asked
respondents to rate their agreement with BMWs

The respondents are chosen by convenience

sampling and self-selection through personal
contacts of the researchers, and comprise of
university students studying at Simon Fraser
University in Vancouver, Canada, and Pforzheim
University in Pforzheim, Germany. In total, 57
respondents participated in the first two weeks
of July 2011. Control over respondent selection
is reduced when online data collection formats

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

135

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

Nadine Walter et al., 2013

enjoyed different dimensions of the brand

experience.

representativeness of the five broad dimensions

ruggedness, competence, sophistication,
exciting, sincerity. These five personality attributes
were measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 =
strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). The
five consumer satisfaction questions used by
Brakus et al. (2009), modeled after Oliver (1980),
were condensed into one general satisfaction
question, where subjects are asked to rate their
level of satisfaction with BMW on a 5-point Lickert
scale (1 = very dissatisfied and 5 = very satisfied).
The five consumer loyalty items used by Brakus
et al. (2009), developed by You and Donthu (2001),
were also condensed into one general loyalty
question, asking respondents simply to select
whether they would consider purchasing a BMW
product or not.

Brakus et al. (2009) primarily used structural

equation modeling path analysis, confirmatory
factor analysis and regression analysis to derive
the relationships between different brand
attributes and consumer behavior outcomes.
Since brand experience dimensions are tested
in twelve different questions, the twelve variables
will be examined using factor analysis in this
paper. A clear distinction of experience dimensions should emerge along with their respective
dimension groups, if the twelve questions
appropriately describe consumers experience
with the BMW brand. The resulting factors will be
used to formulate a regression model that
attempts to explain consumer satisfaction and
loyalty.

The reason for the combination of personality

dimensions, satisfaction and loyalty into broader
measurements is because this study is primarily
interested in the brand experience questions
developed by Brakus et al. (2009). Therefore,
assuming that the personality, satisfaction and
loyalty items accurately measure exactly those
attributes simplifies the survey for respondents
and provides a more defined framework to
examine just the dimensions of brand experience.

The five brand personality dimensions will also

be examined using factor analysis. The emerging
factor(s) should give indication of consumers
general opinion on the personality of the BMW
brand. In addition, these factors will be used in
further regression analysis that attempts to
explain consumer satisfaction and loyalty.
In order to confirm the influence of brand
experience on brand personality, the five
personality dimensions are grouped into one new
variable through factor analysis, to be used as a
dependent factor against the resulting brand
experience factors.

One of the survey questions asks participants

to rate BMW on four brand evaluation items on 5point Likert scales. This question would test the
respondents overall view of BMW, whether it is
positive or negative. While brand evaluation is not
directly part of the brand experience scale, Brakus
et al. (2009) did encourage the testing of whether
a brands consumer experience is positive or
negative. This question is subsequently excluded
from the results, because it is not detailed enough
to test specifically the extent to which a consumer

Finally, to test the influence of these brand

experience and personality factors on consumer
satisfaction and loyalty, a regression model using
these factors as independent variables will be
constructed to explain satisfaction and loyalty.
Brand experience and personality factors will also
be correlated through regression, to examine their
direct influence on satisfaction and loyalty.

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

136

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

Nadine Walter et al., 2013

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

analysis returned three factors with eigenvalues

above 1. As indicated in Table 1, the varimax
rotated matrix shows only sensory variables
loading as one factor. The rest of the dimensions
split up and they are loading on different
components.

Data used in the analysis for this paper was taken

approximately two weeks after the questionnaire
first became accessible. At the time in July 2011,
there were 105 respondents. Filtering out those
that did not finish the survey or have had no past
experience with a BMW, 57 valid responses
remain.

To discern a clearer structure, sensory

variables were removed from the factor analysis.
Variables within the affective and intellectual
dimensions all loaded on the same factor, while
it became evident that the behavioral variables
did not. To achieve a clearer understanding of the
structure, numerous analyses with select
variables (including testing the loading of each
individual behavioral variable with the remaining
nine) were done. The three behavioral variables
were also examined alone, which showed all three

The research results proved to be far less

clearly defined as Brakus et al. (2009) prescribed.
A factor analysis (Principal Component AnalysisPCA) on the 12 brand experience dimensions
yielded scattered results. With a Kaiser-MeyerOlkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy of 0.842, a
Bartletts Test of Sphericity significance smaller
than 0.1%, and all item specific Measures of
Sampling Adequacy (MSA) above 0.720, the

Table 1: PCA of Brand Experience Items for BMW

Rotated Component Matrix
Component
1

Sensory 01

0.726

0.365

0.343

Sensory 02

0.778

0.250

0.278

Sensory 03

0.890

0.041

0.079

Affective 01

0.336

0.616

0.025

Affective 02

0.702

0.358

0.024

Affective 03

0.439

0.658

0.238

Behavioral 01

0.123

0.799

0.131

Behavioral 02

0.095

0.798

0.309

Behavioral 03

0.239

0.162

0.818

Intellectual 01

0.489

0.515

0.389

Intellectual 02

0.693

0.309

0.042

Intellectual 03

0.334

0.698

0.179

Note: Bold indicate the pre-dominant loading.

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

137

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

Nadine Walter et al., 2013

loading on the same factor. It is interesting to note

that throughout all the analysis, the third behavioral
variable (this is not an action-oriented brand)
consistently stood out as distinctly different from
the other two.

these two factors, which accounts for 55% and

59% of the respective variances.
The five brand personality dimensions tested
loaded on two factors 3, with ruggedness,
sophistication, and exciting on one, and
competence and sincerity on the other. These
two factors are then used as part of the regression
analyses as independent variables. Grouping all
five dimensions into one factor saw the
percentage of explained variance decrease from
66% down to just under 41%.

Unfortunately, the only understanding that

become clearer through this exercise was that
there is something inherently difficult about the
behavioral variables that, when added to the data
set, proves unstable. In the end, two independent
Principal Component Analyses were chosen for
the brand experience. The first contains the
sensory, affective and intellectual dimensions1,
the other only the behavioral variables2. Both
PCAs analyses returned a one factor solution
each with eigenvalues above 1. Table 2 shows

Regression analysis is used to examine the

validity of the research hypotheses. The two brand
experience dimensions were used as
independent variables in three different tests
against the single brand personality factor, against

Table 2 : PCA 1 and 2 of Brand Experience items for BMW

Experience PCA 1

Experience PCA 2
Component

Component

Sensory 01

0.838

Behavioral 01

0.821

Sensory 02

0.805

Behavioral 02

0.853

Sensory 03

0.752

Behavioral 03

0.600

Affective 01

0.650

Affective 02

0.778

Affective 03

0.766

Intellectual 01

0.650

Intellectual 02

0.732

Intellectual 03

0.650

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy of 0.849, a Bartletts Test of Sphericity significance smaller than 0.1%, and all item specific
Measures of Sampling Adequacy (MSA) above 0.777.

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy of 0.582, a Bartletts Test of Sphericity significance smaller than 0.1%, and all item specific
Measures of Sampling Adequacy (MSA) above 0.556.

Criterion: Eigenvalue > 1; Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy of 0.568, a Bartletts Test of Sphericity significance smaller than
0.1%, and all item specific Measures of Sampling Adequacy (MSA) above 0.493.

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

138

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

Nadine Walter et al., 2013

consumer satisfaction and against consumer

loyalty.

addition, having a significant model with R=0.674,

this closely resembles the R=0.69 in the brand
experience model of Brakus et al. (2009).This
finding favors the research hypothesis that brand
experience positively influences brand personality.

The first three research hypotheses deal with

the direct impact of brand experience. With an
overall model p-value of 0.387, there is not enough
statistical evidence to not reject the null hypothesis
and conclude that brand experience in this case
has any influence on consumer satisfaction
(hypothesis 1). In the regression against loyalty
(hypothesis 2), only the factor consisting of
sensory, affective and intellectual variables was
found to be significant. However, the overall model
shows significant influence of brand experience
on consumer loyalty (p=0.002)4. This resulted in
a statistically significant model (R=0.450),
confirming the research hypothesis that brand
experience positively influences consumer loyalty.

The next three hypotheses address the indirect

influence brand experience has on consumer
behavior, through brand personality and customer
satisfaction. Regression shows that the
significance level (p=0.301) is too high to
conclude that brand personality in this case has
any impact on customer satisfaction. Therefore,
hypothesis 4 cannot be verified. Consumer
loyalty, on the other hand, shows a statistically
significant relationship to brand personality
(R=0.469), confirming research hypothesis 5.
Hypothesis 6 assumes the impact of customer
satisfaction on customer loyalty. The result of this
regression is statistically insignificant (p=0.545),

Testing the impact of brand experience on

brand personality (hypothesis 3) yielded
interesting results. Firstly, both experience factors
are significant predictors of brand personality. In

suggesting that in this case customer satisfaction

has no influence on loyalty (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Brand Experience Scale of BMW

When the same regression is done with these factors separately, though, both model returns statistically significant (sensory-affective-intellectual
factor R=0.454, behavioral factor R=0.306). This is due to a multicollinearity issue, the factor with all twelve brand experience questions was
used.

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

139

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

Nadine Walter et al., 2013

disappear completely from the model. One

reason may be that brand experience does not
directly or indirectly impact satisfaction. However,
given that the analysis between satisfaction and
loyalty also turned out to be insignificant, this
outcome could be a reflection of having combined
the five satisfaction questions used by Brakus et
al. (2009) into one single satisfaction factor.
Modeled after Oliver (1980), their five satisfaction
measurements include: I am satisfied with the
brand and its performance, if I could do it again,
I would buy a brand different from that brand,
my choice to get this brand has been a wise
one, I feel bad about my decision to get this
brand, and I am not happy with what I did with
this brand. It is apparent that these measurements wider and more specific aspects of
customers overall satisfaction level with the
brand, including potential remorse and product
performance. The combination of different
dimensions into one may have compromised the
accuracy of the survey.

Summarizing the above, it can be said that

the research resulted in two notable deviations
from the Brakus et al. (2009) brand experience
model: Firstly a divergence regarding the brand
scale particularly in the factor analysis of the
behavioral components and secondly we could
not prove that either brand experience nor brand
personality had any effect on customer
satisfaction.
In the factor analysis for the brand experience
items the behavioral items are not loading on the
same component. Instead items are loading on
very different components when PCA was
compiled with a different number of brand
experience items. This is especially true when
third behavioral item was part of the analysis.
Therefore, the factor structure found by Brakus
et al. (2009) cannot be confirmed through our
research results.
Examining the individual questions of the
behavioral section, the third behavioral component
asks the respondents agreement (or disagreement) with the statement this brand is not action
oriented. Comparing this to the other two
behavioral items (I engage in physical actions
and behaviors when I use this brand, and this
brand results in bodily experiences), the actionoriented statement appears to be more open to
respondent interpretation. In our opinion, it is not
clear if it refers to the experience resulting from
interacting with the brand, or if it refers to the
respondents impression of the brands
personality. We conclude that this ambiguity
might have caused confusions for the
respondents and resulted in collecting results that
differ from original intentions.

For the most part (satisfaction anomaly aside),

brand experience dimensions appear to have
discernible impact on both brand personality and
loyalty. For practitioners, however, it would be
most useful to examine the individual dimensions
of brand experience for this model to be of much
use. This is where the factor analysis instability
poses a problem for the model. Whatever the
reason, when behavioral dimension components
cause the kind of volatility that was seen through
this research effort, the application of the model
would necessarily render the model of limited use,
should it encounter similar issues,. Without being
able to clearly examine the important aspects of
brand experience as postulated by Brakus et al.
(2009), marketers cannot obtain clear directions
for defining and measuring brand experience.

Another curious finding is that consumer

satisfaction, statistically speaking, seems to

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

140

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

Nadine Walter et al., 2013

CONCLUSION AND
IMPLICATIONS

research report is the small sample size. The

small sample size was mainly due to two
reasons. Firstly, because of convenience, the
survey was mostly directed at students at
university, which is a limited pool. Secondly, the
questionnaire filtered out those who have not had
previous experiences with BMW products.
University students, who are falling obviously
outside BMW s main target consumer
demographic, are less likely to have had
interactions with the high-end luxury brand.
Combining these two issues means many of the
respondents were filtered out, ending up with a
final sample size of 57 useful responses.

The brand experience model of Brakus et al.

(2009), if proven consistent, could provide
marketing practitioners that seek to add value to
their brand meaningful guidance. These marketers
would be able to survey their consumers
experience with their brand, and done in on ways
in which to improve that brand experience, and
hence, increase customer loyalty.
With the way the model worked in this
particular research article, though, marketers
would face difficulties in achieving a clear
distinction between the four dimensions sensory,
affective, intellectual and behavioral. Particularly,
the behavioral dimension may be generating
some level of confusion among respondents
regarding its meaning due to its ambiguity.

Another limitation is the fact that this paper

considers brand experience only as applied to
BMW. Due to the type of product the image that
BMW exudes - luxury, performance and joy of
driving - may result in biased findings when
compared to consumer experience analysis of
other brands.

Brand experience and related subjects appear

to be under-researched for the potential that it
may be able to offer marketers, in both increasing
the perceived value of their current product
offerings as well as their brand equity. Further,
and more extensive, confirmatory research
should be conducted to test the consistency of
the brand experience model developed by Brakus
et al. (2009) to determine the full implications of
brand experience.

Further research should consider continuing

to test the consistency of the brand experience
model of Brakus et al. (2009) ideally with a larger
sample and with a wider range of brands.

REFERENCES

Researchers should also bring the twelve

brand experience components under closer
scrutiny to test whether consumers do in fact
derive consistent meaning from each of the
statements, and thus give more accurate
responses that allow for clearer analysis.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE

RESEARCH
The biggest limitation to the validity of this

1.

AakerJ L (1997), Dimensions of Brand

Personality, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 347-356.

2.

Addis M and Holbrook M B (2001), On the

Conceptual Link Between Mass
Customisation
and
Experiential
Consumption: An Explosion of Subjectivity,
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 1 , No.
1, pp. 50-66.

3.

Brakus J J, Schmitt B H and Zarantonello L

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

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

141

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

Nadine Walter et al., 2013

Is It Measured? Does It Affect Loyalty?,

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73, May, pp. 5268.

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

to the Experience Economy, Harvard
Business Review, July/August, pp. 97-105.

4.

Fransen M L and Lodder P (2010), The

Effects of Experience-Based Marketing
Communication on Brand Relation and
Hedonic Brand Attitudes: The Moderating
Role of Affective Orientation, Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 37, pp. 801-802.

11.

5.

Holbrook M B and Hirschman E C (1982),

The Experiential Aspects of Consumption:
Consumer Fantasy, Feelings and Fun,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9, No.
2, pp. 132-140.

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

Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15,
Nos. 1-3, pp. 53-57.

6.

7.

Sands S, Oppewal H and Beverland M

(2008), The Influence of In-store Experiential Events on Shopping Value
Perceptions and Shopping Behaviour,
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 35,
pp. 298-303.

13. Tsaur S H, Chiu Y T and Wang C H (2006),

The Visitors Behavioral Consequences of
Experiential Marketing: An Empirical Study on
Taipei Zoo, Journal of Travel and Tourism
Marketing, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 47-64.

Lofman B (1991), Elements of Experiential

Consumption: An Exploratory Study,
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 18,
pp. 729-735.

14. Tynan C and McKechnie S (2009),

Experience Marketing: A Review and
Reassessment, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 25, Nos. 5/6, pp. 501-517.

Morrison S and Crane F G (2007), Building

the Service Brand by Creating and Managing
an Emotional Brand Experience, Journal
of Brand Management, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp.
410-421.

8.

Mortimer R (2009), Getting the Right

Attention, Brand Strategy, December, p. 55.

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

Validating a Multidimensional Consumerbased Brand Equity Scale, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 52, April, pp. 1-14.

9.

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

Antecedents and Consequences of
Satisfaction Decisions, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 17, November, pp.
460-469.

16. Zarantonello L and Schmitt B H (2010),

Using the Brand Experience Scale to Profile
Consumers and Predict Consumer
Behavior, Journal of Brand Management,
Vol. 17, No. 7, pp. 532-540.

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

142

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

Nadine Walter et al., 2013

APPENDIX
Questionnaire

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

143

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

Nadine Walter et al., 2013

APPENDIX (CONT.)
Questionnaire (Cont.)

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

144