«of the AM’s Brand, Corporate Identity and Reputation SIG INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE SESSIONS Sessions chairs The main function of a session chair is to ...»
Keywords millennial consumers, consumer behavior, product design, consumer demands References Bevan, N., Kirakowski, J., & Maissel, J. 1991. What is usability? In: H. J. Bullinger (ed.), Proceedings of the 4th international conference on human computer interaction, Stuttgart, Germany. London, UK: Elsevier.
Burgh-Woodman, H. & King, D. 2013. Sustainability and the human/nature connection: A critical discourse analysis of being ‘symbolically’ sustainable. Consumption Markets & Culture 16, 145-168.
Croson, R. & Gneezy, U. 2009. Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature 47(2), 448-474.
de Kilbourne, W. E. 2010. Facing the challenge of sustainability in a changing world.
Journal of Macromarketing 30, 109-111.
Dua, A., Hersch, L., & Sivanandam, M. 2009. Consumer electronics gets back to basics.
Available: http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/consumer_and_retail/consumer_ electronics_gets_back_to_basics [Accessed 6 June 2013] Holbrook, M. B. 2001. The millennial consumer in the text of our times: Experience and entertainment. Journal of Macromarketing 21 (2), 181-198.
Institute of Food Technologists. 2014, June 24. What millennials want. Available:
http://www.ift.org/newsroom/news-releases/2014/june/24/what-millennials-want.aspx [Accessed 14 August 2014] Leeflang, P.S.H. & van Raaij, W.F. 1995. The changing consumer in the European Union. International Journal of Research in Marketing 12(5), 373-387.
Mermet, G. 2012. Francoscopie 2013. Paris: Larousse.
Olson, E. 2012, December 25. To reach younger buyers, vintners think outside the bottle.
The New York Times. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/ business/media/toreach-younger-buyers-vintners-rethink-their-packaging.html [Accessed 26 December 2012] Parsons, T. 2009. Thinking objects: Contemporary approaches to product design.
Lausanne, Switzerland: AVA.
Searcey, D. 2014, August 21. Marketers are sizing up the millennials. Available:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/22/business/marketers-are-sizing-up-the-millennials- asthe-new-consumer-model.html [Accessed 2 October 2014] Sheth, J. N. & Parvatiyar, A. 1995. Ecological imperatives and the role of marketing. In: M.
J. Polonsky & A. T. Mintu-Wimsatt (eds.), Environmental marketing: Strategies, practice, theory, and research (pp. 3-20). New York: Hawarth Press.
Trott, P. 2008. Innovation management and new product development, 4th ed. Harlow, UK: Prentice-Hall/Financial Times.
Twenge, J. M., Campbell, W. K., & Freeman, E. C. 2012. Generational differences in young adults’ life goals, concern for others, and civic orientation, 1966–2009. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology102, 1045–1062.
The mediating role of customer satisfaction in the relationship between brand experience and repurchase intention Kimzan, Halil Semih Kara, Gülsüm Introduction Changing environment and tendencies of consumers require new approaches to meet customer needs and wants for marketers. Raw materials, final products, and services have been considered as critical cronologically, while experiences are considered as more important nowadays (Pine & Gilmore, 2011). Experiential marketing refers to experiences or notable memories in consumers’ minds. Therefore it enables marketers to increase consumers’ perceived value by affecting their emotions (Lee et al., 2010). Experiential approach regards consumption as a holistic representation of symbolic meanings, hedonic responses, and emotions (Hirschman ve Holbrook, 1982). Consumers care experiences, and associate them to brands. Therefore brands have a critical role in constituting experience (Carbone, 2004).
Originality/Value The literature suggested a positive relationship between brand experience and purchase intention (Shamim, 2013; Nasermoadeli et al., 2013), but there is a lack of literature examining the effect of brand experience on repurchase intention and the mediating role of customer satisfaction in this relationship. Before constituting repurchase intention customers should be satisfied first. Buyers tend to compare their expectations with actual performance of products. Customer satisfaction refers to emotions of consumers during or after consumption (Oliver, 1997, 10). If a customer is satisfied, his/her possibility to purchase the same brand will increase (Kotler, 2000, 184). Therefore repurchase intention is a consequence of customer satisfaction, and there is a positive relationship between customer satisfaction and repurchase intention (Anderson et al. 1994; Brakus et al. 2009; Hellier et al.
2003; Seiders et al. 2005; Zboja and Voorhees 2006).
Purpose of the Paper Brand experience is positively associated with customer satisfaction (Brakus et al. 2009;
Chinomona, 2013). If businesses can create customer satisfaction via brand experiences, consumers will constitute repurchase intention. Therefore the brand will be advantageous in competition. This study aims to investigate the role of customer satisfaction in the relationship between brand experience and consumers’ repurchase intention.
Based on the literature above the following hypotheses were developed:
H1: Brand experience is positively associated with repurchase intention.
H2: Customer satisfaction mediates the relationship between brand experience and consumers’ repurchase intention.
Methodology Sample and Data Collection Data for the study were collected through a survey from IKEA’s customers in Bursa (a city of Turkey). 204 surveys were collected. Table 1 represents demographic characteristics of the sample.
Table 1 Demographic Characteristics of the Sample
Measures Independent variable Brand experience was measured by the scale of Brakus et al. (2009). This scale operationalizes brand experience as a multidimensional construct. Our survey includes sensory (three items), affective (three items), behavioral (three items), and intellectual (three items) dimensions of brand experience. These items were measured with 5-point, Likert type scales (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).
Mediator variable Customer satisfaction is used as a mediator variable. To measure customer satisfaction, a scale of Oliver (1980) was employed. Customer satisfaction was measured with a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).
Dependent Variable Repurchase intention was measured by the scale which Tsai and Huang (2007) adapted from Burnham et al. (2003) and Bansal et al. (2004). The items of the scale were measured with 5point, Likert type scales (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).
Analyses and Findings The arithmetic mean values of brand experience scale were between 2.34 and 3.05 (Table 2).
Customer satisfaction scale items have arithmetic mean values between 2.25 and 2.83.
Repurchase intention scale items have arithmetic mean values between 2.56 and 3.18.
Table 2 Mean and Standard Deviation Values of Items
Validity and reliability Cronbach Alpha scores of brand experience, customer satisfaction, repurchase intention scales were 0.805, 0.725 and 0.841 (Table 3). These reliability values were acceptable. S3, A1, A3, B3, and I2 items of the brand experience scale were eliminated because of the factor analysis.
KMO: 0.795, Chi-Square: 334.041, df: 6, P0.05, % Variance:67.835 a reliability estimates are Cronbach’s alpha computed from study sample Factor analysis results indicated that brand experience scale has four sub-dimensions. After the evaluation of these sub-dimensions, they are named as sensory, affective, behavioral, and intellectual brand experience. Only one component was extracted for both customer satisfaction and repurchase intention scales. Percent of variances of brand experience, customer satisfaction, and repurchase intention scales were 70.204%, 45.916%, and 67.835%.
Hypotheses testing Hierarchical regression analysis was employed to test the model. Table 4 represents the results of the hierarchical regression analysis. The model investigated the mediating effect of customer satisfaction in the relationship between brand experience and repurchase intention.
The results indicated that brand experience affect repurchase intention both directly and via customer satisfaction. Therefore both H1 and H2 were supported (p0.05).
Table 4 Model summary of hierarchical regression analysis
Table 4 indicated that when customer satisfaction was added to the regression equation 1, adjusted R2 value of the model increased. Beta value of brand experience decreases when customer satisfaction is added to the model (Table 5). The model and the effects of independent variables are statistically significant. Customer satisfaction mediates the effect of brand experience on repurchase intention.
Lineer regression analysis was employed to test the relationship between brand experience and customer satisfaction. The results revealed that brand experience is positively associated with customer satisfaction (F: 19.424, p0.05).
Table 6 represents the correlations between variables. All of them are statistically significant (p0.05).
Implications and Limitations As competition increases, companies tend to focus more on customer retention. Therefore customer lifetime value gained much more importance. Changing nature of consumers require much effort to last relationships longer. Companies should understand these trends and offer different brand experiences that will stimulate consumers’ feelings and aim to integrate these experiences with consumers’ lifestyles. The results of the study revealed that there is a positive relationship between brand experience and repurchase intention. Therefore brand experience has a critical role in continuing the relationship between customers and companies. The results also indicated that customer satisfaction has a mediating effect in the relationship between brand experience and repurchase intention. Therefore brand experience is a good way to satisfy customers. If companies can create customer satisfaction via brand experiences, consumers will constitute repurchase intention. Therefore the brand will be advantageous in competition.
The study has some limitations. First of all convenience sampling was used. Secondly, the data is gathered from IKEA’s customers. Therefore the study focused on a specific sector.
Moreover only customers from a city of Turkey (Bursa) were investigated. Lastly the study only examined the relationship among brand experience, customer satisfaction, and repurchase intention. Further research can investigate other related variables.
KeywordsBrand experience, customer satisfaction, repurchase intention.
References Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C. & Lehmann, D. 1994. Customer satisfaction, market share and profitability. Journal of Marketing 58(3), 53-66.
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, 52-68.
Carbone, L. P. 2004. Clued in: How to keep customers coming back again and again. New Jersey: Financial Times/ Prentice Hall.
Chinomona, R. 2013. The Influence of Brand Experience on Brand Satisfaction, Trust and Attachment in South Africa. International Business & Economics Research Journal 12(10), 1303-1316.
Hellier, P., Geursen, G. M., Carr, R. A. & Rickard, J. A. 2003. Customer repurchase intention: A general structural equation model. European Journal of Marketing 37 (11/12), 1762-1800.
Hirschman, E.C. & Holbrook, M.B. 1982. Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing 46(3), 92-101.
Kotler, P. 2000. Marketing management millennium edition. 10th ed. New Jersey: PrenticeHall.
Kotler, P. & Keller, K. L. 2009. Marketing management. 13nd ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
Lee, M.S., Hsiao, H.D. & Yang, M.F. 2010. The study of the relationship among experiential marketing, service quality, customer satisfaction and customer loyalty. International Journal of Organizational Innovation 3(2), 352-378.
Nasermoadeli, A., Choonling, K. & Maghnati, F. 2013. Evaluating the impacts of customer experience on purchase intention. International Journal of Business and Management 8(6), 128-138.
Oliver, L.R. 1997. Satisfaction: A behavioral perspektive on the consumer. International Edition, Singapore: The Mc. Graw Hill Inc.
Pine, J. & Gilmore, J. 2011. The experience economy. Harvard Business Review Press.
Seiders, K., Voss, G.B., Grewal, D., Godfrey, A.L. 2005. Do satisfied customers buy more?
Examining moderating influences in a retailig context. Journal of Marketing 69, 26-43.
Shamim, A. 2013. A critical model of brand experience consequences. Asia Pasific Journal of Marketing and Logistic 25(1), 102-117.
Tsai, H.T. & Huang, H.C. 2007. Determinants of e-repurchase intentions: An integrative model of quadruple retention drivers. Information & Management 44, 231-239.
Zboja, J. & Voorhees, C.M. 2006. The impact of brand trust and satisfaction on retailer repurchase intention. Journal of Services Marketing 20(5), 381-390.
Do you like what I designed for you? The role of co-creation on the Observer-Based Brand Equity (OBBE) Kristal, Samuel Baumgarth, Carsten Behnke, Carolin Henseler, Jörg Purpose Most of existing studies about co-creation focus on integrated consumers (e.g. Ind and Coates 2013; Ind et al. 2013; Bilgram et al. 2011; Füller 2010). They tend to show an increase of brand related constructs like attitude, loyalty or brand equity. However, integrated consumers make up only a small portion of all consumers. The majority stays passive and is not integrated. These non-integrated consumers are coined observers in this paper.
For example, 2011 McDonald’s conducted in Germany the co-creation campaign “Mein Burger”. Around 116.000 concepts were created and around 1.5 Mio. users voted online.
These numbers are impressive, but the numbers of integrated consumers (participants) are small in comparison to the numbers of observers. Around 2.5 Mio. consumers visited McDonald’s per day, saw and ate the results of this co-creation campaign (Herrmann 2012).