See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/281236545

Brand experiential value versus brand functional value: which matters more
for the brand?

Article in European Journal of Marketing · January 2016

DOI: 10.1108/EJM-02-2014-0129

CITATIONS READS

68 7,530

2 authors:

Elena Delgado Ballester Estela Fernández Sabiote

University of Murcia University of Murcia
65 PUBLICATIONS 5,800 CITATIONS 28 PUBLICATIONS 443 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Estela Fernández Sabiote on 16 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 European Journal of Marketing
Brand experimental value versus brand functional value: which matters more for
the brand?
Elena Delgado-Ballester, Estela Fernandez Sabiote,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Elena Delgado-Ballester, Estela Fernandez Sabiote, (2015) "Brand experimental value versus brand
functional value: which matters more for the brand?", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 Issue:
11/12, pp.1857-1879, https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2014-0129
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded by Anglia Ruskin University At 03:47 16 April 2018 (PT)

https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2014-0129
Downloaded on: 16 April 2018, At: 03:47 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 98 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2475 times since 2015*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2015),"On the relationships among brand experience, hedonic emotions, and brand equity",
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 Iss 7/8 pp. 994-1015 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/
EJM-04-2013-0200">https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-04-2013-0200</a>
(2015),"Untangling the brand name from the branded entity: The conceptualisation and value of
the established brand name", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 Iss 11/12 pp. 1941-1960 <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-09-2014-0541">https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-09-2014-0541</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:408572 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
 Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Downloaded by Anglia Ruskin University At 03:47 16 April 2018 (PT)
 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm

Brand experimental value versus Brand

experimental
brand functional value: which value
matters more for the brand?
Elena Delgado-Ballester and Estela Fernandez Sabiote 1857
Marketing Department, Faculty of Economics and Business,
Received 27 February 2014
University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain Revised 11 November 2014
20 March 2015
23 April 2015
Accepted 21 May 2015
Abstract
Downloaded by Anglia Ruskin University At 03:47 16 April 2018 (PT)

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to analyze the relative higher impact of brand experiential
value over brand functional value in generating brand equity, consumer– brand identification and
positive word-of-mouth (WOM). It also analyzes whether the impact of these brand values in building
brand outcomes depends on consumers’ age.
Design/methodology/approach – Information was collected from a sample of 332 consumers by
personal interviews. Respondents provide information about their consumption experiences with a
specific brand from a stated list of 14 experiential and non-experiential brands.
Findings – Results suggest that the effect of brand experiential value on brand equity and
consumer-brand identification was higher than that of brand functional value. By contrast, positive
WOM was more influenced by brand functional value. Furthermore, the results also confirm that as
consumers age, brand experiential value exhibits a significant higher effect than brand functional value
on brand outcomes.
Research limitations/implications – A potential shortcoming is the common method bias. As far
as one questionnaire was used to measure all study constructs, the strength of the causal relationships
among constructs may have been inflated.
Practical implications – For brand managers, the key implications concern on how to effectively
allocate brand investment to build stronger brand equity and consumer-brand identification and
stimulated positive WOM.
Originality/value – Despite the greater importance that the experiential perspective is gaining in the
brand literature and the voices proclaiming that experiential value will matter most, this is the first
empirical research paper that analyzes that the relative superiority of experiential value over functional
value depends on the brand outcomes pursued and consumers’ age.
Keywords Brand equity, Brand management, Experiential value, Functional value,
Consumer-brand identification, Word of mouth
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The view that has traditionally prevailed is that successful brand differentiation
should be focused on salient and relevant functional attributes and benefits

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship
and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the grant ECO2012-35766 from European Journal of Marketing
Vol. 49 No. 11/12, 2015
the Spanish Ministry of Economics and Competitiveness and by the Fundación Séneca-Agencia pp. 1857-1879
de Ciencia y Tecnología de la Región de Murcia (Spain), under the II PCTRM 2007-2010. Authors © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0309-0566
also thank the support provided by Fundación Cajamurcia. DOI 10.1108/EJM-02-2014-0129
 EJM (Aaker, 1991; Porter, 1995). However, nowadays, consumers are overexposed to
49,11/12 functional messages (Samuelsen and Olsen, 2010), and in many product categories,
brands are highly similar functionally (Brakus et al., 2009). As a consequence,
functional values become less sustainable as a form of differentiation and less
effective in developing and maintaining consumer-brand relationships (de
Chernatony et al., 2000; Shaw and Ivens, 2002). Furthermore, functional values can
1858 have inherent disadvantages: they can often be easily imitated and they assume
rational buyer decisions (Hartmann et al., 2005).
As an alternative or complementary form of brand differentiation, the branding
literature currently argues in favor of an experiential view of brand consumption as a
key issue that deserves special consideration (Addis and Holbrook, 2001; Brakus et al.,
2009; Chang and Chieng, 2006; Schembri, 2009; Zarantonello and Schmitt, 2010).
Empirical studies have generated useful insights into brand experiential value, such
Downloaded by Anglia Ruskin University At 03:47 16 April 2018 (PT)

as how to measure it (Brakus et al., 2009), its effects on the formation of brand meaning
in consumers’ minds (Fitzsimons et al., 2008; Schembri, 2009) and its influence on
satisfaction (Oh et al., 2007; Wang and Lin, 2010) and brand loyalty (Brakus et al., 2009).
However, few studies have assessed the impact of both experiential and functional
aspects on the relationship with the brand. For example, Zarantonello et al. (2013) focus
on the relative persuasiveness of experiential versus functional appeals in an
advertising setting. In a branding context, Chang and Chieng (2006) assess the impact of
functional and experiential factors on the relationship with the brand, and Broyles et al.
(2009a) also take into account the cultural context. Unlike these studies, we are
interested in examining the dissimilar effects that experiential and functional values
may have on consumers to argue convincingly in favor of an experiential view of
branding.
With that in mind, the purpose of this study is to advance previous research on
brand experience. It traces the differential effects of experiential and functional
values on specific brand outcomes not previously addressed by earlier research:
brand equity, consumer-brand identification and word-of-mouth (WOM). Brand
equity is a key determinant of brand success and a strategic factor in the
profitability and market capitalization value of firms (Srivastava et al., 2001).
Consumer-brand identification is a primary psychological substrate for building the
kind of deep and meaningful relationships that brand managers are increasingly
seeking with consumers (Ahearne et al., 2005; Dimitriadis and Papista, 2011).
Finally, positive WOM plays an important role in influencing consumer perceptions
and brand image (Amblee and Bui, 2008).
In addition, we also explore whether the higher impact of brand experiential value
over brand functional value depends on consumers’ age because consumer behavior
literature has identified age as a critical factor influencing cognition, affect and
evaluative judgments (Cole et al., 2008; Correira and Roschk, 2014; Drolet et al., 2007).
Furthermore, many of the fundamental questions in marketing have had limited
attention in relation to aging (Yoo and Cole, 2008), while the aging of the population is a
demographic trend of great interest to marketers.
Having outlined the motivations behind this study, the ensuing sections discuss the
conceptual background and then introduce a set of formal hypotheses. This is followed
by an outline of the research method and results. The final section is a brief discussion
of the implications for management practice and future research.
 Theoretical framework Brand
Brand functional and experiential values experimental
In line with expectancy-value models of beliefs and attitudes (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975),
brand managers have traditionally focused on cognitive and utilitarian aspects of
value
shopping and consumption experiences to manage consumer-brand relationships
(Chang and Chieng, 2006; Mascarenhas et al., 2006). Under this functional approach, the
consumer is viewed as a logical thinker who engages in a deliberate reasoning process 1859
to purchase the best product from available product alternatives (Shafir et al., 1993)
based on an assessment of their functional value. Specifically, brand functional value
has to do with the brand’s ability to satisfy consumer functional needs and wants
(Keller, 2001) and, therefore, with the utility derived from the perceived quality and
expected performance of the brand (Sweeney and Soutar, 2001).
However, as noted in the introduction, the impact of the experiential perspective on
Downloaded by Anglia Ruskin University At 03:47 16 April 2018 (PT)

consumption that has more recently emerged in marketing literature suggests that
brands may also embody experiential value (Brakus et al., 2009; Chang and Chieng,
2006; Schembri, 2009; Zarantonello et al., 2013). This perspective includes the
assessment of experiential benefits (e.g. fun, pleasure, freedom, fantasy, recreation,
intellectual and physical recreation) made available by the purchasing and consumption
activities. More specifically, in the branding literature, the current trend is to create
compelling brand experiences by emphasizing non-functional product characteristics
such as brand-related stimuli (e.g. colors, shapes, slogans, background design elements,
music), which are part of the brand’s design, identity, packaging, communication and
environment in which the brand is marketed or sold. These experiential attributes
constitute the major source of subjective, internal consumer responses (sensations,
feelings and cognitions) and behavioral responses that can provide experiential value
for its own sake (Brakus et al., 2009). Specifically, brand experiential value refers to the
subjective, symbolic, hedonic and psychological aspects of the interactions with the
brand (Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982). It reflects the assessment of a variety of
consumer experiences with the brand that Brakus et al. (2009) categorized as sensory
(e.g. sensations), affective (e.g. feelings and emotions), intellectual (e.g. imaginations,
creativity) and behavioral (e.g. physical experiences, behaviors and lifestyle).
Despite the increasing importance that the experiential perspective is gaining in the
literature and the voices proclaiming that experiential value will matter most (Huang
et al., 2012; Schembri et al., 2010; Woodside et al., 2008; Zarantonello and Schmitt, 2010),
the truth is that the literature is largely silent on the dissimilar effects of brand
experiential value and brand functional value on brand outcomes.
In this sense, numerous academic studies of consumer research (Chitturi et al., 2008;
Dhar and Klaus, 2000; Jones et al., 2006; Okada, 2005) and advertising (Okazaki et al.,
2010; Samuelsen and Olsen 2010; Zarantonello et al., 2013) have provided empirical
evidences that utilitarian/functional and hedonic/experiential benefits and appeals
differ in their impact on consumers’ attitude, preferences and purchase intentions.
Drawing on these empirical evidences, we are of the opinion that there exist dissimilar
effects between experiential and functional elements on consumers’ reactions toward a
brand, such as brand equity, consumer-brand identification and WOM.
It should be noted that consumers’ responses toward a brand (brand equity,
consumer-brand identification and WOM) would be influenced by factors beyond the
two used here (functional and experiential values). However, as the purpose of the paper
 EJM is to analyze the comparative influence of functional and experiential values in specific
49,11/12 brand outcomes, we elected to limit to those antecedents variables.
The next section is devoted to this issue. We argue that the relative higher impact of
one type of value over another depends on the brand outcomes that are pursued.
Consequently, this study hereon is focused on analyzing which value, experiential or
functional, is more important in building brand equity, consumer-brand identification
1860 and positive WOM.

Hypotheses
Based on a consumer-based behavioral view of brand equity, there exists a general
consensus on defining brand equity as consumers’ different response between a focal
brand and an unbranded product when both have the same level of marketing stimulus
and product attributes (Yoo and Donthu, 2001). Therefore, brand equity involves
Downloaded by Anglia Ruskin University At 03:47 16 April 2018 (PT)

consumers’ predispositions for a brand in terms of preferences or intentions to buy due

to the value added to a product by its brand name (Yoo et al., 2000).
Brand equity evolves through one’s direct and indirect interactions with a brand in
environments in which it is sold or marketed (Broyles et al., 2009b; Keller, 2001) because
from these experiences, consumers elaborate evaluative judgments of the functional and
experiential values provided by the branded product as far as they are exposed to
utilitarian attributes and the experimental brand-related stimuli (Babin et al., 1994).
Such observation is in line with extant literature that identifies that brand equity has
both functional and experiential antecedents (Broyles et al., 2009a, 2009b; Holbrook and
Hirschman, 1982; Keller, 2001; Sheng and Teo, 2012). However, the question that arises
is which type of value is more important in building brand equity.
According to research on consumer values, the distinction between functional and
experiential values resides in the fact that value does not only lie in the object of
consumption (the utilitarian brand attributes). The experience of searching, shopping
and consuming brands through the exposition to specific brand-related stimuli may also
provide value and pleasure outcomes (Brakus et al., 2009; Schmitt, 1999). Moreover,
functional value has been described as task-related, rational and associated with more
information gathering (Babin et al., 1994), reflecting shopping with a work mentality
(Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982). By contrast, experiential value is more subjective,
personal, interactive and results more from fun and playfulness than from task
completion.
In sum, it seems that functional and experiential values inherently differ in the extent
to which they invoke affective reactions, which may provide a compelling reason of the
relative weight of both values in determining brand equity. Specifically, our prediction
that experiential value may outperform functional value in affecting brand equity is
grounded on Zajonc’s (1980) theory of preference. This theory proposes the primacy of
affect hypothesis (Zajonc, 1980, 1984; Zajonc and Markus, 1982) to suggest the
predominance of affect in determining preferences. Several aspects of Zajonc’s theory
explain this predominance:
• Affective reactions are made very rapidly and temporally precede a more
systematic (cognitive) analysis of the attitude objects’ attributes, which requires a
more deliberate reasoning process. This implies that before consumers acquire
and analyze its functional attributes, they have an immediate affect-based
reaction (perhaps classically conditioned) when they are exposed to the brand and
 its related stimuli (e.g. colors, music, background design elements). Therefore, as Brand
experiential value comes first, it strongly influences consumers’ predispositions experimental
for a brand (e.g. brand equity). value
• Affective reactions are perceived as more subjectively valid and more closely
linked to the self than are cognitive responses. Being so, experiential value is more
important in creating brand equity because, by virtue of its experiential nature, it
invokes affective reactions that are more unique to each consumer than functional 1861
value, as each consumer’s episodic memories of past brand experiences are not
directly comparable with the experiences with other brands (Samuelsen and
Olsen, 2010).

Furthermore, the general consensus existing in the branding literature suggests that
functional value is a powerful signal to consumers (Holt et al., 2004), but as functional
Downloaded by Anglia Ruskin University At 03:47 16 April 2018 (PT)

distinctions become more marginal, other more symbolic and psychological benefits
emerge and grow in importance. In short, experiential value provides a richer source of
competitive advantage than any functional value can (Sherrington, 2003) because it is
more difficult to copy by the competition and less vulnerable to product-related changes
(Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2000). Hence, this may indicate that brand experiential value
is a more relevant antecedent of the consumers’ response to the presence of the brand
(e.g. brand equity) because it represents a more unique value endowed by the brand:
H1. Brand experiential value is more strongly associated with brand equity than
brand functional value.
In addition to brand equity, examining consumer-brand identification is also an
important theme in branding research because it is a key construct for predicting
consumer behaviors (Kuenzel and Halliday, 2008). Specifically, consumer-brand
identification is defined as a consumer’s perceived state of oneness with a brand
(Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012).
Drawing from social identity theory, which mainly focuses on a cognitive
construction of the self, the need for identification is motivated by consumer lower order
(e.g. instrumental and utilitarian). This being the case, consumers identify with a brand
because they perceive that its functional value meets their instrumental goals or
utilitarian needs (Keller, 1993; Mittal, 2006) and because consumers feel that there exists
a similarity between their perceived self and the abstract attributes of the brand
(Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003; Sirgy, 1982).
Nevertheless, to fully capture the multi-faceted nature of consumer-brand
relationships, functional values do not fully account for the nature of the ties that bind
consumers to brands (Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012). Brands are things consumers
search for, purchase and consume. This implies that experiential aspects of the
interactions with the brands are also integral to why consumers identify with some
brands and not with others (Escalas and Bettman, 2003; Fournier, 1998). These
interactions with the brand, in the form of sensorial, affective, intellectual or behavioral
experiences (Brakus et al., 2009), make it easier for consumers to retrieve favorable,
self-relevant information from memory. As a result, the brand is more likely to be
considered as a target for referencing a consumer’s social identity. The fact that
experiencing a brand is associated with greater self-referencing and the construction of
 EJM brand-related stories or narratives (Escalas, 2004) supports a positive effect of brand
49,11/12 experiential value on consumer-brand identification.
This distinction between functional and experiential antecedents is relevant because
they are processed through distinct ways of thinking, analytically and narratively,
having implications for their influence on consumer-brand identification.
To ascribe meaning to the experiential value provided by brands, consumers engage
1862 in narrative thought to construct brand knowledge through a process of interpretation,
attribution, imagery and emotion (Burner, 1990; Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012). In
contrast, consumers will naturally tend to default to analytical thought processes (e.g.
elaboration likelihood model) (Petty et al., 1983) when faced with brand attributes
(Adaval and Wyer, 1998) to infer a brand’s functional value.
Based on previous research, narrative thought has been shown to build stronger
connections between the consumer and the brand (Escalas, 2004; Nielsen and Escalas,
Downloaded by Anglia Ruskin University At 03:47 16 April 2018 (PT)

2010; Woodside et al., 2008). Given that the construction of consumer-brand

identification is inherently an affective process and that unique, personal and
memorable brand knowledge results to a greater extent from narrative rather than
analytical processing, we assert that brand experiential value provides a higher-order
basis for consumer-brand identification than brand functional value. The proposed
effect is also in light with the studies of Stokburger-Sauer et al. (2012) and Lam et al.
(2013) that contain both cognitive and experiential drivers of identification. While Lam
et al. (2013) theorized that beyond a threshold of basic fulfillment (e.g. functional
associations), higher-order needs (e.g. symbolic associations) have an increasingly
motivational effect on goal pursuit (e.g. brand identification), Stokburger-Sauer et al.
(2012) was the first paper to test an overarching framework of consumer-brand
identification and provide empirical evidence to demonstrate the impact of the
experiential drivers over functional ones. Therefore:
H2. Brand experiential value is more strongly associated with consumer-brand
identification than brand functional value.
As Westbrook (1987, p. 261) notes, WOM represents informal communications directed
at other consumers about the ownership, usage or characteristics of particular goods
and services and/or their sellers. It is perceived as credible and custom-tailored because
people generate it with no self-interest in pushing a product (Berger and Schwartz, 2011).
Not surprisingly, therefore, it is very influential on brand image, brand perceptions and,
finally, on judgments of brands and purchasing behavior (Amblee and Bui, 2008).
Previous research has shown that WOM is not only associated with cognitive and
rational processes, such as price/value perceptions or product performance evaluations
(i.e. functional value) (Cheung et al., 2007; Jones et al., 2006; Sundaram et al., 1998), but
also with emotional responses to consumption situations (i.e. hedonic value) (Jones et al.,
2006). The accessibility-diagnosticity model proposed by Feldman and Lynch (1988) is
particularly relevant to the question of which type of value exerts the greatest effect on
positive WOM (Berger and Schwartz, 2011; Herr et al., 1991).
This model proposes that the likelihood that any cognition about an object (e.g. a
brand) will be used as an input into any subsequent decision involving that object is a
function of the accessibility of the input in memory and its diagnosticity. In this regard,
a number of studies in social cognition support that elaboration of an information item
increases the likelihood that it will be retrieved for use in making a subsequent judgment
 (Feldman and Lynch, 1988 for a review). Cognitions about brand functional value are the Brand
result of a more rational processing, which tends to be slower, more deliberate, experimental
analytical and shopping-efficiency oriented (Broniarczyk and Alba, 1994; Carpenter
et al., 1994; Homer, 2008). This processing makes these cognitions more accessible in
value
memory than those about brand experiential value, which in turn are the result of a more
spontaneous, rapid and less elaborated processing (Lee and Labroo, 2004; Homer, 2008;
Megehee and Woodside, 2010). 1863
Additionally, brand functional value is a more diagnostic information for producing
valid task resolutions and for helping others make better purchasing decisions because
it relies more on objectively verifiable data obtained in a piecemeal fashion. In contrast,
brand experiential value is more ambiguous. It has the potential for multiple
interpretations because it is unique to each consumer based on personal experience
(Homer, 2008; Samuelsen and Olsen, 2010; Stephen and Deighton, 1989). Therefore,
Downloaded by Anglia Ruskin University At 03:47 16 April 2018 (PT)

based on the fact that cognitions about brand functional value are more accessible and
diagnostic than those of brand experiential value, the former should exert a greater
effect on positive WOM than the latter:
H3. Brand functional value is more strongly associated with WOM than brand
experiential value.
The predictions of the hypotheses previously outlined may be affected by consumers’
personal characteristics. We focus on age because past research has revealed that
age-related cognitive and motivational differences may influence information
processing (Drolet et al., 2007; Fung and Carstensen, 2003).
Under an information processing perspective, a general finding in the literature is
that people tend to rely increasingly on experiential and contextually based forms of
processing as they age (Yoon, 1997) because aging decreases attentional ability,
memory and capacity to process information (Drolet et al., 2007; Fung and Carstensen,
2003; Homburg and Giering, 2001). Consequently, older consumers tend to rely
differentially on heuristic or schema-based forms of processing (Lambert-Pandraud
et al., 2005; Yoon, 1997), whereas younger consumers are relatively more likely to engage
in detailed processing (Hess, 1990; Reder et al., 1986). Compared to detailed processing,
schema-based processing is generally considered to be easier to engage because it
involves assessing information at a theme or schema level rather than at the level of
specific details. In contrast, detailed processing requires the ability to perform the
relatively effortful task of directly searching memory contents and making exact
memory matches, which may exceed older adults’ processing capacity (Yoon, 1997).
Besides age-related cognitive differences, the socio-emotional selectivity theory
proposed by Carstensen and colleagues (Carstensen et al., 2003; Löckenhoff and
Carstensen, 2004) states that there are also age-related motivational differences that
influence information processing. Specifically, researchers have found that older
consumers are more persuaded by messages that help them to realize emotionally
meaningful goals as opposed to those that serve knowledge-related goals (Fung and
Carstensen, 2003). They are also more persuaded by messages that are based on
emotional appeals than by those based on rational appeals (Williams and Drolet, 2005).
Drolet et al. (2007) and Lambert-Pandraud et al. (2005) have also found that with age,
consumers find feelings and emotions more important such that they are more
interested in their emotional experience with a brand. This increased emphasis affects
 EJM attentional processes, leading them to focus relatively more on affective information at
49,11/12 the expense of factual information and decision-making performance (Isaacowitz et al.,
2000). On the basis of these findings, it is expected that as people age, the positive effect
of brand experiential value is higher on brand equity, consumer-brand identification
and WOM. By contrast, the positive effect of brand functional value is reduced as people
age:
1864 H4. Consumers’ age increases the effect of brand experiential value on brand equity
(H4a), consumer-brand identification (H4b) and WOM (H4c).
H5. Consumers’ age decreases the effect of brand functional value on brand equity
(H5a), consumer-brand identification (H5b) and WOM (H5c).

Methodology
Downloaded by Anglia Ruskin University At 03:47 16 April 2018 (PT)

Brands selection
To select a set of brands, we followed the procedure used by Brakus et al. (2009). A
sample of 55 university students participated in an initial pre-test. After explaining the
concept of brand experiential value, we asked them to think of two product categories
and to pick one brand in each category that they believed was marketed in an
experiential way and another brand that they believed was not marketed in an
experiential way. For a total of 40 brands mentioned, we retained brands with the
highest frequency of mention (4 non-experiential brands and 10 experiential brands).
The chosen non-experiential brands were Hipercor, Primark, Puma and Ryanair, and
the chosen experiential brands were Apple, BMW, Burger King, Iberia, McDonalds,
Mercadona, Nike, Seat, Viceroy and Zara.
In a second pre-test, a new sample of 66 students evaluated on a seven-point Likert
scale (“not experiential/very experiential”) the extent to which they perceive these
brands are marketed in an experiential way. The means ranged from 3.09 to 5.41: 3.09
(Puma), 3.12 (Hipercor), 3.35 (Ryanair), 3.55 (Primark), 3.63 (Viceroy), 3.78 (Iberia), 3.83
(Seat), 4.32 (Mercadona), 5.03 (Burger King), 5.08 (Zara), 5.15 (BMW), 5.34 (Apple), 5.39
(McDonalds) and 5.41 (Nike).

Data collection
Information was also collected from real consumers by personal interviews at highly
frequented places, such as shopping centers and city squares in a city of Spain.
Respondents were screened to ascertain that they recognized a particular brand from the
list of brands presented.
Respondents provided information for only one specific brand, which was randomly
assigned across participants. In total, the number of usable, appropriately completed
questionnaires was 332. The sample included consumers of both genders (male ⫽ 48.5
per cent and female ⫽ 51.5 per cent), with ages ranging from 18 to 51 years (mean ⫽
34.26 years). Table I provides descriptive information about the sample in terms of
familiarity, frequency of use and the holistic score for each brand in the brand
experience scale (Brakus et al., 2009).

Measures
All the variables were measured through seven-point Likert scales ranging from
“Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree”. Table II summarizes the characteristics of the
scales. Brand functional value, which refers to the utility derived from the perceived
 Product Brand (n) Frequency of usea Brand familiarityb Brand experienceb
Brand
experimental
Sportswear Puma (24) 2.75 4.65 5.63
Nike (23) 3.58 4.56 3.02
value
Consumer electronics Apple (24) 2.38 4.31 3.32
Jewelry Viceroy (23) 2.39 4.61 2.48
Cars BMW (22) 1.77 5.82 3.93
Seat (23) 2.26 5.54 2.95 1865
Food retailing Mercadona (25) 3.88 5.27 2.88
Hipercor (24) 2.67 5.19 2.92
Clothes retailing Zara (24) 4.29 5.69 3.48
Primark (24) 3.46 4.92 2.97
Fast food restaurant McDonald (24) 3.17 5.38 2.86
Burger King (24) 3.25 5.13 2.29
Airlines Iberia (24) 2.88 5.31 2.72 Table I.
Downloaded by Anglia Ruskin University At 03:47 16 April 2018 (PT)

Ryanair (24) 3.29 5.54 2.78 Descriptive

characteristics of the
Notes: a A scale ranged from 1 to 5; b
a scale ranged from 1 to 7 sample

quality and expected performance of the brand, was measured using four items adapted
from Sweeney and Soutar (2001). Following Brakus et al. (2009) and Chang and Chieng
(2006), the scale of brand experiential value includes 18 items that measure sensory,
intellectual/think, affective/feel and behavioral experiences with the brand. Brand
equity reflects consumer appreciation of the incremental value of a product that
corresponds to a brand. For this construct, the study uses the four-item scale of Yoo and
Donthu (2001). Consumer-brand identification was conceptualized as the degree to
which consumers identify with a brand to fulfill self-definitional needs and was
measured with five items adapted from Homburg et al. (2009). Finally, WOM is
measured with three items adopted from Maxham and Pessemier (2002) and it reflects
consumer intentions to spread favorable WOM about the brand.

Results
Psychometric characteristics of the scales
Following the two-stage approach of model validation (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988),
measurement validity of each construct was estimated prior to testing the hypothesized
structural paths.
The measurement model for the constructs listed in Table II demonstrated a
reasonable fit to the data (␹2467 ⫽ 1,258.63, p ⬍ 0.00; GFI ⫽ 0.82; SRMR ⫽ 0.053;
RMSEA ⫽ 0.069; NNFI (TLI) ⫽ 0.97; CFI ⫽ 0.98). In support of the scales’ reliability,
composite reliability for all scales was uniformly high (⬎0.80), and the average
variance index drawn exceeded the threshold level of 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker,
1981).
Convergent validity was confirmed by reviewing the t-tests for the factor
loadings. As shown in Table II, all items loaded on their corresponding latent
construct and the estimates were positive and significant (the lowest t-value is
12.09), which provides evidence of convergent validity (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988).
Discriminant validity was indicated, as the confidence interval (⫾ 2 SE) around the
correlation estimated between any two latent indicators never included 1 (Anderson
and Gerbing, 1988).
 EJM Factor loadings Reliability
49,11/12 Construct Item description (t-value) (SCRa, AVEb)

Sensory brand (Brand name) appeals to my senses 0.78 (16.40) CR ⫽ 0.88

experience This brand makes a strong impression on my 0.77 (16.11) AVE ⫽ 0.64
visual sense or other senses
This brand is focused on experience sensory appeal 0.82 (17.42)
1866 (Brand name) tries to excite my senses 0.85 (18.36)
Think brand This brand makes me think 0.74 (15.28) CR ⫽ 0.89
experience (Brand name) appeals to my creative thinking 0.62 (12.09) AVE ⫽ 0.76
This brand tries to intrigue me 0.91 (21.08)
I engage in a lot of thinking when I encounter this brand 0.89 (20.48)
(Brand name) stimulates my thinking in doing 0.80 (17.36)
things in different ways
Feel brand (Brand name) tries to put me in a certain mood 0.82 (18.13) CR ⫽ 0.94
Downloaded by Anglia Ruskin University At 03:47 16 April 2018 (PT)

experience This brand induces feelings and sentiments 0.88 (20.28) AVE ⫽ 0.84
(Brand name) is an emotional brand 0.92 (21.70)
I have strong emotions for this brand 0.83 (18.29)
This brand tries to be emotional 0.90 (20.92)
Behavioral (Brand name) results in bodily experiences 0.82 (17.62) CR ⫽ 0.85
brand This brand is action oriented 0.85 (18.45) AVE ⫽ 0.60
experience (Brand name) reminds me of activities I can do 0.75 (15.45)
This brand induces me to emulate behaviors of 0.65 (12.64)
other people
Brand functional (Brand name) has consistent quality 0.80 (17.39) CR ⫽ 0.85
value This brand is well made 0.92 (21.94) AVE ⫽ 0.60
(Brand name) has an acceptable standard of quality 0.96 (23.52)
(Brand name) would perform consistently 0.92 (21.72)
Brand equity Even if another brand has the same features as 0.92 (21.80) CR ⫽ 0.95
(brand name), I would prefer to buy (brand name) AVE ⫽ 0.85
It makes sense to buy (brand name) instead of any 0.93 (22.46)
other brand even if they are the same
If there is another brand as good as (brand name), I 0.95 (23.23)
prefer to buy (brand name)
If another brand is not different from (brand name) 0.89 (20.83)
in any way, it seems to purchase (brand name)
Consumer-brand I identify with (brand name) 0.84 (18.69) CR ⫽ 0.92
identification (Brand name) fits well to me 0.86 (19.37) AVE ⫽ 0.75
I feel attached to (brand name) 0.91 (21.33)
I feel good to be a customer of (brand name) 0.86 (19.56)
Table II. Word-of-mouth I would recommend (brand name) to my friends 0.89 (23.52) CR ⫽ 0.94
Constructs I would spread positive word-of-mouth about 0.94 (21.72) AVE ⫽ 0.88
measurement (brand name)
summary: If my friends were looking for (type of product), 0.94 (22.57)
confirmatory factor then I would tell them to try (brand name)
analysis and scale
reliability Notes: SCR ⫽ scale composite reliability; AVE ⫽ average variance extracted

Furthermore, based on the original research conducted by Brakus et al. (2009), this study
considers brand experiential value as a unique construct made up of different experience
dimensions, which has a rather specific content domain and may behave independently.
A second-order factor analysis was conducted with LISREL 8.30 to demonstrate that the
 four experience dimensions can be modeled with the data as being reflected by a Brand
higher-order construct (Table III). experimental
The results suggest a good fit of the second-order specification for the measure of brand
experiential value [␹2131 ⫽ 567.86, p ⬍ 0.001; SRMR ⫽ 0.063; CFI ⫽ 0.96; NNFI (TLI) ⫽ 0.95].
value

Hypotheses testing
Once the measurement model was validated, structural equation modeling (SEM) 1867
analyses (Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1996) were conducted to validate the proposed model
(Figure 1) and to test the hypotheses. Considering the aims of this study and the
multi-item nature of the latent constructs used, SEM is the most robust and appropriate
method to test the whole model simultaneously regarding different age groups.
The overall fit of the structural model was acceptable (␹2484 ⫽ 1,495.71, p ⬍ 0.000;
SRMR ⫽ 0.078; CFI ⫽ 0.97; NNFI (TLI) ⫽ 0.97), thereby suggesting that the nomological
Downloaded by Anglia Ruskin University At 03:47 16 April 2018 (PT)

network of relationships fits the data.

The results in Table IV illustrate that the causal relationships of brand experiential value
and brand functional value with brand equity, consumer-brand identification and WOM
were positive and significant.

Fist-order
First-order construct Indicator Loadings t-value

Sensory brand experience SBE1 0.77 –a

SBE2 0.76 14.18
SBE3 0.83 15.56
SBE4 0.85 16.03
Think brand experience TBE1 0.73 –a
TBE2 0.62 11.01
TBE3 0.91 16.52
TBE4 0.90 16.31
TBE5 0.80 14.57
Feel brand experience FBE1 0.82 –a
FBE2 0.88 20.08
FBE3 0.92 21.41
FBE4 0.83 18.18
FBE5 0.90 20.75
Behavioral brand experience BBE1 0.83 –a
BBE2 0.85 17.36
BBE3 0.75 14.85
BBE4 0.64 12.23

Second-order analysis Brand experiential value

Loadings t-value

Sensory brand experience 0.51 10.38

Think brand experience 0.61 12.66 Table III.
Feel brand experience 0.70 14.49 Second-order
Behavioral brand experience 0.68 13.71 confirmatory factor
analysis of brand
Note: a Fixed parameter experiential value
 EJM
49,11/12

1868
Downloaded by Anglia Ruskin University At 03:47 16 April 2018 (PT)

Figure 1.
Structural model

Standardized Parameter Estimates

Linkages in the model parameter estimate t-value

Brand experiential value –⬎ Brand equity ␥51 0.52 9.54***

Brand experiential value –⬎ Consumer-brand identification ␥61 0.73 13.51***
Brand experiential value –⬎ Word-of-mouth ␥71 0.31 7.06***
Brand functional value –⬎ Brand equity ␥52 0.28 5.56***
Brand functional value –⬎ Consumer-brand identification ␥62 0.27 6.21***
Brand functional value –⬎ Word-of-mouth ␥72 0.63 12.67***
Second-order construct
Brand experiential value –⬎ Sensory brand experience ␥11 0.71 11.42***
Brand experiential value –⬎ Think brand experience ␥21 0.81 12.59***
Brand experiential value –⬎ Feel brand experience ␥31 0.81 13.93***
Table IV. Brand experiential value –⬎ Behavioral brand experience ␥41 0.77 12.86***
Structural model
estimates Note: *** p ⬍ 0.01

As far as brand familiarity may also exert significant and positive effects on the
dependent variables and the perceived values attributes to brands (functional and
experiential), we examined whether the effects of brand functional and experiential
values on each dependent variable are still significant and positive after incorporating in
the model the effect of brand familiarity as antecedent of both brand values and
dependent variables. To do so, we conducted several mediation tests using the
PROCESS-macro (Model 12) for SPSS (Preacher and Hayes (2004). Table V shows the
results of the mediation tests. When brand equity is the dependent variable, the indirect
paths from brand familiarity to brand equity are always stronger than the direct,
consistent with mediation, but both the indirect and direct effects are significant. In
other words, with the inclusion of the direct effect of brand familiarity in the analysis,
 Downloaded by Anglia Ruskin University At 03:47 16 April 2018 (PT)

Independent variable Dependent variable Mediator Indirect effect Direct effect Sobel test CI (lower) CI (upper)

Brand familiarity Bran equity Functional value 0.3301*** 0.1349* 0.617 0.4143 0.9537
Experiential value 0.5317***
Brand familiarity WOM Functional value 0.622*** 0.2171*** 0.491 0.3329 0.6632
Experiential value 0.1581**
Brand familiarity Brand identification Functional value 0.2937*** 0.1023* 0.7122 0.5306 0.9413
Experiential value 0.7463***

Notes: *** Significance at p ⬍ 0.000; ** significance at p ⬍ 0.01; * significance at p ⬍ 0.05

tests
Table V.
1869
value
experimental
Brand

Results of mediation
 EJM brand experiential and functional values still exert significant effects on brand equity.
49,11/12 Furthermore, the proportion of total effect that is mediated through brand values (Sobel
test) indicates that 61.7 per cent of the total effect of brand familiarity is due to its
indirect effect through brand experiential and functional values. This result
demonstrates that brand values are still essential to brand equity after incorporating
brand familiarity in the analysis.
1870 Regarding WOM, the path from brand familiarity to WOM revealed also a significant
indirect effect of experiential value (0.1581, 95 per cent confidence interval ⫽ 0.052,
0.264) and functional value (0.622, 95 per cent confidence interval ⫽ 0.539, 0.704), and
almost 50 per cent of the total effect of brand familiarity is due to its indirect effect
through brand experiential and functional values.
Finally, in terms of consumer-brand identification, the results obtained are similar.
The path from brand familiarity to the dependent variable includes a significant indirect
Downloaded by Anglia Ruskin University At 03:47 16 April 2018 (PT)

effect of both brand values and a significant direct effect (0.1023, 95 per cent confidence
interval ⫽ 0.530, 0.941). Sobel test indicates that almost 71 per cent of the total effect is
explained by the indirect effects through brand experiential and functional values.
Taken together, these results offer support that brand experiential and functional
values are still relevant predictors of the variations in the dependent variables after
including in the analysis brand familiarity.
For testing the hypotheses, a chi-square difference test (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988)
was used in which restricted and non-restricted models were compared to evaluate the
differential intensity of the main effects of brand experiential value and brand functional
value on the endogenous constructs.
In terms of the influences on brand equity, the chi-square difference test shows that,
compared to the restricted model (␹2485⫽ 1,503.18) where both structural parameters ␥51
and ␥52 are set up as equal, the theoretical model presents a significantly better fit (␹2
dif(1)⫽ 7.47; p ⬍ 0.00). This finding provides empirical evidence for H1, suggesting that
brand experience value exerts a stronger effect on brand equity than brand functional
value (0.52 ⬎ 0.28, p ⬍ 0.01).
With respect to H2, the chi-square difference test indicates that the theoretical model
presents a significantly better fit (␹2dif(1) ⫽ 34.75; p ⬍ 0.00) than the restricted model
(␹2485 ⫽ 1,530.46), confirming H2. The influence of brand experiential value on
consumer-brand identification is significantly higher than the effect of brand functional
value (0.73 ⬎ 0.27, p ⬍ 0.01). Taken together, the confirmation of H1 and H2 illustrate
why a deeper understanding of the abstract, intangible aspects of brand– consumer
interactions (e.g. brand experiential value) is needed.
The findings also support H3. The chi-square difference test suggests that the
theoretical model presents a significantly better fit (␹2 dif(1) ⫽ 16.14; p ⬍ 0.00) compared
to the restricted model (␹2485 ⫽ 1,511.85). Therefore, brand experiential and functional
values exert significant different effects on WOM, with the influence of functional
values being greater than that of experiential values (0.31 ⬍ 0.63, p ⬍ 0.01).
To examine the moderating effects of age (H4), we divided the participants into three
chronological age groups: “the younger” below the age of 29 years, “the middle-aged”
between 30 and 40 years and “the mature” of the age of 41 to 50 years. Multiple group
analyses were estimated in a hierarchical approach comparing the two extreme groups
of age (the younger and the mature). Specifically, two models (one for each group of age)
were calculated. The models across the two groups were identical except that in one
 model, the structural parameters were restricted to be equal across the two groups Brand
(equal model), while in an alternative model, the parameters were allowed to vary across experimental
the two groups (general model). The analyses showed that the decrease in chi-square
distribution when moving from the restricted (equal) model to the general model was
value
significant in two of three relationships. Specifically, consumers’ age moderated the
effect of brand experiential value on brand equity (H4a) and consumer-brand
identification (H4b), partially supporting H4 (Table VI). Therefore, the effects of brand 1871
experiential value are significantly stronger for the mature than for the younger
respondents.
Similarly, results support H5, which suggests the existence of a significant negative
moderating effect of age in the relationship between brand functional value and the two
of the three dependent variables. Hence, as suggested, the influence of brand functional
value is significantly higher for younger people than for the mature.
Downloaded by Anglia Ruskin University At 03:47 16 April 2018 (PT)

Discussion and conclusions

This study investigates the relative persuasiveness and impact of brand experiential
value over brand functional value, and it proposes that the higher impact of one value
over another may depend on the critical brand outcomes considered.

Theoretical implications
The results of this study contribute to the literature of brand experiences in three
different ways. First, it extends the set of previously identified brand outcomes that
result from brand experiences. While the studies of Brakus et al. (2009), Fitzsimons et al.
(2008), Oh et al. (2007) and Schembri (2009) provided empirical evidences of the influence
of brand experiences on satisfaction, loyalty and brand meaning, we identified other
consequences of brand experience value: brand equity, consumer-brand identification
and positive WOM.
Second, only three studies have analyzed the impact of both experiential and
functional aspects of the brand in a theoretical model (Broyles et al., 2009a, 2009b; Chang
and Chieng, 2006; Zarantonello et al., 2013), but none of them has compared in a
branding setting the dissimilar effects that may result from these values on the
relationship with the brand. The empirical research presented herein not only identified
functional and experiential antecedents in the relationship with the brand, as suggested

Age Chi-square difference

Hypotheses Younger Mature (ⵜdf ⫽ 1)

Brand experiential value –⬎ Brand equity (H4a) 0.20 (2.38) 0.43 (5.01) ⵜ␹2 ⫽ 10.87***
Brand experiential value –⬎ Consumer-brand
identification (H4b) 0.52 (7.01) 0.66 (8.45) ⵜ␹2 ⫽ 5.3 ***
Brand experiential value –⬎ Word-of-mouth (H4c) 0.16 (2.24) 0.26 (3.52) ⵜ␹2 ⫽ 2.24
Brand functional value –⬎ Brand equity (H5a) 0.53 (6.05) 0.25 (3.06) ⵜ␹2 ⫽ 13.74***
Brand functional value –⬎ Consumer-brand
identification (H5b) 0.54 (7.06) 0.16 (2.47) ⵜ␹2 ⫽ 36.75***
Brand functional value –⬎ Consumer-brand
identification (H5b) 0.66 (7.99) 0.64 (7.72) ⵜ␹2 ⫽ 2.22 Table VI.
Results of multi-group
Notes: *** p ⬍ 0.01; ** p ⬍ 0.05 analyses
 EJM also by Broyles et al. (2009a, 2009b), Chang and Chieng (2006) and Zarantonello et al.
49,11/12 (2013). Interestingly, the results reveal the existence of differences on the effect that
brand experiential and functional values exert on brand equity, consumer-brand
identification and positive WOM. As expected, it was found that the effect of brand
experiential value on brand equity and consumer-brand identification was higher than
that of brand functional value. It appears that, compared to WOM, brand equity and
1872 consumer-brand identification are more nurtured by abstract, personal and intangible
considerations. By contrast, positive WOM is more highly influenced by brand
functional value. Taken together, these results provide empirical evidence that
illustrates why it is important to understand more of the abstract, intangible aspects of
brand knowledge which is not related to the actual physical product or service
specifications per se, a finding which is in line with an important thrust in branding
research (Keller, 2001).
Downloaded by Anglia Ruskin University At 03:47 16 April 2018 (PT)

Third, this study uses age as a moderator variable to examine the relative influence
of brand values (experiential and functional) on brand outcomes. Our findings were
consistent with previous research, which stated the existence of age-related cognitive
and motivational differences that influence information processing (Drolet et al., 2007;
Fung and Carstensen, 2003). In line with past empirical evidences, we confirm that as
consumers age, they are more persuaded by brand experiences than on functional
appeals, specially on their assessment of brand equity and consumer-brand
identification. Meanwhile, consumers’ age decreases the effect of brand functional value
on brand equity and consumer-brand identification. Nevertheless, no significant effect
between both brand values and WOM was found but the effects were in the proposed
direction.

Managerial implications
Our findings suggest that firms may derive benefits from providing both types of brand
value depending on their objectives and consumers’ characteristics. Specifically, the
following normative guidelines are derived for brand managers to effectively allocate
brand investment to build stronger brand equity and consumer-brand identification and
stimulate positive WOM.
First, to harvest brand equity and foster consumer-brand identification, both types of
brand value may help but brand managers should better focus their efforts on providing
higher levels of experiential value because it plays a more relevant role in affecting
consumer responses to the marketing of the brand (e.g. brand equity) and
consumer-brand identification. In light of this, brand managers need to provide ways in
which consumers can experience the brand. For example, one way of creating
experiential value is associating brands with other entities (e.g. people, events, places).
The association with people may be especially effective for eliciting feelings (feel brand
experience). Events may be especially conducive to the creation of different experiences.
The identification of the brand with a cause may create experiences through a sense of
community and participation in cause-related activities, and the provision of brand
environments (e.g. flagship stores, themed retail outlets, virtual spaces) offers people the
opportunity to consume the brand as a place experience.
Second, although brand functional value plays a weaker role in affecting brand
equity and consumer-brand identification, brand managers who wish to stimulate
positive WOM should shift investment priority from experiential aspects to functional
 aspects in the positioning of their brands. By doing so, the impact of WOM will be much Brand
higher, as consumers may perceive brand functional value as a more diagnostic and experimental
useful piece of data for making better purchasing decisions. value
Third, although brand managers do not have control over consumer traits, the
understanding of the moderating effects of these variables is still important for
developing more effective positioning strategies and better managing consumer-brand
relationships and stimulating WOM across segments. On account of this, they should be 1873
aware that for mature segments, brand experiential value seems to be more relevant in
affecting brand perceptions that for younger segments who are, in turn, more influenced
by brand functional value. Companies could first analyze which type of segments they
are attending (based on their age) and, second, address them by giving a major relevance
to the different brand values depending on their age. That is, the message, presentation
or interaction with the brand could be adapted to put more emphasis on the experiential
Downloaded by Anglia Ruskin University At 03:47 16 April 2018 (PT)

value or the functional value. For example, when designing the message of a direct
marketing campaign (i.e. e-mail marketing, mail marketing), a company attending
mature customers would get better results by designing a more experiential interaction
with the brand.

Limitations and directions for future research

The results from this study should be interpreted relative to certain limitations. First, a
potential shortcoming is the common method bias. Because one questionnaire was used
to measure all study constructs, the strength of the causal relationships among
constructs may have been inflated. Second, the results obtained are only valid to the
specific products and brands analyzed. This may limit the generalizability of the results
to other product categories and brands. Third, the model is focused on the effects of
experiential and functional values; however, there are other antecedents beyond the two
used here that determine brand equity, WOM and consumer-brand identification (e.g.
brand trust, promotion activities or awareness among others). Their inclusion in the
model will provide a useful holistic view.
Additional issues deserve a mention as well. First, other moderating variables could
be added in future studies, such as value orientations (Wang et al., 2012) and shopping
orientations (Dawson et al., 1990). These two variables may moderate the relationships
uncovered here because past research provide insights into how these individual
variables are likely to emphasize the type of values and goals with which consumers are
concerned when buying products. The product category may also exert an interesting
moderating effect as far as product categories differ in terms of opportunities they give
consumers for identity expression (Berger and Heath, 2008). Furthermore, the type of
information (experiential or functional) that it is more diagnostic may vary in a social
context as far as the product category gives consumers more abilities to express their
identities. These factors are of special interest to be analyzed as potential moderators on
the effect that brand functional and experiential values exert on WOM.
Another important moderator is the brand concept, which reflects a general meaning
associated with the brand (e.g. functional, symbolic and experiential) (Whan Park et al.,
1986). Brand concept determines the effectiveness of a positioning strategy because a
positioning appropriate for a brand with a functional element may be inappropriate for
a brand with a symbolic or experiential element. Thus, the type of brand concept may
 EJM moderate the effects of specific brand values (e.g. functional and experiential) on brand
49,11/12 outcomes.
Second, a shift from a static perspective to a dynamic one is needed to better
understand how the dynamics of functional and experiential values influence the
evolution of brand outcomes because recent empirical evidence (Lam et al., 2013) has
demonstrated that for new brands, the effectiveness of functional and symbolic drivers
1874 of consumer-brand identification varies through the stages of the brand life cycle.
Finally, researchers may generalize the results by conducting cross-cultural studies
(e.g. individualistic versus collective cultures) because the dissimilar cultural values,
modes of thought and emotional experiences and expressions that differentiate diverse
cultures may lead to different conclusions.
Downloaded by Anglia Ruskin University At 03:47 16 April 2018 (PT)

References
Aaker, D. (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name, The Free
Press, New York, NY.
Aaker, D. and Joachimsthaler, E. (2000), Brand Leadership, Free Press, London.
Adaval, R. and Wyer, R.S. (1998), “The role of narratives in consumer information processing”,
Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 207-245.
Addis, M. and Holbrook, M.B. (2001), “On the conceptual link between mass customization and
experiential consumption: an explosion of subjectivity”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour,
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 50-66.
Ahearne, M., Bhattacharya, C.B. and Guren, T. (2005), “Antecedents and consequences of
customer-company identification: expanding the role of relationship marketing”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 3, pp. 574-585.
Amblee, N. and Bui, Y. (2008), “Can brand reputation improve the odds of being reviewed
on-line?”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 11-28.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Babin, B., Darden, W. and Griffin, M. (1994), “Work and/or fun: measuring and utilitarian
shopping value”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 644-656.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Berger, J. and Heath, C. (2008), “Who drives divergence? Identity signaling, outgroup dissimilarity
and the abandonment of cultural tastes”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 95 No. 3, pp. 593-607.
Berger, J. and Schwartz, E.M. (2011), “What drives immediate and ongoing word of mouth?”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 869-880.
Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2003), “Consumer-company identification: a framework for
understanding consumers’ relationships with companies”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67
No. 2, pp. 76-88.
Brakus, J.J., Schmitt, B.H. and Zarantonello, L. (2009), “Brand experience: what is it? How is it
measured? Does it affect loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 52-68.
Broniarczyk, S.M. and Alba, J.W. (1994), “The role of consumers’ intuitions in inference making”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 393-407.
 Broyles, S.A., Schumann, D.W. and Leingpibul, T. (2009b), “Examining brand equity antecedent/ Brand
consequence relationships”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 145-161.
experimental
Broyles, S.A., Thomas, S., Forman, H. and Leingpibul, T. (2009a), “The dissimilar significance of
value
functional and experiential beliefs when marketing brands in cross-cultural settings”,
International Business Research, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 8-19.
Burner, J. (1990), Acts of Meaning, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. 1875
Carpenter, G.S., Glazer, R. and Nakamoto, K. (1994), “Meaningful brands from meaningless
differentiation: the dependence on irrelevant attributes”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 339-350.
Carstensen, L.L., Fung, H.H. and Charles, S.T. (2003), “Socioemotional selectivity and the
regulation of emotion in the second half of life”, Motivation and Emotion, Vol. 27 No. 2,
pp. 103-123.
Downloaded by Anglia Ruskin University At 03:47 16 April 2018 (PT)

Chang, P.L. and Chieng, M.H. (2006), “Building consumer-brand relationship: a cross-cultural
experiential view”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 11, pp. 927-959.
Cheung, M., Meral, M. and Anitsal, I. (2007), “Revisiting word-of-mouth communications: a
cross-national exploration”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 15 No. 3,
pp. 235-249.
Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R. and Mahajan, V. (2008), “Delight by design: the role of hedonic
versus utilitarian benefits”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 72 No. 3, pp. 48-63.
Cole, C., Laurent, G., Drolet, A., Ebert, J., Gutchess, A., Lanbert-Pandraud, R., Mullet, E., Norton, M.
and Peters, E. (2008), “Decision making and brand choice by older consumers”, Marketing
Letters, Vol. 19 Nos 3/4, pp. 355-365.
Correira, S. and Roschk, H. (2014), “Differential effects of atmospheric cues on emotions and
loyalty intention with respect to age under online/offline environment”, Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 211-219.
Dawson, S., Bloch, P.H. and Ridgway, N.M. (1990), “Shopping motives, emotional states and retail
outcomes”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 408-427.
De Chernatony, L., Harris, F. and Dall’Olmo, F. (2000), “Added value: its nature, roles and
sustainability”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 Nos 1/2, pp. 39-56.
Dhar, R. and Klaus, W. (2000), “Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods”, Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 60-71.
Dimitriadis, S. and Papista, E. (2011), “Linking consumer-brand identification to relationship
quality: an integrated framework”, Journal of Customer Behaviour, Vol. 10 No. 3,
pp. 271-289.
Drolet, A., Williams, P. and Lau-Gesk, L. (2007), “Age-related differences in responses to affective
vs. national ads for hedonic vs. utilitarian products”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 18, pp. 311-221.
Escalas, J.E. (2004), “Narrative processing: building consumer connections to brands”, Journal of
Consumer Psychology, Vol. 14 Nos 1/2, pp. 168-180.
Escalas, J.E. and Bettman, J.R. (2003), “You are what they eat: the influence of reference groups on
consumers’ connections to brands”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 339-348.
Feldman, J.M. and Lynch, J.G. (1988), “Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on
belief, attitude, intention, and behavior”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 3,
pp. 421-435.
 EJM Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to
Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
49,11/12
Fitzsimons, G.M., Chartrand, T.L. and Fitzsimons, G.J. (2008), “Automatic effects of brand
exposure on motivated behavior: how apple makes you ‘think different’”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 21-35.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
1876 variables and measurement errors”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Fournier, S.M. (1998), “Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer
research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-373.
Fung, H.H. and Carstensen, L.L. (2003), “Sending memorable messages to the old: age differences
in preferences and memory for advertisements”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 163-178.
Hartmann, P., Apoalaza, V. and Forcada, F.J. (2005), “Green branding effects on attitude:
Downloaded by Anglia Ruskin University At 03:47 16 April 2018 (PT)

functional versus emotional positioning strategies”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning,

Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 9-29.
Herr, P.M., Kardes, F.R. and Kim, J. (1991), “Effects of word-of-mouth and product-attribute
information on persuasion: an accessibility-diagnosticity perspective”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 454-462.
Hess, T.M. (1990), “Aging and schematic influences on memory”, in Hess, T.M. (Ed.), Aging and
Cognition: Knowledge Organization and Utilization, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 93-160.
Hirschman, E.C. and Holbrook, M.B. (1982), “Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods,
and propositions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 92-101.
Holbrook, M.B. and Hirschman, E.C. (1982), “The experiential aspects of consumption: consumer
fantasies, feelings, and fun”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 132-140.
Holt, D.B., Quelch, J.A. and Taylor, E.L. (2004), “How global brands compete”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 82 No. 9, pp. 68-75.
Homburg, C. and Giering, A. (2001), “Personal characteristics as moderators of the relationship
between customer satisfaction and loyalty: an empirical analysis”, Psychology & Marketing,
Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 43-66.
Homburg, C., Wieseke, J. and Hoyer, W.D. (2009), “Social identity and the service-profit chain”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 2, pp. 38-54.
Homer, P.M. (2008), “Perceived quality and image: when all is not ‘rosy’”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 61 No. 7, pp. 715-723.
Huang, H.H., Mitchell, V.W. and Rosenaum-Elliot, R. (2012), “Are consumer and brand
personalities the same?”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 334-349.
Isaacowitz, D.M., Turk-Charles, S. and Carstensen, L.L. (2000), “Emotion and cognition”, in
Craik, F. and Salthouse, T. (Eds), Handbook of Aging and Cognition, 2nd ed., Psychology
Press, New York, NY, pp. 593-631.
Jones, M.A., Reynolds, K.E. and Arnold, M.J. (2006), “Hedonic and utilitarian shopping value:
investigating differential effects on retail outcomes”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59
No. 9, pp. 974-981.
Jöreskog, K.G. and Sörbom, D. (1996), LISREL 8 User’s Reference Guide, Scientific Software
International, Chicago, IL.
Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
 Keller, K.L. (2001), “Building customer-based brand equity”, Marketing Management, Vol. 10 Brand
No. 2, pp. 14-19.
experimental
Kuenzel, S. and Halliday, S.V. (2008), “Investigating antecedents and consequences of brand
identification”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 293-304.
value
Lam, S.K., Ahearne, M., Mullings, R., Hayati, B. and Schillewaert, N. (2013), “Exploring the
dynamics of antecedents to consumer-brand identification with a new brand”, Journal of the
Marketing Science, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 234-252. 1877
Lambert-Pandraud, R., Laurent, G. and Lapersonne, E. (2005), “Repeat purchasing of new
automobiles by older consumers: empirical evidence and interpretations”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 97-113.
Lee, A. and Labroo, A.A. (2004), “The effect of conceptual and perceptual fluency on brand
evaluation”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 151-165.
Löckenhoff, C.E. and Carstensen, L.L. (2004), “Socioemotional selectivity theory, aging and health:
Downloaded by Anglia Ruskin University At 03:47 16 April 2018 (PT)

the increasingly delicate balance between regulating emotions and making tough choices”,
Journal of Personality, Vol. 72 No. 6, pp. 72-76.
Mascarenhas, O., Kesavan, R. and Bernacchi, M. (2006), “Lasting customer loyalty: a total
customer experience approach”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 397-405.
Maxham, J.G. and Pessemier, E.A. (2002), “A longitudinal study of complaining customers’
evaluations of multiple service failures and recovery efforts”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66
No. 4, pp. 57-71.
Megehee, C.M. and Woodside, A.G. (2010), “Creating visual narrative art for decoding stories that
consumers and brand tell”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 603-622.
Mittal, B. (2006), “I, me, and mine: how products become consumers’ extended selves”, Journal of
Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 5 No. 6, pp. 550-562.
Nielsen, J.H. and Escalas, J.E. (2010), “Easier is not always better: the moderating role of
processing type on preference fluency”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 3,
pp. 295-305.
Oh, H., Fiore, A.M. and Jeoung, M. (2007), “Measuring experience economy concepts: tourism
applications”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 119-132.
Okada, E.M. (2005), “Justification effects on consumer choice of hedonic and utilitarian goods”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 43-53.
Okazaki, S., Mueller, B. and Taylor, C.R. (2010), “Measuring soft-sell versus hard-sell advertising
appeals”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 5-20.
Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T. and Schumann, D. (1983), “Central and peripheral routes to advertising
effectiveness: the moderating role of involvement”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10
No. 2, pp. 135-146.
Porter, M.E. (1995), Competitive Advantage, Free Press, New York, NY.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2004), “SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in
simple mediation models”, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers,
Vol. 36, pp. 717-731.
Reder, L., Wible, C. and Martin, J. (1986), “Differential memory changes with age: exact retrieval
versus plausible inference”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and
Cognition, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 72-81.
Samuelsen, B.M. and Olsen, L.E. (2010), “Promising attributes and experiences”, Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 65-77.
 EJM Schembri, S. (2009), “Reframing brand experience: the experiential meaning of Harley-Davidson”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 12, pp. 1299-1310.
49,11/12
Schembri, S., Merrilees, B. and Kristiansen, S. (2010), “Brand consumption and narrative of the
self”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 623-638.
Schmitt, B.H. (1999), Experiential Marketing: How to Get Customers to Sense, Feel, Think, Act,
Relate to Your Company and Brands, Free Press, New York, NY.
1878 Shafir, E., Simonson, I. and Tversky, A. (1993), “Reason-based choice”, Cognition, Vol. 49 Nos 1/2,
pp. 11-36.
Shaw, C. and Ivens, L. (2002), Building Great Customer Experiences, Palgrave Macmillan,
Basingstoke.
Sheng, M.L. and Teo, T.S.H. (2012), “Product attributes and brand equity in the mobile domain: the
mediating role of customer experience”, International Journal of Information Management,
Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 139-146.
Downloaded by Anglia Ruskin University At 03:47 16 April 2018 (PT)

Sherrington, M. (2003), Added Value: The Alchemy of Brand-Led Growth, Palgrave MacMillan,
Basingstoke, pp. 21-49.
Sirgy, M.J. (1982), “Self-concept in consumer behavior: a critical review”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 3 No. 5, pp. 287-300.
Srivastava, R.K., Fahey, L. and Christensen, H.K. (2001), “The resource-based view and marketing:
the role of market-based assets in gaining competitive advantage”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 777-802.
Stephen, J.H. and Deighton, J. (1989), “Managing what consumers learn from experience”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 1-20.
Stokburger-Sauer, N., Ratneshwar, S. and Sen, S. (2012), “Drivers of consumer-brand
identification”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 406-418.
Sundaram, D.S., Mitra, K. and Webster, C. (1998), “Word-of-mouth communications: a
motivational analysis”, in Alba, J.W. and Wesley Hutchinson, J. (Eds), Advances in
Consumer Research, Association for Consumer Research, San Diego, CA, Vol. 25,
pp. 527-531.
Sweeney, J.C. and Soutar, G.N. (2001), “Consumer perceived value: the development of a multiple
item scale”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 203-220.
Wang, C.L., Chen, Z.X., Chan, A.K.K. and Zheng, Z.C. (2012), “The influence of hedonic values on
consumer behaviours”, Journal of Global Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 169-186.
Wang, C.Y. and Lin, C.H. (2010), “A study of the effect of TV drama on relationships among
tourists’ ‘Experiential marketing, experiential value and satisfaction’”, International
Journal of Organizational Innovation, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 107-123.
Westbrook, R.A. (1987), “Product/consumption based affective responses and postpurchase
processes”, Journal of Marking Research, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 258-270.
Whan Park, C., Jaworski, B.J. and MacInnis, D.J. (1986), “Strategic brand concept-image
management”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 135-145.
Williams, P. and Drolet, A. (2005), “Age-related differences in responses to emotional
advertisements”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 343-354.
Woodside, A.G., Sood, S. and Miller, K.E. (2008), “When consumers and brand talk: storytelling
theory and research”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 97-145.
Yoo, B. and Donthu, N. (2001), “Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based
brand equity scale”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
 Yoo, B., Donthu, N. and Lee, S. (2000), “An examination of selected marketing mix elements and Brand
brand equity”, Journal of The Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 195-211.
experimental
Yoo, C. and Cole, C. (2008), “Aging and consumer behavior”, in Haugtvedt, C.P., Herr, P.M. and
Kardes, F.R. (Eds), The Handbook of Consumer Psychology, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, value
New York, NY, pp. 247-272.
Yoon, C. (1997), “Age differences in consumers’ processing strategies: an investigation of
moderating influences”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 329-342. 1879
Zajonc, R.B. (1980), “Feeling and thinking: preferences need no inferences”, American
Psychologist, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 151-175.
Zajonc, R.B. (1984), “On the primacy of affect”, American Psychologist, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 117-123.
Zajonc, R.B. and Markus, H. (1982), “Affective and cognitive factors in preferences”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 123-131.
Zarantonello, L., Jedidi, K. and Schmitt, B.H. (2013), “Functional and experiential routes to
Downloaded by Anglia Ruskin University At 03:47 16 April 2018 (PT)

persuasion: an analysis of advertising in emerging versus developed markets”,

International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 46-56.
Zarantonello, L. and Schmitt, B.H. (2010), “Using the brand experience scale to profile consumers
and predict consumer behavior”, Brand Management, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 532-540.

Corresponding author
Elena Delgado-Ballester can be contacted at: elenadel@um.es

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
 This article has been cited by:

1. KumarRavi Shekhar, Ravi Shekhar Kumar, DashSatyabhusan, Satyabhusan Dash, MalhotraNaresh

K., Naresh K. Malhotra. 2018. The impact of marketing activities on service brand equity. European
Journal of Marketing 52:3/4, 596-618. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. CreusenMariëlle E. H., Mariëlle E. H. Creusen, GemserGerda, Gerda Gemser, CandiMarina,
Marina Candi. The influence of experiential augmentation on product evaluation. European Journal
of Marketing, ahead of print. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Chen-En Hou, Min-Jhih Cheng, Shiu-Wan Hung, Sheng-Hong Chen, Ming-Yi Shen. 2017.
Where does customer value come from? An assessment of the global bicycle manufacturers
industry’s product attribute, technical capability, and brands. Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence 6, 1-13. [Crossref]
4. ZhangMingli, Mingli Zhang, HuMu, Mu Hu, GuoLingyun, Lingyun Guo, LiuWenhua, Wenhua
Liu. 2017. Understanding relationships among customer experience, engagement, and word-of-
Downloaded by Anglia Ruskin University At 03:47 16 April 2018 (PT)

mouth intention on online brand communities. Internet Research 27:4, 839-857. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
5. Tim Nierobisch, Waldemar Toporowski, Till Dannewald, Steffen Jahn. 2017. Flagship stores
for FMCG national brands: Do they improve brand cognitions and create favorable consumer
reactions?. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 34, 117-137. [Crossref]
6. Albert A. Barreda, Anil Bilgihan, Khaldoon Nusair, Fevzi Okumus. 2016. Online branding:
Development of hotel branding through interactivity theory. Tourism Management 57, 180-192.
[Crossref]
7. Wagner Junior Ladeira, Walter Meucci Nique, Diego Costa Pinto, Adilson Borges. 2016. Running
for pleasure or performance? How store attributes and hedonic product value influence consumer
satisfaction. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 26:5, 502-520.
[Crossref]
8. Bilwa Dipak Upadhye, Nirmalya Bandopadhyay. The Taxonomy of Methodological Approaches
in Marketing Research 276-293. [Crossref]
9. Clarinda Rodrigues. Multisensory Brand Experiences and Brand Love 1-21. [Crossref]

View publication stats