Good vibes? The effect Brand Experience has on Attitudinal Brand Loyalty through Social Media. A quantitative study

Authors: Dilavei, Adrian ad222iy@student.lnu.se 19941224Oreski, Mario mo222my@student.lnu.se 19940310 Examiner: Anders Pehrsson Date: 2017-05-24 Subject: Business administration with spCo

eucrisalei zcaotdioe:n

i4Fn

EMa

15Erk

eting, degree project.

2

Acnkowledgments

This study could not have been conducted without the help of several people. Firstly, we

would like to thank Urban Ljungquist for his guidance and assistance throughout this process.

We would also like to thank Anders Pehrsson for giving us valuable feedback and input

during the seminars. Further, we want to thank all of the respondents who participated in our

survey and made it possible for us to conduct our research. Lastly, the researchers would like

to thank each other for supporting and encouraging one another during this process.

Linnaeus University

Växjö 26th of May 2017

Mario Oreski Adrian Dilaveri

_________________ _________________

3

Abstract

Course: 4FE15E

Authors: Adrian Dilaver and Mario Oreski

Tutor: Urban Ljungquist

Examiner: Anders Pehrsson

Purpose: The purpose of this study the relationship between brand experience, brand

trust and brand loyalty.

Research questions: What type of relationship does brand experience have with brand

loyalty?

How does brand trust affect the relationship between brand experience and brand loyalty?

Methodology: A descriptive research design with a quantitative approach was conducted,

utilizing an online questionnaire with a total of 113 respondents.

Conclusion: The findings of this research partially supports that sensory-, intellectual- and

behavioral experience have a positive- and direct relationship with brand loyalty. Affective

experience did not have a positive relationship with brand loyalty, not even when tested

separately. The mediating variable in this study (brand trust), also partially mediated the

relationship between sensory-, intellectual- and behavioral experience and brand loyalty.

However, brand trust did not mediate the relationship between affective experience and brand

loyalty.

Keywords: Brand experience, Brand experience on social media, Brand loyalty, Brand trust,

Attitudinal loyalty

     

4

TABLE  OF  CONTENT  1.  Introduction   5  

1.2  Problem  Discussion   6  1.3  Purpose   8  1.4  Research  Question   8  1.5  Delimitation   8  

2.  Theoretical  framework   9  2.1  Brand  loyalty   9  2.2  Brand  Experience   10  2.3  Brand  Trust   12  2.4  Conceptual  framework.   13  

3.Methodology   16  3.2  Data  Collection  Method   17  3.3  Sample  and  Sample  Size   18  3.4  Data  Collection  Instrument  and  Operationalization   19  3.5  Pre-­‐test   21  3.6  Data  Analysis  Method   21  3.7  Quality  Criteria  for  measurement   23  

4.  Results   24  4.2  Quality  Criteria   26  4.3  Hypothesis  testing   29  

5.Discussion   34  

6.  Conclusion   36  

7.  Research  Implications   37  7.2  Managerial  Implication   37  7.3  Limitations  and  Future  Research   38  

8.0  Reference  list:   39  

Appendix I- List of all brands   43  

Appendix  II  -­‐  Questionnaire   45    

5

1.  INTRODUCTION This chapter presents a background with regards to the chosen topic, followed by a

problematization of the subjects, which will result in stating the purpose of this study,

research questions and delimitation.

1.1  BACKGROUND

In today's competitive environment, it is essential for companies to reach out to the customers

in a manner which generates value for the customers. In order to reach to that state were

companies effectively reach out to potential consumers, social media has to be apart of

companies’ marketing activity (Phan et al., 2012). Social media, such as Facebook, Instagram

and Youtube are continuously used by companies in order to build relationships between the

company and its followers (Khan et al., 2016). The interaction between the communicated

brand and the followers is of particular interest, since it is known that approximately 50

percent of all users on social media interacts with their preferred brand, 42 percent

communicate with the brand and 36 percent upload content of different brands, indicating that

this is a great channel for brands to communicate with their followers (Gao & Feng, 2016).

Laroche et al. (2013), explains that the reason being why social media is a great channel, is

since it allow brands to share information, different values and as well as keeping in touch

with highly devoted customers. These things are of great importance, no matter what brand,

since it could enhance the follower’s experience of the brand while interacting with it (Phan et

al., 2012; Gao, 2016).

Researchers have highlighted that in the current state, how customers experience a brand is a

central question that needs to be handled (Pine & Gilmore, 1998; Schmitt, 1999; Berry et al.,

2002). According to Brakus et al. (2009) brand experience can be described as sensations,

feelings, cognitions and behavioural responses induced by a number of various incentives.

These incentives occurs when there is an interplay of any sort from the customer, with the

specific brand (Brakus et al., 2009). It is argued by researchers that brands that have the

ability to convey an original experience (Berry et al., 2002; Haeckel et al., 2003; Morrison

& Crane, 2007) have the possibility to create brand loyalty and positive word of mouth

6

(Pullman & Gross, 2004). Brand loyalty is of great importance for any company, and is

considered the highest level of value (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001) seeking to develop an

established brand and there are multiple reasons for it. Customers which are loyal towards a

brand are more willing to pay a higher price for the brand’s products, since they feel that it

provides a unique value and has superior brand performance in relation to its competitors

(Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). They further explain that brand loyalty is of great advantage

for a company since it means that they can reduce the marketing costs and invest it in other

operations. Dick and Basu (1994) explains that this could be due to the fact that people whom

are loyal towards to the brand will spread positive word of mouth. These are only some of the

advantages, needless to say that brand loyalty yields favourable outcomes for a company.

1.2  PROBLEM  DISCUSSION    

Brand Loyalty has proven to be highly affected by the way consumers experience their brand

(Brakus et al., 2009; Chen et al., 2014; Shim et al., 2015). This could be because of the fact

that people who create a positive feelings will perceive the experience as unique and easy to

remember (Pine & Gillmore, 1998), but also since a positive brand experience has a tendency

to affect behavioral responses among the consumers (Gao & Fen, 2016), such as brand loyalty

(Jacoby & Kyner, 1973; Bloemer & Kasper, 1995). However, if one ought to generate a

positive brand experience, one has to deal with all dimensions of brand experience in order to

manage the brand successfully (Kang et al., 2017). These brand experiences can be generated

through different medias and in many different ways (Brakus et al., 2009). One of these

medias can be social media, especially with it’s recent rise in popularity (Gao & Feng, 2016;

Khan et al., 2016).

Social media is a key element among practitioners in order to build a brand (Gao, 2016). In

accordance with Tugrul (2014), promotional exercises through social media are applicable in

order to establish a satisfying and positive experience for the brand’s followers. This is

because of different reasons, but mainly due to the fact that social media allows interaction

between the followers and the brand, which encourages followers participation (Solem &

Pedersen, 2016). By increasing the interaction between the people and the brand, the

followers will generate trust in the brand and in turn brand loyalty (Laroche et al. 2013;

Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001).

7

However, Dury (2008) explains that many companies uses social media in a wrongful manner

and sees it as a channel where they can pump out advertising for their products. Laroche et al.

(2013) advices practitioners to take caution for extensive and reckless use of social media

since they do not have the ability to control and manage the excess of information created by

the users (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). By being ignorant and not seeing the seriousness of the

issue could hurt the brand and ultimately create disloyal customers (Laroche et al., 2013).

This indicates there is a need for companies to know if social media as a channel should be

used to generate positive brand experiences, since a wrongful way of using it can hurt the

brand.

This issue does not only concern the practical realm, but also the academic one (Bapat &

Thanigan, 2016). Tugrul (2014) argues that there is not enough research concerning the

impact of the brand experience with emphasis on brands in online media platforms in general

and implies that there is a need for more studies in order to comprehend the function brand

experience has on creating brand value in an online context (Tugrul, 2014). This is supported

by numerous studies which stresses the scarcity of the amount of studies that focus on brand

experience in relation to social media (Smith, 2013; Chen et al., 2014; Tugrul, 2014; Shim et

al., 2015). Bapat and Thanigan (2016) further argues that there is a need for more research on

brand experience, and in particular how it affects brand loyalty. Tugrul (2014) agrees by

suggesting that more research needs to be conducted on this topic in the context of social

media. By measuring the relationship between brand experience’s relationship with brand

loyalty in an online environment in an social media context, it would answer the question

which has been brought up by previous articles (Tugrul, 2014; Bapat & Thanigan, 2016).

What this paper will also do is to focus on various kinds of product categories as suggested by

Bapat and Thaningan (2016). Not only that, but there is also a need to investigate brand trust’s

effect on this relationship, this is explained by Laroche et al. (2013) which argues that this

relationship has been neglected with regards to the social media context, and is a key element

for establishing brand loyalty through social media.

 

 

8

1.3  PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to describe the relationships between brand experience, brand

trust and brand loyalty.

1.4  RESEARCH  QUESTION  

What type of relationship does brand experience have with brand loyalty in the context of

social media?

How does brand trust affect the relationship between brand experience and brand loyalty in

the context of social media?

1.5  DELIMITATION  

This paper will only measure brand loyalty through the attitudinal aspect and not the

behavioral aspect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9

2.  THEORETICAL  FRAMEWORK

The theoretical framework consists of the following parts; brand loyalty, brand experience

and brand trust. This chapter will also deduce the existing theory and present the conceptual

model and the formulated research hypotheses based on the reviewed literature.

2.1  BRAND  LOYALTY    

Brand Loyalty is a widely studied topic among theorist, as aforementioned, this is due to its

importance for companies (Brakus et al., 2009; Chen et al., 2014; Shim et al., 2015).

Veloutsou (2015) explains that it entails so much and that it goes far beyond repeated

purchase intention. Jacoby and Kyner (1973) explains that brand loyalty is a biased behavioral

response which is repeated over time in spite of the fact that other alternative brands are under

consideration. What is of great importance to stress is that the behavioural response expresses

in Jacoby and Kyner’s (1973) definition does not only comprise of repeated purchase. During

the recent decades, scholars have divided brand loyalty into two different behavioural

responses, behavioural- and attitudinal brand loyalty (Veloutsou, 2015; Andrine & Solem,

2016; Ballester & Aleman, 2000). The distinction between behavioural and attitudinal loyalty

is important to stress, especially in an online environment since it differs from traditional

marketing, this is due to the fact that not all websites are transactional in nature (Holland &

Baker, 2001). Behavioural brand loyalty can be defined as the process of repeated purchase

over a longer period of time, while attitudinal loyalty can be defined as the act of having a

positive attitude and expressing it over a longer period of time (Holland & Baker, 2001).

When it comes to generating brand loyalty through social media, it is imperative that

managers focus on the attitudinal dimension. This is because social media is not constructed

to sell the brand’s products, but to connect people with each other (Fournier & Avery, 2011),

henceforth not being of transactional nature (Holland & Baker, 2001), which is why this paper

will not focus on behavioural brand loyalty, but attitudinal brand loyalty only.

Attitudinal brand loyalty is the degree to which one shares their values with the brand on a

repeated basis (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). Andrine and Solem (2016) explains that

attitudinal brand loyalty arises when consumers intend to stay loyal and when they

recommend the brand to other people.

10

The attitudinal brand loyalty is stemming from the psychological bond, the extent a person is

committed to the brand (Ballester & Aleman, 2000), and their repeated intention to spread

positive word of mouth (Balakrishnan et al., 2014), with regards to different aspects of the

brand’s products such as value, quality and price (Munnukka et al., 2015). Due to the fact that

followers willingness to talk good about a brand increases the more their attitudinal loyalty

increases, it presents more of a higher order in relation to behavioural brand loyalty, since it

represents more of a long-term brand loyalty than behavioral brand loyalty (Hong & Cho.,

2011). Dick and Basu (1994) suggest that the attitudinal undertaking towards a brand is a

prerequisite in order to shape loyalty. Further, social media enables customers to showcase

their attitudinal loyalty. This attitudinal loyalty can be displayed by creating a relationship

between the brand and the followers, as well as showing sympathy towards a brand (Clark &

Melancon, 2013; Dick & Basu, 1994).

2.2  BRAND  EXPERIENCE  

Previous literature argues that brand experience has an effect on brand loyalty (Brakus et al.,

2009; Sahin et al., 2011; Chen et al., 2014; Shim et al., 2015). This is explained by Brakus et

al. (2009) that consumers are willing to repeat the sensation based on the positive experience

elicited from the marketing activity, over time they will generate a liking towards a brand,

hence attitudinal brand loyalty has been created. Alloza (2008) explains that brand experience

is how customer perceive any interaction against the brand. Ambler et al. (2002) suggest that

brand experience can be established when a customer utilizes the brand in any way, such as,

discussing with others about it and looking for information with regards to the brand. In

accordance with Brakus et al. (2009) the experience a customer has with a brand is assessed

by several facets, but with a holistic perspective. Pine & Gilmore (1998) argues that when the

customers receive the feeling that the experience is unique and easy to remember, then the

experience can be considered to have succeeded. Brakus et al. (2009) suggest that experience

can happen unintended, for example if customers are sub-consciously exposed to promotional

activities through virtual platforms. It can be comprehended that the content of the brand on

social media can help to establish an interplay between the brand and the followers, in a way

that brands have the possibility to construct experiences (Smith, 2013).

11

Brand experience can be divided and measured through four dimensions: sensory, affective,

intellectual and behavioral responses. These responses are aroused through different

components of a brand, i.e. its communication (Brakus et al., 2009; Sahin et al., 2011).

According to Zarantonello and Schmitt (2010) sensory experience refers to “the visual,

auditory, tactile, gustative and olfactory stimulations provided by a brand” (Zarantonello &

Schmitt, 2010, pp. 533). Hwang and Hyun (2012) explains that sensory experiences are

sensorial conditions that the end users can discover on their own. Brakus et al. (2009) suggest

that the visual part with regards to a brand has the possibility to enhance the sensorial

experiences, since it triggers the touch, hearing, odor and sight. Schmitt (1999), suggest that

sensory stimulation can bring forth aesthetic enjoyment, therefore it can be utilized to have an

impact on consumer’s emotions (Hultén, 2011). Simon et al. (2013) explains that this aspect

of brand experience covers the apprehended sensory aspects with regards to the brand page.

Furthermore, the visual aspects might catch the followers watchfulness, depending on how

striking the brand page is (Simon et al., 2013).

Affective experience includes every experience that is relatable to a certain emotion and

sensation (Hwang & Hyun, 2012). Miao et al. (2014) further suggest that customers can form

perceptions of the brand, these perceptions can be positive or negative. Iglesias et al. (2011)

propose that the incentives, that causes customers to have a positive feeling, is of significance

when it comes to experiential marketing. Hwang and Hyun (2012) argues that when it comes

to the decision-making, the emotional brand value can play a critical role. Simon et al. (2013)

suggest that this dimension covers emotions that are aroused through a brand page. They

further argue that these pages can be utilized in order to generate a favorable feeling by

having germane content and the brand page being visually alluring.

Behavioral experience points out to an action, that is aroused through brand incentive (Shim

et al., 2015). Customer are emboldened to take part in real life experiences that attempts to

making a clear and detectable experience and interplay with other clients (Kang et al., 2017).

As a consequence of a positive experience, customers can have their behavior modified. This

concept points out modification in the behaviour through a favorable brand experience

(Brakus et al., 2009). Brakus et al. (2009) further argues that behavioral experience is of

significance due to the fact that it is more memorable and therefore lasts longer in customers

brains. With regards to behavioral experience in a social media context, Trudeau and Shobeiri

12

(2011) explains that brands can easily post different posts which encourages creativity and act

of change, this will result in a positive change in behavioural experience. An example they

brought up is that cosmetics brands uses social media to give tips of how followers can use

their products to reach to a desirable outcome.

Intellectual experience refers to the extent the customers are involved and stimulated to think

creatively and finding solution to problems (Schmitt, 1999; Brakus et al., 2009). This

dimension includes all aspects related to a consumer's mind and thought process aroused by a

brand page. However, individuals do not just search after cues for amusement, but likewise

for incentives that stimulates their intellect (Simon et al., 2013). However, Nysveen et al.

(2012) argues that the experience should not cause too much reflecting, since it can generate

confusion and obstacles may arise if the message is too complex. Hwang and Hyun (2012)

suggest that customers clearly recalls a brand that provides with intellectual allure. The

customers can revive these memories when they get a resembling cue of the brand, but in

another context (Hwang & Hyun, 2012).

2.3  BRAND  TRUST    

Brand trust can be defined as the degree to which people can rely on the brand to perform its

functioned task (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). But, Ha and Perks (2005) explains that it does

not only comprise of the ability to complete its functional task, it has to do with understanding

the people’s needs and creating security with the interaction they have with the brand. Brand

trust is comprised by two dimensions, the first questions the brand’s reliability, which raises

the question as to what extent the brand will keep its promises as well as satisfy people’s

needs, while the second dimension deals with the good intention the brand has and its

willingness to fulfill it with the consumers and its followers interest in mind (Sahin et al.,

2011). They further state that trust is of importance since it removes the uncertainty of a

brand, this is done when the brand constantly meets its obligations (Chaudhuri & Holbrook,

2001). All in all, brand trust is a representation of the quality of the relationship between the

brand and it’s consumers, and trust is also one key element for the consumers and the brand to

have a long lasting relationship (Pentina et al., 2013).

13

In an online environment, when companies seeks to create an experience between a brand and

the followers, it presents challenges since it does not allow for a physical, but only intangible

contact between the brand and the followers, this presents a level of uncertainty for the

customers in relation to other marketing activities (Pentina et al., 2013). That is why brand

trust is essential for building a relationship between the brand and the consumers (Sahin et al.,

2011; Pentina et al., 2013). Pentina et al. (2013) goes further and explains that this is due to

many reasons, such as security and privacy concern, it is also because there is a sense of

automation with regards to the communication the followers is exposed to (Pentina et al.,

2013). Sahin et al. (2011) explains that the experience coming through marketing activities

will produce positive feelings and hedonic values. The hedonic values and positive feelings

has been proven to affect the trust instilled in followers towards a brand (Chaudhuri &

Holbrook, 2001), which in turn affects attitudinal brand loyalty (Habibi et al., 2014; Laroche

et al., 2013). This indicates the more a brand is able to generate a positive brand experience

through exposing the followers to a brand’s posts, pictures and videos the more will it

increase a brand’s trustworthiness (Singh et al., 2012), and ultimately attitudinal brand loyalty

(Habibi et al. 2014). This relationship suggests that brand trust has a mediating effect on the

relationship between brand experience and attitudinal brand loyalty. This claim is also

strengthened by Laroche et al. (2013) findings which tested this relationship in the context of

social media.

2.4  CONCEPTUAL  FRAMEWORK.    

While deducing what previous literature has suggested with regards to this relationship, it can

be seen that brand experience has a direct relationship with brand loyalty, suggesting that

brand experience has a tendency to elicit a behavioral response, in the context of social media,

previous literature shows that it has a positive relationship with brand loyalty conceptualized

in Brakus et al., 2009’s article, this relationship has been proven in numerous occasions

(Sahin et al., 2011; Chen et al., 2014; Shim et al., 2015). However, Brakus et al. (2009)

explains that brand experience cannot be measured on it’s own, this is due to the fact that

there are different ways to create a positive experience. In Kim and Ah Yu's (2016) study , it

is suggested that each respective dimension of brand experience is used to establish an

integrated brand experience. Henceforth, brand experience has four reflective variables.

Sensory, affective, intellectual and behavioral experience.

14

All of these four experiences affect the followers in different ways. Schmitt (1999) and

Hulten, (2011) explains that sensory stimulation generates aesthetic enjoyment. Affective

experiences has the ability to form positive perceptions of the brand (Miao et al., 2014) and is

critical to build brand value (Hwang & Hyun, 2012). Behavioral experiences has the ability to

stimulate creativity and changes in their behavioural patterns, hence creating a positive

change (Trudeau & Shobeiri, 2011). Intellectual experiences stimulates the mind, hence

enables followers to revive old memories of the brand and cause positive emotions (Hwang &

Hyun, 2012). Based on the effect these experiences has is that it has the ability to create

positive emotions (Schmitt, 1999; Hulten, 2011; Miao et al., 2014; Hwang & Hyun, 2012;

Trudeau & Shobeiri, 2011). Based on Brakus et al’s (2009) argument, which states that these

positive sensations will cause followers to revisit the brand’s facebook page and and a

behavioural response (Gao & Feng, 2016) which ultimately creates attitudinal brand loyalty.

This relationship has also been confirmed in previous articles who tested it in another context

(Brakus et al., 2009; Sahin et al., 2011; Chen et al., 2014; Shim et al., 2015). Henceforth, It

calls for four different hypothesis to explain the relationship between brand experience and

brand loyalty.

H1a: Sensory experience has a positive relationship with Brand Loyalty.

H1b: Affective experience has a positive relationship with Brand Loyalty.

H1c: Intellectual experience has a positive relationship with Brand Loyalty.

H1d: Behavioral experience has a positive relationship with Brand Loyalty.

With regards brand loyalty online, it is shown that brand trust has a moderating effect on

between to the relationship between the Brand Experience and Brand Loyalty (Laroche et al.,

2013). This is also supported by additional research showing that brand experience will

increase the trust of a brand and later the loyalty towards a brand (Chaudhuri & Holbrook,

2001; Kumar & Advani, 2005;). This can be explained by the fact that all of these four brand

experiences generates positive emotions (Schmitt, 1999; Hulten, 2011; Miao et al., 2014;

Hwang & Hyun, 2012; Trudeau & Shobeiri, 2011) in a platform which usually consists of

uncertainty (Pentina et al. 2013). With the reduction of uncertainty, trust should be generated

towards the certain brand, which is proven to affect attitudinal brand loyalty (Habibi et al.,

2014; Laroche et al., 2013).

15

Hence brand trust has a mediating effect on the relationship between having a mediating

effect between the relationship Brand Experience and Brand Loyalty. This calls for additional

hypothesis, and since we have four variables reflecting the independent variable that is brand

experience, we could derive four additional hypothesis:

H2a: Brand Trust mediates the relationship between Sensory Experience and Brand Loyalty.

H2b: Brand Trust mediates the relationship between Affective Experience and Brand Loyalty.

H2c: Brand Trust mediates the relationship between Intellectual Experience and Brand

Loyalty.

H2d:Brand Trust mediates the relationship between Behavioral experience and Brand

Loyalty

In the wake of the hypothesis stated above, a model can be drawn, shown in table 1.

Figure 1 - Conceptual framework.

 

 

 

16

3.METHODOLOGY  This chapter presents the information regarding how the study has been conducted. The

chapter describes both theoretical and practical implementations of how the research was

conducted. Argumentation for the line of reasoning and the motives for choosing specific

methods, approaches and strategies are also included.

3.1  RESEARCH  APPROACH,  RESEARCH  DESIGN  AND  DATA  SOURCES   In accordance with Bryman and Bell (2011), a deductive research approach is utilized when

there already are current theories and when the findings are generalizable in a bigger context.

The process starts with a review of the current literature, later, this literature acts as a

foundation for the derived hypothesis (Bryman & Bell, 2011). This study made use of

previous research and existing theories on the different variables and uses it as a theoretical

foundation which later was used to motivate the hypotheses stated in chapter 2.4, therefore it

had a deductive approach. Owing to the deductive approach, a quantitative approach was used

in order to test the hypothesis (Bryman & Bell, 2011). When it comes to quantitative studies,

the purpose is to generalize the findings. This entails that the measurements are applied in

order to quantify the data (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2005: Bryman & Bell, 2011), meaning the

hypotheses will be measured through numbers and statistics. Hence, the data will be of

primary data and not based on data generated from previous studies, this is because of the

scarcity of this research in the context of social media as well as the fact that no appropriate

data sample was found (Bryman & Bell, 2011) and to assure that the collected data was in

accordance with the research problem (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2005).

The quantitative approach resulted in a descriptive research design. It was found to be suitable

due to the fact that the aim was to describe the relationships between brand experience, brand

trust and brand loyalty in order to offer a description of the current situation. Furthermore,

primary data was collected through a survey.

 

17

3.2  DATA  COLLECTION  METHOD Bryman and Bell (2011) argues that questionnaire is a data collection method that can be

applied when it comes to quantitative research. Moreover, Bryman and Bell (2011) argues

that an advantage questionnaires has, is that it allows to distribute the data collection method

to a large sample simultaneously, which means that the researchers can quickly gather

generalizable data. These arguments laid as a foundation for making use of a survey. A way to

generate more responses even faster is to post the questionnaire online (Saunders et al., 2009;

Bryman & Bell, 2011). They extend these arguments by explaining that posting

questionnaires online is an efficient way to get quick responses. DeVaus (2002) suggest that

when it comes to questionnaires, each and every participant should answer the same questions

in the same order. Not only that, but several other similar studies used questionnaires (Bapat

et al. 2014, Chaudhuri & Holbrook 2001, Chen et al., 2014; Gao 2016) in order to collect the

data, hence why questionnaires can be regarded as an appropriate data collection method.  

The online questionnaire was posted on Facebook during four days, in order to get a sample

size sufficient enough as fast as possible. The first part of the questionnaire consisted of a

short description of the topic and what the research was about, a method which was utilized in

numerous occasions (Shim et al., 2015; Tugrul, 2014). Bapat and Thanigan (2016) suggested

that future research can integrate the relationship of various brand stimuli for various kinds of

brands. The outline of this online questionnaire was therefore to let the respondents to choose

the brand they follow on social media and then fill in under which category the brand goes in

under (See appendix II for questionnaire)

The second part of the questionnaire involved of questions concerning brand loyalty, brand

trust, together with the four dimensions of brand experience. The researchers made use of a

seven-point likert scale to measure the items within each construct. The likert scale ranged

from “Strongly disagree” (1) to “Strongly agree” (7). When answering the questions the

respondents were asked to think about the brand they had selected in relation to its activity on

social media. By the end of the questionnaire, personal questions regarding the gender and

age of the participants were collected strictly for descriptive and demographic purposes. Kim

and Ah Yu (2016) findings suggested that there was a difference between the effect of the

brand experience dimensions when it came to male and females. The researchers therefore

selected to include that as a control variable to see if there were any differences between

18

males and females in this study. The third control variable was age, since it was a control

variable which has been used in previously in this context (Hsu & Tsou, 2011; Hong et al.

2011).

3.3  SAMPLE  AND  SAMPLE  SIZE

Saunders et al. (2009) defines sampling as the choice of respondents that are adequate for

taking part in the research. Bryman and Bell (2011) stress the importance of comprehending

the sample and sample size due to the fact the aim is to make the findings generalizable.

Moreover, they stress out that sample is regarded to be a small segment of the entire

population.

In this research, a non-probability sample was applied. This entails that the sample has not

been randomly gathered, meaning that some individuals are more prone to be selected than

others (Bryman & Bell, 2011). In order to gain a valid sample as possible, each member of the

population ought to have the same chance of getting accepted in the sample, this is called a

probability sample (Bryman & Bell, 2011) However due to a lack of resources, a non-

probability sampling was used to collect the data , more specifically a convenience sampling

was employed, which means that one which is included in the sample are those who are

readily available (Bryman & Bell, 2011).

With regards to the sample size, Zikmund et al. (2010) and Bryman and Bell (2011) suggest

that it is more desirable to have a larger sample size, due to it resulting in a smaller sampling

error. In accordance with Voorhis and Morgan (2007) the sample should not lie under 50

participants. Green (1991) propose that the sample size can be derived from this formula; 50

respondents + 8*M (M stands for the number of independent variables). Due to the fact that

the conceptual model consists of four independent variable, the minimum samples size

amounted to 82 respondents. However, during data gathering process, a total 113 respondents

were sampled and was used in the analysis.

 

 

19

3.4  DATA  COLLECTION  INSTRUMENT  AND  OPERATIONALIZATION  

An operationalization enables the authors to take a glance at the real world, by testing the

hypothesis and going from the extensive concept to variables, that can be measured (Ghauri &

Grønhaug, 2005; Bryman & Bell, 2011). The operationalization was utilized to explain the

framework for the data gathering and analysis (Bryman & Bell, 2011). Moreover, the

operationalization explains how the theoretical framework was divided into various concepts,

that in turn will be examined and measured and show which question measures which

variable (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2005). In order to correctly measure the different variables, questions were derived from different

articles which has previously tested the different variables. The operationalization shown

below is divided into four different columns: concept, conceptual definition, operational

definition and questions. The concepts are derived from the literature review and it is the

relationship between these concepts that the authors want to describe. The conceptual

definition is a definition of the selected theory. The operational definition reveals what the

researchers want to obtain from the theories. The last column presents the questions and from

which sources they come from.

20

Concept Conceptual definition Operational Definition Questions

Brand

Loyalty

The degree one shares their values with

the brand on a repeated basis (Chaudhuri

& Holbrook, 2001)

Brand loyalty is the dependent

variable, which will be measured

through attitudinal brand loyalty

1. I will continue to be a follower of this

brand (Sahlin et al., 2011).

2.I express positive things about this

brand to other people (Sahlin et al.,

2011).

3. I recommend this brand to someone

who seeks my advice (Sahlin et al.,

2011).

4.I intend to recommend this brand to

other people (Sahlin et al., 2011).

Brand Trust Can be defined as the degree as the

consumer can rely on the brand to

perform its functioned task (Chaudhuri

& Holbrook, 2001).

Brand Trust is the mediator variable,

which will be used to to try to explain

in detail how the four different

experience affects brand loyalty.

5. I feel confident in the brand (Sahlin

et al., 2011).

6.The brand guarantees satisfaction

(Sahlin et al., 2011).

7. The brand would be honest and

sincere in addressing my concerns

(Sahlin et al., 2011).

8.The brand would make any effort to

satisfy me (Sahlin et al., 2011).

Sensory

Experience

Sensory experiences are experiences

derived through the use of sight, smell,

hearing, touch and taste (Hwang & Hyun

2012).

These are the four independent

variables which will reflect brand

experience

9. This brand makes a strong impression

on my visual sense or other senses

(Brakus et al., 2009).

10. Being a follower of this brand on

social media appeals to my senses of

hearing, sight, touch, and/or smell.

(Shim et al., 2015).

11. The brand appeals to my senses

(Nysveen et al., 2012).

Affective

Experience

An experience that is relatable to a

certain emotion and sensation (Hwang &

Hyun, 2012).

12. This brand induces feelings and

sentiments (Brakus et al., 2009).

13. I do have strong emotions for this

brand (Sahlin et al. 2011).

14. This brand provokes emotions

(Shim et al., 2015).

Intellectual

Experience

Intellectual experience refers to what

extent the customers are involved and

stimulated to think creatively and

finding solution to problems (Schmitt,

1999).

15. I engage in a lot of thinking when I

encounter this brand (Brakus et al.,

2009).

16. This brand makes me think (Sahin

et al., 2011).

17. This brand stimulates my

curiosity (Brakus et al., 2009).

18. This brand stimulates my problem

solving (Brakus et al., 2009).

Behavioural

Experience

Behavioral experience points out to an

action, that is aroused through brand

incentive (Shim et al., 2015).

19. I engage in physical actions and

behaviors when I use this brand (Brakus

et al., 2009).

20. This brand stimulates my behavior

(Chen et al., 2014).

21.The brand engage me physically

(Nysveen et al., 2012)

Table 1 - Operationalization

21

3.5  PRE-­‐‑TEST      Pre-testing has an important part when constructing questionnaires. This is because it can

sometimes be hard for the researcher to detect abnormalities. Therefore it is crucial to conduct

pretests in order to prevent these abnormalities such as misunderstanding the questions and

misspelling (Ghauri & Grønhaug 2005; Bryman & Bell 2011). Ghauri & Grønhaug (2005)

suggest that the questionnaire should be checked by three to five individuals in order to ensure

that all the abnormalities are detected.

The authors conducted the pre-test for this research by sending out the questionnaire to five

Swedish speaking students at the Linnaeus University in order to see if they felt that the

questions in the questionnaire was easy to understand and to see if there were any

improvements that could be made. Moreover, the questionnaire was also reviewed by two

lectures at the Linnaeus University, Växjö, Sweden, that have good knowledge within the

field. The feedback from the pre-test resulted in some changes concerning the questions.

3.6  DATA  ANALYSIS  METHOD  

In order to accept or reject the hypothesis, a multiple regression was used, a multiple

regression is a statistical tool used to measure the relationship between the independent and

dependent variable (Aaker et al., 2011). However, as seen in figure one, there are multiple

independent variables. One of the advantages with multiple regression is that it tests all the

independent variables together as well as separately (Malhotra, 2010). But before the data was

analysed, the three control questions had to be coded in a sense were it could be ran through a

regression analysis, this was done through giving each potential answer a number, with

regards to gender, males were given the number 0 while females were given the number 1.

With regards to age, 18-25 was reodede to 0, 26-30 was 1; 31-40 was 2 and 41+ was given 3.

The third control question, asking what product category the brand fell under, clothing was

given 0; Sports team was 1; Artists was 2; Athletes was 3; Technology companies was 4;

Food/restaurants was 5.

22

When conducting a multiple regression, the researchers has to first and foremost look if the

model is statistically significant, which is shown through the change in R2, a change in R2

should generate a significance level which is lower than 0,1. This means that the linear

association between the independent variables and the dependent variable is strong enough

and the model is statistically significant (Hair et al., 2011). The R2 in general is also used to

explain the extent to which the independent variables can account for the change in the

dependent variable, the higher R2, the higher explanatory power it has (Hair et al., 2011).

There are two additional things which is of great importance when looking at a regression

analysis, and that is the beta as well as the significance level. The beta of the regression

analysis measures the strength of the relationship between the independent and dependent

variable (Aaker et al., 2011). If the beta is zero, then the independent variable does not have

an effect on the dependent variable, if it is positive/negative, it means that the independent

variable will have a positive/negative effect on the dependent variable (Aaker et al., 2011).

While the significance level will be the actual determinant as to whether the hypothesis is

rejected or accepted, in order for the hypothesis to be accepted, the significance level

(illustrated through the p-value) needs to be lower than 0,05 (Aaker et al., 2011).

One of the great advantages with a multiple regression is that it measures the relationship

between all of the independent variables with the dependent variable, and the independent

variables separately (Aaker et al., 2011). This enables the hypothesis to be partially accepted,

under the circumstances that the relationship is statistically insignificant while tested

altogether (Aaker et al., 2011). The hypothesis can be partially accepted if the relationship and

the change in R2 is statistically significant while tested separately (Hair et al., 2011).

With regards to testing the mediating effect brand trust has on the relationship between the

different brand experiences and brand loyalty, there are multiple types of regression analyses

needs to be ran through (Baron & Kenny, 1986). All in all, Baron and Kenny (1986) mentions

that there are four requirements that needs to be fulfilled in order to ensure that there is

mediation The first requirement is that the relationship between the independent variable and

the mediator variable is statistically significant. The second requirement is that the

relationship between the mediator variable and the dependent variable is statistically

significant. The third requirement is to test if the relationship between the dependent variable

23

and the independent variable is statistically significant. Lastly, the researchers should test the

relationship independent- and the mediator variable has on the dependent variable (Baron &

Kenny, 1986), and the independent variable does not affect the independent variable, only the

mediator variable. If all of these four requirements are fulfilled, mediation has been

established (Baron & Kenny, 1986).

3.7  QUALITY  CRITERIA  FOR  MEASUREMENT      In order to ensure that the data collected has sustained an adequate amount of quality, the data

has to be reliable and valid (Malhotra & Birks, 2003; Hair et al., 2011; Aaker et al., 2011).

When the data is reliable, it means that the data collected yields similar results when

repeatedly gathered. In order to test the reliability of the data collected, the Cronbach’s alpha

was calculated. To make sure that the data is reliable, the Cronbach’s Alpha should not

generate a lower number than 0,7 (Hair et al., 2011) as well as not exceed 0,9 (George &

Mallery, 2003). If the variable generates a reliability lower than 0,7 or greater than 0,9, then

then the researchers will be forced to remove an item that belongs to the specific variable

from the analysis. George and Mallery (2003) explains that the ideal Cronbach’s Alpha ought

to land between 0,8 and 0,9, then the reliability is concluded to be “excellent”.

When it comes to validity, face validity and convergent validity was used in order to deem the

data collected as valid (Malhotra & Birks, 2003). Face validity is ensured before collecting

the data by having a certain individual within the expertise within the area having to look into

whether the items should measure what it is intended to measure (Aaker et al., 2011). What

the researchers did was to ask two professors within marketing to examine the questions and

ask for their advice with regards to the questions used in the questionnaire. Discriminant

validity looks into if the items measures the same thing and is calculated after the data is

collected (Aaker et al., 2011). Convergent validity checks if the items used for one variable

belong to the same variable (Bryman & Bell, 2011). In order to test for convergent validity, an

unrotated confirmatory factor analysis was conducted where all the factors were loaded to test

whether the items tested does in fact load with each other. Before looking into the factor

analysis and make an assessment whether the the factors load with each other, the researchers

has to ensure that the sample is appropriate to use a factor analysis, this is done through

measuring the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy, if the KMO lands

between 0,5 and 1 one can say that the factor analysis is appropriate to use (Malhotra, 2010).

24

If the KMO would have been lower then 0,5 , then the researchers would not have used a

factors analysis to determine convergent validity. The first step is to determine the number of

factors to include. This is determined based on the percentage of variance explained by these

factors, which was the limit of 70 percent (Hair et al., 2011). The items with a factor loading

lower than 0,5 was removed as well as those which were cross-loaded, indicating that the item

can explain multiple factors (Malhotra, 2010), all items which had a factor loading lower than

0,5 was disregarded from the factor.

4.  RESULTS This chapter presents the results from the data gathered. It includes presentations and

explanations of the descriptive data, validity and reliability tests and lastly hypothesis testing.

4.1  DESCRIPTIVE  STATISTICS

25

The information derived from this table is the gender and age of the respondents. The females

accounted for 41,6 percent, while the males gave a percentage of 58,4. This gave a total of

113 respondents.

Furthermore, table 2, shows the age distribution of the respondents. 81,4 percent of the

respondents were between the ages of 18-25 years old. 16,8 percent of the respondents were

between the ages of 26-30 years old. Neither of the respondents were between 31-40 years of

age. Lastly, 1,8 percent of the respondents had an age of 41 years and above

Frequency Percentage

Gender

Female 47 41,6 percent

Male 66 58, 4 percent

Total 113 100 percent

Age

18-25 92 81,4 percent

26-30 19 16,8 percent

31-40 0 0 percent

41+ 2 1,8 percent

Table 2 – Descriptive data

Table three shows under which category the brand that the respondents chose to think about

fell under. The table shows that brands within clothing accounted for 51,3 percent.

Technology companies accounted for 25,7 percent. Thirdly, it can be seen that sports teams

gave a percentage of 14,2 percent. Brands within food/restaurant chains resulted in a

percentage of 7,1 percent. Lastly, artists accounted for 1,8 percent. The list of all brands

26

which were mentioned can be seen in appendix I.

FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

Clothing 58 51,3 percent

Technology company 29 25,7 percent

Sports team 16 14,2 percent

Food/restaurant chain 8 7,1 percent

Artists 2 1,8 percent

Table 3 – Descriptive data

 4.2  QUALITY  CRITERIA   The Cronbach’s alpha was calculated in order to test the reliability of the questions asked, in

order to see if the questions were measuring what they were supposed to measure. To make

sure that the data is reliable, the Cronbach’s Alpha should not generate a lower number than

0,7 (Hair et al., 2003), as well as exceed 0,9 (George & Mallery, 2003). George and Mallery

(2003) explains that the ideal Cronbach’s Alpha ought to land between 0,8 and 0,9 , then the

reliability is concluded to be “excellent”. Table four shows that all variables are reliable, since

the Cronbach’s alpha was between 0,7 and 0,9.

Reliability

27

Table four - Cronbach’s alpha

In order test for convergent validity, an unrotated confirmatory factor analysis was done in

order to ensure that the items measured the sames things. When conducting the initial factors

analysis, the first item for attitudinal brand loyalty was loaded with the items of brand trust,

which led to a removal of that question. The factor loading also had some cross-loadings,

indicating that they measure two different things, which also lead to a removal of BL1, BL2,

AE1, IE1 and BE2. When these items were removed, we can see that each variable loaded

into their separate factor, hence convergent validity was reached. The final factors analysis is

presented in the tables below Looking at the KMO, we can see that it generated a value of

.862, indicating that the data is adequate enough to conduct a factor analysis. The factors

analysis generated 5 factors higher than an eigenvalue of one, however, it could be seen that

when one more factor was force-loaded, all six variables were divided into their own separate

factor, with some exceptions. These sixth variable have an eigenvalue of 0,802 and in total,

these six variables accounted for 71,21 percent of the variance.

Construct Cronbach’s Alpha N of items

attitudinal Brand loyalty ,816 2

Brand trust ,824 4

Sensory experience ,784 3

Affective experience ,778 2

Intellectual experience ,870 3

Behavioral experience ,898 2

28

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6

BL3 ,823

BL4 ,752

BT1 ,743

BT2 ,725

BT3 ,687

BT4 ,643

SE1 ,589

SE2 ,737

SE3 ,901

AE2 ,835

AE3 ,793

IE1 ,704

IE2 ,606

IE3 ,732

IE4 ,773

BE1 ,906

BE3 ,836

Table 5 - Factors analysis, factor loading.

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy .862

Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 1521,724

df 210

Sig ,000

Table 6 - KMO and Bartlett’s Test.

29

Component

Initial Eigenvalues

Total % of Cumulative

Variance %

Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Total % of Cumulative

Variance %

1 7,42 35,236 35,236 7,42 35,236 35,236

2 3,02 13,942 49,178 3,02 13,942 49,178

3 1,523 7,344 56,522 1,523 7,344 56,522

4 1,325 6,321 62,843 1,325 6,321 62,843

5 1,011 5,043 67,886 1,011 5,043 67,886

6 ,802 3,324 71,21 ,802 3,324 71,21

Table 7 - Total variance explained.

4.3  HYPOTHESIS  TESTING    

As aforementioned, in order to test the hypothesis, a multiple regression analysis was

conducted. Table eight, depicted below investigates the direct relationship between the

independent variables and dependent variables. Model one tested solely the control variables

relationship with the dependent variable. While model two through five tested the control

variables and the independent variable relationship with the dependent variable separately.

And lastly, model six tested all the control and independent variable’s relationship with the

dependent variable. Model six will also be the model which will ultimately reject or accept

hypothesis 1a-1d. If we look at model six, we can see that none of the control- nor the

independent variables generates a statistically significant relationship with the dependent

variable, which is brand loyalty. However, if we look at model two through five, we can see

that when tested separately from the other independent variables, sensory, intellectual and

behavioral experience generated a statistically significant relationship with a positive beta,

indicating that all three of these independent variable in fact have a positive relationship with

brand loyalty. Since model two, four and five generated a change in R2 which is statistically

significant, one can say that the linear association is strong enough to deem these three

models as valid. Henceforth, we can partially accept H1a, H1c and H1d, while we have to

completely reject H1b. One thing which is interesting to stress is the fact that the R2

generated a value of 0,118 on model six, while models two through five generated a R2

30

between 0,04 to 0,08. Indicating that the explanatory factor of this regression alone is low.

Another thing which is of interest is that the beta between model two, four and five only

differs with 0,016, indicating that the effect of the different independent variable only differs

slightly.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 all

Intercepts 5,823***(0,192) 4,509

***(0,527)

5,105***(0,444) 4,876***(0,384) 5,076***(0,321) 4,287***(0,563)

Control variables

Age 0,051(0,205) 0,071(0,2) 0,053(0,203) 0,042(0,199( 0,053(0,199) 0,058(0,199)

Gender -0,106(0,242) -0,116(2,35) -0,125(0,241) -0,125(0,235) -0,12(0,234) -0,126(0,234)

Product Category 0,049 (0,90) 0,053 (1,004) 0,061 (0,895) 0,098 (0,932) 0,089 (0,823) 0,140(0,154)

independent

variables

Sensory Experience 0,247**(0,095) 0,139(0,111)

Affective

Experience

0,169(0,085) -0,031(0,113)

Intellectual

Experience

0,260**(0,083) 0,132(0,126)

Behavioral

Experience

0,263**(0,063) 0,156(0,074)

R2 0,014 0,075 0,042 0,081 0,083 0,118

Adjusted R2 -0,004 0,049 0,016 0,056 0,058 0,068

Change in R2 0,014 0,06** 0,014* 0,067*** 0,069*** 0,104**

std. Error of

estimates

1,26530 1,23153 1,25284 1,2272 1,22592 1,21916

f-values 0,797 2,933 1,608 3,21 3,292 2,367

Degrees of freedom

(DF) regression

2 3 3 3 3 6

* p>0,1 **p>0,05 *** p> 0,01 N=113

S.E (standard error) is presented within parenthesis for each variable

Table 8 - Regression analysis, testing hypothesis 1a through 1d

Tables nine and ten is illustrated in order to investigate if brand trust has a mediating effect

between the relationship of the four independent variables and the dependent variable. Based

on Baron and Kenny’s 1986 first criteria, that the relationship between the independent

variable and the dependent variable needs to be statistically significant. We can conclude that

brand trust will not have a mediating effect on the relationship between affective experience

and brand loyalty, which is why H2b is rejected immediately. With regards to the other three

31

independent variables, they had a statistically significant relationship with Brand Loyalty,

meaning that H2a, H2c and H2d can still be partially accepted. Table nine tested the second

criteria, which is the statistical significance of the relationship between the independent and

mediating variable. As seen in model six we can see that only sensory experience generated a

statistically significant relationship with the mediating variable, sensory experience also

generated a statistically significant relationship with brand trust when tested separately in

model two. However, intellectual- and behavioral experience only generated a statistically

significant relationship with brand trust when tested alone. All of the statistically significant

relationships generated a positive beta, indicating that the relationship is positive. Hence, the

second criterias is fulfilled enough to still partially accept H2a,H2c and H2d. When looking

at table nine, model two, four and five had a higher difference in beta (0,128) in relation to

when attitudinal brand loyalty was the dependent variable, as seen in table eight.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 all

Intercepts 5,661***

(0,159)

3,661***

(0,401)

4,754***(0,361) 4,563***

(0,307)

4,896***(0,260) 3,481***

(0,427)

Control variables

Age -0,163*

(0,17)

-0,128

(0,153)

-0,161* (0,166) -0,176* (0,159) -0,161* (0,162) -0,141*

(0,151)

Gender -0,104 (0,2) -0,122

(0,179)

-0,133(0,196) -0,131(0,188) -0,121 (0,190) -0,132

(0,178)

Product Category 0,040 (0,323) 0,121 (0,354) 0,111 (0,367) 0,132 (0,453) 0,098 (0,233) 0,15 (0,356)

independent variables

Sensory Experience 0,449***

(0,073)

0,344***

(0,084)

Affective Experience 0,255** (0,069) -0,033

(0,086)

Intellectual Experience 0,359***(0,66) 0,137 (0,056)

Behavioral Experience 0,321***(0,051) 0,169 (0,056)

R2 0,036 0,236 0,1 0,164 0,139 0,276

Adjusted R2 0,019 0,215 0,075 0,141 0,115 0,235

Change in R2 0,036 0,2*** 0,064** 0,128*** 0,103*** 0,240***

std. Error of estimates 1,04868 0,93777 1,01794 0,98093 0,99574 0,92565

f-values 2,072 11,246 4,048 7,152 5,818 6,735

Degrees of freedom (DF)

regression

2 3 3 3 3 6

32

* p>0,1 **p>0,05 *** p> 0,01 N=113

S.E (standard error) is presented within parenthesis for each variable

Table 9- regression analysis were brand trust act as a dependent variable

Table ten will answer the question, whether this model fulfills the third and fourth

requirement. The third requirement is that the mediating variable and the dependent variable

is statistically significant (Baron & Kenny, 1986), looking at model two in table ten, it is

evident that the mediating variable, in this case brand trust has a significant positive

relationship with brand loyalty, henceforth the third criteria is also fulfilled. The fourth

criteria is that the independent variable is not statistically significant when tested together

with the mediating variable. This is evident when looking at model two through six. Even

when the mediating variable is tested together with one as well as all of the independent

variables, we can see that the independent variables are statistically insignificant and the

mediating variable is statistically significant.

Henceforth, fulfilling the fourth and final criteria. With that being said, H2a, H2c and H2d can

be partially significant, since these criterias were fulfilled when the independent variables

variables were tested separately. While H2b is completely rejected due to the fact that it did

not fulfill all of the criterias.

Model 1 Model

2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model

7 Model 8

Intercepts 5,823***(0,19

2)

2,127**

*

(0,574)

2,124***

(0,61)

2,048***(0,61

2)

2,044***(0,58

3)

2,068***(0,57

5)

2,127**

*

(0,574)

2,13***(0,636

)

Control

variables

Age 0,051(0,205) 0,141

(0,176)

0,141

(0,177)

0,14 (0,177) 0,134 (0,177) 0,136 (0,176) 0,141

(0,176)

0,131 (0,179)

Gender -0,106(0,242) -0,049

(0,205)

-0,049

(0,207)

-0,053(0,208) -0,057(0,207) -0,057(0,206) -0,049

(0,205)

-0,057 (0,21)

Product

category

0,164 (0,059) 0,14

(0,129)

0,043

(0,14)

0,09 (0,1) 0,134 (0,174) 0,153 (0,16) 0,194

(0,132)

0,129 (0,164)

independe

nt

variables

33

Sensory

Experienc

e

0,001(0,09

3)

-0,04(0,104)

Affective

Experienc

e

0,032(0,076) -0,014 (0,101)

Intellectu

al

Experienc

e

0,073(0,078) 0,058 (0,112)

Behaviora

l

Experienc

e

0,097(0,058) 0,085 (0,066)

Brand

trust

0,547**

*

(0,097)

0,547***

(0,11)

0,539***(0,10

1)

0,52***

(0,105)

0,515***(0,10

3)

0,547**

*

(0,097)

0,519***(0,11

3)

R2 0,014 0,303 0,303 0,304 0,307 0,311 0,303 0,313

Adjusted

R2

-0,004 0,284 0,277 0,278 0,282 0,286 0,284 0,268

Change in

R2

0,014 0,289**

*

0,289*** 0,290*** 0,293*** 0,297*** 0,289**

*

0,299

std. Error

of

estimates

1,26530 1,06895 1,07388 1,07318 1,07038 1,06735 1,06895 1,08084

f-values 0,797 15,785 11,73 11,781 11,984 12,206 15,785 6,848

Degrees of

freedom

(DF)

regression

2 3 4 4 4 4 3 7

* p>0,1 **p>0,05 *** p> 0,01 N=113

S.E (standard error) is presented within parenthesis for each variable

Table 10- Regression analysis with Brand Loyalty as a dependent variable.

 

 

 

 

 

34

5.DISCUSSION

This chapter presents a discussion concerning the results gathered from the online

questionnaire in relation to the hypotheses. The discussion is also connected to the research

questions of this research.

Based on previous studies, the notion of how brand experience affects attitudinal brand

loyalty has been thoroughly studied, however not in a social media context (Smith, 2013;

Chen et al., 2014; Tugrul, 2014; Shim et al., 2015). This is an important element since social

media is essential for building a brand and to reach out to consumers (Phan et al., 2012), but

can be destructive if misused by a brand’s marketing department (Dury, 2008). The first part

of the study tested whether the four dimensions of brand experience had a direct positive

relationship with attitudinal brand loyalty (H1a-HId). Recapturing the results from the first

regression analysis, it is revealed that H1a, HIc and HId was not fully supported, but partially

accepted. These three independent variables generated a statistically significant relation with a

positive beta. This means that sensory-, intellectual- and behavioral experience has a positive

relationship with attitudinal brand loyalty to some extent. However, affective experience did

not have a positive relationship with attitudinal brand loyalty, hence H1b was rejected in this

study. With regards to previous literature it has been argued that brand experience has an

effect on attitudinal brand loyalty (Brakus et al., 2009; Sahin et al., 2011; Chen et al., 2014;

Shim et al., 2015). However, the findings from this study only supports that three out of the

four dimensions of brand experience (sensory-, intellectual- and behavioral experience) have

a positive relationship with attitudinal brand loyalty to some extent while affective experience

did not have any statistically significant relationship. Which means that this study falsified

numerous (Sahin et al., 2011; Chen et al., 2014; Shim et al., 2015) studies stating that all four

independent variables of brand experience presented by Brakus et al. (2009) have a

relationship with attitudinal brand loyalty. However, it still supports the fact that sensory,

intellectual and behavioural partially affects attitudinal brand loyalty, meaning that in the

context of social media, H1, H1c and H1d is still pending falsification. In spite of the fact that

H1a, H1c and H1d is partially accepted, the R2 was between 0,042 to 0,083 when tested

separately. Indicating that none of their explanatory power is above 10 percent, which can be

categorized as low since 95- 90 percent of the explanatory power can be explained by other

variables, this indicates that there are several other factors which explains the change in

35

attitudinal brand loyalty and potentially more important factors. Another thing which is of

great importance to stress is the beta on model two, four and five in table four. They are

between 0,247 and 0,263 hence a 0,016 interval, indicating that the percentage of change

differs with 1,6 percent between the lowest and the highest beta which were statistically

significant. This does not go in line with what Brakus et al. (2009), they says that different

experiences are more positive than the others, they will essentially affect attitudinal brand

loyalty equally. Since the margin is so low, one can make an argument that they equally affect

attitudinal brand loyalty.

With regards to the hypotheses H2a-H2d, the authors followed Baron and Kenny’s (1986)

four requirements for testing the mediating effect brand trust has on the relationship between

brand experience and attitudinal brand loyalty. A multiple regression was conducted to test

whether the these four requirements were fulfilled, as suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986).

What can be seen is that sensory, intellectual- and behavioral experience fulfilled these four

requirements when tested separately. Therefore, H2a, H2c and H2d was partially accepted.

However, H2b was completely rejected due to the fact that affective experience did not have

any statistically significant relationship with attitudinal brand loyalty, not even when tested

separately, hence not fulfilling the first requirement. This means that with regards to social

media, the more its messages generate sensory, intellectual and behavioral brand experience,

the more it is able to generate positive emotions, reduce the uncertainties of the brand and

increase its ability to produce good intention as well as meet the consumer's interest of the

brand, just as previous studies have mentioned (Sahin et al., 2011; Pentina et al., 2013). The

more of these positive emotions induced from brand trust, the more will the followers talk

good about the company and will spread positive word-of-mouth, since it is apparent that the

trust of the brand generated through sensory, intellectual and behavioral brand experience

does in fact affect attitudinal brand loyalty. The findings of this study does to some extent fall

in line with previous literature (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001; Kumar & Advani, 2005;

Laroche et al., 2013) since three out of four hypotheses were partially accepted while only one

was rejected. Consequently, meaning that brand trust partially mediated the relationship

between sensory-, intellectual- and behavioral experience towards attitudinal brand loyalty in

the context of social media, hence answering our research questions.As aforementioned, table

four illustrated that there was not a huge difference between the beta of model two, four and

five, hence contradicting Brakus et al’s (2009) notion that these different experiences affected

attitudinal brand loyalty differently. But interestingly looking at table five, we can see that

36

model two, four and five which tested the independent variable’s relationship with brand trust,

we can see that the difference between the lowest and the highest beta was 0,128 contrary to

0,016. This indicates that Brakus et al’s (2009) argument fits better when brand trust is the

mediator variable, since sensory experience will affect brand trust better which will in turn

also affect attitudinal brand loyalty higher in relation to behavioural experience.

Looking at the analysis, we could see that none of the control variables had a significant

relationship with neither brand trust or attitudinal brand loyalty, this contradicts Kim and Ah

Yu (2016) findings since they concluded that gender had a significant difference in how brand

experience effect attitudinal brand loyalty. Our findings also contribute to Bapat and

Thanigan’s (2016) suggestions for future research by explaining that product category did not

have a statistical significance with attitudinal brand loyalty nor brand trust. Indicating that the

relationship between the different variables ought to stay they same regardless of product

category.

6.  CONCLUSION  In this chapter the conclusion of the study is presented, which fulfills the purpose of this study.

The purpose of this study was to describe the relationships between brand experience, brand

trust and brand loyalty. This study firstly wanted to describe the relationship between the

dimensions of brand experience and brand loyalty. The results from this research partially

supports that three out of the four dimensions of brand experience (sensory-, intellectual- and

behavioral experience) have a positive- and direct relationship with brand loyalty. Affective

experience was the only dimension that did not have a positive relationship with brand

loyalty, not even when tested separately. Secondly, this study wanted to see if brand trust

mediates the relationship between the four dimensions of brand experience and brand loyalty.

The results here showed that brand trust partially mediated the relationship between sensory-,

intellectual- and behavioral experience and brand loyalty. However, brand trust did not

mediate the relationship between affective experience and brand loyalty, thus this relationship

was not supported. All in all, the researcher demonstrated that aside from affective

experience, there exists relationships between sensory-, intellectual- and behavioral

experience, brand trust and brand loyalty in the context of social media.

37

7.  RESEARCH  IMPLICATIONS

This chapter presents both theoretical and managerial implications from this study. Lastly,

the limitations of this study as well suggestions for future research are presented.

7.1  THEORETICAL  IMPLICATION

This paper complements this field of study in numerous ways. first and foremost, it tests the

relationship in a whole new context, gaining an understanding of how these three constructs

interacts with each other in the context of social media. As suggested by previous literature,

since they have argued that there are only a limited amount of studies that focus on brand

experience in relation to social media (Smith, 2013; Chen et al., 2014; Tugrul, 2014; Shim et

al., 2015). Not only that, but it also divided attitudinal brand loyalty due to its

inappropriateness of using the entire concept of attitudinal brand loyalty in the context of

social media. Due to the fact that not all four independent variables were statistically

significant, this study also presents a difference between this relationship in a social media

context in relation to other conventional marketing activities. This study also contributes

theoretically by rejecting the notion that gender differences can affect this relationship, as

well explaining that product category does not affect this relationship (Kim & Ah Yu, 2016;

Bapat & Thanigan, 2016).

7.2  MANAGERIAL  IMPLICATION    The information generated from the data can be applied in different ways from a managerial

standpoint. First and foremost, it shows that social media can be used to stimulate the sense,

people’s thinking and their behavior in order to create an experience with a brand. By doing

this, the brand will gain trust through the positive emotions gained from its social media

activities, and ultimately affect attitudinal brand loyalty. If managers seek to increase loyalty

through brand experience and brand trust, this article clearly shows that engaging the five

senses is the ideal strategy since it has the greatest effect on brand trust, which will in turn

affect attitudinal brand loyalty. This means that by increasing brand experience through social

media, it can result in followers paying a premium price for their products (Chaudhuri &

Holbrook, 2001), but also spread positive word of mouth since their beliefs are in line with

38

the brand’s beliefs (Dick & Basu, 1994). This means that the followers are doing all the

marketing for them and the company can reduce its budget on marketing activities and invest

that money on other parts of the company (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). What is of

importance to stress is also the fact that neither one of the three control variables were

statistically significant, indicating that neither age, gender nor product category matters. This

indicates that social media is a channel which can be used through a wide variety of products,

and target multiple target groups. However, even though that our findings suggests that social

media could be used as a promotional channel in order to create a positive brand experience

and in turn trust a loyalty towards the brand, managers still has to be cautious not to

extensively use it in a manner which will hurt the brand instead of building it (Laroche et al,

2013; Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010).

7.3  LIMITATIONS  AND  FUTURE  RESEARCH  This study faced some limitations that may have had an impact on the outcome. Firstly, the

data was gathered by using a convenience sampling method. This non-probability sampling

technique entails that the data should be treated with caution, since every member of the

population did not have an equal chance of being selected in the sample and the findings are

therefore not generalizable. By gathering the data with a probability sampling technique, the

researchers might have resulted with more diversity in the sample. The final sample that was

gathered was dominated by respondents between 18-25 years of age, this age group accounted

for 81.4 % of the total sample. The results might have been more interesting if there were

more of a balanced distribution between the age groups.

The authors however do have some recommendations for future research, due to the fact that

this research only focused on attitudinal loyalty based on previous articles’ (Fournier &

Avery, 2011; Holland & Baker, 2001) argument stating that social media is not of

transactional nature. However, social media channels such as Instagram and Facebook have

been introducing the ability for users to directly shop through social media (Shopping

kommer till Instagram, 2016). Henceforth, it is of great relevance to test this relationship

while behavioural brand loyalty is incorporated. Due to the methodological errors emerged

from the factor analysis, the authors would recommend future studies to use a different scale

in order to generate a higher convergent validity, but also to use a probability sampling to use

more a valid sample then the one used in this paper. Especially with the fact that our analysis

proved that it does not matter what product category you use, which is an interesting finding.

39

Lastly, a probability sample could enable the academic and managerial realm to get more of a

definitive answer to this question.

8.0  REFERENCE  LIST:    Aaker, D.A., Kumar, V., Day, G.S., & Leone, R.P. (2011). Marketing Research. 10th edition. John Wiley & Sons, Asia. Alloza, A. (2008). Brand Engagement and Brand Experience at BBVA, the Transformation of a 150 Years Old Company. Corporate Reputation Review. 11(4), pp. 371-379. Ambler, T., Bhattacharya, C. B., Edell, J., Keller, K. L., Lemon, K. N., & Mittal, V. (2002). Relating Brand and Customer Perspectives on Marketing Management. 5(1), pp. 13-25. Andrine, B., & Solem, A. (2016). Influences of customer participation and customer brand engagement on brand loyalty. Journal of Consumer Marketing. 33(5). pp. 332-342. Balakrishnan, B.K.P.D., Dahnil, M.I., & Yi, W.J. (2014). The Impact of Social Media Marketing Medium Toward Purchase Intention and Brand Loyalty Among Generation Y. “Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences”. 148. pp. 177-185. Ballester, E.D., & Aleman, J.L.M. (2000). Brand trust in the context of consumer loyalty. European Journal of Marketing. 35(11/12) pp. 1238-1258. Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Concept, Strategic and Statistical Considerations. “Journal of Personality and Social Psychology”. 51(6). pp. 1173-1182 Bapat, D. & Thanigan, J. (2016). Exploring relationship among brand experience dimensions, brand evaluation and brand loyalty. Global Business Review. 17(6), pp. 1357-1372. Berry, L. L., Carbone, L. P., & Haeckel, S. H. (2002). Managing the Total Customer Experience. MIT Sloan Management Review. 43(3), pp. 85-89. Bloemer, J.M.M., & Kasper, H.D.P. (1995). The complex relationship between consumer satisfaction and brand loyalty. Journal of Economic Psychology, 16(2). pp. 311-329. Brakus, J.J., Schmitt, B.H., & Zarantonello, L. (2009). Brand experience: What is it? How is it Measured? Does it Affect Loyalty? Journal of Marketing. 73(3). pp. 52-68. Bryman, A. & Bell, E. (2011). Business Research Methods. 3rd Edition. Oxford University Press, United States. Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M.B. (2001). The Chain of Effect from Brand Trust and Brand Affect to Brand Performance: The role of Brand Loyalty. Journal of Marketing. 65(2). pp. 81-93. Chen, H., Papazafeiropoulou, A., Chen, T. K., Duan, Y., & Liu, H. W. (2014). Exploring the commercial value of social networks - Enhancing consumers’ brand experience through

40

Facebook pages. Journal of Enterprise Information Management. 27(5), pp. 576-598. Clark, M. & Melancon, J. (2013). The Influence of Social Media Investment on Relational Outcomes: A Relationship Marketing Perspective. International Journal of Marketing Studies. 5(4), pp. 132-142. DeVaus, D. A. (2002). Surveys in Social Research. Fifth Edition. London: Routledge. Dick. A.S., & Basu, K. (1994). Customer Loyalty: Toward an Integrated Conceptual Framework . “Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science”, 22(2), pp. 99-113. Dury, G. (2008). Opinion piece: Social media: Should marketers engage and how can it be done effectively? Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice. 9(3). pp. 274-277. Fournier, S., & Avery, J. (2011). The uninvited brand. Business Horizons. 54, pp. 193-207. Gao, Q., & Feng, C. (2016). Branding with social media: User gratification usage patterns and brand message content strategies. “Computers in Human Behavior”. 63. pp. 868-890. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Ghauri, P., & Grønhaug, K. (2005). Research Methods in Business Studies - A Practical Guide. Third Edition. Pearson Education Limited, England. Green, S. B. (1991). How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 26(3), pp.499-510. Ha, H.Y. & Perks, H. (2005). Effects of consumer perceptions of brand experience on the web: Brand familiarity, satisfaction and brand trust. Journal of Consumer Behaviour. 4(6) pp. 438-452. Habibi, M.R., Laroche, M., & Richard, M.O. (2014). The roles of brand community and community engagement in building brand trust on social media. Computers in Human Behavior. 37, pp. 152-161. Haeckel, S. H., Carbone, L. P., & Berry, L. L. (2003). How to lead the customer experience. Marketing Management. 12(1), pp. 18-23.

Hair, J.F, Celsi, M.W,. Money, A.H,. Samouel Philip,. & Page, M.J. (2011), Essentials of Business Research Methods. M.E Sharpe, Inc. New York.

Holland, J., & Baker, S.M. (2001) Customer participation in creating site brand loyalty. Journal of Interactive Marketing. 15(4). pp. 34-45. Hong, I.B., & Cho., H (2011) The impact of consumer trust on attitudinal loyalty and purchase intentions in B2C e-marketplaces: Intermediary trust vs. seller trust. “International Journal of Information Management”. 31(5). pp. 469-479.

41

Hultén, B. (2011). Sensory marketing: the multi-sensory brand-experience concept. European Business Review. 23(3), pp. 256-273. Hwang, J. & Hyun, S. S. (2012). The Antecedents and Consequences of Brand Prestige in Luxury Restaurants. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research. 17(6). Pp. 656-683. Iglesias, O., Singh, J. J., Batista-Foguet, J. M. (2011). The role of brand experience and affective commitment in determining brand loyalty. Journal of Brand Management. 18(8), pp. 570-582.

Jacoby, J., & Kyner, D.B. (1973). Brand Loyalty vs. Repeat Purchasing Behavior. Journal of Marketing Research. 10(1). pp. 1-9. Kang, J., Manthiou, A., Sumarjan, N., & Tang. L.R. (2017). An Investigation of Brand Exoeruence on Brand Attachment, Knowledge and Trust in the Lodging industry. “Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management”. 26(1). pp. 1-22. Kaplan, A.M. & Haenlein M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. “Business Horizons”. 53(1). pp. 59-68. Kim, J. & Ah Yu, E. (2016). The Holistic Brand Experience Of Branded Mobile Applications Affects Brand Loyalty. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal. 44(1), pp. 77-88. Kumar, S., & Advani, J. (2005). Factors affecting brand loyalty: A study in an emerging market on fast moving consumer goods. Journal of Customer Behavior, 4, 251–275.

Laroche, M., Habibi, M.R., & Richard, M.O. (2013). To be or not to be in social media: How brand loyalty is affected by social media? “International Journal of Information Management”. 33(1). pp. 76-82.

Malhotra, N., & Birks, D., (2003), Marketing Research: An Applied Approach, Pearson Education, New York.

Malhotra, N. (2010), Marketing research: An applied Approach, Pearson Education, New York. Miao, L., Lehto, X., & Wei, W. (2014). The Hedonic Value of Hospitality Consumption: Evidence From Spring Break Experiences. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management. 23(2), pp. 99-121. Morrison, S. & Crane, F. G. (2007). Building the service brand by creating and managing an emotional brand experience. Journal of Brand Management. 14(5), pp. 410-421. Munnukka, J., Karjaluoto, H., & Tikkanen, A. (2015). Are Facebook brand community

42

members truly loyal to the brand? Computers in Human Behavior. 51, pp. 429-439. Nysveen, H., Pedersen, P. E., & Skard, S. (2012). Brand experiences in service organizations: Exploring the individual effects of brand experience dimensions. Journal of Brand Management. 20(5), pp. 404-423.

Pentina, I., & Zhang, L., & Basmanova, O. (2013). Antecedents and consequences of trust in a social media brand: A cross-cultural study of Twitter. “Computers in Human Behavior”. 29, pp. 1546-1555.

Phan, M., Thomas, R., & Heine, K. (2012). Social Media and Luxury Brand Management: The Case of Burberry. “Journal of Global Fashion Marketing”. 2(4). pp. 213-222. Pine, J. & Gilmore, J. H. (1998). Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard Business Review. 76(4), pp. 97-105. Pullman, M. E. & Gross, M. A. (2004). Ability of experience design elements to elicit emotions and loyalty behaviors. Decisions Sciences. 35(3), pp. 551-578. Sahin, A,. Zehir, C., & Kitapci, H. (2011). The Effects of Brand Experience, Trust and Satisfaction on Building Brand Loyalty; An Empirical Research On Global Brands. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 24. pp. 1288-1301. Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research method for business students. 5th edition, Harlow: Pearson education limited. Ebook. Schmitt, B. H. (1999). Experiential marketing. Journal of Marketing Management. 15, pp. 53-67. Shim, S. I., Forsythe, S., & Kwon, W. S. (2015). Impact of online flow on brand experience and loyalty. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research. 16(1), pp. 56-71.

Shopping kommer till Instagram. (2016). Available at : <https://business.instagram.com/blog/shopping-on-instagram> [Accessed 2017-05-10] Simon, C., Brexendorf, T. O., & Fassnacht, M. (2013). Creating online brand experience on Facebook. Marketing Review St. Gallen. 30(6), pp. 50-59.

Singh, J.J., Iglesias, O., & Foguet, J.M.B. (2012). Does Having an Ethical Brand Matter? The Influence of Consumer Perceived Ethicality on Trust, Affect and Loyalty. Journal of Business Ethics. 111(4). pp. 541-549. Smith, S. (2013). Conceptualising and evaluating experiences with brands on Facebook. International Journal of Market Research. 55(3), pp. 357-374.

43

Solem, B.A.A.S., & Pedersen, P.E. (2016). The effects of regulatory fit on customer brand engagement: an experimental study of service brand activities in social media. “Journal of Marketing Management”. 32 (5-6). pp. 445-468. Tugrul, T. O. (2014). Brand experience effects on consumer social media marketing perceptions and brand value. Journal of Global Strategic Management. 16, pp. 37-45.

Trudeau, S.H., & Shobeiri, S. (2011). Does social currency matter in creation of enhanced brand experience? “Journal of Product & Brand Management”. 25(1). pp. 98-114. Veloutsou, C., (2015). Brand evaluation, satisfaction and trust as predictors of brand loyalty: the mediator-moderator effect of brand relationships . Journal of Consumer Marketing. 32(6), pp. 405-421. Voorhis, C. R. & Morgan, B. L. (2007). Understanding Power and Rules of Thumb for Determining Sample Sizes. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology. 3(2), pp. 43-50. Zarantonello, L., & Schmitt, B. H. (2010). Using the brand experience scale to profile consumers and predict consumer behaviour. Journal of Brand Management. 17(7), pp. 532-540. Zikmund W. G., Babin B. J., Carr J. C., & Griffin M. (2010). Business Research Methods. Eighth Edition, South-Western Cengage Learning, Canada. APPENDIX I- LIST OF ALL BRANDS Brands Frequency Nike 9 Adidas 8 Red Bull 8 H&M 4 Apple 4 Samsung 2 Tesla 2 NA-KD 3 Instagram 3 Lagerhaus 2 Facebook 2 Boomerang 2 Spotify 2 Gant 2 Malmö FF 2

44

Daniel Wellington 2 Youtube 2 Care of carl 2 Coca Cola 2 ICA 2 GoPro 2 IKEA 2 Lexington 1 Håkan Hellström 1 Jack & Jones 1 Cleveland Cavaliers 1 Manchester United 1

Arvid Nordquist 1 Nelly 1 Lindex 1 Bioware 1 Hugo Boss 1 Hypebeast 1 Prior Attire 1 Arsenal 1 Gibson 1 Bullens pilsnerkorv 1 Bose 1 Deloitte 1 Mvmt watches 1 Asos 1 Han kph 1 GinaTricot 1 Chelsea FC 1 Old Spice 1 Blizzard 1 Bik Bok 1 A bikini a day 1 Tasty 1 Oatly 1 Grounded factory 1 Elle decoration 1 Microsoft 1 Unibet 1 Speedo 1 Axel Arigato 1 Suitsupply 1 Lapoint 1 NFL 1 Tobii 1 Cities Skylines 1 Victoria Secret 1 Playstation 1 Steelseries 1 Zalando 1 Gymshark 1

45

APPENDIX  II  -­‐‑  QUESTIONNAIRE  

46

47

 

 

 

 

                             

48

 

     

 

 

 

49

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

           

50