This research provides a comprehensive overview of the brand experience effects and proposes an extension to the brand experience model by testing novel direct, moderating, and mediating relationships. The authors conducted a meta-analysis of 256 quantitative studies in 73 papers published between 2009 and 2015. The findings reveal new empirical generalizations about the relationship between brand experience and the relevant constructs. The findings demonstrate the positive influence of brand experience on brand satisfaction and positive influence of brand satisfaction on brand trust, brand loyalty, and word-of-mouth (WOM). Furthermore, this research uncovers important mediation variables (hedonic benefits, brand love, and brand personality) of the relationship between brand experience and brand satisfaction. This paper also tests the moderation effects of methodological (e.g., sample type, sample size), theoretical (product type and product lifecycle), and cultural variables (e.g., level of innovation, level of wealth and Human Development Index). The findings extend the brand experience model, helping managers to understand the positive outcomes of brand experience on satisfaction and to invest in actions that can enhance the brand experience. Furthermore, this study shows that brand managers should consider culture is a key factor when crafting branding experience strategies.

Introduction

Brand studies in the field of marketing are diverse and heterogeneous. In the beginning, academics and marketing practitioners focused on the relationships between consumers and on rational factors associated with goods and services (Schmitt 1999). The emphasis has been mainly on the functional characteristics of price and quality (Iglesias et al. 2011). Later, the focus shifted to investigations of elements associated with brand experience (Schmitt 1999), which some scholars (Berry et al. 2002; Morrison and Crane 2007) consider key to establishing long-term relationships with consumers. In recent years, studies focusing on brand experience have become common in brand research. One of the pillars of the evolution of this theme was the editorial made by Schmitt (1999). In this editorial, Schmitt (1999, p. 418) proposed a new concept to overcome traditional brand measurements (e.g., brand equity, brand value), called brand experience: ‘‘subjective, internal consumer responses (sensations, feelings and cognitions) as well as behavioral responses evoked by brand-related stimuli that are part of a brand’s design and identity, packaging, communications and environments’’ (Schmitt 1999, p. 418). In the same year, Brakus et al. (2009) tested a theoretical model associated with brand experience and the resulting constructs. Since the development of the brand experience scale, many studies have examined brand experience in different contexts and environments, supporting an improved understanding of this phenomenon. These relationships vary by place (e.g., hospitals, shopping centers, restaurants, banks), product (e.g., mobile phones, cars, coffee, games), and brand (e.g., BMW, Facebook, Apple, Sony, Adidas). These examples demonstrate the rapid growth of brand experience research. An analysis of major marketing publications revealed 2112 citations for the paper on Brand Experience Model of Brakus et al. (2009). Although the publication of Brakus et al. (2009) led to an increase in the number of studies on brand experience, conflicting results have been reported in the literature. For example, Nysveen et al. (2013) find a negative relationship between brand experience and brand satisfaction, while Kwong and Candinegara (2014) detect a positive relationship. Likewise, studies on the relationship between brand experience and brand loyalty have detected different types of outcomes: negative (Forsido 2012), neutral (Iglesias et al. 2011) and positive (Francisco-Maffezzolli et al. 2014). Recently, Khan and Rahman (2015) carried out a literature review on brand experience. Despite the acknowledged contribution to the understanding of the phenomenon, the research was not enough to have a definitive contribution to the subject. We contend that different methodological choices (Hedges and Olkin 1985; Pan and Zinkhan 2006), and cultural influences (Minkov 2011) might explain these inconsistencies.