Original Article
The role of brand experience and
Correspondence:
Oriol Iglesias
ESADE – Universitat Ramon
Llull, Avda Pedralbes 60-62,
Barcelona 08034, Spain
E-mail: oriol.iglesias@esade.edu
affective commitment in determining
brand loyalty
Received (in revised form): 7th December 2010
Oriol Iglesias
is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Marketing Management at Universitat Ramon Llull – ESADE, Barcelona,
Spain. He is the Coordinator of the Research Group in Brand Management and Consumption at ESADE. His research
interests are brand management, relationship marketing and customer experience management.
Jatinder J. Singh
is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Marketing Management at Universitat Ramon Llull – ESADE, Barcelona,
Spain. He is a member of the Research Group in Brand Management and Consumption at ESADE. His research interests
include cross cultural marketing, marketing and consumer ethics and branding.
Joan M. Batista-Foguet
is Full Professor in the Department of Quantitative Methods at Universitat Ramon Llull – ESADE, Barcelona, Spain. He
is Director of the Survey Research Centre at ESADE. His fields of interest are the research design and the improvement
of measurement in social sciences mainly using structural equation models. His currently substantive research focuses on
the development of social and emotional competences.
ABSTRACT The purpose of this article is to study the direct and indirect relationship
between brand experience and brand loyalty. The authors propose that the
relationship is mediated by affective commitment. A survey-based quantitative
approach is used to test the hypotheses based on the proposed theoretical model
that delineates the relationships between brand experience, affective commitment
and brand loyalty. The data were collected using traditional pen and paper as well
as online surveys and were analysed using Structural Equations Modelling. The
analysis suggests that affective commitment mediates the relationship between
brand experience and brand loyalty for all three product categories that were studied
(cars, laptops and sneakers). The article extends the understanding of the brand
experience construct by studying its influence on brand loyalty and also by
incorporating affective commitment as a mediating variable. In our sample, the
findings support the fact that developing brand experience influences customer
loyalty only through affective commitment.
Journal of Brand Management (2011) 18, 570–582. doi:10.1057/bm.2010.58;
published online 28 January 2011
Keywords: brand experience; affective commitment; brand loyalty; customer
experience management
© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Brand Management Vol. 18, 8, 570–582
www.palgrave-journals.com/bm/
 Role of brand experience and affective commitment
INTRODUCTION
Marketing has traditionally focused on the
physical aspects of products and services,
such as functionality, price, availability or
quality (Mascarenhas et al, 2006). However,
research has shown that consumers no longer
simply buy products or services (Morrison
and Crane, 2007). In fact, some years ago,
marketing scholars already began to point
out that marketing should shift its focus and
take into consideration other elements such
as relationship management (Berry, 1983;
Jackson, 1985) and value creation (Webster,
1994; Ravald and Gronroos, 1996). More
recently, marketing academics and practi-
tioners have realized that, in the present
environment, customer experience is the
key issue to be managed (Pine and Gilmore,
1998; Schmitt, 1999; Berry et al, 2002).
Brand experiences are a set of sensations,
feelings, cognitions and behavioural respon-
ses that are evoked by many different stimuli
which occur when customers directly or
indirectly interact with a certain brand
(Brakus et al, 2009). It has been proposed
that brands capable of delivering a unique
and distinctive experience by managing
both the functional and emotional elements
of the offering (Berry et al, 2002; Haeckel
et al, 2003; Morrison and Crane, 2007) and
assuring consistency in all touchpoints bet-
ween the brand and its customers (Shaw and
Ivens, 2002; Meyer and Schwager, 2007)
can build brand loyalty and even generate
evangelism (Schmitt, 2003; Pullman and
Gross, 2004; Deming, 2007).
Researchers have argued that true brand
loyalty is different from spurious loyalty in
that it is not just driven by situational exi-
gencies such as price or convenience (Dick
and Basu, 1994; Kumar and Advani, 2005)
and that it requires a certain previous degree
of affective psychological attachment in
order to be developed (Punniyamoorthy
and Prasanna, 2007; Lin, 2010).
Based on the literature, it is argued that
consumers with greater brand experiences
© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Brand Management
will develop higher levels of brand loyalty.
Furthermore, it is suggested that this rela-
tionship is mostly mediated by affective
commitment.
Theoretical framework
See Figure 1.
Brand experience, affective
commitment and brand loyalty
‘Experiences are a distinct economic
offering, as distinct from services as services
are from goods’ (Pine and Gilmore, 1998,
p. 12). From the brand management view-
point, an experience is a takeaway impres-
sion (Carbone and Haeckel, 1994) that is
formed in the mind of the consumers as a
result of the encounter with the holistic
offer of a brand (Klaus and Maklan, 2007).
In fact, Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004)
suggest an approach where the brand
becomes the experience, an affirmation
supported by other studies which also high-
light the central role of experiences in the
brand-building process (for example, Payne
et al, 2009; Simmons, 2009).
In this regard, Brakus et al (2009, p. 52)
conceptualize brand experience as ‘subjec-
tive, internal consumer responses (sensa-
tions, feelings, and cognitions) and behavioral
responses evoked by brand-related stimuli
that are part of a brand’s design and identity,
packaging, communications, and environ-
ments’. From this perspective, brand manage-
ment includes many more activities apart
from the traditional ones, such as commu-
nication or advertising (Frow and Payne,
H1
Brand Affective
Experience Commitment
H3 H2
Brand Loyalty
Figure 1: Theoretical framework.
Vol. 18, 8, 570–582 571
 Iglesias et al
2007). Thus, brand experience is about
delivering the brand promise and providing
consistent action (Dall’Olmo Riley and de
Chernatony, 2000; Brodie et al, 2009).
Brands have traditionally focused on
managing the functional attributes of their
offering, but it has been claimed that they
have failed to pay enough attention to stra-
tegically managing the emotional attributes
(Shaw and Ivens, 2002). Although func-
tional benefits are indispensable to avoid
customer dissatisfaction (Mosley, 2007),
brands cannot limit themselves to ensuring
operational consistency if they aspire to
differentiate and deliver a brilliant brand
experience, as emotions elicited during
consumption experiences seem to have a
strong impact on consumers’ memory
(Westbrook and Oliver, 1991). All in all,
brands which are capable of delivering a
superior brand experience can achieve
preference over and differentiation from
other brands and build brand loyalty and
foster evangelism (Brakus et al, 2009).
This relationship between brand experi-
ence and loyalty appears to be mediated
by satisfaction (Brakus et al, 2009) which is
already known to be a major mediator of
the consumption experience (Mano and
Oliver, 1993). In fact, some have proposed
that satisfaction is linked not only to cogni-
tive judgements but also to emotional and
affective reactions to the consumption expe-
rience (Mano and Oliver, 1993). Moreover,
satisfaction has even been conceived as
an ‘affective summary response’ (White
and Yu, 2005), emphasizing its emotional
dimension.
According to research, customer com-
mitment is also another important ante-
cedent to customer loyalty (Morgan and
Hunt, 1994; Fullerton, 2003, 2005; Thomson
et al, 2005; Evanschitzky and Wunderlic,
2006). The term ‘customer commitment’
encompasses the psychological and economic
attachments that a customer might have
towards a particular brand, store or product
572 © 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Brand Management
(Thomson et al, 2005). Research in the area
of commitment has identified two different
types of customer commitment – affective
and continuance (Allen and Meyer, 1990;
Fullerton, 2003, 2005; Evanschitzky and
Wunderlic, 2006). Economic or continu-
ance commitment is characterized by the
customers’ need to stay in a relationship
with a given store because of a lack of
other alternatives or high switching costs
(Evanschitzky and Wunderlic, 2006).
According to Allen and Meyer (1990),
affective commitment is defined as the cus-
tomers’ emotional attachment to a particular
brand or store based on their identification
with that store or brand.
All in all, it has been long recognized that
brands have a rational as well as an emo-
tional component (for example, Berry et al,
2002). However, managers have tradition-
ally focused on the functional and rational
aspects (Shaw and Ivens, 2002), as well as
in communication and advertising (Frow
and Payne, 2007). Nowadays, the more
recent holistic approach to brand manage-
ment considers the brand as the experience
(for example, Prahalad and Ramaswamy,
2004; Payne et al, 2009), thus emphasizing
the importance of managing both compo-
nents (rational and emotional), as well as all
the brand-customer touchpoints and the
different brand-related stimuli (for example,
Frow and Payne, 2007; Brakus et al, 2009)
in order to be able to elicit strong emotional
responses (for example, Brodie et al, 2009).
Based on the above, we can assume that
superior brand experiences may promote
strong emotional responses from consumers
which can lead, for instance, to satisfaction,
commitment or loyalty. Previous research
also shows that both satisfaction and commit-
ment appear to be important antecedents
of brand loyalty (Bloemer and Kasper,
1995; Amine, 1998), and some authors
have suggested that commitment mediates
the relationship between satisfaction and
loyalty (Fullerton, 2005). However, as
Vol. 18, 8, 570–582
 Role of brand experience and affective commitment
brand experience is a recent construct in
the literature and it is still under-researched,
the role of commitment as a possible medi-
ator in the relationship between brand
experience and brand loyalty has yet to be
studied. Furthermore, the literature also
suggests that the role of the more emotional
component within commitment (affective
commitment) can be key to further explain
this relationship (Westbrook and Oliver,
1991; Mano and Oliver, 1993; Amine, 1998;
White and Yu, 2005; Punniyamoorthy and
Prasanna, 2007).
In accordance, we suggest that the rela-
tionship between brand experience and
brand loyalty is mediated by affective com-
mitment. And, as brand experiences may
vary in strength and intensity (Brakus et al,
2009), brands which are capable of pro-
viding their customers with a superior or
higher experience are likely to achieve
higher customer affective attachment. We
therefore expect that:
Hypothesis 1: The higher the brand ex-
perience an individual has, the higher
the affective commitment he or she
will have towards that brand.
Brand loyalty is one of the most-cited
concepts in marketing literature, and the
range of benefits derived from it is accepted
by both academic and practitioners. Brand
loyalty facilitates customer retention efforts
(Reichheld and Schefter, 2000) and creates
resistance for loyal consumers to switch
because of competitive strategies (Dick and
Basu, 1994). It is, thus, a powerful tool to
contend in competitive environments
(Amine, 1998). Furthermore, brand loyalty
can help increase market share, and brand-
loyal customers are willing to pay a pre-
mium as a result of the higher value they
perceive (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001).
Another positive consequence can be
favourable ‘word of mouth’ (Dick and
Basu, 1994), which is expressed in what has
© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Brand Management
been called ‘brand evangelism’ (Deming,
2007).
In early research, brand loyalty was most
commonly related to the repeated behav-
iour of purchasing a specific brand over
time (Kumar and Advani, 2005) and it was
measured using the following behavioural
constructs, among others: purchase pro-
portion (Cunningham, 1966), purchase
sequence (Kahn et al, 1986) and probability
of purchase Massey et al, 1970).
Jacoby and Kyner (1973) claimed that
the plethora of uni-dimensional measures
based on behavioural patterns were not able
to grasp such a complex phenomenon as
brand loyalty. The latter is a much more
sophisticated construct which cannot be
limited to consistent purchase behaviour
(Sheth and Park, 1974). For instance, pro-
longed repurchase behaviour could be
driven only by convenience, thus invali-
dating this measure as an indicator of true
brand loyalty. As such, these traditional
behavioural measures capture only the static
outcome of a dynamic process and, most
importantly, are unable to truly understand
the underlying factors of brand loyalty
( Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978). In order to
further our comprehension of brand loy-
alty, Day (1969) and Jacoby (1971) sug-
gested that behavioural as well as attitudinal
components should be taken into consid-
eration when studying the concept. Since
then, many researchers have focused on the
attitudinal dimension of loyalty (Oliver,
1999; Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001;
Kumar and Advani, 2005).
Differences in loyalty contain a ‘double
jeopardy’ (DJ) trend that has a behavioural,
as well as an attitudinal effect (Ehrenberg,
1988; Ehrenberg et al, 1990). Those brands
with lower market shares, when compared
with some other bigger brands, tend to
have a lower purchase frequency among
their more reduced customer base (behav-
ioural effect). Furthermore, the less habitual
buyers of a certain brand tend to declare
Vol. 18, 8, 570–582 573
 Iglesias et al
that they like it less, than the more usual
buyers. Therefore, as the smaller brands
(with low market shares) have a higher
proportion of non-habitual customers, the
attitudinal effect of the DJ trend has a major
negative impact on these brands.
Dick and Basu (1994) classified loyalty
into different types and established the con-
cept of true brand loyalty, which incor-
porates positive attitudinal elements, apart
from consistent repurchase. Bloemer and
Kasper (1995, p. 314) supported this argu-
ment and also agreed that the main differ-
ence between true and spurious loyalty is
that ‘commitment is a necessary condition
for true brand loyalty to occur’. Here it is
worth noting that, although commitment,
as a concept has been frequently used syn-
onymously with loyalty due to its prox-
imity (Li and Petrick, 2010), there is a
rich body of literature that has clearly dis-
tinguished both concepts (for example,
Dick and Basu, 1994; Pritchard et al, 1999;
Gustafsson et al, 2005; Aurier and N’Goala,
2010). Thus, commitment is a distinct con-
struct from brand loyalty in that it refers to
the economic and/or psychological attach-
ments that customers may have towards the
brand (Fullerton, 2003, 2005; Thomson
et al, 2005,) and that are antecedents to
loyalty. Based on these attachments, cus-
tomers decide whether to engage in a
relationship with the brand, thus giving
commitment a central role in building brand
loyalty (Kumar and Advani (2005). In this
regard, several authors have suggested that
affective commitment is the key determi-
nant for true brand loyalty to develop (Amine,
1998; Mattila, 2001; Punniyamoorthy and
Prasanna, 2007).
Based on the above discussion, we expect
that:
Hypothesis 2: The higher an individual’s
affective commitment to a brand, the
higher the individual’s loyalty towards
that brand.
574 © 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Brand Management
Although we argue that the relationship
between brand experience and brand loy-
alty is mediated by affective commitment,
the literature also empirically supports a direct
relationship between brand experience and
brand loyalty (Brakus et al, 2009).
Many marketing scholars have placed
experiences at the heart of the brand-
building process (for example, Schmitt,
1999; De Chernatony et al, 2006; Payne
et al, 2009), and, for instance, Deming (2007,
p. 10) has claimed that ‘branding is a process
of creating authentic, unique, emotional
experiences that yield evangelicals’.
However, experiences are complex
phenomena that involve, at least, four
dimensions: sensory, affective, intellectual
and behavioural (Brakus et al, 2009). From
this perspective, brand management does
not only have to be concerned with con-
ventional brand-related activities but with
managing the processes to support the
customer experience (Frow and Payne,
2007) along these four dimensions, at all
customer touchpoints (Brodie et al, 2009).
If the result is that consumers’ perceptions
about these experiences are positive and
pleasant, it is then plausible to expect that
they would like to repeat them, thus
becoming more loyal (Brakus et al, 2009).
Therefore, based on the literature, we
expect that:
Hypothesis 3: The higher the brand
experience for an individual, the
higher the individual’s brand loyalty
for that brand.
Data collection and sample
Data were collected using both paper and
internet versions of a survey. The respond-
ents were full-time MBA students at a busi-
ness school in Barcelona, Spain. In general,
the full-time MBA students of the given
school come from around the globe, with
34 countries represented in the latest batch.
Vol. 18, 8, 570–582
 Role of brand experience and affective commitment

Table 1: Standardized item squared loadings (reliabilities) for cars

Brand experience Brand experience Brand experience Brand experience Affective Brand loyalty
dimension 1 dimension 2 dimension 3 dimension 4 commitment

Item 1 0.87 — — — — —
Item 2 0.92 — — — — —
Item 3r 0.30 — — — — —
Item 4 — 0.84 — — — —
Item 5r — 0.41 — — — —
Item 6 — 0.79 — — — —
Item 7 — — 0.92 — — —
Item 8 — — 0.78 — — —
Item 9r — — 0.14 — — —
Item 10 — — — 0.74 — —
Item 11r — — — 0.14 — —
Item 12 — — — 0.53 — —
Item 13 — — — — 0.50 —
Item 14 — — — — 0.82 —
Item 15 — — — — 0.89 —
Item 16 — — — — — 0.82
Item 17 — — — — — 0.87
Item 18 — — — — — 0.74
Item 19 — — — — — 0.66

Note: Brand Experience items 3, 5, 9 and 11 are reverse coded.

For the measurement model: Satorra-Bentler Chi-Square = 412.761(DF=387, P=0.176), CI(RMSEA)=(0.0, 0.0342),
SRMR=0.047, CFI=0.99.

Respondents were an average of 30.9 years
old, with an average work experience of
7.3 years. Students were contacted both in
the classroom and via email and asked
to answer either the paper or the online
version of the survey. A total of 366 stu-
dents were contacted of which 195 com-
pleted the questionnaire, thus resulting in
a response rate of 52.3 per cent.
Each respondent was asked to consider
three product categories one by one: cars,
laptops and sneakers. For each product cate-
gory, the respondents were asked to pro-
vide the name of the brand they currently
used, and they were then asked to evaluate
their brand experience, affective commit-
ment and brand loyalty for that brand. Six
different variations of the questionnaire
were used, each with the three product
categories in different order to avoid both
primacy and regency effects.
Independent sample t-tests were con-
ducted for all the measures between the
in-class and the online samples for all three
product categories. The results indicated
no significant differences, and, hence, the
two groups were collapsed for the main
analysis.
Analysis and results
The three constructs in the model were
measured using established scales. Brand
experience was measured using a 12-item
scale (Brakus et al, 2009) that has four
dimensions – sensory, affective, behavioural
and intellectual. Each dimension was meas-
ured by three items. So the brand experience
construct was modelled as a second-order
variable with four sub dimensions. Affec-
tive commitment was measured using a
three-item scale (Evanschitzky et al, 2006).
Brand loyalty was measured using two

© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Brand Management Vol. 18, 8, 570–582 575
 Iglesias et al

Table 2: Standardized item squared loadings (reliabilities) for laptops

Brand experience Brand experience Brand experience Brand experience Affective Brand loyalty
dimension 1 dimension 2 dimension 3 dimension 4 commitment

Item 1 0.93 — — — — —
Item 2 0.82 — — — — —
Item 3r 0.31 — — — — —
Item 4 — 0.76 — — — —
Item 5r — 0.23 — — — —
Item 6 — 0.91 — — — —
Item 7 — — 0.86 — — —
Item 8 — — 0.86 — — —
Item 9r — — 0.14 — — —
Item 10 — — — 0.76 — —
Item 11r — — — 0.11 — —
Item 12 — — — 0.69 — —
Item 13 — — — — 0.49 —
Item 14 — — — — 0.88 —
Item 15 — — — — 0.89 —
Item 16 — — — — — 0.80
Item 17 — — — — — 0.90
Item 18 — — — — — 0.97
Item 19 — — — — — 0.87

Note: Brand Experience items 3, 5, 9 and 11 are reverse coded.

For the measurement model: Satorra-Bentler Chi-Square=412.761(DF=387, P=0.176), CI(RMSEA)=(0.0, 0.0342),
SRMR=0.047, CFI=0.99.

two-item scales, one for behavioural loyalty
( Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978) and the other
for attitudinal loyalty (Narayandas, 1997).
The data were analysed using SPSS 17.0
and LISREL 8.72. The data were first
split into three files, each representing one
of the three products studied in the survey:
cars (N = 166), laptops (N = 183) and sneakers
(N = 177). The difference in N across the
three products was due to the fact that some
respondents did not indicate their responses
for all three products included in the survey.
Since there was less than 1.8 per cent of
data missing for each data set and said
missing data can be considered to be com-
pletely random, we have imputed these
values using SPSS missing value analysis and
used the EM method for imputation. After
imputation, the data were analysed using
Multi-group Structural Equation Model-
ling (MGSEM) with LISREL 8.72. In this
way we gained degrees of freedom and, thus,
more dimensions with which the model
could potentially be rejected (Raykov and
Marcoulides, 2000).
The usual two-step approach was
followed, in which the fit of the measure-
ment model was tested first followed by
that of the structural model. The goodness
of fit indices for the measurement model
and the squared standardized loadings (indi-
cator’s reliability) for all the items on their
respective constructs for the three products
are given in Tables 1-3. The construct
reliability and average variance extracted
are given in Table 4. As such, we first tested
the configural equivalence by applying
the same CFA model to each of the three
groups. For instance, as can be seen in
Tables 1-3, four of the loadings in every
group were much lower than the others.
And, since these loadings correspond to
reversal items, we consider this low relia-
bility to be due to a method effect, without

576 © 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Brand Management Vol. 18, 8, 570–582
 Role of brand experience and affective commitment

Table 3: Standardized item squared loadings (reliabilities) for sneakers

Brand experience Brand experience Brand experience Brand experience Affective Brand loyalty
dimension 1 dimension 2 dimension 3 dimension 4 commitment

Item 1 0.86 — — — — —
Item 2 0.75 — — — — —
Item 3r 0.09 — — — — —
Item 4 — 0.66 — — — —
Item 5r — 0.15 — — — —
Item 6 — 0.60 — — — —
Item 7 — — 0.55 — — —
Item 8 — — 0.99 — — —
Item 9r — — 0.02 — — —
Item 10 — — — 0.53 — —
Item 11r — — — 0.11 — —
Item 12 — — — 0.62 — —
Item 13 — — — — 0.51 —
Item 14 — — — — 0.76 —
Item 15 — — — — 0.88 —
Item 16 — — — — — 0.69
Item 17 — — — — — 0.87
Item 18 — — — — — 0.79
Item 19 — — — — — 0.68

Note: Brand Experience items 3, 5, 9 and 11 are reverse coded.

For the measurement model: Satorra-Bentler Chi-Square=412.761(DF=387, P=0.176), CI(RMSEA)=(0.0, 0.0342),
SRMR=0.047, CFI=0.99.

Table 4: Construct reliability and average variance extracted

Construct reliability Average variance extracted

Cars Laptops Sneakers Cars laptops Sneakers

Brand experience 1 0.86 0.86 0.77 0.68 0.67 0.55

Brand experience 2 0.86 0.82 0.71 0.67 0.62 0.46
Brand experience 3 0.80 0.81 0.71 0.60 0.60 0.51
Brand experience 4 0.70 0.74 0.65 0.46 0.51 0.41
Affective commitment 0.89 0.90 0.88 0.72 0.74 0.70
Brand loyalty 0.93 0.97 0.92 0.76 0.87 0.75

interest for the substantive research.
Further, we have two reasons for not
excluding the reversed items from the anal-
ysis: (1) Pedagogical reason: – To make the
reader aware that the reversal items could
lead to such problems that we have faced
with this model and therefore it may be
best no to use them. (2) Methodological
reason: – In case we delete each of the
reversal item with low loading, we are left
with only two items per construct for the
four brand experience dimensions, and it is
known that only two items per construct
can lead to unstable and frequently non-
convergent solutions in SEM. As such, we
have released the constraints among the
unique part of these items (that is, allowing
residuals to be correlated). This specified
the assumption of local independence;
namely, observed correlations are explained
only by the latent factors specified within
the model.
Maximum likelihood (ML) using the cov-
ariance matrix was the estimation criterion

© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Brand Management Vol. 18, 8, 570–582 577
 Iglesias et al
and since our data violated the assumption
of multivariate normality, Satorra-Bentler
scaled Chi-square was the test criterion
used. Tables 1-3 show that none of the
goodness of fit statistics rejects the specified
model for each of the groups. In addition,
the RMSEA statistic (which in this case has
values clearly below 0.05) indicates a rea-
sonable error of approximation. Further,
other global fit indexes, like CFI (0.999)
and SRMR (0.047), also exhibit acceptable
values. We emphasize that although the
situation of high power of the test we have,
due to the sample size and high reliability
of some indicators, the fit of the model is
not rejected. Finally, neither have our model
complexity and the size of some incidental
parameters contributed to the rejection of
the global fit (see Saris et al, 2009). How-
ever, in order not to restrict ourselves to
what Kline (2005) called ‘fit index tunnel
vision’ (which is tantamount to looking at
indexes of overall model fit and discarding
other types of information on fit), we have
actually paid more attention to the detailed
diagnosis of the residuals, to the estimates
and to the detection of misspecification
errors rather than the previous global fit (for
an extensive analysis of this issue, see Saris
et al, 2009). The later strategy also takes into
account the power of the test rather than
simply lifting recipes from manuals based
only on statistical significance. No misspeci-
fications in the model were detected using
the mentioned test procedure developed by
Saris et al (2009). In order to estimate dis-
criminant validity between affective com-
mitment and brand loyalty, we tested the
measurement model after constraining the
bivariate correlations between brand loyalty
and affective commitment (which were
0.758, 0.855 and 0.719 respectively for the
three groups: cars, laptops and sneakers) to
1 for the three groups, and the resulting
model was out rightly rejected.
The proposed structural model that
includes our hypotheses Hypothesis 1,
578 © 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Brand Management
Hypothesis 2 and Hypothesis 3 was tested
once the model’s fit was considered reason-
able for the multi-group analysis and
there was no evidence of misspecifications
(Saris et al, 2009). For all three categories,
Hypotheses 1 and 2 were supported
while Hypothesis 3 was not, indicating that
affective commitment completely mediates
the relationship between brand experience
and brand loyalty. For cars, in terms of
individual hypotheses, Hypotheses 1 and 2
were supported but Hypothesis 3 was not.
Therefore, a complete mediation of the
relationship between brand experience and
brand loyalty is suggested (see Figure 2).
For laptops, as in the previous model, the
detailed diagnoses did not provide any sug-
gestion of misspecification errors. The indi-
vidual hypotheses followed a similar pattern
in this case as well. There was a complete
mediation of affective commitment. Hence,
Hypotheses 1 and 2 were supported but
Hypothesis 3 was not (see Figure 3).
ns*
Brand
Experience Brand Loyalty
0.864 0.805
Affective
Commitment
Figure 2: Structural model (standardized path coefficients)
for cars.
Notes: *P = 0.05. For the whole MGSEM: Satorra-Bentler
Chi Square = 599.9 (DF = 382), CI(RMSEA) = (0.048, 0.066),
SRMR = 0.047, CFI = 0.99, R2 = 0.648.
ns*
Brand
Experience Brand Loyalty
0.854 0.99
Affective
Commitment
Figure 3: Structural model (standardized path coefficients)
for laptops.
Notes: *P = 0.05. For the whole MGSEM: Satorra-Bentler
Chi Square = 599.9 (DF = 382), CI(RMSEA) = (0.048, 0.066),
SRMR = 0.047, CFI = 0.99, R2 = 0.793.
Vol. 18, 8, 570–582
 Role of brand experience and affective commitment
Brand
ns*
Brand Loyalty
Experience
0.864 0.835
Affective
Commitment
Figure 4: Structural model (standardized path coefficients)
for sneakers.
Notes: *P = 0.05. For the whole MGSEM: Satorra-Bentler
Chi Square = 599.9 (DF = 382), CI(RMSEA) = (0.048, 0.066),
SRMR = 0.047, CFI = 0.99, R2 = 0.793.
In the case of sneakers, once again as for
the other two product categories, Hypo-
theses 1 and 2 were supported whereas
Hypothesis 3 was not (see Figure 4). Simi-
larly, no misspecifications were detected or
suggested.
Discussion, implications and
limitations
Brands operating in developed economic
environments and in mature markets face
fierce competition, making it difficult to
obtain a solid and sustainable position. In
such a complex environment, the possi-
bility of differentiating brands depends
largely on their ability to deliver top con-
sumer experiences that succeed in engaging
consumers in a long-term relationship. As
such, proactively managing the brand expe-
rience is undoubtedly one of the biggest
challenges marketing managers currently
face. However, little conceptual and empir-
ical research has been done on this topic
which is of extreme importance for prac-
titioners.
This study explores academic knowledge
on the brand experience construct, pro-
viding empirical evidence that contributes
to the development of the theory itself. In
parallel, this research also offers interesting
new prospects for marketing managers in
terms of how to lead brand management
in order to obtain better consumer experi-
ences and loyal customers.
© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Brand Management
This research makes three main contri-
butions. Firstly, we have explored existing
academic knowledge on brand experience
and we have tried to connect the different
streams of research on brand management,
customer experience, commitment and
loyalty in order to offer a comprehensive
understanding of this new concept and its
possible relationships with other marketing
constructs.
Secondly, in order to further contribute
to the development of the theory itself, this
research presents a validation of the brand
experience scale proposed by Brakus et al
(2009). In this respect, the authors would
like to emphasize that the single item within
each dimension of brand experience that
has its polarity reversed in the instrument
has shown much lower reliability than the
rest for all three products (see Tables 1-3).
In addition, these items were detected as
sources of misspecification errors. We agree
with Holbrook et al (2000) and we suggest
that in future uses of the scale these items
should either be deleted or reworded to
have the same polarity as the rest.
Finally, the main contribution of our
study is that it provides empirical evidence
that affective commitment completely
mediates the suggested relationship between
brand experience and brand loyalty. Thus,
a brand experience perceived as superior
by consumers will only lead to true brand
loyalty if affective commitment between
the brand and its customers has also been
developed. This is a novel finding that
contributes to the development of the
emerging theory on the brand experience
construct.
These results thus have extremely impor-
tant managerial implications because they
suggest that, if brands want to create loyal
customers, they need to work better on the
affective dimension of their communica-
tions as well as of the entire brand experi-
ence in order to generate and consolidate
affective bonds with their customers. As
Vol. 18, 8, 570–582 579
 Iglesias et al
such, managers should not only try to assure
cross-functional coordination and opera-
tional consistency at all touchpoints, which
has been the focus of many companies
lately. They should also strategically plan
and promote the affective dimension within
the overall experience. The subsequent
implications are that brand management
needs to be the focus of the entire organi-
zation and that it will be extremely difficult
to build positive experiences and the custo-
mers’ affective commitment if employees
are not also committed and live the brand’s
values. All in all, recruitment, training and
internal communication policies appear as
essential issues to be managed if brands
aspire to deliver superior brand experiences
that may lead to high levels of customer
satisfaction.
Regarding the limitations of the present
research, a first limitation is that data were
collected for only three product categories.
Future research might consider other pro-
duct categories. In particular, it would be
interesting to conduct research on the
service sectors, where interactions between
consumers and employees are an essential
part of the brand experience.
Another limitation of the study is that
although the proposed model accounts for
enough variance of loyalty across the three
product categories, it could be enhanced
by means of incorporating other brand
loyalty determinants, such as brand trust,
brand affect or customer satisfaction. As
further research, it would also be interesting
to examine the role played by other vari-
ables as moderators within this conceptual
framework, such as the level of involve-
ment. Further, two more future research
areas can be identified, firstly, the role of
employees and the impact of their commit-
ment to the brand they work for on the
perceived brand experience by the final cus-
tomers, and secondly, the role of customers
and other stakeholders in co-creating brand
experiences.
580 © 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Brand Management
REFERENCES
Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1990) The measurement
and antecedents of affective, continuance, and
normative commitment to organization. Journal of
Occupational Psychology 63: 1–18.
Amine, A. (1998) Consumers’ true brand loyalty:
The central role of commitment. Journal of Strategic
Marketing 6(4): 305–319.
Aurier, P. and N’Goala, G. (2010) The differing and
mediating roles of trust and relationship commit-
ment in service relationship maintenance and devel-
opment. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science
38: 303–332.
Berry, L.L. (1983) Relationship marketing. In: L.L. Berry,
G.L. Shostack and G.D. Upag (eds.) Emerging Per-
spectives in Services Marketing. Chicago, IL: AMA,
pp. 25–28.
Berry, L.L., Carbone, L.P. and Haeckel, S.H. (2002)
Managing the total customer experience. Sloan
Management Review 43(Spring): 85–89.
Bloemer, J.M. and Kasper, H.D. (1995) The complex
relationship between consumer satisfaction and brand
loyalty. Journal of Economic Psychology 16: 311–329.
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 73(May):
52–68.
Brodie, R.J., Whittome, J.R.M. and Brush, G.J.
(2009) Investigating the service brand: A customer
value perspective. Journal of Business Research 62:
345–355.
Carbone, L.P. and Haeckel, S.H. (1994) Engineering
customer experiences. Marketing Management 3(3):
9–19.
Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M.B. (2001) The chain
of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand
performance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of
Marketing 65: 81–93.
Cunningham, S.M. (1966) Brand loyalty – What,
where, how much? Harvard Business Review
34 ( January-February): 116–128.
Dall’Olmo Riley, F. and de Chernatony, L. (2000) The
service brand as a relationship builder. British Journal
of Management 11(2): 137–150.
Day, G.S. (1969) A two-dimensional concept to brand
loyalty. Journal of Advertising Research 9: 29–35.
de Chernatony, L., Cottam, S. and Segal-Horn, S.
(2006) Communication service brands’ values inter-
nally and externally. The Service Industries Journal
26(8): 819–837.
Deming, S. (2007) The Brand Who Cried Wolf.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Dick, A.S. and Basu, K. (1994) Customer loyalty:
Toward an integrated conceptual framework. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science 22: 99–113.
Ehrenberg, A.S.C. (1988) Repeat Buying Facts, Theory and
Applications. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ehrenberg, A.S.C., Goodhart, G.J. and Barwise, T.P.
(1990) Double jeopardy revisited. Journal of
Marketing 54( July): 11–21.
Vol. 18, 8, 570–582
 Role of brand experience and affective commitment
Evanschitzky, H., Gopalkrishnan, R.I., Plassmann, H.,
Niessing, J. and Meffert, H. (2006) The relative
strength of affective commitment in securing
loyalty in service. Journal of Business Research 59:
1207–1213.
Evanschitzky, H. and Wunderlic, M. (2006) An
examination of moderator effects in the four-stage
loyalty model. Journal of Services Research 8(4):
330–345.
Frow, P. and Payne, A. (2007) Towards the perfect
customer experience. Journal of Brand Management
15(2): 89–101.
Fullerton, G. (2003) When does commitment lead to
loyalty? Journal of Service Research 5(4): 333–344.
Fullerton, G. (2005) The service quality-loyalty
relationship in retail service: Does commitment
matter? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Service
12(2): 99–111.
Gustafsson, A., Johnson, M.D. and Roos, I. (2005)
The effects of customer satisfaction, relationship
commitment dimensions, and triggers on customer
retention. Journal of Marketing 69(4): 210–218.
Haeckel, S.H., Carbone, L.P. and Berry, L.L. (2003)
How to lead the customer experience. Marketing
Management 12(1): 18–23.
Holbrook, A.L., Krosnick, J.A., Carson, R.T. and
Mitchell, R.C. (2000) Violating conversational
conventions disrupts cognitive processing of
attitude questions. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology (36): 465–494.
Jackson, B.B. (1985) Winning and Keeping Industrial
Customers. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Jacoby, J. (1971) A model of multi-brand loyalty. Journal
of Advertising Research 11( June): 25–31.
Jacoby, J. and Chestnut, R.W. (1978) Brand Loyalty
Measurement and Management. New York: Wiley.
Jacoby, J. and Kyner, D.B. (1973) Brand loyalty versus
repeat purchase behaviour. Journal of Marketing
Research 10(February): 1–9.
Kahn, B.E., Kalwani, M.U. and Morrisson, D.G.
(1986) Measuring variety seeking and reinforcing
behaviors using panel data. Journal of Marketing
Research 23(May): 89–100.
Klaus, P. and Maklan, S. (2007) The role of brands
in a service-dominated world. Journal of Brand
Management 15(2): 115–122.
Kline, R.B. (2005) Principles and Practice of Structural
Equation Modelling. New York, NY: The Guilford
Press.
Kumar, S.R. and Advani, J.Y. (2005) Factors affecting
brand loyalty: A study in an emerging market on
fast moving consumer goods. Journal of Customer
Behaviour 4: 251–275.
Li, X. and Petrick, J.F. (2010) Revisiting the commit-
ment-loyalty distinction in a cruising context.
Journal of Leisure Research 42(1): 67–90.
Lin, L.-Y. (2010) The relationship of consumer
personality trait, brand personality and brand
loyalty: An empirical study of toys and video games
buyers. Journal of Product and Brand Management
19(1): 4–17.
© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Brand Management
Mano, H. and Oliver, R.L. (1993) Assessing
the dimensionality and structure of the consump-
tion experience: Evaluation, feeling, and satisfaction.
Journal of Consumer Research 20(December):
451–466.
Mascarenhas, O.A., Kesavan, R. and Bernacchi, M.
(2006) Lasting customer loyalty: A total customer
experience approach. Journal of Consumer Marketing
23(7): 397–405.
Massey, W.F., Montgomery, D.B. and Morrison, D.G.
(1970) Stochastic Models of Buyer Behavior. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Mattila, A.S. (2001) Emotional bonding and restaurant
loyalty. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration
Quarterly 42(6): 73–79.
Meyer, C. and Schwager, A. (2007) Understanding
customer experience. Harvard Business Review, 85
(February): 117–126.
Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994) The commit-
ment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal
of Marketing 58: 20–38.
Morrison, S. and Crane, F.G. (2007) Building the
service brand by creating and managing an emo-
tional brand experience. Journal of Brand Management
14(5): 410–421.
Mosley, R.W. (2007) Customer experience, organisa-
tional culture and the employer brand. Journal of
Brand Management 15(2): 123–134.
Narayandas, D. (1997) Measuring and Managing the
Consequences of Customer Loyalty: An Empirical
Investigation. Working paper. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Business School 98 (3).
Oliver, R.L. (1999) Whence consumer loyalty? Journal
of Marketing 63: 33–44.
Payne, A., Storbacka, K., Frow, P. and Knox, S. (2009)
Co-creating brands: Diagnosing and designing the
relationship experience. Journal of Business Research
62: 379–389.
Pine, J. and Gilmore, J.H. (1998) Welcome to the
experience economy. Harvard Business Review,
76( July/August): 97–106.
Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2004) Co-creation
experiences: The next practice in value creation.
Journal of Interactive Marketing 18(3): 5–14.
Pritchard, M., Havitz, M.E. and Howard, D. (1999)
Analyzing the commitment-loyalty link in service
contexts. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science
27(3): 333–348.
Pullman, M.E. and Gross, M.A. (2004) Ability of
service design elements to elicit emotions and
loyalty behaviors. Decision Sciences 35(3): 551–578.
Punniyamoorthy, M. and Prasanna, M. (2007) An
empirical model for brand loyalty measurement.
Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for
Marketing 15(4): 222–233.
Ravald, A. and Gronroos, C. (1996) The value concept
and relationship marketing. European Journal of
Marketing 30(2): 19–30.
Raykov, T. and Marcoulides, G.A. (2000) A First
Course in Structural Equation Modeling. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Vol. 18, 8, 570–582 581
 Iglesias et al
Reichheld, F.F. and Schefter, P. (2000) E loyalty –
Your secret weapon on the web. Harvard Business
Review 78( July/August): 105–113.
Saris, W., Satorra, A. and Van der VeldW.M. (2009)
Testing structural equation models or detection of
misspecifications? Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal 16(4): 561–582.
Schmitt, B.H. (1999) Experiential marketing. Journal of
Marketing Management 15: 53–67.
Schmitt, B.H. (2003) Customer Experience Management:
A Revolutionary Approach to Connecting with Your
Customers. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Shaw, C. and Ivens, J. (2002) Building Great Customer
Experiences. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sheth, J.N. and Park, C.W. (1974) A theory of mul-
tidimensional brand loyalty. Advances in Consumer
Research 1(1): 449–459.
582 © 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Brand Management
The author has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate.
Simmons, J.A. (2009) ‘Both sides now’: Aligning
external and internal branding for a socially
responsible era. Marketing Intelligence & Planning
27(5): 681–697.
Thomson, M., Macinnis, D.J. and Park, C.W. (2005)
The ties that bind: Measuring the strength of con-
sumers’ emotional attachment to brands. Journal of
Consumer Psychology 15(1): 77–91.
Webster, F.E. (1994) Executing the new marketing con-
cept. Journal of Marketing Management 3(1): 9–16.
Westbrook, R.A. and Oliver, R.L. (1991) The dimen-
sionality of consumption emotion patterns and con-
sumer satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research
18( June): 84–91.
White, C. and Yu, T. (2005) Satisfaction emotions and
consumer behavioral intentions. Journal of Services
Marketing 19(6): 411–420.
Vol. 18, 8, 570–582