Experiential and Utilitarian Products: How Brand Trust and Brand
Loyalty Work Depending on the Kind of Product
Master’s thesis
Graduate School of Communication Elena Mazzotti
10841903
Supervisor: Suzanne de Bakker
University of Amsterdam
Master’s Programme: Communication Science Track Specialization: Corporate Communication
Abstract
Despite the great importance that brand loyalty has for companies, the examination of the role of brands in the development of relationship with their customers has not received much attention. The present study examines the extent to which there is a difference between brand loyalty for experiential products and brand loyalty for utilitarian products. Specifically, it analyses how brand reputation, brand predictability, brand competence, peer support and affective commitment predict brand trust, and how in turn brand trust leads to brand loyalty; therefore, also the mediating role of trust in this relationship is tested. Results based on an online survey (N = 53) reveal that trust significantly mediates the relationship between brand predictability and brand loyalty for both experiential and utilitarian products and that it also partially mediates the relationship between brand competence and brand loyalty for both products. Finally this study indicates that there is no statistical difference between brand loyalty for experiential products and utilitarian products.
Keywords: brand competence, brand predictability, brand reputation, brand loyalty, brand trust
Experiential and Utilitarian products: how brand trust and brand loyalty work depending on the kind of product
All products and services are consumed, but for some kind of goods the consumption experience is the main purpose and serves as primary benefit in use; this kind of product is called an experiential product and it is defined as “ones which consumers choose, buy and use solely to experience and enjoy (Cooper-Martin, 1992, p.372)”. What is important for this kind of product is not the utilitarian function itself but the hedonic consumption, such as feelings, emotions and sensations experienced during the usage of the product (Hirschman &
Holbrook, 1982). Experiential products include both physical goods and services. An example of the latter can be sporting events, music events, performing arts and restaurant meals, whilst physical goods can be wine and recreational drugs (Cooper-Martin, 1992).
Because experiential products create a benefit derived from pleasure in consumption it can be assumed that consumers choose this kind of products based on their intrinsic
preferences - in other words based on what they like, enjoy, and what pleases them
(O’Shaughnessy, 1987). Therefore, consumers use subjective features: intrinsic preferences, such as theme, social reason, novelty and curiosity in order to choose which music festival to attend.
In line with this definition, music festivals can be considered as experiential products (Cooper-Martin, 1992) since people attend them in order to experience new feelings,
emotions and sensations. Additionally, the nature of festivals and special events also suggests that they are likely to provide hedonic or experiential attributes during interpersonal or social and personal experiences lived during the event (Getz, 1991).
A study conducted by Nicholson and Pearce (2001) indicates that a person attends a festival more for its hedonic attributes rather than for its utilitarian attributes, therefore he or she attends the festival for reasons linked to usage experience such as the multisensory,
fantasy and emotive aspects experienced during the event. Specifically, Nicholson and Pearce (2001) identified three main reasons for attending a festival and all three concern the hedonic attributes offered by a festival. The first one is linked to the theme of the festival, which indicates that people go to a festival for its uniqueness, symbolic meaning, or the emotional arousal and imagery it creates. The second reason is linked to social reasons: for example to have fun and good time, to party and socialize. The third reason is connected to the feeling of novelty or curiosity that a person has towards the festival.
Concluding, it can be said that people attend music festivals for the experiences that they live and feel during the event such as having a good time, socializing, emotional arousal etc. and therefore for primarily hedonic reasons. Music festivals can hence be considered experiential products since they provide emotions linked to hedonic consumptions.
In this research, music festivals have been taken into consideration as experiential products because it is really important to understand the mechanism behind the music industry since festivals and, particularly, music festivals obtain growing recognition for enhancing a region’s image and appeal, improving recreational opportunities, contributing to both local and regional economies and enhancing local pride and culture (Frey, 1994). Moreover, they are becoming increasingly important for record companies and artists given that at the turn of 21st century the arrival of the Internet and MP3 files caused a collapse of revenues that yielded to a crisis in the music industry (“The pop star and the prophet”, 2015). Therefore, live concerts and festival performances may be the key source of future
profitability. An example is the study conducted by EVAR Advisory Services that states that in the Netherlands, 123 events took place during 2001, with on average 13,000 participants. In the same research, they assert that dance events can generate a turnover of 46 million euros without considering the financial flows involved in food and drinks, external services such as
security, emergency assistance and first aid, public transports and many others. Therefore, the economic impact of music festivals involves many external avenues of revenue generation.
The opposite of experiential products are utilitarian products: utilitarian products differ from experiential product in the way with which consumers evaluate them. In other words, when people choose utilitarian products, they do it by giving importance to functional features and utilities. Therefore their consumption is more cognitively driven, instrumental, and goal oriented (Strahilevitz & Loewenstein, 1998).
The experience of using these types of products is not necessarily pleasant, and therefore the dominant benefit is not the consumption experience (Cooper-Martin, 1992). In other words, utilitarian products are chosen just to fulfil peoples’ needs and not to give pleasure.
Examples of utilitarian products can be a shower gel, which leaves the skin clean, or a computer that allows work to be done efficiently. Therefore, when people look for these kinds of products they will take into consideration the price and the quality but not necessarily the hedonic value that they provide.
Brand loyalty is one of the most important concepts in marketing and the research of the factors that can help build brand loyalty is of paramount importance for professionals, since nowadays brands are seen as very similar to each other, and therefore consumers do not show any preference when they evaluate them (Schultz, Block & Viswanathan. 2014).
Moreover, understanding how brand loyalty works is important for a company given it can bring many benefits such as the reduction of marketing cost, acquisition of new
customers, provision of greater trade leverage and resistance among competitors (Liao, 2015). It has also been shown that a 5% increment in customer loyalty can yield an increment of 25 to 95% in a company’s profitability as well as a reduction of costs (Reichheld &
With this in mind, it can be concluded that it is of paramount importance to take into consideration the distinction between utilitarian and experiential products, understand which are the factors that can bring to brand loyalty, and how these factors differ depending on the kind of product that is consumed. In other words, it is important to understand which is the mechanism behind brand loyalty for utilitarian product and experiential products and if this differs from one to another.
Despite the great importance of this topic, the investigation of the role of brands in the development of relationship with consumers has received scant attention (Veloutsou, 2015).
This study sets out to fill the void by researching what are the causes that bring a person to adopt a loyal behaviour towards a brand; specifically, the goal is to analyse if there is a difference between brand loyalty for experiential products such as music festivals and brand loyalty for utilitarian products, such as shampoo.
The research question is formulated as follows:
To what extent is there a difference between brand loyalty for experiential products and brand loyalty for utilitarian products? Does trust mediate this relationship?
Theoretical Framework
The following chapters argue towards the conceptualization of brand loyalty, brand trust, and the predictors of brand trust.
Brand loyalty, definition and mechanism
During the past few years brand loyalty has been defined in several different ways. Day (1976) defines brand loyalty as repeat purchases driven by strong internal natures. Jacoby and Kyner (1973) conceive brand loyalty as a concept that implies multidimensional forms including attitudinal components and as part of repeat purchase behaviour. Brand loyalty is
defined by Oliver (1997, p.392) as “a deeply held commitment to rebuy or re-patronize a preferred product/service consistently in the future, thereby causing repetitive same-brand or same-brand set purchasing despite situational influences and marketing efforts, having the potential to cause switching behaviour”. In this research, brand loyalty is defined as the intention of the consumer to keep buying the same brand and the willingness to wait if the brand is not available instead of buying another brand (Lau & Lee, 1999).
However, a deeper consideration of brand loyalty cannot be achieved without taking into consideration trust in a brand and its relationship to brand loyalty. The relationship between trust and brand loyalty is further explained in the following paragraph.
Trust as a mediator
As for brand loyalty, trust has also been defined in several different ways. For
example Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001; p.82) define trust as “the willingness of the average consumer to rely on the ability of the brand to perform its stated function” or the perception of security that the customers has towards the brand based on the feeling that the brand is
reliable and responsible for the customer’s interests and welfare (Delgado-Ballester, 2004). In this research trust in a brand has been defined as the willingness of respondents to count on and to rely on the brand.
In several studies it has already been acknowledged that trust is a fundamental factor that explains and helps develop brand loyalty (Bart et al., 2005; Reicheld & Schefter, 2000). For instance, it has been found that the level of loyalty towards a service provider is higher when the customers have a higher level of trust in the service provider (Henning-Thurau, Gwinner & Gremler, 2002). Therefore, trust can be considered as an underlying mechanism that leads to brand loyalty.
it has been proved in Lau and Lee’s research (1999), trust can be built through several factors such as brand predictability, brand competence, brand reputation, peer support and affective commitment. As they state, once that trust is obtained through these predictors, it will
successively lead to a loyal behaviour towards the brand. Therefore, trust can be considered as a mediator of the relationship between its predictors and brand loyalty.
A detailed explanation of the aforementioned predictors follows.
Antecedents of trust in a brand
Several studies provide evidence that brand reputation, brand competence and brand personality have a positive impact on consumer trust. In other words, consumers build up trust towards the brand by using the product and collecting data about its reputation,
predictability and competence (Afzal et al, 2019; Lau & Lee, 1999). Moreover, Lau and Lee (1999) found that trust towards a brand contributes to brand loyalty. Specifically, their
findings show that brand predictability, brand competence, brand reputation, peer support and affective commitment are important in developing consumer trust towards the brand, and this trust in turn will lead to brand loyalty.
After an examination of Lau and Lee’s (1999) study, in this research it is assumed that brand predictability, brand competence, brand reputation, peer support and affective
commitment measurements can be applied for both utilitarian and experiential product, but it is expected that these predictors will lead to a different level of trust for utilitarian products and for experiential products, which in turn will lead to a different level of brand loyalty for utilitarian and experiential products.
Following there is an explanation of the predictors of brand trust and their specific characteristics.
The factors that are considered as antecedents of trust in a brand are: brand reputation, brand predictability, brand competence, peer support and affective commitment.
Brand predictability
Predictability of a brand is defined as a status that allows the user of the brand to anticipate with confidence on how it will perform during the usage (Lau & Lee, 1999). In behavioural predictability, consumers trust the product when they have enough information that allows them to predict that the product will act trustworthily. In order to achieve brand predictability, the company needs to ensure the consistent quality of every product, since consumers will pay attention to this (Lau & Lee, 1999). Once the brand has achieved positive brand predictability, this will lead to a loyal behaviour on behalf of the consumer. Even if when people buy a ticket for a festival they rely on the information regarding the event of the previous years, the factors that characterize a music festival such as theme, locations, weather and line-up may change every year, so therefore it is difficult to anticipate how the festival will be. Thus, predictability of the brand should not have a lot of influence when a person decides to buy the ticket for a festival. On the other hand, it is assumed that it is easier to predict how utilitarian products such as a shampoo or a computer will work, since the characteristics of these kind of products are already well known before the purchase (I know that that shampoo will leave my hair clean and soft and that a computer allows me to work very fast). Therefore, it can be assumed that brand predictability will have a more important role when a person buys a utilitarian product than when he or she buys an experiential product.
H1 Brand predictability is more likely to influence brand trust, and with that brand loyalty, for utilitarian products than for experiential products
Brand competence
A brand is defined as competent when it has the ability to solve consumer problems and to meet their needs. Whenever the consumer is convinced that a brand has the ability to solve the problem, they are more willing to rely on the brand and therefore trust it (Lau & Lee, 1999). Since the choice of utilitarian products is more goal and instrumental oriented - and therefore a person would choose that product to solve a problem and not to necessarily enjoy it - it is expected that consumers give more importance to brand competence for utilitarian products rather than for experiential products.
H2 Brand competence is more likely to influence brand trust, and with that brand loyalty, for utilitarian products than for experiential products
Brand reputation
An additional factor that contributes to obtaining loyal consumer behaviour is brand reputation. “Brand reputation refers to the opinion of others that the brand is good and reliable” (Lau & Lee, 1999, p. 346). Brand reputation is influenced by product quality and performance. In fact, if a person receives positive information about the brand, he or she may trust the brand sufficiently to purchase it (Lau & Lee, 1999). Therefore, if the product is considered as having good quality and being reliable, this will lead to loyal behaviour.
A product is a combination of physical / objective characteristics such as size and shape and subjective characteristics such as image or quality (“Product Decisions”, 1997). Objective features should be less important than subjective features for experiential products because such products by definition do not fulfil utilitarian functions. In choosing experiential products such as music festivals, subjective features are more useful than objective features because of their abstractness and their reflection of the hedonic experience (Cooper-Martin, 1992) Since the reputation of a good quality brand is considered as a subjective feature, it can be hypothesized that:
H3 Brand reputation is more likely to influence brand trust, and with that brand loyalty, for experiential products than utilitarian products.
Peer support
Individual behaviour is influenced by other people’s behaviour, meaning that
consumer behaviour is also influenced by other consumers’ behaviour (Bearden, Netemeyer & Teel, 1989). In fact, a person may buy a product just to feel part of a group, or because they care about what others think of them, (Calder & Burnkrant, 1977; Bearden & Rose, 1990) or because they have received reliable information about the value of the product (Cohen & Golden, 1972). Additionally, consumers are more likely to trust a brand when others also trust the same brand (Lau & Lee, 1999).
Since the benefits that experiential products bring are difficult to quantify and intangible, people need valid reasons in order to purchase them. In their research, Baek and Choo (2015) affirm that consumers of experiential products might use peer consumption as a justification and encouragement of their own consumption. Therefore, it can be assumed that peer support has a great influence when it comes to purchasing experiential products.
On the other hand, for utilitarian products the logic is different. In fact, Bearden and Etzel (1982) suppose that the purchase of a product that everyone owns and that is usually consumed in a private sphere (e.g. a shampoo or shower gel) is influenced by its attributes and not by the opinion of other people. Concluding, it can be assumed that peer support has a greater influence on experiential products than on utilitarian products.
H4 Peer support is more likely to influence brand trust, and with that brand loyalty, for experiential products than utilitarian products
Affective commitment
The core of affective commitment is the emotional attachment to the brand in a relationship of consumption (Fullerton, 2003). Allen and Meyer (1990, p.2) state that
affective commitment is built on the “affective or emotional attachment to the organization such that the strongly committed individual identifies with, is involved in, and enjoys membership in the organization”. Customer commitment is seen as antecedent of brand loyalty since it is the willingness to continue the relationship with the firm or brand (Fullerton, 2003; Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Uncles, Dowling, & Hammond, 2003) and it is characterized by the economic, emotion and/or psychological attachments towards the brand (Thomson, Macinnis, & Park, 2005). Moreover, as Allen and Meyer (1990) state, customers who have a strong commitment towards the brand identify, trust and are emotionally
connected to it.
Since affective commitment is by definition characterized by emotions and affects and consumers purchase hedonic services for this emotional pleasure that they provide,
(Wakefield & Blodgett, 1999) it can be assumed that affective commitment will be stronger in products that provide a high involvement of emotion such as experiential products.
Furthermore, Jiang and Wang (2006) stated that affect is more pronounced in the quality evaluation of the hedonic service than utilitarian services. Therefore, as a consequence, affective commitment will be more relevant in the evaluation of hedonic service than utilitarian service.
H5 affective commitment is more likely to influence brand trust, and with that brand loyalty, for experiential products than utilitarian products
Concluding, once a brand has a brand reputation, brand competence, brand
predictability, affective commitment or peer support, these factors will allow the consumer to trust the brand and therefore to be loyal towards it.
Method
The statistical package IBM- Statistical Analysis Software Package (SPSS) has been used for this research. At the beginning of the analysis the data was cleaned, removing from the survey people who did not complete it and who did not attend any of the festivals. Afterwards, the Cronbach’s alpha for the different variables was measured. Finally five different moderated mediation analyses were run.
Sample
Dekmantel Festival and DGTL Festival have been taken into consideration as
experiential products: Dekmantel Festival has been chosen because it has been defined as one of the most important festivals in the world by Soundwall (Cavicchia, 2016), an important Italian magazine that writes about music, and DGTL Festival has been selected since it has been described as one of the most successful music festival in the Dutch scene by Fest300 magazine (“How DGTL Festival”, 2016).
Since only those two festivals have been taken into consideration, only people who attended to these festivals have been selected to complete the survey. In order to obtain a
sample that meets this requirement, at the beginning of the questionnaire the following question was asked: “have you ever been to Amsterdam DGTL or Dekmantel Festival?” The possible answers to this question were “yes” or “no” and only people who answered “yes” were able to continue the questionnaire. People who selected “no” were redirected to the end of the survey.
For the survey, two different methods to recruit people have been used. Firstly, in order to reach as much people as possible, a non-probability convenience sampling method has been applied, sharing the survey on a Facebook page. Secondly, a snowball sampling method has been used, directly asking friends to invite other people to fill in the survey.
In total 98 people started the survey but only 68 completed it. After eliminating the respondents who answered “no” to the question “have you ever been to Amstredam DGTL Festival or Dekmantel Festival” (N = 15), the total number of respondents was N = 53. The overall sample consisted of N =22 male participants (41.5%) and N=31 females (58.5%). The average age of respondents was 24 (M age = 24.09; SD = 3.59). Most of the respondents N = 40 live in the Netherlands, the other respondents lived in UK (N=6), Belgium (N=2), Czech Republic (N=1), France (N=1), Italy (N=2), Poland (N=1).
Design and Procedure
With the aim to analyse the aforementioned hypothesis, a quantitative cross-sectional approach has been employed. The survey was individual self-reported. The questionnaire was divided in three parts: the first one with questions about experiential products, the second one with demographical questions, and the third one with questions about utilitarian products.
Before starting the survey people were asked if they have ever been to Amsterdam DGTL Festival or Dekmantel Festival. In the following questions people were asked to
indicate which festival they attended and to write down for which festival they wanted to answer the questions.
The aim of the first and third part of the questionnaire was to measure brand
reputation, brand competence, brand predictability, peer support and affective commitment. Due to the fact that the same scales to measure these concepts were used, the questions of the first and third part of the questionnaire resulted being quite similar. The first part was
dedicated to experiential products: therefore the questions regarded Amsterdam DGTL Festival or Dekmantel Festival.
In the second part of the questionnaire, questions regarding age, gender, nationality and country where they live were asked.
The third part of the survey regarded utilitarian products. Before starting this part, people were asked to think about the brand of a shampoo and to keep in mind the name of the brand in order to answer the following questions.
Measures
For this study, the constructs listed below were used but since a comparison between utilitarian products and experiential products has been done, the same scales have been modified in two different ways, firstly for utilitarian products and secondly for experiential products.
In this research it has been decided to consider music festivals as example of experiential products and a brand of a shampoo as example of utilitarian products. The last decision has been taken because shampoo is a product that everyone owns and needs and that can be evaluated as an important good since it has an impact on a person’s aspect. Supporting this argument is the research by Kwon, Lee and Kwon (2008) in which they state that
he or she actively looks for information about it and that he or she also evaluates other brands during the purchase decision.
Moreover, the shampoo market is considered having a substantial impact on cosmetics companies’ revenue. In fact Lucintel, a leading global management consulting and market research firm, has estimated that this segment will grow moderately during 2014-2019 and that it will reach an estimated value of $25.73 billion (“The Global Shampoo”, 2014). Therefore, it is important for the cosmetic companies to understand and discover which are the factors that can keep the customers loyal, and in this way increase their revenue.
Following there is a description of the measurement of all the scales: brand reputation, brand predictability, brand competence, peer support, affective commitment, brand loyalty and brand trust. Each variable was measured by a number of different items (a total overview of the items used are in the Appendix ). The reliability of the five variables was also analysed (see the Appendix ).
The description of the measurement of all the scales follows.
Brand Reputation. Brand Reputation’s scale by Lau and Lee (1999) with a little modification is used for measuring reputation for a brand, firstly for utilitarian products and secondly for experiential products. An example of a question is “the brand has a reputation for being good”. For utilitarian product the word “brand” has been replaced with “the brand” and for experiential products with “the festival”. The other items can be found in the
Appendix . The six items (Q7, Q9, Q10, Q11, Q12, Q13 for experiential products and Q53-Q58 for utilitarian products) measure the respondent’s point of view regarding the brand goodness, reliability, and what other people have said about the brand goodness and
agree for both scales. Moreover, a reverse coding of the items Q9, Q10, Q13, Q54, Q55, Q58 has been done since they were negatively worded.
A reliability test has been conducted and it shows Crobach’s alpha = .71: therefore, the scale for experiential product is reliable. Another reliability test has been run to test the scale for utilitarian products and it shows Crobach’s alpha = .77: therefore, also this scale is reliable.
Lastly, brand reputation’s scale that measure brand reputation for both types of
products has been constructed using the items of both scales. The new scale has a Cronbach’s alpha = .75
Brand predictability. To measure brand predictability the scale by Lau and Lee (1999) with a little modification was adopted, firstly for utilitarian products and secondly for
experiential products. These six items (Q14-Q19 for experiential products and Q59-64 for utilitarian products) measured brand consistency in quality and performance. A seven-point Likert scale was used as 1 for strongly disagree and 7 for strongly agree. An example of a question is: “when I buy the brand I know what exactly to expect”. For utilitarian product the word “brand” has been replaced with “the brand” and for experiential products with “the festival”. The items can be found in the Appendix. Since the items Q16, Q18, Q61, Q63 were negatively worded, they have been reversed coded. The reliability test shows that the scale for experiential products has a Cronbach’s alpha= .82: therefore, the scale is reliable. The
reliability test shows that the scale for utilitarian products has a Cronbach’s alpha= .81: Thus this scale is also reliable.
Lastly, predictability’s scale that measure predictability for both types of products has been constructed using the items of both scales. This new scale has a Cronbach’s alpha = .84
Brand Competence. To measure brand competence the scale containing 6 items (Q20-Q25 for experiential products and Q65-Q70 for utilitarian products) by Lau and Lee (1999) with a little modification was adopted, firstly for utilitarian products and secondly for
experiential products. A seven-point Likert scale was used as 1 for strongly disagree and 7 for strongly agree. An example of a question is “ the brand is the best one for this category of products”. For utilitarian products the word “brand” has been replaced with “the brand” and for experiential products with “the festival”. The other items can be found in the Appendix. Since the items Q21 and Q66 were negatively worded they have been reverse coded. The scale for experiential products has a Cronbach’s alpha = .88 and the scale for utilitarian products has a Cronbach’s alpha = .87. Therefore, both scales are reliable.
Lastly, the scale that measure brand competence for both types of products has been constructed using items of both scales: the new scale has a Cronbach’s alpha = .87
Peer support. Peer support was measured by asking the respondent the decision of his or her friends to support or recommend the brand’s purchase. To measure peer support the scale by Lau and Lee (1999) was adopted, firstly for utilitarian products and secondly for experiential products. A seven-point Likert scale was used as 1 for strongly disagree and 7 for strongly agree. The scale included 3 items (for experiential product items Q29-Q31, for utilitarian product items: Q74-Q76). An example of a question is “my friends recommend that I buy brand”. For utilitarian products the word “brand” has been replaced with “the brand” and for experiential products with “the festival”. The other items can be found in the Appendix. Since the item Q30 and Q75 were negatively worded they have been reverse coded. The scale for experiential products has a Cronbach’s alpha = .78 and the scale for utilitarian products has a Cronbach’s alpha = .64. Therefore both scales are reliable.
Lastly, the scale that measures peer support for both types of products has been constructed using items of both scales: the new scale has a Cronbach’s alpha = .69
Affective commitment. Affective commitment was measured using a three-item scale (Evanschitzky et al, 2006) firstly for utilitarian products (Q80-Q82) and secondly for experiential products (Q35-Q37). A seven-point Likert scale was used as 1 for strongly disagree and 7 for strongly agree. An example of a question is “I identify with the brand”. For utilitarian products the word “brand” has been replaced with “the brand” and for experiential products with “the festival”. The other items can be found in the Appendix. The scale for experiential products has a Cronbach’s alpha = .71 and the scale for utilitarian products has a Cronbach’s alpha = .76. Therefore both scales are reliable.
Lastly, the scale that measure affective commitment for both types of products has been constructed using items of both scales: the new scale has a Cronbach’s alpha = .79
Trust in a brand. The operationalization of trust in the brand involved asking the respondents if the brand can be counted on to do its job and if they are willing to rely on it. To measure trust in a brand the scale from Lau & Lee (1999) has been modified and used firstly for utilitarian and secondly for experiential products. The scale has been built by Lau and Lee (1999) using two items from Larzelere and Huston’s (1980) measure of trust in a partner and three items from the trust scale of Rempel, Holmes and Zanna (1985) study: therefore the scale is composed of 5 items (Q45-Q49 for experiential products and Q90-Q94 for utilitarian products) An example of a question is “I trust the brand”. For utilitarian products the word “brand” has been replaced with “the brand” and for experiential products with “the festival”. The other items can be found in the Appendix. Since the items Q46, Q48, Q91 and Q93 were negatively worded they have been reverse coded. A reliability test has been conducted and the
results show a Cronbach’s alpha = .78 for the scale for experiential products and Cronbach’s alpha = .78 for the scale for utilitarian products. Therefore both scales are reliable.
Lastly, brand trust’s scale that measure brand trust for both types of products has been constructed using items of both scales: the new scale has a Cronbach’s alpha = .78 and it is reliable.
Brand loyalty. As this is a cross-sectional study, it is not possible to observe the respondents’ purchase behaviour over a period of time in order to determine the extent of brand loyalty. The measurement of brand loyalty in this study focused on behavioural
intentions, in other words, it is focused on the intention of the participants to keep buying the brand and their willingness to wait if the brand was not available. To measure brand loyalty, 7 items the scale by Lau and Lee (1999) has been used and modified, firstly for utilitarian products and secondly for experiential products. A seven-point Likert scale was used as 1 for strongly disagree and 7 for strongly agree. The scale is composed of 6 items (Q83-Q89 for utilitarian products and Q38-Q44 for experiential products). An example of a question is “I do not intend to keep buying the brand”. For utilitarian products the word “brand” has been replaced with “the brand” and for experiential products with “the festival”. The other items can be found in the Appendix. Since the items Q38, Q39, Q42, Q43, Q83, Q84, Q87, Q88 were negatively worded they have been reverse coded. A reliability test for the scale for experiential products has been conducted and it shows a Cronbach’s alpha = .70. The
reliability test for the scale for utilitarian products shows a Cronbach’s alpha = .68. Therefore both scales are reliable.
Lastly, the scale that measure brand loyalty for both types of products has been constructed using items of both scales: this new scale has a Cronbach’s alpha = .73 and it reliable.
Results
Analysis
In order to test the five hypotheses H1-H5, five different moderated mediation analyses (Model 7; 5000 bootstraps; 95% BcaCI; Hayes, 2012) for the five different
predictors were run, using the predictor as independent variable, brand loyalty as dependent variable, brand trust as mediator and the types of product as moderator.
Findings
Brand predictability, trust and loyalty. A conditional indirect analysis (Model 7; 5000 bootstraps; 95% BcaCI; Hayes, 2012) has been run in order to test H1: if brand
predictability for utilitarian products leads to a higher level of trust and hence to a higher level of loyalty compared to experiential products, and if trust has a mediation effect on this
relationship. In this analysis the variable utilitarian products has been coded as 1 and
experiential products as 0. The results show that the moderation effect of the type of product on the level of trust is not statistically significant b = .21, SE =.14, t = 1.38, p = .168 [-.08, .49] and that the mediation effect is statistically significant for both utilitarian products b =.37, SE =.08, CI[.21, .55] and experiential products b =.26, SE =.08, CI [.11, .43]. In conclusion H1 has been partially accepted.
Brand competence, trust and loyalty. A moderated mediation analysis (Model 7; 5000 bootstraps; 95% BcaCI; Hayes, 2012) has been run in order to test H2: if brand competence for utilitarian products leads to a higher level of trust and hence to a higher level of loyalty compared to experiential products, and if trust has a mediation effect on this relationship. In this analysis the variable utilitarian products has been coded as 1 and experiential products as 0. The results show that the moderation effect of the type of
product on the level of trust is not statistically significant b =.23, SE =.14, t = 1.65, p = .101 [-.04, .51] and that there is a partially mediated relationship between the predictor brand competence and brand loyalty for both experiential products b =.11, SE =.06, CI[.01, .25] and utilitarian products, b =.19, SE =.08, CI[.04, .37]. Therefore, H2 has been partially accepted.
Brand reputation, trust and loyalty. A moderated mediation analysis (Model 7; 5000 bootstraps; 95% BcaCI; Hayes, 2012) has been run in order to test H3: if brand
reputation for experiential products leads to an higher level of trust and hence to a higher level of loyalty compared to utilitarian products, and if trust has a mediation effect on this
relationship. In this analysis the variable utilitarian products has been coded as 1 and
experiential products as 0. The results show that the moderation effect of the type of product on the level of trust is not statistically significant b =.31, SE =.18, t = 1.61, p = .110 [-.06, .67] and that the mediation is statistically significant only for utilitarian products b =.22, SE =.09, CI[.05, .44] and not for experiential products b =.12, SE =.13, CI[-.01, .42]. Therefore, H3 has been rejected.
Peer support, trust and loyalty. A moderated mediation analysis (Model 7; 5000 bootstraps; 95% BcaCI; Hayes, 2012) has been run in order to test H4: if peer support for experiential products leads to an higher level of trust and hence to a higher level of loyalty compared to utilitarian products, and if trust has a mediation effect on this relationship. In this analysis the variable utilitarian products has been coded as 1 and experiential products as 0. The results show that the moderation effect of the type of product on the level of trust is statistically significant b =.41, SE =.15, t = 1.62, p <.05 However, the relationship between the predictor peer support and brand trust is not statistically significant =.12, SE =.09, t =
1.21, p = .228 [-.07, .31], implying that the moderation and the mediation effects do not exist. In conclusion, H4 has been rejected.
Affective commitment, trust and brand loyalty. A conditional indirect analysis (Model 7; 5000 bootstraps; 95% BcaCI; Hayes, 2012) has been run in order to test H5: if affective commitment for experiential products leads to an higher level of trust and hence to a higher level of loyalty compared to utilitarian products, and if trust has a mediation effect on the relationship between this relationship. In this analysis the variable utilitarian products have been coded as 1 and experiential products as 0. The results show that the moderation effect of the type of product on the level of trust is not statistically significant b =.12, SE =.11, t = 1.07, p = .285 and that the mediation effect is not significant for both experiential products b =.08, SE =.06, CI[-.01, .23] and utilitarian products b =.11, SE =.06, CI[-.02, .23].
Therefore, H5 has been rejected.
Discussion
The aim of this research was to find out if there is any difference between brand loyalty for experiential products and brand loyalty for utilitarian products, and if trust has a mediation effect on this relationship.
The results of the moderated mediation analysis conducted to test H1 show that the relationship between the predictors brand predictability and brand loyalty is significantly mediated by trust for both products, partially confirming the hypothesis. This means that for both products brand predictability is an important factor that predicts brand trust. This results are also confirmed in Lau and Lee’s (1999) study where they found that consumers pay attention whether utilitarian products are predictable or not, and based on that they trust it or not. However, brand predictability is important for experiential products, also meaning that
people trust the brand in predicting its performance. This is probably due to the fact that people base their opinion on the previous information that they received and that they trust that information, not taking into account that the performance of the product or service might change.
Although most of the hypotheses could not be supported showing that there is no difference between brand loyalty for experiential products and brand loyalty for utilitarian products, other results are worth considering. Specifically, by testing the hypotheses H2, H3, H4 and H5 a direct relationship has been found between the predictors brand competence, brand reputation, affective commitment and peer support on brand loyalty. This also implies that trust does not have a mediation effect on these relationships, except for the relationship between the predictor brand competence and brand loyalty where this relationship is partially mediated by trust, meaning that for both kind of products brand competence is an important factor that help build brand loyalty.
The moderated mediation analysis in which affective commitment has been used as predictor (H5) shows that affective commitment has a direct effect on brand loyalty. This might be because affective commitment, besides having an effect on trust, as it has been hypothesized in this research, can be also considered as direct antecedent of brand loyalty. In fact, in a previous study it has been found that commitment, considered as the economic and/or psychological attachments towards the brand, has a central role in building brand loyalty and therefore it can be considered a predictor of brand loyalty (Iglesias, Singh, & Batista-Fouget, 2010). Moreover, other studies state that affective commitment is the main factor that is necessary to develop brand loyalty (Amine, 1998; Mattila, 2001;
Punniyamoorthy & Prasanna, 2007).
The direct effect of brand reputation on brand loyalty that has been found testing H3 might be due to the fact that brand reputation can be also considered as a direct predictor of
brand loyalty. In fact, Idress et al. (2015) ‘s study suggests that whenever customers have a high evaluation and a good attitude towards a brand, and therefore they perceive the brand as having a good reputation, they are more likely to be loyal to that brand.
Results of the moderated mediation analysis where brand competence has been used as predictor (H2) also show a direct effect of brand competence on brand loyalty. A
justification of this relationship is that in the research conduced by Kressmann et al. (2006), where the effects of self-image congruence on brand loyalty has been studied, brand
competence has been found as being a predictor of brand loyalty. This means that trust does not necessary mediate this relationship.
Lastly, testing H4, the results also show a direct effect of peer support on brand loyalty. This effect might be explained by the fact that peer groups and families have a positive influence on consumers when they form the image of the brand (Bruce & Hill 1998). As a consequence, group social influences are assumed to have a strong positive impact on brand loyalty (Gounaris & Stathakopoulos, 2004)
The moderation effect of the type of product on the relationship between the
predictors of trust and trust is not significant in any hypotheses. A cause of these results might be that people do not evaluate products in the same way, but different people have different opinions. In other words, a predictor of brand trust such as brand competence might be more salient for one person than another (Batra & Ahtola, 1991) but this does not depend on the type of product. Specifically, it has been found that both the consumption of experiential and utilitarian products is discretionary and their difference is a matter of perception (Khan, Dhar, & Werenbroch, 2004). Therefore, it can be said that the different evaluation of the predictors depends on the person itself and not on the type of product. In line with this argument is the fact that hedonic and utilitarian motivations for consumption do not need to be mutually exclusive (Batra & Ahtola, 1991). In other words, some people might give both utilitarian (for
cleaning the hair) and hedonic attributes (for leaving a good flavour) to a shampoo. This means that the difference between utilitarian and hedonic products might be blurred and therefore the moderation effect might not exist.
The results of this study contribute to the research of consumers’ behaviour towards a brand by focusing on the factors that can help build brand loyalty, and elements that can mediate and moderate the relationship between brand loyalty and its predictors.
By confirming the direct effect of brand competence, brand reputation, affective commitment and peer support on brand loyalty, this study demonstrates that marketers should focus on these factors when they want to build a relationship that keeps customers loyal. Specifically, in order to achieve brand competence, a brand should specialize only in a few areas, otherwise consumers might doubt its capability when there exist too many extensions beyond its core competence (Lau & Lee, 1999); marketers should try to develop a good reputation for the brand by managing in an efficient way advertising, public relations and marketing campaigns. Moreover they should try to keep good relationship and develop affective commitment with their customers in order to create a positive word of mouth and they should try to foster peer support encouraging consumers to talk about the purchased product with their family and friends.
Limitations and future researches
Three main limitations need to be acknowledged for this study.
The first is based on the fact that only one product has been taken as an example of the entire category of products, correspondingly music festivals for experiential products and a shampoo for utilitarian products. Even if it can be assumed that the results can be also generalized to other products, for future research it is recommended to also choose other products such as movies or other types of festivals for experiential category and shower gels
or soap for utilitarian category. This would allow a better understanding of the whole mechanism that is behind brand loyalty.
The second limitation regards the measurement of brand loyalty.In this study brand loyalty has been measured studying respondents’ behavioural intentions and due to the fact that it is a cross-sectional study, it is not possible to monitor their purchase behaviour in a long time frame. Future research should try to repeat this study using a longitudinal survey, gathering information over a longer period of time.
The third limitation of this study concerns the sample. Beside the fact that the number of the respondents was small (N = 53), a further problem is that most of the people who have been recruited were friends, people who lived or live in the Netherlands, and most of them were young; therefore the sample is homogenous and not representative of the entire population. The research can be replicated with people from different countries and of different ages in order to be able to generalize the results and to study consumer behaviour in a more efficient way.
Future research could also incorporate different mediators, moderators and predictors of brand trust and brand loyalty. For example, in her research, Veloutsous (2015) found that brand relationship has a mediation effect on the relationship between trust and loyalty; Bloemer and Kasper (1995) found that brand satisfaction has a positive impact on brand loyalty and that the relationship between brand satisfaction and brand loyalty is moderated by the type of satisfaction.
Conclusion
The aim of the current study was to answer the research questions: “To what extent is there a difference between brand loyalty for experiential products and brand loyalty for utilitarian products? Does trust mediate this relationship?”.
The study does not provide any statically significant result with which is possible to answer this research questions. However, it is interesting to see that trust mediates the relationship between brand predictability and brand loyalty and that brand reputation, brand competence, affective commitment and peer support have a direct effect on brand loyalty. Concluding, companies should take into consideration these four predictors when they want to build brand loyalty with their consumers and consider that trust is an important factor in building loyalty for brand predictability.
References
Afzal, H., Khan, M. A., Rehman, K. U., Ali, I., & Wajahat, S. (2009). Consumer’s trust in the brand: can it be built through brand reputation, brand competence and brand
predictability. IBR International Business Research, 3(1). doi:10.5539/ibr.v3n1p43 Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective,
continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 63(1), 1-18. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x
Amine, A. (1998). Consumers' true brand loyalty: The central role of commitment. Journal of
Strategic Marketing, 6(4), 305-319. doi:10.1080/096525498346577
Baek, E., & Choo, H. J. (2015). Effects of peer consumption on hedonic purchase decisions.
Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal Soc Behav Personal,
43(7), 1085-1099. doi:10.2224/sbp.2015.43.7.1085
Bart, Y., Shankar, V., Sultan, F., & Urban, G. L. (2005). Are the drivers and role of online trust the same for all web sites and consumers? A large-scale exploratory empirical study. Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 133-152. doi:10.1509/jmkg.2005.69.4.133
Batra, R., & Ahtola, O. T. (1991). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes. Marketing Letters, 2(2), 159-170. doi:10.1007/bf00436035
Bearden, W. O., & Etzel, M. J. (1982). Reference group influence on product and brand purchase decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 183. doi:10.1086/208911 Bearden, W. O., & Rose, R. L. (1990). Attention to social comparison information: an
individual difference factor affecting consumer conformity. Journal of Consumer
Research, 16(4), 461. doi:10.1086/209231
Bearden, W. O., Netemeyer, R. G., & Teel, J. E. (1989). Measurement of consumer
susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(4), 473. doi:10.1086/209186
Bloemer, J., & Kasper, H. D. (1995). The complex relationship between consumer satisfaction and brand loyalty. Journal of Economic Psychology, 16(2), 311-329. doi:10.1016/0167-4870(95)00007-b
Bruce, M. K., & Hill, A. J. (1998). Fashion brand preferences among young consumers.
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 26(8), 293-300.
doi:10.1108/09590559810231742
Calder, B. J., & Burnkrant, R. E. (1977). Interpersonal influence on consumer behavior: an attribution theory approach. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(1), 29.
doi:10.1086/208676
Cavicchia, M. (2016, May 18) Dekmantel: il valore aggiunto sta nei back-to-back. Retrieved from http://www.soundwall.it/dekmantel-il-valore-aggiunto-sta-nei-back-to-back/
Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2002). Product-class effects on brand commitment and brand outcomes: the role of brand trust and brand affect. Journal of Brand
Management, 10(1), 33-58. doi:10.1057/palgrave.bm.2540100
Cohen, J. B., & Golden, E. (1972). Informational social influence and product evaluation.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 56(1), 54-59. doi:10.1037/h0032139
Cooper-Martin, E. (1992). “Consumers and movies; Information Sources For Experiential Products”, in NA – Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 19, eds. John F. Sherry, Jr. and Brian, Provo, UT: association for Consumer, Pages: 756-761.
Day, G. S. (1976). A two-dimensional concept of brand loyalty. Lecture Notes in Economics
and Mathematical Systems Mathematical Models in Marketing, 89-89.
doi:10.1007/978-3-642-51565-1_26
Delgado‐Ballester, E. (2004). Applicability of a brand trust scale across product categories.
European Journal of Marketing, 38(5/6), 573-592. doi:10.1108/03090560410529222
strength of affective commitment in securing loyalty in service relationships. Journal
of Business Research, 59(12), 1207-1213. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.08.005
Frey, B. S. (1994). The economics of music festivals. Journal of Cultural Economics, 18(1), 29-39. doi:10.1007/bf01207151
Fullerton, G. (2003). When does commitment lead to loyalty? Journal of Service Research, 5(4), 333-344. doi:10.1177/1094670503005004005
Getz, D. (1991). Festivals, Special Events, and Tourism. New York. NY: Van Notrand Reinhold
Global Agricultural Marketing Management (1997) Chapter 8: Product Decisions. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/w5973e/w5973e0c.htm
Gounaris, S., & Stathakopoulos, V. (2004). Antecedents and consequences of brand loyalty: An empirical study. Journal of Brand Management, 11(4), 283-306.
doi:10.1057/palgrave.bm.2540174
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., & Gremler, D. D. (2002). Understanding relationship marketing outcomes: an integration of relational benefits and relationship quality.
Journal of Service Research, 4(3), 230-247. doi:10.1177/1094670502004003006
Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 92. doi:10.2307/1251707
How DGTL Festival become one of the most successful festivals in the Dutch scene (2016, February 23) Retrieved from https://www.fest300.com/magazine/dgtl-festival-the-story-behind-one-of-the-most-successful-players-in-the-dutch-festival-industry
Idrees, Z., Xinping, X., Shafi, K., Hua, L., Nazeer, A., (2015). Consumer’s brand trust and its link to brand loyalty. American Journal of Business, Economics and Management, 3(2), 34-39
affective commitment in determining brand loyalty. Journal of Brand Management, 18(8), 570-582. doi:10.1057/bm.2010.58
Jacoby, J., & Kyner, D. B. (1973). Brand loyalty vs. repeat purchasing behavior. Journal of
Marketing Research, 10(1), 1. doi:10.2307/3149402
Jiang, Y., & Wang, C. L. (2006). The impact of affect on service quality and satisfaction: The moderation of service contexts. Journal of Services Marketing, 20(4), 211-218.
doi:10.1108/08876040610674562
Khan, U., Dhar, R., & Werenbroch, K., (2004) A behavioral decision theory perspective on hedonic and utilitarian choice. Inside Consumption: Frontiers of Research on Consumer Motives, Goals, and Desires. 144-165
Kressmann, F., Sirgy, M. J., Herrmann, A., Huber, F., Huber, S., & Lee, D. (2006). Direct and indirect effects of self-image congruence on brand loyalty. Journal of Business
Research, 59(9), 955-964. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.06.001
Kwon, K., Lee, M., & Kwon, Y. J. (2008). The effect of perceived product characteristics on private brand purchases. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25(2), 105-114.
doi:10.1108/07363760810858846
Larzelere, R. E., & Huston, T. L. (1980). The dyadic trust scale: toward understanding interpersonal trust in close relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42(3), 595. doi:10.2307/351903
Lau, G., & Lee, S., (1999). Consumer’s trust in a brand and the link to brand loyalty. Journal of Market-Focused Managment,, 4(4), 341-370
Liao, Y., (2015). The role of trust on brand loyalty and brand equity. ToKnowPress, 603-612.
Mattila, A. (2001). Emotional bonding and restaurant loyalty. The Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42(6), 73-79.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20. doi:10.2307/1252308
Nicholson, R. E., & Pearce, D. G. (2001). Why do people attend events: a comparative analysis of visitor motivations at four South Island Events. Journal of Travel
Research, 39(4), 449-460. doi:10.1177/004728750103900412
O'Shaughnessy, J. (1987). Why people buy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Oliver, R. L. (1997), Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Punniyamoorthy, M., & Raj, M. P. (2007). An empirical model for brand loyalty
measurement. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 15(4), 222-233. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jt.5750044
Reicheld, F. F., & Schefter, P. (2000). E-loyalty: Your secret weapon on the web. Harvard Business Review, 78, 105–113.
Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1), 95-112. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.1.95
Schultz, D. E., Block, M. P., & Viswanathan, V. (2014). Brand preference being challenged.
Journal of Brand Management, 21(S5), 408-428. doi:10.1057/bm.2014.5
Strahilevitz, M., & Loewenstein, G. (1998). The effect of ownership history on the valuation of objects. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(3), 276-289. doi:10.1086/209539
The Global Shampoo Market 2014-2019 Trends, Forecast, and Opportunity Analysis. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.reportbuyer.com/product/2185209/the-global-shampoo-market-2014-2019-trends-forecast-and-opportunity-analysis.html
The Pop Start and the Prophet. (2015, September 17). Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34268474
Strength of Consumers’ Emotional Attachments to Brands. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 15(1), 77-91. doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1501_10
Uncles, M. D., Dowling, G. R., & Hammond, K. (2003). Customer loyalty and customer loyalty programs. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20(4), 294-316.
doi:10.1108/07363760310483676
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), 405-421. doi:10.1108/jcm-02-2014-0878
Wakefield, K. L., & Blodgett, J. G. (1999). Customer response to intangible and tangible service factors. Psychology and Marketin., 16(1), 51-68. doi:10.1002/(sici)1520-6793(199901)16:13.0.co;2-0
Appendix
Constructs Items Cronbach’s alpha
Brand Reputation Experiential Products
Q7 The festival has a reputation for being good Q9 The festival has a reputation for being unreliable
Q10 Other people have told me that the festival is not good
Q11 Other people have told me that the festival is
reliable
Q12 The festival is reputed to perform well
Q13 I have heard negative comments about the festival
.71
Brand Predictability Experiential Products
Q14 When I buy the tickets for the festival, I know what exactly to expect
Q15 I can always anticipate correctly how the festival will perform
Q16 The festival is not consistent in its quality Q17 The festival performs consistently
Q18 The festival
performance tends to be quite variable. I can’t always be sure how it will perform the next time I buy it
Q19 I know how the festival is going to perform. This brand can always be counted on to perform as I expect.
Brand Competence Experiential Products
Q20 The festival is the best one for this category of festivals
Q21 Most other festivals are better than this festival Q22 The festival performs better than other festivals Q23 The festival is more effective than other festivals Q24 The festival meets my needs better than other
festivals
Q25 The festival
accomplishes its task better than other festivals
Peer Support Experiential Products
Q29 My friends recommend to buy tickets for the festival Q 30 My friends would not support my decision to buy tickets for the festival Q31 My friends would be happy if they knew that I buy tickets for the festival
.78
Affective Commitment Experiential Products
Q35 I feel that I can trust the festival
Q36 I identify with the festival
Q37 I feel emotionally attached to the festival
.71
Brand Trust Experiential Products
Q45 I trust the festival Q46 The festival cannot be counted on to do its job Q47 I feel that I can trust the
festival completely
Q48 I cannot rely on brand the festival
Q49 I feel secure when I buy the tickets for the festival because I know that it will never let me down
Brand Loyalty Experiential Products
Q38 I do not intend to keep going to the festival
Q39 If another festival has cheaper tickets, I will generally go to the other festival instead of the festival that I chose
Q40 If the tickets for the festival that I chose are not available anymore, I will keep looking for them until I found them
Q41 If someone makes a snegative comment about the festival, I would defend it Q42 I would not recommend the festival to someone who
cannot decide to which techno music festival to go Q43 I would believe a person if that person made a
negative comment about the festival
Q44 I often tell my friends how good the festival is/was
Brand Reputation Utilitarian Products
Q53 The brand of the
shampoo has a reputation for being good
Q54 The brand of the
shampoo has a reputation for being unreliable
Q55 Other people have told me that the the brand of the shampoo is not good
Q56 Other people have told me that the brand of the shampoo is reliable Q57 The brand of the shampoo is reputed to perform well
Q58 I have heard negative
comments about the brand of the shampoo
Brand Predictability Utilitarian Products
Q59 When I buy the brand of the shampoo, I know what exactly to expect
Q60 I can always anticipate correctly how the brand of the shampoo will perform Q61 The brand of the shampoo is not consistent in its quality
Q62 The brand of the shampoo performs consistently
Q63 The brand of the shampoo performance tends to be quite variable. I can’t always be sure how it will perform the next time I buy it
Q64 I know how The brand of the shampoo is going to perform. This brand can always be counted on to
perform as I expect.
Brand Competence Utilitarian Products
Q65 The brand of the shampoo is the best one for this category of festivals
Q66 Most other brands of shampoo are better of the shampoo that I chose
Q67 The brand of the shampoo performs better than other brands
Q68 The brand of the shampoo is more effective than other brands
Q69 The brand of the shampoo meets my needs better than other brands Q70 The brand of the shampoo accomplishes its task better than other brand
Peer Support Utilitarian Products
Q74 My friends recommend to buy the brand of this shampoo
Q75 My friends would not support my decision to buy the brand of this shampoo Q76 My friends would be happy if they knew that I buy the brand of this shampoo
.64
Affective Commitment Q80 I feel that I can trust the brand of this shampoo Q81 I identify with the brand of this shampoo
Q82 I feel emotionally attached to the brand of this shampoo
.76
Brand Trust Utilitarian Products
Q 90 I trust the brand of the shampoo
Q 91 The brand of the shampoo cannot be counted on to do its job
Q92 I feel that I can trust the brand of this shampoo
completely
Q93 I cannot rely on the brand of the shampoo
Q94 I feel secure when I buy the brand of the shampoo because I know that it will never let me down
Brand Loyalty Utilitarian Products
Q83 I do not intend to keep buying the brand of the shampoo
Q84 If another brand of shampoo is having a sale, I will generally buy to the other brand instead of this one
Q85 If the brand of the shampoo is not available in the store when I need it, I will buy it somewhere else Q86 If someone makes a negative comment about the brand of the shampoo, I would defend it
Q87 I would not recommend .68
the brand of this shampoo to someone who cannot decide which brand to buy in this product class
Q88 I would believe a person if that person made a
negative comment about the brand of this shampoo
