The impact of brand museum characteristics on social network content sharing

(1)

The impact of brand museum characteristics on

social network content sharing

David Spelbos S2501996 B190253295 d.spelbos@student.rug.nl d.spelbos2@newcastle.ac.uk Dissertation

MSc Advanced International Business Management and Marketing University of Groningen

Newcastle University Business School

Supervisors

Dr. M.J. Klasing - University of Groningen

Dr. D. Gregory-Smith - Newcastle University Business School

(2)

2

Abstract

This study examines the impact of brand museum characteristics on social network content sharing through enhanced brand experience. The influence of three brand museum characteristics on social network content sharing is investigated, as well as their relative importance. Also, the role of brand experience in this relationship will be examined. To explain the relationship between these constructs, consumer culture theory is used. Besides this overall aim, this study will additionally investigate whether nationality influences the proposed relationship. The results are obtained through a quantitative research design with a total sample of 333 respondents, of which 181 are Dutch, and 152 are British. Furthermore, the respondents needed to have visited a brand museum in the FMCG industry to be eligible for the survey. In line with the expectations, all three brand museum characteristics have a significant positive influence on brand experience. Only store atmosphere has a direct significant effect on social network content sharing. All relationships between the brand museum characteristics and social network content sharing were found to be mediated by brand experience. Furthermore, it was found that nationality significantly moderates the relationship between brand museum characteristics and social network content sharing. Overall, the findings of this research suggest relevant contributions to the literature and managerial implications. Furthermore, practical implications for the specific characteristics of brand museums are provided.

Keywords: Brand Museums, Experiential Stores, Brand Experience, Social Network Content

(3)

3

Acknowledgements

By finalising this dissertation not only my Master Advanced International Business Management and Marketing at the University of Groningen and the Newcastle University Business School comes to an end, but also my time as a student. Throughout these years, I had the opportunity to meet many new people, to make memories and to develop myself into the person I am today.

First of all, I would like to thank my supervisors, dr. M.J. Klasing from the University of Groningen and dr. D. Gregory-Smith from the Newcastle University Business School for guiding me throughout this project. Thank you very much for all the valuable feedback, the friendly support and fast responses to my questions. It was a pleasure working with you!

Furthermore, I would like to express my gratitude to everyone who filled in my survey and to the ones who helped me distributing it. Without them, I would not have been able to complete my dissertation.

Finally, I would like to thank my family, friends and roommates for their support and encouragement. Especially to my parents who gave me all the support I needed. Thank you Rick Heitkönig for spending the long hours in the library with me. My dissertation process would have been very different without them.

Thank you all.

(4)

4

1. Introduction

Brand experience is seen as one of the most promising concepts to have emerged in consumer research over the last decade (Andreini et al., 2018). Consumers are found to be increasingly demanding memorable experiences. Consequently, the creation of superior brand experiences has become one of the main objectives in retail (Kim et al., 2012). Retailers use brand experiences to differentiate themselves from competitors by aiming at building relationships that will eventually lead to brand loyalty and brand advocacy (Smilansky, 2017). Driven by the focus on the creation of superior brand experiences, large firms such as Nike, Amazon and Charlotte Tilbury are transforming their physical stores into experiential retail spaces, which are tailored to provide powerful experiences with the brand (Forbes, 2016, 2018a, b). In the race to differentiate and connect with consumers, using experiences, some firms even created whole museums dedicated to their brand. In the literature, these museums dedicated to specific brands are known as brand museums.

(7)

7 remained limited but is argued for to be important for our understanding (Nierobisch et al., 2017). According to Chaney et al. (2018), especially the museum orientation of brands remains poorly studied in the existing literature. Therefore, the first contribution to the existing literature is to provide empirical evidence for the impact of brand museums on brand experience.

People are snapping, posting, sharing, tweeting and Instagramming their daily lives and sharing it with their social network. At the same time, Barger et al. (2016) argue that despite the dramatically increased participation and creation of social media platforms by marketers, only a relatively small fraction have seen actual positive outcomes in the form of increased consumer-brand engagement. Consumers are in power to share their brand-related experiences and thoughts easily and widely through social networks (Gensler et al., 2013). The extant literature on content sharing and electronic word-of-mouth have mainly focused on general incentives for sharing content through the different media and the functions it serves (Berger, 2014; Fu et al., 2017). Meanwhile, largely ignoring what, when and why consumers share content related to brands on social networking sites (SNS). Consequently, the second contribution of this research to the literature is to examine the effect brand museum characteristics have on social network content sharing, through increased brand experience.

(8)

8 The insights gained in this study are particularly relevant to the Fast-Moving-Consumer-Goods industry (FMCG). Among other retail categories, the FMCG industry seems to be most needy to develop the relationship with their customers, as consumption of FMCG brands generally comes from price promotions, affective advertising or situational need gratification (Nierobisch

et al., 2017). Many giants in FMCG industry already created a museum for their brand. Examples are the Heineken Experience in the Netherlands, the Guinness Storehouse in Dublin and the World of Coca-Cola in the United-States, see Appendix I.

In sum, this research offers several new contributions to the existing literature concerning the aspects mentioned above of brand museums. First, this research aims at examining the impact of brand museums on brand experience. Therefore, empirical evidence will be provided on the relative importance of brand museums on brand experience. Second, it is important to take into account the vehicles and outcomes of enhanced brand experience. Therefore, this research will examine the mediating effect of brand experience on the relationship between brand museum characteristics and social network content sharing. Third, this study will examine the effect of national culture on this relationship. Based on these subjects, the following research question is formulated:

“Do brand museums have an impact on sharing content in social networks through increased brand experience?”

(9)

9

2. Theoretical background

The following section will start with the introduction of the consumer culture theory (CCT). CCT is a stream of research that addresses the dynamic relationship between consumer actions, the marketplace, and cultural meanings. All aspects of this study are embedded in this stream of research, and it will, therefore, be used as a theoretical framework to answer the research question. After the introduction of CCT, the different aspects of brand museums will be discussed and linked to brand experience and the behaviour of sharing content on social networking sites.

2.1 Consumer Culture Theory

Consumer culture theory refers to a stream of research providing extensive theoretical perspectives that address the relationship between consumer actions, the market, and cultural meanings (Arnould and Thompson, 2005). According to CCT, culture can be conceptualized as laying at the foundation of experience, meaning, and action (Geertz, 2008). Furthermore, consumer culture determines the boundaries of action, feeling, and thought of consumers. This makes some behavioural patterns of consumer more likely than others (Kozinets, 2002; Askegaard et al., 2005)

(10)

10 and Gilly, 2003). The marketplace has become the most important source of mythic and symbolic resources through which consumers construct narratives of identity. It is theorized that the marketplace produces certain kinds of consumer positions that consumers can choose to inhabit (Holt, 2002; Arnould and Thompson, 2005). This way the marketplace is able to have an influence on consumer culture and thus to a certain extent steer consumer behaviour.

CCT is especially relevant for this study as it concerns particular marketing strategies aimed at systematically inducing consumers to a specific attitude, action or condition related to customer identification. In the end, the objective is to have more control over the behavioural patterns of consumers. The idea behind brand museums is focused on providing consumer experiences and strengthening the relationship with consumers. In this study brand museums can be linked to the marketplace, brand experience to cultural meaning and the sharing of content on social networking sites to consumer actions. The next chapter will further discuss the concept of brand museums and their characteristics to better understand the relationship between cultural meaning and consumer actions.

2.2 Brand Museums

2.2.1 From servicescapes to brand museums

(11)

11 material realities and even more important, that cherished cultural narratives are reworked to serve commercial aims.

Since the emergence of servicescapes, the literature has expanded the field significantly, as can be seen in Appendix II. The term servicescapes has been largely abandoned and as overarching term “experience stores” is found to be more fitting (Jones et al. 2010). The literature on experience stores, as summarised in Appendix II, shows many different descriptions of the different forms of stores. One of the early studies on experience stores by Kozinets et al. (2004) described these stores as an environment for play, by providing consumers with the ability to explore the self and social relationships, meanwhile staying within the boundaries set by the brand. CCT argued that consumer culture determines the boundaries of action, feeling, and thought of consumers making some behavioural patterns more likely than others (Kozinets, 2002; Askegaard et al., 2005). So, according to CCT, experience stores are expected to be focused on influencing consumer actions by providing resources that can be used for constructing identity.

2.2.2 Brand museums

(12)

12 Orwig, 2002; Stigliani and Ravasi, 2007). The increase in the popularity of opening a brand museum is depicted by the recent openings of the Nestlé Museum (Switzerland), the IKEA museum (Sweden) and the rebuild Macallan Distillery (Scotland).

(13)

13 not been quantitatively researched. Therefore, a significantly tested set of characteristics cannot be found. However, some studies tried to identify what makes brand museums stand out from other forms of experience stores (Hollenbeck et al., 2008; Chaney et al., 2018; Pulh et al., 2019). The characteristic “Brand Heritage Function” will be further elaborated on in the following section.

2.2.3 Brand heritage function

In brand museums, brands cross the borders of a purely commercial relationship with their customers to redefine itself as heritage artefact. Following an extended case study on the Laughing Cow House, Chaney et al. (2018) suggest in their study that a brand museum endorses two roles by the implementation of a heritage construction: an inter-generational memory role and a community representation role, see figure 1.1. Their findings state that to evolve into a heritage object brand museums assume an inter-generational memory role. Brands are transmitting history by emphasising its age and tradition throughout the visit from a positive viewpoint. Furthermore, brand museums aim at communicating the expertise of the brand by providing technical and material evidence of their expertise. Finally, brand museums are transmitting anecdotes, stories and folktales about the brand. These stories are shared to create and feed the legend of the brand’s origins.

Figure 1.1: The inter-generational memory and community representation role of brand in brand museums

(14)

14 At the same time, when evolving into a heritage object, the brand also assumes the role of community representation. This construct allows the brand to represent and embody the local community and therefore valuing its essential characteristics. This is done by exhibiting visible signs of the community’s activity in the area. Furthermore, it functions to create the perception as a symbol of communities and to re-define products and objects into art objects. Both roles have a clear overlap with consumer culture theory arguing that experiences of authenticity are put forward as important drivers for constructing narratives (Arnould and Thompson, 2005). Furthermore, experiential consumption activities foster collective identification grounded in shared beliefs, meanings, mythologies, rituals, social practices, and status systems (Grayson and Martinec, 2004). According to the literature, brand museums transform their heritage into material realities and even more important, their historical and cultural narratives are reworked to serve commercial aims.

2.4 Brand Experience

Based on the discussed literature, it can be found that brand museums make use of narrative design in order to direct consumer experiences. According to consumer culture theory, a narrative design can direct the course of consumers’ mental attention, experiences, and related practices of self-narration (Arnould and Thompson, 2005)

2.4.1 Dimensions of brand experience

(15)

15 brand appeals to the five senses and the interest consumers have in the brand is captured by the sensory dimension. The affective dimension captures the degree to which consumers feel emotionally connected to the brand. This dimension relates to sentiments, feelings, and emotions encouraged by interaction with the brand. Brands can also trigger imaginative and analytical thinking. This is what the intellectual dimension is related to. It captures the extent to which consumers are made to think or stimulated in their curiosity and problem-solving abilities by brands. Lastly, the behavioural dimension is concerned with customers attitudes and actions triggered by brands. This includes the degree to which consumers are engaged in physical activity and experiences during the interaction with the brand (Brakus et al., 2009).

2.4.2 Experience intensity and the FMCG industry

The strength and intensity of brand experiences can differ. Some brand experiences are perceived as ordinary and common, while others are perceived as strong and memorable (Zarantonello and Schmitt, 2013). These strong and memorable experiences are important as it likely leads to many advantages, including brand loyalty, brand-consumer-relationship, enhanced customer satisfaction, brand equity and brand personality (Brakus et al., 2009; Iglesias et al., 2011; Nam et al., 2011; Ramaseshan and Stein, 2014).

(16)

16

2.5 Social network content sharing

According to consumer culture theory, consumers use the different resources provided by the marketplace, such as brand narratives and experience, to further develop their identity and lifestyle goals (Kozinets, 2001; Holt, 2002)This section will argue how social networking sites play an important role in the impression management of their social life, shaping the impression others have of them.

2.5.1 The social media generation

SNS has infiltrated the daily lives of numerous people. Not only Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat are used daily; also professional, romantic and creative media like LinkedIn, Match.com and Pinterest joined to play an important role in people’s daily rituals (Krishen et

al., 2016). It becomes clear that people are opening up to more and more social and digital

media. The millennials and generation Z can be seen as social media generations. Traditional advertising and mass media do not fit in the demands and wishes of these demographics anymore, at the same time social networking media, such as Snapchat, Instagram and Facebook are growing exponentially (Smilansky, 2017). SNS provides its users with the possibility to engage in consumer-to-consumer (C2C) communications. This can occur in the form of sharing experiences, sharing knowledge through electronic word of mouth (eWOM), seeking information, and meeting people (Berezan et al., 2015).

SNS have a tremendous psychological effect on people using it by influencing anxiety levels and a sense of self-worth (Sheldon et al., 2011). Successful social networking platforms manage to motivate its users to engage in social networking behaviour. Users have the possibility on these platforms to build relationships, express autonomy and exercise competence (Krishen et

al., 2016). It is argued by the self-determination theory (SDT) that satisfaction of certain needs

(17)

17 networking (Sheldon et al., 2011). Overall, SNS rely on the sense of community for their success and sustainability. The sense of community is created through communication among members (Berezan et al., 2015).

2.5.2 Sharing intention

Berger (2014) describes the sharing of opinions, news, information, gossip and chitchat as interpersonal communication. In their opinion, all of this is part of word-of-mouth. The concept of word-of-mouth includes sharing product-related content, product-related discussions, direct recommendations and mere mentions. However, the extant literature treats word-of-mouth in the virtual world mainly as writing recommendations and product evaluations on channels like blogs, review websites, social media websites, discussion forums and shopping websites (Cheung and Thadani, 2012). Interpersonal communication or social talk has a considerable impact on consumer behaviour as it generates more than 3.3 billion brand impressions a day (Keller and Libai, 2009). It increases product awareness and convinces people to expand their boundaries and try new things (Van den Bulte and Wuyts, 2009).

(18)

18 Information acquisition is used by a consumer to obtain information needed about, for example, certain products or how to solve a particular problem. Social bonding relates to the need for consumers to relate to others (Rimé, 2009). Sharing content is argued to facilitate social bonding through reducing loneliness, reinforcing shared views and social exclusion. Finally, the last function of sharing content is to persuade others. Persuasion motives may lead to consumers sharing things that are more emotionally polarised or perceived as more arousing (Berger, 2014).

2.8 Nationality

(19)

19 this study will add an additional research question focused on the influence of nationality on the outcomes of brand museum characteristics.

2.9. Hypotheses development

2.9.1 Brand museums and brand experience

Consumer culture theory highlights how the marketplace converts cultural ideals into tangible realities. Cultural narratives are used and adapted to be used for commercial goals. Customer experiences are channelled towards trajectories that are created by brands. The characteristics of brand museums are expected to serve the same purpose and focus on achieving brand experiences.

Hedonic consumption is related to behaviour that is connected to the multisensory, fantasy and emotive facets of consumption (Babin et al., 1994). This is expected to relate to the sensory dimension of brand experience as identified by (Brakus et al., 2009). The sensory function of brand experience is concerned with the degree to which the brand appeals to the five senses, and the interest consumers have in the brand. Furthermore, brand museums make use of the re-definition of products and objects into objects of artistic value, thereby proposing experiences for consumers perceived as sensory. They are invited to consider these re-defined objects as artistic spaces (Chaney et al., 2018).

(20)

20 characteristics seem to overlap with brand experience through the sentiments, feelings, and emotions encouraged by interaction with the brand.

Brand experience was also found to emerge when brands trigger imaginative and analytical thinking, which is concerned with the intellectual dimension. Brand museums try to stimulate factors of this dimension as they are considered as a spectacular commercial environment, offering an extraordinary experience, and at the same time, it serves the role of a museum with a historical and educational mission (Hollenbeck et al., 2008; Pulh et al., 2019). This content supports the brand to be seen as a place where knowledge transmission takes place, leading to visitors engaging in an experience that excites intellectually (Falk et al., 2012).

Also, the identified behavioural dimension of brand experience is expected to be triggered by brand museums. This dimension is concerned with customers attitudes and actions triggered by brands, including the degree to which consumers are engaged in physical activity and experiences during the brand-related interaction (Brakus et al., 2009). In brand museums, consumers are identified as the co-creators of ludic and exciting retail spectacles. Considering the arguments above, the following hypothesis is formulated:

H1: Brand museums positively affect brand experience through increased (a) hedonic

shopping value, (b) store atmosphere and (c) brand heritage function.

2.9.2 Brand museums and social network content sharing

(21)

21 Instagramming everything they do with their social networks (Smilansky, 2017). These SNS are dependent on the sense of community it provides for their success and sustainability (Berezan et al., 2015). SNS are playing an important role in the construction of narratives for identity. It is concerned with self-presentation to their network, based on CCT it is expected that resources provided by brand museums are used by consumers to construct narratives of identity via SNS.

Interpersonal communication was found to serve five functions: impression management, information acquisition, emotion regulation, social bonding, and persuasion (Berger, 2014). Impression management is mainly related to sharing content because to shape the impression others have of them. Consumers are encouraged to share useful, entertaining, self-concept related, status-related, unique and common ground accessible subjects. Brand museums try to integrate the present and the past to provide enduring experiences able to connect or reinforce the consumer-brand connection. Furthermore, it provides consumers with the freedom to explore the self, and social relationships within the trajectory set out by the brand (Kozinets et

al., 2004; Stigliani and Ravasi, 2007). Therefore, by visiting a brand museum, consumers are

exposed to entertaining, fun, interesting, useful, unique and relatable content. In CCT, this can be seen as the marketplace providing the resources to further develop consumers’ identity and lifestyle goals (Kozinets, 2001; Holt, 2002).

(22)

22

al., 2002). Social bonding can be achieved by sharing content able to reinforce shared views.

Brand museums aim at creating a community for their brand by creating a place full of mystery, community, cultural exchange and delight (Kozinets et al., 2002; Montella, 2015). Furthermore, the educational and historical mission of a brand museum can trigger the need for sharing information on social networks. The extant literature has mainly focused on information shared about product industries that are known for high personal relevance in terms of exclusivity and luxury (Dolbec and Chebat, 2013; Klein et al., 2016). In the FMCG setting, there are many competing brands offering similar products. Devoting brand equity to brands in the FMCG setting is therefore questionable (Nierobisch et al., 2017). Consequently, based on these arguments, the following hypothesis states:

H2: Brand museums increase social network content sharing through increased (a)

hedonic shopping value, (b) store atmosphere and (c) brand heritage function.

2.9.3 Brand experience and social network content sharing

(23)

23 positioned in the brand museum, appeals to the five senses and the interest consumers have in the brand. Furthermore, the affective dimension is concerned with emotions triggered by interaction with the brand (Brakus et al., 2009). Both strong emotions and sensations are creating unique and individualised experiences (Kozinets et al., 2002). Enhanced brand experiences are in turn, expected to serve five functions of the sharing intention in social networks: impression management, information acquisition, emotion regulation, social bonding, and persuasion. If a brand, is, for example, able to evoke strong emotions in their consumers they are likely to have the urge to share this in their social networks, because of the urge for social bonding or emotion regulation (Berger, 2014). The behavioural aspect of brand experience is concerned with evoking brand experience by engaging the consumer with behavioural and physical activities with the brand (Brakus et al., 2009). The physical interaction with the brand is expected to provide content and emotions that consumers want to share with their network for the management of entertaining impressions. Therefore, the following hypothesis is formulated:

H3: A higher level of perceived brand experience increases social network content

sharing.

2.9.4 Brand museums, brand experience and social network content sharing

(24)

24 Brand experiences are found to be driving brand differentiation, brand equity and business results. These live brand experiences are engaging and enduring and are, therefore one of the main objectives in retail. Brand museums create a place for retailers to create and enhance the relationship with their consumers by creating the opportunity to experience the brand in person. Including the historical and educational offered through an interactive display. Brand experience is the means through which retailers try to achieve long term advantages by using brand museums (Hollenbeck et al., 2008; Dolbec and Chebat, 2013). The characteristics of brand museums are expected to have a direct effect on social network content sharing as argued for in H2. The characteristics are furthermore expected to enhance brand experience. Brand experience, in turn, is expected to affect social network content sharing. Therefore, the following mediation hypothesis is formulated:

H4: The positive relationship between brand museums and social network content

sharing through increased (a) hedonic value, (b) store uniqueness, (c) store atmosphere

and (d) brand heritage function is mediated by brand experience.

2.9.5 Brand museums, social network content sharing and nationality

(25)

25

Figure 2.1: The conceptual model

Additionally, this study expects to find a difference in the outcomes from brand museum characteristics on Social Network Content Sharing that can be contributed to the difference in nationality. According to Hall (1989) one of the main functions of a culture is to structure the way people perceive and evaluate situations. As argued brand museums are focused on providing positive brand experiences for their consumers. Since customers are influenced by their features and cultural values (Mower et al., 2013; De Mooij, 2019),culture can be perceived as determining perceptions, thoughts, processes, responses, actions and personal interactions (Pornpitakpan and Han, 2013).Therefore, the following hypothesis is formulated:

(H5): The relationship between brand museums, brand experience and social network

content sharing is moderated by nationality.

(26)

26

2.10 Research gaps identified

The first gap identified by this study is the lack of empirical research on experiential stores and the vehicles of brand experience. Especially the museum orientation of brand museum has not been empirically tested. Therefore a generalizable set of brand museum characteristics that can be used in further studies does not exist. Brand museums are identified as an important tool to strengthen customer relationship and enhance brand image. It is therefore important to fill the gap in the empirically-based research available about brand museums. At the same time, the question of whether brand experience is influencing the relationship between brand museum characteristics and consumer behaviour outcomes will be answered,

The second identified research gap is concerned with research available about the content related to brands that is shared among consumers, which is called social network content sharing in this study. The study of Fu et al. (2017) is also one of the only studies decoupling social network content sharing from eWOM. Their study also only focuses on content sharing on Facebook, instead of the more general mediums to share content online as discussed by Berger (2014). This study aims to fill this gap about content sharing through multiple media, such as WhatsApp, Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, LinkedIn and Messenger.

(27)

27

3. Methodology

3.1 Research philosophy and design

A positivist philosophical research approach is adopted as approach for designing the methodology. Positivism refers to working with an observable social reality and the outcome is focused on delivering generalisations, which is also the aim of this study (Holden and Lynch, 2004). The methodology, therefore, needs to be highly structured involving the testing of hypotheses and statistical tools. Therefore, a quantitative approach is adopted, also due to the lack of empirical evidence on the potential of experiential stores (Nierobisch et al., 2017; Jahn

et al., 2018). Brand museums specifically have not been quantitatively examined, as far as we

know. To be able to conclude a larger population a quantitative research method contributing empirical evidence is needed (Blumberg et al., 2014). Furthermore, the addition of mediating and moderating variable measures may generate practical and theoretical information (MacKinnon, 2011). Instead of building new theory, consumer culture theory is used to explain the relationship between variables (Arnould and Thompson, 2005).

3.2 Research context

(28)

28 industry is relevant due to brand giants’ increasing investments in the direct-to-consumer models, as a response to consumers moving away from consumption and demanding experiences (PwC-Belgium, 2018; McKinsey&Company, 2019). Empirical evidence for the outcomes of brand museums is, therefore, especially relevant for the FMCG industry. Furthermore, to find support for the additional hypothesis about the influence of nationality on the conceptual model, the data will be gathered from two different countries (the Netherlands and the United Kingdom).

3.3 Data collection and survey development

(29)

29 Before administering the survey, a pre-test is carried out to ensure that all the questions in the survey are clear. This pre-test consisted of 5 respondents from the United Kingdom for the British sample and 10 respondents from the Netherlands for the Dutch sample. The participants were encouraged to give feedback on the questions and the survey as a whole. Feedback on the questions led to changes made to ensure clarity. As this survey is focused on two different geographic locations the survey needed to be translated into the native tongue of the specific locations, in this case, English and Dutch. Before administering the pre-test, three native-speakers from the United Kingdom gave feedback on the use of English. Also, the Dutch survey was checked on spelling by two native speakers. This was done to overcome misconceptions due to wrong use of language.

The data is collected throughout October 2019, and the respondents were approached via the distribution of the survey link through online channels (e.g. WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram, Messenger). The first part of the survey consisted of questions regarding the demographics of the respondents, which are potentially used as control variables in this study. Furthermore, the respondents are asked to think of their last personal visit to a brand museum in the FMCG industry (e.g. Heineken Experience, Guinness Storehouse). The respondents will be asked to write down the name of the brand (museum) they have visited recently. The second part of the survey consisted of questions regarding their experience in the brand museum, they were asked about their opinion on several statements regarding their visit. The final survey in English and Dutch is included in Appendix IV.

(30)

30 Additionally, the possibility of incomplete data is diminished by avoiding any questions that can be perceived as sensitive, such as politics, income and religion (Brace, 2018). The confidentiality of the provided information of the respondents is emphasized throughout the survey.

3.4 Sample selection and sample characteristics

(31)

31 able to perform regression the minimal sample size is 104+k, the k is referring to the number of independent variables in the model (Sarstedt and Mooi, 2014).

In table 3.1, an overview of the descriptive statistics of the sample characteristics of the total, the Dutch and the British sample can be found. In total, 498 people responded to the survey. After cleaning the sample, it was found that 69 (13,85%) answered no to the screener question, whether the respondents ever visited a brand museum in the FMCG industry, and were removed from the sample. Another 106 (21,28%) responses were removed due to incomplete data or a visit to a brand museum outside the FMCG industry. Resulting in a total sample of 333.

Table 3. 1: Sample characteristics Total, Dutch and British

Characteristic Item Total Dutch British

F* P% F P% F P% Gender Male Female Other 190 142 1 57,1 42,6 0,3 103 78 0 56,9 43,1 0 88 64 1 57,5 41,8 ,7

Age 18 – 24 years old 25 – 34 years old 35 – 44 years old 45 – 54 years old 55 – 64 years old 65 – 74 years old 140 114 35 19 23 2 42 34,2 10,5 5,7 6,9 ,6 96 52 4 12 17 0 53 28,7 2,2 6,6 9,4 0 44 62 31 8 6 2 28,8 40,5 20,3 5,2 3,9 1,3

75 years old or older 0 0 0 0 0 0

Education Primary School

GCSEs or equivalent A-levels or equivalent

University undergraduate programme University post-graduate programme Doctoral degree 2 14 32 156 124 5 ,6 4,2 9,6 46,8 37,2 1,5 1 6 6 78 90 0 ,6 3,3 3,3 43,1 49,7 0 1 8 26 79 34 5 ,7 5,2 17 51,6 22,2 3,3 Social media usage (Share a day) None 61 18,3 31 17,1 30 19,6 1 – 2 times 3 – 5 times 6 – 8 times More than 8 times

(32)

32 Concluded can be that most of the respondents in this sample can be characterised as highly educated (either university undergraduate or post-graduate), and are between 18 and 34 years old. This is not a surprising outcome, considering the non-probability, convenience sampling data collection method used. Furthermore, in the introduction, the respondents were asked to provide the name of the brand museum they have visited. A list of the provided names of both samples can be found in Appendix V. It can be concluded that the majority of the respondents have visited the Heineken Experience, Cadbury World or The Guinness Storehouse.

3.5 Measurements

(33)

33 First, the construct of the characteristics of brand museums was measured by using the items from existing literature. The variables hedonic shopping value and store atmosphere were measured as in the study of Klein et al. (2016). Therefore, hedonic shopping value is measured by using three semantic differentials (not fun-fun, dull-exciting, not thrilling-thrilling) as found by Voss et al. (2003) and tested by Rayburn and Voss (2013). The store atmosphere is measured by three semantic differentials (unattractive-attractive, unpleasant-pleasant, unpleasant atmosphere-pleasant atmosphere) adopted from the study of Baker et al. (1994). Brand heritage function is measured based on measures of brand heritage as done by Morhart et al. (2015) and Wiedmann et al. (2011). Brand experience is measured by the most recognised 8-item scale of Brakus et al. (2009), measuring sensory experience, affective experience, behavioural experience and intellectual experience (Nierobisch et al., 2017). To measure social network content sharing a dichotomous variable will be used, this item is adopted and adapted from (Prado‐Gascó et al., 2017). The question is divided per social network medium to make sure the respondents remember their behaviour correctly. The question will be separated per social network medium to ensure correct interpretation of the statement. An indication of “yes” to one of the five questions is seen as “yes” to the general question. It is chosen to measure social network content sharing on a dichotomous scale to test actual behaviour. Table 3.2 shows the list of variables used in the survey, the total overview of the questions used for each item can be found in Appendix IV.

3.6 Control variables

(34)

34 use these platforms for different ends. An example of this difference in behaviour on SNS is the amount of selfies made and posted, which was found to be higher for adolescents, compared to adults (Dhir et al., 2016)1_{. Thus, there could be a significant influence dependent on the age}

of respondents concerning the perception of brand museums and social network sharing. Second, prior research found that gender also has an impact behaviour on SNS, as women are found to use SNS mainly for relationship maintenance and men are reported as mainly using SNS for forming new relationships (Muscanell and Guadagno, 2012). Gender might, therefore, have a significant influence on social network content sharing concerning a visit to a brand museum and is chosen as the second control variable. Finally, the intensity of social media usage might have a significant influence on the relationship between brand museums and social network content sharing, as respondents who frequently share content on their social network are expected to be more likely to share content related to brand museums (Chu and Kim, 2011). Therefore, social media usage is incorporated as a control variable and will be measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 – not at all, 7 – the whole time) concerning the amount of time the respondent generally spends sharing content on SNS (Brooks, 2015). In table 3.2, a summary of all the variables measured and items used can be found. Furthermore, the complete questionnaire can be found in Appendix IV.

1_{A selfie can be described as a photo taken of oneself by using any hand-held device (e.g., phone, iPad) (}_Kiprin

(35)

35

Table 3.2: An overview of the scales used in this study’s questionnaire

Question Variable N Items Source

1-6 Demographics 5 Age, Gender, Education, Nationality, Social media usage and name of the brand museum

n.a.

7.1-7.3 Hedonic shopping value

3 Not fun – fun Dull – exciting

Not thrilling – thrilling

Rayburn and Voss (2013) 8.1-8.3 Store atmosphere 3 Unattractive – attractive Unpleasant – pleasant

Unpleasant atmosphere – pleasant atmosphere

Baker et al. (1994)

9.1-9.4 Brand heritage function

4 A brand with tradition

Characterized by its own history Part of the national treasure A strong cultural meaning

Morhart et al. (2015) and Wiedmann et al. (2011) 10.1-10.8 Brand experience

8 Strong impression on senses Interesting in a sensory way Inducing feelings and sentiments Emotional brand

Physical actions and experiences Bodily experience

Stimulates curiosity and problem solving This brand makes me think

Brakus et al. (2009)

11 Social network content sharing

1 ‘Have you ever shared content (e.g. photo, video or story) related to your visit to the brand museum on Facebook? Instagram? Snapchat? WhatsApp? Messenger?

Prado‐Gascó

et al. (2017)

3.7 Empirical design

(36)

36 measured with a dichotomous score, this mediation model is measured using several forms of regression analysis. A standardised multiple regression analysis was performed to test the relationship between brand museum characteristics and brand experience. After which a binary logistic regression will test the relationship between brand museum characteristics and social network content sharing and also between brand experience and social network content sharing. After these regression analyses, brand experience is tested for mediation of the relationship between brand museum characteristics and social network content sharing. The final step is to test what the impact of nationality is on the outcomes of the model. The dummy variable British is included as a moderator for the relationship the effect of the three brand museum characteristics and brand experience on social network content sharing.

3.8 Ethical issues

(37)

37

4. Results

4.1 Data description

The data for the model is gathered from the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, for both countries, the same survey and survey questions were used. In the final stage of the data analysis, it is tested if the difference between the Dutch and the British has an impact on the relationships between brand museum characteristics and the outcome of Social Network Content Sharing. Estimating whether the two samples from the United Kingdom and the Netherlands can be pooled for analysis is the first step that needs to be taken (De Wulf et al., 2001). An overview of the descriptives of the various variables for measuring the characteristics of brand museums in the model divided by nationality (Dutch or British) can be found in table 4.1. Brand experience and social network content sharing were not used for the comparison as both are used as outcome and are therefore expected to be influenced by the difference in nationality. Based on a comparison of the means and the outcomes of the Oneway ANOVA it was decided that the samples were adequate for data pooling. The difference between the two samples is assumed to be only coming from the difference in nationality.

Table 4.1. Descriptives and Oneway ANOVA

N Mean Std.

Deviation

Std. Error Oneway ANOVA

(38)

38

4.2 Factor analysis and Reliability analysis

(39)

39 medium used and therefore the five items are combined into one. If the “yes” was answered to one of the five items, this is accepted as “yes” to the general question. Therefore, social network content sharing will not be used for factor analysis, as there already is a single concept measuring actual behaviour (did the respondent post content on social media “yes” or “no”).

Table 4.2. Factor loadings from the factor analysis of Brand Museum Characteristics

Hedonic Shopping Value (HSV)

Store Atmosphere (SA)

Brand Heritage Function (BHF) HSV1 0.495 0.433 -0.075 HSV2 0.961 -0.034 -0.005 HSV3 0.440 0.018 0.132 SA1 0.096 0.759 -0.006 SA2 -0.131 0.849 0.092 SA3 0.085 0.627 0.018 BHF1 -0.007 0.056 0.592 BHF2 0.043 0.109 0.528 BHF3 0.013 -0.082 0.670 BHF4 0.006 0.010 0.646

Bold numbers are indicating that the measure loaded on the factor

Extraction method: Principal axis factoring. Rotation method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization

Table 4.3. Factor loadings from the factor analysis of Brand Experience

Brand Experience (BE)

BE1 0.673 BE2 0.500 BE3 0.700 BE4 0.638 BE5 0.427 BE6 0.486 BE7 0.609 BE8 0.732

(40)

40 To measure the internal consistency of the final set of scale items, a reliability test is needed; this is done by testing for the Cronbach's alpha. The Cronbach's alpha can be used when a measurement is needed that indicates the degree to which the different items used to measure the same underlying concept are consistent. If all the items related to a certain factor are measuring the same concept, it can be seen as reliable. The threshold for items capture to be of conceptually satisfactory is when the Cronbach's alpha for each factor is higher than 0.6 (Malhotra, 2010). For the concept of hedonic shopping value, a Cronbach's alpha of 0.715 was found, for Store Atmosphere a Cronbach's alpha of 0.811 is found, a Cronbach's alpha of 0.716 is found for Brand Heritage Function. Finally, a Cronbach's alpha of 0.826 is found for the measurement of brand experience. Hence, all Cronbach's alphas are between 0.715 and 0.826, it can, therefore, be concluded that the items are internally consistent. Consequently, based on the factor analysis and Cronbach’s Alpha values, a sum variable was created for all constructs by calculating the average scores of the items loading high on its respective factor. The four new averaged variables are formed to be used for further analyses. Table 4.4 presents an overview of the descriptive statistics of the different variables, including Cronbach's alphas of each variable and correlations between the variables.

Table 4.4. Descriptive statistics, correlations and reliability

Mean (standard deviation) 1 2 3 4 5 1. HSV 5.4920 (0.79482) 0.715 2. SA 5.9313 (0.72838) 0.546** 0.811 3. BHF 5.6888 (0.82711) 0.375** 0.413** 0.716 4. BE 5.3544 (0.81971) 0.532** 0.554** 0.511** 0.826 5. SNCS 0.7 (0.4580 0.312** 0.363** 0.238** 0.328** -

(41)

41

4.5 Multiple regression analysis

(42)

42

4.5 Logistic regression

To test the second part of the model, the relationship between brand museum characteristics, brand experience and social network content sharing a logistic regression analysis was performed. The outcomes of brand museums and brand experience on Social Network Content Sharing cannot be tested with standardised regression analysis as the outcome is measured on a dichotomous scale. The outcomes of the logistic regression analysis can be found in table 4.6. The first model included the control variables female (dummy variable man = 0 and female = 1), age, education and social media usage. British was not included in this model as this is added later in the model to test for moderation effects. Model 1 shows a highly significant chi-square of 34.999, p = 0.001. The model shows that the control variable Age, Education and Social Media Usage have a significant effect on the outcome variable

Table 4.5. Results from standardized multiple regression analyses

Model 1 Model 2 coefficient estimate standard error (VIF) coefficient estimate standard error (VIF) Control Female -0.022 0.091 (1.012) -0.041 0.069 (1.033) Age -0.012 0.037 (1.008) -0.020 0.028 (1.039) Education -0.062 0.054 (1.017) -0.058 0.040 (1.020)

Social Media Usage 0.130** 0.049

(1.002)

0.069 0.037

(1.022)

Main effects

Hedonic Shopping Value 0.266** 0.052

(1.530)

Store Atmosphere 0.308** 0.058

(1.577)

Brand Heritage Function 0.300** 0.047

(1.322) F value 2.115 0.159 0.013 39.061** 0.445 0.457 R2 Adjusted R2

Dependent Variable: Brand Experience; N = 333

(43)

43 Social Network Content Sharing, throughout the four models. Model 2 shows a highly

significant chi-square of 90.917, p = 0.001, meaning that the model has improved

(44)

44

Table 4.6. Results from binary logistic regression analyses (social network content sharing)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 VIF

β SE (Oddss Ratio) β SE (Oddss Ratio) β SE (Oddss Ratio) β SE (Oddss Ratio) Control Female -0.205 0.257 (0.815) -0.258 0.285 (0.773) -0.262 0.285 (0.770) -0.255 0.297 (0.775) Age -0.317** 0.101 (0.728) -0.354** 0.112 (0.702) -0.350** 0.113 (0.705) -0.388** 0.120 (0.678) Education 0.439** 0.150 (1.551) 0.575** 0.172 (1.778) 0.561** 0.180 (1.752) 0.621** 0.187 (1.861) Social Media Usage 0.620** 0.169

(1.859) 0.584** 0.188 (1.793) 0.584** 0.188 (1.793) 0.698** 0.201 (2.009) Main effects

Hedonic Shopping Value 0.274 0.225

(1.320) 0.268 0.228 (1.307) 0.264 0.228 (1.302) 1.609 Store Atmosphere 0.826** 0.264 (2.284) 0.824** 0.264 (2.279) 0.824** 0.264 (2.280) 1.697

Brand Heritage Function 0.138 0.203

(1.149) 0.137 0.204 (1.146) 0.136 0.203 (1.145) 1.428 Brand Experience 0.434* 0.218 (1.538) 0.446* 0.226 (1.563) 0.449* 0.226 (1.566) 1.806 Dummy variable British -0.081 0.312 (0.922) 3.749 3.154 (42.461) Moderation effects HSV x British -1.669** 0.488 (0.188) SA x British 0.166 0.554 (1.181) BHF x British 0.933* 0.435 (2.543) BE x British -0.212 0.497 (0.809) R2 _{(Cox and Snell)} _0.100

0.142 34.999** 0.239 0.340 90.917** 0.239 0.279 0.397 109.011** R2_(Nagelkerke) _0.340 Model X2 _90.981**

Dependent Variable: Social Network Content Sharing; N = 333

** Significant at p < 0.01 * Significant at p < 0.05

4.6 Mediation analysis

(45)

45 found in table 4.7. As can be derived from the table, the control variables Age, Female, Education and Social Media Usage are added to the model. The results are bootstrapped with 5000 bootstrap resamples. A significant effect is assumed if the confidence interval is detectably different from 0 (MacKinnon et al., 2004). Step 1 is to show that the causal variable is correlated with the outcome. Both Hedonic Shopping Value and Brand Heritage Function were found to have an insignificant total effect on Social Network Content Sharing with values of β = 0.396, 95% BCa CI [-0.056, 0.921] and β = 0.274, 95% BCa CI [-0.148, 0.669] respectively. According to the guidance of (Baron and Kenny, 1986), the mediation analysis for these variables needs to be stopped here. The implications for H4a and H4b are further discussed in the next section. For Store Atmosphere, the total effect on Social Network Content Sharing was found to be significant with of β = 0.930, 95% BCa CI [0.441, 1.641]. Step 2 and 3 concern the causal relation with the mediator and to show that the mediator affects Social Network Content Sharing. The outcomes are not depicted in table 4.7 but can be found in figure 4.2, and it can be concluded that Store Atmosphere significantly affects Brand Experience, and Brand Experience in turn significantly affects Social Network Content Sharing. Step 4 is concerned with the indirect effect of Store Atmosphere on Social Network Content Sharing controlled by Brand Experience. The difference between the total effect and direct effect is 0.104, the indirect effect, which can be interpreted as the component explained by Brand Experience. This outcome indicates partial mediation as Brand Experience only accounts for a small part of the relationship between Store Atmosphere and Social Network Content Sharing (11.18%).

(46)

46 of the indirect effect, the results can be found in figure 4.2. It is important to note that the coefficients of the indirect effect coming from the PROCESS tool slightly differ from the logistic regression analysis. This difference was also found when the models did not include control variables. From here on the outcomes of the PROCESS tool will be used. For Store Atmosphere, the indirect effect on Social Network Content Sharing through Brand Experience was found to be significant, β = 0.136, 95% BCa CI [0.002, 0.309], finding support for H4b. Despite the absence of a total effect for both Hedonic Shopping Value and Brand heritage Function on Social Network Content Sharing, a significant indirect effect was found for both variables when controlled for Brand Experience. In combination with the outcomes provided in table 4.7, the values for the indirect effect, 30.81% and 49.61% explained by Brand Experience, it is concluded that there is no ground to support H4a and H4c. However, interestingly Brand Experience does have an indirect effect on these relationships (Hayes, 2009).

Table 4.7. Result mediation analysis brand experience

Effect on Social Network Content Sharing β se LLCI ULCI

Total effects

Hedonic Shopping Value 0.396 0.247 -0.056 0.921

Store Atmosphere 0.930** 0.303 0.441 1.641

Brand Heritage Function 0.274 0.207 -0.148 0.669

Direct effects

Hedonic Shopping Value 0.274 0.225 -0.181 0.796

Store Atmosphere 0.826** 0.264 0.360 1.517

Brand Heritage Function 0.138 0.203 -0.340 0.568

Brand Experience 0.434* 0.218 0.006 0.927

Indirect effects controlled by brand experience β %

Hedonic Shopping Value 0.122 30.81

Store Atmosphere 0.104 11.18

Brand Heritage Function 0.136 49.64

** Significant at p < 0.01 * Significant at p < 0.05

%: is percentage explained by brand experience

LLCI and ULCI: Lower limit confidence interval and upper limit confidence interval

with 5000 bootstrap resamples.

(47)

47

(48)

48

4.7 Moderation effect Nationality

The respondents of the sample were required to be either from the Netherlands or the United Kingdom. As described in the sample characteristics, 54.35% of the respondents indicated to be Dutch, and 45.65% indicated to be British. To test whether Nationality influences the relationship between perceived levels of brand museum characteristics and Social Network Content Sharing the dummy variable British was created (Dutch = 0), and an extra model is tested in the logistic regression analysis, these results can be found in table 4.6. British was added to the model after which Hedonic Shopping Value, Store Atmosphere and Brand Heritage Function were added in interaction with British, and the brand museum characteristics are used as independent variables and British as moderator. All the main effects involved are included even if they were not significant as described by Field (2018). Model 4 shows a highly significant chi-square of 109.011, p = 0.001, meaning that the addition of the interaction terms has improved the model significantly and we can assume that there is a degree of moderation. The interaction variable Hedonic Shopping Value x British is found to be highly significant with β = -1.669 [SE = 0.488] with an Odds Ratio of 0.188. The interaction variable Store Atmosphere x British is found to be insignificant with β = 0.166 [SE = 0.554] with an Odds Ratio of 1.181. For the interaction effect of Brand Heritage Function x British a significant effect was found with β = 0.933 [SE = 0.435] with an Odds Ratio of 2.543. The interaction effect of Brand Experience x British is found to be insignificant with β = -0.212 [SE = 0.497] with an Odds Ratio of 0.809. These results indicate that the respondents with a Dutch nationality showed a stronger positive effect of Hedonic Shopping Value on Social Network Content Sharing. Furthermore, the respondents who indicated to be British showed a stronger positive effect of Brand Heritage Function on Social Network Content Sharing; therefore the additional

(49)

49

4.8 Hypotheses results

An overview of the empirical outcomes of the hypotheses can be found in table 4.6. As shown

H1a. H1b, H1c, H2b, H3, H4b and H5 are supported. For H2a, H2c, H4a and H4c no

empirical support was found.

Table 4.6: Overview of the results of the hypotheses

Hypotheses Results

H1a: A higher level of hedonic shopping value positively affects

brand experience.

Supported

H1b: A higher level of store atmosphere positively affects brand

experience

Supported

H1c: A higher level of brand heritage function positively affects

brand experience.

Supported

H2a: A higher level hedonic shopping value positively affects

social network content sharing.

H2b: A higher level of store atmosphere positively affects social

network content sharing.

H2c: A higher level of brand heritage function positively affects

social network content sharing.

H3: A higher level of brand experience positively affects social

network content sharing.

Not supported

Supported

Not supported

Supported

H4a: The relationship between Hedonic Shopping Value and Social

Network Content Sharing is partially mediated by Brand Experience

Not Supported*

H4b: The relationship between Store Atmosphere and Social

Network Content Sharing is mediated by Brand Experience

Supported

H4c: The relationship between Brand Heritage Function and Social

Network Content Sharing is mediated by Brand Experience

Not Supported*

H5: The relationship between brand museums, brand experience

and social network content sharing is moderated by nationality.

Supported

(50)

50 In figure 4.2, the conceptual model is shown with the outcomes of the data analyses. The mediation effect is found at the bottom of the figure.

Figure 4.2: Empirical results conceptual model

Hedonic value

Brand experience Social network content sharing

(51)

51

5. Discussion

5.1 Brand museum characteristics and brand experience

First of all, it is found that higher levels of hedonic shopping value, store atmosphere and brand heritage function positively affect brand experience. The main underlying reasoning for these effects is based on the consumer culture theory. CCT highlights how the marketplace is converting cultural ideals into tangible realities. Cultural narratives are used and adapted to be used for commercial goals. Customer experiences are channelled towards trajectories that are created by brands (Arnould and Thompson, 2005). In this study, it meant that brands create environments using hedonic shopping value, enhanced store atmosphere and brand heritage function channelled towards the creation of brand experience for their consumers. Besides this underlying theory, this study argued how the four dimensions of brand experience as described by (Brakus et al., 2009) are expected to be stimulated by the characteristics of brand museums as identified in the literature (Hollenbeck et al., 2008; Pulh et al., 2019). The characteristics hedonic shopping value and store atmosphere have been tested before on their relationship with brand experience for other forms of experience stores. This study now confirmed that these characteristics also apply to the museum orientation of these stores. Furthermore, the brand heritage function as described by (Pulh et al., 2019)was also found to have a positive effect on brand experience. Relating these results to specific trends in the FMCG industry, it means that brand museums can play an important role in the movement towards the experience economy that is increasingly asked for by consumers.

5.2 Brand museum characteristics and social network content sharing

(52)

52 relationship was again based on CCT, which further explains that for some consumers, the marketplace functions as an instrument for constructing narratives for identity. Consumers can be conceived as identity seekers and makers (Belk et al., 1988; Hill and Stamey, 1990). Based on this theory, our study expected that increased store atmosphere would lead to social network content sharing. Due to brand museums providing content for identity seeking, which makes consumers willing to share this with their networks. As social networking sites are increasingly infiltrating the daily lives of numerous people, as they are snapping, posting, sharing, tweeting and Instagramming everything they do with their social networks (Smilansky, 2017). These SNS are dependent on the sense of community it provides for their success and sustainability (Berezan et al., 2015). The literature also showed that the intention for sharing content on social media consists of impression management, emotion regulation, information acquisition, social bonding and persuasion (Berger, 2014). Lichtlé and Plichon (2005) point out that store atmosphere can affect the shoppers’ behaviour in the retail space through the influence on their emotional states. The creation and offering of “a unique, positive and emotional experience”, overlaps with many intentions for content sharing. The fact that specifically store atmosphere, which is mainly concerned with the aesthetics of the museum, is impacting content sharing is therefore not surprising. The content shared on SNS, such as Instagram, are often found to be focused on making sure that it looks as attractive as possible (Weilenmann et al., 2013)

(53)

53 that can be used for making photos or videos, the other characteristics are focused on evoking emotions. According to Berger (2014), emotion regulation is an important part of the intention of sharing content with people. The results of this study indicate that the emotions evoked by brand museums do not trigger the intention to share content with their social network directly. Furthermore, a specific research stream of CCT explains that adjacent to sociological accounts of a subculture, in-group status can be achieved through displays of localised cultural capital, instead of adherence to mainstream consumption norms (McAlexander et al., 2002). Another explanation could, therefore, be that, despite the brand heritage function of the brand museum, the brand can still be experienced as adhering to mainstream consumption norms. Hedonic shopping value and brand heritage function are also more focused on triggering the affective, intellectual and behavioural dimensions of brand experience, compared to store atmosphere that is more focused on enhancing the sensory dimensions of brand experience. This study focused on different types of content, both image-based content and text-based content were considered. The store atmosphere could well be linked to triggering the intention to take photos or videos due to unique visuals and an attractive environment (Pittman and Reich, 2016). Hedonic shopping value and brand heritage function evoke emotions that are harder to capture with an image or video. It would be more likely that these characteristics trigger text-based content. It is often easier to share an experience by using a video or photo. This can explain the significant effect for store atmosphere and the lack of a direct effect for hedonic shopping value and brand heritage function on sharing content on social networking sites.

5.3 The mediation effect of brand experience

(54)

(55)

55 Based on these findings and on the by Berger (2014) foundintentions for sharing content with our network, it is found that self-promotion and social networking with friends is what social network content sharing is most used for. The idea of constructing narratives to provide for identity building as argued for in consumer culture theory seems to be mainly centred around self-promotion. Experiences as provided in brand museums by its hedonic shopping value and brand heritage function may interest their consumers, but does not directly add to their self-presentation on social networking sites.

5.4 The moderation effect of nationality

(56)

56 responses, actions and personal interactions (Pornpitakpan and Han, 2013). To find explanations for the significant influence of nationality, the country scores on Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions (Hofstede, 2011) will be used, despite existing questions regarding the validity and reliability of Hofstede’s indices (Van de Vijver and Poortinga, 2002; Bearden et

al., 2006). The country scores for the United Kingdom and the Netherlands can be found in

The impact of brand museum characteristics on social network content sharing