experiential and utilitarian products: how brand trust and

HOW BRAND TRUST AND BRAND LOYALTY WORK DEPENDING ON THE KIND OF PRODUCT

1

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

Date of Completion: 24th June, 2016


2

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


3

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,


4

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


5

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 &

Schefter, 2000).


6

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


7

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.

However, trust is also a factor that is explained and developed via some predictors. As


8

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.


9

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


10

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:


11

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


12

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.

Model 1: Research Model


13

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


14

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


15

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

shampoos are high involvement products, meaning that when a person wants to buy this good,


16

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

reliability. A seven-point Likert scale was used as 1 for strongly disagree and 7 for strongly


17

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


18

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.


19

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


20

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.


21

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;


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


22

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;


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 =


23

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


24

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


25

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


26

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


27

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.


28

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.


29

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


30

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

Evanschitzky, H., Iyer, G. R., Plassmann, H., Niessing, J., & Meffert, H. (2006). The relative


31

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

Iglesias, O., Singh, J. J., & Batista-Foguet, J. M. (2011). The role of brand experience and


32

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. doi:10.1016/s0010-

8804(01)81012-0


33

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

Thomson, M., Macinnis, D. J., & Park, C. W. (2005). The Ties That Bind: Measuring the


34

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


35

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


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


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

.82


36

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


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

.88


37

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


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


.78


38

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

.70


39

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


shampoo has a reputation for

being unreliable


me that the the brand of the

shampoo is not good


me that the brand of the

shampoo is reliable


shampoo is reputed to

perform well

Q58 I have heard negative

.77


40

comments about the brand of

the shampoo

Brand Predictability


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


shampoo is not consistent in

its quality


shampoo performs

consistently


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

.81


41

perform as I expect.

Brand Competence



shampoo is the best

one for this category

of festivals

Q66 Most other brands of

shampoo are better of

the shampoo that I

chose


shampoo performs

better than other

brands


shampoo is more

effective than other

brands


shampoo meets my

needs better than

other brands


shampoo accomplishes its

task better than other brand

.87


42

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



.78


43

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


brand of the shampoo, I

would defend it

Q87 I would not recommend

.68


44

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



experiential and utilitarian products: how brand trust and

Documents