brand experience analysis how it relates to brand ......brand loyalty. cite this article: syafrizal...

15
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 852 [email protected] International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET) Volume 10, Issue 01, January 2019, pp. 852-866, Article ID: IJCIET_10_01_078 Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=10&IType=01 ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316 © IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed BRAND EXPERIENCE ANALYSIS HOW IT RELATES TO BRAND PERSONALITY, VALUE, SATISFACTION AND LOYALTY IN TV BRANDS? Syafrizal Helmi Situmorang*, Sirojuzilam, Endang Sulistya Rini, Arlina Nurbaity Lubis Universitas Sumatra Utara, Medan, Indonesia Corresponding author ABSTRACT Understanding the relationship between brand experience, brand personality, brand value, brand satisfaction, and brand loyalty is a critical issue for both academics and brand marketers. A sample of 889 respondents Middle-Class Millenial took part in this study. An Empirical investigation was carried out to validate the framework through measurement reliability and validity using PLS SEM model. The findings show very tight competition between TV brands in providing brand experience, value, and satisfaction to consumers. Korean TV brands were able to defeat Japanese TV brands in the millennial middle-class market. The result for this research is direct effect shows brand experience has a positive and significant effect on brand personality, brand value, and brand loyalty. Brand experience has no significant effect on band satisfaction. Indirect Path Coefficient shows brand personality is a mediating variable between brand experience, brand value, brand satisfaction, and brand loyalty. Brand Value also a mediating variable between brand experience, brand satisfaction, and brand loyalty. Brand satisfaction is not mediating variable between brand experience and brand loyalty. This paper also recommends empirical and practical implication. Key words: brand experience, brand personality brand value, brand satisfaction, brand loyalty. Cite this Article: Syafrizal Helmi Situmorang, Sirojuzilam, Endang Sulistya Rini & Arlina Nurbaity Lubis, Brand Experience Analysis How it Relates to Brand Personality, Value, Satisfaction and Loyalty in TV Brands?. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 10(01), 2019, pp. 852-866 http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=10&IType=01

Upload: others

Post on 09-Feb-2020

7 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: BRAND EXPERIENCE ANALYSIS HOW IT RELATES TO BRAND ......brand loyalty. Cite this Article: Syafrizal Helmi Situmorang, Sirojuzilam, Endang Sulistya Rini & Arlina Nurbaity Lubis, Brand

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 852 [email protected]

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)

Volume 10, Issue 01, January 2019, pp. 852-866, Article ID: IJCIET_10_01_078

Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=10&IType=01

ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316

© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

BRAND EXPERIENCE ANALYSIS – HOW IT

RELATES TO BRAND PERSONALITY, VALUE,

SATISFACTION AND LOYALTY IN TV BRANDS?

Syafrizal Helmi Situmorang*, Sirojuzilam, Endang Sulistya Rini,

Arlina Nurbaity Lubis

Universitas Sumatra Utara, Medan, Indonesia

Corresponding author

ABSTRACT

Understanding the relationship between brand experience, brand personality,

brand value, brand satisfaction, and brand loyalty is a critical issue for both

academics and brand marketers. A sample of 889 respondents Middle-Class Millenial

took part in this study. An Empirical investigation was carried out to validate the

framework through measurement reliability and validity using PLS SEM model. The

findings show very tight competition between TV brands in providing brand

experience, value, and satisfaction to consumers. Korean TV brands were able to

defeat Japanese TV brands in the millennial middle-class market. The result for this

research is direct effect shows brand experience has a positive and significant effect

on brand personality, brand value, and brand loyalty. Brand experience has no

significant effect on band satisfaction. Indirect Path Coefficient shows brand

personality is a mediating variable between brand experience, brand value, brand

satisfaction, and brand loyalty. Brand Value also a mediating variable between brand

experience, brand satisfaction, and brand loyalty. Brand satisfaction is not mediating

variable between brand experience and brand loyalty. This paper also recommends

empirical and practical implication.

Key words: brand experience, brand personality brand value, brand satisfaction,

brand loyalty.

Cite this Article: Syafrizal Helmi Situmorang, Sirojuzilam, Endang Sulistya Rini &

Arlina Nurbaity Lubis, Brand Experience Analysis – How it Relates to Brand

Personality, Value, Satisfaction and Loyalty in TV Brands?. International Journal of

Civil Engineering and Technology, 10(01), 2019, pp. 852-866

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=10&IType=01

Page 2: BRAND EXPERIENCE ANALYSIS HOW IT RELATES TO BRAND ......brand loyalty. Cite this Article: Syafrizal Helmi Situmorang, Sirojuzilam, Endang Sulistya Rini & Arlina Nurbaity Lubis, Brand

Brand Experience Analysis – How it Relates to Brand Personality, Value, Satisfaction and

Loyalty in TV Brands?

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 853 [email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION

The development of digital technology, stimulate businesses to be more creative and

innovative in offering products to fulfill consumer expectations. One of the products that

developed in the field of electronics and technology is digital television. This is very

reasonable, considering that there are so many people who buy and use these devices,

currently the digital TV market has been enlivened by the presence of flat-screen television

technology called LED TV (Light Emitting Diode). In Indonesia, LED TV is a favorite for

families at middle class consumers. This is due to the sophistication offered and saving

electricity so that it can save electricity expenses, which has made the competition in the

digital television market increasingly fierce. For consumers who are entry-level, prices are

the commander. The emergence of various TV brands makes consumers have more choices

to get their favorite TV. TV is no longer a luxury item, this causes manufacturers to sell at

cheap and affordable prices. Some of the best-selling LED TV brands in Indonesia such as

LG, Sharp, Polytron, Panasonic, Toshiba, Sony, and Samsung. A number of these big brands

are competing to offer consumers with the luxury and sophistication of their products. Tight

business competition triggers the risk of price wars. This was triggered by the tendency of

consumers to choose the cheapest products as well as TV manufacturers who increasingly

dared to reduce prices with thin profit margins. Some LED TV manufacturers use different

strategies by working on the premium TV market. The risk of price wars can be avoided by

providing clear brand differentiation such as experience, differentiation, value and

personality. Keller (2013) states that consumer knowledge of a brand is based on associations

related to features, user benefits, and overall brand attitudes. The manufacturers ought to

package brands that not only provide benefits and costs but also offer a unique experience by

incorporating key elements value. In the form of positive emotions and experience. Customer

value is made when the perception of benefits received from the transaction exceeds the cost

of ownership. Increasing customer value can be conducted by increasing the benefits

perceived by consumers (Marhayanie et al., 2017 & Dilham et al., 2018). Kim et al, (2010)

research shows that brand value which consists of social value, emotional value and

utilitarian value affect brand loyalty. On the other hand, the growing middle class in

Indonesia makes consumers' purchasing power increase. Consumers middle class like to buy

branded products (Situmorang et al, 2016a, Situmorang et al, 2017). Molahoseini and

Tajoddini's. (2015) showed an increase in economic status (income) in Iran has resulted in

increased needs and attitudes towards luxury brands. Luxury brands are increasingly

affordable, but the growth in the middle class is also accompanied by changes in increasingly

intelligent and critical consumer behavior. They tend to be disloyal and try new brands, eager

to shop in modern retail, ready to pay more for the brands they want and willing to owe and

credit to get a brand that they want to buy (Situmorang, 2016b). In order to survive,

producers must innovate products so that provide the expected value of consumers.

Behavioral changes in seeking information and purchasing decisions of a brand in the

digital era have been introduced by Lechinski (2011) with the concept of Zero Moment of

Truth (ZMOT) where consumers will search for information about a product through the

internet. Moment of Truth is used to explain important moments of interaction between

consumers and brands. Kotler, Kartajaya, and Setiawan (2017) mention that in the digital era

customer path patterns changed from 4A (Aware, Attitude, Act, and Act Again) to 5A,

(Aware, Appeal, Ask, Act, and Advocate). According to them, every industry also has

different customer paths: Gold Fish, Door Knob, Trumpet, and Funnel. Relying on a brand's

big name alone will not be enough to win the hearts of consumers. Brands must provide

experience to consumers (Schmitt, 1999, 2003). Experience is not just about getting products

Page 3: BRAND EXPERIENCE ANALYSIS HOW IT RELATES TO BRAND ......brand loyalty. Cite this Article: Syafrizal Helmi Situmorang, Sirojuzilam, Endang Sulistya Rini & Arlina Nurbaity Lubis, Brand

Syafrizal Helmi Situmorang, Sirojuzilam, Endang Sulistya Rini & Arlina Nurbaity Lubis

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 854 [email protected]

that consumers want, but also the activities of the processes that consumers feel when

interacting with brands. The experience is required to connect brands with consumers both

rationally and emotionally (Schmitt, 2011). Consumer behavior can also be predicted through

brand experience (Zarantonello and Schmitt, 2010). Besides having value, Brand must also

be able to represent the user's personality (Brand Personality) (Aaker, 1997). Fournier (1998)

states that Brand personality can also help build relationships with customers. Brand

personality is considered one of the key factors in branding theory. Researchers and

practitioners alike realize that brands are just like humans having certain personalities that

might make them different in the minds of customers. Thus, it is important for all companies

to concentrate on making their brands different from other competitors to create consumer

preferences (Bennett and Rundel-Thiele 2005). Furthermore, Brakus, Schmitt, &

Zarantonello (2009) stated brand experience and brand personality affect brand satisfaction

and brand loyalty.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Brand Experience

Experience is a personal event that occurs in response to some stimulation. Brands

requirement provide an incentive that generates customer experience. Experience can be seen

as a complex and developing structure (Holland, 1998). The experience marketing concept,

first introduced in Pine and Gilmore's work on economic experience (1997) and Schmitt in

experiential marketing (1999), has gained significant appeal, both in marketing academics

and among practitioners. Pine and Gilmore (1999) argue that service economics offers

'intangibles', so customers demand benefits in a service economy. While the experience

economy offers “memorable” so customers want a sensation in an experience economy. So,

Service providers should ultimately aim to deliver beyond customer expectations (Oliver,

1997). Schmitt (1999) introduced the concept of Experiential marketing that a new approach

to providing information about brands and products to consumers. Schmit recommends that

companies create a consumer experience through five stages, namely, sense, feel, think, act

and relate. Brakus (2008) propose several a theory of consumer experiences. (1) Experiential

modules; (2) primary vs. secondary experiences; and (3) the hierarchy of experiential

modules.

The term brand experience was first created by Brakus et al. (2009). Brakus et al. (2009)

stated that with a better understanding of brand experience, the entire range of experience

generated by brand-related stimuli can be understood. Zarantonello et al., (2007) have

developed Brand Experience Scale to measures consumers‟ experiences generated by brands,

given that „consumer experiences with a brand arise when consumers are interacted to brands

and pay attention to the experiential aspects of brands‟ executions‟. Khan and Rahman (2015)

state that Brand experience is increasingly important in the marketing literature because

marketers consider it an important strategy in building long-term consumer-brand

relationships.

2.2. Brand Personality

The idea that brands have a personality like humans has existed in the 1960s. The concept of

brand personality is 'one of the most common metaphors in the branding literature' (Davies

and Chun, 2003) and Although brand personality has been popular between practitioners and

academics, it is still very limited due to the lack of a uniform, empirical definition, and

structure (Kassarjian, 1971). However, a reliable, valid and generalize measurement scale is

Page 4: BRAND EXPERIENCE ANALYSIS HOW IT RELATES TO BRAND ......brand loyalty. Cite this Article: Syafrizal Helmi Situmorang, Sirojuzilam, Endang Sulistya Rini & Arlina Nurbaity Lubis, Brand

Brand Experience Analysis – How it Relates to Brand Personality, Value, Satisfaction and

Loyalty in TV Brands?

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 855 [email protected]

proposed by Aaker (1997). Aaker (1997) has developed a five-dimensional brand personality

consisting of Sincerity, Excitement, Competence, Sophistication, and Ruggedness. Each of

brand personality factor includes a series of traits, which are summarized by one or more

facets. In total, there are 42 traits and 15 facets. According to Brakus et al. (2009), Brand

personality will affect brand satisfaction and loyalty. Brand personality allows companies to

create unique and profitable impressions in the minds of consumers and then build and

increase brand equity. Brand personality is also an important strategy for building long-term

consumer-brand relationships. Thus, marketers can consider brand personality as an effective

way of differentiating from their competitors and increasing marketing effectiveness (Sung &

Kim, 2010).

2.3. Brand Value

Value is defined as an overall assessment of the utility of an offering according to perceptions

of what is received and what is given (Zeithaml, 1988) Gobe (2001) states that brands are

created to help people. Brands must create value through interaction with consumers and

provides solutions to their lives. According to Kumar & Reinartz (2016) the main tasks that

must be completed are (1) measuring the perceived value as a whole, (2) measuring the

relationship between attributes and benefits, and (3) determining the relative weights that

relate attributes/benefits to the overall perceived value. Customers look for offers that

produce the highest expected value or utility. Communicating value to consumers effectively

influencing satisfaction, loyalty, and profitability. Aaker (2015) states that the values built

must exceed the benefits of functions, such as emotional values and social values. Chattalas

and Shukla (2015) state that social values, personal values, and functional values will bring

positive behavioral intentions to the company's brand. Salehzadeh and Pool (2016) also stated

that the perceived value, social (social value), personal (personal value), and functional

(functional value) influence the purchasing decision.

2.4. Brand Satisfaction

Brands that can provide value beyond customer expectations, will satisfy customers. Satisfied

customers will have a high level of loyalty to the brand than dissatisfied customers. Anderson

et al (1994) also suggested three Satisfaction forming factors, namely: Perceived Quality,

Perceived Value, and Market Expectation. The concept of customer satisfaction is designed

and used to estimate the level of customer satisfaction and measure the quality of products

and services based on the experience of customers who consume these products and services

(Fornell et al. 1996). Previous studies have shown that satisfaction is often regarded as an

important determinant of repurchase intention (Liao, Palvia, and Chen, 2009) and customer

loyalty (Eggert & Ulaga, 2002). This research focuses on overall satisfaction because it is

expected that customers will rely on their experience when making purchasing decisions.

Although satisfaction is an important predictor of loyalty, it does not guarantee loyalty

automatically (Lam et al., 2004). Customer satisfaction is important because it helps

companies achieve financial and market goals (Oliver, 1997).

2.5. Brand Loyalty

Brand loyalty is a very important factor for marketers and consumer researchers because it

has great benefits for marketing such as greater trade leverage, reducing marketing costs

(Aaker 1991), favorable word of mouth, resistance to opponent persuasion (Dick & Basu

1994), repeated brand purchases (Oliver, 1999 ; Mabkhot et al. 2016), retention, customer

share of wallet and recommendation (Reicheld, 1996, 2011) willingness to pay premium

prices (Ganesh et al, 2000; Yeh et al., 2016) and increase shareholder value (Larivière et al.

Page 5: BRAND EXPERIENCE ANALYSIS HOW IT RELATES TO BRAND ......brand loyalty. Cite this Article: Syafrizal Helmi Situmorang, Sirojuzilam, Endang Sulistya Rini & Arlina Nurbaity Lubis, Brand

Syafrizal Helmi Situmorang, Sirojuzilam, Endang Sulistya Rini & Arlina Nurbaity Lubis

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 856 [email protected]

2016). Thus, although the literature on brand loyalty becomes substantial, results regarding

its predecessors are highly variable and contradictory (Kim et al. 2009; Biedenbach et al.,

2015).

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1. Research Goal

The aim of the study is to identify the mediating effect of Personality, Value, and satisfaction

between Experience and Loyalty in brand digital television at middle-class millennials. To

test propositions, a structured survey was used as a research instrument. Structured surveys

are used because it allows researchers to reach larger samples and measure various factors.

3.2. Sample, Measure, Data Collection and Research Model

Data were collected from 890 sample from the respondent Middle-Class Millenials who have

TV digital. Measurement theory specifies how the latent variables (constructs) are measured.

We measured the questionnaire‟s construct of Brand Experience, Brand Value, Brand

Personality and Brand Satisfaction with seventh points Likert scale anchored by strongly

disagree and strongly agree. While the questionnaire‟s construct of Brand Loyalty with ten

points scale. The collected data initially processed by factor and reliability analysis We

pretest the questionnaires to 100 customers. Item used for our measurement scales on an

empirically validated scale from the previous study. The mediating effect of Brand

Personality, Brand Value, and satisfaction between Experience and Loyalty was tested by

structural equation model. Data processing technique were conducted through partial least

square-structural equation model (PLS-SEM) by using Smart PLS 3.0 program. With

multiple reflective indicators, the direction of the arrows is from the construct to the indicator

variables, indicating the assumption that the construct causes the measurement of the

indicator variables :

Sources: SmartPLS Result, (2018).

Figure 1. Research model

Page 6: BRAND EXPERIENCE ANALYSIS HOW IT RELATES TO BRAND ......brand loyalty. Cite this Article: Syafrizal Helmi Situmorang, Sirojuzilam, Endang Sulistya Rini & Arlina Nurbaity Lubis, Brand

Brand Experience Analysis – How it Relates to Brand Personality, Value, Satisfaction and

Loyalty in TV Brands?

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 857 [email protected]

4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Result

Table 1. Descriptive Respondent

Brand User Education Background

Frequency Percent

Frequency Percent

LG 278 31.3 Primary school 8 .9

Samsung 214 24.1 Junior high school 15 1.7

Sharp 174 19.6 High school 336 37.8

Sony 65 6.9 Diploma 101 11.4

Toshiba 158 17.8 Undergraduated 396 44.5

Total 889 100.0 Post Graduated 33 3.7

Income Total 889 100.0

Frequency Percent Age

2-3 Millions 194 21,8%

Frequency Percent

3-4 Millions 233 26,2% 21-25 200 22.5

4-5 Millions 222 25,0% 26-30 268 30.1

5-7 Millions 134 15,1% 31-35 262 29.5

7-10 Millions 68 7,6% 36-38 159 17.9

10 more than Millions 38 4,3% Total 889 100.0

Total 889 100.0

Source: Results of Research, 2018 (Processed Data).

Based on Table 1. It can be seen that the most TV subscribers are brand LG, as much as

278 respondents (31.3%), Samsung 214 respondents (24.1%), Sharp 174 respondents

(19.6%), Toshiba 158 respondents (17, 8), Sony 65 respondents (6.9%). The respondents'

income ranges from 3-4 million (26.2%) 4-5 million (25%), 2-3 million (21.8%), 5-7 million

(15.1%), 7-10 million (7.6 %).

Table. 2. Brand Experience, Value and Satisfaction

Experience sensory Affective Intelectual Behavioral Total

LG 4,92 4,81 4,85 4,85 19,43

Samsung 4,89 4,75 4,97 5,01 19,62

Sharp 4,96 4,74 4,94 4,88 19,52

Sony 5,17 4,96 4,98 4,85 19,96

Toshiba 4,89 4,77 4,86 4,69 19,21

Value Function Emotion Self Expression Social Total

LG 5,27 5,27 4,83 4,8 20,17

Samsung 5,61 5,57 5,13 4,99 21,30

Sharp 5,61 5,59 5,27 4,64 21,11

Sony 5,44 4,5 4,46 4,18 18,58

Toshiba 5,47 5,34 4,99 4,83 20,63

Satisfaction Quality Value Perceived Based Expectation Total

LG 5,33 5,37 5,26 5 20,96

Samsung 5,55 5,61 5,62 5,36 22,14

Sharp 5,54 5,53 5,43 5,16 21,66

Sony 5,44 5,13 5,31 4,84 20,72

Toshiba 5,69 5,67 5,52 5,36 22,24

Sources: Data Processing (2018).

Page 7: BRAND EXPERIENCE ANALYSIS HOW IT RELATES TO BRAND ......brand loyalty. Cite this Article: Syafrizal Helmi Situmorang, Sirojuzilam, Endang Sulistya Rini & Arlina Nurbaity Lubis, Brand

Syafrizal Helmi Situmorang, Sirojuzilam, Endang Sulistya Rini & Arlina Nurbaity Lubis

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 858 [email protected]

Table 2 shows, based on Brand Experience, Sony has the highest average count for

sensory, affective and intellectual dimensions. While Samsung accepts the most leading

position for the behavioral dimension. Overall Sony typically obtains the most excellent score

for Brand Experience. Based merely on Brand Value, Sharp typically has the highest point

for the Function, emotion and self-expression dimensions. Samsung has in common the

highest score for function and social status dimensions. Overall Samsung has precisely the

top rank score for Brand Value. Allegedly based on Brand Satisfaction, Toshiba assuredly

has the lead outcome for Quality, Value, and Expectation dimensions. The Samsung brand

assuredly has the maximum score for the Perceived Based and Expectation dimensions.

Overall Toshiba undoubtedly gains the overwhelming result for Brand Satisfaction.

Table. 3. Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty

Personality sincerity Excitement Competence Sophistication Rugedness Total

LG 5,48 5,53 5,63 5,45 5,43 27,52

Samsung 5,55 5,70 5,77 5,65 5,48 28,15

Sharp 5,35 5,43 5,4 5,38 5,33 26,89

Sony 5,25 5,4 5,37 5,38 5,35 26,75

Toshiba 5,50 5,65 5,57 5,53 5,45 27,7

Loyalty Retain Repurchase Share of Wallet Recommend Advocate Total

LG 6,28 6,34 5,74 7,22 5,64 31,22

Samsung 7,18 6,47 6,14 7,35 5,63 32,77

Sharp 6,38 6,44 5,56 7,3 5,39 31,07

Sony 6,00 6,44 5,64 7,22 4,77 30,07

Toshiba 6,63 6,68 5,92 7,43 5,52 32,18

Source: Results of Research, 2018 (Processed Data).

Table 3 shows, Samsung excels in all dimensions brand personality. Based on Brand

Loyalty, Samsung is unrivaled in dimensions of Retain and Share of Wallet. Toshiba is

superior in the Repurchase and Recommendation aspect. While LG excels in the Advocate,

overall Samsung has precious the highest total Brand Loyalty score

4.1.2. SEM with PLS

Measurement is a fundamental concept in conducting social science research. According to

(Hair et al., 2017) Measurement is the process of assigning numbers to variables based on a

set of rules. The measurement of latent variables such as Brand Experience, Personality,

Value, Satisfaction, and Loyalty cannot directly measure abstract concepts. For that, we need

a set of indicators that function as proxy variables. The indicators, also called items or

manifest variables, are the directly measured proxy variables that contain the raw data. A PLS

path model consists of two elements. First, Structural model (inner model) that represents the

constructs and displays the relationships (paths) between the constructs. Second, there are the

measurement models (outer models) of the constructs that display the relationships between

the constructs and the indicator variable.

4.1.3. Measurement models

Before performing hypothesis testing to predict relationships in the inner model, the outer

model testing should be performed first for verification of indicators and latent variables that

can be tested further. According to Hair et al., (2017) Reflective indicators can be viewed as

a representative sample of all the possible items available within the conceptual domain of

Page 8: BRAND EXPERIENCE ANALYSIS HOW IT RELATES TO BRAND ......brand loyalty. Cite this Article: Syafrizal Helmi Situmorang, Sirojuzilam, Endang Sulistya Rini & Arlina Nurbaity Lubis, Brand

Brand Experience Analysis – How it Relates to Brand Personality, Value, Satisfaction and

Loyalty in TV Brands?

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 859 [email protected]

the construct. Therefore, since a reflective measure dictates that all indicator items are caused

by the same construct indicators associated with a particular construct should be highly

correlated with each other. Construct validity shows how well the results obtained from the

use of a measurement fit the theories used to define a construct. A strong correlation between

the construct and the question items and the weak relationship with other variables is one way

to test the validity of the construct. Construct validity consists of convergent validity and

discriminant validity. Convergent validity is related to the principle that the measurements of

a construct should be highly correlated. The first criterion to be evaluated is typically internal

consistency reliability. The traditional criterion for internal consistency is Cronbach's alpha,

which provides an estimate of the reliability based on the intercorrelations of the observed

indicator variables. Cronbach's alpha assumes that all indicators are equally reliable but PLS-

SEM prioritizes the indicators according to their individual reliability. Based on Table 4. All

values Cronbach's alpha between 0. 70 and 0.90. According to Nunally & Bernstein, (1994)

values between 0.70 and 0.90 can be regarded as satisfactory. The composite reliability varies

between 0 and 1, with higher values indicating higher levels of reliability. It is generally

interpreted in the same way as Cronbach's alpha. Based On Table 4. All values composite

reliability between 0. 70 and 0.90. Outer loadings on a construct indicate that the associated

indicators have much in common, which is captured by the construct. This characteristic is

also commonly called indicator reliability. Outer loading represents how much of the

variation in an item is explained by the construct and is described as the variance extracted

from the item. According to Hair et al (2017) An established rule of thumb is that a latent

variable should explain a substantial part of each indicator's variance, usually at least 50%.

This also implies that the variance shared between the construct and its indicator is larger

than the measurement error variance. This means that an indicator's outer loading should be

above 0.708 since that number squared (0.7082) equals 0.50. When indicators with outer

loadings between 0.40 and 0. 70 should be considered for removal from the scale only when

deleting the indicator leads to an increase in the composite reliability. To establish convergent

validity, researchers consider the outer loadings of the indicators, as well as the average

variance extracted (AVE). It indicates that, on average, the construct explains more than half

of the variance of its indicators

Table 4. Construct Reliability and Validity

Cronbach's Alpha rho_A Composite Reliability AVE

experience 0,736 0,752 0,833 0,556

loyalty 0,887 0,890 0,917 0,689

personality 0,884 0,887 0,915 0,684

satisfaction 0,730 0,730 0,831 0,552

value 0,747 0,737 0,843 0,577

Sources: SmartPLS Result, (2018).

Discriminant validity is the extent to which a construct is truly distinct from other

constructs by empirical standards. This criterion is generally considered rather liberal in

terms of establishing discriminant validity (Hair, et al, 2017). That is, it is very likely to

indicate that two or more constructs exhibit discriminant validity.

Page 9: BRAND EXPERIENCE ANALYSIS HOW IT RELATES TO BRAND ......brand loyalty. Cite this Article: Syafrizal Helmi Situmorang, Sirojuzilam, Endang Sulistya Rini & Arlina Nurbaity Lubis, Brand

Syafrizal Helmi Situmorang, Sirojuzilam, Endang Sulistya Rini & Arlina Nurbaity Lubis

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 860 [email protected]

Table 5. Cross Loading

experience loyalty personality satisfaction value

Competence 0,337 0,347 0,851 0,359 0,283

Exitement 0,293 0,320 0,839 0,407 0,274

Perceived Based 0,223 0,240 0,368 0,777 0,340

Recommend 0,312 0,820 0,364 0,255 0,293

Ruggedness 0,329 0,352 0,755 0,304 0,213

Shopistication 0,348 0,304 0,862 0,416 0,307

Sincerity 0,354 0,401 0,824 0,345 0,311

Share Of Wallet 0,329 0,873 0,306 0,227 0,336

Advocate 0,369 0,801 0,366 0,251 0,351

Affective 0,707 0,156 0,222 0,218 0,284

Emotion 0,367 0,280 0,213 0,217 0,789

Expectation 0,256 0,286 0,361 0,708 0,394

Function 0,180 0,271 0,350 0,504 0,579

Intellectual 0,806 0,318 0,327 0,211 0,289

Behaviour 0,784 0,416 0,380 0,205 0,322

Quality 0,174 0,278 0,285 0,728 0,292

Repurchase 0,346 0,842 0,359 0,362 0,336

Retention 0,232 0,814 0,328 0,345 0,257

Self-Expression 0,350 0,316 0,198 0,306 0,822

Sensory 0,678 0,202 0,236 0,199 0,333

Social 0,350 0,272 0,229 0,286 0,822

Value 0,153 0,219 0,287 0,755 0,297

Sources: SmartPLS Result, (2018).

The Fornell-Larcker criterion is a second and more conservative approach to assessing

discriminant validity. It compares the square root of the AVE values with the latent variable

correlations. Specifically, the square root of each construct's AVE should be greater than its

highest correlation with any other construct (Sadalia et al., 2018). The logic of this method is

based on the idea that a construct shares more variance with its associated indicators than

with any other construct.

Table 6. Fornell-Larcker Criterion

experience loyalty personality satisfaction value

experience 0,745

loyalty 0,386 0,830

personality 0,402 0,417 0,827

satisfaction 0,277 0,347 0,443 0,743

value 0,410 0,382 0,337 0,452 0,760

Sources: SmartPLS Result, (2018).

4.1.4. Structural Model

Structural theory shows how the latent variables are related to each other. The most

commonly used measure to evaluate the structural model is the coefficient of determination

(R Square value). This coefficient is a measure of the model's predictive accuracy and is

Page 10: BRAND EXPERIENCE ANALYSIS HOW IT RELATES TO BRAND ......brand loyalty. Cite this Article: Syafrizal Helmi Situmorang, Sirojuzilam, Endang Sulistya Rini & Arlina Nurbaity Lubis, Brand

Brand Experience Analysis – How it Relates to Brand Personality, Value, Satisfaction and

Loyalty in TV Brands?

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 861 [email protected]

calculated as the squared correlation between a specific endogenous construct's actual and

predicted values (Handoko et al., 2017). The coefficient represents the exogenous latent

variables' combined effects on the endogenous latent variable. In scholarly research that

focuses on marketing issues, R Square values of 0.75, 0.50, or 0.25 for endogenous latent

variables can, as a rule of thumb, be respectively described as substantial, moderate, or weak

(Hair, et al. 2017). Selecting a model based on the R Square value is not a good approach.

The more paths pointing toward a targeting construct, the higher its R Square value. As with

multiple regression, the adjusted R Square value can be used as the criterion to avoid bias

toward complex models. Based on Table 7 adjusted R Square Brand Personality (0,161) and

Brand Value (0,202) < (0, 25) it means weak. The adjusted R2 Brand satisfaction (0,297) and

Brand Loyalty (0,272) < 0, 5 it means moderate. The higher the R Square value means the

better the predictive model from the proposed research model. However, R Square is not an

absolute parameter in measuring the accuracy of predictive models because the basis of

theoretical relationships is the main parameter in explaining the relationship between

variables.

Table 7. R Square

R Square R Square Adjusted

Loyalty 0,276 0,272

Personality 0,162 0,161

Satisfaction 0,300 0,297

Value 0,204 0,202

Sources: SmartPLS Result, (2018).

Theory and logic should always determine the sequence of constructs in a conceptual

model. Mediation effects are made when a third mediator variable intervenes between two

other related constructs. The mediation effect path model works, consisting of direct and

indirect effects. The direct effect is the relationship that connects two variables directly. The

indirect effect is a relationship that involves the order of relationships of at least one variable

involved. From a theoretical perspective Analyzing the strength of the mediator variable‟s

relationships with the other constructs allows substantiating the mechanisms that underlie the

cause-effect relationship between an exogenous construct and an endogenous construct.

Table 8, Path Coefficient direct effect shows Brand experience has positive and

significant effect on Brand Personality, Brand Value and Brand Loyalty. Unfortunately Brand

experience has no significant effect on Brand Satisfaction. On the whole, Brand Personality

has a positive and significant effect on Brand Value, Brand Satisfaction, and Brand Loyalty.

Generally, Brand Value has a significant effect on Brand Satisfaction and Brand Loyalty. The

critical relationship between Brand experience and Brand Loyalty are positively mediated by

Brand Personality, Brand value, and brand satisfaction.

Table 8. Path Coefficient

t Statistics p Values Hypothesis

Direct

experience -> loyalty 5,972 0,00 Accepted

experience -> personality 14,235 0,00 Accepted

experience -> satisfaction 0,186 0,85 Rejected

experience -> value 8,714 0,00 Accepted

personality -> loyalty 6,936 0,00 Accepted

Page 11: BRAND EXPERIENCE ANALYSIS HOW IT RELATES TO BRAND ......brand loyalty. Cite this Article: Syafrizal Helmi Situmorang, Sirojuzilam, Endang Sulistya Rini & Arlina Nurbaity Lubis, Brand

Syafrizal Helmi Situmorang, Sirojuzilam, Endang Sulistya Rini & Arlina Nurbaity Lubis

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 862 [email protected]

t Statistics p Values Hypothesis

personality -> satisfaction 10,551 0,00 Accepted

personality -> value 5,623 0,00 Accepted

satisfaction -> loyalty 3,412 0,00 Accepted

value -> loyalty 5,14 0,00 Accepted

value -> satisfaction 9,671 0,00 Accepted

Indirect

experience -> personality -> loyalty 5,946 0,00 Accepted

experience -> satisfaction -> loyalty 0,171 0,86 Rejected

experience -> personality -> satisfaction -> loyalty 3,096 0,00 Accepted

experience -> value -> satisfaction -> loyalty 2,964 0,00 Accepted

experience -> personality -> value -> satisfaction -> loyalty 2,417 0,02 Accepted

experience -> value -> loyalty 4,439 0,00 Accepted

experience -> personality -> value -> loyalty 3,474 0,00 Accepted

experience -> personality -> satisfaction 8,397 0,00 Accepted

experience -> value -> satisfaction 7,49 0,00 Accepted

experience -> personality -> value -> satisfaction 4,13 0,00 Accepted

experience -> personality -> value 4,792 0,00 Accepted

Total Indirect

experience -> loyalty 9,748 0,00 Accepted

experience -> satisfaction 13,954 0,00 Accepted

experience -> value 4,792 0,00 Accepted

personality -> loyalty 5,239 0,00 Accepted

personality -> satisfaction 4,582 0,00 Accepted

value -> loyalty 3,079 0,00 Accepted

Total effect

experience -> loyalty 14,664 0,00 Accepted

experience -> personality 14,235 0,00 Accepted

experience -> satisfaction 7,357 0,00 Accepted

experience -> value 12,847 0,00 Accepted

personality -> loyalty 9,894 0,00 Accepted

personality -> satisfaction 12,821 0,00 Accepted

personality -> value 5,623 0,00 Accepted

satisfaction -> loyalty 3,412 0,00 Accepted

value -> loyalty 6,532 0,00 Accepted

value -> satisfaction 9,671 0,00 Accepted

Sources: SmartPLS Result. (2018).

4.2. Discussion

TV brand competition in Indonesia is extremely tight. Currently, Korean TV brands are

competing fiercely with Japanese, Chinese and Indonesian TV brands. Presently, Korean TV

brands like LG and Samsung undoubtedly dominate the local market compared to other

brands. The considerable success of Korean TV brands cannot be properly separated from

productive years of extensive work. This empirical study naturally strengthens the direct

effect of brand experience with brand personality, value, satisfaction, and loyalty and also the

Page 12: BRAND EXPERIENCE ANALYSIS HOW IT RELATES TO BRAND ......brand loyalty. Cite this Article: Syafrizal Helmi Situmorang, Sirojuzilam, Endang Sulistya Rini & Arlina Nurbaity Lubis, Brand

Brand Experience Analysis – How it Relates to Brand Personality, Value, Satisfaction and

Loyalty in TV Brands?

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 863 [email protected]

causal structure of multi-dimensional aspects of brand experience in connection to other

variables. Firstly, this study concludes that brand experience directly produces a significant

effect on brand personality, Brand value and brand loyalty. Experience occurs when

consumers consume and interact with the brand. In the midst of competition, TV brands can

only survive if they are able to provide more experience to consumers. A strong brand

experience is a profitable prediction of brand results like customer satisfaction and loyalty.

Brand experience will connect consumers with company brands. Brand experience will

gently stimulate the customer's emotions. A study by Ran et al., (2015) shows that relational

experience through sensory, affective and cognitive brand experiences in the multiple-

channel setting allows a tremendous business potential consumer and brand value.

Secondly, Path Coefficient Indirect effect shows brand personality represent a mediating

variable between Brand Experience and Brand Value, Brand Satisfaction, Brand Loyalty.

Brand experience is the most powerful driving factor for brand personality. Therefore, the

more the brand is associated with human characteristics, the more consumers will appreciate

it. Maehle et al., (2011) additionally noted that the assessment of the personality dimension

of sincerity, joy, competence, brand sophistication, or manhood of a brand can be facilitated

when consumers follow certain sensory, affective, intellectual, or behavioral aspects. Brand

Value represents a mediating variable between Brand Experience and Brand Satisfaction,

Brand Loyalty. The results of this study show that brand value is influenced by brand

experience. This result is in line with Christopher's (1996) opinion that the concept of

customer value recognizes that market success in a modern competitive environment does not

only require continued investment in brands but also investments for customers. Holt (2003)

states that to develop relationships with customers, brands must be able to provide value. The

value of the customer has a relationship with the desire to order a product, the desire to

recommend the product and not expect a problem from the product. If the value perceived by

the customer towards a brand is high then the customer will have more desire to purchase the

brand and recommend it to others (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001). Chattalas and Shukla (2015)

state that social values, personal values, and functional values will convey positive behavioral

intentions to the company's brand. Companies that focus on customer value will maintain a

sustainable competitive advantage, gain credibility, gain trust from consumers so that it can

reduce the value of risk from the company.

Thirdly, brand experience does not have a significant influence on brand satisfaction.

Brand satisfaction additionally does not become a mediating variable between Brand

Experience and Brand Loyalty variables. This means that customer experience in managing a

brand has not been able to meet customer satisfaction. This research is not in line with

Mulyono and Situmorang (2018) which states customer satisfaction represent a mediating

variable between Brand Experience and Brand Loyalty. Brand satisfaction has a significant

influence on brand loyalty. Joseph and Joachim (2009) suggested that customer satisfaction

positively affects customer retention and switching costs cause a significant effect on

customer retention rates. By satisfying their customers, companies expect to achieve their

loyalty (Del Delguila-Obra et al., 2013). Bravo, Matute and Pina (2011) added that satisfied

customers will develop loyalty intentions or willingness to buy back a brand. Fourth,

Empirical study equally developed a brand experience research model from Brakus et al.,

(2009) by scarcely calculating the brand value as a mediating variable. The results of this

analysis recommend to marketers see the mediating effect of brand personality between brand

experience and brand value. The practical implications of the empirical findings of critical

study indicate precisely unique brands are able to allegedly provide unique experience to

consumers.

Page 13: BRAND EXPERIENCE ANALYSIS HOW IT RELATES TO BRAND ......brand loyalty. Cite this Article: Syafrizal Helmi Situmorang, Sirojuzilam, Endang Sulistya Rini & Arlina Nurbaity Lubis, Brand

Syafrizal Helmi Situmorang, Sirojuzilam, Endang Sulistya Rini & Arlina Nurbaity Lubis

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 864 [email protected]

5. CONCLUSION

The result for this research is direct effect shows brand experience has a positive and

significant effect on brand personality, brand value, and brand loyalty. Brand experience has

no significant effect on band satisfaction. Indirect Path Coefficient shows brand personality is

a mediating variable between brand experience, brand value, brand satisfaction, and brand

loyalty. Brand Value also a mediating variable between brand experience, brand satisfaction,

and brand loyalty. Brand satisfaction is not mediating variable between brand experience and

brand loyalty. This paper also recommends empirical and practical implication.

REFERENCES

[1] Aaker D.A. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name.

Free Press, London.

[2] Aaker, D.A. (2015). Aaker On Branding: 20 Principles That Drive Success, PT Gramedia

Utama, Jakarta.

[3] Aaker, J.L., (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research.

34.34756.

[4] Anderson,E.W. Fornell,C and Lehmann, D.R. (1994). Customer Satisfaction, Market

Share, and Profitability: Findings from Sweden, Journal of Marketing. 58(3). 53-66.

[5] Bennett, R. and Rundel-Thiele, S. (2005). The brand loyalty life cycle: implications for

marketers', The Journal of Brand Management. 12(4). 250-263.

[6] Biedenbach G., Bengtsson M., Marell A. (2015), Brand equity, satisfaction, and

switching costs, Marketing Intelligence & Planning. 33(2). 55-68.

[7] Brakus, J.J (2008). Embodied cognition, affordances and mind modularity: using

cognitive science to present a theory of consumer experiences. In handbook Brand

Handbook on Brand and Experience Management.

[8] Brakus, J.J., Schmitt, B.H. and Zarantonello, L. (2009). Brand experience: what is it?

How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty?”. Journal of Marketing. 73(1). 52-68.

[9] Chattalas, M., and P. Shukla. (2015). Impact of value perceptions on luxury purchase

intentions: A developed market comparison. Luxury Research Journal. 1(1). 40–57.

[10] Christopher, M (1996). From brand values to customer value. Journal of Marketing

Practice: Applied Marketing Science. 2(1). 55–66.

[11] Davies, G. and Chun, R. (2003). The Use of Metaphor in the Exploration of the Brand

Concept, Journal of Marketing Management. 19(1/2). 45–71.

[12] Dick S., Basu K. (1994), Customer Loyalty: Toward an Integrated Conceptual

Framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 22(2). 92-107.

[13] Dilham, A, Sofiyah, F.R., & Muda, I. (2018). The Internet Marketing Effect on the

Customer Loyalty Level with Brand Awareness as Intervening Variables. International

Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology. 9(9). 681-695.

[14] Eggert, A., & Ulaga, W. (2002). Customer perceived value: A substitute for satisfaction

in business markets. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 17(2-3). 107-118.

[15] Fornell, C., Johnson, M. D., Anderson, E. W., Cha, J., & Everitt Bryant, B. (1996). The

American Customer Satisfaction Index: Nature, Purpose, and Findings, Journal of

Marketing. 60.7-18.

[16] Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: developing relationships theory in

consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research.24(1). 343-373.

Page 14: BRAND EXPERIENCE ANALYSIS HOW IT RELATES TO BRAND ......brand loyalty. Cite this Article: Syafrizal Helmi Situmorang, Sirojuzilam, Endang Sulistya Rini & Arlina Nurbaity Lubis, Brand

Brand Experience Analysis – How it Relates to Brand Personality, Value, Satisfaction and

Loyalty in TV Brands?

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 865 [email protected]

[17] Ganesh, J., Arnold, M. J., & Reynolds, K. E. (2000). Understanding the customer base of

service providers: An examination of the differences between switchers and stayers.

Journal of Marketing, 64, 65-87.

[18] Gobé, M. (2001). Emotional branding: the new paradigm for connecting brands to people.

New York: Allworth Press.

[19] Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., and Sarstedt, M. (2017). A Primer on Partial

Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd Ed., and Sage: Thousand

Oaks.

[20] Handoko, B. Sunaryo & Muda, I. (2017). Difference Analysis of Consumer Perception of

Motorcycle Product Quality. International Journal of Economic Research. 14(12). 363-

379.

[21] Holland, John (1998). Emergence: From Chaos to Order, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

[22] Kassarjian, H.H. (1971). Personality and Consumer Behavior: A Review‟, Journal of

Marketing Research. 8(4). 409–418.

[23] Keller, K.L. (2013). Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing

Brand Equity, 4th ed., Prentice.

[24] Khan I and Rahman, Z (2015). A review and future directions of brand experience

research, International Strategic Management Review. 3(2). 1–14.

[25] Kim D., Lee S.Y., Bu K., Lee S. (2009). Do VIP Programs Always Work Well? The

Moderating Role of Loyalty. Psychology & Marketing. 26(7). 99-111.

[26] Kim, M., Kim, S.H.,Lee, Y (2010). The effect of distribution channel diversification of

foreign luxury fashion brands on consumers‟brand value and loyalty in the Korean

market, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 17(2). 286–293.

[27] Kotler, P., Kartajaya, H., & Setiawan, I (2017). Marketing, 4.0, Moving from Traditional

to Digital. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.

[28] Kumar, V & Reinartz, W (2016) Creating Enduring Customer Value, Journal of

Marketing: AMA/MSI Special Issue. 80(1).36–68.

[29] Larivière B., Keiningham T.L., Aksoy L., Yalçin A., Morgeson III F.V., Mithas S.

(2016), Modeling heterogeneity in the satisfaction, loyalty intention, and shareholder

value linkage: a cross-industry analysis at the customer and firm levels. Journal of

Marketing Research, 53(1). 221-236.

[30] Mabkhot H.A., Salleh S.M.D., Shaari H. (2016). The antecedents of automobile brand

loyalty: Evidence from Malaysian. International Review of Management and Marketing,

6(3). 76-89.

[31] Marhayanie, M. Ismail & Muda, I, (2017). Impact of the Online Car Rental Service Order

System on Sales Turnover with Financial Literacy Customer as Intervening Variables.

International Journal of Economic Research. 14(21). 317-332.

[32] Molahoseini, A., and F. Tajoddini. (2015). The Effects of distribution channel

diversification of luxury brand on consumers‟ brand value and loyalty consumers in

clothing market Kerman. Journal of Business Management. 7(1). 178 –208.

[33] Nitzl, C., Roldán, J.L., and Cepeda Carrión, G. (2016). Mediation Analysis in Partial

Least Squares Path Modeling: Helping Researchers Discuss More Sophisticated Models.

Industrial Management & Data Systems, 119(9). 1849-1864.

[34] Oliver R.L. (1999), Whence Consumer Loyalty? Journal of Marketing. 63(1). 231-248.

[35] Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. Boston:

McGraw-Hill.

[36] Pine, Joseph B. and James H.G. (1999). The Experience Economy, Boston, MA: Harvard

Business School Press.

Page 15: BRAND EXPERIENCE ANALYSIS HOW IT RELATES TO BRAND ......brand loyalty. Cite this Article: Syafrizal Helmi Situmorang, Sirojuzilam, Endang Sulistya Rini & Arlina Nurbaity Lubis, Brand

Syafrizal Helmi Situmorang, Sirojuzilam, Endang Sulistya Rini & Arlina Nurbaity Lubis

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 866 [email protected]

[37] Pine, Joseph B.and James H.Gilmore (1997), „The experience economy. Harvard

Business Review, January–February. 91–101.

[38] Ran, H, Stacy H Lee, Hae, J. K., Leslie E, (2015). The impact of brand experiences on

brand resonance in multi-channel fashion retailing. Journal of Research in Interactive

Marketing. 9(2).129-147.

[39] Reichheld, F.F (2011). The Ultimate Question 2.0 (How Net Promoter Companies Thrive

in a Customer-Driven World), HBR Press, Boston.

[40] Reichheld, F.F., (1996). The loyalty effect: The hidden force behind growth, profits, and

lasting value. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

[41] Sadalia, Isfenti. N.A.B. Rahamani & Muda, I. (2017). The Significance of Internet Based

Financial Information Disclosure on Corporates Shares in Indonesia. International Journal

of Economic Research. 14(12). 337-346.

[42] Salehzadeh, R and Pool, J.K., (2016). Brand Attitude and Perceived Value and Purchase

toward Global Luxury Intention Brands. Journal of International Consumer Marketing.

12(1). 123-134.

[43] Schmitt, B. (2011). Experience Marketing: Concepts, Frameworks and Consumer

Insights, Foundations and Trends in Marketing. 5(2). 55–112.

[44] Schmitt. (1999). Experiential Marketing, How To Get Customer To Sense, Feel, Think,

Act, Relate, To Your Company And Brand. New York: The Free Press.

[45] Situmorang, S.H, E.S Rini & Muda, I. (2017). Customer Experience, Net Emotional

Value and Net Promoter Score on Muslim Middle Class Women in Medan. International

Journal of Economic Research. 14(20). 269-283.

[46] Situmorang, S.H. (2017) Gen C and Gen Y: Experience, Net emotional Value and Net

Promoter Score, Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research. 81(1).

259-265.

[47] Situmorang, S.H., Annisa, M. Dan Hadian, A (2016). Generasi Milenial : Net Promoter

Score dan Net Emotional Value, Prosiding Dies Natalis FEB USU, 24 November

2016,Medan, Indonesia.100-107.

[48] Sung, Y. and Kim, J. (2010). Effects of brand personality on brand trust and brand

affect”, Psychology and Marketing. 27(7). 639-661.

[49] Yeh C.H., Wang Y.S., Yieh K. (2016), Predicting smartphone brand loyalty: Consumer

value and consumer-brand identification perspectives. International Journal of

Information Management, 36(3). 231-242.

[50] Zarantonello, L and Schmitt, B., (2010). Using the brand experience scale to profile

consumers and predict consumer behavior. Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 35,

forthcoming.

[51] Zarantonello, L., Schmitt, B.H. and Brakus, J.J. (2007). Development of the brand

experience scale‟, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 34, forthcoming.

[52] Zeithaml, V.A (1988) Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End

Model and Synthesis of Evidence, Journal of Marketing. 52(1). 2-22.

[53] Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., and Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and

Truths about Mediation Analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2).197–206.