Ijciet 10 01_078

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 852 editor@iaeme.com
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

Brand Experience Analysis – How it Relates to Brand Personality, Value, Satisfaction and
Loyalty in TV Brands?
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

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

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.

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

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).

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

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
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.

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
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
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

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
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

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 -> satisfaction 13,954 0,00 Accepted
Total effect
experience -> personality 14,235 0,00 Accepted
experience -> satisfaction 7,357 0,00 Accepted
personality -> value 5,623 0,00 Accepted
satisfaction -> loyalty 3,412 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

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.

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.

[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.

[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.

Ijciet 10 01_078

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to Ijciet 10 01_078

Similar to Ijciet 10 01_078 (20)

More from IAEME Publication

More from IAEME Publication (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Ijciet 10 01_078