Design benefits, emotional responses, and

brand engagement
Frank Franzak, Suzanne Makarem and Haeran Jae
Department of Marketing, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The objective of this paper is to develop a better understanding of brand engagement by examining two of its antecedents: design benefits
and consumer emotions. The authors explore the relationship between design and brand engagement and advance a model with emotional responses
as mediator.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper integrates a range of theoretical works across design and marketing, including concepts of product
design, types of design benefits, brand engagement, and brand communities.
Findings – The authors propose a conceptual model where emotional arousal, which differs across design benefits, mediates the relationship between
design benefits and brand engagement. Brand engagement intensifies with emotional arousal as design benefits change from functional, to hedonic, to
symbolic.
Research limitations/implications – The conceptual model proposed in this paper can have significant applications in the areas of product design,
branding strategies, and brand communications. However, it has not been tested empirically.
Practical implications – The resulting model improves understanding of how marketers can use design to elicit different forms of brand engagement.
Implications for marketers include planning brand engagement outcomes early in the product or service development process; involving consumers in
that process, clearly communicating the benefits of the design; and supporting venues where brand engagement of different types can be practiced.
Originality/value – Brand engagement is unique brand-related behavior that has received limited attention in the design and marketing literatures.
The proposed model offers a look at brand engagement from a design perspective, while emphasizing the role of consumers’ emotional responses to
design benefits.

Keywords New product development, Emotions, Product design, Brand engagement, Design benefits

Paper type Conceptual paper

Introduction result when customers meaningfully interact with a product

In recent years, branding and brand management have
provided notable theoretical and practical contributions to the
marketing discipline (Aaker, 1997; Berry, 2000; Keller, 1993;
Keller and Lehmann, 2006). Consequently, knowledge from
branding research has helped marketers make better strategic
use of this dimension of the product. Brand names
communicate (Kohli et al., 2004). But brands do more than
that:
.
brands capture and convey the experience of using a
product, providing the basis for a customer-product
relationship (Sprott et al., 2009);
.
bands provide a competitive advantage (Dickson and
Ginter, 1987);
.
brand platforms provide a vehicle for growth (Keller and
Lehmann, 2009); and
.
brands have value (Stahl et al., 2012).
Clearly, brands do more than communicate. If used
judiciously, they personify the customer’s experience with
the product and they provide a focal point for involvement.
Brand engagement depicts a set of behavioral outcomes that
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
Journal of Product & Brand Management
23/1 (2014) 16– 23
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-07-2013-0350]
(Keller, 2013). Beyond that, an engaged customer is
strategically positioned to spread the word in today’s
connected society. For a company, the key is in knowing
how to elicit the behavior that goes beyond purchase, use, and
satisfaction with a product.
Knowledge of brand engagement is still in its infancy.
Marketing researchers need to clarify what brand engagement
is, identify the antecedents and consequences of this
important marketing outcome, and understand how it can
be influenced. Design provides a useful starting point,
specifically the role of design in shaping product-customer
relationships. How design and design benefits influence
consumers’ emotional and behavioral responses is an area of
research that requires further development (Chitturi et al.,
2008). Design has become an important contributor to the
customer experience with a product (Luchs and Swan, 2011),
and by extension, should be a significant determinant of
brand engagement.
In their customer value hierarchy, Woodruff and Gardial
(1996) linked the attributes and features that are designed
into the product to consequences, what the attributes do or
what they represent, before connecting to a higher-order
outcome, the consumer’s desired end state. Consequences, in
particular, are not straightforward. They can be functional,
capturing what the product does. They can be emotional,
comprised of intangible feelings that lead to satisfaction or
dissatisfaction resulting from using the product (Woodruff
and Gardial, 1996). To the extent that product developers
specify the ingredients, materials, features, and process steps
that make up attributes, they design the market offering.

16
 Design benefits, emotional responses, and brand engagement
Frank Franzak, Suzanne Makarem and Haeran Jae
These constructs, the design of the product or service to
function in some beneficial way, and the emotional reaction to
its use or application, can be considered instrumental to the
brand and a precursor to brand engagement. This paper
explores these relationships – design, emotions, and brand
engagement – proposing a conceptual model of brand
engagement. The objective is to develop a better
understanding of what brand engagement is, and to specify
the design practices that lead to this outcome.
In the following section, the design, product development,
and marketing literatures are reviewed to develop a conceptual
model connecting the proposed constructs. Drawing from
these views of innovation activity, we extend an existing design
benefit model (Chitturi et al., 2008; Chitturi, 2009), proposing
how design leads to a brand engagement consumer response.
The resulting model explores a design benefits-brand
engagement relationship and proposes a mediator role for
emotional response. Implications for marketers are proposed.
The concluding section provides discussion and directions for
future research direction.
Conceptual foundation
Design and design benefits
If a product is the offering an organization provides to its
customers, design contributes form and beneficial outcomes
to that offering. Recognizing the value of design input, many
corporations have increased the use of design in product
development. Consistent with the expanded role, an
appreciation for using design for more than appearance has
developed (Brown, 2009). Proponents of “design thinking”
emphasize the integration of business, technology, and human
inputs to generate an experience (Brown, 2009). This
development coincides with growing business emphasis on
brands for capturing and conveying experiences, including
those associated with engagement. To understand the
strategic importance of design in contributing to brand
engagement, the role of design in building product and brand
outcomes must be established.
In an appraisal for product development researchers, Bloch
(2011) defined design as “the form characteristics of a product
that provide utilitarian, hedonic, and semiotic benefits to the
user”. A review of related literature shows agreement on these
three design outcomes, though terminology differs and
interpretation varies slightly and thus builds across
disciplines. For example, Norman and Ortony (2003)
suggested three varied effects from product design:
1 behavioral (expectation-induced reactions);
2 visceral (perceptually induced reactions); and
3 reflective (intellectually induced reactions).
Behavioral response is based on the functional nature of
product design, visceral response is based on aesthetic nature
of product design, and reflective response is based on
metaphor, the symbolic aspect of product design (Norman,
2004). These interpretations added the product user’s
perspective to understanding design outcomes. Similarly, in
a review article in the design literature, Crilly et al. (2004)
offered a classification of customer responses toward product
design, labeling response to design elements as semantic,
aesthetic, and symbolic impressions toward the product.
Semantic impression is based on product function,
purposefulness, or qualities (Crozier, 1994; Norman, 2004).
17
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 23 · Number 1 · 2014 · 16 –23
Aesthetic impression is based on the product’s attractiveness or
unattractiveness (Baxter, 1995; Crozier, 1994; Norman,
2004). Symbolic impression is what the product indicates
about the user, or symbolic association of the product to users.
This includes the type of response users bring to the meaning
of the product (Crozier, 1994), how the product can trigger
users’ sense of belonging or sense of self-esteem (Lewalski,
1988), or whether the product has attractiveness beyond
aesthetics and reaches the level of symbolic attractiveness
(Baxter, 1995). Each of the three design benefits is examined in
more detail and related to the brand decision.
The functional value of the product is inherent in utilitarian
benefits. These consequences of use allow the product to
accomplish what it is designed to do in a reliable, safe,
convenient, and economically efficient manner (Bloch, 2011).
This dimension of design has not received much attention in
the product development literature. An exception, Hoegg and
Alba (2011), reported a series of experiments investigating the
communication effects of product form on functional
benefits, independent of aesthetics. They found that product
features such as shape, materials, and proportion contributed
to getting attention and guiding categorization. This achieves
the purpose of establishing the essence of the brand, signifying
the product category it belongs in, and contributes to
expectations of how the product is to function. The impact of
design-related functional benefits on customer purchase
behavior beyond satisfaction or dissatisfaction with
functional performance has apparently not been examined,
but relevance of meeting buyer expectations on an extended
pattern of buyer behavior should not be ignored. Given the
importance of functional performance to establishing value
and satisfaction with product use, this dimension serves as the
critical first step for establishing the design benefits – brand
engagement relationship. While important to product value,
function is what the product does, and while an outcome of
use may be satisfaction or dissatisfaction, a higher order
behavioral response has to start somewhere.
Hedonic design benefits are based on product appearance
or luxury, described as an aesthetic response (Crilly et al.,
2004) and visceral design level (Norman, 2004). Hedonic
benefits also encompass an experiential dimension (Chitturi
et al., 2008), where experience staging can be used to
stimulate the full range of human senses (Candi et al., 2013).
Often associated with the traditional role of design,
contributing a pleasing appearance, hedonic design benefits
produce sensory value through the visual, feel, tone, and
ambiance of products and services (Smith and Colgate,
2007). They provide emotional value by eliciting external
sensory stimuli or consumer experiences (Kim et al., 2003),
such as pleasure, fun, and adventure (Smith and Colgate,
2007). Hedonic benefits can be thought of as emotional
benefits. They elicit emotions beyond mere satisfaction such
as delight and pleasure, which consumers are increasingly
motivated to seek (Hagtvedt and Patrick, 2009). Luxury
brands often seek to provide hedonic experience benefits. The
hedonic focus of design is on creating customer-product
interactions that impact brand perceptions (Candi et al.,
2013). The intangible nature of reactions that produce
emotional benefits can be important motivators for sharing
experiences with others. Beyond merely performing as
expected, the experience can be special, or meaningful.
Symbolic meanings of products are not part of product
appearance but reflect a variety of meanings and associations.
 Design benefits, emotional responses, and brand engagement Journal of Product & Brand Management
Frank Franzak, Suzanne Makarem and Haeran Jae Volume 23 · Number 1 · 2014 · 16 –23

These include personality (Aaker, 1997), self-expression and
identify, such as prestige (Belk, 1988; Bhat and Srinivas, 1998;
Smith and Colgate, 2007), a sense of community/group
membership (Muñiz and O’Guinn, 2001; Smith and Colgate,
2007), and terminal values such as freedom and independence
(Da Silva and Alwi, 2006). Although the literature rarely
considers terminal values as part of the symbolic benefits of
products and services, Schembri(2009) found that the
symbolic meaning of products could be transcendental and
that this meaning can be expressed through product design.
Symbolic design benefit is a critical area to investigate because
this dimension can explain consumers’ response toward the
product design on a deeper level.
Research has shown that product design and design process
play an important role in influencing product success and firm
performance as well as consumer responses such as evaluation
and choice behavior (see reviews in Luchs and Swan, 2011).
Design influences the customer-product relationship by
providing functional, hedonic, and symbolic benefits. Table I
describes examples of these design benefits of goods and
services. What is not known is how design affects brand
specific marketing outcomes such as forming or joining brand
communities (McAlexander et al., 2002; Muñiz and
O’Guinn, 2001), brand love (Batra et al., 2012), or brand
engagement (Keller, 2013; Sprott et al., 2009). Research on
the emotional responses to design and their potential effects
on consumer outcomes is now examined.
Emotions
In the past decade, consumer research has moved from a sole
focus on cognitive decision making to recognizing the
importance of the emotional component of consumer
behavior (Da Silva and Alwi, 2006; Zambardino and
Goodfellow, 2007). This research includes studies from
design, marketing, and product development that investigate
emotional behavior from product encounters. Practitioners
and researchers agree that emotion has a strong connection to
brand related behaviors. Intensity of emotion is related to
purchase behavior. Travis (2000) argues that “How your
customers feel about your brand isn’t a casual question. It is
the crucial question” (p. 9). Theories of affect in psychology
research have demonstrated that different emotions are
associated with different behavioral responses (Lazarus,
1991). Interest in emotions related to product and brand
strategy is not surprising, given the hedonic benefits-
emotional reaction connection. Overall, it is noted that
research on emotions resulting from design benefits and their
subsequent effects on consumption outcomes such as brand
engagement is still limited.
“Design for emotion” is a well-established concept in the
design literature (Desmet, 2003; Hekkert and McDonagh,
2003; Kim et al., 2003), with product designers aiming to
elicit strong emotions as a positive behavioral response. In
broadening understanding to a range of emotions, a variety of
physical goods and services has been studied. Desmet and
Dijkhuis (2003) focused on 14 positive and negative
emotions, finding that consumer feelings can be
manipulated by altering design of a wheelchair. Kim et al.
(2003) identified 13 emotional dimensions experienced as a
result of website design, including factors such as thickness of
borderline, brightness of background, or color of the menu
bar. Wood and Moreau (2006) found complexity of
innovation was a factor when they examined the positive
and negative emotions elicited by design benefits. Recognizing
that each emotion can have a range of responses, Desmet
(2003) introduced a classification scheme, proposing that a
product can evoke five types of product-relevant emotions:
1 instrumental (disappointment, satisfaction);
2 aesthetic (disgust, attracted to);

Table I Design benefits of goods and services

Design benefits
Functional
Hedonic: aesthetic
Hedonic: experiential
Symbolic: social values – community
sharing (sense of belonging), prestige
Symbolic: expressive values –
self-identity and self-expression
Symbolic: terminal values – freedom
altruism, independence
Goods
Long battery life for cell phone or laptop
Alternative energy source for cars
User-friendly interface
Ergonomic design of office chair
Appeal, shape, and color of beverage packaging
Scent of shampoo and other beauty care products
Sports cars with sleek design, luxurious interior, or
sunroof
Build your own product, e.g. build your own bear
or paint your own pottery
Visible logos on apparel and accessories: Burberry
and Louis Vuitton logo as a pattern on the bag
Brand community relevant goods such as hats,
t-shirts, etc.
Personalized features (computer, car) or personal
monogram on towels
Exclusive, limited edition designs
All American patriotism products, e.g. Olympic
team sports gear
Rumble sound of Harley engine as essence of
freedom
Product Red against HIV
Services
Fast food restaurants
Managed care facilities for the elderly
Online banking, 24 hour ATM
All inclusive resort packages
Sound, colors, and visual effects at service facilities,
e.g. providing a calming environment at SPA services
Uniforms for frontline employees, e.g. flight attendants
Theme parks and themed experiences, e.g. Disney
Authentic ethnic food restaurant setting
Member-only benefits, club/lounge access, events
Frequent reminder or updates through social media
pages, e.g. restaurant specials on Facebook fan page
Personal profiles and personalized playlists (social
media, Pandora)
Recommended for you (Amazon, YouTube)
Events designed to sponsor causes and non-profits,
such as brand St Jude or Massey Cancer Center

18
 Design benefits, emotional responses, and brand engagement
Frank Franzak, Suzanne Makarem and Haeran Jae
3 social (indignation, admiration);
4 surprise (surprise, amazement); and
5 interest (boredom, fascination).
This classification of emotion was behaviorally based, not tied
to specific design features or benefits. In sum, the design
literature suggests that product design and emotion have a
strong relationship, yet it does not clarify how the nature of
emotions differs in response to functional, hedonic, or
symbolic design benefits.
Emotion has also entered the world of brands. Drawing on
affect-as-information theory (Yeung and Wyer, 2005),
consumer emotions are used in post-purchase evaluations
and consumer decisions related to a brand. Hagtvedt and
Patrick (2009) found that the hedonic benefits of luxury
brands feed into consumer brand evaluations and
consequently facilitate brand extensions. Bowden (2009)
looked at brand engagement activities such as brand advocacy
as an outcome of emotions and found that emotional
involvement was necessary for strong customer-brand
relationships. Each of these studies suggests that emotion
plays a critical role in behavior that follows purchase and use
of a brand. Literature extending the brand experience beyond
purchase and consumption is reviewed next to develop a
foundation for understanding unique brand related behavior
that occurs after acquisition, brand engagement.
Brand engagement
Keller’s (2013) conceptualization of brand engagement
centers on multi-dimensional activities consumers engage in
to show their loyalty toward the brand. This actual or active
brand engagement is defined as “the extent to which
consumers are willing to invest their own personal resources
– time, energy, money – on the brand, beyond those
resources expended during purchase or consumption of the
brand” (Keller, 2013, p. 320). By this definition, engagement
behavior involves collecting information about the product to
learn more about it, participating in brand marketing
activities, such as using samples, or interacting with other
product users, as when an online community is joined.
Alternatively, “brand engagement in self-concept” (BESC)
focuses on a consumer applying the brand as a self-extension
to become part of their self-concept (Sprott et al., 2009). The
designation is applied to individuals, not to actions or objects.
Higher BESC individuals have been shown to have a better
memory of favorite brands and better recall of specific brand
names. They are less price and time sensitive when
purchasing favorite brands. High BESC consumers also
have a more favorable attitude toward products with a
prominent logo, versus products with no brand markings.
Bergkvist and Bech-Larsen (2010) found that active
engagement is strongly related to brand love and brand
loyalty. The brand love model (Batra et al., 2012) proposes
that brand love results in higher loyalty, positive word of
mouth, and better resistance to competitive products. Results
from these studies suggest that brand engagement in
consumers’ cognitive responses, through attention, intention
to purchase, and consequent behavioral activity, significantly
impacts brand equity. Predictability of this outcome is shown
by activities such as strengthening brand attitude, spreading
word-of-mouth, and participation in social media behavior,
The model proposed in the next section examines design
and emotional responses as antecedents of brand engagement
19
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 23 · Number 1 · 2014 · 16 –23
and advances propositions aimed at improving our
understanding of how marketers can elicit higher brand
engagement through design.
Proposed model and propositions
Design builds brand equity by affecting post-purchase
engagement behavior. In the model presented here,
emotions are proposed as a mediator between different
types of design benefits and brand engagement. The focus is
on positive emotional behavior. Chitturi et al. (2008) posited
the dynamics between design benefits, emotional responses,
and consumer outcomes as dependent on the valence of
emotions elicited by design benefits. When brand engagement
is the desired outcome, only positive emotions need to be
specified. Negative emotions are unlikely to produce the type
of brand engagement behavior that increases brand equity.
Design benefits and emotional responses
The proposed model applies the Mehrabian-Russell
framework of emotions, with a focus on the affective
dimension of arousal. Higher arousal is related to feelings of
stimulation, excitement, joy, surprise, and expectancy, while
lower arousal is related to emotional states of feeling good,
happiness, confidence, security, and satisfaction (Havlena and
Hoolbrook, 1986; Lee et al., 2001).
Functional design benefits lead to low arousal emotions,
such as satisfaction and happiness. The attributes
contributing to the product working are essential, and they
have to be provided, but they do not usually elicit customer
excitement. Customers are generally pleased when a brand
meets their expectations, but post-purchase outcomes beyond
repurchase are more likely when dissatisfaction occurs.
Loyalty is important, but it is a singular activity. Brand
equity growth is limited. Considering functional benefits from
design, managers must make sure the product works, or the
service is provided. Appropriate guidance for functionality
must be conveyed to the development team. Marketers must
develop promotional messages that accurately convey
expected outcomes.
Hedonic benefits lead to higher arousal emotions, such as
delight, and consumer responses such as excitement, fun, and
fantasy. Two types of hedonic benefits are distinguished:
aesthetic; and experiential. Bloch (1995) and Creusen and
Schoormans (2005) found that aesthetic appeals in a product
design, characterized by visual and sensual stimuli, generate
stronger emotions than functional design benefits, leading to
customer delight, a high arousal emotion. Candi et al. (2013)
hypothesized that while functional benefits are related to
satisfaction and repurchase intentions, it is the experiential
aspects of design that establish emotional connections with
customers. Brand engagement outcomes such as word-of-
mouth communication that expresses delight, and
enthusiastic verbalization of anticipated future repurchase,
are generated. This leads to the following proposed design
benefit – emotional behavior relationship:
P1. Hedonic design benefits will lead to high arousal
emotions compared to functional design benefits,
which will lead to low arousal emotions.
To an extent, marketing research has provided some evidence
that functional and hedonic design benefits lead to different
types of emotional responses. Less attention has been given to
 Design benefits, emotional responses, and brand engagement
Frank Franzak, Suzanne Makarem and Haeran Jae
explaining symbolic design benefits and their relation to
emotional responses. This type of design advantage is difficult
for competition to imitate. If symbolic benefits generate
emotional behavior that leads to brand engagement, this
benefit needs to be considered during the product
development process. Symbolic design benefits are of three
types:
1 social;
2 self-expressive; and
3 terminal.
Social values that result from symbolic design include
prestige, sense of community, and sharing (McAlexander
et al., 2002; Muñiz and O’Guinn, 2001). This characterizes a
group whose members, either consciously or unconsciously,
share a common brand experience. Marzocchi et al. (2013)
found that belongingness and social identification from brand
community membership lead to the brand’s “ability to draw
positive emotional arousal as a result of its use” (p. 96).
Consumers who belong to brand communities are labeled as
“active loyalists” who possess commitment and passion
(Muñiz and O’Guinn, 2001). The results of in-depth
interviews with consumers from the Jeep brand community
showed that members commonly expressed the emotion of
love. Schembri (2009) found similar results when
investigating Harley-Davidson motorcycle owners who are
members of the Harley Owners Group (HOGs), where
socializing and sharing are an important part of consumption
that gives the brand its meaning and leads to high brand
commitment.
Another role of symbolic design benefits is the self-
expressive role. Users of these products tend to think about
products as an extension of self (Belk, 1988), and they use
products to construct their self-identities or for self-
enhancement (Wee and Ming, 2008). Lee et al. (2001)
found that self-expressive product design leads to high arousal
emotions. They recommended that firms make the use of self-
expression evident in their product design. The results of their
empirical study showed that self-expression product attributes
lead to higher arousal emotions compared to visual appeal
attributes, which lead to pleasure emotions. Features that
symbolize lifestyles, beyond just allowing them, are
advocated.
Finally, symbolic design benefits can be linked to consumer
terminal values. This desired end state is rarely expressed in
the purchase process, but as a strongly held attitude it can be
an important determinant of post-purchase feelings. The
Harley-Davidson engine rumble is an example. This symbolic
design benefit expresses the essence of freedom and gets one
noticed as a Harley rider. Such design benefits led consumers
to describe emotions resulting from riding in terms of elation
and enchantment, which are intense high-arousal emotions
(Schembri, 2009).
These findings indicate that symbolic design benefits lead
to high-arousal emotions that are more intense than emotions
resulting from hedonic design benefits. This leads to the
following proposition:
P2. Symbolic design benefits will lead to high arousal
emotions that are more intense than high arousal
emotions resulting from hedonic design benefits.
20
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 23 · Number 1 · 2014 · 16 –23
Emotional responses and brand engagement
Building on psychology theory, branding research has
provided ample support for the idea that the different
emotions consumers feel toward a brand are associated with
their behavioral responses (Heath et al., 2006; Morrison and
Crane, 2007; Ruth, 2001; Thompson et al., 2006; Tsai,
2005). Branding strategy that inspires strong emotion can
positively influence behavior (Heath et al., 2006; Thompson
et al., 2006; Ruth, 2001). Morrison and Crane (2007) found
that emotions may influence customer satisfaction and loyalty
for service brands, a functional outcome. With hedonic
benefits, Chitturi et al. (2008) provided empirical evidence
that high arousal emotions, such as delight, led to more
positive word of mouth, along with repeat purchase behavior.
When the intensity of relationship or psychological bond with
a brand is more intense, active engagement, the strongest
form of loyalty, is more likely (Keller, 2013).
Following the literature on emotions and brand related
behaviors; we suggest that high arousal emotion will lead to
higher level of brand engagement than low arousal emotions.
P3. Low arousal emotions will lead to low brand
engagement.
P4. High arousal emotions will lead to high brand
engagement.
Extant literature advances the role of affect as a mediator
between design benefits and consumer outcomes such as word-
of-mouth, repurchase intentions (Chitturi et al., 2008), loyalty,
and brand commitment (Marzocchi et al., 2013). The
proposed model extends these findings to brand engagement
as a behavioral outcome. Additionally, the degree of emotional
arousal stemming from the three different types of design
benefits will lead to different levels of brand engagement.
Functional design benefits lead to low arousal emotions.
These benefits will indirectly lead to low brand engagement,
often resulting in repeat purchase behavior. In contrast,
hedonic design benefits lead to higher-order brand engagement
through the fulfillment of consumer needs such as aesthetic
pleasure (Gambetti et al., 2012). Consumers are more likely to
share their experience with others, and may advocate for
similar behavior by others. Although they do not examine the
emotional outcomes of experiential hedonic benefits, Candi
et al. (2013) found that experience staging in service
innovations led to more positive consumer outcomes. These
also are more likely to be shared. Thus hedonic design benefits,
aesthetic and experiential, lead to high brand engagement and
that this relationship is mediated by emotions.
As for symbolic design benefits, Marzocchi et al. (2013)
found a strong link between symbolic self-identification and
loyalty, with commitment to a brand mediated by high arousal
emotions. Rosembaum and Martin (2012) investigated
consumers purchasing of firms’ logo merchandise and found
that two symbolic benefits strongly motivated this behavior:
1 brand community; and
2 self-expression.
We argue that the consumption of branded/logo consumables
is a more involved type of brand engagement. It is evidence of
consumer support for the brand beyond the purchase of its
main service or product offering, both financially, in the
purchase of firm logo merchandise, and through word-of-
mouth in the public display of this merchandise. This type of
brand engagement is an expression of emotions such as love
 Design benefits, emotional responses, and brand engagement
Frank Franzak, Suzanne Makarem and Haeran Jae
for the brand and pride in owning it (Rosembaum and
Martin, 2012). This evidence suggests that symbolic design
benefits will lead to higher brand engagement when compared
to hedonic design benefits and that this relationship is
mediated by emotions:
P5. Emotions will mediate the relationship between design
benefits and brand engagement such that: (a)
Emotional responses driven by hedonic design
benefits will generate higher brand engagement,
compared to emotional responses driven by
functional design benefits, which will lead to low
brand engagement; (b) Emotional responses driven by
symbolic design benefits will lead to higher brand
engagement than emotional responses driven by
hedonic design benefits.
The proposed model describing the relationships among
design benefits, positive emotions, and brand engagement is
represented in Figure 1.
Conclusion, managerial implications, future
research directions
The concurrent development of brand management and
design thinking provides marketing managers with new ways
to enhance the customer experience and differentiate from
competition. That these tools are related, and can be used in
tandem, should not be surprising. As with many managerial
practices, the key to effective use is finding the common
thread that raises the joint effect of both. The model
presented in this paper, based on research findings from
several disciplines, proposes that emotional response serves
that role. Design benefits, whether producing functionality,
hedonic enhancements, or symbolic connections, must tap
into the feelings of the customer to produce the type of
engaged customer brand managers find most valuable. The
proposed relationship is one of mediation. The nature of the
design benefit will elicit different levels of emotional response.
Differing emotional behavior will impact the post-purchase
brand engagement behavior that managers seek to influence.
These relationships, while straight-forward to describe, can be
tricky to produce. But the promise, in terms of raising brand
Figure 1 Proposed model
21
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 23 · Number 1 · 2014 · 16 –23
equity, suggests they are important to managers and deserving
of further study.
Implications for marketers
The following suggestions for marketing and brand managers
are based on Figure 1.
First, brand engagement is dependent on design benefits
and needs to be considered at the earliest stages of designing
product and service. In particular, design input should be
move up in the product development process. Design can no
longer be thought of as a development stage practice that
improves performance and makes the product look attractive.
Design has implications for post-purchase behavior.
Second, it is apparent that certain design benefits matter
more to brand engagement than others. Therefore, brand
engagement potential can be increased through the following:
.
Involve consumers early in the design process, not just
product development, by extending use of open
innovation and co-development practices. Consumers
can contribute their input about personal and social
values to improve service and product design with
functional, hedonic, and symbolic benefits.
.
Communication about products and services must learn
how to emphasize symbolic benefits. Social media
provides an effective outlet to communicate symbolic
design benefits with social values.
.
Invest in fostering brand communities to increase brand
engagement. These forums should be hang-outs for
customers to present a variety of experiences, both
positive and negative.
Future research direction
This paper provides a cross-disciplinary approach integrating
design and marketing literatures to investigate desirable brand
management practices. Going forward, it will be important to
verify and extend the proposed model. Therefore:
.
Future research should empirically test the model in both
service and product contexts.
.
Marketing communications that express different design
benefits, such as text, graphics, video, and the increasingly
popular infographics, must be investigated.
 Design benefits, emotional responses, and brand engagement
Frank Franzak, Suzanne Makarem and Haeran Jae
.
Additional variables that might play a role in the
relationship between design and consumer outcomes
need to be studied. These include individual tastes and
preferences, perceived innovativeness of design,
complexity of products/services, design sustainability,
cultural differences (especially the brand community or
social dimension of symbolic design), and many others.
.
Interaction between the three types of design benefits
needs to be examined. Design will rarely stop at a single
benefit.
Brand engagement has great potential for increasing brand
equity. Design will assist in reaching this potential. The tricky
behavioral role played by emotions cannot be ignored. The
model presented here pulls together research findings from
these and related fields to advance understanding of these
concepts.
References
Aaker, J.L. (1997), “Dimensions of brand personality”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 347-356.
Batra, R., Ahuvia, A. and Bagozzi, R.P. (2012), “Brand love”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 76, pp. 1-16.
Baxter, M. (1995), Product Design: A Practical Guide to
Systematic Methods of New Product Development, Chapman
& Hall, London.
Belk, R.W. (1988), “Possessions and the extended self”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 139-168.
Bergkvist, L. and Bech-Larsen, T. (2010), “Two studies of
consequences and actionable antecedents of brand love”,
Brand Management, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 504-518.
Berry, L.L. (2000), “Cultivating service brand equity”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 128-137.
Bhat, S. and Srinivas, R. (1998), “Symbolic and functional
positioning of brand”, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 32-43.
Bloch, P.H. (1995), “Seeking the ideal form: product design
and consumer response”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59,
pp. 16-29.
Bloch, P.H. (2011), “Product design and marketing:
reflections after fifteen years”, Journal of Product
Innovation Management, Vol. 28, pp. 378-380.
Bowden, J. (2009), “Customer engagement: a framework for
assessing customer-brand relationships: the case of
restaurant industry”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and
Management, Vol. 18, pp. 574-596.
Brown, T. (2009), Change by Design, Harper Collins, New
York, NY.
Candi, M., Beltagui, A. and Riedel, J.C.K.H. (2013),
“Innovation through experience staging: motives and
outcomes”, Journal of Product Innovation and Management,
Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 279-297.
Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R. and Mahajan, V. (2008),
“Delight by design: the role of hedonic versus utilitarian
benefits”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 72, pp. 48-63.
Chitturi, R. (2009), “Emotions by design: a consumer
perspective”, International Journal of Design, Vol. 3 No. 2,
pp. 7-17.
Creusen, M.E.H. and Schoormans, J.P.L. (2005), “The
different roles of product appearance in consumer choice”,
22
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 23 · Number 1 · 2014 · 16 –23
Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 22 No. 1,
pp. 63-81.
Crilly, N., Moultrie, J. and Clarkson, P.J. (2004), “Seeing
things: consumer response to the visual domain in product
design”, Design Studies, Vol. 25, pp. 547-577.
Crozier, R. (1994), Manufactured Pleasures: Psychological
Response to Design, Manchester University Press, Manchester.
Da Silva, R.V. and Alwi, S.F.S. (2006), “Cognitive, affective
attributes and conative behavioral responses in retail
corporate branding”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 293-305.
Dickson, P.R. and Ginter, J.L. (1987), “Market segmentation,
product differentiation, and marketing strategy”, The
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 1-10.
Desmet, P. (2003), “A multilayered model of product
emotions”, The Design Journal, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 4-13.
Desmet, P. and Dijkhuis, A. (2003), “A wheelchair can be fun:
a case of emotion-driven design”, Proceedings of DPPI ’03,
ACM Press, New York, NY, pp. 22-27.
Gambetti, R.C., Graffigna, G. and Biraghi, S. (2012), “The
grounded theory approach to consumer brand
engagement”, International Journal of Market Research,
Vol. 54 No. 5, pp. 659-687.
Hagtvedt, H. and Patrick, V.M. (2009), “The broad embrace of
luxury: hedonic potential as a driver of brand extendibility”,
Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 19, pp. 609-618.
Havlena, W.J. and Hoolbrook, M.B. (1986), “The varieties of
consumption experiences: comparing two typologies of
emotion in consumer behavior”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 13, pp. 394-404.
Heath, R., Brandt, D. and Nairn, A. (2006), “Brand
relationships: strengthened by emotion, weakened by
attention”, Journal of Advertising Research, December,
pp. 410-419.
Hekkert, P. and McDonagh, D. (2003), “Design and
emotion”, The Design Journal, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 1-3.
Hoegg, J. and Alba, J.W. (2011), “Seeing is believing (too
much): the influence of product form on perceptions of
functional performance”, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 28, pp. 346-359.
Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring, and
managing customer-based brand equity”, The Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Keller, K.L. (2013), Strategic Brand Management: Building,
Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity, 4th ed., Prentice
Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Keller, K.L. and Lehmann, D.R. (2006), “Brands and
branding: research findings and future priorities”,
Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 740-759.
Keller, K.L. and Lehmann, D.R. (2009), “Assessing long-
term brand potential”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 17
No. 1, pp. 16-17.
Kim, J., Lee, J. and Choi, D. (2003), “Designing emotionally
evocative home pages: an empirical study of the quantitative
relations between design factors and emotional
dimensions”, International Journal of Human-Computer
Studies, Vol. 59 No. 6, pp. 899-940.
Kohli, C.S., Harich, K.R. and Leuthesser, L. (2004),
“Creating brand identity: a study of evaluation of new
brand names”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58,
pp. 1506-1515.
Lazarus, R.S. (1991), Emotion and Adaptation, Oxford
University Press, New York, NY.
 Design benefits, emotional responses, and brand engagement
Frank Franzak, Suzanne Makarem and Haeran Jae
Lee, S., Ha, S. and Widdows, R. (2001), “Consumer
responses to high-technology products: product attributes,
cognition, and emotions”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 64 No. 11, pp. 1195-1200.
Lewalski, Z.M. (1988), Product Aesthetics: An Interpretation for
Designers, Design and Development Engineering Press,
Carson City, NV.
Luchs, M. and Swan, K.S. (2011), “Perspective: the
emergence of product design as a field of marketing
inquiry”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 28,
pp. 327-345.
McAlexander, J.H., Schouten, J.W. and Koenig, H.F. (2002),
“Building brand community”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66
No. 1, pp. 38-54.
Marzocchi, G., Morandin, G. and Bergami, M. (2013),
“Brand communities: loyal to the community or the
brand?”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47 Nos 1/2,
pp. 93-114.
Morrison, S. and Crane, F.G. (2007), “Building the service
brand by creating and managing an emotional brand
experience”, Brand Management, Vol. 14, pp. 410-421.
Muñiz, A.M. Jr and O’Guinn, T.C. (2001), “Brand
community”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27,
pp. 412-432.
Norman, D. and Ortony, A. (2003), “Designers and users:
two perspectives on emotion and design”, paper prepared
for a Symposium on Foundations of Interaction Design at
the Design Institute, Iverea, November.
Norman, D.A. (2004), Emotional Design: Why We Love (or
Hate) Everyday Things, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Rosembaum, M.S. and Martin, D. (2012), “Wearing
community; why customers purchase a service firm’s logo
products”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 5,
pp. 310-321.
Ruth, J. (2001), “Promoting a brand’s emotion benefits: the
influence of emotion categorization processes and
consumer evaluations”, Journal of Consumer Psychology,
Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 99-113.
Schembri, S. (2009), “Reframing brand experience: the
experiential meaning of Harley-Davidson”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 62, pp. 1299-1310.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
23
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 23 · Number 1 · 2014 · 16 –23
Smith, J.B. and Colgate, M. (2007), “Customer value
creation: a practical framework”, Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 7-23.
Sprott, D., Czellar, S. and Spangenberg, E. (2009), “The
importance of a general measure of brand engagement on
market behavior: development and validation of a scale”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 92-104.
Stahl, F., Heitmann, M., Lehmann, D.R. and Neslin, S.A.
(2012), “The impact of brand equity on customer
acquisition, retention, and profit margin”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 76, pp. 44-63.
Thompson, C.J., Rindfleisch, A. and Arsel, Z. (2006),
“Emotional branding and the strategic value of the
doppelgänger brand image”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70,
pp. 50-64.
Travis, D. (2000), Emotional Branding: How Successful Brands
Gain the Irrational Edge, Prima Venture, Roseville, CA.
Tsai, S.-P. (2005), “Utility, cultural symbolism and emotion:
a comprehensive model of brand purchase value”,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 22,
pp. 277-291.
Wee, T.T.T. and Ming, M.C.H. (2008), “Leveraging on
symbolic values and meanings in branding”, Brand
Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 208-218.
Wood, S.L. and Moreau, C.P. (2006), “From fear to loathing?
How emotion influences the evaluation and early use of
innovations”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70, pp. 44-57.
Woodruff, R.B. and Gardial, S.F. (1996), Know Your
Customer, Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.
Yeung, C.W.M. and Wyer, R.S. Jr (2005), “Does loving a
brand mean loving its products? The role of brand-elicited
affects in brand extension evaluations”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 42, pp. 495-506.
Zambardino, A. and Goodfellow, J. (2007), “Being affective
in branding?”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 23
No. 1, pp. 27-37.
Corresponding author
Frank Franzak can be contacted at: fjfranza@vcu.edu