The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0263-4503.htm

Do experience and engagement Experience

matter to
matter to millennial consumers? millennial
consumers
Imran Khan and Mobin Fatma
Department of Marketing, College of Business Administration,
Prince Sultan University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Vikas Kumar Received 28 January 2020
Department of Marketing, Indian Institute of Management Sirmaur, Revised 22 May 2020
1 July 2020
Paonta Sahib, India, and 5 July 2020
Sara Amoroso 24 July 2020
Accepted 25 July 2020
Department of Management and Law, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this research is to examine the effect of certain dimensions of brand experience
(sensory, behavioural, affective and intellectual) on millennial consumers’ engagement.
Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected using the central location intercept method from 443
millennial consumers (aged between 18 and 35 years) of fashion apparel. Structure equation modelling was
used for the analysis.
Findings – Results showed that all dimensions of brand experience (namely, sensory, behavioural, affective
and intellectual) significantly affect millennial consumers’ engagement.
Practical implications – This study will assist managers in determining the role of experiences and
engagement in strategy formulation for millennial fashion consumers. In particular, understanding the effect of
brand experience dimensions on customer engagement provides new practical insights into consumer
behaviour in the fashion apparel industry.
Originality/value – Examining the phenomenon of experience and engagement amongst millennial
consumers is an original approach and contributes to experience and engagement research in marketing.
Keywords Brand experience, Customer engagement, Millennial consumer, Brand loyalty
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Customers are exposed to several brands every day. This is the reason why marketers are so
interested in differentiating products from those of their competitors (Nayeem et al., 2019;
Schmitt and Rogers, 2008). Providing a better customer experience is becoming more
important, because it assists in differentiating marketers’ brands and creating loyal
customers (Andreini et al., 2018). In addition, consumers are becoming more sophisticated,
and thus firms need to engage with them more (Cambra-Fierro et al., 2013). Customers who
engage with brands on a regular basis then suggest them to others (Islam et al., 2019). This is
why both practitioners and academics have shown a greater interest in the concept of
engagement (Calder et al., 2018). Moreover, changing ways of communication have altered the
nature of customers’ brand engagement, and this is especially true in the targeting of the
millennial consumer group. Engaging millennial customers on a continual basis is a matter of
great concern for marketers. Schawbel (2015) states that 60 percent of millennials are more
likely to become loyal consumers if a brand engages them. This necessitates studies into
brand engagement from the perspective of the millennial consumer (Samala and Singh, 2019).
Though research on experience and engagement has accelerated in the past decade
(Nayeem et al., 2019; Islam et al., 2019), there is little on the relationship between them. For
instance, questions such as “Do experience and engagement matter to millennial consumers?” Marketing Intelligence & Planning
have been less investigated. Moreover, the literature suggests the need to assess the concepts © Emerald Publishing Limited
0263-4503
of brand experience (Brakus et al., 2009; Nayeem et al., 2019) and engagement (Cambra-Fierro DOI 10.1108/MIP-01-2020-0033
MIP et al., 2013) in different contexts and countries. Examinations of brand experience and
engagement have been undertaken largely in developed countries such as Australia and the
USA and occasionally amongst different age groups, but less interest has been shown in
emerging markets such as India (Islam et al., 2019; Khan and Rahman, 2015; Varshneya et al.,
2017) and millennial consumers (Kaur and Anand, 2018; Samala and Singh, 2019). It was
predicated that Indian youth would compose 34.33% of the population by 2020 (Youth in
India, 2017). This consumer group has the highest levels of discretionary income at its
disposal, and it forms the world’s second largest consumer cluster (Kaur and Anand, 2018).
It also exerts a strong pressure on the purchasing decisions of family and peers, and therefore
has a command over both direct and indirect purchase decisions (Kaur and Anand, 2018).
Such are the reasons why millennial consumers (i.e. those born between 1980 and 2000)
appeal to academics and marketers (Luo et al., 2020). Thus, we have attempted to study how
their engagement is influenced by brand experience.
The present study is therefore an attempt to examine experience/engagement constructs
using a single model. It is a direct response to the Marketing Science Institute’s (MSI, 2018)
call for more research in this area. The explicit objective of the study is to measure the effect of
brand experience dimensions on millennial consumers’ engagement and brand loyalty. This
research complements the current literature by explaining the nature of the stated
relationships. It is expected that it will provide useful information for managers, and offer
practical insights into millennials’ consumption behaviours.
The study is organised as follows. Section 2 comprises a review of the relevant literature.
Section 3 discusses research hypotheses and framework. Section 4 presents the research
methodology. Results of the study are detailed in Section 5. The study concludes by
highlighting the main theoretical and managerial implications and research limitations, and
suggests directions for future research.

2. Literature review
2.1 Brand experience
Brands provide experiences during the customer journey, from information search to
purchase, purchase to reception and from reception to consumption of the product and/or
service (Andreini et al., 2018; Khan et al., 2016). Brand cues, namely, packaging, product
design, marketing communications and distribution channels, all result in some “takeaway
impressions”, and these create the basis for a holistic evaluation of the brand in terms of
brand experience (Schmitt and Rogers, 2008; Schmitt, 2012). Compared with traditional
products’ functional features and benefits, these brand experiences create a long-lasting
effect on consumers’ senses (Khan and Rahman, 2015; Schmitt and Rogers, 2008).
Brand experience is understood as “sensations, feelings, cognitions and behavioural
responses evoked by brand-related stimuli that are part of a brand’s design and identity,
packaging, communications and environments” (Brakus et al., 2009, p. 53). Brakus et al. (2009)
showed empirically that brand experience is distinct from the affective, associative and
evaluative branding concepts, namely, brand attachment, brand personality and brand
attitude. Brand experience is a multi-dimensional construct that includes affective, sensory,
behavioural and cognitive experiences (Brakus et al., 2009). Consumers’ emotions and inner
feelings evoked through humanic clues are classified as affective experiences. Humanic clues
are the appearances and behaviour of the employees with which customers interact (Berry and
Carbone, 2007; Schmitt and Rogers, 2008). Sensory experiences comprise the aesthetic
pleasure and excitement that customers experience when they see, hear, touch, taste and smell
a brand. According to Berry and Carbone (2007), sensory experiences are formed by mechanic
clues. These include the design of building, equipment, furnishings, displays, textures,
colours, sounds, lighting and so on. Experiences that are evoked through both functional (the
technical aspects of a product/service) and humanic clues are classified as behavioural. Experience
Finally, the cognitive dimension refers to the creative and problem-solving thoughts that a matter to
brand offers through their products and services (Berry and Carbone, 2007; Schmitt, 2012).
millennial
consumers
2.2 Customer engagement
The concept of engagement is studied in several fields, namely, sociology, psychology and
organisational behaviour (Hollebeek et al., 2019). Such as personal engagement has been
defined as “the simultaneous employment and expression of a person’s ‘preferred self’ in task
behaviours that promote connections to work and to others personal presence (physical,
cognitive, and emotional), and active, full role performances” (Kahn, 1990, p. 700).
Engagement research in marketing take several sub-forms such as consumer engagement
(Vivek et al., 2012), customer engagement behaviours (Van Doorn et al., 2010) and customer
brand engagement (Hollebeek, 2011).
While most studies take an intra-individual, consumer psychology-based perspective,
Van Doorn et al. (2010) adopt a more company-centric interpretation, by seeing the influence
of certain customer engagement behaviours through an organisational lens. From the firm’s
point of view, customer engagement requires the satisfaction of their needs (Hollebeek et al.,
2019). In the marketing literature, customer engagement has been explained as “the creation
of a deeper, more meaningful connection between the company and the customer” (Kumar
et al., 2010, p. 297). According to Van Doorn et al. (2010), customer engagement refers to the
“behaviours that go beyond transactions and may be specifically defined as a customer’s
behavioural manifestations that have a brand or firm focus, beyond purchase, resulting from
motivational drivers” (p. 254). Customer engagement with a brand is actually the customer’s
brand-related, motivational and context-dependent state described by specific levels of
affective, cognitive and behavioural activities (Hollebeek et al., 2019). Customer engagement
has been found to affect customer perception, purchase intention, repurchase behaviour and
word-of-mouth intention.
Scholars have highlighted the need to comprehend customer engagement in connection
with brands (Brodie et al., 2011). Hollebeek (2011) defines the customer-brand engagement
concept as “the level of an individual customer’s motivational, brand-related and context-
dependent state of mind characterized by specific levels of cognitive, emotional and
behavioural activity in direct brand interactions” (p. 565). The present study adopts the
definition of customer engagement as “a consumer’s positively valenced brand-related
cognitive, emotional and behavioural activity during or related to focal consumer/brand
interactions” (Hollebeek et al., 2014, p. 154).

2.3 Context of the study: why India, and why fashion brands?
The growing Indian middle class, which is expected to increase by 1.4% every year
(outpacing Brazil, China and Mexico) and an increasingly strong manufacturing sector makes
the country a focal point, and the most alluring fashion market outside the western world
(Amed et al., 2019).
In particular, developments within the Indian fashion market can generally be considered
in terms of the country’s demographic profile, retail-specific policies and consumers’ buying
behaviour (Gugnani and Brahma, 2015). First, in contrast with the ageing populations of the
Western nations, India was seen as likely to become the world’s leading emerging economy
by 2020, with an approximately 64% working age group (Gugnani and Brahma, 2015). This
consumer segment is more open to experimentation with modern designs and fashion brands.
It is also conscious about the selection of fashion products that best fit their personality.
Second, the government’s decision to permit foreign direct investment (FDI) in multi-brand
retail is deemed to be one of the most reform-oriented decisions in support of retail fashion
MIP brands that has been taken in recent years (Gugnani and Brahma, 2015). Third, the success of
fashion brands in India is determined by trends in consumer purchase decisions. Rising
confidence levels, exposure to international fashion icons and events, and increases in
disposable income are propelling the changes in consumers’ purchase behaviour (Gugnani
and Brahma, 2015).
In addition, global research firm McKinsey has predicted that India will become the sixth-
largest fashion product market in the world; the industry will be worth $59.3bn in 2022. This
may be compared with the United Kingdom ($65bn) and Germany ($63.1bn) (Amed et al.,
2019). Hence, because India represents one of the most rapidly growing markets with great
opportunities for fashion brands, the authors were motivated to examine the role of customer
experience and engagement in the industry.

3. Research hypotheses and framework

Customer experience influences customer engagement and may influence their behavioural
intentions towards a brand (Ahn and Back, 2018). This was demonstrated by the use of a
co-creation model that was proposed by Prahalad and Ramaswamy in 2004. The model
proposed in the present study (Figure 1) examines the direct effect of brand experience
dimensions (sensory, affective, behavioural and intellectual) on customer engagement, and of
customer engagement on brand loyalty.

3.1 Sensory brand experience and engagement

Sensory brand experience refers to a customer’s perception of brand-related stimuli that
rouse the human mind and senses (touch, taste, smell, vision and hearing) (Berry and
Carbone, 2007). For instance, the feel of a car seat, seeing tables too close together in a
restaurant, participating in an online community and eating in a famous restaurant can
stimulate consumer senses. Different types of sensory experiences are caused by tactile,

Sensory
brand
experience
H1
a

Affective
brand
H1
experience b

Customer H2
Brand loyalty
engagement
H 1c
Behavioral
brand
experience
d
H1

Intellectual
brand
Figure 1. experience
Conceptual framework
auditory and visual stimuli provided by the brands (Schmitt, 2012). When customers are Experience
presented with appealing visual impressions, they are more likely to take a greater interest in matter to
the brand and subsequently engage with it (Ahn and Back, 2018). When consumers have a
positive sensory experience they are more likely to notice brand-related information (Berry
millennial
and Carbone, 2007). Hence, we assume that sensory experiences influence customers’ consumers
engagement with brands and make them more attentive to new information through
recognition and learning.
Various sensory experiences (such as sight, scent, taste and touch) can prompt positive
customer emotions, for example, pleasure, fun and happiness (Hollebeek, 2011; Schmitt, 2012).
Engagement refers to the degree of a customer’s “energy, effort and/or time spent on a brand
in particular brand interactions” (Hollebeek, 2011, p. 569). Hence, customers are more likely to
participate in brand-related activities when they are satisfied with their sensory experiences.
Altschwager et al. (2013) also notes the effect of customer experience on brand engagement.
Customers’ sensory experiences can generate a high level of excitement and interest (So et al.,
2014). Thus, given the theoretical arguments outlined above, this study posits following
hypothesis:
H1a. Sensory brand experience is positively related to customer engagement.

3.2 Affective brand experience and engagement

Affective experience is associated with the moods and emotions generated through humanic
clues (Berry and Carbone, 2007; Khan and Rahman, 2015). For instance, a frontline employee
who replies to a customer’s query about when an out-of-stock will be available is providing
both humanic and functional clues. Functional clues relate to the accuracy of the information
given to the customer (Schmitt, 2012). Body language and the selection of words are humanic
clues (Berry and Carbone, 2007). One frontline employee may reply with a lack of interest, and
another with enthusiasm. It is highly likely that a customer’s takeaway impression in either
case will be different, even if both employees convey accurate information. In other words, the
customer experience can be negative or positive, though a positive one will be expected when
they have been satisfied with a previous engagement. Superior and memorable experiences
may motivate the customer to engage further with the brand.
Affective experience relates customers’ feelings that are generated through brand
engagement (Schmitt and Rogers, 2008). Customers’ affective states of feeling (both positive
and negative) can affect their engagement with a brand. Customers have affective
experiences when they enjoy services offered to them, or when they feel relaxed (Calder et al.,
2018). When customers experience enjoyment, novelty, pleasure and excitement from brands,
they engage more positively (Ahn and Back, 2018). Affective experiences stimulate the
customer’s emotional bond with a brand. If this is positive, it will likely be replicated in future
engagements (Ahn and Back, 2018). Hence, this study proposes the following hypothesis:
H1b. Affective brand experience is positively related to customer engagement.

3.3 Behavioural brand experience and engagement

Behavioural experience is associated with the physical activities of customers that a brand
triggers; it refers to the action-oriented characteristics and physical engagements with a
brand (Calder et al., 2018). Bodily experiences can be stimulated at the interface between
customers and brands (Berry and Carbone, 2007; Schmitt, 2012). Action- or body-oriented
experiences can occur as a result of several interactions customers can have with brands
(Ahn and Back, 2018). For example, when customers walk into an apparel store, they can have
a pleasurable behavioural experience. This is effective in stimulating customer inferences
concerning fun and excitement. Thus, the customers will want to interact further with the
MIP brand. Generally, behavioural experiences play a crucial role in strengthening customer
engagement (Ahn and Back, 2018). Hence, this study proposes that the behavioural
dimension of brand experience affects customer engagement, and sets out the following
hypothesis:
H1c. Behavioural brand experience is positively related to customer engagement.

3.4 Intellectual brand experience and engagement

The intellectual dimension refers to the thinking aspect the customer’s experience (Schmitt
and Rogers, 2008). Intellectual brand experience depends on the creative thoughts that derive
from a brand’s offering (Khan and Rahman, 2015). The functional attributes of the brands can
result in an intellectual experience, which will in turn increase the level of the customer’s
engagement (Ahn and Back, 2018). Functional attributes stimulate the thinking process
(Berry and Carbone, 2007). Customers’ intellectual experience has been viewed as an
antecedent of engagement (Ahn and Back, 2018). Customers who have a positive intellectual
experience are more likely to connect with the brand (Schmitt and Rogers, 2008). In a fashion
store, customers’ senses can be stimulated by curiosity. For example, they may think of how
they might wear a particular item of clothing on particular occasions. It is therefore expected
that brands may offer the customer an intellectual experience, and so the following
hypothesis will be tested:
H1d. Intellectual brand experience is positively related to customer engagement.

3.5 Customer engagement and loyalty

A customer’s interaction with a brand may influence their preference for and attitude towards
it (Hollebeek et al., 2019). According to Verhoef et al. (2010), during the interaction process,
customers engage with the brand, and this can reinforce their brand loyalty. Marketing
scholars stated customer engagement as an important driver of brand loyalty (e.g. Islam
et al., 2019).
A customer’s tendency to develop strong convictions about a brand increases when they
engage with it (Parihar et al., 2019). Brand loyalty can be reinforced, subject to customers’
engagement (Islam et al., 2019). Put another way, the experiences that customers have when
engaging with a brand build strong emotional ties that reinforce loyalty (Ahn and Back,
2018). Specifically, during engagement with brands, customers may enjoy pleasurable
experiences that result in the formation of close relationships (Vivek et al., 2012). To maintain
these relationships, customers display strong intentions of loyalty (Lambe et al., 2001). In line
with abovementioned theoretical arguments, this study advances the following hypothesis:
H2. Customer engagement has a positive influence on brand loyalty.

4. Research method
4.1 Sample and data collection
The study collected data from master and doctoral students at Indian universities.
Individuals aged between 18 and 35 years (Luo et al., 2020) were invited to participate because
they were more likely to be familiar with fashion apparel brands (Samala and Singh, 2019). It
is important to note that large income inequalities exist in India, and most university students
are from the wealthy middle class. The results of the present study are therefore not
generalisable to the entire population of millennials because the rural poor have not been
included.
 Before gathering the data, a brief explanation of fashion apparel brands was provided to Experience
the respondents. In fact, most of the respondents were already aware of and familiar with matter to
them. The respondents were chosen on the basis that they had been shopping during the
previous six months at least, and they had purchased at least two fashion items in both of
millennial
the preceding two months (Khan et al., 2020; Parasuraman et al., 2005). Individuals who met consumers
the above criteria were included. The respondents were asked to complete the survey while
keeping in mind the brand of their last fashion purchase.
The questions developed for the survey were first checked for clarity and understanding
through an expert review process. The expert panel comprised nine members (four
practitioners in the fashion industry, three marketing professors and two senior research
fellows). A pilot study using 58 students was conducted to identify and correct any confusing
words in the questions and any other issues. No problems were revealed, and so the
psychometric properties of the survey were validated.
The survey was then used for the main purpose of the study. Data were collected in the
period between 15 January and 30 April, 2019 using the central location intercept method.
This is an extension of the mall intercept survey method (Nowell and Stanley, 1991). While the
mall intercept survey method involves the collection of data in shopping malls, the central
location survey method includes locations of interest. This method is widely recommended
and employed (Yang and Lau, 2015). This method requires that respondents first be screened
for suitability before filling in the questionnaire. The method provides an added opportunity
to notice the respondent reactions and hear what they have to say with regard to the subject.
If designed and conducted properly the survey increases the opportunity of gathering more
useful data. Because we wanted to use students (as young consumers) for our sample, our
central locations of interest were universities. Out of the 880 individuals (fashion apparel
brand shoppers) who were asked to fill the questionnaire, 487 responses were received, with a
response rate of 55.34%. Of these, 44 responses were rejected, either because they were
outliers and or because they contained incomplete information. Hence, 443 responses were
found to be suitable for analysis. The respondents’ socio-demographic profiles were: Gender
(years) – 53.49% male, 46.51% female; frequency of purchase (in one month) – 38.39% two
purchases, 28.66% three purchases, 19.48% four purchases and 13.47% more than four
purchases.

4.2 Measures
This study adapted scales from previous studies to measure the construct. A 7-point Likert
scale (with 1 for “strongly disagree” to 7 for “strongly agree”) was employed to collate
responses. The questionnaire was divided into two parts. The first section dealt with
demographic information. The second section consisted of 12 items to measure sensory,
affective, behavioural and intellectual brand experience (Brakus et al., 2009), 10 items of
customer engagement (Ahn and Back, 2018; Hollebeek et al., 2014) and 3 brand loyalty items
(Nysveen et al., 2013). The items are listed in Table 1.

5. Data analysis and results

To assess the effect of sensory, affective, behavioural and intellectual brand experience
dimensions on customer engagement and the consequent effect of customer engagement on
brand loyalty, this study followed a two-step approach (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). This
required the use of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structured equation modelling
(SEM). The software application AMOS 20.0 was used for the statistical analysis.
The results showed that loadings of all the items were greater than 0.6, Cronbach’s alpha
values exceeded the suggested value of 0.70, and average variance extracted (AVE) was
MIP Construct and measurement items Factor loadings

Brand experience
Sensory brand experience
This X makes a strong impression on my visual sense or other senses 0.83
I find this X interesting in a sensory way 0.88
This X appeals to my senses 0.79
Affective brand experience
This X induces my feelings and sentiments 0.91
I have strong emotions for this X 0.86
This X is an emotional brand 0.82
Behavioural brand experience
I engage in physical actions and behaviours when I use this X 0.77
This X results in bodily experiences 0.85
This X is action oriented 0.78
Intellectual brand experience
I engage in a lot of thinking when I encounter this X 0.90
This X makes me think 0.87
This X stimulates my curiosity 0.88

Customer engagement
Using this brand gets me to think about this X 0.89
I think about this X a lot when I’m using it 0.77
Using this brand stimulates my interest to learn more about this X 0.86
I feel very positive when I use this X 0.85
Using this X makes me happy 0.76
I feel good when I use this X 0.87
I’m proud to use this X 0.92
I spent a lot of time using this X compared with other brands 0.88
Whenever I’m using fashion products I usually use this X 0.75
I use this X the most 0.81

Brand loyalty
I will keep on being a customer of X for the next 6 months 0.86
I will be loyal to X in the future 0.83
Table 1. I will recommend X to others 0.79
Measurement items Note(s): X denotes the “fashion brand”

found to be above 0.50. Thus, the reliability of the constructs was confirmed (Fornell and
Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2017). Further, the discriminant validity was established as the
square root of AVE for each construct was higher than the correlations amongst the
constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981) (Table 2).
The study measured constructs employing multi-item and self-reporting scales; hence,
there was a possibility of common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). To assess this, we
study followed the recommendations of Podsakoff et al. (2003). Harman’s single-factor test
was employed to assess the common method bias. This test suggests that if a single factor
accounts for a majority of the variance, then common method bias exists. The analysis
indicated that a single factor explained a 24.81% variance (i.e. less than 50%), and thus
common method bias did not exist and would therefore not influence the results (Podsakoff
et al., 2003). Studies suggest that common method bias is unlikely if correlations are not
excessively high (>0.9) (Hu et al., 2016). To confirm that this was the case in the present study,
the correlation matrix was checked, and no extremely high correlations were found amongst Experience
the constructs. matter to
The model proposed in Figure 1 showed a reasonable overall fit (χ 2 5 238, p < 0.05,
df 5 79, χ 2/df 5 3.01, CFI 5 0.94, TLI 5 0.91 and RMR 5 0.05) (Byrne, 2001; Hu and Bentler,
millennial
1999). All hypotheses (i.e. H1a, H1b, H1c, H1d and H2) were accepted, as Table 3 shows. This consumers
suggests that all brand experience dimensions, namely, sensory (β 5 0.32; t 5 3.09, p < 0.05),
affective (β 5 0.40; t 5 2.55, p < 0.05), behavioural (β 5 0.29; t 5 4.37, p < 0.05) and intellectual
(β 5 0.37; t 5 2.93, p < 0.05), have a positive influence on customer engagement, and customer
engagement subsequently influences brand loyalty (β 5 0.46; t 5 2.97, p < 0.05). According to
the R-squared parameter, brand experience dimensions explain the variance of millennial
customers’ engagement up to 57%, and customers’ engagement explain the variance of
customers’ loyalty toward the brand up to 48%.

6. Discussion
6.1 Theoretical contributions
The present study enriches the literature on experience and engagement theory in a number
of ways. It proposes a model that broadens current interpretations of experience and
engagement in relation to millennial consumer behaviour. This study responds to the call for
a greater understanding of the relationship between customer experience and engagement
(Ahn and Back, 2018; Lemon and Verhoef, 2016). In particular, the results confirm the
significant but varying effects of sensory, affective, behavioural and intellectual brand
experience dimensions on millennial customers’ engagement. We also reaffirm, in the context
of fashion, the strong positive impact of brand experience on customer engagement (Ahn and
Back, 2018), and by extension the positive direct impact of customer engagement on brand
loyalty (Hollebeek, 2011; Islam et al., 2019) amongst millennial consumers. To conclude, this

Square root of
Variable Mean S.D 1 2 3 4 5 6 AVE

1. Sensory brand 4.09 1.02 – 0.81

experience
2. Affective brand 4.10 1.19 0.40* – 0.80
experience
3. Behavioural brand 3.95 0.97 0.31* 0.37* – 0.73
experience
4. Intellectual brand 4.01 1.17 0.39* 0.08* 0.16* – 0.77
experience
5. Customer engagement 3.92 1.01 0.17* 0.38* 0.47* 0.18* – 0.80 Table 2.
6. Brand loyalty 4.04 1.11 0.27* 0.22* 0.10* 0.31* 0.19* – 0.75 Descriptive statistics
Note(s): *Correlation significance at 0.01 level and correlations

Hypotheses β Results

H1a: sensory brand experience–customer engagement 0.32* Supported

H1b: affective brand experience–customer engagement 0.40* Supported
H1c: behavioural brand experience–customer engagement 0.29* Supported
H1d: intellectual brand experience–customer engagement 0.37* Supported Table 3.
H2: customer engagement–brand loyalty 0.46* Supported Results of hypotheses
Note(s): β, Path coefficient; Significant at: *p < 0.05 testing
MIP model takes us a stop forward in our understanding of the effects of brand experience
dimensions on customer engagement. This is all the more timely given that scholarly studies
in this area are scarce.

6.2 Managerial implications

Creating a strong, positive, and engaging experience is now an important brand management
goal that cannot be ignored by marketers. Thus, in addition to the aforementioned theoretical
implications, the present study has implications at a practical level.
Firstly, providing superior experiences in terms of sensory, affective, behavioural and
intellectual involvements can influence the extent of customers’ engagement and can help to
build loyalty. The easy availability or even excess of brands on the one hand and customers
who are skeptical, well-informed and liable to switch preferences on the other means that
building a loyal customer base is a real challenge. This research recommends that firms
provide millennial customers with superior experiences that may be unconventional but will
cultivate and maintain brand loyalty. By superior customer experience we mean the unique
and memorable takeaway impressions that are formed when customers encounter fashion
brand-related stimuli such as services, products, modes of communication and so on. These
encounters create a perception that results from the consolidation of sensory information.
Managers need to convert such encounters into extraordinary and memorable takeaway
impressions by examining customers’ needs and behaviour in detail, so they can learn the
best ways of interacting with them on an individual level. For example, in today’s world,
most millennials access digital platforms, and they share information – their needs,
preferences, purchase habits, interests, demographics and so on – with the brands with
which they interact. Fashion brand managers should use this valuable information in such a
manner that every customer–brand encounter results in a superior sensory, affective,
behavioural and intellectual experience. Fashion managers should constantly strive to
create or improve systems such as digital displays and check-out procedures to provide
ever-better experiences for customers when they engage in-store with their favourite
brands.
Secondly, the present study’s findings point to the need for marketing managers to
introduce such experiential features as will engage millennial customers through the whole
consumption process. In this respect they should keep in mind that, especially in the case of
millennial consumers (who are spending increasingly more time online), the customer journey
starts long before the in-store transaction (the pre-purchase stage) and does not finish until
much later (the post-purchase evaluation). Thus, managers should be called upon to oversee
encounters – both online and offline – across the entire customer journey. Moreover, we
suggest that managers provide experiences that will assist marketers in engaging millennial
consumers and thereby building a brand-loyal customer base.

6.3 Limitations and future research

This study has some limitations that offer scope for future research. First, it primarily
centred on millennial consumers and fashion apparel brands in India. Future research could
involve research into experience and engagement concepts for older age groups, in other
sectors and in other geographical regions to increase the generalisability of the results.
Second, the moderating role of important variables such as age, income, loyalty card
membership and service recovery could be examined, any of which might moderate
experience–engagement relationships. Third, brand experience has been considered herein
as an antecedent of customer engagement; other important variables in branding literature
such as brand love, brand attachment, brand trust and so on could be investigated
similarly.
References Experience
Ahn, J. and Back, K.J. (2018), “Antecedents and consequences of customer brand engagement in matter to
integrated resorts”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 75 No. 9,
pp. 144-152.
millennial
Altschwager, T., Conduit, J. and Goodman, S. (2013), “Branded marketing events: facilitating customer
consumers
brand engagement”, International Conference of the Academy of Wine Business Research,
Ontario.
Amed, I., Balchandani, A., Beltrami, M., Berg, A., Hedrich, S. and R€olkens, F. (2019), The State of
Fashion 2019: A Year of Awakening, available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/
our-insights/the-state-of-fashion-2019-ayear-of-awakening (assessed on 6 May 2020).
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103, pp. 411-423.
Andreini, D., Pedeliento, G., Zarantonello, L. and Solerio, C. (2018), “A renaissance of brand experience:
advancing the concept through a multi-perspective analysis”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 91, pp. 123-133.
Berry, L.L. and Carbone, L.P. (2007), “Build loyalty through experience management”, Quality
Progress, Vol. 40, p. 26.
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, Vol. 73, pp. 52-68.
Brodie, R.J., Hollebeek, L.D., Juric, B. and Ilic, A. (2011), “Customer engagement: Conceptual domain,
fundamental propositions, and implications for research”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 14,
pp. 252-271.
Byrne, B.M. (2001), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts. Applications, and
Programming, Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ and London.
Calder, B.J., Hollebeek, L.D. and Malthouse, E.C. (2018), “Creating stronger brands through consumer
experience and engagement”, Customer Engagement Marketing, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham,
pp. 221-242.
Cambra-Fierro, J.J., Melero-Polo, I. and Vazquez-Carrasco, R. (2013), “Customer engagement:
innovation in non-technical marketing processes”, Innovation, Vol. 15, pp. 326-336.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, pp. 39-50.
Gugnani, A. and Brahma, K.P. (2015), Fashion Retail Scenario in India: Trends and Market Dynamics,
available at: http://www.technopak.com/Files/fashion-retail-scenario-in-india.pdf (accessed 3
May 2020).
Hair, J.F. Jr, Matthews, L.M., Matthews, R.L. and Sarstedt, M. (2017), “PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: updated
guidelines on which method to use”, International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis, Vol. 1
No. 2, pp. 107-123.
Hollebeek, L.D. (2011), “Demystifying customer brand engagement: exploring the loyalty nexus”,
Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 27, pp. 785-807.
Hollebeek, L.D., Glynn, M.S. and Brodie, R.J. (2014), “Consumer brand engagement in social media:
conceptualization, scale development and validation”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 28,
pp. 149-165.
Hollebeek, L.D., Srivastava, R.K. and Chen, T. (2019), “SD logic–informed customer engagement:
integrative framework, revised fundamental propositions, and application to CRM”, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 47, pp. 161-185.
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55.
MIP Hu, X., Huang, Q., Zhong, X., Davison, R.M. and Zhao, D. (2016), “The influence of peer characteristics
and technical features of a social shopping website on a consumer’s purchase intention”,
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 36, pp. 1218-1230.
Islam, J.U., Hollebeek, L.D., Rahman, Z., Khan, I. and Rasool, A. (2019), “Customer engagement in the
service context: an empirical investigation of the construct, its antecedents and consequences”,
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 50, pp. 277-285.
Kahn, W. (1990), “Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33, pp. 692-724.
Kaur, H. and Anand, S. (2018), “Segmenting Generation Y using the Big Five personality traits:
understanding differences in fashion consciousness, status consumption and materialism”,
Young Consumers, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 382-401.
Khan, I. and Rahman, Z. (2015), “A review and future directions of brand experience research”,
International Strategic Management Review, Vol. 3, pp. 1-14.
Khan, I., Rahman, Z. and Fatma, M. (2016), “The concept of online corporate brand experience: an
empirical assessment”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 711-730.
Khan, I., Fatma, M., Shamim, A., Joshi, Y. and Rahman, Z. (2020), “Gender, loyalty card membership,
age, and critical incident recovery: do they moderate experience-loyalty relationship?”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 89 August, p. 102408.
Kumar, V., Aksoy, L., Donkers, B., Venkatesan, R., Wiesel, T. and Tillmanns, S. (2010), “Undervalued
or overvalued customers: capturing total customer engagement value”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 13, pp. 297-310.
Lambe, C.J., Wittmann, C.M. and Spekman, R.E. (2001), “Social exchange theory and research on
business-to-business relational exchange”, Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, Vol. 8
No. 3, pp. 1-36.
Lemon, K.N. and Verhoef, P.C. (2016), “Understanding customer experience throughout the customer
journey”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 80 No. 6, pp. 69-96.
Luo, J., Dey, B.L., Yalkin, C., Sivarajah, U., Punjaisri, K., Huang, Y.A. and Yen, D.A. (2020), “Millennial
Chinese consumers’ perceived destination brand value”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 116
August, pp. 655-665, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.06.015.
MSI-Marketing Science Institute (2018), Research Priorities 2018-2020, (accessed 12 November 2019).
Nayeem, T., Murshed, F. and Dwivedi, A. (2019), “Brand experience and brand attitude: examining
a credibility-based mechanism”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 37 No. 7,
pp. 821-836.
Nowell, C. and Stanley, L.R. (1991), “Length-biased sampling in mall intercept surveys”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 475-479.
Nysveen, H., Pedersen, P.E. and Skard, S. (2013), “Brand experiences in service organizations:
exploring the individual effects of brand experience dimensions”, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 404-423.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Malhotra, A. (2005), “ES-QUAL a multiple-item scale for
assessing electronic service quality”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 7, pp. 213-233.
Parihar, P., Dawra, J. and Sahay, V. (2019), “The role of customer engagement in the involvement-
loyalty link”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 66-79.
Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88, pp. 879-903.
Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2004), “Co-creation experiences: the next practice in value
creation”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 18, pp. 5-14.
Samala, N. and Singh, S. (2019), “Millennial’s engagement with fashion brands”, Journal of Fashion
Marketing and Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 2-16.
Schawbel, D. (2015), 10 New Findings about the Millennial Consumer, Forbes Magazine online, Experience
available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/danschawbel/2015/01/20/10-new-findings-about-the-
millennial-consumer/#7b0303c96c8f (accessed on 6 May 2020). matter to
Schmitt, B. (2012), “The consumer psychology of brands”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 22
millennial
No. 1, pp. 7-17. consumers
Schmitt, B.H. and Rogers, D.L. (2008), Handbook on Brand and Experience Management, Edward
Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.
So, K.K.F., King, C. and Sparks, B. (2014), “Customer engagement with tourism brands:Scale
development and validation”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 38, pp. 304-329.
Van Doorn, J., Lemon, K.N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P. and Verhoef, P.C. (2010), “Customer
engagement behavior: theoretical foundations and research directions”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 13, pp. 253-266.
Varshneya, G., Das, G. and Khare, A. (2017), “Experiential value: a review and future research
directions”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 339-357.
Verhoef, P.C., Reinartz, W.J. and Krafft, M. (2010), “Customer engagement as a new perspective in
customer management”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 13, pp. 247-252.
Vivek, S.D., Beatty, S.E. and Morgan, R.M. (2012), “Customer engagement: exploring customer
relationships beyond purchase”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 20, pp. 122-146.
Yang, F.X. and Lau, V.M. (2015), “Luxury hotel loyalty–a comparison of Chinese Gen X and Y tourists
to Macau”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 27 No. 7,
pp. 1685-1706.
Youth in India (2017), “Central statistics office ministry of statistics and programme implementation
government of India”, available at: https://www.thehinducentre.com/multimedia/archive/03188/
Youth_in_India-201_3188240a.pdf (accessed 15 June 2019).

Corresponding author
Imran Khan can be contacted at: imrankaifi@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com