Brand engagement and experience

in online services
Imran Khan
Department of Marketing, College of Business Administration, Prince Sultan University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Linda D. Hollebeek
Department of Marketing, Sales and Communication, Montpellier Business School, Montpellier, France and
Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia
Mobin Fatma and Jamid Ul Islam
College of Business Administration, Prince Sultan University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and
Zillur Rahman
Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, India

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to assess the mediating role of brand trust and commitment in the relationship of brand engagement and
brand experience with brand loyalty in the online service context.
Design/methodology/approach – To achieve the study’s objective, 414 users of virtual service brands, predominantly in the online banking, airline
and hotel sectors, were surveyed.
Findings – Both brand engagement and experience exert direct effects on brand trust and commitment, as well as indirect effects on brand
commitment (via brand trust) and service brand loyalty (via brand commitment).
Research limitations/implications – This paper adds to the literature by incorporating brand engagement, experience, trust and commitment into
a unifying framework. The framework emphasizes brand trust and commitment’s mediating role in the relationship that brand engagement and
experience share with brand commitment and loyalty in the online service context.
Practical implications – Marketers should formulate online brand engagement and experience strategies that strengthen customer brand trust and
commitment, which are expected to exert a significant brand loyalty-enhancing effect.
Originality/value – Brand engagement and experience were validated as key drivers of brand trust and commitment, thereby further substantiating
their role as important strategic metrics. Moreover, the role of commitment as a mediating factor in the association between brand engagement and
experience and their respective impact on brand loyalty has been verified. Although the findings suggest that improved brand engagement/
experience contributes to brand loyalty, this effect transpires only though brand commitment.
Keywords Brand loyalty, Brand commitment, Brand experience, Brand trust, Brand engagement, Online service
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction intangibility and high perceived risk) can be magnified in the

In the past decade, a major shift has been observed from offline
to increasingly online service provision (Breidbach et al., 2014).
This transition is fuelled by several online service advantages,
including its ability to disseminate information in real-time (e.g.
news, train timetables and traffic/weather reports) and
enhanced convenience (e.g. online banking, shopping and
education), relative to traditional service delivery formats
(Simon and Tossan, 2018). Correspondingly, online service has
revolutionized the nature, efficiency and efficacy of consumer/
brand interactions (Hollebeek et al., 2014; Mazaheri et al.,
2012), although some traditional service challenges (e.g.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on
Emerald Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/0887-6045.htm
online context (e.g. by promoting indirect (vs direct) consumer
communications via chat-boards/email (Nepomuceno et al.
(2014)). Despite these challenges, online environments can
help service brands better differentiate and distribute their
offerings, thus increasing firm-based competitive advantage
(Bilgihan, 2016; Hamzah et al., 2014).
In the 1980s-90s, marketing’s traditional transactional
perspective shifted to a more relational stance (Palmatier et al.,
2006; Coviello et al., 2002). More recently, brand engagement
and experience have gained traction, where customers are
viewed as proactive contributors to their own service experience,
which is of particular relevance in online (e.g. social media)
settings (Brodie et al., 2013; Khan and Rahman, 2017a). While
The authors thank Professor Bobby Calder, Professor Edward Malthouse,
and Dr Tom Chen for a discussion on engagement and experience.

Journal of Services Marketing

Received 5 March 2019
34/2 (2020) 163–175 Revised 5 August 2019
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 0887-6045] 5 October 2019
[DOI 10.1108/JSM-03-2019-0106] Accepted 8 November 2019

163
 Brand engagement and experience
Imran Khan et al.
engagement reflects customers’ investment in specific brand
interactions (Hollebeek et al., 2019), experience spans the
customer’s brand-related responses during their entire journey
(Lemon and Verhoef, 2016). These concepts’ acclaimed
benefits include their enhanced explanatory or predictive power
of key consumer behavior outcomes, including brand
repatronage and loyalty (Brakus et al., 2009; So et al., 2016).
This study addresses the following research gaps. First, the
literature broadly assumes that higher engagement and
enhanced experience yield heightened brand loyalty, though a
number of claims in this area remain untested (Calder et al.,
2018) as has been reported in this paper. Moreover, while
certain studies have addressed brand engagement and
experience jointly (Calder et al., 2009), empirical insight into
their interface remains scant, particularly in online service.
Third, though a number of mediating variables in the brand
engagement/experience-loyalty association have been identified
(Maffezzolli et al., 2014; Ding and Tseng, 2015), the lack of
consensus therein, coupled with a dearth of insight in online
services, warrant further study in this area.
In particular, we focus on the mediating role of brand trust and
commitment in affecting the association between brand
engagement/experience and brand loyalty, thereby extending
Hollebeek and Macky (2019), Iglesias et al. (2011) and Lee and
Jeong (2014). Customer brand trust has been shown to exert an
important effect on the development of brand commitment or
one’s desire to maintain a brand relationship, thus implying the
individual’s willingness to warrant efforts at maintaining the
relationship (Keiningham et al., 2017; Morgan and Hunt, 1994).
Here, we propose customer-based brand trust and commitment
as important mediating factors in the relationship that brand
engagement and experience share with brand loyalty in online
service, i.e. we empirically explore the role of customers’ intra-
interaction engagement and trans-interaction brand experience in
developing their service brand loyalty via brand trust and
commitment, thereby making a novel theoretical contribution.
This study makes the following contributions. First, we
investigate the effect of brand engagement and experience on
brand trust and commitment, thus directly responding to the
Marketing Science Institute (2018) call for further research in
these areas. Second, we study the mediating effect of brand
trust/commitment in the role that brand engagement and
experience share with brand loyalty in online service, thus
furthering insight in this area. Third, in terms of managerial
contribution, we find that while enhanced brand engagement/
experience are conducive in fostering brand loyalty, they will
only do so via brand commitment. Therefore, firms’ strategic
nurturing of brand commitment is pivotal in any customer
engagement/experience strategy.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. In Section
II, we review key literature related to our main concepts and
develop a conceptual framework and an associated set of research
hypotheses for empirical investigation. In section III, we discuss
our research approach and data-analytical procedures, followed by
an overview of our key theoretical and managerial contributions,
limitations and further research avenues in section IV.
2. Literature review and conceptual development
Based on the preceding rationale, we next review pertinent
literature on our key concepts of brand engagement, experience,
164
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 2 · 2020 · 163–175
trust, commitment and loyalty in the online service context, as
well as develop our research hypotheses in Sections 2.1-2.3. We
also introduce our conceptual framework in Figure 1.
2.1 Brand engagement and its outcomes
2.1.1 Brand engagement: a review
In the last 10-15 years, interest in the customer/consumer
engagement concept has rapidly developed (Islam and Rahman,
2016). Several engagement sub-forms have been proffered,
including customer engagement, customer brand engagement, brand
engagement, and customer engagement behaviour, to name a few
(Brodie et al., 2013; Hollebeek and Chen, 2014; Hollebeek,
2011), revealing the concept’s growing importance.
Brand engagement has been defined as “a psychological state
that occurs by virtue of interactive, co-creative customer
experiences with a focal agent/object (e.g. a brand) in service
relationships” (Brodie et al., 2011, p. 260). Extending this
view, Hollebeek et al. (2019, p. 166) refer to customer
engagement as a customer’s “motivationally driven, volitional
investment of operant resources (including cognitive,
emotional, behavioral, and social knowledge/skills),
and operand resources (e.g. equipment) in their brand
interactions.” Through the customer’s proactive contribution
to their brand interactions, customer engagement reveals the
customer’s intent to reach their utilitarian, hedonic or social
product- or brand-related goals, thereby helping to reduce
perceived risk and build trust (Hollebeek and Macky, 2019).
Thus, engagement’s interactive core is what differentiates it
from other relational concepts (such as involvement and
commitment), which do not fully capture such interactive
dynamics. We offer an overview of key engagement definitions
in Table I.
With today’s consumers’ growing brand-related contributions
and bargaining power (Baumöl et al., 2016), interactive
engagement offers important insight (Hollebeek et al., 2017,
2018). Though engagement has been typically viewed as a multi-
dimensional (e.g. cognitive, emotional, behavioral) concept
(Hollebeek et al., 2014; Vivek et al., 2018), other researchers
identify its behavioral dimension (Groeger et al., 2016).
Advocates of the latter view propose that customer actions/
behaviors are salient engagement expressions, though these
are typically driven by underlying cognitions and emotions.
Figure 1 Conceptual framework
H6
BX
H8
H4 H5
H7
BT BC SBL
H1 H2
BN
H3
Indirect effect only
Notes: BX Brand experience, BN Brand engagement,
BT Brand trust, BC Brand commitment, SBL Brand
loyalty
 Brand engagement and experience Journal of Services Marketing
Imran Khan et al. Volume 34 · Number 2 · 2020 · 163–175

Table I Engagement definitions in the marketing literature

Engagement
Construct Author(s) Research type Definition dimensionality
Customer engagement Bowden (2009) Conceptual “A psychological process that models the underlying N/A
mechanisms by which customer loyalty forms for
new customers of a service brand as well as the
mechanisms by which loyalty may be maintained for
repeat purchase customers of a service brand”
(p. 65)
Customer brand Hollebeek (2011) Conceptual “The level of an individual customer’s motivational, Cognitive
engagement brand-related and context-dependent state of mind Emotional
characterised by specific levels of cognitive, Behavioral
emotional and behavioral activity in direct brand
interactions” (p. 790)
Consumer engagement Brodie et al. (2013) Empirical: Qualitative “A multi-dimensional concept comprising cognitive, Cognitive
(online brand community) emotional, and/ or behavioral dimensions, and plays Emotional
a central role in the process of relational exchange Behavioral
where other relational concepts are engagement
antecedents and/or consequences in iterative
engagement processes within the brand community”
(p. 3)
Consumer brand Hollebeek et al. (2014) Empirical: Quantitative “A consumer’s positively-valenced brand-related Cognitive
engagement (Social media) cognitive, emotional and behavioral activity during Emotional
or related to focal consumer/brand interactions” Behavioral
(p. 154)
Brand engagement Hollebeek and Chen Empirical: Qualitative “A customer’s cognitive, emotional and behavioral Cognitive
(2014) (brand community) investment in specific brand interactions” (p. 62) Emotional
Behavioral
Consumer brand Dwivedi (2015) Empirical: Quantitative “A consumer’s positive, fulfilling, brand-use-related Vigor
engagement (mobile phone users) state of mind that is characterized by vigor, Dedication
dedication and absorption” (p. 101) Absorption
Customer engagement Hollebeek et al. (2019), Conceptual “A customer’s motivationally driven, volitional Cognitive
Kumar et al. (2019) investment of operant resources (including cognitive, Emotional
emotional, behavioral, and social knowledge/skills) Behavioral
and operand resources (e.g. equipment) into brand Social
interactions” (p. 166)

However, to capture engagement’s full breadth, a multi-
dimensional approach is required as has been reported in this
study.
In recent years, the advancement of Internet-based
technologies has yielded brand engagement’s increased
pertinence (Simon and Tossan, 2018), including through
electronic bulletin boards, discussion forums, social networks,
blogs, vlogs, gamification, virtual/augmented reality, artificial
intelligence, listservs, newsgroups, chat-rooms and personal
webpages (De Valck et al. (2009)). Correspondingly, global
Internet usage is rapidly growing, thus enabling a proliferation of
scalable online service provision (Islam et al., 2018). For
example, many major brands operate e-commerce websites
where customers can shop, offer feedback, share their brand-
related experience or connect with the firm in real-time, thus
igniting their engagement (Vivek et al., 2018; Hollebeek et al.,
2017). Online environments therefore enable reduced cognitive/
physical customer effort to achieve their goals, consequently
contributing to heightened interaction frequency. On the
downside, privacy or security concerns may limit consumers’
online brand engagement (Mosteller and Poddar, 2017). In
Section 2.1.1, we discuss brand trust, commitment and loyalty as
outcomes of brand engagement (Figure 1).
2.1.2 Hypothesis development: Brand engagement, trust, commitment
and loyalty
Trust reflects a party’s willingness to be vulnerable to the
actions of another based on the expectation that the other will
act in accordance with the trustee’s interests, irrespective of the
latter’s ability to monitor or control the process (Mayer et al.,
1995, p. 712). Similarly, in their seminal paper, Morgan and
Hunt (1994, p. 23) denote trust as “[a] party[“s] confidence in
an exchange partner’s reliability and integrity,” which plays an
important role in online service (e.g. given its high inherent
degree of intangibility; Bilgihan (2016), Reichheld and Schefter
(2000)). Similar to engagement, trust is conducive to
generating positive consumer responses (e.g. purchase; Casal
o
et al., 2010; Lambe et al., 2000). However, the association
between engagement and trust remains nebulous as has been
tested in this study (Casal
o et al., 2010).
Brand engagement is important in developing brand
trust, thus rendering trust an outcome of engagement
(Harwood and Garry, 2015; Hollebeek and Macky, 2019).

165
 Brand engagement and experience
Imran Khan et al.
As per social exchange theory, trustworthy relations build
over time when both parties experience the continuance of
appreciated reciprocal exchange and favorable interactions
(Lambe et al., 2000; Saks, 2006). Therefore, engaged
customers are more likely to be in trusting brand
relationships that, in turn, help build their brand
commitment (Brodie et al., 2013; So et al., 2016). We
propose:
H1. Brand engagement has a positive direct effect on brand
trust in online service.
Brand commitment and loyalty have also been proposed as
important brand engagement outcomes (Casal
o et al., 2010;
Hollebeek, 2011; Sprott et al., 2009). We view brand
commitment as an engagement consequence where customer-
brand interactions are conducive to shaping their ensuing
desire to continue interacting with (i.e. commit to) the brand
(Harwood and Garry, 2015). Moreover, brand engagement
drives loyalty via a predominantly positive association
(Hollebeek, 2011; Vivek et al., 2018; So et al., 2016). Oliver
(1999) defines brand loyalty as a customer’s deeply held intent
to re-patronize/rebuy a preferred brand, thus reflecting their
behavioral loyalty that, in turn, reveals favorable brand-related
associations (i.e. attitudinal loyalty). We posit:
H2. Brand engagement has a positive direct effect on brand
commitment and indirect effect on brand commitment
via brand trust in online service.
H3. Brand engagement has an indirect effect on brand loyalty
via brand commitment and “brand trust/brand
commitment” in online service.
2.2 Brand experience and its outcomes
2.2.1 Brand experience: a review
Brand experience is an important driver of customers’ brand-
related perceptions and behaviors (Brakus et al., 2009; Van Der
Westhuizen, 2018). After being popularized in the Experience
Economy (Pine and Gilmore, 1998) and Experiential Marketing
(Schmitt, 1999), brand experience has been defined as a
customer’s “subjective, internal consumer responses (i.e.
sensations, feelings, cognitions) and behavioral 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).
Lemon and Verhoef (2016, p. 71) attest brand experience’s
multi-dimensional nature by identifying its cognitive,
emotional, sensorial and behavioral dimensions throughout the
customer’s purchase journey (Schmitt, 1999), thus taking a
trans-interaction view (Hollebeek and Rather, 2019). Though
its valence can vary (e.g. positive/negative), some experiences
occur more consciously, last longer than others, or are more
strongly valenced (Khan and Fatma, 2017). For example, flow
reflects a consumer’s state of optimal experience characterized
by focused attention, clear mind, mind/body unison, effortless
concentration, complete control, loss of self-consciousness,
distortion of time and intrinsic enjoyment (Csikszentmihalyi,
1990).
166
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 2 · 2020 · 163–175
Brand experience is evoked not only by the customer’s
purchase/consumption experience but also by their (e.g.
online) brand-related interactions (Hamzah et al., 2014).
Morgan-Thomas and Veloutsou (2013, p. 2) defined online
brand experience as a customer’s “internal subjective response to
[one’s] contact with an online brand,” thus exhibiting
alignment with Brakus et al. (2009). It is therefore vital for
service providers to understand how virtual environments
offer meaningful brand experiences and affect customer
behavior (e.g. by converting a website visit to a store visit/
purchase; Lee and Jeong, 2014). In the next sub-section, we
discuss brand trust, commitment and loyalty as key brand
experience outcomes (Figure 1).
2.2.2 Hypothesis development: Brand experience, trust, commitment
and loyalty
Brand experience is vital in trust’s development (Khan and
Fatma, 2017; Mathew and Thomas, 2018). When customers
have a favorable experience, they feel the brand is capable of
fulfilling its promise, thus yielding trust (Delgado-Ballester and
Luis Munuera-Alemán, 2005; Fournier, 1998; Ramaseshan
and Stein, 2014). Therefore, customers’ prior online/offline
brand interactions and experience are central in trust’s
development (Ramaseshan and Stein, 2014; Hollebeek and
Macky, 2019). We propose:
H4. Brand experience has a positive direct effect on brand
trust in online service.
Brand commitment comprises two dimensions: continuance
and affective commitment (Fullerton, 2005). First,
continuance (economic) commitment is rooted in economic
and psychological switching-costs and scarcity of alternatives
(Fullerton, 2005, p. 101). It results from the consumer’s
perception that switching costs are high or that one needs to
stay in a brand relationship given a perceived lack of alternatives
(Evanschitzky et al., 2006; Fullerton, 2005). Second, affective
(emotional) commitment reflects the effect of customers’
emotional brand bond or attachment on their intent to
maintain a valued brand relationship (e.g. through
identification, shared values; Allen and Meyer (1990)).
As noted, brand commitment indicates a customer’s
willingness to maintain a valued brand relationship (Chaudhuri
and Holbrook, 2001), thus rendering it central in the
consumer/brand relationship literature (Fournier, 1998;
Russell-Bennett et al., 2007). Based on Evanschitzky et al.
(2006), we posit that customer commitment is contingent on
the individual’s prior brand experience, i.e. customers will
typically seek to repeat pleasurable or useful experiences,
thereby strengthening their brand commitment (Keiningham
et al., 2017; Ramaseshan and Stein, 2014).
Morgan and Hunt (1994) report both commitment and trust
to be critical in customer/brand relationship building (Delgado-
Ballester and Luis Munuera-Alemán, 2001). As stated, a
favorably perceived experience is expected to yield the
customer’s desire to repeat the experience, thereby nurturing
their brand commitment. In addition, we anticipate a positive
brand experience to foster enhanced brand-related trust,
which, in turn, will exert an additional heightening effect on
brand commitment. Because these associations have received
 Brand engagement and experience
Imran Khan et al.
little empirical support to date (Keiningham et al., 2017), we
posit:
H5. Brand experience has a positive direct effect on brand
commitment and indirect effect on brand commitment
via brand trust in online service.
Brand experience drives loyalty via a predominantly positive
association (Brakus et al., 2009; Nysveen et al., 2013). For
example, unique, memorable brand experiences offer
increasing value, thereby facilitating the development of loyalty
in online service (Iglesias et al., 2018; Van Der Westhuizen,
2018). We posit:
H6. Brand experience has an indirect effect on brand loyalty
via brand commitment and via “brand trust/brand
commitment” in online service.
2.3 Brand trust and its outcomes
2.3.1 Brand trust: a review
Trust has been studied in a range of contexts, including
bargaining (Schurr and Ozanne, 1985), distribution (Dwyer
and Oh, 1987), market research (Moorman et al., 1992),
industrial buyer-seller relationships (Doney and Cannon,
1997) and relationship marketing (Garbarino and Johnson,
1999). In these contexts, it is identified as crucial for
maintaining interpersonal behavior and easing buyer/seller
relationships (Hsu and Chang, 2014).
Psychological literature conceptualizes trust as a deep-rooted
expectancy, feeling or belief that reflects one’s faith in an
exchange partner (Rotter, 1967; Lewicki and Bunker, 1995).
Through trust, anxiety and uncertainty are reduced (Zucker,
1986), including in highly intangible, online exchange (Chou
et al., 2015). Morgan and Hunt (1994, p. 23) define the
concept as an individual’s confidence in an exchange partner’s
(e.g. a brand’s) reliability and integrity (Chaudhuri and
Holbrook, 2001). Thus, trust echoes the consumer’s
willingness to rely on a brand based on the expectation that it
will achieve a positive, promised outcome.
Following Corritore et al. (2003, p. 740), we denote online
brand trust as a customer’s attitude of confident expectation [. . .]
that one’s vulnerabilities will not be exploited. Online brand trust
comprises cognitive and affective facets (Delgado-Ballester et al.,
2003). First, its cognitive tenet reflects the consumer’s belief that
the brand will respect its obligations and meet its expectations
(Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001). Second, its affective
dimension is based on the brand’s customer-perceived genuine
intent to act in the customer’s best interest (Delgado-Ballester
et al., 2003). In online service (e.g. e-commerce), trust has been
identified as a major success factor given the lack of physical (e.g.
salesperson) interaction and the buyer’s/service’s physical
distance (Bilgihan, 2016). Given these issues, lacking trust is a
common prohibiting factor of online sales (Khan and Rahman,
2016; Chou et al., 2015). We next discuss brand commitment/
loyalty as key brand trust outcomes (Figure 1).
2.3.2 Hypothesis development: Brand trust, commitment and
loyalty
A positive relationship exists between brand trust/commitment
(Delgado-Ballester and Luis Munuera-Alemán, 2001) with
167
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 2 · 2020 · 163–175
trust acting as a key driver of commitment (Morgan and Hunt,
1994). Moorman et al. (1992, p. 316) view commitment as an
exchange partner’s desire to maintain a valued relationship and
their corresponding level of efforts at maintaining such valued
relationship. Committed customers tend to reject other
available alternatives; therefore, trust is conducive to the
development of commitment (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). We
posit:
H7. Brand trust has a positive direct effect on brand
commitment in online service.
Trust also plays an important role in developing attitudinal and
behavioral loyalty (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001). When
customers perceive a sense of brand-related security, they are
likely to feel comfortable, confident and secure and intend to
repurchase the brand (Delgado-Ballester et al., 2003; Bilgihan,
2016; Corritore et al., 2003). Trust can also play a pivotal role
in driving online service purchase because it reduces perceived
risk (Morgan-Thomas and Veloutsou, 2013). We propose:
H8. Brand trust has a positive indirect effect on brand loyalty
via brand commitment in online service.
3. Method
3.1 Sample and data collection
We deployed a quantitative online survey research approach
that measured online shopper responses in a range of online
services, including events (e.g. concerts) and airline ticket/hotel
bookings. Before administrating the survey, it was pilot-tested
by using 52 Master’s and Doctorallevel students to identify and
rectify any issues. The lead author also requested four academic
experts (two brand management and two service marketing
Professors) to comment on the questionnaire’s readability and
clarity, which revealed no issues.
To test the hypotheses, the survey was e-mailed to consumers
who had purchased service online in the last 90 days. Given our
online service focus, informants were instructed to identify a
specific online service brand they had previously purchased. To
select the respondents, we used snowball sampling (Malhotra
et al., 2006). We initially e-mailed the survey to 50 individuals
who previously purchased service online. They were also
requested to further circulate the questionnaire to at least five of
their connections who they believed regularly purchase service
online. Respondents were asked to choose a particular online
service brand to guide their answers throughout the
questionnaire, which contained measures for our key constructs
(Figure 1).
Data were collected over a six-week period (September
10-October, 24, 2018), yielding a response rate of
approximately 30 per cent with 488 complete responses. The
data were screened for incomplete responses and outliers.
Because of incompleteness and non-usability, 74 responses
were eliminated, thus retaining 414 usable responses for further
analysis, in line with Bagozzi and Yi’s (2012) structural
equation modeling (SEM) guidelines. The respondents’ socio-
demographic profile was as follows:
 Age (years) – 25 per cent: 18-26, 34 per cent; 27-31, 20 per
cent; 32-36, 14 per cent; 37-41, and 7 per cent; 42-50;
 Brand engagement and experience
Imran Khan et al.
 Gender – 59 per cent female and 41 per cent male;
 Education – 09 per cent higher secondary, 49 per cent
graduate, 34 per cent post-graduate and 8 per cent PhD; and
 Monthly income – 12 per cent have up to $330, 16 per cent
have $331–$610, 30 per cent have $611-$1240, 28 per
cent have $1241-$1550, 7 per cent have $1551-$1860
and 7 per cent have $1861-$3100.
Respondents’ selected services such as online banking services
(32 per cent), online hotel room bookings (29 per cent), online
airline ticket bookings (24 per cent), and other services (15 per
cent). Respondents’ chosen brands either offer pure online
service or hybrid online/offline service (our focus here is on
online service).
3.2 Survey instrument
Existing measures were used, which were adapted as necessary
to fit our context. In the first section, respondents were asked to
state their chosen online service brand. The second section
included our measurement items, where responses were
recorded by using a seven-point Likert scales, ranging from
strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). The third section
collected respondents’ demographic information.
In the second section, online brand experience was measured
by five items adapted from Morgan-Thomas and Veloutsou’s
(2013) scale. To measure brand engagement, Hollebeek et al.’s
(2014) multi-dimensional, 10-item scale was used, which we
validated in our chosen context. To measure brand trust, we
used three items from Bansal et al. (2005). Brand commitment
was measured using Shukla et al.’s (2016) instrument, while
brand loyalty was assessed by three items taken from Nysveen
et al. (2013) (Table III). Descriptive statistics and correlations
among our key variables are presented in Table II.
3.3 Data analysis and results
A two-step SEM approach was used to analyze the data and test
our hypotheses by using AMOS 20.0. Our analyses for the
measurement and structural models are detailed below.
3.3.1 Measurement model results
The confirmatory factor analysis results showed acceptable
model fit: x 2 = 469.45, x 2/df = 3.76, Standardized RMR =
0.077, CFI = 0.92 and GFI = 0.91. According to Fornell and
Larcker (1981), convergent validity is established when:
 factor loadings significantly exceed 0.50;
 the average variance extracted (AVE) is greater than 0.50;
and
 factor composite reliabilities are at least 0.60.
Table II Descriptive statistics
Variables Mean SD
1. Brand Experience(BX) 4.42 0.96
2. Brand Engagement(BN) 3.97 1.08
3. Brand Trust(BT) 4.27 0.98
4. Brand Commitment(BC) 4.09 1.01
5. Service Brand Loyalty(SBL) 4.38 1.13

Notes: SD standard deviation; Correlations values are significant (p < 0.05)
168
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 2 · 2020 · 163–175
Our results indicated the existence of convergent validity for
our measurement scales (Table III). In addition, discriminant
validity holds when AVE values exceed the squared correlation
estimates (Hair et al., 2010). Tables II-III show that the AVEs
of all constructs surpass their respective squared correlations
for each construct pair, thus establishing discriminant validity
of our measures.
3.3.2 Structural model results
To test H1-H8 (i.e. direct/indirect effects), SEM analyses with
maximum likelihood estimation were performed (Baron and
Kenny, 1986; MacKinnon et al., 2007). First, to test the direct-
effect hypotheses, we tested Model 1 (i.e. without a mediating
effect), which corresponds to our framework (Figure 1). Model 1
offers good fit: x 2 = 583.60, df = 431, x 2/df = 1.354, CFI = 0.93,
RMSEA = 0.61 and GFI = 0.92 (see Table IV). Overall, the
results indicate that all proposed direct paths (brand engagement-
brand trust, brand engagement-brand commitment, brand
experience-brand trust, brand experience-brand commitment and
brand trust-brand commitment) are significant.
The literature advocates that brand trust/commitment
mediate the relationship of brand engagement/experience with
brand loyalty across a range of contexts outside the online
service domain (Ding and Tseng, 2015; Maffezzolli et al., 2014;
Hollebeek, 2011; Iglesias et al., 2011). We therefore examine
the nature of these associations for online service. To meet this
objective, Model 2 was tested, where all paths from the
independent constructs and mediators were connected to the
dependent constructs. The results indicated Model 2’s
reasonable fit to the data: x 2 = 581.29, df = 428, x 2/df =
1.358, CFI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.63, GFI = 0.91. However, a
model-comparison approach indicated that Model 2 (p = 0.51)
did not perform significantly better than Model 1. On the
grounds of parsimony (Burnham and Anderson, 2002), we
thus retained Model 1 as our preferred model. Further,
Model 2 does not improve explanatory model power (i.e. R2)
for any of the endogenous variables, and none of its additional
paths are significant. Table IV presents an overview of the
observed direct effects.
We also performed a Sobel test to examine the attained
indirect effects (MacKinnon et al., 2007) based on our preferred
model results (i.e. Model 1). Results of the direct/indirect
effects are presented in Table V (Figure 2), which we used to
test our hypotheses. H1 states that brand engagement has a
positive effect on brand trust, which is supported by the data
( b = 0.51 ). In addition, H2a-H2b are supported because
brand engagement has a significant positive direct effect
on brand commitment ( b = 0.56 ) and exerts an indirect effect
on brand commitment via brand trust ( b = 0.22 ). H3a-H3b
1 2 3 4 5
–
0.17 –
0.29 0.34 –
0.16 0.22 0.41 –
0.42 0.16 0.05 0.13 –
 Brand engagement and experience Journal of Services Marketing
Imran Khan et al. Volume 34 · Number 2 · 2020 · 163–175

Table III CFA Results

Construct and Items Factor loading a CR AVE
Brand experience (in online service) 0.75 0.82 0.61
The layout of the X website is appealing 0.82
The X website is easy to navigate 0.81
Results are always returned promptly when browsing the X website 0.77
The results of the X website are always up-to-date 0.69
Accurate search results are always returned when browsing the X website 0.79
Brand engagement 0.81 0.74 0.70
Cognitive processing (cognitive)
Using X website gets me to think about this brand 0.78
I think about X a lot when I’m using its website 0.91
Using X website stimulates my interest to learn more about this brand 0.80
Affection (emotional)
I feel very positive when I use X website 0.92
Using X website makes me happy 0.73
I feel good when I use X website 0.81
I’m proud to use X website 0.90
Activation (behavioral)
I spend a lot of time using X website, compared to the other online service brand’s
website 0.72
Whenever I’m using online service brand websites, I usually use X website 0.76
X website is one of the online service brands’ websites I usually use when I use online
service websites 0.84
Brand trust
I feel that I can trust X completely 0.73 0.87 0.76 0.65
X is honest and truthful with me about its products and services 0.89
X is truly sincere in what it promises through its products and services 0.93
Brand commitment 0.91 0.88 0.59
X has a great deal of personal meaning for me 0.80
I do feel a strong sense of belonging with X 0.78
It would be very hard for me to leave X right now, even if I wanted to 0.91
Too much in my life would be disrupted if I decided I wanted to leave X now 0.79
Right now, staying with X is a matter of necessity as much as desire 0.85
If I had the opportunity to shop with a better provider elsewhere, I would not feel it was
right to leave. 0.79
Even if it would be to my advantage, I do not feel it would be right to leave X. 0.87
I would not leave X right now because I have a sense of obligation to them 0.84
X deserves my loyalty 0.77
I would feel guilty if I left X now 0.81
Brand loyalty
I will keep on being a customer of X for the next 6 months 0.68 0.90 0.77 0.60
I will be loyal to X in the future 0.89
I will recommend X to others 0.91
Notes: X denotes the ‘online service brand’ selected by the respondent; a Cronbach Alpha; CR composite reliability, AVE average variance extracted

propose brand engagement to have an indirect effect on brand
loyalty:
 via brand commitment; and
 via “brand trust/brand commitment.
Both H3a ( b = 0.29 ) and H3b ( b = 0.11 ) are supported.
H4 posits brand experience to have a positive effect on brand
trust, which is also supported ( b = 0.69 ). Moreover, H5a-H5b
are supported because brand experience affects brand
commitment directly ( b = 0.61 ) and via brand trust ( b =
0.30 ). H6a predicts brand experience to exert an indirect effect
on brand loyalty via brand commitment, and H6b expects that
brand experience indirectly influences brand loyalty via “brand
trust/commitment,” which are both supported (H6a b =
0.31 ; H6b b = 0.16 ). H7 predicts brand trust to positively
affect brand commitment, which is likewise supported ( b =
0.44 ). Finally, H8 predicts that brand commitment mediates
the effect of brand trust on brand loyalty, which is supported as
brand trust has a significant indirect effect on brand loyalty via
brand commitment ( b = 0.23 ).
Overall, our results confirm the mediating role of brand
trust and commitment in the relationship that brand
engagement/experience share with brand commitment/
loyalty. Because our analyses show the direct effect of brand
engagement/experience (tested in Model 2) on brand loyalty

169
 Brand engagement and experience Journal of Services Marketing
Imran Khan et al. Volume 34 · Number 2 · 2020 · 163–175

Table IV SEM Results

Models x2 Df x 2/df Comparison CFI PCFI
Model 1 583.60 431 1.354 2.310/3 (p = 0.51) 0.92 0.76
Model 2 581.29 428 1.358 Compared base 0.92 0.75
Model 1: Proposed model Model 2: Partial mediation
Coefficient SE Coefficient SE
BC fi SBL 0.52 0.061 0.52 0.075
BT fi SBL 0.14 0.103
BX fi SBL 0.01 0.072
BN fi SBL 0.06 0.091
BT fi BC 0.44 0.088 0.43 0.105
BX fi BC 0.61 0.093 0.61 0.090
BN fi BC 0.56 0.082 0.56 0.079
BX fi BT 0.69 0.090 0.69 0.097
BN fi BT 0.51 0.51 0.081
R2
SBL 0.85 0.84
BC 0.67 0.66
BT 0.78 0.78
Notes:  p< 0.05;  p< 0.001. BX Brand experience, BN Brand engagement, BT Brand trust, BC Brand commitment, SBL Brand loyalty

Table V Direct and indirect effects 4. Discussion and implications

BX BN BT BC Based on our review, we developed and tested a framework that
BT contains brand engagement, experience, trust, commitment
DE 0.69 0.51 and loyalty in online service. By deploying SEM analyses, we
IE empirically tested the model. Our results identify brand trust/
BC commitment as important mediators in the relationship that
DE 0.61 0.56 0.44 brand engagement/experience share with brand loyalty in our
IE 0.30 Via BT 0.22 Via BT chosen context.
SBL Our empirical findings can be summarized as follows. First,
DE 0.52 regarding direct effects, brand engagement/experience were
IE 0.31 Via BC 0.29 Via BC 0.23 Via BC found to positively affect brand trust and commitment.
0.16 Via BT/BC 0.11 Via BT/BC Specifically, brand trust yields brand commitment, and brand
commitment further elevates customer loyalty to online service
Notes:  p < 0.05;  p < 0.001; DE direct effect, IE indirect effect, BX
brands. Note that first, the proposed direct effect of brand
Brand experience, BN Brand engagement, BT Brand trust, BC Brand
commitment, SBL Brand loyalty
engagement and experience on service brand loyalty did not
receive empirical support. A conceivable explanation is that
consumers prefer not to purchase service online ( because of
Figure 2 Structural model
perceived security, privacy, piracy risks; Bilgihan (2016), Chou
(0.31* via BC; 0.1 6* via BT/BC)
et al. (2015), Mosteller and Poddar (2017)), thus suggesting
BX
0.61* (0.30 via BT) (0.23 via BC)
that increased engagement and experience alone are insufficient
to cultivate brand loyalty in online service. In addition, the
0.69*
effect of brand experience in affecting brand trust/commitment
BT SBL
was found to be somewhat higher than that of brand
BC
0.44* 0.52* engagement (Table IV). A probable reason for this finding lies
0.51* in the trans-interaction nature of brand experience that aligns
0.56* (0.22* via BT) with brand commitment’s scope, which similarly goes beyond a
BN (0.29* via BC;0.11* via BT/BC)
single interaction (vs engagement’s intra-interaction focus;
Hollebeek and Rather (2019)).
Second, regarding the indirect effects, we uncovered a
Notes: BX Brand experience, BN Brand engagement,
mediating effect of brand commitment in the relationship that
BT Brand trust, BC Brand commitment, SBL Brand
brand engagement, experience and trust share with brand
loyalty
loyalty. Thus, improved brand engagement, experience and
was not significant (see Table IV), thus suggesting full trust will contribute to service brand loyalty if customer
mediation. This finding indicates that brand engagement/ commitment exists (i.e. full mediation; Maffezzolli et al.
experience improve loyalty, but only via brand trust and (2014), Hollebeek (2011), Iglesias et al. (2011)).
commitment. Consequently, online service brands necessitate customer

170
 Brand engagement and experience
Imran Khan et al.
commitment to optimally capitalize on brand engagement,
experience and trust, thereby offering an important addition to
the service marketing literature.
4.1 Theoretical implications
Our findings build on and extend prior research in the growing
area of customer engagement and experience, which the
Marketing Science Institute has identified as important
Research Priority areas. Specifically, our results corroborate the
role of brand engagement/experience in the formation of
customer brand trust (Ramaseshan and Stein, 2014; So et al.,
2016) and loyalty (Maffezzolli et al., 2014; Hollebeek, 2011;
Iglesias et al., 2011; Ramaseshan and Stein, 2014), revealing
our incremental contribution in line with prior research.
Our key contribution lies in our incorporation of brand
engagement, experience, trust, commitment and brand loyalty
in a unifying framework, which generates unique insight. In
particular, while customer brand engagement/experience are
commonly heralded as concepts of pivotal strategic importance
(Khan and Rahman, 2017b), our findings show that these
cannot be leveraged without the simultaneous existence of
customer commitment to online service brands. Based on our
results, the development of brand commitment should
therefore underlie any firm effort directed at customer
engagement/experience development in online service.
Second and relatedly, our analyses refine existing literature-
based findings. For example, though such authors as Brodie
et al. (2011), Hollebeek (2011), and Hollebeek and Macky
(2019) identify brand trust and commitment as important
engagement consequences, empirical testing and verification of
this relationship has lagged behind, as corroborated in this
study. In addition, insight into the association of these variables
with brand experience has remained nebulous (Khan and
Rahman, 2016), thus further substantiating our analyses.
Our findings indicate that customer engagement and
experience are conducive to the development of brand trust,
which exerts a subsequent loyalty-enhancing effect, but only if
brand commitment is present. We also show that the
establishment of ex-ante (vs ex-post) interaction-based trust is
pivotal in raising brand commitment and loyalty.
Correspondingly, we suggest the key role of pre-interaction
trust-establishing marketing vehicles such as peer/expert
endorsements, advertising, or public relations activity (vs those
centering on intra-interaction trust development).
Third, our empirical analyses confirm the mediating role of
brand trust/commitment in the relationship that brand
engagement and experience share with brand loyalty in online
service, thereby complementing Morgan and Hunt’s (1994)
commitment-trust theory, which emphasizes the role of trust/
commitment in building customer/brand relationships. Our
analyses show that brand engagement/experience affect brand
commitment directly as well as indirectly (i.e. via brand trust),
revealing a partial mediating effect.
We also find that brand commitment completely mediates the
effect of brand engagement/experience on service brand loyalty,
yielding an insignificant direct effect of brand engagement/
experience on brand loyalty, i.e. brand engagement/experience
affect service brand loyalty only via brand commitment.
Therefore, in contrast to prior research that proposes a direct
effect of brand engagement/experience on loyalty (Dwivedi,
171
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 2 · 2020 · 163–175
2015; Khan and Fatma, 2017; Nysveen et al., 2013), we find no
such significant effect in the online service context. Instead, we
suggest that brand loyalty cannot be cultivated unless there is
brand commitment, thereby yielding important managerial
implications (Section 4.2).
4.2 Managerial implications
This study also raises several practical implications for online
service brands. First, the importance of our findings is
underscored given consumers’ increasing purchase/use of
online service (Yeo et al., 2017). To build loyalty, many service
firms are focusing on developing customers’ brand
engagement/experience, which can be facilitated through
online channels (Hollebeek et al., 2014). For example, IKEA’s
augmented reality (AR) app lets customers view particular
products and fit them into their own home (e.g. by entering
their room dimensions; Reuters, 2019), thus lifting customer-
perceived brand credibility and benevolence (i.e. trust) and
fostering their engagement/experience through a personalized
approach.
For more complex service high in credence attributes, firms
may establish customer trust by focusing on the development of
cognitive customer engagement, similar to the elaboration
likelihood model’s central route to persuasion (Cacioppo et al.,
1986). For example, to nurture consumers’ brand-related
cognitive processing, we recommend such techniques as the
provision of brand-related story-telling platforms, serious (e.g.
educational) games or other brand-related learning resources to
help further customers’ brand-related education (Dessart and
Pitardi, 2019). By contrast, for services that are high in
experience attributes (Russell-Bennett and Baron, 2015), a
focus on nurturing customers’ emotional engagement may be
preferred (e.g. via hedonic stimuli), in line with the elaboration
likelihood model’s peripheral route to persuasion (Cacioppo
et al., 1986). Sample techniques to elevate emotional
engagement include the provision of gameful, entertaining
experiences through gamification or entertaining videos
(Hollebeek and Srivastava, 2020).
However, second and fundamentally, we identified brand
commitment’s important mediating role in facilitating the
effect of brand engagement/experience on brand loyalty.
Commitment reflects the customer’s desire to maintain an
ongoing brand relationship, indicating the individual’s brand-
related dedication and reluctance to switch. Key commitment
drivers include customer-perceived (anticipated) value, which,
in turn, comprises the customer’s expected brand-related
competence and intentions, thus incorporating trust.
Therefore, valued brands, whether based on their anticipated
utilitarian, hedonic or social benefits (Voss et al., 2003), yield
elevated customer commitment. Given commitment’s critical
role in facilitating brand engagement/experience’s positive
effect on brand loyalty, managers are advised to cultivate
customers’ desire to maintain long-term, value-adding and
trusted interactions with their brands (e.g. through loyalty
programs, reward systems, or going the extra mile for the
customer).
To facilitate this dynamic, both high service quality and
suitably recruited and trained frontline service staff are pivotal.
Furthermore, the use of personalized or convenient service can
be used as strategic vehicles to spur commitment’s
 Brand engagement and experience
Imran Khan et al.
development. For example, online service made available
through user-friendly, tailored engagement platforms (e.g.
e-commerce website, social media and blogs) is likely to see
enhanced commitment (vs less accessible service; Hollebeek
(2019)). Moreover, encouraging users to like, share or comment
on firm- or user-generated digital content is likely to stimulate
engagement, thereby in turn making a positive contribution to
commitment’s development (Scholz and Smith, 2016).
Similarly, the establishment and maintenance of authentic
service offerings that optimally assist customers (Starr, 2011),
thereby increasing their engagement/experience, is pertinent in
fostering commitment. For example, when dealing with large
online service companies, customers can feel dismayed by
the intangible, impersonal nature of the service. Therefore, the
establishment of physical helpdesks or touchpoints in the event of
service-related queries is pivotal. These companies that are able
to demonstrate genuine customer care coupled with a suitable
physical presence are expected to come out as winners in the
quest for customer commitment and consequently, retention.
Overall, we advise managers to view any service-related
interaction as an opportunity to build customer commitment,
which, in turn, is conducive to brand loyalty’s development.
Finally, to optimally recruit, select and train staff, the
establishment of clear, value-adding recruitment procedures is
encouraged. For example, firms should create detailed service
scripts for frontline service staff that are focused on the
development of customer commitment as fostered through
trust-building, value-adding practices (e.g. through the reliable,
empathetic execution of service; Hollebeek et al. (2017)). To
gauge online service quality, measures such as ES-QUAL can
be used (Parasuraman et al., 2005). In addition, potential
customer concerns including regarding service efficiency, order
tracking, privacy or security require regular monitoring through
market research (Miltgen and Smith, 2015).
5. Limitations and further research
Despite its contributions, this study has several limitations that
provide avenues for further research. First, given our online
service focus, future researchers may wish to replicate our study
design in other (e.g. offline, physical product) contexts or
compare our findings across on/offline contexts. For example,
researchers could study our identified mediating effects across
bricks-and-mortar and bricks-and-clicks channels and compare
the attained findings to those reported here. Second, as we used
snowball sampling to collect our data, future research could use
probability sampling methods that are expected to yield more
generalizable findings.
Third, future scholars may wish to include other or related
concepts in their conceptual frameworks (e.g. brand love/
attachment, cocreation; Hollebeek and Andreassen (2018)).
The association between brand engagement and experience
can be examined (e.g. by clarifying brand experience as a brand
engagement driver/outcome, or vice versa) as empirical study in
this area remains scant (Hollebeek et al., 2019).
Fourth, it would be interesting to determine whether different
results occur across consumers or (e.g. global) customer
segments based on varying demographics, psychographics or
cultures (Hollebeek, 2018). For example, do male/female
consumers or people of differing age/culture engage with brands
172
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 2 · 2020 · 163–175
differently or do they experience brands in unique ways? How
may this potentially distinctive engagement/experience affect
these consumers’ ensuing brand commitment and loyalty?
Finally, our framework lacks the inclusion of specific control/
moderating variables, which could therefore be incorporated in
future analyses (e.g. first-time vs repeat buyers, service
involvement). Therefore, by replicating our study design with the
incorporation of particular control/moderating variables, further
research can extend or refine our attained insight.
References
Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1990), “The measurement and
antecedents of affective, continuance and normative
commitment to the organization”, Journal of Occupational
Psychology, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (2012), “Specification, evaluation,
and interpretation of structural equation models”, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 8-34.
Bansal, H.S., Taylor, S.F. and James, Y.S. (2005),
“‘Migrating’ to new service providers: toward a unifying
framework of consumers’ switching behaviors”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 96-115.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator–
mediator variable distinction in social psychological research:
conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, p. 1173.
Baumöl, U., Hollebeek, L. and Jung, R. (2016), “Dynamics of
customer interaction on social media platforms”, Electronic
Markets, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 199-202.
Bilgihan, A. (2016), “Gen Y customer loyalty in online shopping:
an integrated model of trust, user experience and branding”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 61, pp. 103-113.
Bowden, J.L.H. (2009), “The process of customer
engagement: a conceptual framework”, Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 63-74.
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 No. 3,
pp. 52-68.
Breidbach, F., Brodie, R. and Hollebeek, L. (2014), “Beyond
virtuality: from engagement platforms to engagement
ecosystems”, Managing Service Quality: An International
Journal, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 592-611.
Brodie, R.J., Hollebeek, L.D., Juri
c, B. and Ili
c, A. (2011),
“Customer engagement: conceptual domain, fundamental
propositions, and implications for research”, Journal of
Service Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 252-271.
Brodie, R.J., Ilic, A., Juric, B. and Hollebeek, L. (2013),
“Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: an
exploratory analysis”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66
No. 1, pp. 105-114.
Burnham, K.P. and Anderson, D.R. (2002), Model Selection
and Multimodel Interference, Springer, New York, NY.
Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., Kao, C.F. and Rodriguez, R.
(1986), “Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: an
individual difference perspective”, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 5, p. 1032.
Calder, B.J., Hollebeek, L. and Malthouse, E. (2018),
“Creating stronger brands through consumer experience and
 Brand engagement and experience
Imran Khan et al.
engagement”, in Palmatier, R.W., Kumar, V. and
Harmeling, C. (Eds), Customer Engagement Marketing,
Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 221-242.
Calder, B.J., Malthouse, E.C. and Schaedel, U. (2009), “An
experimental study of the relationship between online
engagement and advertising effectiveness”, Journal of
Interactive Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 321-331.
Casal
o, L.V., Flavián, C. and Guinalíu, M. (2010),
“Generating trust and satisfaction in e-services: the impact of
usability on consumer behavior”, Journal of Relationship
Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 247-263.
Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M.B. (2001), “The chain of
effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand
performance: the role of brand loyalty”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 81-93.
Chou, S., Chen, C.W. and Lin, J.Y. (2015), “Female online
shoppers: examining the mediating roles of e-satisfaction and
e-trust on e-loyalty development”, Internet Research, Vol. 25
No. 4, pp. 542-561.
Corritore, C.L., Kracher, B. and Wiedenbeck, S. (2003), “On-
line trust: concepts, evolving themes, a model”, International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 58 No. 6,
pp. 737-758.
Coviello, N., Brodie, R., Danaher, P. and Johnston, W. (2002),
“How firms relate to their markets: an empirical investigation
of contemporary marketing practices”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 33-46.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990), Flow: The Psychology of Optimal
Experience, Harper & Row, Publishers, New York, NY.
De Valck, K., Van Bruggen, G.H. and Wierenga, B. (2009),
“Virtual communities: a marketing perspective”, Decision
Support Systems, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 185-203.
Delgado-Ballester, E. and Luis Munuera-Alemán, J. (2001),
“Brand trust in the context of consumer loyalty”, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 11/12, pp. 1238-1258.
Delgado-Ballester, E. and Luis Munuera-Alemán, J. (2005),
“Does brand trust matter to brand equity?”, Journal of
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 187-196.
Delgado-Ballester, E., Munuera-Aleman, J.L. and Yague-
Guillen, M.J. (2003), “Development and validation of a
brand trust scale”, International Journal of Market Research,
Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 35-56.
Dessart, L. and Pitardi, V. (2019), “Story-based consumer
engagement: a conceptual framework”, in Hollebeek, L. and
Sprott, D. (Eds), Handbook of Research on Customer
Engagement, Edward Elgar.
Ding, C.G. and Tseng, T.H. (2015), “On the relationships
among brand experience, hedonic emotions, and brand
equity”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 Nos 7/8,
pp. 994-1015.
Doney, P.M. and Cannon, J.P. (1997), “An examination of the
nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 35-51.
Dwivedi, A. (2015), “A higher-order model of consumer brand
engagement and its impact on loyalty intentions”, Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 24, pp. 100-109.
Dwyer, F.R. and Oh, S. (1987), “Output sector munificence
effects on the internal political economy of marketing
channels”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24 No. 4,
pp. 347-358.
173
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 2 · 2020 · 163–175
Evanschitzky, H., Iyer, G.R., Plassmann, H., Niessing, J. and
Meffert, H. (2006), “The relative strength of affective
commitment in securing loyalty in service relationships”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59 No. 12, pp. 1207-1213.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. (1981), “Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18
No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands: developing
relationship theory in consumer research”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-373.
Fullerton, G. (2005), “How commitment both enables and
undermines marketing relationships”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 39 Nos 11/12, pp. 1372-1388.
Garbarino, E. and Johnson, M.S. (1999), “The different roles of
satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer
relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 70-87.
Groeger, L., Moroko, L. and Hollebeek, L.D. (2016), “Capturing
value from non-paying consumers’ engagement behaviours:
field evidence and development of a theoretical model”, Journal
of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 24 Nos 3/4, pp. 190-209.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010),
Multivariate Data Analysis: International Version, Pearson, NJ.
Hamzah, Z.L., Alwi, S.F.S. and Othman, M.N. (2014),
“Designing corporate brand experience in an online context:
a qualitative insight”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67
No. 11, pp. 2299-2310.
Harwood, T. and Garry, T. (2015), “An investigation
into gamification as a customer engagement experience
environment”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 29 Nos 6/7,
pp. 533-546.
Hollebeek, L. (2011), “Demystifying customer brand
engagement: exploring the loyalty nexus”, Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 27 Nos 7/8, pp. 785-807.
Hollebeek, L. (2018), “Individual-level cultural consumer
engagement styles: conceptualization, propositions, and
implications”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 35 No. 1,
pp. 42-71.
Hollebeek, L. (2019), “Developing business customer
engagement through social media engagement-platforms: an
integrative S-D logic/RBV-informed model”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 81, pp. 81-98.
Hollebeek, L. and Andreassen, T. (2018), “The S-D logic-
informed ‘hamburger’ model of service innovation and its
implications for engagement and value”, Journal of Services
Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 1-7.
Hollebeek, L.D. and Chen, T. (2014), “Exploring positively-
versus negatively-valenced brand engagement: a conceptual
model”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 23
No. 1, pp. 62-74.
Hollebeek, L. and Macky, K. (2019), “Digital content marketing’s
role in fostering consumer engagement, trust, and value:
framework, fundamental propositions, and implications”,
Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 45, pp. 27-41.
Hollebeek, L. and Rather, R. (2019), “Service innovativeness
and tourism customer outcomes”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 11, doi:
10.1108/IJCHM-03-2018-0256.
Hollebeek, L. and Srivastava, R. (2020), “Consumer
involvement and engagement: from involvement’s elaboration
 Brand engagement and experience
Imran Khan et al.
likelihood to engagement’s investment propensity”, in Kahle,
L., Lowrey, T. and Huber, J. (Eds), Handbook of Consumer
Psychology, American Psychological Association.
Hollebeek, L., Glynn, M. and Brodie, R. (2014), “Consumer
brand engagement in social media: conceptualization, scale
development and validation”, Journal of Interactive
Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 149-165.
Hollebeek, L., Juric, B. and Tang, W. (2017), “Virtual brand
community engagement practices: a refined typology and
model”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 3,
pp. 204-217.
Hollebeek, L., 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 No. 1,
pp. 161-185.
Hollebeek, L.D.W., Andreassen, T., Smith, D.L., Grönquist,
D., Karahasanovic, A. and Márquez, Á. (2018), “Epilogue–
service innovation actor engagement: an integrative model”,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 95-100.
Hsu, M.H. and Chang, C.M. (2014), “Examining
interpersonal trust as a facilitator and uncertainty as an
inhibitor of intra-organisational knowledge sharing”,
Information Systems Journal, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 119-142.
Iglesias, O., Markovic, S. and Rialp, J. (2018), “How does
sensory brand experience influence brand equity?
Considering the roles of customer satisfaction, customer
affective commitment, and employee empathy”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 96, pp. 343-354.
Iglesias, O., Singh, J.J. and Batista-Foguet, J.M. (2011), “The
role of brand experience and affective commitment in
determining brand loyalty”, Journal of Brand Management,
Vol. 18 No. 8, pp. 570-582.
Islam, J.U. and Rahman, Z. (2016), “The transpiring journey
of customer engagement research in marketing: a systematic
review of the past decade”, Management Decision, Vol. 54
No. 8, pp. 2008-2034.
Islam, J.U., Rahman, Z. and Hollebeek, L.D. (2018), “Consumer
engagement in online brand communities: a solicitation of
congruity theory”, Internet Research, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 23-45.
Keiningham, T., Ball, J., Benoit, S., Bruce, H.L., Buoye, A.,
Dzenkovska, J., Nasr, L., Ou, Y.C. and Zaki, M. (2017),
“The interplay of customer experience and commitment”,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 148-160.
Khan, I. and Fatma, M. (2017), “Antecedents and outcomes of
brand experience: an empirical study”, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 439-452.
Khan, I. and Rahman, Z. (2016), “E-tail brand experience’s
influence on e-brand trust and e-brand loyalty: the
moderating role of gender”, International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 588-606.
Khan, I. and Rahman, Z. (2017a), “Brand experience anatomy
in hotels: an interpretive structural modeling approach”,
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 165-606.
Khan, I. and Rahman, Z. (2017b), “Brand experience and
emotional attachment in services: the moderating role of
gender”, Service Science, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 50-61.
Kumar, V., Rajan, B., Gupta, S. and Dalla Pozza, I. (2019),
“Customer engagement in service”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 138-160.
174
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 2 · 2020 · 163–175
Lambe, C.J., Spekman, R.E. and Hunt, S.D. (2000),
“Interimistic relational exchange: conceptualization and
propositional development”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 212-225.
Lee, S.A. and Jeong, M. (2014), “Enhancing online brand
experiences: an application of congruity theory”, International
Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 40, pp. 49-58.
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.
Lewicki, R.J. and Bunker, B.B. (1995), “Trust in relationships”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 583-601.
MacKinnon, D.P., Fairchild, A. and Fritz, M.S. (2007),
“Mediation analysis”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 58
No. 1, pp. 593-614.
Maffezzolli, E.C., Semprebon, E. and Prado, P.H.M. (2014),
“Construing loyalty through brand experience: the
mediating role of brand relationship quality”, Journal of
Brand Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 446-458.
Malhotra, N., Hall, J., Shaw, M. and Oppenheim, P. (2006),
Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation, Pearson
Education Australia.
Marketing Science Institute (2018), “2020 research priorities”,
available at: www.msi.org/uploads/articles/MSI_RP18-20.
pdf (accessed 19 December 2018).
Mathew, V. and Thomas, S. (2018), “Direct and indirect effect
of brand experience on true brand loyalty: role of
involvement”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics,
Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 725-748.
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995), “An
integrative model of organizational trust”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 709-734.
Mazaheri, E., Richard, M.O. and Laroche, M. (2012), “The
role of emotions in online consumer behavior: a comparison
of search, experience, and credence services”, Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 535-550.
Miltgen, C. and Smith, H. (2015), “Exploring information
privacy regulation, risks, trust, and behavior”, Information &
Management, Vol. 52 No. 6, pp. 741-759.
Moorman, C., Zaltman, G. and Deshpandé, R. (1992),
“Relationships between providers and users of market
research: the dynamics of trust”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 314-328.
Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The commitment-
trust theory of relationship marketing”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38.
Morgan-Thomas, A. and Veloutsou, C. (2013), “Beyond
technology acceptance: brand relationships and online brand
experience”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 1,
pp. 21-27.
Mosteller, J. and Poddar, A. (2017), “To share and protect:
using regulatory focus theory to examine the privacy paradox
of consumers’ social media engagement and online privacy
protection behaviors”, Journal of Interactive Marketing,
Vol. 39, pp. 27-38.
Nepomuceno, M.V., Laroche, M. and Richard, M.O. (2014),
“How to reduce perceived risk when buying online: the
interactions between intangibility, product knowledge,
brand familiarity, privacy and security concerns”, Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 619-629.
 Brand engagement and experience
Imran Khan et al.
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.
Oliver, R.L. (1999), “Whence consumer loyalty’?”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 4_suppl1, pp. 33-44.
Palmatier, R.W., Dant, R.P., Grewal, D. and Evans, K.R.
(2006), “Factors influencing the effectiveness of relationship
marketing: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70
No. 4, pp. 136-153.
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 No. 3, pp. 213-233.
Pine, B.J. and Gilmore, J.H. (1998), “Welcome to the
experience economy”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 76
No. 4, pp. 97-105.
Ramaseshan, B. and Stein, A. (2014), “Connecting the
dots between brand experience and brand loyalty: the
mediating role of brand personality and brand
relationships”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 21
Nos 7/8, pp. 664-683.
Reichheld, F.F. and Schefter, P. (2000), “E-loyalty: your secret
weapon on the web”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 78
No. 4, pp. 105-113.
Reuters (2019), “Business news”, available at: www.reuters.com/
article/us-ikea-ab-apps-exclusive/exclusive-ikea-to-revamp-app-
as-store-strategy-shifts-idUSKCN1SX1DV (accessed 19 June
2019).
Rotter, J.B. (1967), “A new scale for the measurement of
interpersonal trust”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 35 No. 4,
pp. 651-665.
Russell-Bennett, R. and Baron, S. (2015), “Fresh thinking in
services marketing: contemporary, cutting-edge and creative
thoughts”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 29 Nos 6/7,
pp. 421-424.
Russell-Bennett, R., McColl-Kennedy, J.R. and Coote, L.V.
(2007), “Involvement, satisfaction, and brand loyalty in a
small business services setting”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 60 No. 12, pp. 1253-1260.
Saks, A.M. (2006), “Antecedents and consequences of
employee engagement”, Journal of Managerial Psychology,
Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 600-619.
Schmitt, B.H. (1999), Experiential Marketing: How to Get
Customers to Sense, Feel, Think, Act, and Relate to Your
Company and Brands, Free Press, New York, NY.
Scholz, J. and Smith, A.N. (2016), “Augmented reality:
designing immersive experiences that maximize consumer
engagement”, Business Horizons, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 149-161.
Schurr, P.H. and Ozanne, J.L. (1985), “Influences on
exchange processes: buyers’ preconceptions of a seller’s
trustworthiness and bargaining toughness”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 939-953.
Shukla, P., Banerjee, M. and Singh, J. (2016), “Customer
commitment to luxury brands: antecedents and consequences”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 323-331.
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
175
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 2 · 2020 · 163–175
Simon, F. and Tossan, V. (2018), “Does brand-consumer
social sharing matter? A relational framework of customer
engagement to brand-hosted social media”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 85, pp. 175-184.
So, K.K.F., King, C., Sparks, B.A. and Wang, Y. (2016), “The
role of customer engagement in building consumer loyalty to
tourism brands”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 55 No. 1,
pp. 64-78.
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.
Starr, R. (2011), “The certification of authenticity”, Thesis,
University of Auckland.
Van Der Westhuizen, L.M. (2018), “Brand loyalty:
exploring self-brand connection and brand experience”,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 27 No. 2,
pp. 172-184.
Vivek, S.D., Beatty, S.E. and Hazod, M. (2018), “If you build
it right, they will engage: a study of antecedent conditions of
customer engagement”, Customer Engagement Marketing,
Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, pp. 31-51.
Voss, K.E., Spangenberg, E.R. and Grohmann, B. (2003),
“Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of
consumer attitude”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 40
No. 3, pp. 310-320.
Yeo, V.C.S., Goh, S.K. and Rezaei, S. (2017), “Consumer
experiences, attitude and behavioral intention toward online
food delivery (OFD) services”, Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, Vol. 35, pp. 150-162.
Zucker, L.G. (1986), “Production of trust: institutional
sources of economic structure, 1840-1920”, Research in
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 8, pp. 53-111.
Further reading
Das, G. (2016), “Antecedents and consequences of trust: an e-
tail branding perspective”, International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management, Vol. 44 No. 7, pp. 713-730.
Eastlick, M.A., Lotz, S.L. and Warrington, P. (2006),
“Understanding online B-to-C relationships: an integrated
model of privacy concerns, trust, and commitment”, Journal
of Business Research, Vol. 59 No. 8, pp. 877-886.
Khan, I., Rahman, Z. and Fatma, M. (2016), “The concept of
online corporate brand experience: an empirical assessment”,
Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 34 No. 5,
pp. 711-730.
Liu, C.T., Guo, Y.M. and Lee, C.H. (2011), “The effects of
relationship quality and switching barriers on customer
loyalty”, International Journal of Information Management,
Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 71-79.
Corresponding author
Imran Khan can be contacted at: imrankaifi@gmail.com