This study examines the relationship between brand experience and three factors - product attributes, outlet environment, and employee interaction - in the Egyptian context. Researchers conducted qualitative interviews and a quantitative online survey to understand how these factors influence consumer brand experience. The results showed a strong positive correlation between brand experience and each of the three factors. Understanding how product features, store atmosphere, and customer service impact brand experience can help managers enhance the consumer experience and improve brand loyalty.

1. BRAND EXPERIENCE
STUDY ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THE STIMULUS AFFECTS THE BRAND EXPERIENCE IN THE
EGYPTIAN CONTEXT
Researchers:
 Asmaa Hussein
 Dina Esmail
 Eslam Gomaa
 Haitham Ibrahim
 Mona Refaat
MBA Students, Market Research Project

2. Brand Experience
Study about the impact of the stimulus affects the Brand Experience in the
Egyptian context
Asmaa Hussein, Dina Esmail, Eslam Gomaa, Haitham Ibrahim, Mona Refaat
-MBA Students, Market Research Project-
Abstract
Purpose: Brand experience has attracted a lot of attention in the Marketing practice. With
consumers seeking not only functional benefits of a brand but also emotional experiences, brand
experience theory attempts to provide answers on how brand experience can be measured and
how it effects consumer behavior.
Every point of contact that an audience interacts with the brand is an opportunity to make a
positive impression and influence attitudes. These interactions directly impact the decision to
purchase or recommend your brand.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the relationships among brand experience with Product
attributes, outlet environment and employee interaction with the customer. Understanding these
relationships is helpful to managers in their assessment of the level of appeal that will influence
target consumers’ perception of brand personality, as well as their brand experience.
Design/methodology/Approach: This research study uses two Approaches qualitative approach
and quantitative approach. The Qualitative approach used for getting insights about the effect of
social media addiction in the life dimensions and to test hypotheses to provide an enhanced
understanding of the relationship that may exist between the social media addiction and life
dimensions. A satisfying random sample was drawn. Using a semi-structured individual depth
interviews with 5 persons featured with a specific inclusion criteria.
The Quantitative Approach used for getting ratios for each variable that the population sees that
the independent variables affect the dependent variable and in which degree. A satisfying random
sample was drawn using and online questionnaire with more than 50 persons featured with
specific criteria.
Findings: The empirical results show that there is strong positive significant correlation between
brand experience with Product attributes, outlet environment and employee interaction with the
customer. The empirical results reveal that brand experience positively influenced customer value,
brand personality positively affected customer experiential value, and brand experience positively
affected brand personality.
Research limitations/implications: Since this study was conducted in the Egyptian Society, the
replication of this study could be done within other countries and people profiles. Future studies
should collect time-series data for testing the relationship correlation between brand experiences
with Product attributes, outlet environment and employee interaction with the customer.

3. Introduction
Today’s marketplace has undergone a substantial change; we have gone from selling and
promoting products and services to selling and enticing customers via experiences (Joy & Sherry,
2003). This change can be attributed to the number of available products from which consumers
can choose, which has increased tremendously, and consumers spending more time in making
purchasing decisions (Ekstrom, 2010). Reimann et al. (2010) stated that when customers have
begun to feel content that their basic needs are fulfilled, this contentment creates the necessity of
fully understanding what affects customers throughout their purchasing process.
Many companies throughout this world that is crowded with brands are competing for customers’
attention; thus, it has become important to create a brand experience. A brand-related stimulus
evokes “sensations, feelings, cognitions and behavioral responses” (Brakus et al., 2009).
We chose to study this topic for two reasons:
The first is the gap in the research especially in Egyptian market to identify the relationship
between brand experience with product attributes, outlet environment and employee interaction
with the customer. For example, Wu and Liang (2009) analyzed the effect of experiential value on
customer satisfaction with service encounters in luxury hotel restaurants. Shieh and Cheng (2007)
conducted several studies on the relationship between user experience and satisfaction. Keng et
al. (2007) examined the relationships among service encounters, customer experiential value, and
behavioral intention. Mathwick et al. (2001) investigated the effect of environmental design on
experiential value (including consumer return on investment, service excellence, playfulness, and
aesthetics). However, none of the existing research has evaluated the relationship between brand
experience with Product attributes, outlet environment and employee interaction with the
customer.
Second, this issue is important to managers because it is precisely this level of effect that influences
target consumers’ purchase decisions and purchase intentions and helps to sustain the brand’s
perceived personality and brand experience between promotional cycles.
Research Objectives
This research has a main objective which is to investigate the correlation between the main
variables affecting the brand experience and the significance of this relation between each variable
and the brand experience. The selected variables in this study are the product attributes, the outlet
environment and the employees’ interaction with the customer.
Research Problem
"Studying the brand experience in Egyptian context, and the impact of Product features,
Communication with customers and store environment on it”.

4. Research Questions
For the qualitative part; The study instrument for data collection consisted of a self-administered
semi-structured questionnaire composed of six sections:
1. Are you interested in the brands?
2. What’s your favorite brand? Why?
3. Do you think stuff treatment affect your attachment to the brand? Explain?
4. Do you think stuff appearance affect the success of the brand?
5. What’s the most important attributes in the brand that make you purchase the brand?
6. Do you buy a brand for its function or for the emotions you get from it?
7. Describe your ideal store atmosphere?
8. Do you think brand environment differ from Egypt to abroad?
9. In Egypt , How do you describe your shopping experience ?
10. What’s the worst and the best brand experience you faced?
The depth interviews have been conducted and recorded, then data has been encoded to be
analyzed to extract findings. A satisfactory response rate of 100% was achieved as 5 interviews
were usable for analysis.
Ethical considerations: a preapproval was taken from the interviewees to record their answers and
all the interviewees were informed about the interview objectives and verbal consents were
obtained from them
For the quantities part; The study instrument for data collection consisted of an online
questionnaire :
Question (1):
The following statements measures the extent that a consumer expresses pleasure in buying and
owning a brand. Please from a scale of 1 (strongly agree) to 5, (strongly disagree) circle your opinions
about the store environment

5. (According to my preferred brand) Strongly
Agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Disagree
1. It gives great pleasure to purchase this
brand.
1 2 3 4 5
2. Buying this brand is a present for myself. 1 2 3 4 5
3. This brand is somewhat of a pleasure to
me
1 2 3 4 5
Question (3):
The following items measure your outlook concerning the Employees Service quality in Brand
Experience. Please from a scale of 1 (strongly agree) to 5, (strongly disagree) circle your opinions about
the statements regarding how service quality of employees affect brand Experience.
Strongly
Agree
Agree Neut Disag
ree
Strongly
Disagree
1. Customers could expect to be treated well in
this store
1 2 3 4 5
2. Employees of this store could be expected to
give customers personal attention.
1 2 3 4 5
3. This store’s employees would be willing to
help customers.
1 2 3 4 5
Question (2):
The following items measure your outlook concerning the Product Attributes in Brand Experience. Please
from a scale of 1 (positive) to 5, (negative) circle your opinions about relevance , usefulness and
importance of product attributes in brand experience
1. not very relevant 1 2 3 4 5 Very relevant
2. not very useful 1 2 3 4 5 very useful
3. not at all important 1 2 3 4 5 very important

6. 4. This store would offer high-quality service. 1 2 3 4 5
5. Employees of this store would not be too busy
to respond to customers’ requests promptly.
1 2 3 4 5
6. It would be realistic to expect prompt service
from employees of this store.
1 2 3 4 5
Question (4):
The following statements measures the degree to which a customer holds positive perceptions of a
retail store, particularly with regard to the pleasantness of the shopping environment
Please from a scale of 1 (strongly agree) to 5, (strongly disagree) circle your opinions about the store
environment
Strongly
Agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Disagree
1. This store that offers the brand would
be a pleasant place to shop.
1 2 3 4 5
2. The store has a pleasant atmosphere. 1 2 3 4 5
3. This store is clean. 1 2 3 4 5
4. The store is attractive 1 2 3 4 5
Research Importance
This research is important to managers, brand owner and employees to help them know areas
that most affect customers brand experience so that they can work on it and improve.
The brand experience is indication of the brand identity and personality. It also represent the
main motive for purchase intention and decision so it's of big importance.
This research assess the degree to which the Egyptian customer brand experience is affected by
These Three main factors (the product features, the communication between employees and
customers and the store environment)

7. Theoretical Review
Experiences are private events that occur in response to stimulation; they often result from direct
observation and/or participation in events, whether real, virtual, or in dreams (Schmitt, 1999).
The experience states may be categorized into rational activities (cognitive), emotional responses
(affective), and behavioral intentions (conation) (Hirschaman & Holbrook, 1982; Padgett & Allen,
1997). According to Schmitt (1999), sense marketing appeals to the senses; feel marketing appeals
to the inner feelings and emotions of consumers; think marketing appeals to consumer creativity;
the act experience appeals to bodily experience, lifestyle, and interactions of consumers; and
relationship marketing appeals to other people or cultures.
30 years ago Holbrook and Hirschman (1982) published their “iconic paper” (Tynan and
McKechnie, 2009) “the Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Consumer Fantasies, Feelings, and
Fun”. The authors identified new consumption behaviors“ That relate to the multi-sensory,
fantasy, and emotive aspects of product use” (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982). They claim that
the existing theory of the rational consumer needs to be supplemented by emotional components
of buying behavior. This pioneering article launched an academic debate and encouraged further
research on this subject. Since then, experience marketing has established itself within marketing
theory and nowadays plays an essential role within consumer marketing.
The grounds for this growing phenomenon are based on three reasons: Firstly, overexposure to
advertising from traditional media channels forces communication to focus on new ways to gain
consumers’ attention and reach them with their messages (Mortimer, 2009). Secondly,
globalization and saturation of markets has led to fierce competition for limited market share and
increased level of competition.
This is driven by the fact that functional product benefits are becoming interchangeable which
makes it more difficult for companies to differentiate on functional product features (Fransen and
Lodder, 2010). Pine and Gilmore (1998) claim that since “goods and services become
commoditized, the customer experiences that companies create will matter most”. Thirdly,
consumers with more hedonistic lifestyles are seeking consumption that recognizes their need of
new and exciting experiences (Fransen and Lodder, 2010).
Although experience-based marketing has received continuous attention, there is no common
definition or usage of a dominant term. Several terms have been proposed, such as “experiential
consumption” (Addis and Holbrook, 2001; Lofman, 1991), “experience marketing” (Pine and
Gilmore, 1998), “experiential marketing” (Schmitt, 1999) or “brand experience” (Brakus et al.
2009). Brakus et al. (2009) define brand experience as “subjective, internal consumer responses
(sensations, feelings, and cognitions) and behavioral responses evoked by brand-related stimuli
that are part of a brand’s design and identity, packaging, communications, and environments”.
Various studies have analyzed the effect of experience marketing and tried to measure its
outcomes. Fransen and Lodder (2010) have empirically examined the effects of experience
marketing communication tools on consumer responses, and identified a positive influence on
brand attitude and brand relation. Tsaur et al.(2006) confirm in their study on the Taipei Zoo that
experiences have positive effects on emotion and emotion has a positive effect on the behavioral
intention – through the means of satisfaction. Brakus et al. (2009) confirm that “brand experience

8. affects consumer satisfaction and loyalty directly and indirectly through brand personality
associations”. Sands et al. (2008) found that in-store experiential event positively influence
perceived shopping value and shopping behavior intention.
In addition to analyzing the impact of experience marketing, various efforts have been made to
develop operational typologies for experiences. These dimensions provide a frame-work by which
companies and brands can engage consumers in an experiential manner” (Sands et al. 2008). Pine
and Gilmore (1998) sort experiences into four broad categories ac-cording to where they fall along
the spectra of the two dimensions “level of active/passive participation” and “level of immersion
versus absorption”: the entertainment, educational, aesthetic and escapist realm. These are well
suited to analyze to explore retail settings (Sands et al. 2008). Schmitt (1999) identifies have
different types of experiences: sensory experiences (SENSE), affective experiences (FEEL),
creative cognitive experiences (THINK), physical experiences, behaviors and lifestyles (ACT) and
social-identity experiences that result from relating to a reference group or culture (RELATE).
These categories are especially suitable to create brand experiences (Sands et al. 2008). Brakus et
al. (2009) constructed a brand experience scale with four dimensions: sensory, affective,
behavioral and intellectual. In contrast to Pine and Gilmore (1998) and Schmitt (1999), Brakus et
al. (2009) did not derive their four factors from literature, but gathered them by empirical
evidence through explorative and confirmatory factor analysis. In addition to the factor analysis,
six further studies were conducted to prove the reliability of the scale.
In conceptualizing brand experience, Brakus et al. (2009) concluded that brand experience is
shaped by brand-related stimuli that constitute “subjective, internal consumer responses”, such
as sensations, feelings and cognitions, as well as behavioral responses. They began with have
dimensions selected through literature review, namely, sensory, affective, intellectual, behavioral
and social. Through data collection and analysis the authors reduced their findings to four
dimensions – sensory, effective, behavioral, and intellectual. As Figure (1) depicts, each of the four
dimensions are tested by three items, to gauge the intensity of the consumers’ brand experience.

9. Brakus et al. (2009) provide a well-defined framework from which more confirmatory research
can be conducted to measure the intensity of consumers’ experience with brands and its effects
on satisfaction and loyalty. Should this framework prove to be valid and consistent after further
testing, the implications for marketing practitioners could be significant.
Every point of contact that an audience interacts with your brand is an opportunity to make a
positive impression and influence attitudes. These interactions directly impact the decision to
purchase or recommend your brand.
Figure (2) shows the variables available that affects the brand experience.. (Fransen and Lodder,
2010).

10. Each point in the brand experience variable figure is considered an area for study and research:
 A touch point can be defined as any way a consumer can interact with a business, whether
it be person-to-person, through a website, an app or any form of communication
(“Touchpoint Glossary”, n.d.). When consumers come in contact with these touch points it
gives them the opportunity to compare their prior perceptions of the business and form an
opinion (Stein, & Ramaseshan, 2016)
 Product/Service attribute: is a characteristic that defines a particular product and will affect
a consumer's purchase decision. Product attributes can be tangible (or physical in nature)
or intangible (or not physical in nature).
Tangible attributes can include such product characteristics as size, color, weight, volume,
smell, taste, touch, quantity, or material composition.
Intangible attributes may include such characteristics as price, quality, reliability, beauty
or aesthetics, and je ne sais quoi (an indefinable, elusive pleasing quality). (Stein, &
Ramaseshan, 2016)
 Personal interactions: it is the communication and interaction with the employees serving
the brand, don't necessarily involve words and speaking as the primary mode of
communication; they involve gestures, body language, exchanging feelings, or listening as
the method of interaction as well. (Sands et al. 2008).
 Environment: A retail marketing environment consists of the external actors and forces
that affect the retailer’s ability to develop and maintain successful transactions and
relationships with its target customers. (Jessica McCallister 2016)
 Messaging and Toning: To effectively develop a brand through marketing, you must build
your brand's personality. An important part of brand personality is the tone of voice in
Figure (2)

11. advertising. The tone of voice in marketing means not only what your advertisements say
about your brand, but how they say it.
 Business Operations: Business operations typically include four key areas:
A. Location: Where you do business — physically and online.
B. Equipment: The tools you need to get the job done
C. Labor: The human side of business operations
D. Process: The way you get business done, including your systems for quality control
and improvement
Companies that consistently deliver an authentic brand experience across every platform create
deeper customer connections, build loyalty, and drive growth. The goal is to ensure every
interaction delivers your brand promise and reflects your company’s values in ways that are
meaningful to your customer. For when a company tries to be something it's not or fails to deliver
a consistent experience, customers take notice and head the other direction. (Fransen and Lodder,
2010).
Consumer and marketing research has shown that experiences occur when consumers search for
products, when they shop for them and receive service, and when they consume them (Arnould,
Price, and Zinkhan 2002; Brakus, Schmitt, and Zhang 2008; Holbrook 2000).
Product Experience: Product experiences occur when consumers interact with products, e.g.,
when consumers search for products, examine, and evaluate them (Hoch 2002). The product
experience can be direct when there is physical contact with the product (Hoch and Ha 1986) or
indirect when a product is presented virtually or in an ad (Hoch and Ha 1986; Kempf and Smith
1998). Respondents are typically asked to reflect upon a combination of direct and indirect
product experiences in order to investigate how the combination affects product judgments,
attitudes, preferences, purchase intent, and recall (Hoch and Ha 1986; Hoch and Deighton 1989;
Huffman and Houston 1993).
Shopping and Service Experience: Shopping and service experiences occur when a consumer
interacts with a store‘s physical environment, its personnel, and its policies and practices (Hui and
Bateson 1991; Kerin, Jain, Howard 2002). Research in this area thus investigates how atmospheric
variables and salespeople affect the experience (Arnold et al. 2005; Jones 1999; Boulding, Kalra,
Staelin and Zeithaml 1993; Ofir and Simonson 2007)). A number of articles has investigated
customers‘ interaction with salespeople and how that experience affects customers‘ feelings, brand
attitudes, and satisfaction (Grace and O‘Cass 2004).
Consumption Experience: Experiences also occur when consumers consume and use products.
Consumption experience are multi-dimensional including hedonic dimensions such as ―feelings,
fantasies and fun‖ (Holbrook and Hirschman 1982). Much of the interpretive research on
consumption experiences has analyzed hedonic goals that occur during and after the consumption
of, for example, museums, river rafting, baseball, and skydiving (Arnould and Price 1993; Celsi,
Rose, and Leigh 1993; Holt 1995; Joy and Sherry 2003).

12. In sum, experiences arise in a wide variety of settings. Most experiences occur directly when
consumers shop, buy and consume products. Experiences can also occur indirectly, e.g., when
consumers are exposed to advertising and marketing communications including Web sites.
This report attempts to conceptualize the brand experience in the Egyptian market, and the
definition of the stimulus affects this experience through selected three variables; Product
attributes, Environment and Staff interaction. It also attempts to evaluate the relationship
between the brand experience and each of these three variables.
Research methodology and design
The conceptual Framework:
This research study uses two Approaches qualitative approach and quantitative approach.
The Qualitative approach used for getting insights about the effect of social media addiction in the
life dimensions and to test hypotheses to provide an enhanced understanding of the relationship
that may exist between the social media addiction and life dimensions. A satisfying random
sample was drawn. Using a semi-structured individual depth interviews with 5 persons featured
with a specific inclusion criteria.
The Quantitative Approach used for getting ratios for each variable that the population sees that
the independent variables affect the dependent variable and in which degree. A satisfying random
sample was drawn using and online questionnaire with more than 50 persons featured with
specific criteria.
Research Hypotheses
To give effect to the research objectives, a number of hypotheses were formulated, as follows:
H1: There is a relation between the outlet employee interaction and the Brand Experience
H2: There is a relation between the Rational components of the product and the Brand Experience
H3: There is a direct relation between the Store environment and the Brand experience.
Research Variables:
Brand Experience
Product attributes
Environment
Employee interaction
Independent Variables
Dependent Variable

13. Population and Sampling:
For the qualitative research part, a satisfying random sample was drawn. Using a semi-structured
individual depth interviews with 5 persons featured with a specific inclusion criteria.
For the quantitative research part, a satisfying random sample was drawn using and online
questionnaire with more than 50 persons featured with specific criteria.
Inclusion Criteria:
 Age group from 25 to 40 years old
 Egyptians and resident in Egypt
 Occupying a job with monthly income
 Well educated and aware with Brands
 Willing to give consent and complete the questionnaire
 Both genders
Exclusion Criteria:
 Not within the selected age group
 Not willing to give consent & complete the questionnaire
 Not using internet
 Not well educated and aware with Brands
 Not an Egyptian or resident outside Egypt
Method of data collection:
We used Quantitative data collection methods, rely on random sampling and structured data
collection instruments that fit diverse experiences into predetermined response categories. They
produce results that are easy to summarize, compare, and generalize.
We applied at quantitative data gathering strategies include: Online surveys with closed-ended
questions In Quantitative research (survey research) are more structured than in Qualitative
research.
As an example we used Questionnaires: Web-based questionnaires: This type of research is
often quicker and less detailed. Some disadvantages of this method include the exclusion of people
who do not have a computer or are unable to access a computer. Also the validity of such surveys
are in question as people might be in a hurry to complete it and so might not give accurate
responses.
Furthermore we used Qualitative data collection methods play an important role in impact
evaluation by providing information useful to understand the processes behind observed results
and assess changes in people’s perceptions of their well-being.
We used qualitative methods in order to improve the quality of survey-based quantitative
evaluations by helping generate evaluation hypothesis; strengthening the design of survey
questionnaires and expanding or clarifying quantitative evaluation findings. These methods are
characterized by the following attributes: We applied Interviews, we tend to be open-ended and
have semi structured design.

14. Data Analysis:
Socioeconomic data about the participants:
Socioeconomic profile was gathered for each participant and then gathers in the below table to
clarify the main characteristics of the research participants.
Table (1): presenting the socioeconomic data of the participants by numbers and percentage of
each type from the total number of the characters
Character Number %
Gender
Male 20 40%
Female 30 60%
Age Group
25 to 32 35 70%
33 to 40 15 30%
Career Level
Low 15 30%
Medium 30 60%
High 5 10%
Quantitative Research:
The purpose of this section is to analyze the research model using quantitative and qualitative
approach in quantitative approach we statically test our hypotheses.
In order to assess the measurement model and the structural model, we used SPSS software
Reliability Analysis:
1-Brand Experience “Dependent variable”:
Cases N %
Valid 53 98.1
Excluded 1 1.9
Total 54 100.0
A leastwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure. (Table 2)
Reliability Statistics Table (3):
Cronbach's Alpha(a) N of Items
-.721 3

15. The value is negative due to a negative average covariance among items. This violates reliability
model assumptions. You may want to check item coding.
Item-Total Statistics Table (4):
Scale
Mean if
Item
Deleted
Scale
Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected Item-
Total Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha
if Item Deleted
It gives great pleasure to
purchase this brand
6.4528 1.445 .221 -1.898(a)
Buying this brand is a
present for myself.
3.8302 1.759 -.394 .419
This brand is somewhat
of a pleasure to me
5.9057 2.164 -.340 -.035(a)
The value is negative due to a negative average covariance among items. This violates reliability
model assumptions. You may want to check item coding.
Scale Statistics Table (5):
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
8.0943 2.164 1.47106 3
2-Product Attributes reliability:
Reliability Statistics Table (6)
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.377 3
Scale Mean
if Item
Deleted
Scale
Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
not very relevant / Very
relevant
6.8679 2.732 .173 .386
not very useful / very useful 6.6226 2.393 .398 -.069(a)
not at all important / very
important
6.8491 3.131 .117 .473
The value is negative due to a negative average covariance among items. This violates reliability
model assumptions. You may want to check item coding. Table (7).

16. Scale Statistics Table (8):
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
10.1698 4.721 2.17270 3
3- Employee interaction reliability:
Reliability Statistics Table (9)
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.784 6
Item-Total Statistics Table (10)
Scale Mean
if Item
Deleted
Scale
Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
 Customers could expect
to be treated well in this
store
9.73585 12.160 .447 .773
 Employees of this store
could be expected to
give customers personal
attention.
9.75472 11.843 .560 .745
 This store's employees
would be willing to help
customers.
9.96226 11.268 .771 .701
 This store would offer
high-quality service.
9.66038 12.113 .495 .761
 Employees of this store
would not be too busy to
respond to customers'
requests promptly.
9.43396 10.904 .530 .756
 It would be realistic to
expect prompt service
from employees of this
store.
9.47170 12.485 .453 .770
Scale Statistics Table (11):
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
11.60377 16.282 4.035132 6

17. 4- Store environment reliability
Reliability Statistics Table (12):
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.874 4
Item-Total Statistics Table (13):
Scale Mean
if Item
Deleted
Scale
Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha
if Item Deleted
This store that offers the brand
would be a pleasant place to
shop.
5.3396 5.959 .604 .886
The store has a pleasant
atmosphere.
5.4906 5.601 .794 .819
This store is clean. 5.6226 5.239 .739 .836
This store is attractive 5.5094 4.909 .804 .809
Scale Statistics Table (14):
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
7.3208 9.261 3.04311 4
Frequencies
Gender Table (15)
Frequency % Valid %
Cumulative
%
Valid m 22 40.7 41.5 41.5
F 31 57.4 58.5 100.0
Total 53 98.1 100.0
Missing System 1 1.9
Total 54 100.0
N Valid 53
Missing 1
Mean 1.5849
Median 2.0000
Mode 2.00
Sum 84.00

18. Household Income Table (16)
Correlation between brand and product attributes Table (17)
Brand Product
Brand Pearson
Correlation
1 -.131
Sig. (2-tailed) .348
N 53 53
Product Pearson
Correlation
-.131 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .348
N 53 53
Correlation between brand and employees interaction Table (18)
Brand
product
attributes
Brand Pearson
Correlation
1 -.061
Sig. (2-tailed) .663
N 53 53
product
attributes
Pearson
Correlation
-.061 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .663
N 53 53
Correlation between brand and Environment Table (19)
Brand Environment
Brand Pearson Correlation 1 -.471(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 53 53
Environment Pearson Correlation -.471(**) 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 53 53
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
N Valid 53
Missing 1
Mean 1.7547
Median 2.0000
Mode 2.00
Sum 93.00
Frequency %
Valid
%
Cumulative
%
Valid >10000 13 24.1 24.5 24.5
<10000 40 74.1 75.5 100.0
Total 53 98.1 100.0
Missing System 1 1.9
Total 54 100.0

19. Correlations Matrix Table (20)
Brand Environment Product
Employees
interaction
Brand Pearson Correlation 1 -.471(**) -.131 -.061
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .348 .663
N 53 53 53 53
Environment Pearson Correlation -.471(**) 1 .221 .337(*)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .111 .014
N 53 53 53 53
Product Pearson Correlation -.131 .221 1 .258
Sig. (2-tailed) .348 .111 .062
N 53 53 53 53
Employee
interaction
Pearson Correlation
-.061 .337(*) .258 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .663 .014 .062
N 53 53 53 53
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Qualitative Research:
Interview Guide: The depth interviews have been conducted and recorded, then data has been
encoded to be analyzed to extract findings. A satisfactory response rate of 100% was achieved as 5
interviews were usable for analysis.
Ethical considerations: a preapproval was taken from the interviewees to record their answers and
all the interviewees were informed about the interview objectives and verbal consents were
obtained from them
Questionnaire themed analysis: Using a semi-structured individual depth interviews with 5
persons featured with a specific inclusion criteria to cover all the seven themes and sub-themes of
the questionnaire. The below themed analysis is done for the gathered data to collect the findings
and extract the recommendations.
1) Are you interested in the brands?
100% of all the participants were interested with Brands
2) What’s your favorite brand? Why?
Luis Vuitton it's practical and easy to call off
Marks and Spenser as it is affordable and looks expensive on front of people.
Reebok because of color and modern
Zara as it gives different styles and varieties
Desigual as it looks different and crazy
What factors would attract you to certain brand?

20. Most of the participant mentioned: color, stylish , variety and durability. Only one
mentioned that which gives me the self esteem
3) Do you think staff treatment affect your attachment to the brand? Explain?
Participants agreed that it is sure Yes. That cause the customer retention, loyalty and
creates the word of mouth.
4) Do you think staff appearance affect the success of the brand?
All the Participants said yes because this indicates the brand identity and appearance
It shows me how much the store spend money on the stuff to look and feel good.
5) What’s the most important attributes in the brand that make you purchase the brand?
Participants mentioned: Quality, price, new collection and practical attributes and if it
worth the money they spend.
6) Do you buy a brand for its function or for the emotions you get from it?
Most of the participants mentioned that emotional and functional are both together but
the male participants mentioned the functionality has the higher weight.
7) Describe your ideal store atmosphere?
Participants mentioned different features: good lighting, personal space, wide place, good
smell, near parking and helpful staff.
8) Do you think brand environment differ from Egypt to abroad?
All participants said yes. One of them mentioned that he feel the difference when he travel
abroad.
9) In Egypt, How do you describe your shopping experience?
Most of the participants mentioned that it is on average, but part of them said it is very
bad experience in most of cases.
10)What’s the worst and the best brand experience you faced?
One of the participants said: she replaced shoes after 5 months because of problem at
quality of shoes.
Others said: The worst was that the staff lied and said there was no other pair although I
saw the other pair. The best is when staff giving their choice (opinion) although
sometimes they were lying.

21. Recommendations and Conclusion:
Brand experiences arise in a wide variety of settings when consumers search for, shop for and
consume brands. Accordingly, we conceptualized brand experience as subjective consumer
responses that are evoked by specific brand-related experiential attributes in such settings. We
demonstrated that brand experience can be broken down into four dimensions (sensory, affective,
intellectual, and behavioral), which are differentially evoked by various brands.
This study will be useful not only in academic research but also in marketing practice. The
relationships discussed here can help managers assess the level of appeal that will influence target
consumers’ perception of brand personality and brand experience. Brakus et al. (2009) proposed
a framework suggesting that brand experience has a behavioral impact, directly affecting
consumer satisfaction and loyalty and indirectly affecting brand personality.
All participants were interested in brands which indicates that brand experience is sort of
important and significant study in Egyptian society. Product features and attributes such as
quality and design all beside emotional part are important for promoting good brand experience.
Good staff communication and appearance are important in promoting good brand experience.
Store environment is important for promoting good brand experience. Although all studied factors
showed significant importance for promoting good brand experience although this may not affect
purchasing decisions according to lake of alternatives.
As per this research, particularly the Reliability analysis, the "Product Attributes" variable
measures are not reliable, while both "Employee Interaction" and "Store Environment" are both
highly reliable. The Questionnaires were run over demographically distributed sample, 41% males
and rest of females. The Correlation coefficient analysis results proved that there are no clear
relation between Brand experience and any of the dependent variables "Store Environment"
,"Product Attributes" and "Employed Interaction". Thus the three hypotheses are not supported
in Egypt.
Besides research on the brand experience stimulus, we encourage research on the experience
concept as such. For example, many experiences, especially in service businesses (e.g., restaurants,
spas, airline flights), extend over time. Research has shown that the pattern of extended
experiences (e.g., increasing or decreasing in intensity) can affect how experiences are evaluated
(Ariely 1998; Ariely and Zauberman 2003). Such research has used the term experience‖
generically to refer to responses within a certain timeframe. Based on the studies reported here, it
will be worthwhile exploring which patterns occur for which experience dimensions.
Finally, future research should focus on the antecedents and long-term consequences of brand
experiences. For example, regarding antecedents, how exactly are brand experience dimensions
evoked by brand-related stimuli? Also, while we have shown the impact of brand experience, both
directly and indirectly, on short-term consequences such as satisfaction and loyalty, the question
arises whether brand experiences affect customer lifetime value (Rust, Zeithaml and Lemon 2000;
Vogel, Verena, Heiner Evanschitzky, and B. Ramaseshan, in print). That is, can brand experiences
build customer equity, and how do marketers need to manage brands to create experiences that
build such equity?

22. References:
1) Aaker, J. L. (1997), Dimensions of brand personality, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.
34 (3), 347-356.
2) Addis, M. and Holbrook, M.B. (2001), On the conceptual link between mass
customization and experiential consumption: An explosion of subjectivity, Journal of
Consumer Behavior, Vol. 1 (1), 50-66.
3) 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 (May), 52-68.
4) Fransen, M.L. and Lodder, P. (2010), the effects of experience-based marketing
communication on brand relation and hedonic brand attitudes: the moderating role of
affective orientation, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 37, 801-802.
5) Holbrook, M. B. and Hirschman, E.C. (1982), the experiential aspects of consumption:
consumer fantasy, feelings and fun, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 (2), 132-140.
6) Lofman, B. (1991), Elements of experiential consumption: an exploratory study, Advances
in Consumer Research, Vol. 18, 729-735.
7) Mortimer, R. (2009), getting the right attention, Brand Strategy, December, 55. Oliver,
R.L. (1980), A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction
decisions, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 17 (November), 460-469.
8) Pine, B.J. and Gilmore, J.H. (1998), Welcome to the experience economy, Harvard
Business Review, July/August, 97-105.
9) Sands, S., Oppewal, H. and Beverland, M. (2008), the Influence of in-store experiential
events on shopping value perceptions and shopping behavior, Advances in Consumer
Research, Vol. 35, 298-303.
10)Schmitt, B.H. (1999), Experiential marketing, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol.
15(1-3), 53-57.
11) Tsaur, S.H., Chiu, Y.T. and Wang, C. H. (2006), the visitors behavioral consequences of
experiential marketing: an empirical study on Taipei Zoo, Journal of Travel and Tourism
12)Marketing, Vol. 21 (1), 47-64.
13)Tynan, C., and McKechnie, S. (2009), Experience marketing: a review and reassessment,
Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 25 (5/6), 501-517.
14)Walter N., Cle€ T. And Chu G. (2013), Brand experience’s influence on customer
satisfaction and loyalty: a mirage in marketing research? International Journal of
Management Research and Business Strategy, Vol. 2 (January), 130-144.
15) WDR (2012), Der Adidas-Check, report on ARD (German public broadcasting),
21.05.2012, http://www.ardmediathek.de/das-erste/reportage-dokumentation/der-
adidas-check?documentId=10588160 .
16)You, X., and Donthu, N. (2001), Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-
based brand equity scale, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 52 (April), 1-14.