Influence of sensory stimuli on brand experience, brand equity and purchase intention

Abstract

Sensory stimulation is used by various brands to induce desired behaviours among their customers. Although its effectiveness is recognised in business contexts, little research has been conducted on sensory marketing. In order to contribute to filling this gap, this study sought to build a model that explains how sensory stimulation influences intentions to purchase a brand. Brand experience and brand equity were expected to mediate this relationship. The empirical validation of the model was conducted by carrying out an online survey with a convenience sample of 302 customers of a brand of the catering industry. The data collected were processed using PLS-SEM methodology. The results reveal that sensory stimulation positively influences brand experience and brand equity, which, in turn, have a positive impact on intentions to purchase the brand in question. The relevant contributions that emerged from this study include not only bridging the aforementioned gap in the literature but also offering significant managerial implications.

Full text

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tbem20
Download by: [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UA] Date: 06 February 2017, At: 01:06
Journal of Business Economics and Management
ISSN: 1611-1699 (Print) 2029-4433 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tbem20
Influence of sensory stimuli on brand experience,
brand equity and purchase intention
António C. Moreira, Nuno Fortes & Ramiro Santiago
To cite this article: António C. Moreira, Nuno Fortes & Ramiro Santiago (2017) Influence of
sensory stimuli on brand experience, brand equity and purchase intention, Journal of Business
Economics and Management, 18:1, 68-83, DOI: 10.3846/16111699.2016.1252793
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2016.1252793
Published online: 05 Feb 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data

Copyright © 2017 Vilnius Gediminas Technical University (VGTU) Press
Journal of Business Economics and Management
ISSN 1611-1699 / eISSN 2029-4433
2017 Volume 18(1): 68–83
doi:10.3846/16111699.2016.1252793
INFLUENCE OF SENSORY STIMULI ON BRAND EXPERIENCE,
BRAND EQUITY AND PURCHASE INTENTION
António C. MOREIRA1, Nuno FORTES2, Ramiro SANTIAGO3
1, 3University of Aveiro, DEGEIT, Portugal
2Polytechnic Institute of Coimbra, ESTGOH, Portugal
E-mails: 1amoreira@ua.pt (corresponding author);
2nuno.fortes@estgoh.ipc.pt; 3ramiro.santiago@ua.pt
Received 29 November 2015; accepted 21 October 2016
Abstract. Sensory stimulation is used by various brands to induce desired behaviours
among their customers. Although its eectiveness is recognised in business contexts, little
research has been conducted on sensory marketing. In order to contribute to lling this
gap, this study sought to build a model that explains how sensory stimulation inuences
intentions to purchase a brand. Brand experience and brand equity were expected to medi-
ate this relationship. The empirical validation of the model was conducted by carrying out
an online survey with a convenience sample of 302 customers of a brand of the catering
industry. The data collected were processed using PLS-SEM methodology. The results
reveal that sensory stimulation positively inuences brand experience and brand equity,
which, in turn, have a positive impact on intentions to purchase the brand in question.
The relevant contributions that emerged from this study include not only bridging the
aforementioned gap in the literature but also oering signicant managerial implications.
Keywords: sensory marketing, sensory stimuli, brand experience, brand equity, brand
purchase intention, consumer behaviour, PLS-SEM, experiential marketing.
JEL Classication: M31, M39.
Introduction
In traditional marketing, consumers are seen as rational decision makers interested in
the attributes and benets of products (Schmitt 1999). Currently, consumers want prod-
ucts, communication and marketing campaigns that dazzle the senses, touch the heart
and stimulate the mind, matching their lifestyle and, above all, oering experiences
(Krishna 2010). Sti market competitiveness has led some rms to focus on changes,
desires and needs among consumers seeking pleasurable experiences (Costa et al. 2012;
Biswas et al. 2014), which has forced these companies to rethink traditional market-
ing models (Schmitt 1999) and given rise to new marketing paradigms that meet these
consumers’ needs and interests, enabling brand dierentiation through experiential and
sensory marketing.

69
Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2017, 18(1): 68–83
Experiential marketing seeks to provide memorable and unique experiences to consum-
ers who are seen as rational and emotional, with a particular interest in obtaining pleas-
urable experiences (Krishna 2010). The term “customer experience” refers to a set of
interactions between customers and the products and/or services, implying consumers’
involvement at dierent levels (i.e. rational, emotional, sensual, physical and spiritual)
in which they participate on a strictly personal plane (Gentile et al. 2007; Krishna 2010;
Pentz, Gerber 2013).
Sensorial marketing aims to strengthen the relationship between a brand and its cus-
tomers at a deeper level by involving human senses (Khanna, Mishra 2012). This can
be used to dierentiate companies and products, motivating consumers, adding value
to products and improving customer experiences (e.g. through emotions or aesthetics)
(Schmitt 1999). Krishna (2012) conceptualises sensory marketing based on the dier-
ence between sensation and perception, which has consequences in terms of consump-
tion behaviours and attitudes. From this perspective, haptics, olfaction, audition, taste
and vision play an important role in sensory marketing as they can convey abstract,
high-level, cognitive representations that inuence brand experiences and brand equity,
allowing rms to create a closer connection with consumers (Costa et al. 2012; Khanna,
Mishra 2012). The use of dierent types of sensory experiences can improve the qual-
ity of customer service and, consequently, result in improvements in even the strongest
brand image and recognition, in the long run (Ding, Tseng 2015; Hultén et al. 2009).
Sensory experiences can intensify brand experiences (Schmitt 1999; Hultén 2011). A
multisensory approach (Streicher, Estes 2016) generates multiple perceptions that can
inuence brand personality and equity (Rajput, Dhillon 2013). As brand awareness in-
uences how brands are chosen, it is important to analyse what are the consequences for
brand experiences and brand equity when these are inuenced by sensory stimuli. This
study sought to analyse how sensory marketing aects brand experiences and brand
equity and what impacts they have on purchase intentions towards the brand in question.
This article is divided into four sections. The rst section presents the theoretical frame-
work and a review of the literature on sensory marketing, brand experience, brand equi-
ty and brand purchase intention, as well as the research model and the main hypotheses.
Section 2 presents the methodology used. Section 3 details the results, while section 4
discusses these results. Finally, conclusions are drawn from the study.
1. Theoretical framework
1.1. Sensory marketing
According to Krishna (2012), sensory marketing involves consumer senses and aects
consumer perception, evaluation and behaviour. Krishna (2012) also notes that sensory
marketing can be used as subconscious stimulus that denes the perception of consum-
ers of abstract notions of the product (for example, sophistication, quality, elegance,
innovation, modernity, interactivity) – the brand personality. As such, it can also be used
to inuence the perceived quality of an abstract attribute such as colour, taste, smell or
shape (Krishna 2012) that play an important role every time consumers are before ab-

70
A. C. Moreira et al. Inuence of sensory stimuli on brand experience, brand equity and purchase intention
stract, high-level, of cognitive representations, as is the case of brand equity and brand
experience that involve judgmental evaluations.
Human senses strongly inuence how we create images and intuitively process this
sensory information to make decisions. Lindstrom (2005a) states that the greater the
number of activated sensory memories the stronger the connection established between
brands and consumers.
According to Krishna (2012), sensory marketing involves consumers’ senses and aects
consumers’ perceptions, evaluations and behaviours. She also notes that sensory market-
ing can be used as subconscious stimuli that dene customers’ perceptions of abstract
notions about the product (e.g. sophistication, quality, elegance, innovation, modernity
and interactivity) – namely, the brand personality. As such, it can also be used to inu-
ence the perceived quality of abstract attributes such as colour, taste, smell or shape
(Krishna 2012), which play an important role every time consumers encounter abstract,
high-level and cognitive representations. This is the case with brand equity and brand
experiences that involve judgmental evaluations.
Sensory marketing seeks to strengthen the relationship between brands and consum-
ers by involving human senses through the use of sensory strategies (Khanna, Mishra
2012), which have an inuential role in buying processes (Jamaluddin et al. 2013).
Multisensory brand experiences focus on dierentiating, distinguishing and position-
ing brands in the human mind (Foster, McLelland 2015; Hultén 2011). Therefore, they
propose that marketers need to use an interplay of atmospheric, auditory, visual, taste
and tactile sensations.
According to Lindstrom (2005a, 2005b), using sensory appeals stimulates consumer
interest, increases the momentum behind buying behaviours and allows emotional reac-
tions to dominate consumers’ rational thinking. This strategy also aects perceptions of
product quality and brand equity.
Yoon and Park (2012) conducted a pre-test of ve groups representing a specic sensory
appeal (i.e. visual, olfactory, palate, tactile and auditory) associated with ve dierent
product brands. They conclude that self-referencing and positive aect inuence the
relationship between sensory appeal preferences and attitudes towards brands.
1.2. Brand experience
Pine II and Gilmore (1998) state that a successful experience is the one customers feel
as unique and memorable, the one they would like to repeat and maintain over time
and still would enthusiastically promote. Dolbec and Chebat (2013) report that positive
experiences stimulate the senses and the user is linked through emotions, cognition and
bodily experiences.
When consumers make rational decisions, they are inuenced or guided by emotions
associated with previous consumption experiences they would like to repeat (Schmitt
1999). Emotions and senses have an important role in the dierentiation and provi-
sion of better experiences because emotions are mental states of readiness arising from

71
Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2017, 18(1): 68–83
appraisals of events that allow individuals to give meaning to brands. Palmer (2010)
argues that the way customers perceive experiences is inuenced by the contexts in
which services are consumed. This has consequences for how customers internalise
these experiences, as well as how they understand brands and perceive service quality
assurances (Morrison, Crane 2007; Palmer 2010; Sahin et al. 2011).
Pine II and Gilmore (1998) state that a successful experience is one that customers feel
is unique and memorable – the one they would like to repeat and maintain over time and
would enthusiastically promote to others. Dolbec and Chebat (2013) report that positive
experiences stimulate the senses and that users are linked to brands through emotions,
cognition and bodily experiences.
Brakus et al. (2009: 53) conceptualise “brand experience[s] as subjective, internal con-
sumer responses (sensations, feelings and cognitions) and behavioural responses evoked
by brand-related stimuli that are part of a brand’s design and identity, packaging, com-
munications and environments”. They state that brand experiences can be divided into
four dimensions: sensory, emotional, intellectual and behavioural. The sensory sub-
dimensions of brand experiences are focused on consumers’ visual, auditory, olfactive,
gustative and tactile senses. For example, colours, shapes, types and designs generally
result in sensory experiences, which may result in an aective or intellectual experience.
Similarly, the slogans, mascots and characters of brands may appeal to creative thinking
and involve emotions or stimulate actions (Brakus et al. 2009).
1.3. Human senses and brand experiences
Human senses are vital to everyday life. When stimulated, they trigger experiences that
can – through an image, texture or written message – appeal to the senses or create a
disruption, sound, taste, gesture or event, namely, anything that can appeal to human
senses or surprise individuals pleasantly (Schmitt 1999). Multisensory brand experi-
ences support the creation of individual value and allow consumers to react to compa-
nies’ initiatives. This supports customers’ purchase and consumption processes through
the involvement of the ve senses and the generation of customer value, experiences
and brand image (Hultén 2011).
Human senses aect consumer awareness and experiences in buying processes. This
may result in better brand experiences and higher perceived quality among consum-
ers (Hultén 2011; Costa et al. 2012; Khanna, Mishra 2012; Maymand et al. 2012;
Jamaluddin et al. 2013). When consumers search for, buy and consume brands, they
are exposed to various specic stimuli related to brands, such as colours, shapes, prod-
uct types, background design elements, slogans, mascots and characters (Brakus et al.
2009). These stimuli appear as part of brand design and identity (e.g. name, logo and
signage), packaging and marketing communication (e.g. advertisements, brochures and
websites) and the environments in which brands are marketed or sold (e.g. shops and
events) (Brakus et al. 2009).
The senses can thus be used to intensify consumers’ reactions and to provide con-
sumer experiences (Costa et al. 2012). By exposing customers to all these stimuli,

72
A. C. Moreira et al. Inuence of sensory stimuli on brand experience, brand equity and purchase intention
these senses lead to better brand experiences (Schmitt 1999; Hultén 2011), enriching
these by consolidating brand personality, interest, preference and loyalty (Brakus et al.
2009; Krishna 2010; Maymand et al. 2012). As such, the present study proposed the
following hypothesis:
H1: Sensory stimuli have a positive impact on brand experiences.
1.4. Brand equity
Building a strong brand is essential to dierentiating brands from their main competi-
tors (Yoo et al. 2000; Pappu et al. 2005; Kumar et al. 2013) and ensuring competitive
advantages (Pappu et al. 2005).
According to Aaker (1991), brands provide value to customers by intensifying their
eorts to interpret and process information and their feeling of trust during purchase
decision making. He denes brand equity as a set of assets and liabilities linked to
brands that can create value for both customers and companies.
Measuring brand equity is not easy as brands may be associated with products, services,
institutions, countries or tourism destinations (Pappu et al. 2005). The three dimensions
proposed by Yoo et al. (2000) – perceived quality, brand loyalty and brand awareness –
have been widely accepted (Çifci et al. 2016).
1.5. Sensory stimuli and brand equity
Several studies have concluded that sensory stimuli have an impact on consumer be-
haviour (Hultén 2011; Rodrigues et al. 2011; Costa et al. 2012; Krishna 2012). Sensory
marketing means persuading consumers to perceive a brand’s unique and unmistakable
value, giving them memorable experiences and encouraging them to repeat and dissemi-
nate descriptions of their experiences (Costa et al. 2012). Sensory marketing positively
changes perceptions of brands when the stimuli are consistent with other brand elements
(Khanna, Mishra 2012).
Human senses are linked to emotions and memory that inuence behaviour (Krishna
2012). They can reinforce positive feelings, following an experiential rationale, gener-
ating specic value for individuals and, in particular, creating a brand image (Hultén
2011). Sensory variety and cognitive consistency induce associations with brands, which
allow the memory to relive sensory experiences (Chang, Chieng 2006). Given this link
to memory, marketers can create brand awareness and brand associations through sense
stimuli. By appealing to the ve senses, brands create strong memories in consumers’
minds (Khanna, Mishra 2012). However, contrary to what Costa et al. (2012) found,
Khanna and Mishra (2012) did not conrm a relationship between sensory stimuli and
brand loyalty.
A multisensory approach can generate subconscious triggers that control consumers’
perceptions and associate products with conceptual ideas. These generate dierent per-
ceptions, such as superiority, quality, elegance, innovation, modernity and interactivity,
which shape brand personality (Rajput, Dhillon 2013).

73
Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2017, 18(1): 68–83
In short, sensory marketing seeks to generate customer loyalty through a process of dif-
ferentiation in the provision of services, which often goes beyond colours that captivate
consumers’ attention, avours that provide tranquillity, sounds that stimulate stays in
certain ambiences and avours that surprise the palate (Costa et al. 2012). Therefore,
based on Esch et al. (2012), Khanna and Mishra (2012), and Rajput and Dhillon’s
(2012) ndings, the present study proposed the following hypothesis:
H2: Sensory stimuli have a positive impact on brand equity.
1.6. Brand experiences and brand equity
Esch et al. (2012) conclude that customers perceive declarative information and experi-
ence emotions dierently when evaluating brands as “strong” brands versus unfamiliar
brands. The signicance of the ve senses in the creation of multisensory experience of
brands is thus related to how consumers value and experience brands and their images
(Hultén 2011). This has consequences for building brands and their identity, loyalty
base, and image (Hultén 2011).
As proposed by Yoo et al. (2000), perceived quality, brand loyalty and brand awareness
are the main dimensions of brand equity. Brand experiences aect brand loyalty (Brakus
et al. 2009; Iglesias et al. 2011; Sahin et al. 2011). However, experiences perceived as
superior by consumers determine their true loyalty if an aective commitment to brands
among their customers is also developed (Iglesias et al. 2011).
The practice of sensory marketing drives sales and enhances reputation and brand image
(Rajput, Dhillon 2013), which create lasting memories (Keller 1993). Brand associations
are enhanced when they are derived from brand experiences and exposure to brand com-
munications (Chang, Chieng 2006). These associations are driven by sensory pleasure,
variety and/or cognitive stimulation (Keller 1993) – all components of brand experi-
ences (Dolbec, Chebat 2013). Finally, as brand experiences increase consumers’ trust
and willingness to use a brand, this has important consequences for perceived quality
(Dolbec, Chebat 2013) because brand leaders behave dierently than brand laggards do
(Sheng, Teo 2012; Lin 2015).
Experiences related to brands tend to become part of individuals’ long-term memory
in the form of brand associations. As such, the following hypothesis was formulated:
H3: Brand experiences have a positive impact on brand equity.
1.7. Brand purchase intentions
Purchase intentions have been studied to understand the reasons why customers pur-
chase particular brands (Shah et al. 2011). These intentions can be dened as the eort
that consumers are willing to make to buy products or brands. The main factors moti-
vating purchase intentions can be attitudes, evaluations and perceptions of brands. For
instance, the perceived quality of a brand can improve consumers’ evaluations (Wang,
Li 2012; Allameh et al. 2015).

74
A. C. Moreira et al. Inuence of sensory stimuli on brand experience, brand equity and purchase intention
1.8. Brand experience and purchase intentions
Chen and Chang (2008) found that brand equity and purchase intentions have a positive
relationship. However, this relationship is not signicant for consumers with low switch-
ing costs, which enhances the importance of brand experiences and sensory stimuli.
Zarantonello and Schmitt (2010) conclude that the relationship between attitudes to-
wards brands and purchase intentions is stronger for holistic consumers who are inter-
ested in all kinds of experiences (i.e. sensory, emotional, intellectual and behavioural)
and weaker for utilitarian consumers with little interest in experiences. The following
hypothesis was thus formulated:
H4: Brand experiences have a positive impact on brand purchase intentions.
1.9. Brand equity and purchase intentions
Brand equity can be considered a reason or motivation to buy certain brands, as the
higher the brand equity the stronger consumers’ preferences and purchase intentions
(Jani, Han 2014; Pappu et al. 2005). Morrison and Crane (2007) argue that marketers
need to create sense-based, emotional holistic experiences that deliver the emotional
fullment that can lead to brand dierentiation, customer loyalty and evangelical pro-
motion of brands.
Brand awareness inuences attitudes towards brands, which in turn stimulate brand
choices (Wang, Li 2012). Keller (1993) argues that attributes, whether related or not to
the products of a specic brand, strongly contribute to the formation of brand associa-
tions, which may directly aect consumers’ purchase or consumption processes. Brand
loyalty has been identied as essential for generating repeat purchases (Wang, Li 2012;
Jani, Han 2014). As such, the following hypothesis was formulated:
H5: Brand equity has a positive impact on brand purchase intentions.
The proposed research model is presented in Figure 1.
Fig. 1. Research model
Brand
Experience
Sensory
Stimuli
Purchase
Intention
Brand
Equity






75
Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2017, 18(1): 68–83
2. Methodology
This empirical study was based on a non-random convenience sample consisting of
students from a public university who are regular customers of the selected brand. This
sampling technique was chosen for its ease of contact and speed and low cost of data
collection.
The data were collected using a questionnaire consisting of previously validated scales
adapted from other research: Nadiri and Gunay’s (2013) work on sensory stimuli, Bra-
kus et al.’s (2009) study of brand experiences, Yoo and Donthu’s (2001) work on brand
equity and Bruhn et al.’s (2012) study of purchase intentions. Sensory stimuli (SNS_
STI) and purchase intentions (PRCH_INT) were measured with unidimensional scales.
Brand experiences (BRND_EXP) were measured with a multidimensional scale com-
prised of behavioural (BEHV_EXP), aective (AFFCT_EXP), intellectual (INT_EXP)
and sensory (SNS_EXP) dimensions. Brand equity (BRND_EQ) was also measured
with a multidimensional scale consisting of brand awareness and/or associations (AW/
ASS), brand loyalty (LOYAL) and perceived brand quality (PRC_QUAL) dimensions.
All constructs were measured based on a seven-point Likert-type scale (i.e. “strongly
disagree” to “strongly agree”).
The questionnaire was subjected to a pre-test conducted on a convenience sample of
30 people, in order to facilitate respondents’ understanding. The nal version of the
questionnaire was made available online in a Google Drive platform for three weeks,
and respondents were asked to ll the questionnaire out in emails and social networks.
The target population was composed of clients of a famous 27-year-old pizzeria in the
Centre Region of Portugal. This pizzeria oers a wide variety of pastas, salads, pizzas
and crepes at aordable prices, whetting customers’ appetites not only through tastes
and aromas but also visual images and uniquely attractive oers. Its logo and colours
are used in all means of communication (i.e. spatial, virtual and physical). The space is
decorated with sculptures, paintings and other pieces of contemporary art that add up
to a bold, unusual design. The total stimuli of a meal provides gustatory experiences
delivered by the good presentation, aroma, avour and texture of the food, within a
unique environment that stimulates the ve senses.
3. Results
The sample collected, as described in Table 1, was composed of 302 individuals, mostly
females (69.9%) up to 24 years old (57.9%) with a bachelor’s degree (54.7%). Accord-
ing to Marcoulides and Saunders’s (2006), the sample size is acceptable.
The statistical data analyses were carried out by applying the partial least squares meth-
od of structural equation modelling using SmartPLS 3.0 software. This methodology
was selected because it is robust when working with non-normal data and when research
is at an early stage of theoretical development, testing and validating an exploratory
model (Chin 2010).

76
A. C. Moreira et al. Inuence of sensory stimuli on brand experience, brand equity and purchase intention
Table 1. Sample characterisation
N %
Gender Female 211 69.9
Male 91 30.1
Age Up to 24 years 175 57.9
25 to 34 years 85 28.1
35 to 44 years 26 8.6
45 to 54 years 14 4.6
55 and more years 2 0.7
Education Secondary education 88 29.1
Bachelor’s degree 165 54.7
Master’s degree or
higher
49 16.2
The model was evaluated in terms of reliability, convergent validity and discriminant
validity. The results support the reliability of the measurement indicators used. All load-
ings are statistically signicant at the 1% level. The factor loadings are larger than the
cross-loadings, and, with the exception of three items, all items have higher loadings
than the minimum recommended threshold of 0.7 (Götz et al. 2010). Table 2 provides
the average variance extracted (AVE), the composite reliability (CR) and the correla-
tions of each latent variable. The CR values are higher than the recommended minimum
of 0.6 (Götz et al. 2010), indicating that all constructs have adequate internal consist-
ency. Moreover, the AVE of each construct is greater than the expected minimum thresh-
old of 0.5 (Götz et al. 2010), which ensures its convergent validity. Finally, discriminant
validity was conrmed for each construct, as the square root of the AVE is greater than
the absolute value of all correlations with other constructs.
The structural model shown in Figure 2 was evaluated by (a) the sign, magnitude and
statistical signicance of the parameters of structural relationships, (b) the explained
variance (R2) of the endogenous latent variables and (c) the size eect (f 2) on each en-
dogenous latent variable (Götz et al. 2010). All structural relationships have parameters
with signs compatible (i.e. positive) with the assumptions made in the research model,
ranging between 0.085 and 0.639. Moreover, with the exception of the relationship be-
tween brand experiences and purchase intentions, all other relationships are statistically
signicant at a 0.1% level, which conrmed all the hypotheses, except H4.
The results indicate that 49.9% of variations in purchase intentions is explained by
variations in brand equity and brand experience, with the former having the strongest
impact. In addition, variations in brand equity are explained by 69.0% of variations
of brand experience and sensory stimuli, the latter being the most inuential. Finally,
52.0% of variations in brand experiences are explained by variations in sensory stimuli.
According to Hair et al. (2016), R2 values for endogenous latent variables can be de-
scribed as moderate.

77
Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2017, 18(1): 68–83
Table 2. Average variance extracted, composite reliability and correlations
among latent variables
AVE CR Correlations
123456789
1. SNS_STI 0.518 0.896 0.720
2. AW/ASS 0.559 0.863 0.691 0.748
3. LOYAL 0.737 0.894 0.637 0.653 0.859
4. PRC_QUAL 0.703 0.825 0.711 0.634 0.625 0.838
5. BEHV_EXP 0.684 0.866 0.559 0.549 0.594 0.493 0.827
6. AFFCT_EXP 0.660 0.853 0.691 0.672 0.687 0.595 0.754 0.813
7. INT_EXP 0.659 0.852 0.621 0.621 0.605 0.520 0.741 0.797 0.812
8. SNS_EXP 0.694 0.871 0.705 0.622 0.602 0.584 0.686 0.759 0.748 0.833
9. PRCH_INT 0.910 0.968 0.693 0.657 0.558 0.622 0.439 0.544 0.497 0.578 0.954
Note: values of the diagonal are the square root of AVE.
Fig. 2. Structural model
0.879*
0.891*
0.910*
Intellectual
Experience
Behavioural
Experience
0.870*
0.920*
R2= 0.520
R2= 0.499
0.810*
0.916*
R2= 0.690
0.639*
0.085 n.s.
0.721*
Brand
Experience
Sensory
Affective
Experience
Sensory
Stimuli
Purchase
Intention
Brand
Equity
Awareness/
Associations
Perceived
Loyalty
0.458*
0.437*
Experience
Quality
*p-value < 0.001; n.s. – non significant
Changes in R2 can be assessed through the eect size (f 2) to see whether particular
independent latent variables have a substantive impact on dependent latent variables
(Götz et al. 2010). Values of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 for f 2 can be viewed as indicating a
small, medium or large eect, respectively, of predictor latent variables on particular

78
A. C. Moreira et al. Inuence of sensory stimuli on brand experience, brand equity and purchase intention
endogenous latent variables (Chin 2010; Götz et al. 2010). The results presented in
Table 3 show that sensory stimuli have a strong eect on brand experiences and a me-
dium eect on brand equity. In addition, brand equity has a medium signicant eect
on purchase intentions. Finally, brand experiences have a medium signicant eect on
brand equity but no signicant eect on purchase intentions.
Table 3. Eect size (f 2)
Path f 2p-values
BRND_EQ → PRCH_INT 0.33 0.00
BRND_EXP → BRND_EQ 0.30 0.00
BRND_EXP → PRCH_INT 0.01 0.57
SNS_STI → BRND_EQ 0.33 0.00
SNS_STI → BRND_EXP 1.08 0.00
Table 4 shows the direct, indirect and total eects of the variable analyses. All three
eects are statistically signicant at the 0.01% level, except the eect of brand experi-
ences on purchase intentions, as stated previously. The importance of sensory stimuli
in this framework is shown in their signicant direct eects on brand experiences (β=
0.721) and brand equity (β= 0.458). Brand equity exerts the strongest direct eect on
purchase intentions (β= 0.639). The strongest indirect eect on purchase intentions is
achieved by sensory stimuli (β= 0.555). Regarding the total eects on purchase inten-
tions, the strongest is from brand equity (β= 0.639), followed by sensory stimuli (β=
0.555). The total eects on brand equity are headed by sensory stimuli (β= 0.773).
Table 4. Direct, indirect and total eects
Direct eects Indirect eects Total eects
Loadings
BRND_EQ → PRCH_INT 0.639 * 0.639 *
BRND_EXP → BRND_EQ 0.437 * 0.437 *
BRND_EXP → PRCH_INT 0.085 n.s. 0.279 * 0.364 *
SNS_STI → BRND_EQ 0.458 * 0.315 * 0.773 *
SNS_STI → BRND_EXP 0.721 * 0.721 *
SNS_STI → PRCH_INT 0.555 * 0.555 *
Note: * p-value < 0.001; n.s. – non signicant.
4. Discussion of results
Even with the increased importance given to the integrated use of the ve senses, sen-
sory marketing is still underdeveloped and underresearched. This study provides support
for the conclusion that sensory stimuli inuence brand experiences and brand value, as
well as pre-behavioural variables that come under this inuence, namely, purchase in-

79
Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2017, 18(1): 68–83
tentions. The results conrm most of the hypotheses presented in the conceptual model.
As argued by Schmitt (1999), Hultén (2011), Costa et al. (2012) and Maymand et al.
(2012), a signicant positive relationship exists between sensory stimuli and brand ex-
periences (β= 0.721; p-value < 0.001). The study shows that the selected brand posi-
tively aects customers’ senses, making their stay a memorable, remarkable experience
through the decor, services, products and environment provided by the brand.
As competition has increased, restaurant owners need to be aware of the importance of
the multisensory experiences provided by involving all ve senses to generate memora-
ble experiences. In this context, the specicities of aromas and scents need to be in tune
with the decor, lights and easy-listening music to create a relaxing atmosphere, which
is complemented by the services and menus provided, as well as the room temperature.
All of these help to capitalise on the symbolic image managers want to deliver.
The relationship between sensory stimuli and brand equity (β= 0.458) is signicant and
consistent with Chang and Chieng (2006), Costa et al. (2012) and Rajput and Dhillon’s
(2013) ndings. Within this framework, managers can create awareness and favour-
able associations through sensory stimulation around brands (Chang, Chieng 2006),
improving perceptions of quality (Rajput, Dhillon 2013) and increasing loyalty (Costa
et al. 2012).
This means that genuinely unforgettable experiences create unique opportunities for
brands to involve customers individually in the process of creating and delivering add-
ed-value services. Since emotional attachments created by sensory-based services give
customers a sense of unique perceived quality, sensory marketing needs to habitually
involve customers as individuals in the process of developing and providing unique
services. The results conrm that the relationship between brand experiences and brand
equity is signicant (β = 0.437), which means that, by improving the experiences of-
fered to their clients, brands can develop consumers’ awareness, associations, percep-
tions of quality and loyalty. These ndings are consistent with studies by Brakus et al.
(2009), Hultén (2011), Iglesias et al. (2011) and Sahin et al. (2011). In this context,
the use of sensory marketing practices creates memorable and sensory experiences that
support customers’ involvement with the services provided. Therefore, service providers
need to generate a sense of continuous involvement by using the ve senses to generate
experiences and brand loyalty engagement.
Our study also supports the nding of a signicant correlation between brand equity and
purchase intentions (β= 0.639). This conrms that customers with a strong connection
to a brand, who perceive the associated service quality as unique and go through unfor-
gettable holistic experiences, normally generate an emotional attachment to the brand
and want to repeat their experiences. Thus, the higher the brand equity is the stronger
consumers’ motivation, preference and purchasing intentions are for the relevant brand,
which corroborates Pappu et al.’s (2005) results.
Unlike Zarantonello and Schmitt (2010), brand experiences do not have a direct sig-
nicant inuence on purchase intentions. This result could be explained by the sample
composed of young individuals with low purchasing power. In this respect, two alter-

80
A. C. Moreira et al. Inuence of sensory stimuli on brand experience, brand equity and purchase intention
native explanations are possible. First, as the customers sampled belong to a segment
with tight budgets, they may have developed more rational decision-making processes,
and, regardless of unique sensory-based experiences, their tight budget may prevent
them from enjoying repeated experiences with the service brand in question. Second,
as switching costs are extremely low, the segment analysed may be looking for new
alternative experiences despite their past sensory-based experiences. Thus, although
good brand experiences are necessary to support brand equity, managers who want to
strengthen customers’ purchase intentions through brand experiences need to focus on
building brand equity as well, in order to strengthen their clients’ purchase intentions.
Conclusions
This study has important implications for both the academic and business world. Aca-
demically, the research contributes to bridging the existing gap of almost no studies of
sensory stimulation. The proposed research model has the merit of clarifying the con-
nection between sensory stimuli and buying behaviours using brand experiences and
brand equity as mediators. In business terms, the study shows that catering brands can
develop an extremely signicant advantage by using a multisensory stimulation ap-
proach, due to the positive eects it has on their customers’ brand experiences, brand
equity and purchase intentions.
In business terms, the study shows that catering brands have a huge advantage in using a
multisensory stimulation approach, due to the positive eects it has on their customers’
brand experience, brand equity and purchase intention. According to the nding of this
study, this means that proper multisensory stimulation produces an increase on custom-
ers’ brand experience and on brand equity, which in turns reinforce purchase intention.
Being behavioural intention a strong predictor of behaviour, we can expect that sensory
stimulation improves the market performance of catering brands.
As an exploratory study in an area with little presence in the literature, this model has
the potential to be further developed and improved based on the results obtained. The
ndings presented above only provide a static “picture” at a given time, i.e., their valid-
ity may change because of ongoing social changes.
The main limitation of this study is that it was applied to a convenience sample. Thus,
the results cannot be generalised to the entire population of consumers.
To increase knowledge about the inuence of sensory stimulation on purchasing be-
haviours, more empirical research is needed in more diversied contexts. In order to
reanalyse the brand experience-brand intention relationship, future studies need to use
more heterogeneous samples in terms of age and occupation and analyse the moderating
eects of switching costs on the relevant constructs. Added value could be gained by ap-
plying the model in other industries such as the tourism or air travel industries to under-
stand how the uniqueness of services may inuence purchase behaviours and intentions,
given that dierences necessarily exist between products and services. For example,
it could prove useful to understand how more sensory-based services associated with
tourism activities dier from less sensory-based products such as air travel products.

81
Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2017, 18(1): 68–83
As the creation of emotional brand experiences is important, further research is needed
to understand how rms involve customers in pre- and post-purchase stages and how
these dier. Although sensory marketing is extremely important to creating unique
brand experiences, additional value could be gained from understanding how market-
ing promotion aects the relationship between brand experiences and repeated purchase
behaviours and between brand equity and repeated buying behaviours. Finally, future
lines of research could include qualitative data that can provide a deeper understanding
of the impact of sensory stimuli on purchase behaviours.
References
Aaker, D. A. 1991. Managing brand equity. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Allameh, S.; Pool, J.; Jaberi, A.; Salehzadeh, R.; Asadi, H. 2015. Factors inuencing sport tour-
ists’ revisit intentions, Asia Pacic Journal of Marketing and Logistics 27(2): 191–207.
https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-12-2013-0159
Biswas, D.; Labrecque, L.; Lehmann, D.; Markos, E. 2014. Making choices while smelling,
tasting, and listening: the role of sensory (dis)similarity when sequentially sampling products,
Journal of Marketing 78(1): 112–126. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.12.0325
Brakus, J.; Schmitt, B.; Zarantonello, L. 2009. Brand experience: what is it? How is it measured?
Does it aect loyalty?, Journal of Marketing 73(3): 52–68. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.3.52
Bruhn, M.; Schoenmueller, V.; Schäfer, D. 2012. Are social media replacing traditional media in
terms of brand equity creation?, Management Research Review 35(9): 770–790.
https://doi.org/10.1108/01409171211255948
Chang, P.-L.; Chieng, M.-H. 2006. Building consumer-brand relationship: a cross-cultural ex-
periential view, Psychology and Marketing 23(11): 927–959. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20140
Chen, C.-F.; Chang, Y.-Y. 2008. Airline brand equity, brand prference, and purchase intentions –
the moderating eects of switching costs, Journal of Air Transport Management 14(1):40–42.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2007.11.003
Chin, W. W. 2010. How to write up and report PLS analyses, Chapter 29 in V. E. Vinzi, W. Chin,
J. Henseler, H. Wang (Eds.). Handbook of partial least squares: concepts, methods and applica-
tions. Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32827-8_29
Costa, M.; Zouein, P.; Rodrigues, N.; Arruda, J.; Vieira, M. 2012. Sensory marketing: consump-
tion experience of the Brazilian in the restaurant industry, International Journal of Business
Strategy 12(4): 165–171.
Çifci, S.; Ekinci, Y.; Whyatt, G.; Japutra, A.; Molinillo, S.; Siala, H. 2016. A cross validation of
consumer-based brand equity models: driving customer equity in retail brands, Journal of Busi-
ness Research 69(9): 3740–3747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.066
Ding, C.; Tseng, T. 2015. On the relationships among brand experience, hedonic emotions, and
brand equity, International Journal of Distribuition & Logistics Management 49(7/8): 994–1015.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02656710210415703
Dolbec, P.-Y.; Chebat, J.-C. 2013. The impact of a agship vs. a brand store on brand attitude,
brand attachment and brand equity, Journal of Retailing 89(4): 460–466.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2013.06.003
Esch, F-R.; Möll, T.; Schmitt, B.; Elger, C. 2012. Brands on the brain: do consumers use declara-
tive information or experienced emotions to evaluate brands?, Journal of Consumer Psychology
22(1): 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2010.08.004
Foster, J.; McLelland, M. A. 2015. Retail atmospherics: the impact of a brand dictated theme,
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 22: 195–205.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2014.07.002

82
A. C. Moreira et al. Inuence of sensory stimuli on brand experience, brand equity and purchase intention
Gentile, C.; Spiller, N.; Noci, G. 2007. How to sustain the customer experience: an overview of
experience components that co-create value with the customer, European Management Journal
25(5): 395–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2007.08.005
Götz, O.; Liehr-Gobbers, K.; Krat, M. 2010. Evaluation of structural equation models using the
partial least squares (PLS) approach, Chapter 29 in V. E. Vinzi, W. Chin, J. Henseler, H. Wang
(Eds.). Handbook of partial least squares: concepts, methods and applications. Berlin: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32827-8_30
Hair Jr, J.; Hult, G.; Ringle, C.; Sarstedt, M. 2016. A primer on partial least squares structural
equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications.
Hultén, B. 2011. Sensory marketing: the multi-sensory brand-experience concept, European Busi-
ness Review 23(3): 256–273. https://doi.org/10.1108/09555341111130245
Hultén, B.; Broweus, N.; van Dijk, M. 2009. Sensory marketing. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmil-
lan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230237049
Iglesias, O.; Singh, J.; Batista-Foguet, J. 2011. The role of brand experience and aective com-
mitment in determining brand loyalty, Journal of Brand Management 18(8): 570–582.
https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2010.58
Jamaluddin, M.; Hanaah, M.; Zulkiy, M. 2013. Customer-based psychology branding, Proce-
dia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 105: 772–780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.11.080
Jani, D.; Han, H. 2014. Personality, satisfaction, image, ambience, and loyalty: testing their
relationships in the hotel industry, International Journal of Hospitality Management 37: 11–20.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.10.007
Keller, K. 1993. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity, Jour-
nal of Marketing 57: 1–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/1252054
Khanna, P.; Mishra, S. 2012. Power of senses in branding and its impact on consumer, VSRD
International Journal of Business and Management Research 2(12): 620–623.
Krishna, A. 2010. Sensory marketing: research on the sensuality of products. New York, NY:
Taylor and Francis Group.
Krishna, A. 2012. An integrative review of sensory marketing: engaging the senses to aect
perception, judgment and behavior, Journal of Consumer Psychology 22(3): 332–351.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.08.003
Kumar, R. S.; Dash, S.; Purwar, P. C. 2013. The nature and antecedents of brand equity and its
dimensions, Marketing Intelligence & Planning 31(2): 141–159.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02634501311312044
Lin, Y. 2015. Innovative brand experience’s inuence on brand equity and brand satisfaction,
Journal of Business Research 68(11): 2254–2259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.06.007
Lindstrom, M. 2005a. Brand sense: build powerful brands through touch, taste, smell, sight and
sound. New York, NY: Koogan Page.
Lindstrom, M. 2005b. Broad sensory branding, Journal of Product & Brand Management 14(2):
84–87. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420510592554
Marcoulides, G.; Saunders, C. 2006. Editor’s comments – PLS: a silver bullet?, MIS Quarterly
30(2): iii–ix.
Maymand, M.; Ahmadinejad, M.; Nezami, P. 2012. Sensory brand: studying relationship between
5 senses and brand value at world’s 100 top companies, Australian Journal of Basic and Applied
Sciences 6(8): 337–343.
Morrison, S.; Crane, F. 2007. Building the service brand by creating and managing an emotional
brand experience, Journal of Brand Management 14(5): 410–421.
https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.bm.2550080
Nadiri, H.; Gunay, G. N. 2013. An empirical study to diagnose the outcomes of customers’ ex-
periences in trendy coee shops, Journal of Business Economics and Management 14(1): 22–53.
https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2011.631742

83
Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2017, 18(1): 68–83
Palmer, A. 2010. Customer experience management: a critical review of an emerging idea, Jour-
nal of Services Marketing 24(3): 196–208. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876041011040604
Pappu, R.; Quester, P.; Cooksey, R. 2005. Consumer-based brand equity: improving the measure-
ment-empirical evidence, Journal of Product & Brand Management 14(3): 143–154.
https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420510601012
Pentz, C.; Gerber, C. 2013. The inuence of selected senses on consumer experience: a brandy
case: original research, Acta Commercii 13(1): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.4102/ac.v13i1.183
Pine II, B. J.; Gilmore, J. H. 1998. Welcome to the experience economy, Harvard Business Re-
view 76(July–August): 97–105.
Rajput, N.; Dhillon, R. 2013. Frontiers of the marketing paradigm for the third millennium:
experiential marketing, Global Journal of Management and Business Studies 3(7): 711–724.
Rodrigues, C.; Hultén, B.; Brito, C. 2011. Sensorial brand strategies for value co-creation, In-
novative Marketing 7(2): 40–47.
Sahin, A.; Zehir, C.; Kitapçi, H. 2011. The eects of brand experiences, trust and satisfaction on
building brand loyalty: an empirical research on global brands, Procedia – Social and Behavioral
Sciences 24: 1288–1301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.09.143
Schmitt, B. 1999. Experiential marketing, Journal of Marketing Management 15(1/3): 53–67.
https://doi.org/10.1362/026725799784870496
Shah, S.; Jaari, A.; Waris, S.; Ejaz, W.; Fatima, M.; Sherazi, I. 2011. The impact of brands on
consumer purchase intentions, Asian Journal of Business Management 4(2): 105–110.
Sheng, M.; Teo, T. 2012. Product attributes and brand equity in the mobile domain: the mediating
role of customer experience, International Journal of Information Management 32(2): 139–146.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2011.11.017
Streicher, M. C.; Estes, Z. 2016. Multisensory interaction in product choice: grasping a product
aects choice of other seen products, Journal of Consumer Psychology 26(4): 558–565.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2016.01.001
Wang, W-T.; Li, H.-M. 2012. Factors inuencing mobile services adoption: a brand-equity per-
spective, Internet Research 22(2): 142–179. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662241211214548
Yoo, B.; Donthu, N. 2001. Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-base brand
equity scale, Journal of Business Research 52(1): 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(99)00098-3
Yoo, B.; Donthu, N.; Lee, S. 2000. An examination of selected marketing mix elements and brand
equity, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28(2): 195–211.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070300282002
Yoon, S.-J.; Park, J. 2012. Do sensory ad appeals inuence brand attitude?, Journal of Business
Research 65(11): 1534–1542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.02.037
Zarantonello, L.; Schmitt, B. H. 2010. Using the brand experience scale to prole consumers and
predict consumer behaviour, Journal of Brand Management 17(7): 532–540.
https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2010.4
António C. MOREIRA obtained his PhD in Management from UMIST-University of Manchester
Institute of Science and Technology, England. He is Assistant Professor at the Department of Econom-
ics Management, Industrial Engineering and Tourism from the University of Aveiro, Portugal. He is
member of GOVCOPP.
Nuno FORTES obtained his PhD in Management, with Marketing specialization from ISCTE – Lis-
bon University Institute. He is Assistant Professor of Marketing at Polytechnic Institute of Coimbra –
ESTGOH, where he coordinates the Master in Marketing and Communication and the Master in
Business Management.
Ramiro SANTIAGO obtained his Bachelor’s and Master’s degree in Management, both from the
University of Aveiro.