a challenging task. As a result of

a challenging task. As a result of the signifi cant effect of the relational experience

dimension, providers should expend effort

to standardize the customer interaction elements to ensure that the relational experience translates into a consistently strong

and positive brand experience. Given the

increased importance of customer-to-
customer interaction as a source of brand

experience, service providers may enhance

customers ’brand experience by effectively

cultivating communities (McAlexander et al,

2002) and foster social networking practices

( Schau et al, 2009 ).

Future research

A measurement scale, such as that developed by Brakus et al (2009) , represents a

valuable tool for empirically testing customers ’experiences with a brand. The scale

was originally developed and tested for

product and service brands by Brakus et al

(2009)and validated on product brands by

Iglesias et al (2011) . By documenting results

for the relational experience dimension, the

current research indicates that the dimensionality of the scale is context dependent,

thus challenging the scale as a valid global

measurement tool. Therefore, further testing and validation of the dimensionality of

brand and customer experience are needed

across different contexts.

The items used to measure brand experience replicated those from Brakus et al

(2009)and Iglesias et al (2011) . However,

in line with the assumption that experiences

in and of themselves are valuable and result

in positive outcomes, items reflected expe-
rience strength, not valence. However, the

current study shows that certain experience

dimensions are negatively associated with

customer satisfaction and loyalty, indicating

that experience is not an inherently positive

concept. In line with Brakus et al’ s recommendations, we encourage future research

to consider not only experience strength,

but also positively and negatively worded

items. This is a considerable challenge

because a valence-based brand experience

construct is likely more difficult to discriminate from attitude-based brand constructs.

Thus, the predictive power of a valence-
based brand experience construct should be

investigated.

The issue of a strength- versus valence-
based brand experience construct also

raises the question of how to apply the

brand experience construct for managerial

purposes. Implicit in a valence-based brand

experience construct is the principle of a

fi t between the experience offering and

the experience requirements of the con-
sumer. This fi t leads to a positive experience. In a strength-based interpretation

of the construct, fi t is treated more

explicitly, raising questions related to the

individual, service-related and contextual

moderators of the effects of a strong brand

experience. Developing a model that

integrates both brand experience strength

and valence might be a useful direction

for further research.

Previously, we raised the issue of perceived relevance of the brand experience

dimension among consumers. We question

whether the negative effects of affective and

cognitive experiential dimensions can be

explained by a lack of relevance. Furthermore,

given the lack of effect revealed for behavioral experiences, we question whether this

dimension is relevant for consumers in the

context studied. Thus, despite the risk of

complication, perhaps perceived relevance

of the experiential dimensions (in a given

context) should be included in future

studies along with measures of strength and

valence.

Measuring brand and customer experience using a quantitative measurement scale

has several limitations. First, measuring

experience after an actual experience is
problematic because, by definition, experiences are process oriented. A post- experience

measure resembles to a large degree a more