The Future of Experiential Marketing in the Food and Beverage Sector

The experience concept is, in part, related to, but also conceptually distinct from, other internal consumer constructs in marketing. As Brakus et al. (2009) discussed, in an article focused on brand experience, the experience construct differs from evaluative, affective, and associative constructs such as attitudes, involvement, attachment, and brand associations. Attitudes are general evaluations based on beliefs or automatic affective reactions (Fishbein 

and Ajzen, 1975; Murphy and Zajonc, 1993). Experiences, in contrast, are not merely general evaluative judgments about the product or brand (e.g., “I like this product,” “I like this brand”); they include specific sensations, feelings, cognitions and behavioral responses triggered by specific stimuli in the consumer’s environment. These specific experiences may result, at times, in general evaluations and attitudes, especially evaluations of the experience itself 

(e.g., “I like the experience”). However, the overall attitude toward the experience captures only a very small part of the entire experience. Experience also differs from motivational and affective concepts such as involvement, brand attachment or customer delight. Involvement is based on needs, values, and interests that motivate a consumer toward an object, for 

Brand Antecedents of involvement 

include the perceived importance and personal relevance of a brand (Zaichkowsky, 1985). Experience does not presume a motivational state. Experiences can happen when consumers do not show interest in, or have a personal connection with, the brand. Moreover, brands that consumers are highly involved with are not necessarily brands that evoke the strongest experiences. Experience also differs from the effect of strong emotional bonds between a 

consumer and a brand (Thomson et al., 2005; Park and MacInnis, 2006; Park et al., 2010). In contrast to brand attachment, which often evokes strong emotions, experience is not merely an emotional relationship concept. Most experiences also include ordinary sensations, feelings, cognitions, and behavioral responses evoked by brand-related stimuli. Over time, brand experiences may result in emotional bonds, but emotions are only one internal 

of the stimulation that evokes experiences. In contrastto customer delight (Oliver et al., 1997), experiences do not have to disconfirm expectations and be surprising; they may be expected or unexpected. Finally, experiences, especially those tied to brands, are distinct from brand associations and brand image (Keller, 1993). Consumers associate brands with benefits, products, people, places, and many other objects as part of an associative network (Keller, 

For example consider the process 

of associating a brand with traits and human characteristics (such as “warm or “competent”), or evaluating it along brand personality dimensions of sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication or ruggedness (Aaker, 1997; Aaker et al., 2010). When consumers engage in such associative processes, they infer something about the brand (Johar et al., 2005). They do not feel sincere or excited about the brand; they merely project these traits onto the brand. 

A brand may thus be viewed as contributing to consumer knowledge and meaning, but may or may not create an actual consumer experience (Berry, 1999). Brand experiences are not just associations. Brand experiences are dynamic sensations, feelings, cognitions, and behavioral responses. Like brand associations, they may be stored in consumer memory after the 

experience in the “here and now.” Most likely, experiences would be stored not only semantically, but episodically, thus preserving a trace, for example, of the sensations and emotions that made up the experience with the brand (Barsalou, 1999).to customer delight (Oliver et al., 1997), experiences do not have to disconfirm expectations and be surprising; they may be expected or unexpected. Finally, experiences, especially those tied to brands, 

Are distinct from brand associations

and brand image (Keller, 1993). Consumers associate brands with benefits, products, people, places, and many other objects as part of an associative network (Keller, 2003). For example, consider the process of associating a brand with traits and human characteristics (such as “warm or “competent”), or evaluating it along brand personality dimensions of sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication or ruggedness (Aaker, 1997; Aaker et al., 2010). 

When consumers engage in such associative processes, they infer something about the brand (Johar et al., 2005). They do not feel sincere or excited about the brand; they merely project these traits onto the brand. A brand may thus be viewed as contributing to consumer knowledge and meaning, but may or may not create an actual consumer experience (Berry, 1999). Brand experiences are not just associations. Brand experiences are dynamic 

sensations, feelings, cognitions, and behavioral responses. Like brand associations, they may be stored in consumer memory after the experience in the “here and now.” Most likely, experiences would be stored not only semantically, but episodically, thus preserving a trace, for example, of the sensations and emotions that made up the experience with the brand (Barsalou, 1999).One technique to identify utilitarian and experiential values is the “laddering 

Conclusion

technique.” Laddering is a structured interview technique, with corresponding software to present the interview content, where consumers are asked what is important to them about a product or service. Then, through a series of “why” probes, the goal is to uncover consumer benefits and values that are linked to product attributes (Vriens and Hofstede, 2000). For example, the feature of whitening toothpaste may be tied to the aesthetic benefit of having 

better-looking teeth and ultimately to the relational value of achieving greater self-esteem or social acceptance. Over the course of a person’s life, values may change. For example, as a student or early adult, a consumer may value utilitarian aspects of a hotel (a clean room and basic hotel facilities); later on in life, he or she may desire a certain aesthetic style and seek 

hotels for unique experiences tied to higher-order values (a stunning location in the middle of a rain forest with a spa and seemingly endless pool). Pine and Gilmore (1998) have argued that economic value at a societal level has progressed through three stages, and that we are entering a fourth stage: the experience economy. The earliest stage, the commodity economy, was concerned with the extraction of various substances from the world around us. Next, 

starting with the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century, came the manufacturing economy, where the primary economic offering was the making of products. The manufacturing economy did not replace the commodity economy entirely, but added an additional kind of economic offering. In the twentieth century followed the service economy, where the offerings of highest value were the delivery of intangible services. Now, in the twenty-first century