Brand Experience: How Does It Affect Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty in the Egyptian Telecommunications Industry?

Brand experience has received a lot of attention within the business industry. Customers are looking for not only valuable brand benefits but also, emotional skills as well as brand experience theory. In this regard, the Egyptian Telecommunications Industry tries, also, to provide answers on how to measure brand experience and how it affects customers’ behaviors. This research examines in the context of the Egyptian telecommunications market the relationship between Brakus et al.’s (2009) four whole experience dimensions (sensory, affective, intellectual, and behavioral), brand personality, and brand loyalty. The author produced an online questionnaire, which, based on a simple sampling method, was distributed to and collected from the Egyptian telecommunications industry (Vodafone Egypt, Orange Egypt, Etisalat Egypt, and We Egypt). Four hundred fifty questionnaires were distributed and, excluding those that were incomplete, the author obtained 392 samples. This represented an 87% response rate. The results indicate that brand experience has a positive impact on the brand’s personality. Brand experience has, also, a strong positive effect on brand loyalty and, ultimately, brand personality has a strong positive effect on brand loyalty. Besides the brand experience’s direct effect on brand loyalty, it has a significant indirect effect on brand loyalty by impacting on brand personality. Among the relationships between the variables, the relationship between brand personality and brand loyalty is the strongest. More particularly, it is noteworthy that the correlation with the findings shows that the relationship between brand experience and brand loyalty is greater than the direct relationship. Therefore, in order to strengthen customer brand loyalty, telecommunications managers should pay more attention to customer brand personality.


Introduction
There has been a significant shift in today's market. We have moved from selling and promoting products and services to trading and engaging with customers through experience (Joy & Fortified Wine, 2003). This conversion relates to the quantity of available products from which customers make their choices. There has been an enormous increase in the time that customers spend in making their purchasing decisions (Ekstrom, 2010). Riemann et al. (2010) state that customers start to feel satisfied when they are happy that their needs are being met. This happiness creates a need to fully understand across the whole purchasing process what has an impact on customers. Worldwide, most companies, which contain many brands, fight for their customers' loyalty. Therefore, it is becoming essential to have brand experience (Brakus et al., 2009).
Brand experience benefits from a great deal of thought in devising a strategy. Marketing professionals have begun to understand that the customers' experiences of brands are vital to the creation of marketing strategies for products and services (Shaw & Ivens, 2002;Smith & Wheeler, 2002;Schmitt, 2003;Chattopadhyay & Laborie, 2005). Customer and marketing studies have shown that brand experience occurs when, in browsing products, buyers seek the best value in making their purchasing decisions. (Holbrook, 2000;Arnould, Price, & Zinkhan, 2002;Brakus, Schmitt, & Zhang, 2008). Brakus et al. (2009) provide a theoretical review and post-empirical research about the different value of brand experience when compared to similar brand definitions as well as brand involvement, brand attachment, consumer satisfaction, and brand assessment. Their findings indicate that, while the brand experience is different, it is linked to those structures.

Literature Review
In line with Schmitt (2003), customer satisfaction is characterized as an associated result-oriented viewpoint that arises when the customers consider that the product's output meets their expectations. In contrast, the related experience is defined as process-oriented, along with the functional, brand-driven predictors of customer satisfaction. Meyer and Schwager (2007) suggest that customer satisfaction results from a series of experiences where the level of satisfaction is quantified by the net results of good experiences minus bad experiences.
According to Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), customer attitudes are "learned dispositions to react to a given object in a consistently favorable or unfavorable manner." Brakus et al. (2009) suggest that, on the one hand, brand attitudes are generic brand decisions and, therefore, should be differentiated from brand experiences which, on the other hand, embrace unique sensations, feelings, thoughts, and behavioral reactions. They recognize that expertise can contribute to a general view of the product itself while, at the same time, it can reflect only a limited portion of the overall brand experience.

Brand Experience
As stated earlier, Brakus et al. (2009) suggest that there is complete expertise as shoppers obtain assistance in searching for goods or services, purchase them and use them. However, this follows once they have been subjected to either messages or advertising relevant to their preferences. Internal consumer reaction (feelings, perceptions, cognitive ability) and the behavioral reaction is caused by a brand-related stimulus that forms part of a company's style and image, advertisement, relations, and ecosystems (Brakus et al., 2009).
Brand experience is not a product, facility, or client assessment and is only a reaction to brand-related stimuli. Brand experience can be used as a precedent for product behavior. It can be characterized as the full evaluation of a brand based on its advantages and features and product recognition, and it can be explained as the increase in a brand's valuation (Japutra et al., 2014;Zarantonello & Schmitt, 2013).

Dimensions of Brand Experience
Many templates seek to show the variables or attributes that mediate brand experience. Walls (2013) points out that there are difficulties in choosing which experimental structures and measurements to use for the research. This may be attributable to the multidimensional complexity of the experience (Manthiou et al., 2015). Klaus and Maklan (2012) propose that primary determinants of expectations of service experience are user feedback, moments of reality, emphasis on consequences, and peace of mind since these influence customer satisfaction and loyalties. Roswinanto and Strutton (2014) assume that technical and conceptual structures precede brand experience. For instance, it is known that significant influences are the viewpoint that drives the brand, the content of the celebrity endorser, the messaging fit, the graphical image, the customers' attitudes towards the brand, and the uniqueness of the brand. As appropriate, Shamim andMohsin Butt (2013) stress meanings, moral, relational, andnon-utilitarian aspects. By comparison, Rageh Ismael et al. (2011) suggest that pricing, costs, ads, staff, business capability, core services, and word of mouth are primary indicators of a specific business or company interactions. This research is based on the four dimensions of Brakus et al.'s (2009) four whole experience dimensions (Sensory, Affective, Intellectual, and Behavioral).

The Sensory Dimension
Numerous sensory experiences at the visual, auditory, olfactory, tactile, and sensory levels create touchpoints with customers (Schmitt, 2012;Zarantonello & Schmitt, 2013). These experiences can involve a visual response to the name and logo or verbal phrases in brand colors. Sensory feedback concerning a good or service forms the perception and, hence, the trust in the business's reputation of being successful trust in delivering results. The effect shows the significance of this esthetic aspect for the differentiation and, more especially, since functional attributes, such as price and quality in differentiation strategies, have become less relevant (Cho et al., 2015). Sensory stimulants enhance perceptions (Pine & Gilmore, 1998).

The Effective Dimension
The practical or mental aspect relates to the customers' emotional interaction with a brand (Cho et al., 2015), as shown by their favorable disposition toward the brand and its durability (Kemp et al., 2014). This dimension encapsulates the customers' moods and emotions (Zarantonello & Schmitt, 2013) when considering the brand and, for instance, embraces the positive effect as exhibited by the customers' amusement, joy, closeness, or passion (Thomson, MacInnis, & Park, 2005).
As emotional stimulants, consumption-long emotions make the customers' interactions memorable (Iglesias et al., 2011).

The Intellectual Dimension
This intellectual and cognitive aspect illustrates how the brand evokes centered and cognitive critical methods and specific imaginative thoughts (Zarantonello & Schmitt, 2013). The intellectual dimension involves the evaluation of non-product attributes (such as prices) and functional benefits (such as safety), and symbolic benefits (such as prestige) irrespective of whether these are direct or indirect (Cho et al., 2015). This dimension may be influenced through past or gift company experiences. Therefore, this process can reduce uncertainty and can raise expectations of performance (Hsu & Cai, 2009) and, thereby, be reminders of the customers' loyalty towards the brand. An indication of suspense, anticipation, enthusiasm, learning, or evoking interest draws the intellectual element (Manthiou et al., 2015).

The Behavioral Dimension
Brand experience encompasses both company-motivated behaviors and either tangible or physical relationships with the brand (Zarantonello & Schmitt, 2013). The amount of existing shopping or buying preferences is expressed in the rate and quantities of purchases (Cho et al., 2015). The company's reputation is affected by active or inactive customer involvement (Pine & Gilmore, 1998). It is defined where other methods are suggested or whether a good or service is used (Machado et al., 2014;Manthiou et al., 2015). Vargo and Lusch (2008) consider the idea that experience is a business marketing term. It is widely accepted that it is particularly evident in the service industry how experience influences the customers' behaviors (Pullman & Gross, 2004;Tynan & McKechnie, 2009). Duncan and Moriarty (2006) suppose service itself can be the expertise in communications. They conclude that the key benefit of a touchpoint (brand point) is that it provides the knowledge: "When a consumer or potential consumer is connected to the brand, a market touchpoint is formed, and therefore a market experience is created." In order to offer customers experiences of service brands, it is necessary to create a relationship between customers and employees (Biedenbach & Marell, 2010).

Product Versus Service Debate
In terms of a combination of products and services brands, Brakus et al.'s (2009) dimension of brand experience has been accepted. Also, Iglesias et al.'s (2011) approval of the scale for three different products was implemented. Brakus et al.'s (2009) findings show that the commodity brands affect brand interactions with customer satisfaction, brand loyalty, and brand personality. Mosley (2007) suggests that brand experiences are more easily accessible than service impressions because brands are more multi-faceted and, in turn, are more connected. Marketing literature has been thinking about these differences in goods and services and offers explanations for such distinctions. Zeithaml et al. (1985) emphasize IHIP as an excellent service standard and describe such attributes as (1) heterogeneity-unstandardized services cannot be supplied; (2) intangibility-services do not have the intrinsic worth of products; (3) perishability-services cannot be stored; and (4) inseparability-services are distributed and utilized simultaneously.

Brand Personality
Significant work has been carried out over the past 15 years to identify and explain the context and the consequences of creating powerful brands (Aaker & Biel, 1993). When competition has increased, and the demands among the various sectors and divisions offer similar alternatives to goods and services, branding has more and more outcomes and is regarded as a differentiating factor. On the other hand, its rational and functional aspects are assessed by the customer. Keller (2003) explains that branding is the process through which products and services are provided with features that, over time, can contribute to the creation of a powerful brand. According to this researcher, a brand presents a set of aspects that the customer views and, in doing so, creates several elements of brand awareness. Keller (1993Keller ( , 2003 states that brands and their dimensions have gained a great deal of attention, and the awareness of different brand organizations forms the bases for marketing strategies that support marketers in their decisions. The brand's strength lies in the customers' minds (brand awareness and image). As reported by Keller, Apéria, and Georgson (2008), experts and researchers must create for customers a complete map of brand details. Keller (1993) and Aaker (1996) consider the composition of brand awareness to be a compilation of each tangible/intangible and objective/subjective interaction that creates the brand image.
Over the last decade, researchers have paid more attention to brand personality. Several scholars have questioned if products and brands may or may not have their own characteristics and whether or not these brands may bring to mind emotions, feelings, and attitudes in the same way as people are branded as outgoing, engaging, mindful, and smart (Caprara, Barbaranelli, & Guido, 1998).
Since the 1950s, the field of sales has recognized that the product must accord with the customer's personality (Gardner & Levy, 1955;Martineau, 1958;Levy, 1959). In addressing the creation of the product's image, DeToni and Schuler (2003) emphasize the product's personification: the product obtains the same personality as a person. During the 1980s, there was wide recognition of brand personality, and it became popular among marketeers and advertising professionals (Caprara et al., 1998). Sometimes, like human beings, brands are described, to name a few, as trendy, traditional, happy, or exotic. Often, although, in viewing a brand's personality, customers find themselves having to determine if the brand better represents them and matches their requirements.

The Effects of Brand Personality
As regards the impact of brand personality, earlier researches have shown that this factor plays an essential role in the relationship with the customer. In addition, it has the potential to create a distinctive brand personality within a given competitive marketplace (Ferrandi, Merunka, Valette-Florence, & First State Barnier, 2002). Shank and Langmeyer's (1994) findings demonstrate that perceived brand personality can go much further and be separate from a customer's personality. Consequently, people with entirely different characteristics have a similar view of the product or brand personality. Recent research studies, which have focused on brand personality's gender dimensions, show that, once there is a consistent perceived brand image, the effect is positive as long as there is a favorable behavior towards brand preference over competitive brands (Grohmann, 1999).

Brand Personality Dimensions
Having regard to a series of studies, Aaker (1997) indicates that the five dimensions of brand personality are: competency (reliable, smart, and successful), sincerity (down-to-earth, honest, healthy, and cheerful), sophistication (high-class and charming), excitement (daring, spirited, ingenious, and up-to-date) and roughness (outdoors, and robust). All five dimensions come from entirely different brand sets and different product class sets; these suggest the generalization of these aspects. Following some criticism, after 1997, most brand personality research studies have used Aaker's (1997) scale (Azoulay & Kapferer, 2003).
Even when the personality scale of the brand is based on a model of human personality (Aaker, 1997), the brand personality is analyzed by using a significantly different approach to human personality. This is because the two personality models have entirely different subjects and objectives. For example, brand personality is a customer relating to a product, while the human character's attributes are derived from the facial features and behavioral values. Many recent research studies have determined a scale for the purpose of assessing and evaluating brand experience. Brand experience and perceptions have been strongly influenced by using the structural model, and, therefore, the influence of the brand's image has a direct effect on both customer retention and satisfaction (Brakus, Schmitt, & Zarantonallo, 2009). According to the researchers, brand personality's social and self-expressive characteristics may account for their being treated as reference points of satisfaction and loyalty.

Research Methodology
In this section, the author tests the hypotheses, which were used to address the research questions, and discusses the systematic research methods.
By using brands (Vodafone Egypt, Orange Egypt, Etisalat Egypt, and We Egypt) that provide telecommunications services in Egypt, the author conducted experimental research to examine the effect of brand experience in the Egyptian telecommunications industry on brand personality and brand loyalty. The author carried out the research by using an online survey and, with the assistance of an online data provider (Google Form), managed to complete the investigation within six months

Research Hypotheses
The author drew on the literature mentioned above and theories to formulate the following hypotheses: H1: Brand experience has a positive effect on brand personality in the Egyptian telecommunications industry.
H2: Brand personality has a positive effect on brand loyalty in the Egyptian telecommunications industry.
H3: Brand experience has a positive effect on brand loyalty in the Egyptian telecommunications industry. Table 2 illustrates the scales that the author adapted and modified from the literature. The model measures of variables were taken from the literature and changed to fit the purpose of this research study. For measurement purposes, this study used a 5-point Likert scale. Table 2 shows the sources of the measurements. Brand Experience and Brand Loyalty were measured on the Likert scale from one, which indicates "strongly disagree" to five, which indicates "strongly agree." The brand personality was measured from one to five on the Likert scale# from stating "not at all descriptive" to "extremely descriptive." As shown in Table 1, Brakus et al. (2009) used the four dimensions of sensory, affective, intellectual, and behavioral to measure the brand experience. Aaker (1997) used the five aspects of sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness to measure brand personality. There are close relationships between the 15 facets that Aaker used to reflect the five dimensions.
The following three items measured, also, brand loyalty: I'll be loyal to 'Brand' in the future' (Brakus et al., 2009); 'I intend to continue to be' Brand 'customer for the next six months' (Pedersen & Nysveen, 2001); and 'I will recommend others' on 'Brand' (Brakus et al., 2009). Ruggedness, sincerity, sophistication, excitement, and competence. Aaker, 1997 In the Egyptian context, in order to make the English language more accessible to customers, the author made some adjustments to the wordings. For example, "down-to-earth" was changed to "simple," "wholesome" was changed to "beneficial," daring was changed to "courage," "spirited," was changed to "lively," "upper-class" was changed to "high-class" and "outdoorsy" was changed to "strong."

Data Collection and Analyses
The author used a simple sampling method to distribute the questionnaires to companies (Vodafone Egypt, Orange Egypt, Etisalat Egypt, and We Egypt) within the Egyptian telecommunications industry. Four hundred and fifty surveys were distributed, and, following the exclusion of incomplete surveys, there were 392 valid samples. This resulted in an 87% response rate.
The author used SPSS software V. 23 to analyze the data and to obtain the descriptive statistics. Cronbach's α was used to verify the reliability and the coefficients of correlation in internal consistency. While AMOS software V. 23 was used for the structural equation modeling. AMOS is structured for the estimation and testing of Structural Equation Models (SEMs), which are statistical models of the linear relationships between latent and manifest (observed) variables. It aims to assess the coefficients in a series of systemic equations. For this research study, the author used AMOS to investigate the causal relationships where the path coefficients were tested for significance and goodness-of-fit. The overall model fit measures were used to evaluate the fit of the structural model. The goodness-of-fit indices, which were used for measurement and structural models. Were χ^2 test, normed χ^2, Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), Normed Fit Index (NFI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA).
The standardized estimates were used to report the causal relationships between the exogenous and endogenous constructs.

Measurement Model
The suggested structural model was estimated by SEM, which included a test of the model fitness and individual measures of the importance of the interactions between the variables. The results of these tests indicate the relationship between brand experience, brand personality, and brand loyalty. The estimations of the parameters and the overall fit index of the measurement model are based on the Maximum Likelihood (ML) method. The underlying assumptions of the ML method (Byrne, 2001;El-Sheikhet et al., 2017) are met or closely approximated in this study. Further, the sample is sufficiently large (n = 392 cases) being over the recommended size of 200 cases (Medsker et al., 1994); the scale of observed variables is continuous, and no violations of multivariate normality are found in the survey responses. Table 4 presents the reliability of the measurement items that were verified by using Cronbach'sα to assess the internal consistency of the model's constructs. The level of internal consistency for each construct is acceptable since each exceeds the minimum hurdle of 0.60 (Hair et al., 1998). All measurement items have standardized loading estimates (ranging from 0.536 to 0.962) higher than 0.5; this indicates the convergent validity of the measurement model. Also, Construct Reliability (CR) is verified in order to estimate convergent validity. In this respect, each construct has acceptable construct reliability because all three constructs (ranging from 0.788 to 0.924) exceed the minimum criterion of 0.5 (Hair et al., 1998). Moreover, because the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) from all three constructs (ranging from 0.501 to 0.792) exceeds the minimum criterion of 0.5, convergent validity is assured (Hair et al., 1998).
The author estimated correlations among the constructs in order to test the discriminant validity among the constructs and to determine whether they were significantly different from 1. The confidence intervals of the correlations, calculated as (correlations estimate + 1.96 × standard error of estimate), do not contain one and, therefore, these results indicate the discriminant validity of the measurement model. Table 5 shows the correlations of the structures. Generally, these measurement findings are satisfactory and indicate that it is reasonable to continue with the evaluation of the structural model. ijms.ccsenet.org International Journal of Marketing Studies Vol. 12, No. 2; Figure 1 shows the overall explanatory power and the standardized path regression coefficients that indicate the direct influences of the predictor upon the research model's predicted latent constructs. Table 6 presents the structural model's fit indices and the cut-off value of those fit indices. The goodness-of-fit statistics show that the structural model fits the data reasonably well.  .001 < 0.09 Table 7 presents the results of the individual tests of the significance of the relationship among the variables. Among the three tested relationships, the findings show that three relationships are significant at a significant level of 0.01. Brand experience has a significantly positive effect on brand personality with β = .745, t = 3.827, and p-value < 0.001; this indicates that brand personality is a significant antecedent of brand personality. Brand experience has, also, a strong positive effect on Brand loyalty (β = .687, t = 3.390, and p-value < 0.001). Finally, brand personality has a strong positive impact on brand loyalty, with β = 1.593, t = 11.785, and p-value < 0.001; this indicates that brand personality is an antecedent of brand loyalty.
As shown by the results in Table 8, the author analyzed the standardized direct, indirect, and total effects in order to examine the interplay between the two variables that affect brand loyalty. The direct effect of brand experience on brand loyalty (0.160) is particularly interesting. The analysis indicates, also, that brand experience has an indirect impact (0.276) on brand loyalty through its impact on brand personality.

Conclusion and Implications
In this research study, the author examined in the context of the Egyptian telecommunications market the relationship between Brakus et al.'s (2009) four experience dimensions (sensory, behavioral, intellectual, and affective), brand personality, and brand loyalty.
In conducting this study, the author used an online questionnaire that was distributed to companies (Vodafone Egypt, Orange Egypt, Etisalat Egypt, and We Egypt) within the Egyptian telecommunications industry. Based on a simple sampling method, four hundred and fifty surveys were distributed and, after excluding incomplete questionnaires, 392 samples were obtained. This represented an 87% response rate participate.
In conclusion, within the Egyptian telecommunication industry, the author was able to test the study's three hypotheses. The results reveal that brand experience has a positive impact on the brand's personality. Brand experience has, also, a strong positive effect on brand loyalty and, eventually, brand personality has a robust positive impact on brand loyalty. Besides the direct influence of brand experience on brand loyalty, it has a significant indirect effect on brand loyalty through impacting on brand personality. The relationship between brand personality and brand loyalty is the strongest among the variables, as can be observed from the consistency of the findings. These show that the indirect relationship between brand experience and brand loyalty is more reliable than the direct link. Consequently, telecommunications managers should pay more attention to the nature of the customer brand personality so that they can increase loyalty to the brand. The sensory experience structure illustrates the value of enhancing and pleasing to the customers' senses. Therefore, Egyptian telecommunications companies should attempt to make whole elements visually exciting and appealing in order to improve brand personality and brand loyalty. These visual aesthetic effects impact on the customers' responses (Rindova & Petkova, 2007).
Intellectual experience may be a feature of the amount of thought required when dealing with the brand and the extent to which the brand encourages curiosity and problem solving (Brakus et al., 2009). If a brand leads to a lot of thought, this can be a cause for enhancing the brand's mental image and influencing brand personality and brand loyalty. Therefore, it is essential that the next generation of telecommunications services pay greater attention to this concept.