Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Companies invest considerably in event experiences; however, many are criticised for hosting events without understanding the full extent of their impact, or how to optimise their design. To benefit from event experiences, it is critical to consider not only how customers engage with the event, but also how event engagement transfers to engagement with the host brand to ultimately drive brand loyalty. This paper empirically explores the role of customer event engagement in facilitating brand engagement, within the context of branded marketing event experiences. Surveying attendees of such branded event experiences, six Australian wine brands, running 10 diverse events, agreed to collaborate in the research, yielding a total response of 274 participants. Results indicate that, for emotional, sensorial, pragmatic and relational experiences, event engagement fully mediates the relationship with customer brand engagement. Furthermore, it is the engagement with the host brand, rather than engagement with the event, that facilitates the effect on behavioural intentions of loyalty. These findings suggest that viewing engagement with a single focus (i.e., only event or only brand engagement) provides limited insight and does not uncover the true impact of event experiences; it is only through exploring the interrelationships between the engagement foci that we can truly understand how event experiences impact behavioural brand loyalty. This offers important managerial implications to facilitate engagement transfer (i.e., between event and brand), while drawing on associative network theory to explain how customer engagement spills over from the event to the brand and better account for the interdependence across engagement objects.

Keywords

customer engagement event engagement brand engagement branded marketing events engagement transfer

Introduction

Organisations have recognised that the development of unique events (e.g., product demonstrations, exhibitions, open days and dinners) provide their customers with opportunities for meaningful brand experiences, and as a result the utilisation of events has grown exponentially in a broad range of industries (Cespedes & Prasad, 2015; Rayport, 2013). Global spend on events is estimated at over $330 billion (US), with more than 1.9 million events per year hosted by companies and associations (Events Industry Council, 2018). In the UK alone, event organisers and attendees contribute £39.1 billion annually to the national economy, generating tourism, employment and tax revenue (Fletcher, 2015). Similarly, in Australia the business events industry contributes between $14 and 28 billion annually to the Australian economy (Ludlow, 2018). The benefits of events are widely acknowledged; they bring the brand to life, can facilitate a unique and meaningful experience between the brand and the consumer, and evoke loyalty (Crowther, 2011; Liu et al., 2017; Wohlfeil & Whelan, 2006). However, many companies implement events without a defined strategy that ensures engagement with the brand, not just engagement with the event. Hence these companies risk an insufficient appreciation of the full impact of the event on consumer brand outcomes given the dominant event focus (Cespedes & Prasad, 2015).

The topic of events has also long been of interest to marketing academics, who aim to understand how to achieve customer-related brand outcomes through event marketing (Close et al., 2006). Recent academic interest in customer engagement provides important new insights to event marketing literature and enables the challenge of connecting with customers through events to be revisited through a contemporary engagement lens (e.g., Brodie et al., 2013; Harmeling et al., 2017). Customer engagement is ‘a psychological state that occurs by virtue of interactive, co-creative customer experiences with a focal agent/object (e.g., a brand) in focal service relationships’ (Brodie et al., 2013, p. 260). Customer engagement literature highlights the customer as requiring active immersion and contribution to their experiences with brands to truly be effective (Harmeling et al., 2017). The delineation between an engaged customer and a ‘present but passive’ customer is an important distinction in the context of events as it articulates that event attendance is simply the first step in creating a customer-brand relationship. This paper therefore utilises an engagement lens to revisit and further our understanding of Branded Marketing Events (BMEs); ‘a brand-initiated experience that serves as an opportunity for customers to interact with the brand and other actors’ (Altschwager et al., 2017, p. 338).

Recent discussions within engagement literature have called for researchers to examine the nature of interactions facilitated by engagement platforms (Blasco-Arcas et al., 2020; Breidbach et al., 2014). However, research to date has typically focused on virtual engagement platforms (i.e., social media engagement; Dolan et al., 2016; online communities; Bowden et al., 2017), with limited extension to physical platforms (Blasco-Arcas et al., 2020). There are few studies that have considered physical engagement platforms in a consumer context, such as events. In addition, researchers have highlighted the need to empirically explore ‘outcomes of consumer engagement with different foci’ (Dessart et al., 2016, p. 419). Initial explorations of customers have examined engagement occurring concurrently with numerous engagement foci (e.g., students engaging with their course instructor, university, and study context; Sim et al., 2018), with a primary focus on virtual engagement platforms (i.e., online community and the brand; Dessart et al., 2016; spillover-effects between online community engagement and brand engagement; Bowden et al., 2017). However, there has been scant theoretical or empirical examination to understand how engagement may transfer between different engagement foci (i.e., event and brand engagement).

In a BME context, there is a real risk that customers may immerse themselves in event experiences and fully engage with the event, but that the brand itself remains an afterthought and inconsequential to the experience. Associative network theory suggests that if the event and the brand share common structures, associations with the event can cause a spillover effect to the brand (Bowden et al., 2017). That is, associations with the event can influence perceptions of the brand in turn. However, what role does customer engagement play in this effect? Can consumers engage with both the event and the brand in parallel, and which is more important? Considering the role of different engagement foci is important because it provides a more complete picture of how BME experiences lead to brand outcomes. This study responds to the call for more research on engagement foci (Sim et al., 2018) and examines the interplay between event and brand engagement, as well as their impact on behavioural intention of loyalty, though the physical engagement platform of BMEs.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of customer event engagement in facilitating brand engagement. Consistent with the customer engagement definition of Brodie et al. (2011, p. 260), we define event engagement as ‘a psychological state that occurs by virtue of interactive, co-creative customer experiences with the branded marketing event’ [emphasis added where adapted]. Specifically, we examine how various components of a BME experience promote customer engagement with the BME and argue through associative network theory (Smith, 2004) that this engagement activates engagement with the host brand. As such, we examine how event engagement mediates the relationship between the dimensions of customer experiences (embedded within a BME) and customer brand engagement.

This paper advances existing literature by arguing the importance of dual engagement foci, and exploring the interdependence of event engagement and brand engagement and how they collectively drive brand loyalty. In so doing, we provide a more comprehensive understanding of interdependent engagement phenomena and their flow-on effects in form of ‘engagement transfer’ (from BME to brand). As brands stage customer experiences that extend beyond purchase (in this case, BMEs), it is critical to understand the mechanisms that ultimately facilitate customer engagement with brands.

The paper is organised as follows. First, after revisiting the nature and role of BMEs, we explore customer engagement with attention to how engagement occurs with multiple foci. We then develop and test the conceptual framework focussing on the transfer of engagement from the BME to the brand, providing the foundation of important theoretical and managerial implications.

Background to the research

Branded marketing events

Event marketing has been of ongoing interest to academics and practitioners alike due to the meaningful brand interactions they can elicit with consumers (Crowther, 2011; Wohlfeil & Whelan, 2006). Event-based strategies are various, including conferences, product launches, road shows, exhibitions, charity fundraisers and open days (Wood, 2009). Our research focuses on events that are held by individual brands for the purpose of engaging their customers. These events aim to facilitate interactions between the consumer and brand, with the brand focal in this experience. Hence, the term ‘branded marketing event’ (BME) is utilised here to reflect brand-initiated experiences that facilitate brand-related interactions (Altschwager et al., 2017), and as such excludes sponsorship or community-based events.

Numerous event outcomes have been considered including brand attitude and image (Drengner et al., 2008; Martensen et al., 2007), brand purchase intention (Addis et al., 2018), brand equity (Zarantonello & Schmitt, 2013), as well as company revenue and brand value (Liu et al., 2018). Customer engagement is recognised as a relevant outcome of marketing events; however, the engagement construct has been conceptualised in marketing events literature as involvement or participation (Close et al., 2006; Whelan & Wohlfeil, 2006), which conceptually does not reflect recent perspectives on engagement in marketing (Harmeling et al., 2017; Hollebeek et al., 2019). Theoretical inferences about engagement are thus problematic on this basis. In addressing this situation, the current study builds on a contemporary view of engagement and considers the effects of engaging customers with a BME across a range of experiential dimensions. While firm-initiated marketing events are recognised as an activity with the capacity to facilitate customer engagement (Liu et al., 2017; Vivek et al., 2012), there has been little research to explore the nature and dynamics of this type of engagement. Gopalakrishna et al. (2019) have considered how trade shows impact business-to-business engagement, and Altschwager et al. (2017) have considered the effect of event experiences on customer brand engagement, however do not acknowledge the presence of event engagement or how it may facilitate or hinder brand engagement. There is a lack of understanding regarding the importance of engaging a customer with an event per se, nor the flow-on effects and conditions for multiple engagement foci and subsequent customer-related brand outcomes.

Customer engagement

Reflective of a discernible shift in consumer behaviour to actively contribute to marketing functions and co-create value with organisations, there has been a significant increase in academic and practitioner interest in customer engagement over the past decade (Harmeling et al., 2017; Hollebeek et al., 2019). However, there remains confusion and debate over customer engagement conceptualisation (Ng et al., 2020), particularly around engagement as a uni-dimensional (van Doorn et al., 2010; Verhoef et al., 2010), three-dimensional (cognitive, affective, behavioural; Brodie et al., 2011; Hollebeek et al., 2014), or even an expanded five-dimensional construct that also includes social and spiritual engagement facets (e.g., Conduit et al., 2019). These conceptualisations reflect two emerging streams of research; one proclaims engagement as a behaviour, while the other considers engagement as a psychological disposition (Fehrer et al., 2018). Definitions typically consider interactions between a focal engagement subject (e.g., customer) and focal engagement object (e.g., event or brand) (Brodie et al., 2013; Vivek et al., 2012). It is the voluntary nature and investment of operand and operant resources in brand-related interactions that distinguishes customer engagement from previously considered concepts including involvement or participation (Hollebeek et al., 2019). Outcomes of engagement include customer commitment and loyalty (Vivek et al., 2012), and brand attachment (Brodie et al., 2013); thereby contributing to the development of competitive advantage for organisations (Kumar & Pansari, 2016). Further, several studies have considered various customer engagement drivers including customer-based factors (e.g., customer involvement, Wirtz et al., 2013; participation, Leckie et al., 2016; personality traits, Marbach et al., 2016; and customer brand knowledge and avant-gardism, Carlson et al., 2019), firm-related factors (e.g., reputation, Groeger et al., 2016; organisational support, Vivek et al., 2014) and marketing strategies (e.g., event experiences, Altschwager et al., 2017; social media content, Dolan et al., 2016; content marketing, Weiger et al., 2019; retail websites, Connell et al., 2019; referral reward programmes, Wirtz et al., 2019).

Beyond defining and conceptualising customer engagement, recent research has expanded to consider the role of engagement platforms that support brand-and-consumer interactions (Blasco-Arcas et al., 2020; Breidbach et al., 2014). Engagement platforms ‘are centred on a focal engagement object and attempt to enhance an actor’s ability to experience engagement with such focal object’ (Breidbach et al., 2014, p. 596). While acknowledging that engagement platforms can include both the physical and virtual, research thus far has predominantly focused on virtual platforms (Carlson et al., 2019; Dessart et al., 2016; Dolan et al., 2016; Weiger et al., 2019). For example, it has been demonstrated that online brand community impacts brand loyalty (Dessart et al., 2016), engagement with online media has resulted in enhanced advertising effectiveness (Calder et al., 2009), and engagement with social media brand platforms can promote sharing intentions with the brand (Carlson et al., 2019). In contrast, few studies have examined physical engagement platforms, such as B2B innovation labs (Blasco-Arcas et al., 2020), events (Altschwager et al., 2017) and trade shows (Gopalakrishna et al., 2019). BMEs are a physical engagement platform designed to support an experiential and meaningful interaction between event attendees (the engagement subject) and the brand (engagement object) (Breidbach et al., 2014). Our study is among the first to consider the nature of event engagement and the implications of facilitating engagement through a physical BME platform.

While authors recognise that customers can engage with numerous engagement objects (Brodie et al., 2013) or multiple touchpoints in a service system (Dessart et al., 2016; Sarmento & Simões, 2019; Sim & Plewa, 2017; Sim et al., 2018), few have considered the concept of engaging with multiple, interrelated foci (Conduit et al., 2016). The interplay between multiple focal objects is an important relationship to understand, as more brands seek to initiate customer experiences that extend beyond regular service interactions (Vivek et al., 2012). Whilst Dessart et al. (2016) considered consumer engagement across an online brand community and brand concurrently, the interplay between those focal objects was not investigated. Bowden et al. (2017) consider engagement across an online brand community and a brand, where positive/negative engagement spills over from the brand community to the brand; however, the study was exploratory and did not provide empirical support for the relationship, nor the magnitude of the effect. In an educational context, the relationship between lecturer engagement, course or context of study engagement, and broader university engagement have been considered (Conduit et al., 2016; Sim & Plewa, 2017; Sim et al., 2018). In a trade fair context, Sarmento and Simões (2019) qualitatively highlight the relative benefits of physical and online trade fairs from an engagement platform perspective. Further, Wirtz et al. (2019) compare how customer engagement with referral reward programmes manifests in online versus offline environments; however, they do not explore how these platforms interact with each other. There is little theoretical explanation or empirical understanding of how engagement with one engagement foci influences engagement with another foci; hence the significance of this paper. Further, it is plausible that different antecedents and outcomes are associated with different engagement foci, and hence multiple, interrelated engagement foci should be examined simultaneously (Dessart et al., 2016).

Empirical investigation of the interaction between engagement foci in this study provides an important contribution to the Marketing Event literature, which argues a direct relationship exists between event experiences and customer-related brand outcomes (Crowther, 2011; Whelan & Wohlfeil, 2006). This direct relationship between the event experience and brand outcomes is often explained as marketing events are intended to provide opportunities for customers to construct meaningful experiences around the host brand, hence driving brand outcomes (Crowther, 2011; Crowther & Donlan, 2011; Drengner et al., 2008; Martensen et al., 2007). However, this argument fails to recognise the more complex process at play of branded outcomes arising from customer engagement with different foci. For example, if customers become too absorbed in an event experience, they may be distracted and largely engage with event itself and only marginally with the brand. Understanding the effects of this phenomenon are important for marketers to design and implement effective BMEs.

An alternative explanation can be deduced by drawing from associative network theory (ANT). This perspective suggests that linked nodes are created between the event and brand, whereby spreading activation occurs where associations (or in this study, engagement) transfer from the event to the brand (Deng & Li, 2014; Smith, 2004). Spreading activation is the theory of how the brain iterates through a network of associated ideas to retrieve specific information (Anderson, 1983). Without this process of spreading activation, events are less likely to have an impact on the brand and indeed could highlight why some events are more effective than others. This perspective supports the notion that customer event engagement does not have a direct relationship with brand outcomes (e.g., behavioural loyalty intentions), but instead the relationship is mediated by customer brand engagement. Our study empirically explores these competing perspectives by examining the interaction between customer event engagement and customer brand engagement, and how behavioural loyalty intentions are subsequently formed.

Conceptual framework and hypotheses

Dessart et al. (2016, p. 419) call for further enquiry to empirically explore ‘outcomes of consumer engagement with different foci’. In response, this study examines the interplay between customer engagement across two foci (event and brand), and their relative impact on loyalty outcomes. This outcome variable of behavioural intention of loyalty serves to demonstrate the relative effects of event engagement and brand engagement. Five key experiential components of BMEs are examined for their positive effect on brand engagement via event engagement (a mediated effect). The hypotheses of this study are presented in a conceptual framework (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Conceptual framework.

We draw from ANT to understand conceptually the association between customer event engagement and brand engagement. Pieces of information are stored in a person’s memory as a ‘node’, and the process of retrieving this information is called ‘activation’ (Smith, 2004). ANT posits that a process of ‘transfer’ or mental pairing can occur when various pieces of information (A and B) are experienced together (i.e., information A and B become linked) (Deng & Li, 2014; Smith, 2004). This occurs because multiple nodes are formed in memory together from the one experience, and thus recalling one node creates a ‘spreading activation’ whereby the associated nodes are also triggered (Smith, 2004). Kulczycki and Koenigstorfer (2016) refer to the event and entity (in their case, the event’s governing body) as ‘sharing common structures’ allowing associations linked to the entity to affect not only that entity, but also the linked event. Coppetti et al. (2009) are one of the first to argue that the consumer’s level of input can aid in the transfer process. Coppetti et al. (2009) found that when customers actively engage in an experience (in their case, a sport sponsorship activity), they are more likely to understand the connection between the activity and the sponsor, and are more likely to evaluate the sponsorship favourably as a result.

In the context of BMEs, various nodes are created during the event experience. Through the process of spreading activation, connections are formed in the customer’s memory between event nodes and brand nodes; that is, the memories of the event cause the customer to think about the brand, and the two become linked. Therefore, if the experience of the event is positive, it is posited that these feelings are reflected positively onto the brand. We argue a particularly strong connection between the BME and brand as BMEs have high brand integration, curated to convey brand information or reflect the desired image, values, or personality of the brand (Crowther, 2011). This relationship between the two engagement foci has not been explored in extant literature. Therefore, we offer the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: A positive relationship exists between customer event engagement and customer brand engagement.

Experiential components of BMEs

Events are included within the wide-ranging scope of customer experiences (Gentile et al., 2007; Liu et al., 2017; Schmitt, 1999), with various marketing event studies drawing from customer experience research to conceptualise the various types of experiences that can occur (Liu et al., 2017; Wohlfeil & Whelan, 2006; Wood, 2009). In this study, five key components of the BME experience are examined – cognitive, emotional, pragmatic, relational and sensorial (Gentile et al., 2007) – as well as their ability to generate brand- and event-level customer engagement. Social exchange theory provides theoretical justification for the nature of these relationships (Möller, 2013; Saks, 2006); while it has generally been limited to an employee engagement context, the relevance of social exchange theory also resonates in consumer interactions and engagement as it pertains to the contribution of resources from various parties (in this case the customer and the brand/event), with the aim of building a mutually beneficial relationship (Clark et al., 2020; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005).

In the context of BMEs, we argue that the social exchange occurs primarily between the customer and the resources of the event (Liu et al., 2017), and hence the focus of the customer engagement is initially with the event. However, within BMEs the personality, desired associations or information about the brand is embedded distinctly within the event (Crowther, 2011); thus, customers also engage with the brand. We draw from associative network theory to argue that engagement formed with the event is transferred to the brand as a subsequent or concurrent engagement foci.

We hypothesise that event engagement mediates the positive relationship between five key event experiences and customer brand engagement and elaborate upon each experiential component individually in the following paragraphs. To thoroughly test the presence of all possible relationships (both direct and mediated), we will test for direct relationships from each experiential component to both customer event engagement and customer brand engagement; insignificant direct relationships between experiential components and customer brand engagement (in addition to the hypothesised relationships proposed below) would provide further evidence of the mediation effect of event engagement.

Hypothesis 2: Event engagement mediates the positive relationship between (a) cognitive, (b) emotional, (c) sensorial, (d) pragmatic and (e) relational event experience and customer brand engagement.

A cognitive event experience includes situations that require active thought from the individual, or aim to spark interest through sharing of information (Gentile et al., 2007). The brand provides information of intellectual appeal to the customer to create a cognitive BME experience. This information resource is disseminated via an event designed to make the customer think and stimulate intrigue (Tafesse, 2016). In response, it is anticipated that customers respond with heightened attention towards this information (Tynan & McKechnie, 2009), and sustained concentration or mental effort in their interactions throughout the event (Hollebeek, 2011). The nature of the content is brand-centric, and is anticipated to facilitate brand engagement; however, engagement is activated through the cognitive stimulation provided throughout the event. Cognitive experiences are therefore predicted to contribute to brand engagement, facilitated via event engagement.

An emotional event experience aims to evoke an affective response from the individual, targetting feelings and emotions (Gentile et al., 2007). The brand contributes resources required for staging entertaining moments of emotional value that generate customer enjoyment, in order to facilitate an emotional BME experience (Liu et al., 2017; Tynan & McKechnie, 2009; Yuan & Wu, 2008). Customers are posited to contribute resources during the BME including their enjoyment, positive affect and enthusiasm (So et al., 2014). While engagement is initially facilitated towards the entertainment source (the event), it will trigger engagement with the brand if the BME experience also embodies the desired brand image and conjures strong brand associations (Drengner et al., 2008). Therefore, we argue that an emotional BME experience positively influences brand engagement, through event engagement.

A sensorial event experience includes situations where brand-provided resources target the consumers’ visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory and tactile systems (Liu et al., 2017; Tafesse, 2016; Wörfel et al., 2022). Experiences that can trigger multiple senses have greater impacts on consumer response and value creation (Wörfel et al., 2022). Sensorial experiences provide sensory stimulation, eliciting feelings of consumer excitement, enthusiasm, positive aesthetic response, pleasure, and happiness throughout the event (Hollebeek, 2011; Schmitt, 1999; So et al., 2014). While this engagement is initially activated by the event stimuli (the source of the sensory stimulation), the brand is commonly integrated within the experience and is central to the sensory activity, leading to enhanced consumer-brand relationships, loyalty, and brand equity (Wörfel et al., 2022). Therefore, it is posited that event engagement facilitated by sensory experiences will also trigger engagement with the brand.

A pragmatic event experience requires customers to actively and physically participate in activities (Gentile et al., 2007). While most events require physical action from the attendee to some degree (i.e., walking, sitting, listening), pragmatic event experiences specifically initiate behavioural activities that require physical immersion and interaction as the core activity (Tafesse, 2016). These types of events also encompass interactions between humans and objects (Gentile et al., 2007), for example participating in product demonstrations or performing part of the production process (e.g., a winemaking session). Event engagement is facilitated throughout the pragmatic experience when the customer provides their resources of energy, commitment to and participation in the event (Hollebeek et al., 2019; So et al., 2014). Given that engagement requires the ‘volitional investment of focal operant resources . . . into brand interactions’ (Hollebeek et al., 2019, p. 166), brand engagement will be enabled if when physical activity during the BME requires the customer to invest physical resources in interactions that are brand-centric or portray relevance to the brand. We therefore propose that pragmatic experience facilitates customer brand engagement, through event engagement.

A relational event experience facilitates connections through social contexts (Gentile et al., 2007). Events are generally run for groups of customers, and hence the experience occurs inherently within a social context (Tafesse, 2016). A relational event experience comprises activities designed to be experienced either with existing connections (friends, family), could introduce like-minded people with similar interests or could facilitate interactions with brand representative such as a founder or key contributor (Harmeling et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2017). Relational experiences elicit event engagement as the event provides the context for bringing individuals together (Schmitt, 1999); the experience can also facilitate brand engagement if the interactions are meaningful to the brand; i.e., if individuals discuss or share a common interest in a brand or industry. Therefore, it is posited that event engagement facilitated by relational experiences will also trigger brand engagement.

Event engagement and loyalty

Marketing events literature argues for a direct impact of the event on customer-related brand outcomes (Crowther, 2011; Whelan & Wohlfeil, 2006). This recognises that the main objective of running a marketing event is for the host organisation to drive positive word of mouth and purchase intention (Crowther, 2011; Drengner et al., 2008; Martensen et al., 2007). A BME involves unique customer-brand interactions, which provides customers the opportunity to construct meaningful associations and connections about the brand, in an effort to build loyalty (Crowther & Donlan, 2011). Keller (1993) argued for an event-brand association, where the experience of the event is reflected in the consumer’s minds. This transfer has formed the cornerstone of event marketing, as without this connection the event would be meaningless for the brand as it would not achieve one of event marketing’s main objectives. While this relationship between the event and brand-related outcomes has been established in sponsorship and event experience literature, results have been mixed (e.g., various positive emotions such as surprise have not elicited favourable outcomes; Vila-López & Rodríguez-Molina, 2013), and the event-brand relationship it is yet to be widely replicated in relation to the concept of engagement. Hence, we propose:

Hypothesis 3a: Customer event engagement positively influences behavioural intention of loyalty.

Drawing from ANT, the association between the event and the brand assumes that they share ‘common structures’ and there is a spillover effect, which allows associations linked to the event to affect not only perceptions of the event itself but also transfer to attitudes towards the brand (Kulczycki & Koenigstorfer, 2016). A person’s attitude towards an entity, or in this instance their engagement with an entity (i.e., the event) may be transferred to the branded product or service through secondary associations. These secondary associations can either dilute a brand or can be leveraged to create favourable, strong, and unique associations that otherwise may not be presented by the brand itself (Chen, 2010; Keller, 1993). According to ANT, linked nodes are created between the event and brand and spreading activation occurs where associations (or in this study, engagement) transfer from the event to the brand (Deng & Li, 2014; Smith, 2004). Adopting this perspective suggests that it is the customer brand engagement that directly impacts loyalty intentions, rather than the event engagement, and thus mediates the relationship between customer event engagement and loyalty intentions.

Customer brand engagement has been established in the literature as an attitudinal antecedent of loyalty behaviours, underpinned by social exchange theory which holds that consumers will be more likely to invest resources with a brand if they are in turn receiving valuable resources from that brand (Fernandes & Esteves, 2016; Harrigan et al., 2018). Further, a customer’s propensity to engage is determined by contextual factors, and in high-involvement, interaction-based contexts such as an event, customers are more likely to demonstrate loyalty behaviours such as word-of-mouth and repeat purchase (Fernandes & Esteves, 2016). This provides further support for the direct relationship between customer brand engagement and behavioural intention of loyalty; and hence, we offer the following competing hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3b: Brand engagement mediates the relationship between customer event engagement and behavioural intention of loyalty.

Method

Research context and design

The context for this study is the Australian wine industry. Australian wine brands provide a fruitful context for investigating a diversity of BMEs, and where unique branded events are a common strategy (Wine Australia, 2015). Wineries host events for differentiation, to create meaningful connections, and engage customers (Barth, 2007; Liu et al., 2017).

A diverse portfolio of BMEs were identified across the wine industry including events that were expected to have variation across each of the dimensions of an event experience (Brakus et al., 2009) and were selected to ensure that the events had strong representation of various dimensions including cognitive (e.g., wine education), sensory (e.g., concerts), social (e.g., dinner) and behavioural emphasis (e.g., grape crushing). The researchers invited 13 wineries to participate in the study. Six agreed to participate, covering 10 BMEs as outlined in Table 1.

Table 1.

Branded wine events included in data collection.

Brand	Event	Researcher at event	Incentive	Number of respondents	Response rate (%)
A	Concert at Winery	No	No	50	20
A	Concert at Winery	No	No	50	17
A	Concert at Winery	No	No	12	16
B	Lunch with the winemakers	Yes	Yes	17	53
B	Dinner with the winemakers	Yes	Yes	58	60
B	Lunch with the winemakers	Yes	Yes	13	44
C	Winery Picnic (and live music)	Yes	No	26	55
D	Silent Auction with food and wine	Yes	No	20	54
E	Dinner with the winemakers	No	Yes	26	11
F	New wine launch (with lunch)	No	No	2	40

Where possible, the researchers attended the event and personally invited attendees to take part in a quantitative survey. Email addresses were collected from the attendees and the survey link was distributed on the day following the event. Where it was not possible for the researcher to attend the event, email addresses were provided by the wine brand and a link to the survey sent via email in the same manner. Data was collected in the 2-week period following each event. Early and late respondents were compared with no differences found (Armstrong & Overton, 1977). Some wine brands offered a prize (e.g. a chance to win a flagship wine), as an incentive for participation. The data collection method for each event is outlined in Table 1.

The respondents (n = 274) were representative of the Australian population, with the only qualifying dimension being that they must have attended one of the specific BMEs in this study. 95% of the respondents were Australian residents, with 26% under 34 years, 38% between 34 and 49, and 36% were 50 years and over.

Measurement

This study utilised existing multi-item measures from extant literature (listed in Table 2) with minor wording adaptations where appropriate. All variables were measured with Likert scales (seven-point). The five experiential components and loyalty intention constructs were captured using existing measures (Brakus et al., 2009; Chang & Chieng, 2006; So et al., 2014; Sweeney & Soutar, 2001). It should be noted that the experiential components in our study are not isolated or mutually exclusive – the events included have all of these experiential components present to various degrees. Gentile et al. (2007) refer to these as ‘complex experiences’, or experiences with ‘mixed components’. None of the events included in this study are strictly a pure ‘cognitive’ experience, or ‘emotional’ experience (or any of the other components) in the absence of all other experiential components. Therefore, all five experiential components were measured for each event, as although some events might be more sensorial or more social, for example, each of the events included a component of all of the dimensions (Brakus et al., 2009). Customer engagement measurement items from So et al. (2014) were utilised as the measures were considered to have high face validity in the event context. While extant engagement literature predominantly considers engagement as comprising of three dimensions (cognitive, affective, behavioural; Brodie et al., 2011), So et al. (2014) expand this conceptualisation with five dimensions of engagement (attention, absorption enthusiasm, identification and interaction).

Table 2.

Measurement items.

Scale (Reference)	Measure
Experiential components
Cognitive experience (Chang & Chieng, 2006)	This event tried to intrigue me
	This event tried to stimulate my curiosity
	This event appealed to my creative thinking
Emotional experience (Brakus et al., 2009; Chang & Chieng, 2006)	This event tried to put me in a certain mood
	This event tried to be emotional
	This event tried to arouse feelings in me
	This event induced feelings and sentiments
	I had strong emotions at this event
Sensory experience (Chang & Chieng, 2006)	This event was focused on creating a sensory experience
	This event tried to excite my senses
	This event provided sensory enjoyment
Pragmatic experience (Brakus et al., 2009)	I engaged in physical actions and behaviours when I attended this event
	This event was action oriented
	This event involved physical experiences
Relational experience (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001)	Attending this event improved the way I am perceived
	Attending this event made a good impression on other people
	Attending this event gave me social approval
	Attending this event created a favourable perception of me among other people
Event engagement
Event attention (So et al., 2014)	I paid a lot of attention at this event
	Anything related to this event grabbed my attention
	I concentrated a lot during this event
Event identification (So et al., 2014)	When someone criticises this event, it feels like a personal insult
	When I talk about this event, I usually say ‘we’ rather than ‘they’
	This event’s successes are my successes
	When someone praises this event, it feels like a personal compliment
Event enthusiasm (So et al., 2014)	I was heavily into this event
	I was passionate about this event
	I felt excited about this event
	I loved this event
Event absorption (So et al., 2014)	Time flew when I was taking part in this event
	When I was taking part in this event, I was immersed
	When I was taking part in this event intensely, I felt happy
Event interaction (So et al., 2014)	I liked getting involved in discussions at this event
	I enjoyed interacting with like-minded others at this event
	I liked actively participating in discussions at this event
	I thoroughly enjoyed exchanging ideas with other people during this event
Brand engagement
Brand attention (So et al., 2014)	I pay a lot of attention to anything about [winery]
	Anything related to [winery] grabs my attention
	I concentrate a lot on [winery]
Brand identification (So et al., 2014)	When someone criticises [winery], it feels like a personal insult
	When I talk about [winery], I usually say ‘we’ rather than ‘they’
	[winery]’s successes are my successes
	When someone praises [winery], it feels like a personal compliment
Brand enthusiasm (So et al., 2014)	I am heavily into [winery]
	I am passionate about [winery]
	I feel excited about [winery]
	I love [winery]
Brand absorption (So et al., 2014)	Time flies when I am interacting with [winery]
	In my interaction with [winery], I am immersed
	When interacting with [winery] intensely, I feel happy
Brand interaction (So et al., 2014)	I like to get involved in discussions about [winery]
	I enjoy interacting with like-minded others about [winery]
	I like actively participating in discussions about [winery]
	I thoroughly enjoy exchanging ideas with other people about [winery]
Outcome
Behavioural intention of loyalty (So et al., 2014)	I would say positive things about X Winery to other people
	I would recommend X Winery to someone who seeks my advice
	I would encourage friends and relatives to purchase X Wines
	I would purchase X wines in the future

So et al. (2014) items were reworded and replicated to uniformly measure event and brand engagement. Careful instruction and a slight modification of the items was undertaken to ensure participants could understand and differentiate between event- and brand-engagement questions. A similar approach was adopted in Dessart et al. (2016) when measuring multiple engagement objects.

Data was analysed in SPSS 21 software, and structural equation modelling (SEM) was conducted using AMOS 21. SEM allows for examination of a mediation chain in its entirety (that is, the sequential effects of experiential components, on event engagement, brand engagement, and behavioural intention of loyalty), which is not easily accommodated by regression techniques (Iacobucci, 2009). SEM captures the collective effects of numerous constructs on the dependent variable, and thus can provides a better understanding of the ultimate effect the various experiential components on both event and brand engagement, and subsequently on behavioural intention of loyalty.

Table 3 provides the psychometric properties of the measurement constructs for each variable within our model. These values are all based on a comprehensive measurement model which included all individual items (first order concepts). Construct reliability scores are high (>0.84) (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), demonstrating reliability. Average variance extracted (AVE) values exceed 0.5, confirming convergent validity (Hair et al., 2014) and AVE scores exceed the square of the correlations between constructs, demonstrating discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Once all the multi-item construct reliability and validity were confirmed we used the weighted aggregate of the measurement items to produce one-factor congeneric measurement models, which were included in the comprehensive measurement model for evaluation (χ²/df = 1.69; NFI = 0.86; CFI = 0.94; RMSEA = 0.05).

Table 3.

Psychometric properties of the scale.

Scale	Item	L	C	CA	CR	AVE	HSC	M	SD
Cognitive experience	EXP_COG1	0.89	0.79	0.85	0.86	0.67	0.32	4.73	1.23
	EXP_COG2	0.87	0.75
	EXP_COG3	0.69	0.48
Emotional experience	EXP_EMO1	0.74	0.55	0.89	0.89	0.62	0.47	4.99	1.20
	EXP_EMO2	0.79	0.63
	EXP_EMO3	0.87	0.76
	EXP_EMO4	0.80	0.64
	EXP_EMO5	0.73	0.53
Sensorial experience	EXP_SEN1	0.91	0.84	0.94	0.94	0.83	0.47	5.63	1.27
	EXP_SEN2	0.95	0.91
	EXP_SEN3	0.86	0.74
Pragmatic experience	EXP_PRAG4	0.80	0.64	0.84	0.84	0.64	0.27	4.05	1.36
	EXP_ PRAG5	0.80	0.64
	EXP_ PRAG6	0.80	0.63
Relational experience	EXP_REL2	0.87	0.75	0.96	0.96	0.86	0.17	3.87	1.37
	EXP_REL3	0.93	0.87
	EXP_REL4	0.97	0.94
	EXP_REL5	0.93	0.86
Event attention	ATT_EVENT2	0.80	0.64	0.84	0.84	0.64	0.59	4.94	1.26
	ATT_EVENT3	0.84	0.71
	ATT_EVENT4	0.76	0.58
Event identification	ID_EVENT1	0.77	0.60	0.88	0.89	0.67	0.30	3.30	1.52
	ID_EVENT2	0.66	0.43
	ID_EVENT3	0.90	0.81
	ID_EVENT4	0.91	0.84
Event enthusiasm	ENTH_EVENT2	0.92	0.84	0.91	0.92	0.73	0.59	5.17	1.30
	ENTH_EVENT3	0.91	0.84
	ENTH_EVENT4	0.83	0.69
	ENTH_EVENT5	0.75	0.57
Event absorption	AB_EVENT3	0.85	0.73	0.86	0.86	0.67	0.46	3.97	1.32
	AB_EVENT4	0.84	0.70
	AB_EVENT5	0.77	0.60
Event interaction	INT_EVENT1	0.87	0.75	0.95	0.95	0.82	0.22	5.13	1.26
	INT_EVENT2	0.87	0.76
	INT_EVENT3	0.96	0.92
	INT_EVENT4	0.93	0.86
Brand attention	ATT_BRAND2	0.93	0.87	0.94	0.94	0.84	0.54	5.01	1.35
	ATT_BRAND3	0.95	0.89
	ATT_BRAND4	0.88	0.77
Brand identification	ID_BRAND1	0.85	0.72	0.92	0.92	0.75	0.49	2.95	1.50
	ID_BRAND2	0.78	0.61
	ID_BRAND3	0.88	0.78
	ID_BRAND4	0.94	0.88
Brand enthusiasm	ENTH_BRAND2	0.95	0.91	0.96	0.96	0.86	0.64	4.27	1.53
	ENTH_BRAND3	0.97	0.93
	ENTH_BRAND4	0.93	0.87
	ENTH_BRAND5	0.85	0.73
Brand absorption	AB_BRAND3	0.91	0.83	0.93	0.93	0.81	0.45	3.33	1.35
	AB_BRAND4	0.94	0.88
	AB_BRAND5	0.85	0.73
Brand interaction	INT_BRAND1	0.89	0.80	0.97	0.97	0.88	0.59	4.47	1.22
	INT_BRAND2	0.95	0.91
	INT_BRAND3	0.97	0.94
	INT_BRAND4	0.93	0.86
Behavioural intention of loyalty	BIL_BRAND1	0.95	0.91	0.97	0.97	0.88	0.42	5.94	1.12
	BIL_BRAND2	0.98	0.95
	BIL_BRAND3	0.93	0.86
	BIL_BRAND4	0.89	0.79

Abbreviations: L = loadings; C = correlations; CA = cronbach’s alpha; CR = construct reliability; VE = average variance extracted; HSC = highest squared correlation; M = mean; SD = standard deviation.

Data analysis

To understand the relationships and mediation effects between BME experiences, event engagement and brand engagement, the relationships were examined using structural equation modelling. Two techniques were employed to reduce the number of paths estimates and create greater model stability.

First, the congeneric measurement models previously described reported factor score regression weights for each construct; these were used to compute proportionally weighted scale scores for each item, with a final composite score used in the path model (see Rowe, 2002). Second, for each composite variable, factor loadings and error variances were obtained to determine the known level of associated error, and were accounted for in the path model (Politis, 2001). These values are based on the standard deviation and composite variable reliability; coefficient H (a maximised reliability indicator) is utilised to measure reliability and is a preferred alternative to Cronbach’s alpha (CA) in this instance, as CA is criticised for under-estimating reliability of congeneric measures (Hancock & Mueller, 2001; Mueller & Hancock, 2008).

The accepted process of SEM path model analysis was followed in this study; model specification (hypothesised model) and identification, and model estimation (Kline, 2011). Path analyses adopted the maximum likelihood estimation technique (Hair et al., 2014). Bootstrapping was conducted (bootstrap = 2000, confidence level 95%) to calculate indirect and total effects.

Results

A path model was used to test the hypothesised relationships. Event engagement and brand engagement were modelled as second-order reflective constructs, consistent with prior research (So et al., 2014). The hypothesised model (Figure 2) shows a reasonable fit with the data (χ²/df = 2.67; NFI = 0.90; CFI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.08) (Hair et al., 2014; Kline, 2011). Where a single composite measurement item underpinned a latent variable (as was the case for sensorial, pragmatic, relational, emotional and cognitive experience, as well as behavioural intention of loyalty), only the latent variable was represented in Figure 2, for enhanced clarity and readability of the findings. All composites loaded onto their corresponding latent variable at 0.92 or higher. Table 4 reports direct and indirect effects; these results comprehensively unveil the associations between variables, and the relative support for the hypotheses to be discussed.

Figure 2.

Path model.

Table 4.

Path analysis.

Hypothesis	Independent variable	Mediating variable	Dependent variable	Direct effect on event engagement	Sig.	Direct effect on brand engagement	Sig.	Indirect effects	Sig.	Hypotheses
H1	Event engagement	N/A	Brand engagement	N/A	N/A	0.69	***	N/A	N/A	Supported
H2a	Cognitive experience	Event engagement	Brand engagement	0.07	n.s.	0.30	***	0.05	n.s.	Not supported
H2b	Emotional experience	Event engagement	Brand engagement	0.23	**	−0.15	n.s.	0.16	*	Supported
H2c	Sensorial experience	Event engagement	Brand engagement	0.19	***	0.08	n.s.	0.13	*	Supported
H2d	Pragmatic experience	Event engagement	Brand engagement	0.23	***	−0.21	**	0.16	***	Partially supported
H2e	Relational experience	Event engagement	Brand engagement	0.26	***	−0.05	n.s.	0.18	***	Supported
H3a/b	Event engagement	Brand engagement	Beh. intention of loyalty	0.69	***	0.06	n.s.	0.44	***	Supported

Note. n.s = not significant.

p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

A significant positive relationship (0.69, p < .001) between event engagement and brand engagement was found, supporting H1. This finding provides support of the existence of a relationship between two engagement foci, which until now has been absent from extant literature. An explanation for this relationship is that while engaging in the BME experience, the event attendees have identified common structures between the event and the host brand (Kulczycki & Koenigstorfer, 2016), which has led to a connection between the activity (i.e., the event) and host brand (Coppetti et al., 2009) resulting in similar evaluations across the two engagement foci. Establishing this relationship allows for exploration of direct and indirect relationships between BME experiential components and brand-related outcomes (hypotheses 2 and 3).

Indirect effects on customer brand engagement through event engagement were significant for emotional, relational, and sensorial experience, illustrating the mediating role of event engagement and providing support for H2b, H2c and H2e (emotional = 0.16, p < .05; sensorial = 0.13, p < .05; relational = 0.18, p < .001). An explanation for these relationships is that while engagement was initially facilitated towards the experiential source (the event experience), it triggered engagement with the brand as the BME experience also embodied the desired brand image and conjured strong brand associations (Drengner et al., 2008). Direct effects were not significant between emotional, relational, and sensorial experience and customer brand engagement (emotional = −0.15, p > .05; relational = −0.05, p > .05; sensorial = 0.08, p > .05). This suggests that the focus of engagement (i.e., the investment of these types of resources) was on the event rather than directed at the brand. However, when paired with cognitive engagement with a brand focus, transference of this engagement was able to occur. This provides further evidence of full mediation as hypothesised in H2, as the presence of a direct relationship between experiential components and brand engagement (in the absence of the mediating variable, customer event engagement) was not found. Partial support was found for H2d; pragmatic experience was found to have a significant, yet negative, direct relationship with customer brand engagement, as well as a significant positive indirect effect through event engagement, demonstrating partial mediation (pragmatic experience direct effect on customer brand engagement = −0.21, p < .01; indirect effect through event engagement = 0.16, p < .001). While the direct influence of the pragmatic experience on brand engagement is negative, the positive influence through engaging with the event partially mediates this effect.

In contrast to the above associations, no support was found for H2a that event engagement mediates the impact of cognitive experience on customer brand engagement (0.07, p > .05). However, a significant direct effect of cognitive experience on customer brand engagement was found (0.30, p < .001). This suggests that the high integration of branded content within a cognitive experience fosters a strong connection to the brand (Pine & Gilmore, 1998) through customers thinking about and developing mental associations with the brand (Yuan & Wu, 2008), facilitating brand engagement. However, the sole focus on the brand itself does not allow for the same level of engagement to occur with the event as a separate engagement focus.

There was no support that customer event engagement directly drives behavioural intention of loyalty (0.06, p > .05; H3a), despite the identified positive relationship between event and brand engagement. However, strong and significant indirect effects were found when customer event engagement was mediated by brand engagement to drive behavioural intention of loyalty (0.44, p > .001), which provides support for H3b. An explanation for this relationship is that while events intend to evoke meaningful experiences around the host-brand, leading to brand outcomes (Crowther, 2011; Crowther & Donlan, 2011; Drengner et al., 2008; Martensen et al., 2007), there is potentially a more complex process at play, requiring more than just engagement with the event. The heightened psychological state that occurs with a customer’s engagement with the brand influences their loyalty intentions (So et al., 2014), and only through the identification of common structures between the event and host-brand (Kulczycki & Koenigstorfer, 2016) can the event influence brand outcomes via both event and brand engagement.

Discussion

Theoretical implications

This research contributes to the domain theory (Jaakkola, 2020) of customer engagement and builds on emerging literature that takes a broader, service system perspective of engagement beyond the notion of brand as the sole engagement foci (e.g., Alexander et al., 2018; Storbacka et al., 2016). Extant customer engagement research attends mainly to single engagement foci, predominantly a brand or virtual platform (e.g., Hollebeek et al., 2014). Although several other engagement foci have been identified (e.g., frontline service employees, Sim & Plewa, 2017; and provider-initiated events, Vivek et al., 2012), there has been little conceptual and empirical understanding of the interplay among engagement foci. This study argues for considering a broader realm of possible engagement foci, and exploring the relationships between them. This argument is consistent with notions emerging in the engagement literature of multi-layered engagement (e.g., Conduit et al., 2016; Dessart et al., 2016), suggesting that brand managers should shift their focus to managing the holistic ‘service system’ of engagement foci, rather than managing one engagement foci/object in isolation. The results from this study demonstrate why viewing engagement foci in isolation can lead to an incomplete understanding of their effects. In the main, BME experiential components did not have a significant relationship with customer brand engagement. Further, customer event engagement did not have a significant relationship with behavioural intention of loyalty. When viewing these direct relationships in isolation, we can deduce little value in utilising BMEs to strengthen brand outcomes. However, by exploring the presence and interactions between both event and brand engagement, it is now apparent that BMEs indeed have an impact on brand outcomes, via the mediating presence of event engagement between experiential components and brand engagement, leading to enhanced behavioural intention of loyalty.

By considering this broader service system perspective of engagement, this study utilises ANT as a method theory (Jaakkola, 2020) to provide clarification on the interplay between multiple engagement foci, in particular examining the idea that engagement transfer may occur between focal objects (in this case, the event and brand). Further, this study also utilises social exchange theory as a second method theory to describe the contribution of resources from both customers and brands and the interactions that occur through the event platform. Brands contribute resources to create unique event experiences, and customers in kind contribute their engagement into event activities and interactions. In conjunction, these theories explain the mechanisms that facilitate engagement transfer between the event and brand.

These findings also reveal that engagement transfer is essential for behavioural intention of loyalty. It is not sufficient to simply facilitate event engagement; as the findings in this study demonstrate, customer event engagement did not have a significant relationship with behavioural intention of loyalty (H3a). Event engagement must activate shared associations with the brand, which in turn leads to brand engagement and impacts on behavioural intention of loyalty towards the brand (H3b). This is an important contribution as it highlights the dynamics of BMEs and explains why some events elicit customer-related brand outcomes while others do not. This finding also contributes to marketing events literature, which argues that a direct relationship exists between events and brand outcomes (Crowther, 2011). Although BMEs ultimately drive brand outcomes, the results of this study indicate that this outcome does not occur directly from event engagement (H3a: unsupported), but rather occurs through event engagement, and engagement transfer from event to brand. This contribution provides further evidence for event marketers and brand managers of the importance of events in the suite of promotional brand activities and may provide an explanation of diminishing returns experienced by event researchers (Liu et al., 2018).

The engagement construct is multidisciplinary in nature (Brodie et al., 2011), with broad scope to apply the findings from this research into other fields. Considerable research already exists in employee engagement, however advances could be made to better understand how experiences foster engagement, as well employee engagement with multiple engagement foci and the interrelationships therein (e.g., engagement transfer between work task engagement, engagement within teams/work groups and/or engagement with the corporate brand/organisation). Similarly, student engagement research is a growing area of research interest, and is a context where varied and diverse experiences are crucial in constructing a holistic view of the student’s university journey. Further, event experience has broad application across a plethora of contexts, with implementation already seen in areas of service, tourism, politics and retail.

Managerial implications

The research findings in this study have implications for managers seeking to employ event strategies with greater precision and effectiveness. While the benefits of events are acknowledged in various industries, this practice is often criticised for lacking direction and event execution without considering specific business outcomes (Cespedes & Prasad, 2015). The results from this study offer a number of key considerations for managers to identify during their event development strategies. First, managers are urged to identify and understand the different engagement foci within the BME experience (event engagement and brand engagement), as well as their connection. It is not enough to focus on creating an engaging event in isolation; the event must also share relevant meaning and association with the host brand for engagement transfer to occur. The results of this study indicate that engagement transfer from event to brand must occur for loyalty outcomes to be realised.

Managers are urged to consider how a broad set of experiences – emotional, relational, sensorial, pragmatic and cognitive – can effectively exhibit key values and meanings about the brand. An understanding of the nuances around this can lead to a more effective design of events to ensure that event engagement is transferred to customer brand engagement and ultimately to the behavioural outcomes. Emotional, relational and sensorial experiences have a positive impact on brand engagement only through the event engagement. Therefore, events which focus on these experiences must closely tie the nature of the experience to the brand to ensure that this association occurs, otherwise it is an enjoyable event but there will be little benefit to the brand. Pragmatic (or behavioural) experiences can actually have a negative influence on customer brand engagement; this presumably occurs when customers are too focused on what they are doing and do not think about any brand associations. Therefore, event organisers need to carefully balance any pragmatic experiences with other experience dimensions. Cognitive experiences can have a positive influence on customer brand engagement but do not necessarily benefit from positive associations with the event. Therefore, these cognitive experiences need to also be balanced with other (e.g., sensorial or social) experiences at the event to ensure they are enjoyable.

The wine industry has a number of excellent examples of events that demonstrate the broader set of experiences available; meet-and-greet events with brand ambassadors or wine makers, winery tours including immersive activities such as blending a bespoke wine, or a degustation with wine pairing are curated multi-dimensional experiences where customers interact with the brand and each other, creating impactful and engaging connections. Managers and event organisers from other industries are encouraged to be innovative in their approach to event design by considering the broad set of experiences that could be utilised therein.

Research limitations and future directions

Several research limitations are acknowledged; the generalisability of the findings is limited to the single context and industry in which they are conducted. Replication of the study is advised to determine how these findings are applicable to different contexts. Further, we were unable to examine brand bias and event type individually, due to the small number of participating winery events in the study. A study with greater brand and event diversity would combat these extraneous factors. Further, future studies could implement a longitudinal design and seek to measure brand engagement both before and after the BME experience, to provide a baseline condition that would enable clear identification of the impact these events have on brand engagement. This study design would also help to further identify when changes in event and brand engagement occur, providing further validation of the proposed ‘engagement transfer’ phenomena. In addition, a larger sample size would enable the testing and comparison of experiential components on each engagement dimension – interest, attention, enthusiasm, interaction, absorption and identification (So et al., 2014). Prior studies argue that customer engagement could have enduring qualities, or vary in its level of intensity at different moments (Brodie et al., 2013; Fehrer et al., 2018). Future research that illuminates the outcomes of sustained engagement, either resulting from a BME experience or other engagement foci, are encouraged.

While this paper has taken an important first step in exploring the relationship that exists between event and brand engagement, future research is urged to look more closely at various foci within the engagement service system (Alexander et al., 2018; Ng et al., 2020; Storbacka et al., 2016), the interconnected nature of engagement foci, and their individual and combined impact on the brand. Empirical consideration should be given to comparing various engagement foci and seeking to unveil the collective effects of various forms of customer brand engagement. This broader realm of possible engagement foci should extend to individuals (e.g., celebrities, political candidates), other consumers (e.g., consumer auction websites), programmes or activities, as well as consumer-initiated activities (e.g., blogging, hobbies) (Vivek et al., 2012). Further, consideration should be given to engagement beyond dyadic relationships (Blasco-Arcas et al., 2020), and the influence of fellow customers on customer engagement within multi-customer contexts (i.e., at an event) should be considered (Clark et al., 2020; Fehrer et al., 2018).

From an event perspective, managerial insight could be gained from future research that sought to isolate and contrast the relative benefit of each experiential component (cognitive, emotional, sensorial, pragmatic and relational) on event and brand outcomes. This would give marketers more specific direction in recommending types of experiences to facilitate relationships between event attendees and the host brand. This would also present opportunities for researchers to compare ‘pure’ experiences (comprising mainly of one experiential component) versus ‘complex’ experiences that seek to include a multitude of experiential components simultaneously (Gentile et al., 2007). From an engagement perspective, recent studies have started to unpack and observe the interrelationships between the various dimensions of customer engagement; for example, Carlson et al. (2019) utilise an fsQCA approach to unveil the conditions and configurations of customer engagement dimensions necessary to achieve sharing intentions. A similar methodology could be implemented to understand the conditions and configurations of experiential components to yield more specific managerial insights.

Conclusion

Marketers and marketing academics have long had an interest in understanding customer-related brand outcomes derived from the unique curation of experience within events (Close et al., 2006; Whelan & Wohlfeil, 2006). Recent academic interest in customer engagement provides an opportunity to revisit marketing events with a contemporary lens (Harmeling et al., 2017; Hollebeek et al., 2019). Acknowledging the presence of customer event engagement, and the potential for engagement transfer to occur between the BME and brand are critical ingredients to ensure that brands benefit from hosting events well after the event has ended.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Teagan Altschwager

Jodie Conduit

Steve Goodman

References

Addis

Miniero

Soscia

(2018). Facing contradictory emotions in event marketing: Leveraging on surprise. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 35(2), 183–193. https://doi.org/10.1108/jcm-06-2016-1862

Alexander

M. J.

Jaakkola

Hollebeek

L. D.

(2018). Zooming out: Actor engagement beyond the dyadic. Journal of Service Management, 29(3), 333–351. https://doi.org/10.1108/josm-08-2016-0237

Altschwager

Conduit

Bouzdine-Chameeva

Goodman

(2017). Branded marketing events: Engaging Australian and French wine consumers. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 27(2), 336–357. https://doi.org/10.1108/jstp-04-2015-0108

Anderson

J. R.

(1983). A spreading activation theory of memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22(3), 261–295.

Armstrong

J. S.

Overton

T. S.

(1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402. https://doi.org/10.11772002224377701400320

Barth

J. E.

(. (2007). Customer engagement and the operational efficiency of wine retail stores. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 19(3), 207–215. https://doi.org/10.1108/17511060710817230

Blasco-Arcas

Alexander

Sörhammar

Jonas

J. M.

Raithel

Chen

(2020). Organizing actor engagement: A platform perspective. Journal of Business Research, 118, 74–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.06.050

Bowden

J. L. H.

Conduit

Hollebeek

L. D.

Luoma-aho

Solem

B. A.

(2017). Engagement valence duality and spillover effects in online brand communities. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 27(4), 877–897. https://doi.org/10.1108/jstp-04-2016-0072

Brakus

J. J.

Schmitt

B. H.

Zarantonello

(2009). Brand experience: What is it? how is it measured? Does it affect loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 73(3), 52–68. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.3.52

10.

Breidbach

Brodie

R. J.

Hollebeek

L. D.

(2014). Beyond virtuality: From engagement platforms to engagement ecosystems. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 24(6), 592–611.

11.

Brodie

R. J.

Hollebeek

L. D.

Jurić

Ilić

(2011). Customer engagement: Conceptual domain, fundamental propositions, and implications for research. Journal of Service Research, 14(3), 252–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670511411703

12.

Brodie

R. J.

Ilic

Juric

Hollebeek

(2013). Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.029

13.

Calder

B. J.

Malthouse

E. C.

Schaedel

(2009). An experimental study of the relationship between online engagement and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(4), 321–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2009.07.002

14.

Carlson

Gudergan

S. P.

Gelhard

Rahman

M. M.

(2019). Customer engagement with brands in social media platforms: Configurations, equifinality and sharing. European Journal of Marketing, 53(9), 1733–1758. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejm-10-2017-0741

15.

Cespedes

Prasad

(2015). Get more from your event spending. Harvard Business Review, https://hbr.org/

16.

Chang

P. L.

Chieng

M. H.

(2006). Building consumer–brand relationship: A cross-cultural experiential view. Psychology and Marketing, 23(11), 927–959. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20140

17.

Chen

(2010). Assessment of destination brand associations: An application of Associative Network Theory and network analysis methods (Doctoral dissertation), Clemson University.

18.

Clark

M. K.

Lages

C. R.

Hollebeek

L. D.

(2020). Friend or foe? Customer engagement’s value-based effects on fellow customers and the firm. Journal of Business Research, 121, 549–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.03.011

19.

A. G.

Finney

R. Z.

Lacey

R. Z.

Sneath

J. Z.

(2006). Engaging the consumer through event marketing: Linking attendees with the sponsor, community, and brand. Journal of Advertising Research, 46(4), 420–433. https://doi.org/10.2501/s0021849906060430

20.

Conduit

Karpen

I. O.

Farrelly

(2016). Student engagement: A multiple layer phenomenon. In Plewa

Conduit

(Eds.), Making a difference through marketing (pp. 229–245). Springer.

21.

Conduit

Karpen

I. O.

Tierney

K. D.

(2019). Volunteer engagement: Conceptual extensions and value-in-context outcomes. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 29(4), 462–487. https://doi.org/10.1108/jstp-06-2018-0138

22.

Connell

Marciniak

Carey

L. I.

McColl

(2019). Customer engagement with websites: A transactional retail perspective. European Journal of Marketing, 53(9), 1882–1904. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejm-10-2017-0649

23.

Coppetti

Wentzel

Tomczak

Henkel

(2009). Improving incongruent sponsorships through articulation of the sponsorship and audience participation. Journal of Marketing Communications, 15(1), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527260802012788

24.

Cropanzano

Mitchell

M. S.

(2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602

25.

Crowther

(2011). Marketing event outcomes: From tactical to strategic. International Journal of Event and Festival Management, 2(1), 68–82. https://doi.org/10.1108/17582951111116623

26.

Crowther

Donlan

(2011). Value-creation space: The role of events in a service-dominant marketing paradigm. Journal of Marketing Management, 27(13-14), 1444–1463. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257x.2011.626786

27.

Deng

(2014). A model of event–destination image transfer. Journal of Travel Research, 53(1), 69–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287513491331

28.

Dessart

Veloutsou

Morgan-Thomas

(2016). Capturing consumer engagement: Duality, dimensionality and measurement. Journal of Marketing Management, 32(5-6), 399–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257x.2015.1130738

29.

Dolan

Conduit

Fahy

Goodman

(2016). Social media engagement behaviour: A uses and gratifications perspective. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 24(3-4), 261–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254x.2015.1095222

30.

Drengner

Gaus

Jahn

(2008). Does flow influence the brand image in event marketing? Journal of Advertising Research, 48(1), 138–147. https://doi.org/10.2501/s0021849908080148

31.

Events Industry Council. (2018). The events industry council releases preliminary events industry economic impact data. http://www.eventscouncil.org

32.

Fehrer

J. A.

Woratschek

Germelmann

C. C.

Brodie

R. J.

(2018). Dynamics and drivers of customer engagement: Within the dyad and beyond. Journal of Service Management, 29(3), 443–467. https://doi.org/10.1108/josm-08-2016-0236

33.

Fernandes

Esteves

(2016). Customer engagement and loyalty: A comparative study between service contexts. Services Marketing Quarterly, 37(2), 125–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332969.2016.1154744

34.

Fletcher

(2015). Events industry helps power UK economy. Raconteur Media. https://www.raconteur.net/

35.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104

36.

Gentile

Spiller

Noci

(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

37.

Gopalakrishna

Malthouse

E. C.

Lawrence

J. M.

(2019). Managing customer engagement at trade shows. Industrial Marketing Management, 81, 99–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.11.015

38.

Groeger

Moroko

Hollebeek

L. D.

(2016). Capturing value from non-paying consumers’ engagement behaviours: Field evidence and development of a theoretical model. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 24(3-4), 190–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254x.2015.1095223

39.

Hair

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

(2014). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Education Limited.

40.

Hancock

Mueller

R. O.

(2001). Rethinking construct reliability within latent variable systems. In Cudeck

du Toit

Sörbom

(Eds.), Structural equation modeling: Present and future—A Festschrift in honor of Karl Jöreskog (pp. 195–216). Scientific Software International.

41.

Harmeling

C. M.

Moffett

J. W.

Arnold

M. J.

Carlson

B. D.

(2017). Toward a theory of customer engagement marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(3), 312–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-016-0509-2

42.

Harrigan

Evers

Miles

M. P.

Daly

(2018). Customer engagement and the relationship between involvement, engagement, self-brand connection and brand usage intent. Journal of Business Research, 88, 388–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.11.046

43.

Hollebeek

(2011). Exploring customer brand engagement: Definition and themes. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 19(7), 555–573. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254x.2011.599493

44.

Hollebeek

L. D.

Glynn

M. S.

Brodie

R. J.

(2014). Consumer brand engagement in social media: Conceptualization, scale development and validation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28(2), 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2013.12.002

45.

Hollebeek

L. D.

Srivastava

R. K.

Chen

(2019). S-D logic–informed customer engagement: Integrative framework, revised fundamental propositions, and application to CRM. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47, 161–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-016-0494-5

46.

Iacobucci

(2009). Everything you always wanted to know about SEM (structural equations modeling) but were afraid to ask. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(4), 673–680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2009.09.002

47.

Jaakkola

(2020). Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches. AMS Review, 10, 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0

48.

Keller

K. L.

(1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299305700101

49.

Kline

(2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). The Guilford Press.

50.

Kulczycki

Koenigstorfer

(2016). Why sponsors should worry about corruption as a mega sport event syndrome. European Sport Management Quarterly, 16(5), 545–574. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2016.1188839

51.

Kumar

Pansari

(2016). Competitive advantage through engagement. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 53(4), 497–514. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.15.0044

52.

Leckie

Nyadzayo

M. W.

Johnson

L. W.

(2016). Antecedents of consumer brand engagement and brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing Management, 32(5-6), 558–578. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257x.2015.1131735

53.

Liu

Zhang

Keh

H. T.

(2018). Event-marketing and advertising expenditures: The differential effects on brand value and company revenue. Journal of Advertising Research, 58(4), 464–475. https://doi.org/10.2501/jar-2017-043

54.

Liu

Sparks

Coghlan

(2017). Event experiences through the lens of attendees. Event Management, 21(4), 463–479. https://doi.org/10.3727/152599517x15015178156222

55.

Ludlow

(2018, March 14). Tourism Australia’s new $12m fund to lure big-spending business delegates. Australian Financial Review. https://www.afr.com/

56.

Marbach

Lages

C. R.

Nunan

(2016). Who are you and what do you value? investigating the role of personality traits and customer-perceived value in online customer engagement. Journal of Marketing Management, 32(5–6), 502–525. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257x.2015.1128472

57.

Martensen

Grønholdt

Bendtsen

Jensen

M. J.

(2007). Application of a model for the effectiveness of event marketing. Journal of Advertising Research, 47(3), 283–301. https://doi.org/10.2501/s0021849907070316

58.

Möller

(2013). Theory map of business marketing: Relationships and networks perspectives. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(3), 324–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.02.009

59.

Mueller

Hancock

G. R.

(2008). Best practices in structural equation modeling. In Osborne

J. W.

(Ed.), Best Practices in Quantitative Methods (pp. 488–508). SAGE Publications.

60.

S. C.

Sweeney

J. C.

Plewa

(2020). Customer engagement: A systematic review and future research priorities. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 28, 235–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2020.05.004

61.

Pine

Gilmore

J. H.

(1998). Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard Business Review, 76(4), 97–105.

62.

Politis

J. D.

(2001). The relationship of various leadership styles to knowledge management. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22(8), 354–364. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730110410071

63.

Rayport

((2013). March). Advertising’s new medium: human experience. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/.

64.

Rowe

(2002). The measurement of latent and composite variables from multiple items or indicators: applications in performance indicator systems [Seminar proceedings]. Proceedings of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology Seminar Series, Melbourne.

65.

Saks

A. M.

(2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610690169

66.

Sarmento

Simões

(2019). Trade fairs as engagement platforms: The interplay between physical and virtual touch points. European Journal of Marketing, 53(9), 1782–1807. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejm-10-2017-0791

67.

Schmitt

(1999). Experiential marketing. Journal of Marketing Management, 15(1-3), 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1362/026725799784870496

68.

Sim

Conduit

Plewa

(2018). Engagement within a service system: A fuzzy set analysis in a higher education setting. Journal of Service Management, 29(3), 422–442. https://doi.org/10.1108/josm-08-2016-0232

69.

Sim

Plewa

(2017). Customer engagement with a service provider and context: An empirical examination. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 27(4), 854–876. https://doi.org/10.1108/jstp-03-2016-0057

70.

Smith

(2004). Brand image transfer through sponsorship: A consumer learning perspective. Journal of Marketing Management, 20(3-4), 457–474. https://doi.org/10.1362/026725704323080498

71.

K. K. F.

King

Sparks

(2014). Customer engagement with tourism brands: Scale development and validation. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 38(3), 304–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348012451456

72.

Storbacka

Brodie

R. J.

Böhmann

Maglio

P. P.

Nenonen

(2016). Actor engagement as a microfoundation for value co-creation. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3008–3017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.034

73.

Sweeney

J. C.

Soutar

G. N.

(2001). Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-4359(01)00041-0

74.

Tafesse

(2016). Conceptualization of brand experience in an event marketing context. Journal of Promotion Management, 22(1), 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2015.1107007

75.

Tynan

McKechnie

(2009). Experience marketing: A review and reassessment. Journal of Marketing Management, 25(5-6), 501–517. https://doi.org/10.1362/026725709x461821

76.

van Doorn

Lemon

K. N.

Mittal

Nass

Pick

Pirner

Verhoef

P. C

. (2010). Customer engagement behavior: theoretical foundations and research directions. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 253–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670510375599

77.

Verhoef

P. C.

Reinartz

W. J.

Krafft

(2010). Customer engagement as a new perspective in customer management. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 247–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670510375461

78.

Vila-López

Rodríguez-Molina

(2013). Event-brand transfer in an entertainment service: Experiential marketing. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 113(5), 712–731. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635571311324160

79.

Vivek

S. D.

Beatty

S. E.

Dalela

Morgan

R. M.

(2014). A generalized multidimensional scale for measuring customer engagement. The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 22(4), 401–420. https://doi.org/10.2753/mtp1069-6679220404

80.

Vivek

S. D.

Beatty

S. E.

Morgan

R. M.

(2012). Customer engagement: exploring customer relationships beyond purchase. The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 20(2), 122–146. https://doi.org/10.2753/mtp1069-6679200201

81.

Weiger

W. H.

Wetzel

H. A.

Hammerschmidt

(2019). Who’s pulling the strings? The motivational paths from marketer actions to user engagement in social media. European Journal of Marketing, 53(9), 1808–1832. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejm-10-2017-0777

82.

Whelan

Wohlfeil

(2006). Communicating brands through engagement with lived experiences. Journal of Brand Management, 13(4-5), 313–329. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.bm.2540274

83.

Wine Australia. (2015). Wine Australia strategic plan 2015–2020. https://www.wineaustralia.com/

84.

Wirtz

Den Ambtman

Bloemer

Horváth

Ramaseshan

van de Klundert

Gurhan Canli

Kandampully

(2013). Managing brands and customer engagement in online brand communities. Journal of Service Management, 24(3), 223–244. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564231311326978

85.

Wirtz

Orsingher

Cho

(2019). Engaging customers through online and offline referral reward programs. European Journal of Marketing, 53(9), 1962–1987. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejm-10-2017-0756

86.

Wohlfeil

Whelan

(2006). Consumer motivations to participate in event-marketing strategies. Journal of Marketing Management, 22(5-6), 643–669. https://doi.org/10.1362/026725706777978677

87.

Wood

E. H.

(2009). Evaluating event marketing: Experience or outcome? Journal of Promotion Management, 15(1–2), 247–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/10496490902892580

88.

Wörfel

Frentz

Tautu

(2022). Marketing comes to its senses: A bibliometric review and integrated framework of sensory experience in marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 704–737. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejm-07-2020-0510

89.

Yuan

Y. H.

(2008). Relationships among experiential marketing, experiential value, and customer satisfaction. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 32(3), 387–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348008317392

90.

Zarantonello

Schmitt

B. H.

(2013). The impact of event marketing on brand equity: The mediating roles of brand experience and brand attitude. International Journal of Advertising, 32(2), 255–280. https://doi.org/10.2501/ija-32-2-255-280

Event Engagement: Using Event Experiences to Build Brands

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Background to the research

Branded marketing events

Customer engagement

Conceptual framework and hypotheses

Experiential components of BMEs

Event engagement and loyalty

Method

Research context and design

Measurement

Data analysis

Results

Discussion

Theoretical implications

Managerial implications

Research limitations and future directions

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

References