Brand Awareness, Customer Experience, and

Perceived Value: Does Product Type Affect their

Relationships?

Author: Rebecca Jacob

University of Twente
P.O. Box 217, 7500AE Enschede
The Netherlands

ABSTRACT
Understanding how and why consumers make decisions has been a compelling topic of
research in recent decades. While brand perception is considered to be a source of competitive
advantage, the commercial diffusion of the internet has equipped consumers with a vast amount
of information. As a result, it is suggested that consumers may rely less on brands when making
purchases depending on the type of product. Thus, the objective of this study is to explore the
effects of product type on the relationships between 3 variables: Brand Awareness, Customer
Experience, and Perceived Value. In doing so, the effects of product type on dimensions of
brand equity can be explored in the context of online shopping. The findings from this study
contribute to the literature on consumer purchasing decisions and brand perception. The results
indicate that product type can have moderating effects on the consumer decision-making
process, however only on certain variables. Given the conclusions and limitations of the study,
recommendations for future research are suggested and practical implications explored.

Graduation committee members:

First supervisor – dr. C. Herrando
Second supervisor – dr. E. Constantinides

Keywords
Product type, Brand awareness, Perceived value, Customer experience, Consumer decision making, Brand perception

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided
the original work is properly cited.
CC-BY-NC
 which these effects occur and the reasons for the found
1. INTRODUCTION differences. The relevance of this research to practitioners
In the past decades, researchers have been interested in is to investigate whether the type of product they are
understanding how consumers make decisions and what working work, hedonic or utilitarian, should be taken into
influences them. In an attempt to answer these questions, account when developing marketing and branding
frameworks such as the consumer journey (Lemon & strategies.
Verhoef, 2016) and models such as the customer
engagement behaviour model (Pansari & Kumar, 2016) To answer the research question, a literature review
were constructed. As a result, various influencing concerning variables that affect consumers’ decisions is
variables such as perceived value, and customer first conducted. The affecting variables selected for this
experience, were identified. Further developments in this study (customer experience, brand awareness, and
field of research lead to the recognition of the importance perceived value) are then elaborated on, followed by the
of brand perception. The exploitation of a company’s current findings on the effect of product type. After this,
brand equity, that is the set of brands assets and liabilities the hypotheses posed for this study are developed,
that are linked to a company’s brand and symbol (Farjam followed by the presentation of the conceptual model
and Hongyi, 2015), can be used as a means of gaining a used. Next, the methodology will be explained, and the
competitive advantage and increasing company profits results reviewed. Finally, a discussion of the results and
(Yoo et al., 2000). Brand equity is based on, among other conclusions will be drawn, followed by the limitations of
factors, a customers’ awareness of and associations with a this study and recommendations for future research and
brand (Yoo et al., 2002). This, in turn, affects the practical implications.
customer’s perceived value of the product or service
(Grewal et al., 1998), which directly influences their 2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND
purchase intention (Garciola, 2010; Chi et al., 2009). THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Thus, brand perception has become a growing topic of In an attempt to understand how companies can influence
research as its importance in developing efficient consumers' choices, scholars have tested and proved a
marketing strategies and gaining a competitive advantage variety of frameworks and models showing the
is increasingly recognized (Gitto & Mancuso, 2019; Yoo relationship between different affecting variables on
et al., 2000; Farjam & Hongyi, 2015). However, the consumer decision making. In this section, a literature
commercial diffusion of the internet introduced a variety review will be conducted on the consumer decision-
of new variables that all influence consumers' purchase making journey framework and the factors that influence
intentions and decisions. While brands began using social customer brand perception. Next, the relationships and
media as a means of frequent interaction with their significance of the variables that are used in this study will
consumers (Laroche et al., 2012), the internet has also be explored, followed by the current findings on the
enabled consumers to share and access an exponential effects of product type on consumer decision-making. The
amount of information ranging from reviews to preceding sub-section will discuss the hypothesis
recommended product alternatives. This has led to the development and finally, the conceptual model for this
discovery that consumers may rely less on decision research will be presented.
heuristics based on their experiences and associations with
brands (Dhar & Wertenbroch, 1999; Huang & Rust, 2.1 The variables that affect consumer’s
2021). This, however, is the case more with utilitarian decisions
products (Huang & Rust, 2021). This statement supports Since the aim of this study is to explore the moderating
previous studies that found the type of product in question effects of product type on consumer purchasing decisions
to have moderating effects on consumers’ decisions in an online context, the elaborated decision making
(Huang & Rust, 2021; Dhar & Wertenbroch, 1999; Sloot, journey framework provided by Stankevich (2017) is used
Verhoef & Franses, 2005). as a structural foundation for the literature review and
experiment construction. The consumer decision making
Thus, this study aims to determine whether product type journey has been continually developed on by researchers
has moderating effects on the relationships between throughout the decades (Stankevich, 2017). The
variables that reflect brand perception and affect customer framework presented by Stankevich (2017) in a literature
purchase decisions in an online context. The following review, elaborates on the 5 steps of the consumer decision
research question is posed: making journey by adding the corresponding moments
Does ‘Product Type’ have moderating effects on the and factors that influence each distinct stage.
relationships between customer experience, brand
awareness and perceived value? The first step in the journey is ‘Need Recognition’. Once
consumers recognize their need for a product or service,
Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the they search for information about products and
percentage revenue from e-commerce has risen by 6-10 alternatives. During their search, the availability of
per cent across most product categories (UNCTAD, information and advertisements they encounter influence
2020). Thus, researching consumer behaviour in an online their perceived possible purchasing choices. At this stage,
context continues to be significantly important. This consumers may also rely on past experiences and
research study aims to contribute to the academic literature recommendations to find potential products to purchase.
on consumer decision-making in an online environment. When evaluating their alternatives, the consumers'
The significance of this study to academics is to explore emotional connections to brands and products play a role
the possible relationships between decision-influencing in their final decision. These mental referrals are
variables that are moderated by product type. By considered to be part of a customers’ brand equity (Yoo et
identifying a moderating effect, researchers can be al., 2002). To elaborate, brand equity dimensions include
recommended to further explore the range of situations in
a person’s awareness of, loyalty to, and associations with due to its confirmed implications on purchase intention
a brand (Yoo et al., 2002). Alternatively, they may and brand perception.
‘surrender to the Ads’ that they have seen of alternative
purchasing options if they perceive their value to be 2.3 Customer Experience
greater (Huang & Rust, 2021; Stankevich, 2017). Finally, Current customer experience research, according to
once a product has been purchased, the consumer’s Lemon and Verhoef (2016), can be categorized into 3
satisfaction levels depend on whether their expectations research areas, 2 of which are relevant to this study. First,
have been reached and the companies follow-up activities. the consumer buying behaviour process model, and
The nature of their overall experience, positive or second, process outcomes such as satisfaction and
negative, will directly impact future engagement activities relationship marketing. Customers’ experiences are based
(Stankevich, 2017; Lemon & Verhoef, 2016; Pansari & on their perception of their interactions with a brand
Kumar, 2016). (Lemon & Verhoef, 2016), and have also been found to be
a sustainable source of competitive differentiation
While brand awareness (BA), customer experience (CE), (Holmlund et al., 2020). The importance of creating an
and perceived value (PV) each affect the customers’ online customer experience that is synergetic with a
journey at different stages (Stankevich, 2017), they are particular brand has become increasingly recognized
also interrelated and either influence or are influenced by when improving e-performance (Ha &Perks, 2005).
a customer’s perception of a brand (Garciola et al., 2010;
Dhar & Wertenbroch, 1999; Pansari & Kumar, 2016; Yoo According to Pansari and Kumar (2016) any type of
et al., 2002). Therefore, these specific variables will be customer engagement activity, direct or indirect,
used to determine the moderating effects of product type contributes to a person’s experience. Depending on the
in this research study. nature of the experience, that being negative or positive,
consumers can be more likely to engage themselves in
2.2 Brand Awareness both direct and indirect customer engagement activities
A brand is “a name, term, design, symbol or any other (Pansari & Kumar, 2016; Lemon & Verhoef, 2016). In
feature that identifies one seller's good or service as other words, the nature of a customers’ experience has
distinct from those of other sellers” (American Marketing direct implications on their emotions and satisfaction
Association, 2017). Although every company has at least towards a brand, which will affect future customer
one of the aspects of a brand, not all have leveraged their engagement activities and purchase intention (Pansari &
brand equity to anthropomorphize their company and Kumar, 2016; Van Doorn et al., 2010; Voorhees et al.,
build emotional connections with their customers (Farjam 2017). These emotional associations are referred to when
& Hongyi, 2015). When a consumer interacts with a the consumer recalls a brand (Lemon & Verhoef, 2016;
product or company, they associate an emotion with the Stankevich, 2017), thus, customer experience is another
brand based on their experience and satisfaction (Pansari important variable required for the analysis of this study.
& Kumar, 2016; Van Doorn et al., 2010; Stankevich,
2017). These interactions are considered as customer 2.4 Perceived Value
engagement behaviour and can be either direct or indirect, A customers’ perceived value of a product is also known
including recognizing a brand's name from referrals, or to have a direct effect on their willingness to purchase and
word of mouth (Pansari & Kumar, 2016). Thus, brand repurchase a product (Molinillo et al., 2021; Beneke, Brito
awareness can be gained without direct interactions with a & Garvey, 2014; Grewal et al., 1998; Garciola et al.,
brand. Given that brand awareness refers to a person’s 2010). While PV was also found to have positive
ease and ability to recognize or recall a brand (Homburg, correlations with brand awareness and purchase intention,
Klarann & Schmitt, 2010), and that it is a crucial the direct relationship between perceived value and
predecessor of brand attitude (Rossiter, 2014) and brand purchase intention exhibited a stronger correlation than
equity (Yoo et al., 2002), brands began to use social media that between brand awareness and purchase intention
(Laroche et al., 2012). By increasing their online presence, (Garciola et al., 2010). Furthermore, similar to customer
they are also able to increase awareness of their brand and experience (Pansari & Kumar, 2016), PV was also found
further strengthen relationships with and loyalty of their to have positive effects on customers' engagement
behaviour willingness (Molinillo et al., 2021).
customers (Laroche et al., 2012; Shah & Murthi, 2021).
Thereby also increasing their brand equity (Yoo et al., Given that the relationship between PV and BA has been
2002). In a literature review of the concept of brand equity, previously found to be positive, as well as their
Farjam and Hongyi (2015) found that high levels of brand relationships with purchase intention, it is of interest to
equity were associated with exceptional performance with this study to explore the moderating effects of product
regards to price premiums, a barrier of entry, and high type on this relationship. It is additionally interesting to
profitability (Yoo et al., 2000). explore the moderating effects of product type on CE and
PV, given that they both have a direct effect on the
Brand awareness has been generally found to have probability and nature of the customers’ future
positive correlations with perceived value, brand trust, interactions with a company.
perceived quality, and ultimately purchase intention
(Garciola et al., 2010; Chi et al., 2009; Grewal, Krishnan,
Baker & Borin, 1998). However, Garciola’s (et al., 2010) 2.5 Product Type
research indicates that the relationship between brand At its broadest, products can be categorized into 2 groups:
awareness and purchase intention, although positive, is Hedonic and Utilitarian. Generally, hedonic products are
moderately weak. Nevertheless, brand awareness is those that are purchased for entertainment, fun, and
considered a valuable variable to measure for this study pleasure, while utilitarian products are those that are
purchased with an emphasis on their functional attributes
(Ballester & Palazon, 2013; Sloot, Verhoef & Franses, When a consumer is searching for a product or service,
2002; Dhar & Wertenbroch, 1999). This can be an they are met with a large number of product options, some
explanation as to why decisions and opinions may vary of which they may be familiar with (Stankevich, 2017;
from context to product type. The approach taken and Huang & Rust, 2021). The emotional associations that a
variables considered in the decision-making process person makes with a product or brand are based on their
varies according to the intentions of their purchase (Dhar customer satisfaction, and trust and commitment to the
& Wertenbroch, 1999). Therefore, given the technological brand, the nature of which depends on their perception of
aids that enable consumers to make more informed their customer experience (Pansari & Kumar, 2016; Van
decisions, Huang and Rust (2021) found that when Doorn et al., 2010; Stankevich, 2017). Emotional
purchasing utilitarian products, consumers may rely less connections also play a role during the stages where
on brands as decision heuristics. consumers search for products and evaluate alternatives
(Stankevich, 2017). Previous experiences with a particular
Additionally, Huang and Rust (2021) also expressed that brand or product can additionally serve as a decision
brand awareness and emotional connections seemed to be heuristic, to simplify the decision-making process (Dhar
the prevailing influencing factor in contexts of hedonic, & Wertenbroch, 1999). Each interaction with a brand
rather than utilitarian, type products. In support of this contributes to the overall experience derived by the
statement, Sloot, Verhoef & Franses (2005) found that, in customer, either strengthening or altering their overall
the context of out-of-stock high brand equity products, emotional evaluation, and impacting the likelihood and
purchasers of hedonic products were more likely to switch nature of future interactions (Pansari & Kumar, 2016; Van
stores or to another product of the same brand. Whereas Doorn et al., 2010; Stankevich, 2017). Additionally, Yoo
those looking to purchase high brand equity utilitarian et al. (2002), found that associations formed through
products were more likely to switch brands. While these interactions with a brand also contribute to brand equity.
findings reinforce the notion that higher brand equity is Therefore, it is interesting to consider whether there is a
linked with greater customer loyalty; it also displays the significant correlation between customer experience and
different effects that product type has on the decision- brand awareness itself. Based on this, the first Hypothesis
making process. Additionally, across several experiments is presented:
done by Ballester and Palazon (2013), hedonic products
were found to be perceived as a more valuable H1: Brand awareness and customer experience have a
promotional giveaway than the utilitarian product option positive, significant relationship.
presented. While the effects of product type have been
explored in the contexts of promotional giveaways 2.6.3. Perceived Value
(Ballester & Palazon, 2013), forfeiture and acquisition Perceived value and brand awareness have previously
(Dhar & Wertenbroch, 1999), and out-of-stock reactions been found to have a positive correlation with each other
(Sloot, Verhoef & Franses, 2005), their mediating effects (Garciola et al., 2010). Like brand awareness, Perceived
on relationships between brand awareness, perceived value directly affects a customer's purchase intention
value, and customer experience have been solemnly (Garciola et al., 2010). Thus, the second Hypothesis is
researched. posed:

Given all the currently proven relationships between the H2: Brand awareness has a positive, significant
mentioned variables, and the identified current gap in the relationship with the perceived value of a product.
literature, hypotheses are developed to answer the
proposed research question. Furthermore, emotional associations based on previous
experience of interactions with brands can be used by
2.6 Hypothesis development consumers as a decision heuristic to simplify their
To answer the proposed research question, the decision-making process (Dhar & Wertenbroch, 1999;
relationships between the selected dependent variables Huang & Rust, 2021). Thus, the third Hypothesis is
will first be discussed. presented:
2.6.1. Brand Awareness H3: Customer experience and perceived value have a
According to Pansari and Kumar (2016), a customer first significant, positive relationship.
becomes aware of a brand before an initial purchase and
experience are formed. On the decision-making 2.6.4 Product Type
framework provided by Stankevich (2017), consumers are The discovered effects of product type on consumers’
shown to refer to previous experiences and decisions discussed, present an opportunity to explore
recommendations when searching for products and similar effects on different variables. Brand awareness,
evaluating alternatives. BA plays a role at these stages, as customer experience, and perceived value interact with
it represents the ease of customers to recall a brand, and each other and play a part in influencing consumers
the frequency of situations in which it is recalled throughout their shopping journeys (Stankevich, 2017;
(Homburg, Klarmann & Schmitt, 2010). Furthermore, a Pansari & Kumar 2016), in addition to how a brand is
person’s awareness of a brand contributes to a multitude perceived (Yoo et al., 2002). While both PV and BA
of factors including brand equity, which contributes to directly affect purchase intention, it was found that
current and future purchasing intention (Garciola et al., perceived value has a stronger correlation with purchase
2010; Pansari & Kumar, 2016). Thus, BA is selected as intention, than brand awareness (Garciola et al., 2010).
one of the variables to test the presented research question. Given this relationship, it is interesting to consider the
relationship between these two variables when product
2.6.2. Customer Experience type is considered. Thus, Hypothesis 4 is constructed:
H4: The relationship between brand awareness and my personal network. The respondents were not aware of
perceived value is moderated by product type. the other group and were assigned randomly to ensure that
conditions tested earlier don’t influence responses in the
Finally, given that customer experience and perceived other condition (Kirk, 2013). In other words, a between-
value is also expected to have a positive correlation, and subjects experiment design was implemented. To carry
that the perceived value of products is moderated by out the statistical analysis, a minimum of 30 respondents
product type, the final hypothesis is presented: was required per experiment group. The sample
population was not restricted by age, nationality, country
H5: The relationship between customer experience and of residence, or level of education, and the total 180
perceived value is moderated by product type. required participants were reached, with equal sample
sizes across all experiment groups. Overall, 47% of the
2.6.5 Conceptual Model sample population was Male, 51% Female, and 2%
The conceptual model used to test the constructed preferred not to answer. The majority of the sample
hypotheses is presented in Figure 1. population consisted of students (58%), with 30% being
either employed or self-employed and 13% being
unemployed or a stay-at-home parent. Finally, an
overview of the sample population's age distribution can
be found in Table 1. The variable ‘Age’ was presented as
categorical options on the survey, as in Table 1, therefore,
the mean and standard deviation is unknown.

Table 1. Sample population age group descriptive

statistics

Age group Frequency Percentage

Figure 1. Conceptual Model
14-17 17 9%
Given the objective of the study, Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 18-25 105 58%
are presented to ascertain the relationship between the 26-35 24 13%
individual variables that affect how brands are perceived 36-45 15 8%
and final consumer decisions. Hypotheses 4 and 5 are 46-55 11 6%
proposed to investigate the moderating effects of product 56-65 4 2%
type on those relationships. 66+ 4 2%

3. METHODOLOGY The data for this research study is collected through an

To investigate the moderating effects of product type on online survey, constructed on Google Forms, including 2
the aforementioned variables, an empirical study with the sections. In the first part of the survey, an experiment is
use of quantitative data gathered from a survey and conducted by facilitating the online shopping
experiment is conducted. Since the scope of this research environment. To test the moderating effects of product
is to investigate these effects in an online context, the type (H4 and H5), 2 groups are created: Group A which is
consumer decision-making journey provided by offered 1 type of utilitarian product, and Group B which is
Stankevich (2017) is used to construct the experimental offered 1 type of hedonic product. At the end of the
design. The Need Recognition and part of the information experiment, respondents are instructed to choose the
Search step of the journey will be controlled during an product option that they would purchase. In the following
experiment by providing respondents with only 1 type of section, they are asked questions to determine their brand
product and 4 alternative options. The remaining variables awareness, customer experience, and perceived value of
affecting the Information Search, Evaluation of the product option, and brand, that they chose to purchase.
Alternatives, and Post Purchase stages that will be The variables are measured using a 7-point Likert scale
measured through a survey are brand awareness, ranging from “Strongly disagree” (1) to “Strongly agree”
perceived value (Stankevich, 2017; Garciola et al., 2010), (7).
and customer experience (Stankevich, 2017; Pansari &
Kumar, 2016). In the main part of the experiment, only 1 3.2 Experimental Conditions
variable (the independent variable ‘product type’) was In each experiment group, respondents are given
manipulated. An experimental design was deemed the presented with 4 purchasing options. The 4 options are all
most appropriate research design for this study as one the same type of product, but made by different
independent variable is manipulated while everything else companies, and with different product attributes. Group A
is controlled across the treatment groups (Kirk, 2013). A is shown microwaves, and Group B is shown unisex
survey including a small experiment is used to collect the perfumes. Two of the product options are from
required data on the dependent variables. The data international, potentially high-equity brands, and the other
collected from participants are interval level variables, in 2 from lesser-known, potentially low-equity brands. The
the form of a Likert scale, and thus a quantitative analysis reason for this is to create an environment that facilitates
is conducted to test the presented Hypotheses. the use of factors in the information search stage
(Availability of information, Ads, previous experience,
3.1 Research Design and recommendations) and moments affecting the
A random sampling method was undertaken to gather evaluation of alternatives (Emotional connections,
participants for the survey through Surveycircle.com, surrender to Ads) (Stankevich, 2017).
Facebook groups such as Student Survey Exchange, and
Furthermore, variables such as store image (Garciola et
al., 2010) have also been found to influence consumer
perceived value and purchasing decisions. Therefore, all 3.3 Survey Construction and
product options are presented in a format identical to how
they are on online websites such as Google.com and
Distribution
Bol.com, but with a neutral format and colour selection To test the presented hypotheses, the respondents'
such that they do not represent any specific online retailer. previous experience and awareness of all the presented
options must first be determined. Thus, the respondent’s
Each product option displays (1) Product information,
specifically: capacity, (2) Customer ratings, including the experience with, and awareness, and perceived value of
the product and brand of the purchase option they chose is
number of reviews and average rating out of 5, (3) Price
in Euros, and (4) the name of the company. These measured. Table 2 presents the items used for each scale
variables were chosen to be displayed with the options along with the corresponding authors from which the used
scales were adapted. A summary of the entire survey
because of their found significance on consumer
purchasing decision (price, (E)WOM, and product including instructions is available in Appendix A.3.
information) (Garciola et al., 2010; Lee, Cheng & Shih,
2017; Fernandes et al., 2021; Stankevich, 2017).
3.4 Data Reliability
All of the statistical analyses conducted in this study are
done using IBM’s SPSS Statistics (Version 27). The data
During the information search stage, consumers would
was first screened to remove any unreliable or incomplete
usually be able to search for a multitude of product
responses. None of the data was deleted as every question
alternatives before evaluating them (Huang & Rust, 2021).
required was answered and all the participants answered
However, this experiment limits the information search
the control question correctly.
stage of the consumer journey as they are presented with
only 4 products, based on an external parties’ selection. To 3.4.1 Homogeneity between experiment groups
account for this, 3 sub-groups are created for both Group For this study, the variables gender and age are used to
A and B including different combinations of large assess the homogeneity of variances across all the sub-
international and smaller brands. The first sub-group groups. This assessment is conducted to ensure that the p-
(A.1/B.1) will be given 4 product options with almost values extracted from the regression analysis are reliable,
equal utilitarian attributes. This experiment group will be and not subject to differences in demographics among
the control group, where the only variable affecting factors experiment groups.
are the type of product and respondents’ personal
emotional connections with the presented brands. The Table 3. Descriptive statistics of sub-groups
second (A.2/B.2) and third sub-groups (A.3/B.3) will demographics
contain options where the product attributes of at least one
of the large international brands are objectively better than A.1 A.2 A.3 B.1 B.2 B.3
those of low equity brands, and vice versa respectively. A Male 50% 50% 43% 47% 50% 43%
detailed explanation of the methodology used to select Female 50% 50% 57% 53% 50% 57%
products per group is available in Appendix A.2. 14-17 7% 47% 3% - - -
18-25 43% 20% 60% 67% 80% 80%
Table 2. Scale items 26-35 20% 3% 27% 3% 17% 10%
36-45 13% 10% - 20% - 7%
Scales 46-55 10% 10% 10% 10% 3% 3%
Perceived value-adapted from the scale of Garciola (et 56-65 3% 10% - - - -
al., 2020) 66+ 13% - - - - -
PV1 The money I spend on this option is well
spent As shown in Table 3, the age of respondents per sub-group
PV2 The benefit I would get from choosing this varies. All groups have an approximately equal
purchase this option is very high distribution of gender therefore homogeneity across
PV3 The price for this product option is adequate experiment groups can be assumed.
to what I get for my money
Brand awareness–adapted from the scale of Garciola 3.4.2 Scale Reliability
(et al., 2020) To test internal consistency between the items of each
BA1 When I think of COMPANY, the symbol or scale, Cronbach’s alpha was measured. Internal validity
the logo comes to mind. refers to the degree that the results extracted from the
BA2 I am very familiar or accustomed with the experiment are attributable to the experimental
brand of this COMPANY. manipulation (Kirk, 2013). All of the scales’ Cronbach
BA3 The COMPANY brand differs from other alphas are between 0.7 and 0.9, thereby satisfying the
competing brands. internal consistency check (see Table 4).
Customer experience–adapted from the scale of
Kuppelweiser and Klaus (2021): Table 4. Scale reliability
CE1 I chose COMPANY not because of price Scale Cronbach’s alpha
alone. Perceived value 0.799
CE2 COMPANY has a good reputation Brand awareness 0.775
CE3 COMPANY’s offerings have the best quality Customer experience 0.806

3.5 Regression Analysis

A regression analysis was used to test all of the presented
hypotheses. Before conducting the data analysis of this
study, the 4 assumptions for regression analysis were correlation can be considered statistically significant (p-
tested (De Veaux, Velleman & Bock, 2016). Firstly, the value: <0.011), Hypothesis 1 can be accepted. The R2
data of the used variables, BA, CE, and PV, were based on statistic implies that 44.3% of the variability in customer
a Likert-scale, and thus satisfy the first assumption of experience is accounted for by the variation in brand
quantitative variables. There were no significant outliers, awareness. The standard deviation of residuals (SDR:
and the standard deviation of residuals for each 1.248) is within 2 standard deviations of the spread.
relationship indicated that the analysis was an appropriate Therefore, given this and that the data used is collected
fit to the model being tested. The final assumption, linear from survey questions, the R2 statistic is considered to be
relationships, is also satisfied. Thus, a regression analysis large enough to represent an appropriate regression (De
can be assumed an appropriate analysis for this study. To Veaux, Velleman & Bock, 2016).
interpret the significance of the R2 value, the standard
deviation of residuals and the standard deviation of the 4.1.2 The Relationship Between Brand
regression are computed and compared (De Veaux, Awareness and Perceived Value
Velleman & Bock, 2016). The relationship between Perceived Value and Brand
Awareness appeared to be positive but moderately weak
For Hypothesis 1, the mean of all the items measuring (B: 0.391). Furthermore, the R2 value indicates that only
Customer Experience and Brand Awareness were 17.9% of the variability in perceived value is explained by
computed separately. These 2 variables were used in a the variation in brand awareness. Although this R2 value is
linear regression to measure the correlation between them. not significantly large, it can be considered as large
The same procedure was executed to find the correlation enough given that the data is collected method and the
between brand awareness and perceived value (H2), and SDR (De Veaux, Velleman & Bock, 2016). Since the
customer experience and perceived value (H3). correlation coefficient represents a positive and
moderately strong correlation and p-value (<0.001)
3.6 ANOVA Analysis indicates statistical significance, Hypothesis 2 is also be
To test the moderating effects of product type on the accepted.
relationships between perceived value and brand
awareness (H4), and perceived value and customer 4.1.3 The Relationship Between Customer
experience (H5), a test of the comparison of means is Experience and Perceived Value
conducted. A comparison of means test requires that only As hypothesized, the relationship between CE and PV was
1 variable is manipulated, the product type. Although there found to be positive and strong (B: 0.417). The R2 value
are 6 independent experiment groups, the 2 main groups suggests that only 17.4% of the variability in perceived
(A and B) are composed of sub-groups that are constructed value can be explained by customer experience. This
using the same conditions. Thus, it is considered that there raises questionability about the regression. However, it
are 2 groups of comparison (Utilitarian -Group A, and will be considered appropriate given that the SDR remains
Hedonic - Group B), with the independent variable being within 2 standard deviations of the output distribution (De
categorical and dependent variables being quantitative. Veaux, Velleman & Bock, 2016). Thus, with a
Therefore, an ANOVA analysis is conducted. The significance value of less than 0.001, Hypothesis 3 can be
ANOVA test requires 3 assumptions, all of which the accepted
sample data satisfies (De Veaux, Velleman & Bock,
2016). Firstly, the sample population is approximately 4.2 The Moderating Effects of Product
normally distributed. All sample cases are independent of Type
each other, and there is a homogeneity of variances across Hypotheses 4 and 5 were posed to answer this study’s
groups. Thus, this analysis is deemed appropriate to test research question concerning the moderating effects of
Hypotheses 4 and 5. product type on the relationships between the researched
variables. The outputs of the ANOVA analyses are
4. RESULTS presented in Table 6.
4.1 Regression Analysis
Hypothesis 4 posed that Product type has a moderating
The results for each regression analysis will now be
effect on the relationship between BA and PV. The
presented and interpreted according to each of the posed
significance level of the moderating effects of product
Hypotheses. A summary of all the regression analyses’ is
type on brand awareness and perceived value (0.14) is
available in Table 5. Furthermore, the standard deviation
higher than the alpha (0.05), indicating that there is not a
of all the regression distributions is 0.997.
statistically significant difference in the mean correlations
between the 2 product type groups. Thus, Hypothesis 4
Table 5. Regression analysis output
must be rejected.
Path B R2 SDR Sig.
The F statistic on the ANOVA analysis of product type
CE -> BA 0.666 0.443 1.248 <0.001 and the relationship between customer experience and
BA -> PV 0.423 0.179 0.8718 <0.001 perceived value is only slightly larger than that between
CE -> PV 0.417 0.174 0.8746 <0.001 BA and PV. However, the significance level (0.007)
indicates that the independent variable (product type)
4.1.1 The Relationship Between Customer reliably predicts the dependent variable (The relationship
Experience and Brand Awareness between CE and PV). Thus, it can be concluded that
The results from the analysis indicate that there is a 66.6% product type has a moderating effect on this relationship,
correlation between the variables CE and BA (B: 0.666). and Hypothesis 5 can be accepted.
This implies that the relationship between CE and BA is
strong and positive. Thus, given that the derived Table 6. ANOVA output
 Path F Sig. between dimensions of brand equity that influence
BA -> PV 6.146 0.14 consumer decision-making. To conclude the findings of
CE -> PV 7.439 0.007 this study, the research question is first restated:
Does ‘Product Type’ have moderating effects on the
relationships between customer experience, brand
5. DISCUSSION awareness and perceived value?
This research study aimed to determine whether product
type had moderating effects on dimensions of brand The moderating effects of product type were tested on 2
perception in consumer decision making. To do this, the relationships. Product type was found to have moderating
variables customer experience, brand awareness, and effects on CE and PV. While the F statistic from the
perceived value were selected, and the effects of product ANOVA analysis displayed that ‘product type’ had a
type on their relationships were tested. The age slightly smaller effect on BA and PV, the statistical
distribution of the sample population exhibited a skew to significance of the test was too high to be considered
the right, which can be a cause for considering the data as reliable. Based on the results from this study, it is
non-representative. However, given that the distribution concluded that product type can have moderating effects
of gender across groups was approximately equal, the data on the relationships between variables in the consumer
was used for the analysis. decision-making journey. However, given that both
customer experience with and awareness of a brand
As hypothesized, the relationship between customer contribute to brand equity, and that only H5 was accepted,
experience and brand awareness (H1) was positive and it cannot be concluded that product type has moderating
significant. This result was expected given that current effects on the dimensions of brand equity that influence
findings indicate that CE and BA have a positive consumer decisions. Instead, it can be concluded that the
correlation with purchase intention and that emotional moderating effects are dependent on the variables and
associations derived from interactions as well as BA relationships in question.
impact overall brand equity (Yoo et al., 2002; Pansari &
Kumar, 2016). However, these results bring into 7. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS
consideration the effect that customer experience can have One of the largest limitations of the study is that the
on brand awareness itself. The R2 value from this analysis consumers themselves were not asked to rate their
was also the largest out of the 3 tested relationships, perception of the type of product, which was done in other
highlighting the significance of the relationship between studies as a manipulation check (Ballester & Palazon,
customer experience and brand awareness. Hypothesis 2 2013; Dhar & Wertenbroch, 1999; Sloot, Verhoef &
was also accepted on account that the relationship between Franses, 2005). The chosen products were classified as
brand awareness and perceived value was positive. This either hedonic or utilitarian based on the classification of
contributes to the findings of Grewal (et al.,1998) by their predominant attributes and according to
showing that brand awareness itself, as part of brand Arabadzhieva (2016). Additionally, although the
equity, directly contributes to a customers’ perceived experiment intended to create an environment similar to
value. Furthermore, Hypothesis 3 was also accepted as the one that consumers would be in when online shopping, the
coefficient between customer experience and perceived constraints induced by the COVID-19 Pandemic and
value indicated a positive and statistically significant available technology restricted the extent to which this
correlation. The R2 statistic for the relationship between environment could be replicated. For example, in a ‘real-
CE and PV, however, was the lowest of the 3 conducted life’ situation, the consumer would be able to search
regression analyses. Therefore, it can be deduced that through different websites and media channels to find
brand awareness explains the variability in perceived alternative options and information to aid their decision
value slightly more than customer experience. (Huang & Rust, 2021; Laroche et al., 2012).

Since the relationships between these variables have Furthermore, in the construction of the sub-groups, no
already been proved, or previously suggested, the main experts were consulted to determine whether the brands
reason for the construction of Hypotheses 2 and 3 was to used could be classified as low or high brand equity. While
test underlying assumptions required to answer this method was used by Sloot, Verhoef, and Franses
Hypotheses 4 and 5. With that, the moderating effect of (2005), the classifications of the brands in this study were
Product Type will now be discussed. based on the range of products offered, their size of the
market, and the extent to which the brand is internationally
Although the F statistic between BA and PV, CE and PV sold. Another limitation is that only 2 variables of brand
varied slightly, only Hypothesis 5 could be accepted given equity were used to measure the moderating effects of
the statistical significance of the results. However, the product type. Furthermore, the distribution method may be
reason why the effects were significant on the relationship subject to bias. Although the surveys were also distributed
between CE and PV, and not BA and PV are unknown. through the internet, my personal network was used
This suggests that product type can affect consumer extensively to reach the required number of respondents.
decision-making at a variable level, however not with Additionally, the majority of the sample population
every variable path. It also indicates that there is potential included students between the ages of 18-25. This is likely
for similar research to find moderating effects of product to skew the representativeness of the sample, as
type between other brand equity variables that play a role differences in decision-making between generations have
in consumer decision making. been found (Stankevich, 2017).

6. CONCLUSION
The objective of this study was to explore the potential
moderating effects of product type on relationships
8. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
FUTURE RESEARCH 9. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my supervisor dr. Carolina
The results from this research study suggest that Herrando for her continuous support throughout the
marketers may need to consider their product type when development of this thesis. All of the feedback provided
designing and strategizing their customer experience by her was critical and constructive, and her support
journey, and brand equity and marketing strategy. While throughout my bachelor thesis is greatly appreciated.
the statistical analysis exhibited that product type did Additionally, I would like to thank my thesis circle peers
have some moderating effects, it also showed that these for the supportive environment they created and for
effects were not found across different variable providing guidance when I was confused and struggling.
relationships. The reasons as to why moderating effects
were found on the relationship between CE and PV, and I would also like to show my gratitude to all the
not BA and PV posit an interesting area for future participants in the survey, in addition to all my friends
research. Further research on this topic could lead to the and family that participated and contributed to the
identification of key variables that determine whether or distribution. Without you, I would not have been able to
not product type will have moderating effects on a complete this research study.
relationship. Therefore, future research is also
recommended on the effects of product type on different 10. REFERENCES
relationships between purchase intention and brand 1. American Marketing Association. “What Is
equity variables such as brand loyalty. Given that both Marketing? — the Definition of
brand awareness and experience contribute to brand Marketing.” American Marketing Association, 2017,
equity (Yoo et al., 2002), and that only hypothesis 5 www.ama.org/the-definition-of-marketing-what-is-
could be accepted, no practical implications with regards marketing/.
to the significance of brand equity in this context can be 2. Arabadzhieva, Inna. New Products: The Importance
suggested. Thus, further research is also recommended to of Product Characteristics in the Buying Process
test the moderating effects of product type on total Depending on the Product Type. 2016.
measured brand equity, and perceived value and purchase 3. Beneke, Justin, et al. “Propensity to Buy Private
intentions. Label Merchandise.” International Journal of Retail
& Distribution Management, vol. 43, no. 1, 12 Jan.
Determining the strength and direction of the moderating 2015, pp. 43–62, 10.1108/ijrdm-09-2013-0175.
effects and comparing the effects on relationships between Accessed 28 Feb. 2020.
both product types specifically, was outside the scope of 4. Chi, Hsin, et al. “The Impact of Brand Awareness on
this study. However, further research to investigate which Consumer Purchase Intention: The Mediating Effect
product type has stronger moderating effects on the of Perceived Quality and Brand Loyalty.” The
relationships between BE, PV, CE, and other decision- Journal of International Management Studies, vol. 4,
influencing variables is recommended. The practical no. 1, Feb. 2009.
significance of such research is for managers to allocate 5. De Veaux, Richard, et al. Stats Data and Models.
resources and build campaigns strategically by taking into Boston [U.A.] Pearson, 2016, pp. 174, 203, 209–
consideration the type of their product and level of brand 210, 775–777.
equity among their target audience. For example, 6. Dhar, Ravi, and Klaus Wertenbroch. “Consumer
according to Pansari and Kumar (2016), a customers’ Choice between Hedonic and Utilitarian
experience affects the likelihood and nature of them Goods.” Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 37, no.
engaging in indirect engagement activities, which include 1, Feb. 2000, pp. 60–71,
word of mouth and referrals. The results from this study journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1509/jmkr.37.1.60.187
also show that product type has a moderating effect on the 18, 10.1509/jmkr.37.1.60.18718.
relationship between CE and PV. Thus, when marketing 7. Farjam, Sanaz, and Xu Hongyi. “Brand Equity
one type of product to increase brand awareness, managers Model | Reviewing the Concept of Brand
can take into consideration the significance of the impact Equity.” International Journal of Management
that customer experience has in doing so, in comparison Science and Business Administration, vol. 1, no. 8,
to the other type of product. With this in consideration, July 2015, pp. 14–29, researchleap.com/reviewing-
managers may alter their allocation of resources to the-concept-of-brand-equity-and-evaluating-
maximize the effects of their strategies and campaigns, consumer-based-brand-equity-cbbe-models/.
while reducing overall costs and increasing profits. 8. Fernandes, Semila, et al. “Measurement of Factors
Influencing Online Shopper Buying Decisions: A
It is also recommended for future researchers to facilitate Scale Development and Validation.” Journal of
a more realistic online shopping environment that allows Retailing and Consumer Services, vol. 59, Mar.
consumers to search through any medium and website and 2021, p. 102394, 10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102394.
find the product they would most likely purchase in a real- 9. Gitto, Simone, and Paolo Mancuso. “Brand
life situation. Another recommendation is to determine the Perceptions of Airports Using Social
moderating effects on such variables across different Networks.” Journal of Air Transport Management,
levels of product involvement. This is because the level of vol. 75, Mar. 2019, pp. 153–163,
product involvement is known to affect the consumer www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096969
decision-making process (Arabadzhieva, 2016), therefore 9718303144, 10.1016/j.jairtraman.2019.01.010.
it may be interesting to consider this variable when 10. Graciola, Ana Paula, et al. “Mediated-Moderated
comparing groups by product type. Effects: High and Low Store Image, Brand
 Awareness, Perceived Value from Mini and Retailing and Consumer Services, Feb. 2021, p.
Supermarkets Retail Stores.” Journal of Retailing 102404, 10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102404.
and Consumer Services, vol. 55, July 2020, p. Accessed 24 Mar. 2021.
102117, 10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102117. 22. Palazon, Mariola, and Elena Delgado-Ballester.
Accessed 8 June 2020. “Hedonic or Utilitarian Premiums: Does It
11. Grewal, Dhruv, et al. “The Effect of Store Name, Matter?” European Journal of Marketing, vol. 47, no.
Brand Name and Price Discounts on Consumers’ 8, 26 July 2013, pp. 1256–1275,
Evaluations and Purchase Intentions.” Journal of 10.1108/03090561311324318. Accessed 4 Dec.
Retailing, vol. 74, no. 3, Sept. 1998, pp. 331–352, 2019.
10.1016/s0022-4359(99)80099-2. 23. Pansari, Anita, and V. Kumar. “Customer
12. Ha, Hong-Youl, and Helen Perks. “Effects of Engagement: The Construct, Antecedents, and
Consumer Perceptions of Brand Experience on the Consequences.” Journal of the Academy of
Web: Brand Familiarity, Satisfaction and Brand Marketing Science, vol. 45, no. 3, 11 June 2016, pp.
Trust.” Journal of Consumer Behaviour, vol. 4, no. 6, 294–311, 10.1007/s11747-016-0485-6.
2005, pp. 438–452, 10.1002/cb.29. 24. Rossiter, J. R. (2014). 'Branding' explained: defining
13. Holmlund, Maria, et al. “Customer Experience and measuring brand awareness and brand attitude.
Management in the Age of Big Data Analytics: A Journal of Brand Management, 21 (7/8), 533-540.
Strategic Framework.” Journal of Business Research, 25. Shah, Denish, and B.P.S. Murthi. “Marketing in a
vol. 116, Feb. 2020, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.01.022. Data-Driven Digital World: Implications for the Role
14. Homburg, Christian, et al. “Brand Awareness in and Scope of Marketing.” Journal of Business
Business Markets: When Is It Related to Firm Research, vol. 125, July 2020,
Performance?” International Journal of Research in 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.06.062.
Marketing, vol. 27, no. 3, Sept. 2010, pp. 201–212, 26. Sloot, Laurens M., et al. “The Impact of Brand Equity
10.1016/j.ijresmar.2010.03.004. Accessed 30 Jan. and the Hedonic Level of Products on Consumer
2020. Stock-out Reactions.” Journal of Retailing, vol. 81,
15. Huang, Ming-Hui, and Roland T. Rust. “A Strategic no. 1, Jan. 2005, pp. 15–34,
Framework for Artificial Intelligence in 10.1016/j.jretai.2005.01.001. Accessed 27 June
Marketing.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing 2019.
Science, vol. 49, 4 Nov. 2021, pp. 30–50, 27. Stankevich, Alina. “Explaining the Consumer
10.1007/s11747-020-00749-9. Decision-Making Process: Critical Literature
16. Kirk, Dan, et al. “Promoting Integrative Bargaining: Review.” Journal of International Business Research
Mental Contrasting with Implementation and Marketing, vol. 2, no. 6, 2017, pp. 7–14,
Intentions.” International Journal of Conflict 10.18775/jibrm.1849-8558.2015.26.3001.
Management, vol. 24, no. 2, 19 Apr. 2013, pp. 148– 28. UNCTAD. “COVID-19 Has Changed Online
165, 10.1108/10444061311316771. Shopping Forever, Survey Shows |
17. Kuppelwieser, Volker G., and Phil Klaus. UNCTAD.” Unctad.org, 8 Oct. 2020,
“Measuring Customer Experience Quality: The EXQ unctad.org/news/covid-19-has-changed-online-
Scale Revisited.” Journal of Business Research, vol. shopping-forever-survey-shows.
126, Jan. 2020, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.01.042. 29. van Doorn, Jenny, et al. “Customer Engagement
Accessed 4 Feb. 2020. Behavior: Theoretical Foundations and Research
18. Laroche, Michel, et al. “The Effects of Social Media Directions.” Journal of Service Research, vol. 13, no.
Based Brand Communities on Brand Community 3, Aug. 2010, pp. 253–266,
Markers, Value Creation Practices, Brand Trust and 10.1177/1094670510375599.
Brand Loyalty.” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 30. Voorhees, Clay M., et al. “Service Encounters,
28, no. 5, Sept. 2012, pp. 1755–1767, Experiences and the Customer Journey: Defining the
10.1016/j.chb.2012.04.016. Field and a Call to Expand Our Lens.” Journal of
19. Lee, Wan-I., et al. “Effects among Product Business Research, vol. 79, Oct. 2017, pp. 269–280,
Attributes, Involvement, Word-of-Mouth, and 10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.04.014.
Purchase Intention in Online Shopping.” Asia Pacific 31. Yoo, B., et al. “An Examination of Selected
Management Review, vol. 22, no. 4, Dec. 2017, pp. Marketing Mix Elements and Brand Equity.” Journal
223–229, 10.1016/j.apmrv.2017.07.007. Accessed of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 28, no. 2,
19 Feb. 2019. 1 Apr. 2000, pp. 195–211,
20. Lemon, Katherine N., and Peter C. Verhoef. 10.1177/0092070300282002. Accessed 22 Mar.
“Understanding Customer Experience throughout the 2019.
Customer Journey.” Journal of Marketing, vol. 80, 32. Yoo, Boonghee, and Naveen Donthu. “Developing
no. 6, Nov. 2016, pp. 69–96, 10.1509/jm.15.0420. and Validating a Multidimensional Consumer-Based
21. Molinillo, Sebastian, et al. “Social Commerce Brand Equity Scale.” Journal of Business Research,
Website Design, Perceived Value and Loyalty vol. 52, no. 1, Apr. 2001, pp. 1–14, 10.1016/s0148-
Behavior Intentions: The Moderating Roles of 2963(99)00098-3.
Gender, Age and Frequency of Use.” Journal of

11. APPENDIX
Appendix A: Survey and experiment construction
Appendix A.1 Product choice criteria per experiment group
The utilitarian product chosen for this experiment, Group A, is a microwave. To construct the sub-groups, the capacity, the
number of customer reviews, and average product rating are ranked from 1-10, best to worst respectively, in comparison with
the 10 product options gathered to construct this experiment. The best attributes are considered to be the highest number of
and average customer ratings and the highest microwave capacity. The average of each product's attribute ratings is calculated
and then rated again from 1, the lowest average score indicating the best option across all criteria, to 10, which is considered
to be the worst choice considering all the criteria.

For group A.1, where all the products presented are of a similar value across the mentioned criteria dimensions, the two brands
chosen scored 1 and 7 in terms of the overall ranking. While the 2 low-equity brand products chosen scored 2 and 5 (in a two-
way tie) in the overall ranking. Thus, they are all options where high and low equity brand products hold closely equal product
attributes. For Group A.2, where the brands presented are considered to be better choices than those belonging to low-equity
brands, the high-equity branded products selected ranked overall 1 and 7, while the latter ranked 5, at a tie. Thus providing 4
options where one of the high-equity brands is objectively better in comparison to both low-equity brand products. Finally, for
Group A.3 where the low-equity branded products are, according to the presented criteria, better options than those of high-
equity brands, the former ranked 2 and 4 while the latter ranked 10 and 8.

Choosing a hedonic product for experiment Group B was a greater challenge, as these types of products are chosen depending
on personal taste and interests e.g., cake, or music. Therefore, a unisex perfume was chosen as the product for this group and
no extra description of the scent is given. The options presented in Group B.1, B.2, and B.3 are chosen based on the same
ranking process and criteria as Group A.1, A.2, and A.3 respectively.

Appendix A.2 All group products and rankings

The following table includes the overall rankings for each of the 4 product options per sub-group. The average score of 1 is
considered to be the best product option based on the ranking of all product attributes, and the average score of 10 is considered
to be, objectively, the worst product option. The corresponding brand names for each product option per group are as follows:
Group A.1: (1) Samsung 3AK, (2) Black Decker, (3) Comfee, (4) Toshiba.
Group A.2: (1) Toshiba, (2) Samsung 3AK, (3) Faberware, (4) Commercial Chef.
Group A.3: (1) Samsung 3TAK, (2) Panasonic, (3) Comfee, (4) Keonic KMW.
Group B.1: (1) Calvin Klein One, (2) Guerlain, (3) AllSaints, (4) Yves Saint Laurent.
Group B.2: (1) Calvin Klein One, (2) Yves Saint Laurent, (3) Hermetica, (4) Byredo.
Group B.3: (1) Chanel, (2) Calvin Klein BE, (3) AllSaints, (4) Guerlain.

Product A.1 A.2 A.3 B.1 B.2 B.3

option:
1 7 1 10 1 1 8
2 5 7 8 3 3 6
3 2 5 2 2 3 2
4 1 5 4 3 7 3

Appendix A.3 The survey

1. Which product would you most likely purchase?
PV1 The money I spend on this option is well spent
PV2 The benefit I would get from choosing this purchase this option is very high
PV3 The price for this product option is adequate to what I get for my money
2. What was the brand of the product you selected in the previous section (the experiment)?
3. Why have you chosen this product?
4. Have you previously purchased PRODUCT from the company that you selected in section 1?
5. Have you purchased any other type of product from the brand in the option you chose in section 1?
6. Did you recognize any brands from the options you were given in section 1?
7. Which brands do you recognize?
8. Have you purchased anything from any of these brands?
9. If you have purchased anything from any of the mentioned brands, please specify from which.

Please answer the following questions based on the company you have selected in section 1, from here onwards
referred to as COMPANY.
Please rate the statements on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
BA1 When I think of COMPANY, the symbol or the logo comes to mind.
BA2 I am very familiar or accustomed with the brand of this COMPANY.
BA3 This COMPANY brand differs from other competing brands.
CE1 COMPANY has a good reputation
CE2 COMPANY’s offerings have the best quality
CE3 I chose COMPANY not because of price alone.
SD1 How old are you?
SD2 Which country do you currently live in?
SD3 What is your gender?
SD4 What is your current occupation?