01 Why it matters.

Brakus, Schmitt and Zarantonello gave the field a validated four-dimensional scale for measuring brand experience: sensory, affective, intellectual, behavioural. This framework — which explicitly includes packaging, physical environment, and retail space within its scope — is the foundational tool for understanding how luxury brands create experiences rather than merely products.

For The Codes of Luxury, this paper anchors our analysis of the ritual economy of luxury. The four dimensions correspond precisely to what a well-designed luxury unboxing activates in sequence: sensory cues (texture, scent), affective responses (anticipation, pleasure), intellectual engagement (brand story, provenance), and behavioural invitation (unwrapping slowly, photographing, preserving). Every luxury brand building physical touchpoints is — whether they know it or not — working within this framework.

02 Key takeaways.

  1. 01 Brand experience comprises four dimensions: sensory, affective, intellectual, and behavioural.
  2. 02 Brand experience predicts brand loyalty both directly and through brand personality and satisfaction.
  3. 03 The framework includes packaging, environment, and retail space — not just advertising and product.
  4. 04 Experiential touchpoints that activate multiple dimensions simultaneously produce stronger loyalty effects.
  5. 05 Brand experience is distinct from brand attitude and brand image; it is about what the brand does, not what it is.

03 Used in our research.

  1. 01 InsightThe Ritual Economy: Why Packaging Is the First Chapter of the Product
  2. 02 InsightThe Flagship Store Is Not Dead — It’s Becoming Something ElseComing soon
  3. 03 Case StudyLouis Vuitton in Shanghai: When a Flagship Becomes a Monument
  4. 04 Case StudyLe Labo: How a Fragrance Brand Built a Cult Without Mass Media

Cite this source

APA

Brakus, J. J., Schmitt, B. H., & Zarantonello, L. (2009). Brand experience: What is it? How do we measure it? And does it affect loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 73(3), 52–68. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.3.052