Dimensions That Influence the Creation of Brand Value of a Music Event and Its Influence on Attendee Satisfaction
1
Management & Marketing Department, Faculty of Business Administration and Tourism, University of Huelva, 21002 Huelva, Spain
2
Universidad Autónoma de Chile, Sede Talca 3467987, Chile
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Soc. Sci. 2023, 12(3), 177; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12030177
Submission received: 18 December 2022
/
Revised: 5 February 2023
/
Accepted: 27 February 2023
/
Published: 15 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Social Economics)
Abstract
Background: Music festivals are part of the cultural industry, and have become an ever-growing phenomenon. It is essential for organisers to identify whether the marketing strategies implemented are positive and effective in generating a competitive advantage. The aim of this study is to identify the elements that make up the brand equity of an emerging music festival, and to find out whether the overall brand equity determines the satisfaction and subsequent behaviours of festival-goers. Methods: Quantitative research was used by conducting an ad hoc structured survey during the development of a live music festival in May 2022. The questionnaire collects information about dimensions that make up the global brand value and how they influence satisfaction and behavioural intentions, consisting of a total of 33 indicators.; Results: Awareness, perceived quality, and loyalty are the most influential dimensions in shaping the brand of a festival. There is a correlation between the overall brand value and the satisfaction of the attendees, and that the latter influences the subsequent loyalty and recommendation of the event. Conclusions: The causal relationships between the dimensions of brand equity and overall brand equity are shown, where three of the four hypotheses are accepted. Similarly, the three hypotheses related to the influence of overall brand image and behavioural intentions are also accepted.
1. Introduction
Music festivals bring economic, social, and cultural benefits to the communities in which they are held, contributing to event tourism and destination marketing. This type of industry has experienced strong growth and evolution from the 1990s to the present day as this type of event brings together thousands of people, making it one of the most important manifestations of mass cultural consumption today. Faced with the increase in the supply of this type of event, there is a growing need to improve the positioning of these events in order to gain a competitive advantage by using the best marketing strategies and tactics to market the festival and add value to the brand.
When consumers decide to attend a festival, in their minds, they idealise certain expectations that they hope the festival can fulfil. If these expectations are met, the attendee will associate the festival with a high brand value, and this value will lead to attendee satisfaction, which should be the main objective of any marketing strategy. Attendees who feel completely satisfied are less sensitive to prices and competition, creating a bond of loyalty between them and the festival. Likewise, if the perceived brand value is positive, so are the attendees’ behavioural intentions (Ding and Hung 2021; Palacio et al. 2008; Tanford and Jung 2017).
There are few studies on brand equity in the context of music festivals. Studies in this area have analysed the influence of the dimensions that make up brand equity and the influence of brand equity on the satisfaction and behavioural intentions of festival-goers, but they have been applied in the context of large, long-established festivals with an established brand.
Therefore, the need arises to analyse whether the dimensions that shape brand equity in nascent and less established festivals may differ from those that are found to be more influential in mature festivals, in order to help organisers focus their marketing strategies on the dimensions that are most significant, and thus on the marketing communications that actually influence those dimensions and that may be controlled by the organisation or external to the organisation (Berry 2000; Keller 1993; Llopis-Amorós et al. 2018; Yoo et al. 2000).
Therefore, the aim of this paper is to develop an explanatory model of the elements that shape the overall brand equity of a start-up music festival, and how brand equity in turn influences the satisfaction and behavioural intentions of festival-goers.
It is structured as follows: First, a review of the literature on brand equity with special reference to music festivals is provided. Next, the work methodology is presented and an empirical study is carried out to analyse the case of an incipient festival, which is celebrating its sixth edition. Finally, the conclusions and practical applications of this research will be presented. The model has been developed by applying the PLS technique of partial least squares or analysis of variance, testing the hypotheses using the SmartPLS programme.
From the results obtained, we found that, of the different dimensions that make up the brand value of an incipient festival, brand awareness, perceived quality, and brand loyalty contribute positively to the creation of the overall brand value of the festival. The latter is also found to influence both attendee satisfaction and attendee behavioural intentions.
Theoretical Framework
Starting from the proposed objective of developing an explanatory model of the elements that globally configure the brand value of an incipient music festival, this study aims to help managers to know which tools they should focus their commercial strategy. In agreement with authors, such as Aaker (1996), Castro (2008) and Llopis-Amorós et al. (2018), we assume that brand value is a concept subject to elements or variables that influence the formation of the brand, and therefore has a multidimensional nature. In this sense, Aaker (1996) develops a model that points to the existence of five dimensions for measuring brand value, although he focuses on analysing only four of them, as they come directly from customers, namely awareness, image/associations, perceived quality, and loyalty.
In line with this model, several authors have focused their studies on how these dimensions impact overall brand equity (Kim and Hyun 2011; Kim et al. 2008; Kumar et al. 2013; Lee et al. 2014; Sasmita and Suki 2015; Yasin et al. 2007; Yoo et al. 2000; Yoo and Donthu 2001). However, in the tourism field, explanatory work on global brand equity formation in the event industry in general, and music festivals in particular, is scarce (Camarero et al. 2010; Kim 2015; Leenders 2010; Lin 2011; Llopis-Amorós et al. 2018, 2019; Manthiou et al. 2014); moreover, they are focused on large festivals whose brand was well positioned and recognisable by the festival audience (Llopis-Amorós et al. 2018, 2019). Therefore, we highlight the importance of corroborating these relationships in the context of recently created festivals whose brand is not so well recognised by potential users.
The brand awareness component refers to the recall of the brand name or the ability to do so by the consumer (Aaker 1996; Keller 1993), this ability can be increased through the use of a correct advertising strategy (Llopis-Amorós et al. 2018), positively influencing, through customers’ decisions, and the creation of brand value (Huang and Sarigöllü 2014). However, in the results obtained in the studies conducted in the context of music festivals, this dimension does not seem to have an influence on the overall brand value of the festival (Llopis-Amorós et al. 2018, 2019), which could be explained by the fact that its influence has been analysed in high-prestige festivals that already have a high brand awareness. Therefore, the strategies followed to increase brand awareness and brand value are not influential in this type of festivals, although they could be influential in recently created festivals that do not have such a developed brand awareness.
Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis about the influence of awareness on the overall brand value for a festival:
H1.
There is a positive relationship between the brand awareness dimension of the festival and the overall brand value of the festival.
Brand associations or brand image relate to the consumer’s mental image, positive or negative, of the brand (Aaker 1996; Hossien et al. 2012; Keller 1993). This dimension can be understood as an instrument for compiling information, so a strategy focused on its increase can be followed using different information media, such as news, reviews, word-of-mouth, and various aspects related to the brand image (Llopis-Amorós et al. 2018, 2019; Šerić et al. 2014).
Although different studies have found the existence of a correlation between this dimension and brand equity (Bailey and Ball 2006; Chang and Liu 2009; Kumar et al. 2013; Oh and Hsu 2014; Sasmita and Suki 2015), again we found no empirical evidence of its influence on the creation of overall brand equity in the festival industry (Llopis-Amorós et al. 2018, 2019), which could, again, be explained by the correct positioning existing in the analysed festivals. However, following the argument applied with the awareness dimension, we believe it is convenient to verify whether this dimension can have an influence on smaller festivals, so we propose the following hypothesis:
H2.
There is a positive relationship between the festival brand image/association dimension and the overall brand value of the festival.
The perceived quality dimension is of vital importance as it refers to whether consumers perceive that the service offered by the festival is superior to others (Jago et al. 2003; Llopis-Amorós et al. 2018; Ravasi et al. 2018). Aaker (1996) presents it as a key strategic variable because, if perceived quality is good, it produces a financial return to organisations that must not only ensure the quality of their products or services but must also ensure that quality is perceived.
Evidence of the influence of this dimension on overall brand equity can be found in other studies (Kim and Hyun 2011; Kumar et al. 2013; Šerić et al. 2014; Yoo et al. 2000; Yoo and Donthu 2001). Furthermore, studies focusing on the festival industry have shown that perceived quality and brand equity are correlated (Llopis-Amorós et al. 2018, 2019), so we pose the third hypothesis of our model in that sense:
H3.
There is a positive relationship between the perceived quality dimension of the festival brand and the overall brand value of the festival.
Finally, brand loyalty represents the bond created between a brand and its customer (Aaker 1996), which makes consumers choose one brand over another and remain loyal to it (Llopis-Amorós et al. 2018; Šerić et al. 2014; Yoo et al. 2000), thereby globally increasing the value of a given brand (Yoo et al. 2000). The correlation between loyalty and overall brand equity has been contrasted in several studies (Kim and Hyun 2011; Kumar et al. 2013; Sasmita and Suki 2015; Yasin et al. 2007; Yoo et al. 2000), and its influence in the context of a music festival has also been proven (Llopis-Amorós et al. 2018, 2019), so we propose the following hypothesis:
H4.
There is a positive relationship between the festival brand loyalty dimension and the overall brand value of the festival.
Regarding the relationship between the overall brand equity of a festival and the satisfaction and behavioural intentions of festival-goers, several studies confirm that brand equity positively influences satisfaction and loyalty to a tourism destination (Palacio et al. 2008). While this relationship seems to be direct between overall brand equity and satisfaction, behavioural intentions are influenced indirectly through satisfaction (Horng et al. 2012; Huang and Sarigöllü 2014; Llopis-Amorós et al. 2018; Nam et al. 2011).
The relationship between satisfaction and behavioural variables, including the intention to revisit the festival (Choo et al. 2016) and to recommend it to others (Croes and Lee 2015), has been measured in numerous studies (Bruwer 2014; Ding and Hung 2021; Llopis-Amorós et al. 2018, 2019; Mason and Paggiaro 2012; Tanford and Jung 2017; Yan et al. 2012; Yoon et al. 2010). With few exceptions, individual studies report significant relationships between satisfaction and attendees’ behavioural intentions.
In this regard, Tanford and Jung (2017) suggest that festival organisers should focus on working on the variables that influence achieving festival attendee satisfaction, as such a strategy will encourage repeat attendance and stimulate future visits to the festival destination.
Therefore, we propose hypotheses five, six, and seven of the model:
H5.
Global brand equity positively influences festival attendee satisfaction.
H6.
Global brand equity positively influences festival-goer behavioural intentions.
H7.
Festival-goer satisfaction positively influences their behavioural intentions.
Figure 1 summarises the relationships of the proposed structural model.
2. Materials and Methods
In order to test the hypotheses, we used quantitative research by conducting a structured ad hoc survey during the development of a live indie music festival, “Interestelar”, which took place in Seville (Andalusia, Spain) in May 2022. The festival was selected as the object of study because it was in its sixth edition and the number of attendees was not very high. The questionnaire used to test the model is the one used by Llopis-Amorós et al. (2018) (Table 1), with information about the dimensions that make up the global brand value (Aaker 1996), and how they influence satisfaction and behavioural intentions, consisting of a total of 33 indicators. It has been chosen in order to be able to develop a comparison between the results of both investigations, and to provide information on brand equity in music festivals due to the scarcity of research on the subject. Specifically, the dimensions brand awareness and brand image/associations are measured on the basis of four items. The perceived quality dimension is measured using six items and three items to represent brand loyalty. Overall brand value uses a 4-item scale. Finally, five items are used to measure attendee satisfaction and five items to measure behavioural intentions. All items are measured through 5-point Likert-type scales, where 1 = Strongly disagree and 5 = Strongly agree.
The target population is the festival attendees, a total of 24,000 according to data provided by the festival organisers, obtaining a sample of 150 attendees. All patients were registered in the study. They received a set of questionnaires and detailed information about the aims and procedures of the study. They were included after giving their written informed consent. The sample size was calculated with a confidence level of 95% and a precision of 5%.
3. Results
In order to assess the weight and magnitude of the relationships between the different variables of the proposed structural model, and to meet the proposed objective, we must first analyse the validity and reliability of the measurement model through the individual reliability of the indicators, the reliability of the construct (internal consistency), and the convergent and discriminant validity, using PLS-SEM.
Following the results obtained (Table 2), three indicators were eliminated from the model, corresponding to the construct “behavioural intentions” (BEHINTEN2, BEHINTEN6, and BEHINTEN7) and one indicator was also eliminated from the model, corresponding to the construct “awareness” (AWARENESS4). This elimination has hardly entailed any changes in the structural model and has in no way modified the conclusions drawn from it (Carmines and Zeller 1979).
With regard to the reliability of the construct, we analysed the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and the composite reliability (Pc) of the same, which should reach values above 0.7 (Nunnally and Bernstein 1993). To assess convergent validity, which implies that the indicators represent a single underlying construct, we used the average variance extracted (AVE), which provides the amount of variance that a construct obtains from its indicators in relation to the amount of variance due to measurement error and should reach values above 0.5 (Fornell and Larcker 1981).
The results, shown in Table 3, confirm construct reliability and convergent validity.
Discriminant validity indicates the extent to which a construct is different from other constructs. To verify that this is true in our model, we checked that the correlations between constructs are lower than the square root of the average variance extracted (Fornell and Larcker 1981), and verified this criterion using a cross-correlation table (Table 4). Likewise, we employed the HTMT index (Henseler et al. 2015), using the bootstrap option, verifying that in all intervals the value 1 falls outside the intervals, which implies that the constructs are distinct and that there is discriminant validity (Table 5) (Henseler et al. 2015).
Next, we estimate the proposed structural model by interpreting the values obtained for the standardised path coefficients β and R2 (Chin 1998; Falk and Miller 1992). To perform the analysis of the strength of the research hypotheses proposed in this paper leading to their counterfactuals, we run a Bootstrap analysis in PLS to use a 1-tailed t-Students distribution, generating 500 subsamples that allow us to determine which relationships are statistically significant, obtaining the results shown in Table 6. The effect size (f2) measures the contribution of each exogenous in explaining endogenous variables. According to Cohen (1988), f2 with a value of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 for significant exogenous indicates weak, moderate, and strong effects, respectively.
Observing the t-Students obtained, we found that the dimension awareness, perceived quality, and brand loyalty have a positive influence on the creation of the overall brand value of the festival. The hypothesis referring to image/association has not been supported, so we cannot affirm that it influences the overall brand value.
We also found that the perceived overall brand value has a positive and significant effect on festival-goer satisfaction and behavioural intentions. Finally, we test hypothesis 7, which states that festival-goer satisfaction positively influences festival-goer behavioural intentions.
Similarly, we found some indirect effects in the proposed path model, showed in Table 7.
Regarding the predictive power of the model, we found that the R2 values of the variables in the model are well above the 0.1 value recommended by Falk and Miller (1992), concluding that the model has adequate predictive power. Table 8 shows the R2 values of the model.
Finally, the model has been evaluated by analysing the cross-validated redundancy index (Q2) for the dependent variable. A Q2 greater than 0 implies that the model shows predictive relevance (Chin 1998). In our case, the structural model obtained satisfactory predictive relevance. In addition, we analyse the mean absolute error (MAE) and the mean absolute error (RMSE), which aggregate the prediction errors of each case from an out-of-sample data set, as suggested by the author (Evermann and Tate 2014). The MAE and RMSE metrics express the mean prediction error of the model. In this case, if the PLS model metrics are lower than in the linear model, which means that it has good predictive power in that item. In the present study, 8 out of 13 items meet the recommendation guide on predictive relevance, which is more than 50% of the total number of items (Shmueli et al. 2019). In view of the values obtained, we can affirm that our model has a good predictive quality (See Table 9).
4. Discussion
This study shows that the marketing strategies used by large music festivals are also effective when applied on a smaller scale, in festivals with a brand value not yet consolidated. For that reason, this type of research is a great contribution for those music festivals that intend to be competitive in their growth.
It has been proven that the overall brand value has an influence on satisfaction, which is a phenomenon linked to cognitive judgements and affective responses, which are manifested through feelings that are generated as a consequence in the evaluation of the festival. The total satisfaction of the attendee produces a series of feelings that will materialise in positive attitudes towards the brand and possible repurchase.
The results of the empirical research carried out show us the causal relationships between the dimensions of brand value and overall brand value, where three of the four hypotheses put forward were accepted. Thus, it is concluded that the awareness variable influences the overall brand value. This means that the knowledge that the attendees have generates an attitude of attendance at the festival, therefore, it is influential in the construction of value. With regard to image/associations, a positive and significant result on the overall brand value is not obtained, so the hypothesis cannot be accepted. It is considered that the non-acceptance of this hypothesis is caused by the poor performances of the festival, which is not using any differentiation strategy with respect to other festivals, so its attendees cannot perceive it as a unique festival; therefore, the positioning of the analysed festival compared to others is irrelevant.
As for perceived quality, it can be said that it is also influential in the creation of overall brand value. Finally, the loyalty variable is positioned as the most significant and influential of the four. In the relationships between global brand equity, and satisfaction and behavioural intentions, it is concluded that the global brand equity perceived by the attendee significantly affects his or her satisfaction and subsequent behaviour. Therefore, the results allow us to affirm that satisfaction is a direct consequence of global brand value, as are the attendee’s behavioural intentions. Furthermore, it is concluded that satisfaction has a significant and positive effect on behavioural intentions, making satisfaction a mediator between behaviours and overall brand equity. In short, it can be affirmed that brand value has an important and significant effect on behavioural intentions, and that this is directly influenced through satisfaction. Therefore, the better the attendee’s global brand perception, the greater the satisfaction and subsequent behavioural intentions.
The results obtained in previous studies on the dimensions of global brand value in music festivals (Llopis-Amorós et al. 2018, 2019) show the fulfilment of the hypotheses put forward, with the exception of two of them, those referring to the influence of brand awareness and brand image/association on the global brand value of the festival. In the research completed, based on their study model, we obtained the same result for image/association; however, the hypothesis formulated for awareness is accepted in our work. This difference may be due to the prestige that the festivals analysed had achieved throughout their trajectory, being among the best festivals in Spain, so the strategies followed for the development of their awareness are not influential, on the contrary, the festival under study has celebrated its sixth edition this year, and is still not sufficiently recognised by the public, so the marketing strategies carried out to develop its awareness are influential in the brand value.
After the results were obtained, it is important to bear in mind that of the variables that make up brand value, loyalty is the most influential of all, therefore, the most important in the creation of overall brand value. Therefore, it is essential that managers focus their marketing actions and strategies on building the loyalty of festival attendees. For example, they could carry out surveys to better understand the tastes of the attendees in relation to the line-up of artists, the environment and distribution of the festival, or to contemplate the needs they may have; in short, to make the attendees feel that their opinion and preferences are important for the festival before it takes place. In the same way, the managers must concentrate their efforts on the quality of the festival, optimising the available resources and working on the motivation of the employees so that the treatment of the attendees is unique and excellent.
In order to generate greater awareness of the festival, it is necessary to ensure that communication is optimal, as it is one of the most important elements for this variable. For managers, it is essential to be interested in the communication that is carried out by the festival itself, and that which is generated externally and beyond the control of the organisation. External communication is developed through word-of-mouth, through social networks and different platforms where users share their opinions and disseminate their experiences, making it very reliable for anyone seeking information on the subject. Likewise, in order to obtain a satisfactory communication, it is necessary to use social networks, since they create the opportunity to interact directly with the attendees. On the other hand, it is necessary to highlight that traditional media, such as the press, radio, or television, are falling into disuse and are expensive; therefore, information must be transmitted through the festival’s website and social networks, issuing clear and concise messages.
With regard to social networks, managers should use them with the aim of involving the user in the whole development and organisation of the festival, for example, by giving behind-the-scenes tours, or holding competitions that reward users for their knowledge of the festival in order to encourage their participation and interest. In relation to the festival’s image/associations, although they have not shown influence on brand equity, it should be considered because other studies have shown that they can generate value.
5. Conclusions
Brand value includes factors, such as reputation, quality, user experience, followers’ loyalty, etc. A music festival with a strong and well-valued brand will attract more attendees and sponsors, which can improve its revenue and long-term success. Brand value can also be influenced by external factors, such as location, security, transportation, and the diversity of musical genres offered. It is important for festival organizers to maintain and improve their brand value to maintain their position in a competitive market.
With the results obtained through these four variables, it is considered necessary to focus efforts on achieving a high overall brand value, since this generates greater satisfaction among attendees, and this, in turn, generates positive behavioural intentions, which will lead to the recommendation of the festival, and attendance next year.
Finally, some general limitations in this work are also recognized. First, the generated information must be interpreted with caution, as in structural models, causality is understood in terms of statistical association and not based on the design of the study. Nevertheless, the applied causal relationships are based on recognized theoretical foundations. On the other hand, it must be kept in mind that structural equation models assume linearity in causal relationships, which represents another limitation if these relationships are not linear. Finally, the generalization of the results is another limitation, as the scope of the research only allows generalizing the results of the analyses to the population from which the sample is drawn. To improve this last limitation, it would be advisable to replicate this research in other festivals, in other geographic contexts, and with a larger sample size.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, R.M.V.-A. and E.G.-d.-S.-C.; methodology, M.A.G.-G.; validation, M.A.G.-G. and E.G.-d.-S.-C.; formal analysis, E.G.-d.-S.-C.; investigation, R.M.V.-A.; resources, R.M.V.-A.; data curation, M.A.G.-G.; writing—original draft preparation, R.M.V.-A.; writing—review and editing, M.A.G.-G. and E.G.-d.-S.-C.; supervision, M.A.G.-G. and R.M.V.-A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Ethical approval was not sought for the present study because we have not revealed any individual information.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Can be provided from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Aaker, David A. 1996. Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California Management Review 38: 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bailey, Rob, and Stephen Ball. 2006. An exploration of the meanings of hotel brand equity. The Service Industries Journal 26: 15–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berry, Leonard L. 2000. Cultivating service brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28: 128–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bruwer, Johan. 2014. Service quality perception and satisfaction: Buying behaviour prediction in an Australian Festivalscape. International Journal of Tourism Research 16: 76–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Camarero, Carmen, María José Garrido, and Eva Vicente. 2010. Components of art exhibition brand equity for internal and external visitors. Tourism Management 31: 495–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carmines, Edward G., and Richard A. Zeller. 1979. Reliability and Validity Assessment. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
- Castro, Carlos Pérez. 2008. Valoración y evaluación de marcas: Medir para crear valor. Cambridge: Harvard University. Bilbao: Grupo Planeta (GBS). [Google Scholar]
- Chang, Hsin Hsin, and Ya Ming Liu. 2009. The impact of brand equity on brand preference and purchase intentions in the service industries. The Service Industries Journal 29: 1687–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chin, Wynne W. 1998. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research 295: 295–336. [Google Scholar]
- Choo, Hyungsuk, Kwangho Ahn, and James F. Petrick. 2016. An integrated model of festival revisit intentions: Theory of planned behavior and festival quality/satisfaction. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 28: 818–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
- Croes, Robertico, and Seung Hyun Lee. 2015. Women at a music festival: Biological sex defining motivation and behavioral intentions. Event Management 19: 275–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ding, Hai-Meng, and Kuang-Peng Hung. 2021. The antecedents of visitors’ flow experience and its influence on memory and behavioral intentions in the music festival context. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 19: 100551. [Google Scholar]
- Evermann, Joerg, and Mary Tate. 2014. Comparing out-of-sample predictive ability of PLS, covariance, and regression models. Paper presented at the 35th International Conference on Information Systems, Auckland, New Zealand, December 14–17. [Google Scholar]
- Falk, R. Frank, and Nancy B. Miller. 1992. A Primer for Soft Modeling. Akron: University of Akron Press. [Google Scholar]
- Fornell, Claes, and David F. Larcker. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18: 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henseler, Jörg, Christian M. Ringle, and Marko Sarstedt. 2015. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of marketing Science 43: 115–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Horng, Jeou-Shyan, Chih-Hsing Liu, Hsin-Yu Chou, and Chang-Yen Tsai. 2012. Understanding the impact of culinary brand equity and destination familiarity on travel intentions. Tourism Management 33: 815–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hossien, Emari, Jafari Ali, and Mogaddam Mehdi. 2012. The mediatory impact of brand loyalty and brand image on brand equity. African Journal of Business Management 6: 5692–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, Rong, and Emine Sarigöllü. 2014. How brand awareness relates to market outcome, brand equity, and the marketing mix. In Fashion Branding and Consumer Behaviors. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 113–32. [Google Scholar]
- Jago, Leo, Laurence Chalip, Graham Brown, Trevor Mules, and Shameem Ali. 2003. Building events into destination branding: Insights from experts. Event Management 8: 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keller, Kevin Lane. 1993. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing 57: 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, Ji-Hern, and Yong J. Hyun. 2011. A model to investigate the influence of marketing-mix efforts and corporate image on brand equity in the IT software sector. Industrial Marketing Management 40: 424–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, Jiun. 2015. A Study on the Invigoration Characteristics (Service Quality, Satisfaction, and Brand Value) of Gangneung Danoje Festival-With a Focus on the Visitors to 2014 Gangneung Danoje Festival. Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research 4: 317. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, Kyung Hoon, Kang Sik Kim, Dong Yul Kim, Jong Ho Kim, and Suk Hou Kang. 2008. Brand equity in hospital marketing. Journal of Business Research 1: 75–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, Ravi Shekhar, Satyabhusan Dash, and Prem Chandra Purwar. 2013. The nature and antecedents of brand equity and its dimensions. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 31: 41–159. [Google Scholar]
- Leenders, Mark A. A. M. 2010. The relative importance of the brand of music festivals: A customer equity perspective. Journal of Strategic Marketing 18: 291–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, Taehwee, Gi-Tae Yeo, and Vinh V. Thai. 2014. Structural analysis of port brand equity using structural equation modeling. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 30: 349–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, Hsing-Hui. 2011. A multidimensional customer-based brand equity and its application to religious events: The case of Mazu. Ph.D. thesis, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA. [Google Scholar]
- Llopis-Amorós, Maria-Pilar, Irene Gil-Saura, and María Eugenia Ruiz Molina. 2018. The role of marketing communications in generating brand equity for an event. Event Management 22: 825–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Llopis-Amorós, Maria-Pilar, Irene Gil-Saura, María Eugenia Ruiz-Molina, and Maria Fuentes-Blasco. 2019. Social media communications and festival brand equity: Millennials vs Centennials. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 40: 134–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manthiou, Aikaterini, Juhee Kang, and Thomas Schrier. 2014. A visitor-based brand equity perspective: The case of a public festival. Tourism Review 69: 264–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mason, Michela C., and Adriano Paggiaro. 2012. Investigating the role of festivalscape in culinary tourism: The case of food and wine events. Tourism Management 33: 1329–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nam, Janghyeon, Yuksel Ekinci, and Georgina Whyatt. 2011. Brand equity, brand loyalty and consumer satisfaction. Annals of Tourism Research 38: 1009–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nunnally, Jum C., and Ira H. Bernstein. 1993. Cognitive, Affective and Attribute Bases of the Satisfaction Response. Journal of Consumer Research 20: 418–30. [Google Scholar]
- Oh, Haemoon, and Cathy H. C. Hsu. 2014. Assessing equivalence of hotel brand equity measures in cross-cultural contexts. International Journal of Hospitality Management 36: 156–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palacio, B., J. Martín, and M. Monroy. 2008. Importancia del valor de marca en la satisfacción y lealtad de los clientes en el mercado industrial. Selección de Investigaciones Empresariales 7: 63–82. [Google Scholar]
- Ravasi, Davide, Violina Rindova, Michael Etter, and Joep Cornelissen. 2018. The formation of organizational reputation. Academy of Management Annals 12: 574–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sasmita, Jumiati, and Norazah Mohd Suki. 2015. Young consumers’ insights on brand equity: Effects of brand association, brand loyalty, brand awareness, and brand image. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 43: 276–92. [Google Scholar]
- Šerić, Maja, Irene Gil-Saura, and María Eugenia Ruiz-Molina. 2014. How can integrated marketing communications and advanced technology influence the creation of customer-based brand equity? Evidence from the hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management 39: 144–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shmueli, Galit, Marko Sarstedt, Joseph F. Hair, Jun-Hwa Cheah, Hiram Ting, Santha Vaithilingam, and Christian M. Ringle. 2019. Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: Guidelines for using PLSpredict. European Journal of Marketing 53: 2322–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tanford, Sarah, and Shinyong Jung. 2017. Festival attributes and perceptions: A meta-analysis of relationships with satisfaction and loyalty. Tourism Management 61: 209–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, Qi, Hanqin Zhang, and Mimi Li. 2012. Programming quality of festivals: Conceptualization, measurement, and relation to consequences. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 24: 653–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yasin, Norjaya Mohd, Mohd Nasser Noor, and Osman Mohamad. 2007. Does image of country-of-origin matter to brand equity? Journal of Product & Brand Management 16: 38–48. [Google Scholar]
- Yoo, Boonghee, and Naveen Donthu. 2001. Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale. Journal of Business Research 52: 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yoo, Boonghee, Naveen Donthu, and Sungho Lee. 2000. An examination of selected marketing mix elements and brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28: 195–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yoon, Yoo-Shik, Jin-Soo Lee, and Choong-Ki Lee. 2010. Measuring festival quality and value affecting visitors’ satisfaction and loyalty using a structural approach. International Journal of Hospitality Management 29: 335–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
Structural model. Source: Own elaboration.
Table 1.
Technical specifications of the research.
| Universe | Population attending |
| Geographical area | Seville, Spain |
| Method of data collection | Personal survey with structured questionnaire |
| Sampling procedure | Non-probabilistic convenience |
| Sample size | 150 valid questionnaires |
| Fieldwork | 20–21 May 2022 |
| Scales (Likert 5 points) | Motivations Awareness of the festival Image/associations of the festival Perceived quality of the festival Loyalty to the festival Overall brand value of the festival Satisfaction with the festival Post-festival behavioural intentions |
| Statistics software | IBM SPSS Statistics, SmartPLS |
Source: Own elaboration.
Table 2.
Individual reliability (loadings).
| INDICATOR | Loadings |
|---|---|
| Quality1 | 0.827 |
| Quality2 | 0.807 |
| Quality3 | 0.846 |
| Quality4 | 0.802 |
| Quality5 | 0.712 |
| Quality6 | 0.733 |
| Image1 | 0.784 |
| Image2 | 0.843 |
| Image3 | 0.856 |
| Image4 | 0.836 |
| Behinten1 | 0.814 |
| Behinten2 | 0.330 |
| Behinten3 | 0.841 |
| Behinten4 | 0.792 |
| Behinten5 | 0.783 |
| Behinten6 | 0.661 |
| Behinten7 | 0.524 |
| Loyalty1 | 0.821 |
| Loyalty2 | 0.914 |
| Loyalty3 | 0.868 |
| Awareness1 | 0.904 |
| Awareness2 | 0.904 |
| Awareness3 | 0.849 |
| Awareness4 | 0.697 |
| Satisf1 | 0.830 |
| Satisf2 | 0.788 |
| Satisf3 | 0.874 |
| Satisf4 | 0.856 |
| Satisf5 | 0.875 |
| Brandvalue1 | 0.859 |
| Brandvalue2 | 0.920 |
| Brandvalue3 | 0.927 |
| Brandvalue4 | 0.921 |
Source: Own elaboration.
Table 3.
Construct reliability (Cronbach’s alpha and CR) and Convergent validity.
| Construct | Cronbach’s Alpha | Composite Reliability (CR) | Average Variance Extracted (AVE) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Awareness | 0.859 | 0.906 | 0.710 |
| Image/associations | 0.852 | 0.899 | 0.690 |
| Quality | 0.878 | 0.908 | 0.623 |
| Loyalty | 0.836 | 0.902 | 0.754 |
| Satisfaction | 0.900 | 0.926 | 0.715 |
| Behavioural intentions | 0.849 | 0.898 | 0.690 |
| Brand value | 0.928 | 0.949 | 0.823 |
Source: Own elaboration.
Table 4.
Discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker criterion).
| Awareness | Behavioural Intentions | Brand Value | Image/Associations | Loyalty | Quality | Satisfaction | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Awareness | 0.843 | ||||||
| Behavioural intentions | 0.457 | 0.830 | |||||
| Brand value | 0.519 | 0.560 | 0.907 | ||||
| Image/associations | 0.468 | 0.432 | 0.541 | 0.830 | |||
| Loyalty | 0.454 | 0.592 | 0.698 | 0.582 | 0.868 | ||
| Quality | 0.619 | 0.597 | 0.644 | 0.644 | 0.596 | 0.789 | |
| Satisfaction | 0.474 | 0.805 | 0.535 | 0.393 | 0.468 | 0.579 | 0.845 |
Table 5.
Discriminant validity: Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT).
| Awareness | Behavioural Intentions | Brand Value | Image/Associations | Loyalty | Quality | Satisfaction | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Awareness | |||||||
| Behavioural intentions | 0.530 | ||||||
| Brand value | 0.581 | 0.644 | |||||
| Image/associations | 0.541 | 0.506 | 0.595 | ||||
| Loyalty | 0.538 | 0.722 | 0.793 | 0.672 | |||
| Quality | 0.708 | 0.699 | 0.708 | 0.727 | 0.694 | ||
| Satisfaction | 0.542 | 0.763 | 0.582 | 0.440 | 0.540 | 0.652 |
Table 6.
Structural model results.
| Coefficients Path | T-Value (Bootstrap) | Hypotheses | f2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1: Awareness → Global Brand Value | 0.126 * | 1.979 | Accepted | 0.023 |
| H2: Image/Association → Global Brand Value | 0.045 | 0.560 | Non-Accepted | 0.003 |
| H3: Perceived Quality → Global Brand Value | 0.265 ** | 3.038 | Accepted | 0.070 |
| H4: Loyalty → Global Brand Value | 0.456 *** | 4.232 | Accepted | 0.283 |
| H5: Global Brand Value → Satisfaction | 0.536 *** | 8.257 | Accepted | 0.401 |
| H6: Global Brand Value → Behavioural Intentions | 0.143 ** | 2.810 | Accepted | 0.058 |
| H7: Satisfaction → Behavioural Intentions | 0.779 *** | 19.727 | Accepted | 1.707 |
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.005, *** p < 0.001. Source: Own elaboration.
Table 7.
Specific indirect effects.
| Original Sample (O) | Sample Mean (M) | Standard Deviation (STDEV) | T Statistics (|O/STDEV|) | p Values | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loyalty →brand value → satisfaction → behavioural intentions | 0.190 | 0.191 | 0.048 | 3.979 | 0.000 |
| Brand value → satisfaction → behavioural intentions | 0.416 | 0.417 | 0.051 | 8.234 | 0.000 |
| Quality → brand value → satisfaction → behavioural intentions | 0.110 | 0.110 | 0.042 | 2.633 | 0.008 |
| Image/associations → brand value → satisfaction | 0.024 | 0.023 | 0.046 | 0.532 | 0.595 |
| Awareness → brand value → satisfaction | 0.068 | 0.070 | 0.037 | 1.840 | 0.066 |
| Awareness → brand value → behavioural intentions | 0.018 | 0.018 | 0.011 | 1.650 | 0.099 |
| Loyalty → brand value → behavioural intentions | 0.066 | 0.068 | 0.031 | 2.123 | 0.034 |
| Awareness → brand value → satisfaction → behavioural intentions | 0.053 | 0.054 | 0.029 | 1.833 | 0.067 |
| Loyalty → brand value → satisfaction | 0.244 | 0.246 | 0.063 | 3.877 | 0.000 |
| Image/associations → brand value → satisfaction → behavioural intentions | 0.019 | 0.018 | 0.035 | 0.533 | 0.594 |
| Quality → brand value → behavioural intentions | 0.038 | 0.037 | 0.017 | 2.200 | 0.028 |
| Quality → brand value → satisfaction | 0.142 | 0.142 | 0.053 | 2.675 | 0.007 |
| Image/associations → brand value → behavioural intentions | 0.007 | 0.006 | 0.013 | 0.520 | 0.603 |
Table 8.
R2 of the structural model.
| R2 | |
|---|---|
| Satisfaction | 0.287 |
| Behavioural intentions | 0.747 |
| Global brand value | 0.579 |
Table 9.
PLS predict assessment.
| Q2 Predict | RMSE | MAE | ||||
| Behavioural intentions | 0.375 | 0.803 | 0.608 | |||
| Brand value | 0.538 | 0.689 | 0.507 | |||
| Satisfaction | 0.297 | 0.854 | 0.635 | |||
| Q2 Predict | PLS-SEM_RMSE | PLS-SEM_MAE | LM_RMSE | LM_MAE | ||
| Behinten1 | 0.225 | 0.968 | 0.765 | 1.014 | 0.806 | |
| Behinten3 | 0.263 | 0.934 | 0.733 | 0.960 | 0.770 | |
| Behinten4 | 0.305 | 1.016 | 0.814 | 1.006 | 0.795 | |
| Behinten5 | 0.249 | 1.015 | 0.815 | 1.019 | 0.782 | |
| Brandvalue1 | 0.418 | 0.939 | 0.738 | 1.025 | 0.798 | |
| Brandvalue2 | 0.465 | 0.890 | 0.678 | 0.951 | 0.743 | |
| Brandvalue3 | 0.405 | 0.927 | 0.713 | 0.989 | 0.773 | |
| Brandvalue4 | 0.473 | 0.837 | 0.629 | 0.892 | 0.684 | |
| Satisf1 | 0.228 | 1.085 | 0.877 | 1.098 | 0.886 | |
| Satisf2 | 0.156 | 1.049 | 0.846 | 1.055 | 0.824 | |
| Satisf3 | 0.228 | 0.918 | 0.705 | 0.916 | 0.721 | |
| Satisf4 | 0.221 | 1.001 | 0.776 | 1.016 | 0.799 | |
| Satisf5 | 0.217 | 0.924 | 0.700 | 0.911 | 0.713 | |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
García-de-Soto-Camacho, E.; Garcia-Gordillo, M.A.; Vaca-Acosta, R.M. Dimensions That Influence the Creation of Brand Value of a Music Event and Its Influence on Attendee Satisfaction. Soc. Sci. 2023, 12, 177. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12030177
AMA Style
García-de-Soto-Camacho E, Garcia-Gordillo MA, Vaca-Acosta RM. Dimensions That Influence the Creation of Brand Value of a Music Event and Its Influence on Attendee Satisfaction. Social Sciences. 2023; 12(3):177. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12030177
Chicago/Turabian StyleGarcía-de-Soto-Camacho, Elena, Miguel Angel Garcia-Gordillo, and Rosa María Vaca-Acosta. 2023. "Dimensions That Influence the Creation of Brand Value of a Music Event and Its Influence on Attendee Satisfaction" Social Sciences 12, no. 3: 177. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12030177
APA StyleGarcía-de-Soto-Camacho, E., Garcia-Gordillo, M. A., & Vaca-Acosta, R. M. (2023). Dimensions That Influence the Creation of Brand Value of a Music Event and Its Influence on Attendee Satisfaction. Social Sciences, 12(3), 177. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12030177
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
