The effects of brand experience and service quality on repurchase intention: The role of brand relationship quality

The objective of this paper is to investigate the effects of brand experience and service quality on repurchase intention with the role of brand relationship quality. The study was conducted on 258 respondents and research results are analyzed by using structural equation modeling. As a result of this study, brand experiences, satisfaction, and trust have positively effects on repurchase intention for a brand. The research findings indicate that brand experience appears to be far more salient than brand constructs in shaping and building meaningful and long-lasting relationship with consumers.


INTRODUCTION
Brands are the most important assets for many companies and are the basis for competitive advantage and profits.A brand's success results from being able to sustain the added values by building long-term relationship based on knowledge and experience so that the consumer can interrelate and integrate with the brand and the company.For the last two decades, there has been a growing interest in relational phenomena among both marketing scholars and practitioners.Increasingly, companies are shifting the focus of their marketing efforts from promoting immediate exchange transactions and generating sales to building long-term relationships with consumers.Long-term relationships with consumers create long lasting success for the companies and their brands.For long lasting benefits and greater returns, companies continuously try to satisfy their consumers in order to retain them and their repurchase intentions.Future repurchase intentions of consumers are outcomes of various organizational efforts (Isfaq et al., 2010).
Relationship quality is composed of trust, commitment and satisfaction in terms of the consumers (Dorsch et al., 1998;Pi and Huang, 2011).Hibbard et al. (2001) believe that relationship quality is a high level concept, composed *Corresponding author.E-mail: azize.sahin@gmail.com. of trust and commitment, which are the first level.This study will use satisfaction, trust, and commitment as the indicators of relationship quality.
Brand satisfaction, trust and commitment as a brand relationship quality play important role in the relationship between consumer and brand.Brand relationship quality can be defined as the degree to which the consumer views the brand as satisfactory partner in an ongoing relationship; it is the consumer's overall assessment of the strength of his or her relationship with the brand (Algesheimer et al., 2005).Blackston (1992) compared brand relationships to interpersonal relationships and established a new research direction by pointing out intimate, permanent, stable relationships can form from interaction between a brand and its consumers.
Consumer repurchase intention for a brand is considered extremely valuable.Repurchase intention refers to the likelihood of using a brand again in the future.
Some studies have concentrated on determining the basic antecedent variables to repurchase intention (Aron, 2006;Voss et al., 2010).Other studies, such as Bitner et al. (1990), Bolton and Drew (1991), and Boulding et al. (1993) have considered the single incident, critical encounters and longitudinal interactions or relationships between these variables.
The present study explores the relationship among brand experience and service quality in a relational context with an emphasis on understanding of the linking role of brand relationship quality (brand satisfaction, trust, and commitment) and repurchase intention.The objective of this paper is to investigate the effects of brand experience and service quality on repurchase intention with the role of brand relationship quality.The objective is important because customer repurchase intention research is largely fragmented and is in need of an empirically verified general theory.This paper examines the following customer repurchase intention issues: 1. What is the impact of service quality on brand relationship quality (brand satisfaction, trust, and commitment)?2. What is the impact of brand experience on brand relationship quality? 3. What is the impact of brand relationship quality on repurchase intention?
In a review of literature, hypotheses are developed with respect to the relationships between brand experiences; service quality, brand relationship quality and customer repurchase intention for a brand in a relational context.A conceptual model summarizing the hypotheses is subsequently validated in an empirical study.Managerial implications are provided, as well as suggestions for further research.

Brand experience
It is very important for customers to have brand experiences in marketing practice.These brand experiences affect consumer-brand relationship quality positively.Schmitt (1999) defined experience as individual feedback event occurring in some stimulation (that is, marketing efforts before and after purchasing), and experience involved the complete nature of life.Experience includes the whole living element, and usually is caused by directly observing or participating in events, no matter if the events were real, dream-like or virtual.Experience usually is not unprompted but induced (Schmitt, 1999).Experience promotes better memory because information is more vivid and concrete and because experience requires more elaborative internal rehearsal and self-generation.Information learned from experience is likely to have a greater directive influence on behavior (Hoch and Deighton, 1989).
Brand experience is conceptualized as sensations, feelings, cognitions, and behavioral responses evoked by brand-related stimuli that are part of a brand's design and identity, packaging, communications, and environments (Brakus et al., 2009).According to Alloza (2008), brand experience can be defined as the perception of the consumers, at every moment of contact they have with Şahin et al. 11191 the brand, whether it is in the brand images projected in advertising, during the first personal contact, or the level of quality concerning the personal treatment they receive.Brand experience is created when customers use the brand; talk to others about the brand; seek out brand information, promotions, and events, and so on (Ambler et al., 2002).Brand marketers must bond with consumers by staging holistic brand experiences (e.g., Schmitt 1999;Pine and Gilmore, 1999).The marketing activities associated with the brand, effects the consumers "mind-set" with respect to the brand-what they know and feel about the brand.The customer mind-set is everything that exist in the minds of customers with respect to a brand; thoughts, feelings, experiences, images, perceptions, beliefs, attitudes and so on, that is, brand equity as defined by Ambler (2000).When consumers search for, shop for, and consume brands, they are exposed to utilitarian product attributes.However, they are also exposed to various specific brand-related stimuli, such as brandidentifying colors (Belizzi and Hite, 1992;Gorn et al., 1997), shapes, typefaces, background design elements (Mandel and Johnson, 2002), slogans, mascots, and brand characters (Keller, 1993;Brakus et al., 2009).These brand-related stimuli appear as part of a brand's design and identity (e.g., name, logo, signage), packaging, and marketing communications (e.g., advertisements, brochures, Web sites) and in environments in which the brand is marketed or sold (e.g., stores, events).These brand-related stimuli constitute the major source of subjective, internal consumer responses, which is referred as "brand experience" (Brakus et al., 2009).Thus, brand experience is conceptualized as subjective, internal consumer responses (sensations feelings, and cognitions) and behavioral responses evoked by brandrelated stimuli that are part of a brand's design and identity, packaging, communications and environments.
Brand experience is not an emotional relationship concept.Over time, brand experiences may result in emotional bonds, but emotions are only one internal outcome of stimulation that evokes experience.Thus, because brand experience differs from brand evaluations, involvement, attachment, and consumer delight, brand experience is also conceptually and empirically distinct from personality.
Brand experience can be positive or negative, shortlived, or long-lasting.Moreover, brand experience can positively affect consumer satisfaction, trust and commitment (Zarantenello and Schmitt, 2000).The process by which an individual attributes a trust image to the brand is based on his/her experience with that brand.Therefore as an experience attribute it will be influenced by the consumer's evaluation of any direct (e.g.trial, usage, satisfaction in the consumption) and indirect contact (advertising, word of mouth, brand reputation) with the brand (Keller, 1993;Ballester and Aleman, 2001).Among all of these different contacts with the brand, the consumption experience gains more relevance and importance as a source of trust.This is because, according to Dywer et al. (1987), it generates associations and feelings that are more self-relevant and held with more certainty.Following the above discussion, and as a general evaluation based on the total purchase and consumption experience with a brand.To summarize aforemention, the hypotheses for this research are proposed as follows: Hypothesis (H1): Brand experience has a significantly positive effect on brand satisfaction.Hypothesis (H2): Brand experience has a significantly positive effect on brand trust.Hypothesis (H3): Brand experience has a significantly positive effect on brand commitment.

Service quality
Services differ from goods in many ways.The fundamental difference is intangibility.Services can not be seen, felt, tasted or touched in the same manner in which goods can be sensed.Therefore services are an experience.The quality and essence of a service can vary from producer to producer, from consumer to consumer, and from situation to situation.That makes it more difficult to standardize.Quality is an elusive and indistinct construct.Quality occurs during service delivery, usually in an interaction between the customer and contact personnel of the service firm.For this reason, service quality is highly dependent on the performance of employees, an organizational resource that can not be controlled to the degree that components of the tangible goods can be engineered (Zeithaml et al., 1988).To offer quality is a demand on firms to satisfy their customers.For companies offering good quality often means differentiating from competitors.In other words, quality is understood as a competitive weapon (Bamert et al., 2005;Parasuraman et al., 1985).
Companies want to create and maintain competitive advantage against rivals should offer superior services to their consumer (Ishfaq et al., 2010).Companies must pay great attention towards investing considerable amount and time on provision of better quality services to their consumers in order to survive and compete in the long run (Ishfaq et al., 2010).
Definitions of service quality hold that this is the result of the comparison that customers make between their expectations about a service and their perception of the way the service has been performed (Grönroos, 1984;Parasuraman et al., 1985;1988).Service quality is defined as the degree of discrepancy between customers' normative expectation for service and their perceptions of service performance (Parasuraman et al., 1985).The definition of service quality was further developed as "the overall evaluation of a specific service firm that results from comparing that firm's performance with the customer's general expectations of how firms in that industry should perform (Parasuraman et al., 1988).
Service quality is a focused evaluation that reflects the customer's perception of elements of service such as interaction quality, physical environment quality, and outcome quality.These elements are in turn evaluated based on specific service quality dimensions; reliability, assurance, responsiveness, empathy and tangibles.Service quality is defined as global judgment or attitude relation to the overall excellence or superiority of the service (Parasuraman et al., 1988).It has also been defined as "the degree of discrepancy between customers' normative expectations for the service and their perceptions of the service performance" (Parasuraman et al., 1988).Grönroos (1984) defined service quality perceived judgments, resulting from an evaluation process where customers compare their expectations with the service they perceive to have received.He further split service quality into two-technical quality (what is done) and functional quality (how is done).
Little empirical research has focused explicitly on the relationship between service quality, brand trust and loyalty.With regards to behavioral intentions in a service setting, Zeithaml et al. (1996) proposed a comprehensive, multi-dimensional framework of customer behavioral intentions in services.This framework was initially compromised of the following four main dimensions: word-of-mouth communications, purchase intention, price sensitivity and complaining behavior.Studies suggest that there is a positive relationship between service quality and the satisfaction of customers (Ishfaq et al., 2010).The preceding discussions suggest the following hypotheses: Hypothesis (H4): Service quality has a significantly positive effect on brand satisfaction.Hypothesis (H5): Service quality has a significantly positive effect on brand trust.Hypothesis (H6): Service quality has a significantly positive effect on brand commitment.

Brand satisfaction
Satisfaction can either refers to transactional measures focusing on a discrete incident or a cumulative construct resulting from a series of transactions (Garbarino and Johnson, 1999).Ongoing satisfaction, which is required for trust to develop, results from consistent satisfaction with individual transactions over time, but unlike trust, there are no illusions about the motivations of the company.
Satisfaction is defined as an affective response to purchase situation (Bennet et al., 2005;Anderson and Narus, 1990).Satisfaction is a positive affective reaction to an outcome of a prior experience (Ganesan, 1994).
The satisfaction derived and attitude formed as part of a prior experience (Ganesan, 1994) then impacts on subsequent purchases (Oliver, 1980), completing cyclical pattern (Bennett et al., 2005).
Satisfaction has been found to lead to the long-term combination of relationships (Anderson and Narus, 1990).Satisfaction is necessary but not sufficient component of customer repurchase intention for a brand (Agustin and Singh, 2005).Satisfaction is antecedents of consumer repurchase intention for a brand; with increases in satisfaction leading to increases in consumer repurchase intention for a brand (Bolton, 1998;Bennett et al., 2005).The notion of satisfaction is considered here as indirect sources of consumer repurchase intention for a brand, for two reasons.Although, the marketing literature admits the assumption that satisfaction is linked to loyalty, the earlier concept seems to explain consumers' buying habits including all of their consistent purchasing behaviors (Bennett et al., 2005).Satisfaction with the preferred brand is one of the determinants of customer repurchase intention for a brand.To summarize above mention, the research hypothesis is proposed as follows: Hypothesis (H7): Brand satisfaction has a significantly positive effect on customer repurchase intention for a brand.

Brand trust
A brand is a trust mark for all intangible trust-generating activity, and absent human touch, it can be a symbol of quality and assurance in building trust (Keller, 1993;Bart et al., 2005).It can be assumed that risk reduction of brands respective of brand trust is even more important if the perceived risk of a buying decision is high.The importance of the trust construct has already been demonstrated in sustaining buyer and seller relations (Amine, 1998;Morgan and Hunt, 1994;Bart et al., 2005;Agustin and Singh, 2005).
Although the importance of brand trust has been theoretically emphasized in the branding literature (Ambler, 1997, Sheth andParvatiyar, 1995) there has been little empirical research into it (Ballester and Alemán, 2005).In the branding literature the concept of brand trust is based on the idea of a brand-consumer relationship, which is seen as a substitute for human contact between the company and its customers (Sheth and Parvatiyar, 1995).Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) define brand trust as "the willingness of the average consumer to rely on the ability of the brand to perform its stated function".
Trust can be defined as a consumer's confident beliefs that he or she can rely on the seller to deliver promised services, whereas a relational value can be defined as consumer's perceptions of the benefits enjoyed versus the cost incurred in the maintenance of an ongoing Şahin et al. 11193 exchange relationship (Agustin and Singh, 2005).Trust is the display of benevolence and honesty of the seller, prioritizing only the interest of both parties and for buyers to have trust, they have to believe their transaction partners (Wang, 2009).The trust in the purchased brand may be viewed as leverage of its credibility, which in return may reinforce the consumers' repeat buying behavior (Amine, 1998).Trust causes dedication because it reduces the costs of negotiating agreements (Bendapudi and Leonard, 1997;Afsar et at., 2010) and lessens consumers' fear of opportunistic behavior by the service provider (Afsar et al., 2010) Trust is essential in building strong consumer-brand relationships (Fournier, 1998;Urban et al., 2000).Concerning the consequences of trust, Morgan and Hunt (1994) consider trust as the key factor of any long-term relationship.If a person trusts another party it is likely that she/he will develop some forms of positive behavioral intention towards the other party (Lau and Lee, 1999).Consumers develop trust in a brand based on positive beliefs regarding their expectation for the behavior of the organization and the performance of products a brand represents (Ashley and Leonard, 2009).Trust reflects cumulative effects over time on loyalty in highinvolvement, high-service product markets (Chiou and Droge, 2006).
The domain of trust in this study is the brand experience in its entirety (encompassing both product and service aspects offered by the brand's provider) but not focusing on specific attributes.Customer repurchase intention for the brand as an important consequence of brand trust has been conceptualized either as a behavioral intention toward the brand or as an actual pattern of purchase behavior, or both.Drawings on the commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing (Morgan and Hunt, 1994) repurchase intention.Based on the above literatures, the hypothesis for this research is proposed as follows: Hypothesis (H8): Brand trust has a significantly positive effect on customer repurchase intention for a brand.

Brand commitment
In relationship marketing, commitment is considered as on the main component of long-term relationship (Garbarino and Johnson, 1999;Wang, 2009).When a person found what they believed is an optimal case, they will commit to their relationship and will stop looking for other alternatives.Both parties will mutually use commitment to continuously show their trustworthiness toward the exchange relationship (Wang, 2009).
Commitment is frequently defined as a desire to maintain a relationship (Moorman et al., 1992;Afsar et al., 2010).We use the term "commitment" to refer to consumers' ultimate relationship disposition, encompassing beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors toward the brand and their relationship with that brand.Commitment is a fundamental and powerful concept that can only be fully understood and applied if decomposed into its major dimensions.We propose that commitment derives from a combination of personal and functional characteristics of developing consumer-brand relationships (Warrington, 2000).Satisfaction result in the formation of functional connections with the brand.Functional connections promote rather shallow relationships that rely on utility and reliability.In some cases, satisfaction supplemented by other perceptual factors results in the formation of trust.In contrast to satisfaction, trust promotes personal connections between customers and brands (Sung and Campbell, 2009).Personal connections promote deeper relationships that go beyond utility and reliability.The combination of personal and functional connections determines the level of customer commitment for a brand, while their relative strengths determine the nature of commitment (Raju et al., 2009).
In a consumer-brand relationship context, Fournier (1998) defines brand commitment as an emotional or psychological attachment to a brand within a product class.Similarly, brand commitment was defined as an average consumer's long-term behavioral and attitudinal disposition towards a relational brand.Morgan and Hunt (1994) defined relationship commitment as the belief between transaction partners that maintaining their continuous relationship is important and are willing to exert their best effort to maintain it.Relationships are built on the foundation of mutual commitment (Berry and Parasuraman, 1991;Wang, 2009).
Brand commitment reflects the degree to which a brand is firmly entrenched as the only acceptable choice within such a product class (Warrington and Shim, 2000).Brand commitment can be viewed as "an enduring desire to maintain a valued relationship" with the brand (Moorman et al., 1992).Brand commitment develops over time (Keller, 2003).Consumers having strong levels of commitment, who have nurtured strong relationships with their brand, tend to see strong connections between themselves and the brand (Escalas and Bettman, 2003) and consider the brands to be an integral part of their lives (Fournier, 1998).Consequently, brand commitment strongly affects customer repurchase intention for a brand (Fullerton, 2005).Based on the aforementioned literature, the hypothesis is proposed as follows: Hypothesis (H9): Brand commitment has a significantly positive effect on customer repurchase intention for a brand.

Repurchase intention
Repurchase intentions simply refer to the likelihood of using a brand again in the future (Fornell, 1992;Boonlertvanich, 2001).Repurchase intentions, willingness to pay a price premium, word-of-mouth, and complaining represent the five behavioral intentions described by Zeithaml et al. (1996).Behavioral intent, as the intention to act in the buying decision process, is considered by some authors (Mittal and Kamakura, 2001) as being intermediary between attitudinal and behavioral loyalty, appearing either as a predisposition to buy a brand for the first time or a commitment to repurchase a current brand (Zhu and Meyers, 2009).
Repurchase intention (RPI) was measured with two indicators; repeat purchase intention and repurchase probability (Yi and Suna, 2004).

METHODOLOGY
An empirical study was designed to test the research framework and the aforementioned hypotheses.This study focused on the effects of brand experience and service quality on repurchase intention with the role of brand relationship quality.Thus, the appropriate measurement of these constructs was the focus of this research.Overall consideration, durable goods category (automobile) was selected as the exchange context for this research.Data were collected through questionnaires.Sample was randomly drawn form the population of consumers who reside within the metropolitan area of a large city in Istanbul.Random sample includes consumers who may lie anywhere on the transactional-relational continuum with the global brands.
An extensive literature review was performed in order to identify the effects of brand experiences to build long-lasting brand and customer relationship with brand trust, satisfaction, and loyalty.Then, questionnaires were developed.The constructs in the study were developed by using measurement scales adopted from prior studies.All constructs are measured using five-point likert scales with anchors strongly disagree (= 1) and strongly agree (= 5).

Measures
The brand experience: Items for measuring the brand experience were adopted from Brakus et al. (2009).The modified brand experience scale consists of 12 items.
The service quality measures: They were drawn from previous audience studies (Brady and Cronin, 2001;Parasuraman et al., 1988;Terblanche and Boshoff, 2001).The modified service quality scale consists of 9 items.
The brand commitment measures: They were adapted from a variety of sources (Johnson et al., 2006;Gustafsson et al., 2005;Fullerton, 2005;Knox and Walker, 2001).The modified brand commitment scale consists of 9 items.
Repurchase intention measures: They were adapted from previous studies (Fullerton, 2005;Johnson et al., 2006).The modified consumer repurchase intention scale consists of 5 items.

Research model
The authors propose a model that describes the relationship between brand satisfaction, brand trust and repurchase intention for a brand taking into account and exploring the effects of brand experience.The study is organized as follows: First, a conceptualization for the study is developed through the exploration and definition of the constructs of conceptual model.The authors do this by defining each construct of brand experience, brand trust, satisfaction and loyalty.For each construct, its relationship with the other constructs is investigated and research hypotheses are proposed (Figure 1).Secondly, the sample and measures employed in the study are described, and then the empirical research results are reported.In conclusion, the results are discussed along with the theoretical and managerial implications of the findings.The hypotheses in this research: Hypothesis (H1): Brand experience has a positive effect on brand trust Hypothesis (H2): Brand experience has a significantly positive effect on brand satisfaction Hypothesis (H3): Brand experience has a significantly positive effect on brand commitment Hypothesis (H4): Service quality has a significantly positive effect on brand trust.Hypothesis (H5): Service quality has a significantly positive effect on brand satisfaction.Hypothesis (H6): Service quality has a significantly positive effect on brand commitment.Hypothesis (H7): Brand trust has a significantly positive effect on repurchase intention.Hypothesis (H8): Brand satisfaction has a significantly positive effect on repurchase intention.Hypothesis (H9): Brand commitment has a significantly positive effect on repurchase intention.

Data gathering
In order to validate the conceptual model presented in Figure 1, data were collected from actual consumers of automobiles through the questionnaire.The questionnaire began with an introductory statement that asked respondents to administer their own responses, assured them of confidentiality, and so forth.This was followed by a request for demographic information and the measures.Overall consideration, automotive industry was selected as the relational exchange context for this research.

Sample
Sample was randomly drawn form the population of consumers who reside within the metropolitan area of a large city in Istanbul, Turkey.Random sample includes consumers who may lie anywhere on the transactional-relational continuum with the specific global automotive brand.The respondents in this research have the same automobile model and presented their responses according to their brand experiences.

RESULTS
Table 1 presents the description of respondents.The respondents were asked to report their demographic information, including gender, age, marital status and education.The respondents were predominantly males (77.6%), females amount to 22.4%.The median age group of the respondent was 28 to 40 years (56.6%),followed by the age group 17 to 27 (15.9%)and 41 to older (27.5%).More than half of the respondents who answered the question indicated education as university (61.3%).

Exploratory factor analyses
With exploratory factor analysis, we identified and removed items with poor psychometric proprieties (that is, loadings < 0.50, cross-loadings > 0.30).We conducted a second EFA on remaining items using principal axis factoring with varimax rotation.We obtained 6 factors with eigenvalues > 1, accounting for 71% of total variance (Table 2).All extracted factors had acceptable reliabilities, with Cronbach's alphas at/above the 0.70 threshold.

Service quality
This brand offers excellent service 0.507 0.91 I feel god about what this brand offers to its customers 0.502 Overall, I would say the quality of my interaction with this brand's employees is excellent 0.625 I would say that the quality of my interaction with this brand's employees is high 0.718 I would say this brand's physical environment is one of the best in its industry 0.617 I would rate this brand' physical environment highly 0.650 This brand has fair system for the handling of complaints 0.554 This brand's staff efficiently deal with customer complaints 0.680 I feel god about what this brand offers to its customers 0.605 Brand satisfaction I am very satisfied with the service provided by this brand 0.704 0.93 I am very satisfied with this brand 0.702 I am very happy with this brand 0.688 I am very satisfied with the service provided by this brand 0.628 This brand does a good job of satisfying my needs 0.608 The service-products provided by this brand is very satisfactory 0.589 I believe that using this brand is usually a very satisfying experience 0.564 I made the right decision when I decided to use this brand 0.630 I am addicted to this brand in some way 0.447 Brand trust X meets my expectations 0.666 0.92 I feel confident in X 0.720 X never disappoints me 0.667 X guarantees satisfaction 0.666 X would be honest and sincere in addressing my concerns 0.627 I could rely on X to solve the problem 0.652 X would make any effort to satisfy me 0.630 X would compensate me in some way for the problem with the product 0.647

Brand commitment
It would be very hard for me to switch away from this brand right now even if I wanted to 0.532 0.91 My life would be disrupted if I switched away from this brand 0.775

Confirmatory factor analyses
The full latent model (Figure 2) was specified using results from the EFAs and tested using AMOS to simultaneously estimate its measurement and relational properties.Acceptable model fits are indicated by relative (standardized χ 2 [χ 2 /df] and comparative fit index [CFI]) and absolute (root mean-square error of approximation [RMSEA]) indices.The cutoff values for acceptable fit are CFI > 0.90 (Arbuckle and Wothke, 1999), χ 2 /df < 5, and RMSEA < 0.05 (Taylor and Todd, 1995).
The six-factor structure was confirmed with a first-order CFA.Findings demonstrated good fit of the measurement model to the data according to relative (χ 2 /df = 3.4 and CFI = 0.91) and absolute (RMSEA = 0.074) fit indices.Convergent validity was established if the average variance extracted (AVE) for each factor accounted for ≥ 50% total variance (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
The AVE varies from 0.66 to 0.82.A further test of convergent validity was the existence of statistically significant path coefficients (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988): all are significant.Discriminant validity is established if AVE is larger than the squared correlation coefficients between factors (Fornell and Larcker, 1981): this criterion was met across all pairs of factors.A more stringent test of discriminant validity was also conducted, consisting of chi-square tests between two models: one in which the correlation between two constructs is freely estimated, and the other where the correlation is fixed at 1.0.Results from LaGrange Multiplier (LM) tests indicated no significant cross-loadings for measurement items with non-hypothesized constructs, supporting discriminant validity.The 6 factors were distinct and valid instruments.

Structural model testing
A joint model for the causal relationships among all variables (Figure 2) was tested with all observations (N = 450) using AMOS.This model fitted the data very well, with χ 2 /df = 3.4; CFI = 0.91; RMSEA = 0.074.Such high values (CFI > 0.90) are indicative of an excellent fit (Hu and Bentler, 1999).
The results provided strong support for the conceptual model depicted in Figure 1.In particular, most aspects of H2, H3, H4, H5, H6, H7, H8 and H9 were supported.Only H1 was not supported.Results of measurement and structural model test are reported in

DISCUSSION
The research was done using a theoretical framework developed based on previous studies.The main purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of brand experience and service quality on repurchasing intention for a brand with the role of brand relationship quality.
Results from the hypotheses testing suggest the following information: The effects of brand experiences The study shows that brand experience has positive effects on brand satisfaction and commitment.This finding is supported by Brakus et al. (2009), Zarantenello and Schmitt (2000).Brand experience does not support brand trust.Brand experiences arise in a variety of settings when consumers search for, shop for, and consume brands.In this study, brand experience is conceptualized as subjective consumer responses that are evoked by specific brand-related experiential attributes in such settings.

The effects of service quality
Service quality has positive effects on brand trust, satisfaction and commitment.For similar results also see Parasuraman et al. (1988), Brady and Croni (2001), Terblanche and Boshoff (2001).

The effects of brand satisfaction
As research results show, brand satisfaction has a significantly positive effect on consumer repurchase intention for a brand.This result also proved the viewpoint of previous studies done by other researchers (Ganesan, 1994;Oliver, 1980;Agustin and Singh, 2005;Bennett et al., 2005).

The effects of brand trust
The results show that brand trust has a significant effect on consumer repurchase intention for a brand.Therefore the result of this study is the same as the research result of Moorman et al. (1992), Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001), Morgan and Hunt (1994).Brand trust creates exchange relationships between brand and customer (Morgan and Hunt, 1994).A consumer who trusts in the brand is more willing to repurchase a brand, to pay a premium price for it, to buy new products introduced under it in the existing and in new categories, and to share some information about his or her tastes, preferences, and behavior (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001).Trusted brands should be purchased more often.Higher brand trust working through higher repurchases intention for a brand.

The effects of brand commitment
These results show that brand commitment has a significant effect on consumer repurchase intention for a brand.This finding is also in line with Johnson et al. (2006), Gustafsson et al. (2005), Fullerton (2005), Knox and Walker (2001), Martesen and Gronholdt (2004).

Conclusion
This study was designed to investigate the effects of brand experience and service quality on repurchase intention with the role of brand relationship quality in durable goods industries (e.g. the automobile industry).
Automobile industry was chosen for several reasons.First brand involvement is very high in automobile brands.Second, as a product automobile consists of all brand experience dimensions.Third, brand satisfaction is very important for automobile customers.Fourth, brand trust and commitment are very important for the automobile manufacturers.Automobile brands have experiential and relational aspects (Chiou and Droge, 2006).Understanding and managing consumer repurchase intention for a brand is especially important in durable goods industries (e.g. the automobile industry), in which products involve large profit margins on the hand but involve long placement cycles for buyers on the other hand.The latter issue makes it challenging for automobile manufacturers to ensure that consumers will repeat-purchase within the same company when it is time to replace their automobile (Che and Seetharaman, 2009).

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTION
This study and their results have several limitations and also indicate directions for further research.The sample Şahin et al. 11199 size itself is relatively small.Increasing the sample size and including participants in other geographical areas can strengthen the study.With an increased sample size, a more detailed empirical analysis among the independent variables and the variables that have multiple categories can be performed.
The study uses self-reported measures, which may not be the most accurate way to assess affect or future behavior.The current research indicates strong empirical support for the relationships among brand experience, brand satisfaction, trust, and loyalty.The primary limitation of this research is that it explores only oneproduct/service categories, potentially limiting the generalizability to other domains.In general, these findings should be replicated with different product categories and brands.Also, the present study did not examine personal factors, brand involvement, brand associations and brand personality.Overall, we still need to develop a more detailed understanding of the relationship between customer repurchase intention for a brand and other relationship marketing related variables.The present study did not examine such personal factors as product involvement, variety seeking, impulsiveness, and so forth.Overall, the more detailed understanding of the effects of brand experiences and service quality in building brand relationship quality (brand trust, satisfaction, and commitment) and consumer repurchase intention for a brand.
Further research should focus on the antecedents and long-term consequences of brand experiences.For example, regarding antecedent, how exactly are brand experience dimensions evoked by brand-related stimuli?In addition, direct and indirect brand experiences should be explored.Brand experiences affect customer lifetime value (Vogel et al., 2008).That is, can brand experience build customer equity, and how should marketers manage brands to create experiences that build such equity?(Brakus et al., 2009).

Table 1 .
Description of the respondents.

Table 3 .
Hypotheses are tested based on the results of structural model testing