Mapping Customer Experiences: the Role of Touchpoints in Determining Consumer Evaluations

Mapping Customer Experiences: The Role of Touchpoints in Determining Consumer Evaluations

Author Liu, Wei

Published 2016

Thesis Type Thesis (PhD Doctorate)

School Griffith Business School

DOI https://doi.org/10.25904/1912/1977

Downloaded from http://hdl.handle.net/10072/367892

Griffith Research Online https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au Mapping customer experiences: The role of touchpoints in determining consumer evaluations

Wei, Liu BA. MSc.

Principal Supervisor: Professor Beverley Sparks Associate Supervisor: Dr Alexandra Coghlan

Department of Tourism, Sport and Hotel Management, Griffith Business School, Gold Coast Campus, Griffith University

Submitted in the fulfilment of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

August, 2016 ABSTRACT

The purpose of this research is to gain a deeper understanding of the customer experience (CEx) concept within the context of a food and wine event. Drawing on literature associated with service design (ecosystem, customer journey, touchpoint), appraisals/emotions, and tourism/service marketing (satisfaction, loyalty), this research seeks to investigate the more micro, momentary levels of experience and how these accumulate to an overall assessment. This is particularly important, as customer experience has become a key factor for businesses to build customer evaluations such satisfaction, recommendation and repeat visitation, yet relatively limited research has sought to measure the in situ momentary experiences of customers.

Businesses within this service sector can manage customer experience through touchpoints (those times the customer comes into contact with the service offering). Previous research has demonstrated that touchpoints influence customers’ thoughts, feelings and behaviours and therefore form the focus of this research. In particular, this research is concerned with gaining an in depth knowledge about the role of touchpoints, how to manage touchpoints to improve overall customer experience and assess the flow-on effects on outcome variables.

The research employed a mixed methods approach including methods such as focus group interviews (N = 20), participant-generated image (PGI) method (N = 25), experience based sampling (EBS) (N = 51), and recall survey (N = 599). The focus group built the foundation of this research project with participants who were attendees to the Brisbane Good Food & Wine Show from previous years. The main data collection process involved three concurrent studies (i.e., PGI, EBS and recall survey) and the participants for each study were actual attendees to the Brisbane Good Food & Wine Show in 2014. Main data analysis included qualitative approaches such as content analysis and thematic processes as well as quantitative analysis such as regression, ANOVA, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and structural equation modelling (SEM).

I customers attending the same event. The appraisal of any communications and interactions (either positive or negative) influences customers’ evaluation of the event experience. Thus, there is interaction between attendees and elements of the ecosystem, which give rise to a myriad of experiences. Additionally, this research project aimed to gain a better understanding of the customer journey as a way to understand customer experience and related evaluations. At the pre-consumption phase, the focus group, EBS and the recall research provided insights highlighting that customers interacted with the event company across multiple touchpoints and in multiple channels. At the consumption phase, the PGI and EBS research provided deeper insights to the in situ experiences of customers and illustrated variation in emotions across time, suggesting that there were many points in the journey that affected the emotions and overall evaluations of customers. When reporting on the post consumption phase, the focus group, EBS and the recall research generated deeper insights on customers’ post event reflections, including the level of satisfaction, memories of the event experiences, and future behavioural intentions. The results indicated that optimal experience appraisals lead to favourable behavioural intentions (i.e., recommendation and repeat visitation) through positive emotions and memories.

This research has made a significant and unique contribution by employing a mixed methods approach to provide insights to the key concept of customer experience. By adopting different methodologies in this thesis research, there are insights that would not be evident if only one or two methods were used. This project also provides a number of practical and theoretical implications to the areas of event, tourism, leisure, consumer behaviour, marketing and service design. These implications include: a) a framework for event ecosystem; b) a co- created process of customer experience; c) insights into individual’s real-time appraisal, emotions and the impact on overall evaluations. Future research directions include increasing real-time data collection points to gain deeper insight of in situ experiences, the replication of the research with larger sample size and a longitudinal approach to understand customer experience across pre, during and post phases.

Key words: Customer experience, in situ experience, ecosystem, customer journey, touchpoints, mixed methods, participant-generated image, experience based sampling, structural equation modelling (SEM), food and wine events

STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP

This work has not previously been submitted for a degree or diploma in any university. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made in the thesis itself.

Signed: ______

Date: ___August 28, 2016______

Wei, Liu

Griffith University

August, 2016

III LIST OF PUBLICATIONS

The following papers were produced to disseminate some concepts and results from the work undertaken by the author during the course of this PhD study.

Refereed journal publications

 Liu, W., Sparks, B. A., & Coghlan, A. (Accepted 10 July, 2016). Capturing the co- creative process of customer experience through the lens of the customers. Event Management.  Liu, W., Sparks, B. A., & Coghlan, A. (under 3rd review). Fun, inspiration and discovery: From momentary experiences to overall evaluations. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management.  Liu, W., Sparks, B., & Coghlan, A. (under 3rd review). Measuring customer experience in situ: The link between appraisals and emotions. International Journal of Hospitality Management.

Book chapters

 Wang, Y., Liu, W., & Sparks, B. A. (2017). Approaches to researching consumer experience: An evaluation and comparison. In J. Gao, J. Ma & N. Scott (Eds.), Visitor experience design. Oxford, UK: CABI.

Refereed conference papers

 Liu, W., Sparks, B. A., & Coghlan, A. (2015). Discovery, inspiration and fun: A photo journey through the lens of the customer. Paper presented at the 14th International Research Symposium on Service Excellence in Management (QUIS14), Shanghai, China.  Liu, W., Sparks, B. A., & Coghlan, A. (2014). Using photo elicitation to understand customer experiences - Some lessons learned. Paper presented at the ACSPRI Social Science Methodology Conference 2014, Sydney, Australia.

IV ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The PhD experience is a long journey of acquiring the skills required to become a capable and independent researcher. Throughout this journey, there have been many people who have influenced its outcome that I would like to personally acknowledge. First and foremost, I would like to forward my most sincere gratitude to my principal supervisor, Prof. Beverley Sparks. Prof. Sparks gave me the opportunity to apply for a PhD position and to undertake such a constructive life experience. She was always an enthusiastic supervisor, had countless ideas about how various different problems can be solved and how these solutions can lead to avenues for future research. Her relentless enthusiasm and spirit have been essential for my motivation during such a long journey, and her constant help and support went well beyond her academic duties. Undoubtedly, I have been lucky to have such a caring and competent supervisor.

Dr. Alexandra Coghlan has been my associate supervisor from Griffith University. Her expertise was essential in guiding my development of this thesis. I am thankful for her continuous support; without it, I could not have achieved the same standard of outcomes.

I am also indebted to Mr. Tom Scantlebury, my industry mentor. Mr. Scantlebury helped me identify pathways to my preferred career and recognise how my interests and skills can be matched with appropriate careers. Mr. Scantlebury also helped me explore features of successful job applications and interviews in my field.

Notably, I was fortunate to share an office with supportive colleagues from around the world. I am grateful for their friendship and I wish them all the best. Similarly, I want to give special thanks to all my best friends, Dr. Anna Kwek, Mr. Barry Fraser, and Dr. Ying Wang, for supporting my study and providing lasting memories.

Last, but not least, I wish to thank my mum who put aside her feelings and supported my impactful decision to move to Australia. I will always endeavour to make her proud.

V TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ...... I STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP ...... III LIST OF PUBLICATIONS ...... IV ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... V LIST OF TABLES ...... XI LIST OF FIGURES ...... XIII LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... XIV Chapter 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Study Purpose Statement and Justification ...... 1 1.2 Research Question & Objectives...... 3 1.3 Methodology ...... 4 1.4 Definitions ...... 7 1.5 Research Significance ...... 7 1.6 Structure of Thesis ...... 8 1.7 Chapter Summary ...... 9 Chapter 2 Literature Review ...... 10 2.1 Introduction ...... 10 2.2 Customer Experience Origins ...... 10 2.3 Customer Experience ...... 11 2.3.1 Conceptualisations of customer experience ...... 12 2.3.2 Definitions of customer experience ...... 12 2.3.3 The multidimensionality of customer experience ...... 15 2.3.4 The service ecosystem ...... 16 2.3.5 The concept of touchpoint ...... 17 2.4 Past Research on Customer Experience ...... 18 2.4.1 Appraisal of customer experience ...... 19 2.4.2 The role of emotion in customer experience ...... 20 2.4.3 Evaluations of customer experience: Customer satisfaction and behavioural intentions ...... 21 2.4.4 Measure customer experience ...... 23 2.5 Customer Experience in the Food & Wine Events ...... 25

VI 2.6 Chapter Summary ...... 31 Chapter 3. Methodology ...... 32 3.1 Introduction ...... 32 3.2 Methodological Rationale: Mixed-methods Approach ...... 32 3.3 Data Collection Strategy: Fully Mixed Concurrent Equal Status Design ...... 36 3.3.1 Preliminary stage: Focus group interviews ...... 40 3.3.2 Concurrent data collection stage: Participant-generated image (PGI) method ...... 40 Device selection ...... 42 Extent of instructions ...... 43 Ethical consideration ...... 43 Sample size ...... 44 3.3.3 Concurrent data collection stage: Experience based sampling (EBS) ...... 44 Equipment & Application ...... 45 Signalling schedules ...... 46 Time frame ...... 47 Measurement ...... 47 3.3.4 Concurrent data collection stage: Recall survey ...... 48 Choice of rating scales for response ...... 48 Choice of single items for measurement ...... 49 3.4 Context Rationale: Brisbane Good Food & Wine Show...... 49 3.4.1 Selection criteria 1: Research access considerations ...... 50 3.4.2 Selection criteria 2: Event organiser support ...... 50 3.4.3 Selection criteria 3: Timing of the potential food and wine events ...... 51 3.4.4 Brisbane Good Food & Wine Show: Some background information ...... 53 3.5 Analysis ...... 55 3.6 Chapter Summary ...... 56 Chapter 4. Focus Group Interviews ...... 57 4.1 Introduction ...... 57 4.2 Method ...... 58 4.2.1 Interview guide development ...... 58 4.2.2 Participant selection ...... 59 4.2.3 Interview procedure ...... 59 4.2.4 Data analysis ...... 63

VII

4.3 Results ...... 64 4.3.1 Participant profile ...... 64 4.3.2 Customer experience dimensions ...... 64 4.3.3 Key touchpoints and associated experiences – Summary of journey mapping exercise ...... 68 4.3.4 Synthesis of two sets of focus group findings ...... 73 4.4 Chapter Discussion ...... 76 4.5 Chapter Summary ...... 77 Chapter 5. Concurrent Study 1 - Participant-generated Image (PGI) Study...... 78 5.1 Introduction ...... 78 5.2 Pilot Testing ...... 78 5.3 Method Overview: PGI Approach ...... 80 5.3.1 Participants ...... 80 5.3.2 Procedure ...... 80 5.3.3 Instrument ...... 81 5.4 Results ...... 82 5.4.1 Sample descriptive statistics ...... 82 5.4.2 Research Question 1 ...... 83 5.4.3 Research Question 2 ...... 85 5.4.4 Research Question 3 ...... 90 5.4.5 Research Question 4 ...... 91 5.4.6 Research Question 5 ...... 94 5.4.7 Modelling the co-creation of customer experience at a food and wine event ...... 94 5.5 Chapter Discussion ...... 96 5.6 Chapter Summary ...... 97 Chapter 6. Concurrent Study 2 - Experience Based Sampling Study ...... 99 6.1 Introduction ...... 99 6.2 Method ...... 100 6.2.1 Participants ...... 100 6.2.2 Procedure ...... 101 6.2.3 Instrument ...... 103 6.2.4 Incentives ...... 106 6.2.5 Data analysis ...... 107 6.3 Results ...... 109 VIII

6.3.1 Data setup and data cleaning ...... 109 6.3.2 Descriptive statistics ...... 109 6.3.3 Person-level data analysis & findings ...... 110 6.3.4 Response-level data analysis & findings ...... 125 6.4 Chapter Discussion ...... 131 6.5 Chapter Summary ...... 134 Chapter 7. Concurrent Study 3 - Recall Survey ...... 135 7.1 Introduction ...... 135 7.1.1 Literature background ...... 136 7.1.2 Two competing models ...... 136 7.2 Method ...... 143 7.2.1 Participants ...... 143 7.2.2 Procedure ...... 143 7.2.3 Instrument ...... 144 7.3 Results ...... 146 7.3.1 Descriptive statistics ...... 146 7.3.2 Research Question 1 ...... 149 7.3.3 Research Question 2 ...... 150 7.3.4 Research Question 3 ...... 152 7.3.5 Research Question 4 ...... 154 7.4 Chapter Discussion ...... 165 7.5 Chapter Summary ...... 168 Chapter 8. Discussions & Conclusions ...... 169 8.1 Introduction ...... 169 8.2 Integration of Key Findings across Four Studies ...... 171 8.3 Methodological Contributions ...... 176 8.3.1 Multiple sources of data collected ...... 179 8.3.2 Data collection points encompassing all experience phases ...... 179 8.3.3 A more complete picture of customer experience ...... 180 8.4 Theoretical Implications ...... 181 8.5 Managerial Implications ...... 183 8.6 Limitations & Future Research ...... 187 8.7 Thesis Conclusion ...... 189

REFERENCES ...... 191 APPENDIX 4-1 Interview Guide ...... 223 APPENDIX 4-2 Focus Group Recruitment Invitation Email ...... 226 APPENDIX 4-3 Focus Group Information Sheet and Consent Form ...... 228 APPENDIX 4-4 Focus Group Registration Form ...... 232 APPENDIX 4-5 Focus Group Exercise Instruction Card ...... 234 APPENDIX 4-6 Focus Group Customer Journey Mapping Poster ...... 236 APPENDIX 4-7 Focus Group Participant Profile ...... 238 APPENDIX 5-1 Conference Paper ...... 240 APPENDIX 5-2 PGI Study Recruitment Invitation Email ...... 251 APPENDIX 5-3a Flowchart of PGI Study Participant Recruitment (Part 1) ...... 253 APPENDIX 5-3b Flowchart of PGI Study Participant Recruitment (Part 2) ...... 255 APPENDIX 5-4 PGI Study Information Sheet ...... 257 APPENDIX 5-5 PGI Study Instruction Card...... 259 APPENDIX 5-6 PGI Study Survey ...... 261 APPENDIX 6-1 Flowchart of EBS Study Participant Recruitment ...... 276 APPENDIX 6-2a EBS Study Recruitment Invitation Email (Event Organiser Version) ...... 278 APPENDIX 6-2b EBS Study Recruitment Invitation Email (University Volunteer System & Snowball Friend Referral Version) ...... 280 APPENDIX 6-3 EBS Study Information Sheet ...... 282 APPENDIX 6-4 EBS Study Instruction Email ...... 285 APPENDIX 6-5 Example Snapshots of MetricWire Usage Instructions ...... 287 APPENDIX 6-6 EBS Study Survey ...... 290 APPENDIX 6-7 Correlation test results between two emotion items and overall memories/core affect at T1, T2 and T3 ...... 298 APPENDIX 7-1 Recall Study Survey Instrument Package ...... 300 APPENDIX 7-2 CFA & SEM Results for the Baseline Models ...... 312

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page 1-1 Definitions of key terms and constructs 7 2-1 Definitions of customer experience 13 2-2 Research questions poised for each study 29 3-1 Descriptions of four relationship types of mixed methods sampling designs 37 3-2 Potential food and wine event contexts (2014-2015) 52 3-3 Visitor profile for the Good Food & Wine Show in 2013 54 Customer experience dimensions, frequency, description & illustrative 4-1 65 quotes identified from interview transcripts 4-2 Number of touchpoints at pre, during &post phases and valence evaluations 69 Customer experience dimensions identified from both the researcher’s and 4-3 74 the event company’s focus group interviews The measures of customer experience dimensions examined in PGI study, 4-4 76 EBS study and recall study 5-1 Participant demographic table 83 5-2 Categories, definitions, and example images 84 Illustrations of three key patterns, description, frequency, and example 5-3 89 quotes 5-4 Valence evaluations and contributing elements 93 5-5 Satisfaction, recommendation and repeat visit intention 93 6-1 Participant demographic table 110 Means and SDs for the experience appraisal items at T0, T1, T2 & T3 and 6-2 111 emotion items at T1, T2 & T3 Results of paired samples t-tests using five experience appraisal items at T0 6-3 112 versus appraisal contribution at T1, T2 & T3 Results of paired samples t-tests for five experience appraisal items at T1, 6-4 113 T2 & T3 Correlations between experience appraisal items and emotion items at T1, 6-5 116 T2, & T3 6-6 Summary of three regression analyses corresponding to T1, T2 & T3 117 6-7 Summary of regression test results 118 6-8 Summary of means and SDs for participants’ overall evaluations 118 6-9 Correlations among variables for each time interval 119 Linear model of five appraisal predictors of satisfaction and behavioural 6-10 120 intentions at T2 & T3 6-11 Summary of regression test results 121 6-12 Summary of means and SDs for participants’ overall memories 121 6-13 Summary of means and SDs for participants’ overall core affect 123 6-14 Summary of regression test results 124 6-15 Summary of participants’ main activities at T1, T2 & T3 126 Means and SDs of experience appraisal items & emotion items by each 6-16 126 activity 6-17 Summary of key findings in the EBS study 128 7-1 Participant demographic table 148 7-2 Summary of means and SDs for participants’ overall evaluations 149

List of Tables Continued.

Table Page 7-3 Means and SDs for the goal importance items 150 7-4 Differences in the ten goal importance items by demographic characteristics 151 Differences in the ten experience appraisals rated by participants based on 7-5a 153 social media posting behaviours Differences in the three positive emotions rated by participants based on 7-5b 153 social media posting behaviours 7-6 Variables included in the SEM analysis 155 Descriptive statistics and internal consistency reliability for the 7-7 156 measurement items – Model 1 Descriptive statistics and internal consistency reliability for the 7-8 157 measurement items – Model 2 7-9 Goodness of fit statistics and parameter estimates for Model 1 and Model 2 162 7-10 Summary of key findings in the recall study 164 7-11 Summary of results of hypotheses tests 165 Overview of the key methodological contributions generated from this 8-1 177 research Incorporation of sensory into examples of implementing fun, inspiration, 8-2 185 and discovery at touchpoints

XII

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page A schematic representation of study components and their inter- 1-1 6 relationships 2-1 A basic service ecosystem of a food and wine event 27 3-1 Eight types of mixed research design 34 3-2 Illustration of fully concurrent mixed methods design 39 4-1 Overview of focus group research 58 4-2 Example of journey mapping poster completed by one participant 62 Customer journey map at the Brisbane Good Food & Wine Show (based 4-3 72 on the results of focus group interviews) Overview of procedure and outcome for the analysis of participants’ 5-1 87 narratives submitted by participants in PGI study 5-2 A conceptual model of core customer experience at a food and wine event 90 A conceptual model of overall customer experience creation at a food and 5-3 95 wine event 6-1 Graphic representation of the EBS study schedule 106 6-2 Overview of the EBS study data analysis process 108 6-3 Pattern of the interaction between time and SM posting for levels of fun 125 Model 1: The conceptual model of hedonic & growth experience 7-1 140 appraisals, positive emotions, memories and behavioural intentions Model 2: The conceptual model of experience appraisals, positive 7-2 142 emotions, memories and behavioural intentions 7-3 Model 1: Graphic depiction of the structural relationships 159 7-4 Model 2: Graphic depiction of the structural relationships 161 8-1 Overview of key findings identified in each chapter 170 8-2 The demonstration of the complex event ecosystem 182

XIII

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

2 Chi Square AGFI Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index ANOVA Analysis of Variance APP Appraisal AVE Average Variance Extracted Percentage BI Behavioural Intention CEx Customer Experience CFA Confirmatory Factor Analysis CFI Comparative Fit Index CI Confidence Interval CR Composite Reliability df Degrees of Freedom EBS Experience based sampling FG Focus Group GFI Goodness of Fit Index MEMO Memories NNFI Non-normed Fit Index PE Positive Emotions PGI Participant-generated image PNFI Parsimony Normed Fit Index RMSEA Root Mean Square Error of Approximation RMR Root Mean Square Residual RQ Research Question SD Standard Deviation SEM Structural Equation Modelling SM Social Media

XIV

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Study Purpose Statement and Justification

Customer experience (CEx) is a major component of the service industries. Prior research suggests that the customer’s experience of a service has strong links to important variables such as satisfaction and favourable behavioural intentions (Badgett, Moyce, & Kleinberger, 2007; Hosany & Witham, 2009). Furthermore, customer experience is often depicted as a journey involving many momentary points of contact and evaluation, which can accumulate to more holistic assessments. Understanding and managing customer experience is, however, challenging; “experience” is a broad term, encompassing many variables related to the customer’s sensory experience, his or her feelings during the experience, and his or her concurrent and subsequent appraisals. It is at once holistic, dynamic, and intrinsically personal (Gentile, Spiller, & Noci, 2007; Meyer & Schwager, 2007; Verhoef et al., 2009).

Despite these issues, one way that businesses within the service sector can manage the customer experience is through touchpoints. Touchpoints occur whenever a customer comes into contact with the organisation, which can occur via multiple channels and at various points in time. Zomerdijk and Voss (2010) illustrate that touchpoints influence customers’ thoughts, feelings and behaviours, and offer a framework for understanding what “customer experience” actually means and what needs to be improved. Companies in this study believe that loyalty is created from every single touchpoint that a customer has with the company, such as the customer sees the company on a commercial ad for the first time, or how the company gets the customer to book/purchase its product, or how the company interacts with the customer once he/she has booked/purchased its product. More importantly, by mapping out every single current touchpoint, companies can evaluate their service performances at each touchpoint and identify how they can improve by adding more touchpoints or redesigning the current ones. As touchpoints make up a significant part of the customer experience and can be managed by the business (Stickdorn & Schneider, 2009; Stickdorn, Schneider, & Andrews, 2011; Zomerdijk & Voss, 2010), they form the focus of this PhD research. In particular, this research project aims to gain an in-depth knowledge about the role of touchpoints, how to manage touchpoints to improve overall customer experience and assess the flow-on effects on outcome variables such as satisfaction and behavioural intentions.

One way to understand customer experience is through the application of a customer journey mapping process (Stickdorn et al., 2011). The use of customer journey mapping enables each touchpoint to be identified while accommodating a temporal dimension to the overall experience, so that an understanding of customer experience can be visualised and extended to pre and post actual service consumption (Stickdorn & Schneider, 2009; Stickdorn & Zehrer, 2009a; Zehrer, 2009). Various methods (e.g. focus group interviews, photo elicitation, experience based sampling) can be applied to elicit detailed information about customer experience at each touchpoint associated with the customer’s journey. Customer experiences can be separated in three phases: pre, during and post. Each of these phases is investigated and analysed in this PhD research, in order to get a better understanding of the whole customer experience. It is also apparent that the use of social media may create new opportunities for customer experience enhancement through touchpoints occurring pre, during or post the service. As an example, journey mapping can include touchpoints around seeking pre-service information from a website, or posting comments on a service’s Facebook page post-service. Therefore, this research also includes a focus on social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) as part of the customer experience, which has not yet received much attention in literatures (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2010; Line & Runyan, 2012).

Some research (Voss & Zomerdijk, 2007a; Zehrer, 2009; Zomerdijk & Voss, 2010) has already suggested universal design principles for mapping touchpoints within the service industries. Service design researchers have used qualitative approaches to elicit information about touchpoints including those that might be considered particularly salient (critical incidents) in the overall assessment of a service (Trischler & Zehrer, 2012; Zomerdijk & Voss, 2010). Other researchers (e.g., Kuppens, Champagne, & Tuerlinckx, 2012), have investigated how appraisals and associated emotions operate in the experience of daily life, with implications for CEx research. In addition, previous research (Lin, Kerstetter, Nawijn, & Mitas, 2014; Nawijn, Mitas, Lin, & Kerstetter, 2013) illustrates that a customer’s emotions are transitory, fluctuating from moment to moment throughout the experience journey.

Despite acknowledgement that the customer experience is a dynamic phenomenon, emerging during various touchpoints of the customer journey, previous research has tended to evaluate customer experience from a retrospective perspective. This is problematic as customers’ memories of service encounters fade rapidly (Macdonald, Wilson, & Konus, 2012). It is evident that customers tend to remember their experience of the service/purchase more positively once they make a transaction. Therefore, collecting experience evaluations ad hoc

2 may provide inaccurate accounts of how the customer felt at the time of the experience (Kristensson, Brunstrom, & Pedersen, 2015). In addition, an individual’s positive or negative emotions have been found to change throughout the experience journey (e.g., Lin et al., 2014). However, attempts made to assess customer experience in real-time at the point of occurrence have been limited, with the existing work simply assessing customer experience with one survey at one point in time. Thus, in order to gain a true insight into customers’ real- time experiences, the contention is that customer experience assessments should be made at the time of the experience; that is, in situ.

1.2 Research Question & Objectives

Based on an extensive and critical review of the literature, this research seeks to understand the customer experience from a touchpoint perspective, explore how touchpoints can be managed to enhance the customer experience, and evaluate customers’ appraisals and emotional responses at individual touchpoints, leading to subsequent outcomes on consumer evaluations. Hence, the overarching research question for this study is:

How do customer experiences at various touchpoints impact on consumer evaluations?

While the investigation of customer experience can be applied to virtually any situation, the context for this research is the Brisbane Good Food & Wine Show. This type of event is selected because it provides an excellent opportunity to explore touchpoints according to the design principles set out by Zomerdijk and Voss (2010), with particular reference to the sensory experiences such as sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch. From a temporal perspective, the customer experience for this event commences with search/ticketing, to a contained one-day event with multiple activities occurring within a confined space and time, plus a post event phase that is predominantly conducted through social media. This event allows for many experiences across a one-day period as well as the incorporation of social media. Hence, this event makes an ideal context for this investigation.

This thesis has three objectives:

1. To identify unique touchpoints at the food and wine event across a temporal dimension (pre, during and post event) that is associated with an overall customer experience;

2. To capture in situ customer experience at individual touchpoints, as well as gaining in-depth knowledge about how individual touchpoints impact the momentary and overall customer experience; 3. To examine the links between individual touchpoints, overall customer experience and outcome variables such as memories, satisfaction, recommendation and repeat visitation;

4. To compare and integrate different methods as a way to gain insights into customer experience.

The next section provides a brief overview of the methodology design for this research.

1.3 Methodology

To address the research question and objectives, a concurrent mixed methods approach was used to get a better and deeper understanding of customers’ experiences at the food and wine event. A schematic representation of the study components and their inter-relationships is presented in Figure 1-1.

First, it consisted of the content analysis of focus group interviews with previous attendees (N = 20) to the Brisbane Good Food & Wine Show. This analysis assisted in identifying the most common touchpoints attendees encountered at the event as well as associated experiences.

Next when the event was taking place, three concurrent studies were undertaken with actual attendees to the Brisbane Good Food & Wine Show in 2014. Two methods (i.e., participant- generated image method and experience based sampling) were employed to capture in situ customer experiences, investigating their momentary cognitive and emotional responses and what contribute to their experiences at the event. The PGI study (N = 25) allowed meaningful moments to be captured in situ through customers’ cameras, while the EBS study (N =51) provided insights into fluctuations in customers’ real time experiences and emotional responses over a one-day period. In addition, a web-based survey was sent out to attendees one week after the 2014 event, measuring their overall experiences associated with post-event evaluations. The recall data (N = 599) was used to test the study’s research model and hypotheses by using structural equation modelling (SEM).

The next section defines a number of key terms and constructs used throughout this document.

STUDIES METHODS OUTCOMES

Use service Identify the

Focus design tools, most common Group e.g., customer touchpoints and Interviews journey associated mapping experiences at previous events

Record meaning Visual Participant moments that -generated elicitation contribute to Experience Customer to Insights method Implicationsfor Theory/Practi Images real-time experiences (good or bad)

Investigate in Mobile APP situ Experience with time experiences at ce contingent touchpoints,

Based

Sampling approach e.g., appraisals, emotions

Measure Questionnaire- experiences

Recall based and evaluations approach Survey at the post (Qualtrics) event phase

Figure 1-1 A schematic representation of study components and their inter-relationships

1.4 Definitions

Definitions that are adopted by researchers are often not consistent, so it is important that key terms are defined to ascertain the stances taken in investigations (Perry, 1998). Table 1-1 provides a number of terms and definitions.

Table 1-1 Definitions of key terms and constructs Term/Construct Definition

Multifaceted responses a person has as a result of the appraisals of Customer touchpoint interactions within a service ecosystem. Interactions can experience be with human, technological or physical elements and can occur at various phases of the customer journey.

“A relatively self-contained self-adjusting system” (Lusch & Vargo, Ecosystem 2014, p. 24), comprising various components and interactions that combine to lead to a positive or negative customer experience.

Points of interactions whenever a customer comes into contact with Touchpoint the organisation, across multiple channels and at various points in time (Zomerdijk & Voss, 2010).

Cognitive evaluations of experiences which are usually closely Appraisal related to different emotions (Ellsworth & Scherer, 2003).

The appraisal people make in respect of the congruence between CEx appraisal experience and pre-existing needs.

Consumer A range of evaluations that customers have after an experience, evaluation including customer satisfaction and behavioural intentions such as recommendation and return intention.

Customer judgment about goods and services. It is the outcome of a Customer subjective evaluation about whether the selected alternative meets or satisfaction exceeds expectation (C. Oliver, 1997). Source: Developed for this research from a review and synthesis of literature in Chapter 2.

Next, a discussion of the significance of this PhD research is provided.

1.5 Research Significance

The research has significant theoretical, methodological and managerial implications. From a theoretical standpoint, this research aims to contribute to the body of knowledge on customer experience by developing the concept of the service ecosystem and how different components influence customer experience within the ecosystem. Further, prior studies indicate that

7 customers form evaluations of their experiences at different touchpoints; however, much remains unknown about these touchpoints. By capturing in situ customer experiences at various touchpoints, the research will provide scholars with deeper insights into the momentary occurrences that shape the overall customer experience. Additionally, practitioners and academics alike emphasise that positive customer experience leads to favourable consumer evaluations, such as recommendation and repeat visitation. By empirically testing theoretical models of the customer experience, this research will provide new insights into the influence of positive customer experience on customer behaviours.

In relation to methodological significance, this research makes a unique contribution by utilising a mixed methods approach to capture a more complementary and expansive insight into customer experience than is offered from either method in isolation. In particular, this research recognises the importance of capturing customer experience at the “time of the experience” by collecting data in real time. This offers realistic insights into the in situ interactions between customers and any part of a company, and enables a rich understanding of the experience, including “what happened”, “when it happened”, and “how it happened” at the particular moment in time.

Through a deeper understanding of the various touchpoints that occur along the customer journey and the relative importance of various elements in enhancing customer experience, managers will be enabled to identify touchpoints that are relevant to the experience journey, which will aid in the formulation and implementation of effective customer experience design and strategies. Additionally, a real-time insight of the customer experience will enable marketing researchers to monitor the customer experience, measure the real-time causes and impact of the experience, and understand the customer’s behavioural intentions created from the experience. Such insightful customer experience feedback will assist managers to respond promptly to issues that may affect the experience.

Next, a brief overview of the thesis structure is provided.

1.6 Structure of Thesis

The remainder of this document comprises seven chapters, a reference list and associated appendices. Chapter 2 reviews and synthesises literature from the customer experience, event experience, experience appraisal, Appraisal Theory of emotions, and overall experience evaluations. Chapter 3 provides a holistic overview of the research design for this

8 investigation, including details on the methodological framework, data collection methods and the selection of the data collection context for this study. Chapter 4, 5, 6 and 7 present methods and results from one preliminary study and three concurrent studies, respectively. Chapter 8 provides the conclusions, implications, limitations and future research directions arising from this study. The reference list and appendices then follow. The next section briefly concludes the current chapter.

1.7 Chapter Summary

This chapter introduced the study. A statement of the research was provided and justified, including the aims and objectives of this study. The methodology used in this study and the significance of this research were briefly overviewed. An outline of the thesis was also presented. On these foundations, the thesis can progress to a detailed description of the research, beginning with a review of relevant literature.

Chapter 2 Literature Review

2.1 Introduction

Chapter 1 provided an introductory overview of the study. The current chapter reviews relevant literature on customer experience. This review provides further clarity and justification to the study purpose statement in Section 1.1. The review encompasses four main sections. The first section in this chapter determines the origins of the “customer experience” phenomenon. The second section then clarifies the meaning of “customer experience” through exploring different conceptualisations, definitions, and perspectives of the concept. Next, an overview of existing research on customer experience and the various methodological approaches for measuring customer experience are explored. To place this study into context, the last section briefly overviews the customer experience concept in the context of a food and wine event. Previous customer experience research in the event context is discussed in the last section as well.

2.2 Customer Experience Origins

The “customer experience” phenomenon was first conceived in the marketing literature in the 1940s by way of conversations on the consumption experience (Tofﬂer, 1970). However, it was not until the 1960s when the notion of customer experience received theoretical recognition (Uriely, 2005). It has been argued that Pine and Gilmore’s (1999) book, The Experience Economy – Work is Theatre and Every Business a Stage, was the origin of the customer experience concept, and the authors claimed that experiences are the new economic offerings. Following this work, significant contributions from scholars focusing on customer experience were made (e.g., Addis & Holbrook, 2001; Adhikari & Bhattacharya, 2016; Ali, Kim, Li, & Jeon, 2016; Bilgihan, Kandampully, & Zhang, 2016; Carù & Cova, 2003; Choo & Petrick, 2015; Ferraresi & Schmitt, 2006; Forlizzi & Ford, 2000; Gentile et al., 2007; LaSalle & Britton, 2003; Lemon & Verhoef, 2016; Ponsonby-Mccabe & Boyle, 2006; C. Prahalad & V. Ramaswamy, 2004; Ren, Qiu, Wang, & Lin, 2016; Schmitt, 1999, 2003; Shaw & Ivens, 2002; S. Smith & Milligan, 2002; S. Smith & Wheeler, 2002; Verhoef et al., 2009; Zomerdijk & Voss, 2010).

Researchers began to recognise that customers are not only rational but also emotional decision makers (Schmitt, 1999) and the behaviour of customers is an endlessly complex

10 phenomenon often involving multidimensional interactions between the organisation and physical environment (Bitner, 1992). Both Schmitt (1999) and Bitner (1992) emphasised an experiential view of consumption where customers have a role beyond the act of purchase, instead they are constantly looking for pleasure and fun. Accordingly, companies began to recognise the potential of differentiating product/service through experiences, and have shifted from the traditional “features-and-benefits” marketing towards experiential marketing (Schmitt, 1999, p. 53).

Experiential marketing refers to the marketing of a product or service through an experience, such that the customer becomes emotionally involved with all of the aspects of the experience (Luo, Chen, Ching, & Liu, 2011). Experiential marketing is also viewed as memorable events that engage the customer in a personal way, which exhilarating the senses and providing the customer with enough information to make a purchase decision (Pine & Gilmore, 1998). Eventually, experiential marketing aims to engage customers on an emotional level to enhance customer’s emotional attachment with a company’s products, services and brand (Ali et al., 2016; Gupta & Vajic, 2000; McCole, 2004). It is evident that there is a trend in marketing which focuses on creating memorable experiences for customers, while the traditional marketing is more function oriented and puts more efforts on the utility features of products. Thus, a better understanding of what is customer experience and how customer experience influences customers’ evaluations is necessary.

The next section defines and elaborates the meaning of “customer experience”.

2.3 Customer Experience

Customer experience originates from a set of internal and external interactions between a customer and a product or a service provider, which involves the customer’s responses at different levels: cognitive, affective, emotional, social, and physical (Pine & Gilmore, 1998, 1999). The multidimensional nature of customer experience is widely recognised in the literature (e.g., Gentile et al., 2007; Meyer & Schwager, 2007; Shaw & Ivens, 2002; Walls, Okumus, Wang, & Kwun, 2011a; Zomerdijk & Voss, 2010). Customer experience can be influenced not only by elements within the service provider’s control (e.g., physical environment, service employees), but also by elements that are beyond the service provider’s control (e.g., the customer’s previous experience, interactions with fellow customers, fluctuation in the customer’s moods) (Choo & Petrick, 2015; Verhoef et al., 2009). Therefore, experiences cannot be completely controlled by the company. Instead, experiences are

11 constructed by customers’ own interpretations of service encounters (Hume & Mort, 2010; Hume, Mort, Liesch, & Winzar, 2006). Rather than creating experiences, a company creates the opportunity (or the setting) for an experience by orchestrating a series of elements, such as the physical environment and human interactions, while the customers use these resources, by adding different individual and situational variables, such as motivations, past experiences, and interaction with other customers, to make the experience personal, meaningful, and memorable (Gupta & Vajic, 2000; Teixeira et al., 2012; Walls et al., 2011a).

2.3.1 Conceptualisations of customer experience

There are several conceptualisations of customer experience in the literature. First, stemming from the experiential view of consumption (Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982), customer experience is viewed as a phenomenon, focusing on the consumption of peak or hedonic experiences (Arnould & Price, 1993; Carù & Cova, 2003; Helkkula, 2011; Matteucci, 2013). Second, in line with the Service-Dominant-Logic (Vargo & Lusch, 2004), other researchers view customers are co-creators of their own experiences, and experiences are distinct events (Lemke, Clark, & Wilson, 2011; C. K. Prahalad & V. Ramaswamy, 2004; Tynan & McKechnie, 2009). Customers evaluate their experience not only by its functional features, but also by the extent to which it gives them the desired experience (Oh, Fiore, & Jeoung, 2007; C. K. Prahalad & V. Ramaswamy, 2004). Third, from the psychological view, the formation of emotions is perceived as a common denominator in experience and customer experience evaluations are based on customers’ emotional responses during interactions with a service provider (Bagozzi, Gopinath, & Nyer, 1999; Hosany & Prayag, 2013; Watson & Spence, 2007; Yu & Dean, 2001). Fourth, the new service development literature considers the process nature of services, especially the effect of customer-company interactions on customers’ evaluations of the experience (Grönroos, 2011, 2012; Gummesson, Mele, Polese, Gummesson, & Grönroos, 2012). Finally, other authors view customer experience as an outcome delivered by a set of attributes and variables (Le Bel, 2005; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1988; Wu, Wong, & Cheng, 2013).

2.3.2 Definitions of customer experience

The developments in the conceptualisation of the customer experience construct create the diverse range of definitions of CEx. Of the recent works on customer experience in marketing literature, there tends to be a general consensus that customer experience is an internal, subjective, and multidimensional response customers have from interactions with a product, a

12 company, or part of its organisation (e.g., Carbone & Haeckel, 1994; Gentile et al., 2007; Meyer & Schwager, 2007; Pine & Gilmore, 1999; Shaw & Ivens, 2002; Verhoef et al., 2009). A summary of the key definitions of customer experience is presented in Table 2.1.

Table 2-1 Definitions of customer experience Year Author Definition 1982 Holbrook and Experiences are “a steady flow of fantasies, feelings, and fun”. Hirschman (Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982, p. 132) 1994 Carbone and An experience is a “take-away impression form by people’s Haeckel encounters with products, services, and businesses – a perception produced when humans consolidate sensory information”. (Carbone & Haeckel, 1994, p. 8) 1998 Pine and Experiences are created when “a company intentionally uses Gilmore services as the stage and goods as props, to engage individual customers in a way that creates a memorable event”. (Pine & Gilmore, 1998, p. 98) 1999 Schmitt Experiences are the “result of encountering, undergoing, or living through situations. Experiences provide sensory, emotional, cognitive, behavioural, and relational values that replace functional values”. (Schmitt, 1999, p. 57) 2000 Gupta and Vajic “Experience is an emergent phenomenon. It is the outcome of participation in a set of activities within a social context”. (Gupta & Vajic, 2000, p. 33) 2000 Lewis and “The total outcome to the customer from the combination of Chambers environment, goods, and services purchased.” (Lewis & Chambers, 1999, p. 46) 2003 Haeckel, “By ‘total experience’ we mean the feelings customers take away Carbone and from their interaction with a firm’s goods, services, and Berry ‘atmospheric’ stimuli”. (Haeckel, Carbone, & Berry, 2003, p. 18) 2007 Gentile, Spiller “The customer experience originates from a set of interactions and Noci between a customer and a product, a company, or part of its organization, which provoke a reaction. This experience is strictly personal and implies the customer’s involvement at

13 different levels (rational, emotional, sensorial, physical, and spiritual)”. (Gentile et al., 2007, p. 397) 2007 Oh, Fiore and “From a consumer perspective, experiences are enjoyable, Jeoung engaging, memorable encounters for those consuming these events.” (Oh et al., 2007, p. 120) 2009 Tynan and “Consuming an experience can be viewed as a process that takes McKechnie place across stages including pre-consumption, the purchase and core experience, to be remembered consumption experience. The value created is both enabled and judged by customers throughout this consumption process and not merely at the point of exchange.” (Tynan & McKechnie, 2009, p. 502) 2009 Verhoef et al. “Customer experience construct is holistic in nature and involves the customer’s cognitive, affective, emotional, social and physical responses to the retailer.” Additionally, “customer experience encompasses the total experience, including the search, purchase, consumption, and after-sale phases of the experience, and may involve multiple retail channels.” (Verhoef et al., 2009, p. 32) 2010 Zomerdijk and “An experience occurs when a customer has any sensation or Voss acquires knowledge from some level of interaction with the elements of a context created by a service provider.” (Zomerdijk & Voss, 2010) 2011 Lemke, Clark “Customer experience is conceptualised as the customer’s and Wilson subjective response to the holistic direct and indirect encounter with the firm.” (Lemke et al., 2011, p. 846) 2013 Walls “An experience is a unique blend of many individual elements that come together and may involve the consumer emotionally, physically, and intellectually.” (Walls, 2013, p. 180)

As illustrated in Table 2-1, some authors believe that customer experience is dynamic in nature and originates from individual interactions, moments of contact or touchpoints (e.g., Carbone & Haeckel, 1994; Gentile et al., 2007; Zomerdijk & Voss, 2010), while other authors take a more universal perspective, arguing that customer experience results from a

14 cumulative assessment of all the interactions they encounter over the customer journey (e.g., Lemke et al., 2011; Tynan & McKechnie, 2009; Verhoef et al., 2009). Another varying aspect of the customer experience definition is whether the experience takes into account direct and indirect interactions with a company. Several authors assert that customer experience involves both direct (initiated by the customer) and indirect (unplanned) encounters from which customers form their evaluations of their experience (Lemke et al., 2011; Meyer & Schwager, 2007; Verhoef et al., 2009). Others contend that customer experience is shaped only by direct encounters which the firm primarily controls (Carbone & Haeckel, 1994; Gentile et al., 2007; Zomerdijk & Voss, 2010).

Drawing from the prior definitions in the literature, for the purpose of this research, customer experience is defined as:

Multifaceted responses a person has as a result of the appraisals of touchpoint interactions within a service ecosystem. Interactions can be with human, technological or physical elements and can occur at various phases of the customer journey.

The definition takes into account the subjective, dynamic, and multidimensional nature of customer experience, and recognises that customer experience encompasses all phases of the customer journey (i.e., pre-consumption, consumption, post-consumption). Additionally, this definition acknowledges that customer experience arises from every single service encounter and is evaluated at various touchpoints.

2.3.3 The multidimensionality of customer experience

According to the definition, an experience may involve an individual emotionally, physically, socially, or cognitively. For example, experiences such as discovering new things or learning new knowledge are cognitive in nature, whereas other experiences such as having fun are more hedonic, and still others are more sensory or social in orientation. The multidimensionality of customer experience is widely recognised in the literature (e.g., Gentile et al., 2007; Hosany & Witham, 2009; Verleye, 2015). For instance, Schmitt (1999) identified five types of experiences that marketers can create for customers: sensory experiences, emotional experiences, cognitive experiences, physical and lifestyle experiences, and social experiences. Building from insights of previous studies, Gentile et al. (2007) conceptualised customer experience as a multidimensional structure comprising sensory,

15 emotional, cognitive, social, pragmatic, and lifestyle components. Furthermore, drawing from the results of a survey submitted to several groups of customers, Gentile et al. (2007) found empirical evidence that sensory component was reported as the most important dimension to customer experience (see also Agapito et al., 2012, Berry et al., 2006, Pine and Gilmore, 1998). More importantly, the results of Gentile et al.’s (2007) study suggest that different components are activated depending upon the individual, the consumption situation, and the service offerings (Gentile et al., 2007; Verleye, 2015). For example, the experience of consuming a hotel room is likely to be different from the experience of consuming a music festival or a fine dining meal.

2.3.4 The service ecosystem

The multidimensionality of customer experience acknowledges that customers themselves play a very important part in creating their unique experiences (C. K. Prahalad & V. Ramaswamy, 2004; Vargo & Lusch, 2004, 2008). From this perspective, companies no longer sell (or “stage”, according to Pine and Gilmore’s (1998) perspective) experiences, instead they provide tools and contexts that are conducive of experiences and which can be properly employed by customers to co-create their own, unique, experiences (Carù & Cova, 2003, 2007; LaSalle & Britton, 2003; C. Prahalad & V. Ramaswamy, 2004; Walls et al., 2011a). Such interactions develop across various touchpoints, where customers respond to elements within the service provider’s control (e.g., physical environment, service employees) and beyond the service provider’s control (e.g., the customer’s previous experience, interactions with other customers, fluctuation in the customer’s moods) (Verhoef et al., 2009; Walls et al., 2011a; Zomerdijk & Voss, 2010).

Recent marketing and service design literature offers an appropriate way to better conceptualise the complexity of this type of orchestration of a service offering as an ecosystem (Akaka & Vargo, 2015; Akaka, Vargo, & Schau, 2015; Polaine, Løvlie, & Reason, 2013). A service ecosystem is “a relatively self-contained self-adjusting system” (Lusch & Vargo, 2014, p. 24), comprising various components and interactions that combine to lead to a positive or negative customer experience. Importantly, within the ecosystem customers often have no direct contact with the company, whose role is to create and prepare the tools and infrastructure that support the different components in the ecosystem in delivering service experiences to customers (Polaine et al., 2013). The interactions within the service ecosystem allow customers to become involved in the experience in the manner that best suits

16 their needs and wants, which ultimately improves their experience by making it unique and memorable (Gupta & Vajic, 2000; Pine & Gilmore, 1999), which creates the development of emotional bonds and ultimately leads to customer retention and loyalty (Mattila, 2001; Mattila & Enz, 2002).

2.3.5 The concept of touchpoint

Within the service ecosystem, customers co-create unique experiences through their interactions with a service provider across different contact points (Verhoef et al., 2009). From an organisation viewpoint, those points of interactions are referred to as touchpoints. Touchpoints occur whenever a customer comes into contact with the organisation, across multiple channels and at various points in time (Zomerdijk & Voss, 2010). A customer experiences a service process consisting of multiple touchpoints along the customer journey, which encompasses all phases of experience, including pre-consumption, consumption and post-consumption (Lane, 2007; Stickdorn & Schneider, 2009). Zomerdijk and Voss (2010) illustrated that touchpoints influence customers’ thoughts, feelings and behaviours, and offer a framework for understanding what “customer experience” actually means and what needs to be improved. Strategically, service organisations could map out every single current touchpoint that they have right now, evaluate their service performances at each touchpoint and identify how they can improve by adding more touchpoints or re-designing the current ones.

One way to manage touchpoints is through the application of a customer journey mapping process (Stickdorn et al., 2011; Zomerdijk & Voss, 2010). A customer journey includes not only direct touchpoints between customers and a respective service provider, but also indirect ones, such as review websites and social media platforms. In fact, mostly these indirect touchpoints constitute the starting point of a customer journey in the service sector by attracting the attention of customers to a certain service/product (e.g. review websites, social media websites or mouth-to-mouth) (Stickdorn et al., 2011; Stickdorn & Zehrer, 2009b). The very same touchpoints which are used in the pre-service period to gain information about certain products can be used in the post-service period to publicly disseminate information and opinions of specific products, which thus in return influence other customers in their pre- service period. The use of customer journey mapping enables each touchpoint to be identified while accommodating a temporal dimension to the overall experience, so that an understanding of customer experience can be visualised and extended to pre and post actual

17 service consumption (Stickdorn & Schneider, 2009; Stickdorn et al., 2011) to gain a better understanding of the whole customer experience.

Thus, investigating the experience of the customer at various points of interactions along the customer journey within the ecosystem forms the focus of this research.

2.4 Past Research on Customer Experience

The concept of customer experience has evolved to become an important area of study within the marketing discipline. Many researchers (e.g., Berry, Wall, & Carbone, 2006; Bolton, Gustafsson, McColl-Kennedy, Sirianni, & Tse, 2014; Meyer & Schwager, 2007) have sought to identify a range of elements that influence customer experiences, including: sensory elements such as scents, music and colour (J. Baker, Parasuraman, Grewal, & Voss, 2002; Berry et al., 2006; Carbone & Haeckel, 1994); the service interface, including service employees, technology, co-creation and customisation (Meuter, Bitner, Ostrom, & Brown, 2005; van Dolen, Dabholkar, & De Ruyter, 2007); price and promotions, including loyalty programs (Gauri, Sudhir, & Talukdar, 2008; Noble & Phillips, 2004); and assortment (J. Baker et al., 2002; Janakiraman, Meyer, & Morales, 2006). For example, J. Baker et al. (2002) found that service employees, store design factors, and ambient factors influence customers’ experiences in a retail store context. Recent technology development has also played an important role in service strategies to ensure memorable service experiences. For instance, customers are likely to buy/recommend certain product or service after they follow a brand via social media (Cruz & Mendelsohn, 2010; Hudson & Thal, 2013). Although these previous studies generated valuable insights into the concept of customer experience, most of them overlooked the co-created role of customers and were mainly focused on elements that are under service providers’ control.

Building from previous insights, Verhoef et al. (2009) proposed a holistic conceptualisation of customer experience by considering all determinants of customer experience within and without a company’s control. In line with the holistic perspective, Puccinelli et al. (2009) provided an overview of consumer behaviour literature and suggest that different elements of consumer behaviour play important roles at various stage of the consumption process. Specifically, memories, attitudes, affective processing, atmospherics and consumer attributions and choices are suggested to influence customer experience during different stages in the consumer decision process (i.e., need recognition, information search, evaluation, purchase and post-purchase stages) (Puccinelli et al., 2009). While the

18 aforementioned studies suggest a holistic perspective of the customer experience concept, the articles are strictly conceptual in nature, failing to provide empirical evidence of the influence that these elements have on customer experience.

Some research (Voss & Zomerdijk, 2007a; Zehrer, 2009; Zomerdijk & Voss, 2010) has already suggested design principles for touchpoints within the service ecosystem. Particularly, researchers have used qualitative approaches to elicit information about touchpoints including those that might be considered particularly salient (critical incidents) in the overall assessment of a service (Trischler & Zehrer, 2012; Zomerdijk & Voss, 2010). Other researchers, such as Dalakas (2006) and Kuppens et al. (2012), drew on principles of Appraisal Theory (e.g., Roseman, Spindel, & Jose, 1990; C. A. Smith & Ellsworth, 1985) as a foundation to understand how people appraise their experiences, with implications for the customer experience research. The following part will first introduce the principles of Appraisal Theory, and then discuss how to apply the important implications to the current research.

2.4.1 Appraisal of customer experience

Appraisals tend to be cognitive evaluations of experiences and are usually closely related to different emotions (Ellsworth & Scherer, 2003). According to Appraisal Theory, people continuously evaluate their circumstances within a framework of the needs that are relevant at the time (Roseman et al., 1990; C. A. Smith & Ellsworth, 1985). Arnould and Price (1993) identified that customers have various needs; for example, some may need social interaction, while others seek fun or want to learn new knowledge. The various customer needs determine what dimensions of experiences that individual customers are seeking and explain why different dimensions of customer experience are elicited from individual customers under the same consumption context (Puccinelli et al., 2009). Furthermore, customers appraise their experiences depending on the congruence level between what they encounter at various touchpoints and what personal needs they have in relation to the service/products. That is, a higher congruence level between service encounter experiences and individuals’ personal needs positively impacts their overall assessment, whereas lower congruence level implies a negative impact on overall experience.

Building upon the principals of Appraisal Theory, some researchers (Dalakas, 2006; Hosany, 2011; Ruth, Brunel, & Otnes, 2002) have set out to investigate the relationship between appraisals and emotional responses during service encounters. For instance, Nyer (1997)

19 demonstrates that appraisals determine positive/negative emotions such as joy and anger. In another study, Hosany (2011) examines the determinants of tourists’ emotional responses in the context of tourist destinations. These previous studies demonstrate that the appraisal is a key determinant of individuals’ emotional responses. How we feel, in turn, provides a basis for the judgments we make about our world. For example, Kuppens et al. (2012) illustrates the dynamic interplay between appraisal and core affect in daily life. Studies investigating well-being (Schwarz & Clore, 1983), social justice (Van den Bos, 2003), or consumer judgment (Yeung & Wyer Jr, 2004) further demonstrate that people rate their satisfaction with life, the justness of their decisions, and even characteristics of service/products to be more positive when they feel happy, and more negative when they feel sad.

For the current research, it is anticipated that customers will appraise situations or touchpoints and evaluate how they feel within the service ecosystem. The appraisal may include sensory elements such as lighting, sounds, temperature, other customers or the service provided by staff. Customers are also likely to have feelings about the experience such as pleasant/unpleasant. These appraisals and feelings are likely to interact linking to outcome variables, such as satisfaction and behavioural intentions. Interestingly, however, much of the previous research has focused primarily on cognitive appraisals, with much less research on affective responses (Cohen, Pham, & Andrade, 2008; Hosany & Gilbert, 2010). This past preference for investigating cognitive appraisals creates a significant gap in our understanding of customer experience and consumer evaluations relationship as cognitive appraisals and emotional responses both predict satisfaction (Deng, Yeh, & Sung, 2013; Sinha, Mishra, & Kaul, 2014), and lead to longer lasting loyal behaviours than mere cognitive appraisals (Deng et al., 2013; Furnham & Milner, 2013).

This research therefore focuses on both cognitive appraisals and emotional responses elicited at various touchpoints along the customer journey to better understand the links between customer experience, touchpoints, and outcome variables, such as satisfaction, recommendation and repeat visitation. The following section will discuss the role of emotions in customer experience.

2.4.2 The role of emotion in customer experience

Traditional models of consumer behaviour were built on the implicit assumption that consumer decision-making was the result of cognitive evaluation process (Howard & Sheth, 1969), while affective responses were neglected to a secondary role (Peterson, Hoyer, &

Wilson, 1986). However, the development in psychology research suggests that emotional responses may constitute an influential source of human motivation and can influence human information processing and choice (Hoffman & Turley, 2002; Westbrook, 1987a). As a consequence, more recently, the role of affective processes and emotions has gained much attention as a central element in understanding the customer experience (Mattila & Enz, 2002; Nyer, 1997; Ruth et al., 2002).

Appraisal Theory has been applied in past consumer research to explain emotional responses and subsequent consumer behaviours (Di Muro & Murray, 2012; Mauro, Sato, & Tucker, 1992; Scherer, Dan, & Flykt, 2006). For instance, Nyer (1997) demonstrated that appraisals determine positive/negative emotions such as joy and anger. In another study, Hosany (2011) examined the determinants of tourists’ emotional responses in the context of tourist destinations. Ruth et al. (2002) described a systematic relationship between appraisals and emotions and indicate that consumption emotions are individually and subjectively experienced. The authors point out that “consumers experience a wide range of emotions in the course of searching for, choosing, and using products, as well as while interacting with service providers” (Ruth et al., 2002, p. 53). In addition, Otnes, Lowrey, and Shrum (1997) suggested that a customer might experience multiple positive/negative emotions in an individual encounter. Empirical studies also identify that mixed emotions are associated with a number of different customer experiences such as white-water rafting (Arnould & Price, 1993), in-store shopping (Brengman, 2002), and advertising (Edell & Burke, 1987). Thus, it is important to incorporate a range of emotions to the customer experience research.

2.4.3 Evaluations of customer experience: Customer satisfaction and behavioural intentions

The customer experience literature (e.g., Y. G. Kim, Suh, & Eves, 2010; Wijaya, King, Nguyen, & Morrison, 2013) has identified a number of outcomes that result from both positive and negative customer experience, such as customer satisfaction and behavioural intentions. According to R. L. Oliver (1997), satisfaction is considered as customer judgment about goods and services. It is the outcome of a subjective evaluation about whether the selected alternative meets or exceeds expectation. Favourable behavioural intentions frequently represent customer’s conative loyalty, which is normally characterised in terms of repurchase intentions, word-of-mouth-communication, and recommendations (Soojin Lee, Kim, & Kim, 2006). Oliver and Burke (1999) illustrated that creating favourable behavioural intentions depends on achieving customer satisfaction, that is, there is a positive correlation

21 between customer satisfaction and their future repurchase intentions, positive word-of-mouth and recommendations.

Typically, service operations management research has considered cognitive assessments of customer satisfaction as the key outcome measurement of experience design (e.g., R. Johnson, 1995; Kellogg, Youngdahl, & Bowen, 1997). Several researchers have stressed that satisfaction is not a simple cognitive measure and instead a complex, affective state (R. L. Oliver, 1997; Westbrook, 1987b). Oliver (1989) suggested that there are five different modes of satisfaction: contentment, pleasure, relief, novelty, and surprise. In a comprehensive model, Oliver (1993) included cognitive, affective, and attribute performance assessments as determinants of a global satisfaction measure. As previously indicated, customer experience involves a torrent of service “touchpoints”, with many momentary points of contact and evaluation. The satisfaction with such experience is an accumulation of satisfactions with each sub-experience in relation to every single touchpoint. Indeed, Rowley (1999, p. 303) maintained that customer satisfaction is determined by the total customer experience “from the moment that a customer seeks to park their car, make a connection through the telephone network, to the moment the customer leaves the museum with the appropriate information, or leisure experience”.

In many cases, an overall measure of satisfaction is important (E. W. Anderson & Fornell, 1994). However, return or loyal customers are the key to the success of many services, such as hospitality, insurance, and financial sectors. A small increase in the percentage of loyal customers can amount to a much higher increase in profits and overall value to the firm (Heskett, Sasser, & Schlesinger, 1997; Holbrook, 1994; Reichheld & Sasser, 1990). Satisfaction, as an outcome measure, does not necessarily indicate that the customer will be loyal to the company (Gitomer, 1998). Loyal customers have behaviours such as repeat business and promotion of the company through word of mouth to others (Godin & Gladwell, 2001; Heskett et al., 1997; Reichheld & Sasser, 1990). Customers have experiences at various touchpoints, therefore touchpoints influence customers’ thoughts, feelings and overall evaluations such as satisfaction and behavioural intentions. Thus, it is important to understand the links between individual touchpoints and overall customer experience and subsequent outcomes.

Drawing from the above inferences and findings from the extant literature, it can be argued that customer experience assessments are based on the cognitive appraisals and emotional

22 responses elicited at individual touchpoints along the customer journey, and more importantly, the appraisals and emotional responses in turn will impact overall consumer evaluations such as satisfaction and behavioural intentions.

The following section will review the various methodological approaches for measuring customer experience.

2.4.4 Measure customer experience

2.4.4.1 Qualitative approach versus quantitative approach

A review of the extant literature reveals that there are no uniform methods or approaches for the measurement of customer experience. Palmer (2010) acknowledged that the greatest problem in developing an operationally acceptable measure of customer experience is the complexity and context specific nature of the construct. Customer experience is defined by the experience of the specific customer, at a specific point in time and location, and in the context of a certain event (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2003). Thus, it is important to understand the customer’s experience from a holistic perspective that extends to the various contextual and individualised aspects of an event.

Given the difficulty of measuring customer experience in a way that takes into account the contextual differences (between individuals and situations), many researchers argue that a qualitative approach is more suitable to gain an understanding of experience from the customer perspective (Helkkula, Kelleher, & Pihlström, 2012; Jüttner, Schaffner, Windler, & Maklan, 2013; Ordenes, Theodoulidis, Burton, Gruber, & Zaki, 2014). For instance, Tynan, McKechnie, and Hartley (2014) adopted a phenomenological approach for examining customers’ experiences to gain insight into individual opinions, feelings, emotions and experiences. In addition, some other qualitative methods were utilised to examine and assess customer experience. For example, Lemke et al. (2011) used repertory grid technique, a form of structured interviewing that aids in breaking complex personal views into manageable sub- components of meaning. Jüttner et al. (2013) applied the sequential incident laddering technique to measure customer service experiences. Overall, qualitative researchers believe that collecting and analysing customer feedback provides businesses with rich information about the customer experience. While these qualitative methods have advanced our understanding of customer experience, there are limits to verbal and textual analysis

23 techniques, as researchers are unable to quantify customer experience and its subsequent effects through these qualitative approaches.

In order to quantify customer experience, some researchers have employed quantitative measurements to assess the individual dimensions of customer experience (Axelsen & Swan, 2010; Brakus, Schmitt, & Zarantonello, 2009; Cole & Chancellor, 2009; Klaus & Maklan, 2012; Rose, Clark, Samouel, & Hair, 2012). For instance, in an online context, Rose et al. (2012) recognised that customers engage in both cognitive and affective processing of incoming sensory information from the website and assessed online customer experience through the customers’ cognitive and emotional experiential states. Klaus and Maklan (2012) developed a scale to measure customer experience quality. However, the scale failed to capture the emotional component of customer experience. Brakus et al. (2009) distinguished several experience dimensions – sensory, affective and behaviour, and constructed a scale to measure brand experience, although the scale was limited to consumer experiences with brands and cannot be applied to broader customer experiences.

To sum up, both qualitative and quantitative approaches have generated great insights into customer experience. However, each approach also has its own limitations. In order to gain a “complete” picture of customer experience, a mixed methods approach is selected in this research by adopting both qualitative and quantitative methods that can be integrated to provide greater insight into customer experience. The rationale of a mixed methods approach and detailed research design will be outlined and elaborated in Chapter 3.

2.4.4.2 In situ data collection versus post-experience data collection

In the literature, there are two dominant perspectives that relate to when to collect customer experience data: in situ (during the experience) and post experience (a period of time after the experience has happened). The timing of the customer experience assessment (i.e., in situ or post-experience) is based on whether customer experience should be measured at individual touchpoints or as an overall evaluation of the touchpoints accumulated through the customer journey (Nenonen, Rasila, Junnonen, & Kärnä, 2008; Rawson, Duncan, & Jones, 2013). A review of the extant literature that empirically examined customer experience reveals that the post-experience evaluation is the dominant approach for collecting customer experience feedback (J. Baker et al., 2002; Jüttner et al., 2013). From the post-experience perspective, researchers tend to assess the “total experience” of the entire customer journey.

In contrast to the post-experience perspective, some researchers (J. J. Kim & Fesenmaier, 2014; S. Li, Scott, & Walters, 2014) argue that customer experience assessments should be made at the time of the experience, that is, in real-time. This is because customers’ memories of service encounters fade rapidly and are often biased by whether or not a transaction occurred (Macdonald et al., 2012). In addition, customer experience is subjective, and varies over time (Cutler, Carmichael, & Doherty, 2014; Hormuth, 1986). Using retrospective techniques such as surveys – is an approach that has limitations in capturing the dynamic aspects of a customer’s cognitive evaluations throughout the experience. Further, emotions are transitory, fluctuating from moment to moment. However, most previous emotion research (e.g., Hosany & Gilbert, 2010) has captured individuals’ emotions at one moment in time, which ignores the variability of emotions during the experience journey. Therefore, being able to identify customers’ emotions at a given point in time as well as being able to measure experiences and emotions at different time points is important (Coghlan & Pearce, 2010; Dubé & Morgan, 1998).

Thus, this research places importance on measuring customer experience in real-time.

2.5 Customer Experience in the Food & Wine Events

A decision has been made to utilise food and wine events as the ground for this PhD project. Chapter 3 will provide the in-depth rationale of the selection of food and wine events. This section briefly overviews the customer experience concept in event context (in particular, food and wine events) and reviews existing research on event experience.

Tremendous research effort has been focused on how to improve service performance at events in order to provide attendees with satisfactory experiences. The assumption is that if an event maintains a high level of service quality, there will be more satisfied attendees and a better chance for generating behavioural intentions. Empirical evidence is found in the literature (e.g., Axelsen & Swan, 2010; D. A. Baker & Crompton, 2000; Y.-K. Lee, Lee, Lee, & Babin, 2008; M. C. Mason & Paggiaro, 2012; Yuan & Jang, 2007) to support this assumption, and a number of service attributes that may affect attendees’ experiences have been identified: quality of event program, service quality by staff members/volunteers, quality and availability of auxiliary facility, food quality, souvenirs, convenience and accessibility, and information availability. With the development in customer experience literature, event researchers (e.g., Cole & Chancellor, 2009) started to argue that experience is not equal to service and shift their focus on measuring experience quality instead of service

25 quality. For example, Papadimitriou (2013) measures experience quality and performance quality at a carnival festival to investigate the relationship between these quality variables with satisfaction, behavioural intentions and willingness to pay more. This study provided empirical evidence of the key role of experience in bringing about favourable behavioural intentions in a festival context. However, to date, empirical research in the domain of event experience remains sparse.

Why people attend events and the links between motivation, satisfaction and behavioural intentions is another popular research area into event experience (Getz & Page, 2015; X. Li & Petrick, 2006). The most common event motivations identified from the literature (e.g., Bowen & Daniels, 2005; Kyungmi Kim, Uysal, & Chen, 2001; P. Mason & Beaumont- Kerridge, 2004; Savinovic, Kim, & Long, 2012; Van Zyl & Botha, 2004; Yuan, Cai, Morrison, & Linton, 2005) include fun, social interaction, doing things with family, novelty, food and beverage, and knowledge/education. Researchers (e.g., Crompton & McKay, 1997; McDowall, 2010) believe that a better understanding of event motivations is a key to designing offerings for event attendees and also a way to monitor satisfaction as they are the “internal factor that arouses, directs, and integrates a person’s behaviour” (Crompton & McKay, 1997, p. 425). Accordingly, previous event studies (e.g., Cole & Illum, 2006; Kakyom Kim, 2007; Kakyom Kim, Sun, & Mahoney, 2008; C.-K. Lee, Lee, & Wicks, 2004; Savinovic et al., 2012; Yuan & Jang, 2007) have been interested in examining the relationships between event attendees’ motivations, the level of satisfaction, and behavioural intentions. However, most studies revealed that event motivations did not have a significantly direct effect on satisfaction, although an indirect effect was identified (Cole & Illum, 2006; Savinovic et al., 2012).

While previous studies have demonstrated to be valuable in investigating event experiences, a number of researchers argue that these previous studies did not measure the true meaning of event experience. Instead, these studies “often equate experience with service” (Cole & Chancellor, 2009, p. 324) or “focused on motivation and satisfaction rather than the experience” (M. Morgan, 2008, p. 83). In the food and wine event context, customer experience is a complex phenomenon (Getz, 2010, 2013), as experiences are formed through a set of communications and interactions between customers and event components at different touchpoints. Event components include celebrity chefs/performers, exhibiting vendors/products, event staff/volunteers, paid (add-on) activities, and event venue settings. In line with the service ecosystem and the co-created customer experience perspective (as

26 outlined in Chapter 2, section 2.3.4. p. 30), an event ecosystem for a food and wine event is proposed and illustrated in Figure 2-1.

Event Offering

Volunteer

s Celebrity Chefs

Event Venue Customer Organisation

Vendors/Products

Paid (add-on) activities

Value Creation

Figure 2-1 A basic service ecosystem of a food and wine event - Adapted from Polaine et al. (2013, p. 80) Within the ecosystem, customers often have no direct contact with the event organiser. The event organiser provides the landscape via event components for offering customer experiences, however, it is the attendee who ultimately creates the experience, through interactions and constant appraising their experiences at various moments. Thus, it is believed that drawing on the principles of Appraisal Theory and other key concepts developed in the marketing literature (e.g., touchpoint, customer journey), an investigation of how individual event attendees appraise their experiences at various touchpoints, what emotional responses are elicited, and what flow-on effects are generated on outcome variables such as satisfaction and behavioural intentions will add in-depth insight of customer experience for event businesses and contribute to the customer experience literature in general. The overarching research for this study is:

How do customer experiences at various touchpoints impact on consumer evaluations?

To assist in answer this overarching research question, four research methods (i.e., focus group, participant-generated images, experience based sampling and recall survey) are utilised to investigate the more micro, momentary levels of people’s experiences and how these accumulate to form overall assessments such as satisfaction and behavioural intentions at a food and wine event. Each method is capable of providing stand-alone insights to customer experience and therefore different research questions are poised to guide each study. A summary of the research questions poised for each study is provided in Table 2-2.

Next, the chapter is briefly concluded.

Table 2-2 Research questions poised for each study Chapter 4 Focus Group Interviews RQ1. What constitute the customer experiences for event attendees to the food and wine event? RQ2. What is the relative importance of the identified experience dimensions for attending the event? RQ3. How does the customer experience journey unfold and what touchpoints are important? Chapter 5 Concurrent Study 1 - Participant-generated Image (PGI) Study RQ1. What interactions comprise the key touchpoints at a food and wine event? RQ2. What is the core customer experience at a food and wine event? RQ3. Are there any other factors influencing the customer experiences at a food and wine event?

RQ4. What are the key outcomes of customer experience at a food and wine event? RQ5. What elements contribute to the experiences of people who used social media (SM) to post things about the event experience compared with those who didn’t? Chapter 6 Concurrent Study 2 - Experience Based Sampling Study RQ1. Is there any difference between the importance values that participants placed on the five experience appraisal items at T0 versus the appraisal contributions at each T1, T2 and T3? RQ2. How do experience appraisals made at the food and wine event vary across time? RQ3. How do emotions felt at the food and wine event vary across time?

RQ4. What is the relationship between the five experience appraisal items and two emotion items at T1, T2 and T3? RQ5. Do experience appraisals across time contribute to variance in satisfaction, recommendation and repeat visitation at T1, T2 and T3? RQ6. Do the in situ emotions contribute to variance in people’s overall memories?

RQ7. Do the in situ emotions contribute to variance in people’s overall core affect? RQ8. How do experience appraisals/emotions of people who used social media (SM) to post things about the event experience vary across time compared with those who didn’t? RQ9. What activities do people engage in at the event? RQ10. Is there a difference in the means for experience appraisal or emotion by activity engagement? Chapter 7 Concurrent Study 3 - Recall Survey RQ1. What is the relative importance of each experience dimension for attending the food and wine event? RQ2. Are there any differences on the importance ratings of ten experience dimensions across all demographic groups? RQ3. How do experience appraisals/emotions of people who used social media (SM) to post things about the event experiences vary compared with those who didn’t? RQ4. Is there a relationship among customer experience appraisals, positive emotions, memories and behavioural intentions?

2.6 Chapter Summary

This chapter provided further clarity and justification to the study purpose statement in Section 1.1, through a review of existing customer experience and event literature. A synthesis of key areas and literature gaps was provided, which informed the overarching research question for this research project. The next chapter details the methodology that was designed to answer the overarching research question for this research.

Chapter 3. Methodology

3.1 Introduction

This chapter outlines the rationale for a concurrent mixed methods approach and discusses the key advantages and disadvantages associated with the individual methods employed in the research. It should be noted that the fine-tuned step-by-step method for each study is contained within the respective chapter. This research focuses on investigating customer experience in the context of a food and wine event. To get a deeper understanding of the customer experience concept as well as to gain new insights, the present study employed a mixed methods approach to investigate the more micro, momentary levels of people’s experiences and how these accumulate to form overall assessments such as satisfaction and behavioural intentions. In order to build the foundation of the research program, several focus group interviews were conducted with people who attended the event in previous years before the event. During the event, three different methods were utilised concurrently to get a very rich insight into customer experience, including participant-generated image (PGI) method, experience based sampling (EBS), and web-based recall survey.

3.2 Methodological Rationale: Mixed-methods Approach

As outlined in the literature review, the complexity of the customer experience presents a challenge for academic and managerial research into a holistic understanding of the concept. Most previous research relies on conventional survey approach into customer evaluation of consumption experiences (e.g., Ali et al., 2016; Ren et al., 2016; Wan & Chan, 2013; Wu et al., 2013). Generally, researchers asked respondents to rate a selection of pre-defined tangible and intangible elements of the service provided. Such approach is process orientated and useful in evaluating the attribute-specific operations of the service. However, Arnould and Price (1993) questioned whether customers really evaluate their experiences through a list of service attributes. Pine and Gilmore (1998) claimed that experience is inherently interpretative, subjective, and affective. It also requires qualitative approaches to understand and interpret it (Getz & Page, 2015). Crowther, Bostock, and Perry (2015) proposed the adoption of different research methods to reveal a more holistic picture of customer experience. The interplay of methods will integrate findings, but more importantly reveal alternate perspectives and deeper information.

Mixed methods research represents research that involves collecting, analysing, and interpreting both qualitative and quantitative data in a single study or in a series of studies that investigate the same underlying phenomenon (R. B. Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2009). Mixed methods researchers believe that this creative form of research offers researchers the best chance to answer research questions by using multiple approaches, gaining greater insights on a phenomenon that each of these methods cannot offer individually (e.g., Creswell, 2013; R. B. Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007; Venkatesh, Brown, & Bala, 2013). For example, a qualitative research study could be supplemented with a closed-ended survey to measure certain attributes identified in the relevant literature, which could potentially bring breadth to the study by helping researchers gather data about different aspects of a phenomenon from certain number of participants. As another example, adding interviews to a quantitative study could tap into participants’ perspectives – helping to gain deeper insights from individuals’ narratives and avoid some potential problems with the quantitative method. It is suggested that collecting data through multiple strategies, approaches, and methods could “result in complementary strengths and non-overlapping weaknesses” (R. B. Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004, p. 18).

In order to design a mixed methods study in an effective way, mixed methods researchers (e.g., R. B. Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2003) suggest a number of dimensions that researchers need to consider when designing a mixed method study. Building upon existing research, Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2009) conceptualised a three- dimensional typology of mixed methods designs, including:

(a) whether to carry out a partially mixed design or fully mixed design (see also R. B. Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004);

(b) whether to carry out the qualitative and quantitative phases concurrently (at the same point in time) or sequentially (qualitative and quantitative components occur one after another) (see also Fielding, 2012; Venkatesh et al., 2013); and

(c) whether to give the qualitative and quantitative components of a mixed study equal status or to give one component the dominant status (see also R. B. Johnson et al., 2007; Teddlie & Yu, 2007).

Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2009) present a typology of the possible mixed method research designs (see Figure 3-1). As illustrated, there are eight possible designs based on the

33 crossover of three key dimensions: partial vs. fully mixed; concurrent vs. sequential; and equal vs. dominant status.

Figure 3-1 Eight types of mixed research design – Adapted from Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2009, p. 269) As can be seen from this figure, the first dimension of a mixed methods design is the level of mixing (partially mixed versus fully mixed). Once a study combines qualitative and

34 quantitative techniques to any degree, the study either is using a fully mixed design or a partially mixed design. The major difference between partially mixed methods and fully mixed methods is this: Fully mixed methods involve the mixing of quantitative and qualitative techniques within or across the data collection, analysis, and interpretation stages (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2009; Powell, Mihalas, Onwuegbuzie, Suldo, & Daley, 2008). With partially mixed methods, the quantitative and qualitative phases are mixed at the data interpretation stage (Powell et al., 2008). The second dimension of a mixed methods design is time orientation, which refers to whether the quantitative and qualitative phases of the research study occur at approximately the same point in time (i.e., concurrent) or whether these two components occur one after another (i.e., sequential) (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2009). Finally, the last dimension of a mixed methods design involves the emphasis of approach, which pertains to whether both qualitative and quantitative phases of the study have approximately equal emphasis (i.e. equal status) with respect to addressing the research question(s), or whether one component has significantly higher priority than another phase (i.e. dominant status) (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2009).

Due to the number of designs available, making a selection is often is a challenging task. To date, several criteria have been identified to help researchers decide, including time orientation (concurrent versus sequential; D. L. Morgan, 1998), emphasis of approaches (equal status versus dominant status; D. L. Morgan, 1998; Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2004), and stage of integration (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). In any case, whatever design is used, what is most fundamental is that research objectives, purposes, and questions can be best and most fully addressed through mixed research solutions (R. B. Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2009). In particular, the research findings could be corroborated across different approaches in some cases while the findings could also be conflict in others. Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2004) argue that the goal of mixing is not to search for corroboration but rather to expand one’s understanding: if findings are corroborated across different approaches then greater confidence can be held in the singular conclusion; if the findings are conflict then the researcher has greater knowledge and can modify interpretations and conclusions accordingly.

In customer experience literature, prior research from both qualitative (e.g., Matteucci, 2013; Ziakas & Boukas, 2013) and quantitative (e.g., Boo & Lu, 2015; Verleye, 2015) approaches has offered insights on the concept of customer experience. However, it is believed that much qualitative research on customer experience either focused on pure conceptualisation without

35 empirical tests or did not collect responses from a vast majority of participants due to the practical limitations related to the number of participants who could be interviewed and topics that could be covered during the interviews. Similarly, quantitative studies failed to offer deeper insights on the investigation of in situ customer experience and failed to capture the depth of responses from participants by tapping into individuals’ perspectives. Given the way in which a mixed methods approach can enhance the researcher’s understanding of a specific research question, the present study aims to gain a holistic understanding of the customer experience by using a mixed methods approach. The next section further details the mixed research design of the present study and provides an overview of the four methods used for data collection.

3.3 Data Collection Strategy: Fully Mixed Concurrent Equal Status Design

After reviewing various sources on the design and implementation of a mixed methods research approach, a fully mixed concurrent equal status design was used in this study. As defined by Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2009), a fully mixed concurrent equal status design involves that quantitative and qualitative phases occur at approximately the same point in time, with both phases being given approximately equal weight and mixing occurring within or across the data collection, analysis, and interpretation stages. The term “concurrent” used in this research referred to a two-week data collection timeframe: one week prior to the actual event and one week after the actual event. The timeframe was pre-set on the same event (a food and wine event), investigating the same phenomenon (customer experience).

The design gives voice to diverse or alternative perspectives enabling a broader understanding of the same underlying phenomenon in a series of studies (Hanson, Creswell, Clark-Plano, Petska, & Creswell, 2005). Hence, this design was appropriate for this study as it enables better and deeper insights of customer experience from the research context and the testing of relationships between momentary customer experiences and overall assessment variables through three concurrent studies. It should be noted that in the current project, the research objectives were set by taking three studies into consideration, and each study was designed with thoughts about collecting data from varying research perspectives. A key objective was to be able to address the main research questions using different data and samples but conducting the study with a focus on the one event with attendees.

Once a decision has been made about the mixed method design type (i.e., a concurrent mixed methods design), the next step is for the researcher to select a mixed methods sampling

36 design. As suggested by Creswell and Clark-Plano (2007) and Collins, Onwuegbuzie, and Jiao (2007), there are four relationship types of qualitative and quantitative samples: identical, parallel, nested and multilevel. Table 3-1 summarises the descriptions of these four relationship types. Researchers normally select the sampling designs outlined in Table 4-1 to fit a specific research context on the basis of the research goal, research objective, research purpose and research questions (Creswell & Clark-Plano, 2007; Onwuegbuzie & Collins, 2007). The purpose of the current study is to generate new insights of customer experience through the utilisation of three methods (including qualitative and quantitative components) concurrently at an event. Therefore, a parallel sampling design was undertaken to ensure that different groups of participants attending the same event were recruited for each data collection method.

Table 3-1 Descriptions of four relationship types of mixed methods sampling designs Relationship Descriptions of samples This relationship indicates that exactly the same sample members Identical participate in both the qualitative and quantitative phases of the study. This relationship specifies that the samples from the qualitative and Parallel quantitative components of the research are different but are drawn from the same population of interest. This relationship implies that the sample members selected for one phase Nested of study represent a subset of those participants chosen for the other facet of the investigation. This relationship involves the use of two or more sets of samples that are Multilevel extracted from different levels of the study (i.e., different populations).

Source: Adapted from Onwuegbuzie and Collins (2007, p. 292).

The mixed methods design in the present study requires significant implementation time and resources, as the use of multiple methods can potentially complicate research procedures. Therefore, it requires the researcher to have a clear understanding of each method’s specific requirements and processes to ensure validity and reliability (Creswell, 2013). In this study, extensive planning and organisation was undertaken prior to data collection. For example, to assist in refining the procedures of a participant-generated image (PGI) study, three field studies were conducted at three separate community-based events before the main study. For the experience-based sampling (EBS) study and recall study, pilot tests were first undertaken

37 to see if the survey questions were clear and easily answered. In particular, since the EBS study utilised participants’ mobile devices to complete data collection, an initial testing survey with two dummy questions was sent to participants’ phones/tablets to help them practice how to complete a survey through the app. The initial testing period took about two weeks and was completed one week prior to the event. All these field studies and pilot tests ensured that the design was achievable for the allocated timeframe and provided data that was effective in complementing the study needs and aims.

Various authors recommend that when using a mixed methods design, it is helpful to provide an illustration and description of the implementation process (Creswell, 2013; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). This information can allow the design to be conveyed sufficiently and can assist in structuring the final report. Hence, Figure 3-2 illustrates an overview of the four study components and their inter-relationships. The foundation of the research program commenced with several focus group interviews conducted with people who attended the event in previous years, aiming to identify the most common touchpoints attendees have at the event and salient experiences for attendees while in attendance at the event. Next when the event was taking place, two methods (i.e., participant-generated image method and experience based sampling) were employed to capture in situ customer experiences, investigating their momentary cognitive and emotional responses and what contributed to their experiences at the event. In addition, a survey was sent out to attendees who had been to the event, measuring their overall experiences associated with post-event evaluations. In each study, separate samples of event attendees were obtained. As illustrated in Figure 3-2, the design was segregated into four data collection points and analysis phases, with a final interpretation/synthesis phase to provide new knowledge and deeper insights to the customer experience concept. The remainder of this section provides a brief overview of each method.

Figure 3-2 Illustration of fully concurrent mixed methods design*

* Note: 1. Arrows indicated direction of design; 2. “Qual” and “Quan” indicate qualitative and quantitative respectively; 3. Glowed ovals represent each study phase; 4. Shaded, coloured rectangles highlight each study method; 5. Rounded, unshaded rectangles highlight stages in data collection and analysis; 6. Rounded, shaded rectangles highlight the aim of each method; 7. Rounded, coloured rectangles indicate corresponding, proceeding chapters in this thesis

3.3.1 Preliminary stage: Focus group interviews

As illustrated in Figure 3-2, the preliminary stage involved focus group interviews conducted with several groups of attendees who attended the event in previous years. The focus group technique is a method of interviewing that involves more than one, usually at least four interviewees (Bryman & Bell, 2015). This approach is particularly appropriate when the goal of research is to study the phenomenon from the perspective of participants, gaining insight to the experiences and meanings ascribed by the individuals (Arora & Stoner, 2009). Kitzinger (1995) stressed that by selecting individuals who have actually experienced the phenomenon and them then describing the details of the experience and the context within which the experience takes place in a group, it affords the benefit of a dynamic setting to explore new streams of thought in ways that would be less easily accessible in one-to-one interviews.

When setting up a focus group, one frequently-asked question is about the number of focus groups. Several authors (e.g., Krueger & Casey, 2009) suggest continuing with running focus groups until a clear pattern emerges and subsequent groups produce only repetitious information (information saturation). Moreover, the typical group size is four to eight members (Krueger & Casey, 2009). Blackburn and Stokes (2000) found that discussion in groups of more than eight is difficult to manage. One major problem in using focus groups is the number of “no-shows”. The recommendation is to over-recruit by 10-25% based on the topic and groups of participants (Rabiee, 2004). Rabiee (2004) also suggested that in order to maximise participation, it is important to obtain an agreed date from the participants well in advance of the interviews and also very helpful to remind them a few days before the interview day.

In order to build the foundation of the research program, several focus group interviews were conducted two months before the event with people who attended the event in previous years. The detailed method and results of the focus group interviews are presented in Chapter 4. The following sections elaborate the three methods used at the concurrent data collection stage.

3.3.2 Concurrent data collection stage: Participant-generated image (PGI) method

As outlined in Figure 3-2, three separate groups of participants were recruited concurrently to participate in three independent studies, focussed on the same event. Accordingly, three methods were employed during the data collection stage. The first method was participant-

40 generated image (PGI) method, which was employed to capture momentary customer experiences. Numerous studies have documented the advantages of introducing photographs into the research setting (e.g., Balomenou & Garrod, 2014; Harper, 1986, 2002; Matteucci, 2013). Scarles (2011) argued that the special value of this type approach lies in combining the images with other techniques, such as interviewing and surveys, as a means of furthering opportunities to explore experiences of particular research phenomena. A review of literature further indicates that these images can be categorised as researcher-generated images (RGI) or participant-generated images (PGI) (Matteucci, 2013). That is, in a RGI study, the visual materials are produced or gathered by the researcher; while in a PGI study, the visual materials are produced or gathered by the research participants.

Both forms of visual materials have been employed in the research context extensively. For example, Suchar used his own purposively taken photographs to study the processes of gentrification in urban American neighbourhoods (Suchar, 1988, 1992). By way of further illustration, Willson and McIntosh (2010) used photographs taken by one of the two researchers to explore tourists’ experience of heritage buildings in the rural region of Hawke’s Bay, NewZealand. Matteucci (2013) used researcher-generated images (RGI) to examine the more intimate aspects of tourism experiences by triangulating with in-depth interviews and participant observations. Although the results suggest that RGI is a valuable tool to investigate tourists’ embodied experiences, Matteucci (2013) admitted that using images gathered by researchers may introduce some bias into capturing study participants’ experiences. More importantly, a RGI approach gives less narrative power to research participants to express their experiences and feelings while using a PGI approach gives the control to participants to shape the scope of the research (Balomenou & Garrod, 2015) and may potentially “unveil experiences deeply rooted in the participants’ realities” (Matteucci, 2013, p. 196).

Studies using a PGI approach are increasingly being published in academic journals (e.g., Balomenou & Garrod, 2014; Bignante, 2010; Petermans, Kent, & Van Cleempoel, 2014; Scarles, 2011; Van Auken, Frisvoll, & Stewart, 2010). For instance, Pullman and Robson (2007) invited hotel guests to take pictures during their stay and allowed the researchers to use these images to interview their experiences afterwards. In order to test the relationships between images taken and satisfaction ratings, participants were also asked to complete a short survey with a small set of satisfaction- and behaviour-scale items when handing the cameras back to the researchers. In another study, Petermans et al. (2014) used participant-

41 generated images (PGI) to study customer experiences in retail environments. The study illustrates that using participant-generated photographs is a pleasant and appealing task for participants as it gives the autonomy to the participants in charge of the interview with an active leading role in the interactions. It enables the researchers to gain deeper understanding of customers’ perceptions of and experiences in retail interiors. These previous studies illustrate that the PGI method can be particularly suited to investigating customer experience, because the customer uses a camera to record impactful moments to their experiences that can be discussed later with the researcher.

This research aims to capture the complexity of customer experience at the food and wine event in the real time. The choice of PGI method enables a researcher to gain deeper insight into the subjective, event specific experiences as socially constructed by the participant. The PGI method provided insight into fluctuations in customers’ emotions over a one-day period and captured various customer experiences, from ordinary to extraordinary, which created the overall customer experience at the event. While many researchers (e.g., Gentile et al., 2007; Pine & Gilmore, 1998; Verhoef et al., 2009) have started to investigate customer experience, they rely on post event reflection, with associated memory and recall issues (e.g., Hosany & Gilbert, 2010; Hosany & Witham, 2009). PGI approach allows moments to be captured in situ, preferably within the flow of the experience, to be elaborated upon post-event. Thus, the photos that were taken in situ may bring new insight and more meaningful knowledge about customer experience. Furthermore, when triangulated with other methods, such as surveys and interviews, a PGI approach provides better and deeper insights, including to provide a valuable check on the overall congruence of the research findings and enhance our understanding of what experiences mean to people (Balomenou & Garrod, 2015; Scarles, 2010).

The use of PGI method requires careful consideration of a number of research decisions, including: device selection, extent of instructions, ethical consideration and sample size.

Device selection The access to a device (single-use camera, digital camera, smartphone, tablet) is required as part of the equipment for PGI method. Traditionally PGI studies have relied on single-use camera or digital camera. However, recent technological advances have meant that smartphones are equipped with cameras that are of good quality and easy to use. Importantly the adoption of smartphones and tablets is widespread meaning most adults have a device that

42 can be used to take photos. Therefore, the present study invited participants to take photographs at the event by using their own mobile devices (i.e., smartphone and tablet).

Extent of instructions Another important decision for PGI studies is the extent of instructions given to participants (e.g., Scarles, 2011). This type of study provides opportunities for participants to produce their own images, and this can be influenced by specific requests from researchers (i.e., number of photographs, content of photographs, photographing within a particular timeframe). Therefore, researchers have to decide how detailed and/or structured the requests should be as suggested by Scarles (2011). Tinkler (2013) advises that the choice of approach will largely depend on the research question to be answered and the researcher’s philosophical approach.

The purpose of this study was to get a better understanding of customer experiences at the food and wine event, which could be anything important/unimportant to the customers, or anything eliciting customers’ positive/negative feelings. Therefore, the researcher only explained the context of the research, allowing the participants to have significant freedom to determine the content of the images.

Ethical consideration Ethical requirements for this type of study warrant particular attention (e.g., Epstein, Stevens, McKeever, & Baruchel, 2008; Prosser, Clark, & Wiles, 2008). PGI studies that ask the participant to take photos as recordings of their experiences may be subject to certain sensitivities. Careful consideration of ethical issues prior to commencing data collection is necessary to prevent any sensitivities arising over the use of images in a research context.

In the current study, a key ethical issue is that participants are going to take photos in public places, especially with regard to the privacy of other people attending the event. In accordance with the university’s ethical guidelines, ethical clearance was obtained subject to addressing privacy concerns. In addition, approval was sought from the event organizer, confirming their support for the study participants to take photos at the event. Meanwhile, in the briefing session, participants were also told to respect other people and exhibitors and seek permission before photographing exhibitors, products or booths at the event. As some of the photographic materials may be included in the thesis, publications or conference presentation, participants were asked to sign a release form of the photographs they are willing to allow to be published according to the researcher’ university ethical requirement.

Sample size The nature of a photo elicitation study normally ends up with a small sample size (e.g., Pullman & Robson, 2007). This is due to several reasons including the significant time required by participants to engage in the photographing of everyday life of specific experiences, the logistics of recruiting and briefing people for the study, and the desire to conduct follow-up interviews.

Furthermore, the outcome that people will produce several photos means that the data analysis can be quite time consuming. For instance, 20 respondents can easily generate in excess of 200 images to be analysed. The data from graphic sources are unclassified and require some type of content analysis, such as assigning the images into categories or themes, which is similar to what is done with verbal data drawn from open-ended questions, in-depth interviews or focus groups (for example, see Pullman & Robson, 2007). Not surprisingly, a larger sample size for this type of study would require a huge amount of time investment from researchers to do the coding of images, unless some sort of automated approach could be applied.

This section provided an overview of the PGI method and some key decisions regarding the usage of the PGI method. The next section will review the experience based sampling (EBS) method and some considerations for conducting EBS study.

3.3.3 Concurrent data collection stage: Experience based sampling (EBS)

The second method used at the concurrent data collection stage was experience based sampling (EBS). Experience based sampling (EBS) is a research method that takes regular measures of a person’s experience over a defined time period. Undertaking EBS enables the researcher to capture individuals’ momentary experiences in the naturally occurring environment (hereafter referred to as in situ) throughout a specified period of time (Hormuth, 1986). Most of the previous customer experience research has relied on retrospective techniques such as interviews and surveys, which can be problematic in capturing the dynamic aspects of a customer’s experience journey (Lin et al., 2014; Nawijn, 2011). As customer experience is subjective and varying over time, there is a need to capture the changes and fluctuations in customers’ momentary experiences in the real time. Thus, experience-based sampling was utilised to capture an individual’s in situ experiences at the event.

Conducting an EBS is reasonably complicated and requires a number of considerations to be taken into account before undertaking a study, including: timing, instrument and measurement.

Equipment & Application Traditionally, paper and pencil diaries were used for EBS. The advent of technology such as smartphones has enabled researchers to collect data in the field from participants (Hofmann & Patel, 2014). In particular, multiple smartphone apps have been developed to help for the collection of real time data in experience based sampling studies. The use of apps in experience-based sampling has a number of advantages including being able to control the signal timing, check for compliance through tracking and minimize missing data through sending response reminders (Scollon, Prieto, & Diener, 2003).

Smartphone apps vary in operating systems, cost and functionalities (for an overview, see Conner, 2015). For example, some apps can only be operated either on iOS system (e.g., iSurvey/DroidSurvey: https://www.isurveysoft.com/) or Android system (e.g., MovisensXS: https://xs.movisens.com/), while some apps are applicable to both systems (e.g., MetricWire: https://metricwire.com/). In terms of pricing, some apps charge on a time-based rate (e.g., monthly/yearly), while some apps are priced on the number of devices used in the research projects. A few apps also offer a package price to researchers. Regarding the functionalities, most apps are specially designed for experience sampling research but researchers need app company staff to program surveys and input questions (e.g., iHabit: http://ihabit4life.com/). Only a couple apps provide interface to researchers to design own experiments (e.g., MovisensXS, MetricWire).

This study aims to measure attendees’ experiences in real time in the context of the event through their mobile devices. Following the app list recommended by Conner (2015), the researcher has conducted extensive review on all possible apps. The final decision was made based on the following three criteria:

1) Due to the sample being relatively hard to reach, an app operating on both iOS and Android systems was preferable for this project. 2) A limited research grant was available for this PhD project. Cost was an important factor when selecting apps.

3) Last, the researcher wanted to have the flexibility to design her own experiment and input survey questions. Also, it was time-saving to amend survey questions after pilot studies if any changes were needed.

The free app, MetricWire (https://metricwire.com/), was selected for the current study. MetricWire is a specially designed mobile app, and allows researchers to design their own experiments and collect in-the-moment data from study participants. To participate in the present study, all participants received an invitation email from MetricWire. Following registrations, participants downloaded the app, and installed it on their devices to complete the study. During the pilot study stage, each participant received instructions in the use of the app, and training that required participants to complete two dummy questions to become familiar with process.

Signalling schedules After reviewing other researchers’ work (e.g., Reis & Gable, 2000; Scollon et al., 2003), Hektner, Schmidt, and Csikszentmihalyi (2007) propose three signalling schedules for EBS study: interval-contingent sampling, event-contingent sampling, and signal-contingent sampling. An interval-contingent sampling is a time based approach, which has the advantage of letting the participant know when to expect to receive the ‘beep’ for completing the questionnaire. Event-contingent sampling occurs when participants complete self-reports when a pre-designed event occurs. Last, signal-contingent sampling refers to send signals for data collection on a random basis throughout the time period which is appealing but if the data collection context is noisy then this may not be appropriate.

An interval-contingent sampling approach was selected for the current study based on logistical considerations and reviewing previous literature (e.g., Scollon et al., 2003; Uy, Foo, & Aguinis, 2010). As the data collection context was a food and wine event held indoors, several key factors had to be taken consideration: hours of opening, number of sample points required, event factors, such as noise, respondent burden (interruptions), and retention. Based on advice from the event organisers, the main period of attendance was between 10:30am and 3pm. As a minimum of three in situ samples was needed for each person, it was decided to use a 1.5 hour interval and commence at 11am (ensuring participants had arrived) and complete the final one at 2pm (before participants left the venue).

Time frame EBS studies typically ask participants to complete the survey at one moment in time (e.g., right now, right after the signal). However, in reality, participants are unable to respond at any random moment while they are engaged in a task that cannot be interrupted (e.g., in a meeting, giving a talk, driving a car, etc.). To obtain data on these experiences in an EBS study, it is necessary to use a longer time frame (e.g., in the past 10 minutes, half an hour) (Schimmack, 2003). As a result, participants still report their recent experiences but at convenient time even though they could not be captured in momentary report. However, there is a lack of empirical evidence that which time frame provides a better way of recording momentary measures (Schimmack, 2003; Scollon et al., 2003).

A 30-minute time frame was selected for the current study based on logistical considerations. The data collection context was a food and wine event held indoors. Participants had countless opportunities to walk around and sample food and wine products. Meanwhile, the event organiser provided many add-on programs, including celebrity chef demonstrations, cooking classes, coffee-making classes, beer-crafting classes, cheese-tasting classes and wine-tasting master classes. Most of the classes lasted for one hour. Therefore, it was very likely that participants were enjoying food and wine while chatting with exhibiting vendors or in the middle of a class when they received the signal to remind them to complete the survey. The 30-minute time frame would allow the researcher to collect momentary experience information at participants’ convenient times.

Measurement People who participate in EBS studies usually respond to a set of questions on multiple occasions over a period of time. As a result, researchers have to consider ways to reduce the burden for participants. One way to do this is to signal participants less frequently and select as few items as possible at each data collection point (Scollon et al., 2003). Another issue associated with EBS studies is the use of single items to measure a construct. Normally researchers use multiple items of a construct to better reflect what it means and to argue for a more reliable measure – it can be argued that reliability can be achieved in this type of study by computing the aggregate of the single items over time (Csikszentmihalyi & Larson, 1987; Hektner et al., 2007). Thus in EBS studies, a researcher might only have one item versus five items that may be used in regular survey. Accordingly, single items were used in the current study to capture event attendees’ in situ experiences and feelings at three data collection points.

This section introduces what is EBS study and discusses a series of key considerations that researchers have when designing an EBS study. The next section will explain the recall survey and discuss some issues associated with the recall study.

3.3.4 Concurrent data collection stage: Recall survey

The third concurrent method employed in the current study was a web-based recall survey. Web-based surveys have been purported to be a means of collection data from larger sample groups quickly and with minimal cost compared to other survey types, such as paper-based surveys or mail surveys (Cobanoglu, Warde, & Moreo, 2001). The introduction of multiple survey design websites (e.g., Qualtrics) makes the web-based surveys more user-friendly for design, dissemination, data storage and data analysis (Greelaw & Brown-Welty, 2009). Furthermore, using web-based surveys can increase the response rate that may result in a more valid analysis of the data collected (Sánchez-Fernández, Muñoz-Leiva, & Montoro- Ríos, 2012). Many previous studies (e.g., Sills & Song, 2002) have demonstrated the effectiveness of this data collection method.

When conducting a survey, response rate is not the only consideration. Researchers must consider which survey mode will meet the needs of the study within the constraints of budget. The costs associated with survey administration vary depending upon the administration mode. Greelaw and Brown-Welty (2009) suggest that the costs for conducting paper-based surveys are normally considerable, including paper, postage, and certain amount of labour cost such as inputting data, stuffing envelopes. Sometimes, time spent on attaching addresses, stuffing and sealing envelopes can also amount to a significant cost investment. The costs of conducting web-based surveys are different and tend to be less expensive (Greelaw & Brown-Welty, 2009). More importantly, as technology has improved, the survey websites have become more user-friendly making the design process much less time-consuming and less costly. In addition, when participants reply to the survey, the results are immediately recorded on the website for later download, which eliminates the data input process as well as decreases the potential for input errors.

Choice of rating scales for response

In this study the decision about rating scale response categories was made with consideration of the psychometric literature and practical need for comparisons across studies. Usually rating scales offer between 4 and 11 response alternatives (Rohrmann, 2007), while there is

48 literature arguing in favour and against for most rating scales (e.g., Cummins & Gullone, 2000; Diefenbach, Weinstein, & O'Reilly, 1993; C. J. Russell & Bobko, 1992). The need to conduct the present research on the smartphone resulted in the need to have consistency of measurement for items that would be compared across the studies (PGI study, EBS study, & recall study). After initial testing of various rating options on the smartphone, it was found that respondents most preferred a 5-point option. Since, 5-point scales are widely accepted in the literature, this option was adopted for several of the constructs to be measured.

Options for the scales in the present study include intensity, frequency and agreement. Based on works by Rohrmann (2007), who demonstrated the accuracy and ordinal nature of words as verbal labels for rating scales, it was decided that a reasonable scale for 5 points is as follows: not at all/a little/moderately/quite a bit/very much. This intensity scale was undertaken to determine participant’s emotional status and the strength of the experience appraisals.

Choice of single items for measurement

In general, researchers use multiple items of a construct to better reflect what it means and to argue for a more reliable measure. Single-item measures are presumed to have relatively low reliability, while some research does show single item measures to still be valid (Wanous, Reichers, & Hudy, 1997). As there is a reliance on the event organiser for access to event attendees, restrictions on the length of the survey were made resulting in the use of single item measures. Other researchers (Ginns & Barrie, 2004; Sackett & Larson Jr, 1990; Wanous et al., 1997) demonstrate, a single-item measure may suffice if the construct being measured is sufficiently narrow or unambiguous to the participants. While reliability cannot be calculated, the measures in this research are based on previous research, straightforward and unambiguous with good face validity.

The next section details the selection of a major event as the data collection context for this research.

3.4 Context Rationale: Brisbane Good Food & Wine Show

While there are many service contexts that may serve as a research ground for this study, a decision has been made to utilise a food and wine event. This decision was made after investigating the unique role of food and wine events. Food and wine events provide a wide

49 range of experiences by incorporating food, wine, and special programs offering hands-on experiences (Axelsen & Swan, 2010). According to Getz and Robinson (2014), food and wine events present customers with a wide range of experiences in a pleasant environment which are different from or broader than day-to-day living. In particular, food and wine events provide an excellent opportunity to explore touchpoints according to the design principles set out by Voss and Zomerdijk (2007b) and Zomerdijk and Voss (2010), with particular reference to the sensory experience of sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch.

There are numerous food and wine events in Australia that could be used as a context to collect and analysis data for this study. Table 3-2 lists examples of the potential food and wine events that occurred during the allocated time frame of 2014 to 2015. However, to assist in the selection of the most appropriate event for this study, three decision criteria were formulated: 1) researcher access considerations, 2) event organiser support, and 3) timing of the potential food and wine event. These criterions reflected various factors, such as logistical considerations, financial budget and analysis technique requirements. The three criterions are briefly discussed and justified next, in regards to potential food and wine event contexts for this study.

3.4.1 Selection criteria 1: Research access considerations

The first criterion encompasses the researcher access to the potential event and population of interest. Logistical considerations were the main determinant of this criterion, as it was more preferable in this study to have the data collection context locate near the researcher’s city of residence (Gold Coast, QLD), which enabled the researcher to have a somewhat immediate access to the event and participants throughout the research process. This specification allowed the researcher to quickly collect and clarify information in the field. In addition, the PGI method and EBS method required high time and effort investment from the participants to complete the study, an event held indoors could possibly make it easy to monitor the progress of the research program and reach anticipated response rates.

3.4.2 Selection criteria 2: Event organiser support

Due to the privacy issue, this study relied on the event organiser to get access to the company’s customer list for the participant recruitment. Therefore, receiving the support from the event organiser was vital to ensure the completion of the study. As discussed in the previous sections, there were some ethical issues associated with PGI study since participants

50 would use their mobile devices and take photos at the event. According to ethical requirement from the researcher’ university, an approval has to be granted from event organiser to allow participants taking photos at the event before starting the project. Therefore, the researcher emailed some potential event organisers to seek for their support and approval.

3.4.3 Selection criteria 3: Timing of the potential food and wine events

The timing of the potential event is the third selection consideration. In this study, it was preferable for the selected event to occur at the second half of the year. This decision factor is determined by the need for relatively substantial research design implementation time. For instance, focus group interviews have to complete at the preliminary data collection stage, then analyse interview materials and use these results to develop the survey questions for the concurrent data collection stage.

Table 3-2 Potential food and wine event contexts (2014-2015)a Potential Food and Wine Events Event Location Event Period Event Programs More than 200 events including cooking masterclasses, wine tastings Melbourne Food and Wine Multiple venues, Melbourne, VIC March, 2014, 2015 and paring classes, and dining at Festival (16 days) participating restaurants inside and outside of Melbourne Beachfront events, celebrity lunches Noosa Food & Wine (3 days) Multiple venues, Noosa, QLD May, 2014, 2015 and dinners, a food trail & lifestyle events Exhibiting food and wine products from Convention Centres in four capital Good Food & Wine Show (3 days local producers, hands-on cooking cities in Australia (Sydney, Melbourne, Vary in each city in each city) classes, wine/beer/cheese tasting Brisbane, Perth) classes Convention Centres in five cities in Exhibiting food and wine products from Food & Wine Expo (3 days in Australia (Brisbane, Perth, Gold Coast, Vary in each city local producers, and hands-on cooking each city) Canberra, Newcastle) classes a. Developed for this study from Internet searches and researcher knowledge. Please note that this list is indicative, and not intended to be an exhaustive catalogue of all major food and wine events that occurred nationally from 2014 to 2015.

3.4.4 Brisbane Good Food & Wine Show: Some background information

Using the three decision criteria to review the potential event contexts in Table 3-2, it was determined that Brisbane Good Food & Wine Show was the most appropriate event for this study.

The event, held indoors, runs over a three-day weekend from Friday to Sunday, and most individuals attend the event for one day. The event includes many activities including food and wine displays, celebrity chef demonstrations, cooking classes, coffee-making classes, and wine-tasting master classes as well as some chill-out lounges and fun, leisure activities (e.g., croquet). Previous events have also featured many celebrity chefs from around the globe. Generally, the customer experience for this type of event commences with information searching/ticketing, to a series of activities occurring within a confined space/time, plus a post event phase that is predominantly on social media, which allows for the capture and comparison of many experiences across the whole event period. To get a better understanding of the event’s target market, Table 3-3 summarises the main visitor profile for the event in 2013.

Table 3-3 Visitor profile for the Good Food & Wine Show in 2013 Categories Percentage Gender Male 16.8% Female 83.2%

Age Under 18 0.5% 18-24 6.1% 25-34 17.5% 35-44 19.9% 45-54 27.2% 55-64 19.6% 65+ 8.9%

Employment Status Working 71.7% Student 4.0% Retired 13.4% House duties 6.4% Others 4.5% Total 100%

Source: Confidential report sent by the event company.

3.5 Analysis

Each study is capable of providing stand-alone insights to customer experience and will be analysed and discussed separately. However, the rationale for adopting a concurrent mixed methods approach is to allow integration of findings from various approaches. Thus, the results are compared and synthesised to provide a deep insight to the customer experience concept in Chapter 8.

The purpose of using focus groups in the current study was to assist in setting a foundation of the research program by conducting interviews with attendees who had attended the events in previous years. After all focus group interviews were conducted and transcribed, the material was then systematically content analysed. The analysis procedure was devised from consulting various content analysis guidelines (see Krippendorff, 2012; Ryan & Bernard, 2000; Spiggle, 1994). The content analysis of the interview transcripts helped to identify the most common touchpoints with associated experiences people had at the event, and more importantly, what event experiences were important to them. This information provided insight into the customer experience as well as assisted in identifying the key aspects that were evaluated in the experience based sampling study and the recall survey. The detailed procedures, results and discussions from this method are provided in Chapter 4.

The employment of a PGI method was to capture customers’ momentary experiences as reflected in photos, narratives, and attribute ratings. The content analysis of these photos, associated narratives and survey attributes provided insight into various customer experiences over a one-day period and, from ordinary to extraordinary, or from negative to positive, which created the overall customer experience at the event. The procedures and results as well as discussions of key findings from this method are detailed in Chapter 5.

The usage of an EBS method aimed to investigate how specific experience appraisal dimensions of an event affect emotions at different points in time, determines how these appraisals contribute to satisfaction, recommendation, and repeat visitation, and tests how emotions vary throughout the event. Data collected by using experience based sampling was used to test the hypotheses through the use of regression tests and repeated measure ANOVAs. The procedures, results and discussions from this method are detailed in Chapter 6.

The recall survey attempted to measure event attendees’ overall experiences associated with post-event evaluations. Two competing customer experience models were proposed and

55 statistically tested using structural equation modelling (SEM). Chapter 7 provides the detailed analysis techniques and results as well as discussions of key findings.

The final stage of the research design combined and interpreted the research findings from four studies, so that the overarching research questions for this study could be answered. Implications and future research directions were also derived in this stage. Chapter 8 provides these conclusions.

3.6 Chapter Summary

This chapter has provided a holistic overview of the research methodology design that underpinned this study. The chapter has justified the adoption of a concurrent mixed methods design and the use of four methods (one method at preliminary stage and three concurrent methods) to complete data collection. The use and appropriateness of the Brisbane Good Food & Wine Show as a data collection context for this study was also justified. Chapter 4 will now extend from this methodological basis by detailing the procedures and results from the preliminary data collection phase for this study.

56 Chapter 4. Focus Group Interviews

4.1 Introduction

Chapter 3 presented the methodology design for this study. The chapter justified the application of a fully mixed concurrent equal status design for this study through using the Brisbane Good Food & Wine Show as the data collection context. Before commencing the concurrent mixed methods study, which focuses three distinct studies on one event, some preliminary background research was conducted and is the focus of this chapter.

The current chapter seeks to answer three key research questions:

RQ1. What constitute the customer experiences for event attendees to the food and wine event?

RQ2. What is the relative importance of the identified experience dimensions for attending the event?

RQ3. How does the customer experience journey unfold and what touchpoints are important?

In order to answer the research questions and build the foundation of the research program, the researcher conducted several focus group interviews with people who had attended the event in previous years. In addition to these focus groups, the event company provided a report1 on focus group interviews undertaken with previous event attendees that focused on customers’ needs and what elements might be missing from current event offerings. While the researchers focus groups targeted the Brisbane based event, the company report was based on people in other states of Australia.

This chapter first reports the primary data collected specifically for this program of research and then in Section 4.3.3 of this chapter the two sets of focus group results are synthesised to finalise the list of salient customer experience dimensions for attending the event. The finalised list is used as key measures in the PGI study (Chapter 5), EBS study (Chapter 6) and recall study (Chapter 7). Figure 4-1 illustrates the overview of the focus group research.

1 The report was provided on a confidential basis and cannot be included in full in the thesis 57

Primary research – Researcher Secondary research – Company conducted focus groups (N = 5) report Participants (N = 20) Focus groups (N = 5)

Interview Journey Mapping Interview Discussion Exercise Discussion

Identify salient CEx dimensions in Identify key drivers to event

relation to the event + key touchpoints participation at the event

Synthesis of key CEx dimensions measured in thesis

Figure 4-1 Overview of focus group research

4.2 Method

This section provides the procedural and analysis steps in the focus group research phase. These steps include: a) interview guide development; b) participant selection; c) interview procedure; and d) data analysis.

4.2.1 Interview guide development

This phase used a semi-structured guide to conduct the focus group interviews with participants. The protocol enabled the researcher to focus each interview to derive information on the important research areas, yet ensured the flexibility to explore additional, relevant topics if they arose during the interview. The guide also ensured some consistency across groups (D. L. Morgan, 1996). Furthermore, the guide provided a place to record

58 administration details and notes for each interview, which were used as a referral point during transcription and analysis.

The questions on the interview guide were developed based on a review of the existing literature (e.g., customer experience, service design, customer journey mapping). The developed interview guide comprised three main sections: 1) administrative details; 2) interview procedures and key question areas; and 3) interview analysis reflection notes section. A copy of the guide is provided in Appendix 4-1. The guide was then piloted with a group of colleagues of the researcher before it was used in the main qualitative study. This pilot testing enabled the researcher to become more familiar with the interview logistics and structure as well as to gauge the effectiveness of the key question areas. The next section details the procedures that were applied in selecting the participants.

4.2.2 Participant selection

To be eligible for this study, participants needed to be previous attendees at the Brisbane Good Food & Wine Show. To assist with access to, and recruitment of, participants, the event organiser sent email invites on behalf of the researcher to a sample of event attendees listed in the company’s database. The email invite (see Appendix 4-2) was sent to a random selection of past event attendees (N = 1,542). Eight-three people expressed their possible interest and a total of 20 participants completed this study, a 1.3% response rate was achieved. Of the 20 participants, 14 were female, six were male and over 90% of the participants were between 25 and 65 years old. This sample was reflective of the demographic profile associated with the event (see Table 3-3 for visitor profile of Brisbane Good Food & Wine Show in 2013, p. 65). A detailed profile of the participants is provided in section 4.3.1. Next, the typical format applied in each focus group interview is overviewed.

4.2.3 Interview procedure

The focus group interviews were conducted between August and September 2014. The interviews ranged from 45 to 60 minutes in duration. All interviews were digitally recorded to ensure information accuracy, conducted in person, at a location convenient to the participants, and took place between 10am and 2pm, depending on the participant availability.

An invitation email containing the project information sheet, with detailed incentive information (Appendix 4-2) and a link to register an interest in participating in the study was distributed by the event organiser. Once the link was activated, respondents could register to

59 join the study if they were interested (Appendix 4-4). Once the researcher received a person’s registration information, the researcher sent the acknowledge email to each participant and suggested the possible times/dates and locations for focus group discussion. Participants could indicate their favourite time/date and location by emails. The researcher assigned participants into groups based on their preferences and conducted the focus group interviews afterwards.

Ethical approval for this project was obtained from the Griffith University Human Research Ethics Committee (Protocol Number HSL/01/14/HREC) and steps were implemented to minimise any potential risks (Patton, 1990). These steps included: a) the use of information sheets and informed consent mechanisms (Appendix 4-3); b) secure storage of the digital recordings, interview guide and transcripts; c) limited access to the recordings and transcripts; and d) the de-identification of informants through the use of participant codes within the analysis and results. The digital recordings and transcripts are stored in a secure place in line with ethical requirements. The information sheet and consent form was forwarded before the interview so that the participants could familiarise themselves with the elements of informed consent. On the day of interview, the researcher read through the consent form and obtained signatures of all participants before the start of the interview.

The following procedure was used for all focus groups. First, the researcher sought to build rapport with the participants by undertaking some initial conversation including things such as talking about the weather, introducing each participant to the group, and how the participants’ day had been so far. Next, the participants were thanked for agreeing to participate in the focus group interview. Background information on the research and the contents of the consent form were then briefly given. The researcher then asked if the participants were still willing to be involved in the research and if the interview could be recorded. In each instance the participants agreed. The digital recorder was then turned on and the interview began.

Each group interview typically began with the researcher introducing the topic of the Brisbane Good Food & Wine Show and asking how many previous events participants have attended and what reasons made the participants visit the event year after year. Generally, this initial conversation topic prompted the participants to talk about what elements brought them to the event. The main task of the participants was to discuss what customer experiences were important to them when attending Brisbane Good Food & Wine Show. In the group discussion, participants started to talk about their previous experiences at the event, which could be any experiences (positive, negative or neutral) that they had any time associated

60 particularly with the event. These experiences might include activities such as purchasing the ticket, sampling food/wine, interacting with chefs/vendors at the event, or getting purchased products sent to participants’ houses after event. Throughout the conversation, the researcher gently probed and clarified information and particular areas of interest. Once the researcher felt that the interview areas had been adequately covered, the participants were asked if there were any other comments that they would like to add to the conversation and these were discussed (see interview guide in Appendix 4-1).

The focus groups also included a journey mapping exercise to enable the researcher to get an understanding of the key touchpoints that people experienced at the event. This exercise involved recalling and noting key experiences that happened pre, during or post the event. By reflecting on their experiences that they had at previous events, participants were asked to write their experiences on stick-it notes. After finishing this, participants were told to go through all their experience stickers and draw a little picture as an indication of their feelings associated with each experience. For example, if it was a happy experience, they were encouraged to add a smiling face. If it was negative, then they could add an unhappy, unfriendly face. Or if it was neutral, they could just draw one face with a straight-cross mouth. To help participant get better understanding of the exercise, each participant was provided with one instruction card, explaining how to complete the exercise (see Appendix 4- 5). In the last step, participants were invited to fix their yellow stickers to a large poster (see Appendix 4-6) designed by the researcher in advance. This poster was generated by using service design tools such as customer journey mapping (Stickdorn et al., 2011) to assist in mapping out attendees’ event experience journey. Figure 4-2 illustrates an example of the journey-mapping poster completed by one participant.

The interview then came to a close. In all cases, participants were happy and willing to be contacted again if the researcher had any more questions or required further clarification. The participants were then thanked for the time and assistance.

CATEGORIES Pre-event During event Post-event

Ticketing - online Web page ticketing is easy and great to print out

Mobile Sharing photos of Miguel and myself with daughter.

Loved seeing new products Food & Beverage from different cultures, particularly Jamaica. Ambiance: lighting, sound, temperature, etc.

Customer service Wine shoppers + product stores, best customer service. I wasn’t able to look at the cheese area as I couldn’t get the Fellow customers pram in there as there were too many people. Parking - I found as I went Transportation & early, parking was really Parking easy as it started lining up after I parked. Figure 4-2 Example of journey mapping poster completed by one participant

4.2.4 Data analysis

All focus group interviews were recorded and transcribed. The interview material was then systematically content analysed. This analysis style was appropriate for this study, as it assisted in the categorisation of themes in the interview text (Krippendorff, 2012; Schutt, 2009). The analysis procedure was devised from consulting various content analysis guidelines (see Krippendorff, 2012; Ryan & Bernard, 2000; Spiggle, 1994). This process enabled the researcher to code and interpret the data and to verify the trustworthiness of the data and results (Creswell, 2013; Lincoln, Lynham, & Guba, 2011).

Four stages were undertaken in this study to content analyse the interview materials. First, the transcripts were imported into NVivo software and read thoroughly many times to obtain a general sense of the data as a whole. With some a priori knowledge from the interview guide notes, possible customer experience dimensions were noted and exemplar text highlighted (Spiggle, 1994). A draft codebook was then compiled in the second stage. The codebook was developed through creating detailed descriptions and exemplar text to illustrate each goal (Ryan & Bernard, 2000). An iterative process was then adopted to refine the draft codebook in the third stage. This process involved reviewing the transcripts using the draft codebook and each experience dimension was checked and refined based on similar characteristics. The descriptions for each experience dimension were also checked and validated with previous literature (Denzin, 1978). As a step in data validation, the refined codebook was then subjected to peer debriefing (Creswell, 2013). Two colleagues of the researcher, who were familiar with the study, reviewed the codebook and provided feedback. Once completed, the reviewers and researcher met to discuss and compare the NVivo coding reports and the codebook descriptions. The codebook was then revised and finalised in the fourth stage and applied to the rest of the data.

The customer journey mapping exercise was used to understand the individual participant’s experiences and feeling at various touchpoints while attending the food and wine event. The analysis of the journey mapping posters would enable the researcher to identify the salient touchpoints along participants’ experience journey and unfold more in depth and momentary experiences that participants had along the journey.

The next section details the qualitative findings derived from the content analysis.

4.3 Results

The content analysis results are provided in this section. The interview participants are profiled in Section 4.3.1. The key customer experience dimensions derived from the interview transcripts are then overviewed in Section 4.3.2. Section 4.3.3 reports the salient touchpoints identified from participants’ journey mapping posters and associated experiences at various touchpoints. Section 4.3.4 synthesises the researcher’s focus group findings with event company’s own focus group findings to finalise the list of salient experience dimensions for attending the event. This is used as key measures in the three concurrent studies.

4.3.1 Participant profile

A profile of the participants was composed through information gathered from the focus group registration system. Appendix 4-7 provides a tabularised profile of the demographics and attendance status of the participants. Of the five groups of interviews conducted, six participants were male and 14 were female, aged between 26 and 56+ years old. 60% of the participants received college/university or above education and 50% work full time. Of the 20 participants, 17 attended this event three time or over three times, and 14 attended the event with friends while the rest attended with family. This sample profile is reflective of the event target market, which is predominantly female attendees and between 25-64 years old (see Table 3-3, p. 53). Next, the results of the content analysis are overviewed.

4.3.2 Customer experience dimensions

This section defines the customer experience dimensions at the food and wine event that arose from the content analysis. As such, the section reports the qualitative results associated with the first two research questions listed at the beginning of this chapter:

RQ1. What constitutes the customer experiences for event attendees to the food and wine event?

RQ2. What is the relative importance of the identified experience dimensions for attending the event?

In the food and wine event context, customer experience is a complex phenomenon (Getz, 2010, 2013), as experiences are formed through a set of communications and interactions between customers and event components at different touchpoints. Event components include celebrity chefs/performers, exhibiting vendors/products, event staff/volunteers, paid (add-on)

64 activities, and event venue settings. This definition was used to identify the customer experience dimensions for attending the Brisbane Good Food & Wine Show that participants described in the interview materials. These experience dimensions were also informed and verified through previous tourism and event research (e.g., Croce & Perri, 2010; Getz & Robinson, 2014; Hall & Sharples, 2008; X. Li & Petrick, 2006; Park, Reisinger, & Kang, 2008).

Six customer experience dimensions were identified as a result of the content analysis: 1) discovering new products; 2) bonding with friends; 3) sensory experiences; 4) having fun; 5) interacting with event staff (chefs, vendors); and 6) multicultural food experiences. Table 4-1 provides the list of the six experience dimensions, along with frequencies, descriptions, and illustrative quotes.

Table 4-1 Customer experience dimensions, frequency, description & illustrative quotes identified from interview transcripts CEx Frequency Description Illustrative Quotes dimensions

Any comments about  I just love the buzz and finding new products at the discovery of new show. Discovering products, and in  My main interest is to discover new small new 14 particular small businesses at the show. products businesses, or  Looking for new things is the main purpose, like learning new ideas new wine, new food or even new saucepan.

 We did go to the show for food and wine but for us, it is more a social and bonding opportunity to hang out with my girl. Any comments about  I normally go with my girlfriend because she is a Bonding 7 spending time with foodie and she introduces the show to me. It with friends friends becomes a tradition now that we go together every year.  We always go to the show in big group with all my mates. This show becomes a tradition for us.  Love to try different products. In particular, the Any comments about cheese display and tasting was just fantastic. experiences  We love the idea that they enlarge the sausage and Sensory 6 associated with cheese sections. They go very well with wine experiences tasting or sampling tasting. food or wine products  The whole show for me is food and wine tasting. You buy what you like.  I just go to the show and have some fun.  The most memorable experience was classes, sessions and demonstrations. Very entertaining Any comments about and always keeps you busy. Having fun 6 being entertained and having fun  The most memorable experience for me is the cooking shows, a lot of talking going on, entertaining the audience and all sorts of interactions.

 Really enjoying discussing with some of the

producers at the show.

Interacting  Just enjoy going there and interacting with actual Any comments about with event chefs like Maggie Beer. It was just fantastic. 5 interactions with staff (chefs, service providers,  The most positive experience about the show was vendors) including chefs and all the people involved with the show. They are all vendors genuine people. And they are small business people and know how to treat their customers.  I like more to see more cultural programs at the show. Australia has become a multicultural Any comments about country. I think they should incorporate more Multicultural looking for food ethnical events like recipes or cooking skills. A lot food 4 experiences from of countries are different. experiences other cultures  I am more interested with multi-cultural food experiences, like dumplings, gluten free food, and mushroom store or even Vietnamese, Korean.

In the following section, each of the customer experience dimensions presented in Table 4-1 is briefly defined next, beginning with discovering new products.

4.3.2.1 Discovering new products

The first, and most salient, customer experience emerging among participants is the discovery dimension of people’s experiences. The findings reveal that the discovery experience in the event encompasses a mixture of discovering new trends and products of food and wine, learning new things about food and wine (e.g., cooking methods, recipes, etc.), and looking for small food and wine producers. As the narratives indicate, discovering new products was the ultimate goal for more than half of the participants (“Looking for new things is the main purpose, like new wine, new food or even new saucepan.”). Except for new food and wine products, participants were particularly interested to find small food and wine producers at the event, because “all small business people are all genuine people and know how to treat their customers” and “larger producers are just like staff”. As the quotations show, participants also had opportunities to learn new information about eating and drinking from vendors or various masterclasses offered at the event.

4.3.2.2 Bonding with friends

Another major experience dimension that participants sought at the food and wine event is the opportunity to hang out and have a fun day with friends. Participants indicated that they normally went to the event with friends over years, and this food and wine event became “our thing” or “a tradition” for them. For some female participants, this event provided a special venue for them to spend quality time with their girl-friends and enjoyed a whole fun day

66 without worrying about husbands and kids: “We are both mothers so the idea is to leave the kids with husbands on Friday. We came in. we did the show and stayed in a hotel. … We had such a great time. So we did again the next year and again the year after. We will come back again this year!”

4.3.2.3 Sensory experiences

The qualitative analysis evidences that sensory experience dimension was crucial to participants’ experiences. At the food and wine show, participants had countless opportunities for sampling food and wine, sampling cheese, and tasting beer and wine. Participant admitted that they “love food and wine” and they went to the event was just for “tasting food and wine”. Within this theme, the largest category of the commentary focuses on experiences associated with the taste of food and/or beverages, for example, “OMG! The cheese display and cheese tasting is fantastic.” or “I really like one of the cheese vendors, because it is really nice and convenient to have some cheese to go with the wine.”

4.3.2.4 Having fun

Findings illustrate that having fun is central to customer experiences in the context of a food and wine event. Participants normally attended the event and looked forward to having a fun day there. For example, “We just went to the show for tasting food/wine and enjoying a fun day!” Some participants associated the fun dimension of customer experience with interacting with celebrity chefs or exhibiting vendors, for example, “Another thing I really appreciate at the show was the entertainment. I remember the first year I went, Matt Moran brought a huge piece of the lamb from his farm. He only used a small piece of it and the rest was staying on the stage. He asked the audience ‘who wants this?’. I was sitting in the front row, so he gave us the whole lamb. It was always the most unforgettable moment for me.”.

4.3.2.5 Interacting with event staff (chefs, vendors)

The qualitative analysis evidences that the dimension of human interaction was crucial to participants’ experiences. Predominantly, the interactions reported by participants were with service providers, including chefs and vendors. Two characteristics of service providers affected participants’ interaction experiences positively: excellent customer service skills (“The most positive experience about the show was all the people involved with the show. They are all genuine people and know how to treat their customers.”), and great knowledge of

67 their own products (“It is very interesting to talk to him and know so much knowledge about meat and how to cook different meat.”).

4.3.2.6 Multicultural food experiences

The content analysis also illustrates that participants looked for multi-cultural food experiences. Participants were happy to see food coming from other countries, because “Australia has become a multicultural country. I think they should incorporate more ethnical events like recipes or cooking skills. A lot of countries are different.” One participate also commented “I like the real traditional authentic – that sort of thing. I remember there was Jamaican food there last year, which I was in love with. I am more interested with multicultural food experiences, like dumplings, gluten free food, and mushroom store or even Vietnamese, Korean.”

4.3.2.7 Disappointments

Although quite limited in number, some negative comments were recorded from the interview materials. The main issue that most participants spoke of was the lack of seating areas, because “the only place you can sit down is restaurants and you have to buy meals.” Other issues mentioned by participants included: event becomes less interesting and innovative; more and more small businesses disappeared at the event; too many non-food/wine related vendors at the event.

4.3.3 Key touchpoints and associated experiences – Summary of journey mapping exercise

Next, to answer “RQ3. How does the customer experience journey unfold and what touchpoints are important?”, the journey mapping data were analysed.

In total, 149 notes were submitted at the journey mapping exercise. Table 4-2 summarises the number of touchpoints that participants mapped out at pre, during and post event phases. The journey mapping exercise also asked participants to draw faces at each touchpoint (i.e., smiling, neutral or unhappy) as an indication of the valence (positive, neutral or negative) of the experiences represented in the sticky notes. Table 4-2 also reports the valence evaluations of participants’ momentary experiences.

As noted in Table 4-2, the majority of touchpoints happened during the food and wine event (94 out of 149 notes). Nearly 30% of the touchpoints were identified before the event started

68 while only 12 touchpoints were mapped out at post-event phase. In terms of the valence evaluations, the results indicated over 60% of the experiences that participants reported were positive experiences, followed by 10.1% neutral experiences and 15.4% negative evaluations. The following section gives in depth insights of the experiences associated with these key touchpoints across pre, during and post event phases.

Table 4-2 Number of touchpoints at pre, during & post phases and valence evaluations Valence Evaluations Pre-Event During Event Post-Event Total Positive Count 28 56 8 92 (%) 18.8 37.6 5.4 61.7 Neutral Count 3 4 2 15 (%) 2.0 2.7 1.3 10.1 Negative Count 12 34 2 23 (%) 8.1 22.8 1.3 15.4 Total Count 43 94 12 149 (%) 28.9 63.1 8.1 100

4.3.3.1 Pre-event touchpoints & associated experiences

In this research context, pre-event touchpoints refer to any interaction or event that happened prior to participants walking in the event venue. The analysis of the sticky notes submitted by participants indicates that four touchpoints that most participants talked about before entering the event. In order of frequency these were the event’s web page (21), transportation & parking (14), customer service (6), and mobile usage (2).

The majority of the participants agreed that the event’s official web page was user-friendly and offered plenty of event information with enough time prior to the event. They were also satisfied with the event’s online ticketing service. All participants found it easy with transportation, particularly when they took the public transportation. For people who drove to the event, they indicated it was not difficult to find a car park. In terms of customer service, both positive (50%) and negative (50%) comments were received. Interestingly, half of the participants felt excited while waiting in queue to get into the event while the other half of the participants complained about the lining up. Lastly, most of the participants were not familiar

69 or even aware that the event had a mobile app. Therefore, very limited information was collected regarding the mobile usage.

4.3.3.2 During event touchpoints & associated experiences

In this research context, during event touchpoints involves any interaction or event that happened after participants walking in the event venue and before leaving the event venue. The results reveal that the first, and most salient, touchpoint that contributed to participants’ experiences at the food and wine event was food & beverage (46), followed by customer service (26), ambiance (12), and fellow customers (10).

The analysis of all the notes associated with the food and wine category indicates that participants really enjoyed sampling food and wine products when they were walking around the venue. The opportunities to interact with exhibiting vendors to learn more about their products were also mentioned positively by many participants. In addition, participants found most add-on programs (cooking demonstrations, chef’s lunch table) were very informative and entertaining. A couple of negative comments were noticed at this category. Mainly participants wished to have more variety of food/wine products to sample and purchase at the event and more seating areas would also enhance their experiences at the event.

In terms of customer service, participants were satisfied with services received from chefs, vendors, and volunteers as they had good information on their products, and they were very attentive and with a willingness to explain. However, some participants made negative comments about some non-food/wine related stalls exhibiting at the event. The lack of rubbish bins was mentioned by a couple of participants as well.

Participants were happy with the ambiance experience at the event since it was vibrant, comfortable and enjoyable, but a lack of seating area was reported by several participants. The fellow customers also impacted participants’ experiences at the event. Overall, participants found other attendees considerate and friendly, but some people with prams/trolleys might take too much space and make it difficult for other people to walk around.

4.3.3.3 Post-event touchpoints & associated experiences

Any experiences that happened after participants left the event venue were categorised as post-event touchpoints. Only a small portion of notes was received at the post-event stage.

Half of the experiences were associated with customer service. Some participants made purchases at the food and wine event and were happy to receive the ordered products delivered on time, but one participant complained about the spam mails received after the event. One participant was excited to share event photos with daughter. Another participant already purchased next year’s ticket after receiving the event company’s email. No participants reported experiences relating to social media posting.

Figure 4-2 provides the customer journey at the Brisbane Food & Wine Show with multiple touchpoints identified from the journey mapping exercise and associated experiences (positive and negative) at each touchpoint.

Pre During Post

TOUCHPOINTS

Web Carpark Entrance Food & Wine Staff Ambiance Fellow customers Delivery Photo sharing

POSITIVE CEx POSITIVE

 Free  Good online sampling  Positive  Considerate  In-time home  Sharing ticketing  Informative  Easy to find  Interaction sensory  Friendly delivery event photos service  Attentive carpark with vendors experiences with family  Web page  Add-on user-friendly programs

NEGATIVE CEx NEGATIVE

 Limited  Long queue  Lack of seating  Prams/trolley to get in variety  Lack of rubbish bins

Figure 4-3 Customer journey map at the Brisbane Good Food & W ine Show (based on the results of focus group interviews)

4.3.3.4 Summary of interview materials and journey mapping exercise

The analysis of interview materials illustrated that people attend the food and wine event seeking for various experiences. Some experiences were cognitive in nature, such as discovering new products; some experiences were more social and hedonic in nature, such as bonding with friends and having fun. The journey mapping exercise further demonstrated that the majority of customer experiences happened during the event, and the most salient customer experience dimensions were associated with sampling food and beverage, and interacting with service providers at the event (chefs, vendors, and volunteers).

The identification of these salient touchpoints and associated experiences build upon the foundation of the current study. That is, the research focus will be during the event phase and multiple methods will be employed concurrently with separate samples of participants. The aim of the current research is to generate more micro and momentary insights of customer experiences, particularly in situ experiences and link this information with overall evaluation variables, such as satisfaction and behavioural intentions.

4.3.4 Synthesis of two sets of focus group findings

As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, the event company also conducted focus group interviews with previous event attendees, identifying nine key rational and emotional drivers brought them to the event. Table 4-3 shows these two sets of focus group results. Comparing the two sets of results, it is evident that there are several same experience dimensions identified by the researcher and event company, including sensory experience, discovery, having fun, human interaction/personal connection, and bonding with friends or family/social bonding. The experience dimension of “multicultural food experience” was only identified from the researcher’s focus groups while “inspiration”, “learning”, “stimulating” and “food celebration” were only identified from the event company’s focus groups.

Table 4-3 Customer experience dimensions identified from both the researcher’s and the event company’s focus group interviews Customer Experience Dimensions at Good Food & Wine Show Researcher’s focus group Event company’s focus group  Discovering new products  Discovery o Discovery of new products, and o People love to find new, or in particular small businesses, or emerging food trends, food sub- learning new ideas cultures, etc. at the event.

 Social bonding  Bonding with friends o People go to the event to bond o Spending time with friends with their family or friends.

 Sensory experiences  Food celebration o Experiences associated with o People attend the event for the tasting or sampling food or wine experience – a celebration of products eating and drinking.

 Fun  Having fun o People go to the event looking o Being entertained and having fun for fun and enjoyment.

 Interacting with event staff (chefs,  Inspiration vendors) o With the biggest range of food & o Interactions with service wine items of any of the shows, providers, including chefs and it’s no surprise people find it vendors inspiring.

 Sensory experience  Multicultural food experience o The things offered by the event o Looking for food experiences are the tastes, aromas, sights and from other cultures sounds in person.

 Learning o Knowledge around new products from speaking to people o Learning new techniques from chefs o Learning new recipes

74  Stimulating o A combination of some of the other factors, is this sense of being stimulated with new ideas, new discoveries.  Personal connection o People love meeting the creators of the products, being able to

chat with them & understanding in greater depth what they are eating or experiencing.

In order to get a more complete understanding how these experience dimensions impact customers’ evaluations of their experiences, the two sets of focus group results were incorporated to finalise the list of salient customer experience dimensions at the food and wine event. Some experience dimensions were reworded to make it clearer and easy to understand before imported into surveys. The final list of salient experience dimensions is as follows:

 Learning about food and wine  Bonding with family or friends  Discovering new trends about food and wine  Having fun  Feeling inspired about food and wine  Interacting with food and wine experts  Having a positive sensory experience (e.g., smells, tastes)  Getting some new ideas about preparing food  A celebration of eating/drinking  Having a multicultural food experience

This finalised list was further explored in PGI study (Chapter 5), EBS study (Chapter 6) and recall study (Chapter 7). Due to the nature of different methods and special requests from event company, seven experience dimensions were measured in the PGI study, five experience dimensions were selected and measured in the EBS study, while the full set of ten dimensions were tested in recall study. Table 4-4 summarises the selection of customer experience dimensions in three concurrent studies.

Table 4-4 The measures of customer experience dimensions examined in PGI study, EBS study and recall study CEx dimensions PGI EBS Recall Study Study Study Learning about food and wine √ Bonding with family or friends √ √ √ Discovering new trends about food and wine √ √ √ Having fun √ √ √ Feeling inspired about food and wine √ √ Interacting with food and wine experts √ √ √ Having a positive sensory (eg, smells, tastes, etc.) experience √ √ √ Getting new ideas about preparing food √ A celebration of eating / drinking √ Having a multicultural food experience √ √

The next section briefly summarises and concludes the current chapter.

4.4 Chapter Discussion

In the food and wine event context, customer experience is a complex phenomenon (Getz, 2010, 2013), as experiences are formed through a set of communications and interactions between customers and event components at different touchpoints. As demonstrates from the findings, event attendees were likely to have different experiences through these interactions and communications at various moments (touchpoints), such as having a sensory experience when sampling food and wine, having a cognitive experience when discovering new food/wine products or an emotional experience when having fun with friends. The multidimensionality of experiences is widely recognised in the literature (e.g., Gentile et al., 2007; Hosany & Witham, 2009; Verleye, 2015). Hence, investigating customer experience at a food and wine event from a multidimensional perspective may help generate new knowledge of the customer experience concept.

This chapter also illustrates the use of customer journey mapping for analysing and visualising customer experiences. Food and wine events link food and wine, and create the essential atmosphere to a memorable experience for event attendees (Hjalager & Richards, 2002). Event attendees experience facilities, amenities, equipment, various service providers, and other customers, with many opportunities for the visitors to be pleased, disappointed, frustrated, or infuriated (Tofﬂer, 1970). For example, once an attendee enters the event, sensory elements at the event venue such as lighting, sounds, temperature, or the service provided by event staff or volunteers start to affect the customer’s experience. Therefore, the event experiences involve a torrent of service “touchpoints” (Zomerdijk & Voss, 2010) that 76 need to be managed. The identification of these touchpoints, the associated experiences and the overall experience journey in the event context can help us to get a better understanding of attendees’ momentary experiences and provide opportunities for future customer experience enhancements.

4.5 Chapter Summary

This chapter detailed the methods and results related to the focus group interviews. The analysis of interviews with 20 attendees to the Brisbane Good Food & Wine Show in previous years assisted in identifying the key experience dimensions that event attendees sought for when attending the event. By incorporating with findings from event company’s focus groups, ten key experience dimensions are included in the final list and further explored in three concurrent studies.

Chapter 5 will report the procedures and results from the first concurrent study – PGI study for this thesis.

Chapter 5. Concurrent Study 1 - Participant-generated Image (PGI) Study

5.1 Introduction

Chapter 4 detailed the method and results of focus group interviews conducted at the preliminary stage. This qualitative exploration generated exemplar text that further identified the key customer experience dimensions that event attendees had at the food and wine event and assisted in illustrating the salient touchpoints that impacted event attendees’ experiences at the event. While the focus group study provided some background to the event and attendees’ experiences, Chapters 5, 6 and 7 build on these results, by employing three separate research techniques that were used concurrently in this research program to examine and extend an understanding of customer experience in the event context. This chapter details the first concurrent method – participant-generated image (PGI) method. By inviting participants to take photos in the field, the PGI study aims to identify and record real-time touchpoints and associated experiences relevant to event attendees at the food and wine event.

The key research questions guiding this study include:

RQ1. What interactions comprise the key touchpoints at a food and wine event?

RQ2. What is the core customer experience at a food and wine event?

RQ3. Are there any other factors influencing the customer experiences at a food and wine event?

RQ4. What are the key outcomes of customer experience at a food and wine event?

RQ5. What elements contribute to the experiences of people who used social media (SM) to post things about the event experience compared with those who didn’t?

The sequence for reporting on the PGI study in this chapter includes: a) pilot testing, b) PGI method overview, and c) key results.

5.2 Pilot Testing

To assist in refining the procedures for the participant-generated image study, three small field studies (total N = 29) were conducted at three separate community-based events prior to

78 the main Brisbane Good Food & Wine Show study. There were several lessons or insights learnt as a result of the three pilot field studies2:

1. Target of images: Feedback from our participants suggested that they enjoyed the data collection method - taking photos by themselves in the field, and that it was not intrusive. The method yielded rich qualitative data, with useful insights to event attendee’s experience.

2. Device: The studies trialled both single use cameras and smartphone camera use. Based on the three studies, smartphone cameras were found to be most effective and efficient. For the participants using a smartphone it was relatively easy to take as many pictures as they wanted, and check the quality of pictures all the time. After the event, smartphone users could easily share the pictures to the research team through a number of options including emails, MMS, or any mobile message apps like Whatsapp, which can save a lot of time and money. The single use cameras were not as effective in the indoor setting, resulting in poor quality images for some participants.

3. Ethics: In accordance with the university’s ethical guidelines, approval was sought from the event organiser, confirming their support for the study participants to take photos at the event. Meanwhile, in the briefing session, participants were also told to respect other people and exhibitors and seek permission before photographing exhibitors, products or booths at the event. The participants or the organiser expressed no ethical concerns during the study period. This information assisted in briefing the participants in the main study.

4. The extent of instructions: Instructions to participants needed to be clear in explaining the research aims and objectives and what photographs participants were required to take/share. The purpose of this project was to get a better understanding of customer experiences at the events, which could be anything important/unimportant to the customers, or anything eliciting customers’ positive/negative feelings. Therefore, the researcher only explained the context of the research and the number of images

2 The key lessons and insights gained from three field studies has been presented at the 2014 ACSPRI conference, Sydney, and the full paper has been accepted and published in the conference proceedings. Appendix 5-1 presents the full paper. 79

needed, allowing the participants to have the freedom to determine the content of the images.

Drawing on the results of three field studies, it is indicated that this method offers many advantages to capture customers’ in situ, lived experiences; specifically, the use of photos forms a bridge between the experience and recall, and appears to be an enjoyable task for study participants. In the next section, details of how the researcher utilised the PGI method at Brisbane Good Food & Wine Show to investigate customers’ in situ experiences at the micro and momentary level is outlined.

5.3 Method Overview: PGI Approach

5.3.1 Participants

To be eligible for this study, participants needed to be the day-ticket holders to the Brisbane Good Food & Wine Show in 2014. To assist with access to, and recruitment of, participants, the event organiser sent email invites on behalf of the researcher to a sample of people who had purchased tickets online ready for the event and were listed in the company’s database. An email invite (see Appendix 5-2) was sent to a random selection of 250 ticket holders, asking them to participate in a study into customer experience.

A total of 26 event ticket holders expressed interest in participating in the study, and 25 event attendees completed the study. Of the 25 respondents, 21 were female (80%) and four are male (20%). Twenty four per cent of the participants were aged between 25-34 years old, 28% were aged between 35-44 and 40% were aged between 45-54. Fourteen (56%) out of the 25 participants work full-time. This sample profile is reflective of the event’s target market (as outlined in Chapter 3, Table 3-3, p. 54), which is predominantly female attendees (83.2%), aged between 25-64 years old (85%) with a mode of 45-54 years old.

5.3.2 Procedure

Ethical approval (Protocol Number HSL/21/14/HREC) was obtained from the researchers’ university to conduct the study and the event organiser gave permission for the research to be undertaken at the event. Appendix 5-3a and Appendix 5-3b elaborate on the detailed procedure of participant recruitment for this study. The event organiser distributed an invitation email containing a link to register an interest in participating in the study two weeks prior to the study. Once the link was activated, respondents received an information

80 sheet about the study with detailed incentive information (see Appendix 5-4) and then, if they were interested, registered to join the study. Once the researcher received a person’s registration information, the researcher telephoned each participant and went through the study instructions (see Appendix 5-5) with them to confirm participation and make sure every participant understood the research purposes and processes.

To complete this study, each participant used his/her smartphone to take photos of anything that he/she felt contributed in some way to his/her customer experience (good or bad) at the one-day food and wine event. After the event, each participant sent back 10 self-selected photos that best represented their experiences at the show. Photos were then incorporated into an online survey tool (Qualtrics) that was used for further collection of feedback from the participants, including open-ended questions about motivations for taking a photo, feelings at the time of taking the photo, contributing elements to that feeling, overall satisfaction and demographic questions.

5.3.3 Instrument

The survey contained a mix of open-ended questions to capture the meaning participants ascribed to each photo, a 5-point scale measure of valence associated with the experience depicted in the photo, and a researcher-generated list of elements that the focus group research (as outlined in Chapter 4, Table 4-4, p. 75) suggests contribute to the experience. Participants answered a series of questions about the experiences depicted in the photo as part of an exploration of their feelings and thoughts about the food and wine event. First, each photo was followed by an open-ended question asking the participant to reflect on the motivation for taking the picture. This was followed by a single question designed to measure the participant’s emotional valence (positive or negative) at the time: “Reflecting back on the moment captured in the photo, to what extent did you feel the experience was: [1 = very negative to 5 = very positive]?”

Next, to better understand what caused participants’ momentary feelings, the following question was asked: “What elements contributed to your feelings about the moment captured in the photo?” Participants could choose more than one answer from a list of elements generated in the previous focus group interviews and from the event organiser’s research report (as outlined in Chapter 4, Table 4-4, p. 75). The final list included:

 Bonding with family and friends

 Discovering new trends of food and wine  Having fun  Feeling inspired about food and wine  Interacting with food and wine experts  Having a positive sensory experience (e.g., smell, taste, etc.)  Having a multi-cultural food experience  Other (participant-defined) These items were incorporated into the survey and repeated for each of the ten photos.

Additional information about the event was collected and included overall satisfaction [1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied], likelihood to recommend the event to others [1 = very unlikely to 5 = very likely] and likelihood to return to the event the following year [1 = very unlikely to 5 = very likely]. The survey also collected information about demographics concerning gender, age, employment status, and show-visit characteristics (e.g., past attendance, event visit companion, and social media posting). Please see Appendix 5-6 for the copy of PGI study survey.

5.4 Results

5.4.1 Sample descriptive statistics

This analysis provides an overview of attendees’ profile, in terms of demographics, attendance characteristics and social media posting experiences. These results are exhibited in Table 5-1. As noted from Table 5-1, more than 80% of the participants were female. More than 50% of the participants work full time and 40% of them are aged between 45-54. This sample profile is reflective of the event’s target market (as outlined in Chapter 3, Table 3-3, p. 54), which is predominantly female attendees (83.2%), aged between 25-64 years old (85%) with a mode of 45-54 years old.

In terms of any previous attendance at the event, 44% of the participants indicated they went to the event for the first time, and the rest, 56%, went to the event at least once in the past. Nearly 75% of the participants went to the event with their family, friends or partner. More than 50% of the participants did not post their event experiences on any social media platform (e.g., Facebook, Instagram). For those who did post experiences on social media, Facebook was the main platform followed by Instagram and Twitter.

Table 5-1 Participant demographic table Variable and Category Frequency Percentage (%) Gender Male 4 16 Female 21 84 Age 18-24 1 4 25-34 6 24 35-44 7 28 45-54 10 40 55-64 1 4 Employment status Working full-time 14 56 Working part-time 6 24 Full-time student 3 12 Home duty 2 8 Past attendance Never 11 44 Once 2 8 Three times 2 8 Four or more times 10 40 Event visit companion Family 2 8 Partner 6 24 Friends 10 40 By yourself 7 28 Social media posting Yes 12 48 No 13 52 Total 25 100

5.4.2 Research Question 1

First, to address the Research Question 1 “What interactions comprise the key touchpoints at a food and wine event?”, the researcher performed a content analysis of all 246 images to identify the focal themes from them, constructing a coding frame inductively from the broader range of photos. In coding the photos, the researcher first reviewed the photo content and classified each one on the basis of the dominant foreground focus of the image. The researcher then checked the event program to determine whether the photo content related directly to paid (add-on) activities, such as the wine tasting masterclass, or cooking masterclass.

Two colleagues were invited to conduct the coding independently and then discussed any disagreements with the researcher until reaching consensus on the category. Through the content analysis, seven categories were identified from the total 246 pictures: vendors, paid (add-on) activities, people, products (food), venue, products (beverage), and merchandise. Detailed category definitions and example images appear in Table 5-2.

Table 5-2 Categories, definitions, and example images Definitions based on Dominant Categories Example Images Foreground of Image

Sales personnel, stand/product Vendors display, and stands associated (58)* with exhibiting vendors

Scheduled paid (add-on) Paid (add- activities, such as wine on) activities appreciation master class, (56)* cooking master class

Participants themselves (with/without other people), or People (40)* other people (e.g., other event attendees, participants’ friends)

Dishes, cheese, sausage/salami, Products: macaron, fresh veggies/fruits, food (37)* jam/sauce, food package/plate

Exhibition hall, signage, venue Venue (27)* décor, seating area, and rubbish bin

Alcoholic drinks, such as wine, Products: cocktails, beer; or non-alcoholic beverage drinks, such as coffee, tea; and (16)* beverage containers, such as wine glasses, coffee cup

Merchandise Shopping trolley, purchased (12)* goodies, and giveaway goodies

* The numbers in the brackets indicate the number of images in that category.

As Table 5-2 shows, the top three themes of photographs focus on vendors, followed closely by paid (add-on) activities, such as a series of master classes for wine appreciation or cooking demonstrations that were put together by the event organiser, and images with people, such as photos of participants by themselves or with their friends/family at the show. The content analysis of participants’ photographs illustrates that in the event context of this study, the salient touchpoints include vendors, paid (add-on) activities, products (food and beverage), celebrity chefs and venue.

5.4.3 Research Question 2

The main objective of this research is to better understand the nuances associated with the personal process of customer experience at an event. Thus, while the photographic images are helpful in understanding touchpoints reflected in the attendee’s images, it is the meaning individuals assign to these touchpoints, and captured in the narratives that is really important for understanding customer experience. To answer Research Question 2 “What is the core customer experience at a food and wine event?”, this section relies on the analysis of narratives written by the participants to elaborate what lies behind the photo images.

The narratives associated with submitted images were analysed through two cycles of coding to obtain in-depth data on customer experience at the event. In the first cycle of coding, the researcher together with two colleagues independently reviewed the narratives for significant phrases or sentences and applied a descriptive coding process (Saldaña, 2013) to identify

85 what activities participants were doing at the event. Then similar activities were regrouped into experience patterns through category coding process (Saldaña, 2013). In the second cycle coding, the researcher and two colleagues further analysed these experience categories through a combination of pattern and hierarchical coding (Saldaña, 2013) to produce a higher-order structure of three key themes, each representing an important aspect of the experience sought by participants at the event. This process yielded a high correspondence of coding (> 90%). Disagreements (< 10%) were discussed until the researchers reached consensus on the themes. Figure 5-1 illustrates the overview of the data analysis procedure and outcome, which are explained in further detail in subsequent section. The findings from two cycles of coding were integrated to derive a conceptual model of attendees’ experience at the food and wine event (see Figure 5-2).

Second Cycle First Cycle Coding Pattern/Hierarchical Coding Conceptual Model

Fun

Proposed Open coding Pattern hierarchical model Discovery Narratives coding of CEx at the event regarding to Regrouped activities similar respondents were activities into See Figure 5-2 doing at the Inspiration experience event patterns 1. Tasting wine  Sight

2. Tasting cheese  Smell 3. Watching demonstrations  Sound

4. Listening to  Taste workshops 5. Smelling aroma of coffee

Figure 5-1 Overview of procedure and outcome for the analysis of participants’ narratives submitted by participants in PGI study

5.4.3.1 Analysis of narratives (First cycle of coding)

The preliminary (first cycle) analysis of the narratives indicated that 227 out of 246 narratives submitted by participants described activities using sensory-based words to explain their experiences with the remaining 19 comments mainly related to interactions with vendors, chefs and friends. Examples of these sensory-based activities included sampling (tasting) food and wine, smelling the aroma of coffee, watching cooking demonstrations, and listening to wine/beer tasting workshops. These activities were classified into key sensory experience categories associated with four of people’s five senses: sight, smell, taste, and sound. Among the 227 narratives associated with sensory experiences, 178 were associated with the visual aspects of food and beverages (sight), 74 were related to the taste of food and/or beverages (taste), four were about the sound (listening) at the venue (sound) and the three were associated with the smell of food and beverages (smell). These four categories are defined below.

1. Sight: evidence of viewing or watching some activity (e.g., workshop, presentation, demonstration), the visual aspects of food and beverages (e.g., the colour, arrangement, design of the product package), the interior of the venue, the signage/logo of the event brand, the appearance of exhibiting stand, or the image of a packed crowd 2. Taste: reference to tasting food/beverages, either an overt reference such as the use of the word “taste” or less obvious reference such as “delicious”, which infers taste (e.g., I tasted this wine and really enjoyed it! Or … it was delicious!) 3. Sound: reference to anything that is heard by respondents, e.g., the noise at the event venue, the accent of vendors, listening to speakers 4. Smell: reference to food and beverage smells (includes words “smell”, “smelt”, “smelling”)

This first cycle of coding revealed the strong sensory theme that clearly affected people’s experience at the event. However, it became clear that these sensory descriptions were also closely linked to higher order themes, derived from a second cycle of coding.

5.4.3.2 Analysis of narratives (Second cycle of coding)

Next, a pattern and hierarchical coding process (Saldana, 2013) was applied as part of a second cycle of coding and involved a further review of the narratives that was undertaken for

88 more precise examples of experiences (over and above the sensory categories captured in the first cycle of coding). Three key patterns were identified through the coding of the narratives associated with each photo. In order of frequency, these were fun (134 references), discovery (110 references), and inspiration (37 references). Table 5-3 provides the list of the three key patterns, along with descriptions, frequencies, and illustrative quotes.

Table 5-3 Illustrations of three key patterns, description, frequency, and example quotes Patterns Description Frequency Example Quotes

 This is my hubby having fun trying new beer at one of the Any comments masterclasses. Fun about fun, 134 excitement, and  My friend is enjoying a sausage speciality and some wine and she enjoyment is happy! It shows that we had a great time.

 My first cronut! Have heard a lot about this 'food' and was pleased Any comments to have the opportunity to try it. about discovery of Very unusual looking! Discovery new trends of food 110  This is the Riedel Wine Theatre - a and wine, learning free of charge wine tasting new things about session. I really enjoyed this - food and wine learnt a lot. Best 'class' I have had for a while.

 I love that this represents history

and the fantastic marketing idea

Any comments of displaying the food and about feeling advertising the growers as fresh 37 Inspiration inspired by food and local. and wine experts  Matt Stone is an inspiration. This is a nod to his passion and leadership.

5.4.3.3 Core customer experience at the food and wine event

As illustrated in Figure 5-2, the coding of narratives associated with images submitted by participants illustrates that sensory experience provides a foundation for individuals’ experiences at the food and wine event, which is not surprising owing to the nature of this event: it is very much about the visual sight and taste of food and wine. The further 89 exploration of the sensory experiences revealed three higher-order patterns over and above the foundation of sensory experience, including fun, discovery, and inspiration. By integrating findings from the two cycles of coding of narratives, a model of customer experience is proposed (i.e., fun, discovery, inspiration and sensory) as a framework for understanding and enhancing the core customer experience at the food and wine event (see Figure 5-2).

Figure 5-2 A conceptual model of core customer experience at a food and wine event

5.4.4 Research Question 3

In order to address Research Question 3 “Are there any other factors influencing the customer experiences at a food and wine event?”, further content analysis of narratives identified several personal factors that customers brought to the event and played important roles in shaping their experiences at the show, including show-visit companions (whether participants visited the event with friends, family, partner or by themselves), involvement in activities, and personal interests and needs.

The profile analysis of event attendees indicates that nearly 75% of the participants went to the event with their family, friends or partner. The qualitative analysis of participants’ narratives further evidences that the show-visit companions were crucial to participant’s experiences. Participants indicated that they went to the food and wine event with friends or family over years, and this event became “a special thing” for them because they “had a great time discovering new food and wine together”. However, one participant went to the event

90 with her husband who “does not have the love for food” like her. She felt sad when she “wanted to try more wines but my husband wanted to leave.”

This event also offered a variety of master classes that gave participants unique opportunities to learn new information about eating and drinking. As the quotations show, the learning experience was delivered to customers through both passive and active learning experiences. The analysis reveals that participants became more active and engaged and reached a higher level of enjoyment when their learning experiences were stimulated by their own needs and interests. For example, “My wife and I have been looking forward to meeting Adriano Zumbo for months. Did a great class with him, perhaps the highlight of the show for us.” Additionally, the learning experiences were more enjoyable for participants when the program hosts were being entertaining and informative: “Excitement! I waited a couple hours to have a Masterclass with Luca. Barilla is always a great place at the show and I have seen Luca every year! Had a great chat with him about cooking.”

The analysis also shows that individual’s personal preference on specific food and wine products also impacted their event experiences. For example, “The stall overall had a ‘natural’ aesthetic to it, like home-grown produce, which is something I am interested in.” In particular, some participants were reminded of old, good memories when sampling certain food or wine products, “It reminded me of the Limoncello we drank in Switzerland after a meal in Italian restaurants, so I tasted it and it was really good.” Meanwhile, some negative comments were recorded because these participants’ preferred products exhibited at the event this year were not exceeding their expectations: “I love the Hoyts food stall and normally spend a lot there. This year was disappointing in that they didn’t have much of their range there.”

5.4.5 Research Question 4

In the survey, participants also answered questions investigating their feelings associated with the moments captured in the photos as well as overall assessment questions. To answer Research Question 4 “What are the key outcomes of customer experience at a food and wine event?”, further analyses were conducted regarding the evaluations of valence, satisfaction and behavioural intentions.

5.4.5.1 Evaluation of valence

Of further interest was whether the photographed customer experiences had positive or negative valence. Respondents’ ratings of the valence of the experience represented in the photos comprised 209 positive, 12 neutral, and 25 negative evaluations. Overall, every participant reported that they had a good time at the event. For positive experience depicted in the photo was “Love this pic with my friend, we go to the show every year and have a girls weekend staying in a hotel enjoying good wine and food! ”. While the positive and neutral valences are spread across all categories, the negative valence ratings are mainly associated with photographs of vendors, other people attending the show, and the venue of the show. For a negative experience the participant explained there was “Overcrowding. … detracted from the experience… One half of the venue was crowded like this, yet in other areas there was open space going to waste.”

When rating the valence, participants also indicated what elements contributed to their feelings about the moment captured in the photo. Because participants could select more than one element on each photo to answer the question, in total 573 records of elements were reported and analysed. A cross-tabulation analysis was conducted to examine what were the main elements contributed to individuals’ positive, neutral and negative experiences.

Main elements of importance to positive experiences depicted in photos were (by frequency order) having fun (110), having a positive sensory experience (104), and interacting with food and wine experts (87). Among the 25 negative experiences over half were caused by elements falling into the “other” category and included venue layout (6), vendor availability (4), program setup (3), and value for money (1). Table 5-4 summarises what elements contributed to participants’ positive, neutral, and negative experiences associated with all submitted images.

5.4.5.2 Evaluation of satisfaction and behavioural intentions Finally, at the end of the PGI survey, participants rated their overall satisfaction with the event, the likelihood of recommendation to friends and family, and the likelihood of repeat visits. Table 5-5 summarises the results.

Table 5-4 Valence evaluations and contributing elements Negative Neutral Positive Total Contributing Elements N % N % N % N % Bonding with family and 2 8 0 - 51 9.60 53 9.25 friends Discovering new trends 3 12 2 11.76 80 15.07 85 14.83 of food and wine Having fun 0 - 4 23.53 110 20.72 114 19.90 Feeling inspired about 0 - 2 11.76 64 12.05 66 11.52 food and wine Interacting with food and 6 24 3 17.65 87 16.38 96 16.75 wine experts Having a positive sensory experience (e.g., smell, 0 - 4 23.53 104 19.59 108 18.85 taste, etc.) Having a multi-cultural 0 - 1 5.88 32 6.03 33 5.76 food experience Other 14 56 1 5.88 3 0.56 18 3.14 N = 25 100 17 100 531 100 573 100

Table 5-5 Descriptive analysis of satisfaction, recommendation and repeat visitation Variable and Categories Frequency % Satisfaction Very satisfied 13 52 Satisfied 10 40 Neutral - - Dissatisfied 2 8 Very dissatisfied - - Recommendation Very likely 13 52 Likely 7 28 Undecided 4 16 Unlikely 1 4 Very unlikely - - Repeat visitation Very likely 16 64 Likely 4 16 Undecided 3 12 Unlikely 2 8 Very unlikely - - N = 25 100

As Table 5-5 shows, over 90% of the participants were very satisfied and satisfied with the event. Thirteen (52%) are very likely to recommend the event to others, seven (28%) are 93 likely to recommend, five (20%) are undecided or unlikely to recommend. Additionally, 16 (64%) are very likely to revisit the event, and four (16%) are likely to revisit the event.

5.4.6 Research Question 5

To address Research Question 5 “What elements contribute to the experiences of people who used social media (SM) to post things about the event experience compared with those who didn’t?”, a cross tabulation analysis was conducted by using the elements reported by participants who used social media to post things about the event experience and those who did not. The results indicate that for people who posted their event experiences on social media, the most important contributing element was having fun, followed by a positive sensory experience and interacting with food and wine experts. For people who did not post any things on social media, the most important element was a positive sensory experience, followed by having fun and interacting with food and wine experts.

5.4.7 Modelling the co-creation of customer experience at a food and wine event

Following the analyses of the photos, narratives, and self-report materials, an integrative model was formulated to provide insight to the creation customer experience at the food and wine event (Figure 5-3). As Figure 5-3 illustrates, an event organiser delivers the event offering to the customers through event components that include celebrity chefs, vendors/products, volunteers, paid (add-on) activities, and venue. These components were put together by the event organiser and provided the platform for customers’ experiences to happen. In addition, the analysis of narratives evidences several personal factors that were brought into the event by customers themselves, including their companion, passive/active involvement with event programs and personal preference on food and wine products.

Customers often have no direct contact with the event organiser. The customer experience is predominantly co-created through a set of communications and interactions between event components and the personal factors at different touchpoints. The coding of narratives associated with images submitted by participants illustrated that there were four core experience dimensions identified at this food and wine event: sensory experience provides a foundation for individuals’ experiences at the food and wine event, which is not surprising owing to the nature of this event: it is very much about the sight and taste of food and wine. The further exploration of the sensory experiences revealed three higher-order patterns over and above the foundation of sensory experience, including fun, discovery, and inspiration:

94 customers regard this event as an opportunity to have fun at the event, to discover new trends in food and wine, and to gain inspiration from experts about eating and drinking.

The analysis further demonstrated that the co-created customer experience involved the customer cognitively, emotionally, and behaviourally. Emotionally, customers tended to use words like “fabulous,” “fantastic,” or “exciting” when expressing positive feelings, and to use “dislike,” “distracted,” or “annoying” to convey negative feelings. In some cases, these positive feelings have flow-on effects to customer behaviours, such as purchasing the products or sharing experiences with friends and family. In the end, these customer responses would potentially generate future benefits for event organisers through attendees’ purchase of vendors’ food and wine products, sharing of event experiences with friends and family, visiting the event next year, and recommending this event to friends and family.

(Evidence: P = Photo; N = Narratives; E = Elements; EV = Evaluation of Valence; ES = Evaluation of Satisfaction; EBI = Evaluation of Behaviour Intentions)

Figure 5-3 A conceptual model of the overall customer experience creation at a food and wine event

5.5 Chapter Discussion

This study offers a number of significant findings. First, by incorporating the participant generated image (PGI) method, the investigation uses a novel methodological approach. Second, participants’ responses demonstrate the salience of sensory experience, an opportunity for discovery, and being entertained and having fun. Third, findings show the diversity of moments of impact, ranging from ordinary to extraordinary. Fourth, results reveal the importance of balance within an event’s ecosystem and its consequences for positive and negative experiences.

The PGI methodological approach addresses the shortcomings of some event-related research (Crowther et al., 2015; Van Winkle & Falk, 2015). As this research illustrates, combining photos, narratives and a survey provides a useful research tool to investigate customer experience from the holistic perspective. This method can inform researchers, in participants’ own voices, of what they are doing, thinking, and feeling, and how they are perceiving their social and physical environment, which traditional survey or interviews could not do. More importantly, this approach enables investigators to map out and model the co-creative process of customer experience, which furthers the understanding of the dynamic nature of food and wine events and the inter-relationships of the components of experience creation in a food and wine event context.

Of particular significance in this research is the salience of sensory experience at the food and wine event. Not surprisingly, many participants spoke of the taste experience at the show, but perhaps more interesting were the findings of the importance of smell or aroma and the visual appeal of products. Also, the present study demonstrated that sensory information not only could evoke positive emotional responses from customers, but also could facilitate other consumer behaviour intentions, such as spending a longer time at the event or an exhibit, making purchases, or sharing the experience with friends and family (see also Agapito, Mendes, & Valle, 2013; Walls, Okumus, Wang, & Kwun, 2011b).

While the sensory dimension is imperative to a positive CEx, a sense of fun, inspiration and discovery are also very important to people’s experiences when attending a food and wine event. In the current study, when participants talked about their sensory experiences, what affected their experiences went well beyond food or beverage. Of particular significance in the present study is identification of a three dimensional higher-order customer experience model at the food and wine event, including the importance of fun moments, the sense of

96 inspiration from food and wine experts, and the opportunity for discovery of new food and wine products. As an example, participants enjoyed having fun with friends when sampling food and wine together, or feeling inspired when watching a cooking demonstration by the chefs or discovering new cooking methods that were shared by the chefs. This supports Getz and Robinson (2014)’s research that found serious foodies are seeking experiences such as cooking lessons and demonstrations.

The proposed customer experience model provides managers and researchers with a framework for understanding and enhancing the elements of the overall customer experience at other festivals and leisure experiences. This model implies that instead of engaging in direct interaction with event organisers, event customers normally make direct contact with a series of event components, including vendors, celebrity chefs, event service staff, and volunteers co-creating their own narratives and experiences (see also Venkatraman & Nelson, 2008). The evaluation of these interactions (either positive or negative) influences customers’ evaluation of the event brand. For example, one participant in this study visited the show on the last day and most of the stands were shut down or out of stock at 1 p.m. She reported that she was very unsatisfied with her event experience and was very unlikely to recommend this event to her friends and family or to visit this event again the following year. This customer’s experience underscores the importance of event companies’ awareness that ensuring balance within the ecosystem is a key aspect of designing the event programs and has consequences for positive/negative experiences.

5.6 Chapter Summary

This chapter reported on the PGI study to record and capture customers’ real-time experiences at the Brisbane Good Food & Wine Event. According to the analysis, a series of salient touchpoints were identified, including celebrity chefs, vendors/products, volunteers, paid (add-on) activities, and venue. Customers responded to these interactions and co-created their experiences by bringing a list of personal factors, such as event-visit companions and personal preference. The co-creation process generated four salient dimensions of customer experience at the food and wine event: sensory experience provides a foundation for individuals’ experiences, along with three higher-order patterns over and above the foundation of sensory experience, including fun, discovery, and inspiration. The analysis further demonstrated that these co-created customer experiences involved the customer cognitively, emotionally, and behaviourally. These customer responses would potentially generate future benefits for event

97 organisers through attendees’ purchase of vendors’ food and wine products, sharing of event experiences with friends and family, visiting the event next year, and recommending this event to friends and family.

The next chapter reports on the EBS study, which provides further insights to a customer journey across time.

Chapter 6. Concurrent Study 2 - Experience Based Sampling Study

6.1 Introduction

Chapter 5 reported the procedures and results of using a PGI approach to capture the “snapshot” of customer experiences at the food and wine event. This chapter reports on an experience-based sampling (EBS) approach to investigate how specific experience appraisals of an event affect emotions at different points in time, as well as determining how these appraisals contribute to the overall evaluation variables such as satisfaction, recommendation, and repeat visitation.

Previous research (e.g., Cutler et al., 2014; Puccinelli et al., 2009) suggests that customers appraise experiences differently on the basis of what types of experiences they expect (i.e., what goals they want to achieve by using a particular product or service) and then evaluate overall experience depending on congruence between what they encounter in situ and expected experiences. According to Appraisal Theory, this appraisal match determines the valence of emotional responses (i.e., positive and negative) (Roseman et al., 1990). That is, events appraised at a higher congruence level are associated with positive emotions, whereas events appraised at a lower congruence level create more negative emotions (C. A. Smith & Ellsworth, 1985). In addition, individuals’ positive or negative emotions have been found to change throughout the experience journey (e.g., Coghlan & Pearce, 2010; Lin et al., 2014). Therefore, being able to capture real-time changes in appraisals and emotions is essential. One way to gain insight to people’s appraisals and emotions in a natural context is through experience-based sampling (EBS). This chapter presents the full set of data analysis undertaken to investigate the topic of customer experience in real time using EBS technique. The key research questions guiding this chapter include:

RQ1. Is there any difference between the importance values that participants placed on the five experience appraisal items at T0 versus the appraisal contributions at each T1, T2 and T3?

RQ2. How do experience appraisals made at the food and wine event vary across time?

RQ3. How do emotions felt at the food and wine event vary across time?

RQ4. What is the relationship between the five experience appraisal items and two emotion items at T1, T2 and T3? 99

RQ5. Do experience appraisals across time contribute to variance in satisfaction, recommendation and repeat visitation at T1, T2 and T3?

RQ6. Do the in situ emotions contribute to variance in people’s overall memories?

RQ7. Do the in situ emotions contribute to variance in people’s overall core affect?

RQ8. How do experience appraisals/emotions of people who used social media (SM) to post things about the event experience vary across time compared with those who didn’t?

RQ9. What activities do people engage in at the event?

RQ10. Is there a difference in the means for experience appraisal or emotion by activity engagement?

6.2 Method

6.2.1 Participants

To be eligible for this study, participants needed to be a day-ticket holder for the event or to state a willingness to attend the Brisbane Good Food and Wine Show (BGFW) (held at the Brisbane Convention Centre) on either the 17th, 18th or 19th of October, 2014. They also had to be in attendance at the event to respond to all three in situ measurement times. Due to the sample being relatively hard to reach, two methods were used to recruit participants: (1) The event organiser cooperated with the researcher to assist in drawing a sample from their database; (2) Participants were also recruited directly through researcher’s university research project volunteer recruitment system. The invite email was distributed to university staff only, including friend referrals. This was purposefully done for matching the event target market profile.

For the direct recruitment, a special qualifying procedure of participants was undertaken to match the event target market profile (as outlined in Chapter 3, Table 3-3, p. 53). The main qualifying factors included:

1. Participants must be over 18 (mainly aged between 25-65); 2. Participants must be interested in food and/or wine; 3. Participants’ male/female ratio should be around 1:4.

100

The sample comprised 51 adults who attended the event (14 males and 37 females). The event organiser facilitated the recruitment of 11 participants and direct recruitment via the University system resulted in 40 others. Participants were between 18–65 years old, with most falling into the range of 25–54 years old, which is reflective of the event’s target market (see Table 6-1 for full sample characteristics).

6.2.2 Procedure

Ethical approval (Protocol Number HSL/14/14/HREC) was obtained to conduct the study and the event organiser also gave permission for the research to be undertaken at the event. Appendix 6-1 elaborates the detailed procedure of participant recruitment for this study.

To assist with access to, and recruitment of, participants, the event organiser sent email invites on behalf of the researcher to a sample of ticket holders listed in the company’s database. The email invite (see Appendix 6-2a) was sent to 500 ticket holders, asking them to participate in a study into customer experience. A total of 36 event ticket holders expressed their interests to participate in the study and a total of 11 event attendees (two males and nine females) enrolled and completed the study.

Another email invite (see Appendix 6-2b) was sent through the researcher’s university research project volunteer recruitment system and the researcher’s personal contacts using snowball friend referral approach. A total of 74 respondents expressed their interests to participate in the study, and a total of 40 respondents (12 males and 28 females) completed the study. As recognition of their time and participation, free entry tickets were offered to people recruited through these two methods.

An invitation email containing a link to register an interest in participating in the study was distributed by the event organiser or the university volunteer system or the researcher’s personal contacts. This was done three weeks prior to the study, in order to allow for a thorough briefing/training period. Once the link was activated, respondents received an information sheet about the study with detailed incentive information (see Appendix 6-3) and then, if they were interested, registered to join the study. Once the researcher received a person’s registration information, an email with detailed study instructions was sent to each participant (see Appendix 6-4) to make sure every participant understood the research processes and requirements, as detailed in section 6.2.2.2. In addition, training was provided

101 to each participant through phone calls, to make sure they could successfully download the app, complete registration and join the study.

In the study, each participant was asked to complete a short pre-event set of questions as part of the initial briefing; during the event they were asked to complete a set of questions (9 multiple choices) on three occasions (11:00, 12:30, and 14:00); and they were asked to complete a final set of questions later in the day (at 20:00).

6.2.2.1 Research tool

This study employed an experience sampling method (i.e., multi diary entry approach) by the use of mobile technology to measure people’s experiences in real-time in the context of a food and wine event. It required participants to use a specific app (MetricWire) on their own smartphones or tablets to complete the study.

Thus, as part of the study participants were asked to download a free app “MetricWire” (https://metricwire.com/) and install this on their phones or tablets. After installation, participants completed their registration on MetricWire by inputting their email address and creating a personal password.

Throughout the study period, participants received and completed the five sets of questions using MetricWire: one data collection point prior to the event and four collection points on the day of the event. Details about installation, registration and usage instructions were offered by the researcher once participants registered to participate in the study. Participant consent was collected via the app at each data collection point.

6.2.2.2 Installation & setup period

Since this study utilised participants’ mobile devices to complete data collection, two versions (one for Android smartphones and one for iOS smartphones) of app usage instructions (see Appendix 6-5 for example snapshots of MetricWire usage instructions) were designed to demonstrate how to complete the survey. In addition, an initial testing survey with two questions was sent to participants’ phones during this period to help them practice how to complete a survey through the app. After receiving each participant’s response, the researcher sent out an email to confirm their participation. The initial testing period took about two weeks and was finalised one week prior to the event.

102

6.2.2.3 Study period

After the testing period, one pre-event survey (Time Zero – T0) was sent to participants through the app one week prior to the event to obtain pre-event information, including five goal relevance items for participants to attend the event and a certain number of demographic questions. During the event, participants received a set of questions on their smartphones or tablets through the app on three occasions, at 11:00am (T1), 12:30pm (T2), and 2:00pm (T3), respectively. This during-event survey investigated participants’ momentary (in situ) feelings and evaluations when attending the Brisbane Good Food & Wine Show, including one experience touchpoint, three emotions and five goal congruence items. Later the same day at 8:00pm (T4), participants received the post-event survey, including questions about overall satisfaction, intention to recommend and intention for repeat visit, memories, and core affect to examine their feelings and overall evaluations after the event.

6.2.3 Instrument

Using the app “MetricWire”, this study sought to understand the more momentary experiences people have in situ at a food and wine show using a three stage approach: event attending goals, during-event experiences and post-event overall evaluations. Appendix 6-6 provides a copy of the EBS study questionnaire.

6.2.3.1 Pre-event (Event attending experiences)

Previous focus group interviews were conducted independently by the researcher and the event organiser to generate a list of customer experience dimensions at the food and wine event, including bonding with family and friends, discovering new trends of food and wine, having fun, feeling inspired about food and wine, interacting with food and wine experts, having a positive sensory experience (e.g., smell, taste, etc.), having a multi-cultural food experience, and a celebration of food and wine (as outlined in Chapter 4, Table 4-4, p. 75).

Due to the complex nature of this study and taking participant burden into consideration, only five experience dimensions were included in the survey:

 Discovering new trends about food and wine,  Bonding with family and friends,  Having fun,  Interacting with food and wine experts

103  Having a positive sensory (e.g., smells, tastes) experience.

First, the pre-event survey was designed to investigate the importance values that participants placed on each experience appraisal items for attending the Brisbane Good Food & Wine Show. The question stem was as follows: For attending the BGFW, to what extent is (one experience appraisal item was inserted here) important to you? [1 = not at all important through to 5 = very important].

At the end of the survey, demographic questions were collected concerning gender, age, employment status, and past attendance.

6.2.3.2 During event (Repeated assessments of customer experiences)

On the day at the show, each participant was asked to report their momentary experiences at three sampling intervals.

Main activity

First, they were asked to nominate the main activity they had been doing within the past 30 minutes. The list of possible activities was generated by the researcher based on the event floorplan and event programs. This was measured as follows:

What was the MAIN activity you were doing in the past 30 minutes that influenced your experience most? (Respondents could select only one option.)

 Tasting (e.g., wine, food, chees, etc.)  Watching free demonstrations  Relaxing with friends/family  Meeting celebrity chefs  Purchasing products  Attending an add-on (paid) event  Other (please specify)

Emotional responses

Next, participants were presented with three questions designed to measure their emotional responses. Three emotion items (two positive emotion items and one negative emotion item) were adapted from the emotion scale developed by Hosany and Gilbert (2010), namely, joy,

104 inspiration and disappointment. The question stem for each emotion item was as follows: “To what extent did you feel a sense of (either joy, inspiration or disappointment was automatically inserted)?” [1= not at all through to 5 = very much].

Experience appraisals

Finally, a set of questions measuring participants’ experience appraisals in relation to the same five experience dimensions measured in the pre-event survey were included. The stem of the question for each of the experience appraisals was: “How did your recent experience contribute to achieving the goals you had in relation to (insert one experience appraisal item)?” [1= not at all through to 5 = very much].

All the emotion items and experience appraisals were measured using a time-based approach during the actual event at 11:00am, 12:30pm, and 2:00pm respectively.

6.2.3.3 Post-event (Overall evaluations)

The post-event data collection encompassed measures of overall satisfaction [1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied], likelihood to recommend the event to others [1 = very unlikely to 5 = very likely] as well as likelihood to return to the event the following year [1 = very unlikely to 5 = very likely].

The survey also collected information on participants’ memories about their event experiences. Two memory items were adapted from Hosany and Witham’s (2009) study, which was measured on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree using the following two statements: “I have wonderful memories about my experience at the BGFW show”, and “I remember many positive things about the BGFW show”.

Core affect was also included in the survey. Two core affect items were adapted from Kuppens et al. (2012), investigating participants’ overall emotional experience at the end of the day after attending the show. The two core affect items were measured as follows: “How pleasant did you feel the experience was?” [1= very unpleasant through to 5 = very pleasant] and: “How exciting did you feel the experience was?” [1= very boring through to 5 = very exciting].

Finally, the post-event research instrument contained questions concerning show visit companion(s) and social media posting behaviours in relation to the event. For the social media involvement, a Yes/No format was used to answer the following question: “Did you

105 post anything online (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.) about your experiences at the BGFW show?” If the participant responded “Yes” to the question, a follow-up question would be popped up “Where did you post things about your experiences at the show?” The list of possible social media platforms included: Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, Google+ or other blog sites.

Figure 6-1 outlines the study’s scheduling by measuring emotional responses and experience appraisals during a day including an overall end of day measure.

Time sampled in a day: Emotional response & Experience End of day assessment appraisal Overall Satisfaction Time 1 Time 2 Time3 Recommendation

3 Emotions 3 Emotions 3 Emotions Repeat Visitation

Memories Core Affect

5 Appraisals 5 Appraisals 5 Appraisals

11:00am 12:30pm 14:00pm 20:00pm

Legend

1.5-hour blocks of time during which participants were alerted to complete the surveys

Fixed time for survey signal, and participants started the survey after the signal

Hypothesised within-individual effects across the day Figure 6-1 Graphic representation of the EBS study schedule - Adapted from Dimotakis, Ilies, and Judge (2013, p. 335) 6.2.4 Incentives

This research task was quite time consuming, as it required participants to complete a set of questions on five occasions. For anyone who agreed to participate in the research and completed the pre-event testing survey, pre-event survey, plus three in situ event surveys (during the event time) received $15 and were entered into a prize draw to win one of six shopping vouchers (valued at $50 each); those who also completed the end of day survey (as well as the pre and in situ survey) received a total of $20 ($15 for the pre-event survey & three in situ surveys and a further $5 for the after event survey) plus two entries into the prize draw for a restaurant voucher to the value of $100. The study complied with ethical requirements, and ethical clearance was obtained. 106

6.2.5 Data analysis

Data analysis for this study was conducted using SPSS software. First of all, the demographic profile of event attendees was generated by using descriptive statistics of the sample (e.g., age group, gender). Next, the means and Standard Deviations for the five experience appraisals and three emotional items were calculated based on the responses reported at sampling occasions, namely, Time 0 (T0), Time 1 (T1), Time 2 (T2), and Time 3 (T3). In order to address in total ten research questions, a series of tests (e.g., paired samples t-test, correlation test, regression test, one-way ANOVA test) were conducted. Figure 6-2 summarises the data analysis process and further details on the findings are provided in the following sections.

107

Figure 6-2 Overview of EBS study data analysis process

108

6.3 Results

6.3.1 Data setup and data cleaning

As suggested by Hektner et al. (2007), the data was recorded at person level as well as at response level for further analysis. At the person level, each case is uniquely identified by the person’s ID number, while at the response level, each case is based on the response reported by the respondent at each sampling time. Therefore, each person contributes multiple cases to the file at the response level. Two respondents failed to complete the survey at Time 3 (T3). Their data was not used in the inferential statistics.

6.3.2 Descriptive statistics

First, descriptive analysis provides an overview of attendees’ profile, in terms of demographics, attendance characteristics and social media posting experiences. These results are exhibited in Table 6-1. As noted from Table 6-1, over 70% of the participants were females. The majority (over 90%) of participants were between 25-64. Over 50% of participants work full-time, reflective of event profile (as outlined in Chapter 3, Table 3-3, p. 54).

Over 62% of the sample had never attended this event before and the remaining 38% had attended previously. Nearly 85% of the participants went to the event with friends, family or partner. Over half of the participants posted their experiences on social media websites, among which over 90% of the posts were on Facebook.

109

Table 6-1 Participant demographic table Variable & Category Overall Sample N % Gender Male 14 27.5 Female 37 72.5 Age 18-24 3 5.9 25-34 17 33.3 35-44 12 23.5 45-54 13 25.5 55-64 4 7.8 65 or above 2 3.9 Employment status Working full-time 26 51.0 Working part-time 5 9.8 Self employed 5 9.8 Retired 1 2.0 Home duties 6 11.8 Full-time student 8 15.7 Past attendance Never 32 62.7 Once 2 3.9 Twice 5 9.8 Three times 5 9.8 Four or more times 7 13.7 Show visit companion Family 16 31.4 Partner 19 37.3 Friends 8 15.7 By yourself 8 15.7 Social media posting Yes 28 54.9 No 23 45.1 Total 51 100

6.3.3 Person-level data analysis & findings

As mentioned above, the dataset of this current study was recorded on two levels. Therefore, data analysis was conducted based on person-level and response-level accordingly and the

110 results were reported in the following sections separately. First, analysis will address Research Question 1, 2 and 3, dealing with experience appraisals and emotions across time.

6.3.3.1 Research Question 1

In order to address Research Question 1 “Is there any difference between the importance values that participants placed on the five experience appraisal items at T0 versus the appraisal contributions at each T1, T2 and T3?”, the means and SDs for the five experience appraisal items at each beeping point T0, T1, T2 and T3 and emotion items at three sampling occasions, namely, T1, T2, and T3 were calculated. Table 6-2 provides basic descriptive statistics for the appraisal items and emotion items at each data collection point.

Table 6-2 Means and SDs for the experience appraisal items at T0, T1, T2 & T3 and emotion items at T1, T2 & T3 Time 0 Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Attributes Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Experience Appraisal Item Bonding with family and friends 3.43 1.25 3.69 1.09 4.06 0.81 4.33 0.72 Discovering new trends about food and 3.43 0.88 3.22 1.08 3.86 1.11 3.65 1.07 wine Having fun 4.45 0.61 3.80 1.08 4.33 0.74 4.33 0.80 Interacting with food and wine experts 3.43 0.83 3.43 1.29 3.82 1.34 3.96 1.15 Having a positive sensory experience 4.37 0.82 3.10 1.14 3.94 1.01 3.67 1.13 (eg, smell, taste, etc.)

Emotion Item Joy - - 3.57 0.99 4.12 0.77 4.20 0.76 Inspiration - - 3.25 1.06 3.67 1.01 3.57 1.00 Disappointment - - 1.35 0.72 1.22 0.64 1.08 0.28 Valid N (listwise) 51 51 51 49

111

Next, paired samples t-tests were applied to test if there is any difference between the importance values that participants placed on the five experience appraisal items at T0 versus the appraisal contributions at each T1, T2 and T3. Table 6-3 shows the results of the paired samples t-tests.

Table 6-3 Results of paired samples t-tests using five experience appraisal items at T0 versus appraisal contribution at T1, T2 & T3 T0 - T1 T0 - T2 T0 - T3 Appraisal items ta ta tb Bonding with family and friends -1.12 -3.11** -4.09*** Discovering new trends about food and 1.16 -2.52* -1.45 wine Having fun 4.23*** 1.06 .87 Interacting with food and wine experts .00 -1.81 -2.77** Having a positive sensory experience 6.25*** 2.52* 3.83*** a. df = 50. b. df = 48. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

As can be noted in Table 6-3, for “fun” and “sensory”, there were significant differences between the means at T0 and T1 (p < .001). For “bonding”, “discovery” and “interaction”, there were no significant mean differences (p > .05). Between T0 and T2, there were significant differences between the means for “bonding”, “discovery” and “sensory” (p < .05). For “fun” and “interaction”, there were no significant mean differences (p > .05). For “bonding”, “interaction” and “sensory”, there were significant differences between the means at T0 and T3 (p < .05). For “discovery” and “fun”, there were no significant mean differences (p > .05).

This first research question addressed differences between T0 and other time points. Next, an analysis of changes in experience appraisals and emotion evaluations across time (in situ) is undertaken.

6.3.3.2 Research Question 2

In order to answer Research Question 2 “How do experience appraisals made at the food and wine event vary across time?”, a one-way within subjects (repeated measures) ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of time on individual’s experience appraisals at T1, T2 and T3. There was a significant effect of time on each experience appraisal item. The ANOVA test results were as follows:

1. Bonding: Wilks’ Lambda = 0.78, F (2, 47) = 6.56, p = .003, η2 = .22.

112 2. Discovery: Wilks’ Lambda = 0.84, F (2, 47) = 4.45, p = .017, η2 = .16. 3. Fun: Wilks’ Lambda = 0.78, F (2, 47) = 6.67, p = .003, η2 = .22. 4. Interaction: Wilks’ Lambda = 0.82, F (2, 47) = 5.28, p = .009, η2 = .18. 5. Sensory: Wilks’ Lambda = 0.76, F (2, 47) = 7.52, p = .001, η2 = .24.

Follow up tests using paired samples t-tests were applied to make post hoc comparisons between conditions. Table 6-4 summarises the results of all paired samples t-tests.

Table 6-4 Results of paired samples t-tests for five experience appraisal items at T1, T2 & T3 T1 - T2 T1 - T3 T2 - T3 Appraisal items ta tb tb Bonding with family and friends -2.22** -3.63** -2.00 Discovering new trends about food and -3.34** -2.13* .88 wine Having fun -4.00*** -2.96** .21 Interacting with food and wine experts -2.55* -3.21** -.47 Having a positive sensory experience -4.12*** -.14* .66 a. df = 50. b. df = 48. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

The results suggest that an individual’s five experience appraisals (i.e., bonding, discovery, fun, interaction and sensory) significantly increases from T1 to T2 and from T1 to T3 (p < .05). However, there is no difference in these five experience appraisals from T2 to T3 (p > .05).

As a summary of Research Question 1 and 2, for “bonding with family and friends”, customer experience exceeded the importance value placed on this dimension at T2 and T3. For “discovering new trends about food and wine”, customer experience exceeded the importance value at T2. For “having fun”, customer experience was below the importance value placed on this dimension at T1. For “interacting with food and wine experts”, customer experience exceeded the importance value placed on this dimension at T2. For “having a positive sensory experience”, customer experience was below the importance value placed on this dimension at T1, T2 and T3.

There was a trend to see that the bonding experience and interaction experience increase at each time interval, while discovery experience and sensory experience increase from T1 to T2, but drop down from T2 to T3, peaking at T2. Fun experience was increasing from T1 to T2 but kept at the same level from T2 to T3.

113

6.3.3.3 Research Question 3

In order to answer Research Question 3 “How do the emotions felt at an event vary across time?”, a one-way within subjects (repeated measures) ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of time on individual’s sense of joy conditions. There was a significant effect of time, Wilks’ Lambda = 0.77, F (2, 47) = 7.01, p = .002, η2 = .23. Follow up tests using three paired samples t-tests were applied to make post hoc comparisons between conditions. The results suggest that a first paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference in the scores for an individual’s sense of joy at T1 (M=3.6, SD=0.99) and an individual’s sense of joy at T2 (M=4.1, SD=0.77) conditions, t (50) = -3.50, p = .001. A second paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference in the scores for an individual’s sense of joy at T1 (M=3.6, SD=0.99) and an individual’s sense of joy at T3 (M=4.2, SD=0.76) conditions; t (48) = -3.71, p = .001. A third paired samples t-test indicated that there was no significant difference in the scores for an individual’s sense of joy at T2 (M=4.1, SD=0.77) and an individual’s sense of joy at T3 (M=4.2, SD=0.76) conditions; t (48) = -0.68, p = .50. These results suggest that an individual’s sense of joy significantly increases from T1 to T2 and from T1 to T3. However, there is no difference in individual’s sense of joy from T2 to T3.

Next, a one-way within subjects (repeated measures) ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of time on an individual’s sense of inspiration conditions. There was no significant effect of time on inspiration, Wilks’ Lambda = 0.93, F (2, 47) = 1.79, p = .178, η2 = .07.

Last, a one-way within subjects (repeated measures) ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of time on individual’s sense of disappointment conditions. There was a significant effect of time, Wilks’ Lambda = 0.85, F (2, 47) = 4.01, p = .025, η2 = .15. Follow up tests using three paired samples t-tests were applied to make post hoc comparisons between conditions. The results suggest that a first paired samples t-test indicated that there was no significant difference in the scores for an individual’s sense of disappointment at T1 (M=1.3, SD=0.72) and an individual’s sense of disappointment at T2 (M=1.2, SD=0.64) conditions, t (50) = 1.095, p = .279. A second paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference in the scores for an individual’s sense of disappointment at T1 (M=1.3, SD=0.62) and an individual’s sense of disappointment at T3 (M=1.1, SD=0.28) conditions; t (48) = 2.678, p = .010. A third paired samples t-test indicated that there was no significant difference in the scores for an individual’s sense of disappointment at T2 (M=1.2, SD=0.65) and an

114 individual’s sense of disappointment at T3 (M=1.1, SD=0.28) conditions; t (48) = 1.477, p = .146. These results suggest that an individual’s sense of disappointment significantly decreases from T1 to T3. However, there is no difference in individual’s sense of disappointment from T1 to T2 and from T2 to T3.

6.3.3.4 Research Question 4

At each sampling point, participants had the opportunity to evaluate their emotions and what experience appraisal items contributed to their momentary feelings at that point in time. In order to address Research Question 4 “What is the relationship between the five experience appraisal items and two emotion items at T1, T2 and T3?”, correlation tests were conducted at each sampling time. These five experience appraisal items were then entered into a multiple regression analysis to investigate what experience appraisals contributed to the variance in emotions at different points in real time.

Please note:

1. Correlations and regression tests were run between five experience appraisal items and the sense of disappointment at three sampling time, but no significance was found between them. Therefore, this report did not include the results related to the sense of disappointment in this section. 2. Tests to see if the data at T1, T2, and T3 met the assumption of collinearity indicated that multicollinearity was not a concern. These results apply to all regression tests below when using experience appraisal items as predictors. a. Bonding T1, Tolerance = .48, VIF = 2.09; Discovery T1, Tolerance = .35, VIF = 2.89; Fun T1, Tolerance = .45, VIF = 2.23; Interaction T1, Tolerance = .58, VIF = 1.72; Sensory T1, Tolerance = .52, VIF = 1.91 b. Bonding T2, Tolerance = .66, VIF = 1.51; Discovery T2, Tolerance = .58, VIF = 1.73; Fun T2, Tolerance = .62, VIF = 1.62; Interaction T2, Tolerance = .66, VIF = 1.52; Sensory T2, Tolerance = .55, VIF = 1.82 c. Bonding T3, Tolerance = .63, VIF = 1.59; Discovery T3, Tolerance = .73, VIF = 1.37; Fun T3, Tolerance = .53, VIF = 1.88; Interaction T3, Tolerance = .60, VIF = 1.66; Sensory T3, Tolerance = .79, VIF = 1.27

To examine the effect of five experience appraisals on two emotions at each time interval, correlation tests were undertaken (see Table 6-5). Results revealed significant correlations

115 between all five of the experience appraisals and the sense of joy as well as the sense of inspiration at T1. At T2, results indicated significant correlations between four appraisals (i.e., bonding, discovering, having fun, and having sensory experiences) and joy as well as inspiration. At T3, significant correlations occurred between three appraisals (i.e., bonding, having fun, and sensory experiences) and the sense of joy, while four appraisals (i.e., bonding, discovering, having fun and sensory experiences) are significantly correlated with the sense of inspiration.

Table 6-5 Correlations between experience appraisal items and emotion items at T1, T2 & T3 Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 T1 1. Bonding 3.7 1.09 1.00 2. Discovering 3.2 1.08 .57** 1.00 3. Having fun 3.8 1.08 .68** .59** 1.00 4. Interacting 3.4 1.29 .39** .61** .50** 1.00 5. Sensory experience 3.1 1.14 .48** .67** .49** .33** 1.00 6. Joy 3.6 .99 .68** .52** .69** .36* .52** 1.00 7. Inspiration 3.3 1.06 .61** .55** .59** .38** .61** .70** 1.00 T2 1. Bonding 4.1 .81 1.00 2. Discovering 3.9 1.11 .47** 1.00 3. Having fun 4.3 .74 .33* .23 1.00 4. Interacting 3.8 1.34 .25 .15 .57** 1.00 5. Sensory experience 3.9 1.01 .49** .62** .27 .08 1.00 6. Joy 4.1 .77 .41** .28* .46** .22 .52** 1.00 7. Inspiration 3.7 1.01 .49** .54** .45** .21 .59** .52** 1.00 T3 1. Bonding 4.3 .72 1.00 2. Discovering 3.7 1.07 .29* 1.00 3. Having fun 4.3 .80 .50** .28 1.00 4. Interacting 4.0 1.15 .14 41** .53** 1.00 5. Sensory experience 3.7 1.13 .39** .34* .21 .12 1.00 6. Joy 4.2 .76 .52** .27 .57** .27 .35* 1.00 7. Inspiration 3.6 1.00 .40** .44** .31* .22 .71** .50** 1.00 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).

116

Next, three separate multiple regression analyses were conducted to test whether the five appraisals differentially predicted participants’ ratings of joy at T1, T2, and T3. In each case, the five experience appraisals were used to predict joy (at the same point in time). For example, at T1, the five appraisals and joy were measured at that time point. Results appeared in Table 6-6.

Table 6-6 Summary of three regression analyses corresponding to T1, T2 & T3 Joy Inspiration T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 βa βb βc βd βe βf Bonding with family and friends .34* .17 .25 .29 .15 .07 Discovering new trends about food and wine -.02 -.10 .04 -.02 .23 .19 Having fun .39* .35* .42* .19 .30* .09 Interacting with food and wine experts -.02 -.04 -.02 .06 -.06 .02 Having a positive sensory experience .19 .36* .15 .37* .30* .60*** a. R2 = .58, F(5, 45) = 12.36, p < .05 b. R2 = .37, F(5, 45) = 5.20, p < .05 c. R2 = .42, F(5, 45) = 6.30, p < .05 d. R2 = .53, F(5, 45) = 10.20, p < .05 e. R2 = .49, F(5, 45) = 8.71, p < .05 f. R2 = .56, F(5, 45) = 11.04, p < .05 * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

The results in Table 6-6 indicated that the five predictors explained 58% of the variance in joy at T1. “Bonding” and “having fun” significantly predicted joy ratings. At T2, the five predictors explained 37% of the variance. “Having fun” and “sensory experience” significantly predicted joy ratings. At T3, the predictors explained 42% of the variance, with “having fun” significantly predicting joy ratings.

Similarly, three separate multiple regression analysis tested whether the five appraisals differently predicted participants’ ratings of inspiration at T1, T2 and T3. At T1, the five predictors explained 53% of the variance in inspiration. “Sensory experience” significantly predicted inspiration ratings. At T2, the predictors explained 49% of the variance, with each of “having fun” and “sensory experience” significantly predicting inspiration ratings. At T3, the predictors explained 56% of the variance. “Sensory experience” significantly predicted inspiration ratings.

To summarise the series of regressions conducted at each time level and answer Research Question 4, it appears that the experience appraisal items had impact in explaining the variance in emotions at different points in time. Fun consistently predicted the variance in joy

117 levels, irrespective of time. However, bonding also predicted joy at T1 and sensory contributed to variance in joy at T2. Turning to the sense of inspiration, sensory aspects consistently explained the variance in this measure. Bonding also contributed to the variance in inspiration levels at T1 and fun contributed at T2. Table 6-7 shows the results.

Table 6-7 Summary of regression test results Predictors (Experience Appraisal Items) Outcome (Emotion Items) Fun T1 Joy Bonding Sensory Inspiration Bonding Fun T2 Joy Sensory Sensory Inspiration Fun T3 Fun Joy Sensory Inspiration

This section dealt with fluctuations in people’s experience appraisals and emotion evaluation across time. The next section reports the relationship between appraisals, emotions, and overall evaluations.

6.3.3.5 Research Question 5

Participants were also surveyed a final time (T4) on the evening of the event. At this data collection point, overall evaluation attributes were measured, including event satisfaction, likelihood of recommendation to friends and family and likelihood of repeat visit intention. Table 6-8 summarises the results of descriptive analysis.

Table 6-8 Summary of means and SDs for participants’ overall evaluations Attributes Mean SD Satisfaction Please indicate your overall satisfaction toward the BGFW show 4.49 0.58

Intention to recommend How likely are you to recommend this event to your friends and family? 4.39 0.78

Intention for repeat visit How likely are you to attend this event next year? 4.00 1.02

In order to address Research Question 5 “Do experience appraisals across time contribute to variance in satisfaction, recommendation and repeat visitation at T1, T2 and T3?”, correlation

118 tests were conducted at each sampling time to investigate the relationship between five experience appraisal items and satisfaction, recommendation and repeat visitation at T1, T2 and T3.

Table 6-9 Correlations among variables for each time interval Intention to Intention for Variables Satisfaction recommend repeat visit T1 1. Bonding .15 .22 .14 2. Discovering .05 .11 .11 3. Having fun .16 .26 .20 4. Interacting .14 .13 .17 5. Sensory experience .08 .18 .14 T2 1. Bonding .15 .28* .12 2. Discovering .08 .13 .09 3. Having fun .22 .33* .32* 4. Interacting .17 .15 .24 5. Sensory experience .29* .44** .35* T3 1. Bonding .44** .35* .20 2. Discovering .19 .29* .23 3. Having fun .40** .38** .32* 4. Interacting .16 .07 .00 5. Sensory experience .20 .19 .30* ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).

As Table 6-9 shows, none of the five appraisals is significantly correlated with satisfaction, intention to recommend, or intention for repeat visitation at T1. At T2, “sensory experience” was positively correlated with satisfaction, intention to recommend, and intention for repeat visit, “having fun” was positively correlated with intention to recommend and intention for repeat visit, and “bonding” was positively correlated with intention to recommend. At T3, “having fun” was positively correlated with all three overall evaluations, “bonding” was positively correlated with satisfaction and intention to recommend, and “discovering” was positively correlated with intention to recommend.

119

Next, several multiple regression analyses were undertaken to test whether the five appraisal dimensions at T2 and T3 significantly predict participants’ ratings of satisfaction, intention to recommend, and intention for repeat visit. Table 6-10 presents the results.

Table 6-10 Linear model of five appraisal predictors of satisfaction, recommendation and repeat visitation at T2 & T3 Intention to Intention to Satisfaction recommend repeat visit T2 T3 T2 T3 T2 T3 βa βb βc βd βe βf Bonding with family and friends -.00 .30 .09 .12 -.11 -.12 Discovering new trends about food and wine -.19 .05 -.27 .25 -.22 .20 Having fun .10 .25 .23 .39* .20 .45* Interacting with food and wine experts .11 -.04 -.01 -.26 .15 -.33 Having a positive sensory experience .37 .01 .50** .01 .48* .22 a. R2 = .13, F(5, 45) = 1.39, p < .05 b. R2 = .24, F(5, 45) = 2.68, p < .05 c. R2 = .28, F(5, 45) = 3.51, p < .05 d. R2 = .24, F(5, 45) = 2.76, p < .05 e. R2 = .23, F(5, 45) = 2.68, p < .05 f. R2 = .23, F(5, 45) = 2.57, p < .05 * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

At T2, the set of predictors explained only 13% of the variance in satisfaction. At T3, the predictors explained 24% of the variance in satisfaction. However, none of the appraisal dimensions significantly predicted satisfaction ratings.

The predictors explained 28% of the variance in intention to recommend at T2. “Sensory experience” significantly predicted recommendation ratings. At T3, the predictors explained 24% of the variance in intention to recommend, with “having fun” the only significant predictor.

Turning to the prediction of repeat visit intention, the predictors explained 23% of the variance at T2. “Sensory experience” significantly predicted repeat visitation ratings. At T3, the predictors explained 23% of the variance in repeat visitation intention, with “having fun” the sole significant predictor. Of note are the relatively strong effects of sensory experience at T2 and having fun at T3.

To summarise the series of regression tests conducted at each time level, it appears that the experience appraisal items had impact in explaining the variance in ratings of satisfaction, recommendation and repeat visitation at T2 and T3, but not T1. There was a very weak effect for sensory affecting satisfaction at T2, however, sensory aspect predicted the variance in

120 ratings of recommendation and repeat visitation more strongly at T2. Fun predicted the variance in ratings of recommendation and repeat visitation at T3. Table 6-11 shows the results.

Table 6-11 Summary of regression test results Predictors (Experience Outcome Appraisal Items) T1 NS Satisfactiona T2 Sensory Recommendation Repeat Visitation Fun Recommendation T3 Repeat Visitation a. Weak effect for satisfaction (p = .051).

6.3.3.6 Research Question 6

At T4, extra information regarding memories of attending the event and core affect assessments was taken. People’s overall memories were measured as the composite value of the two memory items (α = 0.88) indicated in Section 6.2.3.3. Descriptive analysis results of the composite values are summarised in Table 6-12.

Table 6-12 Summary of means and SDs for participants’ overall memories Attributes Mean SD α Overall Memory 4.30 0.67 0.88

To what extent do you agree with the statement “I have 4.20 0.80 wonderful memories about my experience at the BGFW show”? To what extent do you agree with the statement “I remember 4.41 0.61 many positive things about the BGFW show”?

In order to address Research Question 6 “Do the in situ emotions contribute to variance in people’s overall memories?”, correlation tests were conducted at each sampling time to investigate the relationship between two emotion items at T1, T2 and T3 and people’s overall memories. The following section reports the findings for joy and inspiration separately.

Tests to see if the data met the assumption of collinearity indicated that multicollinearity was not a concern.

 Joy T1, Tolerance = .95, VIF = 1.06; Joy T2, Tolerance = .82, VIF = 1.23; Joy T3, Tolerance = .82, VIF = 1.22

121

 Inspiration T1, Tolerance = .85, VIF = 1.18; Inspiration T2, Tolerance = .71, VIF = 1.42; Inspiration T3, Tolerance = .64, VIF = 1.55

The results of correlations between joy at T1, T2 and T3 and overall memories indicated that joy at T2 and T3 were positively correlated with overall memories. Appendix 6-7 provides the correlation results between two emotion items and overall memories at T1, T2 and T3. There is no correlation between joy at T1 and overall memories. Next, multiple regression analysis was used to test if joy at T1, T2 and T3 significantly predicted participants’ overall memories. The results of the regression indicated the three predictors explained 18% of the variance (F 2 2 (3, 45) = 3.31, p < .05, R = .18, R adj = .13). It was found that none of the joy ratings at T1, T2 and T3 significantly predicted participants’ overall memories.

The results of correlations between inspiration at T1, T2 & T3 and overall memories indicated that inspiration at T2 was positively correlated with overall memories. There is no correlation between inspiration at T1 and T3 and overall memories. Multiple regression analysis was used to test if inspiration at T1, T2 and T3 significantly predicted participants’ overall memories. The results of the regression indicated the three predictors explained 12% of the 2 2 variance (F (3, 45) = 2.12, p < .05, R = .12, R adj = .07). It was found that the item “inspiration T2” significantly predicted participants’ overall memories ratings (β = .34, p < .05).

To summarise the series of regressions conducted using the two emotion items as predictors of overall memories. It appears that neither of the emotion items has any impact in explaining the variance in ratings of overall memories at T1 or T3. However, the sense of inspiration does have an impact in explaining the variance in ratings of overall memories at T2.

6.3.3.7 Research Question 7

In order to address Research Question 7 “Do the in situ emotions contribute to variance in people’s overall core affect?”, correlation tests were conducted at each sampling time to investigate the relationship between two emotion items at T1, T2 & T3 and people’s overall core affect. People’s overall core affect were measured as the composite value of the two core affect items (α = 0.66) indicated in Section 6.2.3.3. Descriptive analysis results of the composite values are summarised in Table 6-13.

122

Table 6-13 Summary of means and SDs for participants’ overall core affect Attributes Mean SD α Overall Core affect 4.19 0.53 0.66

How pleasant did you feel the experience was? 4.39 0.72 How exciting did you feel the experience was? 3.98 0.65

The results of correlations between joy at T1, T2 & T3 and overall core affect indicated that joy at T2 and T3 was positively correlated with overall core affect. Appendix 6-7 provides the correlation results between two emotion items and overall core affect at T1, T2 and T3. There is no correlation between joy at T1 and overall core affect. Multiple regression analysis was used to test if joy at T1, T2 and T3 significantly predicted participants’ overall core affect. The results of the regression indicated the three predictors explained 26% of the variance (F 2 2 (3, 45) = 5.39, p < .05, R = .26, R adj = .22). It was found that the item “joy T3” significantly predicted participants’ overall core affect ratings (β = .31, p < .05). Also, as noted that the item “joy T2” approached significance at the p < .05 level, β = .28.

The results of correlations between inspiration at T1, T2 & T3 and overall core affect indicated that inspiration at T2 and T3 were positively correlated with overall core affect. There is no correlation between inspiration at T1 and overall core affect. Multiple regression analysis was used to test if inspiration at T1, T2 and T3 significantly predicted participants’ overall core affect. The results of the regression indicated the three predictors explained 26% 2 2 of the variance (F (3, 45) = 5.37, p < .05, R = .26, R adj = .22). It was found that the item “inspiration T2” significantly predicted participants’ overall core affect ratings (β = .46, p < .05).

To summarise the series of regressions conducted for the two emotion items on core affect. It appears that joy T1 has no impact on people’s overall core affect ratings, but there was a very weak effect for joy T2 affecting ratings of overall core affect. Joy T3 predicted the variance in ratings of overall core affect. Turning to inspiration, it appears that inspiration T1 and inspiration T3 have no impact on people’s overall core affect ratings. Inspiration T2 predicted the variance in ratings of overall core affect. Table 6-14 summarises the results.

123

Table 6-14 Summary of regression test results Predictors (Emotion Items) Outcome T1 NS

Joy Overall Core Affecta T2 Inspiration Overall Core Affect

T3 Joy Overall Core Affect a. Weak effect for overall core affect (p = .052).

So far, the results have focused on the in situ experiences and emotion evaluations predicting overall evaluations. In addition, data was collected. This enables between subject investigations, in particular, the influence of social media posting on individuals’ real time experiences.

6.3.3.8 Research Question 8

To address Research Question 8 “How do experience appraisals/emotions of people who used social media (SM) to post things about the event experience vary across time compared with those who didn’t?”, a mixed (between/within) repeated measures ANOVA (time – 4 levels – is within and SM Posting – 2 levels – is between) for five experience appraisals and two emotions was conducted to compare the time effect of posting experience on social media websites for five experience appraisal items and two emotion items.

Overall, no significant results were found apart from a weak interaction between time and SM posting for levels of fun. A main effect for time on fun was found, Wilks’ Lambda = 0.73, F (3, 45) = 5.66, p = .002, η2 = .27. An interaction for fun by SM posting (at p < .10) was found, Wilks’ Lambda = 0.87, F (3, 45) = 2.24, p = .096, η2 = .13. There was no effect for SM posting, F (1, 47) = 3.21, p = .080, η2 = .06. Figure 6-2 illustrates the pattern of the interaction between time and SM posting for levels of fun. As can be noted in Figure 6-3, fun levels were consistently higher at T1, T2, and T3 (but not T0) if SM posting versus no SM posting. This result is presented with the view toward future research, as discussed in the final chapter of the thesis.

124

Figure 6-3 Pattern of the interaction between time and SM posting for levels of fun

6.3.4 Response-level data analysis & findings

Next, as suggested by (Hektner et al., 2007), the data can also been reported at response-level, where it is aggregated at the level of sampling point (e.g. activity) rather than person. Data analysis was conducted at response-level to gain more insights from the data, such as what activities people were engaged in at each sampling time and how these were associated with experience appraisals and emotion responses.

6.3.4.1 Research Question 9

In the survey, at each sampling time, participants were surveyed about their main activities in the past 30 minutes. In order to address the Research Question 9 “What activities do people engage in at the event?”, the frequency table was generated and the results are summarised in Table 6-15. As can be noted in the table, the top four main activities that participants were doing at the event were (in the order of frequency) tasting (e.g., wine, food, cheese, etc.), watching free demonstrations, purchasing products and attending an add-on (paid) event.

125

Table 6-15 Summary of participants’ main activity at T1, T2 & T3 Total Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 MAIN Activity Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency

Tasting (eg, wine, food, cheese, etc.) 75 35 25 15 Watching free demonstrations 27 8 11 8 Purchasing products 17 - 5 12 Attending an add-on (paid) event 15 3 5 7 Meeting celebrity chefs 7 1 3 4 Relaxing with friends/family 4 1 2 1

6.3.4.2 Research Question 10

Next, in order to investigate the Research Question 10 “Is there a difference in the means for emotion or experience appraisal by activity engagement?”, the means and standard deviations of all experience appraisal items and emotion items by each activity were calculated and the results are shown in Table 6-16.

Table 6-16 Means and SDs of experience appraisal items & emotion items by each activity Watching Relaxing Meeting Purchasing Attending Tasting Demo with friends chefs Add-on Attributes M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD Experience Appraisal Items Bonding with family and 3.93 .95 3.96 .94 3.25 1.26 4.75 .46 4.18 .63 4.50 .52 friends Discovering new trends 3.49 .96 3.56 1.34 3.75 .96 4.75 .46 3.94 .97 3.25 1.24 about food and wine Having fun 4.07 .98 3.89 .97 4.50 .58 4.88 .35 4.24 .66 4.69 .48 Interacting with food and 3.71 1.33 3.33 1.44 4.00 .82 4.63 .74 4.18 .88 3.56 1.21 wine experts Having a positive sensory experience (eg, smell, taste, 3.41 1.00 3.74 1.06 2.75 .50 4.38 1.19 3.71 1.21 4.06 1.34 etc.)

Emotion Items Joy 3.95 .87 3.78 .89 3.00 .82 4.75 .46 4.12 .78 4.31 .70 Inspiration 3.32 1.01 3.63 .93 2.75 .50 4.38 1.06 3.65 .93 3.87 .96 Disappointment 1.20 .57 1.22 .64 1.50 1.00 1.00 .00 1.24 .44 1.13 .34

Next, one-way ANOVA was conducted. As the sample size was relatively small and group sizes were not equal, the results indicated that there was no significant difference in the means for emotion or experience appraisal by activity engagement. However, as can be noted (not statistically) in Table 6-14, the strongest levels of emotion and experience appraisal ratings were for meeting chefs. This was consistently across each emotion item and experience appraisal item. The next strongest association was for attending add-on (paid) programs. Very

126 little disappointment was evident, apart from some low level around adequate spaces for relaxing with friends.

Within each reported activity, there was some variation as to the highest rated experience appraisal or emotion. Fun received the highest mean when undertaking all activities apart from watching the demonstrations. When watching demonstrations, bonding was the highest mean.

To gain insight to people’s appraisals and emotions in the real time, this chapter presents the full set of data analysis undertaken to investigate customer experience at the food and wine event using experience based sampling technique. Ten research questions are proposed to guide this chapter. Table 6-17 summarises the key findings identified in this chapter.

127

Table 6-17 Summary of key findings in the EBS study Research Questions: Key Findings  Person-level RQ1. Is there any difference between the  For “fun” and “sensory”, there were significant differences between the means at T0 and T1 importance values that participants placed (p < .001). For “bonding”, “discovery” and “interaction”, there were no significant mean on the five experience appraisal items at differences (p > .05). T0 versus the appraisal contributions at  Between T0 and T2, there were significant differences between the means for “bonding”, each T1, T2 and T3? “discovery” and “sensory” (p < .05). For “fun” and “interaction”, there were no significant mean differences (p > .05).  For “bonding”, “interaction” and “sensory”, there were significant differences between the means at T0 and T3 (p < .05). For “discovery” and “fun”, there were no significant mean differences (p > .05). RQ2. How do experience appraisals made  The results of ANOVA tests suggest that time has an effect on an individual’s five experience at the food and wine event vary across appraisals. time?  The results of post hoc t-tests suggest that an individual’s five experience appraisals (i.e., bonding, discovery, fun, interaction and sensory) significantly increases from T1 to T2 and from T1 to T3 (p < .05). However, there is no real difference in these five experience appraisals from T2 to T3. RQ3. How do emotions felt at an event  The ANOVA tests indicate that time has an effect on the sense of joy and disappointment. vary across time?  For the sense of joy: o There was a significant difference in the scores for an individual’s sense of joy between T1 and T2. o There was a significant difference in the scores for an individual’s sense of joy between T1 and T3. o There was no significant difference in the scores for an individual’s sense of joy between T2 and T3.  For the sense of inspiration: o There was no significant effect of time on inspiration.  For the sense of disappointment: o There was no significant difference in the scores for an individual’s sense of disappointment between T1 and T2.

128 o There was a significant difference in the scores for an individual’s sense of disappointment between T1 and T3. o There was no significant difference in the scores for an individual’s sense of disappointment between T2 and T3.

RQ4. What is the relationship between the  For the sense of joy: five experience appraisal items and two o Fun consistently predicted the variance in joy levels irrespective of time. emotion items at T1, T2 and T3? o Bonding predicted joy at T1. o Sensory contributed to variance in joy at T2.  For the sense of inspiration: o Sensory aspect consistently explained the variance in inspiration irrespective of time. o Bonding contributed to the variance in inspiration levels at T1. o Fun contributed to variance in inspiration at T2. RQ5. Do experience appraisals across time  The experience appraisal items had impact in explaining the variance in ratings of contribute to variance in satisfaction, satisfaction, recommendation and repeat visitation at T2 and T3, but not T1. recommendation and repeat visitation at o There was a very weak effect for sensory affecting satisfaction at T2, however, T1, T2 and T3? sensory predicted the variance in ratings of recommendation and repeat visitation more strongly at T2. o Fun predicted the variance in ratings of recommendation and repeat visitation at T3. RQ6. Do the in situ emotions contribute to  Joy has no impact on overall memory at different sampling points. variance in people’s overall memories?  Inspiration has impact in explaining the variance in ratings of overall memories at T2, but not T1 or T3. RQ7. Do the in situ emotions contribute to  For the sense of joy: variance in people’s overall core affect? o At T1, joy has no impact on people’s overall core affect ratings. o At T2, there was a very weak effect for joy affecting ratings of overall core affect. o At T3, joy predicted the variance in ratings of overall core affect.  For the sense of Inspiration: o At T1 and T3, inspiration has no impact on people’s overall core affect ratings. o At T2, inspiration predicted the variance in ratings of overall core affect. RQ8. How do experience  Overall, no significant results found apart from a weak interaction between time and SM appraisals/emotions of people who used posting for levels of fun. social media (SM) to post things about the o A main effect for time on fun was found. 129 event experience vary across time o An interaction for fun by SM posting (at p < .10) was found. compared with those who didn’t? o There was no effect for SM posting.  Response-level RQ9. What activities do people engage in The top four main activities that participants were doing at the event were (in the order of at the event? frequency):  tasting (e.g., wine, food, cheese, etc.)  watching free demonstrations  purchasing products  attending an add-on (paid) event RQ10. Is there a difference in the means  As the sample size was relatively small and group sizes were not equal, the results indicated for emotion or experience appraisal by that there was no significant difference in the means for emotion or goal congruence by activity engagement? activity engagement.  The strongest levels of emotion and experience appraisal ratings were for meeting chefs. This was consistently across each emotion item and goal congruence item.  The next strongest association was for attending add-on (paid) programs.  Within each reported activity, there was some variation as to the highest rated goal or emotion. o Fun received the highest mean when undertaking all activities apart from watching the demonstration. o When watching demonstrations, bonding was the highest mean.

130

6.4 Chapter Discussion

This study offers a number of significant findings. First, the study provides empirical evidence of the changes of individuals’ appraisals and emotional responses across time, as well as the time-based connections between appraisals and emotions. Second, findings show that the later stage of customer experience appraisals has greater impact on customers’ overall evaluations. Third, the analysis illustrates that the strongest levels of emotion and experience appraisal ratings were associated with certain activities (e.g., meeting chefs, attending add-on (paid) programs). Fourth, the findings illustrate that sharing experiences via social media is an integral part of the customer experience and positively influences customers’ the sense of fun during one-day period. Last, the investigation demonstrates that experience-based sampling method is helpful to generate insights of the momentary fluctuations in experiences, feelings and behaviours close to the point of occurrence.

Previous research on emotions (e.g., Lin et al., 2014; Nawijn et al., 2013) acknowledges that individuals’ emotions vary during the experience journey and suggests the importance of measuring evolving stages of emotions throughout the course of an experience. In previous studies, Lin et al. (2014) and Nawijn et al. (2013) demonstrate that individuals’ emotions fluctuate during a vacation and particularly the positive emotions are rated higher in the middle rather than at the end of the trip. Using experience-based sampling, the present results illustrate that participants’ appraisals and emotions fluctuate during the one-day period. Particularly, the results of this study indicate that participants’ experience appraisals significantly change over time as well as in the levels of joy, which increase from T1 to T2 and also from T1 to T3. When the customers first arrive at the venue, all five experience appraisals and the sense of joy stay at a relatively low level. As the customers get involved with more activities at the event, such as sampling food and wine products, participating in a cooking class, or watching cooking demonstrations, they report having more experiences on all five dimensions and higher levels of joy. The study identifies no significant effect of time on the sense of inspiration, although there are small increases in variable over the course of the day.

This current study extends our understanding by investigating how specific experience appraisals affect customers’ emotional responses across time. As this investigation shows, the appraisal of “having fun” consistently predicts the variance in joy levels irrespective of time, while the appraisal of “having a positive sensory experience” consistently explains the

131 variance in the ratings of inspiration at three sampling points. Interestingly, the analysis identifies no association between the five experience appraisals and the sense of disappointment. This finding could result from the hedonic nature of this type of event experience: attending a food and wine event is a form of relaxation in which attendees anticipate having enjoyable, inspiring, and memorable experiences (see also Hosany & Gilbert, 2010; Manthiou, Lee, Tang, & Chiang, 2014). Also, the extremely low level of disappointment might explain the finding, as there is very little variance in this measure (most participants indicated they are not at all disappointed).

Studies of service design (e.g., Zomerdijk & Voss, 2010) and service marketing (e.g., Verhoef, Antonides, & De Hoog, 2004) suggest that orchestrating the sequence, progression, and duration of service encounters enhances customer experience by engaging customers emotionally and contributing to customer satisfaction. The findings of the present study indicate that none of the appraisal dimensions significantly predicts satisfaction ratings. The appraisal of “having a positive sensory experience” at T2 predicts ratings of intention to recommend and intention for repeat visitation, and the appraisal of “having fun” at T3 explains the variance in ratings of intention to recommend and intention for repeat visitation. This findings are in line with previous studies (Ali et al., 2016; Hosany & Witham, 2009), in which a direct effect is identified between experiences and satisfaction as well as intention to recommend. In addition, the appraisals have different impacts at different points in time. These findings underscore the importance of using an experience-sampling research method, because reliance on a single post-event survey would unlikely have identified the important role played by positive sensory experiences midway through the event (see also Lin et al., 2014; Nawijn et al., 2013). These results also imply that customers may not attach equal significance to every single moment of an experience. Rather, customer experience appraisals at mid and later points carry greater weight in customers’ overall evaluations than do appraisals of initial (T1) experiences.

This research highlights the main activities people report as important customer experiences at a food and wine event, which include tasting food and wine, watching free demonstrations, shopping, and attending paid event programs. This finding is broadly consistent with Getz and Robinson’s (2014) definition of typical food events, which encompass entertainment, consumption, and activities aimed at creating a family atmosphere and having fun. Further analysis indicates that the strongest levels of emotion and experience appraisal ratings were associated with the activity of meeting chefs. No disappointment was evident. Within each

132 reported activity, there was some variation as to the highest rated experience appraisal or emotion. Fun received the highest mean when undertaking all activities apart from watching the demonstrations. When watching demonstrations, bonding was the highest mean.

The current study investigates how experience appraisals and emotions of people who used social media (SM) to post things about the event experience vary across time compared with those who didn’t, and a main effect for time on fun is found. This finding offers empirical evidence that sharing experiences in real-time via the various social media platforms (predominantly Facebook in this study) is an integral part of the customer experience for today’s customers (Munzel & Kunz, 2013). More importantly, sharing experiences enhances the sharers’ sense of fun during the one-day period at the food and wine event, which is in line with most previous studies that highlight the effects of sharing experiences online on the sharer’s positive affect (Hudson, Roth, Madden, & Hudson, 2015; Lambert et al., 2013; Lyubomirsky, Sousa, & Dickerhoof, 2006). A plausible explanation is that customers are motivated intrinsically for the fun and enjoyment of the activity of sharing itself (Munzel & Kunz, 2014). Since the sense of fun was measured using a single item, future research should attempt to capture fun using multi-item measures (Tasci & Ko, 2015), which might generate new insights into the relationship between sharing experiences and the sense of fun.

This study demonstrates the importance of using an experience-based sampling research method, because reliance on a single post-event survey would unlikely have identified the momentary fluctuations in individual’s experience, feelings and behaviours close to the point of occurrence at a food and wine event. As the data collected in this study was based on experiences in a real setting (i.e., during the food and wine event) and the time lag between actual experiences and responding to questions was quite short, it reduces recall biases associated with survey research methods (Scollon et al., 2003). As growing numbers of people carry their own smartphones with them at all times, conducting experience sampling studies on participants’ devices has become a lot easier and convenient. This study presents a reliable, user-friendly, cost-effective, and efficient solution to conduct smartphone-enabled EBS research. By the very nature of EBS, small sample sizes of participants are common (Dimotakis et al., 2013; Hektner et al., 2007; Scollon et al., 2003). However, the sample of experiences is usually quite high. As demonstrated in this study, over 250 data collection points (participant number * sampling times) were generated, which provides an opportunity to look into an individual’s real time experiences at more micro level, while large-scale surveys might not be able to achieve this purpose.

133

6.5 Chapter Summary

This chapter detailed the procedure of using experience-based sampling (EBS) method to investigate how individuals at a food and wine event make specific evaluations of their experiences across time and how these evaluations affect in situ emotions, the overall satisfaction level, intention to recommend the event to friends or family and intention for repeat visit. The study also tests how emotions vary throughout the event and how these emotions impact individuals’ overall memory of the event and core affect. In addition, the study examines how social media posting behaviour influences individuals’ experiences across time. This study further reveals the main activities that people engage in at the event and how different activities impact people’s event experiences.

Chapter 7 will report on the recall study.

134

Chapter 7. Concurrent Study 3 - Recall Survey

7.1 Introduction

Chapters 5 and 6 presented the results of the first two mixed methods concurrent studies. Chapter 5 highlighted what meanings people assigned to customer experience when attending the food and wine event and revealed the importance of fun, inspiration, discovery and sensory experiences. Chapter 6 reported the procedures and results of using an experience based sampling (EBS) technique to investigate how specific experience appraisals of an event affect emotions at different points in time, as well as determining how these appraisals contribute to overall evaluation variables such as satisfaction and loyal behaviours (i.e., recommendation and repeat visitation). The strength of the EBS study was that is provided unique insight to customer experience in situ on three occasions and after the event for overall evaluations. Due to the complex nature of EBS study, only a subset of experience appraisals (i.e., discovery, sensory, interaction, fun and bonding) and a subset of emotion items (i.e., joy, inspiration and disappointment) were measured in in the study and reported in Chapter 6, and the sample size (N=51) was relatively small.

As the program of research conducted for the PhD project adopted a mixed methods concurrent design, a third complementary study (recall study) was conducted on the same event with a larger sample and an expanded number of items used to measure customer experience. This chapter reports on the recall survey to examine what experience appraisals matter to people when attending a food and wine event, and how these appraisals influence individuals’ emotions, memories and behavioural intentions (i.e., recommendation and repeat visitation). Four research questions are outlined to guide the analysis reported in this chapter:

RQ1. What is the relative importance of each experience dimension for attending the food and wine event?

RQ2. Are there any differences on the importance ratings of ten experience dimensions across all demographic groups?

RQ3. How do experience appraisals/emotions of people who used social media (SM) to post things about the event experiences vary compared with those who didn’t?

RQ4. Is there a relationship among customer experience appraisals, positive emotions, memories and behavioural intentions? 135

To address Research Question 4 and examine the relationship among study variables, a series of research hypotheses were developed based on extensive literature review, then two models were proposed and tested using structural equation modelling (SEM). The following section outlines the research hypotheses and the proposed models.

7.1.1 Literature background

Previous studies (e.g., Arnold & Reynolds, 2003; Puccinelli et al., 2009; Ratneshwar, Mick, & Huffman, 2003) identify that customers attempt to achieve some personal needs by using a particular product or service. For example, some may need social interaction, while others seek fun or want to learn new knowledge. The various customer needs determine what types of experiences individual customers are seeking and explain why different customer experiences are elicited from different customers under the same a consumption context (Puccinelli et al., 2009). Thus, in this chapter customer experience appraisal refers to the appraisal people make in respect to the congruence between experience and pre-existing needs.

Appraisal Theory (e.g., Roseman et al., 1990; C. A. Smith & Ellsworth, 1985) proposes that people are likely to appraise their experiences based on the match between the type of experiences the individual expects (i.e., their needs) and what the individual experiences. Within Appraisal Theory, this match determines the valence of emotional responses (i.e., positive or negative emotions) (Roseman et al., 1990). That is, individuals under the condition of high congruence between experiences and expected experiences will elicit higher levels of positive emotions, whereas negative emotions will arise if individuals are under the condition of low congruence between experiences and expected experiences.

7.1.2 Two competing models

This section of the thesis presents the rationale and results for two competing models of customer experience appraisals, positive emotions, memories and behavioural intentions. The two models were chosen based on previous customer experience research (e.g., Gentile et al., 2007; Puccinelli et al., 2009) or preliminary research from the PGI study (Chapter 5) and EBS study (Chapter 6). The first was drawn predominantly from classifying the customer experience into two groups: hedonic experience and growth experience. In Model 1 (see Figure 7-1), there were two sets of experience dimensions (hedonic and growth) predicting positive emotions, memories and behavioural intentions. In Model 2 (see Figure 7-2), the four

136 salient experience dimensions identified in previous studies (PGI/EBS) reported in the thesis were used.

The following section outlines the hypotheses and the two proposed models.

7.1.2.1 Model 1

Appraisals of customer experience, emotions and behavioural intentions

At a food and wine event, attendees may attempt to achieve varied and multiple experience dimensions, such as: having fun, social interaction, doing things with family, sampling food and beverages, and obtaining knowledge/education (e.g., Bowen & Daniels, 2005; Kyungmi Kim et al., 2001; P. Mason & Beaumont-Kerridge, 2004; Savinovic et al., 2012; Van Zyl & Botha, 2004; Yuan et al., 2005). Some experiences are more hedonic in nature, such as having fun and bonding with friends or family; while others experiences are more associated with self-growth and development, like learning new knowledge about food and wine and discovering new trends about food and wine. Thus, it is proposed that the ten experience dimensions identified from preliminary focus groups (as outline in Chapter 4, Table 4-4, p. 76) can be split into two groups: hedonic experiences and growth experiences.

Hedonic experiences include: 1) bonding with friends or family; 2) having fun; and 3) a celebration of eating/drinking. Growth experiences include: 1) learning about food and wine; 2) discovering trends about food and wine; 3) feeling inspired about food and wine; 4) interacting with food and wine experts; 5) having a positive sensory experience; 6) getting some new ideas about preparing food; and 7) having a multicultural food experience.

Accordingly, two sub-hypotheses are developed:

Hypothesis 1a: The higher the level of hedonic experience appraisals, the stronger the positive emotional responses.

Hypothesis 1b: The higher the level of growth experience appraisals, the stronger the positive emotional responses.

The experience appraisal is likely an important underlying contributor to emotions experienced at an event, and also an influence on customer behavioural intentions which is usually measured as word-of-mouth (Nyer, 1997; Soscia, 2007) and repurchase intention (Soscia, 2007). Importantly, emotion plays a mediating role in the relations between appraisals and behavioural intentions. Therefore,

137 Hypothesis 2: An individual’s positive emotions will be positively related to the person’s behavioural intentions.

Appraisals of customer experience, memories and behavioural intentions

In the seminal work of Pine and Gilmore (1998), they propose that the best way a business can engage with individual customers is to strengthen the customers’ memories of the experiences they participate in. Given the importance of memorable experiences, some researchers have set out to study the customer experience with an emphasis on examining the role of memory. For example, in the context of tourism, J.-H. Kim, Ritchie, and McCormick (2012) develop a scale to measure which salient dimensions of experience that are most likely to be remembered by a tourist. In the festival context, Manthiou et al. (2014) demonstrated that experience has a positive effect on vivid memory, which consequently influences attendee behavioural intentions. Therefore,

Hypothesis 3a: The higher the level of hedonic experience appraisals, the stronger the memories of event experiences.

Hypothesis 3b: The higher the level of growth experience appraisals, the stronger the memories of event experiences.

Hypothesis 4: An individual’s event memories will be positively related to the person’s behavioural intentions.

Appraisals of customer experience, positive emotions, memories and behavioural intentions

As discussed above, most previous studies are either focused on examining the relationship between experiences, emotions and behavioural intentions or investigating the relationship among experiences, memories and behavioural intentions. In the memory literature, researchers start to focus on understanding the relationship between emotion and memory. For example, Brewer (1988) finds that emotions are an important part of memory. Dolcos and Cabeza (2002) demonstrated that events related to emotions are more likely to be remembered. Talarico, Berntsen, and Rubin (2009) further identified that a greater proportion of details are recalled/remembered by study participants for events associated with positive emotions. Therefore,

Hypothesis 5: An individual’s positive emotions will be positively related to the person’s event memories.

Drawing on the principles of Appraisal Theory (Roseman et al., 1990; C. A. Smith & Ellsworth, 1985), it is expected that experience appraisals, positive emotions, memories and

138 behavioural intentions be highly associated. Figure 7-1 provides the conceptual model (Model 1), by putting together the four variables and the direct links among them representing the theoretical hypotheses. Sections 7.3 and 7.4 respectively present methodology and data and results of the hypotheses testing and model testing.

139

Hedonic H1a experience Positive

appraisals (ξ1) emotions (η1)

H2 H5

H3a H1b

Growth Memories H4 experience H3b Behavioural (η2) intentions appraisals (ξ2) (η3)

Figure 7-1 Model 1: The conceptual model of hedonic & growth experience appraisals, positive emotions, memories and behavioural intentions

140 7.1.2.2 Model 2 Model 2 is identical to Model 1, apart from the customer experience appraisal as an exogenous variable. As outlined in Chapter 5, four salient experience dimensions (i.e., fun, discovery, inspiration and sensory) were identified in the PGI study. Similar results were identified in the experience based sampling (EBS) study (Chapter 6). To further investigate the statistical significance of these salient dimensions and to facilitate the comparison across three studies (PGI, EBS and recall), a second conceptual model is proposed using a subset of data from the concurrent recall survey to test the relationship between appraisals of four experience dimensions, positive emotions, memories and loyal behaviours. Based on previous discussion, two new hypotheses are developed and tested in Model 2. Figure 7-2 provides the conceptual model (Model 2).

Hypothesis 1c: The higher the level of experience appraisals, the stronger the positive emotional responses.

Hypothesis 3c: The higher the level of experience appraisals, the stronger the memories of event experiences.

The next section outlines the method for the study including the measures used in Model 2.

141

Positive emotions

(η1)

H1c H5

Experience Behavioural

appraisals H2 intentions (η ) (ξ1) 3

H3c H4

Memories (η2)

Figure 7-2 Model 2: The conceptual model of experience appraisals, positive emotions, memories and behavioural intentions

142

7.2 Method

7.2.1 Participants

To be eligible for this study, participants needed to be attendees at the Brisbane Good Food & Wine Show in October, 2014. Careful examination of the data – checks for missing data, patterned responses, unusually short completion time (under three minutes), and outliers resulted in 67 cases being deleted. Mostly (N = 59) this was due to large numbers of missing data (i.e., more than half of the items)3, and eight cases were deleted owing to short time for completion. In respect of outliers that were identified using SPSS 23, each case was closely inspected and seven were removed. With 599 usable responses for the survey, a 21% response rate was achieved.

Within the final sample4, 476 respondents (79.9%) were female and 120 (20.1%) were male. 23.2% of the participants were aged between 25-34 years old, 19.5% were aged between 35- 44 and 27.3% were aged between 45-54. Over 60% of participants work full-time, reflective of event profile (as outlined in Chapter 3, Table 3-3, p. 54).

7.2.2 Procedure

Ethical approval (Protocol Number HSL/14/14/HREC) was obtained to conduct the study. To assist with access to, and recruitment of, participants, the event organiser sent email invites (Appendix 7-1) on behalf of the researcher to a sample of event attendees listed in the company’s database. The email invite was drawn on a random selection of cases to invite for this study, and has been sent out to 2,798 event attendees within one week after the show. The invitation email contained a link to a questionnaire hosted on Qualtrics. Once the link was clicked, respondents received an information sheet (Appendix 7-1) about the study and then, if they consented, commenced the questionnaire.

As the study sought to understand customer experience from a recall perspective, respondents were first asked to think back to the experiences they had during their recent visit to the event. They were then asked to recall their dominant emotions during the event and answer a series of questions about emotions, core affect, appraisals of motivation relevance and motivation

3 In line with event company’s special request, the “Validation” option (which is to force participants to give responses to each question) was not embedded in the Qualtrics survey settings. 4 Three respondents completed all measurement questions but did not complete the demographic questions. Their responses were included in the statistical analysis, but not in the demographic analysis. 143 congruence, general satisfaction, behavioural intentions and demographic questions. All data was collected within one week after the event.

To encourage participation in the study, all participants were entered into a prize draw to win one of five gift vouchers valued at $100 each. There was an additional prize for one participant, by having the opportunity to win a Le Creuset Oval Casseroles in Cassis valued at $369. The survey complied with ethical requirements.

7.2.3 Instrument

Experience appraisals were measured for each of the identified experience dimensions (as outlined in Chapter 4, Table 4-4, p. 75), including:

The main appraisals used in this study were experience importance and experience appraisal.

Experience importance

First, experience importance was measured based on the importance value that respondents assigned to each of the identified experience dimensions. The appraisals of experience importance are used to identify the relative importance of the ten experience dimensions when attending the event. Adopting wording from other studies (e.g., Hosany, 2011; Kuppens et al., 2012), the stem of the question for appraisals of experience importance was: “To what extent was (insert one experience dimension item) important to you in deciding to attend the event?”. All appraisals of experience importance items were measured on a 5-point scale with 1 = not at all important to 5 = very important;

144

Experience appraisal

Then, customer experience appraisal was measured based on the congruence level between respondents’ experiences at the event and the experience dimensions they wanted to achieve at the event. The customer experience appraisal was used to assess respondents’ experiences at the event. The stem of the question for customer experience appraisal was: “To what extent did your experience at the event contribute to achieving the goals you had in relation to (insert one experience appraisal item)?”. All customer experience appraisal items were measured on a 5-point scale with 1= not at all through to 5 = very much.

Emotion items

Four positive emotions and two negative emotions were measured using specific emotions selected from Hosany and Gilbert (2010). The positive emotions selected included joy, elation, delight and inspiration; the negative emotions were annoyance and disappointment. The six emotion items were measured as follows: Reflecting back on your experience at the event, to what extent (how intense/strong was the feeling) did you feel a sense of (insert one emotion item)? This was followed by each of the emotions. A 5-point Likert style response format was adopted with 1= not at all through to 5 = very much.

Memories

Gilmore and Pine (2002a, 2002b) suggest that a well-staged experience leads to enhanced memory - that is, remembering a particular event - which will shape the people’s attitude toward the destination/event in a positive manner. Adopting wording from other studies (Hosany & Witham, 2009; Oh et al., 2007), memories about the show experience were measured on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree using the following two statements: “I have wonderful memories about my experience at the event”, and “I remember many positive things about the event”.

Core affect

As some literature argues to use a core affect measure when studying everyday life (e.g., Kuppens et al., 2012), such a measure was also included in this study. To measure core affect two items are used and adapted from Kuppens et al. (2012) and J. A. Russell and Barrett (1999): unpleasant/pleasant and boring/exciting. The two core affect items were measured as follows: Reflecting back on your day at the event, to what extent did you feel the experience

145 was? [1= very unpleasant through to 5 = very pleasant/1= very boring through to 5 = very exciting]

Satisfaction

A single overall measure of satisfaction was used in this study. The respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction with the overall show attending experience on a 5-point scale with 1= very dissatisfied through to 5 = very satisfied.

Behavioural intentions

Two items were used to capture consumer’s behavioural intentions: intention to recommend and intention for repeat visit. Intention to recommend was captured using one statement: “Based on the 2014 experience of the event, how likely are you to recommend this show to your friends/family?”; and intention for repeat visit was measured using one statement: “Based on the 2014 experience of the event, how likely are you to attend this show next year?”. Both intention items were measured on a 5-point scale with 1 = very unlikely through to 5 = very likely.

Finally, the research instrument contains questions about demographics concerning gender, age, employment status, event visit characteristics (e.g., number of previous visits, and visit companion), and social media posting behaviours to post individual’s event experiences. Appendix 7-1 provides a copy of the recall study questionnaire.

7.3 Results

The results section first outlines the sample profile, basic descriptive results for attending the event and some mean comparison tests to address RQ 1-3. Section 7.3.3 then presents the results for the RQ4 and hypotheses testing associated with Model 1 and Model 2.

7.3.1 Descriptive statistics

This first step analysis provides an overview of attendees’ profile, in terms of demographics, attendance characteristics and social media posting experiences. These results are exhibited in Table 7-1. As can be noted from Table 7-1, nearly 80% of the participants were females. In terms of age, 30.5% of the participants were aged between 18-34, 19.5% were between 35-44, 27.4% were between 27.4, and 22.6% were between older than 55. Over 40% of the participants work full time. This sample profile is reflective of the event target market, which

146 is predominantly female attendees (83.2%), aged between 25-64 years old (86.3%) with a mode of 45-54 years old (as outlined in Chapter 3, Table 3-3, p. 54).

Regarding event attending times, 30.7% of the participants went to the event for the first time, 42.3% went the event at least once but less than four times, while 27% went to the event for four times or above. Nearly 95% of the participants went to the event with their family, friends or partner. Only about 5% of the people attended the event alone. Almost half of the participants posted their experiences on social media websites, among which over 90% of the posts were on Facebook.

147

Table 7-1 Participant demographic table Variable & Category Overall Sample N % Gender Male 120 20.1 Female 476 79.9 Age 18-25 43 7.2 25-34 138 23.2 35-44 116 19.5 45-54 163 27.3 55-64 97 16.3 65 or above 37 6.2 Employment Status Working full-time 361 60.6 Working part-time 109 18.3 Full-time student 33 5.5 Retired 49 8.2 Home duties 32 5.4 Other 12 2.0 Past Attendance Never 183 30.7 1-3 times 252 42.3 Four or more times 161 27.0 Event Visit Companion Family 156 26.2 Partner 197 33.1 Friends 212 35.1 By yourself 31 5.1 Social Media Posting Yes 282 47.3 No 314 52.7 Total 596a 100 a. Three respondents completed all measurement questions but did not complete the demographic questions. Their responses were included in the statistical analysis, but not in the demographic analysis.

148

Participants were also surveyed with measures of emotions (positive and negative) as well as overall evaluation attributes, including event satisfaction, behavioural intentions (i.e., recommendation intention and repeat visit intention), memories of event experiences, and core affect assessments were taken as well. Table 7-2 summarises the results.

Table 7-2 Summary of means and SDs for participants’ overall evaluations (N = 599)

Attributes Mean SD Emotiona Reflecting back on your experience at the event, to what extent (how intense/strong was the feeling) did you feel a sense of (insert one emotion item)? Joy 3.58 1.03 Elation 3.03 1.16 Delight 3.71 0.97 Inspiration 3.56 1.03 Annoyance 1.73 0.89 Disappointment 1.65 0.88

Memoryb To what extent do you agree with the statement “I have wonderful 4.07 0.79 memories about my experience at the event”? To what extent do you agree with the statement “I remember many 4.15 0.74 positive things about the event”?

Core affect How pleasant did you feel the experience was?c 4.42 0.67 How exciting did you feel the experience was?d 3.93 0.67

Satisfactione Please indicate your overall satisfaction toward the event. 4.23 0.83

Behavioural intentionsf How likely are you to recommend this event to your friends and family? 4.38 0.84 How likely are you to attend this event next year? 4.36 0.95 a. 5-point scale, where 1 = not at all and 5 = very much. b. 5-point scale, where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. c. 5-point scale, where 1 = very unpleasant and 5 = very pleasant. d. 5-point scale, where 1 = very boring and 5 = very exciting. e. 5-point scale, where 1 = very dissatisfied and 5 = very satisfied. f. 5-point scale, where 1 = very unlikely and 5 = very likely.

7.3.2 Research Question 1

To address Research Question 1 “What is the relative importance of each experience dimension for attending the food and wine event?”, means and SDs were calculated for experience importance items. Table 7-3 summarises the results. As indicated in the table, the

149 top three most important experience dimensions for respondents attending the food and wine were: having fun, having a positive sensory experience and a celebration of eating/drinking.

Table 7-3 Means and SDs for the experience importance items (N = 599) Experience importance itemsa Mean SD Learning about food and wine 3.68 1.01 Bonding with family and friends 3.40 1.31 Discovering new trends about food and wine 3.63 1.00 Having fun 4.40 0.70 Feeling inspired about food and wine 3.94 0.89 Interacting with food and wine experts 3.63 1.10 Having a positive sensory experience (e.g., smell, taste) 4.12 0.87 Getting new ideas about preparing food 3.85 1.00 A celebration of eating/drinking 4.02 0.93 Having a multicultural food experience 3.65 1.08 a. 5-point scale, where 1= not at all important and 5 = very important.

7.3.3 Research Question 2

In order to address Research Question 2 “Are there any differences on the importance ratings of ten experience dimensions across all demographic groups?”, one-way ANOVAs were conducted using Bonferroni adjusted alpha levels of .005 per test (.05/10) to investigate if there were any differences on the ratings of ten goal relevance items across all demographic groups. As illustrated in Table 7-4, female respondents rated “feeling inspired”, “getting new ideas” and “discovering new trends about food and wine” higher than male respondents. In terms of age, ANOVA tests revealed no difference across all age groups. Respondents who attended the event for the first time placed lower importance values on “learning about food and wine”, “discovering new trends about food and wine” and “feeling inspired about food and wine” than those who attended the event more than once. Post hoc tests (SNK) revealed that respondents who visited the event with a partner rated the importance of “bonding with friends or family” lower when compared to those who went to the event with family or friends.

150

Table 7-4 Differences in the ten experience importance items by demographic characteristics Demographic Means New Multi- characteristics Learning Bonding Discovery Fun Inspiration Interaction Sensory Celebration ideas cultural Gender Male 3.56 3.27 3.39 4.32 3.66 3.53 4.05 3.49 3.98 3.36 Female 3.70 3.43 3.70 4.42 4.01 3.65 4.14 3.94 4.04 3.58 F 1.86 1.41 9.07* 2.06 15.64*** 1.29 1.17 19.88*** .34 1.15 Age 18-24 3.49 3.74 3.37 4.67 3.65 3.30 4.21 3.77 4.35 3.74 25-34 3.60 3.57 3.47 4.41 3.86 3.41 4.11 3.64 4.08 3.65 35-44 3.65 3.46 3.64 4.44 4.00 3.70 4.19 3.76 4.07 3.53 45-54 3.79 3.29 3.79 4.40 4.06 3.79 4.11 3.98 3.98 3.73 55-64 3.69 3.19 3.69 4.32 3.96 3.67 4.15 4.08 3.98 3.69 65 or above 3.70 3.19 3.76 4.14 3.81 3.73 3.86 3.76 3.62 3.49 F .85 2.08 2.07 2.26 1.85 2.54 .84 2.78 2.46 .66 Past Attendance Never 3.52 3.50 3.50 4.38 3.81 3.52 4.12 3.73 3.99 3.61 1-3 times 3.62 3.33 3.58 4.38 3.90 3.57 4.13 3.81 4.05 3.63 Four or more times 3.93 3.37 3.88 4.44 4.14 3.84 4.12 4.04 4.04 3.74 F 7.53* .93 7.09* .38 6.35* 4.18 .01 4.65 .23 .72 Event Visit

Companiona Family 3.71 3.73 3.70 4.43 4.03 3.62 4.08 3.99 4.03 3.67 Partner 3.65 3.15 3.53 4.32 3.86 3.59 4.12 3.73 4.03 3.62 Friends 3.59 3.63 3.64 4.47 3.91 3.63 4.13 3.81 3.99 3.68 F .67 11.80*** 1.24 2.55 1.65 .05 .13 3.07 .14 .17 *p < .005. **p < .001. ***p < .0001. a. There was only 5% of the respondents indicating that they attended the event by themselves. Therefore, responses given by this group of participants were not included in the one-way ANOVA test.

151

7.3.4 Research Question 3

In the survey, information regarding social media posting behaviours (i.e., to post individual’s event experiences on social media platforms) was collected. To address Research Question 3 “How do experience appraisals/emotions of people who used social media (SM) to post things about the event experience vary compared with those who didn’t?”. T-tests were conducted using Bonferroni adjusted alpha levels of .005 per test (.05/10) to investigate if there were any differences between the experience appraisals and emotions of people who used social media (SM) to post things about their event experiences and those who did not. Ten experience appraisals and three positive emotions were used. Table 7-5a and Table 7-5b summarise the results. It is evident that respondents who posted their experiences on social media platforms (e.g., predominantly Facebook) rated their experiences more positively than those who didn’t post anything on social media platforms. In terms of positive emotions, the same pattern has been evidenced.

152

Table 7-5a Differences in the ten experience appraisals rated by participants based on social media posting behaviours Means New Multi- Learning Bonding Discovery Fun Inspiration Interaction Sensory Celebration ideas cultural Social media posting Yes 3.67 3.84 3.66 4.36 3.95 3.74 4.06 3.60 4.04 3.41 No 3.40 3.50 3.32 3.99 3.61 3.28 3.68 3.24 3.62 3.08 F 12.67*** 10.52*** 17.99*** 29.99*** 18.43*** 28.04*** 24.77*** 16.79*** 26.35*** 12.13*** *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 7-5b Differences in the three positive emotions rated by participants based on social media posting behaviours Means Joy Inspiration Elation Delight Social media posting Yes 3.85 3.76 3.38 3.94 No 3.32 3.37 2.71 3.50 F 41.01*** 21.99*** 53.66*** 33.01*** *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

153

7.3.5 Research Question 4

To address Research Question 4 “Is there a relationship among customer experience appraisals, positive emotions, memories and behavioural intentions?”, two models were tested and reported. As outlined in Section 7.1.2, Model 1 (see Figure 7-1) was drawn predominantly from classifying the customer experience into two groups: hedonic experience and growth experience, predicting positive emotions, memories and behavioural intentions. In Model 2 (see Figure 7-2), the fours salient experience dimensions identified in previous studies (PGI/EBS) reported in the thesis were used to predict positive emotions, memories and behavioural intentions.

7.3.5.1 Measurement models

Following the recommendation of J. C. Anderson and Gerbing (1988) and others, the fit of each measurement model was assessed prior to testing any structural models. To verify the intended factor structure, two confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) models using AMOS 23 were performed on the responses from 599 cases to the items measuring experience appraisals, positive emotions, memories and behavioural intentions. Table 7-6 lists all the factors used in Model 1 and Model 2, where the main difference between the models is in separating the CEx appraisals into two categories in Model 1 and using four CEx appraisals in Model 2.

154

Table 7-6 Variables included in the SEM analyses Model Variable No. of Illustrative Item Items 1 Experience  Bonding with friends or family appraisals (hedonic) 3  Having fun  A celebration of eating/drinking Experience  Learning about food and wine appraisals (growth)  Discovering new trends about food and wine  Feeling inspired about food and wine 7  Interacting with food and wine experts  Having a positive sensory experience  Getting new ideas of preparing food  Having a multicultural food experience Positive emotionsa  Joy 3  Elation  Delight Memories  Wonderful memories 2  Positive memories Behavioural  Recommendation 2 intentions  Repeat visitation 2 CEx appraisals  Having fun  Having a positive sensory experience 4  Discovering new trends about food and wine  Feeling inspired about food and wine Positive emotionsa  Joy 3  Elation  Delight Memories  Wonderful memories 2  Positive memories Behavioural  Recommendation 2 intentions  Repeat visitation a. Originally four positive emotions were included but one (inspiration) was found to cross load and was deleted.

In this analysis, the measurement parameters and the covariance between all factors were freely estimated. Factor variances were constrained to unity to permit scaling. Results indicated that all parameters were highly significant (ps < .001) in both Model 1 and Model 2.

CFA results for Model 1

Overall, Model 1 provided a moderately good fit to the data, χ2 (109) = 353.99, RMSEA = .061, NNFI = .958, CFI = .966, RMR = .042, and PNFI = .763. The average variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability (CR) statistics for each factor were also computed and reported in Table 7-7. Taken together, the size of the standardised loadings (mainly above .50), AVE measures (all above .50) and CR scores (all above .70) lend evidence to the

155 convergent validity for each scale (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006). The measurement model for Model 1 was satisfactory.

Table 7-7 Descriptive statistics and internal consistency reliability for the measurement items – Model 1

Construct and scale items SL CR AVE

Experience appraisals (hedonic) (M = 3.88; SD = .85) .72 .55 Bonding with friends or family .50 Having fun .89 A celebration of eating/drinking .78

Experience appraisals (growth) (M = 3.54; SD = .82) .90 .60 Learning about food and wine .79 Discovering new trends about food and wine .82 Feeling inspired about food and wine .85 Interacting with food and wine experts .72 Having a positive sensory experience .74 Getting new ideas of preparing food .80 Having a multicultural food experience .67

Positive emotions (M = 3.43; SD = .95) .87 .72 Joy .86 Elation .84 Delight .84

Memories (M = 4.11; SD = .73) .94 .82 Wonderful memories .92 Positive memories .89

Behavioural intentions (M = 4.37; SD = .86) .92 .83 Recommendation .95 Repeat visitation .87 Notes. SL = standardised loadings; CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted. CFA results for Model 2

Model 2 also provided a moderately good fit to the data, χ2 (38) = 161.105, RMSEA = .074, NNFI = .963, CFI = .974, RMR = .030, and PNFI = .668. The average variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability (CR) statistics for each factor were reported in Table 7-8. Taken together, the size of the standardised loadings (mainly above .70), AVE measures (all above .50) and CR scores (all above .70) lend evidence to the convergent validity for each scale (Hair et al., 2006). The measurement model for Model 2 was satisfactory.

156

Table 7-8 Descriptive statistics and internal consistency reliability for the measurement items – Model 2

Construct and scale items SL CR AVE

Experience appraisals (M = 3.82; SD = .79) .91 .61 Discovering new trends about food and wine .75 Having fun .81 Feeling inspired about food and wine .80 Having a positive sensory experience .77

Positive emotions (M = 3.43; SD = .95) .87 .72 Joy .86 Elation .84 Delight .84

Memories (M = 4.11; SD = .73) .94 .82 Wonderful memories .92 Positive memories .89

This section now reports the SEM statistics associated with each of Model 1 and Model 2.

Model 1

The first structural model tested (M1) specified that the effects of the two exogenous variables (i.e., hedonic experience appraisals and growth experience appraisals) on positive emotions, memories and behavioural intentions (see Figure 7-3). This model was found to fit the data moderately well, χ2 (111) = 368.56, RMSEA = .062 (90% CI = .055 - .069), NNFI = .956, CFI = .964, RMR = .043, PNFI = .775, GFI = .932, and AGFI = .906. Figure 7-3 depicts the structural relationship among variables. The relationship between hedonic experience appraisals and positive emotions was significant (H1a was accepted) as well as the relationship between growth experience appraisals and positive emotions was significant (H1b was accepted). Similarly, the relationship between hedonic experience appraisals and memories was significant (H3a was accepted), and the relationship between growth experience appraisals and memories was also significant (H3b was accepted). The relationship between positive emotions and behavioural intentions was significant (H2 was

157 accepted) and the relationship between positive emotions and memories was significant (H5 was accepted) and the relationship between memories and behavioural intentions was significant (H4 was accepted).

In summary, the model explained 59% of the variance in behavioural intentions. Hedonic experience appraisals and growth experience appraisals had no direct effect on behavioural intentions but an indirect effect through positive emotions and memories. A direct effect was identified between positive emotions and behavioural intentions as well as memories. Memories were shown to be a stronger mediating variable as well as a predictor of behavioural intentions.

158

Hedonic .619*** experience Positive

appraisals (ξ1) emotions (η1)

.268*** .150** .479*** .191**

Growth experience .178** *** appraisals (ξ2) Memories .647 Behavioural (η2) intentions (η3)

Figure 7-3 Model 1: Graphic depiction of the structural relationships

159 Model 2

The second structural model tested (M2) specified that the effects of the one exogenous variable (i.e., experience appraisals based four salient goals) on positive emotions, memories and behavioural intentions (see Figure 7-4). This model was found to fit the data moderately well, χ2 (39) = 179.27, RMSEA = .078 (90% CI = .066 - .089), NNFI = .959, CFI = .971, RMR = .033, and PNFI = .683. Figure 7-4 depicts the structural relationship among variables. The relationship between experience appraisals and positive emotions was significant (H1c was accepted). Similarly, the relationship between experience appraisals and memories was significant (H3c was accepted). The relationship between positive emotions and behavioural intentions was significant (H2 was accepted) and the relationship between positive emotions and memories was significant (H5 was accepted) and the relationship between memories and behavioural intentions was significant (H4 was accepted).

In summary, the model explained 59% of the variance in behavioural intentions. Experience appraisals had no direct effect on behavioural intentions but an indirect effect through positive emotions and memories. A direct effect was identified between positive emotions and behavioural intentions as well as memories. Memories were shown to be a stronger mediating variable and a predictor of behavioural intentions.

160

Positive emotions

(η1)

.148** .766***

*** Behavioural Experience .282 intentions appraisals (ξ1) (η3)

.622*** .650***

Memories (η2)

Figure 7-4 Model 2: Graphic depiction of the structural relationships

161

Table 7-9 summarises the goodness of fit statistics and parameter estimates for Model 1 and Model 2.

Table 7-9 Goodness of fit statistics and parameter estimates for Model 1 and Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Fit Statistics Minimum Fit χ2 (df) 368.56 (111) 179.27 (39) RMSEA .062 .078 (90% CI) (.055 - .069) (.066 - .089) NNFI .956 .959 CFI .964 .971 PNFI .775 .683 GFI .932 .945 AGFI .906 .907

Standardised Parameter Estimates CEx appraisal (hedonic) → PE .619*** CEx appraisal (growth) → PE .191** CEx appraisal → PE .766*** CEx appraisal (hedonic) → MEMO .479*** CEx appraisal (growth) → MEMO .178** CEx appraisal → MEMO .622*** PE → MEMO .268*** .282*** PE → BI .150** .148** MEMO → BI .647*** .650***

Standardised Indirect Effect on BIa CEx appraisal (hedonic) .510* CEx appraisal (growth) .177* CEx appraisal .658* PE .173** .183** MEMO - -

Standardised Total Effect on BIa CEx appraisal (hedonic) .510* CEx appraisal (growth) .177* CEx appraisal .658* PE .324** .331** MEMO .647** .650**

Variance in BI Explained 59% 59% Notes. PE = Positive emotions. MEMO = Memories. BI = Behavioural intentions. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation. CI = confidence interval. NNFI = non-normed fit index. CFI = comparative fit index. PNFI = parsimony normed fit index. GFI = goodness fit index. AGFI = Adjusted goodness fit index. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. a. The significance of the indirect effect and the total effect were calculated in AMOS using bias-corrected bootstrap at the 95% confidence level as suggested by Lowry and Gaskin (2014).

162

7.3.5.3 Comparison of Model 1 & Model 2

For a good model fit, the ratio χ2/df should be as small as possible. As there exist no absolute standards, a ratio between 2 and 3 is indicative of a “good” or “acceptable” data-model fit, respectively (Bollen, 1989; Schermelleh-Engel, Moosbrugger, & Müller, 2003). For Model 1, the ratio χ2/df is 3.32 and the ratio for Model 2 is 4.60, which indicates that Model 1 is a better fit.

In addition, due to the sensitivity of the χ2 statistic to sample size, alternative goodness-of-fit measures have been developed, such as Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) (Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003).

Steiger (1990) as well as Browne and Cudeck (1993) define a “close fit” as a RMSEA value less than or equal to .05. In addition, RMSEA values between .05 and .08 are an adequate fit, and values between .08 and .10 are a mediocre fit, whereas values > .10 are not acceptable. For Model 1, the RMSEA value is .062 and the value for Model 2 is .078, which suggests that Model 1 is a better fit.

In terms of RMR values, in principle, RMR values close to zero suggest a good fit (Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003). For Model 1, the RMR value is .043 and the value for Model 2 is .033, which suggests that Model 2 is a better fit.

To sum up, by considering the ratio χ2/df and the RMSEA value, the results suggest that Model 1 is better fit, though Model 2 shows a better fit when examing the RMR value.

This chapter reports on the recall survey to examine what experience appraisals matter to people when attending a food and wine event, and how these appraisals influence individuals’ emotions, memories and behavioural intentions (i.e., recommendation and repeat visitation). Four research questions are outlined to guide the analysis reported in this chapter. Table 7-10 summarises the key findings identified in this chapter.

163

Table 7-10 Summary of key findings in the recall study Research Questions: Key Findings RQ1. What is the relative  The top three most important experience dimensions importance of each experience for respondents attending the food and wine were: dimension for attending the food having fun, having a positive sensory experience and wine event? and a celebration of eating/drinking. RQ2. Are there any differences  Regarding gender, female respondents rated “feeling on the importance ratings of ten inspired”, “getting new ideas” and “discovering new experience dimensions across all trends about food and wine” higher than male demographic groups? respondents.  In terms of age, the results revealed no difference across all age groups.  First-time attendees placed lower importance values on “learning about food and wine”, “discovering new trends about food and wine” and “feeling inspired about food and wine” than those repeated visitors. RQ3. How do experience  It is evident that respondents who posted their appraisals/emotions of people experiences on social media platforms (e.g., who used social media (SM) to predominantly Facebook) rated their experiences post things about the event more positively than those who didn’t post anything experiences vary compared with on social media platforms. those who didn’t?  In terms of positive emotions, the same pattern has been evidenced. RQ4. Is there a relationship  Experience appraisals had no direct effect on among customer experience behavioural intentions but an indirect effect through appraisals, positive emotions, positive emotions and memories. A direct effect was memories and behavioural identified between positive emotions and intentions? behavioural intentions as well as memories. Memories were shown to be a stronger mediating variable and a predictor of behavioural intentions.

164 To address Research Question 4, a series of hypotheses were proposed, then two models were proposed and tested using structural equation modelling (SEM). Table 7-11 summarises the results of the tests of all hypotheses.

Table 7-11 Summary of results of hypotheses tests Hypotheses Results

H1a: The higher level of hedonic experience appraisals, Accepted the stronger the positive emotional responses.

H1b: The higher level of growth experience appraisals, the Accepted stronger the positive emotional responses.

H1c: The higher level of experience appraisals, the Accepted stronger the positive emotional responses.

H2: An individual’s positive emotions will be positively Accepted related to the person’s behavioural intentions.

H3a: The higher level of hedonic experience appraisals, Accepted the stronger the memories of event experiences.

H3b: The higher level of growth experience appraisals, the Accepted stronger the memories of event experiences.

H3c: The higher level of experience appraisals, the Accepted stronger the memories of event experiences.

H4: An individual’s event memories will be positively Accepted related to the person’s behavioural intentions.

H5: An individual’s positive emotions will be positively Accepted related to the person’s event memories.

7.4 Chapter Discussion

This study makes three important contributions. First, this research highlights the salient experience dimensions (i.e., having fun, positive sensory experiences and a celebration of eating and drinking) at a food and wine event. Second, the findings illustrate that sharing experiences via social media positively influences customers’ experience appraisals and emotional responses. Third, this study empirically examines the relationships among

165 experience appraisals, positive emotions, memories and behavioural intentions in the context of a food and wine event. Third, the current study demonstrates that memories play a very important role in influencing future behavioural intentions. Each of these points is discussed in more detail in the three following paragraphs.

The nature of a food and wine event enables event attendees to have a multitude of opportunities to sample food and wine products, which provide countless sensory experiences to the event attendees. A number of studies (e.g., M. C. Mason & Paggiaro, 2012; Wu et al., 2013) also demonstrate the pivotal role of the sensory component at such an event, contributing to customer satisfaction and behavioural intentions behaviours. However, the results of the current study reveal the availability of fun moments is the most salient dimension to the individual’s experience of the food and wine event. Previous studies have demonstrated that this hedonic dimension is crucial to customer experience at such event (Ayob, Wahid, & Omar, 2013; Cole & Chancellor, 2009; M. C. Mason & Paggiaro, 2012). The context of a food and wine event also creates a special experience dimension for attendees – a celebration of eating and drinking, which measures the festival spirit of the event and the event atmosphere (see also Ayob et al., 2013). As described by Getz and Robinson (2014), a celebratory experience is a key ingredient to create the favourable and memorable customer experience. These results suggest important implications for event businesses. Specifically, event managers can enhance their attendees’ event experiences by developing and designing event programs that combine the elements of fun, sensory and celebratory. For example, exhibiting vendors can design some fun games that attendees can join and play to win some freebies when sampling products. Furthermore, demonstrating chefs can use jokes, ask questions, and give away prizes if audiences give correct answers to enhance individuals’ experiences.

The current study investigates how experience appraisals and emotions of people who used social media (SM) to post things about the event experience vary compared with those who didn’t. The results illustrate that attendees who posted their experiences on social media platforms (e.g., predominantly Facebook) rated their experiences more positively than those who didn’t post anything on social media platforms. The same pattern has been evidenced in terms of positive emotions. These findings are in line with previous studies, which demonstrate that sharing positive experiences affects the sharer’s mood (Munzel & Kunz, 2013) and emotional attachment to the event (Hudson & Thal, 2013). Event businesses need to understand that sharing experience is an integral part of customer experience (Munzel &

166

Kunz, 2013) and customers are motivated intrinsically for the fun and enjoyment of the activity of sharing itself (Munzel & Kunz, 2014). Therefore, when designing customer experience, event managers have to take the social media platform into consideration and encourage more opportunities for attendees’ to share their experiences. It is believed that interactions with the social media community support individuals to find like-minded people and to create a sense of belonging to the community (Munzel & Kunz, 2014). More importantly, individuals usually also satisfy their need to help other customers to make better (purchase) decisions by sharing their own experiences with them.

Appraisal Theory (e.g., Roseman et al., 1990) proposes that a customer’s appraisal of the congruence between the experience and personal needs is a key determinant of the individual’s emotional responses. In addition, individuals’ appraisals affect their post- consumption behaviours through the mediating role of emotions (Nyer, 1997; Soscia, 2007). Taking the multidimensional nature of customer experience into account, the findings of this study demonstrate that individuals evaluate their experiences depending upon the congruence between what experience dimensions they have in relation to the event and their experiences at the event. Besides, Manthiou et al. (2014) reveal that customer experience has positive effect on individuals’ memories in the context of an event. This empirical study makes an additional contribution to the literature by statistically testing the relationships among customer experience appraisals, associated emotional responses, memories and behavioural intentions. Results indicate that overall, customer experience appraisals have direct effects on positive emotions and memories (Manthiou et al., 2014). In addition, positive emotions and memories were found to mediate the relationship between individuals’ appraisals and behavioural intentions (M. C. Mason & Paggiaro, 2012). Thus, event management should get a better understanding of customers’ needs and wants, before creating pleasant and memorable event experiences to generate more positive emotions from customers and enhance their positive memories of the event and increase event attendees’ intentions for recommendation and future visit.

Considerable research focuses on developing scales to measure memorable experiences (e.g., J.-H. Kim et al., 2012), however, little effort has been devoted to investigating the influence of memorable experiences on behavioural intentions. Exemptions like Oh et al. (2007), Hosany and Witham (2009), and Manthiou et al. (2014) are trying to address this issue, but most of them have either not considered the effect of emotions on memory or merely treat emotions as “arousal”. Drawing upon the principle of appraisal theory, the current research

167 reveals that optimal appraisals of customer experience lead to behavioural intentions through emotions and memory. In particular, memory shows the strongest mediating power compared to emotions. Thus, event planners are advised to create one or several extraordinary moments, which can help event attendees generate clear and vivid “flash-like” memories. A positive memory of remarkable moments supports event attendees in their memory of the event (Rubin & Kozin, 1984).

7.5 Chapter Summary

This chapter detailed the procedure of using recall survey to investigate how individuals at a food and wine event make specific evaluations of their experiences and how these appraisals affect associated positive emotional responses, memories and future behavioural intentions. Theoretical hypotheses were developed based on extant review of previous literature and two conceptual models were proposed and tested using structural equation modelling (SEM). The results indicate that individuals appraise their experiences at the event based on the congruence between different experience dimensions in relation to the event and what experiences they encounter at the event. In particular, the higher level individuals’ experience appraisals, the stronger their positive emotions and memories are of the event. There was no direct relationship between experience appraisals and individual’s behavioural intentions such as recommendation and repeat visitation, however, an indirect effect was identified between experience appraisals and behavioural intentions through positive emotions and memories. In addition, positive emotions had direct effect on behavioural intentions as well as memories. Memories was shown to be a stronger mediating variable and a predictor of behavioural intentions.

Chapter 8 will discuss key findings as well as managerial implications and conclude the study.

168 Chapter 8. Discussions & Conclusions

8.1 Introduction

The research presented in this thesis is based on a mixed methods approach. First, there is a background focus group study, followed by three concurrent studies that are designed to investigate customer experience at one key event. Each study is presented in a format that enables the reader to understand the unique contribution these studies make to a more informed understanding the role of customer experience. As a consequence, Chapters 4 to 7 are presented in a self-contained manner with an introduction, method, results and discussion that directly relates to a particular method.

This chapter now presents the integration of the findings across all studies and critically evaluates the methodological contributions. This is followed by a discussion focusing on the overarching theoretical/managerial implications. Finally, the limitations and future research opportunities are detailed as well. This chapter also presents a conclusion of the overall program of research. Figure 8-1 outlines the overview of key findings identified in each study.

169 Foundation Study

Focus Group (Chapter 4)

 Key experiences  Journey mapping (touchpoints)

Concurrent Studies

EBS (Chapter 6) Recall (Chapter 7) PGI (Chapter 5)  In situ experiences  Modelling of  Lens to customer  Connection of CEx, positive world/Voice of appraisals and emotions, customers emotions in real memories and  Key experiences time behavioural (4 salient  Emotional intentions dimensions) fluctuations across  Mediators:  Co-creation CEx time positive emotions  Event ecosystem  Activity & memories engagement (co-  Importance of creation of CEx) memories

Figure 8-1 Overview of key findings identified in each chapter

170 8.2 Integration of Key Findings across Four Studies

Across all studies, including the focus group, there was evidence that all stakeholders of the event ecosystem had impacts for customer experience. Many service design scholars depict the service offering as an ecosystem (e.g., Akaka, Vargo, & Lusch, 2013; Lusch, 2011; Stickdorn et al., 2011), comprising various components which, combine to lead to a positive or negative customer experience. In particular, an event such as the Brisbane Good Food and Wine show presents a complex web of experience opportunities for event attendees. As others also note (see for example Kandampully, 2014; Pine & Gilmore, 1998; Verhoef et al., 2009; Walls et al., 2011a), it is clear that the organiser of the event can only facilitate the experience opportunity, and that each customer will have a very unique experience. As the research reported in this thesis illustrates, once a customer enters the event ecosystem, he/she encounters a set of communications and interactions including event visit companions, vendors exhibiting at the event, and fellow customers attending the same event. The appraisal of any communication and interactions (either positive or negative) influences customers’ evaluation of the event experience (Bolton et al., 2014; M. Morgan, 2008; Zomerdijk & Voss, 2010). Thus, there is interaction between attendees as well as elements of the ecosystem, which give rise to a myriad of experiences.

In all studies there is a suggestion that interactions with others within the ecosystem can enhance event attendees’ experiences. The ‘others’ in this case are usually friends or partners attending the event with the participant. Previous event research (e.g., Bowen & Daniels, 2005; M. Morgan, 2008; Yuan et al., 2005) has revealed that socialisation with family or friends is one of the most consistent motivations for people attending events. Interestingly both the PGI and the recall study findings suggest that friends are particularly important. Several participants in the PGI study wrote about taking this event as an opportunity to catch up with good friends every year and indicated high level of joy and excitement in their narratives, while in the recall study, respondents who visited the event with a partner rated the bonding experience lower when compared to those who went to the event with friends. Similarly, interacting with vendors gave rise to both positive experiences as well as negative ones. Evidence from previous studies also support the strong impact of the interaction quality with service staff on customers’ experiences at events (Wan & Chan, 2013; Wu et al., 2013; Yuan & Jang, 2007). The main positive experience was derived from learning new knowledge about food/wine products from vendors and sampling exhibiting food and wine products, whereas the negative experiences, which were few in number, were derived from

171 vendors closing early. A finding unique to the PGI, which was not investigated in the other studies, was the role of other customers (Miao & Mattila, 2013). Some narratives highlighted the crowded nature of the venue and other customers getting in the way, leading to a more negative evaluation of the experience. Some scholarly research studies have reported that customers’ experiences are definitely influenced by the behaviour of other customers present, and a positive customer-to-customer interaction might be able to enhance a customer’s level of satisfaction with the service (e.g., Nicholls, 2010; Rosenbaum & Massiah, 2011; Zomerdijk & Voss, 2010). Future research could employ a quantitative method (see Miao & Mattila, 2013 for an example) to further investigate to how the presence of fellow customers can enhance or damage customer experiences.

A fundamental objective of the research conducted in this thesis relates to gaining a better understanding of the customer journey as a way to understand customer experience and related evaluations. A customer journey occurs over different phases that relate to differing consumption experiences (Lemon & Verhoef, 2016; McColl-Kennedy et al., 2015; Stickdorn et al., 2011; Stickdorn & Zehrer, 2009b). As discussed in the introduction, these correspond to: pre consumption of the event - a time when people purchase tickets and consider goals associated with a forthcoming event; consumption at the event - the time when people experience a myriad of activities, cognitions or emotions; and, post consumption of the event - when people reflect on their memories of the event and also make more global evaluations. The use of consumption phases as a way to understand and examine customer experiences has been discussed by many scholars (Bolton et al., 2014; Helkkula, 2011; Meyer & Schwager, 2007; Verhoef et al., 2009). By adopting sequential and concurrent methods in the current program of research, an in-depth view of the customer journey can be ascertained. Drawing on a phasic approach, the findings from all studies are used to highlight important aspects on the customer journey.

At the pre consumption phase, the focus group, EBS and the recall research provides insights highlighting that customers interacted with the event company across multiple touchpoints and in multiple channels (Gentile et al., 2007; Rawson et al., 2013; Verhoef et al., 2009), such as searching for event information through the event’s website, purchasing the event tickets through the online ticketing system or at the event reception desk on the day, and looking for carpark or using public transportation to the event. The pre consumption phase provided the opportunity for customers to form their goals or expectations of what experiences they wanted to have at the event (Cutler & Carmichael, 2010; Wijaya et al.,

172

2013). The EBS and the recall research reveal that anticipating a fun day at the event and positive sensory experiences were the most important experience dimensions that customers were looking forward to achieving at the studied event. This finding is consistent with previous event studies (e.g., Bowen & Daniels, 2005; Kyungmi Kim et al., 2001; P. Mason & Beaumont-Kerridge, 2004; Savinovic et al., 2012; Van Zyl & Botha, 2004; Yuan et al., 2005), which recognise that the importance of fun and sensory dimensions in the context of food and wine events.

At the consumption phase, the PGI and EBS research provides deeper insights into the in situ experiences of customers and illustrated variation in emotions across time, suggesting that there were many points in the journey that affected the emotions and overall evaluations of customers. Previous research (e.g., Coghlan & Pearce, 2010; Kuppens et al., 2012; Lin et al., 2014; Nawijn et al., 2013) acknowledges that individuals’ appraisals and emotions vary during the experience journey and suggests the importance of measuring evolving stages of appraisals and emotional responses throughout the course of an experience. The results of the PGI and EBS research are in line with these previous studies. In the PGI study, participants used their smartphones to record all sorts of experiences in the moment. Some experiences were quite transient and ordinary, such as relaxing at the event, while some moments were extraordinary with long-lasting impact, such as gaining knowledge or learning techniques from celebrity chefs in a cooking class (see also Walls et al., 2011a). The EBS research further illustrates that participants’ appraisals and emotions fluctuated during the one-day period. For example, when customers first arrived at the event venue, the level of joy was relatively low. As the customers had more experiences at the event, they reported having more fun and higher levels of joy.

These results also imply that customers might not attach equal significance to every single moment of an experience (Verhoef et al., 2004; Zomerdijk & Voss, 2010). As illustrated in the EBS study, customer experience appraisals at mid and later points carried greater weight in customers’ overall evaluations than did their appraisals of initial experiences. For example, the appraisal of “having a positive sensory experience” at the middle of the experience journey predicted ratings of intention to recommend and intention for repeat visitation, and the appraisal of “having fun” at the end of the journey explained the variance in ratings of intention to recommend and intention for repeat visitation. As suggested in studies of service design (e.g., Zomerdijk & Voss, 2010) and service marketing (e.g., Verhoef et al., 2004), orchestrating the sequence, progression, and duration of service encounters enhances

173 customer experience by engaging customers emotionally and contributing to customers’ overall evaluations.

When reporting on the post consumption phase, the focus group, EBS and the recall research generated deeper insights on customers’ post event reflections, including the level of satisfaction, memories of the event experiences, and future behavioural intentions. The results indicate that optimal experience appraisals lead to favourable behavioural intentions (i.e., the intention to recommend and the intention for a repeat visit) through positive emotions and memories. Considerable research focuses on developing scales to measure memorable experiences (e.g., J.-H. Kim et al., 2012), however, little effort has been devoted to investigating the influence of memorable experiences on behavioural intentions. Exceptions do exist, such as Oh et al. (2007), Hosany and Witham (2009), and Manthiou et al. (2014) who are trying to address this issue, but most of them have either not considered the relationship between positive emotions and memories or merely treated emotions as “arousal”. The recall research provides empirical evidence of the relationships among experience appraisals, emotional responses, memories, and behavioural intentions in the context of food and wine event.

All three concurrent studies point to the importance of fun within the experience of an event such as the one studied. Fun was frequently mentioned in people’s narratives and also demonstrated to be a strong predictor of positive emotions, overall satisfaction and behavioural intentions (Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982; Oh et al., 2007; Tasci & Ko, 2015). The PGI study assists to demonstrate that fun was elicited through bonding with friends, interacting with celebrity chefs and exhibiting vendors, and participating in cooking class/wine-tasting class. In particular, participants were more actively engaged with event programs when the host was entertaining and informative. This finding is consistent with Tasci and Ko’s (2015) statement that consumers are presumably more engaged and committed when the service/product is designed with a fun element. In general, fun was shown to be associated with social media posting in all three concurrent studies. Very limited research (Hudson et al., 2015; Jamison-Powell, Bennett, Mahoney, & Lawson, 2014; Lemon & Verhoef, 2016) has been conducted to investigate how social media platforms mediate and shape event attendees’ experiences. This study provides some insights. While there is no evidence of a causal relationship, it does seem that the action of posting on social media heightens the customer experience in the context of a food/wine event. Future scholars could follow this up this preliminary finding with further research.

174

A strong sensory dimension underpins customer experience, as documented in this thesis. It is argued that a multi-sensory approach to investigating and understanding customer experience is required, which is consistent with previous studies on customer experience (Berry et al., 2006; Bitner, 1992; Gentile et al., 2007; Schmitt, 1999). All studies revealed the importance of sensory stimuli and the PGI, in particular, gave insight to the more often reported senses such as visual sight, taste and smell. Other studies revealed the underlying importance of sensory experiences as a precursor to satisfaction, recommendation and repeat visitation (Agapito et al., 2013; Agapito, Valle, & Mendes, 2012; Ali et al., 2016; Seunghwan Lee, Lee, Seo, & Green, 2012; Sachdeva & Goel, 2015). Ultimately, the event ecosystem is designed to offer a range of sensory experiences to the attendee and more emphasis on designing opportunities for multi-sensory encounters is needed. For example, the majority of participants in the PGI study took photos and spoke of their sensory experiences at the event in relation to their four senses: sight, taste, sound and smell. No evidence was found to be associated with the sense of touch. Yet, touch is something that may be especially of interest to serious foodies, as Croce and Perri (2010) report research to suggest tactile involvement can enhance experiences.

The focus group, PGI and EBS research highlights the main activities people report as important customer experiences at a food and wine event, which include tasting food and wine, shopping, discovering specialist (artisan) products, and attending paid event programs. Most activities were found to include some element of a sensory experience as a way of providing a foundation for the customer experience. This is not surprising as sensory elements play a fundamental role where food is the major attraction. While the sensory dimension is imperative to a positive customer experience, a sense of fun, inspiration and discovery are also very important to people’s experiences when attending a food and wine event. The finding is broadly consistent with Getz and Robinson’s (2014) four-cell multidimensional design model for food events. Although not perfectly mirroring the current research there are common outcomes: discovery through learning; entertainment and fun; consumption of food and wine; artistry of food (which relates to our theme of inspiration). Thus, the current study lends further evidence to the identification of core experiences related to food events. While some research (e.g., Ali et al., 2016; Walls et al., 2011a; Wan & Chan, 2013; Wu et al., 2013) has argued a case for the importance of human interaction with service personnel, the present research identifies other salient dimensions. However, it should be noted that some level of human interaction is contained within customer experience

175 dimensions of fun, discovery and inspiration, yet reviewing the narratives in the PGI study revealed that while human interaction might occur, the emphasis of people’s stories was on the experiential outcomes they felt or considered (see also Ren et al., 2016).

In summary, the multiple methods have provided further insight to the key concept of customer experience. This concept is multifaceted and arises across time through the various touchpoints that exist on a customer journey. Fun, sensory and discovery are important in influencing emotions, which are demonstrated to vary across time. By adopting different methodologies in this thesis research, there are insights that would not be evident if only one or two methods were used. Next, there is a discussion of the methodology contributions.

8.3 Methodological Contributions

Previous event experience research has been dominated by quantitative survey-based research (e.g., M. C. Mason & Paggiaro, 2012; Wu et al., 2013) and focused on examining various aspects of event experience from motivation to satisfaction. While the knowledge gained is valuable, the understanding of the in situ experience in the event context remains limited by the tools used to collect the data (Getz & Page, 2015; Van Winkle & Falk, 2015). This research adopts a concurrent mixed methods approach in an effort to better understand the more micro and momentary experiences that people have at a food and wine event. This research makes three methodological contributions. First, multiple sources of data (qualitative and quantitative) were collected simultaneously with separate samples. Second, data collection points encompassed the whole event experience phases, including pre-event, during event and post-event. In particular, real-time customer experience insights were generated through PGI and EBS. Third, a more complementary and expansive insight into customer experience was captured through the synthesis of findings generated from different methods. Table 9-1 provides the overview of these contributions with graph demonstrations.

The next section elaborates these methodological contributions of this research in details.

176

Table 8-1 Overview of the key methodological contributions generated from this research Data Research Type of Key Collection Graph Demonstration of Key Findings Methods Data Findings Point

(pre-event touchpoints)

Touchpoints Focus Group Before the along Qualitative (during event touchpoints) Interviews actual event customer journey

(post-event touchpoints)

Participant- During the Event generated Qualitative actual event ecosystem Image (PGI)

177

Table 8-1 Overview of the key methodological contributions generated from this research (continued) Data Research Type of Data Collection Key Findings Graph Demonstration of Key Findings Methods Point

Experience- Before & In situ based Quantitative During the appraisals & sampling actual event emotions (EBS)

Conceptual model of experience Recall After the appraisals, Quantitative survey actual event emotions, memories and behavioural intentions

178

8.3.1 Multiple sources of data collected

In the customer experience and event literature, prior research has mainly offered insights either from qualitative approach (e.g., Matteucci, 2013; Ziakas & Boukas, 2013) or quantitative perspective (e.g., Boo & Lu, 2015; Verleye, 2015). However, experience is inherently subjective, dynamic and affective. The customer experience concept requires multiple sources of data to reveal alternate perspectives and deeper information, which can be provided by using the mixed methods approach (R. B. Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; R. B. Johnson et al., 2007; Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2009). As the qualitative data collected through focus group and PGI method illustrate, customers at the food and wine event encountered a series of interactions and seldom evaluated their experiences through a list of attributes or variables pre-defined by researchers. Varied experiences, feelings and behaviours were captured at different interaction points (touchpoints) through customers’ photos, narratives and interview conversations. The qualitative information enabled the research to look into customers’ experiences and gain in-depth insights through their own lens. One common issue concerning the qualitative data is that the significant time needed by researchers to analyse the data, which normally leads to a relatively small sample size and the limited generalisation of research findings (D. L. Morgan, 1998; Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2004, 2005). To provide a richer and expanded understanding of the event experience phenomenon, this research employed two quantitative methods (i.e., EBS and survey) to enlarge the sample size and empirically investigate the relationship between variables. As this research demonstrates, by collecting qualitative and quantitative data in one study, it helps to gain deeper insights from participants and avoid some potential problems with either of the quantitative or qualitative method (R. B. Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2003; Venkatesh et al., 2013).

8.3.2 Data collection points encompassing all experience phases

Most research into customer experience and event experience relies on retrospective evaluations of individuals’ experiences, with associated memory and recall issues (e.g., Cetin & Walls, 2016; Gentile et al., 2007; Getz, 2012, 2013). In fact, customer experience encompasses the total experience, including the pre-consumption, consumption, and post- consumption phases. The methodological design of this research enabled the data collection points to cover all experience phases (Malina, Nørreklit, & Selto, 2011; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2003; Venkatesh et al., 2013). Before the actual event, focus group interviews

179 and the EBS study were utilised to understand customer experience at the event in previous years and what experiences they were expecting from the event this year. Given the importance of capturing customer experience assessments at the time of the experience and the lack of studies employing real-time measures (Getz & Page, 2015; S. Li et al., 2014; Lin et al., 2014), the PGI and EBS methods captured customer experience assessment instantaneously at individual touchpoints, which fill in the gap in the customer experience research. In particular, the PGI method identified the salient components of customer experience at the event through participants’ own cameras and the EBS method visualised the fluctuations in individual’s in situ appraisals and emotional responses. At the post event phase, data was collected through the EBS and recall survey, which added the link to individuals’ evaluations of experiences and enabled the research to quantify the effects of potential relationships among variables.

8.3.3 A more complete picture of customer experience

Mixed methods researchers believe that this creative form of research offers researchers the best chance to answer research questions by using multiple approaches and greater insights on a phenomenon that each of these methods cannot offer individually (e.g., Creswell, 2013; R. B. Johnson et al., 2007; Venkatesh et al., 2013). As this research demonstrates, the focus group study helped to reveal salient touchpoints along the customer journey that attendees encountered at the studied event, which formed the foundation of the research. Then, three concurrent methods were employed to investigate customer experience at the actual event. The participant-driven nature of the PGI study enabled data to be successfully collected while the event experience was underway, since the photographs helped and allowed participants to reflect on their experiences at various touchpoints and share their perceptions through their narratives. The identification of experiences associated with various touchpoints facilitated the formation of the event ecosystem. The EBS study enabled the researcher to capture an individual’s experiences in the real time and then statistically test how experiences at different touchpoints in time impacted overall evaluations. Last, the recall study allowed an investigation of the key experience dimensions identified from the focus group, PGI and EBS research with the connection to key consumer evaluation measures such as customer satisfaction and behavioural intentions. These results show the value of adopting a mixed methods approach to capture a more complementary and expansive insights into customer experience than is offered from either method in isolation (Creswell, 2013; Harrison & Reilly, 2011; Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2009).

180

In summary, the use of a mixed methods approach, particularly a concurrent mixed methods design, in the event context is still largely underexplored. As this research demonstrates, the use of a mixed methods approach enables the collection of data through multiple strategies, approaches, and methods which could “result in complementary strengths and non- overlapping weaknesses” (R. B. Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004, p. 18).

The next section will discuss the theoretical implications of this research.

8.4 Theoretical Implications

The proposed customer experience model (as outlined in Chapter 5, Figure 5-3, p. 106), which depicts the ecosystem of a food and wine event, provides managers and researchers with a framework for understanding and enhancing the elements of the overall customer experience at other festivals and leisure experiences. Traditionally, marketing research tend to focus on the direct interactions between companies and customers (e.g., Grönroos, 2011; Gummesson et al., 2012) and the context within which experience occurs – e.g., service encounter and servicescape (e.g., Bitner, 1992; M. C. Mason & Paggiaro, 2012; M. Morgan, 2007). However, the findings of this research implies that instead of engaging in a simple and direct interaction with the event organiser, event customers make indirect contact with the event organiser through direct interactions with a series of event components, such as vendors, celebrity chefs, and other customers (Akaka & Vargo, 2015; Akaka et al., 2015). Figure 9-2 depicts the complex event ecosystem that event attendees encountered at the studied event. As illustrated in this figure, controlling the customer experience is more difficult for the event organiser within the ecosystem as a series of service components are not under the event organiser’s control and the evaluation of these indirect interactions (either positive or negative) influences customers’ evaluation of the event brand (Dube & Helkkula, 2015; Heinonen & Strandvik, 2015). For example, one participant in the PGI study visited the show on the last day and most of the stands were shut down or out of stock at 1 pm. She reported that she was very unsatisfied with her event experience and was very unlikely to recommend this event to her friends and family or to visit this event again the following year. The framework of the event ecosystem provides a more complete and systematic picture of the creation process of customer experience. More importantly, it demonstrates what elements influence the customer experience within this complex service context

181

182

Appraisal Theory (e.g., Roseman et al., 1990) proposes that a customer appraise the experiences on the basis of what experience the customer wants to achieve and what the customer encounters during the consumption stage. The experience appraisal is a key determinant of the individual’s emotional responses (Dalakas, 2006; Hosany, 2011) as well as post-consumption behaviours (Nyer, 1997; Soscia, 2007). Drawing on the principles of Appraisal Theory, the EBS and recall study empirically demonstrates that individuals evaluate different experience dimensions depending on the appraisals of what expected experiences are met. Furthermore, the appraisals of specific dimensions of customer experience significantly affect customers’ emotional responses and overall assessments. The findings of this research support and confirm previous studies on the appraisals of customer experience (e.g., Hosany, 2011; Kuppens et al., 2012; Ruth et al., 2002; Wen & Chi, 2013). Besides, Manthiou et al. (2014) reveal that customer experience has positive effect on individuals’ memories in the context of event but most previous event research seldom considers the impact of memory on the event experience research. Taking the important role of individuals’ memories into account, the results of the recall study make an additional contribution to the literature by statistically testing the relationships among customer experience appraisals, associated emotional responses, memories and behavioural intentions. Results indicate that overall, customer experience appraisals have a direct effect on positive emotions and memories, and an indirect effect on behavioural intentions through positive emotions and memories. In addition, memories are shown to be a stronger mediating variable and predictor of behavioural intentions than positive emotions. That is, individuals’ memories increase the attendees’ interest and produce more stable and enduring attitudes and actions in relationship to the event and event experience.

8.5 Managerial Implications

The major implication of this research for management is that event experiences are co- created within the event ecosystem and entail multiple experiential dimensions. Bearing this in mind, managers should seek to create events that encourage customer interaction and involvement. Within the event ecosystem there is ample opportunity to create activities that explicitly invite attendees to learn, discover, engage their senses and have fun. By carefully considering each of the experience dimensions, event managers have an opportunity to further enhance the engagement and satisfaction with any event. One area where event attendees reported some dissatisfaction was to do with the interactions with vendors, which underscores the importance of event companies’ awareness that ensuring balance within the

183 ecosystem is a key aspect of designing the event programs and has consequences for positive/negative experiences. Event managers could work with vendors to set out appropriate protocol on how to effectively engage with customers and potentially enhance customer experiences. For example, in the protocol, it will be clearly stated that vendors who are willing to exhibit at the food and wine event must check the stock of products at closing time, every day and cannot shut down the stands earlier than the event daily closing time. In terms of celebrity chefs, they have to make sure that they will cook exactly the meal for customers as promised in the ticket. Any uninformed change of menu will not be allowed.

Secondly, this research shows that sensory experience provides the foundation of customer experience at a food and wine event. The design of food and wine events should therefore aim to maximise opportunities for interactions around the sensory experiences. In particular, this research didn’t find empirical evidence from participants’ photos or narratives associated with the sense of touch, so there are some opportunities to test this further. Event companies and exhibiting vendors could consider redesigning the event programs to add the element of touch experience, such as inviting attendees to touch ingredients when doing cooking demonstrations. The results also suggest that three higher-order experiences including having fun, getting inspiration from food and wine experts, and discovering new food and wine products and trends are closely tied to sensory experiences as well as providing the greatest predictive value for satisfaction and other consumer behaviour variables. To promote positive customer experiences, event managers should maintain a strong focus on activity programs that are novel, inspirational, and fun by incorporating these into sensory experiences. Traditionally, businesses focus on customer satisfaction but perhaps fail to consider the finer momentary experiences (touchpoints) that ultimately contribute to customer satisfaction. Emerging service design tools enable businesses to map out every single touchpoint and identify how to improve customer experience by adding elements of fun, inspiration, and discovery to incorporate with sensory experiences at suitable touchpoints. To demonstrate how to incorporate the three key variables to enhance customer experience, Table 9-2 offers possible examples of implementing elements of fun, inspiration, and discovery at touchpoints by incorporating with sensory experiences.

184

Table 8-2 Incorporation of sensory into examples of implementing fun, inspiration, and discovery at touchpoints

Touchpoints Fun Inspiration Discovery Purchasing Send an entertaining Offer free e-recipes to Add a picture of unusual tickets online and quirky message to customers who ingredient(s) at the end of confirm payment. purchase the tickets. confirmation email and Enhance the sensory Enhance the sensory post a question “Do you experience with a cute experience with high know what ingredient is moving image to quality images in the e- this?” Enhance the sensory capture sight. book to capture sight. experience with high quality ingredient images to capture sight.

Event entrance Invite customers to take Put up a sign with a Put up TV screens to play a photo with event logo photo of a spectacular- short interviews with chefs and post it on event’s looking food dish and a introducing the dish they official social media quote saying “You can are going to cook or with platforms (e.g., make this and stun your vendors introducing new Facebook, Instagram), friends!” Enhance the food/wine products using specified hashtags sensory experience to exhibited at the event. to win incentives. capture sight. Enhance the sensory Enhance the sensory experience to capture sight experience to capture and sound. sight. Chef Use jokes, ask Invite customers to Explain ingredients that demonstrations questions, and give share their favourite will be used for cooking away freebies if dish/the best dish they and what inspired the chef audiences give correct have ever had. Enhance to create the dish. Invite answers. Use high the sensory experience attendees to participate in quality headphone for to capture sight. cooking, the demonstration. touching/smelling/tasting Enhance the sensory ingredients. Enhance the experience to capture sensory experience to sight, taste, sound, capture sight, taste, touch and smell. sound, touch and smell. Vendors Design some games that Design the style of the Give more background customers can join and stand and product information about the play to win some display. Enhance the producers and the freebies when sampling sensory experience to specialty of their new products. Enhance the capture sight and products. Enhance the sensory experience to smell. sensory experience to capture sight, taste, capture sight, touch and touch and smell. smell.

185

Third, the results also demonstrate that appraisals of specific experience dimensions are uniquely individual, with subsequent emotional responses being largely determined by an individual’s needs at an event. For example, two customers attend the food and wine event by seeking different experiences. The first customer who is interested in learning cooking skills and recipes is likely to experience the sense of inspiration during the interactions with food experts while the second who is more inclined to relax with friends is likely to experience the sense of joy through all the chatting, eating and drinking. Therefore, event managers should strive to understand customers’ specific expectations so as to create desired experiences for customers, which could consistently elicit positive emotional responses. In addition, the results indicate that appraisals of later experiences of an event have a stronger impact on customer’s overall evaluations than do earlier experience appraisals. This finding can be very useful in the temporal design of service experiences to influence customers’ perceptions of the service delivery process and their post-consumption evaluations. Event managers are advised to create one or several extraordinary moments at the later stage of the event experience, which can help attendees to create a memorable event experience.

Most event companies mainly reply on surveys or focus group interviews to generate information on customer experience and overall evaluation of event experience. The retrospective nature of the data collected through these two methods can be problematic in capturing the dynamic aspects of customer experience. More importantly, these tools cannot measure real-time assessment of customer experience at various touchpoints. This research demonstrates that the PGI and the EBS are two useful in situ methods to obtain a better understanding of the momentary occurrences that add to an individual’s experience at the event ecosystem. These two methods allow data to be collected in the real time when experiences are underway. Importantly, the high adoption rate of smartphones means that, it has become easier for people to potentially participate in the PGI or EBS study using their own device. Recent technological advances have meant that smartphones are equipped with cameras that are of good quality and easy to use. It is also easy for people install applications on their smartphones for the research purpose. Feedback from the participants suggested that they enjoyed the data collection methods, and that it was user-friendly and not intrusive to their real-time experiences.

186

8.6 Limitations & Future Research

This research has provided a deeper insight into customer experience. However, like all research, this study entails strengths but also some limitations, which offer avenues for future research.

First, in the PGI study, all the photos were taken in situ at the event but associated narratives were collected after the event. It would be valuable in future research to develop tools (e.g., an app) which allows the participant to take photos in situ and also complete a survey associated with each photo at the same time. In this way, researchers can really capture each participant’s experiences and evaluations in the real time, which will definitely bring more new insights to customer experience. In addition, the current PGI study asked participants to self-select ten photos best representing their experiences at the event, without considering the sequence of each experience captured in the photos. Future research could encourage participants to take photos in the time sequence - from the moment they enter the event until the moment they walk out of the event - to depict their experience journey (Pullman & Robson, 2007), which might bring more insights into customer journey mapping and key touchpoints with associated experiences.

Second, the EBS method requires participants to report their appraisals and feelings while attending the event. While accommodating three sampling points in the one-day event experience is difficult, this research utilised an interval-contingent sampling approach based on logistical considerations (e.g., noise at the venue, actual event lasting hours, event organiser’s suggestions) and reviewing previous literature (e.g., Scollon et al., 2003; Uy et al., 2010). However, most EBS researchers suggest that a random sampling approach is more preferable for EBS research as it allows for the sampling of a representative schedule of times, and avoids any expectancy effects that may come from having prior knowledge of the sampling period (Hektner et al., 2007; Schimmack, 2003; Scollon et al., 2003). Future research could employ the EBS method in a context where customer experience might last across a longer period of time to reduce the possibility of any expectancy effects and allow the number of in situ data collection points - a step that offers the opportunity for more comprehensive data analysis, such as multilevel modelling analysis (e.g., Kuppens et al., 2012), which might bring more insights and greater array of experiences.

Third, to minimise intrusion into participants’ real experiences, the EBS study relied on a very short survey employing single items for appraisals, emotions, and overall assessments. In the

187 quantitative recall study, single items were used to measure each of the experience dimensions, as length of the questionnaire was restricted by the event company in order to access the event’s email database. Although other researchers (Ginns & Barrie, 2004; Sackett & Larson Jr, 1990; Wanous et al., 1997) demonstrate that a single-item measure may suffice if the construct being measured is sufficiently narrow or unambiguous to the participants, justifications for their use in marketing research remains a continuous debate. While reliability cannot be calculated, the measures in the survey are based on previous research, straightforward and unambiguous with good face validity. Future research could expand the single-item measures into multiple items for each experience construct which may improve the ability to fully conceptualise each dimension of fun, inspiration, discovery and sensory and test reliability.

Fourth, by the very nature of PGI and EBS (Hektner et al., 2007; Hofmann & Patel, 2014; Pullman & Robson, 2007), the sample sizes of both studies are commonly small. However, the sample of experiences may be quite high. As the PGI study demonstrates, 25 participants generated in excess of 200 images for analysis, while the EBS generated over 250 experience samples with 51 participants. The content analysis of the PGI data required a huge amount of time investment from the researcher to do the coding of images, such as assigning the images into categories or themes. The EBS method achieves depth in understanding experiences rather than breadth that might be achieved in large-scale surveys, as the EBS method exhibits a high degree of ecological validity as the measurement takes place in situ using real lived experiences and feelings (Hektner et al. 2007). While future research might try to enlarge the sample sizes for both studies, such an increase could make the data analysis process quite time-consuming owing to the nature of each method.

Last, as discussed in the methodological contribution section, the concurrent mixed methods approach enables this research to complete data collection across pre, during and post event phases. However, the EBS is the only method in this research that measures pre event expectations before the actual event. In order to bring more insights for the pre event phase, the PGI study can be applied to the pre actual event phase by inviting participants to take photographs of their experiences once they have purchased the event tickets. In addition, the recall study can be designed as a two-wave survey. Before the actual event starts, the survey could be collected to measure customer experiences associated with the pre-event phases as well as expectations about the event. After the actual event finishes, the survey could provide

188 information about a range of touchpoints associated with the event experience and evaluations covering appraisals, emotional responses and overall assessments.

8.7 Thesis Conclusion

The purpose of this research is to gain a deeper understanding of the customer experience (CEx) concept within the context of a food and wine event. Drawing on literature associated with service design (ecosystem, customer journey, touchpoint), appraisals/emotions, and tourism/service marketing (satisfaction, behavioural intentions), this research seeks to investigate the more micro, momentary levels of experience and how these accumulate to an overall assessment. The research employed a mixed methods approach including methods such as focus group interviews (N = 20), participant-generated image (PGI) method (N = 25), experience based sampling (EBS) (N = 51), and recall survey (N = 599).

Results indicated that events like the Brisbane Good Food and Wine Show presents a complex web of experience opportunities for event attendees within an event ecosystem. Once a customer enters the ecosystem, he/she encounters a set of communications and interactions including event visit companions, vendors exhibiting at the event, and fellow customers attending the same event. The appraisal of any communications and interactions (either positive or negative) influences customers’ evaluation of the event experience. Thus, there is interaction between attendees and elements of the ecosystem, which give rise to a myriad of experiences. Additionally, this research project aimed to gain a better understanding of the customer journey as a way to understand customer experience and related evaluations. At the pre-consumption phase, the focus group, EBS and the recall research provided insights highlighting that customers interacted with the event company across multiple touchpoints and in multiple channels. At the consumption phase, the PGI and EBS research provided deeper insights to the in situ experiences of customers and illustrated variation in emotions across time, suggesting that there were many points in the journey that affected the emotions and overall evaluations of customers. When reporting on the post consumption phase, the focus group, EBS and the recall research generated deeper insights on customers’ post event reflections, including the level of satisfaction, memories of the event experiences, and future behavioural intentions. The results indicated that optimal experience appraisals lead to favourable behavioural intentions (i.e., recommendation and repeat visitation) through positive emotions and memories.

189

This research offers a robust understanding of the customer experience; one that will help service providers to effectively design, monitor and assess customer experience at various touchpoints as well as real-time insights of customer experience. The research contributes to the customer experience literature and offers some innovative methods for capturing customer feedback. With the increase use of smartphone innovations that enable customers to track many different aspects of their lives, marketers undoubtedly will continue to embrace new technologies to capture new real-time customer experience insights.

190

REFERENCES

Addis, M., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). On the conceptual link between mass customisation and experiential consumption: An explosion of subjectivity. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 1(1), 50-66.

Adhikari, A., & Bhattacharya, S. (2016). Appraisal of literature on customer experience in tourism sector: Review and framework. Current Issues in Tourism, 19(4), 296-321.

Agapito, D., Mendes, J., & Valle, P. (2013). Exploring the conceptualization of the sensory dimension of tourist experiences. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 2(2), 62-73.

Agapito, D., Valle, P. O. d., & Mendes, J. (2012). Sensory marketing and tourist experiences. Spatial and Organizational Dynamics Discussions Papers, 10, 7-19.

Akaka, M. A., & Vargo, S. L. (2015). Extending the context of service: From encounters to ecosystems. Journal of Services Marketing, 29(6/7), 453-462.

Akaka, M. A., Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2013). The complexity of context: A service ecosystems approach for international marketing. Journal of Marketing Research, 21(4), 1-20.

Akaka, M. A., Vargo, S. L., & Schau, H. J. (2015). The context of experience. Journal of Service Management, 26(2), 206-223.

Ali, F., Kim, W. G., Li, J., & Jeon, H.-M. (2016). Make it delightful: Customers' experience, satisfaction and loyalty in Malaysian theme parks. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, In press.

Anderson, E. W., & Fornell, C. (1994). A customer satisfaction research prospectus. Service quality: New directions in theory and practice, 14(1), 239-266.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423.

191

Arnold, M. J., & Reynolds, K. E. (2003). Hedonic shopping motivations. Journal of Retailing, 79(2), 77-95.

Arnould, E. J., & Price, L. L. (1993). River magic: Extraordinary experience and the extended service encounter. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(1), 24-45.

Arora, R., & Stoner, C. (2009). A mixed method approach to understanding brand personality. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 18(4), 272-283.

Axelsen, M., & Swan, T. (2010). Designing festival experiences to influence visitor perceptions: The case of a wine and food festival. Journal of Travel Research, 49(4), 436-450.

Ayob, N., Wahid, N. A., & Omar, A. (2013). Mediating effect of visitors’ event experiences in relation to event features and post-consumption behaviors. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, 14(3), 177-192.

Badgett, M., Moyce, M., & Kleinberger, H. (2007). Turning shopper into advocates. New York, NY: IBM Institute for Business Value.

Bagozzi, R. P., Gopinath, M., & Nyer, P. U. (1999). The role of emotions in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(2), 184-206.

Baker, D. A., & Crompton, J. L. (2000). Quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 785-804.

Baker, J., Parasuraman, A., Grewal, D., & Voss, G. B. (2002). The influence of multiple store environment cues on perceived merchandise value and patronage intentions. Journal of Marketing, 66(2), 120-141.

Balomenou, N., & Garrod, B. (2014). Using volunteer-employed photography to inform tourism planning decisions: A study of St David's Peninsula, Wales. Tourism Management, 44, 126-139.

192

Balomenou, N., & Garrod, B. (2015). A review of participant-generated image methods in the social sciences. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1-17.

Berry, L. L., Wall, E. A., & Carbone, L. P. (2006). Service clues and customer assessment of the service experience: Lessons from marketing. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(2), 43-57.

Bignante, E. (2010). The use of photo-elicitation in field research: Exploring Maasai representations and use of natural resources. EchoGéo, (11). http://echogeo.revues.org/11622?iframe=true&width=100%&height=100%

Bilgihan, A., Kandampully, J., & Zhang, T. (2016). Towards a unified customer experience in online shopping environments: Antecedents and outcomes. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 8(1), 102-119.

Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. The Journal of Marketing, 56(2), 57-71.

Blackburn, R., & Stokes, D. (2000). Breaking down the barriers: Using focus groups to research small and medium-sized enterprises. International Small Business Journal, 19(1), 44-67.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 17(3), 303-316.

Bolton, R. N., Gustafsson, A., McColl-Kennedy, J., Sirianni, N. J., & Tse, D. K. (2014). Small details that make big differences: A radical approach to consumption experience as a firm's differentiating strategy. Journal of Service Management, 25(2), 253-274.

Boo, S., & Lu, X. (2015). Tourists' world Expo experiences. Event Management, 19(1), 123- 142.

Bowen, H. E., & Daniels, M. J. (2005). Does the music matter? Motivations for attending a music festival. Event Management, 9(3), 155-164.

193

Brakus, J. J., Schmitt, B. H., & Zarantonello, L. (2009). Brand experience: What is it? How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 73(3), 52-68.

Brengman, M. (2002). The impact of colour in the store environment: An environmental psychology approach. Ghent University.

Brewer, W. F. (1988). Memory for randomly sampled autobiographical events. In U. Neisser & E. Winograd (Eds.), Remembering reconsidered: Ecological and traditional appraoaches to the study of memory (pp. 21-90). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2015). Business research methods. UK: Oxford university press.

Carbone, L. P., & Haeckel, S. H. (1994). Engineering customer experiences. Marketing Management, 3(3), 8-18.

Carù, A., & Cova, B. (2003). Revisiting consumption experience: A more humble but complete view of the concept. Marketing Theory, 3(2), 267-286.

Carù, A., & Cova, B. (2007). Consuming experience. London: UK: Routledge.

Cetin, G., & Walls, A. (2016). Understanding the customer experiences from the perspective of guests and hotel managers: Empirical findings from luxury hotels in Istanbul, Turkey. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 25(4), 395-424.

Choo, H., & Petrick, J. F. (2015). The importance of travel companionship and We-Intentions at tourism service encounters. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 16(1), 1-23.

Cobanoglu, C., Warde, B., & Moreo, P. J. (2001). A comparison of mail, fax and web-based survey methods. International Journal of Market Research, 43(4), 441-452.

194

Coghlan, A., & Pearce, P. (2010). Tracking affective components of satisfaction. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 10(1), 42-58.

Cohen, J. B., Pham, M. T., & Andrade, E. B. (2008). The nature and role of affect in consumer behavior. In C. P. Haugtvedt, P. Herr & F. Kardes (Eds.), Handbook of consumer psychology (pp. 297-348). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cole, S. T., & Chancellor, H. C. (2009). Examining the festival attributes that impact visitor experience, satisfaction and re-visit intention. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 15(4), 323-333.

Cole, S. T., & Illum, S. F. (2006). Examining the mediating role of festival visitors’ satisfaction in the relationship between service quality and behavioral intentions. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 12(2), 160-173.

Collins, K. M., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Jiao, Q. G. (2007). A mixed methods investigation of mixed methods sampling designs in social and health science research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 267-294.

Conner, T. S. (2015). Experience sampling and ecological momentary assessment with mobile phones. http://www.otago.ac.nz/psychology/otago047475.pdf

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W., & Clark-Plano, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Croce, E., & Perri, G. (2010). Food and wine tourism: Integrating food, travel and territory. Wallingford: CABI.

Crompton, J. L., & McKay, S. L. (1997). Motives of visitors attending festival events. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(2), 425-439.

195 Crowther, P., Bostock, J., & Perry, J. (2015). Review of established methods in event research. Event Management, 19(1), 93-107.

Cruz, B., & Mendelsohn, J. (2010). Why social media matters to your business Chadwick, Martin, Bailey Research Report (Vol. 4).

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1987). Validity and reliability of the experience sampling method. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 175, 526-537.

Cummins, R. A., & Gullone, E. (2000). Why we should not use 5-point Likert scales: The case for subjective quality of life measurement. Paper presented at the Second international conference on quality of life in cities, Singapore.

Cutler, S. Q., Carmichael, B., & Doherty, S. (2014). The Inca Trail experience: Does the journey matter? Annals of Tourism Research, 45, 152-166.

Cutler, S. Q., & Carmichael, B. A. (2010). The dimensions of the tourist experience. In M. Morgan, P. Lugosi & B. Ritchie (Eds.), The tourism and leisure experience: Consumer and managerial perspectives (pp. 3-26). Bristol: Channel View Publications.

Dalakas, V. (2006). The effect of cognitive appraisals on emotional responses during service encounters. Services Marketing Quarterly, 27(1), 23-41.

Deng, W., Yeh, M., & Sung, M. (2013). A customer satisfaction index model for international tourist hotels: Integrating consumption emotions into the American Customer Satisfaction Index. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 35, 133-140.

Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to research methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Di Muro, F., & Murray, K. B. (2012). An arousal regulation explanation of mood effects on consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(3), 574-584.

196

Diefenbach, M. A., Weinstein, N. D., & O'Reilly, J. (1993). Scales for assessing perceptions of health hazard susceptibility. Health Education Research, 8(2), 181-192.

Dimotakis, N., Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. (2013). Experience sampling methodology. In J. M. Cortina & R. S. Landis (Eds.), Modern research methods for the study of behavior in organizations (pp. 319-349). New York, USA: Routledge.

Dolcos, F., & Cabeza, R. (2002). Event-related potentials of emotional memory: Encoding pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral pictures. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 2(3), 252-263.

Dube, A., & Helkkula, A. (2015). Service experiences beyond the direct use: Indirect customer use experiences of smartphone apps. Journal of Service Management, 26(2), 224-248.

Dubé, L., & Morgan, M. S. (1998). Capturing the dynamics of in-process consumption emotions and satisfaction in extended service transactions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 15(4), 309-320.

Edell, J. A., & Burke, M. C. (1987). The power of feelings in understanding advertising effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), 421-433.

Ellsworth, P. C., & Scherer, K. R. (2003). Appraisal processes in emotion. In R. J. Davidson, H. Goldsmith & K. R. Scherer (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (Vol. 572-595, pp. V595). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Epstein, I., Stevens, B., McKeever, P., & Baruchel, S. (2008). Photo elicitation interview (PEI): Using photos to elicit children’s perspectives. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(3), 1-11.

Ferraresi, M., & Schmitt, B. H. (2006). Marketing esperienziale: Come sviluppare l’esperienza di consumo. Milano: Franco Angeli.

Fielding, N. G. (2012). Triangulation and mixed methods designs data integration with new research technologies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 124-136.

197

Forlizzi, J., & Ford, S. (2000). The building blocks of experience: An early framework for interaction designers. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 3rd conference on Designing interactive systems: Processes, practices, methods, and techniques.

Furnham, A., & Milner, R. (2013). The impact of mood on customer behavior: Staff mood and environmental factors. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 20(6), 634- 641.

Garrod, B. (2007). A snapshot into the past: The utility of volunteer-employed photography in planning and managing heritage tourism. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 2(1), 14-35.

Gauri, D. K., Sudhir, K., & Talukdar, D. (2008). The temporal and spatial dimensions of price search: Insights from matching household survey and purchase data. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(2), 226-240.

Gentile, C., Spiller, N., & Noci, G. (2007). How to sustain the customer experience: An overview of experience components that co-create value with the customer. European Management Journal, 25(5), 395-410.

Getz, D. (2010). The nature and scope of festival studies. International Journal of Event Management Research, 5(1), 1-47.

Getz, D. (2012). Event studies: discourses and future directions. Event Management, 16(2), 171-187.

Getz, D. (2013). Event studies: Theory, research and policy for planned events (2nd ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.

Getz, D., & Page, S. J. (2015). Progress and prospects for event tourism research. Tourism Management, In press, 1-39.

Getz, D., & Robinson, R. N. S. (2014). Foodies and food events. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 14(3), 315-330.

198

Gilmore, J. H., & Pine, B. J. (2002a). Customer experience places: The new offering frontier. Strategy & Leadership, 30(4), 4-11.

Gilmore, J. H., & Pine, B. J. (2002b). Differentiating hospitality operations via experiences: Why sellign services is not enough. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 43(3), 87.

Ginns, P., & Barrie, S. (2004). Reliability of single-item ratings of quality in higher education: A replication. Psychological Reports, 95(3), 1023-1030.

Gitomer, J. (1998). Customer satisfaction is worthless: Customer loyalty is priceless. Austin, TX: Bard Press.

Godin, S., & Gladwell, M. (2001). Unleashing the idea virus. New York, NY: Hyperion Books.

Greelaw, C., & Brown-Welty, S. (2009). A comparison of web-based and paper-based survey methods. Evaluation Review, 33(5), 464-480.

Grönroos, C. (2011). A service perspective on business relationships: The value creation, interaction and marketing interface. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(2), 240- 247.

Grönroos, C. (2012). Conceptualising value co-creation: A journey to the 1970s and back to the future. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(13-14), 1520-1534.

Gummesson, E., Mele, C., Polese, F., Gummesson, E., & Grönroos, C. (2012). The emergence of the new service marketing: Nordic School perspectives. Journal of Service Management, 23(4), 479-497.

Gupta, S., & Vajic, M. (2000). The contextual and dialectical nature of experiences. In J. Fitzsimmons & M. J. Fitzsimmons (Eds.), New service development: Creating memorable experiences (pp. 33-51). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publication Inc.

199 Haeckel, S. H., Carbone, L. P., & Berry, L. L. (2003). How to lead the customer experience to create a total brand experience, firms must provide the right directions. Marketing Management, 12(1), 18-23.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (Vol. 6). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall

Hall, C. M., & Sharples, L. (2008). Future issues and trends: Food events, festivals and farmers’ markets. In C. M. Hall & L. Sharples (Eds.), Food and wine festivals and events around the world: Development, management and markets (pp. 331). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

Hanson, W. E., Creswell, J. W., Clark-Plano, V. L., Petska, K. S., & Creswell, J. D. (2005). Mixed methods research designs in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 224.

Harper, D. (1986). Meaning and work: A study in photo elicitation. Current Sociology, 34(3), 24-46.

Harper, D. (2002). Talking about pictures: A case for photo elicitation. Visual Studies, 17(1), 13-26.

Harrison, R. L., & Reilly, T. M. (2011). Mixed methods designs in marketing research. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 14(1), 7-26.

Heinonen, K., & Strandvik, T. (2015). Customer-dominant logic: Foundations and implications. Journal of Services Marketing, 29(6/7), 472-484.

Hektner, J. M., Schmidt, J. A., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2007). Experience sampling method: Measuring the quality of everyday life. USA: Sage.

Helkkula, A. (2011). Characterising the concept of service experience. Journal of Service Management, 22(3), 367-389.

200

Helkkula, A., Kelleher, C., & Pihlström, M. (2012). Characterizing value as an experience: Implications for service researchers and managers. Journal of Service Research, 15(1), 59-75.

Hennig-Thurau, T., Malthouse, E. C., Friege, C., Gensler, S., Lobschat, L., Rangaswamy, A., & Skiera, B. (2010). The impact of new media on customer relationships. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 311-330.

Heskett, J. L., Sasser, W. E., & Schlesinger, L. A. (1997). Service profit chain: How leading companies link profit and growth to loyalty, satisfaction and value. New York, NY: Free Press.

Hjalager, A.-M., & Richards, G. (2002). Tourism and gastronomy. London: Routledge.

Hoffman, K. D., & Turley, L. (2002). Atmospherics, service encounters and consumer decision making: An integrative perspective. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 10(3), 33-47.

Hofmann, W., & Patel, P. V. (2014). SurveySignal: A convenient solution for experience sampling research using participants’ own smartphones. Social Science Computer Review, 1-19.

Holbrook, M. B. (1994). The nature of customer value: An axiology of services in the consumption experience. In R. T. Rust & R. L. Oliver (Eds.), Service quality: New directions in theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 132-140.

Hormuth, S. E. (1986). The sampling of experiences in situ. Journal of Personality, 54(1), 262-293.

Hosany, S. (2011). Appraisal determinants of tourist emotional responses. Journal of Travel Research, 51(3), 1-12.

201

Hosany, S., & Gilbert, D. (2010). Measuring tourists’ emotional experiences toward hedonic holiday destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 49(4), 513-526.

Hosany, S., & Prayag, G. (2013). Patterns of tourists' emotional responses, satisfaction, and intention to recommend. Journal of Business Research, 66(6), 730-737.

Hosany, S., & Witham, M. (2009). Dimensions of cruisers' experiences, satisfaction, and intention to recommend. Journal of Travel Research, 49(3), 351-364.

Howard, J., & Sheth, A. (1969). The theory of buyer behavior. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Hudson, S., Roth, M. S., Madden, T. J., & Hudson, R. (2015). The effects of social media on emotions, brand relationship quality, and word of mouth: An empirical study of music festival attendees. Tourism Management, 47, 68-76.

Hudson, S., & Thal, K. (2013). The impact of social media on the consumer decision process: Implications for tourism marketing. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 30(1-2), 156-160.

Hume, M., & Mort, G. S. (2010). The consequence of appraisal emotion, service quality, perceived value and customer satisfaction on repurchase intent in the performing arts. Journal of Services Marketing, 24(2), 170-182.

Hume, M., Mort, G. S., Liesch, P. W., & Winzar, H. (2006). Understanding service experience in non-profit performing arts: Implications for operations and service management. Journal of Operations Management, 24(4), 304-324.

Jamison-Powell, S., Bennett, L., Mahoney, J., & Lawson, S. (2014). Understanding in-situ social media use at music festivals. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the companion publication of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing.

202 Janakiraman, N., Meyer, R. J., & Morales, A. C. (2006). Spillover effects: How consumers respond to unexpected changes in price and quality. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(3), 361-369.

Johnson, R. (1995). The zero of tolerance: Exploring the relationship between service transactions and satisfaction with overall service. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 6(2), 46-61.

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.

Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133.

Jüttner, U., Schaffner, D., Windler, K., & Maklan, S. (2013). Customer service experiences: Developing and applying a sequential incident laddering technique. European Journal of Marketing, 47(5/6), 738-769.

Kandampully, J. (2014). Customer experience management: Enhancing experience and value through service management. USA: Kendall Hunt Publishing.

Kellogg, D. L., Youngdahl, W. E., & Bowen, D. E. (1997). On the relationship between customer participation and satisfaction: two frameworks. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 8(3), 206-219.

Kim, J.-H., Ritchie, J. B., & McCormick, B. (2012). Development of a scale to measure memorable tourism experiences. Journal of Travel Research, 51(1), 12-25.

Kim, J. J., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2014). Measuring emotions in real time: Implications for tourism experience design. Journal of Travel Research, 1-11.

Kim, K. (2007). Travel motivations and satisfaction: A case of national cultural festival-goers in Korea. Tourism Review International, 11(4), 395-406.

203 Kim, K., Sun, J., & Mahoney, E. (2008). Roles of motivation and activity factors in predicting satisfaction: Exploring the Korean cultural festival market. Tourism Analysis, 13(4), 413-425.

Kim, K., Uysal, M., & Chen, J. S. (2001). Festival visitor motivation from the organizers' points of view. Event Management, 7(2), 127-134.

Kim, Y. G., Suh, B. W., & Eves, A. (2010). The relationships between food-related personality traits, satisfaction, and loyalty among visitors attending food events and festivals. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(2), 216-226.

Kitzinger, J. (1995). Introducing focus groups. British Medical Journal, 311(7000), 299-302.

Klaus, P., & Maklan, S. (2012). EXQ: A multiple-item scale for assessing service experience. Journal of Service Management, 23(1), 5-33.

Krippendorff, K. (2012). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Kristensson, P., Brunstrom, A., & Pedersen, T. (2015). Affective forecasting of value creation: Professional nurses' ability to predict and remember the experienced value of a telemedicine diagnostics ICT service. Behaviour & Information Technology, 34(10), 964-975.

Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kuppens, P., Champagne, D., & Tuerlinckx, F. (2012). The dynamic interplay between appraisal and core affect in daily life. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(380), 1-8.

Lambert, N. M., Gwinn, A. M., Baumeister, R. F., Strachman, A., Washburn, I. J., Gable, S. L., & Fincham, F. D. (2013). A boost of positive affect: The perks of sharing positive experiences. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30(1), 24-43.

204

Lane, M. (2007). The visitor journey: The new road to success. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 19(3), 248-254.

LaSalle, D., & Britton, T. (2003). Priceless: Turning ordinary products into extraordinary experiences. New York, NY: Harvard Business Press.

Le Bel, J. L. (2005). Beyond the friendly skies: An integrative framework for managing the air travel experience. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 15(5), 437-451.

Lee, C.-K., Lee, Y.-K., & Wicks, B. E. (2004). Segmentation of festival motivation by nationality and satisfaction. Tourism Management, 25(1), 61-70.

Lee, S., Kim, W. G., & Kim, H. J. (2006). The impact of co-branding on post-purchase behaviors in family restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 25(2), 245-261.

Lee, S., Lee, H. J., Seo, W. J., & Green, C. (2012). A new approach to stadium experience: The dynamics of the sensoryscape, social interaction, and sense of home. Journal of Sport Management, 26(6), 490-505.

Lee, Y.-K., Lee, C.-K., Lee, S.-K., & Babin, B. J. (2008). Festivalscapes and patrons' emotions, satisfaction, and loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 61(1), 56-64.

Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality & Quantity, 43(2), 265-275.

Lemke, F., Clark, M., & Wilson, H. (2011). Customer experience quality: An exploration in business and consumer contexts using repertory grid technique. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(6), 846-869.

Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2016). Understanding customer experience throughout the customer journey. Journal of Marketing, In-Press.

205

Lewis, R. C., & Chambers, R. E. (1999). Marketing leadership in hospitality: Foundations and practices. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

Li, S., Scott, N., & Walters, G. (2014). Current and potential methods for measuring emotion in tourism experiences: A review. Current Issues in Tourism.

Li, X., & Petrick, J. F. (2006). A review of festival and event motivation studies. Event Management, 9(4), 239-245.

Lin, Y., Kerstetter, D., Nawijn, J., & Mitas, O. (2014). Changes in emotions and their interactions with personality in a vacation context. Tourism Management, 40, 416- 424.

Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited (Vol. 4). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Line, N. D., & Runyan, R. C. (2012). Hospitality marketing research: Recent trends and future directions. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(2), 477-488.

Lowry, P. B., & Gaskin, J. (2014). Partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modeling (SEM) for building and testing behavioral causal theory: When to choose it and how to use it. Professional Communication, IEEE Transactions on, 57(2), 123-146.

Luo, M. M., Chen, J.-S., Ching, R. K., & Liu, C.-C. (2011). An examination of the effects of virtual experiential marketing on online customer intentions and loyalty. The Service Industries Journal, 31(13), 2163-2191.

Lusch, R. F. (2011). Reframing supply chain management: A service‐dominant logic perspective. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 47(1), 14-18.

Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2014). Service-dominant logic: Premises, perspectives, possibilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

206 Lyubomirsky, S., Sousa, L., & Dickerhoof, R. (2006). The costs and benefits of writing, talking, and thinking about life's triumphs and defeats. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 692-708.

Macdonald, E., Wilson, H. N., & Konus, U. (2012). Better customer insight-in real time. Harvard Business School Publishing.

Malina, M. A., Nørreklit, H. S., & Selto, F. H. (2011). Lessons learned: Advantages and disadvantages of mixed method research. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 8(1), 59-71.

Manthiou, A., Lee, S., Tang, L., & Chiang, L. (2014). The experience economy approach to festival marketing: Vivid memory and attendee loyalty. Journal of Services Marketing, 28(1), 22-35.

Mason, M. C., & Paggiaro, A. (2012). Investigating the role of festivalscape in culinary tourism: The case of food and wine events. Tourism Management, 33(6), 1329-1336.

Mason, P., & Beaumont-Kerridge, J. (2004). Motivations for attendance at the 2001 Sidmouth International Festival: Fun, family, friends, fulfilment or folk'. In P. Long & R. Robinson (Eds.), Festivals and tourism: Marketing, management and evaluation (pp. 33-46). Sunderland: Business Education Publishers.

Matteucci, X. (2013). Photo elicitation: Exploring tourist experiences with researcher-found images. Tourism Management, 35, 190-197.

Mattila, A. S. (2001). Emotional bonding and restaurant loyalty. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 42(6), 73.

Mattila, A. S., & Enz, C. A. (2002). The role of emotions in service encounters. Journal of Service Research, 4(4), 268-277.

Mauro, R., Sato, K., & Tucker, J. (1992). The role of appraisal in human emotions: a cross- cultural study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(2), 301-317.

207

McCole, P. (2004). Refocusing marketing to reflect practice: The changing role of marketing for business. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 22(5), 531-539.

McColl-Kennedy, J. R., Gustafsson, A., Jaakkola, E., Klaus, P., Radnor, Z. J., Perks, H., & Friman, M. (2015). Fresh perspectives on customer experience. Journal of Services Marketing, 29(6/7), 430-435.

McDowall, S. (2010). A comparison between Thai residents and non-residents in their motivations, performance evaluations, and overall satisfaction with a domestic festival. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 16(3), 217-233.

Meuter, M. L., Bitner, M. J., Ostrom, A. L., & Brown, S. W. (2005). Choosing among alternative service delivery modes: An investigation of customer trial of self-service technologies. Journal of Marketing, 69(2), 61-83.

Meyer, C., & Schwager, A. (2007). Understanding customer experience. Harvard Business Review, 85(2), 116-127.

Miao, L., & Mattila, A. S. (2013). The impact of other customers on customer experiences: A psychological distance perspective. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 37(1), 77-99.

Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 129-152.

Morgan, D. L. (1998). Practical strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative methods: Applications to health research. Qualitative Health Research, 8(3), 362-376.

Morgan, M. (2007). Festival spaces and the visitor experience. In M. Casado-Diaz, S. Everett & J. Wilson (Eds.), Social and cultural change: Making space(s) for leisure and tourism (pp. 113-130). Eastbourne: Leisure Studies Association.

Morgan, M. (2008). What makes a good festival? Understanding the event experience. Event Management, 12(2), 81-93.

208

Munzel, A., & Kunz, W. H. (2013). Sharing experiences via social media as integral part of the service experience. In J. Kandampully (Ed.), Customer experience management: Enhancing experience and value through service management. USA: Kendall Hunt Publishing.

Munzel, A., & Kunz, W. H. (2014). Creators, multipliers, and lurkers: Who contributes and who benefits at online review sites. Journal of Service Management, 25(1), 49-74.

Nawijn, J. (2011). Determinants of daily happiness on vacation. Journal of Travel Research, 50(5), 559-566.

Nawijn, J., Mitas, O., Lin, Y., & Kerstetter, D. (2013). How do we feel on vacation? A closer look at how emotions change over the course of a trip. Journal of Travel Research, 52(2), 265-274.

Nenonen, S., Rasila, H., Junnonen, J.-M., & Kärnä, S. (2008). Customer journey – A method to investigate user experience. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Euro FM Conference Manchester.

Nicholls, R. (2010). New directions for customer-to-customer interaction research. Journal of Services Marketing, 24(1), 87-97.

Noble, S. M., & Phillips, J. (2004). Relationship hindrance: Why would consumers not want a relationship with a retailer? Journal of Retailing, 80(4), 289-303.

Nyer, P. U. (1997). A study of the relationships between cognitive appraisals and consumption emotions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(4), 296-304.

Oh, H., Fiore, A. M., & Jeoung, M. (2007). Measuring experience economy concepts: Tourism applications. Journal of Travel Research, 46(2), 119-132.

Oliver, C. (1997). Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource- based views. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9), 697-713.

209 Oliver, R. L. (1989). Processing of the satisfaction response in consumption: A suggested framework and research propositions. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 2(1), 1-16.

Oliver, R. L. (1993). Cognitive, affective, and attribute bases of the satisfaction response. Journal of consumer research, 418-430.

Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. New York, NY: Irwin-McGraw-Hill.

Oliver, R. L., & Burke, R. R. (1999). Expectation processes in satisfaction formation: A field study. Journal of Service Research, 1(3), 196-214.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Collins, K. M. (2007). A typology of mixed methods sampling designs in social science research. The Qualitative Report, 12(2), 281-316.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2004). Enhancing the interpretation of significant findings: The role of mixed methods research. The Qualitative Report, 9(4), 770-792.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(5), 375-387.

Ordenes, F. V., Theodoulidis, B., Burton, J., Gruber, T., & Zaki, M. (2014). Analyzing customer experience feedback using text mining: A linguistics-based approach. Journal of Service Research, 21, 1-18.

Otnes, C., Lowrey, T. M., & Shrum, L. (1997). Toward an understanding of consumer ambivalence. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(1), 80-93.

Palmer, A. (2010). Customer experience management: A critical review of an emerging idea. Journal of Services Marketing, 24(3), 196-208.

210 Papadimitriou, D. (2013). Service quality components as antecedents of satisfaction and behavioral intentions: The case of a Greek carnival festival. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, 14(1), 42-64.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12-40.

Park, K. S., Reisinger, Y., & Kang, H. J. (2008). Visitors' motivation for attending the south beach wine and food festival, Miami beach, Florida. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 25(2), 161-181.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newsbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.

Perry, C. (1998). A structured approach for presenting theses. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 6(1), 63-85.

Petermans, A., Kent, A., & Van Cleempoel, K. (2014). Photo-elicitation: Using photographs to read retail interiors through consumers' eyes. Journal of Business Research, 67(11), 2243-2249.

Peterson, R. A., Hoyer, W. D., & Wilson, W. R. (1986). Reflections on the role of affect in consumer behavior. In R. A. Peterson, W. D. Hoyer & W. R. Wilson (Eds.), The role of affect in consumer behavior: Emerging theories and applications (pp. 141-159). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1998). Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard business review, 76(July-August), 97-105.

Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1999). The experience economy: Work is theatre and every business a stage. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press

Pink, S. (2013). Doing visual ethnography. London, UK: Sage.

211

Polaine, A., Løvlie, L., & Reason, B. (2013). Service design: From insight to implementation. New York, USA: Rosenfeld Media, LLC.

Ponsonby-Mccabe, S., & Boyle, E. (2006). Understanding brands as experiential spaces: Axiological implications for marketing strategists. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 14(2), 175-189.

Powell, H., Mihalas, S., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Suldo, S., & Daley, C. E. (2008). Mixed methods research in school psychology: A mixed methods investigation of trends in the literature. Psychology in the Schools, 45(4), 291-309.

Prahalad, C., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5-14.

Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2003). The new frontier of experience innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(4), 12-18.

Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co‐creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5-14.

Prosser, J., Clark, A., & Wiles, R. (2008). Visual ethics: Ethical issues in visual research Retrieved from http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/421/1/MethodsReviewPaperNCRM-011.pdf

Puccinelli, N. M., Goodstein, R. C., Grewal, D., Price, R., Raghubir, P., & Stewart, D. (2009). Customer experience management in retailing: understanding the buying process. Journal of retailing, 85(1), 15-30.

Pullman, M. E., & Robson, S. K. A. (2007). Visual methods: Using photographs to capture customers' experience with design. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 48(2), 121-144.

Rabiee, F. (2004). Focus-group interview and data analysis. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 63(4), 655-660.

212

Ratneshwar, S., Mick, D. G., & Huffman, C. (2003). The why of consumption: Contemporary perspectives on consumer motives, goals, and desires. New York: Routledge.

Rawson, A., Duncan, E., & Jones, C. (2013). The truth about customer experience. Harvard Business Review, 91(9), 90-98.

Reichheld, F. F., & Sasser, W. E. (1990). Zero defections: Quality comes to services. Harvard Qusiness Review, 68(5), 105-111.

Reis, H. T., & Gable, S. L. (2000). Event-sampling and other methods for studying everyday experience. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 190-222). New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.

Ren, L., Qiu, H., Wang, P., & Lin, P. M. (2016). Exploring customer experience with budget hotels: Dimensionality and satisfaction. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 52, 13-23.

Rohrmann, B. (2007). Verbal qualifiers for rating scales: Sociolinguistic considerations and psychometric data. http://www.rohrmannresearch.net/pdfs/rohrmann-vqs-report.pdf

Rose, S., Clark, M., Samouel, P., & Hair, N. (2012). Online customer experience in e- retailing: An empirical model of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Retailing, 88(2), 308-322.

Roseman, I. J., Spindel, M. S., & Jose, P. E. (1990). Appraisals of emotion-eliciting events: Testing a theory of discrete emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 899.

Rosenbaum, M. S., & Massiah, C. (2011). An expanded servicescape perspective. Journal of Service Management, 22(4), 471-490.

Rowley, J. (1999). Measuring total customer experience in museums. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 11(6), 303-308.

213

Rubin, D. C., & Kozin, M. (1984). Vivid memories. Cognition, 16(1), 81-95.

Russell, C. J., & Bobko, P. (1992). Moderated regression analysis and Likert scales: Too coarse for comfort. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(3), 336-342.

Russell, J. A., & Barrett, L. F. (1999). Core affect, prototypical emotional episodes, and other things called emotion: Dissecting the elephant. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(5), 805-819.

Ruth, J. A., Brunel, F. F., & Otnes, C. C. (2002). Linking thoughts to feelings: Investigating cognitive appraisals and consumption emotions in a mixed-emotions context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(1), 44-58.

Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2000). Data management and analysis methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 769-802). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Sachdeva, I., & Goel, S. (2015). Retail store environment and customer experience: A paradigm. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 19(3), 290-298.

Sackett, P. R., & Larson Jr, J. R. (1990). Research strategies and tactics in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 419-489). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.

Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London, UK: Sage.

Sánchez-Fernández, J., Muñoz-Leiva, F., & Montoro-Ríos, F. J. (2012). Improving retention rate and response quality in Web-based surveys. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 507-514.

Savinovic, A., Kim, S., & Long, P. (2012). Audience members’ motivation, satisfaction, and intention to re-visit an ethnic minority cultural festival. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 29(7), 682-694.

214

Scarles, C. (2009). Becoming tourist: Renegotiating the visual in the tourist experience. Environment and Planning D: Society & Space, 27(3), 465-488.

Scarles, C. (2010). Where words fail, visuals ignite: Opportunities for visual autoethnography in tourism research. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(4), 905-926.

Scarles, C. (2011). Eliciting embodied knowledge and response: Respondent-led photography and visual autoethnography. In C. Rakić T., D. (Ed.), An introduction to visual research methods in tourism. New York, USA: Routledge.

Scherer, K., Dan, E., & Flykt, A. (2006). What determines a feeling's position in affective space? A case for appraisal. Cognition & Emotion, 20(1), 92-113.

Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74.

Schimmack, U. (2003). Affect measurement in experience sampling research. Journal of Happiness Studies, 4(1), 79-106.

Schmitt, B. H. (1999). Experiential marketing. Journal of Marketing Management, 15(1-3), 53-67.

Schmitt, B. H. (2003). Customer experience management: A revolutionary approach to connecting with your customers. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Schutt, R. K. (2009). Investigating the social world: The process and practice of research. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.

Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(3), 513-523.

Scollon, C. N., Prieto, C.-K., & Diener, E. (2003). Experience sampling: Promises and pitfalls, strength and weaknesses. Journal of Happiness Studies, 4(1), 5-14.

215

Shaw, C., & Ivens, J. (2002). Building great customer experiences. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Sills, S. J., & Song, C. (2002). Innovations in survey research: An application of web-based surveys. Social Science Computer Review, 20(1), 22-30.

Sinha, P. K., Mishra, H. G., & Kaul, S. (2014). Dominance of affective over cognitive customer satisfaction in satisfaction-loyalty relationship in service encounters: Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.

Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(4), 813-838.

Smith, S., & Milligan, A. (2002). Uncommon practice: People who deliver a great brand experience. London, UK: Pearson Education.

Smith, S., & Wheeler, J. (2002). Managing the customer experience: Turning customers into advocates. London, UK: Pearson Education.

Soscia, I. (2007). Gratitude, delight, or guilt: The role of consumers' emotions in predicting postconsumption behaviors. Psychology & Marketing, 24(10), 871-894.

Spiggle, S. (1994). Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(3), 491-503.

Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 173-180.

Stickdorn, M., & Schneider, J. (2009). myServiceFellow: gaining genuine customer insights.

Stickdorn, M., Schneider, J., & Andrews, K. (2011). This is service design thinking: Basics, tools, cases. US: Wiley.

Stickdorn, M., & Zehrer, A. (2009a). Service design in tourism: Customer experience driven destination management. Paper presented at the Dethinking Service, Rethinking

216

Design: First Nordic Conference Service Design Service Innovation, Oslo School of Architecture and Design, Oslo, Norway.

Stickdorn, M., & Zehrer, A. (2009b). Service design in tourism: Customer experience driven destination management. Paper presented at the Dethinking Service, Rethinking Design: First Nordic Conf. Service Design Service Innovation, Oslo School of Architecture and Design, Oslo, Norway.

Suchar, C. S. (1988). Photographing the changing material culture of a gentrified community. Visual Studies, 3(2), 17-21.

Suchar, C. S. (1992). Icons and images of gentrification: The changed material culture of an urban community. Gentrification and Urban Change: Research in Urban Sociology, 2, 165-192.

Talarico, J. M., Berntsen, D., & Rubin, D. C. (2009). Positive emotions enhance recall of peripheral details. Cognition and Emotion, 23(2), 380-398.

Tasci, A. D., & Ko, Y. J. (2015). A fun-scale for understanding the hedonic value of a product: The destination context. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 33, 1-22.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). The past and the future of mixed methods research: From ‘methodological triangulation’to ‘mixed methods designs’. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research (pp. 671-701). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controveries in the use of mixed methods in the social and behvioral sciences. In C. Teddlie & A. Tashakkori (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 3-50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling a typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77-100.

217

Teixeira, J., Patrício, L., Nunes, N. J., Nóbrega, L., Fisk, R. P., & Constantine, L. (2012). Customer experience modeling: From customer experience to service design. Journal of Service Management, 23(3), 362-376.

Tinkler, P. (2013). Using photographs in social and historical research. London, UK: Sage.

Tofﬂer, A. (1970). Future shock. New York: Amereon Ltd.

Trischler, J., & Zehrer, A. (2012). Service design: Suggesting a qualitative multistep approach for analyzing and examining theme park experiences. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 18(1), 57-71.

Tynan, C., & McKechnie, S. (2009). Experience marketing: A review and reassessment. Journal of Marketing Management, 25(5-6), 501-517.

Tynan, C., McKechnie, S., & Hartley, S. (2014). Interpreting value in the customer service experience using customer-dominant logic. Journal of Marketing Management, 30(9- 10), 1058-1081.

Uriely, N. (2005). The tourist experience: Conceptual developments. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(1), 199-216.

Uy, M. A., Foo, M.-D., & Aguinis, H. (2010). Using experience sampling methodology to advance entrepreneurship theory and research. Organizational Research Methods, 13(1), 31-54.

Van Auken, P. M., Frisvoll, S. J., & Stewart, S. I. (2010). Visualising community: Using participant-driven photo-elicitation for research and application. Local Environment, 15(4), 373-388.

Van den Bos, K. (2003). On the subjective quality of social justice: The role of affect as information in the psychology of justice judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 482-498.

218 van Dolen, W. M., Dabholkar, P. A., & De Ruyter, K. (2007). Satisfaction with online commercial group chat: The influence of perceived technology attributes, chat group characteristics, and advisor communication style. Journal of Retailing, 83(3), 339-358.

Van House, N. A. (2011). Personal photography, digital technologies and the uses of the visual. Visual Studies, 26(2), 125-134.

Van Winkle, C. M., & Falk, J. H. (2015). Personal meaning mapping at festivals: A useful tool for a challenging context. Event Management, 19(1), 143-150.

Van Zyl, C., & Botha, C. (2004). Motivational factors of local residents to attend the Aardklop National Arts Festival. Event Management, 8(4), 213-222.

Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1-17.

Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 1-10.

Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., & Bala, H. (2013). Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide: Guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 37(1), 21-54.

Venkatraman, M., & Nelson, T. (2008). From servicescape to consumptionscape: A photo- elicitation study of Starbucks in the New China. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(6), 1010-1026.

Verhoef, P. C., Antonides, G., & De Hoog, A. N. (2004). Service encounters as a sequence of events: The importance of peak experiences. Journal of Service Research, 7(1), 53-64.

Verhoef, P. C., Lemon, K. N., Parasuraman, A., Roggeveen, A., Tsiros, M., & Schlesinger, L. A. (2009). Customer experience creation: Determinants, dynamics and management strategies. Journal of Retailing, 85(1), 31-41.

219

Verleye, K. (2015). The co-creation experience from the customer perspective: Its measurement and determinants. Journal of Service Management, 26(2), 321-342.

Voss, C., & Zomerdijk, L. G. (2007a). Innovation in experiential services–an empirical view. London Business School.

Voss, C., & Zomerdijk, L. G. (2007b). Innovation in experiential services – An empirical view. In DTI (Ed.), Innovation in services. London: DTI.

Walls, A. R. (2013). A cross-sectional examination of hotel consumer experience and relative effects on consumer values. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 32, 179-192.

Walls, A. R., Okumus, F., Wang, Y. R., & Kwun, D. J.-W. (2011a). An epistemological view of consumer experiences. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(1), 10- 21.

Walls, A. R., Okumus, F., Wang, Y. R., & Kwun, D. J.-W. (2011b). Understanding the consumer experience: An exploratory study of luxury hotels. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 20(2), 166-197.

Wan, Y. K. P., & Chan, S. H. J. (2013). Factors that affect the levels of tourists' satisfaction and loyalty towards food festivals: A case study of Macau. International Journal of Tourism Research, 15(3), 226-240.

Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 247.

Watson, L., & Spence, M. T. (2007). Causes and consequences of emotions on consumer behaviour: A review and integrative cognitive appraisal theory. European Journal of Marketing, 41(5/6), 487-511.

Wen, B., & Chi, C. G.-q. (2013). Examine the cognitive and affective antecedents to service recovery satisfaction: A field study of delayed airline passengers. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 25(3), 306-327.

220

Westbrook, R. A. (1987a). Product/consumption-based affective responses and postpurchase processes. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(3), 258-270.

Westbrook, R. A. (1987b). Product/consumption-based affective responses and postpurchase processes. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 258-270.

Wijaya, S., King, B., Nguyen, T.-H., & Morrison, A. (2013). International visitor dining experiences: A conceptual framework. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 20, 34-42.

Willson, G., & McIntosh, A. (2010). Using photo-based interviews to reveal the significance of heritage buildings to cultural tourism experiences. In G. Richards & W. Munsters (Eds.), Cultural tourism research methods. Wallingford: CAB International.

Wu, H.-C., Wong, J. W.-C., & Cheng, C.-C. (2013). An empirical study of behavioral intentions in the food festival: The case of Macau. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 19(11), 1278-1305.

Yeung, C. W., & Wyer Jr, R. S. (2004). Affect, appraisal, and consumer judgment. Journal of Consumer research, 31(2), 412-424.

Yu, Y.-T., & Dean, A. (2001). The contribution of emotional satisfaction to consumer loyalty. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 12(3), 234-250.

Yuan, J. J., Cai, L. A., Morrison, A. M., & Linton, S. (2005). An analysis of wine festival attendees’ motivations: A synergy of wine, travel and special events? Journal of Vacation Marketing, 11(1), 41-58.

Yuan, J. J., & Jang, S. S. (2007). The effects of quality and satisfaction on awareness and behavioral intentions: Exploring the role of a wine festival. Journal of Travel Research, 46(3), 279-288.

Zehrer, A. (2009). Service experience and service design: Concepts and application in tourism SMEs. Managing Service Quality, 19(3), 332-349.

221

Ziakas, V., & Boukas, N. (2013). Extracting meanings of event tourist experiences: A phenomenological exploration of Limassol carnival. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 2(2), 94-107.

Zomerdijk, L. G., & Voss, C. A. (2010). Service design for experience-centric services. Journal of Service Research, 13(1), 67-82.

222

APPENDIX 4-1 Interview Guide

This appendix provides a copy of the interview guide that was used in conducting the focus group interviews as described in Chapter 4.

223

Appendix 4-1 Interview guide

INTERVIEW GUIDE

Administrative Details

Interview Number: [Interview number inserted here] Date of Interview: [Day & date of interview inserted here]

Location: [Location of interview inserted here]

Start time: [Start time inserted here] End time: [Finish time inserted here]

Duration: [Duration inserted here]

Participant information Event Contact Name Email Gender Age Education Occupation attending Number time(s)

Interview Guide Pre-interview Guide [Half an hour before interview start time]

1. Check batteries in digital recorder, check digital recorder. (Are the previous

interviews downloaded? Is there enough room on the recorder? Does the

recorder work?)

2. Fill-out administration section of interview guide.

3. Go through questions / exercise.

4. Prepare drinks and light refreshments for participants.

5. Make sure that interview area is quiet.

224

Appendix 4-1Continued.

General Introduction [Five to ten minutes] 1. Introduction of interviewer 2. Purpose of interview 3. Ethical components of research (Information Sheet & Consent Form) If interviewees are in agreement, and are happy to continue interview – Switch on recorder.

Key interview questions/exercise For use in guiding semi-structured interview. Questions used to probe/clarify information during interview.  Thinking back over the past two years, have you attended any food and wine events? (If, yes, probe them on which ones.)  Can you tell me how you felt about different experiences you had at the event?  Now, I want to turn to what we might call “touchpoints”, which is the time when you came into contact with the company or organiser. This might be before the event (e.g. when booking) or during the event, or even after the event. I would like you to write each of your experiences on stick-it notes. One experience per yellow sticker. After five or so minutes I will ask people to share their notes and we will map them across a customer journey map I designed.  [People get the stick-it notes and have time to generate touchpoint experiences; after five minutes go to poster and start journey mapping by placing the stick-it notes on the map.]  [Research leader to post the notes to categories and then invite people to comment on their positive/negative experiences.]  What do you think of the mapping? Do you have any other experiences to add on the map? [Possible prompt question: What triggers your memory?]

Summary/Wrap up [Five minutes] That ends the interview. Thank you for your participation and the information that you’ve provided. If I have any more questions can I contact you again? (Invite participants to enjoy refreshments and give incentives to them.)

Post Interview – Analysis Reflective Notes [Full A4 page was provided here]

225

APPENDIX 4-2 Focus Group Recruitment Invitation Email

This appendix provides a copy of invite email that was distributed by event organiser to recruit potential interview participants as indicated in Chapter 4.

226 Dear Sir/Madam,

Following successful events in Melbourne, Sydney and Perth, the Good Food & Wine Show is coming to Brisbane in a little over 3 months’ time.

We are currently conducting a research project in conjunction with Griffith University (Queensland, Australia), and as a previous visitor to the show, we would welcome your input. This study investigates the link between a customer’s event experiences, overall satisfaction and loyalty to the event. This research is part of a PhD project being undertaken by Wei Liu, a student of Griffith University. In this study you are asked to join a focus group interview with other participants to discuss your experiences in this event.

A key criterion for selecting the participants is that you have a previous experience of attending the Brisbane Good Food & Wine Show.

To find out the full details and to register your name for the study, please click on the link below where the Information Sheet and Registration Form for this project are provided.

Please note that your participation is entirely voluntary and you may choose to withdraw at any time without comment and penalty.

Follow this link to the Information Sheet and Registration Form: Take the Survey

Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser: https://divcomau.asia.qualtrics.com/SE/?Q_SS=207dkqfARH3cvFr_0HAGiXqKoW7whA9&_=1

To ensure the success of this project, your participation is both very important and greatly appreciated by us.

Prize Information As an INCENTIVE, all participants will be able to enter a prize draw to win ONE of three MYER gift cards valued at $50 each. The focus group will take approximately 45 minutes.

Confidentiality All information gathered is completely confidential, and will be analysed and reported in summary format.

You will remain completely anonymous at all times. Names will not be provided to any other parties.

If you require any further information, please contact the Project Supervisor at [email protected], or the research student at [email protected].

All the collected data will be stored in a safe place; computers are password protected.

Only the research student and the student’s supervisors can get access to the collected data and conduct further analysis.

The data will be destroyed once data analysis is complete.

Thank you very much for your time and assistance with this research project.

The Good Food & Wine Show

In conjunction with

Wei Liu, PhD Candidate at Griffith University Supervisors: Professor Beverly Sparks and Dr Alexandra Coghlan Department of Tourism, Sport and Hotel Management

Follow the link to opt out of future emails: Click here to unsubscribe

227

APPENDIX 4-3 Focus Group Information Sheet and Consent Form

This appendix provides copies of the focus group interview information sheet and consent form. The mechanisms were used to obtain ethical consent from the participants as discussed in Chapter 4.

228

INFORMATION SHEET (FOCUS GROUP)

Who is conducting the research:

This study is being conducted by:

Prof. Beverley Sparks Wei Liu Dr. Alexandra Coghlan Principal Supervisor PhD student Associate Supervisor Griffith University Griffith University Griffith University Ph: 07 5552 8766 Ph: 07 5552 9190 Ph: 07 5552 8580 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Why the research is being conducted: The purpose of this research is to gain in-depth insights about customer experience, and the link between customer's event experiences, overall satisfaction level and loyalty to the event.

What you will be asked to do: Participation is voluntary. If you wish to participate, you will take part in the focus group session in which you will have the opportunity to engage in a small group discussion about what customer experiences are important to you using a context of food and wine events (e.g., Brisbane Good Food & Wine Show). It is anticipated that each focus group will have about six to eight people present for the discussion. The focus group will be held in Brisbane CBD (Southbank) and full details of time and place will be sent if you are willing to participate. Completion of the discussion should take approximately 45 minutes. Morning tea or light lunch will be provided.

The expected benefits of the research: Greater knowledge among service providers on ways to better manage customer experience at the micro level.

Risks to you: The risk from participating in this research is no greater than the risk associated with everyday living.

Your confidentiality: No identifying information will be collected in the interview or used in reports of the findings. The data that you provide to the researcher will be anonymous. All the collected data will be stored in the safe place; computers are password protected. Only the research student and the student’s supervisors can get access to the collected data and conduct further analysis. The data will be destroyed once the content of the data has been acquired. The data from the focus group interviews will be transcribed. Once the transcribing process is completed, all recording files will be destroyed. The results from focus group interviews will be used for academic purpose only.

Your participation is voluntary: Your participation in this research is completely voluntary. In addition, if you change your mind after commencing the interview, you are free to withdraw from the study at any time without comment or penalty.

Questions/Further information: If you have any questions or require further information about this project, please contact Ms Wei Liu at [email protected].

The ethical conduct of this research: Griffith University conducts research in accordance with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. If you have any

229 concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of the project, please contact the Manager, Research Ethics on 3735 4375 (or [email protected])..

Your feedback: The findings of the research will be available to all participants, if desired. You may opt to receive an emailed copy of summarized findings by emailing Ms Wei Liu at [email protected].

Legal privacy statement: The conduct of this research involves the collection, access and/or use of your identified personal information. The information collected is confidential and will not be disclosed to third parties without your consent, except to meet government, legal or other regulatory authority requirements. A de-identified copy of this data may be used for other research purposes. However, your anonymity will at all times be safeguarded. For further information consult the University’s Privacy Plan at http://www.griffith.edu.au/about- griffith/plans-publications/griffith-university-privacy-plan or telephone (07) 3735 4375.

A click through button will be inserted.

 Yes, I would like to participate in in the focus group interview.

 No, I am not interested.

If No, I am not interested. Is Selected, Then Skip To End of Survey

230

CONSENT FORM (FOCUS GROUP)

Who is conducting the research:

This study is being conducted by:

By signing below, I confirm that I have read and understood the information package and in particular have noted that:

 I understand that my involvement in this research will include discussing, within a small group, my experiences of a food and wine event;

 I understand the risks involved;

 I do not have any outstanding questions about this research project;

 I understand that there will be no direct benefit to me from my participation in this research;

 I understand that my participation in this research is voluntary;

 I understand that if I have any additional questions I can contact [email protected];

 I understand that I am free to withdraw at any time, without explanation or penalty;

 I understand that I can contact the Manager, Research Ethics, at Griffith University Human Research Ethics Committee on 3735 4375 (or research- [email protected]) if I have any concerns about the ethical conduct of the project; and

 I agree to participate in the project.

 The focus group interview will be audio-recorded and the recording files will be destroyed after interview contents have been transcribed. Any information will be aggregated or de-identified in the case of quotes.

Name Signature

Date

231

APPENDIX 4-4 Focus Group Registration Form

This appendix provides a copy of the focus group registration form. The form was used to record contact information of participants so that the research student can contact them and advise the interview time and place, as indicated in Chapter 4.

232 REGISTRATION FORM (FOCUS GROUP)

Please complete the following registration form so the research student can contact you and advise of the interview time and place. Thanks again for your time and participation!

1. Name ______a. Working b. Student 2. Contact Phone Number & Preferred c. Retired Contact Time ______d. House duties e. Other (please specify) 3. Email Address ______

8. How many times did you attend the 4. Gender Brisbane Good Food & Wine Show a. Male before? b. Female a. Once 5. What is your age group? b. Twice c. Three times a. 18-25 d. Over three times b. 26-35 c. 36-45 9. Who did you attend the Brisbane Good d. 46-55 Food & Wine Show with? e. 56 or above a. Family f. Prefer not to answer b. Friends 6. What is your highest education level? c. Colleagues d. By yourself a. Secondary/High school b. College/University 10. Are you interested in participating in c. Graduate level or higher other food and wine event related d. Prefer not to answer research projects in the future?

7. Occupation a. Yes b. No

233 APPENDIX 4-5 Focus Group Exercise Instruction Card

This appendix provides a copy of the focus group exercise instruction card. The card was used to guide participants to complete a small exercise as part of the focus group interview, as indicated in Chapter 4.

234 Exercise Instruction Card

1. Reflect on your experiences at previous Brisbane Good Food & Wine Shows, pre- event/during-event/post-event 2. Take a yellow stick-it note & write your experiences on these (One experience per yellow stick-it note) Note: These experiences can be big/small, positive/negative

3. Add a if it is positive experience for you; a if it is negative experience for

you; a if it is neutral experience for you Here are some sticker examples:

Parking was really hard!!! I drove Master-chef cooking was around for 30 minutes! fantastic!!! Food tasted so good and wine was nice! Yum!!!

4. Identify the most influential experience (could be positive/negative), add a on the stick-it note 5. You have 5 minutes to do this exercise

AFTERWARDS (5 mins later)

6. You are invited to post your yellow stickers on the poster

7. What we want is for you to post each sticker in pre/during/post & by categories

8. If time permits, we will discuss a little further about your experiences together

Thank you for your participation!

235

APPENDIX 4-6 Focus Group Customer Journey Mapping Poster

This appendix provides a copy of the focus group customer journey mapping poster design by the research in advance, assisting in setting a foundation of the salient experiences event attendees had through the food and wine event, as indicated in Chapter 4.

236

Focus Group – Customer Journey Mapping Poster

CATEGORIESa Pre-event During event Post-event

Web page

Mobile

Food & Beverage

Ambiance: lighting, sound,

temperature, etc.

Customer service

Fellow customers

Transportation & Parking

a. Participants were asked to place their stick-it notes on this poster based on their experiences written on the note; two extra rows with no categories were provided in case some of participants’ experiences could not be placed in any given category.

237

APPENDIX 4-7 Focus Group Participant Profile

This appendix provides a demographic profile of the focus group interview participants (see Appendix Table 4-7), as discussed in Chapter 4.

238 Appendix 4-7 Focus group interview participant profilea a. Source: Developed for this study. Table information gathered from project registration system. All demographics correct at time of interview. Group ID Gender Age Education Occupation Event attending times Event attending company No 1 1 Male 46 - 55 College / University Retired Over three times Friends 2 Female 56 or above Graduate level or higher Working Three times Friends 3 Female 56 or above Secondary / High school Working Over three times Family 4 Female 46 - 55 Graduate level or higher Working Three times Friends 2 5 Female 56 or above Secondary / High school Working Three times Friends 6 Female 36 - 45 Graduate level or higher House duties Three times Family 7 Female 26 - 35 College / University Working Over three times Friends 8 Male 56 or above College / University Unemployed Over three times Friends 3 9 Male 56 or above Graduate level or higher Working Over three times Friends 10 Female 46 - 55 Secondary / High school House duties Twice Friends 11 Female 56 or above Secondary / High school Retired Over three times Family 12 Female 46 - 55 College / University Working Over three times Friends 4 13 Female 56 or above College/University Retired Over three times Family 14 Male 56 or above Secondary /High school Retired Over three times Friends 15 Female 56 or above College/University Retired Over three times Friends 16 Male 56 or above Secondary / High school Working Over three times Family 5 17 Female 56 or above Secondary / High school Retired Three times Friends 18 Male 36 - 45 College/University Working Twice Family 19 Female 46 - 55 College / University Working Over three times Friends 20 Female 46 - 55 Secondary / High school House duties Twice Friends

239

APPENDIX 5-1 Conference Paper

This appendix provides a copy of the conference paper accepted and published in the ACSPRI

2014 conference proceedings as described in Chapter 5.

240

Abstract This paper considers one method used to capture a customer's in situ, subjective, meaningful experience. Photo elicitation is one method that overcomes the recall bias of more traditional post-hoc measures whilst not being overly intrusive within the experience. Here we review lessons learned from implementing photo elicitation at three community events. These lessons covered platforms (devices) used to collect data, participant training, ethical considerations, the participant experience, and data analysis. Briefly, smartphone cameras were found to be most effective and efficient, participant training should both allow for flexibility in the data collection, but overcome technical and ethical issues, whilst the latter could be managed with planning and foresight. Feedback from the participants suggested that they enjoyed the data collection method, and that it was not intrusive, and finally, rich qualitative data, with some unexpected results, were collected and analysed using this technique. Photo elicitation can therefore provide good, management-relevant insights, whilst providing an enjoyable research experience for participants and deepening our conceptual understanding of the lived service experience.

Introduction Photo elicitation is a visual, qualitative research technique incorporating the use of photographic images into interviews (Harper, 2002). The advantages of introducing photographs into the interview setting to trigger memories and facilitate recall have been well documented in many studies (e.g., Garrod, 2007; Harper, 2002; Pink, 2013). In addition, Matteucci (2013) suggests that photo elicitation is a creative and multi-sensory approach, engaging for participants and thereby reducing survey fatigue common with other techniques. Other studies (e.g., Harper, 2002; Pullman & Robson, 2007; Scarles, 2009) also illustrate that photo elicitation method can help to trigger respondents’ memories related to specific places and events, sharpen their abilities to reflect on their experiences, and elicit stronger, more comprehensive responses when explaining their experiences behind the pictures. Importantly, Pullman and Robson (2007) argue that a photo elicitation method can be particularly suitable when investigating customer experience as the customer can use a camera to record moments that impact them and these can be discussed at a later time with the researcher.

Useful, and user-friendly, innovative techniques that allow researchers to study the customer experience are becoming increasingly important as we move towards an experience economy. From a business perspective, customer experience has become of increasing interest to service

241 providers as part of product development and can be based on interactions with places, firms, communities, attractions, service personnel or other customers (Gentile, 2007). Our study broadly adopts a phenomenological approach to understanding the customer’s experience. The choice of photo elicitation enables a researcher to gain deeper insight into the subjective, event specific experiences as socially constructed by the participant. While many researchers (e.g., Gentile et al., 2007; Pine & Gilmore, 1998; Verhoef et al., 2009) have started to investigate customer experience, there is still a dearth of research that uses in situ methods to obtain a better understanding of the momentary occurrences that add to an individual’s experience. Many existing techniques rely on post event reflection, with associated memory and recall issues (e.g., Hosany & Gilbert, 2010; Hosany & Witham, 2009). Photo elicitation on the other hand, allows moments to be captured in situ, preferably within the flow of the experience, to be elaborated upon post-event. Thus, conversations between researcher and respondent about the photos that were taken in situ may bring new insight and more meaningful knowledge about customer experience. This paper specifically applies photo elicitation to the investigation of more micro and momentary level customer experience with the objective of evaluating the logistics of the method.

Key decisions associated with using photo elicitation Like any research method, the use of photo elicitation requires careful consideration of a number research decisions. These decisions are mainly concerned with the data collection platform (devices), the training of participants, and ethical considerations. Careful consideration of these issues prior to commencing data collection is necessary to ensure an adequate sample size of photos, the quality and usability of the images, participant commitment, and prevent any sensitivities arising over the use of images in a research context. Some of these considerations are presented here.

The access to a device (single use camera, digital camera, smartphone, tablet) is required as part of the equipment for photo elicitation. Traditionally photo studies of this type have relied on single use camera or digital cameras (e.g., Pullman & Robson, 2007; Van House, 2011) . The usage of single use camera raises the consideration for obtaining the photos from participants. As pointed out by Pullman and Robson (2007), making duplicate prints for follow-up interviews and mailing them to participants is time-consuming and costly. Participants’ ability to take reasonable photographs is also a requirement for this type of research. Although aesthetically beautiful photos are not required for photo elicitation, photos

242 that are clear, in focus, and reasonably well exposed are desirable. Some issues with single use camera may include respondents’ unfamiliarity with the flash function and higher possibility of poor quality pictures, as reported by Pullman and Robson (2007). However, recent technological advances have meant that smartphones are equipped with cameras that are of good quality and easy to use. Importantly, the high adoption rate of smartphones means that, it has become easier for people to potentially participate in a photo elicitation study using their own device.

Another important decision for photo elicitation studies is the extent of instructions given to participants (e.g., Scarles, 2011). Photo elicitation studies provide opportunities for participants to produce their own images, and this can be influenced by specific requests from researchers (i.e., number of photographs, content of photographs, photographing within a particular timeframe, etc.). Therefore, researchers have to decide how detailed and/or structured the requests should be as suggested by Scarles (2011). Tinkler (2013) provides a summary of the options, which include: (1) a very open and unstructured approach (go and play with the camera); (2) a more controlled approach such as use the camera to capture any image associated with some topic; or (3) a more carefully scripted approach where the task is clearly specified and asks participants to take photos of things associated with answering a specific research question (just photograph consumer goods you particularly want to buy next month). The choice of approach will largely depend on the research question to be answered and the researcher’s philosophical approach. For research into time bound activities, such as a specific event (eg, a festival) a decision needs to be made about the timing of when photo recording starts and finishes. For example, is it on the day of the event or when present at the event.

Ethical requirements for this type of study are also worthy of consideration (e.g., Epstein et al., 2008; Prosser et al., 2008). Photo elicitation studies that ask the participant to take photos as recordings of their experiences may be subject to certain sensitivities. Tinkler (2013) highlights three key areas for ethical consideration: taking the photos; discussing (elicitation) the photos; and presenting the photos. First, taking photographs in public spaces raises the issue of the privacy of other people. One way to deal with this is to seek the permission of people included in the photo. This is feasible in some situations but may be more complex in public outdoor settings where people can be in the background of a photo. As our research was conducted at public events, consideration was given to the ethics of participants taking

243 photos and it was resolved to brief participants on the need to seek permission when directly photographing people at the event. In addition, where people were in the background it was agreed that their identities could be hidden through the use of pixilation of faces. Conducting research at public or private events may also require permission from the event organiser. A second set of ethical consideration may be associated with the elicitation phase as participants are asked to recall experiences associated with the photos. For our research this was not deemed to be overly sensitive as the context for the study was a pleasant food and wine event. Informed consent and some reassurance of anonymity may still be required. The use of pseudonyms in the reporting of findings can assist in maintain some degree of privacy. Finally, the presentation of images at conferences or in reports can raise ethical considerations. The issue of who owns the photo is raised and it may be necessary to obtain a copyright release from participants. Options include requesting permission to reproduce any photos or to ask the participant for copyright release on specific images.

Finally, the nature of a photo elicitation study normally ends up with a small sample size (e.g., Pullman & Robson, 2007). This is due to several reasons including the significant time required by participants to engage in the photographing of everyday life of specific experiences, the logistics of recruiting and briefing people for the study, and the desire to conduct follow-up interviews. Furthermore, the outcome that people will produce several photos means that the data analysis can be quite time consuming. For instance 20 respondents can easily generate in excess of 200 images to be analysed. The data from graphic sources are unclassified and require some type of content analysis, such as assigning the images into categories or themes, which is similar to what is done with verbal data drawn from open- ended questions, in-depth interviews or focus groups (for example, see Pullman & Robson, 2007). Not surprisingly, a larger sample size for this type of study would require a huge amount of time investment from researchers to do the coding of images, unless some sort of automated approach could be applied. Similarly, using the photos as an elicitation technique in follow up interviews will also make it difficult to employ large samples.

The present study makes an initial attempt to investigate in situ customer experiences at the more micro and momentary levels by utilizing images produced by participants at the events. Drawing on the results of three field studies using participant-produced photo elicitation in three community events, this study also explores several methodological issues with a focus on the logistics of data collection, since few studies have employed the participant-produced

244 images to investigate customer’s momentary experiences. Other lessons learned from these field studies, such as ethical requirements, survey design and organizing briefing/training for participants before the event are also discussed and reported in the subsequent sections. The event context used included tourism oriented food, wine, music community events. The field studies involved participant generated photos, answering a survey about the photos and undertaking an elicitation interview.

Field studies To assist in refining the procedures of a participant-produced photo elicitation study, three field studies were conducted at three separate community-based events. All the events were held in Gold Coast, Australia, and were specifically chosen with particular reference to the sensory experiences of sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch during the event. In each event, participants could be exposed to a series of activities that would shape their experience, but which also occurring within a confined space/time to provide some structure for the comparative part of the data analysis.

Three groups of participants were recruited to attend three separate events and record their experiences by taking photos. In order to get a better understanding of the research devices (single use camera vs. smartphone camera), the first study assigned ten participants with single use cameras. The second study randomly assigned ten participants to using a single use camera or a smartphone (five participants used single use camera and the other five used smartphone camera). In the third study, participants were assigned to use a smartphone (N=9). In the first and second studies, a 24-exposure single-use camera with built-in flash was provided to the participants.

A briefing session was provided for each participant before he/she attended the event. During the briefing session, an Information Sheet and Consent Form were also provided. The Information Sheet elaborated the task that participants were asked to undertake, in particular, take photos of anything that they felt contributed to their experience (good or bad) at the event. The Consent Form clearly informed participants that their involvement in the study was totally voluntary, and withdrawal from the study at any time without explanation and penalty was an option.

245

After attending the event, the single use camera group mailed back their camera to the researcher, who arranged development on the pictures. All photos that were clear were scanned into computer and sent back to the participant by email. The participant then nominated the ten most important photos that would be used in the next stage of the research. For the smartphone group, participants were asked to send back ten pictures, which best represented their experiences at the events, to the research team. Both groups thereby provided 10 digital photos for use in the recall stage of the study.

Then the research team incorporated the ten pictures into Qualtrics, an online survey tool. Using the survey tool, participants answered a series of questions about the photo experiences as part of an exploration of their feelings and thoughts of the community events. Each photo image was incorporated into the survey tool and was followed by an open-ended question asking the participant to reflect what motivated him/her to take the picture. The open ended question was followed by two multiple choice questions, asking the participant to rate his/her feelings when taking the picture and evaluating what elements contributed to his/her feelings about the moment captured in the picture. The survey also collected general satisfaction evaluations and consumer behavioural intentions, as well as several demographic questions, including gender, age, education level, and occupation. In the last part of the survey, participants were asked to indicate their willingness to participate in a follow-up one-on-one interview. Several participants were then interviewed to gain further in depth understanding of the photos and what types of customer experiences these represented. Interviews lasted approximately 30-40 minutes and each photo was discussed.

Findings Although this paper focuses predominantly on the lessons learnt from the pilot study, some summary results of the second field study are included here to illustrate the types of findings achieved from the photo elicitation. In total, one hundred pictures have been collected from ten participants after attending a food and music community event. First, the photos were coded for the main content of what was presented in the image, next each participant’s set of photos and survey and interview responses were compiled into an individual profile analysis and finally, a comparison between participants’ experiences was undertaken.

All the pictures were first classified into the following 7 categories (see Table 1): event programs, ambiance/facilities (eg, signage, poster, and emergency tents), fellow customers

246 (people not known to the customer), friends/family, natural backdrops (eg, beach, surfers, seagulls), food & beverage, and customer service (eg, volunteers, vendors, policemen). Not surprisingly, 26 of them were related to the event programs, followed by ambiance/facilities (eg, signage, poster, emergency tents) and fellow customers (people not known to the customer) with 17 and 14 out of the total 100 pictures respectively. Table 1 Content Analysis of Images Category Number Event Programs 26 Ambiance/Facilities (eg, signage, poster, emergency tents) 17 Fellow customers (people not known to the customer) 14 Friends/Family 13 Natural backdrops (eg, beach, surfers, seagulls) 12 Food & Beverage 12 Customer service (eg, volunteers, vendors, policeman) 6

Next, each participant’s set of photos and survey and interview responses were compiled into an individual profile analysis. To illustrate what is profile analysis, here was an example of one participant’s profile analysis. For the privacy issue, this participant was assigned a pseudonym name “Laura”. Laura is 26-35 female, who had a graduate or higher level of education. Laura was predominantly interested in photographing vendors at the event, followed by food and wine she had at the event and her friends’ company during the event. When rating her feelings about the ten pictures, Laura rated her happiness consistently high for all ten images.

From her follow-up interview, Laura indicated that she was really impressed with the food, wine, customer service and friend’s company. Some quotes have been included as follows: “My most memorable moment at the event was having the fish with my friends and listening to the symphony, because I was enjoying my favourite three things at the same time: food, music and company.”

“I was very impressed with my wine purchasing experiences. […] The bartenders were so helpful, […]. We really enjoyed this service, and also learnt some new

247

knowledge about the Australia wine. At the end, we bought more than one glass of wine because we had such a great time!”

In summary, people’s experiences are not confined to those orchestrated by the event organisers but also included a wide range of associated experiences. These associated experiences included things like nature (beach scenes, surf scenes, trees, etc.). From the pictures, it is obvious that a lot of people do appreciate the natural beauty of the event backdrops. They also appreciate some of the unique event characteristics, in this case, a special tourist bus provided by the organisers. Participants also expressed strong interest in seeing arts and performances around their residential community.

Lessons learnt from field studies There were several lessons or insights learnt as a result of the photo elicitation study. These can be grouped into logistics lessons and analysis lessons.

Logistic lessons Device: Based on the three studies, smartphone camera data collection was found to be superior to single use camera in several respects. Many participants were not familiar with the flash function on the single use cameras, resulting in a high percentage of poor, unusable images. There is a need, therefore, for appropriate training in single use camera use to obtain usable image. In particular, single use camera has limited number of exposures, only 24 exposures in total. Furthermore, participants were not allowed to take as many pictures as they wanted, constraining the data collection process. After the event, researchers had to collect back all the single use cameras and send them to the photo shop to develop the films. Later, researchers had to scan all the developed pictures into computer and email them to participants so that participants could select the ten pictures best representing their event experiences, which would be incorporated into the Qualtrics recall survey by researchers. The whole process was time-consuming and costly. On the other hand, for the participants using a smartphone it was relatively easy to take as many pictures as they wanted, and check the quality of pictures all the time. If they were not satisfied with one picture, they could always re-take as many as they wanted until they felt satisfied. After the event, smartphone users could easily share the ten pictures to the research team through their favourite way, such as emails, MMS, or any mobile message apps like Whatsapp, Wechat or FB messenger, which can save a lot of time and money.

248

Ethics: In line with the ethical guidelines of the researchers’ university, ethical clearance was obtained subject to addressing privacy concerns. A key ethical issue of this type of photo elicitation study is that participants are going to take photos in public places, especially with regard to the privacy of other people attending the event. In accordance with the university’s ethical guidelines, approval was sought from the event organizer, confirming their support for the study participants to take photos at the event. Meanwhile, in the briefing session, participants were also told to respect other people and exhibitors and seek permission before photographing exhibitors, products or booths at the event: more specifically the following information was included “Please respect other people and exhibitors at the event. Seek permission to photograph exhibitors, products or booth”. The participants or the organiser expressed no ethical concerns during the study period. This positive outcome was due to the attention given to minimising ethical concerns in the design of the study, the liaising with event organisers, and briefing of the participants prior to taking the photos.

Presentation of photos: As some of the photographic materials may be included in the thesis, publications or conference presentation, participants were asked to sign a release form of the photographs they are willing to allow to be published according to the researchers’ university ethical requirement. Therefore, we added two options regarding the usage of the photographic materials in the thesis, publications or conference presentations: (1) the participant was given an option to agree (or not) to allow the researcher to use the photos for research purposes (thesis publication, journal papers, and conference presentations) with any identifying information pixelated out; or (2) for more specific photo image use with faces included, we asked the participant to provide a signed release form that gives permission to use a photograph with identifying information (facial expressions). Thus, two options were included for obtaining consent to use specific photos depending on future use.

Commitment of participants: The photo elicitation study required a high level of commitment from the participants, which necessitated careful briefing of participants. Any instructions to respondents have to be clear to explain the research aims and objectives and what photographs respondents are required to take/share. The purpose of this project was to get a better understanding of customer experiences at the events, which could be anything important/unimportant to the customers, or anything eliciting customers’ positive/negative feelings. Therefore, the researchers only explained the context of the research, allowing the

249 respondent to have significant freedom to determine the content of the images. It is more important that respondents know what the commitments are that they are making.

Analysis lessons The method provides good insight to understanding customer experience from an individual viewpoint, in line with its phenomenological underpinnings. Customer experience is highly personal and what is meaningful is the co-creation an experience between the event offering and an individual. Photos represented very personal experiences as the foundation of value. Experiential value is gained not only from the program but also from the event backdrop, family, friends and service personnel. The combination of an online survey and direct interviewing provided deeper insight. Photo elicitation enhanced participant experiences by helping them to reflect more deeply on the event experience. This technique stimulates deeper reflection, producing rich data, and it provides a good method to explore, in depth, the momentary experiences people have at an event by incorporating the photo, survey questions and the follow-up interview.

Conclusion In conclusion, photo elicitation offers many advantages for researchers who wish to capture customers’ in situ, lived experiences; the use of photos forms a bridge between the experience and its recall, and appears to be an enjoyable task for respondents. The rich qualitative data provided new insights into the importance of event settings, providing managerially useful information. However, our experiences also highlighted those important considerations that must be worked through prior to data collection, through a combination of pilot testing, liaising with stakeholders, participant training and consultation with ethics granting agents. We hope that our lessons presented here may assist other researchers involved with, or considering the use of, photo elicitation as a research method.

250 APPENDIX 5-2 PGI Study Recruitment Invitation Email

This appendix provides a copy of invite email that was distributed by event organiser to recruit potential PGI study participants as indicated in Chapter 5.

251 Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for booking your ticket to the F&W Show. We are currently conducting a research project in conjunction with Griffith University (Queensland, Australia) into our visitors’ customer experience at the F&W Show 2014, and we are looking for volunteers.

This is a photo journaling study and is part of a PhD project being undertaken by Wei Liu, a student of Griffith University.

In this study, you will be asked to use your smartphone to take photos of anything that you feel contributed in some way to your experience (good or bad) at the show.

To find out the full details and to register your name for the study, please click the link below.

As an INCENTIVE, all participants will be able to enter a prize draw to win one of six (6) gift vouchers valued at $50 each.

Please note that your participation is entirely voluntary and you may choose to withdraw at any time without comment and penalty.

Follow this link to the Survey:

$[l://SurveyLink?d=Take the Survey]

Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser:

$[l://SurveyURL]

Follow the link to opt out of future emails:

$[l://OptOutLink?d=Click here to unsubscribe]

Thank you in advance for your help and please enjoy the show.

Regards,

F&W Show Team

On behalf of,

Wei Liu, PhD Candidate at Griffith University

Supervisors: Professor Beverly Sparks and Dr Alexandra Coghlan

Department of Tourism, Sport and Hotel Management

Griffith University

252

APPENDIX 5-3a Flowchart of PGI Study Participant Recruitment (Part 1)

This appendix provides the first part of the flowchart of PGI study participant recruitment process as discussed in Chapter 5.

253

254

APPENDIX 5-3b Flowchart of PGI Study Participant Recruitment (Part 2)

This appendix provides the second part of the flowchart of PGI study participant recruitment process as discussed in Chapter 5.

255

256 APPENDIX 5-4 PGI Study Information Sheet

This appendix provides copies of the PGI study information sheet. The document detailed the study information with incentive information as discussed in Chapter 5.

257 Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for indicating your willingness to participate in my research into customer experience at the Brisbane Food &Wine Show 2014. Your participation is really important to me and I want you to know exactly what is asked from you as a participant in my research, so please review the material below to confirm your ongoing willingness to take part in the research study.

This study asks you to use your smartphone to take photos of anything that you feel contributed in some way to your experience (good, bad or neutral) at the event. After the event, you will be asked to send back 10 self-selected photos (best representing your experiences at the show) and after this you will be asked to complete a survey about the experiences shown in your photos.

Detailed photo study instructions have been attached below.

Extra incentive:

As recognition of your time and participation, all participants will receive an entry into the first prize draw (one of six $50 vouchers) for taking the photos, sending back the photos to the researcher and completing a survey*

* Please note that the prize will need to be given in the form of a gift card.

I want you to know that your efforts really matter to me, as I want to see how customer experience at events happens over time.

Please note that your participation is entirely voluntary and you may choose to withdraw at any time without comment and penalty.

Thank you very much for your time and assistance with this research project.

Yours Sincerely,

Wei Liu, PhD Candidate at Griffith University

Supervisors: Professor Beverly Sparks and Dr Alexandra Coghlan

Department of Tourism, Sport and Hotel Management

Griffith University

258

APPENDIX 5-5 PGI Study Instruction Card

This appendix provides a copy of the PGI study instruction card. The card was used to help participants to understand the research purposes and processes, as indicated in Chapter 5.

259

260

APPENDIX 5-6 PGI Study Survey

This appendix provides a copy of the PGI study survey, in which ten photos submitted by one participant were inserted, as discussed in Chapter 5.

261

Dear Madam,

Thank you very much for participating in this research project undertaken by Wei Liu, a student of Griffith University (Queensland, Australia), aiming to investigate your experiences in the Brisbane Good Food & Wine Show 2014. It’s a non-commercial student research project. As a result, I am not able to pay for people to participate in this study. However, your participation is both very important and greatly appreciated by me.

As a token appreciation for your time and participation, all participants will be able to enter a prize draw to win one of six Coles & MYER gift cards valued at $50 each.

Thanks again for your time and assistance with this research project.

Yours sincerely,

Wei Liu, PhD Candidate

Supervisors: Professor Beverly Sparks and Dr Alexandra Coghlan

Department of Tourism, Sport and Hotel Management

Griffith University

262