Will innovation and collaboration really create seamless and high-quality experiences: empirical studies of a moderated mediation model

Abstract

Purpose The experience economy has transformed retailing, making consumer-brand relationship quality a central strategic priority for brands. This study aims to explore the influence mechanisms and boundary conditions of interaction and perceived value fit on consumer-brand relationship quality in experiential retailing, based on self-regulation theory. Design/methodology/approach This research proposes a conceptual model to discuss how interactions and perceived value fit affect consumer-brand relationship quality. In this study, 2 rounds of experiments were conducted, collecting 292 and 284 valid data, respectively. The study also examines the boundary effects of brand innovation and cross-channel synergies by SPSS. Findings The results suggest that self-regulation (consumer identification, brand identity and experiential immersion) mediates the relationship between interaction, perceived value fit and consumer-brand relationship quality. Moreover, perceived innovation significantly enhanced the impact of interaction and perceived value fit on the self-regulation mediators. Cross-channel synergy also played a significant, yet more complex, moderating role: it strengthened the positive effect of interaction on experiential immersion but weakened its effect on consumer identification and brand identity. The moderated mediation effects are therefore not uniformly positive. Originality/value This study enriches the influencing mechanisms of interaction and perceived value fit in experiential retailing and emphasizes the boundary effects of perceived innovation and cross-channel synergy. It also provides a deeper understanding of how to build high-quality consumer-brand relationships based on the unique characteristics of experiential retailing. Graphical abstract Source(s): Authors’ own work by PPT A conceptual framework presents empirical studies and mechanisms in experiential retailing. The conceptual framework is titled “Empirical studies towards experiential retailing.” It shows a top dashed box labeled “Conceptual model”. The model is organized into antecedents, moderators, mediators, outcome variables, methods, analysis, and study designs, with multiple icons illustrating each component. On the left, two boxes labeled “Antecedent” appear. The first antecedent box reads: “Interactions,” with the note “High versus low,” and includes a handshake icon. Below it, the second antecedent box reads: “Perceived value fit,” with the note “Store to private versus public,” and includes a balance scale icon. Below these, a box labeled “Moderator” reads: “Perceived innovation,” with the note “High versus low,” and includes a puzzle piece icon. A small label beside it reads “Study 1.” Further down, another “Moderator” box reads: “Cross-channel synergy,” with the note “High versus low,” and includes a gear icon. A small label beside it reads “Study 2.” Arrows from the antecedent boxes point rightward toward a central vertical stack labeled “Mediators”. This mediator stack contains three boxes: “Consumer identification,” with a user icon; “Brand identity,” with a hand or brand-related icon; “Experiential immersion,” with a person icon. Below these mediator boxes, the text “Self-regulation mechanism” is displayed. Arrows from moderator boxes point upward to the path between the antecedent and mediator boxes. An arrow from the mediators points rightward to a box labeled “Outcome variables”. This box reads: “Consumer–brand relationship quality,” followed by “Satisfaction,” “Trust,” and “Loyalty,” and includes a three-circle relationship icon. Below the outcome area, a section labeled “Methods” appears with a checklist icon. The text reads: “Used questionnaire in two experiments.” An arrow from the top dashed box points downward to a bottom dashed box. The bottom dashed box shows a building icon on the left with the text: “[Study 1] Sample: 292,” followed by “Quasi-field experiment (hotel-based)” and “Employing a 2 by 2 between-subjects design.” The bottom dashed box also shows a clipboard icon with the text: “[Study 2] Sample: 284,” followed by “Crowdfunding survey by questionnaire” and “Employing a 2 by 2 between-subjects design.” A horizontal rightward arrow from “Study 1” points to “Study 2”. An upward arrow from the bottom dashed box points to a dashed box that reads “Analysis in S P S S and PROCESS,” with a presentation chart icon. An upward arrow connects analysis to a dashed box labeled “Deducing Implications” with a group discussion icon. An arrow labeled “Rethink” from “deducing implications” points back to the top dashed box.