Effects of Brand Experience: The Case of The Witcher Brand in the Eyes of Polish Customers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper should be better structured. The following sections should be identified: introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion and conclusions.

INTRODUCTION

The relevance of the study is not sufficiently described: why is it interesting to investigate this research topic?

I suggest describing since the beginning of the paper its main practical implications.

METHODOLOGY

This section should be supplemented with more information. For example, how was the sample used selected? What are the characteristics of the sample? How was the data analyzed? How is the questionnaire structured?

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

 

Please add more details on the practical and theoretical implications of your study. 

Author Response

1. Introduction was separated from the literature review. Materials and Methods, Results are separated in the articles. A deliberate solution is to combine Discussion and Conclusions, because they influence each other to a large extent.
2. The importance of the research was emphasized in the Introduction.
3. Practical implications have been added.
4. A description of the research sample and data analysis tool can be found at the beginning of the Materials and Methods section. Information about conducting the survey via the Internet has been added. Questionnaire questions were added with a description.
5. Both practical and theoretical implications were developed.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I will keep it short, because I simply liked "Effects of brand experience: The case of The Witcher brand in the eyes of Polish customers".

It is not a particularly complex, articulated article, but a more accessible one. Precisely that is, in my opinion, its strength. Simplicity from a methodological perspective and originality in terms of topic/object of research.

Two are my main points:
1. some sentences (for instance, already at the beginning: "The presented article concerns") have to be revised in linguistic terms. Therefore, I suggest to go through the paper again and make the corresponding changes;
2. I would specify in Fig. 1, if the Google trends results are from Poland and - if so - I would put in the Research Limitations (where the authors mention that the brand is globally known) a similar graph, but for the world and/or larger countries. This would undermine this potential, future stream of research.

Author Response

1. The article has been checked and corrected by a professional translator
2. The chart concerns world data, not only Polish.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper presents the analysis of survey conducting on 539 Polish respondents for the Witcher brand recognition. Scientific level of the article is moderate, but it can be improved by adding some summarising tables.

 There is some confusion about the gap of the paper – i.e., author/s should more clearly elaborate why this study is needed.

The theory of brand should be systemized by provided their own modern definition of the brand.

The literature can be generalized by adding the table ‘Elements of the modern brand’, including elements from classical theories as well as new one.

Special theoretical features of the branding related to analysed area should be highlighted.

The detail structure of the questions should be provided by including some arguments in the subchapter of ‘Materials and Methods’.

The used methods step by step should be presented in ‘Materials and Methods’.

 

Author Response

1. An explanation of this has been introduced in the second paragraph of the Introduction.
2. In the literature review, an own brand definition was added, which, according to the authors, fits the considerations undertaken in this article.
3. A table has been added to the literature review.
4. The authors explained this by explaining the brand elements in the table.
5. Questionnaire questions have been added to Materials and Methods.
6. This was explained with the questions mentioned.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for improving the paper.

Author Response

Thank you for appreciating our efforts.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you very much for improving the article.

The introduction can not be finished by references.  The aim, methods, structured should be presented.

The new table 'Table 1. The elements of a modern brand' is very simple and not scientific.

Author Response

1.    Thank you for appreciating our efforts.
2.    So that the Introduction would not end with a reference to the literature, a part was added after this. Information about the goal and the research method has been added. The structure of the article is also briefly shown. - lines 78-83
3.    Table 1 has been replaced with bullet points. The table numbering has been changed accordingly.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you