Omnichannel Identity Dimensions and Their Differential Impact on Customer–Brand Relationships: A Comparative Analysis of South Korean Retailers

Abstract

This study investigates how a consistent brand identity across multiple channels influences customer experiences and relationship development in South Korean retailers’ omnichannel strategies. To address the fundamental challenge of balancing brand consistency with channel-specific customization, we developed a comprehensive omnichannel identity framework through rigorous measurement development and factor analysis. This framework comprises three empirically validated dimensions: trendiness, reliability, and usability. Data collected from 994 customers of two leading South Korean retailers were analyzed using structural equation modeling, revealing that these omnichannel identity dimensions exert differential influences on cognitive and affective brand experiences, which subsequently mediate the development of customer–brand relationships. Notably, the results demonstrated significant variance in the impact of identity components between retailers—trendiness and reliability emerged as primary drivers of brand experiences for Retailer A, while usability constituted the dominant factor for Retailer B. This study contributes to sustainable retail theory by empirically validating the multidimensional conceptualization of omnichannel identity and its selective influence on customer perceptions within an environmental responsibility context. The findings provide strategic guidance for retailers seeking to develop distinctive brand identities across channels in the highly digitalized South Korean consumer market, ultimately enhancing brand equity and sustainability performance through stronger customer–brand relationships that promote environmentally conscious consumption behaviors.

1. Introduction

Managing brand identity across multiple channels for an omnichannel strategy presents distinct challenges, primarily involving the maintenance of a uniform brand image across diverse platforms. Each channel possesses unique characteristics and user expectations, requiring brands to ensure their core sustainability values, messaging, and visual identity remain coherent and uniformly presented across all platforms [1,2]. While consistency is crucial, brands must simultaneously adapt their offerings through two distinct mechanisms: personalization, which tailors content based on individual consumer data and preferences, and customization, which allows consumers to actively modify elements of their experience according to channel-specific affordances—all while minimizing environmental impact and promoting social equity [3,4,5].

The distinction between personalization and customization is critical in an omnichannel strategy. Personalization refers to retailer-initiated adaptations based on algorithmic analysis of consumer behavior and preferences, enabling automated content tailoring without direct consumer input. In contrast, customization encompasses consumer-driven modifications that empower users to actively configure their experiences through explicit choices across different channels. Both mechanisms, while conceptually distinct, must operate within a framework that preserves brand identity integrity while optimizing channel-specific functionality and sustainability objectives.

Balancing a consistent brand identity with effective personalization strategies, appropriate customization options, and sustainability principles is complex and multifaceted. For instance, adapting content for different channels while preserving alignment with the brand’s core sustainability message represents a significant challenge, encompassing modifications in style, tone, and format to suit various customer touchpoints while reducing digital waste and energy consumption. Muhonen et al. emphasize that brand identity components must perform cohesively across all customer interactions to create a meaningful impact and promote sustainable consumption behaviors [6]. Addressing these challenges necessitates a strategic brand management approach, comprehensive insights into the dynamics of various channels, and an unwavering dedication to delivering consistently customer-focused brand experiences that also advance sustainability goals.

In today’s technologically driven marketing landscape, consumer needs have grown increasingly complex, with rising expectations for brands to demonstrate environmental stewardship and social responsibility. The shift towards sustainable omnichannel marketing, evolving from multichannel retailing, reflects these transformative changes [7,8]. This approach integrates interactive channels with traditional advertising, highlighting the synergy between marketing channels, brands, and sustainability initiatives [8] (p. 176). As the retail environment rapidly evolves, unitary channel shopping falls short in meeting contemporary customer needs for convenience and sustainability, positioning omnichannel marketing as a critical strategy for retailers to effectively cater to diverse consumer shopping behaviors while reducing environmental footprints [9].

Santharam asserts that comprehensive brand experiences encompass sensory, affective, behavioral, and intellectual dimensions, all of which must be carefully coordinated across multiple touchpoints for effective sustainable omnichannel implementation [10]. The rise of interactive marketing and digital computing has led consumers to diversify their purchasing platforms in the “digital convergence” era, creating both opportunities and challenges for sustainable consumption. Brand relationships now form through various communication channels, encompassing socializing, content consumption, and online shopping [11], with sustainability values increasingly influencing these relationships. Khan et al. further highlight that consumer brand engagement varies significantly between online and offline environments, necessitating careful strategic alignment of sustainability messaging across channels [12].

In this context, channel integration enhances consumer value and sustainability outcomes, requiring firms to prioritize consistent value and sustainability message delivery across all channels, both online and offline, to establish a strong omnichannel identity. Such visual and experiential consistency across channels is crucial for developing robust customer–brand relationships, fostering customer loyalty, and promoting sustainable consumption practices [9,13,14]. Jin et al. emphasize that a consistent brand color identity across channels significantly influences brand association and loyalty [15], while Xuan et al. argue that total customer experience management is essential for sustaining customer loyalty in complex market environments facing sustainability challenges [16]. Despite these insights, research into methods for developing comprehensive sustainable omnichannel and individual online and offline channel identities remains nascent and underexplored.

The present study offers a framework for assessing the sustainable brand strategies of South Korean retailers through the development of robust omnichannel identity, bolstering their competitive edge and sustainability performance in an increasingly digital marketplace. In the dynamic retail landscape of South Korea, leading retailers like Lotte and SSG continually adapt their strategies to maintain competitiveness while addressing sustainability concerns, emphasizing the adoption of energy-efficient technologies and a seamless, personalized, and environmentally responsible shopping experience. As McLean and Wilson suggest, evolving the online customer experience requires careful attention to support mechanisms that complement the overall brand experience while minimizing environmental impact [17].

Lotte focuses on integrating digital and physical shopping experiences through sophisticated online platforms, mobile applications, virtual fitting rooms, and AR-based product previews, all designed to reduce unnecessary product returns and associated carbon emissions. This approach aligns with Khan and Rahman’s finding that the brand experience in retailing comprises multiple dimensions that must be carefully structured and integrated with sustainability considerations [18]. Simultaneously, SSG invests extensively in digital transformation with their popular e-commerce platform, SSG.com, and enhanced mobile shopping experiences integrated with digital technology in their physical stores, implementing energy efficiency measures and sustainable logistics solutions.

Both Lotte and SSG operate extensive networks of department stores, supermarkets, and duty-free shops, striving to create synergy between their physical and online presence while reducing their environmental footprint. Lotte emphasizes services like online ordering with in-store pickup to reduce last-mile delivery emissions, while SSG focuses on seamless transitions between online and offline realms with consolidated shipping options to minimize packaging waste. This approach reflects Bleier et al.’s assertion that creating effective online customer experiences requires careful attention to informational, entertainment, social, sensorial, and increasingly, sustainability value dimensions [19].

Customer experience, personalization, and sustainability are pivotal to both retailers’ strategies; Lotte implements personalized marketing based on sophisticated customer data analysis to reduce marketing waste, while SSG leverages advanced data analytics for tailored product offerings and promotions that highlight eco-friendly options. These practices align with Kaur et al.’s findings regarding the importance of reward systems and community identification in fostering consumer brand engagement and loyalty in digital environments, particularly when aligned with sustainability values [20].

This study underscores the significance of embracing an integrated sustainable omnichannel identity by exploring its impact on shaping customers’ brand experiences and strengthening customer–brand relationships through shared sustainability values. As Kumar and Kaushik suggest, consumer–company identification based on shared values and sustainability commitments serves as a critical framework for understanding the depth and nature of these relationships [21]. The findings aim to guide companies in delivering consistent brand experiences that incorporate sustainability principles, fostering robust customer–brand relationships, building brand equity as conceptualized by Keller, and ultimately, boosting profitability and sustainability performance in an increasingly competitive and digitalized retail environment [22].

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Conceptualizing Retailers’ Omnichannel Identity Within the Brand Triangle Framework

The omnichannel identity is imperative for contemporary marketers seeking to deliver seamless, consistent, and personalized customer experiences—fundamental elements for cultivating loyalty and maintaining a competitive advantage in an increasingly digitalized marketplace [1,2]. The contemporary retail landscape has witnessed unprecedented transformation through technological advancement and evolving consumer preferences, rendering the domains of online and mobile commerce increasingly expansive and intricate. This proliferation of digital shopping channels has adversely impacted traditional brick-and-mortar retail establishments, leading to sales decline and market stagnation. In response to these challenges, retailers have progressively embraced omnichannel strategies to facilitate synergistic revitalization across their operational domains [8,9]. Omnichannel marketing represents a sophisticated integration of interactive and mass communication pathways [7,8], with bidirectional communicative exchanges between corporate entities and consumers assuming paramount significance in contemporary commercial interactions [11,23]. The multiplicity of consumer touchpoints exerts a substantial influence on brand consideration processes, loyalty cultivation mechanisms, and the evolutionary trajectories of consumer–brand relationships [18,24,25]. This comprehensive integration can be best understood through the Brand Triangle theoretical model, which conceptually distinguishes brand identity from marketing-mix elements and diverse stakeholder publics, providing a tripartite framework that illuminates the complex interrelationships between these distinct yet interdependent domains of brand management [23,24,25].

Omnichannel marketing facilitates consumer product investigation and acquisition through diverse channels—including digital platforms, physical establishments, and mobile interfaces—offering a holistic shopping experience that synthesizes the distinctive attributes of each channel while maintaining perceptual consistency regardless of the consumer’s chosen purchase pathway [4,5,7,8,9,13]. This strategic approach represents a significant evolutionary progression in retail strategy formulation, responding to the increasingly multifaceted nature of consumer behavioral patterns and expectations [14].

The integration of corporate and brand communication within omnichannel marketing architectures has facilitated a seamless consumer journey, spanning the initial information acquisition phase through to final purchase completion and post-acquisition service engagement [9,17]. Retailers accomplish this integration through the unification of internal structural mechanisms rather than maintaining siloed distribution channels [13]. This consolidation necessitates the deployment of innovative technologies to establish the requisite infrastructural foundations [26]. The demarcation between online and offline shopping experiences continues to diminish as retailers introduce expedited delivery services and physical product retrieval options. As the boundaries between digital and physical distribution channels progressively dissolve, retailers face mounting pressure to expeditiously establish robust omnichannel platforms [3].

For a successful transition to omnichannel marketing paradigms, the conceptualization and implementation of a coherent omnichannel identity assumes critical importance [6,27]. From the consumer perspective, the semantic associations of omnichannel identity are paramount in shaping perceptual responses. Understanding the mechanisms through which consumer interactions across diverse channels coalesce to form a unified identity is essential for addressing evolving consumer preferences and expectations [28]. An omnichannel identity ensures consistency in the consumer experience irrespective of channel selection [20]. This experiential consistency, through the provision of enhanced customer service protocols, constitutes a crucial determinant of consumer retention and loyalty cultivation [12,22].

Predicated upon a comprehensive understanding of consumer channel utilization patterns—a process facilitated by effective omnichannel identity management—tailored communication strategies and personalized experiential offerings can significantly enhance consumer engagement levels [2,3]. From the retailer’s strategic perspective, the facilitation of frictionless transitions between online and offline channels represents a potential source of competitive differentiation, attracting additional consumers and enhancing aggregate satisfaction metrics [2]. Through identification of the most efficacious channels for specific demographic segments, marketing practitioners can optimize resource allocation, ensuring a superior return on investment [5].

Consequently, retailers must critically examine and comprehend the multidimensional nature of an omnichannel identity to adapt their strategic initiatives and maintain relevance within the continuously evolving landscape of consumer interaction [27]. Based on the preceding theoretical discourse, this study conceptualizes the omnichannel identity of retail entities as the cohesive and consistent representation of a retailer or its associated brand, encompassing its axiological foundations, communicative messages, and service offerings across the diverse channels through which it engages with prospective and existing customers [6].

2.2. Omnichannel Identity Conceptualization Through Brand Personality Theoretical Frameworks

The application of personality theory to conceptualize omnichannel identity represents a methodologically sophisticated approach that anthropomorphizes brand entities through the attribution of human-like characteristics, facilitating alignment with the distinctive psychological traits and preferential patterns exhibited by consumer segments [29,30]. This marketing strategy, deriving theoretical foundations from psychological disciplines, assigns human qualities to brand entities, fostering deeper, more personalized connections with consumer audiences [31,32]. Initially, analogous to human personality differentiation, brands can cultivate distinctive identities within their omnichannel manifestations [15]. Through the embodiment of specific trait constellations such as reliability, trendiness, or sophistication in their omnichannel approaches, retail entities infuse their brands with anthropomorphic essence [29,30]. This strategic positioning not only enhances consumer engagement at affective levels but also facilitates familiarity and trust development [32]. Secondarily, the affective impact of these personality attributions assumes considerable significance in consumer response patterning [33]. A brand entity that projects friendliness and accessibility in its omnichannel interactions, for instance, can engender perceptions of warmth and trustworthiness among consumer constituencies [31]. This emotional connectivity ensures persistent cognitive imprinting, enhancing brand recognition parameters and loyalty metrics [12]. The brand’s impact manifests not merely through its product offerings but through the emotional responses it elicits from consumer interactions [20]. Consistency represents a fundamental principle in personality theory application; maintaining uniform trait manifestations across diverse consumer touchpoints ensures a coherent and recognizable brand image, irrespective of whether the interaction occurs in physical retail environments, digital platforms, or social media interfaces [2]. This conceptual framework aligns with broader brand identity theories that emphasize the critical importance of maintaining consistent brand expressions across all consumer interaction points to build strong, recognizable market positions. The strategic implications of this theoretical approach are substantial for market practitioners [27]. Individuals naturally demonstrate a preferential orientation toward entities exhibiting consistent, relatable personality characteristics. Retail organizations that integrate personality traits into their omnichannel strategic frameworks can cultivate enduring consumer relationships characterized by high engagement levels [32,33]. Uniform trait manifestations across all interaction modalities enhance perceptions of reliability and predictability, strengthening the fundamental consumer–brand relationship [31].

Additionally, comprehension of brand personality dimensions enables retail entities to customize their communication stylistics with greater precision and effectiveness [11,23]. For example, a brand projecting a playful persona might adopt casual linguistic patterns and vibrant visual elements to appeal to younger demographic segments, whereas a sophisticated personality might employ refined language constructs and elegant imagery to attract more mature audience segments [15]. Such tailored communication approaches strengthen engagement metrics and foster stronger psychological connections between consumers and brands [12]. In increasingly competitive market environments, distinctive positioning represents a critical success factor [27]. A well-defined omnichannel personality differentiates a brand entity, rendering it more memorable in the consumer consciousness [6]. When consumers experience resonance with a brand’s personality traits, this distinctiveness simplifies consumer choice architectures by providing a clear differentiation from competitive offerings [33]. Ultimately, the conceptualization of omnichannel identity through personality theory frameworks assists retail entities in personifying their brand, rendering it more relatable, memorable, and emotionally resonant for consumer audiences [29,32]. This strategic approach elevates transactional exchanges to meaningful interactions, nurturing sustained brand loyalty and advocacy behaviors among consumer segments [25].

2.3. Brand Experience and Customer–Brand Relationships: A Multidimensional Perspective

2.3.1. Conceptual Evolution of Brand Experience

Brakus et al. initially conceptualized the brand experience construct [10], capturing consumers’ internal cognitive and affective reflections evoked by brand-related stimuli such as identity elements and packaging design [34,35]. The historical development of brand experience research reveals a consistent recognition of its multidimensional nature among scholarly communities [12,18]. Rahardja et al. identified a constellation of response patterns including emotional, perceptual, cognitive, behavioral, and mental reactions to brand marketing strategies [36]. In a complementary analysis, Xuan et al. distinguished between subjective experiential elements, encompassing emotional and social connections with brand entities, and objective elements involving tangible interactions during product development or service delivery processes [16]. This multidimensional conceptualization proves instrumental in understanding how consumers perceive brand entities across heterogeneous touchpoints in omnichannel contexts [2]. Customer experiences represent dynamic response patterns triggered by multifarious stimuli, encompassing pre-purchase and post-acquisition marketing activities, observed through virtual or physical experiential events [10,37]. As delineated by Schmitt’s seminal framework, these experiences comprise five essential components: sensory engagement, emotional response, cognitive processing, behavioral action, and relational connection [38].

2.3.2. Cognitive Brand Experience: Theoretical Foundations

The cognitive dimension of the brand experience represents a critical theoretical component involving intellectual stimulation, problem-solving, and analytical information processing that occurs during brand interactions. The theoretical significance of cognitive brand experiences lies in their capacity to differentiate brands in markets where functional benefits alone prove insufficient for a sustainable competitive advantage [39,40]. By stimulating intellectual curiosity and engagement, brands can establish deeper cognitive connections with consumers that transcend purely emotional or sensory associations [41]. As conceptualized by Brakus et al. [10], cognitive brand experiences manifest when brands stimulate consumers’ curiosity, thought processes, and intellectual engagement. This dimension encompasses the analytical and problem-solving aspects of consumer interactions with a brand [39,42,43].

Cognitive brand experiences involve complex mental processes including convergent and divergent thinking patterns, analytical reasoning, and creative problem-solving. These experiences are particularly relevant in high-involvement decision contexts where consumers engage in extensive information processing and rational evaluation [42,43]. When consumers experience cognitive engagement with a brand, they develop more elaborate and enduring memory structures that influence subsequent brand evaluations and choice behaviors.

2.3.3. Affective Brand Experience: Theoretical Foundations

Affective brand experiences represent emotional responses and feelings evoked during brand interactions. These experiences encompass the full spectrum of emotional states—from basic affect (pleasure/displeasure) to complex emotional responses (nostalgia, excitement, pride)—that consumers associate with brand encounters [31,33]. The affective dimension constitutes a fundamental component of the overall brand experience, often operating at both conscious and unconscious levels of consumer awareness.

Theoretical perspectives on the affective brand experience emphasize its role in creating emotional connections that influence consumer–brand relationships [36]. These experiences involve sensory responses induced by brand-related stimuli, impacting consumers directly through product design, color perception, and aesthetic elements [44,45,46]. The affective dimension finds expression in corporate and brand names, visual symbols, and auditory cues, providing mental anchors for forming comprehensive corporate images [26,30,34,35].

Affective brand experiences convey aesthetic pleasure, excitement, beauty, and satisfaction, progressively shaping overall brand personality perceptions and evaluative judgments over time, thereby fostering robust consumer–brand relationships [26,30,34,35,44,45,46]. The theoretical importance of the affective dimension lies in its capacity to create emotional differentiation in markets where rational differentiation proves difficult to maintain.

2.3.4. Consumer–Brand Relationship: Conceptual Framework

The construct of consumer–brand relationships has evolved from early conceptualizations of brand personality [29,30] to sophisticated theoretical frameworks examining the complex psychological and social dynamics between consumers and brands. Founded on paradigms of human relationship psychology, the consumer–brand relationship construct posits that consumers form relationships with brands that mirror interpersonal connections in their complexity, emotional depth, and reciprocal nature [31,39].

When a brand’s personality characteristics demonstrate alignment with a consumer’s actual or ideal self-concept, a personalized connection analogous to human interpersonal relationships forms between the consumer and the brand entity [31,39]. This theoretical perspective has catalyzed extensive research on consumer–brand relationships, emphasizing the pivotal role of consumer–brand experiences in relationship formation and maintenance [12,21]. Scholars like Santharam have emphasized the significance of these experiential interactions, driving the development of corresponding measurement metrics to quantify relationship strength [10]. In-store experiences [19], hedonic encounters [40], brand-evoked emotions, and cognitive experiences [41] exert a profound influence on brand loyalty development and subsequent consumer behavioral patterns [20]. The cognitive aspects of the brand experience assume particular relevance in high-involvement decision contexts [42,43], while aesthetic elements significantly influence overall brand perception and evaluation [44,45,46]. In contemporary consumer cultures characterized by emotional engagement primacy, a fully articulated company or brand identity enhances perceived reliability and fosters consumer trust development [6,28]. Consequently, the creation of unique and differentiated brand identities constitutes a pivotal strategic initiative [27], not merely for sustaining consumer engagement but also for enhancing competitive market positioning [47,48]. Emotional connection and design aesthetics, within this conceptual framework, represent fundamental pillars in the contemporary landscape of consumer preferential patterns [15,44]. In omnichannel contexts, brand experience assumes additional dimensional complexity as consumers interact with brand entities across multiple platforms and touchpoints [2,3]. This multiplicity necessitates careful calibration of experiential elements to ensure consistency while simultaneously leveraging the unique attributes of each channel to create complementary experiences [4,5]. The integration of these diverse experiential components into a coherent whole represents a significant challenge for retail organizations but simultaneously offers unprecedented opportunities for building stronger consumer–brand relationships characterized by high engagement and loyalty [12,20,26].

2.3.5. Integrative Framework: Price, Promotions, and Product Availability as Mediating Factors

Beyond the core constructs of brand identity, brand experience, and consumer–brand relationships, additional factors exert a significant influence on relationship development in omnichannel contexts. Price perceptions, promotional activities, and product availability represent critical mediating variables that can either enhance or diminish the impact of brand experiences on relationship outcomes [10,16]. Within an expanded theoretical framework, these factors interact with experiential dimensions to shape overall consumer responses to omnichannel retail offerings. Price represents not merely a monetary exchange value but a complex perceptual construct that consumers interpret in relation to perceived quality, competitive offerings, and value expectations [16,21]. In omnichannel contexts, price consistency across channels influences consumer trust and satisfaction, while perceived price fairness mediates the relationship between brand experiences and loyalty behaviors [1,10,16]. Similarly, promotional activities serve multiple functions beyond immediate sales stimulation, including brand reinforcement, value communication, and relationship building [1,10,16]. The consistency and relevance of promotional activities across omnichannel touchpoints influence consumer perceptions of brand coherence and authenticity, ultimately affecting relationship quality and longevity [16]. Product availability—encompassing assortment breadth, inventory accessibility, and fulfillment capabilities—constitutes a critical operational dimension that influences experiential outcomes in omnichannel contexts [16,21,23,24]. Consistent product availability across channels reinforces brand reliability perceptions, while integrated inventory systems that facilitate seamless cross-channel purchasing enhance overall satisfaction with the omnichannel experience [1,10]. The inclusion of these mediating factors in an expanded theoretical framework provides a more comprehensive understanding of the complex relationships between omnichannel identity, brand experiences, and consumer–brand relationships in contemporary retail environments [1,10,16,23,24]. This integrative perspective acknowledges that relationship development occurs within a complex ecosystem of brand attributes, operational capabilities, and market positioning factors that collectively shape consumer responses to omnichannel retail offerings.

3. Research Model and Hypotheses

This study adopts a systematic approach to investigate the complex relationships between omnichannel identity, brand experiences, and customer–brand relationships in the retail sector. Our conceptual framework begins by identifying and validating the specific attributes that constitute retailers’ omnichannel identity through rigorous measurement and factor analysis. Subsequently, we examine the causal mechanisms through which these distinct attributes of omnichannel identity influence both cognitive and affective dimensions of brand experiences. Further extending this analytical chain, we investigate how these differentiated brand experiences function as mediating variables that ultimately shape customer–brand relationships.

The theoretical underpinnings of our research model draw upon the prior literature in brand identity, experiential marketing, and relationship marketing. Specifically, we posit that an omnichannel identity comprises multiple dimensions that exert varying effects on consumers’ cognitive and emotional responses to brand interactions across channels. These experiential responses, in turn, serve as critical mediators that facilitate the development of enduring customer–brand relationships.

To empirically validate these theoretical assertions, we formulate several research hypotheses that delineate the proposed relationships among the focal constructs. These hypotheses reflect our theoretical predictions regarding the directional influences between omnichannel identity attributes, typologies of brand experiences, and customer–brand relationship outcomes. The comprehensive research model, integrating these hypothesized relationships, is visually represented in Figure 1, providing a conceptual roadmap for our empirical investigation.

This framework not only contributes to the theoretical understanding of omnichannel dynamics but also offers practical insights for retailers seeking to optimize their brand strategy across multiple consumer touchpoints. Through systematic hypothesis testing, we aim to elucidate the complex pathways through which omnichannel identity influences consumer–brand relationships, thereby advancing both scholarly knowledge and managerial practice in this rapidly evolving domain. This study’s research model is presented in Figure 1.

3.1. Relationship Between Omnichannel Identities and Brand Experiences

The theoretical foundation for examining the relationship between omnichannel identity and brand experiences is anchored in seminal work on brand identity construction and its psychological impact on consumer perceptions. Brand identity serves as a fundamental strategic instrument, deliberately positioning specific brand associations within consumers’ cognitive architecture according to the organization’s strategic intent [4,49]. The cultivation of brand equity is intrinsically dependent upon the effective transmission of this identity through coordinated marketing communications. Identity management necessitates the deliberate integration of thematic and stylistic elements across sensory and visual dimensions, reflecting the temporal continuity of the organization’s evolution [27,28,49]. The extant literature substantiates that favorable brand experiences and enduring brand relationships emerge from the establishment of positive, distinctive, and robust brand associations, encompassing perceived value propositions, organizational affiliations, and integrated marketing channels [8,15,21,48]. Through their channel identities, retailers orchestrate visual and experiential elements across various marketing touchpoints, enabling consumers to apprehend a channel’s differentiation, coherence, and potentialities. The omnichannel paradigm facilitates consumer product exploration and acquisition across diverse platforms, synthesizing the distinctive characteristics of each channel into a unified identity construct [13]. This integrated omnichannel identity engenders perceptions of consistency among consumers, irrespective of their transactional channel preferences [7,8,9]. Brand experiences, as conceptualized by Brakus et al. [10], represent multidimensional consumer responses to brand-related stimuli. These experiences are fundamentally sensorial, and the distinctive content, design, atmospheric elements, and auditory cues across corporate omnichannel touchpoints shape consumers’ sensory engagement [10,36]. Affective experiences constitute a critical dimension, generating emotional resonance and positive valence [12]. Cognitive experiences, conversely, stimulate intellectual curiosity, creative cognition, and problem-solving capabilities [2]. A brand’s omnichannel identity, through its innovative, unique, and creative manifestations, catalyzes consumers’ cognitive exploration and intellectual engagement [18,34,35,45].

In the theoretical discourse on brand identity, omnichannel identity is characterized by dimensions of homogeneity, unity, conformity, subjectivity, and perceptual interpretation [1,7,8]. Empirical evidence demonstrates that retailers’ omnichannel identities positively influence brand consideration processes and consumer–brand relationship development [4,19,24]. Drawing upon this theoretical foundation, we posit that a retailer’s omnichannel identity significantly differentiates its market positioning, thereby constructively influencing brand experiences [33]. Consequently, we propose the following hypotheses:

H1: 

The components of an omnichannel identity, namely trendiness factors (H1a), reliability factors (H1b), and usability factors (H1c), have positive effects on cognitive brand experiences.

H2: 

The components of an omnichannel identity, namely trendiness factors (H2a), reliability factors (H2b), and usability factors (H2c), have positive effects on affective brand experiences.

3.2. The Relationship Between Brand Experiences and Customer–Brand Relationships

The theoretical connection between brand experiences and customer–brand relationships is firmly grounded in the experiential marketing literature. Pine and Gilmore emphasize that experiences derived from direct participation in production processes hold profound significance for consumers [37]. Schmitt’s theoretical framework elucidates how compelling experiential encounters are crafted for consumers, addressing both rational and emotional dimensions of consumer engagement [38]. The accumulation of experiences through sustained brand interactions constitutes the foundation for establishing enduring consumer–brand relationships [16]. Prior empirical investigations have identified several determinants of consumer–brand relationships, including purchasing experiences, emotional and behavioral encounters, cognitive belief structures, and brand identity formation [31,32,39]. Intellectual curiosity, interest, surprise, and cognitive challenges emerge from brand stimulation processes, accumulating as consumers engage with varied branding activities and problem-solving opportunities [41]. A consumer’s cognitive response to brand stimuli, conceptualized as cognitive brand experience, encompasses intelligent analysis, problem-solving capabilities, and interpretative processes [10,17,39,44,45]. Convergent and divergent thinking patterns, catalyzed by curiosity and interest, promote creative cognition by establishing diverse associative networks with the brand, thereby enhancing the quality and depth of consumer–brand relationships [25]. Affective brand experiences involve sensory and emotional responses induced by brand-related stimuli, directly influencing consumers through product design elements, color perceptions, and aesthetic qualities [36]. This experiential dimension manifests through corporate and brand nomenclature, visual symbolism, and auditory cues, providing mental frameworks for corporate image formation [26,30,34,35,44,45]. Affective brand experiences convey aesthetic satisfaction, excitement, perceived beauty, and emotional fulfillment, contributing to the holistic brand personality construct and longitudinal evaluative processes, thereby fostering robust consumer–brand relationships [26,30,34,35,44,45,46]. Empirical evidence demonstrates that virtual brand experiences influence consumer attitudes toward advertising content and purchase intentions, contributing to brand success through market expansion [11,17,47]. These experiences also impact brand immersion processes and evaluative judgments [17,20,50], particularly in brand application contexts, establishing a direct link between diverse brand experiences and brand performance metrics [5]. Brand experiences and interactive processes cyclically influence consumer–brand relationships and satisfaction outcomes [23]. Even when consumers lack familiarity with specific product attributes, the company’s halo effect or overarching brand image can directly influence purchase intentions through trust mechanisms [40]. Consumer decision processes predominantly rely on favorable attitudinal orientations toward product attributes, reinforcing purchase intentions and driving actual purchasing behaviors [42,43]. Based on this theoretical foundation, we formulate the following hypotheses:

H3: 

Cognitive brand experiences positively influence consumer–brand relationships.

H4: 

Affective brand experiences positively influence consumer–brand relationships.

4. Methods and Analysis

4.1. Conceptual Framework and Scale Development

This study employed a structured methodological approach to operationalize and empirically validate the construct of omnichannel identity within the South Korean retail context. In response to the paucity of comprehensive measurement instruments in this domain, we undertook a systematic scale development process grounded in established psychometric principles.

4.1.1. Comprehensive Review of Extant Measurement Scales

Prior to developing our omnichannel identity scale, we conducted an exhaustive review of measurement scales previously employed in the domains of brand identity, brand personality, and omnichannel behavior. This review was instrumental in establishing the conceptual foundation for our measurement approach.

Brand Identity Measurement Scales: The conceptualization of brand identity has evolved considerably in the marketing literature, with several seminal scales informing our approach. A previous study’s brand identity framework, comprising twelve dimensions organized into four perspectives (brand-as-a-product, brand-as-an-organization, brand-as-a-person, and brand-as-a-symbol), provided a fundamental theoretical structure [6,15]. The Brand Identity Prism developed by Ward et al., which delineates six facets of brand identity (physical, personality, relationship, culture, reflection, and self-image), offered additional conceptual richness [27]. More recently, Bravo et al. developed and validated a comprehensive brand identity scale encompassing five dimensions: brand personality, brand communication, brand performance, brand appearance, and brand reflection [28]. Similarly, Muhonen et al. operationalized SME brand identity through a multidimensional scale incorporating visual identity, brand personality, brand communications, and brand relationships [6]. Of particular relevance to our study, Frasquet-Deltoro et al. developed a retailer brand experience scale specifically for omnichannel contexts, incorporating dimensions such as sensory experience, affective experience, behavioral experience, and intellectual experience across both online and offline touchpoints [1]. This scale provided valuable insights into the experiential dimensions of omnichannel retail but did not fully capture the identity components that constitute the focus of our investigation.

Brand Personality Measurement Scales: The measurement of brand personality has been significantly influenced by Muhonen and his colleagues’ brand personality scale, which identified five dimensions: sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness [6]. This scale has been widely adapted and extended in various cultural contexts. For instance, Villagra et al. developed a more concise and cross-culturally stable brand personality scale comprising responsibility, activity, aggressiveness, simplicity, and emotionality dimensions [23]. More recent contributions by Roy et al. [29] and Calderón-Fajardo et al. [30] have further refined brand personality measurement approaches, particularly in digital contexts. These scales provided valuable conceptual input for the personality-based dimensions of our omnichannel identity construct, especially in developing items related to the trendiness and reliability factors that emerged in our analysis.

Omnichannel Behavior Scales: The measurement of omnichannel consumer behavior represents a relatively nascent area of scholarly inquiry. Zhang et al. developed a comprehensive omnichannel customer experience scale that encompasses information consistency, purchase synchronization, and post-purchase integration dimensions [51]. This scale offered valuable insights into the customer-centric aspects of omnichannel integration but required adaptation to capture the retailer-centric identity perspective central to our investigation. Yin et al. and Frasquet-Deltoro et al. studied a measurement framework for omnichannel capabilities focusing on integration quality, channel-service configuration, and content consistency [1,2]. Similarly, some scholars developed scales to measure omnichannel integration quality across pre-purchase, purchase, and post-purchase phases [9,10,16,29,30]. These operational frameworks informed our approach to measuring the functional dimensions of omnichannel identity, particularly those related to the usability factor identified in our analysis.

4.1.2. Scale Development Process

Building upon this comprehensive review of extant measurement scales, we initiated a rigorous scale development process following established methodological guidelines [51,52]. To construct measurement items for omnichannel identity, we undertook an exploratory study, leveraging the existing literature on brand identity to formulate preliminary omnichannel identity metrics. These metrics were designed to span various channels, including online platforms, mobile applications, social networking services, physical stores, corporate branding elements, service offerings, and human interactions.

An omnichannel identity integrates all distribution channels—physical stores, online platforms, and mobile applications—and reflects the consistency of a retailer’s marketing and communication across these mediums [6,7,8,9,28], grounded in the principles of brand identity or corporate identity. Using established scale development methods [51,52,53], and supplementing with insights from a three-hour focus group involving a marketing professional and seven experienced customers, we generated a diverse set of measurement items. This process, combined with a thorough review of the identity literature, yielded 39 preliminary items.

A pilot study was subsequently conducted to assess content validity. The questionnaire, elucidating this study’s aim and illustrating the omnichannel approach, was evaluated by 130 business students who provided feedback on the retailers’ diverse channels. An expert panel, including a marketing professor and four graduate students, further refined these items for accuracy and alignment with conceptual definitions. This led to the elimination of 10 items, with the final set comprising 29 items that achieved an average acceptance rate of 75% or higher.

4.2. Data Collection and Sample Characteristics

This study utilized secondary consumer trend data obtained from a global research firm’s established consumer panel database, eliminating the need for Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. The dataset contained information from 994 valid respondents who were customers of two leading omnichannel retailers in South Korea. The sample was collected through judgment probability sampling methods, with participants initially recruited to the consumer panel through multiple prompts via text and email. The demographic composition of respondents was predominantly male (51.8%), primarily in their 30s and 40s, with 69.9% holding a college degree. The original survey administered by the research firm included visual aids related to retailers’ omnichannel identities to enhance comprehension among adult participants. Leveraging this pre-existing anonymized dataset rather than conducting primary research meant our study was exempt from formal IRB review requirements while still maintaining ethical research standards.

Our study introduced an omnichannel identity scale comprising eighteen items detailed in the following section. The brand experience dimension of the questionnaire was divided into emotional and cognitive aspects, with three questions for each aspect. Furthermore, it included five questions focused on consumer–brand relationships, a concept rooted in the idea that brand experience is shaped by consumer interactions with a brand’s products and services. The measurement items, derived from the established literature, were categorized into emotional and cognitive experience factors [37,38,41], and they were adjusted for validity and reliability to meet our research goals. Customer–brand relationships, akin to human relationships, are a complex interplay of emotional, cognitive, and behavioral elements. These interactions foster a balanced relationship where both parties are equally valued [31,39]. To evaluate this aspect, we adapted five proven items, customizing them for our study. The questionnaire utilized a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 represented ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 ‘strongly agree’, with higher scores indicating more favorable perceptions. As shown in Appendix A, questionnaire items for this study were extracted from previous studies.

4.3. Scale Refinement and Validation

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with varimax rotation was applied to the 29 initial items. Factors were selected based on eigenvalues ≥ 1 and commonalities ≥ 0.50. Items with low commonality or regression weights were excluded, resulting in 18 robust items. The reliability coefficient for this final set was commendable, at 0.947, indicating strong consistency. These 18 items were categorized into three dimensions: “Trendiness”, “Reliability”, and “Usability”, as detailed in

Table 1. EFA results.

Items	Communality	Omnichannel Identity (0.928)
		Factor 1 (Trendiness)	Factor 2 (Reliability)	Factor 3 (Usability)
Emotional	0.582	0.692
Young	0.530	0.639
Refreshing	0.664	0.582
Sophisticated	0.684	0.591
Active	0.590	0.821
Various	0.503	0.728
Lively	0.567	0.699
Consistent	0.616		0.605
Safe	0.552		0.763
Accurate	0.589		0.527
Stable	0.632		0.610
Professional	0.644		0.802
Honest	0.584		0.577
Convenient	0.703			0.730
Easy	0.644			0.728
Rational	0.586			0.591
Functional	0.596			0.637
Useful	0.680			0.733
Eigenvalue		8.079	1.645	1.224
Variance		44.88	9.136	6.799
Cumulative		44.88	54.02	60.82
Cronbach’s α		0.882	0.838	0.854
Total variance: 60.82%, KMO = 0.940, Bartlett’s test Chi-Square = 3364.2 (p < 0.001)

. Our analysis showed the overall sample fit based on a Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) value of 0.928 and Bartlett’s sphericity test χ² = 3364.2 (df = 153, p = 0.000), with these significant values indicating no issues with the factor analysis. Three factors were extracted to construct an omnichannel identity, which accounted for 60.8% of the total variance.

The structural equation modeling framework in this study utilized six latent constructs measured through psychometrically validated instruments. The exogenous variables comprised three omnichannel identity dimensions: (1) Trendiness Factor (measured through seven items assessing perceptual attributes: “emotional”, “young”, “refreshing”, “sophisticated”, “active”, “various”, and “lively”); (2) Reliability Factor (measured through six items, evaluating perceptions of “consistency”, “safety”, “accuracy”, “stability”, “professionalism”, and “honesty”); and (3) Usability Factor (measured through five items, assessing functional attributes of “convenience”, “ease”, “rationality”, “functionality”, and “usefulness”). The endogenous variables incorporated (4) Cognitive Brand Experience (operationalized through three items, measuring intellectual stimulation, curiosity arousal, and analytical engagement); (5) Affective Brand Experience (operationalized through three items, assessing emotional response, sensory engagement, and hedonic satisfaction); and (6) the Consumer–brand Relationship (measured through five items, evaluating psychological connection, identification, and relational attachment). All measurement items employed five-point Likert scales (1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree”). The discriminant validity of these constructs was empirically verified through confirmatory factor analysis, with all constructs demonstrating composite reliability coefficients exceeding the conventional threshold of 0.7 (ranging from 0.838 to 0.882), and average variance extracted values approximating or exceeding 0.5 (ranging from 0.494 to 0.578), thus satisfying established psychometric criteria for structural equation modeling applications as prescribed by Mardia et al. [54].

We analyzed the mean scores of omnichannel identity factors for two prominent Korean retailers. This comparison revealed distinct differences in how customers perceive the characteristics or personalities of these retailers. Notably, Retailer A demonstrated a stronger overall omnichannel identity than Retailer B, with usability emerging as Retailer A’s most prominent trait. The details of this comparative analysis are presented in

Table 2. Mean comparison of the three omnichannel identity factors (Retailer A vs. B).

Factor	Mean (Standard Deviation)	Retailer A	Retailer B
Trendiness	3.09 (0.644)	3.07 (0.653)	2.85 (0.696)
Reliability	3.16 (0.578)	3.15 (0.614)	3.03 (0.738)
Usability	3.38 (0.621)	3.36 (0.624)	3.06 (0.494)

.

4.4. Assessment of Measurement Properties

To assess common method bias, we employed Harman’s single-factor test [53,54], a technique well-supported in prior research [54]. The test applied to our measurement variables revealed that common method variance was not a major issue, as indicated by the absence of a dominant factor and a common method variance of 46.7%. In this study, the model’s fit with the measurement model was determined as follows: χ²: 3803.9 (df = 506, p = 0.001), GFI 0.878, AGFI 0.901, RMSEA 0.071, NFI 0.902, NNFI 0.901, CFI 0.951, and CMIN/DF 0.13, confirming that the model fit was close or appropriate. These metrics suggest that the model fit is satisfactory or appropriate. For concept validity, we established a standard whereby loading values of 0.5 or higher were considered valid. Discriminant validity, which evaluates the distinctions between latent variables, was confirmed through a test that ensured the range derived by adding or subtracting the correlation coefficient from twice the standard error did not include 1. Additionally, the average variance extracted (AVE) exceeded the squared correlation coefficients, thus affirming the discriminant validity of the correlations among the model’s variables, as shown in

Table 3. Measurement properties (Retailer A).

Constructs	1	2	3	4	5	6	AVE	CR
Trendiness factor	1						0.494	0.994
Reliability factor	0.353	1					0.524	0.994
Usability factor	0.383	0.394	1				0.500	0.993
Cognitive brand experience	0.039	0.059	0.022	1			0.550	0.988
Affective brand experience	0.056	0.094	0.033	0.410	1		0.577	0.989
Consumer brand relationship	0.054	0.087	0.039	0.513	0.494	1	0.578	0.996

. Convergent validity was assessed by ensuring that composite reliability was 0.7 or above and that the AVE was 0.4 or higher [54]. The results supported the model’s convergent validity, indicating a robust and reliable measurement model.

5. Hypothesis Testing

5.1. Testing for Retailer A

Before interpreting the results of the path analysis for this research model, its suitability was verified. The model fits indicate the following values: χ²: 4122.3 (df = 482, p = 0.001), GFI 0.898, AGFI 0.907, RMSEA 0.062 NFI 0.907, NNFI 0.905, and CFI 0.935, confirming that the model fit was close or appropriate for path analysis. The results of the path analysis are presented in

Table 4. Results of hypotheses (Retailer A).

Path			Beta (b)	z-Value	p-Value
Trendiness factor	→	Cognitive brand experience	0.465 (0.550)	13.584	0.000
Reliability factor	→	Cognitive brand experience	0.218 (0.276)	6.165	0.000
Usability factor	→	Cognitive brand experience	0.035 (0.043)	1.019	0.309
Trendiness factor	→	Affective brand experience	0.549 (0.574)	17.515	0.000
Reliability factor	→	Affective brand experience	0.219 (0.245)	6.743	0.000
Usability factor	→	Affective brand experience	0.014 (0.015)	0.432	0.666
Cognitive experience	→	Consumer–brand relationship	0.362 (0.315)	12.642	0.000
Affective experience	→	Consumer–brand relationship	0.484 (0.477)	16.895	0.000

and Figure 2 and show that “trendiness” factors (standardized path coefficient β = 0.465, p < 0.001) and “reliability” ones (standardized path coefficient β = 0.218, p < 0.001) have positive effects on cognitive brand experiences, whereas “usability” factors do not (standardized path coefficient β = 0.035, p = 0.309). Furthermore, in the analysis of the relationship between an omnichannel identity and affective brand experiences, we found that “trendiness” factors (standardized path coefficient β = 0.549, p < 0.001) and “reliability” factors (standardized path coefficient β = 0.219, p < 0.001) have positive effects on affective brand experiences. In this case too, “usability” factors have no effect on affective brand experiences (standardized path coefficient β = 0.014, p = 0.666). Therefore, we can conclude that the results of the analysis of brand experiences and consumer–brand relationships show that both cognitive (standardized path coefficient β = 0.362, p < 0.001) and affective (standardized path coefficient β = 0.484, p < 0.001) brand experiences have positive effects on consumer–brand relationships. Thus, H1a, H1b, H2a, H2b, H3, and H4 were supported but not H1c or H2c.

5.2. Testing for Retailer B

For our second model, we focused on Retailer B, a key competitor of Retailer A from the initial model. Harman’s single-factor test for this model indicated that the common method factor contributed to 44.9% of the variance, effectively ruling out concerns of common method bias [54,55].

The fit indicators for Retailer B’s model were within acceptable ranges: χ² at 1640.1 (df = 583, p = 0.000), GFI at 0.884, AGFI at 0.897, RMSEA at 0.065, NFI at 0.902, NNFI at 0.903, and CFI at 0.902. As depicted in

Table 5. Results of hypotheses (Retailer B).

Path			Beta (b)	z-Value	p-Value
Trendiness factor	→	Cognitive brand experience	0.142 (0.402)	2.795	0.000
Reliability factor	→	Cognitive brand experience	0.099 (0.257)	1.976	0.024
Usability factor	→	Cognitive brand experience	0.733 (0.781)	8.520	0.000
Trendiness factor	→	Affective brand experience	0.136 (0.399)	2.564	0.000
Reliability factor	→	Affective brand experience	0.055 (0.146)	1.044	0.257
Usability factor	→	Affective brand experience	0.758 (0.792)	8.078	0.000
Cognitive experience	→	Consumer–brand relationship	0.826 (0.839)	11.708	0.000
Affective experience	→	Consumer–brand relationship	0.249 (0.440)	4.939	0.000

and Figure 3, the SEM analysis results revealed that for Retailer B, the trendiness (β = 0.142, p < 0.000), reliability (β = 0.099, p < 0.05), and usability (β = 0.733, p < 0.000) factors positively impacted cognitive brand experiences. Regarding the association between omnichannel identity factors and affective brand experiences, both trendiness (β = 0.136, p < 0.000) and usability (β = 0.758, p < 0.000) factors exhibited positive effects, while the reliability factor did not show a significant influence (β = 0.055, p = 0.257). The analysis also showed that both cognitive (β = 0.826, p < 0.000) and affective (β = 0.249, p < 0.000) brand experiences positively affected consumer–brand relationships. In summary, the findings for Retailer B supported hypotheses H1a, H1b, H1c, H2a, H2c, H3, and H4. However, hypothesis H2b did not receive adequate empirical backing.

5.3. Retailer Comparison Analysis Rationale and Cross-Organizational Variance Interpretation

The methodological decision to conduct separate analyses by retailer rather than aggregating data into a singular analytical framework was predicated on several theoretical and empirical considerations that warrant explication. The comparative analytical approach facilitates a more nuanced understanding of how an omnichannel identity operates within distinct organizational contexts, thereby addressing calls in the literature for more contextually embedded investigations of brand identity formation and consumer–brand relationships [6,21].

The heterogeneous impact patterns observed between Retailer A (Lotte) and Retailer B (SSG) can be systematically explicated through a nuanced examination of their organizational architectures and strategic orientations. Lotte’s operational paradigm emphasizes experiential differentiation through aesthetic innovation and service consistency, manifested in its sophisticated flagship establishments and curated customer journeys. This organizational predisposition towards experiential distinctiveness aligns cogently with our empirical finding that trendiness (β = 0.465, p < 0.001) and reliability (β = 0.218, p < 0.001) constitute the predominant dimensions influencing cognitive brand experiences. Conversely, SSG’s organizational identity is intrinsically anchored in technological integration and functional excellence, evidenced by its substantial investments in logistical infrastructure and digital platforms that prioritize transactional efficiency. This strategic emphasis on utilitarian value creation corresponds with our analytical finding that usability emerged as the dominant predictor of both cognitive (β = 0.733, p < 0.001) and affective (β = 0.758, p < 0.001) brand experiences for this retailer. These distinctive empirical patterns substantiate theoretical propositions regarding the contingent efficacy of omnichannel identity components across differentiated organizational contexts, as posited by Verhoef et al. [8] and empirically demonstrated in Khan et al.’s investigation of contextual variance in brand experience influence [25].

These differential influence patterns substantiate the theoretical proposition that omnichannel identity components operate within contextually bound systems rather than through universally applicable mechanisms. The divergent patterns observed between retailers can be interpreted through several theoretical lenses. First, the findings align with contingency perspectives in brand management that posit that the effectiveness of brand identity components is moderated by organizational characteristics, market positioning, and existing brand associations [11,12]. For Retailer A, whose market positioning historically emphasizes contemporary aesthetics and brand heritage, trendiness and reliability dimensions resonate more strongly with consumer expectations and perceptual frameworks. Conversely, Retailer B’s strategic emphasis on functional excellence and seamless integration across touchpoints may explain the predominance of usability as the primary driver of brand experiences.

Second, the divergent findings suggest that omnichannel identity components operate through selective influence mechanisms, wherein specific dimensions achieve perceptual salience depending on their alignment with the retailer’s established brand architecture. This selective influence pattern supports Muhonen et al.’s assertion that brand identity components must function cohesively across customer touchpoints to create a meaningful impact, yet the specific configuration of these components may vary significantly between brands even within the same market sector [6].

Third, the differential impact observed between retailers illustrates the principle of strategic differentiation in omnichannel contexts. As proposed by Verhoef et al. and empirically supported by our findings, retailers can cultivate distinctive omnichannel identities through unique combinations of trendiness, reliability, and usability factors, thereby establishing differentiated positions in increasingly homogenized digital marketplaces [8]. The observed variance between retailers thus represents not methodological inconsistency but rather empirical validation of theoretical propositions regarding the context-specific nature of omnichannel identity formation and its differential impact on consumer–brand relationships. The comparative analytical approach employed in this study thus advances theoretical understanding by illuminating the contextual boundary conditions under which specific omnichannel identity dimensions exert influence on experiential outcomes. This methodological decision enhances both the theoretical and practical contributions of the research by providing more precise insights into how omnichannel identity operates within specific organizational contexts rather than through decontextualized universal mechanisms.

6. Discussion and Conclusions

The different results between Retailer A and Retailer B regarding hypothesis acceptance provide significant insights into how omnichannel identity influences consumer experiences. For Retailer A, hypotheses H1a, H1b, H2a, H2b, H3, and H4 were supported, while H1c and H2c were rejected. This pattern indicates that trendiness and reliability factors significantly shaped both cognitive and affective brand experiences, whereas usability factors demonstrated no significant impact. The acceptance of these hypotheses aligns with theoretical propositions that suggest brand identity components function as strategic tools that position brand images in consumers’ memories [6,22]. The rejection of H1c and H2c for Retailer A suggests that functional attributes did not resonate with consumers as strongly as experiential and trust-related dimensions, reflecting the selective influence of identity components on consumer perceptions as proposed by Khan et al. [12].

For Retailer B, hypotheses H1a, H1b, H1c, H2a, H2c, H3, and H4 were supported, while H2b was rejected. This pattern indicates that usability was the dominant factor influencing both cognitive and affective brand experiences, with trendiness showing a moderate impact. The rejection of H2b suggests that reliability factors, while cognitively processed, did not translate into affective experiences for Retailer B’s customers. This finding resonates with Muhonen et al.’s assertion that brand identity components must perform cohesively across customer touchpoints, yet the specific configuration of these components may vary significantly between brands even within the same market [6].

The contrasting results between the two retailers empirically validate the multidimensional conceptualization of omnichannel identity proposed by researchers such as Frasquet-Deltoro et al. and demonstrate that different brands can successfully cultivate distinct omnichannel identities through unique combinations of trendiness, reliability, and usability factors [2]. The universal acceptance of H3 and H4 across both retailers confirms the critical mediating role of brand experiences in fostering customer–brand relationships, consistent with Brakus et al.’s framework of experiential marketing [10]. These findings collectively substantiate the theoretical proposition that omnichannel identity components exert differential influences on consumer experiences, highlighting the contextual nature of consumer–brand relationships as emphasized in Bhattacharya and Sen’s consumer–company identification framework [21].

6.1. Theoretical Discussion and Implications

The findings from this study illuminate a significant phenomenon in the contemporary retail landscape: the differential impact of omnichannel identity components on customers’ brand experiences. Our research, conducted across two leading South Korean retailers (Retailer A and B), reveals intriguing disparities in how various factors within omnichannel identity influence consumer perceptions and behaviors.

For Retailer A, trendiness and reliability factors demonstrated a substantial influence in shaping both cognitive and affective brand experiences, while the usability factor showed no significant impact. This selective influence pattern highlights the nuanced nature of consumer–brand interactions in omnichannel contexts. The results suggest that Retailer A’s brand identity resonates with consumers primarily through its contemporary appeal and perceived dependability, rather than through functional attributes.

Conversely, Retailer B exhibited a distinctly different pattern. The usability factor emerged as the most influential determinant of both cognitive and affective brand experiences, with trendiness showing a moderate impact and reliability demonstrating a minimal influence on affective experiences. This stark contrast in results between the two retailers aligns with Muhonen et al.’s assertion that brand identity components must function cohesively across all customer touchpoints to create a meaningful impact [6], yet the specific configuration of these components may vary significantly between brands even within the same market.

These findings extend the theoretical understanding of omnichannel marketing in several ways. First, they validate the multidimensional conceptualization of omnichannel identity proposed by researchers such as Frasquet-Deltoro et al. [1] and Verhoef et al. [8]. The identified dimensions—trendiness, reliability, and usability—demonstrate discriminant validity and differential effects on consumer experiences, supporting the notion that omnichannel identity comprises distinct yet interrelated components. The contrasting results between Retailers A and B empirically substantiate that the effectiveness of omnichannel identity components is contingent on organizational characteristics, target market positioning, and existing brand associations. For Retailer A, trendiness and reliability emerged as dominant factors influencing both cognitive and affective brand experiences, whereas for Retailer B, usability constituted the primary driver of consumer experiences. This pattern of differential influence aligns with Muhonen et al.’s assertion that brand identity components must function cohesively across customer touchpoints [6], yet the specific configuration of these components may vary significantly between brands even within the same market.

The universal acceptance of hypotheses H3 and H4 across both retailers confirms the critical mediating role of brand experiences in fostering customer–brand relationships, consistent with Brakus et al.’s framework of experiential marketing [10]. These findings collectively substantiate the theoretical proposition that omnichannel identity components exert differential influences on consumer experiences, highlighting the contextual nature of consumer–brand relationships as emphasized in Bhattacharya and Sen’s consumer–company identification framework [21].

Second, our results contribute to the emerging literature on the relationship between brand identity and experiential marketing, as conceptualized by Santharam [10] and Khan et al. [12]. By demonstrating how specific identity components influence both cognitive and affective dimensions of brand experiences, this study bridges theoretical frameworks from brand management and consumer psychology, offering a more integrated understanding of how brand identity shapes consumer responses in omnichannel environments.

Third, the disparate findings between Retailers A and B suggest that the effectiveness of omnichannel identity components may be contingent on organizational characteristics, target market positioning, and existing brand associations. This contingency perspective aligns with Bhattacharya and Sen’s consumer–company identification framework, which emphasizes the contextual nature of consumer–brand relationships [21]. Our findings thus extend this framework by identifying specific identity components that facilitate stronger consumer–brand identification in omnichannel contexts.

Finally, these results strongly support the theoretical proposition that different omnichannel identities lead to diverse impacts on brand experiences. Through unique combinations of trendiness, reliability, and usability factors, retailers create distinct brand identities that resonate differently with customers. This theoretical insight carries significant implications for understanding brand differentiation in increasingly homogenized digital marketplaces.

6.2. Managerial Implications

This study offers substantial practical guidance for retailers navigating the complexities of omnichannel strategy implementation. By identifying and validating measurement scales for omnichannel identity, we provide managers with a diagnostic tool to assess their current brand positioning across channels and identify potential inconsistencies or gaps in their omnichannel approach. The identification of three key components—trendiness, reliability, and usability—that define omnichannel identity provides a structured framework for strategic brand management. Our classification of the omnichannel identity component system into operational categories (online sites, mobile web, social networking services, and offline stores) offers practitioners a comprehensive taxonomy for auditing and enhancing their multichannel presence, enabling more precise and strategically focused identity management. The differential impact of identity components on brand experiences observed between Retailers A and B highlights the importance of strategic alignment between brand identity and organizational capabilities. For Retailer A, where trendiness and reliability significantly influenced consumer experiences, marketing strategies should emphasize innovation, contemporary design, and consistent quality across all touchpoints. In contrast, Retailer B should leverage its strength in usability by emphasizing functional excellence, ease of navigation, and seamless cross-channel integration.

Our findings suggest that retailers should prioritize identity components that align with their core value proposition and target market expectations rather than attempting to excel across all dimensions. This targeted approach requires a deep understanding of both consumer preferences and competitive positioning within the market. As Khan and Rahman suggest, brand experience in retailing comprises multiple dimensions that must be carefully structured and integrated according to the brand’s strategic priorities [18].

The strong mediating role of brand experiences in shaping customer–brand relationships underscores the importance of experiential marketing in omnichannel contexts. Retailers should design customer journeys that deliver consistent and complementary experiences across touchpoints, reinforcing the brand’s identity attributes while accommodating channel-specific consumer behaviors. As Bleier et al. assert [19], creating effective customer experiences requires careful attention to informational, entertainment, social, and sensorial value dimensions across all consumer interactions.

For implementation, retailers should consider developing channel-specific strategies that reinforce their dominant identity components while maintaining cross-channel consistency. Marketing communications should emphasize these differentiated identity attributes to strengthen brand recognition and recall. Additionally, staff training programs should ensure that employee behaviors and service delivery reinforce the brand’s identity components, particularly in offline touchpoints where human interactions significantly influence brand perceptions. In the digital convergence era, where brand experiences and consumer–brand relationships are increasingly pivotal, our research underscores the importance of retailers focusing on developing distinctive omnichannel identities that transcend individual channels while leveraging channel-specific strengths. This approach enables retailers to build strong customer–brand relationships characterized by emotional connection, trust, and loyalty in an increasingly fragmented consumer landscape.

6.3. Theoretical Contributions

This research extends the theoretical understanding of omnichannel marketing in several significant ways. First, it provides robust empirical validation of the conceptualization of omnichannel identity as a multidimensional construct comprising distinct yet interrelated components. The three-dimensional framework of trendiness, reliability, and usability offers a more nuanced theoretical lens through which to examine brand identity formation in digitally integrated retail environments than previously available in the literature.

Second, our study bridges theoretical frameworks from brand management and consumer psychology by demonstrating the specific mechanisms through which identity components influence both cognitive and affective dimensions of brand experiences. This integration advances the theoretical understanding of how brand identity translates into experiential outcomes in omnichannel contexts, extending the conceptual work of Santharam [10] and Khan et al. [12] on the relationship between brand identity and experiential marketing.

Third, our findings contribute to contingency theory in brand management by revealing that the efficacy of specific identity components varies according to the organizational context and strategic positioning. This contingency perspective enriches existing theoretical frameworks by identifying boundary conditions for the effectiveness of different identity strategies in omnichannel environments. As Kumar and Kaushik suggest, consumer–company identification through shared values and identity characteristics is contextually determined, and our research empirically demonstrates these contextual variations in the omnichannel retail domain [21].

Fourth, this research introduces a methodologically rigorous measurement scale for assessing omnichannel identity, addressing a significant gap in the literature identified by researchers such as Khan and Rahman [18]. This measurement instrument, validated through comprehensive factor analysis and structural equation modeling, provides a theoretical foundation for future empirical investigations into omnichannel brand dynamics.

6.4. Sustainability Implications

While our study provides significant insights into omnichannel marketing strategies in South Korea, it insufficiently addresses the growing importance of sustainability in retail operations and consumer decision-making processes. Our research framework does not explicitly incorporate sustainability dimensions within the omnichannel identity construct. As consumers increasingly prioritize environmental and social responsibility in their purchasing decisions [8,26], sustainable practices represent a crucial component of brand identity that may significantly influence cognitive and affective brand experiences.

The predominant economic focus of our customer–brand relationship metrics overlooked the triple-bottom-line approach, which integrates economic, environmental, and social dimensions of sustainability. As retailers increasingly adopt sustainable business models (14), research examining how sustainability-oriented omnichannel strategies affect consumer loyalty, willingness to pay premium prices for sustainable products, and brand advocacy behaviors would provide valuable insights for both theory and practice.

Our cross-sectional design fails to capture the evolving nature of sustainability initiatives in retail environments. Longitudinal studies could better illuminate how retailers integrate sustainability throughout their omnichannel operations over time and how these changes influence consumer perceptions and behaviors. This temporal perspective would address the dynamic nature of sustainability adoption in retail contexts, as conceptualized by Frasquet-Deltoro et al. [2] and Khan et al. [25].

Additionally, our study did not explore the potential tensions between convenience-driven omnichannel operations and sustainability objectives. The environmental impact of last-mile delivery, increased returns, and resource-intensive logistics systems in omnichannel retail merits further investigation. Research examining how retailers can balance consumer demands for seamless experiences with environmental responsibility would make significant contributions to sustainable retail theory and practice. As Kaur et al. suggest, consumer engagement with brands increasingly depends on perceived alignment between consumer and company values, including sustainability values [20].

Our focus on established retailers in a developed market context limits the understanding of sustainability challenges in emerging markets or for smaller retailers with resource constraints. Comparative studies across diverse market contexts could illuminate how socioeconomic factors influence the integration of sustainability into omnichannel strategies and how retailers can develop context-appropriate approaches to sustainable omnichannel retailing.

6.5. Limitations and Future Research

The current study exhibits certain methodological constraints regarding sample representativeness that warrant acknowledgment. The investigation’s empirical foundation, while substantive at 994 respondents, is circumscribed to customers of only two major South Korean retailers, thereby potentially limiting the generalizability of findings across diverse retail contexts. This sampling parameter may insufficiently capture the heterogeneity of omnichannel implementations and consumer responses across varied retail formats, organizational scales, and market positions. The predominance of respondents with higher educational attainment (69.9% holding college degrees) and concentration in specific age demographics (primarily 30s and 40s) further constrains the external validity of our conclusions. Future research endeavors would benefit from expanding the analytical scope to encompass a more diverse array of retail entities—including mid-sized and specialty retailers—and implementing quota sampling techniques to ensure demographic representativeness across socioeconomic strata, geographical regions, and consumer segments. Such methodological refinements would enhance the robustness of the omnichannel identity framework and provide greater insight into potential moderating effects of organizational characteristics and market positioning on the relationship between omnichannel identity components and consumer responses, as suggested by Verhoef et al. [8] and Suh and Lee [4]. Additionally, cross-cultural comparative analyses incorporating retailers from diverse national contexts would illuminate how cultural dimensions influence the formation and perception of omnichannel identity, potentially revealing universal versus culture-specific aspects of the framework developed in this study.

Building upon the foundation established in this study, we identify several promising avenues for future research at the intersection of omnichannel marketing, digital transformation, and sustainable business practices. First, as digital technologies continue to evolve, research examining how emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, augmented reality, and Internet of Things applications reshape omnichannel identity formation and consumer experiences would advance the theoretical understanding of digitally integrated retail environments. These technologies not only transform operational capabilities but also introduce new dimensions of brand identity that may influence consumer perceptions and behaviors in unprecedented ways.

Second, with increasing concerns about data privacy and security in digital commerce, investigations into how transparency practices regarding data collection and usage influence consumer trust and engagement in omnichannel contexts would address critical gaps in current knowledge. As Khan et al. [25] note, consumer skepticism regarding brand practices can significantly impact relationship development, and understanding how transparency mechanisms moderate this relationship in omnichannel environments would provide valuable insights for both theory and practice.

Third, comparative studies examining cross-cultural variations in consumer responses to omnichannel identity components would extend the generalizability of our findings beyond the South Korean context. Cultural dimensions such as individualism–collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, and long-term orientation may moderate the relationships between identity components, brand experiences, and consumer–brand relationships, offering a richer understanding of contextual factors influencing omnichannel effectiveness.

Fourth, as digital integration increasingly blurs the boundaries between traditionally distinct retail formats, research exploring how omnichannel strategies influence competitive dynamics and the market structure would advance strategic management theory in retail contexts. Investigations into how omnichannel identity positioning affects competitive intensity, market concentration, and entry barriers would provide valuable insights for strategic planning and competitive analysis.

Fifth, longitudinal studies examining the evolution of omnichannel identity components over time would address the dynamic nature of brand–consumer relationships in rapidly changing digital environments. Understanding how identity components adapt to technological innovations, changing consumer expectations, and competitive pressures would provide theoretical insights into the temporal dynamics of brand identity formation and maintenance in omnichannel contexts.

In conclusion, while our study advances the understanding of omnichannel identity and its influence on consumer–brand relationships, these suggested research directions represent critical pathways for further theoretical development and practical application in this rapidly evolving domain. As retailers navigate the complex challenges of digital transformation and market differentiation, research that bridges theoretical frameworks and addresses emerging practical concerns will provide valuable guidance for building distinctive and compelling omnichannel brand experiences in increasingly homogenized digital marketplaces.