the cause or an outcome?

Is the brand the cause or an outcome of the experience? I would like to think that it is the latter [experience understood broadly as any interaction with the brand]. But it seems that a lot of people still think is the former. And that brand image, logo, and personality influence our experience through strategies of brand communication. I think Virgin is a good example for this "dichotomy". It does have a really strong & evolved set of brand values/attributes. At the same time, the real-life experience is equally strong, and this is what really drives its power as a brand. This means that values are executed through experience not through communication. Something like how digital brands are, the experience = the brand. This does not however mean having some branded lounge or some other lame form of turning communication into something tangible. It's more about communicating by doing [something that makes sense]. Maybe this is why there is an increasing discrepancy in market cap, brand loyalty, & "real" brand power between digital and "non-digital" brands. Wonder if this is going to change how brand power is assessed. If brand is not a cause anymore of product sales/service use (i.e. if it doesn't translate in them), what's the point in having great brand recognition? Like, everyone knows about you but no one really wants to hang out with you. That doesn't sound good to me.