Presentation given at the 3rd International Consumer Brand Relationships Conference, www.consumer-brand-relationships.org Copyright by Kay Naumann Jana Bowden

1. The process of customer engagement
within hedonic and utilitarian services
Kay Naumann , PhD Candidate
Jana Bowden, PhD
Department of Marketing and Management, Faculty of Business and Economics,
Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
Tracey Dagger, Associate Professor
Department of Marketing, Faculty of Business and Economics,
Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

2. Literature
● Customer Engagement (CE) is a new way to
measure the depth of customer brand
relationships.
● Transcends purely transactional exchanges to encompass
the wider range of brand behaviours (Van Doorn et al., 2010).
● The question is: How can marketers understand,
achieve and measure these relationships?
● We need to understand how CE is defined, the
factors involved and how it can be measured.
● No studies have empirically tested a model of CE
across a variety of service sectors.

3. ● What’s been said about CE?
● Psychological process mapping the
formation and maintenance of customer
loyalty (Bowden, 2009).
● Occurs through interactive and co-creative
customer experiences (Brodie et al., 2011).
● Provides a more comprehensive and
holistic perspective on CBR (Gummerus et al., 2012;
Bowden, 2009).
● Multidimensional: CE involves a range of
Literature

4. ● Identify and examine the antecedents and
consequences of CE (Bijmolt et al., 2010; So et al., 2012; Gummerus et al.,
2012).
● Explore how CE operates across different service
types (Verhoef et al., 2010; Brodie et al., 2011a; Hollebeek, 2011a; Vivek, 2009; Vivek et al.,
2012; Wirtz, 2013).
● Hedonic services:
● E.g. fine dining restaurants and leisure stay hotels
● Utilitarian services:
● E.g. personal banking and telecommunications providers
● We expect CE to operate differently across these
service categories.
Knowledge Gaps

5. Conceptual model of the process of
CE
H7
CE Antecedents CE
Consequencespositively
impact
● To be tested across utilitarian and hedonic
services

6. Consequences of Customer
Engagement
1. Self-Brand Connections (SBC)
Using a brand’s symbolic properties to define and
communicate one’s self-image (Escalas & Bettman, 2005).
● SBC have been defined as a consequence of CE
(Brodie et al., 2011a; Brodie & Hollebeek, 2011).
● SBC show how engaged customers identify with brands on
highly personal and meaningful levels (Goldsmith et al., 2011; Sprott et al.,
2009).
2. Customer Loyalty
‘A deeply held commitment to re-patronize a preferred
product/service consistently in the future’ (Oliver, 1999, p. 34).
● Loyalty is one of the main outcomes of CE (e.g.,Van Doorn et
al., 2010; Jahn & Kunz, 2011; Echezuria, 2012; Becker-Olsen, 2006).
● Engaging brand relationships are maintained through
cognitive, attitudinal and behavioral loyalty (Brodie et al., 2011;
Hollebeek, 2012).

7. Antecedents
w/in CE literature
Relationship to outcome #1 SBC
Satisfaction
(Gao & Chen,
2013; Van Doorn et
al., 2010; Bowden,
2009b; Janh &
Kuunz, 2011).
Customers must be satisfied with
how brand usage contributes to
their self-concept
(Escalas & Bettman, 2011; Park et al.,
2007).
Trust
(Sashi, 2012;
Bowden, 2009b;
Becker-Olsen &
Hill, 2006)
Consumers seek brand traits that
are desirable for self-construal
such as trustworthiness and
benevolence
(Hollenbeck & Kaikati, 2012; Hess &
Story, 2005).
Affective
Commitment
(Bowden, 2013; So
et al., 2012; Mollen
& Wilson, 2010).
Customers sustain emotional
attachments by using brands for
self-definitional purposes (Escalas
& Bettman, 2011; Pimentel & Reynolds,
2004).
Rapport
(Hollebeek, 2011b;
Van Doorn et al.,
2010; So et al.,
2010)
A customer’s self-concept is
driven by the nature of
interactions they have with others
(Jamal & Adelowore, 2008).
Hypothesis Development
Antecedents
w/in CE literature
Relationship to outcome #1 SBC Relationship to outcome #2
Loyalty
Satisfaction
(Gao & Chen,
2013; Van Doorn et
al., 2010; Bowden,
2009b; Janh &
Kuunz, 2011).
Customers must be satisfied with
how brand usage contributes to
their self-concept
(Escalas & Bettman, 2011; Park et al.,
2007).
Consistent satisfaction →
behaviorual and attitudinal loyalty
(Kumar, 2011; Oliver, 1999; Anderson &
Swaminathan, 2011).
Trust
(Sashi, 2012;
Bowden, 2009b;
Becker-Olsen &
Hill, 2006)
Consumers seek brand traits that
are desirable for self-construal
such as trustworthiness and
benevolence
(Hollenbeck & Kaikati, 2012; Hess &
Story, 2005).
Trust creates brand value; and
facilitates cooperation between
exchange partners (Chaudhuri &
Holbrook, 2001; Dagger & Timothy, 2010;
Gunlach & Cannon, 2011).
Affective
Commitment
(Bowden, 2013; So
et al., 2012; Mollen
& Wilson, 2010).
Customers sustain emotional
attachments by using brands for
self-definitional purposes (Escalas
& Bettman, 2011; Pimentel & Reynolds,
2004).
Affectively committed customers
are less likely to switch when
faced with competing offers; or
brand failures (Fullerton, 2003; Mattila,
2004).
Rapport
(Hollebeek, 2011b;
Van Doorn et al.,
2010; So et al.,
2010).
A customer’s self-concept is
driven by the nature of
interactions they have with others
(Jamal & Adelowore, 2008).
Building rapport allows providers
to become aware of consumer
preferences → customization →
customer retention (Berry, 1995).

8. Service Context
Ng, Russell-Bennet and Dagger (2007).
Hedonic: Consumed for affective
or sensory gratification purposes
(Kempf, 1999).
● Fine dining restaurants
● Leisure stay hotels
Utilitarian: Deliver core,
standardised and highly functional
offerings, considered as means-to-
an-end
(Anderson & Narus, 1999; Barta & Olli, 1990).
● Personal banking

9. Method
● Self-administered online survey
● n= 500, equal male/female.
● Equal quotas across 4 service types.
● Scales from existing literature.
● Measurement model indicated good fit (Anderson
& Gerbing, 1988).
● GFI= 0.918, CFI= 0.971, IFI= 0.972
● Structural Equation Model also indicated
good fit.
● GFI=0.914, TLI=0.957, CFI=0.970, IFI=0.970

10. Results
H1 Satisfaction → SBC = 0.452 Accept
H2 Trust → SBC = -0.360 Reject
H3 Affective Commitment → SBC 0.667 Accept
H4 Rapport → SBC =0.177 Accept
H5 Satisfaction → Loyalty =0.475 Accept
H6 Trust → Loyalty =0.280 Accept
H7 Affective Commitment → Loyalty =0.141 Accept
H8 Rapport → Loyalty =0.095 Accept
● CE operated in the same way across the
hedonic and utilitarian services.

11. Implications
● The antecedents of SBC and Loyalty are different.
● Reinforce different aspects of the CBR depending on the outcome.
● Process of CE is generalizable across the hedonic
and utilitarian services used.
● CE is more than a simple measure of loyalty
● Overarching framework → greater depth of evaluation.
● Encompasses the holistic brand experience.
Exceed customer expectations & be reliable,
competent and consistent
Loyalty
Emphasise emotional attributes & sense of
belonging SBC

12. Questions?
kay.naumann@mq.edu.au
jana.bowden-everson@mq.edu.au
tracey.dagger@moash.edu