2.Service_brand. Hotel.pdf

Service brand equity and employee brandcommitment

Narumon Kimpakorn

Faculty of Business Administration, Chiang Mai University, Thailand, and

Gerard TocquerCollege of Management, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand

AbstractPurpose The aims of this article are to measure the brand equity of service firms (luxury hotels) using a customer perspective, to identify factors thatpredict customers brands relationships and to explore the links between service brand equity and employee brand commitmentDesign/methodology/approach Two surveys were conducted to achieve the research objectives. The first survey objective was to measure brandequity using a sample of 250 international customers of five-star hotels in Bangkok. The second survey objective was to collect information regardingemployee brand commitment in each selected hotel using a sample of 250 employees.Findings Results show that hotels belonging to the same category have different brand equity and that brand differentiation and brand trust are thevariables that have the major influence on customer brand relationships. Perceived service quality and associations related to hotel core services are notrelated to brand relationships. High hotel brands equity have a stronger level of employee brand commitment that low hotel brands equity.Research limitations/implications For hotel managers the research findings illustrate the importance of brand differentiation and trust forinternational hotels chains and illustrate the importance of employee brand commitment in the process of building a strong band. Therefore thisresearch has an implication not only for marketing but also for human resource managers and for hotel general managers.Originality/value The value of this research resides in the exploration between service brand equity and employee brand commitment. The literatureon service marketing emphasizes the link between employee and service quality but to the authors knowledge little research has explored the linkbetween the service brand and its employees.

Keywords Brands, Brand equity, Employees, Brand loyalty

Paper type Research paper

An executive summary for managers and executive

readers can be found at the end of this article.

Introduction

The concept of branding finds its roots in the fast movingconsumer goods industry (FMCG) and it is not surprisingthat traditional models of brand equity developed by Aaker(1991, 2002), Keller (1993, 2003) have been largely inspiredby that industry. There is no doubt that the service industrycan benefit from the knowledge accumulated by consumergoods firms. Nonetheless, the nature of services, specificallytheir intangibility and the inseparability between productionand consumption requires a different approach to build apowerful service brand.In the services marketing literature, a few authors have

suggested new approaches to build a strong brand in theservice sector (e.g. De Chernatony, 2002; Berry, 2000; DeChernatony and DallOlmo Riely, 1999; Muller, 1998; Cobb-Walgren et al., 1995). They recognize and emphasize theimportance of employees during their interactions with

customers and their ability to distill the brand values

(Zeithaml and Bitner, 1998; Bitner et al., 1990;Parasuraman et al., 1988) in order to create a specificmeaning to the brands.De Chernatony and DallOlmo Riely (1999) argued that

successful service brands have built a nurtured relationship

between employees and customers based on certainfunctional and emotional values of the brand. The

employees must be imbued with the desired image of theservice and play their appropriate roles in the brand promises.

Most authors who focus on service branding agree thatemployees attitude, belief, value, and behavioral style reflectthe brand. As most service brands are about the delivery of

promises through personal interactions, successful servicebranding models would not only stress an external

orientation, as evident in consumer goods branding butrather try to find a balance between internal and externalperspectives (De Chernatony et al., 2003; De Chernatony andHarris, 2000; Schneider and Bowen, 1993).The rationale for branding goods and services is similar.

The focus is on building and leveraging the brand equity inorder to build a strong relationship between the brand and its

customers. However branding for services is different frombranding for consumer goods because in many high contactservices like financial services, hotel, airlines or even insurance

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0887-6045.htm

Journal of Services Marketing

24/5 (2010) 378388

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0887-6045]

[DOI 10.1108/08876041011060486]

Received: June 2008Revised: December 2008Accepted: February 2009

378

organizations, the service delivery occur during multiple

interaction between customers and staff or self-service

technologies (Bitner et al., 1994) and it is during thesetouch points that customers experience the service brand.The customer experience during a service encounter thus

becomes an important tool in shaping opinions and

determining future associations between a customer and the

brand (Bitner, 1990; Berry, 2000).While external communication is largely used by fast

moving consumer goods companies to express brandmeanings to customers, in services internal communication

and training must be emphasized to be sure that all employees

understand and are committed to deliver the brand promise

(Harris and de Chernatony, 2001).This paper begins by covering the literature on brand equity

and examines the concept of service brand equity. From the

exploration of service brand equity, the sources of brandequity are discussed and employee commitment to the brand

is viewed as a critical factor to build a strong service brand.

The research methodology is then described followed by a

discussion of the main findings.

Service brand equity

If strong brands may enhance market share, create customer

loyalty and increase profit, they are valuable assets to a firmand therefore it is important for managers to measure the

equity that had been built up by their brand. The concept of

brand equity (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 2003) has both a financialand a marketing aspect. From a financial perspective it is

possible to give a monetary value to the brand that can be

useful for managers in case of merger, acquisition or

divestiture purposes. Simom and Sullivan (1993) as well asBiel (1997) define brand equity in terms of cash flow

differences between a scenario where the brand name is added

to a company product and another scenario where the sameproduct does not have brand name. Estimating a financial

value for the brand is certainly useful but it does not help

marketers to understand the process of building brand equity.The marketing perspective of brand equity is viewed with a

customer perspective to help marketers to understand the

brand in the minds of customers and design effective

marketing programs to build the brand.Aaker (1991) defines brand equity as a set of assets and

liabilities linked to a brand name and symbol that adds to or

subtracts from the value provided by a product or service to afirm and that firms customers. These assets can be grouped

into five dimensions: brand awareness, brand associations,

perceived quality, brand loyalty and other proprietary assets.Keller (2003) defines brand equity as differences in

customer response to marketing activity. His customer

brand equity model identifies 6 components including brandsalience, brand performances, brand imagery, brand feelings,

brand judgments and brand relationships. According to Keller

the process of building a brand requires to follow four

consecutive steps:1 building brand awareness;2 creating brand meanings through imagery and brand

performances;3 building brand responses through brand feelings and

judgments; and finally4 building relationships between the brand and its

customers.

Young and Rubicams brand asset valuator conceptualizes

brand equity into four dimensions including brand

knowledge, brand esteem, brand relevance and branddifferentiation. Brand differentiation is viewed as the

philosophy of branding when it is associated with relevance.Surprisingly, both Aaker (1991) and Keller (2003) have not

integrated differentiation in their brand equity model while

the core of branding rests on building differentiation betweenbrands in the mind of customers.According to Zeithaml et al. (1985), the concept of brand

equity requires adaptation for extension into the context of

services business regarding the specific nature of services.The literature review on brand equity related to consumer

goods (Aaker, 1991, 2002; Ambler et al., 2002; DeChernatony, 2002; Franzen and Bouwman, 2001; Keller,2001; Yoo and Donthu, 2001; Pitta and Katsanis, 1995;

Srivastava and Shocker, 1991) and the literature review onservice brand management (De Chernatony and McDonald,

1998; Berry, 2000; Prasad and Dev, 2000; Kim and Kim,

2004) indicate that the concept of brand equity has not onlybeen defined with different perspectives (financial or

marketing) but also existing models have differentconstructs with common dimensions like brand awareness,

perceived quality, brand associations and brand relationships.

Therefore we developed a theoretical research model thatintegrated the consumer goods branding approach with the

specificities of services branding. Our conceptual model ofservice brand equity identifies six dimensions that seem

relevant for measuring the value of a service brand with a

customer perspective. These dimensions are the following(also see the Appendix).

Brand awareness

Brand awareness is described as the ability for a customer torecognise or recall the brand (Franzen and Bouwman, 2001;

Hoyer and Brown, 1990). A brand with strong brand recall

(unaided awareness) and top of mind has the ability toinfluence customer choice inside a product or service

category.

Perceived quality

Perceived quality is defined as the customers judgment aboutdimensions of brand values (Aaker, 1991) and overall

excellence or superiority that ultimately compels thecustomer to select a good or service to purchase (Aaker and

Jacobson, 1994). Gronroos (2001) suggests that customers

assess service quality both in terms of what they get (theoutcome of the service) but also by examining the way the

service is delivered (the functional quality of the process).Parasuraman et al. (1988) suggest five key dimensions tomeasure service quality based on customer expectations and

service performances.

Brand differentiation

For marketers brand differentiation is a critical factor to build

a competitive advantage both in consumer goods and serviceindustries. Brand differentiation is defined in this study as the

degree to which the hotel brand is perceived as different from

its competitors into the customers mind (Lovelock et al.,2002; Ries and Trout, 2001; Berry, 2000).The differentiation is created by the brand features,

psychological or emotional benefits through marketing

programs. The differentiation can also be built on the

Service brand equity and employee brand commitment

Narumon Kimpakorn and Gerard Tocquer


Volume 24 Number 5 2010 378388

379

customer experience. Store atmosphere and the quality of the

service encounter as experience providers have been

recognized as a key strategic competitive weapon in the

service marketing literature.We used two items to measure the differentiation between

hotels. The first item is concerned about the ability of

customers to perceive a differentiation at the holistic level.

The trend in the hotel industry is to use design as a way to

build meaningful differentiation. The second item measures

the ability of customers to identify different hotel attributes

that are unique for the hotel brand.

Brand associations

In consumer goods, brand associations are usually grouped in

the form of product related like brand performances and non-

product related attributes (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 2003;

Netemeyer et al., 2004). Brand personality, user profile,heritage or country of origin are for example considered as a

non-product related associations.. In services there is a

distinction between associations related to the core service

and those related to facilitating and supporting services

(Gronroos, 2007). Core associations are linked to the reason

of being of a service. For a hotel it is lodging. Facilitating

services like booking check-in or check-out are necessary for

delivering the core services. Supporting associations are

differentiators that add value to the core services. A

restaurant, a business center, a spa are example of

supporting services that can help a hotel to differentiate

itself against its competitors.Brand associations are always related to a product or service

category. They are criteria used by customers to assess a

product or service. In this study, a set of service attributes

associated with the hotel industry, including room

appearance, hotel atmosphere, staff attitude and facilities

(Tsang and Qu, 2000) have been submitted to hotel managers

and only those relevant associations as perceived by managers

have been integrated in our initial questionnaire.

Brand trust

Brand trust is a psychological state that exists when one party

has confidence in an exchange partners reliability and

integrity (Garbarino and Johnson, 1999; Morgan and Hunt,

1994). The brand trust as a psychological variable mirroring a

set of accumulated presumptions involved the reliability,

integrity, and intention that a customer attributes to the

brand. In fact trust is measured by the ability for the brand to

deliver its promises. Trust can enhance or destroy a

relationship between brand and customers (Keller, 2003).

As customers buy a service before experiencing it, cultivation

and management of trust is a key to build a relationship with

customers (Kinard and Capella, 2006). Brand trust is

measured in this research by items that concentrate on the

customers expectations that the hotel as a service provider is

dependable and reliable.

Brand relationships

Brand relationship is viewed as the ultimate goal of the brand

building process (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 2003). It reflects the

level of identification the customers have with the brand.

Fournier (1998) sees the brand, as a relationship partners

using words related to relationships between people, like

courtships, best friendships, arranged marriages

among others. Keller (2003) distinguishes four types of

brand relationships including;1 brand loyalty;2 attitudinal attachment;3 active engagement; and4 community based relationship.

In this study of luxury hotels, the concept of brandrelationships is viewed as the customer response to the

brand illustrated by his intention to buy the brand as aprimary choice (Aaker, 2002), his attitudinal attachment to

the brand (Keller, 2003) and his willingness to recommendthe brand to friends and others.

Source of service brand equity

The literature on branding emphasized the marketingactivities as a major source of brand equity because many

consumer goods brands have been built through advertising.The service branding model developed by Berry (2000)

suggests that the service brand equity can be created by theuse of effective brand communications but also through

customer experience.Figure 1 suggests that the service brand must be built

through the integration of two perspectives:1 A traditional approach pre-eminent in the consumer

goods industry, in which the marketing department is the

driver of all branding efforts (including the brand identitysystem, the marketing strategy and supporting marketing

programs and the use of secondary associations (Keller,2003).

2 A new approach that emerges from the service economy inwhich the customer experiences occurs during the service

encounter and is the result of interaction betweencustomers and service employees and/or self service

technologies. This new approach is more holistic and

requires that branding efforts be supported by differentdepartments. This new perspective must be supported by

a strong service culture and requires a strong leadership tobreak the traditional functional silos in order to

communicate effectively the brand meaning to employees.

The right side of the figure emphasizes the importance of the

marketing function while the left side illustrates theimportance of the customer experience which is not related

to a specific managerial function like marketing but rather thecontribution of different departments including human

resources, operations, information technology and also

marketing during service encounter. The right side is moreabout external communication i.e. the image that the brand

wants to communicate to customers while the left side is morerelated to the organizational culture which becomes visible

every time customers experience the service. When thecustomer experience is compelling and consistent, customers

hold some favorable, strong and unique associations inmemory resulting in strong brand equity.The idea that corporate culture is the foundation of a

service brand is not new and has been already emphasized byHatch and Schultz (1997), Schneider (2000), McDonald et al.(2001), Kapferer (2004).The service environment, employees and self-service

technologies have the potential to impact on the customerexperience. According to Gallup (2008) in service industries

nearly all of the company value is delivered to customers by





380

individual employees. Their behavioral economic model The

Gallup Path is based on the principle that employees

engagement drives customer engagement. In luxury hotels,

the service is inseparable from the staff providing it the

attitude, beliefs, values and behavioral styles of staff.

Employees who interact with customers have a potential to

build and to enhance the brand by delivering what the brand

stand for, its promises and to achieve customer trust and

loyalty (Evans, 2002).

Employee brand commitment

The dominant paradigm in service marketing is probably the

service profit chain (Heskett et al., 1994) that suggests the

existence of a strong link between employees, service quality

and company profitability. The foundation of the paradigm

rests on the service quality concept, a major managerial issue

for service firms during the 1990s. Therefore, it is not

surprising that service quality dominates the service

marketing literature and that few researchers have examined

the relationships between employees behavior and brand

equity. Actually, it is the customer total experience with a

service organization which forms the brand image into the

customer mind. Employees attitude and behavior have a

crucial role in the service brand image formation process.

They carry the brand identity into the consumers eyes (Ind,

1997; Gronroos, 1994). Therefore employees in service firms

not only should understand what the brand stands for, i.e. its

identity but, more importantly, employees must be

committed to support their brand and deliver consistently

its promises to customers. A lack of employee commitment

will have some negative consequences like inconsistent

messages or negative word of mouth that will impact the

clarity and meaning of the brand in the stakeholders mind

(Miles and Mangold, 2004).Employee commitment is an organizational behavior

concept largely covered in the management literature. The

concept has been applied to different constituencies in an

organization, including unions, work group and team,

supervisor and top management. However the concept of

employee commitment to a brand seems to be neglected.A review of this literature shows that Porter et al. (1974)

and Cook and Wall (1980) view commitment as a

unidimensional concept, mainly affective commitment. They

define organizational commitment as . . . a strong belief in

and acceptance of the organizations goals and values, a

willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the

organization, and a strong desire to maintain membership in

the organization . . .. Commitment is viewed as one single

factor, affective commitment comprising three interrelated

components:1 identification;2 involvement; and3 loyalty.

Many scholars have criticized the unidimensional perspective

and view commitment as a two components construct,

including continuance and affective commitment (Mowday

et al., 1982; Mathieu and Zajac, 1990) or three components

Allen and Meyer (1990). However most researches on

organizational commitment emphasize the affective

dimension of commitment as the extent to which employees

experience a sense of identification and involvement with an

organization. This emotional attachment influences

employees behavior and their willingness to exert additional

effort to achieve the organizations goals.In this research we use the British Organizational

Commitment Scale developed by Cook and Wall (1980)

which has been recognized as the main measure of the

construct organizational commitment in the European

context (Peccei and Guest, 1993).In this context employee brand commitment is defined as

the degree employees:. Identify themselves with the brand and willing to exert

additional effort to achieve the goals of the brand.. Are interested in remaining with the service organization

(continuance commitment).

Figure 1 Sources of brand equity in services





381

Hypotheses

Following our discussion on service brand equity and its six

components we use brand relationships as a dependent

variable and brand awareness, perceived quality, core brand

associations, supportive brand associations, brand trust and

brand differentiations as independent variables and we

propose the following hypotheses:

H1. Five star luxury hotels are significantly different in theirbrand equity.

H2. Brand awareness is positively related to brandrelationships.

H3. Brand differentiation is positively related to brandrelationships.

H4a. Core brand associations are positively related to brandrelationships.

H4b. Supporting brand associations are positively related tobrand relationships.

H5. Brand trust is positively related to brand relationships.H6. Brand perceived quality is positively related to brand

relationships.H7. Employees commitment to the brand will be

significantly different between hotels with strong

brand equity and hotels with lower brand equity.

Methodology

The field of the study covers the international luxury hotel

chains in Bangkok, more specifically the five-star hotel

categories. Approval from management was a condition to be

able to conduct this research (five hotels gave their final

approval).Our research design is divided in two parts using samples of

hotels customers and employees.First, we conducted a survey on international hotel

customers with the objective to measure the brand equity of

luxury hotels in Bangkok.We used a convenience sample of 270 international

customers. Personal interviews were conducted with

customers to collect relevant information. The initial

questionnaire included 43 items to measure the six

dimensions of brand equity on a five points Likert scale.

Finally after editing, 238 questionnaires were used for the

final analysis.The construct validity of the measure of the service brand

equity concept was validated through qualitative work (in-

depth interview with hotel managers) and expert opinion

during the instrument development stages. Reliability of

measures for each concept was tested for internal consistency

using Cronbachs alpha, and then rechecked by factor

analysis. The findings for the Cronbachs alpha shows (see

Table I) that the reliability coefficients were acceptable (above

0.6) for all dimensions of brand equity. After factor analysis,

seven factors explaining 70 per cent of the variance were

identified and six items were deleted. The factor analysis

shows that service brand associations have only two sub-

components including core and supporting services.Second, we conducted a survey on hotels employees with

the objective to measure employee brand commitment for

each five-star hotel. We used a sample of 250 employees for all

hotels. A short questionnaire translated in Thai and slightly

adapted to the Thai culture including nine items measuring

employee brand commitment on a five points Likert scale was

distributed to employees.Employees were asked to fill in the questionnaire at their

own place where they could comfortable complete it, and attheir own convenience. They were requested to return the

questionnaire to their hotel to the department manager, andto enclose it in a sealed envelope, to minimize pleasing bias

caused by the dyad relationship. After editing a total of 238

questionnaires were used for final data analysis.The employee respondents profile represents a fair amount

of work experience, mixed age and mixed job characteristics.84.4 per cent respondents were in the 20-40 age range and

more than half of employees had worked with their hotel formore than two years. A total of 53 per cent were well educated

(bachelor degree or higher) and nearly half (46.8 per cent) of

employees had worked as frontline staff.We reassess the dimensionality of the scale that views

commitment as comprising three interrelated components:identification, involvement, and loyalty. A principal

component factor analysis of employee brand commitmentitems revealed only one factor explaining 66.5 per cent of the

variance. One item with low loading factors was deleted.Lee and Chulguen (2005) have also revealed the

unidimensionality of the organization commitment concept

in the Asian context suggesting two explanations. Thetranslation of the scale in Korean has altered the meaning of

the items or the theoretical constructs predicting theorganizational commitment of employees may have cross-

cultural validity.In our research it is also possible that employee

identification with the brand is stronger because the prestige

of working with a luxury brand. Lipponen et al. (2005) hasdemonstrated that the prestige of the organization has a

significant effect on the identification of employees with theircompany.The Cronbachs alpha for the employee brand commitment

scale is 0.923 which confirms that the scale shows good internalreliability. Table II shows items used for measuring employee

brand commitment after literature analysis, managers andemployees personal interviews and factor analysis.

Findings and discussions

MANOVA was used to test H1 examining the existence ofsignificant differences between hotels regarding their brandequity. The results are shown in Table III. The F test andp-value supports H1, in that there is a significant difference

Table I Reliability of key variables from the customer based brandequity survey

Variables/factors Alpha score

Brand awarenessa

Perceived quality 0.661

Brand differentiation 0.832

Core service brand associations 0.691

Supporting brand associations 0.713

Brand trust 0.713

Brand relationships 0.831

Note: a Brand awareness was measured by a single item (top of mind)





382

between hotels regarding their brand equity. Univariate tests

show also that all seven brand equity dimensions help to

differentiate hotels.The findings generally confirm the original hypothesis that

customer based brand equity is best understood as a

composite context represented by the underlying dimensions.To test H2, H3, H4, H5 and H6 a multiple regression

analysis was conducted to identify the factors that predict

customer brand relationships in the five-star hotels category.

Brand relationships was used as a dependent variable and

brand perceived quality, brand associations (its two

components), brand differentiation and brand trust were

used as independent variable.A total of 55.9 per cent of the variance in brand relationship

is explained by the regression model. The results of the

analysis are shown in Table IV. Based on the regression

analysis, brand awareness, brand associations (supporting

services), brand differentiation and brand trust are the

significant predictor variables of brand relationships in the

luxury hotel category. The highest degree of contribution to

the brand relationship is brand trust, follows by brand

differentiation, brand associations related to supporting

services, and brand awareness respectively. Based on these

results, H2, H3, H4b and H5 are supported and H4a and H6are rejected.The regression results show that brand differentiation is the

most powerful variable to predict brand relationship, followed

by brand trust. These findings confirm the literature on

strategic brand management that clearly defines the concept

of branding as the process of building a brand differentiation

which is relevant for customers and to deliver it consistently to

customers who therefore can trust the brand.Brand awareness and brand associations regarding

supporting services have also a significant impact on brand

relationships but at a lower level. More surprising is the fact that

perceived quality does not have any impact on brand

relationship. One possible explanation regarding this lack of

relationship is that customers perceived service quality in the

five star hotel category as a standard a must be and could not

perceived any differences between hotels in the same category.To validate H7 that explores relationships between brand

equity and employee brand commitment we have created two

hotel groups by calculating the brand equity value of each

hotel (the sum of all seven dimensions) and calculating the

median between the five hotels as cut off point. The two

groups could be categorized as high brand equity hotels and

low brand equity hotels. We use a t- test to check if there is a

mean difference on employee brand commitment between the

two hotel groups.Table V presents the hotel group means on employee brand

commitment and the statistical significance of the t-tests oftheir difference. High brand equity hotel has more employee

brand commitment than low brand equity hotel thus

supporting H7.

Table II Employee brand commitment items. Item 4 is reversed

Employee brand commitment Idea measured Alpha

1. I usually tell my friends that this is a great hotel brand to work for Affect 0.813

2. I am proud to tell others that I am part of this hotel brand Identification 0.814

3. For me this is the best of all possible hotel brands to work for Affect 0.816

4. It would take very little to cause me to leave this hotel brand (R) Willingness to remain 0.600

5. I am extremely glad that I choose to work for this hotel brand over others I was considering Affect 0.854

6. I really care about this hotel brand Identification 0.737

7. I would accept almost any type of job assignment in order to keep working for this hotel brand Attachment/ willingness to remain 0.750

8. I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that normally expected in order to help this hotel

brand to be successful Effort 0.595

Table III Multivariate tests for hotel differences in brand equitydimensions (MANOVA)

Brand equity dimensions Wilks lambda F df1 df2 Sig.

Brand awareness 0.749 19.481 4 233 0.000

Perceived quality 0.857 9.741 4 233 0.000

Brand differentiation 0.805 14.086 4 233 0.000

Core brand associations 0.835 11.527 4 233 0.000

Supporting brand associations 0.801 14.474 4 233 0.000

Brand trust 0.873 8.486 4 233 0.000

Brand relationships 0.735 21.031 4 233 0.000

Table IV Multiple regression. Brand relationships and dimensions of brand equity

Independent variables Standardized coefficient t Sig.

Constant 0.954 0.341

Brand awareness 0.154 3.296 0.001

Perceived quality 20.072 21.360 0.175

Brand differentiation 0.446 8.104 0.000

1. brand associations (core service) 0.067 1.060 0.290

2. brand associations (supporting services) 0.113 2.035 0.043

Brand trust 0.274 4.561 0.000

Notes: Adjusted R2 0.559; F test 51.007; p , 0.001





383

Implications for practitioners

In a highly competitive market, many international hotel

chains have put the brand at the heart of their corporate

strategy. They all want to build a strong brand to increase

customer loyalty to boost their profitability. This research

emphasized the need for marketing managers to understand

that in services, the brand is built from inside first through the

elaboration of a brand identity and that employees are the

foundation of the brand. The results provide some insights for

practitioners.First, our theoretical research model suggests that a strong

service brand can be assessed on seven dimensions including

brand awareness, perceived quality, brand associations (core

and supporting), brand differentiation, brand trust and brand

relationships. This framework can be used by managers to

measure and track their hotel brand equity.Second, if profitability is driven by the level of relationships

between a brand and its customers it is interesting to examine

which dimensions of brand equity influence brand

relationships. The results of this research indicate to

managers that brand differentiation should be a priority and

can be achieved by different ways (Ries and Trout, 2001).In services, De Chernatony and MacDonald (1998) have

suggested that differentiation can be created through a clear

brand identity with a set of values, brand personality and

brand attributes and promises that distinguish the brand from

its competitors. Brand differentiation is usually difficult to

achieve in a product or service category because it requires an

alignment between brand identity, company culture and the

brand image as perceived by stakeholders (Hatch and Schultz,

2001).The differentiation may be more difficult to achieve when

the industry and its rule of games influence the culture of its

actors. In the hotel industry, for example some factors are

encouraging similarity between brands. For example most

hotel managers have common educational background, they

have been trained in international hotel schools. They also

tend during their career to stay inside the same industry

moving from one hotel chain to another.Third, the findings reveal clearly that brand trust is critical.

The ability of a brand to deliver its promise consistently

influences significantly the strength of its relationships with

customers. Customers do not trust the brand when the brand

does not deliver on its promises, which is usually an indication

of a misalignment between the brand identity and the

organizational culture (Hatch and Schultz, 2008). In many

services firms there is limited collaborative work between the

marketing department in charge of brand communications

and operations or human resources departments. The lack of

coordination between these departments is a major

explanation about why many companies over promise to

lure customers.

A last managerial implication is related to the findings thatstrong brands are characterized by a strong employeecommitment to support the brand. This finding isconsistent with the emerging evidence in the literature onservice branding. It demonstrates the critical role of thehuman resource department in building the brand internally.The typology of employee branding developed by Mangoldand Miles (2007) illustrates that internal branding efforts areinfluenced by two dimensions including the employeeknowledge of the brand identity (their understanding of thebrand) and a psychological contract that exists in theemployee minds. A contract violation reduces employeetrust to the organization and affects their commitment to thebrand. Their lack of commitment is demonstrated byinappropriate behavior during service encounter with theconsequence of eroding the brand equity.

Conclusion and limitations

The focus of this study was to explore the brand equity ofluxury hotels in Thailand and to examine their employeebrand commitment. We suggested that the concept of brandequity has the same meaning for consumer goods and servicesbrands but the sources of brand equity are different. In servicefirms, the customer experience that occurs during interactionwith employees or self-service technologies is an effective waynot only to create brand meaning but also to connectcustomers emotionally with the brand. Therefore employeecommitment to make the brand alive is critical.Several limitations of the present research need to be noted.

The number of hotels that give approval to our study has beena major constraint, making difficult our comparison betweenhigh brand and low brand equity hotels. The selection of fivestars international hotels in Thailand within a single servicesector is certainly a limitation regarding the generalizability ofthe findings to other service industries. Luxury hotels can bedefined both as type of high customized contact services and aplace where employees may feel proud to work for; thereforewe have over-estimated the contribution of employees in theirrole of building the brand. The scale developed in Europe formeasuring the employee commitment despite being translatedin Thai and tested with hotel managers might be limited whenused with Thai employees.It is hoped that the findings of this research will serve the

needs of both academics and practitioners. In terms ofmarketing applications, the findings indicate first that brandequity is largely influenced by brand differentiation and brandtrust and that there is a major difference between core servicesand supporting services, the latter being more relevant tobuild strong brand associations into the customers mind.Second, hotels with strong brand equity usually have alsoemployees who are more committed to the brand. Thereforehotel managers need to determine the factors that explain theemployee commitment to the brand and their willingness to

Table V Employee brand commitment by hotel brand equity level

High brand equity hotels Low brand equity hotels

p (t) statistical significance of t-testof the between means difference

n 5 Size of employees sample 89 149Standard deviation 0.829 0.758

Mean 4.13 3.91 0.041





384

contribute to the brand building process before designing any

training or internal communication program. We encourage

scholars to conduct research that examines employee brand

commitment in different service industries and identifies the

antecedents of employee brand commitment. Such research

would be useful both for practitioners and will contribute to a

better knowledge of service branding. If delivering a

compelling customer experience in the service industry can

only be achieved through a collaborative work between all

managerial functions, research that explores the differences

between departments regarding their employee brand

commitment would be very helpful to understand why some

departments do not support the brand.

References

Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity, Free Press, New

York, NY.Aaker, D.A. (2002), Building strong brands, Academy of

Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 765-802.Aaker, D.A. and Jacobson, R. (1994), The financial

information content of perceived quality, Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 58, pp. 191-201.Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1990), The measurement and

antecedents of affective, continuance and normative

commitment to the organization, Journal of Occupational

Psychology, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 1-17.Ambler, T., Bhattacharya, C.V., Edell, J., Keller, K.L.,

Lemon, K. and Mittal, V. (2002), Relating brand and

customer perspectives on marketing management, Journal

of Service Research, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 107-20.Berry, L.L. (2000), Cultivating service brand equity,

Journal of the Academic of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 1,

pp. 128-37.Biel, A. (1997), Discovering brand magic: the hardness of

the softer side of branding, International Journal of

Advertising, Vol. 16 No. 3, p. 199.Bitner, M.J. (1990), Evaluating service encounters: the

effects of physical surrounding and employee responses,

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 69-82.Bitner, M.J., Booms, B.H. and Mohr, L.H. (1994), Critical

service encounters: the employees viewpoint, Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 58, pp. 95-106.Bitner, M.J., Booms, B.H. and Tetreault, M.S. (1990), The

service encounter, diagnosing favorable and unfavorable

incidents, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 71-84.Cobb-Walgren, C.J., Ruble, C.A. and Donthu, N. (1995),

Brand equity, brand preference, and purchase intent,

Journal of Advertising, Vol. XXIV No. 3, pp. 25-40.Cook, J. and Wall, T. (1980), New work attitude measures of

trust, organizational commitment, and personal need non-

fulfillment, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 53

No. 1, pp. 39-52.De Chernatony, L. (2002), From Brand Vision to Brand

Evaluation: Strategic Building and Sustaining Brands,

Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.De Chernatony, L. and DallOlmo Riely, F. (1999), Experts

views about defining services brands and the principles of

service branding, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 32

Nos 11/12, pp. 1074 ff.De Chernatony, L. and Harris, F. (2000), Developing

corporate brands through considering internal and external

stakeholders, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 3 No. 3,

pp. 268-74.De Chernatony, L. and McDonald, M. (1998), Creating

Powerful Brands in Consumer. Service and Industrial Markets,

Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.De Chernatony, L., Drury, S. and Segal-Horn, S. (2003),

Building a services brand: stages, people, and

orientations, Journal of Service Industries, Vol. 23 No. 3,

pp. 1-NA.Evans, D., Wasserman, J., Bertolotti, E. and Martino, S.

(2002), Branding behavior: the strategy behind the truth

campaign, Social Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 3, pp. 17-29.Fournier, S. (1998), Consumer and their brands: developing

relationship theory in consumer research, Journal of

Consumer Research, Vol. 24, pp. 343-71.Franzen, G. and Bouwman, M. (2001), The Mental World of

Brands, WARC, Henley-on-Thames.Gallup (2008), available at: www.gallup.com/consulting/1531/

Gallup-Path-Business-Performance.aspxGarbarino, E. and Johnson, M.S. (1999), The different roles

of satisfaction, trust and commitment in customer

relationships, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 2,

pp. 70-87.Gronroos, C. (1994), From scientific management to service

management: a management perspective for the age of

service competition, International Journal of Service

Industry, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 5-20.Gronroos, C. (2001), The perceived service quality concept

a mistake, Managing Service Quality Journal, Vol. 11

No. 3, pp. 150-2.Gronroos, C. (2007), Services Management and Marketing,

3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.Harris, F. and De Chernatony, L. (2001), Corporate

branding and corporate brand performance, European

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4, pp. 441-56.Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (1997), Relationship between

organizational culture, identity and image, European

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 Nos 5/6, pp. 356-65.Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (2001), Are the stars aligned

for your corporate brand?, Harvard Business Review,

February, pp. 129-34.Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (2008), Taking Brand Initiative,

Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.Heskett, J.L., Jones, T.O., Loveman, G.W., Sasser, W.E. and

Schlesinger, L.A. (1994), Putting the service profit chain

to work, Harvard Business Review, March/April,

pp. 164-74.Hoyer, W. and Brown, S. (1990), Effects of brand awareness

on choice for a common repeat purchase product, Journal

of Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 141-8.Ind, N. (1997), The Corporate Brand, Macmillan Business,

London.Kapferer, J.N. (2004), The New Strategic Brand Management,

Kogan Page, London.Keller, K.L. (1993), Conceptualising, measuring and

managing customer-based brand equity, Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-22.Keller, K.L. (2001), Building customer-based brand

equity, Marketing Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 14-19.Keller, K.L. (2003), Strategic Brand Management: Building,

Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity, Prentice-Hall,

Upper Saddle River, NJ.





385

Kim, H.B. and Kim, W.G. (2004), The relationship between

brand equity and firms performance in luxury hotels and

chain restaurants, Tourism Management, Vol. 26 No. 4,pp. 503-94.

Kinard, B.R. and Capella, M.L. (2006), Relationship

marketing: the influence of consumer involvement on

perceived service benefits, Journal of Services Marketing,Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 359-68.

Lee, J.A. and Chulguen, Y. (2005), Factor structure of

organizational commitment: differences between US andSouth Korean samples, Psychological Reports, June 2005Part 1, Vol. 96 No. 3, pp. 595-602.

Lipponen, J., Helkama, K., Olkkonen, M. and Juslini, M.

(2005), Predicting the different profiles of organizational

identification: a case of shipyard subcontractors, Journal ofOccupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 78,pp. 97-112.

Lovelock, C., Wirtz, J. and Keh, H.T. (2002), ServicesMarketing in Asia. Managing People, Technology and Strategy,Prentice-Hall, Singapore.

McDonald, M.H.B., de Chernatony, L. and Harris, F.

(2001), Corporate marketing and service brands movingbeyond the fast-moving consumer goods model, EuropeanJournal of Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 335-52.

Mangold, W.G. and Miles, S.J. (2007), The employee brand:is your and all-star?, Business Horizons, Vol. 50, pp. 423-33.

Mathieu, J.E. and Zajac, D.M. (1990), A review and meta-

analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences oforganizational commitment, Psychological Bulletin,Vol. 108, pp. 171-94.

Miles, S.J. and Mangold, W.G. (2004), A conceptualization

of the employees branding process, Journal of RelationshipMarketing, Vol. 3 Nos 2/3, pp. 65-87.

Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), The commitment-

trust theory of relationship marketing, Journal ofMarketing, July, July, pp. 20-38.

Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W. and Steers, R.M. (1982),

Organizational Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment,Absenteeism, and Turnover, Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

Muller, C.C. (1998), Endorsed branding, Cornell Hotel andRestaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 90-6.

Netemeyer, R.G., Krishnan, B., Pullig, C., Wang, G.,Yagci, M., Dean, D., Ricks, J. and Wirth, F. (2004),

Developing and validating measures of facets of customer-

based brand equity, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57,pp. 209-24.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L.L. (1988),

SERVQUAL: a multi-item scale for measuring consumerperception of service quality, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64,pp. 12-40.

Peccei, R. and Guest, D. (1993), The dimensionality andstability of organizational commitment, discussion article

number 149, Centre for Economic Performance, London

School of Economics, London.Pitta, D.A. and Katsanis, L.P. (1995), Understanding brand

equity for successful brand extension, Journal of ConsumerMarketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 51-64.

Porter, L.W., Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T. and Boulian, P.

(1974), Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and

turnover among psychiatric technicians, Journal of AppliedPsychology, Vol. 59, pp. 603-9.

Prasad, K. and Dev, C.S. (2000), Managing hotel brand

equity: a customer-centric framework for assessing

performance, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant AdministrationQuarterly, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 22-31.

Ries, A. and Trout, J. (2001), Positioning: The Battle of YourMind, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Schneider, B. (2000), Brand image from the inside out:

linking internal organization design to customer

satisfaction, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 7 No. 4,pp. 233-40.

Schneider, B. and Bowen, D.E. (1993), The service

organization: human resources management is crucial,

Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 39-52.Simom, C. and Sullivan, M. (1993), The measurement and

determinations of brand equity: a financial approach,

Journal of Marketing Science, Vol. 12, Winter, pp. 28-52.Srivastava, R.K. and Shocker, A.D. (1991), Brand Equity a

Perspective on its Meaning and Measurement, Report No.91-124, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.

Tsang, N. and Qu, H. (2000), Service quality in Chinas

hotel industry: a perspective from tourist and hotel

managers, International Journal of ContemporaryHospitality Management, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 316-26.

Yoo, B. and Donthu, N. (2001), Developing and validating amultidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale,

Journal of Business Research, Vol. 52, pp. 1-14.Zeithaml, V.A. and Bitner, M.J. (1998), Service marketing,

International Journal of Service Industry, Vol. 9 No. 3,pp. 310-1.

Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. and Berry, L.L. (1985),

Problems and strategies in services marketing, Journal ofMarketing., Vol. 49, pp. 33-46.

Further reading

Aaker, D.A. (2004), Brand Portfolio Strategy, Free Press, NewYork, NY.

Agarwal, M.K. and Rao, V.R. (1996), An empirical

comparison of consumer-based measures of brand

equity, Marketing Letters, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 237-47.Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1991), Marketing Service:

Competing through Quality, Free Press, New York, NY.Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1991), Marketing Services,The Free Press, New York, NY.

De Chernatony, L. (1999), Brand management through

narrowing the gap between brand identity and brand

reputation, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15No. 13, pp. 157-225.

Delgado-Ballester, E. (2004), Applicability of a brand trust

scale across product categories: a multi-group invariance

analysis, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38 Nos 5/6,pp. 573-92.

Dobni, D. and Zinkhan, G.M. (1990), In search of brand

image: a foundation analysis, Advances in ConsumerResearch, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 110-9.

Fletcher, K.P. and Peters, L.D. (1997), Trust and directmarketing environments: a consumer perspective, Journalof Marketing Management, Vol. 13, pp. 523-39.

Hackett, R.D., Bycio, P. and Hausdorf, P. (1994), Further

assessments of Meyer and Allens (1991) three-component

model of organizational commitment, Journal of AppliedPsychology, Vol. 79, pp. 15-23.

Keller, K.L. and Lehmann, D.R. (2001), The brand value

chain: optimizing strategic and financial brand

performance, working paper.





386

Mobley, W.H. (1982), Employee Turnover: Causes,

Consequences and Control, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.OCass, A. and Grace, D. (2003), An exploratory

perspective of service brand associations, Journal ofServices Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 55, pp. 452-75.

Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), Consumer perceptions of price,

quality and value: a means-end model and synthesis of

evidence, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 2-22.

Appendix. Variables used for each construct ofservice brand equity

Brand awareness

When I think of luxury hotels in Bangkok, Thailand, this

brand is the brand that first comes to mind.

Perceived quality. Special attention given by staff.. Staff performing services right the first time.. It is very convenient and easy to use the hotel services.. I can rely on this hotel to keep promises and perform with

the best interest of the customers at heart.. Reservation system was easily accessible.. High quality of food in restaurants

Brand differentiation. This hotel brand really stands out from other brands of

luxury hotels.. This hotel brand has unique features.

Core brand associations. Attractive room decor.. Security of room.. Very safety image.. Neat appearance of staff.. Availability of staff to provide service.. Cleanliness of room.. Quietness of room.. Luxurious.. Comfortable mattress and pillow.. A suitable place for high class customers.

Supporting brand associations. Availability of first class business center facilities.. Availability of first class spa and heath club.. Variety of services offered.

Brand trust. I never had a bad experience with this hotel brand.. I feel confidence in this hotel brand.. This hotel brand has a good reputation with customers.. This hotel brand is honest and sincere in addressing my

concerns.. If this hotel brand makes a claim or promise about its

service, it is probably true.. I know that this hotel brand do its best to satisfy me.. I know that if I have a problem as a customer of this hotel

brand, they would do their best to help me.

Brand relationships. I really love this hotel brand.

. When I have to stay in Bangkok, it makes sense to stay

with this hotel brand instead of any other brand of luxury

hotel.. I feel like I almost belong to a club with other customers of

this brand.. I really like to talk about this hotel brand to others.. I am always interested in learning more about this brand.. I would be interested in service or merchandise with this

brands name on it.. I am proud to have others know I use this brand.. I like to follow news about this hotel brand closely.

Corresponding author

Narumon Kimpakorn can be contacted at: narumon.cmu.

gmail.com

Executive summary and implications formanagers and executives

This summary has been provided to allow managers and executivesa rapid appreciation of the content of this article. Those with a

particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article intoto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the

research undertaken and its results to get the full benefits of thematerial present.

If strong brands enhance market share, create customer

loyalty and increase profit, they are valuable assets and

therefore it is important for managers to measure the equity

that has been build up by the brand. The concept of brand

equity has both a financial and a marketing aspect. From a

financial perspective it is possible to give a monetary value to

the brand that can be useful in case of merger, acquisition or

divestiture purposes. However, while estimating a financial

value for the brand is certainly useful, it does not help

marketers to understand the process of building brand

equity.The marketing perspective of brand equity is viewed with a

customer perspective to help marketers to understand the

brand in the minds of customers and design effective

marketing programs to build the brand. But what of the

effect employees actions and attitudes can have on the

customers perception of the brand? After all it is the

customers total experience with a service organization which

forms the brand image in their mind. Employees attitude and

behavior have a crucial role in the service brand image

formation process. They carry the brand identity into the

consumers eyes. Therefore, employees in service firms should

understand what the brand stands for (i.e. its identity) but

more importantly, employees must be committed to support

their brand and deliver consistently its promises to customers.

A lack of employee commitment will have some negative

consequences like inconsistent messages or negative word of

mouth that will impact the clarity and meaning of the brand

in the stakeholders mind.In Service brand equity and employee brand

commitment Narumon Kimpakorn and Gerard Tocquer

measure the brand equity of luxury hotels, using a customer

perspective, in order to identify factors that predict customer

brands relationships and to explore the links between service

brand equity and employee brand commitment.





387

They note that the customer experience that occurs duringinteraction with employees or self-service technologies is aneffective way not only to create brand meaning but also toconnect customers emotionally with the brand. Thereforeemployee commitment to make the brand alive is critical.In terms of marketing applications, the findings indicate

first that brand equity is largely influenced by branddifferentiation and brand trust and that there is a majordifference between core services and supporting services, thelatter being more relevant to build strong brand associationsin the customers mind. Second, hotels with strong brandequity usually also have employees who are more committedto the brand. Therefore hotel managers need to determine thefactors that explain the employee commitment to the brandand their willingness to contribute to the brand buildingprocess before designing any training or internalcommunication program.In a highly-competitive market, many international hotel

chains have put the brand at the heart of their corporatestrategy. They all want to build a strong brand to increasecustomer loyalty to boost their profitability. Marketingmanagers need to understand that in services, the brand isbuilt from inside first through the elaboration of a brandidentity and that employees are the foundation of the brand.A strong service brand can be assessed on dimensions

including brand awareness, perceived quality, brandassociations (core and supporting), brand differentiation,brand trust and brand relationships. These can be used bymanagers to measure and track their hotel brand equity.

If profitability is driven by the level of relationships betweena brand and its customers it is interesting to examine whichdimensions of brand equity influence brand relationships.Brand differentiation should be a priority for managers andcan be achieved in different ways. However, in the hotelindustry some factors are encouraging similarity betweenbrands. For example most hotel managers have commoneducational backgrounds, they have been trained ininternational hotel schools and they also tend during theircareer to stay inside the same industry moving from one hotelchain to another.Brand trust is critical. The ability of a brand to deliver its

promise consistently influences significantly the strength of itsrelationships with customers. Customers do not trust thebrand when the brand does not deliver on its promises, whichis usually an indication of a misalignment between the brandidentity and the organizational culture. In many services firmsthere is limited collaborative work between the marketingdepartment in charge of brand communications andoperations or human resources departments. The lack ofcoordination between these departments is a major reasonwhy many companies over-promise to lure customers.Strong brands are characterized by a strong employee

commitment to support the brand. This demonstrates thecritical role of the human resource department in building thebrand internally.

(A precis of the article Service brand equity and employee brandcommitment. Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)





388

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

2.Service_brand. Hotel.pdf

Documents

Transcript of 2.Service_brand. Hotel.pdf