Introduction and backgroundMarket s

Introduction and background

Market saturation and consumer confusion have changed the role of branding dramatically during the last decades. Consumers try to handle the flood of apparently exchangeable products and services by demanding those goods that provide a holistic and coherent consumption experience (e.g. Bendapudi and Bendapudi, 2005; Burmann and Zeplin, 2005; Aurand et al., 2005; Mitchell, 2002; Berry, 2000). Brands are no longer simple product labels, but they are communication platforms towards customers and other stakeholders that convey specific attributes of products or services as well as company values and mission statements (Davies and Chun, 2002; de Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley, 1998; Aaker, 1996). Microsoft, for example, uses its recent corporate branding campaign to communicate both purchase relevant product criteria as well as corporate values reflecting the passion of the company. The claim “Your Potential. Our Passion” tells customers that achieving their personal objectives will be accompanied and advanced by Microsoft’s products and services. Microsoft presents itself as an omnipresent partner promising solutions for every existing and potential customer need. Consequently, Microsoft’s employees are under pressure to live up to this promise in each interaction situation in order to promote a consistent brand image (Bendapudi and Bendapudi, 2005; Burmann and Zeplin, 2005; Mitchell, 2002; Berry, 2000). However, what does “passion” mean to a call centre agent in comparison to a software engineer, and how can both groups of employees be motivated and guided to act in a “passionate” way?

The aim of this study is to assess the importance of personal employee interaction within the company’s effort to display a holistic brand performance. We investigate the role of brand consistent employee behaviour. We term such behaviour behavioural branding and analyse how it can be implemented. With respect to Watzlawick and Beavin (1967), who posited that it is not possible to not communicate, it can be reasoned that only those companies, which are able to create, communicate and keep a unique and differentiating brand promise via behavioural branding, have the possibility to reach an undisputed positioning in the customer’s relevant set (e.g. Grace and O’Cass, 2004; de Chernatony, 2002; Berry, 2000).

Theoretical support for this assumption can be found in the fields of research on service quality and strategic organisational behaviour. Service quality studies show that the brand experience of customers is exceedingly determined by the moment of their interaction with the firm (e.g. Hartline et al., 2000; Iacobucci and Ostrom, 1995; Bowers et al., 1990; Zeithaml et al., 1988;

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

Pendahuluan dan latar belakangMarket saturation and consumer confusion have changed the role of branding dramatically during the last decades. Consumers try to handle the flood of apparently exchangeable products and services by demanding those goods that provide a holistic and coherent consumption experience (e.g. Bendapudi and Bendapudi, 2005; Burmann and Zeplin, 2005; Aurand et al., 2005; Mitchell, 2002; Berry, 2000). Brands are no longer simple product labels, but they are communication platforms towards customers and other stakeholders that convey specific attributes of products or services as well as company values and mission statements (Davies and Chun, 2002; de Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley, 1998; Aaker, 1996). Microsoft, for example, uses its recent corporate branding campaign to communicate both purchase relevant product criteria as well as corporate values reflecting the passion of the company. The claim “Your Potential. Our Passion” tells customers that achieving their personal objectives will be accompanied and advanced by Microsoft’s products and services. Microsoft presents itself as an omnipresent partner promising solutions for every existing and potential customer need. Consequently, Microsoft’s employees are under pressure to live up to this promise in each interaction situation in order to promote a consistent brand image (Bendapudi and Bendapudi, 2005; Burmann and Zeplin, 2005; Mitchell, 2002; Berry, 2000). However, what does “passion” mean to a call centre agent in comparison to a software engineer, and how can both groups of employees be motivated and guided to act in a “passionate” way?The aim of this study is to assess the importance of personal employee interaction within the company’s effort to display a holistic brand performance. We investigate the role of brand consistent employee behaviour. We term such behaviour behavioural branding and analyse how it can be implemented. With respect to Watzlawick and Beavin (1967), who posited that it is not possible to not communicate, it can be reasoned that only those companies, which are able to create, communicate and keep a unique and differentiating brand promise via behavioural branding, have the possibility to reach an undisputed positioning in the customer’s relevant set (e.g. Grace and O’Cass, 2004; de Chernatony, 2002; Berry, 2000).Theoretical support for this assumption can be found in the fields of research on service quality and strategic organisational behaviour. Service quality studies show that the brand experience of customers is exceedingly determined by the moment of their interaction with the firm (e.g. Hartline et al., 2000; Iacobucci and Ostrom, 1995; Bowers et al., 1990; Zeithaml et al., 1988;