“BRAND PERSONALITY, OWN PERSONALITY AND ATTRACTIVENESS OF A PRODUCT AND EMPLOYER BRAND”

“BRAND PERSONALITY, OWN PERSONALITY AND

ATTRACTIVENESS OF A PRODUCT AND EMPLOYER

BRAND”

Measuring the influence of fit between Product, Employer Brand and own

Personality on the attractiveness of a Product and Job.

G.P. (Gijs) de Rooij University of Groningen Department of Marketing

Supervisor: Dr. F. Eggers

Second Supervisor: Dr. J.E.M. van Nierop

“BRAND PERSONALITY, OWN PERSONALITY AND

ATTRACTIVENESS OF A PRODUCT AND EMPLOYER

BRAND”

Measuring the influence of fit between Product, Employer Brand and own

Personality on the attractiveness of a Product and Job.

G.P. (Gijs) de Rooij 1908472 Peizerweg 53B 9726JD Groningen 06-33834606 E-Mail: G.P.de.Rooij@student.rug.nl Supervisor: Dr. F. Eggers

Second supervisor: Dr. J.E.M. Van Nierop University of Groningen

Department of Marketing

Thesis MSc. Marketing Intelligence

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study is to investigate the influence of brand personality on the attractiveness of a product and job and whether a fit between own and brand personality increase the attractiveness. The study was conducted in the Netherlands and a Choice-Based-Conjoint (CBC) is used. For measuring the personality of the respondents the Big-Five is used. Brand personalities are defined by Aaker (1997). Results found significant influences of brand personality and fit on the attractiveness of a product brand. Within this study however no significant evidence is found between own and brand personality fit on the attractiveness of an employer brand as a place to work.

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

This study focus on the influence of brand personality on the attractiveness of a product and employer brand. The by Aaker (1997) defined dimensions of brand personality are used. Since it is able to measure brands on personality traits it is interesting to measure whether the fit between own and brand personality influences the attractiveness of a product and employer. In order to measure and test this fit a Choice Based Conjoint (CBC) is used.

The results show some expected and unexpected outcomes. First it was expected that the brand personality perceived as Excited, Sincere and Competent positively influence the attractiveness of both the product and employer brand. The results shows that for the Product brand Sophisticated traits were preferred above Excited. This means that when buying a Telephone it is more important for people that the brand is perceived as upper-class and charming than daring, spirited, imaginative and up-to-date. For the employer brand as a place to work Sophistication and Ruggedness negatively influence the attractiveness. In other words, employers which are seen as upper-class, charming, outdoorsy, strong and tough are not attractive for people as a brand to become part of as an employer. So when buying a product and choosing a job a difference exist in preferences between brand personalities.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ... 1

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK... 5

-2.1.BRAND PERSONALITY...-5-

2.2.PERSONALITY AND BRAND PERSONALITY FIT...-7-

3. CONCEPTUAL MODEL ... 10

4. METHODOLOGY ... 11

-4.1.SAMPLING ...-11-

4.2.PROCEDURE AND MEASURES...-11-

4.3.ATTRIBUTES AND LEVELS...-12-

4.4.EXPERIMENT AL DESIGN ...-13- 4.5.MODEL ...-14- 5. RES ULTS... 14 -5.1.SAMPLE ...-14- 5.2.RELIABILITY ANALYSIS...-14- 5.3.CHOICE MODELS ...-15- 5.4.MODEL FIT ...-15- 5.4.1. Product Brand ... 15 5.4.2. Employer Brand ... 16 -5.5.MAIN EFFECT S...-17- 5.5.1. Product brand ... 18 5.5.2. Employer brand... 18 -5.6.MODERATING EFFECT S ...-19- 5.6.1. Product Brand ... 19 5.6.2. Employer Brand ... 22

6. DISCUSS ION AND MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS... 25

7. LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER RES EARCH... 28

-REFERENCES ... 30

-APPENDIX 1 ... 35

-- 1 --

1. INTRODUCTION

‘’Take our 20 best people away and I will tell you that Microsoft would become an unimportant company’’ (Bill Gates, 1996 25th _{November in Fortune). Bill Gates highlighted}

the importance of human resources in organizational performance for a company as Microsoft. But how important are human resources really in gaining and sustaining a competitive advantage?

Gaining competitive advantage is the strategy of the organization to create value where current and potential competitors are not able to imitate this strategy and thus value (Barney, 1991). Several studies focus on the ability of the organization to gain a competitive advantage. Where Porter (1991) described the (external) environmental characteristics which determines the organizations ability to gain competitive advantage, focused Barney (1991) on the influence of internal resources. Internal resources are the strengths and or weaknesses of the organization (Hart, 1995; Hatch & Dyer, 2004; Wernerfelt, 1984). According to Barney (1991) there are three resource categories: Physical, human and organization capital resources. Human capital is described as the intelligence, experience and expertise of the individual employees (Barney, 1991). Since human capital is firm-specific, intangible and hard to imitate it can be a potential source of gaining and sustaining competitive advantage (Ahmed & Rafiq, 1992; Barney & Wright, 1997). Human resources are therefore not only part of the strategy but also important for implementing the strategy (Wright, McMahan & McWilliams, 1994). As Steve Jobs stated: ‘’The secret of my success is that we have gone to exceptional lengths to hire the best people in the world’’ (Steve Jobs, 1995 June in Fast Company).

- 2 -

It is known from previous study that during the recruitment process applicants describe an organization by means of different traits to base the attractiveness of a certain employer (Lievens & Highhouse, 2003). These organizational traits lead to the concept of organizational personality and can help the applicant and potential future employee to express themselves. As defined by Slaughter et al. (2004) organizational personality is the set of human characteristics associated with an organization. The so called corporate branding is part of the brand personality and is defined as the human traits of all the employees of the organization and thus reflects the values of the organization (Keller & Richey, 2006). Brand personality however is defined as the set of human characteristics/personality traits associated, applicable and relevant for specific brands (Aaker, 1997; Kapferer & Azoulay, 2003). This is important since job seekers’ applied for the organization and are likely to become part of these values. The main question of this study is therefore how important this brand personality is in the job seekers’ decision process?

The initial attraction to a certain organization as employer is based on the job and organizational characteristics. The job characteristics can be divided into two separate constructs. The instrumental functions of a job described as the product related functional descriptions like salary, location, duration and so on. And on the other hand the symbolic attributes which are described as the product-unrelated expressive value the employee will receive from the job (Aaker, 1997; Slaughter, Zickar, Highhouse & Mohr, 2004). In other words, the symbolic attributes describe the way people can express themselves. For instance, working for an organization which is perceived as innovative, trendy and young. Prior studies are mainly focused on the traditional instrumental job characteristics to measure the attractiveness of a job (Lievens & Highhouse, 2003). Taking into account that organizations within the same industry are highly similar, not only the job instrumental attributes determines the attractiveness of a job but also the symbolic attributes plays an important role in the job seekers’ decision process.

- 3 -

weak brands (Tavassoli, Sorescu & Chandy, 2014). The advantages of a strong brand are widely known and studied but the influence of brand equity on the decision making process when searching for a job is rather unknown.

According to Turban and Cable (2003) a positive effect of the perceived reputation of the organization on the attractiveness of the job was found. Not only are organizations with high perceived reputation able to attract more applicants they are also able to attract higher qualified applicants. Chapman, Uggerslev, Carrol, Piasentin and Jones (2005) highlighted the importance of organizations to collect information on the job seekers process to attract the right qualified employees. Concluded from previous, organizations can differentiate from their competitors by focusing on the symbolic instead of instrumental motivations for recruiting employees. Symbolic meanings are for example more important than instrumental meanings in the willingness to accept a certain payment. It is also relevant for job seekers because they are, since the moment they apply, potential employees. It is thus important that the employee feels related to the organization. This relationship, also described by Cable and Graham (2000), is important since the acceptance of a job, and thus become an employee within a certain organization, is perceived as a reflection of a persons’ abilities, values and skills.

- 4 -

This study will investigate the influence of the employer brand personality and match with own personality to measure the attractiveness of a job. Since job seekers first contact with the employer is as a consumer study 1 will focus on the attractiveness of a product. The following research questions for study 1 are developed: Does the brand personality affect the attractiveness of a product? And what is the (moderating) effect of consumer personality and brand personality fit on the attractiveness of a product?

Study 2 will investigate the influence of brand personality on the attractiveness of an Employer brand. Does the brand personality affect the attractiveness of an employer? And what is the (moderating) effect of employee personality and brand personality fit on the attractiveness of an employer? These two studies are conducted in order to determine whether product and employer attractiveness are based on the brand personality and whether a differences exist between the choice of a product and employer brand.

- 5 -

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1. Brand personality

One way to differentiate from your competitors is through building a strong and successful brand. Doyle (1989) defined a successful brand as a ‘’symbol, design or some combination, which identifies the product of a particular organization as having a sustainable differential advantage’’. So in other words, a successful brand creates a unique set of positive associations in the consumers’ minds and thus contribute to a positive brand equity (Keller, 1993). Brand equity is defined as a relational market-based asset which build strong brand, consumers’ associations, preferences and behaviors to the brand (Delgado-Ballester & Munuera-Aleman, 2005). Brand personality is part of the brand equity and defined as the set of human characteristics associated, applicable and relevant to a certain brand (Aaker, 1997; Azoulay & Kapferer, 2003). Brand perceptions are formed by any direct or indirect contact the consumer has with the brand (Plummer, 1985).

According to Aaker (1997), a company’s marketing management positions a brand by determining its extent of sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness. These constructs are the five scales of brand personality. Aaker (1997) defined the items with the highest correlation per scale. For Sincerity traits as domestic, honest and cheerful are found. Excitement is associated with daring, and up-to-date. Competence is defined as brands that are reliable, responsible and efficient. Human traits with the highest correlation with Sophistication are glamorous, charming and romantic while Rugged brands are outdoorsy, tough and strong (Aaker, 1997).

As Aaker (1997) stated: ‘’a brand without personality has troubles gaining awareness and developing relationships with customers’’. So when the organization is focused at attracting the right people and thus differentiate from your competitors via symbolic attributes it is important for organizations to communicate their brand personality. Marketers should strengthen their marketing strategies based on the personality of their brands in order to (re)-position and communicate with the consumers (Sheena & Naresh, 2012).

- 6 -

(Hoeffler & Keller, 2003). Since job applicants base their attitudes and preferences on the contact with the organization as a consumer it is likely to expect an influence of brand personality on the attractiveness of an employer.

To investigate the influence of brand personality on the attractiveness of a product H1 is developed. This hypotheses will be used to compare with the attractiveness of a job (H2) and thus test whether job seekers base their preferences on the brand perceptions an applicant has as a consumer (Delvecchio, Jarvis, Klink & Dineen, 2007). Aaker (1997) and Plummer (1985) defined brand personality benefits only as the symbolic benefit from the brand, other research however found besides symbolic benefits also functional, and experiential benefits (Maehle, Otnes & Supphellen, 2011). Functional benefits are described as problem-solving where experiential benefits typically described as the joy and experience perceived from the product. According to Maehle et al. (2011) Sincerity and Competent personalities are dimensions of the functional benefits of the product where Excitement is Experience based.

This study investigates the influence of brand personality on the attractiveness of a telephone. Because a products benefit is based on the utilitarian (functional) values of the product is expected that Sincerity and Competence positively influence the attractiveness of a telephone. Another research stated that a telephone is not only used as a functional/utilitarian product but also described as a hedonic product (Chun, Lee & Kim, 2012). Hedonic products are products which are used for emotional, fun and experience (Batra & Ahtola, 1991; Chitturi, Raghunathan & Mahajan, 2008). Therefore is expected that the attractiveness will increase if the brand personality is perceived as Excited based on experience. Since Sophistication and Rugged are Symbolic based (Maehle et al. 2011) is expected they will have less influence on the attractiveness of a product compared to the functional and experiential attributes. In this regard the following hypotheses is formulated:

H1: Perceived Excitement, Sincerity and Competence product brand personalities are more attractive compared to Sophisticated and Rugged.

- 7 -

Competent brand personalities are more influential since these personalities are based on the functional and excited values of the brand in contrast with the Sophistication and Rugged which are more symbolic and inspirational (Aaker, 1997; Maehle, Otnes & Supphellen, 2011). Since using a product as a consumer is also part of people’s expressive and self-enhancing way of presenting a negative influence can be expected for brand personalities which are seen as for example, unexcited. So according to Cable and Graham (2000) the acceptance of a job and working for an organization is perceived as someone’s reflection of abilities, values and skills. It is likely to expect that people are more attracted to jobs which are honest, daring, up-to-date and reliable. These traits are part of the three functional/ experiential dimensions: Sincerity, Excitement and Competence . In other words, if the brand is perceived as more excited, sincere and competent consumers and job seekers are more attracted to the brand.

H2: Perceived Excitement, Sincerity and Competent employer brand personalities are more attractive compared to Sophisticated and Rugged.

2.2. Personality and brand personality fit

For measuring personality the most prior method used is the Big-Five model. According to this model personality can be measured across five dimensions. Results from the meta-analysis of Barrick and Mount (1991) stated that a reliable five factor model is tested on ruggedness.

The five dimensions commonly used are: Extraversion, Emotional stability, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness and Openness to experience (Digman, 1990). Extraversion is associated with the active and sociable traits. Emotional stability is the dimensions with being anxious, depressed and angry. Agreeableness also described as the likeability of a person, being forgiving, trustworthy and tolerant. Conscientiousness is also described as the will to achieve (Digman, 1989) and it reflects the amount of in dependability of the person. Traits which describe Conscientiousness are organized and responsible (Barrick & Mount, 1991). A person’s Openness to Experience can be defined as a person’s creativeness, intelligence and imaginative (Barrick & Mount, 1991).

- 8 -

stated in table 1. According to Mulyanegara, Tsarenko and Anderson (2007) no correlations are found between Emotional Stability, Openness to Experience and brand personalities defined by Aaker (1997).

Table 1. Personalities

Big Five human traits (Digman, 1990) Brand personality traits (Aaker, 1997)

Extraversion Excitement

Emotional stability (No correlation found)

Agreeableness Sincerity

Conscientiousness Competence

Openness to Experience (No correlation found)

Recent studies showed that marketing messages can be aimed at the actual self-perception of the consumer, based on reality and authenticity and to the ideal self-perception of the consumer. In this way, brand attachment and emotional connection is created through ideal beauty and aspiration (Malar, Krohmer, Hoyer & Nyffenegger, 2011). According to this, consumers react differently to marketing messages and thus the emotional attachment to the brand depends on the situation and message. The results of Malar et al. (2011) suggested that when creating emotional brand attachment the personality of the brand should fit with the actual personality of the consumer. Emotional brand attachment is the relationship a consumer has with a specific brand (Thomson, MacInnis & Park, 2005).

In other words, it is the feelings, affection, passion and connection the consumer holds with a certain brand. Previous research found that consumers’ brand preferences and brand loyalty increase when the brand personality is congruent with their own personality (Long-Yi, 2010; Kressmann, Sirgy, Herrmann, Huber, Huber & Lee, 2006; Malhotra, 1988; Mulyanegara, Tsarenko & Anderson, 2007; Sirgy, 1982). For example, people who are more conscientious prefer trusted brands. So when creating a fit between actual personality and the brand personality the emotional attachment of the consumer to the brand will increase, but does this also hold when seeking for a job?

- 9 -

organizations’ employees as a whole (Keller & Richy, 2006). As the social identity theory suggest people want to express themselves in order to reflect their own abilities and skills (Ashfort & Mael, 1989; Cable & Graham, 2000). So when becoming part of the corporate brand personality an applicant is able to express their own personality. Since job-entry seekers first contact with the organization is as a consumer (Delvecchio et al., 2007) it is likely to expect that the attractiveness of the employer brand, through increase in emotional attachment, will increase when creating a fit between actual-self and brand personality.

Within this study the actual-self perceived personality is used and measured via the TIPI (Ten-Item-Personality-Inventory) questionnaire of Gosling, Rentfrow and Swann Jr. (2003). Since a positive influence of similarity between the own and brand personality on the brand attachment and thus product choice is expected, this positive effect is rather unknown in the field of job choices. So when taken all this into account the next hypotheses will be studied, whereas a positive influence is expected since a first-entry job seekers’ decisions are based on consumer perceptions and the functional benefits of the brand (Aaker, 1997; Delvecchio et al., 2007; Maehle, Otnes & Supphellen, 2011).

H3: As the perceived fit of personal and brand personality increase the attractiveness of a product brand increases.

H3a: As the perceived fit of Extraversion and Excitement increase the attractiveness will increase.

H3b: As the perceived fit of Agreeableness and Sincerity increase the attractiveness will increase.

H3c: As the perceived fit of Consciousness and Competence increase the attractiveness will increase.

H4: As the perceived fit of personal and brand personality increase the attractiveness of an employer brand increases.

H4a: As the perceived fit of Extraversion and Excitement increase the attractiveness will increase.

H4b: As the perceived fit of Agreeableness and Sincerity increase the attractiveness will increase.

- 10 -

3. CONCEPTUAL MODEL

- 11 -

4. METHODOLOGY

4.1. Sampling

The study was conducted in the Netherlands. The survey was developed using the software My.Preferencelab.com and was spread via social media like Facebook and e-mailing.

4.2. Procedure and measures

To study the influence of the brand personality on the attractiveness of the product brand when buying a product (study 1) and the attractiveness of the employer as a place to work (study 2) a conjoint analysis was conducted. A conjoint analysis is especially used when the choice of the respondent is important. Choice-based Conjoint analysis allow for providing choices. So in other words, the conjoint based analysis measures the consumers’ preferences based on utilities. When conducting a conjoint based analysis the researcher is able to capture the relative importance of different attributes and levels within a set of attributes and their levels (Malhotra, 2010). This is in line with the study of Eggers and Sattler (2009) who stated that the preference-based analyses is especially useful for generating the underlying motives of customers, or in this study job seekers. This study is interested in respondents preferences which are based on utilities per attribute level. The preference of a product and job equals the sum of utilities of the different attribute levels. To estimate the utilities per attribute level the conjoint-based-choice (CBC) approach is used. Within this approach respondents have to repeat their most preferred choice from a set of alternatives (Eggers & Sattler, 2009).

- 12 - 4.3. Attributes and levels

The chosen attributes within this study are Color, Price and Product Brand for study 1 and Location, Salary and Employer Brand for study 2. The attributes are chosen from literature and therefore the structured approach is used.

Study 1: Respondents are asked about their preference for a (new) smartphone. The respondents are asked to assume their current phone was broken and they are searching for a new one. Different product attributes are used which are the most common for buying a telephone. The first attribute is study 1 is Color (Black, Blue, Silver, Gold, White) the second attribute is Price (€399, €499, €599) and the last attribute is Product brand (Sincere Telephones, Exciting Telephones, Competent Telephones, Sophisticated Telephones, Rugged Telephones). Note: These are also non-existing brand names.

Study 2: For the second study Location and Salary are the traditional (control) attributes. These specific attributes are chosen since salary and location are seen as highly influential (especially salary) in the job seeking decision process (Uggersley, Fassina & Kraichy, 2012). Baum and Kabst (2013) also found that job seekers use salary as a complementary factor on other attributes to base their job decision. Each attribute consist of 5 levels and is therefore balanced. The chosen levels for salary are net €1900, €1950, €2000, €2050 and €2100 which are according to CPB in line with and around the average net monthly wage in the Netherlands March 2015. The range is especially low in order to minimize the effects of the control variable since salary is highly influential and used as a complementary factor. The attribute levels for Location are Groningen, Amsterdam, Utrecht, Rotterdam and Den Haag. The cities Amsterdam, Utrecht, Rotterdam and Den-Haag are according to CBS.nl the largest cities within the Netherlands (2015). Groningen is added because this study was mainly conducted in Groningen.

- 13 -

fit between own and brand personality non-existing brands are used. The brand names and thus personalities of the brands are described in table 2 (Aaker, 1997):

Table 2. Brand names and personality description

Brand names: Brand personality description:

Sincere Telephones Down-to-earth, honest, wholesome, cheerful Excited Telephones Daring, spirited, imaginative, up-to-date Competent Telephones Reliable, intelligent, successful

Sophisticated Telephones Upper-class, charming

Rugged Telephones Outdoorsy, tough

4.4. Experimental design

First respondents are asked some demographic questions (age, male/female and current situation). After this the respondents are asked for their most preferred option when applying for a job. The set consist of 8 choice sets with 3 alternatives (no-choice option is not included), after these 8 choice sets another set of choices are stated (8 choice sets, 3 alternatives) about product choice preferences. Note: Example of choice set are stated in Appendix 1.

Usually a no-choice option within Choice Based Conjoint is included. This is appropriate because respondents always have the ability to not make the choice to, for example buy a product. When it is not included it will also lead to biased utilities since respondents are forced to make a choice (Dhar, 1997). Within this research however the assumption is made that the respondents already decided to buy a Telephone (since their current one is broken) and are looking for a job and therefore there is chosen to not include the no-choice option. Concluded from this study 1 consist of 5*5*3 = 75 and study 2 of 5*5*5 = 125 possible alternatives. For this reason a fractional factorial design is chosen, which is a subset of the full factorial design.

- 14 - 4.5. Model

To measure respondents preferences based on the utilities for both the product and employer brand a formula is developed. For both study 1 and study 2 the dependent variable (product and job) are combinations of the part-worth utility of the previously stated attributes. The following model is developed where V is the systematic utility of respondent n for product i (study 1) and employer (study 2) i.

k = the number of attributes (3 for study 1 and 3 for study 2) x = the specific attribute level for alternative i.

β = the part-worth utility of respondent n for attribute k.

5. RESULTS

5.1. Sample

The data was collected via My.Preferencelab.com and exported to SPSS and Excel to check the data for outliers and inconsistencies. From the data there were no errors or missed values since the respondents need to answer the question before reaching the next question. Respondents who did not finished the survey are deleted since they are not useful for analyzing their choices and their personality. Note: Personality questions are stated at the end of the survey. The total number of respondents is n = 56 (31 male and 35 female). The average age is 23 And the current situation of the respondents is divided as follows: Student (n=46), Graduated and job seeking (n=1), Working (n=9) and Others (n=0). Which means that mostly young students finished the survey.

5.2. Reliability analysis

- 15 -

Table 3. Reliability

Cronbach’s Alpha Number of items

Extraversion .697 2

Agreeableness .466 2

Consciousness .745 2

Emotional Stability .436 2

Openness to experience .585 2

As seen in table 3 the estimated Cronbach’s Alpha within this study are low (see limitation section) but mostly in line with the research of Gosling et al. (2003). Which Cronbach’s Alpha are respectively: Extraversion .68, Agreeableness .40, Consciousness .50, Emotional Stability .73 and Openness to Experience .45. Although the Cronbach’s alphas not exceed the 0.60 threshold the two items are reduced into 1 dimension (10 items = 5 dimensions) since the Cronbach’s Alpha are mostly in line with the outcomes of the developed TIPI questionnaire.

5.3. Choice models

To test whether the aggregate model fit the data and whether the attributes and its levels should be numeric (linear) or nominal (part-worth) the software program Latent Gold is used. The estimated model is compared to the null model (no parameters) and it can be determined whether the estimated model fit is better. Since this study investigates the influence on product and job choice this part is divided into two studies. First the assessment of model fit for the Product brand will be discussed and thereafter the model fit of the Employer brand.

5.4. Model fit

5.4.1. Product Brand

To test the model fit the null model is calculated in order to compare the estimated models with the null model. The calculated null model is L(0) = 0 and the LL(0) is -492.178 (56*8*ln(1/3)).

Table 4. M odel fit

Nominal Model Price Linear Model LL -382.4924 -389.1688.

Npar 12 9

R2 0.22 0.21

R2 adj 0.20 0.19

- 16 -

To measure the model fit for the part-worth model different measurements are used. The Chi-square is calculated: LL(B*) = -382.4924. (-2(LL(0) − LL(β*)). The Chi-Chi-square test for model differences whereas H0 = no difference. The Chi-square of the part-worth model is 219.3718 -2((-492.1783)-(-382.4924)) with 12 degrees of freedom (critical value = 21.026, 0.05). Concluded from this the estimated model significantly differ from the null model 219.3718 > critical value). In order to improve the model fit a model with the variable price numeric is conducted: The LL(B*) = -389.1688. with a Chis-square of 206.019 (= -2((-492.1783)-(-389.1688)) with 9 degrees of freedom (critical value = 16.92, 0.05). According to the Chis-square the model significantly differs from the null model.

To test the significant difference between the two estimated models: Chi-square is 13.528 (-2((-389.1688)-(-382.4924))) with 3 degrees of freedom higher than 7.81 (0.05 = critical value) which indicates the models significantly differ. The estimated results are stated in table 4. No large differences in the model fit of the Price Linear Model and the Nominal Model exist. Since the model fit is slightly the same the model with less parameters is chosen because the model is more parsimonious. Therefore the model with price numeric is preferred for further use.

5.4.2. Employer Brand

To calculate the model fit for the Employer brand, first the null model (LL0) is calculated. Null model: L(0) = 0. LL(0) = 56*8*ln(1/3) = -492.1783.

Table 5. M odel fit

Nominal Model Salary Linear Model LL -403.9402 -405.1137

Npar 12 9

R2 0.18 0.18

R2 adj 0.15 0.16

Hit Rate 56% 59%

- 17 -

The likelihood ratio between the estimated models is: 2.347 (-2((-405.1137)-(-403.9402))) with 3 degrees of freedom. According to this the estimated models are not significantly different. The estimated model with the attribute Salary numeric is, concluded from table 5, preferred compared to the part-worth Nominal model. The adjusted R2 is slightly better 0.16 compared to 0.15 and the model is. The more parsimonious model with Location and Employer brand (both part-worth) and Salary (linear) is preferred and used for estimating the relative attribute importance and moderating effect of own personality on employer brand personality.

5.5. Main effects

The estimated utilities for both product and employer brands and the other (control) attributes are stated in table 6.

Table 6. M ain effects

Attributes Class 1 Wald p-value Attributes Class 1 Wald p-value

Main Effect (study 1) Main Effect (study 2)

Color Location

Black 0.5165 37.4961 1.40E-07 Groningen 0.1394 7.9797 0.092

White 0.0883 Utrecht 0.1858

Blue -0.3742 Amsterdam 0.0715

Silver 0.2742 Rotterdam -0.2484

Gold -0.5048 Den-Haag -0.1482

Product Brand Employer Brand

Sincere 0.3597 63.0422 6.60E-13 Sincere 0.4756 70.6255 1.70E-14

Excited 0.1230 Excited 0.1918

Competent 0.5649 Competent 0.6370

Sophisticated 0.3361 Sophisticated -0.1601

Rugged -1.3837 Rugged -1.1443

Price -0.6397 81.9738 1.40E-19 Salary 0.3622 69.8452 6.40E-17

In order to measure the relative attribute importance the attributes have to be significant. As seen from table 6 all the attributes are significant (note: Location is significant at significance

level 0.10).

- 18 -

The relative attribute importance is visualized in figure 2. As seen from the figure the relative attribute importance for Product Brand (study 1) is divided as follows: Color 23.8%, Product Brand personality 45.5% and Price 30.7%. For study 2 (Employer Brand) Location is 11.1%, Employer Brand personality is 48.3% and Salary is 40.6%. These results seems interesting since the respondents found the Product and Employer Brand personality more important than the Price and Salary.

5.5.1. Product brand

According to the estimated results within table 6 the main effect of Color, Product Brand and Price are all significant (p-value < .05). As expected the influence of the price on the consumers utility is negative. In other words, when the price of the product increases the utility of the consumers’ choice decreases. Black Telephones (utility = 0.51) are the most and Gold Telephones (utility = -0.5048) are the least preferred. The expected hypotheses was that Product Brands described as Sincere, Excited and Competent positively influence the preferences for the product. From the estimated results (visualized in figure 1) H1 is partly

supported. Competent (utility = 0.5649), Excited ( utility = 0.1230) and Sincere (utility =

0.3597) positively influence the preference for buying a telephone. Interesting is the unexpected large positive utility of Sophisticated (utility 0.3361) Telephones and therefore H1 is partly supported. Rugged Telephones, described as Outdoorsy and tough are, as expected the least preferred and have a negative utility of -1.3837.

5.5.2. Employer brand

For the Employer Brand the main effects of Location (p-value < 0.10), Employer brand and Salary are all significant. Utrecht is the most preferred option and as such positively influence the job seekers utility. Rotterdam and Den-Haag are the least preferred in the job seekers decision process. Salary increases (utility = 0.3662) the consumers preference. Sincere Telephones (0.4756), Excited Telephones (0.1918) and Competent Telephones (0.6370) significantly (positive) influence the utility. Whereas working for the Employer brand with Competent personality is the most preferred. The utility of Sophisticated (-0.1602) and Rugged (-1.1443) Employer Brands are negative. These results are in line with H2: Perceived Excitement, Sincerity and Competence employer brands are more attractive compared to Sophistication and Ruggedness brand personalities. From the estimated results H2 is

Supported. The utilities per brand for both Product and Employer brand are visualized in

- 19 - 5.6. Moderating effects

To test for moderation, interaction effects between attributes is used. Since this study investigates the influence of personality and product/employer personality fit, the following variables are computed. Each Personality dimension factor was multiplied with all the attribute levels of Product and Employer Brand. So according to this 20 (4 effect coded levels multiplied with 5 personality dimensions) new variables are computed. As previously stated Mulyanegara et al. (2007) found correlation between Extraversion Excitement, Consciousness Competence and Agreeableness with Sincerity. They found no evidence for correlation of brand personality with Openness to experience and Emotional stability. To test all interaction effects this research includes the interaction effects of Openness to experience and Emotional stability. To test for model fit all these attributes with interaction effects are used within Latent Gold.

5.6.1. Product Brand

Table 7. M odel fit

Price Linear Model Price Linear Interaction Model

LL -389.1688 -357.2197

Npar 9 29

R2 0.21 0.25

R2 adj 0.19 0.21

Hit Rate 61% 61%

The estimated model fit is stated in table 7. First the Chis-square is used to test significantly differences between the Price Linear Interaction model (LLB*) and the null model (LL0). The Chi-square is 269.917 (-2((-492.1783)-(-357.2197))) with 29 degrees of freedom. This is higher than the critical value (0.05 = 41.34) and therefore the model significantly differ from the null model. To test whether the interaction model improves model fit the Chi-square is compared to the Price linear main effects model. The Chi-square is 63.8982 (-2((-389.1688)-(-357.2197))) with 20 (29-9) degrees of freedom. This is higher than the Critical value (0.05 = 31.41) which indicates that the interaction model significantly differ from the price linear model. According to these results the fit of the estimated Price Linear Interaction model is significantly different from the Price Linear Model used for the main effects.

- 20 -

moderating effect of fit between own personality and Product Brand personality previously computed interaction effects are analyzed. Results are stated in table 8 and shows the interaction effects (moderating) of the attributes for the product Brand. The Product Brand Rugged is the effect-coded reference level and therefore calculated as follows: (Sum of utility of brand levels)*(-1).

Table 8. M ain and interaction effects of product brand (study 1)

Product Brand (Study 1)

Attributes Class1 Wald p-value

Color Black 0.5398 34.8518 5.00E-07 White 0.0718 Blue -0.3630 Silver 0.2425 Gold -0.4911 Product Brand Sincere 0.4080 59.5621 3.60E-12 Excited 0.1300 Competent 0.5885 Sophisticated 0.3513 Rugged -1.4778 Price -0.6496 80.0229 3.70E-19 Interaction Effect Extraversion Sincerity -0.1799 2.0104 0.160 Extraversion Excitement 0.2322 3.0710 0.080 Extraversion Competent -0.3331 6.4247 0.011 Extraversion Sophisticated 0.1502 1.3207 0.250 Extraversion Rugged 0.1306 Reference level

Agreeableness Sincerity 0.2343 2.8289 0.093

Agreeableness Excitement 0.0222 0.0211 0.880 Agreeableness Competent -0.0480 0.1355 0.710 Agreeableness Sophisticated -0.0256 0.0329 0.860 Agreeableness Rugged -0.1829 Reference level

Consciousness Sincerity 0.2429 3.2032 0.074

Consciousness Excitement 0.1983 2.1633 0.140 Consciousness Competent 0.1829 2.0493 0.150 Consciousness Sophisticated -0.1419 1.2019 0.270 Consciousness Rugged -0.4822 Reference level Emotional Stability Sincerity 0.0236 0.0348 0.850

Emotional Stability Excitement -0.2812 4.9013 0.027 Emotional Stability Competent 0.3749 8.1568 0,004 Emotional Stability Sophisticated 0.4011 8.9268 0,002

Emotional Stability Rugged -0.5184 Reference level Openness to Experience Sincerity 0.0138 0,0143 0.900

- 21 -

Openness to Experience Competent -0.0637 0.2473 0.620

Openness to Experience Sophisticated -0.2054 2.7443 0.098

Openness to Experience Rugged 0.0181 Reference level

The results from table 8 indicate some significant interaction effects. First the moderating fit between personality and brand personality is tested. From the results there is a significant (p-value < 0.10) interaction effect between respondents perceived as Extravert and Excited Product Brands. The positive interaction effect is 0.2322 which means that the utility of Excited Telephones increase when the person is Extravert. H3a: is supported and the total utility is 0.3622 (0,1300 + 0.2322). There is a significant (p-value < 0.10) interaction effect found between Agreeableness and Sincerity. The interaction effect is positive 0.2343. H3b: is supported and the total utility of Sincere Telephones increase to 0.6423 (0.4080 + 0.2343). There is no significant interaction found between Competent and Consciousness. H3c: Not supported. Therefore H3: As the perceived fit of personal and brand personality increase the attractiveness of a product increases is partly supported.

- 22 -

5.6.2. Employer Brand

For the investigation of the moderating effects for Employer Brand another analysis via Latent Gold was conducted. First the model fit is tested and after that the moderating effects are estimated and analyzed.

Table 9. M odel fit

Salary Linear Model Salary Linear Interaction Model

LL -405.1137 -390.9284

Npar 9 29

R2 0.18 0.21

R2 adj 0.16 0.15

Hit Rate 59% 59%

The assessment of model fit when including interaction effects are stated in table 9. To test significantly model difference the Interaction model is compared to the null model. The Chi-square is 202,4998 (-2((-492.1783)-(-390.9284))) with 29 degrees of freedom. This is higher than the critical value (0.05 = 41.34) and therefore the model significantly differ from the null model. The model improvement of interaction model compared to the main model is calculated as follows: (-2((-405.1137)-(-390.9284))). The Chi-square is 28.3706 with 20 degrees of freedom. This is lower than the critical value (0.05 = 31.41). According to the likelihood ratio test based on the Chi-square the interaction model is not significantly better than the main effect model. The adjusted R2 indicates that the model fit does not improve since the adjusted R2 decrease from 0.16 to 0.15. Since the model is not improved but to test for moderating effects the interaction effect model is used and results are stated in table 9.

Table 10. M ain and interaction effects employer brand (study 2)

Employer Brand (Study 2)

Attributes Class1 Wald p-value

- 23 - Interaction effect Extraversion Sincerity 0.0860 0.4582 0.500 Extraversion Excitement 0.0125 0.0108 0.920 Extraversion Competent -0.0395 0.1248 0.720 Extraversion Sophisticated 0.1467 1.2580 0.260 Extraversion Rugged -0.2057 Reference level Agreeableness Sincerity 0.0678 0.2707 0.600 Agreeableness Excitement 0.0213 0.0268 0.870

Agreeableness Competent 0.2596 4.1645 0.041

Agreeableness Sophisticated -0.1355 0.8595 0.350 Agreeableness Rugged _-0.2132 Reference level Consciousness Sincerity 0.0508 0.1536 0.700 Consciousness Excitement -0.0650 0.2806 0.600 Consciousness Competent 0.0075 0.0044 0.950

Consciousness Sophisticated -0.2264 2.7185 0.099

Consciousness Rugged _0.2331 Reference level Emotional Stability Sincerity -0.0601 0.2663 0.610 Emotional Stability Excitement -0.0493 0.1726 0.680 Emotional Stability Competent 0.1184 1.0250 0.310

Emotional Stability Sophisticated 0.2711 4.0387 0.044

Emotional Stability Rugged -0.2801 Reference level Openness to Experience Sincerity -0.1288 1.2364 0.270 Openness to Experience Excitement 0.0970 0.6871 0.410 Openness to Experience Competent 0.1664 2.3538 0.120

Openness to Experience Sophisticated -0.3083 5.1242 0.024

Openness to Experience Rugged _0.1737 Reference level

Note: The Employer Brand Rugged is the effect-coded reference level and calculated as previously described. Table 10 indicate no moderating effect of own personality on employer brand personality since the interaction effects of Extraversion/Excitement (H4a), Agreeableness/Sincere (H4b) and Consciousness/Competent (H4c) are not significant. Because there is no interaction effect found between correlated personality traits, H4: The perceived fit of personal and brand personality increase the attractiveness of a job is not

supported. There is however a significant (p-value = .041) interaction effect of

- 24 -

Decrease utility Sophisticated Telephones when person is Conscious is -0.4405 (-0,2141 - 0.2264). Decrease utility Sophisticated Telephones: -0.9629 (-0,2141 - 0.3083). An overview of the tested hypotheses are stated in table 11.

Table 11. Hypotheses

H1: Perceived Excitement, Sincerity and Competence product brand personalities are more attractive compared to Sophisticated and Rugged.

Partly Supported

H2: Perceived Excitement, Sincerity and Competence employer brand personalities are more attractive compared to Sophisticated and Rugged.

Supported

H3: As the perceived fit of personal and brand personality increase the attractiveness of a product increases.

H3A: As the perceived fit of Extraversion and Excitement increase the attractiveness will increase.

H3B: As the perceived fit of Agreeableness and Sincerity increase the attractiveness will increase.

H3C: As the perceived fit of Consciousness and Competence increase the attractiveness will increase.

Partly Supported

Supported

Supported

Not Supported

H4: As the perceived fit of personal and brand personality increase the attractiveness of a job increases.

H4A: As the perceived fit of Extraversion and Excitement increase the attractiveness will increase.

H4B: As the perceived fit of Agreeableness and Sincerity increase the attractiveness will increase.

H4C: As the perceived fit of Consciousness and Competence increase the attractiveness will increase.

Not Supported

Not Supported

Not Supported

- 25 -

6. DISCUSSION AND MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS

The aim of this research paper was to investigate the influence of brand personality on the attractiveness of a product and employers as a place to work. According to Delvecchio et al., (2007) first-entry job seekers base their decisions and perceptions about an employer as consumers, since their first contact was as a consumer. In order to measure this, two studies were conducted. First the influence of brand personality and fit with own personality on the attractiveness of a product was investigated (study 1). Second the same influence was analyzed on the attractiveness of an employer brand (study 2). The outcomes of both studies are used in order to compare results and test whether differences exist. The developed hypotheses will be further discussed.

According to Aaker (1997), a company’s positions a brand by determining its extent of sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness. So in order to attract the customer and increase attractiveness of the organizations products it is important to know which personalities increase this attractiveness. The results from this study stated that the preference of a product increase when the product brand personality is perceived as Sincere, Competent, Sophisticated and Excited. Therefore H1 is partly supported. So it is important for organizations to know how the product brand personality is perceived by consumers in order to (re)-position the product brand. This means that managers should focus their marketing massage to carry out the right brand personality. Concluded from this research, managers should focus on the product brand personality traits as: Honest, Upper-class, charming, reliable, successful daring and up-to date in order to increase brand preferences. Products perceived as Competent, Sophisticated and Sincere are the most attractive brands. These results indicate the importance of a Telephone brand to be more (Sophisticated) than (Excited). A more excited influence was expected since a Telephone is perceived as a Hedonic and experiential product (Chun, Lee & Kim, 2012). Results from this study indicate that the symbolic attributes are more important than the experiential benefits perceived from a Telephone. This results can be due to the trendy and innovative character of the telephone where it is thus important for consumers to possess a charming upper-class telephone.

- 26 -

Study of (Lievens & Highhouse, 2003) also stated that job seekers find it hard to characterize and evaluate different organizations based on symbolic human traits. They also found that the first contact as a job seeker is based on the instrumental rather than the symbolic attributes. In this study non-existing brands are used which increase the attraction of instrumental attributes compared to symbolic attributes. The results from this study are in line with these findings. People prefer working for a honest, cheerful (Sincere), daring, up-to-date (Excited) and reliable, successful (Competent) employer. And therefore H2 is supported. So in order to attract the right applicants, the main respondents of this study were business students, organizations should focus their brand personality as a reliable, successful, up-to-date and honest place to work. The results also stated that when the employer brand is perceived as upper-class, charming (Sophisticated), outdoorsy, strong and tough (Ruggedness) this negatively influence the job seekers attractiveness to the job.

It is interesting to find these results, since previous research stated that job seekers base their decisions on the perceptions they have as a consumer. This research highlighted the difference in this perception. Whereas people prefer Sophisticated traits when buying a product brand this influence was found negative for the preference of a job. In other words, when buying a product people want to express themselves as upper-class and charming but according to this study this does not hold for working for a specific employer brand.

- 27 -

- 28 -

7. LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH

During the investigation of the effects of product and employer brand personalities on the product and employer preferences some limitations arose. Within this section the limitations are described. Further research is necessary to overcome these limitations and as such also the implications for further research will be described. Within this study the brand personalities based on the scale developed by Aaker (1997) are used. As previously described brands are self-expressive (Ashfort & Mael, 1989; Cable & Graham, 2000) but according to Emile and Lee (2012) people use more variables/attributes than only the 5 personality traits defined by Aaker (1997) to express themselves. Therefore only the use of these five attributes are not exclusive for people to express themselves. Further research should be aimed at the diversity of personalities and cultures in order to make the choice to express themselves more realistic for the respondents.

Another limitation arose with regard to the personality measurement. Due to practical implications the small personality measurement of Gosling et al. (2003) is used. This Ten-Item-Personality-Inventory (using 10 questions rather than 44 or 60) is especially useful for quick personality measures (Gosling et al., 2003). This measurement however scores low on reliability based on Cronbach’s Alpha. In other words, the 2 questions per dimension are not very correlated and as such it is not preferred to combine them into 1 factor (Malhotra, 2010). The perceived personalities of the respondents are therefore not reliable. This study used the product choice (study 1) to test whether differences exist between attractiveness of product and employer brand. Study 1 is conducted since job seekers base their decision on their consumer perceptions of the brand. Further research should use more elaborate personality measurements in order to describe respondents based on personality dimensions.

- 29 -

Also the use of two control variables per study (Color, Price, Location and Salary) is not very realistic. Consumers and job-seekers will base their decision on more product and job characteristics. Within this study the non-option is not included, a limitation arose since respondents are forced to choose their preferred option even if none of the alternatives are preferred. Including a non-option within future research will be able to test whether the influence of brand personality will have a positive or negative effect compared to the non-option.

- 30 -

REFERENCES

Ahmed, P.K. & Rafiq, M. (1992). “Implanting Competitive Strategy: A Contingency Approach”. Journal of Marketing Management. 8 (1), 49-67.

Ashforth, B. & Mael, F. (1989). “Social Identity Theory and the Organization”. Academy of

Management Review, 14 (1), 20-39.

Azoulay, A. & Kapferer, J. (2003). “Do Brand Personality Really Measure Brand Personality”? The Journal of Brand Management. 11 (13), 143-155.

Barney, J.B. (1991). “Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage”. Journal of

Management. 17 (1), 99-120.

Barney, J.B. & Wright, P.M. (1997). “On Becoming a Strategic Partner: The role of Human Resources in Gaining Competitive Advantage”. CAHR Working paper.

Barrick, M.R. & Mount, M.K. (1991) “The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis”. Personnel Psychology. 44 (1), 1-26.

Batra, R. & Ahtola, O. (1990). “Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Sources of Consumer Attitudes. Marketing Letters. 2 (2), 159-170.

Baum, M. & Kabst, R. (2013). “Conjoint implications on job preferences: the moderating role of involvement”. The international journal of Human Resource Management. 24 (7), 1393-1417.

Cable, D.M. & Graham, M.E. (2000). “The Determinants of Job Seekers’ Reputation Perceptions”. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21 (8), 929-947.

Chun, H., Lee, H. & Kim, D. (2012). “The Integrated Model of Smartphone Adoption: Hedonic and Utilitarian Value Perceptions of Smartphones Among Korean College Students.

- 31 -

Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R. & Mahajan, V. (2008). Delight by Design: The Role of Hedonic Versus Utilitarian Benefits. Journal of Marketing. 72 (3), 48-63.

Delgado-Ballester, E. & Munuera-Aleman, J.L. (2005). “Does brand trust matter to brand equity”? Journal of Product & Brand management. 14 (3), 187-196.

Delvecchio, D., Jarvis, C.B., Klink, R.R. & Dineen, B.R. (2007). “Leveraging Brand Equity to Attract Human Capital”. Marketing Letters. 18 (3), 149-164.

Digman, J.M. (1990). “Personality Structure: Emergence of the Five-Factor Model”. Annual

Review of Psychology. 41, 417-440.

Dhar, R. (1997), “Consumer preference for a no-choice option”. Journal of Consumer

Research, 24 (2), 215 – 231.

Doyle, P. (1989). “Building successful brands: The strategic Options”. Journal of Marketing

Management. 5 (1), 77-95.

Eggers, F. & Sattler, H. (2009). “Preference Measurement with Conjoint Analysis. Overview of state-of-the-art Approaches and Recent Developments”. New Methods, 3 (1), 36-47.

Emile, R. & Lee, M. (2012). “Revisiting Aaker’s (1997) Brand Personality Dimensions: Validation and Expansion”. Advances in Consumer Research. 40, 363-370.

Freling, T.H. & Forbes, L.P. (2005). “An examination of brand personality through methodological triangulation”. Journal of Brand Management. 13 (2), 148-162.

Gosling, S.D., Rentfrow, P.J. & Swann Jr, W.B. (2003). “A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains”. Journal of Research in Personality. 37 (6), 504-528.

Hart, S.L. (1995). “A Natural-resource-based view of the firm”. Academy of Management

Review. 20 (4), 986-1014.

- 32 -

Hoeffler, S. & Keller, K.L. (2003). “The Marketing Advantage of Strong Brands”. The

Journal of Brand Management. 6 (1), 421-445.

Keller, K.L. (1993). “Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity”. Journal of Marketing, 57 (1), 1-22.

Keller, K.L. & Richey K. (2006). “The Importance of Corporate Brand Personality Traits to a Successful 21st Century Business”. Journal of Brand Management, 14 (1), 74-81.

Kressman, F., Sirgy, M.J., Herrmann, A., Huber, F., Huber, S. & Lee, D. (2006). “Direct and indirect effects of self-image congruence on brand loyalty”. Journal of Business Research. 59 (9), 955-964.

Leone, R.P., Rao, V.R., Keller, K.L., Luo, A.M., McAlister, L. & Srivastava, R. (2006). “Linking Brand Equity to Customer Equity”. Journal of Service Research. 9 (2), 125-138.

Lievens, F. & Highhouse, S. (2003). “The Relation of Instrumental and Symbolic Attributes to a Company’s Attractiveness as an Employer”. Personnel Psychology, 56 (1), 75-102.

Long-Yi, L. (2010). “The relationship of consumer personality trait, brand personality and brand loyalty: An empirical study of toys and video games buyers”. Journal of Product &

Brand Management. 19 (1), 4-17.

Malhotra, N.K. (2010), Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation. Upper Saddle River, N.J.,: Pearson

Malar, L., Krohmer, H., Hoyer, W.D. & Nyffenegger, B. (2011). “Emotional Brand Attachment and Brand Personality: The relative importance of the actual and the ideal self”.

Journal of Marketing. 75 (4), 35-52.

- 33 -

Mulyanegara, R.Z., Tsarenko, Y. & Anderson, A. (2007). “The Big Five and Brand Personality: Investigating the Impact of Consumer Personality on Preferences Towards particular Brand Personality”. Journal of Brand Management. 16 (4), 234-247.

Porter, M. E. (1991). “Towards A Dynamic Theory Of Strategy”. Strategic Management

Journal. 12 (2), 95-117.

Sheena & Naresh, G. (2012). “Do Brand Personalities Make a Difference to Consumers”?

Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 37, 31-37.

Slaughter, J.E., Mohr, D.C., Zickar, M.J. & Highhouse, S. (2004). “Personality Trait Inferences about Organizations: Development of a Measure and Assessment of Construct Validity”. Journal of Applied Psychology. 89 (1), 85-103.

Swaminathan, V., Stilley, K.M. & Ahluwalia, R. (2009). “When Brand Personality Matters: The Moderating Role of Attachment Styles”. Journal of Consumer Research. 35 (6), 985-1002.

Tavassoli, N.T., Sorescu, A. & Chandy, R. (2014). “Employee-Based Brand Equity: Why firms with Strong Brands pay their Executives less”. Journal of Marketing. 51 (6), 676-690.

Thomson, M., MacInnis, D.J. & Park, W. (2005). “The Ties that bind: Measuring the Strength of Consumers’ Emotional Attachment to Brands”. Journal of Consumer Psychology. 15 (1), 77-91.

Turban, D.B. & Cable, D.M. (2003). “Firm Reputation and Applicant Pool Characteristics”.

Journal of Organizational Behavior. 24 (6), 733-751.

Uggerslev, K.L., Fassina, N.E., & Kraichy, D. 2012. “Recruiting through the stages: a meta-analytic test of predictors of applicant attraction at different stages of the recruiting process”.

Personnel Psychology, 65(3): 597-660.

Wernerfelt, B. (1984). “A Resource-Based View of the Firm”. Strategic Management

- 34 -

Wright, P.M., McMahan, G.C. & McWilliams, A. (1994). “Human resources and sustained competitive advantage: A resource-based perspective”. International Journal of Human

- 35 -

APPENDIX 1

- Choice set example employer brand –

- 36 -

- 37 - -1,5 -1,0 -0,5 0,0 0,5 1,0

Sincere Tel. Exciting Tel. Competent Tel. Sophisticated Tel. Rugged Tel. U ti lit y

Product Brand Employer Brand

APPENDIX 2

- 38 -