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

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

3. Literature What’s been said about CE?
Psychological process mapping the formation and maintenance of customer loyalty (Bowden, 2009).
Occurs through interactive and co-creative customer experiences (Brodie et al., 2011).
Provides a more comprehensive and holistic perspective on CBR (Gummerus et al., 2012; Bowden, 2009).
Multidimensional: CE involves a range of constructs such as satisfaction, participation, trust, rapport, affective/calculative commitment, self-brand connections and loyalty (Brodie et al., 2011; Van Doorn et al., 2010; Gummerus et al., 2012).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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