hollebeek2011

Prévia do material em texto

This article was downloaded by: [Ohio State University Libraries]
On: 12 March 2013, At: 10:02
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Strategic Marketing
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsm20
Exploring customer brand engagement:
definition and themes
Linda Hollebeek a
a The University of Auckland Business School, Owen G. Glenn
Building, 12 Grafton Road, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, 1142,
New Zealand
Version of record first published: 25 Nov 2011.
To cite this article: Linda Hollebeek (2011): Exploring customer brand engagement: definition and
themes, Journal of Strategic Marketing, 19:7, 555-573
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2011.599493
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Exploring customer brand engagement: definition and themes
Linda Hollebeek*
The University of Auckland Business School, Owen G. Glenn Building, 12 Grafton Road, Private
Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand
(Received 8 April 2010; final version received 7 March 2011)
Organizations are increasingly seeking customer participation and engagement with
their brands. Despite significant practitioner interest, scholarly inquiry into the
‘customer brand engagement’ (CBE) concept has transpired in the literature only
relatively recently, resulting in a limited understanding of the concept to-date. This
paper addresses this research gap by providing a literature review in this area, and
developing a CBE conceptualization based on an integrative deductive (literature-
based)/inductive (data-based) approach. Data were sourced from exploratory,
qualitative depth-interviews and a focus group employing a total of 14 informants.
Extending previous research, CBE is viewed from relationship marketing (RM) and
service-dominant (S-D) logic perspectives, whilst an integrative linkage to social
exchange theory (SET) is also drawn. Based on the analysis, CBE is defined as ‘the
level of a customer’s cognitive, emotional and behavioral investment in specific brand
interactions’. Further, three key CBE themes are identified, including ‘immersion’,
‘passion’ and ‘activation’. The paper concludes with an overview of key research
limitations and implications.
Keywords: customer engagement; brands; in-depth interviews/focus group;
conceptualization
1. Introduction
A rapidly proliferating practitioner literature addresses the ‘customer engagement’
concept (Ursem, 2008). To illustrate, Appelbaum (2001) laments that conventional
constructs focused on past experience, including customer satisfaction and perceived
quality, have proven inadequate in predicting and/or explaining consumer behavior.
Hence instead, measures gauging the interactive nature of customer/brand relationships
have been advocated (Aaker, Fournier, & Brasel, 2004), including ‘customer engagement’
(Van Doorn et al., 2010).
Recent research suggests the ‘customer engagement’ concept is expected to contribute
to developing our understanding of customer experience and/or retention dynamics
(Bowden, 2009), which is supported by the concept’s inclusion in the Marketing Science
Institute’s 2010–2012 Research Priorities (MSI, 2010). Amazon’s recently re-branded
tagline ‘serving the world’s largest engaged online community’, and the recent Customer
Loyalty Engagement Index (Brand Keys, 2011), which winners are those brands able to
successfully engage consumers, create loyalty and drive profitability across pre-specified
categories, provide additional illustrations of the increasing practitioner interest in
ISSN 0965-254X print/ISSN 1466-4488 online
q 2011 Linda Hollebeek
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2011.599493
http://www.tandfonline.com
*Email: l.hollebeek@auckland.ac.nz
Journal of Strategic Marketing
Vol. 19, No. 7, December 2011, 555–573
Jo
ur
na
l o
f S
tra
te
gi
c 
M
ar
ke
tin
g 
20
11
.1
9:
55
5-
57
3.
 d
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.ta
nd
fo
nl
in
e.c
om
customer engagement and its potential contributions. However, despite profuse
developments in the practitioner environment, academic inquiry into customer
engagement has lagged behind, resulting in a limited understanding of the concept to-
date (Verhoef, Reinartz, & Krafft, 2010).
Further scholarly scrutiny of customer engagement is advocated particularly from
relationship marketing (RM; Vivek, Beatty, & Morgan, 2010), and service-dominant (S-D)
logic perspectives (Brodie, Hollebeek, Ilic, & Juric, 2011), which are centered on the
importance of enduring, co-creative interactions and relationships amongst value-
generating stakeholders. To illustrate, the S-D logic addresses the importance of consumers’
proactive contributions in co-creating their personalized experiences and perceived value
with organizations through active, explicit and ongoing dialogue and interactions (Vargo &
Lusch, 2004, 2008a, 2008b), which is also at the core of RM (Carter, 2008; Palmatier, Dant,
Grewal, & Evans, 2006).
Specifically, customer engagement is anticipated to contribute to the core RM tenets of
customer repeat patronage, retention and loyalty through affecting the customer experience
(Verhoef et al., 2010). Analogously, from an S-D logic perspective, customer engagement
reflects the dynamics of networked agents including organizations, customers and/or other
stakeholders, producing interactively generated, co-created value through service provision
(Vargo, Maglio, & Akaka, 2008). ‘Co-created value’ is defined as ‘the level of perceived value
created in the customer’s mind arising from interactive, joint and/or personalized activities for
and with stakeholders’ (cf. Dall’Olmo-Riley & DeChernatony, 2000, pp. 146–147; Prahalad &
Ramaswamy, 2004, pp. 5–6). In summary, with its conceptual foundations in interactivity
(Gambetti & Graffigna, 2010), customer engagement is expected to complement scholarly
insights in the broader theoretical areas of RM and the S-D logic alike (Brodie et al., 2011).
Despite its expected contributions, research addressing ‘customer engagement’ has
transpired in the marketing literature only relatively recently (Van Doorn et al., 2010).
Therefore, the conceptual nature, dimensionality and measurement of customer engagement
and/or its specific sub-forms, including ‘customer brand engagement’ (CBE), remain
nebulous to-date (Hollebeek, 2011; Sprott, Czellar, & Spangenberg, 2009). While Vivek
(2009) developed a measure for the conceptually broader ‘consumer engagement’ concept, a
psychometrically valid CBE measurement instrument is yet to be developed. Specifically,
such measure would be valuable for adoption by marketing scholars and practitioners
seeking to advance insights into customer retention/brand loyalty dynamics (Verhoef etal.,
2010). By proposing a CBE conceptualization, this exploratory paper provides preliminary
insights in this area, which may be used to guide future inquiry.
This paper is structured as follows. A literature review of engagement in other
academic disciplines and marketing is presented in Section 2, followed by the research
objective and methodology in Section 3. Section 4 provides an overview of the qualitative
research findings, including a proposed CBE conceptualization. The paper concludes with
an overview of key research limitations and implications in Section 5.
2. Literature review
2.1 Social exchange theory and customer brand engagement
Under RM theory and the S-D logic alike, customers are thought to make proactive
contributions to brand interactions, rather than merely act as passive recipients of brand-
related cues (Gro¨nroos, 1997; Vargo & Lusch, 2008a). Customers may thus devote
relevant cognitive, emotional and/or physical resources based on their perceived value
levels obtained from specific brand interactions (Higgins & Scholer, 2009).
L. Hollebeek556
Jo
ur
na
l o
f S
tra
te
gi
c 
M
ar
ke
tin
g 
20
11
.1
9:
55
5-
57
3.
 d
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.ta
nd
fo
nl
in
e.c
om
Under Blau’s (1964) social exchange theory (SET), customers are predicted to
reciprocate positive thoughts, feelings and behaviors toward an object (e.g. a brand) upon
receiving specific benefits from the brand relationship (Pervan, Bove, & Johnson, 2009).
Social exchange thus entails unspecified obligations, whereby one party (e.g. the brand’s
representative/service personnel) doing another (e.g. the customer) a favor (e.g. by
providing exceptional service/expertise), is motivated by the objective of some future
return (e.g. customer loyalty; Rousseau, 1989). Under SET, the exchange partners are
thought to strive for balance in the relationship and, if imbalance occurs, balance-
restorative attempts will be made. For a customer in an exchange, what (s)he gives may be
perceived as a cost, while what is received may be viewed as a reward, and the individual’s
behavior is modified as the difference between the two (i.e. profit) changes (Homans,
1958). This cost/reward perspective corresponds to the interactive nature of customer
engagement (Hollebeek, 2011), as addressed in Section 2.2.
While conventional definitions of reciprocity center on ‘tit-for-tat’ interpretations typified
by the immediate return of benefits (Pervan et al., 2009), Sin et al. (2005, pp. 187–188)
conceptualize reciprocity as ‘a provision of favors, or the making of allowances for the other
in return for similar favors/allowances to be received at a later date’. Specific brand-related
favors/allowances comprise customer organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs),
including the provision of positive word-of-mouth, displays of affiliation, flexibility and
benevolent acts of service facilitation (Bove, Pervan, Beatty, & Shiu, 2009). By contrast,
favors/allowances credited to customers include the receipt of exceptional service from the
firm. Hence from a RM or SD-logic perspective, customer brand-related reciprocity may
result from a series of accumulated perceived brand benefits, rather than being confined to a
single (e.g. the most recent) brand interaction necessarily.
The future return is based on the individual trusting the other party to fairly discharge
their obligations over the long term (Holmes, 1981). Specifically, with a brand offering
benefits over and beyond its expected performance (e.g. through outstanding service
provision), the objective may be to foster specific customer OCBs. As such, while RM and
S-D logic theory support the notion of proactive customer contributions to their brand
relationships (Brodie et al., 2011), SET addresses customers’ underlying rationale/mo-
tivation for making such proactive contributions. The next section traces engagement
research in other academic disciplines and marketing.
2.2 Customer brand engagement: conceptual foundations
2.2.1 Overview: academic engagement research
The engagement concept originates in disciplines including psychology, sociology and
organizational behavior (Brodie et al., 2011). An overview of selected engagement
conceptualizations identified within specific academic disciplines is provided in Table 1
(cf. Brodie et al., 2011), which reveals the following observations. First, despite a
considerable level of conceptual breadth across the reviewed disciplines, the definitions
signal positively valenced (i.e. favorable) expressions of relevant engagement forms.
For example, Fredricks et al.’s (2004, p. 60) ‘student engagement’ comprises individuals’
‘willingness to master particular skills’; and Schaufeli, Martı´nez, Pinto, Salanova, and
Bakker’s (2002, p. 465) ‘employee engagement’ is described as a ‘positive, fulfilling work-
related mindset’ and activities.
Second, Table 1 exposes the highly interactive nature of engagement (May, Gilson, &
Harter, 2004), whether stated explicitly, or implicit in particular conceptualizations.
To illustrate, Achterberg et al.’s (2003, pp. 213–214) ‘social engagement’ explicitly
Journal of Strategic Marketing 557
Jo
ur
na
l o
f S
tra
te
gi
c 
M
ar
ke
tin
g 
20
11
.1
9:
55
5-
57
3.
 d
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.ta
nd
fo
nl
in
e.c
om
T
ab
le
1
.
O
v
er
v
ie
w
:
en
g
ag
em
en
t
co
n
ce
p
tu
al
iz
at
io
n
s
(s
el
ec
te
d
ac
ad
em
ic
d
is
ci
p
li
n
es
).
D
is
ci
p
li
n
e
C
o
n
ce
p
t
A
u
th
o
r(
s)
D
efi
n
it
io
n
T
h
em
es
/d
im
en
si
o
n
al
it
y
S
o
ci
o
lo
g
y
C
iv
ic
en
g
ag
em
en
t
Je
n
n
in
g
s
an
d
Z
ei
tn
er
(2
0
0
3
)
B
eh
av
io
rs
&
at
ti
tu
d
es
re
g
ar
d
in
g
(q
u
as
i-
)p
o
li
ti
ca
l
p
ro
ce
ss
es
/
in
st
it
u
ti
o
n
s
M
u
lt
id
im
en
si
o
n
al
:
1
.
M
ed
ia
at
te
n
ti
v
en
es
s
2
.
T
ru
st
3
.
P
o
li
ti
ca
l
in
v
o
lv
em
en
t
P
sy
ch
o
lo
g
y
S
o
ci
al
en
g
ag
em
en
t
A
ch
te
rb
er
g
et
al
.
(2
0
0
3
);
T
sa
i
et
al
.
(2
0
0
9
)
A
h
ig
h
se
n
se
o
f
in
it
ia
ti
v
e,
in
v
o
lv
em
en
t
&
ad
eq
u
at
e
re
sp
o
n
se
to
so
ci
al
st
im
u
li
,
p
ar
ti
ci
p
at
in
g
in
so
ci
al
ac
ti
v
it
ie
s,
in
te
ra
ct
in
g
w
it
h
o
th
er
s
M
u
lt
id
im
en
si
o
n
al
:
1
.
E
as
e
o
f
in
te
ra
ct
in
g
w
it
h
o
th
er
s
2
.
E
as
e
o
f
d
o
in
g
p
la
n
n
ed
/s
tr
u
ct
u
ra
l
ac
ti
v
it
ie
s
3
.
E
as
e
o
f
d
o
in
g
se
lf
-i
n
it
ia
te
d
ac
ti
v
it
ie
s
4
.
E
st
ab
li
sh
in
g
o
w
n
g
o
al
s
5
.
P
u
rs
u
in
g
in
v
o
lv
em
en
t
6
.
A
cc
ep
ta
n
ce
o
f
in
v
it
at
io
n
s
to
g
ro
u
p
ac
ti
v
it
ie
s
E
d
u
ca
ti
o
n
al
p
sy
ch
o
lo
g
y
S
tu
d
en
t
en
g
ag
em
en
t
F
re
d
ri
ck
s
et
al
.
(2
0
0
4
)
T
h
e
m
u
lt
if
ac
et
ed
n
at
u
re
o
f
st
u
d
en
t
en
g
ag
em
en
t
ex
is
tsin
th
e
fo
ll
o
w
in
g
d
im
en
si
o
n
s:
(a
)
co
g
n
it
iv
e,
e.
g
.
w
il
li
n
g
n
es
s
to
m
as
te
r
ce
rt
ai
n
sk
il
ls
;
(b
)
em
o
ti
o
n
al
,
e.
g
.
p
o
si
ti
v
e/
n
eg
at
iv
e
re
ac
ti
o
n
s
to
te
ac
h
er
s;
&
(c
)
b
eh
av
io
ra
l,
i.
e.
p
ar
ti
ci
p
at
io
n
(e
.g
.
in
ac
ad
em
ic
/e
x
tr
ac
u
rr
ic
u
la
r
ac
ti
v
it
y
)
M
u
lt
id
im
en
si
o
n
al
:
1
.
C
o
g
n
it
iv
e
2
.
E
m
o
ti
o
n
al
3
.
B
eh
av
io
ra
l
S
tu
d
en
t
en
g
ag
em
en
t
L
o
n
d
o
n
et
al
.
(2
0
0
7
)
A
st
u
d
en
t’
s
le
v
el
o
f
ac
ad
em
ic
in
v
es
tm
en
t,
m
o
ti
v
at
io
n
&
co
m
m
it
m
en
t
w
it
h
th
ei
r
in
st
it
u
ti
o
n
,
p
er
ce
iv
ed
p
sy
ch
o
lo
g
ic
al
co
n
n
ec
ti
o
n
,
co
m
fo
rt
&
se
n
se
o
f
b
el
o
n
g
in
g
to
w
ar
d
th
ei
r
in
st
it
u
ti
o
n
M
u
lt
id
im
en
si
o
n
al
:
1
.
A
ca
d
em
ic
in
v
es
tm
en
t
2
.
A
ca
d
em
ic
m
o
ti
v
at
io
n
3
.
C
o
m
m
it
m
en
t
to
in
st
it
u
ti
o
n
4
.
P
er
ce
iv
ed
p
sy
ch
o
lo
g
ic
al
co
n
n
ec
ti
o
n
to
in
st
it
u
ti
o
n
5
.
C
o
m
fo
rt
w
it
h
in
st
it
u
ti
o
n
6
.
S
en
se
o
f
b
el
o
n
g
in
g
to
in
st
it
u
ti
o
n
O
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
al
b
eh
av
io
r
O
cc
u
p
at
io
n
al
en
g
ag
em
en
t
B
ej
er
h
o
lm
an
d
E
k
lu
n
d
(2
0
0
6
)
A
li
fe
st
y
le
ch
ar
ac
te
ri
st
ic
in
cl
u
d
in
g
th
e
ex
te
rn
al
/o
b
je
ct
iv
e
&
in
te
rn
al
/s
u
b
je
ct
iv
e
as
p
ec
ts
o
f
o
cc
u
p
at
io
n
al
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
,
w
h
ic
h
in
v
o
lv
es
b
o
th
an
ti
ci
p
at
io
n
&
co
m
p
re
h
en
si
o
n
th
er
eo
f,
an
d
se
rv
es
as
th
e
b
as
is
fo
r
an
o
n
g
o
in
g
,
cy
cl
ic
al
m
ea
n
s
o
f
m
ai
n
ta
in
in
g
a
se
n
se
o
f
se
lf
&
w
el
l-
b
ei
n
g
M
u
lt
id
im
en
si
o
n
al
:
1
.
D
ai
ly
rh
y
th
m
(a
ct
iv
it
y
/r
es
t)
2
.
O
cc
u
p
at
io
n
al
v
ar
ie
ty
/r
an
g
e
3
.
P
la
ce
4
.
S
o
ci
al
en
v
ir
o
n
m
en
t
5
.
S
o
ci
al
in
te
rp
la
y
6
.
In
te
rp
re
ta
ti
o
n
7
.
E
x
te
n
t
o
f
m
ea
n
in
g
fu
l
o
cc
u
p
at
io
n
s
8
.
R
o
u
ti
n
es
9
.
In
it
ia
ti
n
g
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
E
m
p
lo
y
ee
en
g
ag
em
en
t
S
ch
au
fe
li
et
al
.
(2
0
0
2
)
A
p
o
si
ti
v
e,
fu
lfi
ll
in
g
,
w
o
rk
-r
el
at
ed
st
at
e
o
f
m
in
d
[a
n
d
w
o
rk
-
re
la
te
d
ac
ti
v
it
ie
s]
M
u
lt
id
im
en
si
o
n
al
:
1
.
A
b
so
rp
ti
o
n
2
.
D
ed
ic
at
io
n
3
.
V
ig
o
r
S
o
u
rc
e:
A
d
ap
te
d
fr
o
m
an
d
ex
te
n
d
in
g
Il
ic
(2
0
0
8
)
an
d
B
ro
d
ie
et
al
.
(2
0
1
1
).
L. Hollebeek558
Jo
ur
na
l o
f S
tra
te
gi
c 
M
ar
ke
tin
g 
20
11
.1
9:
55
5-
57
3.
 d
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.ta
nd
fo
nl
in
e.c
om
incorporates ‘interacting with others’, ‘participating in social activities’ and ‘adequate
response to social stimuli’. Similarly, Bejerholm and Eklund’s (2007, p. 21) ‘occupational
engagement’ entails ‘the ability to move around society and interact socially’. The ‘inter-
action’ concept is often used synonymously with ‘interactivity’ (Hoffman & Novak, 1996).
The particular level of interactivity pertaining to specific engagement forms was found
to be dependent on factors including: (a) personal characteristics, for example ‘initiative’
(Achterberg et al., 2003), or ‘motivation’ (London, Downey, & Mace, 2007), which under
SET, is contingent upon an individual’s perceived value level extracted from particular
interactions; and (b) contextual contingencies, for example ‘positive/negative reactions to
teachers’ (Fredricks et al., 2004), which may vary across contexts, and/or interact with
specific (inter-) personal characteristics.
Third, the reviewed conceptualizations shared a multidimensional perspective of
engagement, which appears dominant in the literature (May et al., 2004). Specifically, the
majority of reviewed conceptualizations reveals a generic, tri-partite (cognitive,
emotional, behavioral) engagement dimensionality, with particular context-specific
variations observed (Brodie et al., 2011). For example, Jennings and Zeitner’s (2003)
‘civic engagement’ dimensions include (cognitive) media attentiveness, (emotional) trust
and (behavioral) political involvement.
2.2.2 Engagement research in marketing
Scrutiny of engagement research in marketing indicates the emergence of several
engagement sub-forms, including ‘customer engagement’ (Patterson, Yu, & De Ruyter,
2006), ‘customer engagement behaviors’ (Van Doorn et al., 2010), customer brand
engagement (CBE; Hollebeek, 2011), ‘consumer engagement’ (Vivek, 2009) and
‘engagement’ more generically (Higgins & Scholer, 2009). While the majority of research
adopts an intra-individual, consumer psychology-based perspective, Van Doorn et al.
(2010) take a more company-centric view by observing the effects of specific customer
engagement behaviors through an organizational lens. An overview of key marketing-
based engagement research is provided in Table 2 (cf. e.g. Brodie et al., 2011).
Analogous to the observation in Section 2.2.1, Bowden (2009) posits the existence of
focal, two-way interactions between a specific subject (e.g. customer/consumer) and
object (e.g. a brand/product or organization; Patterson et al., 2006) as a necessary
condition for the emergence of relevant engagement levels. The CBE concept, in
particular, addresses specific interactions between a focal customer and a particular brand
(Hollebeek, 2011).
Key tenets typifying CBE include the concept’s individual-level, motivational and
context-dependent nature, giving rise to fluctuating CBE levels over time (Hollebeek,
2011). Whilst a general consensus regarding the generic, multidimensional (cognitive,
emotional, behavioral) nature of relevant marketing-based engagement forms is observed
from Table 2 (e.g. Patterson et al., 2006; see Section 2.2.1), the expression of specific
engagement dimensions may vary across contexts (Brodie et al., 2011). To illustrate, while
Mollen and Wilson’s (2010, pp. 922–923) online ‘engagement’ dimensions include
‘active sustained cognitive processing’, ‘instrumental value’ and ‘experiential value’, Van
Doorn et al.’s (2010, p. 256) organization-centric ‘customer engagement behaviors’ are
theorized to comprise the dimensions of ‘valence’, ‘scope’, ‘nature’ and ‘customer goals’.
Moreover, research addressing the nature and dynamics underlying specific CBErelationships with other focal concepts is sparse to-date (Hollebeek, 2011). For CBE,
examining the nature of conceptual relationships with other specific branding concepts,
Journal of Strategic Marketing 559
Jo
ur
na
l o
f S
tra
te
gi
c 
M
ar
ke
tin
g 
20
11
.1
9:
55
5-
57
3.
 d
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.ta
nd
fo
nl
in
e.c
om
T
ab
le
2
.
O
v
er
v
ie
w
:
en
g
ag
em
en
t
co
n
ce
p
tu
al
iz
at
io
n
s
(m
ar
k
et
in
g
li
te
ra
tu
re
).
A
u
th
o
r(
s)
C
o
n
ce
p
t
D
efi
n
it
io
n
E
n
g
ag
em
en
t
d
im
en
si
o
n
al
it
y
G
am
b
et
ti
an
d
G
ra
ffi
g
n
a
(2
0
1
0
)
E
n
g
ag
em
en
t
R
at
h
er
th
an
a
sp
ec
ifi
c
d
efi
n
it
io
n
,
th
e
fo
ll
o
w
in
g
m
ar
k
et
in
g
-b
as
ed
en
g
ag
em
en
t
su
b
-f
o
rm
s
ar
e
id
en
ti
fi
ed
:
co
n
su
m
er
-,
cu
st
o
m
er
-,
b
ra
n
d
-,
ad
v
er
ti
si
n
g
-
an
d
m
ed
ia
en
g
ag
em
en
t
F
o
ca
l
en
g
ag
em
en
t
su
b
-f
o
rm
s
m
ay
co
m
p
ri
se
th
e
fo
ll
o
w
in
g
d
im
en
si
o
n
s:
1
.
S
o
ft
(r
el
at
io
n
al
)
2
.
P
ra
g
m
at
ic
(m
an
ag
er
ia
l)
V
iv
ek
(2
0
0
9
)
C
o
n
su
m
er
en
g
ag
em
en
t
T
h
e
in
te
n
si
ty
o
f
a
co
n
su
m
er
’s
p
ar
ti
ci
p
at
io
n
&
co
n
n
ec
ti
o
n
w
it
h
an
o
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
’s
o
ff
er
in
g
s
&
/o
r
it
s
o
rg
an
iz
ed
ac
ti
v
it
ie
s
M
u
lt
id
im
en
si
o
n
al
:
1
.
A
w
ar
en
es
s
2
.
E
n
th
u
si
as
m
3
.
In
te
ra
ct
io
n
4
.
A
ct
iv
it
y
5
.
E
x
tr
ao
rd
in
ar
y
ex
p
er
ie
n
ce
P
at
te
rs
o
n
et
al
.
(2
0
0
6
)
C
u
st
o
m
er
en
g
ag
em
en
t
T
h
e
le
v
el
o
f
a
cu
st
o
m
er
’s
p
h
y
si
ca
l,
co
g
n
it
iv
e
&
em
o
ti
o
n
al
p
re
se
n
ce
in
th
ei
r
re
la
ti
o
n
sh
ip
w
it
h
a
se
rv
ic
e
o
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
M
u
lt
id
im
en
si
o
n
al
:
1
.
V
ig
o
r
2
.
D
ed
ic
at
io
n
3
.
A
b
so
rp
ti
o
n
4
.
In
te
ra
ct
io
n
H
o
ll
eb
ee
k
(2
0
1
1
)
C
u
st
o
m
er
b
ra
n
d
en
g
ag
em
en
t
T
h
e
le
v
el
o
f
an
in
d
iv
id
u
al
cu
st
o
m
er
’s
m
o
ti
v
at
io
n
al
,
b
ra
n
d
-r
el
at
ed
&
co
n
te
x
t-
d
ep
en
d
en
t
st
at
e
o
f
m
in
d
ch
ar
ac
te
ri
ze
d
b
y
sp
ec
ifi
c
le
v
el
s
o
f
co
g
n
it
iv
e,
em
o
ti
o
n
al
&
b
eh
av
io
ra
l
ac
ti
v
it
y
in
b
ra
n
d
in
te
ra
ct
io
n
s
M
u
lt
id
im
en
si
o
n
al
:
1
.
C
o
g
n
it
iv
e
2
.
E
m
o
ti
o
n
al
3
.
B
eh
av
io
ra
l
V
an
D
o
o
rn
et
al
.
(2
0
1
0
)
C
u
st
o
m
er
en
g
ag
em
en
t
b
eh
av
io
rs
T
h
e
cu
st
o
m
er
’s
b
eh
av
io
ra
l
m
an
if
es
ta
ti
o
n
to
w
ar
d
th
e
b
ra
n
d
o
r
fi
rm
,
b
ey
o
n
d
p
u
rc
h
as
e,
re
su
lt
in
g
fr
o
m
m
o
ti
v
at
io
n
al
d
ri
v
er
s
M
u
lt
id
im
en
si
o
n
al
:
1
.
V
al
en
ce
2
.
F
o
rm
3
.
S
co
p
e
4
.
N
at
u
re
5
.
C
u
st
o
m
er
g
o
al
s
L. Hollebeek560
Jo
ur
na
l o
f S
tra
te
gi
c 
M
ar
ke
tin
g 
20
11
.1
9:
55
5-
57
3.
 d
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.ta
nd
fo
nl
in
e.c
om
P
h
il
li
p
s
an
d
M
cQ
u
ar
ri
e
(2
0
1
0
)
A
d
v
er
ti
si
n
g
en
g
ag
em
en
t
M
o
d
es
o
f
en
g
ag
em
en
t
ar
e
ro
u
te
s
to
p
er
su
as
io
n
M
u
lt
id
im
en
si
o
n
al
:
C
o
n
su
m
er
s
en
g
ag
e
ad
s
to
:
1
.
A
ct
2
.
Id
en
ti
fy
3
.
F
ee
l
4
.
Im
m
er
se
C
al
d
er
an
d
M
al
th
o
u
se
(2
0
1
0
)
M
ed
ia
en
g
ag
em
en
t
A
m
o
ti
v
at
io
n
al
ex
p
er
ie
n
ce
;
b
ei
n
g
co
n
n
ec
te
d
to
a
sp
ec
ifi
c
m
ed
ia
M
u
lt
id
im
en
si
o
n
al
:
1
.
T
ra
n
sp
o
rt
at
io
n
2
.
Ir
ri
ta
ti
o
n
3
.
P
ro
m
o
ti
o
n
4
.
R
ej
ec
ti
o
n
A
lg
es
h
ei
m
er
,
D
h
o
la
k
ia
,
an
d
H
er
rm
an
n
(2
0
0
5
)
B
ra
n
d
co
m
m
u
n
it
y
en
g
ag
em
en
t
P
o
si
ti
v
e
in
fl
u
en
ce
s
o
f
id
en
ti
fy
in
g
w
it
h
th
e
b
ra
n
d
co
m
m
u
n
it
y
th
ro
u
g
h
th
e
co
n
su
m
er
’s
in
tr
in
si
c
m
o
ti
v
at
io
n
to
in
te
ra
ct
/
co
-o
p
er
at
e
w
it
h
co
m
m
u
n
it
y
m
em
b
er
s
M
u
lt
id
im
en
si
o
n
al
(i
n
fe
rr
ed
):
1
.
U
ti
li
ta
ri
an
2
.
H
ed
o
n
ic
3
.
S
o
ci
al
A
b
d
u
l-
G
h
an
i,
H
y
d
e,
an
d
M
ar
sh
al
l
(2
0
1
0
)
E
n
g
ag
em
en
t
R
eq
u
ir
es
co
n
su
m
er
co
n
n
ec
ti
o
n
(e
.g
.
w
it
h
sp
ec
ifi
c
m
ed
ia
)
1
.
U
ti
li
ta
ri
an
2
.
H
ed
o
n
ic
3
.
S
o
ci
al
H
ig
g
in
s
(2
0
0
6
)
E
n
g
ag
em
en
t
B
ei
n
g
en
g
ag
ed
is
to
b
e
in
v
o
lv
ed
,
o
cc
u
p
ie
d
&
in
te
re
st
ed
in
so
m
et
h
in
g
M
u
lt
id
im
en
si
o
n
al
(i
n
fe
rr
ed
):
1
.
C
o
g
n
it
iv
e
2
.
E
m
o
ti
o
n
al
3
.
B
eh
av
io
ra
l
S
o
u
rc
e:
A
d
ap
te
d
fr
o
m
an
d
ex
te
n
d
in
g
H
o
ll
eb
ee
k
(2
0
1
1
)
an
d
B
ro
d
ie
et
al
.
(2
0
1
1
).
Journal of Strategic Marketing 561
Jo
ur
na
l o
f S
tra
te
gi
c 
M
ar
ke
tin
g 
20
11
.1
9:
55
5-
57
3.
 d
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.ta
nd
fo
nl
in
e.c
om
including ‘brand attitude’ and ‘brand identity’, is pivotal for advancing insights in this
emerging area, for example based on CBE’s potential contributions to brand equity
outcomes (Kumar et al., 2010). Table 3 provides an overview of specific branding
concepts, and sets out their conceptual distinctiveness from CBE.
3. Research objective and methodology
3.1 Overview
This research extends pioneering work on customer engagement, which has been largely
conceptual, and/or exploratory to-date (e.g. Bowden, 2009). As such, the relativelypremature developmental state of research in this area calls for adopting qualitative
methods of inquiry to uncover in-depth, rich insights into the nature/dynamics
characterizing CBE (Crotty, 1998). Specifically, replicating Vivek’s (2009) approach for
investigating ‘consumer engagement’, this research used a semi-structured, dual
interviewing/focus group methodology (Smith, 1995), thus enabling data triangulation
(Coffey & Atkinson, 1999).
The overall research objective was, combined with the findings from the literature
review, to enhance academic understanding regarding the nature and dynamics of
customers’ engagement with focal brands, that is, CBE. The following research question
was developed to guide the enquiry: How is customer brand engagement conceptualized,
and which are its key themes?
Table 3. CBE conceptual relationships: selected branding concepts.
Concept Definition Conceptual distinctiveness from CBE
Brand attitude An individual’s internal evaluation of
a branded object (Mitchell & Olson,
1981)
Unlike CBE, brand attitude reflects an
individual’s relatively enduring
evaluation of a branded object
Brand image The sum of the total (brand)
perceptions (Dobni & Zinkhan,
1990; Herzog, 1973)
In contrast to brand image, CBE
reflects a specific set of not only
cognitive & emotive, but also
behavioral characteristics
Brand identity Reflects stakeholders’ aspirations &
self-images, personality,
positioning, brand vision culture
(artifacts, values & mental models;
DeChernatony, 1999)
Unlike brand identity, CBE represents
an interactively construed variable
based on two-way interactions
Brand personality The set of human characteristics
associated with a brand, including
sincerity, excitement, competence,
sophistication, ruggedness (Aaker,
1997)
† In contrast to brand personality,
CBE levels may be subject to
greater contextual variation
† Unlike brand personality, CBE
directly reflects two-way
customer/brand interactions
Brand experience A subjective, internal consumer
response (sensations, feelings &
cognitions) & behavioral responses
evoked by brand-related stimuli
(design, packaging, identity,
communications & environment)
(Brakus, Schmitt, & Zarantello,
2009)
† In contrast to CBE, brand
experience does not presume a
motivational state (Brakus et al.,
2009, p. 53)
† As opposed to the responsive
nature of brand experience, CBE
includes more proactive
customer cognitions, emotions &
behaviors (Hollebeek, 2011)
L. Hollebeek562
Jo
ur
na
l o
f S
tra
te
gi
c 
M
ar
ke
tin
g 
20
11
.1
9:
55
5-
57
3.
 d
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.ta
nd
fo
nl
in
e.c
om
3.2 Data collection procedures
Participants were recruited through advertisements posted on community notice boards in
a large city in New Zealand. The sample comprised 14 informants from different areas,
aged 20–68, seven of whom were male. Eight interviews and a focus group comprising six
participants were conducted. Interview sessions took approximately 45 minutes each; and
the focus group, which was moderated by the researcher (Fern, 1982), took approximately
80 minutes to completion. The data were audio-recorded (Morgan & Spanish, 1984) and
transcribed by the researcher (Boland, 1995).
Data collection was discontinued when saturation was reached, where few new
insights were gained from additional data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), that is, where the
moderator/interviewer was able to predict informants’ responses before they voiced them
(Zeller, 1993). To illustrate, in their own words each of the respondents addressed
‘immersion’, ‘passion’ and ‘activation’ as key CBE constituents/themes (Section 4.3).
Following Brakus et al. (2009), the research commenced by asking respondents to self-
select a brand in any category which they felt to be ‘highly engaging’ in an open-ended,
free-association manner (Hollway & Jefferson, 1997, 2000). This approach contributed to
a conservative assessment of whether respondents shared the emerging literature review-
based interpretation of CBE.
The second part of the questions centered on a self-selected brand, which the
respondents purchased regularly, and had purchased in the last month, yet with which they
did not engage at all, thus permitting assessments to be made of any differences across
‘highly’ and ‘non-’ engaging brands. An overview of the respondents’ highly and non-
engaging, self-selected brands is provided in Table 4. Respondents’ names were changed
to help protect their privacy. Probing was used to obtain additional levels of detail from
respondents where necessary (Jick, 1979), thus contributing to reduced bias in the
interview responses (Bailar, Bailey, & Stevens, 1977). Specific probing questions included
‘How does engaging with your chosen brand feel to you?’ and ‘What are your
thoughts/actions when you are interacting with your selected brand?’ Moreover, while
most respondents identified specific brands, two individuals did not provide a specific
‘non-engaging’ brand, but instead described specific non-engaging categories more
generically (i.e. stationery, insurance; Table 4).
3.3 Data-analytic procedures
To analyze the data, Spiggle (1994) and Bogdan and Biklen (1982) were consulted, which
included thematic analysis to interpret emerging CBE facets (Boyatzis, 1998). In
contrast to content analysis, thematic analysis incorporates the entire conversation as the
potential unit of analysis (Thomsen, Straubhaar, & Bolyard, 1998). The analysis was
conducted at two levels, including open and axial coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1998;
Ilic, 2008).
The CBE conceptualization was generated inductively from the raw data, and
deductively from the literature review (Taylor & Bogdan, 1984). Analytical emphasis,
however, was placed on the data-based, inductively emergent findings, as previous
empirical research addressing CBE was not found. The open codes were developed from
text varying in length from several words to paragraphs. The open/axial coding
represented an iterative process whereby themes initially identified using open coding
merited further scrutiny and/or linking to the CBE concept during axial coding. Expert
ratings provided by two academics and one practitioner were also used to substantiate the
researcher’s analysis.
Journal of Strategic Marketing 563
Jo
ur
na
l o
f S
tra
te
gi
c 
M
ar
ke
tin
g 
20
11
.1
9:
55
5-
57
3.
 d
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.ta
nd
fo
nl
in
e.c
om
T
ab
le
4
.
O
v
er
v
ie
w
:
h
ig
h
ly
v
s
n
o
n
-e
n
g
ag
in
g
b
ra
n
d
s.
R
es
p
o
n
d
en
t
I
/
F
G
H
ig
h
ly
en
g
ag
in
g
b
ra
n
d
se
le
ct
ed
C
at
eg
o
ry
N
o
n
-e
n
g
ag
in
g
b
ra
n
d
se
le
ct
ed
C
at
eg
o
ry
1
.
A
n
d
re
w
(3
9
)
I
T
h
e
A
m
a
zi
n
g
R
a
ce
R
ea
li
ty
te
le
v
is
io
n
sh
o
w
B
P
R
et
ai
l
p
et
ro
l
ch
ai
n
2
.
Jo
an
(3
4
)
I
K
in
d
er
C
h
o
co
la
te
P
ac
k
ag
ed
g
o
o
d
s
(c
h
o
co
la
te
)
U
n
id
en
ti
fi
ed
b
ra
n
d
S
ta
ti
o
n
er
y
3
.
E
v
e
(6
5
)
I
M
er
ce
d
es
-B
en
z
A
u
to
m
o
b
il
es
N
iv
ea
C
o
sm
et
ic
s/
p
er
so
n
al
ca
re
4
.
B
en
(5
4
)
I
H
ea
lt
h
&
S
p
o
rt
s
G
y
m
/fi
tn
es
s
N
a
ti
o
n
a
l
B
a
n
k
N
ew
Z
ea
la
n
d
re
ta
il
b
ank
in
g
ch
ai
n
5
.
A
n
n
a
(3
0
)
I
T
h
e
B
o
d
y
S
h
o
p
C
o
sm
et
ic
s/
p
er
so
n
al
ca
re
F
o
o
d
to
w
n
N
ew
Z
ea
la
n
d
su
p
er
m
ar
k
et
ch
ai
n
6
.
Ja
m
es
(4
1
)
I
S
h
im
a
n
o
F
is
h
in
g
eq
u
ip
m
en
t
D
a
ir
y
D
a
le
M
il
k
/d
ai
ry
p
ro
d
u
ct
s
7
.
T
o
d
d
(2
6
)
I
F
in
d
so
m
eo
n
e.
co
.n
z
N
ew
Z
ea
la
n
d
d
at
in
g
w
eb
si
te
T
o
il
et
D
u
ck
C
le
an
in
g
ag
en
t
8
.
Ja
k
e
(2
0
)
I
A
p
p
le
iP
o
d
C
o
n
su
m
er
el
ec
tr
o
n
ic
s
B
u¨
rg
en
P
ac
k
ag
ed
g
o
o
d
s
(b
re
ad
)
9
.
R
o
se
(4
6
)
F
G
D
is
n
ey
(F
am
il
y
)
en
te
rt
ai
n
m
en
t
B
P
R
et
ai
l
p
et
ro
l
ch
ai
n
1
0
.
G
er
al
d
(6
1
)
F
G
Q
a
n
ta
s
A
ir
li
n
e
K
iw
i
B
lu
e
S
p
a
rk
li
n
g
M
in
er
al
w
at
er
1
1
.
M
ir
an
d
a
(5
2
)
F
G
G
iv
en
ch
y
L
u
x
u
ry
co
sm
et
ic
s
P
h
il
ip
s
H
o
u
se
h
o
ld
el
ec
tr
o
n
ic
s
1
2
.
R
ac
h
el
(4
8
)
F
G
C
o
u
n
tr
y
R
o
a
d
C
lo
th
in
g
H
o
le
p
ro
o
f
S
o
ck
s
1
3
.
P
en
el
o
p
e
(3
5
)
F
G
K
ra
ft
C
ru
n
ch
y
P
ea
n
u
t-
B
u
tt
er
P
ac
k
ag
ed
fo
o
d
s
U
n
id
en
ti
fi
ed
b
ra
n
d
In
su
ra
n
ce
1
4
.
G
ra
h
am
(6
8
)
F
G
A
S
B
N
ew
Z
ea
la
n
d
re
ta
il
b
an
k
in
g
ch
ai
n
C
a
lt
ex
R
et
ai
l
p
et
ro
l
ch
ai
n
N
o
te
:
‘I
’:
In
-d
ep
th
in
te
rv
ie
w
;
‘F
G
’:
F
o
cu
s
g
ro
u
p
.
L. Hollebeek564
Jo
ur
na
l o
f S
tra
te
gi
c 
M
ar
ke
tin
g 
20
11
.1
9:
55
5-
57
3.
 d
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.ta
nd
fo
nl
in
e.c
om
4. Main findings
4.1 Overview
This section presents an overview of the main research findings, including the emerging
CBE conceptualization, which is outlined in Sections 4.2 and 4.3. In the analysis a
‘bottom–up’ approach was employed (Sabatier, 1986) whereby the identified CBE themes
facilitated the subsequent development of the proposed CBE definition by drawing on the
analytical procedures outlined in Section 3.
Based on the conceptual richness observed for individuals’ engagement with their
selected highly engaging (relative to non-engaging) brands, illustrative respondent
statements addressing the former category are included for the respective CBE themes.
Additionally, specific contrasts yielding further insights between informants’ selected
highly and non-engaging brands are drawn for specific CBE themes as relevant.
4.2 Customer brand engagement definition
From the analysis of the key CBE themes a CBE definition is developed in this section. As
addressed in Section 3.3 an iterative, open/axial coding process was employed for
thematic analysis of the data, from which the key CBE themes were developed; followed
by the definitional development of the CBE concept, as addressed in Section 4.1. Further
the inductive, iteratively refined data-based analyses were supplemented with the key
findings emergent from specific deductive analyses (i.e. using literature review-based
findings), as outlined in this section.
The analysis indicates that collectively, the CBE themes of ‘immersion’, ‘passion’ and
‘activation’ represent the degree to which a customer is prepared to exert relevant
cognitive, emotional and behavioral resources in specific interactions with a focal brand,
which are displayed by applying particular levels of brand-related concentration, positive
affect and energy (time/effort) in specific brand interactions (Section 4.3). Based on this
analysis ‘customer brand engagement’ (CBE) is defined as: ‘The level of a customer’s
cognitive, emotional and behavioral investment in specific brand interactions.’
Deductive, literature-based analysis indicates a degree of conceptual alignment between
the proposed CBE definition and the notion of ‘investment’ in London et al.’s (2007) ‘student
engagement’, ‘initiative’ in Achterberg et al.’s (2003) ‘social engagement’, and ‘connection’
in Kahn’s (1990) ‘employee engagement’. The definition also corresponds to Vivek et al.’s
(2010) notion of ‘participation’, Higgins and Scholer’s (2009) ‘being engrossed’ and
‘occupied’ in engagement and Patterson et al.’s (2006, pp. 1–2) ‘cognitive, emotional and
physical presence’ characterizing customer engagement with service organizations.
Further, the definition reflects Van Doorn et al.’s (2010) motivational basis of
‘customer engagement behaviors’, and provides preliminary empirical support for
Hollebeek’s (2011) proposed CBE definition, which was derived from a conceptual
analysis. As such, the proposed CBE definition is focused on specific cognitive, emotional
and behavioral ‘investments’ in specific brand interactions, thus reflecting conceptual
alignment to the SET concept of ‘reciprocity’ outlined in Section 2.1. The next section
introduces the CBE themes extracted from the analysis.
4.3 Key customer brand engagement themes
4.3.1 Immersion
The respondent statements in Table 5 indicate all respondents perceived to be ‘immersed’
with their selected highly engaging brands, which was often addressed using the descriptor
Journal of Strategic Marketing 565
Jo
ur
na
l o
f S
tra
te
gi
c 
M
ar
ke
tin
g 
20
11
.1
9:
55
5-
57
3.
 d
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.ta
nd
fo
nl
in
e.c
om
‘time flies’ (see Andrew’s, Joan’s, Eve’s, Todd’s, Gerald’s, Rachel’s and Rose’s
statements). Further, being ‘engrossed in’, ‘absorbed in’ or strongly ‘focused on’ are also
reflective of the immersion theme of CBE (see, for example, Joan’s, Anna’s, James’, Ben’s
and Miranda’s statements).
Similarly, Patterson et al.’s (2006, p. 3) conceptual analysis identified ‘absorption’,
that is, ‘being fully concentrated and deeply engrossed’ in one’s customer role, as a
‘customer engagement’ dimension. Moreover, the data indicated highly engaging brands’
capacity to take up one’s full attention (see, for example, Todd’s/Jake’s data excerpts).
Correspondingly, Andrew states: ‘[While watching The Amazing Race] I’m totally
excluding other stuff.’
Regarding their selected non-engaging brands, by contrast, respondents consistently
indicated a reluctance to invest high levels of concentrated thought into their brand
interactions. Andrew, for instance, stated: [For BP: non-engaging brand selected] I don’t
[really] care [about BP] . . . to me [it’s] just petrol.
Based on this analysis, ‘immersion’ is defined as ‘a customer’s level of brand-related
concentration in particular brand interactions’, and as such, reveals the extent of individuals’
cognitive investment in specific brand interactions. From a SET perspective, immersion
reflects customers reciprocating their perceived brand-related benefits received, with a
degree of concentrated brand-related thought and/or attentiveness in focal brand interactions.
4.3.2 Passion
The respondent statements in Table 6 suggest the respondents felt strong, positive affect
for their selected highly engaging brands, as exemplifiedby terms including being
‘passionate’ (see Andrew’s/Gerald’s statements), ‘mad for’ or ‘obsessive’ about the brand
(Andrew’s statement); and/or ‘loving’ (Eve’s/Rose’s statements) or ‘adoring’ the brand.
Eve, for instance, states: ‘I love Mercs [Mercedes-Benz]. My heart’s with Merc!’ Further,
Todd states: ‘I get a bit fanatic about [Findsomeone.co.nz]’, while Jake asserts: ‘I’m a
[Apple iPod] fan’, which may also be conducive to the undertaking of particular
Table 5. Illustrative respondent statements: CBE ‘immersion’ dimension.
The episodes [The Amazing Race] are an hour long, but it seems like you’ve only watched five
minutes; time just flies by. [When watching the show] I’m totally excluding other stuff.
(Andrew, 39)
I can just forget my environment; [time flies] because I can really relax. (Joan, 34)
[Time flies], I think about my next [Mercedes-Benz] . . . the detail, design, specs. (Eve, 65)
Everything linked to the brand is tying in with [me] trying . . . to stay fit and healthy; the brand is
Health & Sports. I’m constantly thinking about that. I’m focused on what the brand is about.
(Ben, 54)
[When] trying to make up my mind which [The Body Shop] product to buy, I’m really absorbed by
it. (Anna, 30)
[For fishing gear] if you see Shimano you know it’s good stuff. (James, 41)
It often feels like time flies when I’m on the site [Findsomeone.co.nz], because it can grab my full
attention. (Todd, 26)
[iPod] can take up all my attention. (Jake, 20)
That hour-and-a-half in front of that Disney movie is ‘gone’ [just like that]. (Rose, 46)
Time literally flies! I know if I’m on a Qantas flight, I’m going to get there. Safely. (Gerald, 61)
I always think [Givenchy] looks so much better than the competing brands. (Miranda, 52)
[Time flies, the Country Road] purchase experience is not time-driven. (Rachel, 48)
Kraft Crunchy peanut-butter is [a bit of a ritual to me]. (Penelope, 35)
The ASB ads [told] a nice story; [I] remember the punch lines of the ad. (Graham, 68)
L. Hollebeek566
Jo
ur
na
l o
f S
tra
te
gi
c 
M
ar
ke
tin
g 
20
11
.1
9:
55
5-
57
3.
 d
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.ta
nd
fo
nl
in
e.c
om
brand-related thoughts (i.e. immersion), and/or behaviors (i.e. activation). Interestingly,
Eve developed the pet-name ‘Merc’ for her favorite automobile brand, Mercedes-Benz.
Similarly Joan refers to the brand Kinder Chocolate by using the abbreviation ‘Kinder’.
Within ‘passion’, the notion of feeling pride of being associated with, and/or using the
brand was also detected, for example in Ben’s statements addressing Health & Sports Gym,
James’ for Shimano fishing gear and Joan’s when referring to Kinder Chocolate. Pride
typically arose from a sense of identification with the brand, which was also observed in
Schaufeli et al.’s (2002) ‘employee engagement’ conceptualization. Moreover, Vivek’s
(2009) ‘enthusiasm’ in ‘consumer engagement’ is conceptually similar to ‘passion’.
However, for their selected non-engaging brands, respondents were devoid of passion, as
exemplified by Eve’s statement:
[With Nivea, i.e. non-engaging brand selected] there’s none of that psychological connection
at all. So it’s functional, and it will do the job, for the time being. I [just] use it because I feel I
have to [i.e. when I can’t afford a higher-end beauty product]
Similarly, Graham stated: ‘My brand [is] convenient, [Caltex] petrol. I buy it from Caltex
because it is conveniently situated. If they [were] selling that station [to a different
company], I wouldn’t care.’ These data suggested relatively limited positive affect for
brands perceived as ‘necessities’ by the respondents. Similarly, Anna stated regarding her
selected non-engaging brand Foodtown Supermarkets: ‘[I] just go [to Foodtown] because
[I] need food for the week, and stock up . . . [The brand] doesn’t really matter [to me] . . .
It’s just a purely utilitarian thing.’
Based on the analysis, ‘passion’ was defined as ‘the degree of a customer’s positive
brand-related affect in particular brand interactions’, and as such, reveals the extent of
individuals’ emotional investment in specific brand interactions. This definition is
sufficiently broad to encapsulate the notions of pride and/or enthusiasm (Vivek, 2009), and
intensely passionate brand-related feelings comprising CBE. From a SET perspective,
Table 6. Illustrative respondent statements: CBE ‘passion’ dimension.
I’ve always been a bit mad for [The Amazing Race]; obsessive, passionate even. (Andrew, 39)
[Kinder Chocolate] is the chocolate for me, it’s just part of my life. (Joan, 34)
I love Mercs. My heart’s with Merc! (Eve, 65)
I want to be there [at H&S Gym]; it’s the one sticker I have on my car. There is a sense of pride with
it. (Ben, 54)
I love [The Body Shop] products and the feel-good aspect of it. I have a smile on my face in the
morning when [I] put on [my] moisturizer. (Anna, 30)
I’m [a] proud [Shimano user]. (James, 41)
Of the local dating websites [Findsomeone.co.nz] is the best one. I get a bit fanatic about it.
(Todd, 26)
I’m a [Apple iPod] fan! Can’t do without. It’s a great product and I’d definitely buy the whole range
if I could afford it. (Jake, 20)
[I love Disney]; it’s sheer happiness. (Rose, 46)
I’m passionate about Qantas. If I’m seen walking off another branded plane, I feel shame.
(Gerald, 61)
I hold [Givenchy] very dear to me. It gives me a special feeling. (Miranda, 52)
[At Country Road] I feel I’m having an experience. The store has a nice atmosphere, the clothes feel
special, they relate to ... my desired personality. (Rachel, 48)
I’ll buy peanut-butter and white bread and have a really precious peanut-butter sandwich [and get
right into it]. (Penelope, 35)
It’s the [ASB] advertising I quite enjoy; [and that I] have a very positive relationship with.
(Graham, 68)
Journal of Strategic Marketing 567
Jo
ur
na
l o
f S
tra
te
gi
c 
M
ar
ke
tin
g 
20
11
.1
9:
55
5-
57
3.
 d
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.ta
nd
fo
nl
in
e.c
om
passion reflects customers reciprocating their perceived brand-related benefits with a
degree of favorable brand-related affect during specific brand interactions.
4.3.3 Activation
The respondent statements in Table 7 suggest the informants’ willingness to spend
significant time and/or effort on interacting with their selected highly engaging brands. As
shown in Table 7, Andrew describes at least four ways of spending time and/or effort in
interacting with the brand: (1) by loyally watching the show, ‘series after series’; (2) by
undertaking considerable effort to obtain any missed episodes; (3) by being highly
activated, and ‘full of energy’ while watching the show, as further illustrated by the
following statement: ‘I want to take part too, I can do these things, I can solve these
problems and succeed.’ Finally, the respondent spends brand-related time/effort by
publicly sharing his affection for the show on a social networking site.
While the respondents were prepared to invest significant time and/or effort on
interacting with their selected highly engaging brands (see, for example, Eve’s, Ben’s,
Todd’s, Jake’s, Rose’s and Rachel’s statements), participants appeared reluctant to invest
large amounts of time/effort into interactions with their respective non-engaging brands,
as Ben illustrates:
When I go into [The National Bank, i.e. non-engaging brand selected], when I’m engaging
with the staff, it’s more like just going through the motions, through the routine . . . I can’t be
bothered to answer all the questions they have for me. Whereas at [Health & Sports Gym, i.e.
highly engaging brand selected], I will genuinely be talking to the staff, genuinely interestedin them, and what they are all about.
Table 7. Illustrative respondent statements: CBE ‘activation’ dimension.
Sunday night 7.30 I’m there [for The Amazing Race]. And if I’m not, I’ve got to record it; [or] I’m
hunting down the Internet to find that episode. [While watching the show] I’m likely to shout at
the screen. I’ve [also] put it onto my Facebook page. (Andrew, 39)
[I’ll get Kinder Chocolate from anywhere I can]; I recently bought it at Wellington Airport when I
was travelling. (Joan, 34)
I’ve spent quite a bit of time on the Internet looking at my next [Mercedes-Benz]; the design, from
different angles. (Eve, 65)
I have a strict [H&S Gym] routine; making sure I get there every second night, and trying to make my
full hour. [And] I’ll talk about this gym. (Ben, 54)
Last week [The Body Shop] didn’t have an item I wanted; [So] I’ll come back later . . . and get it
when it’s back in stock. I’m not [going] to some other store. (Anna, 30)
If I look to buy new fishing gear I’d always look at what Shimano is offering. (James, 41)
I’ve put a lot of time and effort into [creating] my [Findsomeone.co.nz] profile; thinking . . . what
I wanted people to know about me. (Todd, 26)
I use [Apple iPod] all the time, chat about it with my friends, and am always looking for the latest
updates and iTunes. (Jake, 20)
If there’s a new Disney movie, we’re there! I use [Disney] animations in my classes; I talk about their
concepts with my kids. (Rose, 46)
I won’t fly anybody else; [and] I won’t have a bad word spoken about Qantas. (Gerald, 61)
[Recently] I was one of the first to [get Givenchy limited edition perfumes] because they had a very
limited amount. I ended up with quite a big bill. (Miranda, 52)
[I] can spend quite a lot of time in the [Country Road] store. I’ll look at the men’s wear, even though
my husband won’t wear it, as well as the women’s wear. (Rachel, 48)
If I’m going to buy peanut-butter then it’s going to be Kraft. And if [I’m buying peanut-butter] for
other people in the house I’ll buy a different brand because they don’t eat it. (Penelope, 35)
[The ASB] campaign’s been running for seven years now, and still I watch. (Graham, 68)
L. Hollebeek568
Jo
ur
na
l o
f S
tra
te
gi
c 
M
ar
ke
tin
g 
20
11
.1
9:
55
5-
57
3.
 d
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.ta
nd
fo
nl
in
e.c
om
From this analysis, ‘activation’ was defined as ‘a customer’s level of energy, effort
and/or time spent on a brand in particular brand interactions’. From a SET perspective,
activation reflects customers reciprocating their perceived brand-related benefits with a
degree of positive, dynamic energy, and/or time expended on focal brand interactions.
Activation thus reflects the behavioral facet of CBE, which exhibits conceptual parallels
with Vivek’s (2009) ‘activity’ in ‘consumer engagement’.
5. Limitations and implications
5.1 Research limitations and implications
This research has provided preliminary insights into the nature of CBE. Further, the paper
has sought to solidify the conceptual embeddedness of CBE within RM, S-D logic and SET-
informed perspectives. Moreover, this research provides a catalyst for future enquiry, which
is required to verify and/or quantify specific CBE dynamics, as outlined in this section.
Despite these contributions several limitations are also associated with the research.
First, a lack of generalizability of findings represents a key limitation of qualitative
research (Marshall & Rossman, 2010). Therefore, the adoption of large-scale, quantitative
methods, including econometric and/or structural CBE modeling (e.g. validating the
proposed CBE themes as formal CBE dimensions; CBE scale development research using
structural equation models), and/or experimental research (e.g. testing for any CBE-
related differences across specific conditions/interventions, and/or brands), is required for
the establishment of generalizable CBE-based findings (Bass, 1995).
Second, the cross-sectional nature of this research, and the majority of engagement-based
research in marketing to-date (e.g. Bowden, 2009), is limited to a snapshot of individuals’
engagement with specific brands. Therefore, research adopting longitudinal (e.g. panel)
research designs would serve to contribute insights into specific CBE phases and/or ‘life
cycles’ by describing specific patterns of change (Menard, 2002). Specifically, time series
analysis and/or latent growth curve analysis may be used to model the data (Bijleveld et al.,
1998). Third, empirical research addressing the nature of CBE interrelationships with other
concepts, including ‘brand image’ and/or ‘brand identity’ (see Table 3), is also required,
which may be undertaken by using, for example, structural methods (Brodie et al., 2011).
Fourth, whilst RM, the S-D logic and SET provide ostensibly suitable conceptual
foundations for CBE, the nascent developmental state of CBE research merits further
scrutiny of alternate, and/or supplementary, theoretical lenses through which to view CBE
and/or its associated dynamics (Brodie et al., 2011). Examples of such alternate/com-
plementary perspectives include the Nordic School’s ‘service logic’ (Gro¨nroos, 2006),
which despite a degree of conceptual similarity, is distinct from the S-D logic. How may
the adoption of ‘service logic’, as opposed to the S-D logic, affect specific CBE
characteristics and/or dynamics?
Finally, is CBE always positive for the organization; or do, for instance, optimal CBE
levels exist, up to which heightened CBE levels engender increasingly favorable
outcomes, yet beyond which sub-optimal results occur, which may be detrimental to focal
CBE stakeholders? How can organizations manage this process? Moreover, which CBE
levels may organizations reasonably expect from paying customers in particular contexts?
5.2 Managerial implications
This paper also generates several managerial implications. First, by providing a CBE
conceptualization, the research provides managers with an enhanced understanding of this
Journal of Strategic Marketing 569
Jo
ur
na
l o
f S
tra
te
gi
c 
M
ar
ke
tin
g 
20
11
.1
9:
55
5-
57
3.
 d
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.ta
nd
fo
nl
in
e.c
om
emerging concept, which managers may utilize in designing their RM and/or engagement
strategies (see Peelen, Van Montfort, Beltman, & Klerkx, 2009). Specifically, the
proposed CBE themes can be used to guide managerial development of organizational
CBE tactics and/or strategies. Further managerial benefits are expected to accrue from
subsequent research, which develops a CBE instrument permitting the quantification of
individuals’ CBE levels.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Professor Rod Brodie and Professor Cristel Russell from the
University of Auckland Business School for providing valuable assistance at the time of conduction
of this research, which forms part of the author’s PhD studies. Further, the author would like to thank
the anonymous reviewers for providing their constructive feedback, which has been instrumental in
the development of this paper.
References
Aaker, J.L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 347–356.
Aaker, J.L., Fournier, S.M., & Brasel, S.A. (2004). When good brands do bad. Journal of Consumer
Research, 31(June), 1–16.
Abdul-Ghani, E., Hyde, K., & Marshall, R. (2010). Emic and etic interpretations of engagement
with a consumer-to-consumer online auction site. Journal of Business Research, 64(10),
1060–1066.
Achterberg, W., Pot, A.M., Kerkstra, A., Ooms, M., Muller, M., & Ribbe, M. (2003). The effect of
depression on social engagement in newly admitted Dutch nursing home residents.The
Gerontologist, 43, 213–218.
Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U.M., & Herrmann, A. (2005). The social influence of brand community:
Evidence from European car clubs. Journal of Marketing, 69(3), 19–34.
Appelbaum, A. (2001). The constant consumer. Retrieved September 29, 2010, from the Gallup
Group website: http://gmj.gallup.com/content/745/Constant-Customer.aspx
Bailar, B., Bailey, L., & Stevens, J. (1977). Measures of interviewer bias and variance. Journal of
Marketing Research, 14, 337–343.
Bass, F. (1995). Empirical generalizations in marketing: A personal view. Marketing Science, 14(3),
2/2, G6–G19.
Bejerholm, U., & Eklund, M. (2006). Construct validity of a newly developed instrument: Profile of
Occupational Engagement in people with Schizophrenia (POES). Nordic Journal of Psychiatry,
60(3), 200–206.
Bejerholm, U., & Eklund, M. (2007). Occupational engagement in persons with Schizophrenia:
Relationships to self-related variables, psychopathology, and quality of life. American Journal
of Occupational Therapy, 61, 21–32.
Bijleveld, C.J.H., Van Der Kamp, L.J.T., Mooijaart, A., Van Der Kloot, W.A., Van Der Leenden, R.,
& Van Der Brug, E. (1998). Longitudinal data analysis. London: Sage.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction for theory and
methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Boland, B.D. (1995). Transcription quality as an aspect of rigor in qualitative research. Qualitative
Inquiry, 1, 290–310.
Bove, L.L., Pervan, S.J., Beatty, S.E., & Shiu, E. (2009). Service worker role in encouraging
customer organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business Research, 62, 698–705.
Bowden, J.H. (2009). The process of customer engagement: A conceptual framework. Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, 17, 63–74.
Boyatzis, R.E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brakus, J.J., Schmitt, B.H., & Zarantello, L. (2009). Brand experience: What is it? How is it
measured? Does it affect loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 73(3), 52–68.
Brand Keys. (2011). Customer Loyalty Engagement Index. Retrieved September 8, 2010, from http://
www.brandkeys.com/awards/
L. Hollebeek570
Jo
ur
na
l o
f S
tra
te
gi
c 
M
ar
ke
tin
g 
20
11
.1
9:
55
5-
57
3.
 d
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.ta
nd
fo
nl
in
e.c
om
Brodie, R.J., Hollebeek, L.D., Ilic, A., & Juric, B. (2011). Customer engagement: Conceptual
domain, foundational propositions, and research implications. Journal of Service Research,
14(3), 252–271.
Calder, B.J., & Malthouse, E.C. (2010). Media engagement and advertising effectiveness. In Kellogg
on Advertising and Media (Chapter 1). Retrieved February 2, 2011, from http://media.wiley.
com/product_data/excerpt/61/04701198/0470119861.pdf
Carter, T. (2008). Customer engagement and behavioral considerations. Journal of Strategic
Marketing, 16, 21–26.
Coffey, A.J., & Atkinson, P.A. (1999). Making sense of qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Crotty, M. (1998). Introduction: The research process. In M. Crotty (Ed.), The foundations of social
research (pp. 1–17). St Leonard’s: Allen & Unwin.
Dall’Olmo Riley, F., & DeChernatony, L. (2000). The service brand as relationships builder. British
Journal of Management, 11, 137–150.
DeChernatony, L. (1999). Brand management through narrowing the gap between brand identity and
brand reputation. Journal of Marketing Management, 15(1–3), 157–179.
Dobni, D., & Zinkhan, G.M. (1990). In search of brand image: A foundation analysis. In M.E.
Goldberg, G. Gorn, & R.W. Pollay (Eds.), Advances in consumer research, 17 (pp. 110–119).
Provo: Association for Consumer Research.
Fern, E.F. (1982). The use of focus groups for idea generation: The effects of group size,
acquaintanceship, and moderator on response quantity and quality. Journal of Marketing
Research, 19, 1–13.
Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C., & Paris, A.H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the
concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109.
Gambetti, R.C., & Graffigna, G. (2010). The concept of engagement: A systematic analysis of the
ongoing marketing debate. International Journal of Market Research, 52, 801–826.
Gro¨nroos, C. (1997). Value-driven relational marketing: From products to resources and
competencies. Journal of Marketing Management, 13, 407–419.
Gro¨nroos, C. (2006). Adopting a service logic for marketing. Marketing Theory, 6, 317–333.
Herzog, H. (1973). Behavioral science concepts for analyzing the consumer. In P. Bliss (Ed.),
Marketing and the behavioral sciences (pp. 76–86). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Higgins, E.T. (2006). Value from hedonic experience and engagement. Psychological Review,
113(3), 439–460.
Higgins, E.T., & Scholer, A.A. (2009). Engaging the consumer: The science and art of the value
creation process. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19, 100–114.
Hoffman, D.L., & Novak, T.P. (1996). Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated environments:
Conceptual foundations. Journal of Marketing, 60(July), 50–68.
Hollebeek, L.D. (2011). Demystifying customer brand engagement: Exploring the loyalty nexus.
Journal of Marketing Management, 27(7–8), 785–807. doi: 10.1080/0267257X.2010.500132
Hollway, W., & Jefferson, T. (1997). Eliciting narrative through the in-depth interview. Qualitative
Inquiry, 3, 53–70.
Hollway, W., & Jefferson, T. (2000). Doing qualitative research differently: Free association,
narrative and the interview method. London: Sage Publications.
Holmes, J.G. (1981). The exchange process in close relationships: Microbehavior and
macromotives. In M.J. Lerner (Ed.), The justice motive in social behavior (pp. 261–284).
New York: Plenum.
Homans, G.C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63, 597–606.
Ilic, A. (2008). Towards a conceptualisation of consumer engagement in online communities: A
netnographic study of Vibration Training community (MCom thesis). University of Auckland.
Jennings, K.M., & Zeitner, V. (2003). Internet use and civic engagement: A longitudinal analysis.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 311–334.
Jick, T.D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602–611.
Kahn, W.A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work.
Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724.
Kumar, V., Aksoy, L., Donkers, B., Venkatesan, R., Wiesel, T., & Tillmanns, S. (2010).
Undervalued or overvalued customers: Capturing total engagement value. Journal of Service
Research, 13, 297–310.
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly-Hills, CA: Sage.
Journal of Strategic Marketing 571
Jo
ur
na
l o
f S
tra
te
gi
c 
M
ar
ke
tin
g 
20
11
.1
9:
55
5-
57
3.
 d
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.ta
nd
fo
nl
in
e.c
om
London, B., Downey, G., & Mace, S. (2007). Psychological theories of educational engagement: A
multi-method approach to studying individual engagement and institutional change. Vanderbilt
Law Review, 60, 455–481.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G.B. (2010). Designing qualitative research. New York: Sage.
May, D.R., Gilson, R.L., & Harter, L.M. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness,
safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 77, 11–37.
Menard, S. (2002). Longitudinal research. Series no. 76. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mitchell, A.A., & Olson, J.C. (1981). Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator of advertising
effects on brand attitude? Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 318–332.
Mollen, A., & Wilson, H. (2010). Engagement, telepresence,and interactivity in online consumer
experience: Reconciling scholastic and managerial perspectives. Journal of Business Research,
63, 919–925.
Morgan, D.L., & Spanish, M.T. (1984). Focus groups: A new tool for qualitative research.
Qualitative Sociology, 7, 253–270.
MSI (Marketing Science Institute). (2010). 2010–2012 Research Priorities. Retrieved September 8,
2010, from http://www.msi.org/research/index.cfm?id¼271
Palmatier, R.W., Dant, R.P., Grewal, D., & Evans, K.R. (2006). Factors influencing the effectiveness
of relationship marketing: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 136–153.
Patterson, P., Yu, T., & De Ruyter, K. (2006, December). Understanding customer engagement in
services. Proceedings, Australia–New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference, Brisbane.
Retrieved May 7, 2010, from http://smib.vuw.ac.nz:8081/WWW/ANZMAC2006/documents/
Pattinson_Paul.pdf
Peelen, E., Van Montfort, K., Beltman, R., & Klerkx, A. (2009). An empirical study into the
foundations of CRM success. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 17, 453–471.
Pervan, S.J., Bove, L.L., & Johnson, L.W. (2009). Reciprocity as a key stabilizing norm of
interpersonal marketing relationships: Scale development and validation. Industrial Marketing
Management, 38, 60–70.
Phillips, B.J., & McQuarrie, E.F. (2010). Narrative and persuasion in fashion advertising. Journal of
Consumer Research, 37(3), 368–392.
Prahalad, C.K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value
creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5–14.
Rousseau, D.M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 121–139.
Sabatier, P. (1986). Bottom–up and top–down approaches to implementation research: A critical
analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of Public Policy, 6, 21–48.
Schaufeli, W.B., Martı´nez, I.M., Pinto, A.M., Salanova, M., & Bakker, A.B. (2002). Burnout and
engagement in University students: A cross-national study. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 33, 464–481.
Sin, L.Y.M., Tse, A.C.B., Yau, O.H.M., Chow, R.P.M., Lee, J.S.Y., & Lau, L.B.Y. (2005).
Relationship marketing orientation: Scale development and cross-cultural validation. Journal of
Business Research, 58, 185–194.
Smith, J.A. (1995). Semi-structured interviewing and qualitative analysis. In J.A. Smith, L. Harr, &
U. Langehove (Eds.), Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. 9–26). London: Sage.
Spiggle, S. (1994). Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data in consumer research. Journal of
Consumer Research, 21, 491–503.
Sprott, D., Czellar, S., & Spangenberg, E. (2009). The importance of a general measure of brand
engagement on market behavior: Development and validation of a scale. Journal of Marketing
Research, 46, 92–104.
Strauss, A.L., & Corbin, J.M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Taylor, S.J., & Bogdan, R. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research methods. New York: Wiley.
Thomsen, S., Straubhaar, J., & Bolyard, D. (1998). Ethnomethodology and the study of online
communities: Exploring the cyber streets. Information Research, 4(1). Retrieved May 26, 2010,
from http://informationr.net/ir/4-1/paper50.html
Tsai, C.F., Ouyang, W.C., Chen, L.K., Lan, C.F., Hwang, S.J., Yang, C.H., & Su, T.P. (2009).
Depression is the strongest independent risk factor for poor social engagement among Chinese
elderly veteran assisted-living residents. Journal of the Chinese Medical Association, 72(9),
478–483.
L. Hollebeek572
Jo
ur
na
l o
f S
tra
te
gi
c 
M
ar
ke
tin
g 
20
11
.1
9:
55
5-
57
3.
 d
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.ta
nd
fo
nl
in
e.c
om
Ursem, A. (2008). The five stages of customer engagement. Retrieved July 8, 2010, from http://www.
backbase.com/blog/76/five-stages-of-customer-engagement/
Van Doorn, J., Lemon, K.E., Mittal, V., Nab, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P., & Verhoef, P.C. (2010).
Customer engagement behavior: Theoretical foundations and research directions. Journal of
Service Research, 13, 253–266.
Vargo, S., & Lusch, R. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.
Vargo, S.L., & Lusch, R.F. (2008a). Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 1–10.
Vargo, S.L., & Lusch, R.F. (2008b). Why service? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36,
25–38.
Vargo, S.L., Maglio, P.P., & Akaka, M.A. (2008). On value and value co-creation: A service systems
and service logic perspective. European Management Journal, 26(3), 145–152.
Verhoef, P.C., Reinartz, W.J., & Krafft, M. (2010). Customer engagement as a new perspective in
customer management. Journal of Service Research, 13, 247–252.
Vivek, S.D. (2009). A scale of consumer engagement (Doctoral dissertation). Department of
Management/Marketing, University of Alabama.
Vivek, S.D., Beatty, S.E., & Morgan, R.M. (2010). Consumer engagement: Exploring customer
relationships beyond purchase. Paper submitted to Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice.
Zeller, R.A. (1993). Combining qualitative and quantitative techniques to develop culturally
sensitive measures. In D. Ostrow & R. Kessler (Eds.), Methodological issues in AIDS behavioral
research (pp. 95–116). New York: Plenum.
Journal of Strategic Marketing 573
Jo
ur
na
l o
f S
tra
te
gi
c 
M
ar
ke
tin
g 
20
11
.1
9:
55
5-
57
3.
 d
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.ta
nd
fo
nl
in
e.c
om