Vol. 6 No. 3 (2018): BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT STUDIES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
Articles

EMPLOYER BRAND IMAGE DEPENDING ON STAKEHOLDERS’ MATERIAL VALUE TENDENCY: COMMUNICATION MARKET IN TURKEY

PDF
  • Çağla Pınar BOZOKLU
Çağla Pınar BOZOKLU
Başkent Üniversitesi
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v6i3.318

Published 2018-11-29

How to Cite

BOZOKLU, Çağla P. (2018). EMPLOYER BRAND IMAGE DEPENDING ON STAKEHOLDERS’ MATERIAL VALUE TENDENCY: COMMUNICATION MARKET IN TURKEY. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 6(3), 58–70. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v6i3.318

Abstract

According to branding and reputation literature, all stakeholders shares a common value system, which also leads developing similar perceptions towards corporates. As a value, materialism, especially effects the way that people mentally coding their environment and their lives. Preferences of consumers can differ from each other depending on how they judge the success depending on possessions or centralize the possessions in their life or are satisfied by owning them. The aim of this research is to test meaningful differences between employer brand images in terms of stakeholders’ material value tendency. A questionnaire composed of Employer Brand Image and Material Value Scales was conducted to three primary stakeholder groups. Results reveal that employer brand image differs depending on the stakeholders’ success-oriented and centrality-oriented material values for communication brands. The employer brand images of Vodafone and Turk Telekom that have the best and the worst reputation status in the market depending on being involved in a serious scandal, did not differ according to the stakeholders’ material values, whereas the employer brand image of Turkcell which has an average position in the market, statistically differed.

PDF

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Aaker, D. A. (1992). The value of brand equity. Journal of business strategy, 13(4), 27-32.
  2. Aaker, D.A. (1996). Building strong brands. New York: The Free Press.
  3. Ambler, T., and Barrow, S. (1996). The employer brand. Journal of brand management, 4(3), 185-206.
  4. Backhaus, K. and Tikoo, S. (2004). Conceptualizing and researching employer branding. Career Development International 9(4/5), 501–517.
  5. Banerjee, B., and McKeage, K. (1994). How green is my value: exploring the relationship between environmentalism and materialism. ACR North American Advances.
  6. Bearden, W., Netemeyer, R. G. and Teel, J. E. (1989) ‘Measurement of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15, March, pp. 473–481.
  7. Belk, R. W. (1983). Worldly possessions: Issues and criticisms. ACR North American Advances.
  8. Belk, R. W. (1984). Three scales to measure constructs related to materialism: Reliability, validity, and relationships to measures of happiness. ACR North American Advances.
  9. Berthon, P., Ewing, M. and Hah, L. (2005). Captivating company: dimensions of attractiveness in employer branding. International Journal of Advertising 24(2), 151–172.
  10. Bickerton, D. (2000). Corporate reputation versus corporate branding: the realist debate. Corporate Communications 1, 42–48.
  11. Broadbent, K., and Cooper, P. (1987). Research is good for you. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 5(1), 3-9.
  12. Browne, B. A., and Kaldenberg, D. O. (1997). Conceptualizing self-monitoring: Links to materialism and product involvement. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 14(1), 31-44.
  13. Carrington, L. (2007). Designs on the dotted line People Management Magazine (18 October), 36 –39.
  14. de Chernatony, L. (1999). Brand management through narrowing the gap between brand identity and brand reputation. Journal of Marketing Management 15(1–3), 157–180.
  15. Fitzmaurice, J. (2008), ‘‘Splurge purchases and materialism’’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 332-8.
  16. Fournier, S. (1991). Meaning-based framework for the study of consumer-object relations. ACR North American Advances.
  17. Freling, T. H., Crosno, J. L., and Henard, D. H. (2011). Brand personality appeal: conceptualization and empirical validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(3), 392-406.
  18. Hair, JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC. Multivariate data analysis. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall; 1998.
  19. Hart, S. and Murphy, J. (1998). Brands: The New Wealth Creators. Basingstoke: Macmillan Business.
  20. Harris, F. and de Chernatony, L. (2001). Corporate branding and corporate brand performance. European Journal of Marketing 35(3/4), 441–456.
  21. Heaney, J., Goldsmith, R.E. and Wan Jusoh, W.J. (2005), ‘‘Status consumption among Malaysian consumers: exploring its relationship with materialism and attention to social comparison information’’, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 83-98.
  22. Hürriyet Daily News, (2018). Transfer of Türk Telekom’s majority stake to banks approved by Turkish gov’t. 29 August ,2018. Erişim Tarihi: 27.09.2018 http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/transfer-of-turk-telekoms-majority-stake-to-banks-approved-by-turkish-govt-136250
  23. Ind, N. (1997). The Corporate Brand. Basingstoke: Macmillan Business.
  24. Ind, N. (1998). An integrated approach to corporate branding. The Journal of Brand Management 5(5), 323–329.
  25. Kaiser, S. B. (1990). The social psychology of clothing: Symbolic appearances in context.
  26. Kamineni, R. (2005). Influence of materialism, gender and nationality on consumer brand perceptions. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 14(1), 25-32.
  27. Kilbourne, W., and Pickett, G. (2008). How materialism affects environmental beliefs, concern, and environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Business Research, 61(9), 885-893.
  28. Klein, J., and Dawar, N. (2004), “Corporate social responsibility and consumers' attributions and brand evaluations in a product–harm crisis”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 203-217.
  29. Kolodinsky, R. W., Madden, T. M., Zisk, D. S., and Henkel, E. T. (2010). Attitudes about corporate social responsibility: Business student predictors. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(2), 167-181.
  30. Kotler, P. (1988), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning and Control, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
  31. Lloyd, S. (2002). Branding from the inside out. BRW 2(10), 64–66.
  32. Moroko, L. and Uncles, M. (2008). Characteristics of successful employer brands. Journal of Brand Management 16(3), 160–175.
  33. Meenaghan, T. (1995). The role of advertising in brand image development. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 4(4), 23-34.
  34. Muncy, J. A., and Eastman, J. K. (1998). Materialism and consumer ethics: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(2), 137-145.
  35. Nga, J. K., Yong, L. H., and Sellappan, R. (2011). The influence of image consciousness, materialism and compulsive spending on credit card usage intentions among youth. Young Consumers, 12(3), 243-253.
  36. Nunnaly, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  37. O'Shaughnessy, J. (1987), Why People Buy, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
  38. Pirog, S.F. II and Roberts, J.A. (2007), ‘‘Personality and credit card misuse among college students: the mediating role of impulsiveness’’, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 65-77.
  39. Richins, M. L., and Dawson, S. (1992). A consumer values orientation for materialism and its measurement: Scale development and validation. Journal of consumer research, 19(3), 303-316.
  40. Richins, M. L. (1994a) ‘Valuing things: The public and private meanings of possessions’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21, December, pp. 504–521.
  41. Richins, M. L. (1994b) ‘Special possessions and the expression of material values’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21, December, pp. 522–533.
  42. Richins, M. L. (2004). The material values scale: Measurement properties and development of a short form. Journal of consumer Research, 31(1), 209-219.
  43. Rindfleisch, A., Burroughs, J. E., and Wong, N. (2008). The safety of objects: Materialism, existential insecurity, and brand connection. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(1), 1-16.
  44. Sprott, D., Czellar, S., and 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(1), 92-104.
  45. Turkcell, (2018). Ortaklık Yapısı. Erişim Tarihi: 29.09. 2018 Erişim Adresi: https://www.turkcell.com.tr/en/aboutus/investor-relations/corporate-governance/shareholder-structure.
  46. Türk Telekom, (2018). Ortaklık Yapısı. Erişim tarihi: 29.09.2018. Erişim adresi http://www.ttyatirimciiliskileri.com.tr/en-us/turk-telekom-group/investing-in-turk-telekom/pages/ownership-structure.aspx
  47. Urien, B., and Kilbourne, W. (2011). Generativity and self‐enhancement values in eco‐friendly behavioral intentions and environmentally responsible consumption behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 28(1), 69-90.
  48. Vigneron, F., and Johnson, L. W. (2004). Measuring perceptions of brand luxury. Journal of brand management, 11(6), 484-506.
  49. Vreeman, A. L., and Morganosky, M. A. (1986). Consumer Involvement Related to Apparel Purchase Behavior. ACR North American Advances.
  50. Walsh G., Beatty, S. (2007). Customer-based corporate reputation of a service firm: scale development and validation. Journal of Marketing Science (35): 127-145.
  51. Yahoo Finance (2018). Vodafone Group Plc shareholder structure. Erişim Tarihi: 29.09. 2018. Erişim adresi: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/VOD/holders/