Für neue Kunden:
Für bereits registrierte Kunden:
Veröffentlichen auch Sie Ihre Arbeiten - es ist ganz einfach!Mehr Infos
Bachelorarbeit, 2009, 58 Seiten
List of abbreviations
Table of figures
1.1 Defining the task
2. Basic definitions
2.1 Brand – Brand Management
2.2 Brand Equity
2.3 Corporate Brand – Corporate Brand Management
2.4 Employer Brand
2.5 High potentials
3. Relevance of employer branding
3.1 The „war for talent“
3.1.1 Demographic change
3.2 Generational change
4. Employer Brand Management - goals and benefits
4.1 Being an employer-of-choice
4.2 Benefits for the employees
5. Employer branding in the context of brand management
5.1 Product marketing vs. HR marketing
5.2 Brand equity as the basis for employer branding
5.3 Corporate brand management as the brand fundament
5.3.1 Corporate reputation
5.3.2 Corporate identity and corporate image
5.3.3 Internal and external communication
6. Employee Value Proposition
7. The global employer brand
7.1 Rationale for global employer branding
7.2 Implementing a global employer brand
7.2.1 Selecting the right labour markets
7.2.2 Cultural challenges
7.2.3 Communicational challenges
7.2.4 Standardisation vs. differentiation
7.3 Benefits of global employer branding
7.4 Alternatives to employer branding
List of appendices
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Figure 1: Expectations of employer branding
Figure 2: The McGraw-Hill ad
Figure 3: The Reputation chain
Figure 4: Rationale for recruiting abroad
Figure 5: Key positions to fill by international workforce
Figure 6: Qualifications and competencies needed
Figure 7: Recruitment countries
Figure 8: Cultural similarities to Germany
Figure 9: Instruments used for international recruitment
Figure 10: Benefits of a global employer brand
Microsoft, Google, Cisco or the German E.ON-“Führungsgesellschaften”: each of them is a well-known company that not only stands for economic success but also for a specific image. Besides, all of them are companies that head the top 100 of the “Best Workplaces in Europe” in 2009 (Great Place To Work Institute, 2009). But, why are companies rewarded as a great place to work at and how do they manage it? Do they only convince with their products and services based on good marketing strategies?
In an era of globalisation and a continuous progress in science, technique and economy being competitive poses the most important challenge for a company’s success. Of course, product and service quality or customer orientation are important factors but moreover, high qualified people performing in and leading these areas are indispensable. However, even though having an economic crisis actually, this resource is a scarce one and not easy to find. On the one hand, this is caused by a strong socio-demographic change that implicates declining birth rates and thus a rise of ageing workforce. On the other hand, for competing globally companies are demanded to be highly innovative. To expedite innovations and to deal with continuously accelerating progress and more complex technology, skilled workers are needed. Hence, on labour markets the demand for high potentials is increasing whereas the supply is decreasing. As more companies are aware of the possibility to profit from their workforce as a strategic advantage, competition for the best talents grows steadily and leads to a “war for talent” (McKinsey & Company, 1998). Due to the fact that these developments can be recognised all around the world the resource “human being” becomes incrementally essential. So, companies begin to look for potential specialists and executives not only on national but also on international labour markets. Besides investments in trainings, the further education of older employees and the cooperation with schools or universities, the creation of a strong employer brand may be important.
Speaking of buyer’s markets employees decide for their individual employer-of- choice. For this purpose, they of course have to know the company and be convinced of the benefits working for it. Thus, to successfully attract and retain the best talent, marketing, brand management and especially a powerful employer brand may be imperative instruments for a company. The creation of a distinctive image and a credible, trustworthy and responsible reputation should then be a company’s primary concern. In times, where internet makes information accessible and transparent a consistent outward presentation is inevitable. Furthermore, as a generational change takes place, employer branding may also be an important tool to consider those divertive generational values.
With the objective of surviving the war for talent employer branding gained influence over the last years. Furthermore, as this war even goes global, companies may also have to think about an employer brand management that successfully operates on international labour markets.
This paper pursues the thesis that employer branding is a necessary and beneficial instrument for companies to stay competitive. Furthermore, it argues that, as the competition for talented workforce becomes a worldwide issue, a strong global employer brand attracts and retains high potentials. Thus, it has a distinct impact in the war for talent.
This thesis discusses the significance of employer branding for a company’s economic success based on theoretical information and various surveys.
To improve the contextual understanding basically important terms concerning employer branding are defined at the beginning. Subsequently, rationales for the necessity of an employer brand are argued. For this purpose, this chapter deals with possible reasons including the war for talent and the generational change. Moreover, the following part highlights the main targets and benefits of employer branding for both, the company in becoming an employer-of-choice and the employees profiting from and identifying with the brand values. Assuming that employer branding refers to Human Resources marketing and is integrated in the brand management of the company, linkages to product branding, the impact of brand equity and the importance of corporate branding are discussed under the next point. Corporate reputation, corporate identity, corporate image and communication are important keywords respectively. However, to attract highly qualified workforce, companies have to be exceedingly attractive to them. Employee value propositions, as considered in the following chapter, evoke and improve this attractiveness and may create a preference as employer-of-choice. Before summing up the relevance of global employer branding in the war for talent, the situation on international labour markets, the need for a global employer brand as well as the company’s challenges and benefits in this regard, are illustrated.
According to the American Marketing Association, a brand is “a name, term, sign, symbol or design, or a combination of them intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competition” (as cited in Keller, 1998, p.2). Unlike a product, which might be a physical good, a service, a person or an organization, a brand adds further symbolic, emotional and intangible dimensions to differentiate the product from others (Keller, 1998). Hence, it creates a competitive advantage based on the product performance. Brand Management mainly concentrates on a successful positioning of the products or services a company offers.
Keller (1998) defines customer-based brand equity as “the differential effect that brand knowledge has on consumer response to the marketing of the brand” (p.45). He states that due to positive customer-based brand equity consumers are more likely to pay higher prices or to seek the brand in a new distribution channel. Thus, brand equity or brand value is built through brand knowledge that evokes trust and leads to a better, more valuable perception of the brand by the customer.
While product brands only emphasise customer satisfaction, a corporate brand focuses on all stakeholders including customers, employees, shareholders, suppliers, competitors and the public. Riel (2001) defines a corporate brand as "systematically planned and implemented process of creating and maintaining a favourable reputation of the company with its constituent elements, by sending signals to stakeholders using the corporate brand“ (as cited in Petkovic, 2008, p.234). According to Esch, Kernstock, Langner & Tomczak (2006) a corporate brand is perceived by various stakeholders and thus has to provide a consistent and coherent image of the company to all of them. Corporate brand management therefore comprises the company as a whole, ideally in form of a family brand, and tries to offer an integrated strategy to effect positive perceptions and preferences.
Ambler and Barrow (1996) define the term Employer Brand as “the package of functional, economic and psychological benefits provided by employment, and identified with the employing company” (p.187). An employer brand offers an employee work that is useful and shows potential for developments (functional), rewards (economic) and feelings such as belonging or orientation (psychological). Beyond, the primary role of the employer brand is “to provide a coherent framework for management to simplify and focus priorities, increase productivity and improve recruitment, retention and commitment” (as cited in Mosley, 2007, p.128). Basically, the process of employer branding is used by HR as an external marketing tool in order to attract potential employees. It intends to plan, build and manage an employer brand by using marketing tools and concepts (Balain & Sparrow, 2009).
High potentials are highly qualified professionals who additionally have very good social and language skills. They are expected to perform in a superior and exceptional manner. Companies compete for attracting those young students to fill its vacant positions of specialists and managers. So called young professionals even offer extra years of work experience (Kirchgeorg & Lorbeer, 2002). In the following, both groups are also named talent.
Companies are challenged by technological and economic as well as ecological and social changes of which they have to be aware of to stay competitive and successful. Thus, workforce is essential. But beside the quantitative demand for employees a need for qualified workers with a strategic mind, leadership ability, communicational and functional skills, the ability to inspire other talented people and to deliver results is also increasing (Axelrod, Handfield-Jones, & Michaels, 2001).
But even as the demand for talent goes up, the supply of it is going down. McKinsey and Company (1998) named it the “war for talent” and its challenge companies are faced every day to attract and retain talented people (as cited in Barrow & Mosley, 2006, p.29). As the globalisation proceeds, this war is also becoming a universal issue. Even today, in the middle of a worldwide economic crisis and thus a high unemployment rate, “30% of employers worldwide are having difficulties filling positions due to the lack of suitable talent available in their markets” (Manpower Inc., 2009, p.1). Especially in areas such as science, IT, technology, engineering, and mathematics skilled workforce is needed.
Concerning the demographic shift, there has to be taken a closer look on the history. After World War II a baby boom could be observed. But the so called baby boomer generation is now ageing and soon retiring. However, more problematic was the strong decline of fertility ratios following this era. Today, with barely averaged 1.2 children per woman the birth rate in Germany is one of the lowest in international comparison (Berlin-Institute, 2008). Thus, by 2020 it will be noticed a strong rise of the workforce aged 45 to 60 years up to approximately 38%. In 2050, the European population will be aged approximately about 48 years. According to United Nation projections, the number of people that are older than 65 will comprise 28% of the European population. Furthermore, assuming an increasing expectancy of life and a constant number of immigrants, Europe will experience an absolute population decline of approximately 8,3% until 2050 (as cited in Berlin-Institute, 2008).
In the middle and long-term, this absence of dynamic and innovative young people will slow down the creative performance of the country and its companies, which is needed for innovations and technology.
Within global competition the pressure to be innovative increases and the development as well as the use of new technologies becomes essential. By way of example, Germany, neither being rich in natural resources nor having favourable wage levels, is evolving into a knowledge-based society.
Hence, more complex technology demands more qualified employees. However, just as the universal demand for appropriately skilled people is rising, the percentage of graduates declines. Even though the average rate of university graduates yearly increased from 28% in 2000 up to 37% in 2006 in the OECD countries, Germany grew only from 18% to 21% respectively. Another problematic issue is the high amount of college dropouts. On average across the OECD countries, 31% of university students fail to successfully complete their studies. Also the ratio of first-year-students rose in OECD countries from 53% in 2003 to 56% in 2006, whereas in Germany this ratio is stagnating between 35% and 37% (Education Today, 2008). Unlike Germany, China or India have high amounts of employees with a specific knowledge in e.g. information technology and engineering. But problematic in those countries are the differences in quality and standard referring know-how and work experience (Berlin-Institute, 2008, p.12).
In the new global economy, competition is rough and ideas are developed quickly. Furthermore, there is a higher transparency of the labour market due to the internet, which leads to a more frequently use of online-recruitment and web 2.0. So, for skilled workers who are mobile, it is extremely easy to apply for and to get the job they want all around the world. Of course, beside this drift out of the country, there also exists an immigration of qualified workforce from other countries.
However, reality shows that there is only a finite pool of talent worldwide which will not be able to cover the global demand.
Next to these worldwide demographic and educational developments, employers also have to take a generational change into account. So, the attitudes of current generations towards work, career and employment differ concerning those of the past generations. Basically there are four key generations available in the labour market at the moment.
The first generation is called the Baby Boomers and is approximately between 46 and 61 years old. According to Browning & Worman (2008), they are an egocentric and pecuniary generation, which is motivated by career opportunities and prestige implementing a specific status or title. Members of the generation X workforce were born between 1964 and 1978 and are highly motivated, flexible but sceptic employees. Born between 1979 and 1991, the generation Y actually represents the most interesting employees for the companies. With approximately 18–30 years they might be those talented people employers are trying to attract. They are not primarily interested in money but in their development potentials. They even are willing to work longer hours for higher wages or flexibility. But, more important is a meaningful work to them. Otherwise, they are expected to change their job every two to three years. Joining the workforce in the next years, generation Z, born in-between 1992-2009, will be the most socially networked generation (Browning & Worman, 2008).
To attract the right potentials the employer has to have an image the applicant can identify with. So, to attract members of generation Y and retain employees of the other ones, employers have to reflect generational value differences through a strong employer brand.
With the objective to stay economically competitive, employer branding could be an effective instrument for companies to attract and retain sustainably the right potentials, even in face of a war for talent.
The following chapter gives some indication of the support an employer brand offers concerning the accomplishment of objectives and its consequential benefits.
Beyond doubt, the main target of each company is the maximising of its profits, the company’s success. But, the key factor to achieve this is highly qualified workforce, so called high potentials. As employer branding aims to attract, motivate, and retain the firm’s current and potential employees (Conference Board, Inc., 2001) it may be a useful marketing tool. However, the labour market changed from a seller’s into a buyer’s market. Out of this follows that employees can choose among a wide range of attractive employments. Thus, not the employee has to convince of its quality but the company. The difficult task is making employees aware of the company and its attractiveness as a potential employer. Goal of an employer brand should be the development of its existing image to a “great-place-to-work” image which may influence the preferences of the relevant target group. Preferences are built through a strong brand image which improves the perception and evaluation of the company’s characteristics (Esch, 2003). Potential employees have to be convinced that they can use and even develop their talents and competencies. Only if employees perceive the company as their individual employer-of-choice, they apply with the intention to sign the employment contract (Hartmann, 2002, as cited in Petkovic, 2008). They also remain in the company, if their expectations and wishes are fulfilled when working for this employer. Those satisfied employees show a higher loyalty for the company and even recommend it to family, friends, and further potential employees (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). Hence, employer branding helps companies to be the first choice of high potentials. In addition, results such as decreasing fluctuation and susceptibility to asset poaching of competing companies lead to cost reduction. Furthermore, the risk of losing knowledge due to employees changing to competition (brain drain) and thus loosing competitiveness (brain gain for the competitor) can be minimised (DEBA Berlin, 2006).
In times, where products and services are increasingly interchangeable, differentiation is an immense advantage for a company to set apart from its competitors. For this purpose, it is necessary that the employer establishes powerful associations with the employer brand in the minds of the employees. Thus, highlighting benefits concerning e.g. flexible working hours, further training or career opportunities improves and ensures the competitive position. To increase this advantage of differentiation it could be useful to emphasise benefits emotionally. This means that an employer’s name not only evokes factual information in the employee’s mind but also feelings. Hence, an employer brand could effectuate sympathy for the company which leads a step closer to be a preferred employer. This in turn positively effects the satisfaction, motivation and loyalty again and decreases fluctuation (Donath, 2001).
For this reason employer branding gains attention. According to the survey of the Bernhard Hodes Global Network, 84% and 82% of the companies expect from its employer brand an easier attraction of high potentials and recognition as employer-of-choice. 65% also use employer branding for employee retention (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Expectations of employer branding
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Source: Own illustration, modified from Bernhard Hodes Global Network, 2006, p.27.
According to that, a strong employer brand works towards the company’s goal of maximising its profits by attracting the right potentials through creating a preference as employer-of-choice and through differentiation matched with emotions. On the other hand, it is seen as an important tool in retaining the company’s current employees, building loyalty, trust and satisfaction. Moreover it reduces costs, decreases fluctuation and raises a positive reputation.
Similar to a company an employee reaches for a high return on investment. However, for employees the maximisation of its individual wants and needs are in the foreground. While emphasising strong employer characteristics and brand values, the brand name provokes specific associations to the applicant. Thus, employer branding simplifies the differentiation between companies, avoids the need for a further verification of the characteristics and offers orientation to abbreviate the selection process. This eases the identification with the company, for instance referring to the decision for an internship or the final choice for an employer (Esch, 2003; Bruhn, 1994, as cited in Petkovic, 2008). Furthermore, brand recognition decreases an employee’s processing of information to make an employment decision. As the employer is already known the employee’s search process can be shortened. This implicates that employees save time, energy, and resources.
Nevertheless, the employment decision also offers various risks that result from asymmetric information. Due to the fact that a detailed examination of some internal characteristics may only be possible during the employment, the risk that the employer will not fulfil the applicant’s expectations and needs is given (Keller, 1998). However, a strong and unique employer brand may create faith in the real existence of specific employer qualities and hence, minimises the employee’s risk.
As the employer brand describes the company by its brand image, the employee’s identification is the greater the more it believes in the same values and describes itself with the same attributes. This analogy leads to a strong internal commitment as well as to a demonstration of a certain image and prestige in its social environment, including friends and family (Gudergan, Lings, & Wilden, 2006).
So, employer branding influences the employee’s decision-making process by creating trust, identification, orientation, prestige and efficient information.
To identify the significance of an employer brand within the brand management, the next paragraph comments on possible implementations of marketing techniques used by product and corporate branding.
In globalised markets resources, sales and customers are highly competitive. But moreover, almost all products are increasingly indifferent. This hinders potential customers in both, differentiating between them and products of the competition and building clear preferences. Similar developments could be determined in the labour market. Also the labour market represents numerous companies offering similar products or benefits to the employees. Moreover, due to demographic changes employees are the competitive resource in this market. So, the chapter below is aimed at identifying parallels of product and employer branding. As Arnold (1992) states that „branding is, however, inextricably linked with the central principles of marketing”, brand management could be seen as a marketing concept (as cited in Petkovic, 2008, p.48). Hence, employer branding as a form of external HR marketing may be also linked to product marketing.
Similarities can be found referring the object, the addressee, the methods and the procedures (Petkovic, 2008; Keller, 1998). In product marketing the product and its attractiveness to existing and new consumers are in the centre of interest. In HR-marketing object und addressee could be defined as the place of employment and the company’s current and potential employees respectively. To position the product and the employment successfully in the market, market research of both, consumer and labour markets is an inevitable method.
Also referring to the marketing-mix analogies may be found. However, to prove that strategies for product, price, promotion and placement (Armstrong & Kotler, 2008) may be similarly used for employer branding, they are surveyed in more detail (Bröckermann & Pepels, 2002).
Product: The main objective of the product strategy is to build brand equity by convincing the customer that the brand attributes and benefits are relevant to satisfy its needs and wants. Those positive brand associations are realised in the design, manufacturing, and serving of the products. So, many consumers for instance buy a product depending on its perceived quality. Regarding HR marketing, brand equity is built by convincing current and future employees that the work environment a company offers fulfil their needs and expectations. Due to the fact that these tangible “products” like work space or infrastructure are highly exchangeable among companies, there is the need to extend these attributes with intangible ones. So, e.g. corporate image, corporate culture or job-security should also be considered in order to form a diverse product of the company.
Price: An important factor for the consumer’s decision is the perceived value of the product, the trade-off between price and quality. Associating a high quality with the product, the customer is more likely to pay more for it. Thus, it is important to fully understand consumer’s perceptions of the own brand values and those of the competitors. Relating to employer branding, an important factor in the decision-making process of employees is, among others, the company’s wage policy. In this case the circumstances have to be seen vice versa. The employee offers the product to the company, namely it’s physical and mental ability and receives the payment. But, as the demand is increasing the employee will decide for the best conditions.
Promotion: Product marketing communication plays a supportive role to fix the brand in the customer’s minds and links strong associations to it. Advertising on television, radio or in newspapers, sponsorships or event marketing, as well as PR are effective instruments. HR communication supports the company’s brand equity as well, but addresses another target audience. Former, current and potential employees are contacted either directly, using most of the media mentioned above, or indirectly through e.g. their friends or family.
Placement: The adaptation of distribution strategies is quiet more difficult. Product marketing generally implicates the flow of products, services and capital from the producer over distributors to the end-user, the customer (Keller, 1998). Referring to HR marketing this flow is considered to be the other way round. Employees are the producers who offer its work and talent, and the company demands it.
Differences are found in the perspective of both approaches. While product branding follows Porters outside-in perspective and mainly focuses on the external environment, the customer and competition (Hetrick & Martin, 2006), employer branding shows an inside-out orientation. This perspective requires a match of the internal and external environment and is discussed in chapter 5.3. Further, both brand managements may be distinguished by the verification of the promoted attributes. While the characteristics of a product referring its function and performance are generally verifiable, the perception and evaluation of a company as an employer is not. Before having any direct contact with the company, mostly press reports, image booklets or third person information deliver indicators for an employer’s real quality. Therefore, various criteria like career or salary developments are difficult to prove and thus risk factors for employees. Another point is existent product guaranties and the right to return the bought product, which is not preferable for both, employees and employer due to higher costs and a lack of image. Changing jobs too often does not make a good impression to future employers and a negative reputation by employees does not support a company’s image as employer-of-choice. Furthermore, the differentiation and positioning of a product is quiet easier due to a specific name, design, positioning and trade mark for selected target groups than that of an employer (Keller, 1998; Petkovic, 2008).
There definitely are linkages between product and employer branding. However, marketing techniques should only be adopted in a limited manner.
Of primary concern at brand management is the successful positioning of the products or services a company offers. However, a brand is only considered to be a strong one if the consumer recognises the product and trusts in its quality. Hence, effective marketing of qualitative products raises the brand equity – the value of the brand. Therefore, it is very important to define how brand equity is built and what effects it has on employer branding.
By way of example, taste or quality of ice cream is fairly the same between hundreds of producers. Why can exactly Häagen Dazs charge a premium price and maintain a huge international market? The reason is its brand image, which is compelling and sophisticated and makes Häagen Dazs highly successful. This simple example makes clear that customers are more likely to buy a strongly branded product than one that is not, even though it is just as good in terms of quality. Those positive and negative images in consumer’s minds are seen as brand equity. According to Keller (1998) customer-based brand equity is built by brand knowledge which consists of two components: brand awareness, which is given when the consumer is able to recognise, identify and recall the brand under different conditions, and brand image, which is reflected in consumer’s perceptions and preferences associated with the brand. Hence, to create brand equity customers must be convinced that there are meaningful differences compared to competitive brands (Ployhart, 2006). But to achieve this aim the product or service has to be of recognisable quality, reliability or value for them. This could only be the case, if customers are aware of and familiar with the brand remembering some strong, crucial and unique brand associations. The more familiar they are with the products and services the more loyal they stick to the brand. Being aware of the brand and able to identify with the brand image, customers even pay a premium price (Esch et al., 2006). This can be induced by direct experience with the brand, from information communicated by other commercials or word-of-mouth. Furthermore, the association of the brand with the company, the country, or some particular person, place or event may improve the brand image (Keller, 1998). To what extent these brand associations are perceived, strongly depends on the personal relevance of the information and the given context, as well as the consistency with which the information is presented over time including the keywords used as reminders. That the customers consequently notice a persuasive and meaningful difference to other brands is vital to provide a competitive advantage for the company and a reason for buying its products or services. Thus, in brand management, the basis of a strong brand is the company’s products or services.
Referring to employer branding, Ambler and Barrow (1996) define brand equity as an intangible asset, which is built up in the minds of existing and potential employees by good marketing. The basis of a convincing brand is the product, the company itself, which has to apply those marketing principles to the field of employment. Hence, a company seeks to build a strong employer brand to effect a differentiation to its competitors, also through emphatic and inimitable associations (Collins & Stevens, 2002, as cited in Ployhart, 2006).
 The top ten of the best European workplaces (2009): see Appendix 1.
 Also the motivation of high potentials to perform well plays an important role in employer branding. Nevertheless this paper primarily focuses on the attraction and retention of talent.
 In the following Human Resources is abbreviated HR.
 Employee value proposition is abbreviated EVP.
 The corporate brand is seen as the “main brand under which new” product brands “are introduced to take advantage of its credibility, identity, and name-recognition”
 Internal marketing refers to the employee retention (Kolb,M., 2008).
 Manpower Inc. surveyed nearly 39,000 employers across 33 countries and territories in the first quarter of 2009.
 Web 2.0 is “a ‘read-write’ web providing a democratic architecture for participation, encouraging people to share ideas, promoting discussion and fosters a greater sense of community” (p.5). Instruments are among others blogs, wikis, podcasts or social networks (Kneafsey, Martin, & Reddington, 2008).
 According to the Berlin Institute the mentioned demographic change seems to be compensated by immigration, which is also the case in Germany. However, it also states that in 2005 and 2006 Germany recorded even more nationals emigrating to the USA, Austria or Switzerland than immigrating into Germany (2008, p.3).
 The Bernhard Hodes Global Network interviewed 487 managers and executives from 14 countries.
 According to Vershoven (1959) the general benefit of an employer brand could be distinguished in physical-technical benefits like career, work environment and in an added value compared to the competition (as cited in Petkovic, 2008).
 The extension of people and processes are not part of this comparison.
 The importance of brand equity is discussed in detail under point 5.2.
 Other interpretations referring this point are not taken into concern in this thesis. For further reading see Welsing,C., HR Marketing: A new perspective on Human Resource Management, Prentice Hall.
 Based on this external analysis, according to Porter (1985), the main strategic choice for firms is the competitive advantage through differentiation, cost leadership or a niche strategy (as cited in Hetrick & Martin, 2006).
 For more information see www.haagen-dazs.com.
 Aaker (1996) determined the first behavioural-science approach of brand equity in a qualitative manner. He defines it “…as a set of assets […] linked to a brands name and symbol that adds to […] values provided by a product or service to a firm’s or that firm’s customers”(as cited in Petkovic, p.94). Thus, he understands brand equity as the perceived attractiveness of an employer.
 Illustration: see Appendix 2.
Diplomarbeit, 69 Seiten
Masterarbeit, 75 Seiten
Diplomarbeit, 101 Seiten
Diplomarbeit, 137 Seiten
Diplomarbeit, 80 Seiten
Diplomarbeit, 111 Seiten