Marka jako nośnik wartości dla klienta: związki ze zjawiskiem Customer Engagement
Department of Market and Consumption, Faculty of Economics, University of Economics in Katowice
email@example.com z ORCID 0000-0002-1318-0747
Department of Management, Faculty of Applied Sciences, WSB University
firstname.lastname@example.org z ORCID 0000-0001-6891-2354
Artykuł ma charakter teoretycznych rozważań, a jego głównym celem jest identyfikacja marki jako nośnika wartości dla klienta oraz określenie znaczenia marki w procesie tworzenia wartości. Zdefiniowano występujące w literaturze konstrukty powiązane z marką (siła marki, wartość marki, kapitał marki, świadomość marki, znajomość marki, reputacja marki, wizerunek i tożsamość marki), zwracając szczególną uwagę na kapitał marki jako konstrukt ściślej związany z koncepcją wartości dla klienta. W artykule omówiono również różne płaszczyzny znaczeniowe marki oraz przedstawiono koncepcję customer engagement (CE), identyfikując relacje między marką, koncepcją wartością dla klienta oraz CE. Wartością dodaną artykułu jest przedstawienie zjawiska customer engagement jako perspektywy teoretycznej identyfikacji marki w procesie tworzenia wartości dla klienta.
MINIB, 2021, Vol. 43, Issue 1
Opublikowano 30 marca 2022
Marka jako nośnik wartości dla klienta: związki ze zjawiskiem Customer Engagement
Although the brand management process is determined by a company’s business activity, the final image of a brand is formed in the mind of a customer (Pitcher, 1985; Brozowska-Woś, 2020). Therefore, it is important to link the category of 'brand’ with the concept of customer perceived value, which is a nodal marketing category. Contemporary customers look for a dimension of value that will take into account more of their expectations because they are increasingly better informed, know their own needs and, most importantly, are aware of their growing importance, and, at the same time, expect a partner-like, individualized relationship from businesses (Drapińska, 2020). Therefore, they can be described as engaged customers or value (co-)creators (Pluta-Olearnik, 2019), who participate in various forms of non-transactional activity in a relation with the enterprise. They act as prosumers.
The main goal of this article is to identify the brand as a value driver for customer perceived value. The sub-goals are to define two relationships: (1) between the brand and customer engagement, and (2) between customer perceived value and customer engagement.
In the article, a value driver is understood as a product, process or any other result of the company’s business activity that satisfies identified or unconscious customer needs. It is also worth noting that we are inclined to a behavioral understanding of customer engagement, while perceiving value as a customer perceived value, also referred to in the literature as a customer value, perceived or expected (Sojkin, 2015). 'Identification’ is understood as a means of causing a certain cognitive effect, 'establishing the identity of the phenomenon or object under investigation on the basis of its most characteristic features’ (Szarucki & Bugaj, 2016), while the concept of relation is treated as 'a connection, relationship or dependence between objects, concepts, phenomena and quantities’ (New Dictionary of Correct Polish, 1999).
Brand as a customer perceived value driver
There is no commonly accepted definition of the term 'brand’ in the literature on the subject. It has several levels of meaning. Firstly, a brand may be a name, a term, a symbol, an inscription, a pattern, or any combination thereof, a color composition, melody, or an aggregation of all these elements, which are used to distinguish a specific product from competing products (Altkorn, 2001). Secondly, a brand name is treated as an element that makes it possible to recognize the company’s product and a certain level of quality (de Chernatony, McWilliam, 1989). In other words, a brand is a form of guarantee statement, an assurance of consistent quality of the product. Moreover, in the literature it is treated as a factor that determines the perceived value (Barari et al., 2021). Finally, a brand defines specific intangible assets, and, in this aspect, it is a value judgment, so it has a specific personality, hence it goes beyond the dimension of functionality and usability (de Chernatony, McWilliam, 1989). As Kall concludes (2001), in the United States, brands are limited to the added values that exist beyond the physical form of the offer.
The values and emotions symbolized by an organization become important elements in distinguishing a given company or its products (Maciejewski, Mokrysz & Wróblewski, 2020). A brand gives individual features to a specific product, generates trust, and reduces sensitivity to business cycles (Rytel, 2008). When analyzing brand-related benefits, it is worth adopting two perspectives, i.e., the company’s and the customer’s, as presented below (Tab. 1).
An analysis of the table shows that the brand is a benefit not only for the company, but also for customers. The brand of a given company is an intangible resource and, at the same time, a component of a product. Company brand creation is one of the main strategic investment decisions that result in an increase in goodwill (Rytel, 2008; Howaniec, 2008) and a competitive advantage (Pabian, 2020). The subjectively perceived value of a company or product is a result of how that company’s brand is perceived by its customers (Dolińska-Weryńska, 2018). A brand can be defined as the feelings and experiences of those who use it (Ogilvy, 1985).
When treating a brand as a perceived value driver, terms that are involved in this topic should be defined: brand strength, brand value, brand equity, consumer-based brand equity, brand awareness, brand reputation, brand identity and brand image (Tab. 2). And in this area, there are no clear definitions, as researchers often use different meanings (Polański, 2011).
When analyzing all these research categories, it is worth paying more attention to brand equity, i.e., the added value (and therefore customer perceived value) obtained by a product through the use of a trademark (Farquar, 1989). This value can be defined in three ways (Polański, 2011): (1) from the point of view of an enterprise: it involves increasing the competitiveness of an organization, which is related, inter alia, to facilitating the launch of new products and licensing; (2) from the point of view of distribution channels: brand equity results in a higher level of sales compared to other products in a given category; (3) from the customer’s point of view: brand equity involves a positive attitude towards a specific product. It aims, inter alia, to reduce the risk related to the purchase decision and provide the customer with a positive experience when using a product. This is related to how a brand is interpreted as a risk reducer. A brand reduces the risk perceived by a customer and makes customers aware that a specific product represents a value presumed for them (Jones & Nonewac, 2013).
The concept of 'brand equity’ is defined as the difference between marketing effects and the effects that would accumulate if the product did not have the same brand (Alnsour & Subbah, 2018). Five components (dimensions) of brand equity are highlighted in the literature on the subject (Aaker, 1991): (1) brand loyalty, (2) brand awareness, (3) perceived quality, (4) brand association, (5) other proprietary brand assets (i.e., patents, trademarks, relationships taking place in distribution channels). Importantly, the first four components of brand equity create the so-called consumer-based brand equity, while the last refers to the enterprise (Schivinski & Łukasik, 2017).
It is extremely important to distinguish brand value from brand equity. It should be assumed that brand equity is responsible for what a brand means to customer, while brand value is related to what that brand means to a specific organization. Many researchers do not distinguish these two, which unfortunately does not help in understanding the scientific discourse (Raggio & Leone, 2007). Brand value is mainly related to the financial sphere. It can be discussed when trying to evaluate a brand: it is a financial value that depends on the current and expected strength of the brand and the financial effect of the management board’s ability to use this strength strategically (Kurzyk, 2014). On the other hand, brand equity should be placed in the marketing sphere of an enterprise (Dębski, 2009). As the definition itself indicates, brand equity reduces or increases the value of the product with this brand. It is also symptomatic that some researchers (Leuthesser, Kohli & Harich, 1995) define brand equity as simply a perceived value obtained in comparison to a non-branded product.
Customer associations with a brand involve psychological relationships with a specific brand that are divided into three approaches in the literature (Aaker, 1996): (1) brand as a product (value proposition); (2) brand as a person (brand personality); (3) brand as an organization (associations with the enterprise). The first approach mainly involves functional benefits. The second perspective involves strictly emotional benefits, while the third can be seen when the company’s activity is seen in the broader environment and may be related to CSR activities, for example. This division is crucial in our opinion when analyzing individual dimensions of value. Associations with the product involve the functional dimension of the product (e.g., the location of the trade format), while the approach to the brand personality is more related to the hedonistic dimension, and the perspective of a brand as an organization involves the perception of the company’s activities in the field of the so-called corporate brand.
The concept of customer perceived value was introduced into economics by Drucker in the 1950s (Drucker, 2007), and was developed by Porter (1985). As Khalifa (2004) claims, customer perceived value is a category that is often misused in the social sciences, and in particular in the economic sciences. This is due to the characteristics of the construct, because customer perceived value is treated as personal (i.e., the perception is different from customer to customer) and is truly situation-related in that it depends on the situational context. The consequence of this is a large number of construct definitions (Tab. 3).
The definitions of customer perceived value can be divided into four groups. In the first, the attributes of a product and service are emphasized, in the second, the relationship between the enterprise and the customer, in the third, value is perceived as a result of benefits and costs perceived by the recipient, whereas in the fourth, the value is recognized in the context of the goals that the recipient achieves as a result of purchase or use of a product.
Value creation with an enterprise improves brand image not only among the cooperating process participants, but also among less engaged customers. Therefore, the process of value creation is antecedent to brand image creation. It is also worth referring to the research by Ind, Iglesias and Schulz (2013). According to these researchers, customers who participate in value co-creation strongly associate with a specific brand. Participants like these are often more are inclined to express positive opinions about a particular company, thus promoting its brand (Dijk, Antonides & Schillewaert, 2014). Therefore, customer engagement is an inherent element of this process. Brands with a strong capital equity generate greater commitment, which in turn influences the motivation for customer engagement (van Doorn et al., 2010). In the literature on the subject, statements can be found that brand equity is a collection of judgments, attitudes, and customers’ behaviors. Thus, this construct is directly related to value creation by customers (Polański, 2010).
Relationships Between Customer
Engagement and a Brand Customer engagement (CE) has become one of the most thoroughly exploited categories in the theory of marketing management (Vohra & Bhardwaj, 2019; Kucia, 2018; Krowicki, 2022). However, it is not a homogeneous concept — its meaning is far from being unambiguous, which raises controversy (Chan, Zheng, Cheung, Lee & Lee, 2014). Researchers agree that the customer’s power is growing. Customers are increasingly interested in creating value both for theirselves and for others. Free access to information and to the ways it is spread through virtual customer communities have empowered the customer in relation to the enterprise. The contemporary customer has become more educated, aware of their role and, as a result, encounters the company’s employees or other stakeholders more frequently, which makes them more engaged. From a passive recipient of marketing messages, the customer has transformed into a co-creator of communication.
CE is defined in various ways (Tab. 4) and can be considered from three perspectives: (1) three-dimensional, cognitive-emotional-behavioral (Patterson, 2006; Gołąb-Andrzejak, 2021), (2) two-dimensional, cognitive-emotional (Bowden, 2009) and (3) one-dimensional, mainly behavioral (Żyminkowska, 2018a; Maciejewski & Krowicki, 2021). The latter perspective treats CE as customer behavior towards a brand or company that is not related to purchasing and results from motivational factors (van Doorn et al., 2010). The authors of the present article stand for a narrow behavioral approach to customer engagement. This behavioral interpretation of CE does not overlap with the constructs of affective and cognitive commitment or customer involvement (Harmeling, Moffett, Arnold, & Carlson, 2017). Importantly, the narrow, non-transactional approach to CE does not overlap with the behavioral loyalty approach — the non-transactional nature of the customer engagement construct differs from purchasing regularity. In our view, customers’ transactional behavior should be eliminated from the conceptual frames of the CEB concept. Then, this approach does not coincide with the concept of relations with a customer and thus, it only applies to intangible sources of customer value (Żyminkowska et al., 2018a).
Customer engagement is related to the concept of customer perceived value. According to the theory of consumption values (Sheth, Newman, & Gross, 1991; Grzegorczyk, 2019) and the concept of customer value (Holbrook, 2006), the customer’s motivation to engage depends on the values they expect to obtain. This is confirmed by Vivek et al. (2012). According to these researchers, value is both an antecedent and a consequence of customer engagement (Vivek, Beatty, & Morgan, 2012). Maslowska, Malthouse and Collinger (2016) show that engagement affects customer perceived value, and this is also confirmed by Sobocińska (2015). Hollebeek (2013) also notes that customer engagement generates customer perceived value: therefore, CE is a perceived value driver. Interestingly, Hollebeek analyzed brands with both a hedonistic and a utilitarian orientation, and it turned out that in the case of both types of brands, CE is a perceived value generator. After testing the model of customer engagement/value interface, she showed that in the case of hedonistic brands, customer engagement affects the customer perceived value more. In Polish research, the analysis by Witczak (2013) is noteworthy. In his view, user involvement in the brand profile can be used in building brand identity and, as a result, it can increase its value.
The study by Dong, Evans, and Zou (2008) on customer participation in the repair service showed that customer perceived value leads to customer engagement, whereas a subsequent analysis by Carlson, Rahman, Taylor, and Voola (2019) confirmed that value in the brand page experience (VIBE) contributes to customer engagement and also confirmed that various forms of CE are stimulated by this value. The research by Brzozowska-Woś (2020) also indicated that the perceived value of a brand has a positive impact on customer engagement, as did the analysis by Ngo, Nguyen and Kang (2019) conducted in Vietnamese restaurants. It is also worth noting that, according to Gupta and Pandey (2021), CPV (customer perceived value) is a factor that precedes customer engagement in the retail area. Barari, Ross, Thaichon, and Surachartkumtonkun (2021) see perceived value in a similar way. The concept according to which value is the antecedent of customer engagement is associated with the fact that customers are engaged by a specific value (benefit) that they expect to get through that engagement. Jaakkola and Alexander’s offline research conducted in an offline real environment is extremely interesting. It shows that customer engagement behavior can generate a wide range of benefits for a company, customer(s) and other stakeholders. It is also worth observing that the researchers noticed that the nature of the customer engagement process is cyclical. According to these researchers, the motives, manifestations and consequences of CE are repetitive, because the positive antecedents of customer engagement motivate them to stay active, whereas the company is motivated to support this kind of behavior. This is confirmed by the analyses by Żyminkowska (2018b), who, based on means-ends models, states that the benefits of CE (expected effects of customer engagement) can be treated both as consequences and motivating factors of CE.
To sum up, it should be clearly stated that the concepts of customer perceived value and customer engagement are closely related to each other. In the literature on the subject, various formulations of CE are presented where customer perceived value is treated as a motive of engagement or as an effect.
When analyzing model views of customer engagement and brand, van Doorn et al.’s (2010) concept is worth looking at, according to which brand characteristics and company image are a prerequisite for CE, while brand commitment is an important factor from the customer’s perspective. The issue of brand is also raised by Żyminkowska and Żyminkowski (2016). In their model, the attitude towards the brand is treated as an antecedent of customer engagement.
In the literature on the subject, the influence of brand equity on the online customer engagement in relation to a brand has already been shown. In other words, the more brand equity is perceived as higher, the more actively the customer reads, comments, shares and creates brand-related content (Schivinski & Łukasik, 2017). Research also shows that a high brand reputation increases recipient interest in the marketing communication of this brand and makes reception of such a message more positive (Brzozowska-Woś, 2020).
When identifying the relationship between CE and brand, it is impossible not to pay attention to the concept of customer engagement in its relationship with the brand (CBE). Therefore, interactions with the brand are subsumed in customer engagement. This category is precisely defined by Martí et al. (2014), while defining CBE as the 'customer’s mental state shaped as a result of interaction with a specific brand’. According to Algesheimer, Borle, Dholakia, and Singh (2010), CBE is 'a mechanism that lets you strengthen a customer’s relationship with a brand’, whereas Hollebeek (2011) defines this construct as 'a level of customer engagement triggered by a brand as well as the customer attitude and mood formed by the customer’s direct and indirect contacts with a brand.’ These relationships can have various dimensions: cognitive, affective and/or behavioral (Kieżel & Wiechoczek, 2016). In our view, the behavioral interpretation is also the most appropriate in the case of this construct. CBE is nothing but a type of customer engagement, where the brand is the subject of interest. The psychological approach to CBE will introduce chaos in the interpretation. Brand engagement is influenced by brand activities, brand quality and brand value, brand innovation, brand responsiveness and delivering the brand promise (Hollebeek & Chen, 2014).
The brand helps customers to build their own identity, and the show effect and the need to belong are crucial in this process. This is confirmed by the research by Muntinga, Moorman, and Smit (2011). According to these researchers, it is the personal identity that is the factor that motivates customers to contribute content and create content in the online environment. It is also worth paying attention to the research by Bartkowiak and Michalak (2020), which showed that recognition and selfesteem are among the motives of customer engagement. Shah (2004) also draws attention to how important it is to build and maintain an individual’s reputation and strengthen identity and self-image in the CE process.
Conclusions and recommendations
Brand is a value driver. Creating a specific customer perceived value is closely related to the stage of its communication. With that, the brand image is created. Furthermore, it can be said that a brand can have a meaning like value because it speaks of values delivered to a customer.
Brand exists in the area of communication (Polański, 2010), hence it can be assumed that communicating the value is the key stage in identifying the relationship between the concept of customer perceived value and the brand. This phase is one of the elements of the value creation process aimed at positioning, and thus shaping the brand image.
On the other hand, customer engagement is becoming progressively more important in the effective and efficient management of this communication. In the marketing value network, the customer becomes the sender of messages, engaging in various forms of customer engagement, i.e., word of mouth marketing (WOM), participation in marketing events, reactions in social media, or content contributions in a virtual environment. By co-creating value, positive customer engagement can strengthen the brand’s image.
An analysis of the literature on the subject allows us to state that in some perspectives brand image is close to customer perceived value, while brand identity is a construct related to the value proposition. Brand identity refers to a set of features and benefits that the product is to provide to the customer, while brand image is the result of the constructed identity. Therefore, it is worth noting that this relationship resembles the relationship presented in the literature on the subject between two perspectives of value for the customer, i.e., customer value proposition and customer perceived value. The customer perceived value is the actual result a company developing a set of distinguishing attributes (Landroguez, Castro, & Cepeda-Carrión, 2013).
Incorporation of brands into the process of building one’s own identity is also a specific feature of the contemporary customer. Brand personalization allows a customer to emphasize their place in the social hierarchy (Mazurek-Łopacińska, 2021). In the postmodern era, consumption is more important than production, while value is not only a feature of a product, but also becomes a feature of a created image (Maciejewski, 2014). Brand is a condition of customer engagement. It is of great importance in creating your own image. By engaging in contact with a brand and its community, a desire to present one’s individuality, unique identity and one’s own preferences is emphasized. This is also one component in a customer society that glorifies self-creation.
The company’s goal should be to manage the brand so that it confirms the customer perceived value. This is related to the aspect of risk reduction, which is extremely important in the context of a constantly increasing number of brands on the market and the crisis of confidence. Customers, who are an integral part of branding, should be part of brand management. From this perspective, a brand can be treated as a risk reducer and customer perceived value. Therefore, to build a brand so that it encourages various forms of engagement and thus creates customer perceived value is a challenge.
We are aware of the limitations of this research. The conclusions of the critical literature review should be treated as an incentive for further discussion on the relationship between the brand and customer perceived value as well as CE. In addition, it is worth looking at the issue of customer value through the prism of the company. From this perspective, it is necessary to link the issue of customer value with the construct of the value of the company, which has been described by B. Dobiegała-Korona (2014; 2015). In other words, customer value should generate value for the company. Undoubtedly, empirical research that analyses these relationships would be of great theoretical and applied value.
This research received no funds
1. Aaker D. A. (1991). Managing Brand Equity Capitalizing on the Value of Brand Name, New York: The Free Press.
2. Aaker D. A. (1996). Measuring Brand Equity across Products and Markets. California Management Review, 38, 102–120.
3. Algesheimer R., Borle S., Dholakia U.M., & Singh S.S. (2010). The impact of customer community participation on customer behaviours: An empirical investigation. Marketing Science, 29(4), 756–769.
4. Alnsour M. S. & Subbah M. L. (2018). Impact of brand elements on brand equity: An applied study on Jordanian Corporations. African Journal of Marketing Management, 10(3), 17–27.
5. Altkorn J. (2001). Strategia marki [Brand strategy], Warszawa: Wydawnictwo PWE.
6. Barari M., Ross M., Thaichon S., & Surachartkumtonkun J. (2021). A meta-analysis of customer engagement behaviour. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(4), 457–477.
7. Bartkowiak P., & Michalak, S. (2020). Motywy angażowania się mieszkańców aglomeracji poznańskiej we współtworzenie wartości dla klienta [Motives of the inhabitants of the Poznań agglomeration for engaging in co-creation of customer value], In: I. Bohdanowicza, P. Dziurski (eds.) Innowacje i marketing we współczesnych organizacjach. Wybrane zagadnienia, Warszawa: Oficyna Wydawnicza SGH.
8. Bartosz P. (2017). Marketing doświadczeń w budowaniu wartości dla klienta [Experience marketing in building customer value]. Organizacja i Zarządzanie, 1(37), 5–18.
9. Beckers S. F. M., Doorn van J., & Verhoef P. C. (2018). Good, better, engaged? The effect of company-initiated customer engagement behavior on shareholder value. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 46(3), 366–383.
10. Brzozowska-Woś, M. (2020). Wpływ komunikacji marketingowej na angażowanie się w markę i współtworzenie jej wartości przez młodych konsumentów [Influence of marketing communication on young consumers’ engagement in a brand and co-creation of its value], Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Gdańskiej.
11. Butz H. E. & Goodstein L. D. (1996). Measuring Customer Value: Gaining the Strategic Advantage. Organizational Dynamics, 24(3), 63–77.
12. Carlson J., Rahman M. M., Taylor A., & Voola R. (2019). Feel the VIBE: Examining value in the brand page experience and its impact on satisfying and customer engagement behaviours in mobile social media. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 46, 149–162.
13. Chan T. K. H., Zheng X., Cheung C. M. K., Lee M. K. O., & Lee, Z. W. Y. (2014). Antecedents and consequences of customer engagement in online brand communities. Journal of Marketing Analytics, 2(2), 81–97.
14. de Chernatony L. & McWilliam G. (1989). The strategic implications of clarifying how marketers interpret „brands”. Journal of Marketing Management, 5(2), 153–171.
15. Dębski M. (2009). Kreowanie silnej marki [Creating a strong brand], Warszawa: PWE.
16. Dijk J., Antonides G., & Schillewaert N. (2014). Effects of co-creation claim on consumer brand perceptions and behavioural intentions. International Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 28(1), 4–22.
17. Dobiegała-Korona, B. (2014). Innowacje w budowie wartości przedsiębiorstwa [Innovation in building company value]. Zeszyty Naukowe Wyższej Szkoły Humanitas, 1, 25–40.
18. Dobiegała-Korona, B. (2015). Budowa wartości klienta. Teoria i praktyka [Building customer value: Theory and practice], Warszawa: Difin.
19. Doligalski T. (2013). Internet w zarządzaniu wartością klienta [Internet in customer value management], Warszawa: Oficyna wydawnicza Szkoła Główna Handlowa.
20. Dolińska-Weryńska D. (2018). Marka jako wartość w innowacyjnym przedsiębiorstwie regionu śląskiego w opinii pracowników będących absolwentami śląskich uczelni technicznych i ekonomicznych [Brand as a value in an innovative enterprise in the Silesian region, in the opinions of employees who graduated from Silesian technical and economic universities]. Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki Śląskiej. Organizacja i Zarządzanie, 129, 67–80.
21. Dong B., Evans K. R., & Zou S. (2008). The Effects of Customer Participation in CoCreated Service Recovery. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 123–137.
22. van Doorn, J., Lemon, K. N., Mittal, V., Naß, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P., & Verhoef, P. C. (2010). Customer engagement behavior: Theoretical foundations and research directions. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 253–266.
23. Drapińska, A. (2020). Marketing relacji we współczesnym świecie [Relationship marketing in today’s world], Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Gdańskiej. 24. Drucker, P. (2007). The Practice of Management, London: Routledge. Farquar P. (1989). Managing Brand Equity. Marketing Research, 1(3), 24–33. 25. Gale B. (1994). Managing Customer Value, New York: The Free Press
26. Gołąb-Andrzejak, E. (2021). Zaangażowanie konsumenta w usługach w ujęciu logiki dominacji usługowej [Consumer involvement in services in terms of the logic of service dominance], Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Gdańskiej.
27. Gołębiowski T. (1996). Marketing wartości na rynku instytucjonalnym [Value marketing in the institutional market], In: E. Duliniec, L. Garbarski, J. Mazur, M. Strzyżewska, W. Wrzosek, Ekspansja czy regres marketingu, Warszawa: PWE.
28. Grzegorczyk T. (2019). Pomiar wartości postrzeganej przez konsumentów [Measuring consumer perceived value]. Zeszyty Naukowe UE w Krakowie, 5(983), 37–55.
29. Gupta A. & Pandey S. (2021). Should we engage variety seeking customers? Journal of Asia Business Studies, www.emerald.com, [accessed: 1.03.2022].
30. Harmeling C., Moffett, M., Arnold, & M., Carlson, B. (2017). Toward a theory of customer engagement marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 3, 312–325. 31. Hollebeek L. D. (2011). Exploring customer brand management — definition and themes. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 19(7), 555–573.
32. Hollebeek L. D. (2013). The customer engagement/value interface: An exploratory investigation. Australasian Marketing Journal, 21(1), 17–24.
33. Hollebeek L. D. & Chen T. (2014). Exploring Positively — vs. Negatively-Valenced Brand Engagement: A Conceptual Model. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 23(1), 62–74.
34. Howaniec H. (2008). Udział marki w tworzeniu wartości przedsiębiorstwa [Contribution of the brand to the creation of company value]. Studia i Prace Wydziału Nauk Ekonomicznych i Zarzadzania, 7, 485–494.
35. Ind N., Iglesias O., & Schultz M. (2013). Building brands together: Emergence and outcomes of co-creation. California Management Review, 55(3), 5–26.
36. Jaakkola E., & Alexander M. (2014). The Role of Customer Engagement behavior in value co-creation: a service system perspective. Journal of Service Research, 17(3), 247–261.
37. Jones C., & Bonevac D. (2013). An evolved definition of the term „brand”: Why branding has a branding problem. Journal of Brand Strategy, 2(2), 112–120.
38. Kall, J. (2001). Silna marka: Istota i kreowanie [Strong brand: Essence and creation], Warszawa: PWE.
39. Keller K. L. (2012). Understanding the richness of brand relationship. Journal of Consumer Psychology. 22, 186–190.
40. Khalifa A. S. (2004). Customer value: a review of recent literature and an integrative configuration. Management Decision, 42(5), 645–666.
41. Kieżel M. & Wiechoczek J. (2016). Aktywności online konsumentów w kontekście Customer Brand Engagement [Consumers’ online activities in the context of Customer Brand Engagement]. Prace Naukowe UE we Wrocławiu, 459, 130–141.
42. Kothandaraman P. & Wilson D. T. (2001). The future of competitionL Value-Creating Networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 30(4), 379–389.
43. Kotler Ph. (1991). Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and Control, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hal.
44. Kozłowska A. (2005). Reklama — Od osobowości marki do osobowości konsumenta [Advertising — From brand personality to consumer personality]. In: A. Grzegorczyk (eds.), Instrumenty kształtowania wizerunku marki, Warszawa: Wyższa Szkoła Promocji.
45. Krowicki P. (2022). Customer engagement — związki z kategoriami pokrewnymi i konteksty badawcze [Customer engagement — relationship with related categories and research contexts]. Marketing i Rynek, 29(1), 32–43.
46. Kucia M. (2018). Wykorzystanie zaangażowania klientów w działalności marketingowej przedsiębiorstwa [The use of customer engagement in corporate marketing activities], Katowice: Wydawnictwo UE w Katowicach.
47. Kumar V., Aksoy L., Donkers B., Venkatesan R., Wiesel T., & Tillmanns S. (2010). Undervalued or Overvalued Customers: capturing Total Customer Engagement Value. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 297–310.
48. Kurzyk B. (2014). Potencjał wykorzystania reklamy natywnej dla celów budowy siły marki [The potential of using native advertising to build brand strength]. [CD-ROM], Marketing i Rynek, 11, 204–212.
49. Landroguez S. M., Castro C. B., & Cepeda-Carrión G. (2013). Developing an integrated vision of customer value. Journal of Services Marketing, 27(3), 234–244. 50. Leuthesser L., Kohli, C. S, & Harich, K. R. (1995). Brand equity: the halo effect measure. European Journal of Marketing, 29(4), 57–66.
51. Lichtenstein D. R., Netemeyer R. G., & Burton S. (1990). Distinguishing Coupon Proneness from Value Consciousness: An Acquisition-Transaction Utility Theory Perspective. Journal of Marketing, 54(3), 54–67.
52. Łada M. &Kozarkiewicz A. (2010). Zarządzanie wartością projektów [Managing the value of projects], Warszawa: Wyd. C.H. Beck.
53. Łukasik P. & Schivinski B. (2015). Pomiar kapitału marek własnych detalistów [Measuring retailers’ own brand equity], Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Skłodowska, 44(1), 81–88.
54. Maciejewski G. (2014). Zachowania konsumentów w dobie postmodernizmu [Consumer behaviour in the postmodern era]. Marketing i Rynek, 8, 1129–1135.
55. Maciejewski G., Mokrysz S., & Wróblewski Ł. (2020). Consumers Towards Marketing Strategies of Coffee Producers, Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.
56. Maciejewski G. & Krowicki P. (2021). Virtual Environment as a Space of Shopping Center Customer Engagement. Problemy Zarządzania, 4(94), 81–100.
57. Martí J., Bigné E., Hyder A. (2014). Brand engagement. In: L. Moutinho, E. Bigné, A. K. Manrai (eds.), The Routledge Companion to the Future of Marketing, London, New York: Routledge.
58. Maslowska E., Malthouse E.C., & Collinger T. (2016). The customer engagement ecosystem. Journal of Marketing Management, 32(5), 469–501.
59. Mazurek-Łopacińska, K. (2021). Zachowania konsumentów na współczesnym rynku. Perspektywa marketingowa [Consumer behaviour in the contemporary market. A marketing perspective], Warszawa: Polskie Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne.
60. Monroe K.B. (1990). Pricing: Marketing Profitable Decisions, New York: Mc Graw-Hill.
61. Muntinga D.G., Moorman M., & Smit E. G. (2011). Introducing COBRAs. Exploring motivations for brand-related social media use. International Journal of Advertising, 30(1), 13–46.
62. Netemeyer, R. G., Lrosjmam, B., Pullig, C., Wang, G., Yagci, M., Dean, D., Ricks, J. & Wirth, F. (2004). Developing and validating measures of facets of customer-based brand equity. Journal of Business Research, 54, 209–224.
63. Ngo H. Q., Nguyen T. H., & Kang G. D. (2019). The effect of perceived value on customer engagement with the moderating role of brand image: a study in Vietnamese restaurants, International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring engineering, 8, 451–461.
64. Ogilvy D. (1985). Ogilvy on Advertising, New York: First Vintage Book.
65. Pabian A.M. (2020). Kształtowanie oferty przedsiębiorstwa [Shaping a company’s offer]. In: A. Czubała, R. E. Niestrój, A. M. Pabian (eds.) Marketing w przedsiębiorstwie — ujęcie operacyjne, Warszawa: PWE.
66. Park C. W., Jaworski B. J, & MacInnis, D. J. (1986). Strategic brand concept-image management. Journal of marketing, 50(4), 135–145.
67. Patterson P., Yu T., & de Ruyter K. (2006). Understanding Customer Engagement in Services, In: Proceedings of ANZMAC 2006, Conference, Brisbane.
68. Pitcher A.E. (1985). The Role of Branding in International Advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 4(3), 241–246.
69. Pluta-Olearnik, M., (2019). New generations of students from the perspective of valueco creation at University. Marketing Instytucji Naukowych i Badawczych. 4(34), 1–20.
70. Polański, P. Marka jako źródło wartości dla klienta [Brand as a source of customer value], In: Dobiegała-Korona, B. & Doligalski T. (ed.), Zarządzanie wartością klienta. Pomiar i strategie, Warszawa: Poltext.
71. Porter M. (1985). Competitive Advantage. Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, New York: The Free Press.
72. Raggio R.D. & Leone R.P. (2007). The theoretical separation of brand equity and brand value: Managerial implications for strategic planning. Journal of Brand management, 14, 380–395.
73. Rajavi K., Kushwaha, T., & Steenkamp, J-B. E. M. (2019). In Brands We Trust? Multicategory, Multicountry Investigation of Sensitivity of Consumers’ Trust in Brands to Marketing-Mix Activites. Journal of Consumer Research, 46, 651–670.
74. Ravald A. & Grönroos Ch. (1996). The Value Concept and Relationship Marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 30(2), 19–30.
75. Rytel O. (2008). Silna marka — fundament wartości przedsiębiorstwa [A strong brand — the foundation of a company’s value]. Studia i Prace Wydziału Nauk Ekonomicznych i Zarządzania, 7, 557–565.
76. Schivinski B. & Łukasik P. (2017). Wymiary kapitału marki jako moderatory związku pomiędzy kapitałem marki bazującym na konsumencie i skłonnością konsumenta do angażowania się w treści związane z markę w mediach społecznościowych [Brand capital dimensions as moderators of the relationship between consumer-based brand capital and consumer propensity to engage with brand content on social media]. Handel wewnętrzny, 1(366), 80–90.
77. Shah S. (2004). Understanding the Nature of Participation & Coordination in Open and Gated Source Software Development Communities, In: Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 2004, 46–50.
78. Sheth J. N., Newman B. I., & Gross B. L. (1991). Why We Buy What We Buy: A Theory of Consumption Values. Journal of Business Research, 22, 159–170.
79. Sinha I. & DeSarbo W. S. (1998). An integrated approach toward the spatial modelling of perceived customer value. Journal of Marketing Research, 45, 236–259.
80. Sojkin B. (2015). Uwarunkowania działalności marketingowej instytucji naukowych i badawczych [Determinants of marketing activity at scientific and research institutions]. Marketing instytucji naukowych i badawczych, 1(15), 20–32.
81. Sobocińska M. (2015). Uwarunkowania i perspektywy rozwoju orientacji rynkowej w podmiotach sfery kultury [Determinants and perspectives for market orientation development in entities in the cultural sector], Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, Wrocław 2015.
82. Szarucki M. & Bugaj J. (2016). Metody identyfikacji problemów zarządzania w organizacji — próba typologii [Methods of identifying management problems in an organisation — an attempt at a typology]. Journal of Management and Finance, 14(2), 435–450.
83. Szymura-Tyc M. (2006). Marketing we współczesnych procesach tworzenia wartości dla klienta i przedsiębiorstwa [Marketing in contemporary customer and business value creation processes], Katowice: Wydawnictwo Akademii Ekonomicznej w Katowicach.
84. Urban S. (2004). Zarządzanie marką produktów i usług [Brand management for products and services]. Zeszyty Naukowe Wałbrzyskiej Wyższej Szkoły Zarządzania i Przedsiębiorczości, 25(2), 4–11.
85. Walter A., Ritter T., & Gemünden H. G. (2001). Value creation in buyer-seller relationship: Theoretical considerations and empirical results from a supplier’s perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 30(4), 365–366.
86. Witczak O. (2013). Budowanie wartości marki w serwisie społecznościowym [Building brand value in a social network]. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego, 32, 444–446.
87. Verhoef P. C., Reinartz W. J., & Krafft M. (2010). Customer engagement as a new perspective in customer management. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 247–252.
88. Vivek S. D., Beatty, S. E., & Morgan R. M. (2012). Customer engagement: exploring customer relationships beyond purchase. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 20 (2), 127–145.
89. Vohra, A. & Bhardwaj, N. (2019). Customer engagement in an e-commerce brand community. An empirical comparison of alternate models. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 13(1), 2–25.
90. Zeithaml V. A. (1988). Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22.
91. Żyminkowska K. (2018a). Źródła teoretyczne, istota, formy oraz modele customer engagement [Theoretical sources, essence, forms and models of customer engagement], In: Żyminkowska, K., Wiechoczek, J., Kieżel, M., Żyminkowski, T., Zjawisko customer engagement wśród polskich konsumentów, Warszawa: PWN.
92. Żyminkowska K. (2018b), Customer engagement i customer value — o związkach między kluczowymi kategoriami współczesnego marketingu relacji [Customer engagement and customer value — the relationship between key categories in contemporary relationship marketing], In: K. Żyminkowska (eds), Nowe koncepcje w nauce o marketingu i rynkach. Księga Jubileuszowa dedykowana Profesorowi Leszkowi Żabińskiemu, K. Żyminkowska (red.), Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Katowicach, 175–177.
93. Żyminkowska K. (2019). Customer Engagement in Theory and Practice. A Marketing Management Perspective, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
94 Żyminkowska K. & Żyminkowski T. (2016). Angażowanie (się) klientów we współtworzenie wartości — formy, uwarunkowania i efekty [Customer involvement in co-creation of value — forms, conditions and effects]. Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, 459, 103–120.
Grzegorz Maciejewski — holds a postdoctoral degree in Economic Sciences. He is a Professor at the University of Economics in Katowice, and is Head of the Market and Consumption Department. He is a research project manager at the Center of Research and Development in Katowice and the manager and contractor of six grants from the Ministry of Science and Higher Education. He is an academic tutor. His scientific interests are mainly in the area of behavioral economics and marketing. He is the author of over 150 articles in the areas of consumer behavior, the marketing strategies of enterprises, and market and marketing research methodologies. Member of the Polish Society of Market and Opinion Researchers (PTBRiO), the Polish Scientific Marketing Society (PNTM), the Polish Economic Society (PTE) and the PGV International Scientific Network. ORCID no. 0000-0002-13180747.
Piotr Krowicki — Student of interdisciplinary PhD studies at the University of Business in Dąbrowa Górnicza. He graduated with honors from the MA studies in international relations at the University of Warsaw. His master’s thesis entitled „Public diplomacy and nation branding in the service of a positive image of the country: The case of Poland.” won an award from the Minister of the Economy for the best master’s thesis on pro-export and proinvestment topics in the competition for the best master’s thesis on the promotion of Poland „Teraz Polska Promocja”. Furthermore, the work was awarded third place in the competition for the best master’s thesis in the field of contemporary international relations, and the first prize in the Robert Mroziewicz Competition for the best master’s thesis in the field of international relations and diplomacy. His research interests focus on customer engagement and value marketing of shopping malls.