Brand Equity and Job Choice Decisions 1
An Exploratory Study of the Effect of
Brand Equity on Job Choice Decisions
Kenneth M. York
School of Business Administration
School of Business Administration
Brand Equity and Job Choice Decisions 2
Attracting and retaining high-quality employees is important to obtaining a competitive
advantage, and is an integral aspect of the effective management of human resources.
Marketing’s efforts to build strong brands may have a spillover effect, helping
organizations compete for limited pools of talent. This study examined the link between
brand equity and job choice decisions. Study 1 used companies on Fortune’s list of 100
Best Companies to Work, and found that job offers were more likely to be accepted from
organizations on the list than other organizations in the same industry. Study 2 used three
measures of brand equity, and found that job offers were more likely to be accepted from
organizations with higher brand equity, and this effect varied by industry.
Brand Equity and Job Choice Decisions 3
An Exploratory Study of the Effect of Brand Equity on Job Choice Decisions
Although many organizations claim that “our employees are our greatest asset,”
they sometimes act as if employees are costs to be minimized, rather than the creators of
value. Only recently have organizations begun to realize the importance of employees in
their ability to compete in the market. Studies have shown that employees influence
brand building (Fram and McCarthy, 2003; Jacobs, 2003), customer satisfaction
satisfaction (Schultz, 2002), and organizational performance (Ahmed and Rafiq, 2003;
Huselid, 1995; Lado and Wilson, 1994). Employees, and the knowledge and skills they
possess, provide a competitive advantage (Day and Wensley, 1988). To maintain that
advantage, organizations will need to consistently attract top-quality applicants. One
asset that might be leveraged to improve the recruitment process is brand equity (i.e.,
marketing’s efforts to build strong brands). The research question addressed in these
studies is do organizations which are more effective at building brand equity also gain an
advantage in recruitment?
This research question is important because attracting and retaining top-quality
employees is challenging, and may be getting more difficult (Chambers, Foulon,
Handfield-Jones, Hankin, and Michaels, 1998; Fishman, 1998). Bureau of Labor
Statistics projections indicate a substantial reduction in labor force growth rates through
2020, down from 1.6% per year during 1950-2000, to 0.4% between 2010 and 2020
(Horrigan, 2004). The demographic trends of a declining birth rate and large numbers of
baby boomers reaching retirement age combine to make the 1990s shortages a
foreshadowing of things to come (Dohm, 2000). When organizations have to compete
for severely limited pools of talent, clearly defining jobs and setting competitive
compensation rates may not be enough to attract top-quality employees. Organizations
need to leverage their assets (e.g., brand equity) to gain any advantage in recruiting, and
increase the likelihood that top-quality applicants will accept a job offer from the
company. Potential employees are “employment consumers” who choose from among
different suppliers (Price, 1996). Thus, an interesting cross-functional research question
is whether a link exists between marketing’s attempts to build brand equity and HRM’s
efforts to compete for applicants.
Organizational Reputation and Recruiting
To understand how marketing can improve the effectiveness of recruiting, we
have to start with the effects of recruiting efforts on job seekers (for an excellent review
see Breaugh and Starke 2000). In their review, Breaugh and Starke (2000) developed a
model of the organizational recruitment process. The sequential process involved
recruitment objectives, strategy development, recruitment activities, process variables,
and finally recruitment results. Missing from their review, however, is a topic that has
only recently attracted research attention, the organization’s reputation and its affect on
recruitment (e.g., Cable and Graham 2000; Cable and Turban 2003; Collins and Stevens
2002; Turban and Cable 2003; Turban, Forret, and Hendrickson 1998).
Organization reputation is defined as a perceptual representation of a firm’s
overall appeal compared to other firms (Fombrun 1996, p.72). Studies have indicated
that organizational reputation may have a strong effect on attracting applicants
Brand Equity and Job Choice Decisions 4
(Frombrun 1996; Turban and Cable 2003), and influence their job choice decision (Belt
and Paolillo 1982; Gatewood, Gowan, and Lautenschlager 1993; Highhouse, Zickar,
Thorsteinson, Stierwalt, and Slaughter 1999; Lawler, Kuleck, Rhode, and Sorensen
1975). To understand this phenomenon, the research on organizational reputation has
focused on two streams of research.
The first stream of research was directed at discovering the antecedents of
organizational reputation. Collins and Stevens (2002) found that early recruitment-
related activities (i.e., publicity, word-of-mouth endorsements, and recruitment
advertising) had significant impact on organizational reputation. Organizational
reputation, in turn, had a significant effect on job seeks’ intention to apply for the job. In
addition to recruitment-related activities, other variables exogenous to recruiting
activities may influence organizational reputation. Cable and Graham (2000) found that
the industry in which a firm operates, opportunities for employee development, and
organizational culture influenced organizational reputation.
A second stream of research on organizational reputation examines the underlying
process of organizational reputation on recruiting outcomes (e.g., more applicants,
higher-quality applicants, applicants more likely to choose the job). To explain the
process, researchers have adapted the brand equity concept (Cable and Turban 2003;
Collins and Stevens 2002; Turban and Cable 2003). Turban and Cable (2003, p. 734)
suggest, “firms develop more or less reputational capital, which is a form of intangible
wealth similar to what marketers call brand equity.” Firms can use this reputational
equity to obtain a competitive advantage in recruiting because job seekers may not have
full information about the job attributes and they may use the firm’s positive reputation to
make inferences about the missing information (Cable and Turban 2003; Collins and
Stevens 2002; Turban and Cable 2003).
The research on the role of organizational reputation in recruiting provides two
interesting implications. First, job seekers may not have full information about a
particular job. This is a similar situation to when customers lack full information about a
product, sometimes lacking full information even after consuming the product (Zeithaml
1988). In such cases, subjects may fill in the missing information by inferring the
missing information based on the information they do possess (Lim, Olshavsky, and Kim
1988). Similarly, job seekers may use their perceptions of the organization’s brand
equity to infer information they don’t currently have to evaluate the attractiveness of a
job in that company. Second, factors that are beyond the control of the human resources
department may have a significant impact on the ability of the organization to attract and
retain quality applicants. The previous studies identified some variables, others may
exist. Thus, companies should identify assets they have and can leverage to attract and
obtain top quality applicants. One such asset which human resources management may
exploit is the brand name. The key question for the effective management of the
organization’s human resources is: Does building brand equity also improve recruitment
Brand Equity and Job Choice
Organizations have attempted to identify assets they can leverage to obtain a
sustainable competitive advantage. One such asset is the brand name (Srivastava, Fahey,
Brand Equity and Job Choice Decisions 5
and Christensen, 2001). Consequently, the importance of this topic to managers and
academics has led to a wealth of research on brand equity. Ailawadi, Lehmann and
Neslin (2003, p. 1) defined brand equity as the “marketing effects or outcome that accrue
to a product with its brand name compared with those that would accrue if the same
product did not have the brand name.” As the definition indicates, the brand name leads
to differential effects or outcomes. The outcomes that have been examined pertained to
consumers (i.e., awareness, consideration set, choice, and willingness to pay a higher
price). Given that the outcomes studied dealt with consumer decision making, by
extension, job decision making may be another possible outcome influenced by brand
equity. In fact, Cable, Aiman-Smith, Mulvey, and Edwards (2000) found that product
information influenced job seekers perception of the company in terms of risk-taking and
Why would we expect brand equity to influence people’s job choice decisions?
Consumer decisions and employment decisions may be similar. The consumer in
choosing a product must be aware of the product, form a consideration set, and make the
final choice from the consideration set. Research has shown that brand equity influences
all three steps in the consumer decision making process. Similarly, qualified candidates
in the job market must be aware of the company, consider the company a good place to
work, and choose from a set of companies they consider appropriate. Given the similar
decision steps, brand equity may influence job choice decisions because applicants will
be more aware of the company, have a favorable disposition toward the product (which
may transfer to the company) and subsequently influence their job choice.
In addition to similar steps in decision making, the process underlying the effects
of brand equity on consumer choice may also apply in a job choice situation. To explain
the effects of brand equity, consumer psychologists (e.g., Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993)
have turned to the associative network memory model. The associative network memory
model hypothesizes that information is stored as nodes and are connected to other nodes
by links (Collins and Loftus, 1975). In this model, the brand is viewed as important
node. Once this node is activated, it spreads to other nodes (i.e., product information)
that have been linked to the brand name. Furthermore, if consumers do not have the
information, they may infer the information based on the overall evaluation of the brand
(Sanbonmatsu, Kardes, and Sansone, 1991) thereby creating a node. This information is
more likely to be activated and used in judgment and choice because it is more accessible
from memory and is diagnostic (Kardes, Kim, and Lim, 1994).
The brand equity process outlined above may also apply to a job choice setting.
When applicants decide on which job offer to accept, they require information to make
that choice. They may use their memory to retrieve the desired information. However,
Breaugh (1992), Reynes (1991), and Turban and Cable (2003) suggest that applicants
rarely have full information about the organization’s working conditions. Consequently,
they will use other cues to infer missing information. One cue that is readily available in
memory is the brand name. That person may have a positive attitude toward the brand
and/or have emotional ties to the brand. Given the positive affect, this may lead to the
inferences about the company that are positive in nature (Erber, 1991). These self-
generated inferences may weigh heavily in their job choice decision.
The focus of marketing activities is on building brand equity to get more
customers, but in building brand equity there may be a spillover effect on the
Brand Equity and Job Choice Decisions 6
organization’s recruitment activities, making it easier to recruit employees and perhaps
retain employees longer. Although we suggest a relationship between brand equity and
recruitment, little research to date has investigated this phenomenon. We need a better
understanding of this phenomenon and to develop theoretical models by investigating the
underlying process. However, before we can start examining the process, we have to
determine whether a relationship between brand equity and job choice exists. Thus, the
goal of these two exploratory studies is to determine if such relationship exists.
Study 1 had two goals. The first goal was to determine whether the company’s
name affected job choice decisions. The second goal was to determine whether the
method used in the study is appropriate for subsequent study.
Study 1 used Fortune’s list of best companies to work for (Levering and
Moskowitz, 2003) to test whether applicants were more likely to accept a job from one of
these “Best” companies compared to competing companies in the same industry.
Potential applicants are given the name of the company, information about each
organization’s revenues, profits, and number of employees. After statistically controlling
for revenues, profits, and number of employees, we could then determine whether the
name of the company affected applicants’ job choice decisions.
Participants in the study were 68 undergraduate students at a medium-sized public
university, who volunteered to participate as part of a class project. Participants were
given extra credit.
Profiles and Measures
The Fortune list of “100 Best Companies to Work For” (Levering and Moskowitz,
2003) was used to create a set of profiles. The 100 Best Companies list was based on a
random sample of employees from 269 companies, a total of 40,713 respondents. The
ranking is a composite of employee responses, and the authors’ evaluation of each
company’s benefits and practices (Levering and Moskowitz, 2003, p. 150). For each of
the companies listed in both the 100 Best and the Fortune 500 list for the same year
(Fortune, 2003), a profile was created, including the three companies within the Fortune
500 list closest to the 100 Best company in revenues within its industry (e.g., Computer
Software, Commercial Banks). The profiles contained the industry, company name,
revenues, profits, and number of employees for each company taken from the Fortune
500 list. The Best company was randomized to appear first, second, third, or fourth in
each set. The complete set of profiles were split into sets A and B, and randomly
distributed to participants. For each profile of four companies, participants indicated how
likely they were to accept a job offer from each of the companies (the Best plus the three
closest in revenues) on a scale of 0-100%. Each participant made judgments on 17
Brand Equity and Job Choice Decisions 7
profiles. A sample profile is included in Appendix A. Adobe Systems was fifth on
Fortune’s 100 Best Companies list.
The set of profiles was based on actual companies, so correlations among
revenues, profits, and number of employees were expected. The Pearson correlation
coefficients ranged from .40 to .47 for Form A, and from .17 to .85 for Form B. All of
the correlations were statistically significant using Bonferroni corrected probabilities.
To test whether being listed as a “Best” company predicted Offer ratings (the
participants’ likelihood of accepting a job offer), Pearson correlations were calculated
between Offer and Best (whether the company was on the Best list). The correlations
were both statistically significant, .17 for Form A and .15 for Form B. However, the
correlations between the dependent variable Offer and the independent variables
Revenues, Profits, and Employees were also all statistically significant for both Form A
and Form B. The Pearson Correlations and Bonferroni corrected probabilities are shown
in Table 1.
INSERT TABLE 1 HERE
To determine whether the Best and other companies differed on Offer and the
three variables in the profiles, four Analyses of Variance were calculated using Offer,
Revenues, Profits, and Employees as the dependent variables and Best as the categorical
variable. There were significant differences between the Best companies and the other
companies for Offer, Revenues, Profits, and Employees, for both Form A and Form B.
The results of these analyses are shown in Table 2.
INSERT TABLE 2 HERE
To control for the differences in the profiles between the Best companies and the
other companies on Revenues, Profits, and Employees, an Analysis of Covariance was
calculated using Offer as the dependent variable, Best as the categorical variable, and
Revenues, Profits, and Employees as covariates. There was a statistically significant
effect of being on Fortune’s Best list on Acceptance of Job Offer ratings, when
controlling for differences between the companies on Revenues, Profits, and Employees
for Form A (F (1, 1763) = 39.85, p = .000, RSQ = .11), and for Form B (F (1, 2035) =
16.38, p = .000, RSQ = .10). These results indicates that, even when the differences
between the Best and other companies were statistically controlled for, the Best
companies had a significantly higher acceptance of job offer percentage, and this finding
was consistent across both Form A and Form B. The mean Offer for the Best companies
was 60.8% compared to 47.6% for the other companies for Form A, and 61.3% compared
to 49.3% for Form B. The results of these analyses are shown in Table 3.
INSERT TABLE 3 HERE
Brand Equity and Job Choice Decisions 8
In summary, the results of this study suggest a relationship between the
company’s name and applicants’ job choice. Subjects were more likely to choose the
Best companies versus the other companies when all other information was controlled.
Thus, it suggests that the company’s name affected applicants’ job choice decisions.
The results also suggest that the method used is appropriate. If the results were
non-significant, then we had to decide if it was due to the method or our theoretical
assertion. Given the results, we can be confident that the method is appropriate for the
Study 1 suggests a relationship between a company’s name and job choice. The
correlation, however, may be due to other factors (e.g., corporate reputation) and not
brand equity. Thus, study 2 was conducted to directly test the relationship between brand
equity and job choice.
Participants in the study were 119 (74 female, 45 male) undergraduate students at
a medium-sized public university, who volunteered to participate and were given extra
credit. The mean age was 22.4 years.
Similar to study 1, profiles were crated and presented to the subjects. A set of
eight profiles were created using a pair of companies from three different industries.
Different industries were chosen because past studies indicated that industry affects
recruiting outcomes (Cable and Graham 2000), and may interact with brand equity to
influence applicants’ job choice decisions. Each pair of companies was chosen to have a
high and a low brand equity. For consumer electronics, Sony was chosen for the high
brand equity company, and Matsushita was chosen as a low brand equity company. For
food products, Pillsbury (high) and Birds Eye (low), and for coffee houses, Starbucks
(high) and Peet’s Coffee and Tea (low), were chosen. Each profile described a job offer
and contained a Job Description (for either Accountant I, Financial Analyst I, Human
Resources Assistant I, or LAN Support I), based on the generic job descriptions found on
Salary.com; and Salary offered (the 25th percentile salary for the area code of the
authors’ zip code from Salary.com). Each participant made judgments on a set of four
profiles. There were eight different sets of profiles, and two versions of each set with the
order of the companies balanced across the sets of profiles. A sample profile is shown in
Based on the profile, subjects were asked to answer four questions. Consistent
with study 1, the dependent variable was the likelihood of accepting the job offer.
Brand Equity and Job Choice Decisions 9
Participants were asked to rate on a scale from 0-100%, how likely they were to accept
the job offer.
Three items were used to measure brand equity. The items were: whether they
had ever heard of the brand (Yes/No), how likely they were to purchase the brand (on a
5-point scale, Not very likely to Very likely), and how willing they would be to pay more
for that brand than other brands (on a 5-point scale, Not very willing to Very willing).
These three measures (have you heard; how likely to purchase; and willing to pay more)
are commonly used direct measures of brand equity (e.g., Ailawadi, Lehmann, and Neslin
2003; Yoo, Donthu, and Lee 2000).
To test whether the profiles contained the expected high and low brand equity
companies, a Chi square was run on each pair of companies within an industry using
participants’ responses to the question “Have you ever heard of <company>?” There was
a statistically significant difference between the a priori high brand equity and low brand
equity companies (Chi (1) = 213.45, p < .001), as well as between each of the pairs, Sony
and Matsushita (Chi (1) = 71.36, p < .001), Pillsbury and Birds Eye (Chi (1) = 86.74, p <
.001), and Starbuck’s and Peet’s (Chi (1) = 69.46, p < .001), with the high brand equity
company in the pair being more often heard of. The high brand equity companies also
had significantly higher mean scores on “How likely are you to purchase something from
<company>?”, across all of the companies (t (394.7) = 16.29, p < .001; Means: 4.07 vs.
2.28), as well as Sony (t (72.5) = 15.08, p < .001; Means: 4.23 vs. 1.77), Pillsbury (t
(227.8) = 11.09, p < .001; Means: 4.07 vs. 2.49) and Starbucks (t (59.8) = 5.63, p < .001;
Means: 3.68 vs. 2.11). And the high brand equity companies had significantly higher
means scores on “How willing are you to pay more for <company> than other brands?”,
across all companies (t (335.3) = 15.17, p < .001; Means: 3.16 vs. 1.56), as well as Sony
(t (68.9) = 11.45, p < .001; Means: 3.52 vs. 1.31), Pillsbury (t (212.3) = 11.14, p < .001;
3.13 vs. 1.64), and Starbucks (t (51.8) = 4.73, p < .001; Means: 2.84 vs. 1.52). The
results of all of these manipulation checks were consistent with the experimental design,
the a priori higher brand equity companies were perceived as having a higher brand
Tests of Brand Equity Effects
To test for the effect of brand equity on acceptance of offer decisions, Analyses of
Variance was calculated using high/low brand equity as the classification variable.
Where participants’ reported major matched the job description (e.g., accounting major
and Accountant I), that observation was deleted from the analysis. There was a
significant effect of brand equity on job offer across all six companies (F (1, 332) = 4.07,
p = .044). When the other measures of job equity (Heard Of, Buy, Pay More) were used
as classification variables, only Pay More was statistically significant (F (4, 327) = 2.47,
p = .045). The results of these analyses are shown in Table 4.
Brand Equity and Job Choice Decisions 10
INSERT TABLE 4 HERE
The previous analyses did not take into account the effect of industry on
participants’ acceptance of offer decisions. Previous research has indicated that
acceptance of offer decisions may vary across manufacturing and service industries, and
participants in this study were making decisions in three different industries. To test for
the effect of brand equity on acceptance of offer decisions and for the effect of industry,
Analyses of Variance were calculated testing for the effects of brand equity (A priori,
Heard Of, Buy, Pay More), industry (Electronics, Food, Coffee House), and the
interaction between brand equity and industry. All four models were statistically
significant, and the interactions between brand equity and industry were statistically
significant for three of the four measures of brand equity (A priori, Heard Of, and Buy).
The results of these analyses are shown in Table 5.
INSERT TABLE 5 HERE
A chart of the interactions between brand equity an industry shows that generally,
at higher levels of brand equity, participants were more likely to accept the job offer of
the high brand equity company compared to the low brand equity company, with the
exception of the Coffee industry. Participants were less likely to accept a job offer from
Starbucks (the high brand equity company) than from Peet’s Coffee and Tea. Charts of
the interactions between brand equity and industry are shown in Figure 1.
Past research in recruitment has focused on variables that may influence
employees’ job choice. One variable that has been gaining attention is organizational
reputation. Studies suggest that organizational reputation will have a positive impact on
job choice decisions. Even if potential employees are not familiar with the organization
making the job offer, they may be familiar with the brands that the organizations offer to
Brands have been shown to influence consumers’ decision making, and is an
important asset to an organization. Because of its strategic importance, organizations
have made it their priority to build strong brands. Organizations build strong brands to
compete for market share and profits. However, the effects of strong brands may go
beyond competing for market share and increasing profits. A spillover benefit of strong
brands may be to improve the organization’s ability to compete for employees and
success at recruiting top-quality employees. Thus, the goal of this research was to
investigate the relationship between brand equity and job choice. Two studies were
conducted to determine whether such a relationship exists.
Study 1 was an indirect test of the relationship between brands and job choice.
The results suggest that a company’s name has an effect on applicants’ job choice. Job
offers from companies on Fortune’s “Best Places to Work” list (i.e., with a better
organizational reputation) were more likely to be accepted than from other companies in
the same industry. After controlling for extraneous variables, the ANCOVA results
indicated a moderate relationship between a company’s name and job choice. Although
Brand Equity and Job Choice Decisions 11
this relationship was statistically significant, other factors may have affected job choice
Study 2 was a direct test of the relationship between brands and job choice. In
Study 2 we measured brand equity and used it as the independent variable and job choice
as the dependent variable. The regression results indicate a statistically significant
relationship between brand equity and job choice. Participants were more likely to accept
a job offer from a company with higher brand equity than another company in the same
industry with lower brand equity.
The two studies taken together suggest a link between brand equity and the ability
of an organization to recruit employees. Although the studies show a link between brand
equity and job choice, we did not test why this phenomenon occurs. Subsequent studies
should concentrate on the underlying process, and identify variables that will moderate
this relationship. For example, our results indicate a stronger relationship between brand
equity and recruiting for companies in the electronics industry. This suggests that the
industry in which the organization operates moderates the effects of brand equity on
recruiting. Thus, the goal of future research should be to develop an overall model that
will explain the underlying process and identify conditions that will moderate this
relationship. Once the process underlying the relationship between brand equity and job
choice decisions is better understood, the HR department can adjust their recruiting
strategy to benefit from the efforts of the Marketing department to build brand equity.
Brand Equity and Job Choice Decisions 12
Ahmed, P. K., and Rafiq, M. (2003). Internal marketing issues and challenges.
European Journal of Marketing, 37 (9), 1177-1186
Breaugh, J. A., and Starke, M. (2000). Research on employee recruitment: So
many studies, so many remaining questions. Journal of Management, 26 (23), 405-434.
Cable, D. M., and Turban, D. B. (2003). The value of organizational reputation in
the recruitment context: A brand equity perspective. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 33 (11), 2244-2266.
Chambers, E. G., Foulon, M., Handfield-Jones, H., and Hankin, S., M. (1998).
The war for talent. The McKinsey Quarterly, 3, 44.
Collins, C. J., and Stevens, C. K. (2002). The relationship between early
recruitment-related activities and the application decisions of new labor-market entrants:
A brand equity approach to recruitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (6), 1121-
Day, G. S., and Wensley, R. (1988). Assessing advantage: A framework for
diagnosing competitive superiority. Journal of Marketing, 52, 1-20.
Dohm, A. (2000). Gauging the labor force effects of retiring baby-boomers.
Monthly Labor Review, 123 (7), 17-25.
Fishman, C. (1998, August). The war for talent. Fast Company, 16, 104.
Fortune (2003). Fortune 5 hundred. Fortune, 147 (7), 81-174, 191-9, F1-F71,
Fram, E. H., and McCarthy, M. S. (2003). From employee to brand champion.
Marketing Management, 12 (1), 24-29.
Gatewood, R. D., Gowan, M. A., and Lautenschlager, G. J. (1993). Corporate
image, recruitment image, and initial job choice decisions. Academy of Management
Journal, 36 (2), 414-427.
Highhouse, S., Zickar, M. J., Thorsteinson, T. J., Stierwalt, S. L., and Slaughter, J.
E. (1999). Assessing company employment image: An example in the fast food industry.
Personnel Psychology, 52, 151-182.
Horrigan, M. W. (2004). Employment projections to 2012: Concepts and context.
Monthly Labor Review, 127 (2), 3-22.
Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on
turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 38, 635-672.
Jacobs, R. (2003). Turn employees into brand ambassadors. ABA Bank
Marketing, 35 (3), 22-27.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based
brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57 (1), 1-22.
Lado, A. A., and Wilson, M. C. (1994). Human resource systems and sustained
competitive advantage: A competency-based perspective. Academy of Management
Review, 19 (4), 699-727.
Levering, R., and Moskowitz, M. (2003). 100 best companies to work for.
Fortune, 147 (1), 127-30, 134, 136, 138, 140, 143, 150, 152.
Price, D. (1996, June 13). How marketing can sell your personnel product.
People Management, 2 (12), 21.
Brand Equity and Job Choice Decisions 13
Schultz, D. E. (2002). Study internal marketing for better impact: New forum
researches what motivates workers. Marketing News, 36 (21), 8-9.
Turban, D. B., Forret, M., L., and Hendrickson, C. L. (1998). Applicant attraction
to firms: Influences of organization reputation, job and organizational attributes, and
recruiter behaviors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52, 24–44.
Brand Equity and Job Choice Decisions 14
Sample Profile Study 1
After applying for positions at a number of companies, you have job
offers from the following four companies, all with about the same
salary and benefits package. You have done some research and know
a little about each company. For each company, write a number in
each of the shaded boxes to indicate how likely you would be to accept
the offer on a 0-100% scale (the numbers do NOT have to add up to
0% = definitely would not accept the offer
50% = might accept the offer
100% = definitely would accept the offer.
How likely Computer Revenues ($ Profits ($ Number of
are you to Software million) million) employees
accept the 2002 2002
0 - 100%
% Novell $1,134 ($247) 6,233
% Adobe $1,165 $191 3,341
% BMC Software $1,289 ($184) 3,665
% Cadence $1,293 $72 5,300
Brand Equity and Job Choice Decisions 15
Sample Profile Study 2
Prepares balance sheets, profit and loss statements, and other financial reports.
Responsibilities also include analyzing trends, costs, revenues, financial commitments,
and obligations incurred to predict future revenues and expenses. Reports organization's
finances to management, and offers suggestions about resource utilization, tax strategies,
and assumptions underlying budget forecasts. May require a bachelor's degree in
accounting and 0-2 years of experience in the field or in a related area. Has knowledge of
commonly-used concepts, practices, and procedures within a particular field. Relies on
instructions and pre-established guidelines to perform the functions of the job. Works
under immediate supervision. Primary job functions do not typically require exercising
independent judgment. Typically reports to a supervisor or manager.
On a scale from 0-100%, how likely are you to accept this job offer? ________%
Have you ever heard of Sony (circle one)? Yes No
How likely are you to purchase something from Sony?
Not very likely Very likely
1 2 3 4 5
How willing are you to pay more for Sony than other brands?
Not very willing Very willing
1 2 3 4 5
Brand Equity and Job Choice Decisions 16
Pearson Correlations Between Acceptance of Offer, Revenues, Profits, and Number of
Employees, for Form A and Form B
Form A Best Offer Revenues Profits Employees
Offer .17* -
Revenues .13* .09* -
Profits .11* .29* .47* -
Employees .08* .05 .44* .39* -
Form B Best Offer Revenues Profits Employees
Offer .15* -
Revenues .16* .18* -
Profits .22* .28* .31* -
Employees .21* .11* .85* .17*
* statistically significant at .05 level, Bonferroni corrected probabilities
Brand Equity and Job Choice Decisions 17
Analyses of Variance on Offer, Revenues, Profits, and Employees
Form Measure F-Ratio Prob df RSQ Best Others
A Offer 50.34* .000 1, 1766 .03 60.79% 47.61%
Revenues 32.35* .000 1, 1766 .02 $6,296.29 $4,442.61
Profits 21.84* .000 1, 1766 .01 $313.12 $151.02
Employees 11.52* .001 1, 1766 .01 47,324.77 24,612.37
B Offer 44.77* .000 1, 2038 .02 61.32% 49.28%
Revenues 56.31* .000 1, 2038 .03 $13,329.47 $8,063.16
Profits 107.78* .000 1, 2038 .05 $1,149.06 $68.92
Employees 95.49* .000 1, 2038 .04 18,061.12 14,768.41
* statistically significant at .05 level; Revenues and Profits are in millions of dollars
Brand Equity and Job Choice Decisions 18
Analysis of Covariance on Offer with Revenues, Profits, and Employees as Covariates
Form F-Ratio Probability df RSQ Coefficient Prob
A 39.85* .000 1, 1763 .11 .15 .000
B 16.38* .000 1, 2035 .315 .09 .000
* statistically significant at .05 level; Partial correlation is partial correlation between
Offer and Best with Revenues, Profits, and Employees partialled out.
Brand Equity and Job Choice Decisions 19
Effect of Brand Equity on Acceptance of Job Offer
Measure Industry F-Ratio Probability df RSQ
A priori… All 4.07* .044 1, 332 .012
Electronics 11.35* .001 1, 63 .153
Food 2.25 .136 1, 195 .011
Coffee 1.93 .170 1, 70 .027
Heard of… All 2.74 .099 1, 330 .008
Electronics 10.31* .002 1, 63 .143
Food 1.36 .244 1, 195 .007
Coffee 1.87 .176 1, 69 .026
Buy… All 2.00 .095 4, 327 .024
Electronics 2.80* .034 5, 58 .162
Food 1.46 .215 4, 192 .030
Coffee 1.90 .121 4, 67 .102
Pay more… All 2.47* .045 4, 327 .029
Electronics 2.33 .067 4, 58 .138
Food 1.49 .207 4, 192 .030
Coffee 0.71 .586 4, 67 .041
* statistically significant at .05 level
Brand Equity and Job Choice Decisions 20
Tests for Interaction Between Industry and Brand Equity on Job Offer
Measure Effect F-Ratio t Probability df RSQ
A priori… Model 5.00* .002 3, 330 .043
Industry 1.86* .064
BE 3.70* .000
Industry*BE 3.24* .001
Heard of… Model 4.38* .005 3, 328 .039
Industry 1.66 .098
BE 3.46* .001
Industry*BE 3.11* .002
Buy… Model 5.70* .001 3, 328 .050
Industry 2.50* .013
BE 3.77* .000
Industry*BE 3.10* .002
Pay more… Model 3.25* .022 3, 328 .029
Industry 1.23 .218
BE 2.50* .013
Industry*BE 1.84 .067
* statistically significant at .05 level
Brand Equity and Job Choice Decisions 21
Interaction of Brand Equity and Acceptance of Job Offer
Interaction of Brand Equity and
Acceptance of Job Offer
Cof f ee
A Pr i o r i B r and Eq ui t y
Interaction of Brand Equity and Acceptance
of Job Offer
Interaction of Brand Equity and
Acceptance of Job Offer
Likely to Buy
Interaction of Brand Equity and Acceptance
of Job Offer
Willing to Pay More