Investigating the Impact of Brand Relationship toward Brand Evangelism: an

Empirical Study of IT-based Transportation

Mickey Tanadi1, Sabrina O. Sihombing2

1
Business School, Universitas Pelita Harapan, Tangerang, Indonesia.
(mickeytanadi5@gmail.com)
2
Business School, Universitas Pelita Harapan, Tangerang, Indonesia.
(sabrina.sihombing@uph.edu)

ABSTRACT

GOJEK comes and exponentially grow in the past two years as a solution for heavy traffic in Jakarta. GOJEK now
offers more than just an in demand ojek (Indonesian name for motorcycle taxi), they also offer use the same platform to
buy some food, deliver any kind of item or document and to provide another services such as house-cleaning and
massage. The purpose of this study to do research about brand relationship related to brand evangelism in IT-based
transportation industry. This study is using purposive sampling and conducts 200 samples that was consumer of any
kind of GOJEK services in the past 6 months. Data was collected use online questionnaires by Google form. Data was
analyzed using Multiple Regression Approach using SPSS software. The results of the analysis show that all of the
hypotheses are supported and also similar with previous study that found there is significant positive relationship
between brand relationships with brand evangelism. Researcher suggest to do more research in typical service industry
especially fast growing one that using information technology as a foundation of the firm so that we can see the wider
perspective on these study field and also its relationship with the valuation of the company and company growth.
Keywords: Brand Relationship, Brand Trust, Brand Identification, Brand Involvement, Brand Commitment, Brand
Evangelism
Blue Bird, a conventional Taxi company valued at 9.8
1. Introduction trillion Indonesian Rupiah and also the government-
owned company Garuda Indonesia, an airline company
that operate 197 airplanes and hold 40.5% Indonesias
Jakarta has been nominated as the worst
market share valued at 12.3 trillion Indonesian Rupiah.
traffic in the world title by a lubricant brand from
With the latest investment from KKR & Co and
United Kingdom, Castrol in 2015 (The Jakarta Post,
Warbug Pincus, both are investing company from
2015) with an average of 33,240 stop and start per
U.S. , Gojeks value is around 1.3 billion U.S. Dollar or
driver per year. In heavy traffic like that in developing
around 17 trillion Indonesian Rupiah.
country like Indonesia, Gojek comes as a solution for
an alternative transportation. They offer easiness in Kotler (2014) elaborates that personal
finding the motorcycle cab, known as ojek in influence in recommend a product or service has a
Indonesia. Before the presence of Gojek, many great portion in making a decision to buy a product.
motorcycle cab drivers have their own meeting point, Moreover, recommendation from friend and family are
just wait for the customer come and ask them to drive. the most powerful tools to increase awareness and
But Gojek finds a way using an application that can be purchase. That is the reason the company who has a lot
downloaded in Google Play Store in Android and Apps of brand evangelist to share and recommend their
Store in Apple, Gojek helps to connect the customer brand will grow faster in term of brand awareness and
and the motorcycle cab driver on demand through an following the business itself.
application.
Previous study on the brand evangelism topic
Quite fast just in 5 years Gojek right now and its entire dimensions has been conducted by
(2016) become one of a unicorn from South East Asia several researcher in many tangible-product industry
or a start up that valuated more than 1 billion U.S. such as fashion industry (e.g. Becerra &
Dollar (Kontan.co.id, 2016). It is very big amount if Badrinarayanan, 2013; Riivits-Arkonsuo et al, 2015;
compared to another transportation company such as Wallace et al 2014), automotive industry (e.g.

The 2017 International Conference on Management Sciences ( ICoMS 2017) March 22, UMY, Indonesia
127
 Kaljundet al, 2015, Becerra & Badrinarayanan, 2013),
food and beverage industry (e.g. Buil et al, 2014; Ng et
al, 2011) , intangible-product such as movies (e.g. Liu,
2006; Dagger et al, 2011), video games (e.g. Marticotte
et al, 2016) and some in service industry like banking
(e.g. Riorini & Widayati, 2015; Dagger et al, 2011).
Specifically the research between brand relationship
and brand evangelism is very limited (Riorini &
Widayati, 2015; Becerra & Badrinarayanan, 2013).
Moreover, in context of social research as researcher
understood, there is still no research about brand
relationship effect to brand evangelism in this IT-based
transportation industry such as Gojek, Uber and Grab
which are very fast in company growth and
capitalization. This paper is an answer for the problem
to do research about brand relationship effect to brand
evangelism in IT-based transportation industry.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Marketing
Kotler and Armstrong (2014) define
marketing as process that a company creates value for
customers and also build customer relationship
strongly, after that the company can capture the value
of the customer as the return. Marketing mix
constructed by several elements that able to satisfy
needs of the customer and also build the customer
relationship (Kotler & Armstrong, 2014). Four element
of marketing mix are product, price, promotion and
place, these 4Ps called controllable variables because
they can be controlled within the firm or marketing
department. Another definition by Berkowitz, Kerin
and Rudelius (1989) in their book define marketing
same with The American Marketing Association as the
process of planning and executing the conception,
pricing, promotion and distribution of ideas, goods, and
services to create exchange that satisfy individual and
organizational objective.
The main focus of marketing is consumer
needs and wants, sales just an element of marketing
marketing itself contain broader area activities to cover
(Berkowitz et al, 1989).When a customer buy a
product, they do not just buy the product itself, but the
whole package from the core customer value, actual
product and augmented product. Core value is the
benefit from buy and uses any kind of product; this is
what customer want in exchange they give their money
to a firm. Then the actual product (or service) is all the
physical stuff of the product, the product itself,
packaging, design and include the brand name (Kotler
and Amstrong, 2014).
2.2 Brand
The 2017 International Conference on Management Sciences ( ICoMS 2017) March 22, UMY, Indonesia
Brand is defined as a name, term, sign,
tagline, symbol, logo or all the combination that creates
a differentiation on a product or service from
competitor, and also creates a product or services
identity (Kotler & Armstrong, 2014). But brand is not
only the tangible one, but also the customer feeling,
perception and perceived value to the customer (Keller,
2008). Moreover Keller said that brand is important to
consumer because if they know and aware with the
brand, have some knowledge about the brand so they
do not need a long of time to engage additional though
and consideration when they need to decide a product,
or can be said that brand makes consumer lower the
searching cost lower in mind and also lower in their
time to look around.
In term of service branding, there are more
challenging because one of the services characteristic,
intangibility. In another hand, branding a service is an
effective way to inform the customer that the firm
gives the effort to design a service and special enough
to use the brand name (Keller, 2008).
2.3 Brand Relationship
Customer can attach a meaning or feeling and
create a brand relationship (Kotler & Armstrong,
2014). Consumer build the relationship with the brand
during the time the consumer use the brand, at some
point the consumer engage with the brand and put their
feeling and trust in brand relationship. Brand
relationship is the highest stage of brand development
(Keller, 2008). Furthermore Keller explains the stage
begin by consumer can identify the brand (what need
that can be satisfied), then get the meaning (know the
performance, price, characteristic, reliability and also
experience), and can give the response (how about the
quality, credibility, consideration, and the feeling about
the product). Lastly on relationship stage, on the last
stage they can have the loyalty, attachment, community
and engagement with the brand.
A research study by Riorini and Widayati
(2015) add up the construct of brand relationship brand
commitment and brand involvement from previous
study by Becerra and Badrinarayanan (2013) that
define brand relationship constructed by brand trust
and brand identification. Keller on his article in 2012
said that consumer have limitation in term of have a
relationship with the brand especially if they do not use
or get exposure by the brand in the intense contact at a
period of time.
2.4 Brand Trust
Brand trust is the willingness to rely on a
brand based on the belief by a consumer of the brand,
even though still have some risks and uncertainties
related to a brand (Becerra & Korgaonkar, 2011).
Brand trust is important element in retaining the
128
 relation in between the brand and the consumer
(Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Alemn, 2001).
Brand trust built by four main component
perception of competence, predictability, benevolence,
and integrity (Hegner & Jevons, 2016). Perception of
competence means that the consumer believe in mind
that the brand is able to solve their needs. Predictability
defined as the perception in term of the consistency of
a brand for the long-term and accumulated.
Benevolence is defined as the perception of sincerity
from the company in term of fulfilling the interest of
consumer. Integrity stands for belief for ethical, honest
and fairness by the company.
2.5 Brand Identification
Brand identification also understood as the
perception of belongingness to a brand and feeling the
brands successes and failures as the company interest
(Becerra & Badrinarayanan, 2013). Keller (2008)
defined brand identification as how far the consumer
can identify what needs that can be satisfied through
and by the brand.
Brand trust is a factor that influencing brand
identification because trust to a brand create beliefs
how the brand will work. Brand trust will increase the
consumer belief and can value the success and failure
from a brand (Becerra & Badrinarayanan, 2013).
Identification classified in two categories affective and
cognitive identification, affective identification means
a person perceived themselves are the part or belong to
a organization meanwhile cognitive identification
means the person who has positive feeling by
becoming a part of the organization (Xiong et al, 2016)
2.6 Brand Involvement
Brand involvement is a motivational state that
can be used to understand consumer attitudes towards
products or brands (Guthrie & Kim, 2009). Brand
involvement could be vary depend on the product
category itself (McWilliam, 1997). Generally speaking
like consumer good (grocery) cannot produce high
involvement rather than a longer consumption-time
like a car or luxury perfume.
Moreover, Schiffman and Wisenblit (2015)
explains that high involvement product make consumer
think for longer time to decide, consider several things
because of higher risk compare to the low involvement
product like the consumer good example above. In the
lower involvement product, consumer bears lower risk
and sees that the product is similar with the competitor
and do not need a lot of consideration.
2.7 Brand Commitment
The 2017 International Conference on Management Sciences ( ICoMS 2017) March 22, UMY, Indonesia
Brand commitments definition is an
emotional or psychological of a person that attach to a
brand (Lastovicka & Gardner, 1978). Louis and
Lombart (2010) state that commitment can be defined
in two big category, affective commitment and
continuance commitment (also known as cognitive or
calculated commitment). Affective commitment based
on attachment, identification and value that be given to
the consumer. Affective commitment can explain the
step-by-step how a customer can be loyal. Meanwhile
the continuance commitment means the difficulties
faced by the consumer if they want to switch to another
brand. This mean the switching cost is one of the
reason customer need to commit to a brand (Louis and
Lombart, 2010).
2.8 Brand Evangelism
Brand evangelism is consumer love to a brand
that is highly admired and purchase intention to a
brand. (Chauduri & Holbrook, 2001). In the previous
research shows that Brand Evangelism has 3
dimensions: positive brand referrals, brand purchase
intention, and oppositional brand referrals (Becerra and
Badrinarayanan, 2013).
Positive brand referral refer to how the
consumer willing to share their experience to another
people and recommend the brand to their friend, this is
why they are called evangelist. Brand evangelism tell
how committed a consumer to the brand by showing
their intention to purchase a specific brand regularly,
this is what purchase intention meaning. Lastly the
evangelist also will spread a negative point of view of
competitor brand, recommends their friend to not use
the competitors product. Interestingly, this negative
form of word of mouth maybe not created by their own
experience with the competitors product (Japutra et al,
2014). Can be imaginary and the goal is just to make
their preferred brand looks better than the competitor
and make them feel they choose the best one, so that
their friend need to follow.
2.9 Research Model and Hypothesis Development
The research model and hypotesis (picture 1)
was developed based on previous research (Riorini &
Widayati, 2015).
2.9.1 Brand Trust and Brand Evangelism
Brand trust that consumer give to a brand is
one of the factors that creating brand value to a
company and company can maintain it as a competitive
advantage (Hegner & Jevons, 2016). To become an
evangelist of a brand, consumer starts from
motivational level become to the physical level and
moreover have special connection relationship into an
evangelist (Riivits-Arkonsuoet al, 2015). From the first
time consumer become a customer from a brand, the
129
 relationship begin and the trust of the brand is starting.
The quality of the product and service provided by a
brand, the perception by the consumer and so on could
have some effect with the emotional bond of a
consumer as an evangelist. We assume that brand trust
is one of the antecedents of brand evangelism.
H1:There is significant positive relationship between
brand trust with brand evangelism.
2.9.2 Brand Identification and Brand Evangelism
Brand Identification is the belongingness level
to a brand. Previous researches by Piehler et al (2016)
shows that brand identification have significant
relationship with another component of a brand
relationship which is brand commitment. Beside brand
commitment and brand identification relationship,
Brand Identification also has positive significant
relationship with another construct, brand
understanding (Piehler et al, 2016). When the
consumer belong to a brand, they are easier to share
and tell people about the brand (Liu, 2006). From this
finding, we assume that brand identification is one of
the antecedents of brand evangelism.
H2: There is significant positive relationship between
brand identification with brand evangelism.
2.9.3 Brand Involvement and Brand Evangelism
A research by McWilliam (1997) argues that a
product or service within the same industry category
will have similar involvement by the consumer. For
example alcohol drink industry will have similar
perception in involvement by consumer. And this mean
a brand has to position and communicate well in order
to make consumer can feel for the brand (McWilliam,
1997). The higher the involvement with the brand, the
higher risk that perceived bore by the consumer, and
how well a brand perform to fulfill the consumer
expectation, can be assumed the consumer will have
more attachment emotionally and consumer will
recommend the brand to others. This dimension added
by Riorini and Widayati (2015) and shows a positive
correlation before in banking industry in context
affecting the brand evangelism.
H3: There is significant positive relationship between
brand involvement with brand evangelism.
2.9.4 Brand Commitment and Brand Evangelism
Kuo and Feng (2013) in their research about
commitment stated that one of indication of a
commitment shown by tell something bad to another
community (community as an object). From their
research, can found a hint between relationship in
commitment and one of the dimensions of brand
evangelism. Further, Riorini and Widayati (2015) also
added this dimension and when they tried in banking
industry, they found a positive relationship between
both of these variables. So that we can assumed that
The 2017 International Conference on Management Sciences ( ICoMS 2017) March 22, UMY, Indonesia
commitment is one of the affecting factor of
evangelism.
H4: There is significant positive relationship between
brand commitment with Brand Evangelism.
Picture 1. Research Model
Brand relationship
Brand
Trust
H1
H2
Brand H3
Identification Brand
Evangelism
H4
Brand
Involvement
Brand
Commitment
Source: Riorini & Widayati (2015)
3. Method
3.1 Measurement Scale
In this research, conducted 5 variables and 4
indicators to measure each variable. Refer to Bagozzi
and Heatherton (1988, cited by Pless and Maak, 2012)
the ideal number of indicator to measure a variable
vary from three until five indicators, The 5 variables
are brand trust, brand identification, brand
involvement, brand commitment and brand evangelism
as the dependent variable. All indicators measured
using 5-points of Likert Scale, whereas 1 means
Strongly Disagree and 5 means Strongly Agree. All
indicators taken from previous research by Riorini and
Widayati (2015) that adapted from 3 previous
researches: Becerra and Badrinarayanan (2013) for
brand trust, brand identification and brand evangelism.
Walsh et al., (2012) for brand invovement and Louis
and Lombart (2010) for brand commitment. The
indicator used in this research modified to adjust
situation and terms in transportation based on IT
industry.
Brand Trust, four items is used to measure
brand trust variable. Those items consist of: 1) I trust
brand GOJEK, 2) I do not rely on brand GOJEK
130
 because it has a poor quality service. 3) Compare to
another brand, I trust brand X more. 4) Brand X is
honest in service.
Brand identification, four items is used to measure
Brand Identification variable. Those items consist of:
1) Brand X success is my success. 2) Im interested
in what people think about brand X. 3) When
someone praise brand X, I feel bad. 4) When
someone criticized brand X, I feel being insult.
Brand Involvement, four items is used to
measure Brand Involvement variable. Those items
consist of: For me brand GOJEK is, 1) important, 2) do
not attractive, 3) related to me, 4) necessary.
Brand Commitment, four items is used to
measure Brand Commitment variable. Those items
consist of: 1) I feel secure doing a transaction with
X. 2) The employees always polite. 3) The
employees have knowledge to answer my question. 4)
The employees do not give attention to me personally.
Brand Evangelism, four items is used to
measure brand evangelism variable. Those items
consist of: 1) I do not spread positive news from word
of mouth about brand X. 2) I suggest my friend to
use brand X because it better than other brand. 3) I
become the consumer of IT based transportation
because of brand X. 4) I probably will say negative
about other brand.
3.2 Sampling Design and Number of Samples
This research is using non-probability
sampling, which is judgment sampling. This study uses
GOJEK as the research objects. The target population
of this study is GOJEKs customer located in Jakarta
and Tangerang, Indonesia. This judgment sampling has
a main criteria, which is the respondent are the
consumer of any kind of GOJEKs services (e.g. Go-
Ride, Go-Car, Go-Clean, etc) in last 6 month.
In the process of this research, we conducted
two stage of research; the first one is pilot test of 50
respondents. The goal of this pilot test is to make sure
the questions are clear enough to be understood
(Sekaran and Bougie, 2013). Besides that, from the
first pilot stage can be run the first reliability and
validity test to eliminate the unstable and not valid
question. The second is to gather a larger number of
data after the revision from the first stage. A
questionnaire distributed to 200 respondents by using
Google Forms online questionnaire. The reason of 200
samples are chosen because two main reasons. The first
one is according to Sekaran and Bougie (2013), the
appropriate for most research is between 30 and 500
samples. The second reason is this research has 20
The 2017 International Conference on Management Sciences ( ICoMS 2017) March 22, UMY, Indonesia
indicators, according to Kline (2015) the minimum
number of samples is number of indicator times by 10
equal to 200.
3.3 Data Analysis
All data analyzed using Windows versions of
Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 22.
Before the Multiple Regression is run, this research
conduct reliability and validity test to increase the
quality of instrument that be used (Sekaran and
Bougie, 2013). Reliability is a test that checks how
consistent an item in measuring the variable and
validity is a test that checks how fit the instrument
measures the concept we intended to measure (Sekaran
and Bougie, 2013).
In this research we used inter-item
consistency reliability, that require 0.5 cut-off
Cronbachs alpha coefficients as minimum point in
each variable counted as moderately reliable, the
higher the coefficients the better instrument (Hinton,
2004). And for validity test, we run both convergent
validity test and discriminant validity.
4. Result And Analysis
4.1 Response rate
This research take 200 data from respondent
using online-based form by Google Form, all data
filled by all respondents, this means that the response
rate are 100%.From 200 filled forms, 158 can be used
for further analysis, this show 79% usable response
rate.
4.2 Reliability and Validity
To test the reliability, this research use inter-
item consistency test by checking the Cronbachs
Alpha coefficient with 0.5 cut-off point to make sure
that all instrument are reliable enough to measure the
variable (Hinton, 2004). Table 1 shows the data of
reliability test, Cronbachs Alpha coefficient varies
from 0.58 till 0.765.
This research using discriminant validity by
checking the accuracy of measurement by discriminant
validity is established when two different constructs are
not correlated with each other. In other words, the
correlation between constructs should less than 1(Table
2).
131
 Table 1. Cronbachs alpha for each variable

No Indicators p-value Cronbach Alpha/ If Deleted

TRUST 0.765

1 Trust 1 0.000 .696

2 Trust 2 0.000 .767

3 Trust 3 0.000 .714

4 Trust 4 0.000 .650

IDENTIFICATION 0.635

5 Identification 1 0.000 .508

6 Identification 2 0.000 .498

7 Identification 3 0.000 .640

8 Identification 4 0.000 .601

INVOLVEMENT 0.731

9 Involvement 1 0.000 .651

10 Involvement 2 0.000 .577

11 Involvement 3 0.000 .698

12 Involvement 4 0.000 .749

COMMITMENT 0.728

13 Commitment 1 0.000 .677

14 Commitment 2 0.000 .538

15 Commitment 3 0.000 .680

EVANGELISM 0.580

16 Evangelism 1 0.000 .576

17 Evangelism 2 0.000 .372

18 Evangelism 3 0.000 .479

Table 2. Correlation

Commitment Evangelism Identification Involvement Trust

Commitment 1

Evangelism 0,553 1

Identification 0,432 0,586 1

Involvement 0,521 0,614 0,514 1

The 2017 International Conference on Management Sciences ( ICoMS 2017) March 22, UMY, Indonesia
132
 Trust 0,618 0,610 0,455 0,593 1

4.3 Descriptive Statistic category (11-17 years old 6.9%, 22-25 years old
3.79%, more than 30 years old 4.43%) and majority is
Descriptive statistic is shown in Table 3. By
a student either in high school or in university student
the data on the left, we can understand that the mean
(88.6% of the samples) the rest are private company
ranged from 3.1788 (brand identification) to 3.8924
employee or entrepreneur. Quite interesting, because
(brand trust) with standard deviation that vary from
the user of GOJEK which is a IT-based transportation
0.64367 until 0.71350.
company, 58% of the samples have and also drive their
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics own vehicle (22.7% have and drive car, 15.8% have
and drive motorcycle, and 19.6% do both). And when
Std. the respondent asked about their reason of using
Deviatio GOJEK, most of them (around a half of samples) tell
Mean n N that avoiding heavy traffic, easiness of transportation
and save their time. Another reason that the samples
using GOJEK because of their laziness to leave their
EVANGELISM 3.5105 .71350 158
place (to buy something or just simply order some
foods using Go-Food services) and using GOJEK as a
TRUST 3.8924 .64367 158
feeder transportation to go to mass transportation such
as bus terminal or train station.
IDENTIFICATIO
3.1788 .65393 158
N
4.5 Hypothesis Testing
INVOLVEMENT 3.8655 .65487 158
All data analyzed using multiple regression
COMMITMENT 3.7511 .66234 158 with 95% level of confidence, we can conclude that the
results are significant by checking the p-value is lower
than 0.05 and we can conclude the relationships are
positive by check the coefficient of each variable
4.4 Sample Characteristic positive. From the first table of table 3 shown the R
From the 158 usable responses that can be Square coefficient that tells us about the how far the
used, below is the detail about some of their model of independent variable related to the dependent
characteristics. The respondents dominated by woman variable, shown below that 0.518 of dependent can be
64.55% of the sample. Their age categories vary from explained by the independents. Table 4 shows the
11-18 years old until more than 30 years old, but the result of multiple regression analysis.
majority represent 84.17% is from 18-21 years old

Table 4. Multi Regression Data

Adjusted R Std. Error of the

Model R R Square Square Estimate

.720a .518 .506 .50164

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Model
B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) -.066 .285 -.232 .817

TRUST .245 .086 .221 2.847 .005

IDEN .294 .074 .270 3.954 .000

The 2017 International Conference on Management Sciences ( ICoMS 2017) March 22, UMY, Indonesia
133
 INVOL .276
COMM .165
Hypothesis 1
As the result shown in table 3 there are
significant positive relationship between brand trust
and brand evangelism by showing a positive number
coefficient 0.245 and have p-value 0.005 far below the
standard 0.05. In another word, the higher the
consumer trust a brand, the higher effort the consumer
do evangelism by positive brand referrals, brand
purchase intention, and Oppositional brand referrals
(Becerra and Badrinarayanan, 2013) and we can
conclude that Hypothesis 1 accepted.
The result of this hypothesis is similar with
same framework that be tested in banking industry in
Indonesia by Riorini and Widayati (2015) and in
automotive and sport shoes industry in United States
by Becerra and Badrinarayanan (2013).
Hypothesis 2
As the result shown in table 3 above there are
significant positive relationship between brand
identification and brand evangelism by showing a
positive number coefficient 0.294 and have p-value
0.0001 far below the standard 0.05. In another word,
the higher the consumers identification with a brand,
the higher effort the consumer do evangelism by
Positive brand referrals, brand purchase intention, and
oppositional brand referrals (Becerra and
Badrinarayanan, 2013). We can conclude that
Hypothesis 2 accepted. The result of this hypothesis is
similar with same framework that be tested in banking
industry in Indonesia by Riorini and Widayati (2015)
and in automotive and sport shoes industry in United
States by Becerra and Badrinarayanan (2013)
Hypothesis 3
As the result shown in table 3 above there are
significant positive relationship between brand
involvement and brand evangelism by showing a
positive number coefficient 0.276 and have p-value
0.001 far below the standard 0.05. In another word, the
higher the consumer involved with a brand, the higher
effort the consumer do evangelism by positive brand
referrals, brand purchase intention, and oppositional
brand referrals (Becerra & Badrinarayanan, 2013). We
can conclude that Hypothesis 3 accepted. The result of
this hypothesis is similar with same framework that be
tested in banking industry in Indonesia by Riorini and
Widayati (2015).
Hypothesis 4
As the result shown in table 3 above there are
significant positive relationship between Brand
Commitment and Brand Evangelism by showing a
positive number coefficient 0.165 and have p-value
The 2017 International Conference on Management Sciences ( ICoMS 2017) March 22, UMY, Indonesia
.083 .253 3.331 .001
.079 .153 2.103 .037
0.037 below the standard 0.05. In another word, the
higher the consumer committed to a brand, the higher
effort the consumer do evangelism by Positive brand
referrals, Brand purchase intention, and Oppositional
brand referrals (Becerra & Badrinarayanan, 2013). We
can conclude that Hypothesis 4 accepted. The result of
this hypothesis is similar with same framework that be
tested in banking industry in Indonesia by Riorini and
Widayati (2015).
5. Conclusion And Suggestion
Stated in introduction section of this paper, the
goal of this research is to analyze the causal effect in
Brand Relationship which represented by Brand Trust,
Brand Identification, Brand Involvement and Brand
Evangelism in GOJEK, a IT-based transportation
company that has growing very fast in last 2 years.
Based on the data analysis, all hypotheses supported
that brand trust, brand identification, brand
involvement and brand commitment have positive
relationship with brand evangelism. Or simply can be
stated that brand relationship could explain brand
evangelism.
There are at least two main limitations on this
study. The first one is this research conduct with non-
probability sampling, or we can say that the conclusion
of the study can represent the whole population
(Sekaran and Bougie, 2013). Then the second
limitation is this research only conduct a brand of
service industry in fast growing IT-based. From these
limitations, writer suggest to do more research in
typical service industry especially fast growing one
that using information technology as a foundation of
the firm so that we can see the wider perspective on
these study field and also its relationship with the
valuation of the company and company growth.
Reference
Becerra, E., & Korgaonkar, P., 2011, Effects of trust
beliefs on consumers' online intentions,
European Journal Of Marketing, Vol. 45,
No. 6, pp936-962.
DelgadoBallester, E., & Luis, MA, J., 2001, Brand
trust in the context of consumer loyalty,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35, No.
11/12, pp1238-1258.
Dahlgren, S., 2011, Brand Loyalty and Involvement in
Different Customer Levels of a Service
134
 Concept Brand [marketing master thesis].
Marketing Department Aalto University.
Hegner, S., & Jevons, C., 2016, Brand trust: a cross-
national validation in Germany, India, and
South Africa, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, 25(1), pp58-68.
Hinton, P. R., 2004, SPSS explained. London:
Routledge.
Japutra, A., Ekinci, Y., Simkin, L., & Nguyen, B.,
2014, The dark side of brand attachment: A
conceptual framework of brand attachment's
detrimental outcomes, The Marketing
Review, Vol. 14, No.3, pp245-264.
Keller, K., 2008, Strategic Brand Management (1st
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Kline, R. B., 2015, Principles And Practice Of
Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford
publications, 2015.
Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G., 2014, Principles Of
Marketing (15th ed.). Upper Saddle River,
N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Kuo, Y. F., & Feng, L. H., 2013, Relationships among
community interaction characteristics,
perceived benefits, community commitment,
and oppositional brand loyalty in online
brand communities, International Journal
of Information Management, Vol. 33, No. 6,
pp948-962.
Lastovicka, J. L., & Gardner, D. M., 1978, Low
involvement versus high involvement
cognitive structures, Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 5.
Liu, Y., 2006, Word of mouth for movies: Its dynamics
and impact on box office revenue. Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 70, No. 3, pp74-89.
Louis, D., & Lombart, C., 2010, Impact of brand
personality on three major relational
consequences (trust, attachment, and
commitment to the brand), Journal of
Product & Brand Management, Vol., 19,
No. 2, pp114-130.
Marticotte, F., Arcand, M., & Baudry, D., 2016, The
impact of brand evangelism on oppositional
referrals towards a rival brand, Journal of
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 25,
No.6, pp538-549.
McWilliam, G., 1997, Low involvement brands: is the
brand manager to blame?. Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 15, No. 2,
pp60-70.
The 2017 International Conference on Management Sciences ( ICoMS 2017) March 22, UMY, Indonesia
Ng, S., David, M., & Dagger, T., 2011, Generating
positive wordofmouth in the service
experience, Managing Service Quality: An
International Journal, Vol. 21, No. 2,
pp133-151.
Piehler, R. King , C., Burmann, C. &Xiong, L., 2016,
The importance of employee brand
understanding, brand identification, and
brand commitment in realizing brand
citizenship behavior, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 50 ss 9/10 pp.
Pless, N. M., Maak, T., & Waldman, D. A., 2012,
Different approaches toward doing the right
thing: Mapping the responsibility
orientations of leaders, The Academy of
Management Perspectives, 26(4), pp51-65.
Becerra, E., & Badrinarayanan, V., 2013, The
influence of brand trust and brand
identification on brand evangelism,
Journal Of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 22, No. 5/6, pp371-383.
Riivits-Arkonsuo, I., Kaljund, K. & Leppiman, A.,
2014, Consumer Journey from First
Experience to Brand Evangelism, Research
In Economics and Business: Central and
Eastern Europe, Vol. 5-28.
Riorini, S., & Widayati, C., 2015, Brand Relationship
and Its Effect Towards Brand Evangelism to
Banking Service, International Research
Journal of Business Studies, Vol. 8, No.1.
Schiffman, L., & Wisenblit, J., 2015, Consumer
Behaviour (11st ed.). Harlow, Essex:
Pearson Education.
Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R., 2013, Research method for
business: A skill building approach.
Wahyana, C., Gojek, sang unicorn [online news
article]. Retrieved from
<http://analisis.kontan.co.id/news/gojek-
sang-unicorn, 2016, 8 August>
Wallace, E., Buil, I., & de Chernatony, L., 2014,
Consumer engagement with self-expressive
brands: brand love and WOM outcomes,
Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 23, No.1, pp33-42.
Walsh, G., Shiu, E., & Hassan, L. M., 2012,
Investigating the drivers of consumer
intention to buy manufacturer brands,
Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 21, No. 5, pp328-340.
Wardhani, D. A. and Budiari, I., 2015 Jakarta has
'worst traffic in the world'. The Jakarta Post.
135
The 2017 International Conference on Management Sciences ( ICoMS 2017) March 22, UMY, Indonesia
136