Brand extensions into the hospitality industry by luxury fashion labels and national identity: the cases of Hotel Missoni Edinburgh and Maison Moschino
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The luxury fashion industry is closely intertwined with the phenomenon of brand extension. Italian labels have been particularly active in this regard, consistently associating their name with a variety of products and extending into sectors that are sometimes rather distant from the core where they operate, like in the hospitality business. This thesis gives an insight into this phenomenon that sees Italian luxury fashion labels expand their brands into hôtellerie by unpacking the relationship it holds with Italianicity. Examining the cases of two iconic Italian luxury fashion labels, Missoni and Moschino, and the hotels associated with their names, Hotel Missoni Edinburgh and Maison Moschino, this thesis investigates the different ways in which they refer to Italy and its culture. It is contended that within Hotel Missoni Edinburgh and Maison Moschino there are corporate strategies at play that are aimed at deploying their Italianicity as a means to increase their prestige and strengthen their association with the identity of their parent brands. Moreover, it is contended that the hotels employ strategies of cultural opportunism that see the deployment of characteristic traits associated with Italy and its culture as a way to augment their offerings, maximising the brand extension potential of those labels. However, while Missoni Hotel Edinburgh and Maison Moschino rely on traits of Italianicity for their identity, they also contribute to the construction of ideas of Italianicity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".