Value Relevance of the Voluntary Disclosure of Advertising Expenditure: A Study of Canadian Listed Companies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advertising expenditure is one of the most important budget items supporting marketing activities for most companies, and may be treated as an intangible asset. Through the impact on demand and costs, advertising activities affect the firm’s pricing and output decisions as well as the firm’s market value (Tannous, 1997; Chauvin & Hirschey, 1994). Despite the significant economic importance of advertising expenditure, not much attention has been given to the value relevance of advertising expenditure and the impact of advertising expenditure disclosure on firms’ market value. Most of the empirical studies for value relevance of advertising expenditure have been conducted using data from the US and UK Academic research on the value relevance of advertising expenditure in Canada is nonexistent. The accounting standard applied in Canada is different from that used in prior US and UK studies. . Canada adopts Canadian GAAP before 2011, and switches to IFRS from 2011onwards. Both regimes do not require firms in Canada to disclose advertising expenditure. However, most US studies use data before 1994 to analyze value relevance of advertising expenditure. Before 1994, disclosing advertising expenditure is mandatory for US firms under US GAAP. The UK evidence uses data before 2005, during which period UK firms still adopt UK GAAP. Although UK. GAAP does not require companies to disclose advertising expenditure, unlike IFRS, different accounting standards can lead to different financial data reporting and different results. In addition, studies on the impact of voluntary disclosure of advertising expenditure on market value are nonexistent. Furthermore, Canada has a more stable financial system than that of the US and UK In this context, the objective of this thesis is to initiate research on the important dimension of advertising expenditure among Canadian firms. The findings of this thesis will enhance understanding of the relationship between advertising expenditure and market value, and companies’ decisions to voluntarily disclose advertising expenditure on their market value.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".