MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967417467 · doi:10.5430/bmr.v4n1p48

Effects of Brand Portfolio and Product Line Strategy on Brand Market Share: Evidence from Chinese Cellphone Market

2015· article· en· W1967417467 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xuenan Ju, Zuohao Hu, Xia Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueBusiness and Management Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicInnovation Diffusion and Forecasting
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMarket shareBusinessChinaPortfolioContext (archaeology)Market share analysisProduct lineAdvertisingProduct (mathematics)Brand equityMarketingOrder (exchange)Market microstructure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the effects of brand portfolio and product line strategy of cellphone brands’ market share in China. Based on the 15-month data of Chinese cellphone markets, the authors conducted the empirical analysis using a two-way fixed effect model. The results show that foreign cellphone brands and Chinese local cellphone brands market share response differently to price level, product line level, and geographic level variables. Increasing segment coverage and widening product line enhances both foreign and local brands’ market share. However, price-level factors have opposite influence on foreign and local brands in that price negatively relates to foreign brands’ market share but positively relates to local brands’ market share. Similarly, price concentration shows a negative impact on foreign brands but positive impact on local brands’ market share. Finally, longer brand history positively relates to foreign brands’ market share but negatively relates to local brands’ market share. This research provides useful guidelines and telecommunication implications in the context of Chinese market.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.187
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBusiness and Management ResearchSame topicInnovation Diffusion and ForecastingFrench-language works237,207