MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979228102 · doi:10.1504/ijbem.2013.054930

Marketing strategies to survive in a recession

2013· article· en· W1979228102 on OpenAlexaff
Emin Çivi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Business and Emerging Markets · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecessionMarketingPurchasingPurchasing powerBusinessFutures contractMarketing strategyGlobal recessionUnemploymentConsumer behaviourEconomicsFinanceEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 2007–2009 recession has dramatically affected businesses and consumers around the world. High unemployment figures along with a downturn in other economic indicators alarmed consumers and brought about feelings of uncertainty and instability for their futures. In response, they adopted a multitude of new purchasing patterns like preferring cheaper items, trading down their regular brands for generic ones, delaying non-urgent purchases, etc. During recessions, marketers feel the impact of the recession much sooner than other departments because of new consumer behaviours, their reduced purchasing power, and consequently decreasing sales. However, this challenging new environment might be a source of new growth opportunities for those companies who can respond quickly and adapt their marketing strategies to changing consumer preferences. Therefore, it is crucial for marketers to understand how these behaviour shifts will influence their business, and use this to formulate new marketing strategies. In this article, after reviewing literature on how consumer behaviour changes during recessionary times and how companies tailor their marketing strategies, we illustrate some practical examples of how companies modified their marketing strategies during the last recessions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score0.454

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.237 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Business and Emerging MarketsSame topicEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207