Creative industry: Lacklustre business — Swedish fashion firms' combination of business and aesthetics as a competitive strategy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The view that creativity and innovation is the key to survival and success in contemporary economy is widely accepted. In fact, creativity and innovation has become so omnipresent in the discourse that one can get the impression this is a goal in itself, not a means to stay competitive. However, ultimately, creative contributions have to be converted into sensible economic and commercial strategies if firms want to stay in business. Even the most imaginative idea has to be transferred into products to be sold in the marketplace. This article presents empirical evidence from the Swedish fashion industry that shows an emphasis among industry informants on the more everyday sides of running a business as an explanation to their success. Here, creative input in for example design is a relatively accessible resource, whereas the ‘tricks of the trade’, understood as a good business sense, is harder to come by. Fashion is one of the cultural industries, and this sector is often mentioned as the forerunner in the creatively driven economy. Hence, the notable focus on the more mundane aspects of how to run a business in a supposedly creative industry like fashion is a bit unanticipated. This does not suggest that creativity is irrelevant in fashion, but rather that there is an excess of aesthetic talent and that there is a need for a holistic business approach even in the creative economy. In this article we see how fashion firms combine a business focus with an important input of creativity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".