Differentiation and silver medal winner effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The aim of this paper is to consider business schools and to elicit whether, in seeking differentiation, rankings are more desirable than brand personality and whether silver medal winner effects exist in the perceptions of brand personalities. Design/methodology/approach Literature on reputation, identity, differentiation, brand personality and its measurement is reviewed. In seeking to determine the role of rankings and the presence of silver medal effects two survey data collections among business schools are conducted using the identified brand personality instrument. Findings Results highlight the importance of a distinctive differentiation positioning and show that reputation reflected in published rankings are able to provide counterfactuals that can influence consumer emotions and help establish preferences. Silver medal effects are found to play an important role. Originality/value These results emphasise the point that it is simply not enough to be ranked highly. What seems to be more critical is to be perceived as different. It appears that brand personality rather than reputation in terms of ranking is more strongly related to customers' expressed preferences. The results also illustrate the need to understand and deal with the challenge faced by marketing managers when silver medal effects are present.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".