Cityscape promotions and the use of place images at the Olympic Games
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the extent that marketers are using place-based images to promote their brands within the host city of the Olympic Games. It is thought that non-sponsors may use place imagery as an alternate way to affiliate with the event or sponsors may use place to enrich their sponsorship activity. Design/methodology/approach – The study uses an observation-based approach to collect a sample of place-based promotional activity that is accessible to pedestrians during the 2012 Olympic Games. Findings – Results reveal that official sponsors and non-official sponsors are both using place-based imagery in their promotions within the host city of the Olympic Games. However, non-sponsors use place images more frequently than sponsors of the event. Place images were invoked by promoters using country flags most frequently followed by icons and explicit mention of place. The leading dimensions of place images employed by marketers include country character, the built environment and people competence. Place-based promotional activity was frequently observed in shopping areas, transportation, sports venues and in free media. Research limitations/implications – Results provide justification for future research in the area. Specifically, the need for empirical work based on surveys of consumers and interviews with practitioners are noted. Practical implications – In an era of highly protected event marketing rights, the existence of promotions based on place images can be a useful application for official sponsors to leverage their investments and protect their exclusivity. Similarly, results are beneficial to non-official sponsors who may seek to market in the vicinity of these events without infringing on the rights of official sponsors. Originality/value – While previous research on place, mega-events, the Olympic Games and sponsors has found the images of the three to be related, it is not known to what extent sponsors and non-sponsors utilize place images in their promotional activities throughout the Olympic host city.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".