MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074827511 · doi:10.1287/opre.2014.1305

Supporting New Product or Service Introductions: Location, Marketing, and Word of Mouth

2014· article· en· W2074827511 on OpenAlexaff
Vahideh Sadat Abedi, Oded Berman, Dmitry Krass

Bibliographic record

VenueOperations Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicInnovation Diffusion and Forecasting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarketingWord of mouthProfit (economics)Time horizonComputer scienceProduct (mathematics)Digital marketingService (business)Marketing mixBusinessMarketing strategyMulti-level marketingPhoneNew product developmentEconomicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction of a new, innovative product or service is a fundamental problem that managers face regularly. The temporal sales pattern of such a product is often dynamically influenced by word of mouth as well as by marketing and distribution support. Appropriate marketing support strategies must be specified to induce the best sales pattern; however, the success of these strategies is heavily tied to the accessibility of the retail facilities, whether physical stores or virtual ones such as the Internet or phone. Managing the relation between accessibility and marketing support becomes more challenging when the firm faces a limited time, often due to short product life cycle. In this work, we present a general model for the joint design of the network of retail facilities and marketing strategies in the presence of word-of-mouth effects and limited time horizon. We develop exact and heuristic solution methods and provide insights on the structure of the optimal solution. Our solution methods identify the number and location of retail facilities to carry the product, as well as the proper mix of marketing channels and expenditures in them over time. Our results demonstrate that significant profit improvement can be achievable by jointly optimizing the design of the network of retail facilities with the choice of marketing strategies. Results of numerical experiments and an illustrative case study on opening Nespresso boutiques are also reported.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.237
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations19
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOperations ResearchSame topicInnovation Diffusion and ForecastingFrench-language works237,207