Consumer acceptance and market success: Wal‐Mart in the UK and Germany
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to explore Wal‐Mart's varying performance in Europe and eventual exit from the German market by singling out the role of consumer acceptance of Wal‐Mart's market propositions. Design/methodology/approach The paper uses the macro‐constructs of institutional theory to interpret and conceptualise micro‐level consumer data. Data were collected via telephone surveys in two regional German and UK markets in 2002/2003. Salient patronage norms in each market were established and Wal‐Mart's as well as its competitors' performance on those norms were assessed. Findings In the German context, the institutional theory approach to explaining Wal‐Mart's problems clearly foreshadows market failure and exit. In UK market, no clear pattern between retailers adhering to salient patronage norms, patronage behaviour and market position could be established. The constructs of institutional theory were more likely to predict and explain market failure than success. Research limitations/implications Research in two regional markets limits the applicability of findings. Nevertheless, some key issues seem to indicate overall market performance. The telephone survey approach carries inherent problems, which however have only marginally impacted on the relevance of the findings. Originality/value The use of institutional theory constructs adds a further dimension to the discussion of international retailer success/failure and can constitute a valuable tool in the repertoire of the divestment and failure literature.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it