The Impact of Brand Image and Corporate Branding on Consumer’s Choice: The Role of Brand Equity
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
<p>Brand equity is an important issue in marketing construct, which has been shown to influence important marketing variables such as consumer's choice. The aim of this study is to explore the role of independent variables e.g. (brand image and corporate branding) on brand equity and the impact of brand equity on consumer's choice. When the customers own positive aspects of a company and its product e.g. brand image, corporate branding they usually form brand equity and this lead them to have a choice from the products and services of the company. This study develops a framework that explains how independent variables e.g. (brand image and corporate branding) effect on dependent variable which is called consumer’s choice, when brand equity is mediating. A study carried out in Saudi Arabia using 105 respondents as consumers who used any type of smart mobile phone. Path analysis confirmed that, corporate brand had more positive impact on brand equity while the results showed that brand image had no impact on brand equity. In addition, the study illustrated that brand equity had positive impact on customer’s choice.</p>
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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