An Investigation of Factors Affecting Brand Advertising Success and Effectiveness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>The purpose of this study is to identify the factors that affect advertising effectiveness and to investigate the effects of these factors on advertising success. Using a sample of 252 customers the study identified seven factors that affect brand advertising success and effectiveness, namely, advertising message and creativity, advertising media selection, market research, competitiveness, market share, uniqueness, and customer relationship. Path analysis and structural equation modelling (SEM) were used in order to test the proposed conceptual model of the study. The results revealed that advertising media selection has the strongest relationship with brand advertising success and effectiveness and can be considered as the most important factor affecting advertising effectiveness. The second and the third most important factors affecting advertising success were found to be advertising message/creativity and customer relationship. The results also indicated that although competitiveness impacts brand advertising success and effectiveness it is the least important factor among the seven factors identified in this study. Establishing appropriate relationships with customers and other stakeholders in order to understand their needs and demands is an important step toward improving the chances of brand advertising success and effectiveness. These relationships will also help the organizations to design their promotional campaigns according to the characteristics of their target customers which will contribute to the cumulative effectiveness of their brand advertisements.</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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".