Brand Awareness and Brand Preference for Carbonated Soft Drinks: Evidence from Cadbury Schweppes Ethiopia Research Evidence from Life Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When Schweppes entered the Ethiopian soft drink market viable competitors were Pepsi and Coca Cola. However, its entry into the soft drink market was largely meant to realize its potential to serve a large chunk of the Ethiopian soft drink flavor market which was under-served by the two giants. Whether this market niche provided sustained and superior returns was dependent on the business environment. It was in this environment that Schweppes had carried out a series of promotional campaigns to increase the sale of its wide range products in the market. The research on the effectiveness of the promotional campaign showed that quite significant number of potential consumers was exposed to the brand advertisement. The research result also indicated the awareness rate as measured by the frequency of exposure to the media within a short span of time. The analysis highlighted the rate of brand recall, brand trial and favorite brand usage. The method used in this sample testing survey sampling 2171 consumers made no pretense of being exhaustive. Commercial recall testing was carried out in different outlets by interviewing a random sample of consumers using a standard questionnaire. Consumers were sampled from groceries, hotels, restaurants, supermarkets, clubs, crowded streets and Mercato depot area. The survey was carried out in 2000. The author developed this research in his capacity as marketing development manager for Schweppes-Summit International.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".