MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2408581139 · doi:10.5539/ijms.v8n3p99

The Impact of Sales Promotions on Sales Turnover in Airlines Industry in Nigeria

2016· article· en· W2408581139 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
James A. Adeniran, Thomas K. Egwuonwu, Clara O. K. Egwuonwu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Marketing Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncentiveBusinessSales promotionPromotion (chess)MarketingSales managementPreferenceAdvertisingEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>This study seeks to determine the impact of sales promotions on sales turnover in the airlines industry in Nigeria. Ex post facto and survey research design were adopted. Secondary data on average monthly passenger turnover covering a period of 25 years (1991-2015) were collected from the records of airport authority. A questionnaire was also administered to 450 air travellers to ascertain the extent to which sales promotions incentives stimulate them to travel by air within Nigeria. Frequency analysis, regression and t-Test methods of analysis were applied. The results show that sales promotions incentives significantly impacted sales turnover in the airlines industry; and air travellers prefer non-monetary sales promotional offers and off-line incentives to monetary and online offers. The study, therefore, recommends that the management of the airlines need to be more innovative in making promotion offers to air travellers so as to optimize the opportunity. Non-monetary and offline incentives offerings should be emphasized to meet the preference of air travellers. For future research, the study suggests that the focus can be on identifying other salient factors that motivate passengers to travel by air so as to boost industry sales.</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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Marketing StudiesSame topicConsumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and IdentificationFrench-language works237,207