The Role of Heritage and Authenticity in the Value Creation of Fashion Brand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper builds on traditional and recent marketing research concerning the constituents of brand authenticity, particularly investigating consumers’ experience in the context of fashion industry. Specifically, we attempt to unpack the dimensions underlying the concept of brand authenticity by, first, correlating the role of heritage and ‘mythopoesis’ – the creation of a myth through repetitive narrative – and, second, by applying our proposed theoretical framework to four Italian luxury fashion brands, namely Gucci, Salvatore Ferragamo, Lous Vuitton, and Stefano Ricci. Thanks to the positioning of such fashion brands according to different levels of heritage and authenticity, it emerges how mythopoesis allow brand marketers to transfer brand heritage from past to both present and future. In this way, the risk of brand fixation in the celebration of the past may be overcome. Managerial implications are finally discussed, showing how marketers may foster or hinder brand authenticity, and how such an aspect affects consumer experience and attitude toward the brand.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".