MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2534592641 · doi:10.5430/jbar.v5n2p83

The Influence of National Culture on Marketing Strategies in Africa

2016· article· en· W2534592641 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ecartin Koutoua Bosson, Mehraz Boolaky, Mridula Gungaphul

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Business Administration Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Socioeconomic Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of MauritiusUniversity of LiverpoolUniversity of RoehamptonMiddlesex University
KeywordsMarketingUncertainty avoidanceBusinessHofstede's cultural dimensions theoryExploratory researchExploratory factor analysisAdvertisingPsychologySociologyPolitical scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the national cultural factors that influence marketing strategies implemented by international firms in thirteen African countries. This is an exploratory study based on interviews and questionnaires involving fifty marketing managers for data collection. Data was analyzed using a combination of content analysis with coding techniques. The findings demonstrate that the national cultural factors studied influence the marketing strategies at different levels. Sales promotions are impacted by six factors while new product introduction is mainly influenced by power distance and uncertainty avoidance. Language is from far the most influencing cultural factor on communication and advertising strategies. The findings indicate that it is possible for managers to design and implement better business strategies when entering the African market. This research extends the knowledge of African culture and its impact on consumer behavior, which is an important variable in marketing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Business Administration ResearchSame topicInnovation and Socioeconomic DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207