MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607302408 · doi:10.1002/mar.20999

Consumer Branded #Hashtag Engagement: Can Creativity in TV Advertising Influence Hashtag Engagement?

2017· article· en· W2607302408 on OpenAlexaff
Αναστασία Σταθοπούλου, Laurence Borel, George Christodoulides, Douglas West

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology and Marketing · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Marketing and Social Media
Canadian institutionsKellogg's (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdvertisingCreativityNoveltyContext (archaeology)PsychologyRelevance (law)Social mediaBusinessComputer scienceSocial psychologyWorld Wide WebPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This study examines the effects of creativity on consumer branded hashtag engagement in the context of TV advertising. Applying a qualitative design, two types of TV commercials were selected: humorous and warmth. This was followed by a quantitative study with 259 participants suggesting that novelty and relevance in TV advertisements together with brand familiarity are important drivers of consumer branded hashtag engagement. Consumer branded hashtag engagement, in turn, encourages consumers to share advertisements online through different social media platforms. In addition, brand familiarity and the type of TV advertisement were found to be significant moderators. The results of this study highlight the pertinence of hashtags for consumer–brand engagement, and contribute to a better understanding of consumer branded hashtag engagement in advertising. Guidance to advertisers on how to utilize creativity in TV advertisements to encourage consumer engagement with the brand is offered.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.337 · 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

Citations85
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychology and MarketingSame topicDigital Marketing and Social MediaFrench-language works237,207