Sports Marketing Plan: An Alternative Framework for Sports Club
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The principles and tools of Sports Marketing represent the essential knowledge sports marketers require to a sports club develop strategies of events, matches and activities focused on customer-fans. However, for developing them, it is necessary a framework of Sports Marketing which comprises an arrange of processes for putting on practice the conception of marketing-oriented to customer-fans’ needs. This paper aims to introduce an alternative Sports Marketing plan framework for sports marketers to plan, carry out as well as implement marketing strategies to create customer-fan-orientation philosophy of sports club. This study is part of a project which will provide some other empirical papers which will introduce the Sports Marketing principles on the perspectives of sports club from São Paulo, Brazil. This Sports Marketing Plan framework comprises three dimensions: (i) diagnosis of the situation, (ii) goals and fan’s audience and (iii) Sports Marketing mix. The idea of producing this paper is orienting sport managers as well as Sports Marketing which studying, applying and researching this subject of improving the strategies for the planning, carrying out and assessing the Sports Marketing strategies and, also, for assisting sports clubs to professionalise its business management and improve its exchange process with their customer fans.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".