Examining the ParticipACTION brand using the brand equity pyramid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The brand equity pyramid is a theory that explains how people develop loyalty and an attachment to a brand. The purpose of this study is to test whether the predictions made by the theory hold when applied to the brand of ParticipACTION, a Canadian non-profit organization that promotes active living. A secondary objective was to test whether this theory predicted intentions to be more physically active. Design/methodology/approach A research agency conducted a cross-sectional, online brand health survey on behalf of ParticipACTION. Exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis established the factor structure. Structural equation modeling was used to test the hypothesized model. Findings A nationally representative sample of Canadian adults (N = 1,191) completed the survey. Exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis supported a hypothesized five-factor brand equity framework (i.e. brand identity, brand meaning, brand responses, brand resonance and intentions). A series of structural equation models also provided support for the hypothesized relationships between the variables. Practical implications Though preliminary, the results provide a guide for understanding the branding process in the activity-promotion context. The constructs identified as being influential in this process can be targeted by activity-promotion organizations to improve brand strength. A strong organizational brand could augment activity-promotion interventions. A strong brand may also help the organization better compete against other brands promoting messages that are antithetical to their own. Originality/value This is the first study to test the brand equity pyramid using an activity-promotion brand. Results demonstrate that the brand equity pyramid may be useful in this context.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".