Blending the past and present in a retro branded music concert: the impact of nostalgia proneness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Retro branding is gaining unprecedented momentum. This study aims to empirically examine the moderating impact of nostalgia proneness on the relationship between retro branding and consumer behavioral intentions in the music industry. Nostalgia and retro branding are two paramount elements conceptually discussed in literature but rarely investigated together empirically despite their interconnections. Design/methodology/approach An experiment including four different scenarios blending retro and contemporary stimuli was conducted on 181 subjects. Two rock band variables were manipulated: song set list (i.e. list of songs) and band lineup. Findings The findings suggest that mixing the past and present for a retro brand impacts consumer behavior. A more nuanced explanation is suggested by showing that a retro brand has a strong effect on consumers’ intentions to attend and willingness to pay, but not on their WOM intentions, when these consumers are more prone to feeling nostalgia. Originality/value Nostalgia and retro branding appear to be interconnected concepts, but few studies have assessed how nostalgia proneness can impact consumers’ intentions toward a retro brand. Fewer have investigated consumers’ intentions toward an experiential, intangible retro 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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".