MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955266486 · doi:10.1080/0267257x.2019.1620839

Branding in the age of social media firestorms: how to create brand value by fighting back online

2019· article· en· W2955266486 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Marketing Management · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Relations and Crisis Communication
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNetnographySocial mediaPerspective (graphical)Value (mathematics)AdvertisingBrand managementCorporate brandingBrand equityMarketing communicationMarketingEmployer brandingBusinessPublic relationsPolitical scienceNew product developmentProduct management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Leading research on social media firestorms typically advises managers to quickly quell the backlash by appeasing brand critics. Drawing on crisis communications and branding research, we offer a radically different perspective and argue that brands can benefit from fighting back online. Through a netnography of a moral-based firestorm, we contribute to the marketing and crisis communications literatures by identifying the escalation strategy as a way to build brand value; explaining how brands can activate supporters; and providing guidance on how to assess these morally steeped events. We advance branding research by identifying how managers can provoke consumer-generated brand stories; and uncovering the hidden benefits of negative consumer voices. Finally, we outline a new perspective on how brands are dialogically constructed through a process we call ‘flyting’.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.276
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.270 · 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