MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3088647884 · doi:10.17722/ijme.v15i2.1159

Impact of Advertising on Consumer Purchase Decision in Sudan

2020· article· en· W3088647884 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mujahid Adam Ismail Ibrahim

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Management Excellence · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Retail Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPurchasingAdvertisingBusinessMarketingProduct (mathematics)Promotion (chess)Sales promotionService (business)Marketing communicationEntertainmentLoyalty

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advertisements are a tool of communication used in the marketing and promotion of a product or service by the brand. It promotes an integrated marketing communication which emotionally motivates the consumers to make purchases. The advertisement has a strong linkage with the proliferation of the media and the entertainment industry. This research aimed to investigate the impact of advertisements on consumer purchase decisions. The research methodology adopted a primary research design with a quantitative and qualitative approach. Five hundred questionnaires were distributed and 466 questionnaires were collected and included in the study. As per the statistical analysis, a strong positive correlation has been found between advertisement and consumers purchasing decisions. The investigation of this study indicate that consumers consider TV as the most effective tool for the promotion of certain brand products or services. Also, study find that, Purchase decisions were also affected by the seller’s way of showing the product or the method of advertisement. Therefore, there are chances for those interested in the marketing domain to benefit from the findings of this research and may use them to analyse what aspects of advertisements change the buying behaviour and purchasing decisions of consumers.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.233
Threshold uncertainty score0.506

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Management ExcellenceSame topicConsumer Retail Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207