MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3118606065 · doi:10.1108/jbim-12-2019-0532

Assessing industry differences in marketing innovation using multi-level modeling

2021· article· en· W3118606065 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Business and Industrial Marketing · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicInnovation Diffusion and Forecasting
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarketingBusinessContext (archaeology)Product innovationCompetition (biology)Scale (ratio)Marketing managementInnovation management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Currently, the bulk of research on marketing innovation focuses on various firm-level dimensions using relationships from the technological (product and process) innovation literature. Research on industry-level differences in marketing innovation is lacking. Testing relationships form the technological paradigm in the context of the marketing innovation paradigm is also lacking. This paper aims to present empirical evidence on both aspects using a large-scale data set. Design/methodology/approach This study uses two large-scale datasets, each consisting of approximately 4,000 Canadian enterprises in 18 industries. The data was collected by Statistics Canada in 2009 and 2012 through its nationwide Survey of Innovation and Business Strategies program. Two widely used theoretical frameworks, resource-based view of the firm and the competitive perspective, are used to generate constructs and hypotheses in relation to marketing innovation. The data was analyzed using multi-level logistic regression. Findings The findings show that industry-level competition is a much more important driver of marketing innovation than firm-level competition. The authors also show that marketing constructs that are significant in the context of technological innovation are also significant for marketing innovation. Research limitations/implications This study extends the firm-level literature by providing evidence of how industry-level dynamics enhances marketing innovation. The study also provides empirical evidence from Canadian enterprises that complement those from other countries. Practical implications A deeper understanding of the drivers of marketing innovation can enable managers to enact innovation strategies that can enhance organizational performance, differentiate themselves and enhance customer engagement and brand image. Originality/value As one of the few studies to examine industry-level differences in marketing innovation, the authors show that disaggregating competition into industry-level and firm-level provides a clearer picture of how competition advances marketing innovation. Additionally, this study is the first of its kind to provide empirical evidence on Canadian enterprises, thereby complementing evidence on marketing innovation from other countries. Thus, this study makes a theoretical and empirical contribution to the emerging marketing innovation literature.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.080
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.498
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.080
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.516
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.106 · 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