Rebranding: The Effect of Team Name Changes on Club Revenue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research question: The purpose of this study is to explore the financial effect of four types of team name changes, three of which have not been previously studied. We do so in the context of development leagues where rebranding occurs with considerable frequency, thus affecting a great number of sport managers.\n Research methods: The effect of rebranding on club revenue was derived by combining the results of two analyses. The first used an economic demand equation to examine the attendance variations of 475 Minor League Baseball teams in 244 cities in the United States and Canada between 1980 and 2011 that engaged in one (or more) of four different types of name changes. The second examined changes in merchandise sales after a rebranding effort.\n Results and Findings: The results indicate that development teams fail to derive financial gains from adopting the names of their major league parent clubs. Instead, teams that abandon unique local names see large attendance decreases suggesting that local names generate greater brand awareness and brand image than their major league counterparts. The largest merchandise gains are generated by teams that adopt new, local names.\nImplications: These findings further our understanding of the outcomes of brand management and rebranding efforts by acknowledging that former and future names have varying levels of brand equity that have real effects on consumer purchasing behaviors and subsequent financial gains and losses.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".