Marketing Communications Strategy in Advanced and Emerging Markets: An International Comparison
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examine the role of ‘marketing communications’ in emerging markets. We sought to understand if ‘marketing communications’ holds the same relevance and meanings to managers in emerging markets as to those in advanced economies. Initially we conducted a series of case studies with managers in Vietnam, to evaluate the applicability of marketing approaches in emerging markets and understand the nature of relevant constructs and relationships. We then conducted a second study to deepen knowledge on ‘marketing communications’ in the two types of economies. Initially we developed a collection of hypotheses based on the earlier case study findings and on extant literature. We then utilized large-scale empirical data collected from exporting firms to assess the hypotheses and compare the role of ‘marketing communications’ across emerging markets and advanced economies. Findings confirm the applicability and importance of ‘marketing communications’ in emerging markets and generally show support for the hypotheses. We offer discussion and implications for managers.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it