BRAND POSITIONING STRATEGY IN THE COMPETITIVE ASPECT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new brand for an organization is inseparable from organizational identity. The aim of the research is to investigate the positioning strategy in terms of competitiveness and visitors of Kaunas District Public Library (KDPL). Research methodology: analysis of scientific literature and statistical data, staff survey, SWOT analysis. Main findings: the flow of visitors of KDPL in the period of 2018–2020 has decreased by a quarter, the user portrait consists of 5 user groups (employed, studying, pre-school children, unemployed persons and others), the number of library users by gender did not change, 70% consists of women, attendance of four user groups decreased or remained virtually unchanged, when the amount of employed users increased by about 16 percent. SWOT analysis has shown the absence of a brand positioning strategy. Qualitative study of the library competitors users’ needs and expectations can be analysed further. The local position of KDPL’s has shown the potential to grow up in Kaunas city. The originality of the paper covers individualized research on a brand positioning strategy of public sector organization, while the available research has been carried out on private branding. The current research will be useful for KDPL and other public organisations.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".