Luxury is what you say: Analyzing electronic word‐of‐mouth marketing of luxury products using artificial intelligence and machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Many luxury brands are investing heavily in creating dynamic video content to actively engage consumers. While it is straightforward to calculate the views or “likes” from a particular campaign to benchmark performance, analyzing consumers' comments on luxury brands' dynamic video content presents a challenge due to the unstructured nature of natural language and large comment volumes. Previous studies utilizing machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI) have not adequately examined the impact of brand types, brand luxuriousness, and consumer diversity. To address this research gap, this article tests a conceptual framework with over 29,000 comments from 88 YouTube campaigns for nine luxury brands using a combination of automatic text and image analyses. The results indicate significant differences in comments' psycholinguistic nature depending on the brand's luxuriousness (premium, prestige, and exquisite) and Copelandian classification (convenience, shopping, and specialty), as well as consumers' demographic characteristics (age, gender, and ethnicity). These findings suggest that brand managers can use machine learning and AI methods to better tailor dynamic content creation to further engage diverse target segments by refining the campaign message to encourage additional engagement.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".