MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379911827 · doi:10.54254/2754-1169/5/20220085

The Impact of Influencer Marketing Compared with Celebrity Endorsement on the Chinese Market

2023· article· en· W4379911827 on OpenAlexaff
Kai Chen, Yi Lyu, Qingjing He

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Economics Management and Political Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Marketing and Social Media
Canadian institutionsSpinal Cord Injury BC
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessPromotion (chess)AdvertisingInfluencer marketingMarketingChinaThe InternetSocial mediaSample (material)Marketing managementRelationship marketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article discusses the impact of influencer marketing in the Chi-nese market. Due to the rapid growth of online shopping, influencer promotion has become an important marketing method in the Chinese market. The leading social media in China are Douyin, Red Book, and WeChat. And all of this software comes with an online shopping mall component. The presence of Taobao has also made online shopping more convenient. Social media professionals often have their shops on Taobao. We surveyed consumers of all ages across China using a ques-tionnaire and obtained a sample of 241. The questionnaire was de-signed to compare the impact of online marketing and celebrity en-dorsement on consumers in the Chinese market. Our survey showed that Chinese consumers are likelier to choose products promoted by internet celebrities, with female consumers being the majority. And the majority prefer beauty and garment products. Based on the ques-tionnaire analysis, it can be concluded that influencer marketing is more prevalent in the Chinese market. Due to the development of technology, people do not need to go to offline shops to buy products. Online shopping is more convenient for consumers. And influencer promotion just makes up for the lack of online shopping. Influencer demonstrations of products allow consumers to visualize the effec-tiveness of the products and thus feel confident in their purchases. This is also the reason why most consumers choose influencer market-ing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Economics Management and Political SciencesSame topicDigital Marketing and Social MediaFrench-language works237,207