Assessing the role of stakeholder relationships in the promotion of a major event on social media
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2016, the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) hosted an event for the first time at Madison Square Garden in New York City. The McGregor-Alveraz fight card held three championship fights which was another first in the UFC. During the weeks before the fight, the UFC relied heavily on league and fighters to engage with fans through social media to promote the event. Therefore, this study employed a relationship marketing framework to examine consumer engagement on social media. The research focused on UFC 205, one of the most high-profile Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) events in history. After examining the Twitter activity surrounding UFC 205, it was found that both groups focus primarily on disseminating content that highlights group experience and information sharing. However, promotional content was retweeted most frequently by followers. The UFC is considered a leader in social media marketing among professional sport leagues, so the study holds important implications for sport marketers across numerous industry sectors Keywords: Social Media, Brand Ambassadors, Marketing, Event Promotion, eWOM DOI: 10.7176/JMCR/92-06 Publication date: February 28 th 2024
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 | 0.063 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".