MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404599522 · doi:10.5267/j.uscm.2024.7.023

The effect of integrated marketing mix model on customer retention

2024· article· en· W4404599522 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sultan Alaswad Alenazi, Faraj Mazyed Faraj Aldaihani, Badrea Al-Oraini, Asokan Vasudevan, Seyed Ghasem Saatchi, Suleiman Ibrahim Shelash Mohammad

Bibliographic record

VenueUncertain Supply Chain Management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQassim University
KeywordsMarketingCustomer retentionBusinessPromotion (chess)Marketing mixProduct (mathematics)Relationship marketingCustomer advocacySample (material)Marketing managementService qualityService (business)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims at exploring the effect of four elements of an integrated marketing mix. The mix consists of both elements of the 4Ps and SIVA marketing models. These elements are product-solution, promotion-information, place-access, and price-value. A questionnaire was used to collect the required data from a sample of retailing market customers in Saudi Arabia. The total number of the questionnaires used in data analysis was 378. The study found that product-solution and place-access from customers’ perspective had significant effects on customer retention. On the other hand, price-value had a negative significant effect on customer retention, while promotion-information had no effect on customer retention. Hence, companies are called for considering products as solutions, promotion as a source of information for customers, place as an access point for such a solution, and price must be appropriate to the value that the customer gets.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.234 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUncertain Supply Chain ManagementSame topicCustomer Service Quality and LoyaltyFrench-language works237,207