A Study of the Relationship between Sensory Marketing Strategies and Customer Loyalty in Experiential Retail Environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accompanied by the increasing consumer quality and the exploration of enterprises centered on user experience, the new retail model has emerged, and the emerging retail model also plays an important role in enhancing customer loyalty. This paper establishes an experiential sensory marketing model by combining perceptual theory and emerging technology from the basic features of the new retail model. Multiple linear regression model is used to study the influence of experiential sensory marketing mode on customer loyalty, and the correlation coefficient is used to analyze the correlation between the two. The correlation coefficients between the experiential sensory marketing model and customer loyalty range from 0.457 to 0.669, which is a moderate correlation. For every 1 percentage point increase in experiential sensory marketing mode, there is a significant increase of 0.647 percentage points in customer loyalty, and the average score value of customer attention under experiential sensory marketing strategy is 4.31 points. The sensory marketing strategy in experiential retail environment needs to improve the marketing standardization system, relying on professional service platform to improve the customer’s emotional experience, and then enhance customer loyalty.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".