Pengaruh Promosi dan Harga terhadap Keputusan Pembelian Skincare Brand Skintific di Kota Samarinda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to analyze the influence of promotion and price on purchasing decisions of the Skintific skincare brand in Samarinda. Skintific, a Canadian skincare brand, has gained popularity in Indonesia since 2021 through awards and strong digital strategies. Using a quantitative approach, this study distributed questionnaires to 100 respondents who use Skintific products in Samarinda. The results of multiple linear regression analysis showed that price has a positive and significant effect on purchasing decisions, while promotion does not have a significant partial effect. However, both variables simultaneously influence purchasing decisions significantly. This indicates that consumers in Samarinda prioritize rational aspects such as price-quality alignment over promotional appeal. Although Skintific engages in promotional tactics like discounts and influencer endorsements, price perception remains a stronger factor in consumer decisions. The study underscores the importance of competitive and relevant pricing strategies and the need for tailored promotional efforts that match local preferences. It contributes to the literature on regional consumer behavior and can serve as a reference for developing effective marketing strategies in competitive and dynamic skincare markets
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.009 | 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".