Três riscas, três logótipos : um estudo centrado no consumidor sobre os logótipos da marca Adidas e o seu impacto no património da marca
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation studies the impact of brand logos on brand equity exemplified by Adidas, one of the leaders in the global sportswear market. This research examines whether and how the three Adidas logos - Trefoil, Performance Logo and Badge of Sport (BOS) - are perceived differently by consumers. Utilizing Keller’s Brand Equity Pyramid, this research assesses the influence of logos on various dimensions of brand equity and the potential moderating role of product categories. To answer these research questions, a pre-survey, in-depth interviews and a final survey were conducted. The final survey features an a/b test, which combined a typical product from one of two product categories with one of the three Adidas logos each. A statistical analysis revealed that logos did not significantly affect overall brand equity. However, the impact of logos differed across specific parts of the Brand Equity Pyramid. The BOS was consistently linked with more positive associations compared to the other two logos. No significant moderating effect of the product category was found, although some results differed across categories. Hypotheses from marketing literature were mostly rejected. Further research is needed, especially about the impact of actual logos from well-known brands. This dissertation contributes to both academic literature and marketing practice. The results appear to be particularly relevant to Adidas, as it apparently re-structures its brand architecture in 2024, changed its logo approach for a high-profile launch in August 2024 and phased out the BOS in contrast to positive results from this research.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".