Visual Promotional Materials in Festival Branding: A Case Study of Nottingham Riverside Festival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tourism has rapidly grown into the world’s largest service sector industry as the business of attracting visitors and catering to their needs. Events such as festivals are a significant motivator of local tourism. Meanwhile, with the growing number of festivals and intense competition in the tourism industry, branding has become increasingly essential for a festival. \nThe Riverside Festival is one of Nottingham’s biggest annual festivals held along the banks of the River Trent, at Victoria Embankment, adjacent to Trent Bridge, offering three days of family entertainment, which largely contributes to Nottingham tourism. This year, Nottingham City Council plans to change the artwork that has been used for many years to portray the event in the best light and the new 2016 artwork will contribute to the branding of Riverside Festival. \nMost of the existing literature focuses on using the festival as a tool for destination branding rather than branding itself, and the role and influence of visual promotional materials in festival branding is poorly understood. Therefore, further research into the proper means to use visual promotional materials to brand a festival is needed. \nThis dissertation aims to evaluate Nottingham City Council’s 2016 \nfestival artwork for Riverside Festival, and explore the influence of visual \n1 \npromotional materials on festival branding. Content analysis and semiotic analysis have been applied to compare the 2016 artwork and 2015 artwork. An in-depth interview with an officer of communications and marketing department in Nottingham City Council provides more details of the process of developing the new artwork and ideas behind it. Also, a convenience sample of 200 attendees drawn from the 2016 Nottingham Riverside Festival is used for exploring visitor’s preferences towards 2015 and 2016 festival posters and their perceptions in the study. \nThis dissertation gives new perspectives for festival branding, particularly for local and regional festival. Recommendations for artwork designing and promoting have been made for Nottingham City Council based on the findings.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".