MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7016027830

Visual Promotional Materials in Festival Branding: A Case Study of Nottingham Riverside Festival

2016· other· en· W7016027830 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNottingham ePrints (University of Nottingham) · 2016
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismOfficerService (business)Quarter (Canadian coin)DowntownVisual communicationSERVQUALCompetition (biology)RebrandingCultural tourismContent analysis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.275
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.260 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNottingham ePrints (University of Nottingham)French-language works237,207