MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7020926717

Marketing, branding and sales agreements : case studies from small-scale farms in Canada and Sweden

2008· other· en· W7020926717 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueEpsilon Archive for Student Projects (University of Southampton) · 2008
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProduction (economics)Order (exchange)PerceptionQualitative researchSales managementFocus groupQualitative propertyVertical integration
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We are presently living in a complex society where there is a great distance between the production and the consumption. The debate about the importance of "eating locally produced food" escalates as research shows correlation between life styles and a climate in change. The interest for value-added food is steadily increasing in Sweden but also in other countries. Even if small-scale food production is obtaining great support, small producers have a lot of challenges and considerations to make, due to their lack of resources. 
\n
\nThe aim with this study is to investigate and to get a better understanding of how farmers successfully manage to communicate their brand and if a brand can facilitate the sales agreements. This thesis and the result are based upon qualitative case studies, since the aim is to explore and develop knowledge in the area of small-scale production rather than to try a hypothesis or to obtain exact results through sampling. Also, secondary data was used. The primary focus of this study is on the producer level, their perception on successful marketing, branding strategies and what kind and form of sales agreements that is practicable and favourable. 
\n
\nIn order to be able to reach a market and to become successful, the small-scale producer has to make strategic choices. By using theories that cover why small-scale farms tend to offer more than just a "product" and which sales channels, these strategic choices can be facilitated. Finding out if a brand is considered essential and what kind of sales agreements to use are also theories that can make this dilemma easier to understand. 
\n
\nThe analysis clearly indicated that these small-scale producers work with different value grounds and pointed out quality and taste, local production and the processing stage as the most essential value grounds. Reasons for introducing the brand were, in general, to create an identity and to differentiate themselves from other brand products. The local touch was generally highlighted, to create a "home" feeling and a connection to customers. The study indicates that the majority of the case studies are an embryonic branding type, which means that they are aware of their brand but no active work is done to increase the awareness. The case studies usually had an extended time exchange with their customers since the purpose of exchange is often to create long term initiatives, where no distinct obligations and needs are required. One main distinction between the two countries is that none of the Canadian case studies sold to any retail chains. The reason was that it is impossible for them to compete with large-scale producers and supply a regular quantity. Additionally, there is no pronounced support and demand from the retailers in Canada, like there currently is in Sweden. 
\n
\nThe conclusion states that small-scale producers have to be consequent in how they communicate their brand in order to become successful. By attending events and meeting new customers, are two possible ways to communicate the brand. The study also indicated that when moving away from the farm level and aiming at bigger volumes, it gets harder to communicate the message and the meaning of the brand grows. The brand can be communicated by using information brochures and place them in a near location to the meat. Another vital approach is to use ambassadors for communicating the brand. The study also showed that the farmers generally do not want to bond to written agreements since they can not guarantee a supply on a regular basis. To secure the transaction and to protect the brand, the possible need for a written agreement increases, the further the small-scale producer gets from the farm level.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.216 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpsilon Archive for Student Projects (University of Southampton)Same topicAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207