Search results
1 – 2 of 2Lydia Mähnert, Caroline Meyer, Ulrich R. Orth and Gregory M. Rose
The purpose of this paper is to examine how users on social media view brands with a heritage. Consumers commonly post opinions and accounts of their experiences with brands on…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to examine how users on social media view brands with a heritage. Consumers commonly post opinions and accounts of their experiences with brands on social media. Such consumer-generated content may or may not overlap with content desired by brand managers. Drawing from “The medium is the message” paradigm, this study text-mines user narratives on Twitter1 to shed light on the role of social media in shaping public images of brands with heritage through the lens of the stereotype content model.
Design/methodology/approach
The study uses a data set of almost 80,000 unique tweets on 12 brands across six categories, compares brands high versus low in heritage and combines dictionary-based content analysis with sentiment analysis.
Findings
The results indicate that both user-generated content and sentiment are significantly more positive for brands low rather than high in heritage. Regarding warmth, consumers use significantly more positive words on sociability and fewer negative words on morality for brands low rather than high in heritage. Regarding competence, tweets include more positive words on assertiveness and ability for low-heritage brands. Finally, overall sentiment is more positive for brands low rather than high in heritage.
Practical implications
Important from co-creation and integrated marketing communication perspectives, the findings provide brand managers with actionable insights on how to more effectively use social media.
Originality/value
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this research is among the first to examine user-generated content in a brand heritage context. It demonstrates that heritage brands, with their longevity and strong links to the past, need to be aware of how contemporary social media can detract from their image.
Details
Keywords
Pei-Chi Kelly Hsiao, Mary Low and Tom Scott
This paper aims to examine the extent to which performance indicators (PIs) reported by New Zealand (NZ) higher education institutions (HEIs) correspond with accounting standards…
Abstract
Purpose
This paper aims to examine the extent to which performance indicators (PIs) reported by New Zealand (NZ) higher education institutions (HEIs) correspond with accounting standards and guidance and the effects issuance of principles-based authoritative guidance and early adoption of Public Benefit Entity Financial Reporting Standard 48 (PBE FRS 48) have on the PIs disclosed.
Design/methodology/approach
Using a content analysis index derived from accounting standards and guidance, we conduct a longitudinal assessment of the 2016 and 2019 statements of service performance published by 22 NZ HEIs.
Findings
The PIs reported extend beyond the service performance elements proposed by standard-setters. Despite few indicators on intermediate and broader outcomes, the measures disclosed by HEIs are reflective of their role in the NZ economy and the national Tertiary Education Strategy. The results show that principles-based authoritative guidance and early adoption of PBE FRS 48 influence the focus and type of measures disclosed, while there is no evidence of improvements in the reporting of impacts, outcomes and information useful for performance evaluation.
Practical implications
This paper provides timely insights for standard-setters and regulators on the influence principles-based accounting standards and guidance have on non-financial reporting practices.
Originality/value
This study contributes to the scant literature on HEIs’ service performance reporting. It presents a model for conceptualising HEIs’ PIs that can be used as a basis for future research on non-financial reporting. It also reflects on the tension between accountability and “accountingisation”, suggesting that, although the PIs reported support formal accountability, they do not communicate whether HEIs’ activities and outputs meet their social purpose.
Details