排序方式: 共有60条查询结果,搜索用时 109 毫秒
1.
2.
Els De Waegeneer Jeroen Van De Sompele Annick Willem 《Journal of Business Ethics》2016,135(3):587-603
Although there is a growing body of research on social media, only few studies have considered organic products. Therefore, this study mapped the diffusion path of the social media resources for organic products in Mexico and South Korea through Twitter and compared the contents of tweets about organic products in terms of their semantic and hyperlink networks using webometric methods. The results indicate that for organic products, Koreans sent tweets much more frequently than Mexicans. Mexican tweets focused on basic food products in street markets, whereas Korean tweets highlighted promotions and firms, revealing the corporatist structure of its economy. In both cases, the findings support Twitter as a useful tool for Word-of-Mouth Communication on the online environment, among product consumers, and between consumers and enterprises. 相似文献
3.
Sophie Op de Beeck Jan Wynen Annie Hondeghem 《International Journal of Human Resource Management》2016,27(17):1901-1919
Previous studies already established the idea of a partnership in which HR professionals and line managers share an organisation’s HRM responsibility. Yet, this relationship is often plagued by conflicts and other obstacles. As such, a perceptual discrepancy is likely to exist between both parties on the degree of HR devolution, which may eventually lead to bad performance. Using survey data, we empirically analyse which factors may explain a perceptual discrepancy between HR professionals and line managers on the latter group’s role in HRM. Results show that the HR-line discrepancy on the degree of HR devolution is rooted in differences in perception on several other factors, including organisational support, (personnel) red tape, the line’s individual capacity and age. Overall, though, it is a matter of understanding both HR’s expectations and the line’s experiences in all aspects of their partnership. 相似文献
4.
“One-deal-fits-all?” On Category Sales Promotion Effectiveness in Smaller versus Larger Supermarkets
Even within a store chain and format, supermarket outlets often exhibit substantial differences in selling surface. For chain managers, this raises the issue of correctly anticipating the promotion lift, and of profitably managing promotion activities, across these outlets. In this paper, we conceptualize why and how store size influences the category sales effectiveness of four promotional indicators (depth of the promotional discount, display support, feature support, and whether the promotion is quantity-based). We then estimate the net moderating effect on four product categories for 103 store outlets belonging to four chains. For each of the promotion instruments, we find the percentage sales increases to be lower in large stores. For instance, whereas a 10% point increase in feature activity enhances category sales by about 1.64% in a 700 m2 store, this figure drops to only 1.03% in a 1300 m2 store – a 59% reduction. This moderating effect is especially pronounced for discount depth, the relative sales lift from a typical price cut being about 78% lower in the larger-sized outlet. However, since large outlets also have larger base sales, the picture changes when we consider absolute sales effects. The net outcome is that deeper discounts or quantity-based promotions do not systematically generate larger or smaller absolute sales bumps in large stores, whereas for in-store displays and features, we obtain a clear positive (be it less than proportional) link between store size and absolute category sales lift. When it comes to margin implications, we show that large stores gain higher profit from price cuts than small outlets only as long as the retailer keeps part of the manufacturer discount to himself. Managers can use these insights to improve their promotional forecasts across outlets, as well as to tailor their mix of instruments to store selling surface. 相似文献
5.
6.
Peter van Els 《De Economist》2009,157(1):125-125
7.
8.
9.
10.