You are on page 1of 10

jm 08-17

Insight Dashboard
Total Context blocks: 359176, Concepts: 35, Categories: 1

This is an automated Report that can be generated using the settings in the Concept Location
phase, as follows:
• Set the level of granularity (i.e. number of Concepts required)
• Select the 'Categories' of interest (e.g. Tags)
• Select which 'Concepts' to investigate

The Report is in 5 Sections - described below. The description is based on data that has been
'categorised' ('tagged') in the technology to analyse positive and negative sentiment; however
the Report can be produced across any combination of Categories of Concepts.

Section 1 - Quadrant Overview

This is a high-level, visual chart displayed in a 'magic quadrant' format. The axes are:

- Relative Frequency: a measure of the conditional probability of the Concept, given the
Category (in this case positive/negative sentiment)
• e.g. given we are looking at occurrences of positive (or negative) sentiment, how likely
is it that the Concept 'service' is mentioned

- Strength: a measure of the conditional probability of the Category (in this case
positive/negative sentiment) given the particular Concept
• e.g. given we are looking at occurrences of the Concept 'service', how often is it
mentioned in a positive (or negative) sentiment, i.e. the 'strength' of the association

There are four pertinent areas to the Quadrant; the differing colours of the Concepts denoting
their association with the particular Category.

Concepts in Quadrant 1 are weak and less prevalent or likely within the Category - a good
place for any negative sentiment to manifest. Concepts in Quadrant 4 are strong, prominent
and more likely to co-occur with the Category - a good place for positive sentiment to manifest
[Given the Category in this description is based on positive/negative sentiment].
Section 2 - Ranked Concepts for Categories Overview

This is a more quantitative analysis in ranked barchart format of the most prominent Concepts
within the particular Category - defined via a measure of the combination of their strength and
frequency characteristics.

Prominence is given by joint probability / product of marginal probabilities. e.g. given the
Attribute A and Category C, prominence is equal to (the co-occurrence count for A and C / total
number of context blocks in data set) / (occurrence of A / number of context blocks) x
(occurrence of C / number of context blocks)

It also contains hyperlinks to the appropriate reference in Section 4 of the Report - see below.

Section 3 - Ranked Compound Concepts for Categories Overview

This is similar to Section 2, providing a ranked list of the most prominent Concept pairs for the

Section 4 - Supporting Text Overview

This provides a good supporting text excerpt, and real evidence, for the top related Concepts -
for each of the Concepts identified and ranked in Section 2.

Section 5 - Ranked Concept Count

This provides the actual ranked list of ALL Concepts and their associated reference count from
the original base data.
Table of Contents

1. Quadrant Report

2. Ranked Concepts for Categories

• performance

3. Ranked Compound Concepts for Categories

• performance

4. Supporting Text Summary

• performance

5. Ranked Counts
1. Quadrant Report
2. Ranked Concepts for Categories

Category: performance

Rel Freq Strength

Concept Prominence
(%) (%)

sales 18 17 6.5

relationship 17 14 5.5

firms 26 11 4.4

influence 8 11 4.4

marketing 15 11 4.3

service 8 10 3.8

market 12 10 3.8

effect 24 8 3.4

customer 22 8 3.1

product 11 4 1.8
3. Ranked Compound Concepts for Categories

Category: performance

Concept Rel Freq (%) Strength (%) Prominence

sales & managers 2 27 60.3

service & quality 2 15 49.6

market & business 1 22 43.1

sales & network <1 35 41.5

marketing & strategy 1 17 40.5

market & strategy 1 20 40.3

relationship & knowledge 1 20 40.0

relationship & influence 2 25 38.6

sales & behavior 2 36 36.8

firms & business 2 21 36.5

marketing & knowledge 1 19 35.7

relationship & strategy 1 28 34.5

service & behavior 1 17 34.3

sales & relationship 3 30 33.7

marketing & managers 2 15 31.8

firms & marketing 6 18 31.6

influence & marketing 2 19 31.0

firms & market 6 14 30.4

marketing & business 1 21 30.3

relationship & marketing 3 24 29.1

4. Supporting Text Summary

Category: performance

Concept Related Concept Supporting Text

sales behavior Among other organiza- tional variables, supervisory

behavior has been proposed as a key driving force in this
effort (Miles and Mangold 2004; with regard to leaders’
role in internal marketing in general, see Wieseke et al.
2009). However, research attempts to substantiate this
assumption conceptually and empirically are scarce.
managers Nonetheless, our interviews suggest that retailers usu-
ally claim the majority of the value that CM creates. This
is because from a “what gets measured gets done”
perspec- tive, analyzing category-level data to set goals
and track performance in retail CM provides the retailer
with a con- trol mechanism needed to both improve and
monitor cate- gory sales and cost performance (e.
network In turn, we integrate the results of these two network
analyses with firm-provided control and objec- tive
performance data (e.g., sales growth) for each RM to test
our empirical model.
relationship e., software, such as social competence) results in better
predictions of job performance (Carroll 1993; Sternberg et
al. 1981). These conclusions have been supported by
recent meta-analytic studies on the relationship between
GMA and sales performance, which show that GMA is
unrelated to (objective) sales performance (see Farrell
and Hakstian 2001; Vinchur et al.
relationship influence We then investi- gate the specific conditions under which
the relationship might vary (i.e., the management-
controlled, researcher- controlled, and contextual
variables) by conducting a mod- erator analysis using
hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) estimation (Bijmolt and
Pieters 2001; Hox 2002; Singer and Willett 2003).
knowledge Bolton (1998) Gardial, Flint, and Woodruff (1996)

marketing In the analysis we reported previously, the relationship

between CBRP and CBPP was not supported. The
literature on relationship marketing suggests that superior
relational performance should lead to superior aggregate
firm-level business performance (Boulding et al.
strategy Possible mechanisms for this overall improvement are
evident in how academic research improves reputations
among academics, recruiters, and applicants. Fourth,
busi- ness school administrators must make a long-term
commit- ment to improving research to benefit from such
a strategy.
firms business When business longevity information is supplemented
with historical performance information, additional data
reduce the level of estimation risk, regardless of whether
the data indicate high or low variance. However,
consumers’ perceived risk falls only when additional data
are available in high-variance environments, in which
case the data also lead to increased preference for the
older firm.
market Bilinguals also use context as a guide for the vocabulary
they should use and the formality with which to use it, but
in addition, the context within which bilinguals find them-
selves can cue which language seems most appropriate.
For example, a Chinese–English bilingual making a
reservation at a Shanghai hotel might handle the
transaction in Chinese, but when in Boston, he or she will
handle the transaction in English.
marketing Management Teams Not all firms choose to have a chief
marketing officer (CMO) in their top management teams
(TMTs). This research investigates factors associated
with this choice and whether CMO presence/absence in
the face of these factors affects firm performance.
influence marketing By exploring the consequences of CMO power, we
explore whether this is because not all CMOs are equally
empow- ered to affect performance.2 Finally, by exploring
the power of marketing in the C-suite, we hope to
contribute to the emerging body of work on marketing
influence in the firm (Homburg, Workman, and Krohmer
1999; Moorman and Rust 1999; Verhoef and Leeflang
2009; Webster, Malter, and Ganesan 2003).
marketing business International relationships are increasingly critical to
business performance. Yet despite a recent surge in
international research on relationship marketing (RM), it is
unclear whether or how RM should be adapted across
knowledge What the two most successful configurations (Brand-
Focused Professionals and Sales-Driven Symbiosis)
have in common is an intense use of structural linkages,
high mar- ket knowledge within the marketing unit, and a
long-term orientation of the sales unit. These two clusters
are charac- terized by a clear, but not extreme, power
distribution between M & S. The pattern that pervades the
less success- ful configurations is low levels of
information sharing, structural linkages, and knowledge
as well as extreme power distribution.
managers Senior managers faced with the day-to-day challengesof
increasing performance of their products and ser-vices
seem to spend millions of dollars on marketing programs
without knowing whether their investments pro- duce
reasonable returns. It is possible that managers simply do
not know how or are not able to calculate the return on
investment for their marketing programs.
strategy 36) and refer to the direct involvement of the buying firm
in the supplier through activities such as supplier site
visits to provide guidance on performance improvement
and investment in supplier training and development.
Consistent with the internalized strategy, subsequent
research has also specifi- cally focused on the role of
collaborative communication (Prahinski and Benton 2004)
as a means to enhance sup- plier performance.
service behavior However, some evaluations of the effects of
(transformational) leadership development pro- grams
have been reported, suggesting that (transforma- tional)
leadership can indeed be acquired through training and
coaching (Barling, Weber, and Kelloway 1996; Deci,
Connell, and Ryan 1989; Dvir et al. 2002; Popper,
Landau, and Gluskinos 1992).
quality The bottom of Table 4 shows the outcomes achieved by
the five clusters. Cooperation quality and market
performance are retrospective perceptual measures that
reflect the situa- tion up to the survey.
market business Keywords: marketing function, cooperation, market
orientation, marketing capabilities, business performance
strategy Therefore, it cannot address questions such as how the
market dynamics (represented by the VAR) will change if
the underlying bud- geting rules change or how to design
a budgeting strategy to achieve certain market
effect We also wanted to examine whether project inflexibility
has any direct effect on performance. We regressed
customer Moreover, the IASB (2005) discussion paper explicitly
mentions cus- tomer measures as crucial for assessing
operating perfor- mance and, therefore, key information
that should be reported to investors.
product To control for other possible explanations of inflexibility
and new product performance, we include several covari-
ates in this study. We now discuss these covariates and
their measures.
5. Ranked Counts

Concept Count Category Count

customer 25922 performance 9483
effect 25517
product 22291
firms 20786
brand 15836
consumers 14498
marketing 12511
market 11666
relationship 10826
value 10593
sales 9795
time 8895
price 8767
service 7337
social 7206
behavior 7142
influence 6342
condition 6278
quality 5949
purchase 5817
advertising 5380
process 5324
managers 4887
experience 4535
similar 4370
people 4345
knowledge 3990
size 3957
strategy 3678
industry 3618
approach 3552
store 3513
business 3440
network 3116
consumption 2410