Jump to content

Draft:Semantic Brand Score

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  • Comment: Connections between words are established based on their co-occurrence within a specified proximity, such as within a sentence. Pre-processing of natural language is preliminary [sic] used to refine texts, involving tasks like eliminating stopwords and word affixes through stemming. The proximity in the illustration is not one sentence but three significant words. And it is curious that the "e" of purple is -- I infer -- an "affix" (to allow for purplish, etc?) but the "en" of golden is not.
    Perhaps good sources on the "Semantic Brand Score" put this more convincingly. Hoary (talk) 23:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: Outside of the lede, is un-cited, please add references to the section. Geardona (talk to me?) 21:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The Semantic Brand Score (SBS) is a measure of brand importance that can be calculated on textual data, including big data, in different contexts..[1][2][3]. The measure is rooted in graph theory and partly connected to Keller's[4] conceptualization of brand equity[5].

The SBS is a composite indicator with three dimensions: prevalence, diversity and connectitivy[6][7]

The metric can be computed by examining different text sources, such as newspaper articles, online forums, scientific papers, or social media posts[8][9][10]

Definition and calculation

[edit]

Pre-processing

[edit]

To compute the Semantic Brand Score, it is necessary to convert the analyzed texts into word networks, i.e., graphs where each node signifies a word. Connections between words are established based on their co-occurrence within a specified proximity, such as within a sentence. Pre-processing of natural language is preliminary used to refine texts, involving tasks like eliminating stopwords and word affixes through stemming[11]. Here is a sample network derived from pre-processing the sentence "The dawn is the appearance of light - usually golden, pink or purple - before sunrise".

Prevalence

[edit]

This dimension measures the frequency of brand name usage, indicating how often a brand is explicitly referenced in a corpus. The prevalence factor is associated with brand awareness, suggesting that a brand mentioned frequently in a text is more familiar to its authors[6][7][10]. Likewise, frequent mentions of a brand name enhance its recognition and recall among readers.

Diversity

[edit]

This dimension assesses the variety of words linked with a brand, focusing on textual associations. These textual associations refer to the words used alongside a particular brand. Measurement involves employing the degree centrality indicator, reflecting the number of connections a brand node has in the semantic network[1]. Alternatively, an approach using distinctiveness centrality[12] has been proposed, assigning greater significance to unique brand associations and reducing redundancy. The rationale is that distinctive textual associations enrich discussions about a brand, thereby enhancing its memorability.

Diversity can be calculated for the brand node in a semantic network, i.e., a weighted undirected graph G, made of n nodes and m arcs. If two nodes, i and j, are not connected, then , otherwise the weight of the arc connecting them is . In the following, is the degree of node j and is the indicator function which equals 1 if , i.e. if there is an arc connecting nodes i and j.

.

Connectivity

[edit]

This third dimension evaluates a brand's connectivity within broader discourse, indicating its capacity to serve as a bridge between various words/concepts (nodes) in the network[1][2][3]. It captures a brand's brokerage power, its ability to connect different words, groups of words, or topics together. The calculation hinges on the weighted betweenness centrality metric[3].[13]

Semantic Brand Score

[edit]

The Semantic Brand Score indicator is given by the sum of the standardized values of prevalence, diversity, and connectivity[1][6][7]. SBS standardization is typically performed by subtracting the mean from the raw scores of each dimension and then dividing by the standard deviation [3]. This process takes into account the scores of all relevant words in the corpus.

SBS measures brand importance, a construct that cannot be understood by examining a single dimension alone. Indeed, a brand name might be frequently mentioned in posts repeating the same content, indicating high prevalence but low diversity. Conversely, a brand cited across diverse contexts would show both high prevalence and diversity. Connectivity, which increases when a brand bridges various topics, could still remain low if the brand is discussed only within a niche of the overall discourse.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b c d Schlaile, Michael P.; Bogner, Kristina; Muelder, Laura (2021). "It's more than complicated! Using organizational memetics to capture the complexity of organizational culture". Journal of Business Research. 129: 801–812. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.035.
  2. ^ a b Santomauro, Giuseppe; Alderuccio, Daniela; Ambrosino, Fiorenzo; Migliori, Silvio (2021). "Ranking Cryptocurrencies by Brand Importance: A Social Media Analysis in ENEAGRID". In Bitetta, Valerio; Bordino, Ilaria; Ferretti, Andrea; Gullo, Francesco; Ponti, Giovanni; Severini, Lorenzo (eds.). Mining Data for Financial Applications. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 12591. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 92–100. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-66981-2_8. ISBN 978-3-030-66981-2.
  3. ^ a b c d Bashar, Md Abul; Nayak, Richi; Balasubramaniam, Thirunavukarasu (2022-07-25). "Deep learning based topic and sentiment analysis: COVID19 information seeking on social media". Social Network Analysis and Mining. 12 (1): 90. doi:10.1007/s13278-022-00917-5. ISSN 1869-5469. PMC 9312316. PMID 35911483.
  4. ^ Keller, Kevin Lane (1993). "Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity". Journal of Marketing. 57 (1): 1–22. doi:10.1177/002224299305700101. ISSN 0022-2429.
  5. ^ Fronzetti Colladon, Andrea (2018). "The Semantic Brand Score". Journal of Business Research. 88: 150–160. arXiv:2105.05781. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.03.026.
  6. ^ a b c Bianchino, Antonella; Fusco, Daniela; Pisciottano, Daniele (2021-05-27). "How to Measure the Touristic Competitiveness: A Mixed Mode Model Proposal" (PDF). Athens Journal of Tourism. 8 (2): 131–146. doi:10.30958/ajt.8-2-4.
  7. ^ a b c Beccari, Nicholas; Nicola, Valerio (2019). Brand-generated and Usergenerated content videos on YouTube: characteristics, behavior and user perception (PDF). Milan, Italy: Politecnico di Milano.
  8. ^ Indraccolo, Ugo; Losavio, Ernesto; Carone, Mauro (2023). "Applying graph theory to improve the quality of scientific evidence from textual information: Neural injuries after gynaecologic pelvic surgery for genital prolapse and urinary incontinence". Neurourology and Urodynamics. 42 (3): 669–679. doi:10.1002/nau.25133. ISSN 0733-2467. PMID 36648454.
  9. ^ Kasia, Parys. "Polish Twitter on immigrants during the 2021 Belarus–European Union border crisis". www.linkedin.com. Retrieved 2024-04-03.
  10. ^ a b Das, Sibanjan Debeeprasad; Bala, Pradip Kumar; Das, Sukanta (2024). "Exploiting User-Generated Content in Product Launch Videos to Compute a Launch Score". IEEE Access. 12: 49624–49639. Bibcode:2024IEEEA..1249624D. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3381541. ISSN 2169-3536.
  11. ^ Perkins, Jacob; Fattohi, Faiz (2014). Python 3 text processing with NLTK 3 cookbook. Quick answers to common problems (2nd ed.). Birmingham: Packt Publishing Ltd. ISBN 978-1-78216-785-3.
  12. ^ Colladon, Andrea Fronzetti; Naldi, Maurizio (2020-05-22). "Distinctiveness centrality in social networks". PLOS ONE. 15 (5): e0233276. arXiv:1912.03391. Bibcode:2020PLoSO..1533276F. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0233276. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 7244137. PMID 32442196.
  13. ^ Bashar, Md Abul; Nayak, Richi; Knapman, Gareth; Turnbull, Paul; Fforde, Cressida (December 2023). "An Informed Neural Network for Discovering Historical Documentation Assisting the Repatriation of Indigenous Ancestral Human Remains". Social Science Computer Review. 41 (6): 2293–2317. arXiv:2303.14475. doi:10.1177/08944393231158788. ISSN 0894-4393.
[edit]