Search results

The similarities between the developments of the United States (U.S.) and China into global powers (countries with global economic, military, and political influence) can be analyzed through big data analysis from both countries. The purpose of this paper is to examine whether or not China is on the same path to becoming a world power like what the U.S. did one hundred years ago.

The data of this study is drawn from political rhetoric and linguistic analysis by using “big data” technology to identify the most common words and political trends over time from speeches made by the U.S. and Chinese leaders from three periods, including 1905-1945 in U.S., 1977-2017 in U.S. and 1977-2017 in China.

Rhetoric relating to national identity was most common amongst Chinese and the U.S. leaders over time. The differences between the early-modern U.S. and the current U.S. showed the behavioral changes of countries as they become powerful. It is concluded that China is not a world power at this stage. Yet, it is currently on the path towards becoming one, and is already reflecting characteristics of present-day U.S., a current world power.

This paper presents a novel approach to analyze historical documents through big data text mining, a methodology scarcely used in historical studies. It highlights how China as of now is most likely in a transitionary stage of becoming a world power.

This paper aims to investigate the ways in which “non-collaborative co-creation” can affect brand equity as perceived by independent observers. It reports a study of the different effects on that perception attributable to non-collaborative co-creation that takes the form of either “brand play” or “brand attack” and is executed either by established artists or mainstream consumers.

A 2 × 2 between-subjects experiment (brand play versus brand attack; consumer versus artist) measured observers’ perception of brand equity before and after exposure to purpose-designed co-created treatments.

Non-collaborative co-creation has a negative effect on observers’ perceptions of brand equity and brand attack, causing a stronger dilution of brand equity than brand play. Artists either mitigate the dilution or have a positive effect on those perceptions.

Future research could usefully investigate the relative susceptibility of brands to non-collaborative co-creation, the effects on brands of higher complexity than those in our experiment, exposed in higher-involvement media, and the effects of more diverse forms of co-creation.

Brand managers must recognise that co-creation carries considerable risks for brand equity. They should closely monitor and track the first signs of non-collaborative co-creation in progress. It could be beneficial to recruit artists as co-creators of controlled brand play.

This study offers a more complete insight into the effect of non-collaborative co-creation on observers’ perceptions of brand equity than so far offered by the existing literature. It connects the fields of brand management and the arts by investigating the role and impact of artists as collaborative or non-collaborative co-creators of brand equity.