Evaluates digital marketing effectiveness in tourism and textile sectors, indicating sector-specific advantages.
This study comparatively evaluates the effectiveness of remarketing strategies under digital transformation in Uzbekistan’s service (tourism and hospitality) and manufacturing (textile) sectors, grounded in the Resource-Based View (RBV) and the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Using a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design, 280 enterprises (140 per sector) from four regions of Uzbekistan were surveyed, integrating quantitative analysis (OLS regression, t-test, χ2-test, PLS-SEM) and Monte Carlo simulation (20,000 iterations) with qualitative in-depth interviews (n = 32). The textile sector exhibited higher but more volatile returns (ROI = 82.1%; CV = 0.18), whereas the tourism sector achieved more stable yet lower returns (ROI = 48.3%; CV = 0.11) (t(278) = −22.84; p < 0.001; Cohen’s d = 2.73). AI-based personalization was positively associated with ROI (β = 0.28, p < 0.001) and with reduced revenue volatility through an indirect pathway (indirect effect = 5.04, 95% CI [4.10, 6.00]), with significantly stronger associations in the textile sector (Δ = 1.64, p < 0.05). This study contributes to digital marketing theory by demonstrating sector-specific heterogeneity in AI personalization mechanisms, providing empirical evidence of the infrastructure–ROI variability relationship in a transition economy, and demonstrating the value of integrating Monte Carlo–based uncertainty analysis with mixed-methods evidence as a robustness device. The findings carry direct implications for sustainable economic development in transition economies: by demonstrating how sector-specific digital marketing strategies are linked to and can enhance the long-term viability and resource efficiency of enterprises, this study contributes to advancing Sustainable Development Goal 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure), and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Beloeva et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: