add site
services
publishers
database
health videos
toolbar
stats
live show
health store
more stuff
JOIN/LOGIN
| advertise add site services publishers database health videos
| | about toolbar stats live show health store more stuff JOIN/LOGIN |
Small Business Marketing Training - Direct Marketing Training - Small... healthyyounaturally.com | Talking Watch, Talking Watches, Talking Clock, Talking Bible, Talking... independentliving.com | Cosmetic Marketing | Plastic Surgery Marketing - Aesthetic Marketing... aestheticmarketing.com |
[edit] This category of articles is woeful !Sad to say: all articles in the "marketing" category absolutely stink !! I have seldom read such crap and I have given up tryig to fix them as it would mean rewriting everything. Simple concepts are described with such pseudo-complexity, all utility is lost. There is so much overlap between articles, it's unheard of. Eg: why on earth would we need separate articles for "advertising" and for "promotion" ??? Beats me. I say: nuke all of them and start afresh. Thoughts ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.222.195 (talk) 05:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC) Absolutely agree. The whole topic of marketing lacks any framework, concept. I guess this is because Wiki by its substance is beeing built botom-up, from individual thoughts, pieces to the intended whole, but there is no concept giving the pieces any order and standard. I don§t mean Wiki as a system by that comment (which has pretty good rules and guides) but some of more complex topics, as e.g. marketing is. I will try to suggest a framework here soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.47.79.93 (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC) --Agreed, this page needs lots of work – some serious misconceptions here. I've removed the opening definition which was terrible Steve simple (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC) [edit] CONFLICT OF INTERESTSpinacia, you have admitted elsewhere that you are associated with Blackblot...com. You also created a Wikipedia article on blackblot. So, you can't insert links to blackblot...com. This is a clear case of conflict of interst. What you are doing is self-promotion to sell more of Blackblot's PMTK templates (or whatever else you / your business associates are selling through blackblot..com) by getting free advertising and free Internet traffic through Wikipedia. Also, the Blackblot article will be placed as an Article for Deletion (AFD), since there is a CONFLICT OF INTEREST on that as well... This is a clear case of CONFLICT OF INTEREST, and affects the neutrality of content for this article. Moreover, this is a shameless promotion of your business / website, without having to pay advertising money on the Internet. Please desist from SPAMMING, else your Blackblot...com will be blacklisted on WIKIMEDIA, and you will lose any advantage you might currently have on Viral Marketing throughout the WWW. Further, what has been typed here might show up on Google and other searches when BLACKBLOT is searched, and BLACKBLOT will get a lot of negative publicity. Please stop adding SPAM links to blackblot...com; else it will be removed again by me and other readers, who are trying to keep Wikipedia clean69.109.174.47 (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC) -- Get real: Wikipedia is/ will be just as commercially driven as the rest of the net/ world. Folks who want to keep commercial business out of here are dreaming !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.222.195 (talk) 05:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC) [edit] Neutrality criticismHi everyone, first time poster. Apologies in advance if I break any conventions. I have an issue with the following, from the section "Criticism of marketing" "Most marketers believe that marketing techniques themselves are amoral. While it is ethically neutral, it can be used for negative purposes, such as selling unhealthy food to obese people or selling SUVs in a time of global warming, but it can also have a positive influence on consumer welfare." I think it is unreasonable to assert without question that marketing techniques are necessarily always ethically neutral. Even leaving aside the possibility of subliminal advertising, I think it there is a case to suggest that many standard marketing techniques amount to manipulation, an obvious example being those which induce consumers to buy by agitating them (e.g. the suggestion that your breath will reek if you don't chew Extra). Bearing in mind the saturation (billboards, tv, radio etc) that can be bought by producers with sufficient capital, I repeat that it is unreasonable to say categorically that marketing is ethically neutral or even merely amoral. As evidenced by the talk page for that article, the charge of immorality is often levelled at evangelism - for similar reasons IMO. Trampling on consumers' self-image or beliefs (e.g. by negatively portraying mullets and bogans, or conversely metrosexuals) is not dissimilar from trampling on natives' faith. Apart from that it's a very good article - hope the above is taken as constructive criticism. Pandacrack 10:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
--- The whole issue here is evident from the beginning when the definition of marketing does not address one of the most important aspects of marketing: _Creating_ demand. That is arguably the morally problematic aspect of marketing. Not figuring out what people want, producing it, and then informing people so that they will buy it from me, but manipulating people so that they want something I can make. This is not just advertizing and not marketing. Part of marketing research is figuring out which kinds of things people don't "know they want" but might be manipulated into wanting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.160.107.126 (talk) 07:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC) --- I concur wholeheartedly with the post above. On closer perusal I am much less convinced that it's "a very good article" - I must admit that I presumed it would be well researched primarily from its length. Having quickly typed "define:marketing" into my beloved google, I cannot find any web definition of marketing that even remotely resembles that proposed by the article; "marketing is a social process which satisfies customer's wants" I think that this is an almost meaningless definition that borders on tautological. If you don't believe me, say it aloud: "Marketing is the process that satisfies customers' wants". Oh, that process! I love that process! Yep, whenever I have a craving for anything I reach straight for the marketing. What on earth does that mean? Moreover, as my fellow critic so astutely pointed out - this "definition" rules out even the possibility of marketing having a role in creating demand. The article goes on to say that a customer-focused company (i.e. a customer-focused approach to marketing) first determines needs and then provides a product or service. It is BLINDINGLY obvious that if that is one approach, the converse - whereby a company aims to maximise profitability by creating demand for a pre-existing product or service - not only exists, but is no less "marketing" than the other; the product-focused approach is at the opposite end of that spectrum that constitutes the field of marketing. I propose that a much more commonly accepted, comprehensive (and dare I say accurate) definition of marketing is merely this: the practice of encouraging consumers to buy products or services From what I understand I am free to edit the article to this effect, so I give due notice of my intention to do so (as soon as I figure out how) unless the author or anyone else can offer rational argument to the contrary. Christ, I've always loved this service but I begin to fear that the good folks at Conservapedia have a point - liberal bias indeed. Nobody is asking you to rip the article to shreds, but to define a subject narrowly so that you can claim that it is ethically irreproachable is going too far. Pandacrack 15:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Hurry up Pandacrack! You're right edit the article! smithonthenet@hotmail.com 19 March 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.171.241 (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] More on definitionI would extend Pandacrack and Mkellerandco's points and say that many marketers believe their role is not to encourage but to inform and communicate the value of an offering or idea. While many marketers do, in fact, see their role as 'persuader', this is a misapplication of the disciplines involved in marketing. "Encouraging" and "Persuading" are more the role of the sales arm of the enterprise-- and in modern times rarely effective in the long term unless they aid the customer. Sales and marketing often get confused as does the understanding of the role of marketing itself. Marketing tactics can certainly be applied in nefarious (dishonest) or annoying (disruptive) ways, but when they are, they are rarely effective. I would agree with earlier comments that the definition needs to be simplified and this article edited to be more NPOV using communication to connect demand with supply is not inherently evil Mediathink (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm just passing by this article, but I have to agree that the definition used at the beginning of this article is almost completely meaningless. It's laden with jargon and probably derives from inside the business of marketing, but would not help (for example) a middle-school student trying to research marketing for a class. Merriam-Webster defines marketing as:
That is much more meaningful and potentially helpful. If this article has any actual editors working on it, it would be good if they could find a more accessible wording for the article's introduction. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC) [edit] Comment PleaseHello! I was hoping you could help me out by commenting on my Wikipedia page "co-branding" I wrote this page for a class and was hoping for some feedback. Thanks, Mary Beth Mlease (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Hello! You had not discussed about service differentiation in this article. kindly discuss or download about the topic. Thank You. [edit] Market orientation vs. customer orientationThese two are not the same, as implied in the first sentence under the table of contents. See for instance: Homburg, Workman and Jensen, Fundamental Changes in Marketing Organization: The Movement Toward a Customer-Focused Organizational Structure.in Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 2000. Needs to be changed. I'd say it's a market oriented approach that's the more traditional one and as such described in this wikipedia page. Greets, Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.73.161.2 (talk) 11:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC) [edit] The Four Ps are Decisions not CharacteristicsThe original Four Ps represent the marketing decisions that need to always be made. It is an accounting of actions rather than a conceptual structure of the market. As such, it is not a description of strategic position. It is also different that the concept of marketing mix which deals with the multiple channels of promotion. The Four Ps is a straightforward but powerful concept and should not be diluted with the increasing number of items or randomly changing them, which do not relate to required actions. Gene Lieb (talk) 06:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC) [edit] Marketing mix?The introductory paragraph introduces this term without sufficiently explaining it. Would anyone not a student of marketing know what this means? I think not. Overall the introduction comes off as being cryptic, even nonsense. Vranak (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] New Definition For MarketingHaving spent years in this wretched and ethically challenged field, I posted my definition here: the end of all truth. It would never survive the plethora of wiki rules and attack by the assorted wiki nazis, but those five words are enough and everything else, in my view alone, and I make no claims beyond that, is bullshit. --Achim (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC) [edit] Suggested : a merger between sub sections : 15 Areas of marketing specialization / 16 See alsoI do not see any difference between the two sub sections ! Sanjiv swarup (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC) [edit] request for archive box to be createdOld sub sections need to be moved out Sanjiv swarup (talk) 02:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC) Created an Archive Box and moved conversation prior to 2008. --Editor br (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC) [edit] Too many listsThere are WAY too many lists here. Some sections should not be lists, where content should be explained rather than just listed. Feel free to help expand these sections. --Dan LeveilleTALK 01:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC) [edit] Marketing CommunicationsI have to say that this entire article needs a major revision, however the marketing communications section is standing out to me right now - it makes no logical sense and covers a minute aspect of communications. I think this would be a good place to start revising... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.27.133 (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC) [edit] this article needed (and still needs) a major rewrite!I have added many of the sections in this article, and beforehand it was a woefully poor description of marketing. I will add more sections in time, since the article still lacks many major marketing areas.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ↑ top of page ↑ | about thumbshots |
