This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Macintosh, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Apple Inc. advertising was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
a Pass/Fail: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
I think the last sentence from the paragraph, Think Different, feels a little out of place.
Think Different was an advertising slogan created by the New York branch office of advertising agency TBWA\Chiat\Day for Apple Computer during the late 1990s. It was used in a famous television commercial and several print advertisements. The slogan was used at the end of several product commercials, until the advent of Apple's Switch ad campaign. Apple currently does not use the slogan, and their commercials usually end with a silhouetted Apple logo and sometimes a pertinent website address.
I feel that the main article is not sourced enough. Please add more sources to this page (you may want to use the sources on the subarticle pages as apporate). If we are just evaluating the main page I must fail it for references and I do not feel that 15 days is enough time to call an article stable. Additionally it relies upon information from subpages which are not well sourced themselves.
Additionally, I must fail it for the reliance upon the Think Different page which I would rate as follows.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
a Pass/Fail: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
The subtitle "Text" is not very informative and must be changed to something else; perhaps "Apple's Website during this ad" and expand upon it. Either way this section is poor in quality. I must fail this for its complete lack of sources.
These articles are a good start but they need to be sourced better and need a little work on their formatting and presentation. Next time, I suggest that you get a peer review before you attempt to nominate this for a GA since they will be able to help you improve this more easily. Don't worry, I have tagged your article with the appoporate work group and they should be able to help you. Andrew D White 23:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The descriptions of many of the adverts are repeated in the adverts' own pages. I therefore suggest that we remove the summaries from this page and leave them on their more fleshed out pages. It might be ok to leave a single line for this page, but it seems stupid to repeat text (that then gets altered on only one page and one entry becomes superior).CtrlC CtrlV 20:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
From the article: "In 1995, Apple responded to the introduction of Windows 95 with both several print ads and a television commercial demonstrating its disadvantages and lack of innovation". This is clearly POV. I can't at the moment see a good way to make the last part of the sentence NPOV, so for now I'll truncate it at "both print ads and a television commercial". Simxp 07:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Edit: Sorry, forgot to sign this when I first posted it. Simxp 07:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Allegations (with evidence) of stealing ideas
As seen here. Should this be included under the Criticisms section? -- Fire 17:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
This seems pretty well backed up. I'd say it should be included. -- Arathon 17:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Will someone please do this then?
I started an article in my Sandbox. If you see anything in there you want to use or would like me to add anything, let me know. --SilverhandTalk 21:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, let me clarify that. If you want to use it, go for it. If you want me to add it, let me know. :) --SilverhandTalk 21:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
It looks like someone else has added a smaller version of this, but I like Silverhand's writeup. I think you should add it, Silverhand. -- Fire 06:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
especially with the engadget article, many changes will be made, but isn't that the point of wikipedia? i'm surprised it took this long for someone to post something this substantial on some of the intellectual property "thefts" that apple has commited. Infact, how can this article be considered neutral without some mention of the contents of this engadget page?
"Hello" has been used to introduce many Apple products over the years. Newton, iMac, iPhone, and the original Macintosh to name a few. It would be great if someone could put together a separate section on this.PaulC/T+ 09:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Ipodrecreated.JPG
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was no consensus. With so many alternate ideas, including alternate titles, presented during this discussion, it's difficult to say what consensus is, if any. Feel free to open a new discussion with a more clear approach, but for now, I'm removing the merge tags. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Apple media events is a recently created article. Since the media events are part of Apple's advertising, the events should be merged into this article. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
This may make sense from a logical standpoint, but I don't think the current article's structure (which is year-based) would fit with the Apple media events content, that should be merged as a stand-alone section and thus basically duplicating the timelines. Given that "Apple media events" has established notability I think they can be kept as separate articles. This article could get a summary style section of the other one. Diego (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Media events are not typically considered part of "advertising." Media events fall under the umbrella of marketing or PR, but advertising is a fairly specific thing. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
...I removed the portion of the lead that seemed to suggest that media events constitute the bulk of Apple's current "advertising" efforts. That's inaccurate on two levels, is uncited, and isn't mentioned in the article either way. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
My stars, this article is a mess. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Yup. Any suggestions for more clean-up? Diego (talk) 10:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I did some touchup on the lede and it looks like AussieLegend did a lot of work on the body last night. I'm going to take another gander later today if I have time; I'm an Apple fanatic and a former ad man so this is a good topic for me :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
A summary style section of the other article sounds good, but I think the media events should have their own article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Support The media events are what makes apple advertising. I agree with the merge. DreamFieldArts (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
And what should be the structure of the merged article? Diego (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Support - Separate short articles on closely related topics does not serve the reader. All events listed in source article have dates associated with them and can be split out and merged in to each section of this article. Alternatively the whole source article can be pasted in as a new section in this article and the material can be integrated in over time if desired. --Kvng (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
While I definitely agree with your first contention, and I think there's a bordering-on-silly number of distinct articles on Apple marketing topics (List of Apple Inc. slogans? Seriously?), these topics are related but they are not the same topic. See Promotional mix, Marketing mix, Advertising and Public relations. I could support merging both of these articles to some larger article on Apple marketing but, again, a media event is by definition not "advertising." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Discussion not directly related to the proposal
Support Topic has been discussed, and may be merged. Article will be asked to be merged at 15:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC). All other objections shall be herein stated now. DreamFieldArts (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Don't create a merge, it's too soon and there are unclear aspects for it. Diego (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
And please don't ever modify other editor's comments, specially to infer some of kind of support that was never there to begin with. That's considered extremely rude manners around here. You're free to boldy edit the article, but trying to appear a manufactured consensus that didn't exist is a form of gaming the systemDiego (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Support Understandable, that is why I left time, for the committee to make a decision. Also, I did not modify, i defined what they wrote. Wikipedia:Merging also states that Support -or- oppose must be said in the discussion. DreamFieldArts (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, that shouldn't be done in a way that modifies other people's comments. Moreover, you were wrong; I didn't Support the merge. Diego (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
You were never under support, you were under unannotated, and opposeDreamFieldArts (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Uh, okay, I oppose the merge on the grounds I stated above. I wasn't aware I was dealing with an automated cyborg editor who was going to toss my objections out unless they were preceded by an "oppose" in bold. In case said automated cyborg editor would like me to re-parse my comments such that they immediately succeed my boldfaced "oppose," media events are not part of advertising. That is not my opinion, that is essentially an objective definition of "advertising." I mean, jeez, I know I didn't write "oppose" out but that doesn't exactly give you grounds to just toss my opinion, and Diego's opinion as well, aside and start the damn merger. What a joke. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
For one...I am not a cyborg. Two I never tossed you opinions out the door. Both of you opposed the idea which is fine. By saying the article is going to be merged, pull out anyone who would like to have a say. Now note, you may have misinterpreted what I said. When I said to be merged I meant, to archive the article and asks administrators on their opinion also, and then to be merged. I had oppose next to your text, but Diego deleted it, think I was changed your comment, when all I was doing was clearing up confusion. DreamFieldArts (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I did NOT oppose the idea neither, I just expressed doubts and asked questions. Stop trying to ascribe me some opinion that I didn't expressed myself. Diego (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay. First, you really shouldn't be modifying people's comments to ascribe a vote to them. That's a no-no, even if you did correctly ascertain my vote. Second, I don't know what you mean by "archive the article," and suspect...well, I just don't know what you're referring to with that. If you are trying to "clear up confusion," it is not working very well :). I say that with all due respect for what I take to be good faith efforts to clear up confusion.
I suggest you take no further action on this merge proposal. It is only 4 days old and there is no apparent consensus to do anything.
Indeed, I count 3 no-merge to 2 merge votes, and both merge votes are based on the simply untrue assertion that Apple's media events are "part of their advertising." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Yikes. I note, too, that he gave you, Diego, both a support and an oppose vote, as well as a support vote to Eraserhead's comment (which says: "I think the media events should have their own article"). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 22:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Surrealist, isn't it? I will now shut up and stop feeding the troll. Diego (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I never said any of that...Diego, did you or did you not say "Given that "Apple media events" has established notability I think they can be kept as separate articles." And also, I said unannotated, not oppose. Also, why are we wasting our time arguing about this. Like seriously. DreamFieldArts (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose We had a bit of a clusterfuck above, so I'll make my vote as plain as day. I oppose merging the topics on the simple grounds that media events are, by definition, not advertising. It is a common public misperception that all outward-facing corporate communication pieces represent "advertising." This is untrue. Advertising is a specific subset of marketing. Media events do not fall into that subset. They are generally considered part of PR functions. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
What exactly is the definition of "media event" and where can I find it? I looked in Media event, but it's lacking references and is full of original research. However, it does say that a media event "attracts prominent coverage by mass media organizations, particularly television news and newspapers in both print and Internet editions". Isn't that what advertising does? If a media event is not advertising, what exactly is its purpose? If it's not to advertise a product then it seems to have none. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Your last phrase is misusing the word "advertise." You mean "promote." You promote a product at a product release event. You advertise it via advertising campaigns (digital media, traditional media, etc.). Read the "Definition" section of our article on Advertising and pay attention to how every definition refers to some form of payment in exchange for a third party promoting your product. That is the basic definition of advertising, and that is entirely at odds with a company hosting an event to announce a new product.
And, no, "attracts prominent coverage by mass media organizations" is not what advertising does -- not at all, in fact. Advertising is an entity paying "mass media organizations" to include advertisements of a product. It is not the process by which one "attracts prominent coverage." You don't get coverage by running an ad. You get the ad. That's a huge distinction. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Advertising doesn't require payment to a third party. There's no difference, for example, between me advertising my product by putting a sign on the side of my building, or paying somebody to put the same sign on a billboard across the road. Advertising is simply announcing or praising a product, service, etc. in some public medium of communication in order to induce people to buy or use it. A media event and a TV commercial both do that. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
"Some public medium of communication" refers specifically to media, not an event. Read this ("a means of mass communication, such as newspapers, magazines, radio, or television"). And, either way, the salient term here is not "advertise," it is "advertising." Look here. "Especially by paid announcements in newspapers and magazines, over radio or television, on billboards, etc." Also, I'm sorry, you're not going to convince me -- and you shouldn't be able to convince any intelligent person -- that your loose interpretation of a barely-applicable dictionary definition and half-baked examples supersedes industry scholars like Kotter, Blech, Ingram, and Laforge. I spent most of my career in advertising. Saying it doesn't require payment to a third party, or doesn't need to run in third party media, or via "media" at all, is only demonstrating one thing: you don't know what you're talking about. I am attempting to afford Wikipedia the respect that it would use the scholarly and professional definition of a term like "advertising" and not the popular misperception that you are espousing. I apologize if I sound increasingly frustrated, but I seriously don't see how you could read the scholarly definitions we appropriately run at Advertising and conclude any of what you're saying. Literally every single one of those scholarly definitions excludes a media event hosted by a company to promote one of their brands. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
A public medium of communication can be anything. A roadside sign falls into this category. "A means of mass communication, such as newspapers, magazines, radio, or television" is not limited to those mediums, "such as" is the key here. "I spent most of my career in advertising" isn't convincing. Your opinion is based on your own experience in your own field, but that does not necessarily mean that your interpretation of advertising is supported by the wider community. Regarding "you don't know what you're talking about", please, be civil. Attacking the integrity of other editors is not affording respect. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not attacking your integrity. I'm suggesting that you, quite literally, do not know what you're talking about. I don't know how to put that in a more cuddly tone. I am suggesting that you listen to someone who does know what they're talking about. By "know what they're talking about" I mean someone who is an expert in advertising and/or marketing. That is not you, correct? If you don't want to listen to my expert opinion -- and, having spent many years in the industry and having acquired a masters degree in marketing, I do not think I am boasting to call my opinion an expert one -- that's fine. Listen to the numerous scholars directly cited in our article on Advertising. They very specifically do not agree with your position, and the article has, like, 8 of them. I'm not even going to touch your remarkably loose definition of "medium" as, essentially, "anything." Yes, a roadside sign falls into "medium." If you can't see the difference between a billboard and a press junket then I quite frankly don't know how to help you. I am all for "interpretations" from the wider community, but this is not a matter of interpretation. There is Advertising, and there are Other Marketing Activities. I am perfectly aware that lots and lots of people have no idea that there is a difference between advertising and marketing. Given that we're an encyclopedia that does things like cite scholars, I should hope that we would cede the discussion to experts and not the masses. We don't let wider opinion determine whether or not chocolate causes acne. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I mean, if I were on a talk page for some physics concept, and a physicist came in, references several cited physicists, and suggested that I had fundamentally misunderstood the concept, I'd probably say "oh, okay" rather than "well, that's just your own experience and may not reflect the views of the widespread community." Right? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I'll put it another way. When Barack Obama delivers a major policy address on the campaign trail that is, as it would always be, covered by the national press...is that now to be called "advertising"? When the New York Yankees announce at a press junket that they've signed a major free agent...is that now to be called "advertising"? When my company has its CEO address the tech press about a major new offering...does funding for the event come out of our "advertising" budget? I'll give you a hint. The answers are, respectively, "no," "no," and "no." :) ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
The subtle difference here is that a specific product is not involved. A policy is not something that can be purchased, nor are the New York Yankees offering to sell the major free agent, but when Apple holds a media event promoting the latest iwhatever, they're trying to sell that product. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
There's no subtle difference here, and you are, again, betraying your lack of knowledge. The Yankees are trying to sell tickets. Obama is trying to get elected. Are Obama's TV ads not "advertising" because there's no "specific product" involved? Think this through. Further, you really don't think there's a "product" involved with the Yankees announcing a major free agent signing or Obama trying to sell himself to the electorate? Seriously? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
There's a lot of words up there, so I'll try and restate for anyone who cares to opine on this matter. Again, don't believe my assertions. That's fine. Don't even believe allofthesesourced articles that make plain the point that media events are not advertising. Believe these relevant scholars (pulled from the Advertising article; I've read stuff from about half of these guys, haven't heard of all of them). Advertising is:
The non-personal communication of information usually paid for & usually persuasive in nature, about products (goods & services) or ideas by identified sponsor through various media. (Arens, Wei gold, Arens 2010)
Any paid form of non-personal communication about an organization, product,service, or idea from an identified sponsor. (Blech & Blech 1998)
Paid non-personal communication from an identified sponsor using mass media to persuade or influence an audience. (Wells, Burnett, & Moriaty 1998)
The element of the marketing communication mix that is non personal, paid for by an identified sponsor, & disseminated through channels of mass communication to promote the adoption of goods, services, persons or ideas. (Bearden, Ingram, & Laforge 1998)
An informative or persuasive message carried by a non personal medium & paid for by an identified sponsor whose organization or product is identified in some way. (Zikmund & D'amico 1999)
Impersonal; one way communication about a product or organization that is paid by a marketer. (Lamb, Hair & Mc.Daniel 2000)
Any paid form of non-personal presentation and promotion of ideas,goods or services by an identified sponsor. (Kotler et al., 2006)
Scholarly definitions of advertising are this specific exactly in order to avoid this type of confused discussion. 100% of those scholars include "paid for" as a qualifier (okay, one says "usually"). I'm highlighting "media" as well because direct communication through media (using media to directly communicate w/ your audience; advertising) is not the same thing as direct communication to the media (telling the media about a new product so they'll write their own material and publish it on their own dime; a media event), but that's a fuzzier point and not a necessary one in this case. A media event is not paid communication. You invite folks to write about what you say to them. You don't pay them to insert communication you have created into their publications. If you were to pay them to put exactly what you want to say in their publications and have the origin of that communication directly sourced to you, guess what? You just ran an advertisement. You are now advertising. Prepare for long days, low wages, and rampant substance abuse. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
(ec)Comment I've reverted the vote additions that DreamFieldArts made to posts by other editors. If editors want to vote, that's their privilege but if they don't want to register a vote, that's their right. Comments made by other editors should not be edited without their consent. @DreamFieldArts, it's not necessary, or appropriate, to register multiple votes as you've done. One support is all that is needed in one post. Further comments by you are just comments, not a vote. In any case, we don't count votes, so they're not really needed at all. We look at the rationales given by editors in order to determine consensus. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Support as nominator. The opposing arguments are unconvincing. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment I am sorry that there is no way to dissuade you from the popular misconception that "advertising" and corporate attempts to promote a product are one and the same thing. I have supplied direct quotes from seven business scholars as well as a number of Wikipedia references, all of which explicitly and specifically draw this distinction for you, but apparently that is not enough. I can supply more, but it is clear that you will not be dissuaded from this common misperception. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 13:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Your definitions don't really support your assertions. For example, "usually paid for" does not exclude advertising that is not paid for. Similarly, "through various media" is open to wide interpretation. A sign that I put in my front yard is supported as advertising by the first of your definitions. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
How about the "Any paid form", " by a non personal medium" and "through channels of mass communication" definitions of the other references? (hear, hear) ;-) Diego (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Ginsengbomb put forward the "usually paid for" definition as an authoritative definition of advertising. Clearly the belief that advertising is paid for is not universally accepted. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:FRINGE we should give more weight to the opinion held by the majority of reliable sources, and thus not structuring content by a minority view that is a exception to what the minority source said. At most, the Arens 2010 would merit per WP:DUE a small section at Apple media events saying that those events are usually not considered advertising. Diego (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Now I'm beginning to think I'm being trolled. Yes, if you cherrypick the one definition out of seven that I supplied that puts the word "usually" in front of "paid," and if you blind yourself to what that's likely referring to (I imagine it's trying to prevent the exclusion of things like no-charge pro bono ad placements for non-profits from the definition; it's certainly not there to allow for a media event), and if you adopt a strange interpretation of what "through various media" means (there is by definition no "medium" when you are speaking directly to a room full of people; I was hoping that the "paid" bit would prevent me from having to make this rather obvious but fluffier-sounding point), then you might have a point. Either way: no belief is universally accepted. That doesn't mean that we automatically accept the opposite of the belief, as you would have us do. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. I notice that you chose to cherry pick the words you bolded, which is why "usually" in the first definition stood out. I think this discussion would be more productive if you assumed good faith as to other editors' intentions. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I didn't cherry pick anything. If I had cherry picked, I would have left that definition out -- as you leave out 6 of the 7 I supplied in your analysis :). And I was generous enough to highlight the fact that the word "usually" is in there. I bolded the "paid" piece to help you out, sir. Either way, this has gone on way too long. I'm going to bring this to AN and request an independent close. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
OpposeNeutral with caveats (see below), since nobody has explained what should be the structure of the merged article (and the current one with separate articles is a fairly good one). Diego (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Opposing because nobody has proposed a structure is not really constructive. There are various ways that the content could be incorporated. Two that immediately jump out are incorporating a "Media events" sub-section in each of the article's sections so that media events could be related directly to other advertising in the period. Or, more simply, a single "Media events" section. I'm sure there are others. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
How about "oppose because the current structure is better"? I know there are several alternative structures, Kvng above mentioned two, what it's not clear is which one the merged article should have; nor why it's better than what we have now. This decision should be made, and its benefits clarified, before a consensus for the merger is achieved. I see no advantages in mixing advertisements with press conferences by date, nor in having two unrelated sections in the same article. Unless there's content that describes both, I see no advantage to the merger, and none has been provided a rational explanation of why they belong together other than "they're all marketing" (but then we don't have anything directly about "Apple marketing" here). Diego (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
The nomination says nothing about Apple marketing. It says that both the articles deal with Apple advertising and we don't usually have two articles that cover the same subject. They're so closely related they should be in the one article for the benefit of our readers. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
It's not at all clear that they cover the same subject; one covers ad campaigns, the other covers press conferences. Are you implying that we should merge Advertising campaign and Press conference too because they are the same topic? Diego (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth, that is, to me, exactly what he is implying, not that he appears to recognize this. He's also implying that the Promotional mix and Marketing mix articles will have to be fundamentally rewritten. This is revolutionary business! And similar to how he essentially argued earlier that, by his definition, an Obama re-election TV ad is not actually an advertisement. All of this, by the way, is why there are such specific definitions of the word "advertising." This all gets very contradictory and bizarre very quickly if you start popping all communications that promote something under the "advertising" banner. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid your assumption is incorrect. This isn't simply ad campaigns and media events; it's Apple ad campaigns and Apple media events. There's a much closer link here than in generic ad campaigns and media events. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you that there is obviously an Apple connection, and I would support a broader article on Apple marketing that could incorporate both of these (and several other) topics. But in order to call a media event "advertising," whether by the same company or not, you need to throw out a bunch of existing Wikipedia articles, several of which have repeatedly been linked in this discussion. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
So maybe there eventually needs to be an Apple Inc. marketing article to tie all this together. I still think a merge is the right thing to do here. In my experience if a merge is not difficult to do, it usually turns out to be the right thing to do. If it becomes evident later that it is wrong, it should not be difficult to rework it again.
In any case, it doesn't look like a consensus is at hand here. I have posted an announcement on the WP:APPLEtalk page. Perhaps more input will help. --Kvng (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd fully support a merge if a different title can be decided upon. I'm not usually quite so argumentative on points but, honestly, sticking a bunch of media events in an article about advertising -- particularly for a brand so well-known (and likely to be studied) for their advertising -- makes Wikipedia look amateurish and silly. My only objection is to the title. I fully agree that separate articles on these two topics is unnecessary. So, to that end, how about a compromise? See below :) ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Compromise proposal: Let's merge the two articles under a new article with a title along the lines of Apple Inc. promotional efforts or similar. That is clunky, but bearing in mind that the majority of visitors to this article will likely be searching on some individual element of Apple's mix of promotional efforts (advertising being one element of the promotional mix, PR -- such as press events -- being a second element) and redirected to the merged article, I don't think that's an issue. Thoughts? This is surely the most effective compromise, as it accomplishes the content merge that I think most of us actually want while addressing the media-events-are-not-advertising issue. It properly addresses Apple's advertising and PR functions as distinct but functionally related elements of their overarching promotional strategy. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not oposed in principle to the merger, but the result should be more than the sum of its parts. At the very least a new introduction should be written to put in context the role of ads and conferences with respect to marketing and the different ways in which Apple uses them. Diego (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Fully agree. I think merging the two under the appropriate umbrella will give us exactly that: a whole that is more than the sum of its parts. Indeed, Apple's tendency at times in the past to announce new advertising campaigns via media events gives us a good starting point for going past a new introduction and actually weaving the content together in a meaningful way. But I think a new introduction will be a fine start. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 13:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Works fine for me. We will have redirects from Apple Inc. advertising and Apple media events. Someone may suggest a better title at some point. The introduction will need to be tweaked as part of the merge but I believe that was always the case. --Kvng (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Alternate (modified compromise) proposal: There is evidently a wide range of perceptions about what advertising is and what media events are. Just because there is (understandable) confusion in this, does not mean that we should give-up on providing clarification and just lump it all together in one article. That would not serve the prime objective of Wikipedia to provide an authoritative resource.
I support the compromise proposal (with more specifics), and I feel that (in general, and with appropriate edits), the two articles are fine as is (with some clarifications and removals of duplication, etc.) if they are put under the broader heading of Apple Inc. Marketing communications. I am sure that most contributors to this debate, on both sides, would agree that Apple Inc. Marketing communications would cover the most liberal interpretation of "advertising" and include media events. This might actually help to solve some of the duplication issues between the two pages, since much of the duplicated content would fall under the broad sweep of Marketing Communications and then Advertising and Media events could have there own (abbreviated) sections, with links to the two existing pages for a more definitive description of these two parallel aspects of Apple communicating its "message" ... at face value, maybe this is a new or modified compromise proposal (at least an alternate to the original motion to simply merge the two pages).