Talk:Internet marketing

Suggestion

Suggest all of it be reorganized into "Interactive Marketing"

It seems that the merge discussion referenced below relates to online marketing and internet marketing (which are the same thing). However, interactive marketing is not the same thing, so I would recommend leaving them separate. Uberveritas 06:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Uberveritas. "Interactive Marketing" and "Internet Marketing" are not the same thing. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 12:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

Most of the discussion happened so far at Talk:Online marketing. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 12:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC) You don't call email interactive mail, you can call it electronic mail to establish a difference between regular mail from "through" the internet mail or electronic mail. Therefore,I see no point in giving the "e" the synonymous of Internet. A big issue here is that Internet is in fact interactive, from its conception Inter= between, affect both Nets=networks. And therefore, internet marketing and interactive marketing are not the appropriate synonymous for the word emarketing. Emarketing takes place online, but you don't call TV marketing: tvmarketing. For these reasons the prefix "e" must not be part of the concept marketin. Instead the prefix "e" is simply to denote a difference between traditional media marketing and help users distinguish marketing online from traditional marketing. Yet you can call emarketing internet marketin or interactive marketing. It's just a matter of simplicity. --SunschWeb (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the merge ... finally

It was long overdue to merge the online marketing and E-marketing articles into this one. Thanks and good job. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 04:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Structure of things - Open Discussion

I think that there is some confusion about the terminology of things.

Internet marketing is the general topic. Internet marketing itself is a subset of marketing in general. online marketing was recently merged into Internet marketing which is good, because both mean the same thing.

The Topics under Internet marketing are the following

1. online advertising or more specific display advertising. Basically the billboard equivalent of promoting things on the Internet. The billboards are online images and dynamic rich media. Like billboards that have a specific size and location and a fee based on exposure (eyeballs) are a large number of Ads managed online. The publisher designates areas on his site for Ads which must have specific measurements (that are standardized) and is selling this advertising space to advertisers (usually through Ad Agencies or Ad Networks). The compensation is often, but not exclusively done on a CPM basis or via a flat fee for a specific and limited period of time of showing an Ad. Terms like "Ad Buys" and "Ad Inventory" come to mind.

2. Email Marketing/Email advertising The first is the name of the article at wikipedia. Opt-in e-mail advertising was recently merged into this.

I think we have a similar issue with *Emarketing - similar / ambiguous term & taxonomy. Can I suggest we need to merge content again & re-collate but leave Redirects in place within the combined (extant) taxonomy. This way readers can still find their way from alternative words to the same meaningful documents, but within the preferred wiki tag (url) structure.--Rjcain 08:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

3. Affiliate marketing or pay per performance marketing. Advertisers partner up with publishers and marketers and either pay a bounty (CPA) or do a revenue share (CPS) with the partner, if he refers customers or prospects to the advertiser. The details of such an agreement can include all kinds of things, but the one thing that all of them have in common is the fact, that the advertiser only pays for results and not just eyeballs like the display advertising.

4. Search engine marketing or SEM. Everything related to search engines. SEM is often used for PPC advertising which is not entirely correct. PPC is only one part of SEM (the biggest in terms of revenue). SEM includes two additional forms of marketing that deal with search engines, Paid inclusion and search engine optimization or SEO.

5. Web analytics is not really a sub-topic of Internet marketing. It's almost parallel and affects all other sub topics significantly. Tracking, Analysis and reporting of the success or failure of the individual methods used to promote a product or service is crucial to a businesses success. It also can help to determine how the different methods help each other or not.

Wikipedia should reflect this structure via its articles and categories. What are your comments to this?

A template would be a good thing and I am thinking about this for some time already. I have no experience with the creation of templates yet and did not get around yet to learn it. Some help would be appreciated. Something that can be added to all related articles. This would help to see the relationship between the individual types of Internet marketing and help with the navigation of the articles as well. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 06:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

When I wrote a guide to what Marketing is (and isn't) aimed primarily at those who've only come into marketing at all through eCommerce and SEM, I identified the following aspects of Marketing:

Marketing incorporates or impacts heavily upon all of the following activities:
Business Development
Product Development
Market Development
Market Research
Competitor Analysis
Pricing Strategy
Public Relations
Customer Service
Promotions
Brand Development
Company/Corporate Identity

I'm happy to donate that list as a starting point for structuring an authoritative and complete Wikipedia entry on what Internet Marketing truly is. (the referred Marketing 101 guide was here if it matters or is useful to anyone for this discussion. Black Knight UK 00:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly and have removed the redundant link to SEO that followed the link to SEM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.57.252.21 (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge Digital Marketing

Nothing in the digital marketing article seems to be unique enough for it's own article. Most of it uses internet technology. The few exceptions fall under other categories such as out-of-home advertising. Oicumayberight 05:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I oppose this. The concepts described in the two articles are quite different. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 16:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jehochman's comments. Digital marketing is part of internet marketing and also an unique enough type of internet marketing to have its own article. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 10:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I also think Digital marketing deserves its own article as being part of Internet marketing but being different from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmlion (talk • contribs)

When I started this definiton I did it to begin one as a seperation from Internet Marketing, which only uses the internet as a delivery method. This doesn't have to be the WWW, but probably is most of the time. Digital marketing, as being different from purely Internet marketing, can include things which are not centered around the internet or the WWW. SMS marketing, outdoor digital billboards etc. are not on the WWW but are surely digital in nature! hence, in my opinion, digital marketing should actually take over Internet Marketing as the parent definition, because Internet marketing could fall under it more so than the other way around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HowardTScott (talk • contribs)

I agree that internet falls under digital more than the reverse. The problem here is that common language favors internet more than digital when it comes to marketing advertisement. I can't think of a reason why all advertisement information won't at least be delivered via the internet if not displayed on an internet browsing device in the inevitable future.

Why is there not an "electronic marketing", "analog marketing", or a "print marketing" article? Because these describe media production technology more than the purpose (application) of the media. Personally, I think all forms of marketing should fall under the marketing article. But if you want to split hairs, at least split them into categories of purpose rather than production technology. More people will be concerned with purpose.

Having said that, I see your point, I don't think digital marketing should be oversimplified to internet as long as the article remains in contrast to internet marketing and shows unique purposes that cannot be fulfilled on the internet. Oicumayberight 19:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely with you that in the future it'll just be marketing, in the same way that we're moving away from "new" media to just media. I think another reason why I believe Internet Marketing doesn't sum it up, is because in the UK at least, Digital Marketing is the common parlance, and so it makes the best sense to have an article relating to that and what it entails. HowardTScott

Digital marketing and internet marketing should stay separate. There are more aspects to 'digital' than just internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.161.6 (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Too narrow

The initial definition is far too narrow. May I suggest something more like this:

Internet marketing is the practice of using all facets of internet advertising to generate a response from your audience. It ties together both the creative and technical aspects of the internet, including design, development, advertising and marketing.

Wrttnwrd 00:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)wrttnwrd

Sounds like a step in the right direction. Try it. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 00:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It is much more accurate. I was bold and replaced the intro sentence with this one. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 10:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with stating that internet marketing is puely advertising and response. Internet Marketing has its basis in the 4 Ps of Marketing, just as its offline version does.

The 4 Ps are Product, Place, Price and Promotion. Internet Marketing has had perhaps the most effect not on Promotion (most of which is just a new media version of the same old advertising) but in the ability for businesses to Place themselves anywhere in the world and still compete with local businesses in every location globally. The huge rise in Outsourcing to India, the Far East, and Eastern Europe are all prime examples of this.

The effect of Internet Marketing on Price may be even more marked, to the extent where now many offline companies try to advertise that they offer "Internet Prices" on the high street. The ability for the Internet to have cut out a lot of the middlemen and distribution costs have all made a profound impact on the economic realities of all marketing.

Product too has been a beneficiary of Internet Marketing, not least the products that could not easily have otherwise existed, such as eBooks, commercial anti-spyware programs, commercial podcasts, iTunes, etc. However, almost all markets have seen a tremendous reduction in the costs of market research, since the Internet makes it so very easy to research competitors, to product test, and to run surveys and elicit market feedback.

As for Promotion, well the biggest paradigm shift here has been peer-to-peer in various formats, not least with consumer reviews and the power of testimonials of common people (right down to Social Media networks). The Cluetrain Manifesto is certainly worthy of citation in this respect, as it was the first to state outright how the new media allowed a connected market to converse without the traditional interference and smokescreens of the old media and PR. It is even quite reasonable to argue that ne reason that Affiliate Marketing has been successful is usually in that it gets closer to P2P marketing in many cases, especially with the earliest forms such as Amazon allowing webmasters commission for books they recommended to readers. Black Knight UK 00:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The other way around

Internet marketing isn't a component of e-commerce. E-commerce is one facet of internet marketing. Internet marketing is the practice of helping organizations grow on the internet. Sometimes that means e-commerce, sometimes leads, sometimes politics. It can use search marketing, design, usability and analytics.

Can we rewrite this to better cover what it's really about? I'm happy to do it but don't want to presume...

Go for it. We'll revert, or edit as needed. In the lead you can summarize what follows and provide context. Keep in mind that you need to reference reliable sources to support anything you state as a fact. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 04:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If there are parts of commerce that aren't considered marketing, and parts of marketing that aren't considered commerce, then neither is a component of either. Perhaps e-commerce and internet marketing simply overlap. See intersections in sets. Oicumayberight 20:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right about the overlap. --Rjcain 03:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Limitations section

The limitations section seems to be describing limitations of e-commerce, not internet marketing. The way I see it, e-commerce is all about two-way transactions, the purchase and transfer of goods and services via the internet. Internet marketing is about the advertisement and communications via the internet which can be one-way as well as two-way. Limits to internet marketing have more to do with limits on communication (one-way and two-way) via the internet than limits on two-way transactions. Oicumayberight 20:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Emarketing

I think we have a replication issue with Emarketing - similar / ambiguous term & taxonomy. Can I suggest we need to merge content again & re-collate, BUT leave Redirects in place within the combined (extant) taxonomy. This way readers can still find their way from alternative words to the same meaningful documents, but within the preferred wiki tag (url) structure.--Rjcain 09:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Multiple Mergers

It was already proposed to merge Emarketing with Internet marketing. I actually propose not just a merge with, but a merge into. Emarketing and also other replications such as Epromotion and Ecampaign should all be merged into the internet marketing article and then redirected. I added the merge proposal templates to the affected articles. Thoughts? --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 21:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Roy, I think it would be easier for users to at least enter a common root - but I also think some of the subject matter will be sufficiently content rich/cross-referenced to warrant their own pages. I think you are also suggesting we keep basic phrase files up as redirectors to merged content - if so, i agree also. do you have any firm idea how the views/top levels should be constructed?

btw: (i've already cross referenced (categorised) quite a few pages here wrt their conventional marketing analogues) - eg. internet_marketing though marketing &c - which is potentially another way of traversing it. --Rjcain 16:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

In some of the cases is an individual article maybe warranted, maybe not now, but maybe in the future. If there is enough content to have an article about the subject stand on its own legs, why not. Some stuff is mere duplication and if there is anything that remains is relevant, then it should be added to the article. The proposed articles don't have enough content for a separate article. May be separate section within the internet marketing article would make sense for the one or the other. Redirects can be implemented to point to an article, but also to point to a specific section of an article. We should decide, which is the appropriate way of doing it on a case by case basis. So in essence, I believe we both agree on the same things. Lets wait a little bit to see, if any other editors have something to say before me start moving things around :).--roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 12:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Btw. I think that the cross referencing is helpful where there are equivalents in the real world to the online world and vice versa. Thanks. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 12:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. - Jehochman ^Talk 01:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Edits

Just made some copy edits to the article. If they look good I'll come back and do the rest in the same style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrttnwrd (talk • contribs) 22:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Copy editing

I'm in the process of copy editing many of the Internet marketing-related articles. (See User:Gmazeroff for the list of articles I've edited.) The following list summarizes the copy edits I have made:

• Revised the sentence wording in general for easier reading.
• Restructured the article subheadings.
• Italicized all alternative terms for Internet marketing.
• "Linkified" the following terms: website, advertisement, medium, goods, consumers, lead, magazine, billboard, siloing, dial-up, mobile devices, opting out, bond, music industry, film industry, pharmaceutical industry, banking, years (2006-2008), Apple Inc., iTunes store (was just "iTunes"), United States, online banking, bank branch.
• Reformatted the "range of services" list from a long sentence to a bulleted list; this list is now sorted alphabetically.
• Fixed the broken internal link for "display advertising".
• Corrected grammar in the sentence pertaining to effective Internet marketing: The subject is "company", so the pronoun should be singular ("its") rather than plural ("their").
• Removed the sentence "Internet marketing is the process of promoting..." because it is redundant.
• Capitalized all instances of "Internet", as it is a proper noun.
• Replaced all instances of "site" with "website".
• Moved "placement of media" paragraph (formerly in the "Business models" subsection) into the introductory paragraph because the paragraph does not pertain to business models.
• Moved the information pertaining to differences from off-line marketing into its own section because it does not have anything to do with "advantages".
• Replaced the term "security" with "information security".
• Removed the paragraph that explains encryption; if the reader wants to learn more about how encryption works, he/she can read the article on that subject.
• Fixed the broken internal link to "digital marketing".
• Removed the "See also" section because all of the topics listed there are already present in the article (see Wikipedia:Layout#See_also).
  • Pay per play - added to the "advantages" subsection
  • Web 2.0 - already in the article text
  • digital marketing and in-text advertising - moved to introductory paragraph bulleted list
  • cause marketing, pay per click, and search engine optimization - already in Internet Marketing category box
  • blog marketing - already in the introduction
• Added the "citations missing" template to this article because two statements containing statistics about Internet banking have no references.

Gmazeroff (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

On 23 July 2008 User:FatalError tagged this article with {{cleanup}}. Per the discussion on his talk page, the long list of wikilinks has been moved to a new "See also" section. Some of those items were removed because they had already been mentioned in the body of the article. The cleanup-tag has been removed. Gmazeroff (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm lazy so I'll just paste my comment from my talk page:

Well the other thing is that half of those are not specific to Internet marketing, and also apply to any other kind of marketing, so I don't think they belong in the first place. I've cleaned up the list but I still think it's too long, even now. The See also section is usually only for articles that relate directly to the topic, which doesn't apply to most of the ones on the list. But let's take further discussion to the article talk page... — ^FatalError 23:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The pared down list looks much better. Looking back at the original list, many of them applied to marketing in general, so I agree with the changes. I renamed "display advertising" to "Web banner", considering that both phrases have their own articles. (I'm not sure why the link was set up like that in the first place.) Gmazeroff (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Synergizes? Really? I think this will be a much better, more informative, and trustworthy article if we ban stupid marketing buzzwords. And people like me will be less likely to mock it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.81.105.213 (talk) 03:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Project graphic design and project media

I do not feel this article fits with either project graphic design or project media! Internet marketing is its own field and doesn't necessarily utilize media or design, those are small parts. Is it possible this doesn't really have a category?

Technology project would probably be a better fit.Anneaholaward (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

edits and cleanup

i-marketing and web-marketing, etc. are rarely used names. Web marketing is more common is without the hyphen.

--Adam00 (talk) 11:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Searched extensively for a source that mentions the term: iMarketing. None found, very obscure term. Amyfisher35 (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

6 key principles of persuasion by Robert Cialdini

That paragraph is really publicity and looks as if the guy (Cialdini) wrote it himself (he's an Internet marketer, after all ;)) I suggest to delete it, and its two references, for increased neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjlver (talk • contribs) 23:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Niche Marketing section needed work

Hi, I'm new to this thing, but I noticed that the niche marketing section needed some work, so I added a line. I would have simply re-written the section, but I'm waiting to see how this line edit fares. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.136.231 (talk) 05:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Afterwards, I noticed someone deleted my content because they didn't like my citations, so I re-added the line and marked it as citation needed. We'll see how that goes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.136.231 (talk) 05:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Apparently it was deemed not ok even without a source. I'm wondering if they even looked here because I would have thought I'd get a response on the talk page. What's the point of having a talk page if editors don't look at it? I'll try one more time in a different format and see if anyone will even do me the courtesy of explaining what's wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.136.231 (talk) 05:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be attempting to add a blog as a source; you can read WP:RS to get a better feel for what we consider a reliable source here. Kuru (talk) 11:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

To quote the WP:Sources article: Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

To establish that a citation I wanted to give is a reliable source, I have to show that the author in question has been published by a respected third-party before. First I have to establish that the website is respected in the field of internet marketing: http://www.searchenginejournal.com/so-you-want-to-start-a-big-seo-blog/29976/ http://unbounce.com/online-marketing/75-top-marketing-blogs-to-make-your-rss-reader-fat/ http://www.invesp.com/blog-rank/SEO

The above articles all claim that the "Search Engine People Blog" is an accepted SEO blog. The first source, "Search Engine Journal" has been used as a source already on several Wikipedia articles (try seaching google for "search engine journal" site:en.wikipedia.org )

Now, having established the Search Engine People blog as a reliable third-party publication, I can use that source to give credibility to an author who has been asked to publish for them.

Searching for articles on Search Engine People with the name Blumstein will reveal 5 articles that were written by Aviva Blumstein and published on the site.

I believe that we can use the above Wikipedia policy to grant Ms. Blumstein status as a professional who has been published on a 3rd party site and therefore her self-published material would be acceptable under said Wikipedia policy. 109.65.136.189 (talk) 08:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I apologize, the quote from the WP:Sources article is actually: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I think the quote I made is actually from a different WP policy page. There doesn't appear to be any difference in meaning, however. 109.65.136.189 (talk) 08:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I wrote who the source is into the text of the article, but I'm uncertain whether this is appropriate. On the one hand, if the source's validity can be debated, it's better to establish their credibility. On the other hand, it doesn't look like a regular citation. Please help on this. Thanks! 109.65.136.189 (talk) 08:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Some recent edits (since 13 July 2012) have added the following:

In conventional niche marketing, clusters of consumers (the niche) are identified in order to more economically and efficiently target them.Thilmany, Dawn. "What are niche markets? What advantages do they offer?" (PDF). Retrieved 16 July 2012.

Similarly, niche internet marketing can result in a clearer advertising message to ones target audience or ideal customers which creates a higher likelihood of conversion into sales, according to Aviva BlumsteinBlumstein, Aviva. "Convert the Converted". Retrieved 16 July 2012.,

an expert on internet marketing whose work has been published on Search Engine People.Blumstein, Aviva. "Tested: The Best Length for a Description Tag is Longer Than You Think". Retrieved 17 July 2012.

Regardless of the credentials of the source, the material is undue for this article. The first sentence is almost a definition, and possibly is ok if the material really is required here. The rest of the material is just marketspeak that is not suitable for an encyclopedic article (what secondary source describes studies that have concluded there is some advantage to niche marketing?). I understand that the padding about Blumstein's credentials has been added in response to reverts, but that padding is definitely unsuitable in an article. The source either satisfies WP:RS or it doesn't (blogs almost never do), and padding in the article about the author do not provide an exemption. The place to discuss the source is here in the first place, then WP:RSN for other opinions. Johnuniq (talk) 09:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

If you continue to add your blog, you will be blocked, period. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern. It is not my blog. I chose that blog because I feel it is an appropriate source under WP:RS as I explained above. In short it is a self-published source who has been established as an expert on the relevant topic by being published through a third-party publication, which is valid under the guidelines. If you can find a better source, please do so. Otherwise, why are you marking content as WP:citation needed when the source is reliable? 109.65.136.189 (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe you will find that there is consensus on this talk page that the source is not reliable. That the author has been published on a website that's used as a source in other Wikipedia articles is not a claim to reliability. First, it is quite possible that the websie has been used as a source in Wikipedia articles despite not being a RS - that happens a lot - and second, every person who posts on a site that's considered a RS is not by definition a RS themselves. If you want other opinions on the source, you might want to consult the Reliable Sources noticeboard. --bonadea contributions talk 18:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I will resubmit it without citation. It's still better that what was there before. Although the last time I did that it was immediately removed. I guess we'll see. 109.65.136.189 (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)