Talk:Marketing

old talk

In the evolution of human society, doesn't marketing come far earlier than capitalism, namely as soon as items are produced for trade outside the local family or village? Capitalism implies the separation of labor and capital. The typical example of early marketing would be bringing your eggs to the town market. Or is that sort of early marketing any different from the kind of marketing that comes with the industrial revolution (and thus capitalism)? --Anon

You're right. Marketing exists as soon as you have markets -- it's the process of the supplier using those markets and working out the best way to do so. However, modern marketing is a very different affair; not so much because of its methods, but because of its scale and scope.

Ever since trade and barter emerged, people have been trying to meet the needs of markets. You don't need capitalism to have marketing...ancient tavern owners put up signs, ran promotions, made product decisions, set prices, kept a watch on competitors, and vied for the best locations. But elaborate systems of marketing emerged around 1900, about the same time that Northwestern University established its marketing department. The above commenter is correct in saying that modern marketing has a different scale and scope. However, the basic principles are essentially the same, whether you're dealing with Babylonian traders or IBM execs. You might be interested in the diffusion of innovations theory, which talks about how ideas and technologies spread through societies. --Westendgirl 06:41, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Could the person working on the marketing articles please apply some ordering and weeding to the "see also" links? There's too many, and there in seemingly random order. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the topic to do so. --Robert Merkel 04:20 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The criteria Ive used in chosing what see also links to use are the links must be closely related to the article topic and should be useful for further navigation. I ask myself what might I be interested in viewing after reading this article. The one exception is the root marketing page. Because it is a root page for the whole topic of marketing, I put all of the marketing articles links on that page. As for the order, you are quite right, I could spend some time putting them in alphebetical order or order of importance, but I donnt have time for that yet. I figure I have about another hundred articles to write to get this encyclopedia up to a level that it ussable for university undergrads user:mydogategodshat

I was referring specifically to this page. What I suggest is that you try (when you have time) and categorise the links into groups corresponding to major topics and build a hierachical tree, if you can. As to the number of links and articles, I agree that there will be quite a lot of articles, but looking at your work it seems that some subsets of these topics might be more coherently covered in fewer, longer articles rather than many, many short ones. Just my 2c. Great work in fleshing out a topic that Wikipedia is weak on!--Robert Merkel 07:00 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I have put the "see also"s in an hierarchy. user:mydogategodshat

I removed the following sentence and give the reason why. - - user:mydogategodshat

However it is to be said that the lack of success of anything useful to a given time period either comes down to bad marketing, no marketing at all or to too much competition (technically speaking though if there is so much competition for this product etc. it can't be described as useful).

This paragraph dosn't make any sense. There are a lot of non-marketing reasons why useful products fail in the market (example - insufficient funds, incompetent management, hiring, and training, timing problems in production, poor management coordination, insufficient demand for a useful product). And why isn't a product useful just because there are similar products in the marketplace? To begin with, the additional product increases competition thereby lowering market price. And a distinction must be made between insufficient demand and usefulness. The two are not necessarily the same. - - mydogategodshat

They do this make product etc. the kind of thing to be used by social, sexy people or people with an artistic flair, or whatever.- - I have moved this from the article because I don't understand what the author is saying.- - mydogategodshat 05:49, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Apple Jack shapes

Recently, someone wrote on the Apple Jacks article that the reason the green pieces are now X-shaped is a marketing promotion. Where in the promotion heading of the list at this article does it belong?? 66.245.97.131 17:01, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The Apple Jacks move is actually a product decision, not a promotional tactic. In adding X-shaped pieces to the cereal, the company has altered the product offering, not the promotions. However, to increase consumer awareness and sales, this product change may be combined with promotions (PR, ads, packaging). That being said, the Apple Jacks product change is not really significant enough to include in the Marketing article. It may be appropriate to include in the Apple Jacks article, though.--Westendgirl 00:07, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

4A's

I have temporarily removed the 4A's material (below) from the article until we can discuss it.

... afour-step process (4As) can be followed (Norris, B.:reference needed):

The first step: Analysis. Time needs to be earmarked to determine the drivers, emotional and logical needs, and traditional and psycho graphic nuances of the intended audience. This step allows focus and micro-segmentation and a significant decrease in marketing cost.

The second step: Attention. Once you've identified who the core prospect for your products or services is, creative efforts must be taken to get and maintain their attention.

The third step: Accept. You must use the tools of copy, design, social networks, psychology and repetition to get the intended audience to accept that your solution is the best one to take. This acceptance must take place despite the fact that your solution is just one of many options available in an increasingly saturated marketplace.

Finally, the fourth step: Action. The prospect has to act on their acceptance of your proposition by doing whatever it is you want them to do. Generally, this might be making one or more purchases (be sure your marketing strategy includes opportunities for buyers to evangelize their positive purchasing experiences to others). It may also be picking up a phone or responding to a direct mail offer or fundraising effort or petition drive.

This does not seem to me to be a very complete description of the marketing process. It is essentially standard AIDA with analysis as a prolog. What bothers me about the process as described is what it leaves out. It does not give adequate attention to core marketing concepts like pricing, strategy formation, distribution, research, product management, product development, customer loyalty/relationship management, competitor analysis, and alliances. Maybe the list could be developed into a complete description of the marketing process, but as it stands now, it only covers about a third of it. It is a better description of marketing communications than marketing, and maybe it would be better to develop it in that article. Any comments? mydogategodshat 02:40, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sounds kind of like a less adequate verion of the Value Planning Model I've outlined in the next section below.--Joveblue 04:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4P is an outdated view on marketing?

The 4Ps of marketing have been the concensus on marketing from the 50ies, and for example the American Marketing Association included it in their last definition from 1985. However last year this definition has been updated to reflect new views. See: http://www.marketingpower.com/live/content21257.php

Maybe the 4Ps or the so-called marketing management view about marketing should be in its own article, and the main marketing chapter should just include different definitions? -- Mes

I agree we need a better definition than what is there now. The current definition is spam inserted by a consultant. The definitions that have the most currency are the transactional one (Bagozzi), the functional or marketing mix one (Borden), and the marketing philosophy one (Levitt, Levy, and Kotler). You mentioned the 1985 AMA definition which is a blend of Bagozzi and Borden. The relationship marketing definition is also starting to become popular. Maybe we should give a description of all these definitions (Would that be too detailed for the average Wikipedia reader?). mydogategodshat 08:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know very little about Marketing, so you can consider me the "average Wikipedia reader". I have read over the first paragraph several times and still have no idea what it says. The first sentence needs to be concise so we can have some concept of what you are talking about. I did not understand from the first paragraph what exactly was wrong with the definition given in the first sentence; that definition seemed to express the concept of marketing quite ably. Why not express it as such, instead of alienating the common reader with marketing semantics? If it is an oversimplification, the nuances should be worked out in the body of the article, not the first paragraph! Please simplify the first paragraph for us! CaseInPoint 00:24, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Just ignore the first two paragraphs. That is what I have been doing. mydogategodshat 03:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that somewhere along the way, the focal point moved, and most of the pages on Marketing are wrong? I guess I just did! Consider the most excellent analogy of Dr. Eli Goldratt: "If selling were the same as shooting sitting ducks while they ate corn by the side of a lake, then advertising would be the same as spreading corn for the ducks to see and come ashore to eat. Marketing would be figuring out that ducks eat corn in the first place." Goldratt goes on to ask, "How do we figure out what our targeted ducks like to eat?"

This analogy suggests that the 4Ps should be used to define the market. Not promote or advertise to a given market. For example, the "price" P, is used to define a market boundary or segment. If there are people willing to pay ten dollars ($10.00USD) for a headset, that suggests a different market (segment?) from those people willing to pay more than one-hundred dollars ($100.00USD).

Therefore, it is my argument that somewhere along the way, over the last fifty or so years, someone ran off with the real definition of marketing. Which was and should be, all about defining a segment of a population in order to sell one's goods and/or services.

As a Marketing undergrad, we have been taught that yes, the 4Ps model is outdated. The 4 Ps are taught as the four main marketing communication tools. The more comprehensive description of marketing we are given is the Value Planning Model. Marketers UNDERSTAND (market research, segmentation etc), CONFIGURE (product design), COMMUNICATE (4Ps) and DELIVER (via channels) value to the customer using STRATEGY & RESOURCES.

Marketing is defined as facilitating the acheivement of organisational goals by facilitating exchanges of value.--Joveblue 04:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 4Ps (along with 3Cs) are still taught at the University of Chicago GSB and every other major business school, so I think it's safe to include in this article. I'm not sure what makes you think it's outdated - it's a useful framework to think about marketing, although it's not the end-all-be-all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.140.5.249 (talk • contribs) 14:27, September 27, 2006 (UTC)

We still talk about the 4Ps, but only as one part (configuration of offer) of a larger overall marketing process. Even then, it's not a very comprehensive model for configuration of an offer, as shown by the many attempts to expand it to 7/8 Ps. I'm not saying it shouldn't be included, I just think that maybe it should be approached as a smaller part of marketing. --Joveblue 04:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my humble opinion the 4p's are an archaic cliché that has survived because it is so easy to remember. It has no fundamental value as the base of marketing whatsoever. I advise the specialist to rework it so that it isnt the first thing people learn when they discover the concept marketing. Its really sad that a simple first letter mnemonic like this can survive for so long.

External links

People keep adding stupid commercial marketing links here. We should either establish some kind of standard of the links we want here (for instance, only educational/acadamic links) or just drop the section all together. Anyone agree? --Vikingstad July 7, 2005 22:51 (UTC)

It would be nice if the spammers would go away but I don't think it will happen. mydogategodshat 05:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I knocked the list down to four articles, KnowThis library, SOSIG, Mediapost (questionable), and the e-book Marketing.

For developing link policy, see [[Wikipedia talk:Spam#External links criteria and lyrics sites and (at the moment) my userpage. DDerby (talk) 06:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite needed

I'm inclined to think that nearly the whole article above the table of contents should be rewritten. It is neither general nor specific enough to be a good introduction. It ought to illustrate principles; instead it describes one approach. It's buzzwordish and unhelpfully vague.

Any thoughts on how we can turn this into a great article? —RadRafe 16:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment. There is no overall structure to the article. Much of the material in the first sections either do not belong in this article or should be placed in a more appropriate section. mydogategodshat 02:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Couple of things...

There are just a couple of things (off the top of my head) that I'd like to see addressed with this article. Firstly one could mention Marketing as an industry (ie The Marketing Industry), and if there is already such an article could someone point me in the direction thereof? Also if this were to be done, a good figure to be included would be how much money is spent per year, or per quarter, on Marketing.

sorry, forgot to sign the above comment [[User:Consequencefree|Ardent^†_∈]] 11:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeas...product marketing is easily a part of the main marketing page! We should merge them!

Marketing isn't really an industry. It's about more than just promotions, PR and marcom.[1] What do you mean by marketing industry? Perhaps this could be addressed in other ways. --Westendgirl 06:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're thinking of the Advertising Industry. --Joveblue 04:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Product marketing into Marketing

I propose that the article Product marketing is not necessary, and should be merged into Marketing, with a redirect from Product marketing --Blainster 08:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article Product marketing needs to exist as a separate article in its own right, just as other articles on marketing exist on Wikipedia, such as Online marketing, Marcom, etc. Those looking for a definition of Product marketing will find value in it. I am writing from Silicon Valley, where I have built a career in Product Marketing, as opposed to other marketing disciplines such as Marcom. I am still in the process of building this article out for the benefit of MBA students and others, who are attracted to Silicon Valley for Product Marketing / Product Management kind of careers. I understand Marketing well, having earned an MBA from MIT Sloan School of Management, a top-five business school, in the past. However, I am open to a discussion as long as the content I have created for the benefit of others in the Product marketing article is not obliterated. Thank you for your kind consideration. Sam mishra 04:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is a bad idea. Companies have product marketing managers and marketing communications managers. They do to distinct jobs. This article helps to make that clear. (JES, 1/19/2006)

Much of Product Marketing is an exact duplicate of material presented in Marketing. What is novel can easily be incorporated in a small sub-section of Marketing. Lwiner 08:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I work as a strategic planner for an advertising agency, and I live with marketing through intricate nuances everyday. I think the best idea could be that we have a marketing entry whcih would have an overview of marketing, and then separate entries for product marketing, brand marketing, marketing communication, word-of-mouth marketing and so on. In fact marketing, as I see, can become a whole portal. Since capitalism today rides mostly on marketing, as well as most other facets of modern life (i.e. politics, religion etc.), it readily merits a portal. Why start merging articles, when we need to create more, splinterized and synchronized at the same time. Any takers? (Aditya Kabir 12:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I have added more content like creation of hot-sheets, beat-sheets, cheat-sheets, data-sheets, white-papers, case-studies, and how they help high-tech companies market their products. (Sam 3/7/06)

In my opinion, product marketing should remain its own article because all of the other members of the "Four P's" have their own articles (pricing, placement, and production). (Carolyn 4/30/06)

i also dont support the merge, i think marketing = product marketing + branding. Spencerk 15:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Market research in the 1950s

Following world War II, the rapidly expanding markets prompted the widespread use of market research. By the 1950s market research specialists such as ACNielsen were using it in the U.S. to to gauge the size of potential markets, "test market" products prior to nationwide introduction, and to monitor sales with statistical sampling to speed up companies' ability to react to trends. --Blainster 21:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Science of Marketing?

Is marketing a science or an art? Breaker 00:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: Marketing is art that makes extensive use of science. Lwiner 08:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that depends on how you define science. If you mean science as in something that requires study and method, then yes, it's a science. --Westendgirl 06:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, marketing isn't an exact science, like astrophysics or genetic engineering, as it often stands on gut-feel and experienced-hunches. But, well, it is more of a science than architecture or clinical psychology. (Aditya Kabir 12:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for your answers, guys. I think all of the above answers are correct. I personally tend to believe that marketing is both an art and a science as it is such a broad discipline. The scientific factors would include systematic marketing research which is often based on psychology, sociology and increasingly, mathematics. Also measurements used in product positioning and awareness levels seem to make more use of science than art. But art comes in when creativity is required: innovation, re-positioning, promotion, selling, and so on. But then again, these often make immense use of ontology and epistomology as well as psychology. Back to sqaure one? :-) Breaker 14:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the above answers may be correct, but a statement currently in the article is not: "Marketing can be neither an art nor a science because arts and sciences only seek to explain natural phenomena." What?! --Renice 17:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also have a problem with that statement. Quoting from Wikipedia, Science "refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research." Science need not be restricted to natural phenomena. NickBarrowman 19:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Investigating current markets, finding out who your target audience is and extracting information from it is a science. Branding and persuading people they want your product overlaps [sales] and is an art. Comments? 80.175.128.29 13:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An irrelevant question, for sure. Only of academic interest, if at all as it depends on the definitions of art and of science in the first place... Fbooth 15:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MArketing definition

As of 5-Apr-06, this article seems to quote the 1985 AMA definition of marketing rather than the current (2004) definition ??? --Anon. 5 April, 2006

Marketing is and has been confused with advertising. The man or lady that serves us at Say a famous burger company is infact marketing their product their demmeneur and personality count also. In order to market a product we must first include the 4 p's. This being Product, Place, Price and promotion. Ask yourself. Who do you sell to (what is your market) when do you sell it, how do we sell it and what is the market price for our product (or service). Placement is also confusing because we think of it as where is our product placed but more importanly it involves logistics which then effects price. Marketing is paramount to any modern day product or service and must be looked at not only with marketing professionals but also indepth research professionals also. Research is the key to the plan and implementation of a product being 'marketed' and so producing revenue and profit. Steven Carmichael part of carmichael consultancy integrates and forms new models in marketing, its benefits within both. to continue

Marketing is neither Advertising nor Selling,however the two are essential ingredients of Marketing.Selling concept of marketing has become old and obsolete,presently we have taken social aspect of marketing, known as Societal Concept--marketing is no more restricted to the abovesaid two terms.Holy|Warrior 07:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing P's

I have seen people making controversy between no of P's.We should always quote who has said them.Its a fact that in broad term we acknowledge 4P's only. However, some Writers prefer Packaging as 5th P and services counts 7P's,The number increases to 15 in Banking !!!.Always quote the sources too.No wild insertions plz.Holy|Warrior 08:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mass marketing

I see this page is living, so I am placing the request here. The article "Mass marketing" is in an atrocious state: uncategorized, unreferenced, chaotic, full of original research and questionable claims. I am very far from biz/fin. Please fix. By the way, I stumbled upon this topic when tracing the link to mass market. It redirected to mass marketing, and I deleted it, because, you will see it yourself, it was totally inappropriate. So please write something for mass market as well. Thank you, `'mikka (t) 17:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of marketing

An element of criticism thats not in this section is that marketing, when combined with profits create a situation where the individual interests endanger the community intrest and that is the reason why marketing should always be regulated.

The entire part about Stephen Brown is very unclear for me. Also this part of the article needs more structure (maybe even remove this part, what is it doing there anyway?).

Also some paragraphs are abviously untrue, like these: It is marketing that has helped create value through customised products, no-questions-asked refund policies, comfortable cars, environmental attention, shopkeepers’ smile, and guaranteed delivery dates. Even some government departments address the public not as ‘the Queen’s subjects’ or ‘the applicants’ any more but as ‘customers’. Of course all of the above is done for economic or political gain, for better or worse. Despite all this achievement, to dismiss marketing as a failure is unfair. -> This is presenting reality more beautifull than it is and lacks criticism. There is also no prouve given to support these claims.

Marketing also helps companies avoid unnecessary R&D, operational and sales costs by helping to develop products because customers want them, not for the sake of innovation. Another success is the now commonly implemented value-pricing principle, whereby a product or service is sold for the price the customer is willing to pay, not on a cost-plus basis. This way, both suppliers and customers get a fair deal. -> Charging your customers for more than it costs is not a fair price, its taking advantage of the limited knowledge of your costumers and the availability of your product in the (local) store. Costumers should never be charged more, unless they get something in return (better quality or investment in future product).

Both these paragraphs are over-optimistic and lack criticism. Please change them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.190.253.160 (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I agree. This whole section concerning "scholars such as Stephen Brown" is strange and narrow. 66.171.76.176 08:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

This new section has been added to create consistency in the article formatting. When you make adjustments to the copy in the marketing article you may reference your input by tagging your insertions. This is not a section for link spamming. Any non-relevant references will be removed. Bradhenry 13:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Brad Henry[reply]

Further, per the verification policy, any material without sources is subject to removal. - 152.91.9.144 06:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]