Talk:Customer relationship management

proposed merge

agree w the proposed merge in priciple. however, the crm software article is rubbish anyway so why not just delete it instead ? Fbooth 23:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added back the following line which Sleepyhead81 removed: "META Group (acquired by Gartner in April 2005) developed this conceptual architecture in the mid-1990s, and dubbed it the CRM Ecosystem."

Additionally, I have changed it to late-1990s to be more accurate. I have no idea why Sleepyhead81 feels justified in removing this line. META Group was the source and should be cited as such. The exact source is: META Group, ADS (Application Delivery Strategies) Delta #724, "The CRM Ecosystem," published on March 16, 1999. -- J

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 May 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Removed:

There is not much new about CRM, it is just a piece of new jargon with some useful, money making, side effects. First it lets a load of academics and consultants pontificate about nothing and pretend they have invented a new discipline. Second we can write lots of expensive software to help you "do" CRM. Of course astute business men have applied the concept of “customer relationship management” for hundreds, probably thousands of years. Ever since they recognised the value of a special relationship - “To you my boy I got a special price for this flint axe, not even two cows, ‘cause you buy so many of these fine weapons it is just one cow and a bushel of gain.”

While it may be true, for all I know, it does not add any useful information to the article and does not uphold the NPOV. -- April

Alot of comments from varying academia have spoken on the issue of CRM, and one may like to read the 2nd Edition of John Egans book 'Relationship Marketing: Exploring Relational Strategies in Marketing', which expresses quite a wide range of opinions in the context of 'fors' and 'against' CRM commercial achievements. Sure, many companies around 'do' CRM, however, I would like to note that this is on a very general basis, and that true CRM depends on the relationship with each single customer. As a result, CRM or Customer Relationship Management is that management process of identifying, anticipating and satisfying customer requirements profitably. From that, major accomplishments have been made, in fact, "ever since they recognised the value of a special relationship" they had indeed, exploited it. Not in the negative since. Give and take. You're satisfied, and the company is satisfied. However, the difficulty is trying to implement strategies to incorporate this concept across the entire market base.--Jae-min.

I'd tend to agree with April, but maybe there's something to be said here along those lines--I mean, suppose there were well-known criticisms of CRM along along those lines. Then it might be worthwhile including such criticisms in the article (attributed, of course). The criticism itself sounds like one that could be made of a lot of academic-invented concepts, though (it's hardly new to say that academics make up jargon just in order to be able to have an exclusive, new conceptual field to play in), and we probably wouldn't want to include criticisms like this on every Wikipedia page about such academic-invented concepts. --Larry Sanger

I'm a bit confused: does CRM refer to the software, the business strategy that makes use of the software, or both?

It interests me that Larry advocates attributing criticisms of CRM to reputable sources. That sounds reasonable, but why not also cite reputable sources regarding the definition and explication of the CRM concept? Who is promoting this concept? Just companies like Oracle? Are there business school or organizational theory academics who promote it as well? Can we name some names here? (And Larry, I do notice the irony in saying this without yet doing anything about my Rationality article.) Who is using this term, and for what purposes?

-- Ryguasu

"Linkspam" question

Hello, I am the founder of CRM Today, an informational portal dedicated to CRM and many related business fields like call centers, data mining etc. The site is totally operated from Athens, Greece and its the only non-US and non-UK site that is recognized globally for its useful and high-quality content. I was really surprised to see that you deleted our posts as "linkspam". I am a newbie in this amazing project so maybe I miss some guidelines, but I would appreciate if you could send me your comments and feedback on this. In fact we NEVER do linkspam (you can check search engines and other sources for this), I just believe that a site with 800+ FREE informational documents is really worth listed as a useful resource for our related business/technology terms. I apologize if I did something wrong and I do welcome your comments to fix them as you are from Greece also. :)

PS. i.e. I really cannot understand why our site is not worth get listed under the External Links for the term "Call Center" (we have 100+ unique free documents on this field) but Bitpipe's listing is. Your feedback is much welcomed at apada@tee.gr or posted here. Many thanks.

Your edits weren't confined in just CRM but also included some promotion for some "greek tourist guide" on Greece and some catamaran-related commercial site, which were also removed, together with all their like that wasn't yours. (See your contribution history.) There have been repeated attempts in the past to promote these exact same sites. Your objection regarding links to other CRM solutions, though, is probably worth to mention. Perhaps these links should be removed too, or yours restored. I'm moving your comments on the CRM talk page. Etz Haim 21:45, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Who is plagarizing whom?

Is the wikipedia CRM article plagarized on this page: Cylution? -pinano-

No, it's not, pinano. Cylution did exactly what Wikipedia wants people to do. --24.34.109.80 02:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello pinano,

I noticed your comment about Cylution. I'm the webmaster of Cylution and used indeed the text of wikipedia on CRM in the secion Definition CRM. Maybe I'm wrong but I did understand that this text is released under the GNU Free Documentation License and free for use. I provided two links under the definition. One indicates wikipedia as the source. The other indicates that the definition used in this section of Cylution (a bit different from the source) is also available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation.

If this is not the prober way to do it, let me know.

Freddie Webmaster Cylution

Site CRMONLINE.RU - for russian region

Welcome to CRMONLINE.RU - http://www.crmonlone.ru

This site should be interesting for people who want to know more about CRM (Customer Relationship Management). We are talking about all problems of CRM market in Russia, Belorussia and Ukraine. Expert's Counsil of CRMONLINE.RU help CRM market of ex-USSR to grow and delivery consulting for seekers of CRM systems.

Please, send your letters to e-mail box inf@crmonline.ru

Operational vs Collaborative

IMHO there is the same ...(thing) just in the another hand :-). "Collaborative" is just another buzzword, promoting additional peaces of CRM software sales. But factually "to collaborate" is "to operate", isn't ?--AndriuZ 15:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. There seems to be a lot of original research in this article. I'll take a stab at cleaning it up when I have some time. --JPotter 00:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging this for -something-

I have added the {{totallydisputed}} tag to the article in chief. Of all the cleanup tags, this one seems the most comprehensive. As far as I can see, this article has major problems, and unless serious cleanup is done fairly quickly I propose to delete it.

In today's competitive business environment, a successful CRM strategy cannot be implemented by simply installing and integrating a software package designed to support CRM processes. A holistic approach to CRM is vital for an effective and efficient CRM policy. This approach includes training of employees, a modification of business processes based on customers' needs and an adoption of relevant IT-systems (including software and maybe hardware) and/or usage of IT-Services that enable the organization or company to follow its CRM strategy. CRM-Services can even replace the acquisition of additional hardware or CRM software-licences.

This kind of prose drives me to seething fury. What information is contained in this paragraph? About all that I can get out of it is that "CRM" involves not only buying software but also training employees to use it. These ninety-two words do the work of twelve. The entire article is a tissue of verbal hyperinflation, and what little concrete, descriptive sentences it contains suggest that the whole article is an attempt to make a simple marketing database seem much more impressive than it actually is. The entire article reeks of advertising, and as such may be inappropriate for Wikipedia. — Smerdis of Tlön 15:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that the article could use cleanup, {{totallydisputed}} is inappropriate. To use that you need to show both WP:POV and factual inaccuracies in the article. I have changed the tag to {{cleanup}}. Rasmus (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you changed my {{totallydisputed}} tag on that page to {{cleanup}}. I am considering changing it back, but perhaps my words on the talk page were not strong enough.
Very simply, the article is patent nonsense, reeks of advertising, and so full of inane, empty buzzwords as to make it impossible to rewrite from the current version. I don't really think it's possible to clean up the current version into something presentable. It also counts as original research in my view. I doubt that there is anything here that isn't already covered by database marketing; the only difference is that this version has been inflated with a blizzard of empty words, seeking to invest that tawdry subject with false grandeur. The cleanup tag is wrong if the real question is whether there should be an article on this bogus subject at all. Smerdis of Tlön 14:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with much of the above. The subject is surely encyclopedic (and thus the article should stay), and, as I understand the terms (I am in no way an expert), there is a great deal of difference between Customer relationship management and Database marketing. But I fully agree that the article is full of empty buzzwords and original research and might benefit from a total rewrite. Nevertheless, that is what the {{cleanup}}-tag is for. To use the {{totallydisputed}}-tag you need to demonstrate both POV and factual inaccuracies, not just general bad writing. Rasmus (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is mostly nonsense, it would contain factual inaccuracies and go well beyond factual inaccuracy. If it is advertising or similar sales talk, it has been crafted to deliberately mislead; all advertising has POV problems more or less by definition. Smerdis of Tlön 15:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been drastic - and I think it's a step in the right direction (see below as well)! Steevm 05:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added some information

OK you guys:

I added some information and clarifications, and switched a few sentences around.

We are supposed to improve the article, not complain about it. I partially agree with one of the discussers, that later in the article it appears to be a generic sales pitch from some company; but I don't know which one.

From my research into CRM, each company that markets CRM software tools defines it their own way. Then they make the tools to get their customer to do CRM their way. We need to discuss, IN GENERAL, what CRM is, and what its advantages are.

Look at my changes. What are your thoughts? 147.240.236.9 21:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - they look good :). Perhaps someone more experienced can comment as well. I went ahead and got rid of the promotional language from the rest of the article, although there is like NO real information there so its kind of funny :). Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 22:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you mentioned you knew of some whitepapers. If you could provide any references for this article that would be great :). Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 08:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intro section is totally incomprehensible

The intro section of this article is not an introduction. It is not comprehensible by a competent reader of technical English who isn't familiar with the particular buzzwords of this field. Folks who actually know this subject should find a way to explain it (if there is anything of substance to be explained) in a way which is comprehensible to the reader. --FOo 06:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more. "Create a customer-based culture"? What the fuck does that mean? I thought websites like Wikipedia were supposed to be immune from the meaningless Newspeak jibber-jabber of the pointy-haired bosses and "consultants." - would rather remain anonymous

Restored material

I restored most of the material deleted by User:S.K.. It isn't linkspam. The only two products mentioned were CiviCRM and eBase, both of which are free CRM software. The companies listed that provide CRM services to nonprofit organizations are widely recognized as leading providers of this service. Moreover, the mentions that I added here do not include links to any of their websites, and I do not represent or have any affiliation with any of them. The only reason I mentioned them is because I think anyone involved with a nonprofit organization who reads this article would find it useful to see them mentioned.

The onle external link that I did add was to a white paper about CRM for nonprofit organizations published by Idealist, an organization that provides Consumer-Reports-style reviews and articles about software of interest to nonprofits. The white paper is an overview of the technologies and strategies used for CRM by nonprofits. However, I agree with S.K. that the other external link he deleted, from www.eweek.com, is not very useful and not worth including in this article, so I did not restore it. --Sheldon Rampton 16:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hagen article

I restored the Paul Hagen article which was deleted as "linkspam" by User:Sleepyhead81. I don't see how the Hagen article qualifies as linkspam. I was the person who added it originally, and I have no relationship with Idealware, the website that published the article. Idealware is an organization that writes reviews and articles about software, and the Hagen piece is simply an overview of CRM techniques and strategies for nonprofit organizations. It doesn't push any particular vendor or product, and I added it because I think it would be useful to organizations that are trying to learn about CRM. --Sheldon Rampton 21:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I've restored the Paul Hagen article and another article that User:Sleepyhead81 has deleted. After his last deletion two week agos, I posted a note to his user talk page asking him to explain why he regards these articles as linkspam. He has not responded, so it seems to me that at this point the onus is on him to provide some explanation for his reasoning if he still wishes to dispute their appropriateness. --Sheldon Rampton 16:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complete Overhaul

I've edited the whole thing, first off for readability. It was really really painful to read, akin to some of the worst marketing I've come across - and I've seen enough. To be honest, the whole thing reads 1:1 like the waffle I regularly get sent by our marketing department. But at least they have the excuse that they're (trying to) write marketing...

Apart from marketing waffle, I removed several sentences that I could make neither head nor tail of. I'd suggest that you don't just go and put these sentences back in as they were; they're incomprehensible, so rewrite them in plain and simple english if they are important. If english is not your mother tongue, then feel free to ask me for help in your formulation. But there's absolutely no point in having an article that nobody can understand.

I also tried to remove redundant information (things were being repeated over and over again), as well as a couple of sections that didn't seem to add much, and made a lot of claims without any sources. The whole thing is a lot shorter, and hopefully more readable. If you really want the removed sections back, please consider revising them wholesale, and considering whether they might not be better placed in one of the other sections - and maybe shortened significantly... And list some sources. It read to me like marketing (as if lifted from a brochure ), and we shouldn't be trying to sell the idea of CRM, but explaining what it is.

If there's something I took out, which really deserves to be in, then I apologise. But I really felt I had to be drastic!

I haven't really added anything (apart from expanding minimally on one or two ideas), nor did I remove any links. I haven't really changed the structure (2 sections switched places). Perhaps the whole thing still needs an overhaul, but at least it ought to be halfway readable for now.

There's also a couple of pseudo-contradictions in the text, with operational and collaborative CRM overlapping to large extents. But I only tried to make it readable, not logical Steevm 05:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French in Intro?

Why is there French text in the introduction of an English article?

Hosted vs On-Premise CRM

Why was the section "Hosted vs On-Premise CRM" removed [1]?

The comment in the history said

Removing copyright violation that is likely an attempt at pr spam

But where is the copyright violation?

Invenio 02:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it was spam, I think it was very unencyclopedic. It didn't explain what hosted vs on-premise is, but rambled on about the history of CRM and various vendors without getting to the point. Because it was so unencyclopedic, it definitely read like it had been lifted from somewhere. You could always shorten it, rewrite it to include just the factual information and then repost it of course. Note that whilst I didn't delete it myself, I was definitely tempted to drastically cut it when I first read it.

I really think that it needs to be reduced to at least a quarter of its length and just be informative. What is hosted CRM? What is on-premise CRM? If the history is indeed relevant, I'm sure it can be rephrased in a single sentence ("Numerous expensive failures with on-premise CRM led to an increase in demand from smaller businesses who favoured on-demand solutions, mainly due fears concerning the cost and complexity of on-premise solutions.{citation needed}." Sentences such as "However, on-demand CRM software is not always as simple as the vendors would have you believe." are completely out of place - and probably the reason this section got deleted in the first place.

Steevm 05:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Steevem. Excellent explanation. Don't quite get the balls-section though. You like people having balls?

Invenio 01:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just had a look at the history. Some nitwit added the balls...

Invenio 01:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the bit about balls... ;) Steevm 16:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible spam in section "CRM for Nonprofit Organizations"?

Not sure about this salesforce.com stuff. Looks biased to me.

salesforce.com, a popular CRM service that is on demand, offers its products for free to nonprofit 501c3 organizations.

I don't mind having a list of CRM systems here, but it should be unbiased.

Also, I believe it should be definitely clear that 501(c)(3) is a US-centric regulation. Other countries will have different interpretations of what's not-for-profit.

Invenio 02:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]