Talk:Customer experience management

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is preserved as an archive of the associated article page's "votes for deletion" debate (the forerunner of articles for deletion). Please do not modify this page, nor delete it as an orphaned talk page.

Does anyone have any idea what this is? Jwrosenzweig 23:49, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree, this whole series of articles being posted is very confusing and appears to be copied from some sort of textbook. Please enlighten me...? --Flockmeal 00:23, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

I imagine Karsten Kilian has given each student in his class a section of a marketing textbook to read and summarise for Wikipedia. Judging by the section titles, this marketing textbook is prescriptive, displaying a particular point of view, and as such is inappropriate for Wikipedia. -- Tim Starling 00:52, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be moved to Wikibooks. I think it would fit in nicely there. It would be a great pity to miss out on all this text. -- Tim Starling 00:54, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)


If you are reading this and are associated in any way with the school that is running this project, please put a brief description here of what the project is, and who we can contact to find out more about it? We want to help, but we are very confused by these articles, and want always to make sure that new contributors understand the goals and aims here at Wikipedia. Also list this information at Wikipedia:School and university projects. Jwrosenzweig 00:33, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)


The list:

Has anyone heard from Karstan yet? This - http://www.visio-consult.de/ - appears to be his website - and gives kilian@visio-consult.de as a contact address... maybe someone interested can make contact and work out something beenficial to all sides? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:33, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I will do so. Karsten, if you're reading this, please read a note I left you on my talk page? Thank you. Jwrosenzweig 17:04, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)


From VfD[edit]

Which VfD? This title has never been to V/AfD. -- RHaworth 12:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Until I can get an answer to the question at User talk:145.254.237.111, I'd like this listed for deletion. It looks to me as though this is a large school project that hasn't informed us it's coming, and isn't being run by people who are familiar with Wikipedia. I am hoping that the VFD notice on this page will convince one of the people on this project to come here, see this note, and let us know what's going on with a description at Wikipedia:School and university projects and a contact name of the person in charge so that we can better understand what's going on and educate the students about Wikipedia. Jwrosenzweig 00:30, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Subpages: Analyzing the experiential world of the customer - Building the experiential platform - Designing the brand experience - Structuring the customer interface - Engaging in continuous innovation - Marketing concept - Customer Relationship Management (CRM) - Customer satisfaction - Identify Target Customer - Divide the Experiential World into 4 Layers - Track Experiences along Touchpoints - Survey the Competitive Landscape - Experiential Positioning - Experiential Value Promise (EVP) - Overall Implementation Theme - The Product Experience - The Look and Feel - Experiential Communications - Experiential Communications - Style and Substance - Essence and Flexibility - CEM integration - CEM organization - Timing
  • also related: CEM organization, CEM integration, and a bazillion other articles by 145.254.237.111 . These all seem to be mass vandalism/trolling in the form of advertizement. --zandperl 00:32, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I think it's a marketing textbook, not an advertisement. Perhaps it can be moved to Wikibooks. -- Tim Starling 00:57, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Remove unless a very good explanation is provided in a day or two. Fredrik 01:00, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to Wikibooks and do rewriting, too POV. --Flockmeal 02:38, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Guessing by a small sample reading, it's far from being NPOV or encyclopedic style, and also not too interesting. I'd say delete unless somebody (read: original author) comes up with a much better version. Kosebamse 11:36, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • The base term (Customer Experience Management) is a real but little-used phrase for a sub-set of the management discipline Customer Relationship Management. The topic should be covered there. Unfortunately, I don't think this page is recoverable. Easier to delete and let someone start over. The sub-pages are apparently building up to duplicate or create a text and violate either the "source" or "original research" rules. Rossami 13:28, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • from Jwrosenzweig's talk page:
      • Karsten Kilian on Deletion Request for Customer Experience Management (CEM) Thanks for your feedback. We are a university in Germany with an international students from 6 different countries. The aim of the Customer Experience Management (CEM) is as follows:
        • introduce a fairly new concept in the literature to interested audience
        • make students familiar with wikipedia.org
        • add to the content quality of Wikipedia
        • I hope that my explanation does make it clear what our goal is and I would be thankful if you could withdraw the deletion note.
    • Kudos to the university for trying this, but we need to ensure that what they are doing fits the Wikipedia mold. Currently the articles don't stand by themselves. Could we find someone willing to hand-hold these students through the Wikipedia process, getting the titles right, making sure each article is self-contained etc.? I think we should also strongly encourage all the contributors to create logins, or at very least the teacher to create a login, so that we can send feedback. DJ Clayworth 15:05, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to Wikibooks; Not complying to neither NPOV nor Wikipedia style and layout. — Sverdrup (talk) 16:47, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I am in contact with Karsten on my talk page and via email. I urge you all to hold off a few days and let Karsten and I try to find a way to make this workable. Wikibooks might be a very good idea (thanks Sverdrup) if Wikipedia turns out to be a bad fit. Anyone who wants to help guide these students, please do, but if you're wondering who is taking the lead for the moment, it's me. I think we can sort things out. Jwrosenzweig 17:22, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Thank you very much for doing this, James. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 17:29, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I agree; if they want to fix it, we should give them time to do that. — Sverdrup (talk) 17:56, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • As an update, Karsten has agreed in an email to me that the current articles are not matching Wikipedia's standards well -- he pledges personal attention to them, and asks that we delay any decision making for 2-3 days while he help his students shape the articles. Jwrosenzweig 20:26, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete all: original research. They need to set up their own wiki to host this stuff. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:56, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete all, for the simple reason that they aren't encylopedia-type topics by any stretch of the definition. The folks at Wikibooks should judge whether this would be welcome there... -- Seth Ilys 23:11, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete all - this effort has started up again. User:Kkilian72 is creating pages linked to CEM: Experiential Innovation Customer Interface Brand Experience Experiential Platform Experiential World - I thought they agreed to stop until this was resolved. - Texture 23:14, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't know what to make of these articles. I havnt read them all yet, but from what I have read, most articles are a mix of accurate statements, a couple of inaccuracies, and an attempt to present well established marketing concepts as new by renaming them. I wouldnt want to see them all deleted, but at the same time I wouldnt want the job of fixing them all. mydogategodshat 01:39, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I have read more of the articles now and I think most of them could be kept, improved, merged, or renamed. I would suggest letting the students work on the articles in a defined project space, then having Kkilian add them to the main Wiki when he/she thinks they are ready. Note to Kkillian: There is a common theme than runs through these articles. It is the dicotomy between outside-in processes and inside-out processes as first described by professor Schultz and George Day. I have a lot of respect for Don Shultz's work, but I think in an encyclopedia we shouldnt redefine concepts in terms of one point of view. Send me an e-mail if you wish to discuss this further. mydogategodshat 02:39, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Response to comments made above: I dont see any advertising here. Nor do I see original research, infact, my guess is that these are headings from a textbook which students have been instructed to write about. As for the topics being non-encyclopedic, I feel marketing topics are just as encyclopedic as physics or history topics. Keep if the students are going to continue working on the articles, several have potential. mydogategodshat 04:21, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • The bigest problem that we are going to have with these articles is not the occassional innaccuracy or the POV, both of which could easily be fixed, but the integration of the material into the existing encyclopedia. Most of these topics are already covered. Either the new material would have to be incorporated into the existing stuff (for example Experimental Positioning[[1]] would go into positioning (marketing), or all of these articles would have to be merged into four or five articles that present the consequences of outside-in strategies in general and consumer experience management in particular. mydogategodshat 16:41, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • This should be trasnwikied and moved to Wikibooks. along with sub-articles below. Davodd 05:49, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

The following articles should be kept: customer experience management, Experiential world, Experiential platform, Brand experience, Customer interface, Experiential innovation, CEM integration, and CEM organization. mydogategodshat 21:31, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Revisit possible deletion, merge, etc[edit]

I ran across some of the articles mentioned above, and would like to address them as a whole rather than individually if possible. For most of them (all but 2?), there has been no effort to provide sources, and I think there may still be WP:NOT, WP:OR and WP:NOTABLE issues here that may have not been previously considered, or were assumed would be resolved with more contributions. --Ronz 03:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Of all the articles mentioned, only these still exist: Marketing orientation (was Marketing concept), Customer satisfaction, Experiential world, Experiential platform, Brand experience, Customer interface, and Experiential innovation.

These word soufflés need stubbifying at the very least. I was going to remove the section "A CEM framework" as as copyvio from [2], and, considering that the second section, "Organization of CEM" smells just the same, and in view of the evaluation above, I'm absolutely convinced that that is another copyvio. So that leaves the first sentence, a nice little stub, I thought... until I realized from this historical version that it is word-for-word from Schmitt's book. OK, that leaves nothing but copyvio. I'm speedying. I'll leave this talkpage so people can read my reasoning. Bishonen | talk 01:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
Thanks! Of the remaining links from above, only Customer satisfaction has progressed beyond the stubs that these all started out as. The rest should be given as critical an eye as you have done here. --Ronz 01:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. Looks like it's all from Schmitt: [3] --Ronz 02:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Experiential world, Experiential platform, Brand experience, Customer interface, and Experiential innovation all appear just to be further summaries of Schmitt's book as this article was. These remaing article's can't stand alone as they are, now that this main article is gone. --Ronz 02:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
All speedied as copyvios. That was simpler than I thought, they were incredibly obvious. OK, the encyclopedia improved! :-) Bishonen | talk 11:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
I fully agree with Bishonen's objections in the prod message here. But what links here says that we need something on this title. If it survives as a redirect for a few days, I will fix the double redirects. -- RHaworth 12:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)