Talk:Market segmentation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Lift and split[edit]

this page combines the process of segmentation with the definition of market segment. should we lift content and split it into market segment and market segmentation? Jorgerestrepo (talk) 01:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Jorge Restrepo


The external links on this page link to commercial services and have misleading descriptions. As a newbie to wikipedia editing, I'm not sure what to do about this.


—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.81.48 (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


i agree this is very vague and not very usefull. i was forces to use an alternative website.

Sorry guys, but this is a very vague definition of market segmentation. I wish I had the time to edit it, but maybe at least the distinction between general/product-specific and observable/non-observable segmentation bases could be included?

-- from 172.176.193.136


The above comment is not mine, but I agree - this is a core marketing concept, and the article does need some work.

I am happy to have a go at this, as time permits. I am fairly familiar with the subject, but new to editing Wikipedia. So first of all, here are some thoughts for general discussion, before I make a start. Please help!

The title is "market segment" but the article is about "market segmentation". The page for "Market segmentation" redirects to here. To avoid over-complicating things, I suggest the article should cover both market segmentation and market segments, but make the distinction explicit.

Preamble

The preamble needs to contain a short definition of both segmentation and segment. It is probably more understandable to begin by definining segmentation. I suggest quoting (and referencing) the introductionory sentence in the AMA definition as the starting point: "The process of subdividing a market into distinct subsets of customers that behave in the same way or have similar needs". Then to derive the definition of a segment from this. The supporting idea that seem to be most important in the preamble is that different marketing strategies can be developed to suit the preferences of different segments.

It is important to associate segmentation with targeting (as the preamble does at present). However, this idea leads to at least two wider discussions. (a) how segmentation fits into the overall process of marketing planning process; and (b) the benefits that are expected from segmentation. To include all that would make the preamble too long, so I suggest should move from the preamble to the body.

Body

I suggest the following sequence of subsections...

The benefits of segmentation: Start with a subsection on the rationale or promised benefits of segmentation, covering market understanding, customer alignment, allocation of resources, and sizing / forecasting uncertainty.

Bases for segmentation: The existing material is fine as far as it goes, but it would be useful to distinguish between different practices in consumer markets, and in industrial markets. Perhaps it is also worth including special considerations for international markets. A few examples of segments and approaches would probably aid understanding, and should include extreme cases. The trend towards smaller segments needs to be covered - with Mass customisation covered as an enabler, not the intent.


Effective segmentation: This is the place to cover evaluation (i.e. the current requirements for successful segmentation). The first part of the current subsection covers the basics in a conventional way, but could usefully be expanded to make the article more self-contained. I am not sure that the "SADAM" acronym adds anything, or that it is widely recognised. However, I am happy to be corrected.

The segmentation process: I would like to see the subsection on top-down and bottom up developed into a very brief discussion of the process of segmentation, including examples of analytical tools. Only cluster analysis is mentioned so far. Limited coverage of some standard models migh also be of interest - SIC, VALS, etc. There should surely be a subsection covering how segmentation fits into the wider planning process, and particularly discussion of the link between segmentation, targeting and positioning.

History and developments: Maybe there should be a discussion of how the concept has evolved. i.e. segmentation was originally contrasted with product differentiation as a marketing philosophy (in the orginal 1956 Wendell Smith article); but has come to be seen as a prerequisite for development of the marketing mix (including product differentiation - i.e. Kotler). Also some critiques, and noting that segments are tending to become smaller.

It may be worth linking to the article on price discrimination, but does it really warrant special consideration here?

--from User:Plutonian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plutonian (talkcontribs) 17:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Response: I made a concerted effort to include examples, as per your request, but with marginal success. Apparently the folk over at Wikipedia External Links Project vehemently object to the inclusion of any proprietary databases/ segmentation tools such as VALs and have deleted all such content. I agree with your description that proprietary packages such as VALs are standard approaches used in the industry. However, to the folk at WP EL, they are considered to be spam. Given that marketers rely so heavily on outsourced databases, it is, of course, impossible to do justice to this topic without making reference to proprietary packages. Therefore, it is quite futile trying to add further practical examples or expanding this article in substantive ways. I did my best to incorporate your request, along with other requests on this talk page (e.g. inclusion of history), but was ultimately over-ruled by people, who apparently have no knowledge of market segmentation. BronHiggs (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Additional response: As you may have noticed the folk at EPEL are going through this article and deleting ALL examples on the basis that they might constitute promotion, original research or possibly both. I tried to accede to your request for examples, but ultimately have been over-ruled. In my opinion, this article is much poorer for all these deletions, but as I have learned it is futile arguing with these people. I will leave it to other editors, who are much braver, or more persisten than me to add relevant examples. BronHiggs (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


How/where would all the mentioned variables used for segmentation be gathered? SHIRUY IS THE GREATEST ECONOMIST OF ALL TIME AS REGARDED BY "THE ECONOMIST"

Response: Not sure what the comment about Shiruy adds to an article about market segmentation. However, in response to your question about how the data is gathered, I can offer the following insight. Marketers generally rely on proprietary databases/ segmentation tools such as VALs, PRIZM, MOSAIC, ACORN and others. These are commercially available databases which include proprietary tools to interrogate the data and carry out standard analyses such as correspondence analysis, conjoint analysis, factor analysis etc. These databases typically include consumer responses and demographics for very large samples (upwards of 68,000 cases).
Large sample sizes are required to support the sophisticated statistical analyses carried out and to generate large number of market segments. The larger the number of segments required, the larger the sample size required for reasons of statistical validity. Collecting data from such large samples is prohibitively expensive. (It costs upwards of $50,000 for a small to medium sized sample of around 350 cases; for a larger data set such as used in VALs, you would need high end six figures). This means that data collection on this scale is beyond the means of small or medium sized companies. In fact, it is beyond the means of most large companies. And, this data needs to be collected every 2-3 years to ensure that it is current and to guard against bracket creep. Yet market research, and especially market segmentation, is totally dependent on this costly, high quality data. Therefore, marketers turn to the commercial market research houses and purchase data from there. If a marketer only wants data on a given industry or sector, it is possible to acquire a data set for around $5,000 - a relatively modest expenditure. But with many companies purchasing data from the same suppliers, the cost of data collection is effectively borne by the industry as a whole.
Marketers in most countries agree on an industry standard for specific applications (e.g psycographic, geodemographic). For instance, in the US, VALs is the standard psychometric product, while in Australia Roy Morgan's Values Segments have become the industry standard for psychometrics. Industry standard, in this context, means that government departments, professional associations and other peak industry bodies agree to use use a given proprietary product so that everyone using a common data set, collected with a clearly articulated methodology that is recognised as valid and reliable. This allows for meaningful comparisons of the performance of rival companies operating in the same product markets (i.e. marketers are comparing "apples with apples" because everyone is using the same source and methodology). In short, marketers outsource data collection.
The purchase of commercially avaiable data is standard practice within the industry, but you get no sense of this on Wikipedia, because mention of commercial products is considered spamming. Anyone who discusses these things in articles soon has their content reverted or challenged. If you want to learn about how marketing is actually practiced, you cannot rely on Wikipedia. Instead, you really need to go outside Wikipedia and read some of the practitioners' blogs, marketing texts and even consult the commercial data providers websites. BronHiggs (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
...because mention of commercial products is considered spamming No, the mention, properly sourced, is not spamming, which is why multiple editors have suggested that separate articles be created for such products. --Ronz (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
But, then again, as your most recent reversion (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Market_segmentation&diff=prev&oldid=772878560 suggests) even after multiple editors made this suggestion, and one of these editors took the time to convert the allegedly evil EL into wikilinks, these proprietary databases can still be deleted as being "too promotional" or "original research". So nobody is really any wiser about what might constitute a "properly referenced" product! BronHiggs (talk) 07:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

New REQUEST[edit]

Good Afternoon,

I am looking for a section that will break down the focus best value strategy in relation to strategic business management. If there are any professionals out there that read this please make it possible to find with the search engine.

Ilove to read this page. it really helps to me especially I am a student in Marketing anf I find it hard for me to understand what is market segmentation.


check investopedia.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Louis Reichman (talkcontribs) 21:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC) `

Major Overhaul Nearing Completion[edit]

I have given this page an overhaul and restructure and have tried to address everyone's concerns.

I have accomplished the following

  • Added a historical overview - and mentioned trend towards hyper-segmentation (actually have tried to integrate hyper-segmentation elsewhere in the article)
  • Added a short section on the criticisms of segmentation
  • Added a section on the segmentation process
  • Re-organised the 'Bases for segmentation' so that they are grouped into logical categories (this involved removing repetitions, relocating some sub-sections and renaming some approaches)
  • Added an 'other segmentations' category to the 'Bases for Segmentation" section and included generational segments and cultural segmentation there (formerly cultural segmentation was a stand-alone section)
  • Added a section on 'Strategic approaches to market Segmentation'
  • Added a section on selecting target markets
  • Added a section on 'Segmentation and the Marketing Mix'
  • added loads of examples, mainly from US, UK, Australia and New Zealand
  • Added a new section on 'Business Segmentation' and moved relevant content there
  • Reworked the section on 'Algorithms and approaches" to expand the explanation of a-priori and post-hoc approaches (which was previously nonsensical and overly brief. It started with "A discrete variable is a segmentation..." and didn't advance much from there)
  • Have added some new statistical procedures to the list including Structural equation modeling, CHAID, Logistic regression etc and have added both references and links to other Wiki pages for most statistical procedures.
  • Added images from Wiki Commons plus two images that I created in Photoshop to illustrate concepts.
  • Added three tables - one to the section on 'Segmentation and the Marketing Mix' ; one to the section on 'Strategic approaches to segmentation' and one to the section on "Generational Segments'
  • Added a large number of references throughout the article, especially for key ideas/ claims that are likely to be controversial

Where to from here?

I feel that the page is in much better shape now. A few issues remain to be resolved and I would appreciate someone with subject matter expertise to have a look and a go:

1. The section on 'Business Segmentation' is a bit thin. This is not my area of expertise and all contributions would be welcome.

2. The section on 'Algorithms and Approaches' also falls out of my area of expertise. At the moment, I think it is OK, but I am sure that it could be improved.

3. The section on 'cultural segmentation' is a mystery to me. I can't understand why it was added as a stand alone section - surely it needs to be incorporated into demographics? Is there anyone out there who knows anything about this and can suggest how this might be integrated into the page as a whole?

4. The sub-section on 'benefit-sought' or 'needs based segmentation' (within 'behavioral bases') is also very thin. It is desperately crying out for a suitable example and possibly an expanded explanation including aims and when to use.

5. This section on 'selecting target markets' is also very perfunctory and would benefit from some additional explanation/ discussion and perhaps an example or two of a segment profile.

I have become reluctant to add anything more in the way of substantive content after experiencing an unpleasant exchange with an over-zealous editor who saw fit to delete content I added to another page on Wikipedia (and, who, amongst other things, accused me of 'making things up'; writing in a 'conversational tone'; 'editorialising'; failing to understand the 'Wikipedia way' along with many other objections).

BronHiggs (talk) 05:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

External Links Section: Criteria for Inclusion[edit]

As there appears to be some confusion about what types of external links are acceptable for the "External Links" section of the article, I have developed the following inclusion criteria, in accordance with Wikipedia and guidelines.

1. A link to a commercial organisation is NOT automatically considered 'promotional' in character. The article's context and content are important in terms of evaluating what might be considered to be an acceptable external link or an unacceptable link.

2. Wikipedia's guidelines on the subject of External links section are spread across multiple pages, but specifically state that "there is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_mirror_or_a_repository_of_links.2C_images.2C_or_media_files AND https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links)

Relevant shortcuts: See WP:LINKFARM; WP:NOTADVERTISINGWP:ELPOINTS

My interpretation of these guidelines is that:

(a) Any external link must be directly related to the content of the article e.g. For an article on market segmentation, any high quality link to a site explaining geo-demographic segmentation, lifestyle segmentation, benefits-sought segmentation, etc may be acceptable.
(b) Links must be carefully selected so as to avoid the potential for excessive numbers of links with potential to dwarf the article (and potentially contributed to other editors deleting the entire section).
(c) Any external link that has the potential to create a precedent for the addition of other, similar links should be avoided. e.g. a site explaining how hotels segment markets is probably not acceptable because it would create a precedent for websites explaining how markets are segmented in tourism, leisure, travel, horticulture, healthcare, retail, gaming, electronics, furniture, do-it-yourself (DIY) and potentially thousands of industries.
(d) Avoid using a 'stacks on the mill' approach. If the External links section already includes one link to a site explaining one of the article's themes, avoid adding another link that explains the same theme, except where the alternative link is demonstrably superior. In the event that you believe the alternative link is superior, consider simple replacement i.e., delete the older link and replace it with the newer, superior alternative
(c) The total number of links in the External Links Section should be related to the overall length of the article. For example, a short article of 500-600 words might have just 3-5 links while an article of 3,000-6,000 words might warrant 10-12 external links. Every attempt should be made to avoid the External Links section becoming what Wikipedia calls 'a linkfarm' as this seems to alienate editors and triggers attempts to revert the entire section
(d) Do not add external links just because you can - the relevance should be clearly articulated or capable of being articulated
(e) Each link to be added should be carefully selected for its relevance to the article's contents
(f) Each link added to the external links section must add value (not simply repeat similar content)
(g) Links should be used to provide access to content that cannot normally appear in an article e.g. video, demo, copyright material
(h) Source documents (books, articles) are unsuitable as links in the External Links section.
(i) Do not use external links to extend the article's scope. If it the content is important, then write it up and add it to the article rather than just adding another external link and letting readers try to figure out why it is relevant.

The article on 'Market Segmentation' contains 7,085 words (excluding References, See Also section and External Links section) and has just nine links in the External Links section. Links that were added contained specific info such as videos, infographics, fact sheets, backgrounders, copyrighted material and interactive online demonstrations that are unsuitable for inclusion in the article, but add value by providing more detailed discussion of the core concepts discussed in the article.

To illustrate, the items were added to the External links section for the following reasons:

Acorn (UK)
Acorn is one of the three leading providers of geo-demographic segmentation services in the UK. The website includes videos which provide detailed insights into the various geographic markets. The video content is available to any interested user. The site also provides an interactive online demonstration of the program which requires site-registration, but is registration is free and unrestricted. (You do not need to be an industry member to gain access). The online interactive demonstration helps users to visualise the complex process of applying geo-demographic segmentation. Acorn is considered sufficiently notable to warrant its own entry in Wikipedia.
Cameo (UK)
Cameo is one of the three leading providers of geo-demographic segmentation services in the UK. This site is also a portal for Cameo's global services which cover Eastern Europe, Western Europe, the Americas and Asia-Pacific. This site contains infographics, fact sheets, articles and detailed explanations of how the segments are developed. There is also access to an interactive online demonstration, but this requires site registration which is free and unrestricted.
Experian Mosaic Segments, UK
Experian Mosaic Segments, US
Experian is one of the leading global providers of geo-demographic segmentation services which is marketed under the brand name, Mosaic. This site offers white papers (i.e. discussion papers) and case studies which are readily accessible. In addition, a limited-scale interactive online demo is accessible to any user, and a more detailed online demo is available to registered users. Registration is free and unrestricted. Both the company, Experian and the proprietary software, Mosaic (geodemography) are considered sufficiently notable to qualify for their own Wikipedia articles. Mosaic proprietary segmentation is mentioned in many textbooks including:
Isobel Doole and Robin Lowe, Strategic Marketing Decisions 2007-2008, [CIM Coursebook], Chartered Institute of Marketing Coursebook, 2012, p. 45

As for Experian (UK) and Experian (US), but this site is a portal to Mosaic product globally.

  • Geotribes geo-demographic segmentation services
  • Helix Personas geo-demographic segmentation services (Australia, NZ and Indonesia)

Helix is one of the leading providers of geo-demographic segmentation services in the Asia-Pacific region, including Australasia. This website contains extensive profiles of more than 70 geo-clusters which are accessible to any user without registration.

Strategic Business Insights (US), VALS segmentation psychographic segmentation services
SBI is the company that originally developed the VALS segmentation in the early 1970s. This site offers users detailed profiles of the eight VALs segments along with detailed explanations of the research methodologies used. This type of detail is too detailed and technical for inclusion in the article, but may be of interest to users who want to learn more. In addition, the site offers many graphics which are copyright protected and therefore unsuitable for use inclusion in the main article, but may be of interest to users. SBI's Value and Lifestyle Segments (VALS) is already considered to be sufficiently notable for inclusion as a separate entry in Wikipedia. The inclusion of this link is is a 'no-brainer' the VALS segmentation approach is notable, the company that developed the research methodology is reputable and long-serving, the material on the site is factual and adds value to the article. The material on the site is in a form that is not suitable for inclusion in the article.

Roy Morgan Research has been providing marketing research in Australia since the 1940s. Its single source survey is considered to be the industry currency for Australia and its Values Segments are the most widely known of the proprietary psychographic/ psychometric segmentation services. In Australia, NZ, Indonesia and Malaysia, Roy Morgan Research is considered to be very reputable and RMR's values segments are seen as the local equivalent to SRI's VALS. RMR's value segments are reproduced in most Australian editions of marketing textbooks, including

Gary Armstrong, Stewart Adam, Sara Denize and Philip Kotler, Principles of Marketing, 6th edition, 2015, p. 182

BronHiggs (talk) 08:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

That looks like original research to promote organizations, while ignoring Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on including such links.
I suggest making a list, with clear inclusion criteria that avoids further WP:NOT, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV problems. Since most of the entries don't have their own articles, it would be best to attempt to create them first.
Note that external links for entries do not belong in such lists, but official websites are acceptable in individual articles. --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion copied from User Talk Page[edit]

Undid reversion on Market Segmentation[edit]

I felt that I needed to undo your reversion of half a dozen external links to commercial organisations that provide services in geo-demographic segmentation and lifestyle segmentation. The reason you gave was that they were "promotional" but no other explanation as to why they were promotional was provided. After reviewing Wikipedia guidelines, I made a decision to "Undo". This is not something that I have ever done before (except in unambiguous cases of vandalism).

Accordingly, my reasons for undoing follow:

First, a link to a commercial organisation is NOT automatically 'promotional'. According to Wikipedia's guidelines, "External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion).

Second, the links were very carefully selected as leading examples of geo-demographic or lifestyle segmentation. Virtually all geo-demographic segmentation is proprietary, and most lifestyle segmentation is proprietary. It is therefore virtually impossible to discuss these approaches without mentioning proprietary software packages. There is ample precedent for this. Most introductory textbooks in this area discuss the names of specific companies such as Mosaic, Experian, SDI etc. (According to Wikipedia, "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_mirror_or_a_repository_of_links.2C_images.2C_or_media_files)

Third, each link contains more than just advertising or sales messages for the company's product. Instead, each link was carefully selected because it offered the user limited-scale interactive demonstrations of how the specific approach to segmentation actually works. Thus, the links provide concrete examples that illustrate, in detail, concepts in the article - concepts that are often difficult to understand and widely misunderstood. These links add real value to the article through concrete examples, which cannot be provided on Wikipedia itself.

Fourth, the set of links is far from an indiscriminate collection of commercial organisations. Each was selected because the company is a long-standing, highly reputable, well-known provider of segmentation services, and because each has a website that provide a high level of useful and factual information that is not promotional in character (e.g. info sheets, backgrounders, lists of key definitions, worked examples, downloadable charts and graphs, live demos etc). Each of the companies selected has been named in reputable marketing texts more than once.

Fifth, the names of these companies is also mentioned in the body of the article, where it is clear from the context, that the discussion does NOT intend to promote specific services, but simply to provide high quality, well-known illustrative examples. It does not make sense to delete these companies from the External Links section, but to leave them in the body of the article. If these examples were also to be removed from the body of the article, it would be virtually impossible to write the article at all.

Sixth, two links that were not reverted (i.e. remained in the external links) are no more or less relevant to the article's content than those that were reverted. I cannot find any valid reason for removing links to some commercial organisations, while leaving links to other commercial organisations (except where there is some conflict of interest).

Finally, the article is relatively long. A list of 10 links can hardly be construed as "excessive". Rather, 10 links that cover three important geographic markets (US, UK and Australasia) seems to very constrained. This in itself suggests that the links were very carefully selected and that the listing is quite reasonable, relative to the article's length and scope.

After reviewing your reversion, and Wikipedia's guidelines, I can see no good reason why this reversion should be allowed to stand and this is the reason it was undone.

If you still wish to revert the link to "Market Segmentation for Hotels" which was added after I finished revising the article, I will not object. That link is to a very poor quality example with a confused understanding of segmentation, and adds no real value. However, my policy is NOT to revert anything unless it is factually or conceptually unsound. BronHiggs (talk) 22:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@BronHiggs:, thank you for the thoughtful and detailed explanation of your thought process. I'll try to respond in kind instead of the usual flippant alphabet soup we so often employ here.
1. The exception for commercial links that "identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article" is usually used in to context of an explicit connection to the article topic. For example, a link to microsoft.com is acceptable at Microsoft. I concede this point, though, as this is a good illustration of implicit linking within the material and probably a good extension of the guideline.
2/3/5. Two, three and five seem related. On a quick glance, several of the links provided very little material; they required registration to access or had no other useful information. Several were also already included as references. After re-review here, I can see there is some deeper material on some of the links. This is my bad for making a cursory review.
4. At this point, it is not clear what the inclusion criteria is. My initial review of the list was triggered by the inclusion of the hotel link by a COI editor. The re-addition of that link indicates that we would probably need to spell out the criteria you're using for "long-standing, highly reputable, well-known." I can't imagine a scenario where that one would fit with the others.
6. I removed all of the external links, including the section header. I'm not sure what you mean by leaving two?
7. I have no issues with the length of a list as long as it is providing useful, accessible material that outweighs the promotional content.
In summary - my removal was in haste to deal with a pattern spammer. No issues with the re-addition, other than the hotel link. It may be helpful to establish inclusion criteria to dissuade future additions which are less than desirable. Kuru (talk) 01:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
@Kuru: Thanks for your understanding. Hi Kuru, I am copyping this discussion across to the talk page on the 'Market Segmentation' article BronHiggs (talk) 03:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I removed the links to vendors / service providers. Per WP:ELNO point 14 and WP:NOT, we are not supposed to be maintaining lists of links to such companies on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
@MrOllie: Why not delete the two remaining links to service providers Cultural Dynamics' Values Modes and Strategic Business Insights (US), VALS segmentation as well? It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to leave the UK and US examples behind while deleting the Australia/ NZ equivalent (Roy Morgan's Values Segments). It is equally lopsided to delete all the geo-demographic segmentation links, but leave most of the psychographic segmentation links behind.
I cannot agree with your decision to delete these links. All are what is known as 'industry standard' suppliers in their respective countries. This means that the service provider is recognised by professional associations, government departments and industry members generally as providing research findings using rigorous methodologies where findings have been shown to be valid and reliable across long time periods. Each link contained valuable interactive, demonstration software that enables users to see how the particular approach to segmentation works in real-time and with real data from the home country. For students of marketing, these types of demos really help to bring the subject matter to life in a memorable and fascinating way. The Wikipedia guidelines are just that - guidelines - and as the preamble to WP:ELNO point 14 notes, every link must be assessed on a case by case basis. And, I personally evaluated each link and played around with the demonstration software before adding it to the article. Wikipedia accepts that there are always exceptions - and as I have already explained - in my view these links are worthy exceptions. They were very carefully selected to provide industry standard coverage of the main English speaking nations, provided that the website contained valuable information or live demonstrations and was not 'pushing product'. But, I do not intend to get into an edit war over it and I am so very, very tired of constantly justifying content decisions. You win! I lose! But ultimately Wikipedia users are the losers - and perhaps Wikipedia itself it also a loser - because these types of disruptive editing decisions take my attention away from developing content and also force me to question the value of even trying to fix substantive errors in articles. BronHiggs (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Looking over the list, aren't they all at least subsidiaries of notable organizations? (I'll check and report back) That would make it easy to justify an embedded list. I'm not clear if the notability is strong enough for a stand-alone list. Either way, the links don't belong.
As far as linking to software, I believe the general consensus is not to do so.
I don't understand what other information there is that cannot be included in an appropriate Wikipedia article. --Ronz (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
CallCredit / Cameo don't have their own articles that I can find. --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I can't figure out what is going on with Experian Mosaic Segments versus what BronHiggs has written about it. Has it been purchased by Connexity.com and is now called Hitwise? I'm not going to look further before hearing from others. --Ronz ([[User talk:|talk]]) 17:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ronz:Response
For what it is worth, here is my response to your queries
Looking over the list, aren't they all at least subsidiaries of notable organizations? (I'll check and report back) That would make it easy to justify an embedded list. I'm not clear if the notability is strong enough for a stand-alone list. Either way, the links don't belong.
The links were to branded applications, rather than corporations. The branded application was expressly selected because this is where the valuable data and demo applications can be accessed. As you have already discovered, branded applications are bought and sold by other organisations, but the branded website is a constant and therefore more stable as the main link for this type of application. BronHiggs (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
As far as linking to software, I believe the general consensus is not to do so.
There is nothing in the guidelines that prevens links to software. I have seen links to software on sites in many other disciplines such as statistics, mathematics etc. I do not accept that there is any such conensus. BronHiggs (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand what other information there is that cannot be included in an appropriate Wikipedia article.

--Ronz (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Types of information that cannot or should not be included in the article
  • interactive demonstrations of software
  • copyright material - infographics, tables of segment structures, diagrams, figures, charts, articles, topline survey findings
  • detailed content - profiles of market segments - that would disrupt the flow of the article (and which in a business report would be included as an appendix)
The total number of segments for the main applications is 282 (ACORN= 62; Helix = 51; Mosaic =67; Prizm = 66; VALs = 8; Values segments = 8 and there are other segmentations mentioned in the article that didn't make it into external links). Now assuming that the segments could be profiled in under 200 words, a conservative estimate, this would mean that there would be a large section of some 2,800 words in the middle of the article (almost one third of the total article length). In business reports, this type of detailed descriptive material would be regarded as disruptive to the flow of the prose and is best placed in a separately labelled Appendix at the end of the article or report. In addition, if the article included this type of description, an editor would need to update it every 2-3 years when the segmentation analysis is revised - a very laborious task. On the other hand, a simple link means that users can access the latest information directly from the source. BronHiggs (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


CallCredit / Cameo don't have their own articles that I can find. --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I can't figure out what is going on with Experian Mosaic Segments versus what BronHiggs has written about it. Has it been purchased by Connexity.com and is now called Hitwise? I'm not going to look further before hearing from others. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
For access to Cameo's articles, market insights and topline survey findings please go to their "news and insights" section, https://www.cameodynamic.com/news-insight/. As I am sure you are aware, WP's EL guidelines discourage links to multiple pages on any one website, therefore a link was provided to the official page. Users must use the menu to access site contents. Cameo's menu is at the top right of the screen.
Hitwise may well have purchased the Mosaic segments, originally developed by Experian. I was unaware of that and will amend the article to reflect these developments, after I check it out. However, the external link is to a branded website, rather than a corporate website and is therefore current. The link is fully operational and stable. Presumably Hitwise purchased the brand site as part of the package, but have yet to update it with their corporate livery. BronHiggs (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

External links moved from article[edit]

The following external links are to leading providers of proprietary geo-demographic and psychographic segmentation analyses that are mentioned in the article. The links were selected because they contain valuable background information including methodologies, detailed profiles of segments and many also provide limited scale demonstration software illustrating how the data analysis is used to segment/ profile markets and gain market insights.

Demographic and geographic segmentation service provider. Website provides sample data, sample profiles; detailed background information on methodologies used for segmentation analysis, and demonstration software is accessible online
Geo-demographic segmentation services. Website provides access to sample segment profiles, demonstration software, as well as white papers, case studies and general information on segmentation processes
Experian's US portal. Provider of geographic, demographic and other segmentation services. Website provides access to white papers, case studies, limited scale trial demonstration software and a blog about current issues in segmentation and targeting.
Helix provides services in geo-digital and psychographic segmentation. It is the 'industry standard' in Australia, NZ and Indonesia. The website provides limited scale trial demonstrations of the segmentation process, profile summaries of 56 distint personas and topline survey findings.
Geo-demographic segmentation service provider. Website provides access to more than 70 segment profiles and background information about the segmentation process
Psychographic segmentation services. SBI is one of the longest serving US providers of segmentation services and the original developer of the widely used VALs typology. Website provides detailed backgrounders, fact sheets and profiles of the VALs segments. All fact sheets are publicly accessible and downloadable (all are copyright protected and cannot be reproduced on Wikipedia)
(Asia-Pacific equivalent to SBI's VALs). Values Segments (Australia and NZ) psychographic/ psychometric segmentation services] Industry standard psychometric segmentation software and database offering services in Australia, NZ and parts of Asia. Website provides background information on the segmentation approach, detailed profiles of each of the ten values segments. The site is also a portal for other information including articles, discussion papers, white papers and topline research findings sourced from the Single Source Survey. This site is also the primary source of Australian and NZ newspaper and magazine readership surveys conducted twice yearly and the data is freely available to any interested member of the public.

General links[edit]

Trade magazine providing extensive resource comprising archived copies of articles and case studies published in the magazine as well as blogs and news, videos and other resources

Moved from Wikipedia External Links Discussion Page[edit]

The following content has been copied across from the Wikipedia External Links Noticeboard page. ( See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Market_segmentation for thread)

Over at Market_segmentation#External_links, we have a list of links to vendors of Market segmentation data. BronHiggs suggests in a preamble to the external links section and on the talk page that these links should be included because they include detailed profiles and demo software that could not be reproduced on Wikipedia. Is this a viable reason to disregard Links normally to be avoided points 5 and 14? - MrOllie (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

No, the links could be in a wikilinked list, there is no need for the external links. I may give it a try. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Even if it were changed to a list, the links don't belong. I've moved it all to the talk page and commented there.
I believe the general consensus is that we don't link to software, demo or otherwise.
I'm not clear what "detailed profiles" he means, nor why they cannot be included in Wikipedia.
While I haven't looked carefully, my impression is that the organizations may be more notable that BronHiggs indicates. Isn't each case a subsidiary of an organization with its own article? If that's the case, proper list without the external links should be easy to agree upon. --Ronz (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Justification for external links
As a preliminary comment, some background may be helpful in understanding the context of the external links which appear to be offending some editors. Proprietary packages such as Mosaic, PRIZM and VALs are more than simple software. Instead they include extensive databases containing survey findings from very large sample sizes. (For example, in Australia, the Roy Morgan Single Source survey has a sample of approx 65,000 respondents for a population of 24 million- sample sizes are considerably higher in the US and UK, but I do not have that information to hand). When marketers subscribe to these proprietary services, they not only purchase the right use the software, but also obtain access to the database. This data is extremely valuable and essential for various marketing decisions including market segmentation, positioning and advertising. Sample sizes must be large to support the complex statistical methods used, especially in segmentation. For an individual company to acquire this type of data it would cost upwards of AU$60,000. Such costs place access well beyond the means of small and medium enterprises, but by purchasing a subscription service where the cost is shared among a large number of client companies, it is possible to obtain access to relevant data for around AU$5,000 which makes it relatively affordable.
Let me also clarify one of the comments about profiles. As the preamble clearly states refers to "profiles or market segments." A customer profile, market profile or segment profile is a common term used in marketing. A profile would typically include descriptive information about the cohort's demographics, lifestyles, interests, attitudes, shopping habits - especially retailer preferecnes and brand preferences, media usage habits - TV, radio, mags, news and online at a bare minimum. All of the links to proprietary packages contain this type of information and it accessible free of charge to any interested member of the public.
In terms of a justification for the inclusion of these links, I would like to make the following points;
(1) It is virtually impossible to discuss some segmentation methods without mentioning the proprietary software/databases that are used to support the analysis. This is evidenced by a number of text-books that include extended discussions of the various proprietary packages, the inclusion of these packages in standard glossaries/ dictionaries of marketing terms and are also widely applied in journal articles.
Text-books
Almost every standard introduction marketing text-books typically mentions at least 2-3 of these proprietary software/ database packages to illustrate basic concepts - especially in the area of psychographics and geo-demographic segmentation. In addition, texts in the areas of Consumer Behaviour and Advertising Management also discuss these proprietary applications, often in greater detail than the introductory texts. The databases are geographically specific, so they tend to focus on the services relevant for the region where the book is to be sold. In my 30 year career as a marketing educator, I cannot recall ever seeing a basic text that omitted this type of material. Indeed, these packages are so widely cited that it is impossible to do justice to the number in a short message such as this. For the sake of convenience, I am including a few illustrative publication titles with an outline of their coverage in a table form. This might be easier to interpret than a listing with commentary.
Selected text-books containing a discussion of at least one proprietary segmentation application
Bibliographic Details Target audience VALs Mosaic PRIZM ACORN Cameo Values segments Other
Baines et al, Essentials of Marketing, OUP UK, undergraduate ✔ [Ch 6]
Stone et al, Fundamentals of Marketing, Routledge, 2007 UK, undergraduate ✔ [Ch 6]
Masterson et al, Marketing: An Introduction, Mc Graw Hill, 2010 Undergraduate ✔ pp 131- 132 ✔ pp 129 - 130
Kotler & Keller, Marketing Management, 2009 US, undergraduate ✔ [Ch 8]
Kotler & Keller, Marketing Prentice-Hall, 2000 Undergraduate, University of Phoenix ✔ p. 152
Bearden, Marketing 4th ed. US, Undergraduate
Gregoriou et al, Marketing Dynamics, OUP, 2013 Canada, High school ✔ pp 67-68
Khan, M., Consumer Behaviour & Advertising Management New Age Int'l, 2006 VALs Sub-continent, undergraduate ✔ pp 20-22
Kotler et al, Marketing Pearson, 2013 Australia/ NZ, undergraduate ✔ pp 196-97
Chitty et al, Integrated Marketing Communications, 3rd Asia-Pacific ed., Cengage Asia-Pacific, undergraduate ✔ pp 83-89; 95
Eunson, B., Communicating in the 21st Century, 2nd ed., Wiley, Australia/ NZ, undergraduate ✔ p. 8.8 ✔ p. 8.8.
World Tourism Organisation, Handbook on Tourism Marketing ✔ pp 57-58
Wedel, Wagner & , Market Segmentation: Conceptual and Methodological Foundations 3rd year UG, post-graduate, practitioners ✔ p.13 ✔ pp 244- 249 ✔ pp 250-56 ✔ Geo-marktprofiel (a Dutch system)
Weinstein & Cahill, Lifestyle Segmentation, 2006 Specialist undergrad, post grad, practitioners ✔ Ch 6

(entire chapter)

✔ Ch 4

(entire chapter)

Baker, M., The Marketing Book Oxford, UK, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2003 Undergraduate, post graduate, libraries (reference work) ✔ pp 267-69 ✔ pp 258-263
Notes on table: Search strategy was to use Google Advanced Search with the search terms "Market segmentation" + "Book" + ["Name of application" e.g. ACORN]. All titles published by major publishing houses and appearing within the first ten pages of the search were recorded and included in the table. Self-published titles, corporate publications and blogs were excluded. Books in library collections where the publisher and author had asked to have their names withheld from the publication details were not included in the analysis. Apart from these exclusions, there was absolutely no cherry picking.
The regularity with which the proprietary applications cited in the external links appears in reputable text-books published by leading publishers including Oxford University Press, Routledge and Butterworth-Heinemann and written by highly reputable scholars, such as Phillip Kotler, underlines the importance of these tools in theory, and by implication in practice.
* Glossaries: The proprietary packages cited in the external links section are mentioned in a plethora of both published and online dictionaries/glossaries, including such titles as Charles Doyle's, A Dictionary of Marketing, Oxford Quick Reference [book]; Business Dictionary Online, http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/ACORN.html, https://www.allbusiness.com/barrons_dictionary/dictionary-acorn-4962096-1.html and others. This suggests that while these packages may be available commercially, their application is regarded as mainstream and that the terminolgy has become part of the marketing lexicon.
(2) Wikipedia's guidelines on external links do not suggest a blanket ban in all cases. Instead, the policy states that "some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." Each of the links does just that - provides further research, is on-topic (the applications are specifically named in the article) and the market profiles for up to 50 segments are sufficiently detailed that it would not be appropriate to include them in the article. (In a business report, for example, this type of detail would form an appendix)
(3) Most of the external links provide access to demonstration applications which enable to user to follow, in a step by step manner, how a population is segmented and how the resultant segments are profiled. This type of interactive helps to bring the subject matter alive in the minds of users. Such interactive and highly visual features cannot be replicated within an article on Wikipedia.
(4) Although the sites are to branded applications, the content is not pushy or overly promotional in character. It is informative and provides users with access to valuable resources.
(5) The set of links consists of seven (7) links to proprietary applications and one link to a trade magazine covering segmentation. In my opinion seven external links, in an article of approx 10,200 words cannot be construed as a "linkfarm."
(6) In the external links section, each link is accompanied by a brief description of the site's contents, explaining how users might benefit and linking it to the article's key themes. This is further enhanced by a preamble with more general comments.
Summming up

In summary, all of the specified external links are directly relevant to the article, provide access to valuable information and are beneficial to users seeking a deeper understanding of segmentation processes.

I believe that I have shown, in considerable detail, both why the links are useful and why they do not breach any of WP's policies. In my own mind, there is no question that each of the external links has a proper place within this article and should be allowed to remain. BronHiggs (talk) 08:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

If these are all of such importance, then they all should have their own Wikipedia article - you say that they are discussed in tertiary sources (textbooks), which means there should be significant secondary and primary sourcing available to write an article for each of them. Moreover, the list then should not take the form of an external links section, rather a full section or even a separate article in itself ('list of .. ' type maybe). What was there is not an external link section, it is a regular section masked as an external links section. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
If editors are predisposed to write articles about some of these applications, then they are most welcome to do do. However, this is not the type of work that I am interested in. My goal on Wikipedia is to work on improving marketing/ advertising articles that are factually incorrect, conceptually problematic, unfocussed, have glaring omissions, are underdeveloped and/or incomprehensible. In just on three months, I have totally overhauled and expanded 17 articles, and made substantial improvements to specific sections in a dozen or so more. Yet, there remains enough improvement type work to keep me going for another decade or more. I have no intentions of beginning new articles until those that are already in existence are accurate and useful to users. In the meantime, I will take your suggestion and create a list within the article, for these seven links that appear to be so offensive to editors.
I have no idea what is meant by regular section as distinct from an external links section nor have I read about any such distinction in the WP guidelines. It is very difficult for a newbie to understand how WP guidelines are being interpreted - if links are not notable they should not be in EL - but if they are notable they still should't be there! Is there some sort of notability scale or continuum - where only the middling notable candidates are permitted as external links? (That is a rhetorical question). Incidentally, WP policy is very clear that external links have absolutely no place in the body of an article. So I really don't understand why you are recommending that these links become part of a regular section - or is that just so that editors like MrOllie can have the pleasure of deleting them all over again? BronHiggs (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't blame you a bit for not being interested in creating new articles. Unfortunately, those new articles are where the links belong, while it would be very difficult to gain consensus to place them anywhere else.
Content about the software and databases could be added to the article, and from what you've described, should be added. --Ronz (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
@BronHiggs: If editors are predisposed to write articles about some of these applications, then they are most welcome to do do. - see WP:REDLINK, that is exactly the reason we have those. I would hence re-write the current external links section into more of a normal content-section with related information (and you might be able to reference parts of your assertions, albeit primary, from the links you have). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, so I made a typographical error. That passage should have read "If editors are predisposed to write articles about some of these applications, then they are most welcome to do so." I have arthritis in both hands, and lack the fine motor skills that I once enjoyed, and this occasionally means that I use the wrong keystrokes. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with WP:REDLINKs. I don't quite follow what you mean by a 'normal content-section'. Are you suggesting that I create a subsection in the form of a list, within the article, as was suggested by another editor on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BronHiggs (talkcontribs)
@BronHiggs: What I wanted to suggest is to convert the original external links section (this section; except the link under general links) into a section called 'Leading providers', converting every external link to an appropriate wikilink (i.e. a link to the wikipedia page of the specific provider if it exists, a redlink if not), independently referencing the section showing that these are commonly considered to be the leading providers, and possibly using the original external links as primary sources on each of the items. The table above in this discussion may help you showing that the companies are indeed 'leading providers' (if a book has a significant part of information on a provider as described in the article, it IMHO seems to be reasonable for Wikipedia to call it a leading provider). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Dirk Beetstra MrOllie Ronz OK, so you have insisted that these 7 links "don't belong". But to date, no real explanation as to why they don't belong has been provided. Consequently, I still cannot fully comprehend just which part of the WP guideline on EL has been breached by this content. The links are all high quality links - there is no COI, the links are directly related to the article's content and they are by no means excessive in number relative to the length of the article. Some of you have also offered alternative suggestions - sometimes contradictory. At this stage, there is such a big discrepancy between the advice that I have been receiving and my reading of the EL guidelines, that I feel it is now necessary to obtain adjudication from experinced administrators. I believe that it is time to send this matter out for adjudication. I would prefer to obtain a 3rd party opinion, but since there are more than 2 editors involved that is not an option. Therefore, there seems to be little choice but to send it to the Administrators Noticeboard for an adjudication. I will send each of you an individual advice when I have completed that task. BronHiggs (talk) 08:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
@BronHiggs: I would advise against such doings: Beetstra and Ronz's assessment of the page is on point. Review WP:EL#External links section, WP:MOSLINK#External links section, and lastly, the policy WP:LINKFARM. --Izno (talk) 12:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
@Izno: Thank-you for your input on this discussion. I am seeking some clarity in terms of how to interpret guidelines. Sending more links to guidelines, without explaining how they apply does little to clarify this for me. At WP:EL#External links section, I note that External links should identify the link and briefly summarize the website's contents and why the website is relevant to the article. All 7 links were accompanied by such descriptions. At WP:MOSLINK#External links section I note some guidelines for the format of external links. I believe that the current links conform to all those guidelines. And at WP:LINKFARM, I note that There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles. While the guideline fails to define excessive, it is stretching the bounds of credulity to argue that 7 high quality links constitute a link farm. The more people refer me to policies withou explaining how they apply, the more I become confident that the policies are not being interpreted correctly, neither within the spirit nor the letter. I think that this warrants an opinion from an independent outsider with experience in interpretation and application of WP policies. BronHiggs (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The links are basically official websites/webpages for products. Such links only belong in articles specifically about the products, where they would meet WP:ELOFFICIAL.
The links are not about the general topic of Market segmentation, so they don't belong in that article. --Ronz (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
If you took the time to read the article, it would soon become very clear that these links are entirely related to the topic of Market segmentation. I have put my arguments in favour of retaining these links. I believe that my arguments are based on logic, and are compelling. You and others have put your case, which effectively amounts to these links don't belong. As I am sure you are aware, WP guidelines advise that the "don't belong" line (WP:BELONG) is a non-argument. The guideline specifically states that such arguments [Does not belong here] are purely personal point-of-view. They make no use of policies, guidelines, or even logic. The message behind any of these is that "I don't like it, therefore it should not be included. On Wikipedia, inclusion is determined by a series of policies and guidelines set by consensus, not by people saying "I think this belongs" or "I do not think this belongs". All of that is personal opinion, and the only comment less helpful than personal opinion is a simple vote. I will need some clear time to prepare a case for the Administrators Noticeboard, therefore I will be unable to respond to any further counter-arguments or opinions. You will be given the opportunity to put your viewpoint before the Administrators. BronHiggs (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
You've explained how they are related. They are not on the general topic at all. Why they may be an important part, they're just a part. The solution is to make a list, individual articles for the products, or both.
The Administrator's noticeboard is not for resolving content disputes. See WP:DR for possible steps to take. --Ronz (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that advice. You are absolutely correct - DR is the right place to raise these issues. I am simply seeking clarity on the interpretation of the policy on external links. For instance the guideline states that the number of links should not be excessive, but fails to define what is meant by excessive. In the case of professional associations or peak industry bodies, I am thinking that up to 10 links is reasonable - one for the industry association in each English speaking nation. However, it might be useful to have an independent person clarify that type of thing. Thanks again. BronHiggs (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The guideline also states that a lack of links, or having only a few links is not a reason to add one or more. That suggests that one link can already be excessive.
You want to go into dispute resolution, while here alternative suggestions were offered that have not been exhaustively discussed (only dismissed because you cannot take that task upon yourself). That makes me wonder why you want to go into dispute resolution. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Similar lists were added to Advertising management, Advertising media selection, and Consumer behaviour. This could be considered spamming. --Ronz (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

And Personal_selling, Brand_awareness, History of marketing, [Services marketing]]. I don't know if there are others. --Ronz (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of http://www.admedia.org/ , which I believe was added as an external link to three articles and recommended for a fourth. --Ronz (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Advertising_management#Influential_thinkers_in_advertising_and_advertising_research shows somewhat of an example of what could be another solution of what to do with the discussed linkfarm (still, strictly with wikilinks). --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Having two sublists in the "See also" section is a bit strange. --Ronz (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

So, the admedia.org page: It's registered to the owner of a parked website of a marketing agency, http://www.leadweed.com . It used to be run by Hairong Li. The June 27 2009 archive still includes Li's copyright. The next archive, Aug 5 2009, removes Li's name and copyright, and replaces it with NaturalVillage.com, Inc.. The current version contains the meta-information, "Advertising agencies, and an Article on advertising media by Hairong Li, of Michigan State University" with a copyright "© 2007 All Rights Reserved", but no other mention of Li. I'd say remove it as outdated info. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

If re-registration of the site is the case, I believe policy guidance is that re-registered site should be treat as a dead link. Johnvr4 (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Johnvr4 A re-registered site, according to WP, is one that has been "'hijacked' or re-registered for a different purpose after a (domain name) registration expires." (Source: policy) This is not the case with admedia.org. The desired info was the article on media planning. It is still there in its entirety and the domain name remains unchanged. The same domain name has been used for at least a decade, possibly longer. Clearly the site in question does not meet WP's criteria for a re-registered site and should not, therefore, be treated as a dead-link. These deletionists are simply clutching at straws to justify their deletion decisions. Given your own experience with this razor gang, I really thought that you would be able to see through their motives, which are all too transparent, and as always lacking in substance. They are relying on editors not to challenge their reverts, and hope that editors cannot come up with decent counter-arguments. However, when editors do come up with evidence-based arguments in favour of retaining the reverted material, they play their trump card which is to say that "you don't have consensus." Even then they are wrong - consensus is built on quality of arguments, not simply weight of numbers - especially when all are effectively saying "doesn't belong" which as you know is a non-argument.
Incidentally, you may be interested in an article published in 2009 "Wikipedia policy change means archives can post links in articles!" http://archivesnext.com/?p=402 which may have some bearing on the links to photographic collections that have been disputed. BronHiggs (talk) 05:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
      • *** ***

In summary, the external links that previously appeared on this page were deleted by the razor gang because:

  • they don't belong here (i.e. we don't like them) - considered to be a non-argument according to WP guidelines (See WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT or WP:AADP
  • they are either not notable enough OR they are too notable - contradictory/ illogical
  • links to subject matter that is notable should have its own article - not backed by policy
  • More than one official link per page is defined as a linkfarm (WP:LINKFARM) - although WP fails to specify an acceptable number of links, it seems to be hyperbolic to describe half a dozen links to useful content (e.g. professional associations, journals, conference papers) in articles of more than 10,000 words as linkfarm
  • these links might be construed as official webpages - so they can only appear on pages where the subject of the link is the same as the subject of the article (i.e. another way of saying that theyse links should have their own articles as in the preceding point)
  • if the articles to these topics don't yet exist, it is possible to create red links so that someone can develop the articles in the future- not backed by policy
  • an article that appeared on a website, which was taken over by a different web-owner and should be treated as a 'dead-link regardless of whether it is stable and active (non-sensical????????????)
  • WP does not link to software/ databases - not backed by policy
  • these links are too specific in their focus - they do not deal with market segmentation in general, but instead deal with specific facets of market segmentation (e.g. geodemographic or psychographic) - not backed by policy
  • similar lists were added to different articles - relevance unclear, each article is a stand-alone unit of analysis - what happens on other pages has no bearing on the current page. According to WP policy, each link should be considered on its merits - rather than a collection of articles edited by the same editor should be considered as the unit of analysis.

Not one of these links fails to meet the inclusion criteria as set out in policy (SeeWP:EL). Yet, the deletionists have seen fit to harangue, bully and delete them not just from this page, but from every page that I have ever worked on. So we have the bizarre situation that people who were in no way involved with developing the article can insist on what constitutes appropriate content and useful links.

These deletionists have yet to play their trump card - which is when all else fails - to appeal to consensus - i.e, "you don't have consensus to put these links up." I have seen them play this card with other editors who have failed to produce strong arguments in favour of retaining content. Of course, as they well understand, consensus is impossible in the face of a pack mentality - these deleters always act as a gang to impose their will on editors. They know this, and because they choose not to operate within policy guidelines and are unwilling or incapable of putting forward reasonable arguments to defend their actions, so of necessity they must resort to gang-like tactics to get their way (See WP:EDITNINJAS). BronHiggs (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Parked domain[edit]

@BronHiggs: why do you want to link to a parked domain? BrightRoundCircle (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@BrightRoundCircle: This question has been asked and answered. If you are referring to the link to admedia.org, which contains a high quality article, written by an academic, and which is still listed as recommended reading on university course guides, and which continues to be cited in texts on advertising, please note that the link was deleted some weeks ago. It is by no means clear that this website is "parked" and even if so, there is absolutely NOTHING in the MOS that precludes it being used. This constant questioning of a web-based article, which no longer appears anywhere on Wikipedia; and constant badgering by multiple editors over many weeks now, is quite redundant, and has all the hallmarks of harassment/bulling. Please do not contact me again about this matter. BronHiggs (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
You seem knowledgable about the subject. It seems you can find articles on this subject in peer-reviewed journals or textbooks. Not everything that can be used should be used, so maybe it's just better to put those journals and textbooks in the further reading section rather than linking to a very strange website. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Your friends at Wikipedia External Links Project will not tolerate this resource even in a further reading section. And there are many other sources that will not be tolerated either as EL, further reading, references or indeed in any part of the article. They object to professional associations, industry associations, consumer advocacy groups, practitioner magazines, trade directories, academic journals and many, many other sources and have made it their business to delete every link that has been added to any article that I might ever have worked on. Curiously, they often leave behind links added by other editors, but selectively delete those links that I have added. I get it! I can take the hint! I am no longer making substantive edits to articles, but I am making a few wikitweaks, when I have the time. Rest assured that I will no longer be adding the allegedly evil external links to any article. I have asked you not to contact me about this matter - the link no longer exists, therefore there is nothing more to say about it. I do not wish to discuss this further. I respectfully request that you let it go. BronHiggs (talk) 04:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
@BronHiggs: You are casting aspersions and in fact mis-stating what has been said or done, which is a violation of our policy on personal attacks. Please stop now. If you believe you have information verifiable to a reliable source, you should add both the information contained within as well as a reference to the reliable source itself. Product pages are not reliable sources, nor are general "association" pages, nor are a slew of other potential references. We are not here to advertise the use of the products or the attendance of those associations--though you may not be doing so with malicious intent, that is what you are doing. You are not being targeted--we are attempting to keep the article neutral and what Wikipedia is--and if you are adding the material which offends the sensibilities of more-experienced editors, then you need to adjust your editing behavior as a new editor (someone with 1+ years of experience editing might have sensible differing points of view to others more experienced than himself, but you are not he). If you have a question which pertains to some addition or removal, and we answer it (once), then you should probably be satisfied with that answer for the time being. --Izno (talk) 12:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
@Izno: I think you know very well that I am being targeted. Your mate, Ronz, is following me around Wikipedia and deleting content from any page that I have ever worked on. This is an entirely vindicitve action, because I failed to accept the suggestion that external links be turned into red links. This is not casting aspersions, this is an observation of actual practices that have occured and are still occuring. Several other WPEL people have continually badgered me about a link that was deleted more than a month back, despite my constant requests to cease questioning me about it. The question has been asked and answered multiple times - but they will not let it go. By WP's definition, this type of baderging is also bullying. You also know very well that you and your mates over at ELN are reverting links for reasons that are not backed by policy, but instead rely on the numbers in your little coterie. I stated my arguments on the WPEL noticeboard, but they are vetoed on the basis that there were four of you and only one of me - so therefore I had to kowtow to your suggestions (even though your suggestions were not backed by policy). People can have different viewpoints - I have no problem with that - but when those people try to impose their wishes on others through bullying and intimidation - I do have a problem with that. The conduct of the group at WPEL is edit ninja behaviour and constitutes bullying by the definitions set out in WP's policy on bullying. If anyone needs to adjust their editing behaviour it is this lot. If you wan't to report me for a violation of WO:NPA, then go ahead. I don't care - I am totally over Wikipedia and its plethora of bullies. In fact I hope you do report me, because this might draw attention to some of the worst bullying that I have ever seen from you and your mates at WPEL. BronHiggs (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
You've identified a large number of poor articles. Thanks. Sorry that you don't like the changes to them. It's not about you. WP:FOC and cooperate with other editors. --Ronz (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Are you still referring to the article which, by your own account, you did not look at too closely? No idea why you are referring to articles in the plural - since there was one article and the remainder of the deleted material was made up of links to professional associations, the occasional journal and examples of commercial practice within the article's prose. There was just one article that attracted your odium, This article, along with other links that you and your mates deleted, were identified by one administrator as "a good illustration of implicit linking within the material." Your continuing deletions do not apply to "articles" but primarily to external links. The article in question which you appear to have identified as "poor quality" is still recommended by academics and listed on reading lists for students of advertising and is still cited as a valuable resource in advertising texts - texts which incidentally undergo peer review. So the article is accepted by academics, authors, publishers and at least one WP admin. Yet you are your mates at WPELN "don't like it". I seem to recall your main objection to the article, was not its content or usefulness, but rather the unsubstantiated assertion that it was housed on a re-registered website - which on closer scrutiny did not align with Wikipedia's definition of a re-registered website at all! So, who needs to WP:FOC? I am still waiting for a valid argument, that is within policy parameters, for the ongoing vindictive deletions. Thanks. Sorry, that you don't like to be wrong. And, even sorrier that you have seen fit to punish me for failing to adopt your collective suggestion about turning the external links into red links. BronHiggs (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I cannot help wondering when you guys are going to settle on one, coherent argument or set of arguments? Initially you argued that the links had to be deleted because they were not sufficentily notable. When that argument didn't seem to cut the mustard, you switched to the argument that they links were so notable that they merited WP articles in their own right and therefore could be red-linked rather than presented as external links (a simple suggestion; certainly not a compulsory action or instruction). Now, it seems that you are reverting back to the "poor quality" argument. I can and have defended every single link with both references to policy and with evidence-based arguments drawn from the academic and practitioner literature in advertising. Yet, it makes no difference because you lot have decided that any article only be permitted one official link. And the bottom line is that this position is entirely out of whack with Wikipedia policy on external links. You are letting your personal agenda thwart any reasonable discussion about what might actually be useful to users. BronHiggs (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

what is admedia.org?[edit]

Since there is a bit of a response above, I'm going to repeat my question about this link. The content appears to be an article written by Hairong Li in 2007 when he owned the domain. Why it would be described as "A useful outline of media planning decisions written by expert media planners and intended for a practitioner audience, published by the Advertising Media Organisation"[1]? Who are these "expert media planners" other than Li and who is the "Advertising Media Organisation" other than whoever currently hosts the article?

I was hoping that the description might be a simple error. --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)