Talk:Marketing/Archive 1

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


old talk[edit]

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


Apple Jack shapes[edit]

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

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

4A's[edit]

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

... afour-step process (4As) can be followed (Norris, B.:reference needed):
The first step: Analysis. Time needs to be earmarked to determine the drivers, emotional and logical needs, and traditional and psycho graphic nuances of the intended audience. This step allows focus and micro-segmentation and a significant decrease in marketing cost.
The second step: Attention. Once you've identified who the core prospect for your products or services is, creative efforts must be taken to get and maintain their attention.
The third step: Accept. You must use the tools of copy, design, social networks, psychology and repetition to get the intended audience to accept that your solution is the best one to take. This acceptance must take place despite the fact that your solution is just one of many options available in an increasingly saturated marketplace.
Finally, the fourth step: Action. The prospect has to act on their acceptance of your proposition by doing whatever it is you want them to do. Generally, this might be making one or more purchases (be sure your marketing strategy includes opportunities for buyers to evangelize their positive purchasing experiences to others). It may also be picking up a phone or responding to a direct mail offer or fundraising effort or petition drive.

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

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

4P is an outdated view on marketing?[edit]

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

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

I agree we need a better definition than what is there now. The current definition is spam inserted by a consultant. The definitions that have the most currency are the transactional one (Bagozzi), the functional or marketing mix one (Borden), and the marketing philosophy one (Levitt, Levy, and Kotler). You mentioned the 1985 AMA definition which is a blend of Bagozzi and Borden. The relationship marketing definition is also starting to become popular. Maybe we should give a description of all these definitions (Would that be too detailed for the average Wikipedia reader?). mydogategodshat 08:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I know very little about Marketing, so you can consider me the "average Wikipedia reader". I have read over the first paragraph several times and still have no idea what it says. The first sentence needs to be concise so we can have some concept of what you are talking about. I did not understand from the first paragraph what exactly was wrong with the definition given in the first sentence; that definition seemed to express the concept of marketing quite ably. Why not express it as such, instead of alienating the common reader with marketing semantics? If it is an oversimplification, the nuances should be worked out in the body of the article, not the first paragraph! Please simplify the first paragraph for us! CaseInPoint 00:24, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Just ignore the first two paragraphs. That is what I have been doing. mydogategodshat 03:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

As a Marketing undergrad, we have been taught that yes, the 4Ps model is outdated. The 4 Ps are taught as the four main marketing communication tools. The more comprehensive description of marketing we are given is the Value Planning Model. Marketers UNDERSTAND (market research, segmentation etc), CONFIGURE (product design), COMMUNICATE (4Ps) and DELIVER (via channels) value to the customer using STRATEGY & RESOURCES.
Marketing is defined as facilitating the acheivement of organisational goals by facilitating exchanges of value.--Joveblue 04:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The 4Ps (along with 3Cs) are still taught at the University of Chicago GSB and every other major business school, so I think it's safe to include in this article. I'm not sure what makes you think it's outdated - it's a useful framework to think about marketing, although it's not the end-all-be-all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.140.5.249 (talkcontribs) 14:27, September 27, 2006 (UTC)
We still talk about the 4Ps, but only as one part (configuration of offer) of a larger overall marketing process. Even then, it's not a very comprehensive model for configuration of an offer, as shown by the many attempts to expand it to 7/8 Ps. I'm not saying it shouldn't be included, I just think that maybe it should be approached as a smaller part of marketing. --Joveblue 04:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

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

the Marketing Mix[edit]

The 4-7-8 marketing Ps are the marketing mix. The wikipedia page on the marketing mix doesn't even address them!

And as to the marketing mix; it is JUST a framwork for developing marketing offers. It's provided as a way of thinking that makes you more rigourous in defining your market offer. Consider it as a checklist when making up your next campaign. It is not a very strategic model, whereas marketing is strategic.

The (7)Ps are useful though. I am currently working in a marketing environment and even though many of you marketing grads out there are saying the Ps are outdated they are a simple & effective way of getting the uneducated to formulate an offer to an acceptable standard before taking it to market.

Anyway here is the bottom line. This page needs a total rewrite and the focus on the Marketing mix/Ps should be shunted over to the marketing mix page. Any volunteers?--Craigwbrown 04:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't kid yourself everybody, the basics of marketing remain the same, we simply are coming up with new names and ways to identify the same processes. 4p's definitely exist perhaps they are just a bit sore on the ears for someone you once encountered. Society evolves, products evolve, naturally marketing does too. It's continuous innovation, not dynamic. It is still the same, we are just adding little bits here and there to make people talk and ultimately want. Old marketing would surely suffice as a general need, but the want lies in the aspiration of getting another 5% of the market, so we pay big pucks for the new ideas that crazy kids like me could possibly come up with. Could there really actually be more than 4 p's or more likely could the excess p's be categorized into an existing p. Couldn't price really rather fit under promotion - buy my product it is cheaper or my product is most expensive, it's the best quality. Maybe in some cases yes, but in others no. I guess that depends on how well your marketing firm understands economics and the role it has always, though often mysteriously, played in history. Mkellerandco 22:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

External links[edit]

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

It would be nice if the spammers would go away but I don't think it will happen. mydogategodshat 05:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I knocked the list down to four articles, KnowThis library, SOSIG, Mediapost (questionable), and the e-book Marketing.
For developing link policy, see [[Wikipedia talk:Spam#External links criteria and lyrics sites and (at the moment) my userpage. DDerby(talk) 06:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite needed[edit]

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

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

I agree with your assessment. There is no overall structure to the article. Much of the material in the first sections either do not belong in this article or should be placed in a more appropriate section. mydogategodshat 02:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Strongly agree that this article needs a rewrite, apparently by someone who is not in marketing. The last paragraph of this article as I write: "Marketing is not full of holes, but a management process that has helped generate wealth and satisfied millions of customers for the most part of the 20th century. It can do even better in the 21st provided practitioners and scholars do not lose faith and focus." Er. What? Hardly encyclopedic content - just marketing marketing itself, really. (207.164.255.110 17:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC))
Ok, this article is still in bad shape and is becoming more muddled with each revision. It now ends with: "Contrary to Brown’s suggestion in his final paragraph (p. 257), we need objectivity, rigour, quantification, models, relationships, paradigm shifts and (some application of) science". This isn't the place for one of many anon writers to talk about what they think the field "needs", this is self-evidently PoV. Way too much language in this article that assumes a 'we' (marketers), and makes entirely subjective judgments about what "we need", etc. Someone please, put this damned thing out of its misery and rewrite. 207.164.255.110 11:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that the whole structure of the article should be changed into something like:

  • Introduction: definition of marketing, distinguishing between promotion and marketing, why marketing is important etc.
  • Marketing concept and customer-orientation: market-orientation vs. product-orientation vs. ... in a Kotler kind-of way
  • Different roles of marketing (in a company): strategic vs. tactical marketing, product marketing, market research, r&d, etc.
  • Evolution of the marketing discipline: a short (academic) review of marketing, from 4Ps to STP to relationship marketing, etc.
  • ...

Any comments? Whatever the decision is, I can't see any other way to improve the article than to abandon the old one completely and start from a scratch with a guiding structure. What comes to the criticism, it doesn't actually fit the article very well: most of the criticism isn't actually against the roof-concept of marketing but to subtopics like promotion, segmentation, etc. and I would rather see the critique on these subpages. --H0ff3r 20:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

A Couple of things...[edit]

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

  • sorry, forgot to sign the above comment [[User:Consequencefree|Ardent]] 11:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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

Marketing isn't really an industry. It's about more than just promotions, PR and marcom.[1] What do you mean by marketing industry? Perhaps this could be addressed in other ways. --Westendgirl 06:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I think you're thinking of the Advertising Industry. --Joveblue 04:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


Marketing is an industry. Perhaps it is a bit vague of an industry. So we could then use the vagueness to label it a sector? I mean it kind of is somewhere between tangibility and intangibility, a quasi service-good. The Marketing Sector. I would like to see that on google finance, where I think they have inaccurately labeled advertising as an industry and I can't seem to find marketing. Marketing = advertising + service of creative professionals + research + etc. Wow, I think marketing might actually be too vague to be a sector!!! Maybe this marketing page should ultimately be named the marketing sector/industry and then people could build subpages off of it. It would allow people to get down into the knitty-gritty aspects of the constant evolution of marketing so that student like me aren't going to come out of university with knowledge of an industry that became obsolete by the time I took my final. Mkellerandco 22:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Product marketing into Marketing[edit]

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Market research in the 1950s[edit]

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


The Science of Marketing?[edit]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Agreed, it doesn't add anything to the article. That marketing involves research and analysis, creativity, talent and applied psychology is good to know, but discussing "Science or Art?" is fairly pointless. 80.175.128.29 01:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Saying that academic questions are not of concern appears to be quite a POV (i.e. the non-academic one). Perhaps the 1963 article in Harvard Business Review might help answering this question as well as acknowleding that the academic marketing community struggled with it at first as well
("Is marketing a Science", Harvard Business Review 41 (Jan-feb, p32-40 & 166-170). According to Buzzell a science is:
- A classified and systematized body of knowledge,
- organized around one or more central theories and a number of general principles,
- usually expressed in quantitative terms,
- knowledge which permits the prediction and, under some circumstances, the control of future events (p.37)
He concluded that marketing met those criteria and should therefore be (also) considered a science.

71.201.70.208 23:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a largely irrelevant discussion, as its ultimately subjective. It could also be considered a vocation or a craft, in the same way that Sculpture is a Craft (and an art). This level of semantic discussion distracts from nailing the core questions of what marketing does, and how. --119.11.104.21 (talk) 05:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this discussion goes off base of the purposes of marketing.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 04:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

MArketing definition[edit]

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

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

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

Marketing P's[edit]

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

Mass marketing[edit]

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

Criticism of marketing[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

"a fair deal" is subjective, but it is still "fair" if I have the ability to pay and believe the price is reasonable (even though it may not be the best price or as cheap as i would like it). It is unfair if i do not have the economic power to pay AND its something i require. However, then its not actually the value-pricing principle as I'm not willing to pay it, i just have to, and there is no value. That's more like monopoly pricing. So this statement is reasonably accurate.
Perhaps this would be better titled "Criticisms of immoral uses of marketing"... which would be MUCH more interesting. --xtfer (talk) 05:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Lets please remember that the point of marketing is not to scam people. We are taught in University today that markets come first, not products. You see the need (or want) and you then create a product to satisfy that need/want. Of course, that is not to say your fear can't come true. But really marketing is mainly used to benefit society. For instance, somebody comes up with a way to cure cancer.... but nobody knows about it yet. I mean, shoot I could right a thesis on this very issue. Just remember that by regulating marketing you are always giving someone the upper hand (the regulator perhaps???) who gets to impose on a society what he feels are in his/her best interests. Rather, marketing in a capitalist system helps people because they are the ones who are given the power to determine what is good, evil, right, or wrong. If someone's marketing tactics are hurting society, at least the society gets a chance to figure it out and put a stop to it. That is what is good for the well-being of every society, and will prevent abuses in more critical areas.... such as investment banking. Its kind of funny how politics is such a good manifestation of exactly this. Now somebody please get this page in order, it truly is atrocious and one of the weaker articles in the whole of wikipedia (including all of the millions of languages this site is in). Mkellerandco 22:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This article should be referenced under a new article I propose should be written "Criticisms of freedom of speech". It is truly atrocious, and seems like an excerpt from "The Marketeers guide to the criticisms of marketing" (which I am sure must exist somewhere). Unfortunately there are too many people out there who need and want to rape, murder, and pillage. Just because someone needs or wants something doesn't mean it is automatically morally acceptable to satisfy that need or want, especially if the marketing stimulated that demand in the first place. smithonthenet@hotmail.com 18 March 2008

References[edit]

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

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

I'm new to Wikipedia and am not certain that some of the links I added may be considered spam. I don't think they are, but if so, I would really appreciate someone explaining what I've done wrong so I can delete the links. I only added links because I thought the articles and books listed provided additional content on the subject. Thanks. Carrie77

Vandalism[edit]

There is A LOT of vandalism on this page. Someone needs to fix it. [[[User:MC511|MC511]] 20:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)]


To the Vandals[edit]

Marketing is very much a contentious issue. However, while there exist many different approaches to effective marketing there are several, very much, generally accepted principles within the generalization of marketing that this wikiarticle is supposed about. Please refrain from changing the page to suit your beliefs. If you really think your way is the best way, please do the following:
prove it
publish it
blog it
As a student who tends to have to write a research paper or two it is great to know the generally accepted generalizations of a subject before doing research, or the bread and butter that is wikipedia to any research topic. I would love to hear your opinion, but it really would be a more credible opinion to mention if you write a blog or publish even just one single article as a dissenting "intellectual".
Do you feel you won't be heard?
Well, then maybe you should read up on SEO, a critical tool to e-marketing these days. Even you will be able to get your .blogspot up to the top hits on google.... if you really want to. And, I will be able to find your blog or article just south of the wikipedia.org selection.
kind regards,Mkellerandco 20:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Web 2.0 and Marketing New 4Ps[edit]

Are we going to include every Bob, Dick and Harry's version of the 4P's, or is Idris Mootee special? The section reads like an advertisement for Idris Mootee, and his version of the 4P's are by no means known, accepted or regarded, highly or otherwise. - Nonamebut IP

Completely agree with Nonamebut IP. If Ms. Mootee is an eminent marketing expert, this section should be broken out into its own article and only linked here. If she's just someone who wrote an article or something, it should be removed. CarlFink 14:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I propose:

If you were taught it in undergraduate marketing studies, then it probably belongs on the page. Otherwise, make a separate article, or see the section above...even if you aren't, or don't think you are, a vandal. Mkellerandco 16:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have worked for a few years supporting the education of a couple of undergraduate marketing courses, and I'm currently writing my MSc. thesis on a topic related closely to this issue. I have never heard of Ms. Mootee's 4Ps extension, thus I support highly the removal of that part. Altogether, I think that no extensions to marketing mix (4Ps) concept should be presented on this page, but rather on its own page. Even if 7Ps is probably the most known extension, I don't see it as a significant enough concept to be included on this level. --H0ff3r 20:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

While Idris Mootee's supplement of the traditional 4P marketing mix seems interesting and thought-provoking (I too, believe that the original 4P do not address properly the marketing orientation in a Web 2.0 environment), the lack of wider embrace of the new 4Ps from the academic and business community makes it inappropriate for the general Marketing article. Simply, the new concept is not notable enough, and it's theoretical and practical significance is yet to be determined. Given the fact that a) nobody has provided any valid reasons for its inclusions for almost half a year, and b) it's a possible self-promotion I've been quite bold and removed the whole section. --FlavrSavr (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

US vs. UK spelling[edit]

Is it really necessary to edit out a correct US spelling ("organizations") and replace with the UK version ("organisations")? How does that make the article more accurate or encyclopedic?


New Section 2[edit]

added section:The Different Schools, Theories, Practices and Views of Marketing - welcome comments, discussion or improvements - thanks. --Rjcain 11:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

ps - i also think the top level list shown in this section should be implemented as subcategories of Category:Marketing to provide quick and painless cross referencing within subjects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjcain (talkcontribs) 11:40, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

CONFLICT OF INTEREST[edit]

Spinacia, you have admitted elsewhere that you are associated with Blackblot...com. You also created a Wikipedia article on blackblot. So, you can't insert links to blackblot...com. This is a clear case of conflict of interst. What you are doing is self-promotion to sell more of Blackblot's PMTK templates (or whatever else you / your business associates are selling through blackblot..com) by getting free advertising and free Internet traffic through Wikipedia. Also, the Blackblot article will be placed as an Article for Deletion (AFD), since there is a CONFLICT OF INTEREST on that as well... This is a clear case of CONFLICT OF INTEREST, and affects the neutrality of content for this article. Moreover, this is a shameless promotion of your business / website, without having to pay advertising money on the Internet. Please desist from SPAMMING, else your Blackblot...com will be blacklisted on WIKIMEDIA, and you will lose any advantage you might currently have on Viral Marketing throughout the WWW. Further, what has been typed here might show up on Google and other searches when BLACKBLOT is searched, and BLACKBLOT will get a lot of negative publicity. Please stop adding SPAM links to blackblot...com; else it will be removed again by me and other readers, who are trying to keep Wikipedia clean69.109.174.47 (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

-- Get real: Wikipedia is/ will be just as commercially driven as the rest of the net/ world. Folks who want to keep commercial business out of here are dreaming !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.222.195 (talk) 05:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality criticism[edit]

Hi everyone, first time poster. Apologies in advance if I break any conventions.

I have an issue with the following, from the section "Criticism of marketing"

"Most marketers believe that marketing techniques themselves are amoral. While it is ethically neutral, it can be used for negative purposes, such as selling unhealthy food to obese people or selling SUVs in a time of global warming, but it can also have a positive influence on consumer welfare."

I think it is unreasonable to assert without question that marketing techniques are necessarily always ethically neutral. Even leaving aside the possibility of subliminal advertising, I think it there is a case to suggest that many standard marketing techniques amount to manipulation, an obvious example being those which induce consumers to buy by agitating them (e.g. the suggestion that your breath will reek if you don't chew Extra). Bearing in mind the saturation (billboards, tv, radio etc) that can be bought by producers with sufficient capital, I repeat that it is unreasonable to say categorically that marketing is ethically neutral or even merely amoral. As evidenced by the talk page for that article, the charge of immorality is often levelled at evangelism - for similar reasons IMO. Trampling on consumers' self-image or beliefs (e.g. by negatively portraying mullets and bogans, or conversely metrosexuals) is not dissimilar from trampling on natives' faith.

Apart from that it's a very good article - hope the above is taken as constructive criticism.

Pandacrack 10:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


-- So, my friend, why don't you edit the article as opposed to posting this dissertation ?? And, no, the article is rubbish! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.222.195 (talk) 05:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

---

The whole issue here is evident from the beginning when the definition of marketing does not address one of the most important aspects of marketing: _Creating_ demand. That is arguably the morally problematic aspect of marketing. Not figuring out what people want, producing it, and then informing people so that they will buy it from me, but manipulating people so that they want something I can make. This is not just advertizing and not marketing. Part of marketing research is figuring out which kinds of things people don't "know they want" but might be manipulated into wanting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.160.107.126 (talk) 07:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

---

I concur wholeheartedly with the post above. On closer perusal I am much less convinced that it's "a very good article" - I must admit that I presumed it would be well researched primarily from its length.

Having quickly typed "define:marketing" into my beloved google, I cannot find any web definition of marketing that even remotely resembles that proposed by the article;

          "marketing is a social process which satisfies customer's wants"

I think that this is an almost meaningless definition that borders on tautological. If you don't believe me, say it aloud: "Marketing is the process that satisfies customers' wants". Oh, that process! I love that process! Yep, whenever I have a craving for anything I reach straight for the marketing. What on earth does that mean?

Moreover, as my fellow critic so astutely pointed out - this "definition" rules out even the possibility of marketing having a role in creating demand. The article goes on to say that a customer-focused company (i.e. a customer-focused approach to marketing) first determines needs and then provides a product or service. It is BLINDINGLY obvious that if that is one approach, the converse - whereby a company aims to maximise profitability by creating demand for a pre-existing product or service - not only exists, but is no less "marketing" than the other; the product-focused approach is at the opposite end of that spectrum that constitutes the field of marketing.

I propose that a much more commonly accepted, comprehensive (and dare I say accurate) definition of marketing is merely this:

         the practice of encouraging consumers to buy products or services

From what I understand I am free to edit the article to this effect, so I give due notice of my intention to do so (as soon as I figure out how) unless the author or anyone else can offer rational argument to the contrary.

Christ, I've always loved this service but I begin to fear that the good folks at Conservapedia have a point - liberal bias indeed. Nobody is asking you to rip the article to shreds, but to define a subject narrowly so that you can claim that it is ethically irreproachable is going too far.

Pandacrack 15:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hurry up Pandacrack! You're right edit the article! smithonthenet@hotmail.com 19 March 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.171.241 (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem, Pandacrack, is that your definition is not accurate because it completely discounts the "outside in" aspect of marketing. That is, it covers the "Promotion" aspect of marketing, but nothing else.Marketing is as much a quantitative art as a qualitative one. True, it does involve encouraging to customers to buy the product/service, but it also involves research to discover how the product/service should be made to meet the consumer's needs. When a marketing firm does a survey, it isn't trying to convince consumers to buy its products/service. Rather, it is determining what specifications need to go into the engineering of the product/service.
The original definition is more precise (and, might I add, elegant). It's not a tautology, and your argument about "reaching for marking" is flawed. If you have a need for food, and I provide you with the food, then I satisfied your want. You didn't reach for me; you reached for the food. Nonetheless, I was the one that recognized your want, produced the thing that satisfied it, and convinced you that it would satisfy you. That's marketing.--199.125.45.10 (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

More on definition[edit]

I would extend Pandacrack and Mkellerandco's points and say that many marketers believe their role is not to encourage but to inform and communicate the value of an offering or idea. While many marketers do, in fact, see their role as 'persuader', this is a misapplication of the disciplines involved in marketing. "Encouraging" and "Persuading" are more the role of the sales arm of the enterprise-- and in modern times rarely effective in the long term unless they aid the customer. Sales and marketing often get confused as does the understanding of the role of marketing itself.

Marketing tactics can certainly be applied in nefarious (dishonest) or annoying (disruptive) ways, but when they are, they are rarely effective. I would agree with earlier comments that the definition needs to be simplified and this article edited to be more NPOV using communication to connect demand with supply is not inherently evil Mediathink (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The first official definition of marketing was adopted in 1935 by the National Association of Marketing Teachers, a predecessor of the AMA. It was adopted by the AMA in 1948, and again in 1960 when the AMA revisited the definition and decided not to change it. This original definition stood for 50 years, until it was revised in 1985.[2] Sweetfreek (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just passing by this article, but I have to agree that the definition used at the beginning of this article is almost completely meaningless. It's laden with jargon and probably derives from inside the business of marketing, but would not help (for example) a middle-school student trying to research marketing for a class. Merriam-Webster defines marketing as:

1 a: the act or process of selling or purchasing in a market b: the process or technique of promoting, selling, and distributing a product or service
2: an aggregate of functions involved in moving goods from producer to consumer

That is much more meaningful and potentially helpful. If this article has any actual editors working on it, it would be good if they could find a more accessible wording for the article's introduction. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 06:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment Please[edit]

Hello!

I was hoping you could help me out by commenting on my Wikipedia page "co-branding"

I wrote this page for a class and was hoping for some feedback.

Thanks, Mary Beth Mlease (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Hello!

     You had not discussed about service differentiation in 

this article. kindly discuss or download about the topic.

                                      Thank You.


Market orientation vs. customer orientation[edit]

These two are not the same, as implied in the first sentence under the table of contents. See for instance: Homburg, Workman and Jensen, Fundamental Changes in Marketing Organization: The Movement Toward a Customer-Focused Organizational Structure.in Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 2000.

Needs to be changed. I'd say it's a market oriented approach that's the more traditional one and as such described in this wikipedia page.

Greets,

Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.73.161.2 (talk) 11:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The Four Ps are Decisions not Characteristics[edit]

The original Four Ps represent the marketing decisions that need to always be made. It is an accounting of actions rather than a conceptual structure of the market. As such, it is not a description of strategic position. It is also different that the concept of marketing mix which deals with the multiple channels of promotion. The Four Ps is a straightforward but powerful concept and should not be diluted with the increasing number of items or randomly changing them, which do not relate to required actions. Gene Lieb (talk) 06:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Marketing mix?[edit]

The introductory paragraph introduces this term without sufficiently explaining it. Would anyone not a student of marketing know what this means? I think not. Overall the introduction comes off as being cryptic, even nonsense. Vranak (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree this article is a mess. Too many topics without a clear focus. I introduced the "Concept of Marketing" section. I will continue to expand on it and gradually do a better cleanup.Spinacia (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

New Definition For Marketing[edit]

Having spent years in this wretched and ethically challenged field, I posted my definition here: the end of all truth. It would never survive the plethora of wiki rules and attack by the assorted wiki nazis, but those five words are enough and everything else, in my view alone, and I make no claims beyond that, is bullshit. --Achim (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggested : a merger between sub sections : 15 Areas of marketing specialization / 16 See also[edit]

I do not see any difference between the two sub sections !

Sanjiv swarup (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

request for archive box to be created[edit]

Old sub sections need to be moved out

Sanjiv swarup (talk) 02:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Created an Archive Box and moved conversation prior to 2008. --Editor br (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This category of articles is woeful ![edit]

Sad to say: all articles in the "marketing" category absolutely stink !! I have seldom read such crap and I have given up tryig to fix them as it would mean rewriting everything. Simple concepts are described with such pseudo-complexity, all utility is lost. There is so much overlap between articles, it's unheard of. Eg: why on earth would we need separate articles for "advertising" and for "promotion" ??? Beats me. I say: nuke all of them and start afresh. Thoughts ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.222.195 (talk) 05:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC) Absolutely agree. The whole topic of marketing lacks any framework, concept. I guess this is because Wiki by its substance is beeing built botom-up, from individual thoughts, pieces to the intended whole, but there is no concept giving the pieces any order and standard. I don§t mean Wiki as a system by that comment (which has pretty good rules and guides) but some of more complex topics, as e.g. marketing is. I will try to suggest a framework here soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.47.79.93 (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

--Agreed, this page needs lots of work – some serious misconceptions here. I've removed the opening definition which was terrible Steve simple (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This all sounds a little bit political to meMaelli (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)However, see my remarks below - the stndard of English is pretty poor, though - or has it been mutilated by someone.

No I disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.73.205 (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Too many lists[edit]

There are WAY too many lists here. Some sections should not be lists, where content should be explained rather than just listed. Feel free to help expand these sections. --Dan LeveilleTALK 01:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Marketing Communications[edit]

I have to say that this entire article needs a major revision, however the marketing communications section is standing out to me right now - it makes no logical sense and covers a minute aspect of communications. I think this would be a good place to start revising... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.27.133 (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

the very first sentence is horrible "delivering value" "stakeholders" just because an article is about marketing does not mean it has to be expressed in management babble.Alnpete (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

this article needed (and still needs) a major rewrite![edit]

I have added many of the sections in this article, and beforehand it was a woefully poor description of marketing.

I will add more sections in time, since the article still lacks many major marketing areas.

You'll need to provide sources if you do so. See also WP:Verifiability and WP:OR OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you then write this: "The purpose for market segmentation is conducted for two main issues.". 'Cos I have absolutely no idea what the sentence means, so perhaps someone could write it in English, or explain what they're trying to say, and I'll translate itinto English (my profession anyway, but usually German to English!)Maelli (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Presumably, it should read "The purpose for which market segmentation is conducted is for two main issues". A simpler sentence would be "Market segmentation is conducted for two main purposes." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.213.2.61 (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hispanic Marketing[edit]

I believe this needs its own article. Have put up an article with reference however keeps getting removed User:Feeps490 Feeps490 (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Why were some of the sections removed?[edit]

The explanation in the history page is that it is not marketing, but is there any marketing scholar or textbook that says they are not marketing? i'm referring to the green marketing, marketing communications, etc. sections. I'm sure that in most marketing classes at undergrad and postgrad level, they are taught as aspects of marketing, and are readily employed by marketing firms. This is an encyclopedia, so the article should be as detailed as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.213.2.61 (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What is the point of section "Marketing specializations"? Seems completely devoid of meaning to me. Sredni vashtar (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Marketing = Promoting?[edit]

Marketing = just Promoting is a common misconception. Marketing includes both selling and promoting. Marketing has derived from the term Market. Market is a place where goods and/or services are sold upon promoting them. So, marketing is the process of developing a market place for the products and/or services to be sold.


Marketing = "the action or business of promoting and selling products or services , including market research and advertising" def of marketing from oxford dictionary

Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 09:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, many senses of marketing, but I agree marketing is a broader concept than promoting, usually, in most senses.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The Oxford definition is very narrow and doesn't reflect the wide range of disciplines in the profession. I think those that teach marketing would argue that it encompasses new product development, experiences (events), marketing research, informatics, packaging, social media, and other sub-disciplines/functions -- are all part of the contemporary definition or functions of marketing. In fact, "promotion" is typically seen as one of the so-called 4-P's of the marketing mix (tactics...others define 8-Ps). Philip Kotler is a perhaps one of the most-quoted marketers. Maybe his definition would be appropriate? “the science and art of exploring, creating, and delivering value to satisfy the needs of a target market at a profit. Marketing identifies unfulfilled needs and desires. It defines, measures and quantifies the size of the identified market and the profit potential. It pinpoints which segments the company is capable of serving best and it designs and promotes the appropriate products and services.” Or one of these definitions of marketing: http://heidicohen.com/marketing-definition/? --Sieglege (talk)10 January 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 20:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Revamp coming[edit]

Have suggestions? Ideas? Concerns? Comments about style or information? Please write them below (or if they're already above I'll take them into account). Revamp coming in a week or so (hopefully) so please give thoughts now in week before July 2011, thanx.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)