![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
See the proposal at the Village pump
The Transhumanist 09:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Guidelines for the development of outlines are being drafted at Wikipedia:Outlines.
Your input and feedback is welcomed and encouraged.
The Transhumanist 00:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Please add some relevant links to the history section.
Links can be found in the "History of" article for this subject, in the "History of" category for this subject, or in the corresponding navigation templates. Or you could search for topics on Google - most topics turn blue when added to Wikipedia as internal links.
The Transhumanist 00:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, the article City marketing needs to be linked here. Destination marketing is completely missing though, oddly enough, since it's a major topic no matter what.
" Outline" is short for "hierarchical outline". There are two types of outlines: sentence outlines (like those you made in school to plan a paper), and topic outlines (like the topical synopses that professors hand out at the beginning of a college course). Outlines on Wikipedia are primarily topic outlines that serve 2 main purposes: they provide taxonomical classification of subjects showing what topics belong to a subject and how they are related to each other (via their placement in the tree structure), and as subject-based tables of contents linked to topics in the encyclopedia. The hierarchy is maintained through the use of heading levels and indented bullets. See Wikipedia:Outlines for a more in-depth explanation. The Transhumanist 00:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
The section entitled, Branches of marketing, needs a conceptual foundation. Not all facets of marketing, are really understood as distinct branches. The current article offers the following list:
This listing is, in my view, incomplete and fails to identify major growth areas or fields of study. The book titled, The Marketing Book, 7th ed., Routledge, Oxon, UK, 2016 edited by Michael J. Baker and Susan Hart, and widely regarded as a classic, identifies the following as distinct types or branches of marketing practice:
I would recommend that the Wikipedia master list be based on the categories that appear in reputable texts, such as that cited above and that the list be modified according to the recommendations provided here. BronHiggs ( talk) 08:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
The current section is very confusing. It comprises an uncomfortable blend of marketing mix elements or components of the marketing program (pricing, product, distribution and promotion) along with broader themes such as marketing strategy, consumer behaviour, marketing research. In addition, the coverage of the elements that make up the marketing program is incomplete - where is integrated marketing communications, for example? And, furthermore, the list that comprises the broader elements is also incomplete - where is market segmentation?
The master list, as it currently stands is:
=== Subdisciplines and components of marketing ===
* Consumer behavior * Distribution * Marketing management * Marketing research * Marketing strategy * Pricing * Product management * Promotion (marketing)
I recommend that this list be split into two component parts:
I. The marketing framework
and;
II. The marketing program (aka the 4 Ps or the marketing mix)
The preceding structure is much more practical, and clearly separates the elements of the marketing mix from other background/ contextual activities that inform the marketing mix, but are not activities that are directly focussed on consumers. It also highlights the duplication that is evident in marketing articles. Ideally an improved overall hierarchy of topics will help to reduce the current proliferation in new marketing articles that really only duplicate content that is already in existence.
BronHiggs ( talk) 09:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
As there has been no response about my previous recommendations, I have gone ahead and restructured this Outline. The headings and sub-headings are now much more closely aligned with the categories used in marketing texts such as the Marketing Handbook mentioned in preceding commentary. Where necessary, I have also added a line or two by way of explanation, so as to clarify the heading and what topics should be included and what should not be included there. But I have tried to keep this to a minimum and let the headings do the talking.
I have not deleted any links - simply moved them around and grouped them into logical categories. This means that some of the links that were broken are still broken. I will leave it to others to determine whether the red links should remain or go. I have also taken the opportunity to add scores of new links to marketing-related subjects, so that the outline is now the most comprehensive listing of marketing topics on Wikipedia. I have not assessed these articles in any way - if they contain marketing themes, they have been listed. The revised structure minimises the need to repeat subjects (as was evident in the previous arrangement).
I also note that many of these articles are not linked to the Marketing project for want of a "category label" at the foot of the article. In addition, even the most cursory scan of the links reveals the extent of duplication of articles on Wikipedia - but that is another problem entirely (Why, for example, do we need an article devoted to segmentation, one to positioning and yet another to segmentation and positioning?). In addition, some of the articles appear to be devoted to little more than neologisms (e.g. Smarketing) while other articles are very thin (not more than a single sentence in some cases). Arguably these articles should be proposed for deletion. But once again, I will leave it up to others to decide their fate.
In my searches, I found a few perfunctory articles that were not included in the outline e.g. Brand-new, Social pull marketing, Marketing research mix - which all appear to be concepts that are not part of the mainstream literature and possibly devised to promote individual scholar's contributions. I wonder what others think about these types of contributions?
It is to be hoped that this comprehensive listing, organised into recognisable conceptual frameworks, will go some of the way towards deterring editors from starting new articles that simply canvass old territory (albeit using synonyms in the article title). BronHiggs ( talk) 05:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)