This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I agree with you regarding this.ddd The topic is way too small and does not describe what one would define as an 'Ad Agency'. It took a battle to get SEO and SEM firms labeled as an 'Ad Agency' even though by defintion they would qualify. InterActive Agencies should qualify as well. I am one of those that believe that InterActive Marketing, SEO, and SEM are a large part of future of this industry. Even though the SEM's, SEO's and InterActive guys don't want to be labled under that umbrella with a general industry feeling that agencies that specialize in TV and Print will not last forever under the onslaught of the Internet (sort of the same principle that Wikipedia vs The Print Encyclopedia). user:wehberf
I'm stunned as to how small this article is - it seems like this would be exactly the place that would have gotten a lot of editing. I know not particularly much about ad agencies, but I just put in some section headers to make it less confusing to read. Hopefully someone out there with a better sense of the business could expand sections like the now narrowly defined "Account Services" section.
I'm going to tag this article as needing expansion. Bradfordschultze 20:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- I deleted the 2 sentences "An agency's size should not necessarily be considered a barometer of their billing or ability to handle large accounts. Indeed, these days, smaller boutique agencies are just as likely to count very large corporations amongst their accounts." No citation was made to support this, and it's not really necessary anyway. Logan 20:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Cut "Recent studies suggest that both SEO and SEM are set to outpace more traditional channels of media spending over the next 3-5 years." It's self-serving for the search industry, and in reality, traditional advertising is going to remain much bigger than search for the next decade. Indeed, the original didn't have any citation for those 'studies, while I have a citation to the contrary - from MSN search, no less (i.e. for whom it would be advantageous to claim the opposite)! http://community.microsoftadvertising.com/blogs/analytics/archive/2009/07/06/getting-back-to-basics-why-web-advertising-needs-traditional-media-metrics.aspx - edit by Gab Goldenberg
Gab Goldenberg, It's completely interesting that you cite MSN as an example (when they get paid only via PPC) your "source" comes from a search engine that is only paid via PPC? That's not a valid report coming from an MSN blog as blogs are generally against Wikipedia's guidelines as a valid source. -- editing to add SEO back until further non-biased-non-blog report is shown that shows traditional advertising is growing faster than SEO / Social Media... good luck with that... Also worth noting, SEO and Social Media need to be combined... SEO firms went into Social Media to get valid backlinks for their clients.. and of course my sourced link
http://mashable.com/2009/04/15/social-media-seo/
--
user:wehberf —Preceding
undated comment added 04:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC).
Hi all this is Jason from Bangalore and i want to open an Ad agency.So please kindly help me out regarding this.Basically what r the prospects of An ad agency.What r the informations that i should have before going to start the business.And what r the important things that i should take car of while i proceed.My e-mail id is be.dillip@gmail.com
Unless somebody who knows what they're doing does so first, i may try my hand at describing the media and traffic departments of typical medium to large agencies.
++ I just added the search marketing and optimization issue, I think that they should qualify as Ad Agencies, they do media buys, and they create text and image ads ... by definition they must be included as an agency --- Roger Wehbe - President, Yooter Corp.
++ Removed spam dated dec 12, 2005 "Never worry about the starting budget we have advertising plans for every sectors of Businesses. give us email , we help you through email: adspots@37.com." -- Roger Wehbe
What exactly constitutes a "famous" agency? Why should these big agencies get the free advertising that being on this page allows? If a small or medium agency can't be mentioned here, then the big guys shouldn't either. Same rule for everyone???? I propse we remove this section entirely. It's contantly abused by non-notable advertising agencies and doesn't really add anything to the article. Comments? Monkeyman( talk) 16:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
What constitutes notable? Clients who have made the SuperBrands list? How many millions in billings must an agency have to be deemed notable? Anyone familiar with the agency business knows that often small agencies are absorbed by large conglomerates because they have one good account -- but the agency continues to remain a small shop. Conglomerates are simply agencies that band together for the purpose of synergy and recognition. You have to respect the large independents that have hundreds of millions in billings and dozens of highly recognizable clients and brands. Take the Richards Group in Dallas with its famous Chick-Fil-A "cow" billboards, Corona beer ads on network TV, and Tom Bodine for Motel 8, noted by the Ad Federation as one of the most recognizable ads in the history of advertising. -- Cndylanders 16:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I think this section should be removed or at least have the criteria for notable be narrowly defined in it. Otherwise, the section is just begging for a SPAM edit war. It could be narrowed to those with established wikipedia articles or (even narrower) those who have one a number of notable awards like Clio Awards. Oicumayberight 19:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
This is a question! How do agencies offer ideas to prospective clients at no cost? Do they work up some ideas they think will appeal to the prospective client and then hope the client doesn't take the idea and run to the low cost bidder to actual do the work? Do they rely on copyright protections? Or, is it not really a problem?
The Interactive agency stub is tiny and would do well as a section in this article. Comments? ∴ here… ♠ 23:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
i have contributed to the article and also added a high quality page about the subject of advertising agencies, i strongly believe that it completes this Wikipedia Article, it gives a lot of details about what advertising agencies do, their role, the process..
the page was added according to:
3) Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues.
Quick check to see if that page meets the criteria of Wikipedia:
What to link
There are several things that should be considered when adding an external link.
* Is the site content accessible to the reader? YES * Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? YES * Is the link functional and likely to remain functional? YES
What to not Link :
Very important, i don't have any connection with that site, i found it when i was researching the the topic (you can see my contribution in the article). if you have any objection about my contribution or the external page , please Discuss it here
thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.249.8.95 ( talk) 07:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
AdvertisingWriter:
* Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? * Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues.
that page completes this Wikipedia article, and we cannot just copy and past their content here, use your common sense my friend, because if you want to try HARD to find something wrong with a site, you will end up removing all external sources from Wikipedia, also next time please take the time to look at the page in question before labeling a non-profit .Org informational page Selling absolutely nothing and which has zero advertisements as SPAM, it's kinda against the concept of "SPAM" to do it for Non-Profit purposes :)
Take care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdvertisingWriter ( talk • contribs) 19:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Advertising Writer:
ok to answer your question, the website content is professional, i hope we agree on this, second, the website is .ORG, and i didn't see any products for sale or ads, so it is a NON-Profit website, third, i told you many times that i found that site while researching the topic (you can check my contribution to the body of the article), so the conflict of interest thing doesn't apply to me.
it is funny that MrOllie's first reason was SPAM (because he probably didn't check the site at all), then when the website turned out to be obviously not spamy and professional, he stated the personal web page reason, this is not a personal page. try to put the rules of Wikipedia in context "mon frere", not in a million years "Personal" would apply to a neutral informational website, what is personal about that page exactly ? the content is useful, tasteful, informative, factual as per wikipedia's rules, and i wasn't talking about the copyright i was talking about the neutral and accurate part, and regardless, i don't anybody has the right to just copy and past that content into this Wikipedia article so we don't have to link to that page.
What both of you are doing is Shameful and childish, you are trying to deprive our users from a legit and complementary source of information about the subject, for the only purpose of boosting your EGO and proving i don't know what to yourselves, grow up already guys, this is nothing personal, as i said if you want to try very HARD to find something wrong, nobody can stop you, if you will take that attitude, you may as well remove all external pages from wikipedia, because believe me, if that's what you want, you will definitely find a reason to do it for every single article of Wikipedia.
AdvertisingWriter (
talk) 00:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
AdvertisingWriter:
Hi or "Salut" should i say :),
okay so when i said professional, i obviously was talking about the content, but i am sure you understood that, in order for a page to not be personal, it doesn't absolutely have to belong to a professional or company site , there are many sorts of websites : personal pages, blogs, fan sites, commercial websites, service websites, professional websites of all kinds (most of them are commercial sites), companies, organizations, charities .. thus i don't have to prove that this is a professional website in order for it to not be a personal site, personal websites ARE NOT NEUTRAL , often in the homepages of those sites, their owners introduce themselves and talk about the subject they like from their own perspective, they will also will refer to themselves at least a few times, this is absolutely not the case for this website, it's content is purely educational and neutral, i would classify it as a NON-Profit informational website which is fine by Wikipedia's rules.
thanks. AdvertisingWriter ( talk) 03:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Advertising Writer:
Do you understand English ? i have just proved to you why that website is not personal and you have the guts to tell me that i admitted the contrary, you also reverted my contribution without even arguing or trying to prove your point. if you want to revert, you NEED to answer and respond to my previous comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdvertisingWriter ( talk • contribs) 04:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Advertising Writer:
You have TOTALLY IGNORED MY POINTS on purpose, i made my point and i classified the website as a NON PROFIT EDUCATIONAL WEBSITE, there are millions of sites like those, and they are present in thousands of Wikipedia pages , can you tell me where it says in Wikipedia's rules, that a website absolutely needs to be owned by an organization in order for it to be listed in Wikipedia, i have addressed all your concerns and points, while you keep ignoring the points that i made, this not serious my friend, if you want to argue with me you need to answer my too points, i explained to you why this is not a personal site (try to understand why i am right and also put "personal" in context) and i classified the website as:
1) Non-Profit Educational Website (fine by Wikipedia's rules) 2) Site content is proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)
do you have anything to say against those two points, yes or no ? one last thing, YOU ABSOLUTELY NEED TO PUT THE RULES IN CONTEXT, the rules are broad, and the rules page doesn't cover all the possible scenarios, so try to use your common sense. is this site a Non-Profit NEUTRAL NON PERSONAL Educational Website ?
AdvertisingWriter (
talk) 04:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
My opinion is that the site not be included in the external links section. The material on the site is, perhaps, comprehensive, but much of what it says should appear in this article, properly referenced. According to WP:ELNO, we should normally avoid linking to 'any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article'. A second point is that it does appear to contain personal reflections of some sort (the author uses the first person pronoun in numerous places). Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies) are generally to be avoided and this website does not inform us of the identity of the author and so there is no way of judging whether he/she is a 'recognized authority'. (Note: The site does seem to belong to an advertising agency, specifically it seems to be the ruminations of Christopher Santry, a senior partner at KPC Christopher Thomas. Check the 'What's next' section. However, irrespective of whether it is or not, my opinion is that the link should not be included.) -- RegentsPark ( sticks and stones) 05:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Advertising Writer:
okay, i accept the compromise, i will rewrite what can be rewritten and add it in this article, then I'll add that page as a reference under the reference section.
thanks.
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
AdvertisingWriter (
talk •
contribs) 06:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Advertising Writer:
so what should we do, use their content (because you think that most of it should be in this article) and not link to them?
Advertising Writer:
MCSly, when it comes to arguing you sure have the time, but when it comes to contributing to the article, you need a few weeks? both of you just wasted my time, the time that i could have used to expand the article instead of participating in this "battle of the titans", both of you are just silly idealists, you are absolutely unable to put any rule in context, you can't see past the end of your noses. i am done arguing with you, even if i told you that this is not a personal site, and RegentsPark somehow agreed, if you had any sense in you at all: you would understand that this rule:
Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail or other reasons.
and this
Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)
ARE the exceptions of this rule:
Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fan sites. (which is not even the case here)
but you guys are too stubborn to realize it, your stupidity is really surprising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.140.83.78 ( talk) 16:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
N. W. Ayer & Son is claimed to be the first advertising agency in America, in 1869, while this article says "Volney B. Palmer opened the first American advertising agency, in Philadelphia in 1850." The Philadelphia Inquirer has a front page article today about Ayer, claiming that it was first. Which is right?-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 14:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)