Talk:Brand awareness

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 7 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ShawnBoom.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Under construction?

I'm not sure if this article is still under construction or not, so I've left a message on the authors' talk page asking them to add an 'underconstruction' tag if they're still working on it. CultureDrone (talk) 10:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Nearing Completion

I have spent several days restructuring the page on Brand awareness. It appeared to have become a dumping ground for all manner of unrelated content. I have:

• created new headings and sub-headings in an effort to provide an overall structure
• written new content, where applicable
• added new references, both scholarly and popular
• removed passages that contained conceptual problems or internal contradictions
• removed passages that were too repetitive or ambiguous in meaning
• tried to retain as much content as practical from that supplied by previous editors
• reworked existing content to integrate it into the page's main theme and fix up expression, where applicable
• added internal links to other relevant Wikipedia pages
• added a number of images - some created by myself in Photoshop, and others sourced from Wiki Commons

A couple of issues remain to be resolved:

• The case study on Mini offers no fresh insights and could be deleted without any loss of value?
• The discussion on 'types of brand awareness' is totally at odds with the Wikipedia page on "Brand" - which is not at all surprising since the content within the 'Brand' page contradicts itself in a number of places. I am not sure whether separate Wikipedia entries need to be consistent (internal consistency?). However, the task of updating the content on the 'Brand' page would require a lot of work as well as considerable expertise. This would be challenging given that previous contributors have been loose with interpretations, and skimpy with academic references.

I believe that the page is in relatively good shape, and has a overall guiding structure which may be useful to future contributors. The content is now well sourced - from reliable academic sources, and also popular sources where appropriate.

I believe that the tag about it being "like an essay" (too personal and lacking encyclopedic style) could be removed at this stage?

BronHiggs (talk) 02:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion copied from User Talk Page

Removal of External Links: Brand awareness

The WP:El policy does not include a maximum or minimum number of external links. Although it says that external links should be kept to a minimum, it qualifies this by noting "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic". The links that were included included on this page were carefully selected for the purpose. In my view, 6 links is by no means excessive for an article of the size and complexity of Brand awareness.

For each of the following links that you chose to delete, would you kindly provide explanations as to why they should not be included on the page. If you are unable to do so, would you kindly reinstate them at your earliest convenience.

• Association for International Product Marketing and Management (AIPMM)

• Journal of Brand Management (Palgrave-Macmillan)

• The Branding Journal

• Journal of Product and Brand Management (Emerald)

• Journal of Brand Strategy

• Product Management Association

As I am sure you are aware, it is not enough to simply cite WP policy as the reason for reversion. It is expected that you show precisely how the policy applies in each specific case. Thank-you in anticipationBronHiggs (talk) 09:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

PS. I should have pointed out that links to four high ranking journals and two peak industry associations can hardly be seen as 'poor quality' external links. BronHiggs (talk) 10:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, BronHiggs. Thanks for stopping by! Before removing the links, I visited each to see if they improved the understanding of the article's subject. I found them to not be very helpful in that regard. Additionally, not all of the links were still pointing to valid websites. One of the links you've listed above is a Deadlink, which has no place in the EL section.

Per WP:EL: "Some external links are welcome..., but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link".

The article in question here is Brand Awareness. All links should address Brand Awareness, for sure. Those links address Associations and/or Journals about Brand Awareness for Brand Awareness professionals. I can see how most folks would think these are the same, of course. My suggestion would be: if these are Notable Journals and Associations, that a Wikipedia article is written for them and the external links to them placed on each of their articles. This would improve Wikipedia (allowing for readers to learn more about these Journals and Associations) and keep these external links (on their appropriate articles). If Wikipedia articles already exist, please add wikilinks to the body of the Article (if appropriate) or to the See Also (though, one or the other, please).

Thanks again for stopping by and chatting about this! And, thank you for improving Wikipedia! Stesmo (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Stesmo: Thank-you for your response. You are right to draw my attention to one link, which while not "dead", directs to a non-existent page on a fully operational website. The link was working well enough at the time when it was added, several weeks ago. That it has become a misdirect in the interim suggests that the page in question is unstable and should be amended.

I regret that your other comments do nothing to persuade me that the 6 specific links are not useful to users of Wikipedia. Some of these links provide access to articles, case studies and other information that common sense would suggest is of great benefit to students of marketing. Nor am I persuaded that 6 links consistitute a "lengthy", "comprehensive" or "excessive" listing of external links in the context of this article. I am happy to add these links back to the article along with a brief explanation as to usefulness of each item - as had been my original intention before my attention was diverted by several articles that were misleading and much in need of attention and which, in my mind at the time, became a higher priority. At the time, I incorrectly formed the impression that external links were relatively innocuous - but as you and several other editors have seen fit to delete external links from articles in the marketing area, I have been forced to revise my view on this subject and I now view external links as much higher priority.

As far as journals are concerned, there are standard independent ranking schemes (See, http://www.abdc.edu.au/master-journal-list.php for the Australian rankings of international and local journals- there are US and UK equivalents, but I just don't have the URLs handy), so it is no secret as to which journals are high ranking. As far as industry associations are concerned, I am wondering whether former links to U.S. associations doesn't constitute a form of inadvertent bias. I am now thinking that the list of external links should be expanded to include peak industry bodies in other English speaking countries including the UK, Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, India, Singapore and Malaysia.

I have no intentions of writing new articles for Wikipedia. My mission for the past several months has been to improve the quality of marketing and advertising articles, many of which contain serious factual errors, fundamental conceptual flaws and in many cases internal contradictions, to the extent that these articles have become highly misleading, confusing or downright unitelligible. Sadly, some of the more serious errors, some of which have been in place for 8-10 years, are beginning to to find their way into text-books and journal articles - which is a great concern to me and to marketing academics/ professionals in general. Any work which takes time and attention away from my priority of improving articles is of little interest to me. I simply could not justify the time to develop a new article when older articles desperately require restructuring, reconceptualisation, the addition of reliable sources and the removal of internal contradictions.

If, after adding explanations for each of the links, you are still of a mind to delete, then perhaps we would be best advised to seek the opinion of a 3rd party in this regard. BronHiggs (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Stesmo: I am copying this discussion to the talk page of 'Brand Awareness' BronHiggs (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)