Talk:Act-On/Archives/2014

Improvement

I am affiliated with Act-On. I originally submitted this article to AfC in 2012. Since then, the article has gotten very out-of-date. Upon a fresh look, I also felt the dedicated Awards section was promotional, the Technical section trivial, and that it wasn't really fair to mention the MarketBright acquisition without including that MarketBright was struggling, which is prominent in the sources. I also found that the software was much more notable than the company, so it should be a software page with a Background section to talk about the company, rather than a company page. Finally, I also found some really comprehensive reviews, that I think in addition to making the Reception section more comprehensive, will balance it just a tad by including more criticisms (their reviews are generally positive, but these new reviews have a pretty balanced take).

I've prepared a revised at: User:CorporateM/Act-On and I was hoping an impartial editor would take a look and provide any feedback, assess whether it is an improvement and so on.

One item I would appreciate input on specifically is the blog "Customer Experience Matrix." It appears to be a self-published blog hosted on blogspot, but authored by an industry analyst. If it is reliable I think it could be used to expand the Version history section.

I realize it is difficult to compare two versions when the current article is already reasonably developed. Let me know if there is a better way to do it. CorporateM (Talk) 18:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't like that you buried the founding/history narrative at the bottom. It makes it seem more like an ad than the current version. Gigs (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done I moved Background to the top. CorporateM (Talk) 18:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

OK I put it in. Please fix the images and such. Gigs (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for such a quick review Gigs!! I also started an RSN post here about the Customer Experience Matrix source and fixed the images. Once the community figures out the best way to handle that source, I'll go ahead and nominate for GA. GA reviews (when done well) tend to weed out some subtle bias that is unavoidable with COI and help make sure it's neutral. Sincerely appreciate you taking the time to give it a read. CorporateM (Talk) 20:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Minor comment

In discussing Act-On's origins, this source says:

1. "The business idea... [was that] webinars... were not integrated... [with] email marketing and marketing automation systems."
2. "Raghu then... built a prototype that integrated an online marketing platform with WebEx and Salesforce"

Should the article go with number 1 with something like

"was conceived... as a way to integrate webinars with marketing automation software"

Or with number 2

"The software was originally built to integrate WebEx and Salesforce with online marketing software"

One of the biggest differences being that "marketing automation software" is a very specific thing, while "online marketing software" may be broader.

Pinging @user:Edge3 for his quick thoughts. CorporateM (Talk) 22:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I think either option is fine, but your number 2 option more closely reflects the source. Let's take a look at the original source text: "The two believed that webinars were critical online marketing tools however were not integrated with the current mix of email marketing and marketing automation software systems." This sentence mentions only what Raghavan and Iyar were discussing at the time; it does not represent what actually came into fruition. Therefore, it is not entirely correct to say "Act-On was conceived in 2004...as a way to integrate webinars with marketing automation software." Number 2 is better because it explicitly mentions WebEx and Salesforce, which aren't used solely for webinars (as the WP article currently implies).

Feel free to revise as you deem appropriate, and don't forget to wikilink Salesforce if you mention it. It might also be useful to split this sentence, or else it might get cluttered with the mention of Raghavan and Iyar. Edge3 (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)