Talk:Advertising agency/Archives/2012

Expansion/Cleaning of article

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).

Media & Traffic

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

Famous advertising agencies

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)

I disagree. There ought to be some objective way of vetting "famous" ad agencies. I am not sure what the criteria would be but I would think that if it came up with a famous ad campaign and it has its own wikipedia article then that would be one criterion. If wikipedia can list notable websites (craigslist.org, yahoo.com, google.com) and notable corporations (microsoft,Enron, Philip Morris) then it can certainly list notable ad agencies. MPS 17:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

My reason for proposing this deletion is primarly because of the potential for abuse. Take a quick look through the history and notice all of the anon IPs adding their non-notable agency. It's maddening. Monkeyman^(talk) 18:00, 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)

How Agencies Charge and Protect Their Creation

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?

This is a very complex story, which I will try to explain later on. To already answer your second last question: as long as the client has not bought the idea the agency proposed him, it will remain the "property" of the agency. Which means it's a copyright infrignment when the client would go to a low-cost agency with that idea. If a large company wants to start up an advertising campaign, it will usually organise a "pitch" in which a small number of agencies "battle" to win this campaign. Usually, agencies are not paid if they do not win the pitch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.45.45 (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge Interactive agency into Advertising agency

The Interactive agency stub is tiny and would do well as a section in this article. Comments? ∴ here…♠ 23:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. ∴ here…♠ 20:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC) 194.6.79.200 (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

External Advertising Agencies Page

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 :

1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article : NO
2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints which such sites are presenting. NO
3. Any site that attempts to surreptitiously install malware onto a visitor's computer. NO
4. Links mainly intended to promote a website. See External link spamming. NO (site is purely informational and is not selling or promoting anything)

1. Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. For example, in the mobile phone article, don't link to web pages that mostly promote or advertise cell-phone products or services. NO
2. Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation.[1] See below. NO
3. Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser or in a specific country. NO
4. Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required. NO
5. Links to any search results pages, such as links to individual website searches, search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds. NO
6. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook),[2] chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists. NO
7. 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). NO
8. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. NO
9. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked. NO
10. Lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers. NO
11. Links to sites already linked through Wikipedia sourcing tools. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, consider the "ISBN" linking format, which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. Wikipedia:Map sources can be linked by using geographical coordinates. NO
12. Links that are not reliably functional, or likely to continue being functional. For example, links to temporary internet content, where the link is unlikely to remain operable for a useful amount of time. NO
13. Affiliate, tracking or referral links i.e. links that contain information about who is to be credited for readers that follow the link. If the source itself is helpful use a neutral link without the tracking information. NO
14. Placing external links on Wikipedia navigation pages such as disambiguation, redirect and category. NO —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdvertisingWriter (talk • contribs) 07:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

To all appearances, this is in fact a personal web page, and it this fails point #7. - MrOllie (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

AdvertisingWriter:

This is not a blog, personal page or a fan site, it is a professional non-profit ORG website, i added that source according to this :

  * 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)

Hello, I have a question. How do you know exactly that the site is "a professional non-profit ORG website" ? because I just checked it and I can't find any information about this. No copyright notice, no "About Us" page, no mission statement, and of course the only email listed is a generic Yahoo address. So, as MrOllie mentioned, it seems pretty obvious that it's a personal page which is clearly against the policy on external links. I'd also like to remind you of the policy of conflict of interest. If you are the person editing that website, coming here to push for its inclusion is not acceptable. Last thing, please don't forget to sign your comment by adding ~~~~ at the end. Thanks. McSly (talk) 00:10, 18 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)

Hello again. I'm sorry but you didn't answer my question at all. My question is _HOW_ do you know that this site is professional ? You just said "the website content is professional", without providing any reason for that assertion. The fact that it "looks" professional doesn't buy you anything. Anybody can pick and use a blogspot template, that proves nothing. And by the way, anybody can buy a .org domain name.

So my question stands. And we certainly don't agree on the answer. If this is a personal site, it cannot stay. So let's recap what we have. You just confirmed that you have no relationship with that site and thus no COI, which of course means that you don't have any knowledge about it and no way to have any special information about it that wouldn't be available to all of us for checking. We also know that the site doesn't have many characteristics of a professional site, no copyright notice, no "About Us" page, no mission statement, no corporate logo, no privacy policy, the only email listed is a generic Yahoo address. All of these missing basic features of a professional site point to the rather obvious conclusion which is that it's a personal page.

So, please provide specific reasons on why this site is in fact professional. Keep in mind that since you are the one who want the link inserted, the burden of proof is entirely on you. I also like to remind you if necessary of the WP:3R policy on reverting as you have reached your limit for today. McSly (talk) 02:05, 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)

I was about to actually, but first let's do a quick one. Very easy question. Since apparently, this site is not a personal site, this means that an organization (company, non profit, government) is behind it. So please give me the name for that organization ? That should be easy right ? Just go to the site, it has to be listed somewhere ?

But obviously you can't do that because for the same reasons you have been dodging that question all day, it is pretty clear for any half awake 12 year old that this website is a personal page. For all the reasons that I listed above and that you failed to address.

So let me put it as plainly as I can. RedCross.org is a Non profit, I can name the organization behind, it's the Red Cross. AdCouncil.org is an informational website and I can name the organization behind it, it's the Ad Council. I can easily find press releases, newspaper articles, financial reports about these 2 organizations. So your task (remember, the burden of proof is on you) is to provide the same information for the link you want included. By definition, if there is no organization behind it, it means it's a personal page (which is what I meant when I removed the link before since you couldn't show it was a professional site, by elimination, it had to be a personal one).

One more thing, you have now reverted the page 4 times in less than 24 hours which makes you in violation of WP:3R. McSly (talk) 04:37, 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)

I don't have any problems with Non-Profit Educational Website such as JREF because there is a clear known, notable organization behind it. I have a problem with some random personal website because they don't meet any criteria for notability, which is clearly the case here. But anyway, we are not getting anywhere here so it's time to go to the next level and ask for a third opinion. McSly (talk) 05:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

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) 

I don't think that the linked site will qualify as a reliable source. You'll need to find other sources. However, that's between you and the other editors on this page. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 06:28, 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?

No. The material in the website is of the sort that should be in our article but you cannot just use that material because that would be a copyright violation for sure and could also be considered plagiarism. The point of the 'featured article' caveat in WP:ELNO is that wikipedia should attempt to comprehensively cover a topic directly in the encyclopedia rather than referring the reader to other sources. An externally linked article should contain material that does not have a proper place in the pedia itself. If the linked page consists of material that should be in the encyclopedia then we don't link to that article but attempt to make our own article more comprehensive by adding content and using reliable sources to validate that content. In other words, we do the leg work ourselves. The issue with the website is that it is a personal page and is unsourced. Although the material looks reasonable, we don't link to personal pages because there is no way to validate the content. Because there is no way to validate the content, we can't use it as a source (it is not reliable). Finally, we can't just copy the material, or even use it in a modified form, because that would be a copyright violation. This might appear to be a catch-22 kind of situation but the underlying reasons are good - we don't subcontract encyclopedic material and we try to use reliable sources directly. I'm afraid that the only reasonable thing to do at this point is to remove the link and wait for someone to do the leg work (find sources and add content). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 07:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

hello RegentsPark. Thanks a lot for your input on this matter. So I'm going to remove the link but feel free to revert me if you think we should wait for more feedback. I'll try to add some sources for the article in the next few weeks. McSly (talk) 05:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

First advertising agency in America

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)

Advertising#History says 'Around 1840, Volney B. Palmer established a predecessor to advertising agencies in Boston." Perhaps what Palmer did was a predecessor to the modern advertising agency, while N. W. Ayer & Son was the first true modern advertising agency in America. Interesting, too, that Boston, not Philadelphia, is mentioned. I have edited Philadelphia#Innovation to claim the first advertising agency for Philadelphia, citing Ayer, not Palmer. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)