Talk:Jeff Bell (executive)

Proposal to resolve tags

On behalf LegalShield and The Pollack PR Marketing Group, and as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I have drafted an updated and expanded Wikipedia article to improve this page. The current article has a warning tag saying it is written like a résumé and needs additional sources for verification, so I have focused on addressing these issues specifically. Hopefully, the banner can be removed as content is reviewed and implemented appropriately. I have also worked with Mr. Bell to ensure the draft's accuracy, and always strive to be neutral when proposing new text. As I don't edit articles directly, I'm looking for uninvolved editors to review this draft, offer feedback and move the new draft live if it is appropriate.

The draft is saved in my user space here: User:16912 Rhiannon/Jeff Bell (executive).

Key changes in my draft (shown in this diff):

• There are several "citation needed" tags in the current article; I've added appropriate sourcing for the LegalShield content, but the other unsourced content—as far as I can tell from my research—should be removed from the article and I've cut these from my draft
• Details from the current article's Awards and honors section have been integrated into the draft's Career section and I eliminated the standalone section
• The new draft expands on the existing one where possible and appropriate based on sourcing, including:
  • Adding a sentence about being born and raised in Oklahoma
  • Adding a little more on his work with LegalShield
  • Adding major board roles
  • The Microsoft/Xbox section has been expanded using reliable secondary sourcing and not just 'Giant Bomb', which is questionable
• There is now a Works section to display articles he's written

This biography is relatively short and doesn't have particularly controversial content, so I'm hoping editors will be happy to look at the whole article at once. With that said, I'd be open to working section-by-section with requests if reviewing editors prefer this method. As always, I'm happy to address any questions here or on my user talk page. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed that the new version is better; does not appear to place undue weight on anything, violate NPOV, or remove any real criticism from the existing version (there isn't any). I've copied in this version, with minor changes- readded the lead picture, removed some of the repetition (you have a pronounced tendency to fully restate the names of organizations each time you mention them, like Wharton's full name, instead of using contracted versions after the first mention), and played with the wording around common terms like CEO and Xbox. --PresN 20:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the quick and thorough review, PresN! Very much appreciated. I'm working on getting a new photo for the page, would you mind if I pinged you once I have that all set on Commons? 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@16912 Rhiannon: Yeah, that's fine. --PresN 21:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

New photo

Hi again, I've uploaded a new photo of Bell to be used in this article and have sent the release details via OTRS. (Quick disclosure: I'm working on behalf of Bell's company, LegalShield, via The Pollack PR Marketing Group as part of my work at Beutler Ink.) I'm wondering if it would be ok to add the photo into the article in the meantime, since there's usually a very long wait for OTRS. Here's the file: Jeff Bell profile photo. As you'll see, it's a much clearer image of Bell. PresN, what do you think? Can the photo be added now? Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 13:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Added, that's obviously a much better photo; given that you're working on his behalf, even if the OTRS ticket/licensing is messed up (which I doubt) it's still not an unauthorized use of the photo, so I'm fine putting it up in advance of the ticket getting reviewed. --PresN 15:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Hopefully the OTRS ticket goes smoothly. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 17:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Still reads like a PR work about someone who isn't very notable

Okay, so this article was written by someone from Bell's company with Bell advising. One might expect a rather positive writeup. But is this really considered a decent article? Bell is cited in the lede as a "chief executive and marketing leader" - ugh. Whilst he is a chief executive, the phrase "marketing leader" is hardly a neutral description. Is he widely acknowledged as such? Not from any source I can find. I'm not sure we need details of every marketing campaign he's ever run, most of which aren't exactly notable. Even the sources used to indicate how he's been credited with various things are a little lacking. Are we really to consider a puff piece in Voluntary Benefits Magazine as a reliable source? It's very unlikely that the writers of that magazine did any research - merely reporting what Bell told them. Likewise the claim that he tripled XBox live membership in two years - one might expect that such an impressive claim might be sourced from better than Bell's local newspaper. Do we need to know where he's owned homes? That seems rather fatuous in a Wikipedia article.

I'm sure Bell is pleased with this article, but I was left wondering why it exists at all. It's poorly sourced, unremarkable and goes into far too much detail about someone who, if Mr Bell and Legalshield will forgive me, isn't really very notable at all. As for his "Works", a couple of magazine articles are hardly what we mean by works. The Forbes one is also a little misleading as it's a blog-style post rather than something printed in the magazine. Practically anyone can write one of those, so it's not remarkable. The uncorrected spelling mistakes in the article rather give the game away.

I think I'm going to recommend this article for heavy editing or perhaps deletion if it cannot be brought under control. Right now it's just a hagiography of Bell. I welcome comments and won't be rushing into anything. Kodabar (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kodabar, I'm the writer who worked with Mr. Bell's associates on this entry. Although I am no longer working on behalf of his company, I care about writing neutral and encyclopedic entries, so I take this comment seriously. At the time when I proposed the new draft, the existing page had some significant issues with unsourced content, and the reviewing editor looked closely at my draft and felt it was an improvement (see discussion above). While I understand your concern with some sources identified, I'm compelled to point out the majority of sources used are major publications: The Oklahoman, Advertising Age, Variety, and Bloomberg. The "marketing leader" phrase in particular came from AdWeek. All that said, if you feel now that some of the detail is excessive, I totally understand if some pruning is needed, including the "Works" section. I'll keep an eye on this page and will try to answer any more questions if you have them. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I just find this a bizarre article. Jeff Bell seems to me like an unremarkable figure in the world of marketing, whose only notable activity has been the couple of years he worked with Microsoft and perhaps his current role. However, I can appreciate that that's perhaps a matter of opinion. And I can certainly appreciate that you've worked to improve an article that was poorly sourced. I just feel that this reads like a press release.

The phrase "marketing leader", whilst it may have come from an Advertising Age article, was used as a job description, rather than a personal accolade. He was a global marketing leader at Microsoft, but he certainly isn't now, so I'd probably phrase that sentence as "Jeff Bell is an American chief executive and former marketer." To say he's a marketing leader suggests he's an outstanding figure in marketing who has achieved (and continues to achieve) significant and innovative work in the field of marketing. Or am I reading too much into that?

To me, the whole article could be reduced to a couple of paragraphs. One about his former work, and one about his current. I don't think it's significant that his parents are from Oklahoma or what his educational background is. Nor do I think that his home ownership or where he has lived is worth noting. His works in particular seem insignificant. Anyone can contribute a blog article to Forbes and I suspect that the Ad Age article is somewhat similar.

I understand you were hired by Bell and his company to write this article and I appreciate that your work on it was reviewed by a Wikipedia administrator. But I just feel that this is a surprisingly lengthy article about a man who just doesn't seem particularly notable. I cam across this article by accident. I'm a media analyst in my day job and was surprised by it. It feels to me like an article that was intended to be used as a source for later media articles - ie that a writer from the Oklahoman or similar can be directed to Bell's Wikipedia article for background information about him. Can I ask what your brief was in editing this article? And what was the input from Bell and his associates? Kodabar (talk) 09:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I've now edited the article to better reflect Wikipedia policy. I've removed the 'works' section because a couple of online articles don't constitute works. I've removed Bell's local newspaper as a source - whilst they're no doubt fine for local events, the profile information was no researched by them, but handed to them by Bell or his assistants. I've removed minor marketing accolades (such as those from Min magazine) - if they don't exist and never rated their own wiki article, they're probably not noteworthy. I've removed a lot of repeated links - it's good to link to the Microsoft article the first time they're mentioned, but not every time they are. I've also cut down the number of references - it's enough to provide one reference for his move to another company, not three or four. I removed the mention of joining the Forbes Technology Council as it's a paid membership, not an appointment or an accolade.

The article still needs more work. There's very little information between 2014 and now and many references are current as of 2014, but never updated. The overall number of references still needs to be revised down to just reputable ones and to get rid of the sheer number of reference tags.Kodabar (talk) 13:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

COI edit requests

Hi! Posting here on behalf of LegalShield, a client of mine, with some requested updates to this article:

Lead

• Update "markets pre-paid legal services in the United States and Canada" to "markets legal and privacy management services in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada".

 Done

Career

• Add just above "Board service":

Bell was accepted to join the Forbes Technology Council in January 2017.

 Done

Works

• Add:

• "You Can Be a Good Citizen And Still Protect Your Privacy". Forbes. April 22, 2020.
• "Coping With A Pandemic: LegalShield's Jeff Bell". Law360. May 7, 2020.

Due to my COI, I won't be making any edits directly. I appreciate any help or feedback. Thanks! Mary Gaulke (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

This edit request was implemented by Penny75. I am marking this request as answered. Altamel (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Altamel and Penny75: Thanks both for your time/help! Just to confirm – it sounds like the "Works" additions were rejected? Just want to make sure they didn't get missed. Thanks again. Mary Gaulke (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

References