Talk:Legal advertising

The people vs. Kreuzer, Turnwald-Wacker, Müller was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 16 March 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Legal advertising. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Legal advertising was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 10, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

Marketing & Advertising Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merger

I would like to merge Legal marketing into this article. I would go along with the vice versa, merging this one into that one. Bearian 14:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no objections, and being bold, I am merging these two. Bearian 19:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

________

Hi I am new to Wikipedia...

I hope this is the correct place to post this thought:

I do not think that Legal Marketing should be a sub-category of Legal Advertising

Just think about the 5P's of 'Marketing' - 'Promotion' (I,e, advertising) is a subheading of marketing.

In addition - everyone says that Legal Marketing started with the advertisement of Bates & O'Steen.. but they were advertising a 'Legal Clinic.' A 'Legal Clinic' was a new law firm model / strategy created by the law firm of Jacoby & Meyers 1 year before... so we must ask does Legal Marketing begin with a 'advertisement' or with a 'strategy' (a strategy that takes into account all of the 5P's of marketing). Josexolo

Failed GA

I'm failing this article as a GA for a number of reasons that I don't see can be addressed in a short time.

Broadness
- The article is very US-Centric. It must cover the topic much more widely
- Law spans thousands of years, advertising many hundreds but the article mentions nothing prior to 1977. A section on the history of advertising of legal firms is required. The article suffers from Recentism
- Misses having the legal (and historic ) basis for banning advertising by lawyers, why this is objected to and what arguments over time have been used on both sides - whether successful or not.
- Far too short - expanding to the rest of the world and expanding the timeframe will probably correct this
Well written
- I would suggest a peer review after the material is expanded as currently there are many single sentence paragraphs and grammar mistakes (like 1990's rather than 1990s )
- Article contradicts itself at least once. At the beginning the term is said to cover "marketing and public relations" but the last section before the references confuses this.
References
- While many of the references are acceptable the blog link, and the two notes about internet searches should be replaced with published and printed sources. These new sources are most likely to result in the referenced text changing as well
- Printed paper sources are best for a subject like this. The internet is unlikely to reveal anything significant beyond the last 20-30 years.

- Peripitus (Talk) 08:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]