Talk:Marketing strategy/Archives/2012

What is this "conviction marketing" stuff doing here ?

It has nothing to do in a general marketing strategy article, as it is just an approach among many others. This part should be transfered to a specific article. --Pgreenfinch I agree, can someone with wikipedia knowledge flag this article to be split -K

This is sad

Once again, we can clearly see why marketing is excluded from boardrooms. This article is nonsense - the very first sentence is ridiculous.

Please discuss page moves before acting

I moved this page back to its origin after it was moved to Markets chapter 1 on March 26. Please discuss all page moves and other such major changes on the talk page before taking action, not just on this entry but on all articles. Thanks. KrakatoaKatie 18:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that restoration. Although taxonomically, I also agree with previous posters that this article could be abstracted further & improved (although 'Market Chapter 1' would be an imprecise tag). There are also ma links, cross references and splits possible - eg. with with Gaming Theory, Psychology, Statistics, others...more work to do I feel.--Rjcain 08:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I put a {{cleanup-rewrite}} tag on this page, it needs a major rewrite. Especially the last sentence. This is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 06:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I attempted a re-write of the first half of this entry -- I agree with the others that it was a mess. I'm a marketing professor and have included references to seminal works that most marketers would agree reflect the best of marketing strategy, as well as a summary article I use with students that paraphrases much of the marketing strategy literature.

I would like to re-write the second half of this entry but I wanted to get input from the community before making this change. In my current edits, I have attempted to add references and completeness, without destroying totally the work and references already there. A further re-write would involve eliminating much of what is already there and replacing it with material more germane to this subject area. In a re-write I would include issues such as critical elements of marketing strategy, such as market orientation, strategic tools, such as the BCG model and product-market grids, as well as the issue of metrics, such as ROI, in both establishing strategic direction and monitoring performance of the plan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angela.hausman (talk • contribs) 19:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. I left most of it, but I did go back to the older version of the lede, because it is best not to have a definition that it sourced to someone's personal site. - MrOllie (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Structure for improvement

Would it maybe be possible to pre-agree on a structure for the article and try to keep the article as precise as possible? Obviously, the goal of the article is to describe what a marketing strategy is. Based on this, I would suggest that the article ought to contain
- one or more definitions of "marketing strategy",
- a short description of the historical development of different types of marketing strategies (without describing them),
- a section on how organizations develop marketing strategies (strategic analyses of the micro- and macro-environment), and
- a typology of marketing strategies (e.g. competitive strategies [Michael Porter], product-price positioning strategies, new game strategies, etc.).
Regarding the typology I have no idea how much detail would benefit the description of the strategies, so with respect to that issue your opinions are particularly welcome. Concerning the present state of the article, I would definitely outsource real-life marketing to an article of its own as I don't perceive any legitimate reason why it should be crunched on this article (storage capacity on Wikipedia is not scarce). Whether or not the "strategic models" section should be kept or not (maybe outsourced to an article of its own) is also a subject on which debate would be highly welcome. Bests, --Arbraxan (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)