This is an archive of past discussions about Social media marketing. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Throughout this article it is quite narrow in its coverage. As the criteria of good article, it lacks of main aspects of the topic. We cannot figure out what Social Media Marketing is in specific by reading this article.
Hence, we should add precise definition of Social Media Marketing and more theories about it. First of all, the features and advantages different from traditional media marketing should be added. In this way, people will know exactly the characteristics of Social Media Marketing. Furthermore, the methods of how to evaluate the propagation effects of Social Media Marketing are significant when introducing the SMM. So we could add two evaluation ways-- Quantitative Evaluation and Qualitative Evaluation.Dooorisa (talk) comment added 11:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Good point! Moreover, as the article page suggesting, I think there are some unnecessary details included in this article. It lists too many social network sites in the tactic part instead of some verified theories, making it appear to be not neutral enough and written like an advertisement. Thus, on one hand, we can add theoretical foundations to the tactic section, such as how to target customers precisely, how to generate full strategies and how to survey and analyze dataset. On the other hand, according to a research paper, Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin, Blogs and Youtube are the top five popular social marketing media, so we can simply keep these five example and delete other examples. Clamking (talk) comment added 21:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC).
It’s a really good idea. I also find some awesome images to illustrate the social media marketing strategies and the advantages of social media marketing compared with the traditional media marketing.Dooorisa (talk) comment added 21:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. And have you noticed that there are some invalid citations in this article? For example, Citation 1 is invalid because the webpage is no longer existed. And we should also remove those citations that look like advertisements such Citation 18. Clamking (talk) comment added 22:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC).
