Talk:Promotional item

message: I believe that "Swag" can also stand for "So what, another giveaway."
:Or "Some Worthless Advertising Gimmick", "Scientific Wild Ass Guess", "Stuff We All Get", "Stolen Without A Gun", "Stuff We Ain't Got", "Shitty Worthless Ass Gift", "Samples, Wearables, and Gifts", ... These are all backronyms are are probably not the true etymology. 208.201.253.21 (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology

message: There are at least 23K of them, so I'm thinking that only vendors who meet WP:CORP belong here. Ronabop 05:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vendors

message: Based on this request being made in January, and no objections, I went ahead with the merge. For some reason, though, the target link when you now go to "Advertising Specialties" does not go straight to this article, if anyone can fix that it would be much appreciated. Jkraybill 16:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: They are interchangeable.  Advertising Specialties is the older of the phrases but Promotional products has become more widly used in the past 10 years.  4-6-07
I think either can be used.  Advertising specialties refers to a range of items beyond just "products" - like cups, mugs and pens.  It also encompasses embroidered clothing and branded merchandise, and refers directly to what the purpose of the products are - to "advertise" a company's logo and brand.  In business terms, they "advertise."  "Promotional products" works, but the term is a bit limiting.  Concert marketers do "promoting," while logoed merchandise "advertises."
I disagree with the above comments.  Cups, mugs, and pens are "products."  I don't see your point.  Promotional products and advertising specialties are synonymous.  Advertising specialties was the common term in the past, but now its most people in the industry say promotional products.  Also, "advertising specialties" incorporates the branding of the for-profit Advertising Specialty Institute. --Constana 18:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotional Products or Advertising Specialties 

message: Today I added several citations, deleted some editorial and spam content, and reworded a couple sentences with questionable grammar. Disclosure: I am employed by a promotional products company, but further disclosure: I strongly oppose spam, articles without sources, and commercial content on Wikipedia! I added links to a PDF document, the "State of the Industry" by Counselor Magazine, which can be a bit markety for outsiders but is produced by the main independent body that covers the industry. It is certainly very pro-industry, but their numbers tend to be well-researched and I have not found any other reliable source for the figures they present. Jkraybill 17:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Citations 

message: I've just added an external link to a blog that has an article on it that shows how promotional products can be shown to have a good return on investment.  This is a difficult thing to demonstrate within this particular context and any extra information can be helpful I believe.  Lindaph1 (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proving that promotional gifts work 

message: In an episode of "The Office", character Michael Scott attends a job fair and refers to Swag as "Stuff we all get".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by [jocago] (User:jocago talk) 15:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop-culture references 

message: The page Promotional item is tagged "globalize/US", meaning it is too focused on the US context and neglects other areas. The page Promotional merchandise is tagged for multiple issues, including its focus on the UK and Ireland. Both articles treat largely the same topic. I see no reason why these pages should not be merged. This would strengthen both articles, and eliminate duplication. Cnilep (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So long as you cite your sources, that will be fine. Bulk of information that's based only on your own experience, on the other hand, wouldn't be verifiable by the article readers. - MrOllie (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion