Talk:Marketing communications

message: I don't know that an advertisement for a university belongs in this definition.  If so, may all universities now add their course offerings and promotional information to all definitiions?  I don't think you want that.
 How is integration relevant to communications and/or marketing?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilmarisD (talk • contribs) 02:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Marketing

message: This article -- however small and insignificant in the grander scheme of things -- is really a non-article. "Human resources to human solutions". Gimme a break. The acute reader has probably noticed the quote doesn't even mean anything. This article needs to be either a) translated to human language, or b) deleted. 128.214.133.2 (talk) 07:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Consultese

message: Just came across this article. I agree that it needs work and I am amazed that since 2008 nothing has happened. A total rewrite will take some time but I propose to start with a properly sourced definition. Anyone have any good sources for this? Andrew Hennigan (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Full ack. See my thoughts below. Sorry for being 4 years late. -- Kku 19:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs Work

message: Both articles appear to come from similar sources, maybe the same author. Both are quite roundabout and tend towards bullshit bingo. Both are about communications in marketing. "Integrated xyz" might be a technical term in its own right with a particularization of "xyz" in some contexts, here it seems to be the even more general lemma as compared to "xyz" (with xyz=="Marketing communications"). Given the almost complete absence of any original thought (the great number of references notwithstanding) or clear definition in both, I think the world wouldn't suffer too much if we kept one "integrated" (or rather: combined) lemma and shortened both parts in the process. Immensely redundant meta-scientific ramblings about communication could readily be replaced by appropriate wikilinks, for example. -- Kku 19:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge 

message: This is a terrible article. Much of it is incomprehensible. But this article needs much, much more than improved expression.  Like so many other marketing articles, it lacks an organising framework and exhibits major omissions. It is desperately in need of a logical structure so that it flows and to avoid unnecessary repetitions.
Specific Problems
1. Major Omission Number 1: Where are the elements of the marketing communications mix (advertising, PR, sales promotion, personal selling, etc)?  By understanding how the communications mix consists of many, diverse elements can readers begin to understand the necessity for integrating messages across a broad range of activities and media platforms.
1a. Other Omissions:  I cannot see any mention of other channels such as cinema, catalogues, brochures, billboards and out-of-home media, taxi-backs and other new media. Nor can I see any mention of other types of promotion such as sampling, point of sale displays, brand-oriented websites, virtual brand communities, trade fairs, exhibitions, event marketing, trade shows etc - the latter are VERY important for reaching distribution intermediaries and essential if the marketer is using a "push strategy".  Finally, there is no mention of internal marketing communications - communicating the corporate values and vision to employees and internal stakeholders - another VERY important activity as firms shift from transaction based marketing to relationship marketing and especially important for service firms. Surely these are worthy of at least passing mention? 
2. Traditional media (heading 5): This section appears to consist of a list of main advertising media. Fair enough, but how is this different from Heading 6 Communications Platforms?  Surely, they are all media and should all be included under the same heading.  And, how is any of this different from 6.8. E-communications which also covers the internet, cellphones etc and arguably represent different types of media or channel. Currently, the Internet is covered in three sections, namely  6.8.1 The Internet and 6.2 The Internet (and also briefly mentioned in 6.5 in-product comms). These channels all need to be collapsed together and integrated within a logical framework.
3. Balance:  Far more weight is given to "communications platforms" than "traditional media" in terms of verbiage. Yet, in terms of adspend, traditional media still accounts for the majority of budgets. The treatment of alternative media options requires considerably greater balance. Digital media might be sexy, but they are cheap and therefore don't consume so much of the overall promotional budget.
4. Social mediation: (appears to be a process) What is this doing in the middle of the discussion on "communications platforms"? Has social media (a communications media or platform) been confused with social mediation (a process where influencers have some sort of impact on message credibility)
5.  Marketing mix: What is this doing in the middle of the article? Marcomms is one element in the marketing mix - it might be worth mentioning in the opening section for the sake of context, but doesn't need its own heading. Other articles on WP cover this topic. No need to repeat material that is covered elsewhere.
6.  Branding What is this doing in the middle of the article?  Surely the more important issue is that there are different types of marketing communications - brand-oriented communications, corporate oriented communications and other types (e.g. political, pro-social, not-for-profit - all with their unique challenges) Other pages on WP cover branding - there's just no need to go over it again - and especially no need for a brief history of branding in the middle of this article. 
7.  Opinion Leaders: There's a lengthy section on opinion leaders bang smack in the middle of the communications model  (heading 4.1) where it is not a good fit. The terms, opinion leaders and influencers seem to be used interchangeably, but there are no definitions - so we cannot really say whether they refer to the same type of person. Have these terms been conflated? Or are they really the same thing?  We also have mention of opinion leaders in no less than six different sections (see below). This level of repetition is unnecessary, confusing and potentially boring to readers. It also underlines the need for a strong organising framework that develops ideas and themes in a logical manner.
Sections which currently canvass opinion leaders/ influencers:
* 2.1 Pyschology of communications
* 4.0 Communications process 
* 4.1. Opinion leaders and opinion formers
* 4.3 Adjusted model of communications
* 6.0 Communications platforms
* 6.1. Social mediation 
8. Adjusted model of communications (heading 4.3): Why do we need to know about the adjusted communications model, when we haven't even been given the benefit of the original model (that is the model that was in use before it needed adjustment) nor given any insight into what was so wrong about earlier models that they even needed adjusting? Seriously??? What is this about?? I have been working in marketing and advertising for some 40 years and have never heard of this adjusted model! Is the reference reliable and does it reflect a consensus view in the literature?
9.  Lack of managerial perspective:  This article is very descriptive (and poorly-written description at that). It simply describes various activities, phenomena and media, but without giving any real indication as to how or why they are used to solve marketing related problems. This article needs a much stronger managerial or analytical perspective.
10. Trends in Marcomms: Marketing communications has undergone profound changes in last decade or two - fragmentation of audiences, fragmentation of media, changing role of advertising agencies, rise of in-house agencies,  the demise of the 'disruption model' in favour of the 'conversation/dialogue' approach, the rise of relationship marketing, new types of advertising (e.g. behavioural targeting), the advent of adblocking, mass-customisation, co-creation of value, reduced advertising and promotion budgets, increased accountability for marketing and advertising managers, the importance of measuring advertising and communications effects. These trends present both challenges and new opportunities. Yet, the reader gets no sense of these profound changes which not only affect the way consumers attend to promotional messages, but also change the marketer's role and how they seek to communicate wit their target markets and target audiences.
The article on Integrated marketing communications is of no better quality than this article. Surely the two could be merged with the best bits from each used to form a new article that has a bit of substance and does justice to the topic? It doesn't matter whether it's called marketing communications or integrated marketing communications, since all communications in this day and age SHOULD BE integrated. 
I strongly recommend that this article be merged with integrated marketing communications (which already has a lot of support on this talk page) and I have posted a suggestion for a new structure of the two articles on the Talk page of the Integrated Marketing Communications article. Some of the existing content from both articles could be located under the new, suggested headings, however, considerable new content would need to be developed.
If we can agree, more or less, on a structure, perhaps editors could then take responsibility for developing a single heading or sub-heading. In this way, the entire article could be rewritten in just a few weeks.  (Note that there are so many articles in the marketing area that a screaming out for attention and restructure that I cannot undertake it all! We really need editors in the marketing area who are prepared to make substantive contributions/ undertake content development - rather than simply make Wiki tweaks). 
I would encourage interested editors and others to have a look at the article on Advertising management which is currently undergoing restructure with major content development (also see the Talk page on that article) for a few ideas about how imposing an overall organisational structure or framework will help to sequence the topics in a logical order that flows, with each section building on the previous section, so that the article adds real value and makes it worthwhile for users to consult it. This suggested structure also serves as a work plan for prospective editors.
BronHiggs (talk) 08:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Desperately in need of restructure  

message: This page needs help - but the help it needs isn't being tagged 7 times over the course 3 years. I removed it - add them back (as needed), but please attempt to be bold and make some fixes yourself instead of waiting for others to take the lead. I've added this page to my watch list (and overhaul list) - but don't wait for me to fix it. Garchy (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: Here follows a few quotes, taken from authoritative sources about the current widepread acceptance and practice of IMC. Disciplines change - they evolve over time. IMC is widely regarded as an important evolution in marketing communications, and has been widely accepted for more than 20 years.
: "The planning and execution of all marketing communication should be integrated." Source: Larry Percy, Strategic Integrated Marketing Communications, Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2008, p. 14 [emphasis original]
:"The emergence of integrated marketing communications (IMC) has become a significant example of development in the marketing discipline. It has influenced thinking and acting among all types of companies and organizations facing the realities of competition in an open economy." Source: Olof Holm, (2006) "Integrated marketing communication: from tactics to strategy", Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp.23-33, https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280610643525
: "The findings [in a multi-country study on the application of IMC] indicate that IMC is not a short-lived managerial fad, nor is it just a reworking of existent theory or practice. Instead, IMC is a very clear reaction by advertising agencies and their clients as they are affected by a multitude of factors such as new forms of information technology including development and usage of databases, media fragmentation, client desires for interaction/synergy, and global and regional coordination. " Source: Kitchen, P.J. and Schultz, D.E. "A Multi-Country Comparison of the Drive for IMC." Journal of Advertising Research, 1999, Vol. 39, no. p. 21
:An integrated approach  "has emerged as the dominant approach used by companies to plan and execute their marketing communication programs." Source: Belch, G.E and Belch, M.A., "Evaluating the Effectiveness of Elements of Integrated Marketing Communications: A Review of Research," Occasional Paper, San Diego State University, 2016 <Online: https://cbaweb.sdsu.edu/assets/files/imc/abstracts/effect-imc.doc>
: "The most marked example of progress in marketing communications is the emergence of Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC)." Source: Kitchen, P.J., "New paradigm – IMC – under fire", Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, Vol. 15 Issue: 1, 2005, p.72, <Online: https://doi.org/10.1108/cr.2005.15.1.72> 
: "Research has shown that IMC is indeed a new paradigm and can be quite successfully deployed by all types of firms in the new millennium." Source: Ichul, L., Han, D. and Schultz, D., "Understanding the Diffusion of Integrated Marketing Communications," Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 44, No. 1, 2004, p. 31
: "IMC has given rise to different theoretical models and understandings."  Source: Cornelissen, J.P., Christensen, L. and Vijn, P., "Understanding the Development and Diffusion of Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC): A Metaphorical Perspective, NRG Working Paper No. 06-02, 2006, p.1
: "IMC makes "good sense." Source:  Pettigrew, L.S., "If IMC is so Good, Why Isn't Being Implemented: Barriers to IMC Adoption in Corporate Amercia," Journal of Integrated Communication, 2000-2001
: "The general acceptance of the IMC discourse may... be explained by reference to its rhetorical appeal, that is, its promise to provide coherence at many different levels." Source: Cornelissen, J.P., Christensen, L. and Vijn, P., "Understanding the Development and Diffusion of Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC): A Metaphorical Perspective, NRG Working Paper No. 06-02, 2006, p.11
I have added some new content to the article on Integrated marketing communications with a view to improving it, correcting some factual errors and removing some internal inconsistencies. I have nothing more to say on the subject and withdraw my previous offer to rewrite the article.  BronHiggs (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: IMC: The evolution of a discipline

message: From what I see in this article, there is a myriad of information which is not needed. The overview is concise enough, but definitions are paragraphs long and don’t need to have this much data. A brief, but sufficient enough explanation is what a definition should be. Furthermore, these definitions have their own articles, so there is no need for tangents as you can just simply look at the main page. A similar problem would be in “Types of Communication”, listing 4 definitions which once again, can be simplified without losing its coherent meaning. I’m not trying to sound pretentious, but this is something that has been overlooked. I have already added a citation and a quote from “what Wikipedia is not”. This is just simply too much for a person who just happens to stumble upon to be interested in.
Alternatively, you may not have to remove all of the present information, but split it into separate articles. On one hand, this solves the problems of over-detailed paragraphs. On the other hand, there comes the problem of if it will be distinct enough to warrant its own page.
There are some subtitles which do not even need to be in this article in the first place. “Communication process” serves to describe how communication works. What makes “communication process” different from “communication”? Once again, there is no need to state the definition. To further my side, I will quote a part of the transactional model to show how excessive the amount of details in this page contains.
“Source: The source is an individual or organization that has information to share. The source (or sender) creates and sends the information to another person or group of people. The source may be an individual (e.g. a salesperson or spokesperson) or a non-personal identity (e.g. a corporation or organization). The communication process begins with the source, marketers must carefully choose a source as it affects how the message will be perceived by the target audience.”
And here is my revision:
“Source: The source, which may be an individual or organization, creates and sends information to a person or group. Communication starts with the source, so marketers must carefully choose one as it affects the target audience.”
Mine took 2 sentences. The original took 4. If every paragraph is structured like this, then if I theoretically revised the entire article, then the amount of words will be cut in half. Combined with information that should be on its own article, I find this to be a convincing argument that the entire page needs to be amended completely. Senomo Drines (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive detailing 

message: — Assignment last updated by Smiths23 (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Media Culture

message: — Assignment last updated by Jamie.green-2 (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Digital Communication