Talk:Marketing research/Archives/2016

market research vs marketing research

It's the other way around. Marketing research has a broader scope and includes research on such things as competitors, the marketing environment, industry trends etc. Market research is principally concerned with researching the market - that is current and potential customers - what motivates them to purchase, when and how they purchase, who they are, where they live etc. The current title, marketing research is the more appropriate for a general page such as this. BronHiggs (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Link to DMOZ: Explanation of reasons for deletion

Link to DMOZ

Notability

According to Wikipedia, "external links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability." (See WP:PROMOTION or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion

This WP guideline appears to contain two relevant issues:

(a) Firstly that the links be to notable organisations. In fact, the link to DMOZ is a simple directory of commercial market research companies compiled as an open source project by amateur editors. DMOZ has no requirement that links be assessed for notability. Thus there is no indication that its entries (i.e. names of commercial organisations) have been checked for notability. Even the most cursory glance at the organisations in this list suggests that they are small players in an industry dominated by multinationals. Not one of the major market research companies such as Nielsen, Sofres, Gallup, SBI etc are listed.

Nor is DMOZ itself a notable directory. Of all the many market research directories available online, DMOZ is without question the most inferior. It contains links to just 144 commercial organisations. There are many commercial directories, some of which maintain an online presence. For instance, the Market Research Directory provides links to some 80,000 commercial organisations (see http://marketresearchdirectory.org/about-us); the ESOMAR directory (See https://directory.esomar.org) links to reputable market research companies that members of ESOMAR or its affiliates, The Market Research Association's Blue Book (See https://bluebook.marketingresearch.org) has a 50 year history publishing this type of directory - and these are just to name a few of the online directories available. These alternative directories are more comprehensive in their coverage and/or take steps to ensure that only reputable research firms are listed. Why would anyone choose to use DMOZ, which is such a sub-standard directory when qualitatively superior directories abound?

Given that neither DMOZ nor the entries it contains are notable, the notability of this link is disputed.

(b) Secondly, that any links provided should be to organisations that are related to the topic of the article. In fact, the list of commercial organisations provided by DMOZ is a very random and eclectic collection of commercial organisations, which mentions few, if any major international outfits and specifically fails to provide links to organisations actually mentioned in the article such as A.C. Nielsen (which the article incorrectly states pioneered the market research industry) or to Gallup. Accordingly the link to the DMOZ commercial directory has no direct relationship with the material canvassed in the article.

Wikipedia is not a directory

According to Wikipedia guidelines, "directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable. Likewise an article on a business should not contain a list of all the company's patent filings. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article. (See WP:NOTDIR or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory

As mentioned in the preceding discussion, DMOZ in the external links provides access to a directory of commercial providers of market research. The directory is an online forum compiled by volunteers and formerly known as the "Open Directory Project". As a simple directory of commercial organisations, this link appears to fall outside Wikipedia's guideline in relation to the inclusion of directories or directory-type content.

In relation to the half dozen links that John of Reading, chose to revert on the basis that they were creating a "List Farm", let it be known that it is not my intention to reinstate these links to academic journals and professional associations simply because it has not been my policy to delete, but rather to seek to improve. It is a shame, however, that these links will remain deleted because they actually provided access to content that was indeed relevant to the page in accordance with Wikipedia's guideline on External Links which specifically states that, "there is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article... [provided that they do not] dwarf the article and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. (See WP:LINKFARM or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_mirror_or_a_repository_of_links.2C_images.2C_or_media_files). For example, the ESOMAR link provides access to information about careers in market research which is entirely relevant to Section 12: Careers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketing_research#Careers) as well as a variety of free resources including guidelines for conducting new types of research including such things as 'mobile phone research' which might have been useful content for updating the article's contents - most of which is extremely outdated and in many places just plain misguided or wrong. In addition, ESOMAR also provides a directory of market research companies that is qualitatively more comprehensive and superior to the directory found at DMOZ. All of the links provide some type of useful content that is directly related to the article's contents.

It is very difficult to understand how 9 links to highly relevant scholarly journals and professional associations could be construed as inappropriate while a link to a sub-standard commercial directory be allowed to stand. It is equally difficult to understand how a handful of links could be construed as 'dwarfing' an article of some 5,000 words (excluding references).

Incidentally, I followed the link to WP:NOTLINKFARM provided in John of Reading's explanation for the decision to delete, where I soon found that no such shortcut actually exists. The closest I could find was WP:LINKFARM or WP:NOTLINK, so I was somewhat curious to learn how it was possible to provide such a negatively worded shortcut when it doesn't actually exist?

BronHiggs (talk) 02:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@BronHiggs: I am fine with your removal of the DMOZ link. My knowledge of the recommendations in the external link guideline was out of date, as I now realise that the DMOZ recommendation was removed two years ago.

The box on the right at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files lists some of the available shortcuts, but not all of them. The shortcut WP:NOTLINKFARM exists. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)