Jump to content

Talk:Marketing research

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BronHiggs (talk | contribs) at 02:53, 13 November 2016. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconMarketing & Advertising Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

I have little idea where to fit any information in

lpI would like to add something to this article regarding methods of collecting data, such as telephone and online surveys, or, as in the old days, knocking on doors. However, the article is highly organized, and I have little idea where to fit any information in. Hyacinth 04:17, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You might want to read quantitative marketing research, statistical survey, questionnaire construction, and qualitative marketing research and see where it fits in best. When I wrote these articles I intended marketing research to be the root article or umbrella article to the other dozen or so marketing research articles. As an umbrella article it would be broad in scope but shallow in depth. With this in mind, Be Bold, add where you feel it best fits. mydogategodshat 17:48, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Methodologies

I'd agree, as a MR professional, I'd go looking for it under either quant. or qual. methods. dylan555 16:55, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's "Market Research", not "Marketing Research"

According to Webster's:

market research - research into the size, location, and makeup of a product market

marketing research - research into the means of promoting, selling, and distributing a product or service

If I research how a company is promoting its products, I am conducting "marketing research". But if I actually research the market for a product, I am conducting "market research".

This entry should NOT be under "marketing research", but directly under "market research".Rcauvin circa middle of 2005

Agreed, when a distinction is made marketing research is a subsection of market research. This page should be renamed. - SimonP 18:26, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
I disagree that it should be renamed 'market research'. If you read the article you will see that it is about marketing research. I only mentioned 'market research' in the second paragraph to provide context. There are other articles that are much closer to 'market research' than this one. mydogategodshat 03:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But market reasearch redirects here, and as the broader term it should be the title. This problem could also be solved by giving market research its own article. - SimonP 13:57, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Market research would be better redirected to Industry or market research. mydogategodshat 05:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it really matters. In the business world, the terms are interchanged all the time. The methodologies used can be the same! Ad testing or market sizing, typically both are done with a quantitative study by the same people. dylan555 9:55, August 4 2005
Yes they tend to get interchanged in practice, but I don't think we should do the same.ullu ka pathamydogategodshat 03:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to split hairs here, but practice is the place where market or marketing research lives and breathes. They are interchanged in practice because they really do mean the same thing. This is a really good overview that is usable and educational. Either term is correct and equal here Bhenchod.

I believe that most professionals in the field would come out on the side of calling this profession "marketing research." The Webster definition is uninformed. A more informed definition is that Marketing Research is research done in the field of marketing. Market Research is research done on markets which might include the stock market, the options market, the cereal market, etc. Marketing research conducted in the field of marketing might start off by doing a "market study" but only as a first step to understand the marketing process. "Marketing Research" therefore is more inclusive of what the field does, "Market Research" is more ambiguous.

At this point, I'm glad to see that there are separate entries for "marketing research" and "market research". A couple of things: (1) The Webster's definition reflects perfectly the grammatical structure. Research markets, and you're conducting market research. Research marketing, and you're conducting marketing research. (2) If we wanted to distinguish research into different types of markets, the most straightforward (and grammatically-coherent) way would be to have separate entries for "market research (marketing)", "market research (stocks)", "market research (options)", etc.Rcauvin 16:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The industry itself talks about Market Research - please have a look at Market Research Society MRS at http://www.mrs.org.uk/ or International Journal of Market Research http://www.ijmr.com/ as examples. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.196.248.97 (talk) 09:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Market research and marketing research are quite different things - and there is a separate market research article - yet the intro to this article says they are the same! Yet the article is mostly about marketing research, rather than the wider market research. This is very confusing. Ben Finn (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Market and Marketing Research are different terms and both should have different purpose. So, what is written in Market research page: "Once that research is completed, it can be used to determine how to market your product." is wrong, since it should be one of Marketing purpose. Market research should be more for study or data collecting purpose rather than business purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.195.55.4 (talk) 04:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, I'm, for example, marketing analyst, my speciality is to accompany marketing campeigns and actions, but it has nothing to do with market research. (Natalie) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.219.121.29 (talk) 08:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a 17-year veteran of market research and marketing research, I wouldn't call myself an "expert", but I believe I have successfully remedied this conundrum by standardizing the introductory (lede) paragraph for both the article about Marketing research and about Market research. Accordingly, I will now remove the "discuss" note from the article here. -- Thekohser 22:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attributing Founding of Market Research to AC Nielsen>

I had always though that the normal attribution was to George (?)Gallup - some story about rummaging around in dustbins to find evidence of upmarket people eating Campbells soup...?

I can't recall the reference on this at present, but I'm sure I could find it.

What led you to the AC Nielsen reference?

Also, not to re-raise the great Marketing v Market Research debate, I think it tends to be marketing research in the US and market research in most other places.

Nielsen was four years older, and founded his market research firm while Gallup was still an undergraduate student. On the other hand few ideas are originated by a single person, and I see no reason not to share credit among all those who significantly influenced the field. --Blainster 23:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most professionals believe that Charles Coolidge Parlin, the first marketing research director of the Saturday Evening Post was likely the first person to create a marketing research department and interview people about their attitudes and opinions. This was in the first decade of the 1900's. [User Harryh4026]

market re - search.

i think the market research again go through the market situation to find somthing new to avoid the current problem or to avoid any future risk or to get more ways to get more benifets from the business or task.

international marketing factor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.246.167 (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

History of Marketing Research: Much Older Heritage than Nielsen

Here are a few facts from publicly available and reliable sources which suggest that the history of formal marketing research can be traced back to the early 1800s, and therefore predate Nielsen by more than a century:

  • Prior to 1800 Evidence of commercial research being gathered informally. In 1380, Johann Fugger travelled from Augsburg to Graben so as to gather information on the international textile industry. He exchanged detailed letters on trade conditions in relevant areas. In the early 1700s industrial houses were demanding information, that could be used for marketing decisions. During this period, Daniel Defoe, a London merchant, published information on trade and economic resources of England and Scotland. Defoe was a prolific publisher and among his many publications are titles devoted to trade including; Trade of Britain Stated, 1707; Trade of Scotland with France, 1713 and The Trade to India Critically and Calmly Considered, 1720 - information used to make business decisions. Source: Suja R. Nair, Market Research: Text and Cases, 2nd ed., Himalaya Publishing House, 2014, p. 21 Online: www.himpub.com/documents/Chapter873.pdf Also see By Paula R. Backscheider, Daniel Defoe: His Life, Baltimore, Maryland, John Hopkins University Press, 1989 (available via Google Books) Daniel Defoe


  • 1895 Advertising agency, N. H. Ayer & Son used telegraph to contact publishers and state officials throughout the country about grain production, in an effort to construct an advertising schedule for client, Nichols-Shephard company, an agricultural machinery company (This has been described as the firs application of research to solve a marketing/ advertising problem) Source: Lawrence C. Lockley, Notes on the History of Marketing Research, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 14, No. 5 (Apr., 1950), pp. 733-736 https://www.jstor.org/stable/1246952?seq=1#fndtn-page_scan_tab_contents[Also note that some sources provide an earlier date of 1879 for this event; See for instance Kenneth E. Clow, Karen E. James, Essentials of Marketing Research: Putting Research Into Practice, p. 10] but the first cited source is more likely to be reliable because journal articles are peer-reviewed, while text-books do not undergo rigorous reviewing and as a consequence are more error-prone] Source: Suja R. Nair, Market Research: Text and Cases, 2nd ed., Himalaya Publishing House, 2014, p. 21 Online: www.himpub.com/documents/Chapter873.pdf
  • 1911 Charles Collidge Parlin was appointed as the Manager of the Commercial Research Division of the Advertising Department of the Curtis Publishing Company - which has been described as marking the establishment of organised marketing research. Source: Suja R. Nair, Market Research: Text and Cases, 2nd ed., Himalaya Publishing House, 2014 Online: www.himpub.com/documents/Chapter873.pdf See Talk above for mention of Parlin.
  • 1915 Dr. Paul H. Nystrom, was appointed by the United States Rubber Company to manage their newly established Department of Commercial Research. Source: Suja R. Nair, Market Research: Text and Cases, 2nd ed., Himalaya Publishing House, 2014 Online: www.himpub.com/documents/Chapter873.pdf
  • 1917 Dr. Louis D.H. Weld of the Yale University was hired by the Swift and Company to become a manager of their Commercial Research Department.Source: Suja R. Nair, Market Research: Text and Cases, 2nd ed., Himalaya Publishing House, 2014 Online: www.himpub.com/documents/Chapter873.pdf
  • 1919 First major book on commercial research was published, Commercial Research : An Outline of Working Principles by Professor C.S. Duncan of the University of Chicago.
  • 1923 Arthur Nielsen founded market research company, A C Nielsen and over next decade pioneered the measurement of radio audiences. He subsequently applied his methods to the measurement of television audiences. Source Arthur Nielsen
  • 1921 First text-book on marketing research published entitled Market Analysis, by Percival White was published. The popularity of the work is evidenced by the fact that the book went through a number of editions. Source: Kenneth E. Clow, Karen E. James, Essentials of Marketing Research: Putting Research Into Practice, Thousand Oaks, Ca, Sage, 2010 p. 10 and also see Suja R. Nair, Market Research: Text and Cases, 2nd ed., Himalaya Publishing House, 2014, p. 22 Online: www.himpub.com/documents/Chapter873.pdf
  • 1932 George H. Gallup (1901-1984) rose to national prominence after helping a relative during her election campaign in the state of Iowa. He is credited with developing the method of opinion polling (also known as Gallup polls). Gallup subsequently founded the American Institute of Public Opinion. Source: Five Founders of Marketing Research, http://www.quirks.com/articles/5-founders-of-marketing-research. Note that George Gallup has a bio page on Wikpedia George Gallup
  • 1930s First courses on marketing research taught in universities and colleges Source: Kenneth E. Clow, Karen E. James, Essentials of Marketing Research: Putting Research Into Practice, Thousand Oaks, Ca, Sage, 2010 p. 10
  • 1937 Market Research and Analysis by Lyndon O. Brown became one of the popular textbooks during the 30s Source: Suja R. Nair, Market Research: Text and Cases, 2nd ed., Himalaya Publishing House, 2014 Online: www.himpub.com/documents/Chapter873.pdf
  • 1946 US Department of Agriculture enacted legislation to provide increased support for research, especially marketing research (on the back of the depression of the 1930s and with the aim of supporting primary producers who had suffered so much during the late 1930s and early 1940s) Source: Harold Carl Knoblauch, E. M. Law, Werner P. Meyer, State Agricultural Experiment Stations: A History of Research Policy and Procedure, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, 1962 pp 175-176

A number of different published histories point to the period 1930s-1940s as a time when many of the data collection methods, probability sampling methods, survey methods, questionnaire design and key metrics were developed. Some historians refer to this period as the "Foundation Age" of market research. In any case, it should be clear, even from this brief timeline, that modern market research evolved organically rather then owing its origins to a single individual such as Nielsen (as might be inferred on this page as it currently stands).

I hope that this information helps someone to expand the history section, and correct the omission which tends to give Nielsen greater credit than is probably his due.

BronHiggs (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BronHiggs This is an amazing collection of insights. Most or all of this belongs in the article. I am unable to add this content myself just now, but thanks a lot for sharing here. Your posting this here makes it easy for someone to edit this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, @BronHiggs:, 'amazing' is the word, and it would seriously augment that otherwise slightly one-sided section. I would do it myself, but I think that you should do the honours! Cheers, Muffled Pocketed 15:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Accordingly 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.

Furthermore, the DMOZ directory of market research organisations is a very poor quality directory by any possible measure. 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) which has a 50 year history publishing this type of directory to name just a few. Even if directories were acceptable to Wikipedia, why would anyone choose to list such a sub-standard directory when qualitatively superior directories abound?


DMOZ is a very poor quality directory.

In relation to the half dozen links that you 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 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 your explanation for your 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 you were able to provide such a negatively worded shortcut when it doesn't actually exist?

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marketing_research&oldid=749212857"