Talk:Corporate branding

Brands High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands 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.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Business Mid‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

What differentiates Corporate Branding from family branding?

Could someone please develop a little bit more what makes a family branding and what makes a corporate branding? Is corporate branding simply a type of family branding that uses the trade name of a company? Could we have some examples of what is clear corporate branding? For what I understood, Coca-Cola and Nokia are good examples of corporate branding, because they always associate their products with the parent company. However, GlaxoSmithKline is an example of a company that uses family branding but not corporate branding in particular because their major consumer brands such as Aquafresh, Lucozade and Horlicks has no emphasis in the association with the parent company (GlaxoSithKline).

Did I get it right? Can we develop on this a little bit? I am saying "can we" because I am currently studying for a marketing exam and I am more willing to learn than to contribute in this case ;). Thank you! --Pinnecco 18:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring Edit By Majken Schultz

I am restoring the edits made by Majken Schultz, which seem to add more comprehensive information to this article. I know that editors cannot reference their own works, so I am endorsing it myself. An unpublished revision of a previously published work is acceptable, as the authors have been approved as reliable sources in this specific area of study. BE TA 13:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted it per WP:V and WP:SPAM. The content cannot be verified if it is in part from an unpublished book. Mentioning an unpublished book, let alone spamming across multiple articles, is simply advertising.

Because the book isn't yet published, this causes problems that wouldn't otherwise occur in such COI situations. It might be worth discussing in the COI/N case. It should probably be discussed elsewhere as well, maybe Wikipedia talk:Verifiability? --Ronz (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]