Talk:Online marketing

External links

The following external links have been moved here from the mainpage:

blogs-mar keting.blogspot.com/
www.topr ankblog.com/
www.bmar keter.com/
www.e-sto rm.com/glossary.html
www.hitw ise.com.au/
socialcu stomer.typepad.com
blog.tele dyn.com/node/609
trevorc ook.typepad.com
www.parkerwebde velopers.com/

If you wish to add these links back in per Wikipedia:External links, please discuss it here first.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 14:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why are these even here? I don't get it. Chernicky 00:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've de-linked and munged them so they don't get any accidental search engine benefits. They were probably listed here so they don't get put back in the article. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

I'm willing to help with the merge with internet marketing, but have never done one before. Peterkoning 03:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Merge. In my opinion, Internet marketing should redirect here. Thank you. --Perfecto 03:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There definitely should be a merge, but the question is what should redirect where. Specifically, the term that is being used most often (on the engines) is "Internet Marketing". However, I think the bulk of the good wiki content is in the 'online marketing' entry.Chernicky 02:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm obviously not the smartest guy to talk about the English language but wouldn’t it be more sensible to merge "online marketing" into "internet marketing"? "Internet marketing" is a more widely used term if Google is any indication ("internet marketing" 22.0 million results and "online marketing" 12.6 million results). Is there anything that is "online" but isn’t "internet" or vice versa? It really doesn’t matter that most of the good material is currently in "online marketing". It is more important what people actually use. Pk2000 13:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree w/ Pk2000. Besides, I don't think there's much difference in the effort anyway - you still need to read the same amount of text and figure out what to do with it. With that said it makes more sense to make the main article title 'internet marketing' Peterkoning 15:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest merging, but have Internet marketing be the new article title, instead of Online marketing. Within the industry, Internet marketing is the preferred term. Jehochman 23:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other way around. Online Marketing should be merged into Internet Marketing and Category Internet advertising and promotion should be renamed to Internet Marketing. Advertising network should be renamed to Affiliate Network and become a subcategory containing articles for the different type of Affiliate Networks. Article Search engine marketing should also become a Sub Category with Articles about Pay-Per-Click Advertising (Adwords, Yahoo Search Marketing, Ask Jeeves Sponsored Listings, MSN AdCenter, Search Engine Optimization etc.). --Roy-SAC 06:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed there's also an article called e-marketing. Maybe also a candidate to be merged into internet marketing? --Peterkoning 05:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Online Marketing is becoming the standard way to refer to all Internet Marketing activities. This is supported by the fact that all aspects of marketing that are not online are now being refered to as offline. You can see references in the recent marketing conferences of 'online to offline' sales. I believe, over time, the phrase internet marketing will be replaced with online marketing to reflect the multiple ways people are receiving information and advertising online and it isn't necessarily through an internet connection. webmama 15:02, 11 August 2006 (PST)

I agree that Online Marketing is the term that should be used. It is correct that no "online" initiatives are not carried out over the Internet, however, this term is preferred over Internet Marketing because marketers are frequently reffering to online versus offline. Offline of course is the traditional marketing initiatives. While I understand that it could go either way, this heavily used comparison should be considered. Also, the reliance on the number of search results returned by Google should not be the determining factor. --DaveVT5 20:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i'm a newbie doing my MBA. From what I know, online marketing does not only refer to the Internet. Philip Kotler in one of his Marketing books has explained that Internet is just one of the network/facility that online marketing uses. Other network/facility could be private WAN, mobile network & protocols such as SMS/MMS. Do I make sense or am I just downright wrong? Marketing experts help

I dont think they are the same. E-marketing is everything electronic where online is only with computers. That like saying lets merge E-mail with mail, because they are the same right????????????????????????????—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.158.230 (talk • contribs)

I agree. Online Marketing or eMarketing can be used if everybody is aware that the Internet is meant. The reader must go through a process before reading the text to get this awareness. This works fine for cases like articles at Internet Marketing Sites but not for Wikipedia where it does not have to be clear to the reader. Internet Marketing on the other hand is clear and does not require any additional step that clarifies the context of the article. Using the nice example of Email. Internet Email was not the first form of electronic mail. Email within a closed Network (using the Network Software's Email System e.g. Banyan Vines Mail) and Emails within Computer Networks like Fido-Net or Zerberus did exist. Email Marketing did not play any notable role I am aware of in those early Email systems to create any confusion with Email Marketing in the context "Internet", but I changed the "Email marketing" article anyway to put it into the right context :). Online Marketing is ambiguous and Internet Marketing is not. Most of the content from Online Marketing should actually being moved into Internet Marketing. The Online Marketing Article should reference to Internet Marketing and only Marketing using Computers and Networks prior the Internet (or outside of it) should reside in this article. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 14:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Status check. I'm not finding a separate article for online marketing. Does this mean the merge happened? I'm also not seeing a lot of content, so I wanted to check in and see. Uberveritas 06:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roy-SAC's branch re content

(not a thread re merging so moved out)

The poor content of Wikipedia about Internet Marketing and especially Affiliate Marketing let to the creation of it's own Wiki Affilipedia.com The Affiliate Marketing Wiki. It's operated by Shawn Collins from Affiliate Tip. He should be contacted, if he is willing to merge his Wiki's content into Wikipedia. It's using the same software which makes it easier to merge the two. Just an idea, but who knows, probably worth a try, right?. --Roy-SAC 08:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't assume that's why he made a spin-off wiki. Shawn's a clever guy and has affiliate links throughout his wiki. Can't blame him - that's the nature of the game. There are several other spin-off wiki's which have commercial value to the owners. I think we can add to the content here just as well and it's getting better all the time. Peterkoning 05:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References must be cleaned up anyway. Affiliate links should be removed from the articles during cleanup and integration of course. Some work, but less work than writing up the content from scratch. And to be honest, "you" treat most knowledgeable people that are knowledgeable about internet marketing not very well when they start editing articles (beyond adding external links). A marketer will always be a marketer and its nature if he is very good at it. Articles written by marketing people will read different than dry history or political ones. I think a compromise should be made. As it stands today are most people that could and would contribute to Wikipedia about this topic too scared to do anything because they are looked down on and marked without doing anything as self promoting and profit hungry monsters (which fits the description of some though). The result of this are well written articles (linguistically) but week in content, because the person writing it does not know too much about it because he was never part of it and also lags current information because he is not interested in this topic too much either. Asking Shawn if he is willing to hand over the content and kick it around in the sanbox for a bit if he does to clean it up does not hurt anybody. I am no expert, but I believe is Wiki Content is not public domain. Could well written articles at Affilipedia be ported to Wikipedia or would it violate copyrights. I noticed the reference to the authors of the Article in some pages. Does that mean that they did not give up their copyright? I will find that out by simply asking him. What is the best way to get new articles added here at Wikipedia where a decent to very good article exists at Affilipedia? Questions, Questions, Questions. :) --Roy-SAC 09:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cumbrowski/Roy-SAV - I'm not sure where I have treated people badly (other than blatant spammers) so please clarify this as that is not my intention. I have been trying to help keep the obvious spam out and improve the articles re internet marketing including discussing a merge somewhere above. Re copyright yes it's probably a good idea to ask him. Peterkoning 17:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter, I will shoot Shawn an email tonight. Lets don't rush things. I will simply ask him what applies to the site. Full Copyright, public domain or Creative Commons license. If ladder, which one Attribution, Noncommercia, No Derivative Works, Share Alike (addition to No Derivative Works). If its Public domain or CCL Noncommercial good. That would allow us to copy passages or whole articles (whatever makes sense) to Wikipedia. How do I create new public Pages unter a subcategory? can I create pages? I don't believe so. I think a real merge is unlikely to happen because: 1. I don't know who to approach here at Wikipedia, 2. I don't think much people here care about this subjec (which seem to be despised by a lot) and some other reasons.

You did not treat anybody badly as far as I know. It also worked out with Rhobite eventually after a little heat. It did actually turned into some very productive teamwork between him and me. English is my second language. My writing is so lala (quality of semantics, grammar, spelling etc.). I know a lot about some things though. Rhobite has some very good language skills. When I made additions to the Affiliate Marketing Article and Rhobite went over it to improve the language and fix the grammer and then me again to fix minor misinterpretations by Rhobite the result was a quality piece of content to be proud of.

It does not always work this way. The Edit History and Discussion Page of the Marketing Article are written prove of that. Lets see how my latest contribution is treated. I believe you might like this idea as well. Check the De-linked external links section at the Affiliate marketing article. I introduced it also at the Wikipedia Spam Project Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam --Roy-SAC 06:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that this section needs more content as a matter of urgency. It currently is not about Marketing at all, but rather is entirely focused on Advertising, which is a subset of Promotion, which is in turn a subset of Marketing. Marketing is far more than just Promotions, not least in the area of tailoring Products to open, or better address, new markets. The Internet has had relatively little effect on the basic nature of Advertising, only changed the medium used, while the Internet has had immense effect upon the nature of Public Relations. We need to touch on the field of Reputation Management at the least, and how the internet allows for global public humiliations to huge companies by a single individual. Just looking at the long history of aolsucks.com and similar shows the biggest paradigm shift of the new media. Black Knight UK 20:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked in onlne marketing for over eight years now -- I manage the online marketing function at a major website, and work with sales reps at all the major websites on the Internet. We refer to it as "online marketing", or "online" (as in "Kraft Foods is starting to do more online in the past year") probably 90%+ of the time, and "Internet marketing" very rarely. Nobody I know refers to it as "e-marketing". I would propose instead if there is a consolidation to do so under "online marketing" instead. chasfh 00:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cashfg, I've been doing online marketing for over 7 years now. I rarely hear "Internet Marketing", but rather "online marketing". There is "eMarketing" as well, but it's usually described as a subset of "online marketing" and referred to as "traditional eMarketing". Traditional referring to online marketing before word of mouth, viral, buzz, search marketing etc - mostly email sponsorships, sponsored links, banners, and the like.

Content from "Internet Marketing" should be merged with "Online Marketing". If you need help on this, please let me know. I'm willing pitch in. Cheers. --Viscount9 07:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weighing in

Just wanted to weigh in and say that I think Online marketing and Internet marketing should be merged into one article. From my point of view and experience, they are the exact same thing.

Weighing in

I DONT THINK Online marketing and Internet marketing should be merged into one article. From my point of view and experience, they are NOT the exact same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.158.230 (talk • contribs)

I agree.. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 14:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complete rewrite needed

E-marketing, Online marketing - These two articles, with 100s of incoming links need a complete rewrite. There's a massive chunk of content in both articles which just refers to one book by Dave Chaffey, who originally wrote the E-marketing article in 2003[1] under the usename User:Dchaffey. The E-marketing article was expanded following this by various anons using only Chaffey's definition of e-marketing, and then forked out onto the online marketing article in which Chaffey's work forms the bulk of the article. Now maybe Chaffey wrote the absolute tome of intenet marketing and everyone in the industry uses his definition, in which case it would be OK. But I doubt that somehow. Online marketing and E-marketing need rewrites. Couple this with the fact that we have a un-Chaffey article at internet marketing which should probably be merged makes this a big job. - Hahnch e n 21:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complete rewrite needed

To further the discussion, website marketing is also redirected here. This is clearly not Internet marketing as website marketing deals with compelling content and the Four Ps of marketing as they relate to a specific page. Internet and Online I think can be merged, but it's not as easy as it sounds. Internet marketing can, and often does, encompass e-mail marketing, on-line marketing by virture of its definition, should not. This isn't a big issue, but should be noted. Website or page marketing should have it's own page which does not focus on anything but website (on-page) marketing. SEO, and PPC may be mentioned, but the focus is on the differences in writing style, placement of text, and thought flow, as opposed to printed text marketing. Seems to me as if the entire segment has become somewhat confused in wikipedia and needs a complete rewrite, branching of disciplines (within a more professional marketing format),etc. etc. Egurr 17:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templates changed / Merge Proposal

Based on the discussions from the last 7 months do I believe that the template change is justified. E-marketing and Online marketing should be merged into Internet Marketing and then redirected UNTIL somebody provides content (if there is any) about E-marketing and Online marketing outside the context of Internet marketing. That's my opinion. What do you think? --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 14:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everybody here on the need for a rewrite. Its a mess and will take time to clean up. I propose to merge the 3 articles first (to Internet marketing). Remove the duplicate content and then start cleaning up the ONE article piece by piece. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 14:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of just AFDing E-marketing, it's a spam article. I don't think it offers Wikipedia anything other than an advert for Chaffey's book. - Hahnch e n 14:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good idea as well. Radagast83 04:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]