Talk:Customer relationship management/Archives/2013

Biased

This article is far too pro-CRM to be on Wikipedia. Take a look at source 3, for example. I even find the intro too biased; I invite you to reread it with bias-ness and general over touting. How do we feel about editing it? I can.

68.40.166.203 (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Definately. "A 360 degree view of customer data." What does that even mean? Can we look at the data from the rear and bottom? Didn't even know data had a front and back side. 83.84.34.219 (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Removing Extraneous Material

There's a lot of extraneous material that significantly hampers the encyclopedic tone of the article. For example, the Benefits, Challenges, and Fragmentation sections are more to help the designers or implementers of CRMs, not for the general reader. I've removed those sections, and am going to cut a lot of other parts out. I'm sure there will be disputes, so let's discuss them here. The goal is to remove extraneous marketing-speak and bring the article in-line with encyclopedic standards of tone. Philosophistry (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure there will be disputes of my massive condensing of this article (probably eliminated 80% of the content). So to pre-empt that, here's the kinds of content I removed and why:

• Overly-specific guidance for the implementers of CRMs. The general reader of wikipedia is simply looking to be informed about CRMs. If they want further details about what are systemic problems in implementing CRMs, they can read the many books that go into depth about it. This kind of detail represents about 50% of what I cut.
• Wording that implies a desire to help CRMs. Wikipedia isn't pro- or anti- marketing, and therefore shouldn't have language like, "CRMs are finally getting adopted."
• Notes for notes sake. There are many extra notes or citations that appear to serve only the purposes of bolstering a source's link count.
• Long-winded sentences with marketing blather.

This article seems to be troublesome, with many complaints about the tone and extraneous marketingspeak, so to err on the side of less un-encyclopedic tone, please do not revert these simplifications without discussing it below first. Philosophistry (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Also bare the above issues in mind when adding text. There's no point writing a sales pitch on wikipedia. This is not the place to preach to companies about the benefits of deploying a CRM system; it's an encyclopedia article. I've removed some more nonesensical marketing blather and stuff, but this page is still one big mess. 213.164.7.130 (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Tagging this for -something-

I have added the {{totallydisputed}} tag to the article in chief. Of all the cleanup tags, this one seems the most comprehensive. As far as I can see, this article has major problems, and unless serious cleanup is done fairly quickly I propose to delete it.

In today's competitive business environment, a successful CRM strategy cannot be implemented by simply installing and integrating a software package designed to support CRM processes. A holistic approach to CRM is vital for an effective and efficient CRM policy. This approach includes training of employees, a modification of business processes based on customers' needs and an adoption of relevant IT-systems (including software and maybe hardware) and/or usage of IT-Services that enable the organization or company to follow its CRM strategy. CRM-Services can even replace the acquisition of additional hardware or CRM software-licences.

This kind of prose drives me to seething fury. What information is contained in this paragraph? About all that I can get out of it is that "CRM" involves not only buying software but also training employees to use it. These ninety-two words do the work of twelve. The entire article is a tissue of verbal hyperinflation, and what little concrete, descriptive sentences it contains suggest that the whole article is an attempt to make a simple marketing database seem much more impressive than it actually is. The entire article reeks of advertising, and as such may be inappropriate for Wikipedia. — Smerdis of Tlön 15:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that the article could use cleanup, {{totallydisputed}} is inappropriate. To use that you need to show both WP:POV and factual inaccuracies in the article. I have changed the tag to {{cleanup}}. Rasmus (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I saw that you changed my {{totallydisputed}} tag on that page to {{cleanup}}. I am considering changing it back, but perhaps my words on the talk page were not strong enough.
Very simply, the article is patent nonsense, reeks of advertising, and so full of inane, empty buzzwords as to make it impossible to rewrite from the current version. I don't really think it's possible to clean up the current version into something presentable. It also counts as original research in my view. I doubt that there is anything here that isn't already covered by database marketing; the only difference is that this version has been inflated with a blizzard of empty words, seeking to invest that tawdry subject with false grandeur. The cleanup tag is wrong if the real question is whether there should be an article on this bogus subject at all. Smerdis of Tlön 14:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

—————————

I don't disagree with much of the above. The subject is surely encyclopedic (and thus the article should stay), and, as I understand the terms (I am in no way an expert), there is a great deal of difference between Customer relationship management and Database marketing. But I fully agree that the article is full of empty buzzwords and original research and might benefit from a total rewrite. Nevertheless, that is what the {{cleanup}}-tag is for. To use the {{totallydisputed}}-tag you need to demonstrate both POV and factual inaccuracies, not just general bad writing. Rasmus (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

If the article is mostly nonsense, it would contain factual inaccuracies and go well beyond factual inaccuracy. If it is advertising or similar sales talk, it has been crafted to deliberately mislead; all advertising has POV problems more or less by definition. Smerdis of Tlön 15:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been drastic - and I think it's a step in the right direction (see below as well)! Steevm 05:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

———————