Talk:SocialChorus

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

COI creation[edit]

JeffreyArthurVA declared a COI at COIN on this page while it was a user space draft. I have moved it to draft space and added the COI template.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Following up here to note that I have a conflict of interest related to this company (I know the founder), which is why--in light of WP:COI--I've elected to submit this draft for review by other uninvolved editors rather than implement it myself. ThatMontrealIP was kind enough to shift this over into draft space, as I originally had it in my user space. Regards, JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

Established by cited sources: [1], [2], [3], [4] ~Kvng (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: I am puzzled by the above statement, because some of these are not such great sources. hcmtechnology.com report advertises custom editorial content on its website: "Packages include editorial opportunities that raise brand awareness and deepen our your relationship with customers, prospects and colleagues." The Bostonglobe.com is not SIGCOV, but rather a trivial mention. Hrexecutive.com says "The full-time editorial staff works with leaders in the profession to ensure the editorial product is insightful, strategic and timely," and they give an email for "editorial submissions", meaning this is a paid advertising platform. Does not sound particularly independent, and the source parrots the SocialChorus CEO with multiple quotes. econsultancy.com is an interview, so not valuable for notability considerations. They also advise on their contact page that that you can contact them for "Commercial/partnership enquiries". Are there other sources? If not, this makes me wonder if this should be returned to draft space.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ThatMontrealIP: feel free to take it to AfD if you don't think it meets WP:NCORP. ~Kvng (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I might do that, but as you are the reviewer I thought I would first ask which sources meet the notability standard? The ones you cited are really junky.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ThatMontrealIP, I see what you mean about those industry trade publications. Would it be helpful for me to list the sources used to establish notability below? (separately, I could also propose an edit that removes these industry trade publications.) Regards, JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removing stuff isn't going to help save this. What is needed is more high-quality sources. ~Kvng (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) [1] has a paragraph which is more than a passing mention. The others may or may not pass community reliability standards. You can't completely discount an WP:INTERVIEW. ~Kvng (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kvng: I've taken out the items that look like paid industry pubs. It's ironic that the company specializes in paid placement of company blah-blah. I think notability is marginal in terms of its current state, but I will leave it to see what editors independent of the subject say. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kvng: this source is pretty good coverage. That said, I am really dubious/cautious about the article and motivations for having it here, seeing as its product is about social influencing and manipulation/use of influencers to more readily promote brands. It's like the paid editing company of the Internet. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sources most helpful to consider would be:
JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From your earlier note above, the company that this article is about no longer operates in the area of social media; it did during its early years, but per the 2018 TechCrunch article it now strictly produces software for internal communications within companies and is no longer in the earlier business. `JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 18:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not include investment announcements in my list because these are often considered WP:ROUTINE coverage. ~Kvng (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. In terms of what you might consider for this article, my observation has been that for large and notable but not publicly traded software companies, much of the reporting on them in reliable sources tend to be clustered around either rounds of venture capital funding raised or acquisitions/mergers/expansions. I think this is partially because there are often so many rounds of funding, and something notable happening with a software company (significant development changes in the product, changing the direction of the business that reporters take note of) often coincides with it receiving a new round of funding or completing an acquisition/merger. That has been the case with this company, as most of the major events in the company have happened to also coincide with a round of funding (or in one case, an acquisition followed by a name change), so the media reports tend to cover both jointly. That is not meant as a counter to your note; just hopefully a bit of context that helps. -JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bot has stuck a notability tag on this article. I am not comfortable with marking this article as reviewed. Whiteguru (talk) 04:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the discussion above, it happens to be that some significant changes in the ownership structure of this company transpired. In more plain language, usage of the software produced by this company grew to the point where a new investor took note and bought a majority stake for $100 million, rendering two earlier investors as minority investors. This event is beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage as it is not strictly an investment blurb on a bulleted list that says "Company A raised $2 million this week; Company C raised $4 million...), but is a more sizable investment receiving media coverage that was made due to some fairly notable companies adopting this software, ultimately rendering an ownership structure change as reported here: https://techcrunch.com/2020/07/15/sumeru-equity-partners-buys-majority-stake-in-socialchorus-with-100m-investment/

Would one of you be able to review the text below and, if you deem it to be fitting, add it to the end of the article under the 2016 - present section? I've tried to keep it succinct and factual, just to state the context surrounding this investment (new, rather large companies adopted said software), the investment firm with the majority stake, the amount, and the resulting ownership structure note that two earlier investors remained on but as minority investors.

code for last paragraph
By 2020 the software was being used to manage employee communications at approximately 120 large employers, including [[Ford Motor Company|Ford]] and [[Boeing]]. As a result, Sumeru Equity Partners led a $100 million investment in July 2020, making it the majority stakeholder. Two earlier investors''—''Kohlberg Ventures and Arrowroot Capital''—''remained involved in the company as significant minority investors.<ref name="Sum1">{{cite news |last1=Miller |first1=Ron |title=Sumeru Equity Partners buys majority stake in SocialChorus with $100M investment |url=https://techcrunch.com/2020/07/15/sumeru-equity-partners-buys-majority-stake-in-socialchorus-with-100m-investment/ |accessdate=23 July 2020 |publisher=TechCrunch |date=15 July 2020}}</ref>

Regards, JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Techcrunch is a bit of a sketchy source. See this. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SocialChorus&oldid=1209708208"