Talk:Ambush marketing/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Lingzhi2 (talk · contribs) 02:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You've got some WP:OVERCITE, such as Olympic venues and for purchasing tickets.[6][25][26][24]" and "US$2.5 million worth of damage,[54][55][56][57][58]" and "fan anthem.[83][84][85][86]"and perhaps others. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Review coming soon. Cheers. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment As nearly as I can tell, there are about five cites sourced to books, and goodness-knows perhaps even a hundred from the Internet. That certainly doesn't disqualify you for GA (so you probably won't need to scramble for new sources), but it seems poor practice for a topic that is also covered in journals and books. [It's acceptable for pop culture and similar to be drawn from the Internet, of course.] ... Why settle for third-best? They have these new things called Google Books (used in conjunction with the uses the Wikipedia Citation Tool for Google Books) and Google Scholar, don'tcha know. And Wikipedia has WP:RX if you can't get access to the journal articles (and perhaps even book chapters, but please be very sparing and considerate asking for something so very large) you find via these search engines. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 00:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you still interested in pursuing this nom? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. My only concern is why we are being critical on the use and originating platforms of citations. The GA criteria does not specifically list this as something that can block GA status. ViperSnake151   Talk  16:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Because journals and books are reviewed by experts in the field, and provide analysis that is considerably more in-depth . Not searching them is like carrying a knife to a gunfight. By limiting yourself that way, you run a high risk of failing WP:WIAGA (3) "Broad in its coverage" ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * OK the very first journal article I pulled up [Meenaghan, T. (1998). Ambush marketing: Corporate strategy and consumer reaction. Psychology & Marketing, 15(4), 305-322.] has been cited 223 times in other books/journals. It lists five ambush marketing strategies (some of which are perfectly legal) and gives famous examples. It discusses consumer attitudes toward ambush marketing (One study found "...strong support (80% of consumers) for the suggestion that only Olympic sponsors should be allowed to use Olympic messages"; a second study found far more indifference). It discusses the differences in goodwill attached to "sponsorship" versus "marketing"; soccer fans' outright hostility to ambush marketing that competes with a sponsor of a particular team (key point). Etc. Let's see, "Ambush marketing: The ethical issues" looks like a good source tho I can't get it immediately ... "Ambush marketing: is confusion to blame for the flickering of the flame?" suggests that "the Olympic event organizers are partially to blame for the growing use of ambush marketing, and the indifference that consumers exhibit to the use of ambush marketing." Ummmm.. Jerry Welsh said :  “The...notion, that non-sponsors have a moral or ethical obligation to market themselves   away   from the thematic   space of a sponsored  property, is nonsense. Smart  marketers  have  long  recognised that  view  as  a  commercial  non-starter and an intellectual affront" (Reported in Marketing Week, p15). I found that quote in [Crow, D., & Hoek, J. (2003). Ambush marketing: A critical review and some practical advice. Marketing Bulletin, 14(1), 1-14.].  Ummm, the article could benefit from a more international perspective, see "Ambush marketing in China: Counterbalancing Olympic sponsorship efforts". Meanwhile  discusses consequences as felt by five groups. It lists indirect positive effects of AM.. essential features listed (low cost, deliberately planned, etc)... Does our article cover these things? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to overwhelm you with such a long reply. I was just trying to illustrate the point that if you neglect using books and journals, you are in serious danger of running afoul of WP:WIAGA (3) "Broad in its coverage". I have not yet checked to see if all the points I listed above are covered in the article... or whether or not they should be considered main points... But I will do so soon. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 04:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * FAIL GA as per WP:WIAGA (3) "Broad in its coverage" ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)