Talk:Brandjacking

nnpov
most of the text reads like a marketing/pr course textbook

no acknowledgement of legitimate uses in parody, criticism, etc.

Lx 121 (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * There is some acknowledgement of legitimate/critical use. The article specifically mentions use "for political or campaigning reasons" and cites examples, eg use by Oxfam and Greenpeace - but I agree this could be emphasised more to give some balance to the article. It would be useful to have some examples on use for parody purposes. Paul W (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Scottwrites (talk) 03:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC) There's no real need to discuss legitimate uses in parody or criticism. The idea of Brandjacking as expressed is to assume the identity of another to essentially steal brand equity. Now, yes, you could argue parody does this, but as you continue into the article it's clear enough that the concept here is about theft of brand equity or an attack of some sort on the reputation of another. Also, the idea of there being legitimate use in parody or criticism was in no way part of what the term seemed to be originally coined to describe. I'm unclear as to how this can be NPOV. It's not a company page or specific to any particular brand. What's not neutral?


 * Agree. Unsure why it is seen as not neutral. Doesn't favour any organisation, or sway towards corporate or campaigner perspectives. Paul W (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Scottwrites (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC) So... I just added my comment because as the original author of the first entry I thought I'd give it historical context. But I don't care that much either way. One Wikipedia edit suggestion is to Be Bold, so I guess I could take down the notice, but as the original author that might seem too self serving. I think LX 121 should take it down or be more specific about what should be fixed, given that there just doesn't need to be acknowledgement of parody or criticism as those aren't really the issues. Scottwrites (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm removing the tag, for the following reasons: the justification of the tag was not explicit; the consensus is that the POV template is unjustified; and the discussion has been dormant for twenty months. See H:MTR and the "when to remove" section of the template page. -- David Spalding ( ☎   ✉   ✍  ) 01:23, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brandjacking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150224180744/http://www.brandchannel.com/home/post/Greenpeace-Mattel-Activism.aspx to http://www.brandchannel.com/home/post/Greenpeace-Mattel-Activism.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)