Talk:Compare the Meerkat/Archive 1

Spelling of name ?
The article spells the name as "Alexander", but on comparethemeerkat.com, the meerkat himself spells his name as Alexandr. Should not the article title be changed ?

Simples :)

86.25.122.195 (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've checked the spelling, and it seems correct now. I'll move the article shortly to the correct title.  [ジャム] [ t  -  c  ] 06:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It's Aleksandr. (Aurumpotestasest (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC))

Toy version ?
The article says: "Alexandr plush toys are now being marketed as an unseen spin off of the advertising campaign."

erm... where ? ( yes, I want one... erm... it's not for me... erm... it's for my... erm... meerkat... :) )

There are various "generic" toy meerkats for sale at major retailers - for example search Amazon for "meerkat" - but not Alexandr himself.

( nor Sergei, the IT meerkat )

Simples :)

86.25.122.195 (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've removed this as unsourced.  [ジャム] [ t  -  c  ] 06:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

How "unbiased" Is That Reference ?
The article states:

BGLs comparethemarket.com website is now ranked as the 7th most visited insurance website in the UK – up from 16th in January 2008; and overall sales have more than doubled year on year as a result of the TV ‘meerkat campaign’.[2]

That reference points to - http://www.vccp.com/showcase/comparethemarket.asp - ie: the advertising agency that *created* the campaign.

Now, we all know that advertisers always tell the truth and never exaggerate the success of a campaign... :)

But, I would suggest that claims of success would be more "Wikipedia-worthy" if not being made by someone with a vested interest in the campaign being *perceived* as successful.

( personally, I'd like the campaign to be successful... the adverts are mildly amusing and don't shout LOUDLY nor have LOUD music blaring at me... )

So, are there any references that are more independent ? Industry journals or the like ?

Simples :)

86.25.121.75 (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've put that down as a possibly biased source. I'll see if anyone else comments and if not, I'll probably remove it.  [ジャム] [ t  -  c  ] 06:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Time-dependent information -
It would make more sense as an archive article were the success of the campaign to be stated in more concise time terms. As written, the article could go stale as the campaign's effectiveness recedes into the past.

80.229.210.97 (talk) 09:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you point to any possible sites that detail the chronology of this campaign?  [ジャム] [ t  -  c  ] 06:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Not An "unprecedented" Reaction
Another factor - the article states the campaign:

"has attracted unprecedented response from consumers and the media alike, creating a crossover of people more interested in the character rather the product it was designed to sell."

erm... that's hardly an "unprecedented" reaction to an ad campaign.

The most ( infamous ) precursor is the campaign for Strand Cigarettes, but there are other examples - such as "the OXO Family", "the Gold Blend Couple", "Beattie", "Sid"... and not forgetting " J. R. Hartley".

Simples :)

86.25.123.160 (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've edit this particular statement as it was unsourced and seemed a bit POV.  [ジャム] [ t  -  c  ] 06:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Restoration
I restored a previous version of the page, which was speedied. There might be some useful refs in there; you'll find it in the history. Evercat (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Picture
The picture is of his family. 92.239.191.6 (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Don't know the copyright laws, so I can't change it. Is it legal to download a picture of Aleksandr from the Internet and put that on, if so, what steps must I take? LtCmdrData (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

"Family" section
This material is trivial and exclusively in-universe. I don't think it's required. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You're probably right, it would be regarded as being trivial by many, but it just adds a little innocuous light to Aleksandr's fictional 'background' and as such can be justified. Let's face it, the whole idea is light-hearted, and keeping things in perspective this is hardly controversial, contentious or flagrantly in contravention of WP guideleines. However, if you insist on removing this section then so be it, but what really amazes me though is that I've found myself here at all!!! Cheers :-) --Red Su ns et    19:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see a reason that this article can't be at least GA status: the subject is one of the most amazingly successful ad campaigns of recent years in the UK (especially in a field which is so predatory) and has received lots and lots of attention from reliable sources. We shouldn't need to pad it out with fluff from the ad website. Remember, the article is more about the concept of the character (as in the ad campaign) than the character itself. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think what's confusing me, and probably others too, is that the article title is "Aleksandr Orlov (meerkat)", leading one to believe that the character is the subject. If the concept is the subject then perhaps a more specific title would be in order, but I personally feel that would rather spoil it. --Red Su ns et    20:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Khalaf Mongis
Unless the description given in the article is misrepresentative, a character "created by Facebook users in March 2010" is pure WP:MADEUP fanfic, and inappropriate here. Lots of ads and TV series have minor fanfic written about them and new characters invented; we don't give them their own section in articles about the source material. If the ad producers pick up on it and put him in the ad, that's fine, but while he's still just a joke on Facebook, we shouldn't be writing about Mongis. --McGeddon (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)