Talk:Marketing research/Archives/2017

External links that were deleted
Here is a list of the external links that were deleted by a well-meaning editor on the basis that they constituted a link farm which suggests that they were not relevant to the article, Marketing Research. You be the judge and decide for yourselves as to whether these links are irrelevant or not. I would argue that the first link (DMOZ) should be deleted, but the rest should remain. The well meaning editor retained the link to DMOZ and deleted the rest. Go figure!


 * American Marketing Association - Consumer Behavior Special Interest Group


 * Asia Pacific Research Committee (APRC)
 * Australian Market and Social Research Society (AMRS)


 * Advances in Consumer Research (Conference Proceedings Publications page)
 * Association for Consumer Research (US)


 * Global Research Network
 * Journal of Marketing Research
 * Market Research Society (US)
 * World Association for Market, Social Opinion and Marketing Research (ESOMAR)

that were deleted by a well-meaning editor I'm glad to see we agree that the edit was made in good faith.

Looks like a simple application of EL, especially WP:ELMAYBE and WP:ELNO. --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Nothing in EL or WP:ELNO precludes the addition of links to peak industry bodies. All these links were chosen because the offer valuable information about market research. Who knows why they were deleted! BronHiggs (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well-meaning editors disagree. --Ronz (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The Role of Arthur Nielsen
The 2010 version of this article contained the following sentence:


 * "The field of consumer marketing research as a statistical science was pioneered by Arthur Nielsen with the founding of the ACNielsen Company in 1923. "

This sentence credits Nielsen with being a pioneer of marketing research as a statistical science in the 1920s and the source for this claim is the Nielsen website. Could it be an instance of Nielsen spruking up his role in the early history of marketing research?

The 2017 version of this article contains the following sentence:


 * "Marketing research has evolved in the decades since Arthur Nielsen established it as a viable industry..."

This sentence contains no reference at all, but elevates Nielsen's role to one of creating an entire industry!

There is no question that Nielsen was instrumental in developing techniques for measuring radio audiences in the 1920s and 30s - but to give him full credit for establishing an entire industry requires a much greater burden of proof. Elsewhere on this talk page, evidence of marketing research being practised in the 1800s and even earlier have been provided. It is clear from the timeline provided above, that the development of marketing research as an industry should credit multiple players, not just a single person. The section on history in this article is so very biased, and fails to take into consideration the academic research that has been carried out in this area. BronHiggs (talk) 02:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Very good catch. The article should be written from the academic research, not primary sources from non-independent parties. --Ronz (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the entire point of my comments. Firstly the material about Nielsen is factually incorrect and this is a major problem in a history section. Secondly, the material which had a reference (albeit a primary source) seems to have fallen off in 7 years of editing changes and today makes a claim that is totally unsupported. Thirdly, the editing changes that have taken place over 7 years appear to have changed the original meaning and taken Nielsen's role as a major player in developing statistical methods in market research (which arguably has some merit) and elevated him to creating an entire industry - a claim that has no merit whatsoever. This comment was never about primary versus secondary sources; it was and is about the merit of the claim being made in the body of the article. BronHiggs (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I understand. I'm saying the solution is to rely upon better sources than the primary source you identify. --Ronz (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And, I am saying that it would be futile to search for a better source to support such a claim, because no such source exists. No reputable account of the history of marketing research is likely to make the claim that Nielsen established the entire market research industry in the 1920s, when ALL serious histories of the subject place the origins of modern market reserach in the nineteenth century and credit multiple players in a more incremental evolution of the industry. I have read dozens of such accounts, and nowhere is Nielsen credited with being an early industry pioneer. It is not about finding a better source, it is about correcting misinformation. I believe that editors have a responsibility to present accurate information first and foremost. The issue of referencing comes in second. Across scores of Wikipedia's articles in the marketing area, you can find misinformation that has been languishing there for 8 years or more, and it is never reverted because it appears to have a reputable source. But the information presented in the article has been misquoted, misinterpreted, has important words omitted, presented out of context or in a few cases, simply fabricated. But such is the culture of Wikipedia that it tolerates misinformation with a good source while it eschews accurate information with a less than desirable source. BronHiggs (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you're making assumptions on what content I prefer. I don't. I'm saying that editors should find high-quality sources and write from them. Without such sources, we're just choosing among editors' opinions - not that I disagree with your opinion, but we don't resolve content disputes this way. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)