Talk:Mobile marketing/Archive 1

Spammer Bingo #4, #6 for adding: SMS and MMS Best Practices section
Dear Montco,

I am a bit confused as to why you removed the content that I added within the Mobile Marketing wiki page. I understand that you called it 'self serving company spam,' however, I have no reason to agree with your assessment.

Yes, I concede that my company will benefit from the links back to it. However, Wikipedia users will also benefit from the symbiotic relationship that Wikipedia pages foster, as we have content within our Web site that is genuinely valuable to readers. I am an expert mobile marketer, and who is better to to offer an expert opinion about a subject than someone who works day in and day out within that subject's industry? I should not be punished because I had to found a company to become an expert within this field.

SO, I have outlined nine points as to why the content that I added was not simply 'self serving company spam.' Again, I do own a mobile marketing company and I did link back to it. However, the four paragraphs of content that I added are factual, valuable, and cite four independent sources.

1. I added four paragraphs of non-biased content to the Mobile_Marketing page, and I backed the content up with four distinct sources. I did not simply add a link and leave the content untouched. Any seasoned mobile marketer would consider these four paragraphs factual in nature.

2. I made three separate edits with three separate comments so that users like yourself could see the legitimacy of the posts. However, you removed all of them, including a simple spelling correction.

3. I cited four separate sources within four new paragraphs of relevant content.

4. All four sources are in no way related other than being part of the mobile marketing industry.

5. The first source links to an 81 page study conducted by one of the worlds leading advertising agencies, and .mobi. If you are not aware, .mobi is a top-level domain (TLD) approved by ICANN that was founded by investment from: Ericsson, Google, GSM Association, Hutchison (3), Microsoft, Nokia, Orascom Telecom, Samsung Electronics, Syniverse, T-Mobile, Telefonica Moviles, TIM, Visa and Vodafone.

6. The second source links to a page within my company's Web site (I co-founded Punchkick Interactive) that is dedicated to explaining SMS and MMS best practices. Although my company is a commercial entity, we are extremely well respected within the mobile marketing community, and have earned our legitimacy launching campaigns for brands like: UPS, AT&T, Intel, Qualcomm, Pearson Education, and Motel 6 (see: http://www.punchkickinteractive.com).

7. The third source is actually our competition--and I thought nothing would secure my 'non-spam' status as much as this would! The article I cited was written by the CEO of mobileStorm, Jared E. Reitzin. mobileStorm has been around for years and their clients include MGM Grand Las Vegas and American Idol.

8. The final source I cited links to an article written by Gene Keenan, one of the founding members of the mobile marketing association (See bio: http://www.imediaconnection.com/profiles/iMedia_PC_Bio.aspx?ID=4629).

9. My third edit to this page was to add two links within the external links section. One of the links went to the Mobile Marketing Forum--a mobile marketing discussion forum organized and operated by The Mobile Marketing Association. The second link directed users to a comprehensive glossary of mobile marketing terms. The glossary exists within my company's Web site--and this I presume--was the root of this misunderstanding.

Please advise. Obviously, I propose that you re-review, and eventually, reinstate my three edits.


 * I'll get the easy stuff out of the way first. The forum is in violation of point 10 on the external link guidelines.  Without an extraordinarily compelling reason, its not going to make it.


 * Second, all of the edits are covered by the conflict of interest guidelines. While WP:COI does not outlaw such edits, it discourages them, and I absolutely take it into consideration when reviewing links.


 * Third, the edit to Mobile Web is a company blog which I look at as being covered by WP:COI and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:El#Links_normally_to_be_avoided|links to be avoided. The content included in the link about the subject is minimal and while you may consider your firm a recognized authority, the bar for that is relatively high and is still subject to notability which Punch Kick may or may not qualify for.  I believe an entry for the firm has already been deleted once for a lack of notability.


 * Finally, with regard to the edits to Mobile Marketing. This is an encyclopedia, not a how-to forum, or a user blog.  If, for instance, (and please forgive the example, but I have used it in the past) theere was an article on Wikipedia Advertising, the article should be about the phenomenon and not necessarily how to do it better.  If I came along and added a section called "Better Wiki Advertising", listed a number of tips or tricks to evade the spam patrol and fight deletion discussions and included a link to similar statements on my Wiki Consulting Firm website, that probably is not a good thing.  If, for instance, I came along and published a section called "Success and Failure in Wiki Advertising" and included data from WikiScanner indicating that 80% of Wiki advertisers include nothing but a link resulting in a 90% deletion rate (I wish) and that 5% of advertisers include information that is reliable, valuable, and unobtainable anywhere else resulting in long-term link survival, that's relevant content about the subject.


 * Our guidelines on reliable sources specifies "reliable. third party sources". Most of the links are self published and to some extent, little better than company press releases which also violate WP:EL.  Ultimately, what does the best practices link really offer?  It is nothing more than a couple of short lists that are merely regurgitated in the article.  The Mobilestorm link is equally self serving and while its content is slightly more informative than the prior link, the blog post is unsupported by data making it unverifiable and frankly, judging from the "SMTP Sucks" section, marginally unencyclopedic.  Although I am not averse to including links that have coarse English, this post smacks of informality and takes it down another peg on the reliability scale.  Surely a recognized marketing/advertising publication has made some mention of the topics you cover. The mobithinking and imediaconnection links might be able to be used.  They aren't outwardly commercial or spammy and some of the content 'may' be useful some for something.


 * In short, some of the links may be appropriate, some clearly are not. Given what I use to make my decisions, rather than tear up your piece into something utterly incoherent and useless in order to cull something from it, I eliminated it.


 * I am not the ultimate authority around here and others certainly will have differing opinions on the subject. Thank you for being considerate in this matter rather than edit-warring as some are wont to do. There are a lot of rules and guidelines out there which I strongly urge you to review in order to contribute successfully.    Montco (talk) 23:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

2 dimensions Barre Code
In europe, flashcode is the reference for the interactive and non intrusive mobile communication. Flashcode is the 2 dimensions barre code which give directly access to a cell phone internet contents from all off line communication support. Flashcode is using the MobileTag technology.

We should merge with Mobile advertising
This article should be merged with Mobile advertising. Mathiastck (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

++Mobile MArketing is a separate tool-set to Advertising and requires it's own listing++ 79.67.94.193 (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)stuartwilliams79.67.94.193 (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please source your edits
Please source additions per independent, objective news articles in publications that meet WP:RS; industry groups and buddy publications, non-notable books, surveys, and experts, and unsourced examples and information will continue to be removed. And without reliable sources, it is doubtful many of these related articles will survive the scrutiny of Wikipedia's notability policies. Flowanda | Talk 08:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)