Talk:Ogilvy (agency)/Archive 2

Name Change
Ogilvy changed its branding recently to remove "& Mather" from the title of the agency - the article, except its title, was reflected to change this. Can the title be updated as well?

NigeriaNoKamisama (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit request: Updates Round 1
Hello, I'd like to make a series of suggestions to help update and improve this article. I've researched and written several proposed updates that I've outlined below. Disclosure: I have a conflict of interest because I'm here on behalf of Ogilvy as part of my work at Beutler Ink. In all, I'm looking to correct outdated information, add citations, eliminate WP:POV, and reduce redundancy. I have a few more proposed updates in the works, but I thought it best to bring these to the volunteer Wikipedia community in chunks to make reviewing a bit less burdensome. My proposals are as follows:


 * Update John Seifert's title in the infobox to "chief executive, worldwide", as he is known at Ogilvy is "chief executive" rather than "chief executive officer".
 * Remove Miles Young, who is no longer worldwide chairman (source) and Tham Khai Meng, who is no longer with the company (source. More on this issue at the bottom of this request.)
 * Replace the listing of former subsidiaries with Ogilvy's sole subsidiary following its recent restructuring (source)


 * Update the first sentence to include "branding" (source)


 * Grammar fix to the last sentence of the second paragraph under Foundation. "It was later called 'probably the best sales manual ever written' by Fortune magazine" is written in passive voice. I propose we make it active voice with the following:


 * Tweak the sentence on Tham Khai Meng's efforts noted in Adweek. The dates provided in the live Wikipedia article are not accurate. Also, the article itself does not specify which years, which might lead to the confusion. As you'll see below this point, I propose updating the information on the Cannes Lions recognition two paragraphs later in the article, so I wonder if this sentence can simply be rewritten so it eliminates the inaccuracy, but reduces redundant information and stays true to the source.


 * Update the following paragraph with 2016 Cannes Lions "Network of the Year" recognition, with new source, and non-primary sources to verify the Effie Awards received by Ogilvy


 * Rewrite the last paragraph of this section with sourced content, eliminating POV. Also, the material in the live article is currently unsourced

There is another point I want to bring up, which I have mentioned to editors earlier in this post. Ogilvy terminated its worldwide chief creative officer, Tham Khai Meng, earlier this month, and it has generated some media coverage, so I understand if editors feel it should be covered within this article. If that's the case, I have prepared a brief summary of the issue based on independent coverage in secondary sources.

I keep my Wikipedia contributions where I have a financial conflict of interest on Talk pages rather than directly edit entries, so I'm looking for editors who might be willing to review my request and update the article. You previously reviewed a request for this page by a former colleague of mine. If you have time, could you also review this and make the updates if things look neutral and well-sourced? Please ping me if you have any questions. Thank you in advance, Danilo Two (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Following recent feedback from the Wikipedia community, I have closed this request. I will create new requests below by breaking these edits into smaller pieces and changing some of the asks to reflect that feedback. Thanks, Danilo Two (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Request: Infobox updates
Hello, I'd like to suggest some fixes to correct information in the article infobox. Disclosure: I have a conflict of interest because I'm here on behalf of Ogilvy as part of my work at Beutler Ink. There are three things I'm asking for: Please note: Where I'm asking for information to be removed or replaced in the infobox, I am not suggesting this be removed/replaced in the article body; the former subsidiaries still remain in the article's Services section (I'll be back later with a suggestion on adding the new information to this section, as well as some broader context for the changes) and mentions of Young and Meng remain in the article's History.
 * Update John Seifert's title in the infobox to "chief executive, worldwide", as he is known at Ogilvy as "chief executive" rather than "chief executive officer".
 * Remove Miles Young, who is no longer worldwide chairman (source) and Tham Khai Meng, who is no longer with the company (source).
 * Replace the listing of former subsidiaries with Ogilvy's sole subsidiary following its recent restructuring (source).

I keep my Wikipedia contributions where I have a financial conflict of interest on Talk pages rather than directly edit entries, so I'm looking for editors who might be willing to review my request and update the article if things are neutral and well-sourced. Thank you in advance, Danilo Two (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * This has been answered. Danilo Two (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Request: External links
Hello, I'd like to suggest more updates for this page. This time, I'd like to update the External links section. Disclosure: I have a conflict of interest because I'm here on behalf of Ogilvy as part of my work at Beutler Ink. There are a few things I'm asking for:
 * Please consider deleting the link to OgilvyOne. Since Ogilvy's restructuring this year, OgilvyOne is no longer a sub-brand; also, the link redirects users to the main Ogilvy page, for which there is already an external link in this article.
 * Please consider adding a link to Ogilvy Consulting, which is the company's strategy division
 * Also worth noting: Neo@Ogilvy is no longer a part of Ogilvy as it was folded into GroupM's Mindshare (which is also a part of parent company WPP Group plc) in 2017. Given that neo@ogilvy is no longer part of Ogilvy, is it appropriate to be listed in the External links?

I keep my Wikipedia contributions where I have a financial conflict of interest on Talk pages rather than directly edit entries, so I'm looking for editors who might be willing to review my request and update the article if my request complies with Wikipedia's guidelines and accepted norms. Would you mind also giving this request a look? Thank you in advance, Danilo Two (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ - I removed the outdated external links, but didn't add Ogilvy Consulting. There's nothing in the article about them except for the entry in the infobox.  There may not be enough material for a standalone article yet, but if you want to draft a short subsidiaries section and add a couple of sourced lines about them, I can review for you and put it in if it's neutral enough.  I can then put in a redirect for Ogilvy Consulting, and will then add the external link. On a more pressing note, the article should probably be moved to Ogilvy (agency), since the article name no longer matches the company name, and Ogilvy is taken by the dab page. Any other eyes here that agree with me? TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  17:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! I completely understand regarding Ogilvy Consulting. I am working on some new material to clean up the last paragraph of History and add brief detail on the company's new structure to Services based on independent, secondary sources. I will ping you when it is complete. Also, I would agree on a move so the article title matches the company name, though I ultimately defer to what other editors think is best. Thanks, Danilo Two (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Request: History
Hello, I'd like to suggest more updates for this page. This time, I'd like to update the last paragraph of the History section, which is unsourced in the live article. Disclosure: I have a conflict of interest because I'm here on behalf of Ogilvy as part of my work at Beutler Ink. My full request is as follows:


 * Please consider updating the last paragraph of History. In the live article, this paragraph is unsourced, and could easily be read as promotional.
 * I rewrote the sentence surrounding Ogilvy changing its name
 * I deleted the following potentially WP:PROMO sentence: "The new identity and logo are nods to David Ogilvy's favourite British typeface - Baskerville - while also suggesting the global network's agility and collaboration through a simple, elegant connecting ligature.
 * I added brief context surrounding changes in the industry and how Ogilvy developed over time as a result, which ultimately led to the company's "re-founding".
 * I added citations to appropriate secondary sources for all details.

I keep my Wikipedia contributions where I have a financial conflict of interest on Talk pages rather than directly edit entries, so I'm looking for editors who might be willing to review my request and update the article if my request complies with Wikipedia's guidelines and accepted norms. As discussed in my request above, would you mind also giving this request a look? I will follow up after this with a request to update Services. Thank you in advance, Danilo Two (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ I also fixed a typo in the second to last sentence, moved the article to a new name, and updated the Ogilvy DAB page. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  18:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for making these changes (and for catching that typo!), in addition to moving the article to Ogilvy (agency). I'll post my proposed update for Services in just a moment. Danilo Two (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Request: Services
Hello, I'd like to suggest more updates for this page. This time, I'm looking to update the Services section, which is outdated. Disclosure: I have a conflict of interest because I'm here on behalf of Ogilvy as part of my work at Beutler Ink. In my draft, I have updated the Services section to show the company's current structure while also retaining the historical details of its previous setup. I've done this by putting the historical information in the past tense, and included a paragraph about its current structure at the very end.

I keep my Wikipedia contributions where I have a financial conflict of interest on Talk pages rather than directly edit entries, so I'm looking for editors who might be willing to review my request and update the article if my request complies with Wikipedia's guidelines and accepted norms. Would you be able to give this a look, too? Thank you, Danilo Two (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the first two paragraphs are more company history than services, and thus are better blended into the history section. The services section only needs to be the last two sentences. No reason to make interested readers read about their old divisional structure to find out what they do today. I'm surprised that I'm the only one helping here - your edits do improve the article by making it more up to date. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  22:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be in favor of editors incorporating the historical details into History while keeping Ogilvy's existing structure of services in Services. The reason I proposed this request as I did was to take into account some Wikipedia editors' preference to retain historical details in articles. But your suggestion makes sense to me. I even think it could work to incorporate those two paragraphs as I edited them (to make them past tense) within the content you previously reviewed and implemented above. What do you think? Danilo Two (talk) 16:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Per your suggestion above, I tried my hand at incorporating the historical structure into History. Rather than propose dispersing bits of info throughout the History section, I think this could fit nicely into the area where the article discusses Ogilvy starting to look like a holding company of its own. I also removed the quotes from the ref names (per your note on my Talk page.) Care to give it a look?

Then, as you suggested earlier in this discussion, the Services section could look like the following:

How does this all look? Thanks again for your reviews and help with this! Danilo Two (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion
It seems to be time for Wikipedia to decide whether it wants any more of this pre-packaged native advertising, as proposed here by Beutler, a "digital agency specializing in visual design, social media, inbound marketing, and Wikipedia", in this article or indeed anywhere else. Personally, I'm against it. While we've reached no definitive conclusion on what to do about deceptive advertising, it's my opinion that we can't risk adding any content that may be illegal under the laws of the United States, and the content proposed here, written for lucre by an agent who is here to line his/her own pockets and not to improve the encyclopaedia, is surely content of just that type. I suggest that the present content of the article should also be reviewed for neutrality, which appears to have been compromised by the acceptance of several other proposals from the same paid agent. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree pretty strongly with User:Timtempleton's comment above here. There is a tendency among people who work on articles about companies to model them after company websites. This is not the company website - it is an encyclopedia article. The purpose of this encyclopedia article is not to market current services to potential customers. The services section should cover the history of the services they have offered.
 * Danilo2 thanks for your effort to provide more encyclopedic content; I see that as being responsive to the close of the AN here and appreciate that effort. Really. Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Its an absolute mess, and completely subverts Wikipedia's Terms of Use. We are encyclopaedia. Why does it look like a company brochure with a large history section? Classic in-speak entries include sales activation and shopper marketing. If NLP actually was proven to work, this would be the article for it, with Ogilvy & Mather mentioned 66 times in a 70k article, with Ogilvy mentioned 205 times. It needs to be substantially reworked. scope_creep (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Glad to see other eyeballs here. I'm getting pinged a lot.  In general, most company articles I've seen put all the history in a history section, and detail about current products/services in a products/services section.  Very rarely do I see product history in a products section that is part of a company article. I have seen a history gray area with regards to funding info - some articles have a separate funding history section, and some blend funding events in with the rest of the history (and of course some editors attack funding sections for being promotional). I suppose the $100,000 question is - how does a paid editor with a disclosed COI make everyone happy, when there are content disagreements such as these between experienced editors? The more we debate this among ourselves, the more hostility is going to grow towards Ogilvy. Should this be an RfC, or is that just going to become a proxy to reopen the closed TBAN discussion? TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  20:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * These types of articles, weighted down with vast amounts of company minutiae, duplicate references and a sea of blue wikilinks to every possible word are the hallmarks of this editor. Come to think of it, this article is the perfect example of what a wikipedia page done for an advertising agency should look like: Like an article on steroids—bursting at every seam with information covering every minute detail. If someone coughed at Ogilvy, you can be sure that this editor would have it referenced three times along with a minute by minute description  of every muscle used during, as well as wikilinks to every muscle. I'd say that 90% of this article came from three sources: adage's encyclopedia article on the company, Ninart Lui's article on their anniversary, and of course a huge swath of it (22%) from the Kenneth Roman source, who I am surprised is allowed to be such a prominent source of information for this article considering Roman once ran the company as CEO. This article's neutrality has not been compromised—its been obliterated.   Spintendo   03:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I intend to copyedit in the next few days to get rid of the WP:PUFF. It is a 63k, and should really be any more that 10k-15k. An absurd number of references, totalling 143, for a 63k organisation article is absolutely woeful, a ref every 450bytes is drastic and not sustainable. scope_creep (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi everyone, I appreciate the feedback. I would like to clarify a few things, and then will leave this request and allow consensus to determine how best to update Services and the article as a whole. First, my first request on this page came in July 2018. I closed the request due to feedback I received from the Wikipedia community here and, per Jytdog's note above, I thought hard about how to re-approach this. The requests that I've posted and that have been reviewed to date focused on updating the infobox, cleaning up External links, adding some context and removing some unsourced and WP:PROMO text around the recent re-founding in History. This is the extent of my contributions to the live page to date.


 * If editors feel this article needs some trimming, I do understand, and want to give some background to the page as it stands. This article underwent a rewrite in 2015 and 2016 by a former member of my team. At that time, those edit requests were reviewed, commented on, and implemented by editors KateWishing and crh23. Among those requests, my former colleague suggested an expanded History section, and sections on Ogilvy's well-known campaigns, corporate culture, and services; after all, Ogilvy was a major American company in the 20th century. Since my former colleague's final request in May 2016, this article has been edited approximately 50 times; various editors unrelated to my team or Ogilvy have made tweaks.


 * Before I leave this, I want to restate that I'm trying to make suggestions to help improve the page based on Wikipedia's rules and feedback I've received previously. In particular, I'd ask that editors consider updating Services by making old information past tense. Unless there are specific questions or concerns needing to be address, I will now step back and defer to consensus. Thanks, all! Danilo Two (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Following up on Services
Hi everyone! It has been nearly two months since I last posted here as I wanted to give editors time to edit based on consensus. Since that time, User:Scope_creep has made a number of edits that I agree have streamlined and improved this article. Thank you for those! One section not updated in Scope creep's edits is Services. I would still ask editors to consider updating that section. Just above, I had previously floated proposed text to show the company's current structure while also retaining the historical details of its previous setup. I am completely OK with either of the two approaches suggested by others: Either keeping the historical detail in Services, as suggested by User:Jytdog, who I see is no longer active on Wikipedia, or by moving the historical detail to History, as suggested by User:Timtempleton. Currently, the Services section still refers to Ogilvy Public Relations, Ogilvy One, Neo@Ogilvy, Hogarth & Ogilvy, etc. in the present tense. These no longer exist as brands or units of Ogilvy. It also uses the company's former name, Ogilvy & Mather. Would editors consider either of the two approaches above? Thanks for your time. Danilo Two (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Danilo Two, I still intend to slim this grossly promotional article down to acceptable size. It really needs work, andits on my todo list. I dont mind updating it with valid up to date info, but it still needs to get down to a respectible size that represents only facts. Quick question. Ss your username named after that David Zindell book?   scope_creep Talk  01:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand if you think this article needs to be slimmer still. I'm particularly curious to see what you think should be done for Services. As for my username, it is not named after a book. Just a nickname. Thanks again! Danilo Two (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It is beautifully written, hard to remove text, but there is certainly consensus to reduce it. I don't know. An RFC probably.  scope_creep Talk  18:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ - the history and services sections are more accurate now, with the structural history preserved. I also started to shorten the campaign info so that only the most notable ones are showing, with just the more notable aspects of those campaigns. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  22:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reviewing this and updating the article. I agree that your edits to Major work are a nice improvement. Thanks! Danilo Two (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)