Talk:Relationship marketing

Another catagory is required
Is there anyone notice the relationship between relationship marketing and social capital?

I believe another catagory is required to explain the concept of 'One to One' Marketing, as coined by Don Peppers book - 'One to One' marketin (121) focues on the interactivity aspect of marketing and has a greater flow of information.

customers value and equity
 * I've never really heard of One-to-One marketing, but it seems like a very buzz-wordy version of Customer Relationship Marketing applicable to smaller segment for more "precise" marketing. Again, if there's anything verified with at least a Journal or a reputable book then I'd be willing to investigate this one for you, but in my opinion it sounds like -- no offense -- bullshit marketing slang. [[Image:SConfident.gif|15px]] J O R D A N [ talk ] 15:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Should BT be included in this article ? There is no citation next to their entry under the Application section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.195.132.11 (talk) 12:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

74.115.216.130 (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the comments above. Regarding the Application section, I have an issue with the citations supporting the "most well-known marketing campaigns." There should be citations leading to journals or other documents, not a company's website.

Sorry, why is there a redirect from experiential marketing to this page? They are completely different things. Also, there is a separate entry for Experiential Marketing (with a good, relevant definition and another entry for Engagement Marketing where experiential is again defined, although as a subset or alias for the main heading. This redirect should be removed, or should redirect to one of the other, more relevant, pages. I don't know how to do this but it needs to be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.21.130.89 (talk) 14:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

What's "Relationship Muming"!?
Under "Description", what's "Relationship Muming". I presume this is an error but I'm not sure how it should read. This whole paragraph is a bit obtuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbohdjal (talk • contribs) 21:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Improvements
This is one paragraph that needs more improvement.

The relationship marketing scholars are found in obtains the profit obtained by keeping the customer review rate than the profit obtained by developing new customers higher phenomenon, has launched a research on the essence of relationship marketing, concluded that relationship marketing is through the actual maintenance of existing customers, thus creating long-term interests to maximize a way of marketing.This research conclusion has been generally recognized later, but the research scope is only limited to the relationship with old customers, which is easy to ignore the dynamic development of customers, because the formation of customer loyalty customers are from the development of new customers, so we should pay attention to the development of new customers.If the enterprise is limited to the maintenance of existing customers, then it is impossible for the enterprise to achieve any progress and cannot cope with the current market competition.

Thanks

LOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Should the Live-in Marketing section be deleted?
I'm not familiar enough with Wikimedia policies and processes to just delete this section. I feel like it has no place in the article because it looks like an outbound marketing technique, not a relationship marketing technique, even though it has some similarities.

I also don't believe it is something that is happening in a significant or unique enough way to deserve a place in any wikipedia article. It seems like it is nothing more than a type try-before-you-buy offer. And I was unable to find either of the referenced sources.

To me this section looks like it was put in to acheive some sort of self promotion and use Widipedia as an advertising or legitimising tool.

If you know enough about Wikimedia policies and processes to delete this section, please do.

--Eltimbalino (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)