Talk:Serviceable available market

Proposed merge into Target market
Should this not be a redirect to the more comprehensive Target market article? I note that the lead image used here refers to 'target market', not to serviceable available market or serviceable market.PeterEastern (talk) 10:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Merge into Target market
The number of articles dedicated to the same topic is getting out of hand.

At this stage, we have articles on:
 * Target market - which canvasses the total addressable market as part of a larger topic
 * Total addressable market - which covers exactly the same material as on this page but perhaps in slightly greater depth and includes the same diagram
 * Serviceable available market - (current page) which covers material on preceding two articles

These three articles cover exactly the same ideas. In addition, the topic of an addressable market is also mentioned on the following pages: • :Attitudinal targeting

• :Behavioral targeting

• :Demographic targeting

• :Demographic profile

• :Geodemographic segmentation

• :Geo-targeting

• :Segmenting and positioning

• :Marketing

• :Market analysis

• :Mass marketing

• :Microsegment

• :Niche market

• :Positioning (marketing)

• :Precision marketing

• :Product differentiation

• :Psychographics

• :Serviceable available market

• :Targeted advertising

• :Target audience

• :Total addressable market

• :Values Modes

• Persona

• Precision marketing

• Sagacity segmentation Is this level of repetition really necessary?

BronHiggs (talk) 05:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * From your history I can see that you know this subject well, and I also note that you have contributed significantly to Market segmentation, which seems to be the largest article on the subject. As such I think you would be very well placed to recommend and implement a rationalisation of the articles as you propose. What might be a shame is if the very specific information in these smaller articles ended up 'lost' in the huge  Market segmentation article, which may actually be a bit too big already. Anyway, I for one would support some bold editing and rationalisation if you think this is appropriate! PeterEastern (talk) 12:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)