Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brand Recovery


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Brand Recovery

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This term doesn't seem to be in widespread use. The article doesn't really make a whole lot of sense, and even the references don't come back to anything, as proven by the following searches:    Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Reads like a setup for a pitch for consulting services.  We can whitewash your PR problems! Brand Recovery is needed and used when a brand’s “identity” is lacking “legitimacy” (such as a product recall), and their image becomes tarnished as a result. A multitude of factors can affect a brand’s image such as the unearthing of poor quality of products, poor service, illegal activity, misuse of profits or funding, and any immoral behavior or concerning how an organization is run, treats employees, customers, or community. The specific message(s) sent out when an organization is using Brand Recovery, is called a “nugget”. This “nugget” is sent out to the stakeholders of the company. The stakeholders are those internal and external audiences of an organization who have or need information about that brand’s image. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment "Brand recovery" certainly exists as a concept. See, , , , ,  for example.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. "Brand recovery", in those sources, seems to refer to almost anything the juxtaposition of the two words might mean.  Your first link seems to speak of the nostalgic revival of legacy brands.  Your second source mentions "brand recovery" in a list of unspecific managerial issues involving brands.  Your third source, van Hamersveld, is published patent nonsense.  The relevant page was unavailable for your fourth link; Muthukrishnan and Chattopadhyay is inaccessible also, but seems to be the only one that relates to the actual subject of the article here, which seems to be a prospectus for a service to help brands recover from PR disasters.  The last may also be; it's another cover for a journal issue about sales department responses to recalls due to bacterial contamination. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So "van Hamersveld is published patent nonsense"? John Wiley & Sons, a reputable academic publisher, an editor who is dean of the faculty of Industrial Design Engineering at the Delft University of Technology -- looks like a reliable source to me.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But did you try to read the text? :) FWIW, it seemed to be about the "revival of nostalgic brand" version; the text I was able to see spoke of swapping older pictures for "food porn", but swathed its narrative in nonsensical talk about codes and semiotics. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not the way to discuss sources. You may think it nonsense (which is am emotionally loaded way of saying you don't understand it) -- indeed I may (or may not) think that too.  But we go by what reliable sources say, not by editors' personal opinions.  Is there any objectively verifiable reason to suppose it is not reliable?  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * For the purpose of the present discussion, the question is whether that text uses the phrase "brand recovery" in a way that suggests that there's a subject for coverage. It uses that as part of the title of a box containing the "food porn" narrative, but does not really go on to discuss "brand recovery" as the name of a subject itself as far as I could understand as much of the deliberately obscure text as Google was allowing me to see.  - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps your opinion of semiotics is not the crucial aspect to this discussion. Where are we on the  more pertinent question of whether "brand recovery" exists as a concept about which one might write an article?  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just so; my original remark was made more in the spirit of "good luck getting anything useful out of that". The sources seem to be about a variety of separate subjects: the revival of nostalgic brands, the revitalization of faded brands, and this article's subject, which would instead fall under the general rubric of corporate responses to PR disasters.  Some of the sources you found searching on the phrase are about this sense, but most were about different meanings.  I will do some searching; I suspect there may be some place in our coverage of public relations that already covers the topic. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 23:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment and colon reset. Business continuity planning, business continuity, and disaster recovery would appear to all be titles which cover much of the same territory as this article.  The first article is actually fairly pleasant and informative to read.  At any rate, there's a bit too much original research, and rather, strangeness here to merge directly into any of these articles (Kate Moss is a "brand" only in a very loose and rigorless, unencyclopedic sense, for example; the article seems to treat a public apology as some kind of game piece; this article reads like it's shot through with marketing slogans) but I certainly would not object to userfying or preserving this text on talk somewhere.  Curiosity links: nostalgia brand, brand revival, brand disaster.  The sources you found might reference any of these articles, if they don't exist already.  Brand recovery in this article's sense should be a subheading in the brand disaster article, would be my thinking.  At any rate, if kept this should move to Brand recovery.  Nothing Says Spammer like Emphatic Capitals.  - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.