Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demand Generation


 * 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   keep.  MBisanz  talk 00:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Demand Generation

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I can't tell that "demand generation" differs in any way from marketing and wonder if this article is a particular person's original research on that subject. Comments? —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, OR. Usrnme h8er (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

You made a comment about Demand Generation not being different from Marketing, and it's worth a clarification. Marketing is a very broad term that encompasses everything from branding, advertising, and promotion to product strategy, pricing, and merchandising. Demand Generation, is the subset of marketing (usually in business to business) that focuses on more tactical campaigns that generate leads for a field sales team. It is a market space that is relatively new, perhaps 5 to 10 years old, and does not have a Wikipedia entry yet. It's a term that is recognized by industry analysts like Forrester, Aberdeen, Sirius Decisions, etc, so I do feel it warrants a separate entry from Marketing.


 * Since branding, advertising, promotion, product strategy, pricing, and merchandising all have the goal of generating demand, I'm skeptical about the specificity of this designation! Anyway, since a deletion discussion is in effect, the place to most effectively make your thoughts known about the nomination is on the discussion page, Articles for deletion/Demand Generation. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point, Demand Generation, as a sub topic of the general topic Marketing, is similar to the other sub topics like advertising, branding, etc. Those all have separate Wikipedia entries, as they are separate disciplines in Marketing, with separate skills, roles, techniques, etc. The question is whether, given the fact that there is of course overlap between any of the sub topics, Demand Generation should be seperate. This is similar to drawing a line between Advertising and Branding, whereas they share many of the same concepts (a TV spot does both), they are really separate disciplines with separate thought processes

Demand Generation is both relatively new, and mostly relevant in a B2B environment, but I believe warrants a separate entry for two reasons - the advent of significant numbers of Vice President level roles with a title of Demand Generation, showing significant corporate adoption, and the coverage of analyst groups like Sirius Decisions, Aberdeen, Forrester Research, etc. Thoughts?

—Steven Woods (talk) 13:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * So, you're saying that until recently, generating demand wasn't a focus of marketing? I always thought that it was the overwhelming purpose of marketing and of nearly every one of its subdisciplines, and that this has been so for centuries, but now you're saying it's a relatively new concept. The point I'm trying to make is that demand generation isn't an aspect of marketing (like branding, ad placement, POP displays, store placement, tie-ins, premiums, PR, etc.), it's its purpose. It also isn't clear why it would be specifically B2B, as though the very real goal of generating demand among consumers wouldn't rightly be called "demand generation" —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the general notion of "generating demand" is common throughout the history of marketing, but the structured discipline of managing, nurturing, scoring, and handling the flow of leads that come from the variety of online sources where people get their information IS new. That marketing discipline is what the wikipedia article on Demand Generation refers to. Prior to the popular adoption of the Internet for any and all information gathering, marketing would create buzz (via promotion, advertising, etc), which led to inbound phone calls, which would go straight to sales.

Now, that is not how people buy (they use Google, websites, free trials, etc), and marketing (especially in B2B) has developed a discipline of cultivating and managing this online demand. That discipline, and the marketing departments that support it, is called Demand Generation. Demand Generation departments, executive roles, analyst research, vendor communities, etc, have really only been around in any significance for 5-10 years, hence the absence of this entry on Wikipedia to date. It is now a significant discipline in marketing though, so I do feel it warrants an entry.

How would a debate like this best be resolved? What evidence would best clarify the issue?

—Steven Woods (talk) 16:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That will depend on what other comments make their way here. The article won't be deleted unless a consensus for deletion is established here. I still don't understand what you're saying&#8212;if there's a new discipline rooted in the new Internet technology, why would it be named something generic that doesn't distinguish the new discipline from the activities that that name equally well describes and that have been going on all along?&#8212;but if the discipline is genuine and notable, then that's a side quibble and would lead at most to a proposal to change the name of the article to something more specific. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep--Multiple sources in Google Books, and additional resources found at the summit.--Jmundo (talk) 05:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as Demand Generation is a neologism for marketing. There is no evidence this term is notable. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Sandstein   09:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep – I was originally going with a merge/redirect to Marketing, however, after reading the piece, and looking on Google Scholar there is a proliferation of books – essays – texts and such, as shown here that I can easily see an article on the subject.  I would ask the author to rethink his current choice of references, more than happy to give him a hand, but overall I say keep.  ShoesssS Talk 16:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Does this proliferation of books establish that "demand generation" isn't just a newfangled buzzword meaning "marketing" and that it calls for its own treatment separate from the Marketing article? —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree, it is part of the Marketing genre. However, in my reading of the term Demand Generation Demand Creation are actual one and the same, with the term being used interchangeably and is a specific part of a marketing strategy.  In reviewing the topic page on Marketing, I noticed that the page is quite long at this point and has several articles, similar to this one, listed as see also.  In that this article deals specifically with a given aspect of the marketing, plan and is referenced and cited, I see it as a stand-alone piece.  Regarding newfangled word, I saw cites as far back as 1977 when I did my search.  Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 17:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect to Marketing -- use of a different term for the same thing doesn't warrant a new article unless the phrase itself has established specific notability only applicable to that phrase. (I'd be hard pressed to even come up with an example that would work, but can imagine that circumstance like that might exist.) DreamGuy (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep pretty much per Shoessss. Plenty of reliable sources can be found in Scholar; they just need to be included. MuZemike  ( talk ) 23:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Shoessss. Plenty of reliable sources can be found in Google Scholar, and they just need to be included. -- MISTER ALCOHOL  TC 04:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

—Steven Woods (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback, Shoessss I would definitely like to take you up on your offer for references help - I'm a newbie here. Also, I agree with the comment on Demand Generation and Demand Creation often being used somewhat interchangeably to refer to the same area of marketing.
 * Comment - Not a problem. Sorry for the delay getting back to you, but on a short holiday.  I’ll start giving you a hand tomorrow. Happy New Year. ShoesssS Talk 01:39, 3 January 2009 (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.