User talk:WWB/2007

User:WWB/New Media Strategies

Hello WWB. The article does seem to have references now, but see WP:CORP for what it needed to establish notability for a company. Articles that are submitted in the area of marketing and advertising to WP tend to be vague and buzzwordy, so anything you can do to help clarify what the company actually does would be helpful. Also there are some obvious questions about corporate history that you don't often see answers to:

• Can you get the full name of the founder, Pete Snyder? Is there any publication (or any web site) that gives his resume?
• Is it a corporation? If so, in what state?
• Any venture capital used?
• Anything known about who originally invested in the company?
• Is any data available about its annual income? (1 million, 10 million, 100 million, just a vague idea)
• How many people work there? (10, 100, 1000?)
• Is the idea of the company totally novel, or is anyone else doing similar work?
• Does the company have competitors?
• The article in the Washingtonian seems informative. It also mentions other sources that have commented, like Inc. magazine. You may be able to add some facts from the Washingtonian to the WP article, and add the references found there.

Just some examples for you to consider. I assume the company is not publicly traded. EdJohnston 14:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw this over at the Village Pump. I didn't have any content to contribute, but I just did a couple of formatting fixes/changes.--SarekOfVulcan 19:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the article does have some reliable sources, the ones you previously added. Since I included the reflist template they do show up. Sarek has improved my template. It is still worthwhile to add the information I listed above, since at present the article hovers on the edge betwen keepable and deletable. If you can put in more information it will improve the chances of keeping the article. Otherwise people may tend to regard it as an advertisement. The Washington Post article says there were 70 employees at the time of writing (January, 2007). Should we include that in the article as the number of employees? EdJohnston 21:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Some answers to your questions... 70 employees is still accurate. It is a corporation registered in Delaware. Pete Snyder goes by Pete Snyder, and his full bio can be found on the company website, or if it carries more weight, it is also listed on iMedia Connection, a trade publication website. That includes some his previous work, as pollster to Rudy Giuliani (when he was mayor) and his television appearances. We do have comeptitors, though I'd say we are novel in that we combine the intelligence/monitoring with digital PR campaigns. And yes, it is a corporation. As the entry states, the company was recently purchased by Meredith Corporation, which is itself publicly traded. (That page needs a lot of work too, but that's for another time). And I'm curious, what puts this on the border of being keepable/deletable? I thought the question for keeping an article was one of notability, which doesn't quite seem to be the issue here. --WWB 18:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

We like the notability to be shown from reliable sources, which should actually included in the article. When an employee of a business comes forward to add an article about their employer to Wikipedia, we assume that they are willing to do the work of bringing the article up to a reasonable standard. We don't like the view that a certain company is 'inherently notable' so that excuses you from having a well-written article. Since you are not General Motors, we really would like you to do a complete job of creating a good article. Merely to say that we combine the intelligence/monitoring with digital PR campaigns is hardly a complete explanation for our readers. Surely if you were making a sales presentation for your company, you would be able to come up with more convincing material? EdJohnston 19:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Ed, thanks. It's going to take me another day or so to find time to work on the entry. Just wanted to let you know I hadn't changed my mind or given up -- I just need more time to get it right. --WWB 20:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, I have not given up either. It is a novel experience to get to negotiate with someone submitting an article on a company that works for the company. Usually there is no negotiation, just a deletion debate after people complain about the article. Obviously this is better. Let me know if I can help in any way. EdJohnston 20:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Not an administrator, but I'll comment on your article soon

Hello WWB. Since I last saw your draft back in August, it seems to have improved. I'll give more specific comments when I have more time. But, while we're discussing this, can you update your post over at WP:VPA#Help_with_Wikipedia_page_creation? You have me identified as an administrator, which is not the case. Thanks, EdJohnston 19:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ed, just changed it to "editor." Looking forward to your comments. --WWB 19:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments on User:WWB/New Media Strategies

Hello Bill. The article links to a bio of Pete Snyder where it says he was a nationally known pollster prior to founding this company, and that he worked for Rudy Giuliani. Is there any press commentary available on his previous activities as a pollster? This would normally be (I assume) a high-visibility role, so somebody must have commented on him.

The other question in my mind was, how does the PR part of your company work? Do you try to influence conventional publications or blogs? The phrase 'unique in that it combines monitoring with digital PR campaign.' seems like it needs backup. That suggests there are no other firms that combine monitoring with PR, and someone might want a reference for that. Just anticipating what future reviewers might say. EdJohnston 16:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ed, thanks for getting back to me. I'll take your questions in order.

First, you're right, Pete Snyder worked for Giuliani in New York. However, I do not believe he received much ink at the time. Rather, he appeared on cable news -- hence the nationally-known. He does still appear on Fox News sometimes, and currently contributes to the industry publication iMedia Connection (where I took the bio from). In any case, the article is not about him, so I didn't expand too much on his past activities. However if you think it should be amended to note that he worked for Giuliani, I certainly can't argue with that.

As to the PR aspect of our company, we focus only on digital outlets -- that includes blogs and numerous websites that wouldn't be classified as such -- particularly in entertainment, we work with webmasters of celebrity fan sites, horror fans, etc. Other firms in this space may do offline work as well, whereas we specialize in online only. Others do monitoring, but not PR. And so on. I've looked through all of our press clips for something like this, but the problem here would be none of our press clips compare us to other companies in this market. Perhaps the better way to phrase this would be, "a unique approach that combines Web 2.0 monitoring with digital PR outreach." Although I can see "unique" sounding too promotional if not backed up with a citation. What do you suggest? --WWB 20:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Anything you can do to make the article sound less like advertising will be a plus factor. Also WP editors tend to think of 'Web 2.0' and 'outreach' as pure buzzwords, so I wouldn't consider using those as part of a logical chain of evidence. Actual examples of things your firm (or similar firms) have done would be good. Also if you can find related content elsewhere on Wikipedia and link to that, your article will seem more comprehensive. For instance we already have an article called Public relations. EdJohnston 20:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the time you're taking with this, but I am not clear by what standards you are judging this article. If you do not believe it meets WP:CORP, please explain to me. For one thing, I'm confused by your reference to the Public relations article -- this article seeks to describe a PR company, but it is not PR itself.

Moreover, the current version of this entry does in fact do some things you are asking for now. It does link to relevant Wikipedia content, competitive intelligence and word of mouth marketing, to name just two. It is also specific about clients and mentions some of our methods (organizing contests being one).

When you ask for specifics, I am unclear on what level of specifics would be satisfactory. I can't see how it could be more notable that we organized any particular effort for Fred Thompson's campaign compared to the fact that we are consulting for them. Meanwhile, I fully agree that "Web 2.0" is a nebulous term, but that's also what the industry calls the space we're in. Whether someone might think "outreach" is a buzzword or not, that is exactly what we do. Does it need to include the word "e-mail"?

I was heartened at the very beginning that you said you were intrigued by the fact that I was coming in and trying to do this the right way. And your initial suggestions got me to work at it and produce a more informative entry. But I feel like we're going around in circles. I am trying to follow your instructions, but I don't feel like I'm getting firm guidance.

Can you point to another example of where a person involved with a company has stepped forward and asked for advice on how to craft an entry worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia? I would be very curious to know how others have done this. --WWB 22:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Your article DOES appear worthy of submission as it stands. I'm just suggesting that future editors may be critical of whatever they think is advertising language, and some of your words may wind up getting deleted or marked with 'fact' tags (asking for references). If you want to move it back into main space as is, go ahead and use the 'Move' button. EdJohnston 23:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Aha, okay. I had the impression that you didn't think it was actually meeting WP:CORP -- hence my frustration. You're right, others will surely come along and edit it -- and that's perfectly fair. Can't expect anything else will happen here. Just to be certain, I will go over the guidelines on advertising language one last time, and try to iron out the bits that sound too promotional. Thanks. --WWB 23:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

U.S. punctuation

Hi. Regarding edits like this, Wikipedia uses logical quotation, so punctuation should be outside of the quotation marks. See WP:MOS#Quotation_marks and WP:MUSTARD#Punctuation. Funeral 18:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)