Talk:Share a Coke

This also exists in the USA.2601:640:4001:266C:DF:DC37:9785:3940 (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

The case study has now been restuctured and expanded to make mention of the fact that the campaign was launched globally. BronHiggs (talk) 05:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I did my best to include mention of the global campaign extension, as per this request, but alas was reverted. BronHiggs (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

The following discussion has been copied from a user's talk page.

You recently tagged the Share a Coke with a "content like an advertisement" tag. Would you kindly inform me which parts of the article read like an advertisement and I will fix it. Thank-you. BronHiggs (talk) 00:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I can't point to anything specific; it just seems promotional throughout, though that might be due to the article being about a promotional campaign. Trivialist (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Trivialist: Yes, the article is about an advertising campaign. However, it uses high quality references for all factual claims. Any material about the campaign specifics that is likely to be controversial - such as objectives etc are in quotation marks and properly attributed in order to distance the article writer from the content. We might take issue with a claim that the campaign was deemed successful, but is factual to state that the campaign was "deemed to be successful by the Wall Street Journal" or that the campaign "won specified awards." The article contains some 20 references, and only two are to the company website. Most references are to daily press such as the Wall Street Journal and trade press such as AdAge. This particular campaign has been extensively canvassed in the press and in trade news. It is widely written up as a case study for use in universities and colleges, where it is seen as an exemplar of customised communications strategy. It would be a shame to delete the entire article simply because it is about an advertising campaign. Unless, you can point to specific issues that are of concern, would you mind removing the tag? Thank-you. BronHiggs (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank-you for reconsidering and removing the tag. Regards BronHiggs (talk) 02:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I've restored the tag.

First the presentation within the article follows and mimics that of an advertising campaign itself.

Second, the article is written like a brief from a marketing agency rather than an encyclopedia article on the campaign.

Third, the article relies heavily upon primary sources.

Fourth, the primary sources are in many cases the only sources used to determine what is presented and what weight to give content within sections and paragraphs of the article.

AdAge tends to be a very good source, however in this case the specific source used (along with many of the others) is as much promoting the expansion of the ad campaign itself rather than analyzing it and putting it into a historical context, though the AdAge article does this at its end.

The article should be rewritten based upon whatever independent, reliable sources we can find that analyze the campaign and put it in a historical context, the larger the context the better. Sources that are primary, non-independent, or without historical perspective should be used with care in support of the better sources. --Ronz (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)]Reply

@Ronz: Your comments are a classic example of your need for vindictiveness getting in the way of clarity of vision. You claim that the article relies heavily on primary sources. Yet, there are a total of 21 references in the list, and these comprise: General Business/Finance News = 2 from Wall Street Journal, 2 from The Guardian, 1 from Bloomberg, 1 from AOL Business, 1 from the Independent (UK), 1 from CNN Money and 1 from INMA (giving a total of 9 references); then there is Advertising/ Media News = 1 from AdAge, 1 from Campaign, 1 from Campaign Live, 1 from B & T Weekly, and 1 from the Drum (giving a total of 5 trade references), there are also references to content aggregator services = 1 from Euromonitor, 1 from Investopedia and 1 from Statista (a total of 3). So, 9+5+3 = 17 secondary source references out of 21 total. Just where are all these primary sources hiding???????????????? If you want to revert this article back to the state it was in before I started editing, be my guest. I have completely lost interest in it. BronHiggs (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Sorry you feel that way.

It's not clear you read the most important part of my comment [1], as you didn't address any of it. I'm not counting sources. I'm looking at their quality and which are most heavily used.

Thank you for offering a large-scale revert as an option. I'll look at the article history. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've looked a bit closer, removed the two sections that were unencyclopedic for the reasons given above, and reintroduced debranding which should be expanded upon. A revert to the previous verstion [2] doesn't help, though it did include debranding as the very first descriptor.

The article needs a proper introduction, including the 2011 start in Australia.

I've not looked through them carefully yet, but it looks like there are multiple, quality sources currently in the article - the type that the article should be based upon. I'm happy to go over all the sources, list them all here with notes on their quality and how they might be used, and look for more.

@Trivialist:, are you interested in working on this article? --Ronz (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

If historical context is your thing, then you may wish to reconsider the conceptualisation of debranding. It is highly debatable as to whether a product which removes a brand name while retaining all other distinctive brand features such as bottle shape, colour palette and distinctive font is actually engaging in debranding as it has been defined traditionally. BronHiggs (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

That's a content issue resolved with better sources. It was removed completely in favor of emphasizing "award-winning" [3]. The new emphasis was removed [4] to favor a more neutral introduction.

It's certainly discussed as "debranding". Whether or not it is debranding vs "personalization" (https://www.ama.org/publications/eNewsletters/MarketingInsightsNewsletter/Pages/shareacoke-and-the-personalized-brand-experience.aspx), or something else entirely depends upon what sources we can find and how authoritative they are on the topic. (https://www.marketingweek.com/2012/04/04/debranding-the-great-name-dropping-gamble/ discusses debranding where they mean dropping the brand name but keeping other aspects of the overall branding.) --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

As I pointed out [5], I don't think a revert [6] is appropriate. The new sources substantially improve the article as is, and can be used for further improvement. --Ronz (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

If the second removal [7] is meant to be taken as a good faith attempt to improve the article, I'm having how the edit summary, dlt section: unrealistic to discuss campaign outcomes unless some sense of campaign objectives (i.e. in campaign brief) is provided. What is the benchmark for measuring outcomes???, expresses such intention. As I said, the new sources are an improvement. The section needs work, but stands alone fairly well as is. Again, this is not a campaign brief nor should it be written as one. --Ronz (talk) 00:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

• [8]
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]

- Ronz (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2017

Advertising campaign effectiveness is widely understood to refer to the extent to which a campaign attains the advertiser's desired communications goals. These goals are typically measured in affective, cognitive and behavioural responses - e.g. to feel a connection to the brand (affective); to perceive the brand as good value (cognitive) or to make a purchase (behavioural) or to desist from engaging in anti social behaviours (e.g. don't drink and drive). If the campaign objective is to reposition a product or service by shifting consumer perceptions, then it is pointless to measure sales response since that was not the goal.

Some definitions of effectiveness

"Advertising effectiveness pertains to how well a company's advertising accomplishes the intended." Source: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/definition-advertising-effectiveness-23260.html

"Advertising effectiveness must be defined in terms of the needs of advertisers...the term effectiveness involves demonstrating that some effect has occured... Advertising effectivness can be (and is often) defined by criteria other than sales." Source: William D. Wells Measuring Advertising Effectiveness Psychology Press, 2014, p.13 and p. 16

"Advertising effectiveness can be defined as the extent to which advertising generates a certain desired effect." Source: Elisabetta Corvi and Michelle Bonera, "The effectiveness of advertising: a literature review," 10th Global Conference in Business and Economics, 2010, www.gcbe.us

Unless the campaign objectives have been clearly articulated, effectiveness simply cannot be measured. The campaign's goals or objectives are typically set out in the campaign brief, which often, although not always sets out appropriate measures of effectivess. These measures or metrics typically include pre-campaign measures that can be used as a yardstick or benchmark against which the post campaign measures can be evaluated. Advertising planning is very problem-solution oriented and in most cases, the campaign brief will also include some statement about the marketing problem that the advertiser seeks to address in a given advertising campaign. In the context of this article, it makes no sense to discuss campaign outcomes and effectiveness unless some mention is made of the advertiser's desired goals. BronHiggs (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

But we're not writing a marketing brief, as I keep pointing out. --Ronz (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Certainly we are not writing an advertising brief. But we are writing ABOUT an advertising brief. The briefing instructions are an integral part of the campaign's EARLY HISTORY. Without some reference to the brief, the comments about effectiveness lack the necessary context to be meaningful. BronHiggs (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

The following commentary appeared for a short time and was deleted by another editor who incidentally has been stalking me on Wikpedia for more than give months, and engaging in a variety of practices that can only be described as bullying. I believe that these are vindictive edits, designed to punish me for not embracing a red links alternative to external links on an unrelated article. I plan to retire from WP very shortly and put this commentary on the talk page in the event that anyone might find it useful.

Coca-Cola is a well-established brand with a long history and one that has achieved market dominance. ^[1] For a brand such as Coke, that controls some 50 percent of market share, ^[2] there are relatively few opportunities to enlist new customers. With a reputation for ground-breaking creative work, Coca-Cola was searching for a novel communications campaign that would not only maintain its brand awareness, but that also bring the brand to the attention of new audiences. ^[3]

According to the creative brief supplied by Coca-Cola to its advertising agency, Ogilvy, "Coca-Cola was no longer deeply connecting with Australian customers. The brand had lost relevance and its 'cool' factor with Aussies. Coke needed to do something ground-breaking and innovative; something befitting their iconic status in pop culture."^[4] To engage consumers, the company launched a campaign which became known as 'Share a Coke', with the campaign objectives; "to strengthen the brand's bond with Australia's young adults – and inspire shared moments of happiness in the real and virtual worlds."^[5] The campaign, originally launched in Australia became so successful that it was subsequently rolled out to other countries, including the US. ^{[6] [7] [8]}

The reasons given for the reversions (all of which can be found in the article's edit history), are variously described as:

• SOAP:NOT HOWTO
• shouldn't be relying on primary sources
• expand based on independent sources
• needs an introduction
• needs an early history
• early history - the broader the better
• we are not writing a creative brief

Having deleted this material, which I fondly thought was the introduction and context for the campaign, the editor then proceeded to tag the article with incomplete; lacks introduction etc.

BronHiggs (talk) 08:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Slow edit wars are edit wars. The material you keep removing is sourced and appears noteworthy. Let's see if we can get some direction on how best to proceed. --Ronz (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ronz The material you removed seemed noteworthy and provided context for the section on outcomes. Without that context, the section appears like an island and cannot be integrated into the rest of the article, because you chose to delete most of the remainder of the piece. I have removed this material just twice - once in June and again now in November. My reading of the WP:3RRNO is that self-reverting is exempt from edit wars. If you wish to obtain a 3rd party opinion or some other option, please go ahead. BronHiggs (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I found it very interesting that Batternut only registered as an editor willing to undertake 3rd party reviews, after he supplied this review. I also found it very interesting that the editor seeking the 3rd party review failed to notify me of this before the review was carried out, as is required under WP policy. I smell a rat here! BronHiggs (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Some three-quarters of this article was reverted for unclear reasons. Since then, a number of new errors have crept into the article.

• Primary sources: One of the reverter's many objections was the use of primary sources. Yet he reinstated material in the lead section with the use of a single primary source. Now, Wikipedia's policy is that some primary sources may be used, albeit with care. But it seems to me that you cannot have it both ways - you cannot delete several large sections of prose in which just three of the 27 references were non-pimary, but then add back controversial material about debranding with sole use of a primary source. The issue of debranding is highly controversial in the literature - with experts arguing that the Share a Coke is not an example of debranding. Rather, the brand name "Coke" was not removed from the label, it was simply downplayed. The name Coke continues to appear in the tagline, "Share a Coke with..." as can be clearly seen in the images on the page. In addition, the iconic font combined with the colours used on the labelling ensure that the brand is instantly recognisable. This type of controversial commentary should not appear in the lead section, as a statement of fact. It needs some discussion in the body of the article, and ideally it needs non-primary sources to support the claims being made.

• Original research: The lead section claims that the "Share a Coke with..." appeared using 250 names. But, this is not correct. The initial Australian campaign only used 150 names. When the campaign was rolled out in the US several years later, it used 250 names. This type of factually incorrect material should not appear in the lead section. Its appearance in the lead shows a general failure to engage with the details of the campaign (which were all deleted) and introduces an American-centric point of view.

• Lead section: The lead does not accurately reflect the article contents, as is expected. The issue of debranding, mentioned above, is NOT the notable issue with the campaign. The key to understanding this campaign is the way that it personalised its advertising and engaged audiences. The second sentence, as mentioned above, is inaccurate and shows a geographic bias. The final sentence, which is not referenced, notes that the campaign began in Australia in 2011. While this statement is factually correct, it is never discussed in the article (because it was reverted some time ago).

BronHiggs (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply