Talk:Share a Coke

Potential refs

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

Campaign effectiveness

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)

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

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)

Share-a-Coke

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. For a brand such as Coke, that controls some 50 percent of market share, 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.

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." 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." The campaign, originally launched in Australia became so successful that it was subsequently rolled out to other countries, including the US.

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.

References

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

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)

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)

Response to third opinion request (Dispute over inclusion of a "Campaign effectiveness and outcomes" section to the article.):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Share a Coke and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

(Strictly dealing with application of 3RR) The 3RR exemption reads Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting") - I take this to mean simply that Editor A can undo their own edit or set of edits; not that Editor A can endlessly undo Editor B's edits, even if Editor B is reinstating text originally added by Editor A. The copyright perspective would be that once editor A has written and published some text under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License, that editor cannot prevent others from using it as long as the attribution is there. (The adjunct is that Editor B becomes responsible for the text being in the article.) Batternut (talk) 10:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

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)