Talk:Quantitative marketing research

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Why Notoc?

Why is there a NOTOC in this page? It seems to me to need a ToC very badly. seglea 22:36, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree that a TOC would be useful. The reason I disable the TOC in most of the articles I write is that they have an annoying habit of popping up in the middle of the article, sometimes several screens into the article. A table of contents, like a title page should be at the top of an article. I thought I found a solution by putting an edit point at the top of the article so that the TOC would appear there, however administrators deleted them all claiming that they were unacceptable. That leaves us with the choice between having a TOC in the middle of an article or having no TOC at all. I choose the latter as the "lesser of two evils". mydogategodshat 15:50, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] more on ToC

Yes, I've noticed this, too. But you can force the ToC to come to the top by having a ==Heading== for the first substantive paragraph. So lately I've been writing articles so they go like this:

Cod-walloping is the science of walloping cod, that is, fish of the family Gadidae

==History of Cod-walloping==

The first report of Cod-walloping was in England, where it was recorded in the Domesday Book and has continued to be a national sport ever since. However, nowadays everything of interest happens in the United States, so...

I'll make an attempt at doing this with QMR.

seglea 18:57, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

That's not bad. The orphan sentence at the top looks a little strange, but at least there is a TOC. mydogategodshat 19:18, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC) By the way, I look foward to reading your Cod walloping article when you finish it :-)

I've noticed that some people start their articles with the heading "Definition". That eliminates the orphan sentence problem. mydogategodshat 19:41, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Cant find non-statistical info

IMO the text does not live up to the headline's promise, since it covers almost exclusively statistical techniques that are also used in other, namely scientific/academic research contexts (e.g., sociology, psychology, medicine). Quantitative marketing research is more than statistics. Where are the bits about typical types of studies (tracking, pre-testing, pack research, concept testing,...) and the list of marketing research slang terms (e.g., likes and dislikes, punching, columns, RfQ, top of mind, unaided awareness,...). Where are the bits that put marketing research in a broader context? The statistical parts should be shortened and/or put elsewhere.

The way these articles are structured is that most of the general marketing research topics you mentioned are in the marketing research article. The Qualitative topics are in Qualitative marketing research. Causal research topics are in experimental techniques etc. Wikipedia has about a dozen articles on various forms of marketing research. I think you will find everything that you mentioned in one or more of these articles. We cannot put everything in one article. The quantitative marketing research article is limited to large scale marketing research that are typically analysed using statistitical techniques. As for the very general marketing concepts like top of mind, these have their own articles. There are over two hundred marketing articles on Wikipedia. We cannot put everything into every article. You can click on list of marketing topics to see what is available. mydogategodshat 00:07, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I shouldn't really speak for someone else but I think you're missing half of the objection: this reads more like a lecture on quantitative methods within a marketing course, rather than an encyclopedia article on quants in marketing. There is very little distinctive about the contents to justify the word "marketing" in the title, something that wouldn't be a problem in a course but that is, in an encyclopedia. BrendanH 12:09, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with BrendanH. This article does not compare favorably with the article on qualitative research, which isn't even limited to qualitative "marketing" research. I would be in favor of a complete overhaul of this particular article. Thekohser 05:09, 5 October, 2005 (UTC)