Talk:Brandjacking

Brands Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Internet Low‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Marketing & Advertising High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

nnpov[edit]

most of the text reads like a marketing/pr course textbook

no acknowledgement of legitimate uses in parody, criticism, etc.

Lx 121 (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is some acknowledgement of legitimate/critical use. The article specifically mentions use "for political or campaigning reasons" and cites examples, eg use by Oxfam and Greenpeace - but I agree this could be emphasised more to give some balance to the article. It would be useful to have some examples on use for parody purposes. Paul W (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scottwrites (talk) 03:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC) There's no real need to discuss legitimate uses in parody or criticism. The idea of Brandjacking as expressed is to assume the identity of another to essentially steal brand equity. Now, yes, you could argue parody does this, but as you continue into the article it's clear enough that the concept here is about theft of brand equity or an attack of some sort on the reputation of another. Also, the idea of there being legitimate use in parody or criticism was in no way part of what the term seemed to be originally coined to describe. I'm unclear as to how this can be NPOV. It's not a company page or specific to any particular brand. What's not neutral?[reply]

Agree. Unsure why it is seen as not neutral. Doesn't favour any organisation, or sway towards corporate or campaigner perspectives. Paul W (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scottwrites (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC) So... I just added my comment because as the original author of the first entry I thought I'd give it historical context. But I don't care that much either way. One Wikipedia edit suggestion is to Be Bold, so I guess I could take down the notice, but as the original author that might seem too self serving. I think LX 121 should take it down or be more specific about what should be fixed, given that there just doesn't need to be acknowledgement of parody or criticism as those aren't really the issues. Scottwrites (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the tag, for the following reasons: the justification of the tag was not explicit; the consensus is that the POV template is unjustified; and the discussion has been dormant for twenty months. See H:MTR and the "when to remove" section of the template page. -- David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 01:23, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brandjacking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150224180744/http://www.brandchannel.com/home/post/Greenpeace-Mattel-Activism.aspx to http://www.brandchannel.com/home/post/Greenpeace-Mattel-Activism.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]