Talk:Brand loyalty

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 May 2020 and 3 July 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jade71u.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

This page reads like an instruction manual to marketing people in some parts.. I think the style needs to be cleaned up Nano Dan (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Merges?

We have a lot of small articles on different concepts involved in branding and I wanted to get some third opinions on which ones should and should not be merged. From my perspective most of these can be merged into Brand for definition (noun) type concepts and Brand management to describe the act, profession or different strategies/approaches/concepts to managing it. Brand Loyalty is too big of a concept and has a lot of ok content for us to lump it into the Brand or Brand Management articles, but there are several articles that relate to Brand Loyalty-related concepts. Corporate 20:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brand loyalty. 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/20130212100753/http://www.themasb.org/common-language-project/ to http://www.themasb.org/common-language-project/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130212100753/http://www.themasb.org/common-language-project/ to http://www.themasb.org/common-language-project/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Edits

The construction and caution sections of this article contain "weasel words" meaning the sentences and words used contain biases. I will go ahead and attempt to clean this up by rewriting elements of this section, and being more considerate of the writing style used in order to follow Wikipedia criteria. I will also add new information to both these sections in order to "beef up" the article and add credibility by including peer-reviewed sources. Lythammari (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Pictures

Hello all, Adding more pictures with the examples might be a good idea to make this article easier to read. Jade71u (talk) 05:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Tag bombing

Although this article has significant issues, it also had excessive tag-bombing that made parts of the article almost unreadable, due to the presence of maintenance tags every few words. I have consolidated them into a {{cleanup-rewrite}} tag at the top of the page.

Anyone wishing to fix these problems may still refer to this diff to see which of the sentences have issues. There were many "clarification needed" and "definition needed" tags because the page did not define these terms properly, but there were also some "who?" and "non-sequitur" tags. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Illustration

This image is directly relevant to the article's main subject and the caption concisely summarizes the abstract topic. If anyone knows of a better illustration, then please suggest one before removing this one. --Bensin (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@bensin: genuinely, how? ltbdl (talk) 10:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by "how"? What about the image is it that you object to? --Bensin (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@bensin:

what the image depicts:

✅ zombies

✅ chains and cuffs

✅ medusa

what the image doesn't depict:

❌ brand loyalty ltbdl (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying.

What this image depicts:

✅ Representations of brands (some 50 of them) inserted into the brains of humans

✅ The brands turning the humans into zombie-like creatures in shackles (the brand loyalty is restricting them)

✅ The affected zombies are in stark contrast with an unfettered human resisting the brands

What the image doesn't depict:

❌ Medusa (Nothing in the image itself, nor any description of it, indicates the woman is representing Medusa. Medusa is usually depicted with living snakes in place of hair and there is not a single snake in this image. What makes you think it's Medusa?)

If you think any of that is not clear from watching the image, feel free to clarify the caption. --Bensin (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@bensin: the sticks inserted into the humans also consists of symbols of christianity, islam, judaism, buddhism, a hamsa, and satanism, so i'd think this image is in very poor taste. ltbdl (talk) 01:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, religions use branding too, see faith branding. But now your argument has shifted from "Image is unrelated to the topic" to "I don't like it". Also, you didn't answer why you believe the woman in the image represents Medusa. What is your basis for that claim? --Bensin (talk) 12:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@bensin: you genuinely do not see the problem here? that religions are being compared to brain sucking parasites? not to mention the Sigil of Baphomet. ltbdl (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

No, I genuinely don't see the problem. The Sigil of Baphomet is the official insignia of the Church of Satan, which is a religious organization, so that sorts into the sub-category of faith branding too. What about it? This image illustrates effects of brand loyalty in general, of which faith brands are a small subset (some 15% of the brands in the image). No single religion's brand is singled out, nor is there a focus on the sub-category of religious branding. But do I understand you correctly in that what you object to it is the blasphemous inclusion of those 15% brands of religions simply because they are brands of religions, and that you believe the image depicts "Medusa"? You still have not provided any basis for your claim that the woman in the image represents Medusa. --Bensin (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@bensin: it's not "faith branding". it's an attack on religion, and thus irrelevant to the concept of brand loyalty.

p.s. the medusa bit was a joke. ltbdl (talk) 01:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

A "joke", was it? Are there any other of your arguments that were "jokes" too? What exactly do you claim is an attack on religion? --Bensin (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

cc @tara198 and @accurateinfoomg who have also removed the image. ltbdl (talk) 04:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

That is called votestacking, see Wikipedia:Canvassing. --Bensin (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@BensinThe religion thing is not the main problem- wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an art gallery, where images are only appropriate for very specific cases, where they are necessary for illustrating a topic. For example, an article about a famous figure should include their photo. Or an article about a building, which would have a picture of a building. This image on the other hand is unnecessary, as it has very little explanatory power in the context that it is in! Accurateinfoomg (talk) 08:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and an article about brand loyalty would have a picture illustrating brand loyalty. This image illustrates brand loyalty and illustrates the topic well. What about the image is it that is unclear to you? --Bensin (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

let's see...

Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. – Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images

how is an image of zombies an illustrative aid to understanding brand loyalty? ltbdl (talk) 03:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The image is an allegory. The zombies are a metaphor for brand loyal consumers. The tags with sharp points are a metaphor for brands. The woman is a metaphor for a consumer not exhibiting brand loyalty. That's how the image illustrates brand loyalty and is directly relevant to the topic. You still have not explained how the image is "an attack on religion" as you claim. --Bensin (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

according to your description, the image is a flagarant violation of NPOV. i have explained how it is an attack on religion already. ltbdl (talk) 23:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

An allegory can still be NPOV, as it is in this case: No brand (or group of brands) are singled out; the brands collectively serve to illustrate a metaphor. But do explain how you think it is a violation of NPOV, and supply a basis for you claim. That should be easy if it is as "flagarant" as you claim.

As for your claim that the image is an "attack on religion". Are you referring to your statement "religions are being compared to brain sucking parasites"? Because that statement is inaccurate in at least two ways: First, religions themselves are not the target, but rather the component of lacking independent thinking that may come with faith branding. Second, as I have already pointed out, the image does not specifically depict religions and faith branding is not the focus; the image depicts brand loyalty in general (of which faith branding is one part). You seem to come back to the claim that it is an "attack on religion", despite the fact that only some 15% of the brands are associated with religions. You have not aired any grievances that the rest 85% of the brands would constitute an "attack on corporations". --Bensin (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

do you want a third opinion? ltbdl☃ (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds fair. --Bensin (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Third opinion (but not really because another editor has already weighed in): Everyone agrees that MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE applies here. @Bensin has stated: The image is an allegory. The zombies are a metaphor for brand loyal consumers. The tags with sharp points are a metaphor for brands. The woman is a metaphor for a consumer not exhibiting brand loyalty. That's how the image illustrates brand loyalty and is directly relevant to the topic. IMAGERELEVANCE states:

Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic. For example, a painting of a cupcake may be an acceptable image for Cupcake, but a real cupcake that has been decorated to look like something else entirely is less appropriate. Similarly, an image of a generic-looking cell under a light microscope might be useful on multiple articles, as long as there are no visible differences between the cell in the image and the typical appearance of the cell being illustrated.

The proposed illustration represents an abstract idea through culturally-contingent metaphors. It is not analogous to a cupcake. In any event, it would be far too small in this article for readers to even notice the details; I had a hard time seeing the brand logos initially when I opened the image on Commons.
Additionally, the fact that this image compares major world religions to brands—a concern that Bensin has dismissed as the image merely including faith brands—and denigrates religious people as sheeple is clearly an NPOV violation. First, attacking all religions equally doesn't make this neutral; the point of view is anti-religion. Second, the fact that religion comprises approximately 15% of the symbols in the illustration is irrelevant. Religion is clearly part of the focus of the image, even if it isn't the main one. We wouldn't tolerate an image with 85% positive messages and 15% racist slurs. Finally, the fact that this is an "attack on corporations" makes this even more of an NPOV violation. An article on brand loyalty shouldn't be illustrated by an anti-corporate image. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand or misrepresent several of the arguments I made:

* "this image [...] denigrates religious people as sheeple" – No, it doesn't. As I wrote earlier: "the target [is the lack of] independent thinking that may come with faith branding" (added bolding) but more general with ANY branding loyalty. Any claim that religious people are sheeple is in the eye of the beholder. If you look at the image you will see that every single one of the affected individuals are simultaneously affected by more than one brand of multiple types. No individual is affected by only faith brands. Therefore that conclusion cannot be made from this image.

* "attacking all religions equally doesn't make this neutral" – As stated, religious brands constitute 15% of the image. Just like corporations (whose brands make up 85% of the brands in the image) are religions not exempt from neither scrutiny nor criticism. And that should not be used as an excuse to remove the image.

* "the fact that religion comprises approximately 15% of the symbols in the illustration is irrelevant" – No, it's very much relevant because it proves that religions are not the target of the message of the image. The target is brand loyalty.

* "We wouldn't tolerate an image with 85% positive messages and 15% racist slurs." – I don't understand what point you are trying to make. Are you saying that the depiction of religions brands is a negative thing but that the depiction of corporate brands is a positive thing?

* "the fact that this is an 'attack on corporations' makes this even more of an NPOV violation" – Nobody made such a claim. I explicitly pointed out that no such claim had been made.

With that said, I appreciate you taking the time to formulating your opinion. --Bensin (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The image is not relevant enough for this particular article and may be too allegorical. Almost any photograph of shopping would be more relevant. The image is artistic though. Darrelljon (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)