Talk:Zyman Institute of Brand Science
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from {{{source}}}. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to license this material under the GNU Free Documentation License, and evidence of this has been lodged with the Wikimedia PR department, under OTRS ticket number {{{otrs}}}.
This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia Open Ticket Request System (OTRS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions at wikimedia dot org. Do not use this template to claim permission. |
I grant permission to use the article. Greg Thomas, Director, Zyman Institute of Brand Science. greg@zibs.com
Contents |
[edit] Informal nomination for deletion
Is this article fit to be included in an encyclopedia? I don't really know if other university-sponsored independent enterprises (such as ZIBS) have garnered there own entries in Wikipedia, but if it seems like there's a consensus I'll nominate this article to be considered for deletion in a few days. Itsameanick 07:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Itsameanick.
[edit] Non-POV?
This article reads like a press release, which is hardly surprising as it's based on material from the institute's own website. I realise that permission has been granted to use this material, but that's not the issue at question any more. Fourohfour 00:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ============
I strongly believe the article is quite neutral. Lets go through it line by line.
"The Zyman Institute of Brand Science (ZIBS) pursues the advancement of brand-driven business performance."
- This is factual
"The Institute’s network of international scholars lead the development of new knowledge and insights for managing persistently profitable brands."
- This is quite factual. 1. We work with scholars world wide. 2. We develop new knowedge via research 3. We are focued on brand management (managing profitable brands)
"The Institute works collaboratively with its sponsors, other universities, research organizations, and its corporate members to devise cross-disciplinary solutions for managing real world problems in brand strategy." 1. We are a collaborative organization. 2. We work with marketing, finance and accounting faculty (cross-disciplinary) 2. We develop solutions to real world issues.
"Founded in 2004, the Zyman Institute of Brand Science is swiftly becoming the definitive source for cutting-edge knowledge and thinking about brands." 1. We were founded in 2004 2. We are becoming quite popular. Compare our web traffic to MSI, which has been around since the 1960s.
"The Institute is an independently managed organization within the Goizueta Business School at Emory University." 1. This is all purely factual.
If you have any questions please contact me. Greg@zibs.com
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.140.136.104 (talk • contribs) .
-
- The line "swiftly becoming the definitive source for cutting-edge knowledge and thinking about brands" is clearly not neutral and I have removed it. I also removed the POV check tag. PKT 02:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Even if it were purely factual, this alone doesn't make it "neutral". Anyone can select facts which present them in a favourable light, or at least present less favourable facts in the manner of their choosing. A straightforward example (although it doesn't appear here) is the replacement of the word "problem" with "challenge" in PR-speak. 15-year-old cancer sufferer gets massive overdose of radiation therapy? The hospital states they will help her with the "challenges" she faces. Not "problems".
- Anyhow, the website is unlikely to have been written by a reasonably neutral third party, and doesn't need to have been. The article has to meet different standards. Whilst it's reasonable to use the website as a source of info, the wholesale reuse of such material runs into POV issues.
- Furthermore, whether the statement
- "the Zyman Institute of Brand Science is swiftly becoming the definitive source for cutting-edge knowledge and thinking about brands"
- is purely factual is open to question.
- Bottom line; the article reads like PR, and while it may be (almost) entirely factual, this alone does not make it neutral or trustworthy.
- Fourohfour 10:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rewritten (material retained, but not presented as NPOV)
I disagreed with PKT (above) that removing an unverified claim made the article neutral. As I said, accurate facts alone do not make an article unbiased. Specifically (a) Tone/slant of language can be manipulated (see above), and (b) Facts can be cherry picked.
As it Public relations material cannot be neutral (by definition), it is incompatible with the NPOV Wikipedia editor's position. Even with the more obvious partisan claims are removed, if the overall structure, content and use of language remain the same, then the problem does not go away.
In light of this, I have rewritten the article in a manner which retains the material, but makes clear that it is PR from ZIBS. I feel that this is an acceptable balance that (broadly) should keep any reasonable person happy. I'd like more third party stuff in there, but this is a start.
Fourohfour 13:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This is Factual PR
There are many places and many people who study brands and branding. It seems like self-promotion to single out the Zyman Institute.
This reference feels out of character for Wikipedia - outside the 'brand' Wikipedia. Would it be appropriate to link this in the 'External Links' section, rather than in the body of the article? And let others do so as well? (MFSchar 15:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC))
[edit] Zyman Institute of Brand Science overview is neutral enough
There are many people who study brands, but the Zyman Institute of Brand Science is a focused organization at a top 5 business school (BusinessWeek ranking), not an individual that studies brands. This is the leading institute on branding. To verify this simply ask scholars around the world at other Universities. If you do not know who to ask here is a start: - Scott Neslin at Dartmouth. - Don Schultz at Northwestern - Kay Lemon at Boston College - Mike Hassens at UCLA - Miguel Villas Boas at UC Berkeley - Jin Han at Singapore Management Univerisity
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.140.136.153 (talk • contribs) 22 August 2006.
- See below. My qualms were with the article itself, not the noteworthiness of the subject. Fourohfour 12:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This is substantial
There is a huge list of Insitute's, Universities, and Academic organization on Wikipedia. For example, here is a list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_research_institutes
If these are allowed, I do not see why the Zyman Institute of Brand Science should be treated any differently.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.140.136.153 (talk • contribs) 15 June 2006.
- I never claimed that the Institute itself wasn't noteworthy, I said that the current article was (as a press release) biased.
- The other organisations you refer to aren't allowed to write their own entries either. Fourohfour 12:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
