User:Mydogategodshat

                                                                                                                        zzuk[?]

Are you also going to do product churning[?] about which I know almost nothing.... ??? -- David Martland 13:57 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea about churning. I might get to it eventually, but first I want to do all the marketing basics. If you're not familiar with churning, you're obviously not a stock broker. So far I've edited most of the existing marketing articles, about 15 of them (some of them were quite well done,but most of them were not), I've reorganized the marketing section on the root 'business' page, and I've contributed about 30 marketing articles. I think it will require about another hundred articles before the marketing section of this encyclopedia becomes really useful at the university level. I am currently doing the product management topics. Next I will do the pricing, and then marketing research areas. (mydogategodshat)

Good work. These were neglected areas. You are probably right about needing a many more articles about marketing, but, a hundred seems a lot. Perhaps there should be an article on sales force[?] and brand management and service marketing[?] as a start, and then, it may start to become more obvious where more fillers are required. For various reasons those three, along with commodity markets, are more fundamental than product management as such, so they should be written first. EofT

---

Maybe I've got the terminology wrong, but a colleague mentioned product churning when I queried why so many ink jet printers have completely incompatible ink cartridges. I had the feeling that, if he was correct, the term had something to do with creating very small differences in products in order to give an appearance of user choice, while at the same time ensuring that products are needlessly kept incompatible. I'd be interested to see what you write when you get around to it. -- David Martland 15:06 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Your colleague is right. The strategy used by these printer manufacturers could be considered a form of churn. Churning in general terms is just selling more product than is benificial to the customer. The classic example is a stockbroker that regularly buys and sells securities in your portfolio. You may or may not gain, but the broker sure piles up commissions. I can see how a strategy of selling the basic product at a loss, but charging outrageous amounts for refills (printers), useage time (cell phones), blades (razors),or prints (photography), can be considered a form of churning.

---

mydogategodshat

Absolutely. EofT

---

I am not blocking you. but the system might think so once in a while. What probably happened is that I blocked a vandal once, and sometimes when you log in, your service uses an IP address close to the one the vandal used. We can ask at the "Village Pump" to figure out how to get around this, if you like. Kingturtle 16:44 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

I challenge the assertion that there is a legitimate field called philosophy of business[?], but, if you write on that topic, I will review and be fair to it. I think it is wrong to consider the current business philosophy article to be pointless, but perhaps, it is ultimately a marketing ploy to call such models a "philosophy", and maybe this is popular management theory[?] (if indeed here is such a thing as philosophy of business[?]). The article could be expanded however, and establish how well or poorly the models discussed live up to being actual "philosophy". That might be fun. EofT

The philosphy of business is a legitimate subject (or at least that is what they tell you when they teach it to you in MBA courses). It deals with the philosophical, political, and ethical underpinnings of business and economics.

I think that is called political economy by both classical and post-neoclassical economists. I imagine Islamic banking would be included for instance. And by that definition both Natural Capitalism and perhaps even Experience Economy[?] qualify, as they have robust positions on these things. EofT

Political economy is quite different. Political economy is economics. It teaches the princples of economics, but not in a technical manner like economic theory courses. There is no calculus or complex mathematical models. The approach is more thematic and historical. It is broader in scope and brings political considerations into the picture. This makes it quite different from the philosophy of business and economics, which uses philosophical and ethical techniques to examine the fields of business and economics. user:mydogategodshat

It asks questions like what the social role of business should be, if indeed it should have one at all. It deals with questions of individualism vs collectivism, freewill, enlightened self interest, and natural rights. Some philosophers, like B Manderville, Butler, Shaftsberry, and F Hutcheson (Adam Smiths Professor at the University of Glassgow), were major contributors.

Definitely political economy. It seems a special name was invented for this by the MBA schools to avoid encountering the left's anti-business arguments, or even those of classical economics. EofT

Try taking some courses in political economy and/or the philosophy of business and you will see the differences. One is economics , the other is philosophy applied to economics.user:mydogategodshat

I suppose I do not accept this distinction at all. Philosophy is "metas on anything", and is prone to infinite regress[?] and ignorance of bodily impacts. I would say that this distinction is a false one, and shows some real errors of thought. But then I tend to agree with the Catholics, Greens, Communists or Muslims that both philosophy and business must be subordinated to certain limits arising from human limits, as interpreted by something that is variously cognitive science, theology, ideology, fiqh. All f those, globally a majority, would probably agree with me that the distinction you make facilitates no end of mischief. Given that, we can have fun arguing out each point. But I am unlikely to accept this distinction you make, or th your professors make. Wikipedia being global, we must deal with diversity. EofT

As for your assertion that I said the article was pointless, what I actually said was that the article was highly subjective. And we know what the Wikipedia policy is on subjective articles. - user:mydogategodshat

I think it is less subjective even as it is than it would be written from the m:MBA point of view. EofT

My point was I felt that there should be some clear criteria as to how to decide what management theories to be included in the article. I also suggested there should be an expanation of why each management theory is included. This would make it less subjective, more value to readers, and raise the level of writing to that of knowledge (or even wisdom) rather than mere opinion. I really don't care what perspective the articles are writen from as long as the writer justfies his/her claims. user:mydogategodshat

---

See permission marketing for an example of a better table: It has no Extraneous Capitalization, and includes the list of ethics topics instead of list of economists - who in business cares about economists? If you prefer change that for business ethics or something, but I hope it deals with the issues recently raised. "Finance, accounting, economics, ethics, marketing, management" sounds like a business curriculum. Also the table is non-standard but tolerable if it is the same everywhere, so please agree on it quickly, you two, or it will disappear to be replaced by a standard "See also" list. Fair?

The reason I capitalized the first letter of important words is, in order to make the chart as compact as possible, I used a very small font size. I felt the larger capitals would be easier to read. If you prefer them without caps, then change them. It really isn't important.

As for who cares about the originators of the theories, I guess people- oriented folks do. To them finding out about the person behind the theory is important. They feel that giving credit where credit is due, is the ethical thing to do.

As for your erasing of links and replacing it with a topic of interest to you, that is great. This topic has an important ethical element to it. But please don't start inserting references to God or ethics indiscriminately. I have heard you have a tendency to do that.

As for "non-standard" I don't know what you mean. I did not realize the WikiPolice demanded all charts to look alike. But I am glad that you found it "tolerable".

You seem to be saying that the chart must be the same on all pages and it must include the topics that you want it to, or else they "will disappear". Firstly, I did not realize that you owned this 'opedia. Let the users decide if the charts are valuable navigational tools, and if they improve the looks of an otherwise bland looking encyclopedia. Let them decide if it is a valuable way of seperating the "see also Articles" from 'Lists of related subjects". Secondly, there is no reason to make them all the same. As lists are developed for other subjects, they could be included. Let the content of the article determine what goes into the chart, not someone that wants to make a desision for all articles and for all time.

user:mydogategodshat

Discussion continued at talk:Wikipedia policy on charts