303:. "Brand recovery", in those sources, seems to refer to almost anything the juxtaposition of the two words might mean. Your first link seems to speak of the nostalgic revival of legacy brands. Your second source mentions "brand recovery" in a list of unspecific managerial issues involving brands. Your third source, van Hamersveld, is published patent nonsense. The relevant page was unavailable for your fourth link; Muthukrishnan and Chattopadhyay is inaccessible also, but seems to be the only one that relates to the actual subject of the article here, which seems to be a prospectus for a service to help brands recover from PR disasters. The last may also be; it's another cover for a journal issue about sales department responses to recalls due to bacterial contamination. -
198:
246:
of profits or funding, and any immoral behavior or concerning how an organization is run, treats employees, customers, or community. The specific message(s) sent out when an organization is using Brand
Recovery, is called a “nugget”. This “nugget” is sent out to the stakeholders of the company. The stakeholders are those internal and external audiences of an organization who have or need information about that brand’s image.
460:" only in a very loose and rigorless, unencyclopedic sense, for example; the article seems to treat a public apology as some kind of game piece; this article reads like it's shot through with marketing slogans) but I certainly would not object to userfying or preserving this text on talk somewhere. Curiosity links:
196:
194:
192:
404:
Just so; my original remark was made more in the spirit of "good luck getting anything useful out of that". The sources seem to be about a variety of separate subjects: the revival of nostalgic brands, the revitalization of faded brands, and this article's subject, which would instead fall under the
245:
Brand
Recovery is needed and used when a brand’s “identity” is lacking “legitimacy” (such as a product recall), and their image becomes tarnished as a result. A multitude of factors can affect a brand’s image such as the unearthing of poor quality of products, poor service, illegal activity, misuse
373:
For the purpose of the present discussion, the question is whether that text uses the phrase "brand recovery" in a way that suggests that there's a subject for coverage. It uses that as part of the title of a box containing the "food porn" narrative, but does not really go on to discuss "brand
358:
This is not the way to discuss sources. You may think it nonsense (which is am emotionally loaded way of saying you don't understand it) -- indeed I may (or may not) think that too. But we go by what reliable sources say, not by editors' personal opinions. Is there any objectively verifiable
274:
271:
268:
265:
451:
would appear to all be titles which cover much of the same territory as this article. The first article is actually fairly pleasant and informative to read. At any rate, there's a bit too much original research, and rather, strangeness here to merge directly into any of these articles
344:
But did you try to read the text? :) FWIW, it seemed to be about the "revival of nostalgic brand" version; the text I was able to see spoke of swapping older pictures for "food porn", but swathed its narrative in nonsensical talk about codes and semiotics. -
405:
general rubric of corporate responses to PR disasters. Some of the sources you found searching on the phrase are about this sense, but most were about different meanings. I will do some searching; I suspect there may be some place in our coverage of
389:
Perhaps your opinion of semiotics is not the crucial aspect to this discussion. Where are we on the more pertinent question of whether "brand recovery" exists as a concept about which one might write an article?
156:
117:
219:
150:
374:
recovery" as the name of a subject itself as far as I could understand as much of the deliberately obscure text as Google was allowing me to see. -
191:. The article doesn't really make a whole lot of sense, and even the references don't come back to anything, as proven by the following searches:
90:
85:
17:
94:
77:
323:
171:
138:
440:
395:
364:
335:
287:
509:
36:
230:
132:
508:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
322:, a reputable academic publisher, an editor who is dean of the faculty of Industrial Design Engineering at the
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
243:
per nomination. Reads like a setup for a pitch for consulting services. We can whitewash your PR problems!
391:
360:
331:
283:
496:
417:
399:
382:
368:
353:
339:
311:
291:
256:
234:
208:
128:
59:
81:
178:
461:
319:
226:
485:
477:
473:
469:
73:
65:
465:
444:
164:
277:
472:. The sources you found might reference any of these articles, if they don't exist already.
448:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
493:
414:
406:
379:
350:
308:
253:
204:
144:
280:
188:
327:
55:
111:
489:
410:
375:
346:
304:
249:
453:
50:
457:
480:
article, would be my thinking. At any rate, if kept this should
502:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
107:
103:
99:
476:
in this article's sense should be a subheading in the
163:
264:"Brand recovery" certainly exists as a concept. See
488:. Nothing Says Spammer like Emphatic Capitals. -
318:So "van Hamersveld is published patent nonsense"?
177:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
512:). No further edits should be made to this page.
220:list of Business-related deletion discussions
8:
214:
218:: This debate has been included in the
359:reason to suppose it is not reliable?
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
494:killing the human spirit since 2003!
415:killing the human spirit since 2003!
380:killing the human spirit since 2003!
351:killing the human spirit since 2003!
309:killing the human spirit since 2003!
254:killing the human spirit since 2003!
189:doesn't seem to be in widespread use
24:
409:that already covers the topic. -
324:Delft University of Technology
1:
60:17:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
497:04:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
441:Business continuity planning
418:23:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
400:21:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
383:20:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
369:20:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
354:18:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
340:18:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
312:03:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
292:19:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
257:15:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
235:07:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
209:06:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
529:
505:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
437:Comment and colon reset
320:John Wiley & Sons
205:(let's talk about it)
445:business continuity
392:Kenilworth Terrace
361:Kenilworth Terrace
332:Kenilworth Terrace
284:Kenilworth Terrace
44:The result was
449:disaster recovery
237:
223:
207:
520:
507:
407:public relations
326:-- looks like a
224:
203:
182:
181:
167:
115:
97:
34:
528:
527:
523:
522:
521:
519:
518:
517:
516:
510:deletion review
503:
490:Smerdis of Tlön
462:nostalgia brand
411:Smerdis of Tlön
376:Smerdis of Tlön
347:Smerdis of Tlön
328:reliable source
305:Smerdis of Tlön
250:Smerdis of Tlön
227:Jclemens-public
124:
88:
72:
69:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
526:
524:
515:
514:
499:
486:Brand recovery
478:brand disaster
474:Brand recovery
470:brand disaster
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
315:
314:
295:
294:
282:for example.
259:
238:
185:
184:
121:
74:Brand Recovery
68:
66:Brand Recovery
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
525:
513:
511:
506:
500:
498:
495:
491:
487:
483:
479:
475:
471:
467:
466:brand revival
463:
459:
455:
450:
446:
442:
438:
435:
419:
416:
412:
408:
403:
402:
401:
397:
393:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
381:
377:
372:
371:
370:
366:
362:
357:
356:
355:
352:
348:
343:
342:
341:
337:
333:
329:
325:
321:
317:
316:
313:
310:
306:
302:
299:
298:
297:
296:
293:
289:
285:
281:
278:
275:
272:
269:
266:
263:
260:
258:
255:
251:
247:
242:
239:
236:
232:
228:
221:
217:
213:
212:
211:
210:
206:
202:
199:
197:
195:
193:
190:
180:
176:
173:
170:
166:
162:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
130:
127:
126:Find sources:
122:
119:
113:
109:
105:
101:
96:
92:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:
67:
64:
62:
61:
57:
53:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
504:
501:
481:
436:
300:
261:
244:
240:
215:
200:
186:
174:
168:
160:
153:
147:
141:
135:
125:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
151:free images
187:This term
454:Kate Moss
330:to me.
118:View log
301:Comment
262:Comment
157:WPÂ refs
145:scholar
91:protect
86:history
456:is a "
447:, and
241:Delete
201:Erpert
129:Google
95:delete
46:delete
458:brand
172:JSTOR
133:books
112:views
104:watch
100:links
48:. --
16:<
482:move
396:talk
365:talk
336:talk
288:talk
231:talk
216:Note
165:FENS
139:news
108:logs
82:talk
78:edit
56:talk
51:Cirt
484:to
439:.
225:--
179:TWL
116:– (
492:-
468:,
464:,
443:,
413:-
398:)
378:-
367:)
349:-
338:)
307:-
290:)
279:,
276:,
273:,
270:,
267:,
252:-
248:-
233:)
222:.
159:)
110:|
106:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
84:|
80:|
58:)
452:(
394:(
363:(
334:(
286:(
229:(
183:)
175:·
169:·
161:·
154:·
148:·
142:·
136:·
131:(
123:(
120:)
114:)
76:(
54:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.