Talk:Seth Godin/Archives/2012
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Books
I didn't see any links or even a name about the book Godin coauthored. Any information on this should be easily available, right?
I've never edited my page, and actually prefer not to look at it (a reader pinged me about this), but can tell you that I never wrote "Paratrooper's Outfit: Why Batman's Gown" and it would be good to delete it. Thanks.
Claims removed
I just removed the "Seth Godin is known for a very visual, personal, and dynamic speaking style." bit. It had been tagged as needing sources since September when it also had "that has earned him a large following." tacked on the end. Someone removed the large following bit and the fact tag - but the whole claim needed sourcing, and I couldn't find any notable commentators that made a point of highlighting Godin's public speaking.
I also deleted the bit about him becoming known for philanthropy (also tagged since September). I couldn't find any reliable sources that supported either view as particularly significant. While the details of the Squidoo revenue to charity bit were verifiable on their own they don't really say anything about Godin and his reputation as a philanthropist. I couldn't find any notable commentators who seemed to be picking Godin out from th crowd as a notable philanthropist so I pulled the whole paragraph. -- SiobhanHansa 13:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Criticism?
This page is lacking something obvious IMHO: a criticism of his works and general theories. Even the most profound minds in business and economic history (Welch, Ford, Keynes, et al) have had to endure their critics. Where are Godin's? I find it highly improbable that there aren't any real business minds out there (in academia or positions of corporate leadership) who have found flaws in Godin's general business theories. On the most basic level, the validity of his "predictions" on future economics don't pass the smell test.
His academic and professional background is in marketing and internet startups and yet, he implies through his blog posts and books that he has the answers to the problems we face in global manufacturing and macroeconomics (see "forever recession" as one example). Is he qualified to speak as an authority figure on topics this complex? I've read nothing to suggest that he is. Has he backed up his larger theory (citing sources, using real data, etc) about how the industrial manufacturing model is out the window, and the new internet "revolution" is the way forward? Writing 12 super-popular internet marketing books does not mean he is an expert on (or that he even understands fully) the dynamics of global manufacturing and business... anymore than Oprah writing a book about inspirational human achievements, makes her an expert on NASA and space exploration. The topics are related to what the authors are good at writing about, but that's about it AFAICT. I have read through a couple of Godin's books (Purple Cow, Tribes) and I fail to see where the messianic adoration this guy gets as a "business mind" comes from.
His conclusions on the "bigger issues" seem, in many cases, very simplistic. And all of them serve the purpose of circling back to reinforce the buzz-concepts he likes to use in his books, as evidenced by the fact that he uses said phrases to round out his "big issue" posts. He espouses dramatic and plausible-sounding theories in these posts to draw attention (that's good marketing in the internet / viral world after all), re-affirm people's belief in all things internet (ditto), and ultimately to get more people to buy his books (trifecta). Surely some other observers have noted this? I'd love to see some references to criticism in his profile to balance out the love-fest.
People so routinely quote this guy, and he is so popular in business book circles, that it seems virtually anyone of significant stature (online or in the media) is afraid to criticize him, but that shouldn't stop us from looking or asking around. People should know the full story when looking him up (perhaps deciding whether they'll buy his books based on what they find here). Just a thought since things are in dispute generally.
[Also this is closer to a C class article than B class IMO. Right now it almost reads like a press release.]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Sobchak (talk • contribs) 18:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Sections that include criticism are fine, as long as they abide by WP:NPOV, WP:CRITICISM and WP:UNDUE. A couple notes: the section should be called "Reception," to keep a NPOV, and it should include both positive and negative criticism to keep the article encyclopedic. Svernon19 (talk) 04:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)