Talk:The Sunrise Coast

Marketing and Branding

I know this isn't a major point or anything, and I have no massive problem with the article as it stands, but I do think it's actually marketing/branding. Both sources (good job btw) are tourist sources. Every source I find on the first three pages of ghits is either promotional or using the term in quotes in a way which strongly suggests to me that it's branding. I can find a total of one story from the EDP online archive (from 2003) which uses the term in a non-marketing/branding sort of way

I just don't see it as a phrase which is used at all in everyday use.

As I say, no big deal as such - just seems a bit of a push to suggest that it's not branding really. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You're probably right. I was initially moved towards its probable wider adoption by this book. Nonetheless, I don't think we can say it's marketing/branding without definitive proof. On another note, do you think the article should be removed entirely due to notability? U+003F^? 17:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair points - maybe go along the lines of "has been marketed (or branded?) as..."? Not sure how that would look though - I'll see what I can find, although this article isn't top priority for me just now!

I'm inclined to think this is a marginal article at best. The merge note, which I didn't add, might be the way to go, but the Lowestoft article needs to be improved before it could justifiably be added to it - the only issue with that is that it sort of ignores Southwold, although a sentence could be added to that article as well just as easily (I'm relatively unconvinced that Beccles and Bungay are either that tied to this branding, err, name ;-) ), unless you have any better ideas. I think it would be very marginal at best at AfD, although I can live with this article existing too. --Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)