Talk:B&Q
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating assessment scale. | |
Contents |
[edit] 4-3-3?
- The company has launched a new strategy under the title of 4-3-3.
This is meaningless without some explanation of what "4-3-3" actually refers to. Loganberry (Talk) 00:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Employees of B&Q have enjoyed a 20% discount on all products
Is this really of interest? Even if it is this statement has been show-horned in. Perhaps putting this line into a new section such as corperate responisbilty would be better.
- I think it is only of interest here if it can be demonstrated that it is notably generous compared to other large retailers (esp competitors like Homebase). I was a B&Q employee about 10 years ago and got this discount, together with 10% off at other Kingfisher outlets (a lot more places then than now) but I think employees of the other stores only got 10% off at all stores, including their own. Halsteadk 13:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- So, 'Employees of B&Q have enjoyed a 20% discount on all products'......... Seeing as B&Q enjoy in excess of 50% 'profit on return', they could sell their entire stock to staff and still make a healthy profit! They are frequently twice (and more) the price of a 'builders yard/trade counter/corner hardware shop'. 80.193.161.89 08:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.
B&Q DO NOT MAKE 50% on products across the board nor would it be logical to assume they do. Some products inevitably product higher profit margin rates than others, but trust me, I'm sure some of the small profit margins on big name products would make you wonder why B&Q even bother selling them. Without breaching data agreements I can confirm there are products where B&Q make more profict on the accessory osld with it than the actual unit itself!
To be technical (shouldnt we be on wikipedia), would it be better to say 20% discount on all products not already at store specific discount? And that the employee has to have been working there for 12 weeks before recieving the discount? And that (as of recently) a family member can also be given a discount card? And, non cited six months => eligable for a bonus is incorrect; There are various bonuses, one i just missed because i'd only been working there for 11 months when the bonus came in. I was told if i had been a month earlier i would have recieved the bonus. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.99.14.196 (talk) 13:56, August 22, 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Refrence for History of B & Q
[edit] "The Future" is a meaningless, unfounded statement
This statement is unfounded and pure speculation: "The Future... frequent rumours... ... Visitors to both Home Depot and B&Q stores will notice how remarkably similar stores in the two chains are to each other, both using an orange colour scheme and having a similar style layout."
Agreed. I've added the 'unreferenced' tag to the section but tbh I think it's highly unlikely that any reliable sources can be found for these statements. I would suggest the section be deleted. --Careless hx 04:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:B&Q company logo.gif
Image:B&Q company logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:B&Q company logo.gif
Image:B&Q company logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism Section
This has to go, you'd be hard pushed to find any large company (or smaller for that matter) that doesn't have some annoyed customers capable of using the internet. The information is unencyclopedic and the sources are not sufficient.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.118.212 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 19 November 2007
- I agree, there is no way to tell overall customer satisfaction from these and I would say go ahead, remove it. Halsteadk (talk) 14:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Done - the section even stated that it was anecdotal - not at all encyclopedic... TheIslander 15:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] References
This article needs a serious amount of work on its references - none of which are properly formatted using the cite web template. --TimTay (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
