Talk:Office Depot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Companies Portal
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.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale.


This article has a serious problem of POV and spam-like content. I will start doing some of the cleanup. Please do not revert without discussing your edits. Pascal.Tesson 18:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  • The Low Price Guarantee is a standard policy of Office Depot (as well as most electronic retailers) that affects consumers but yet might not be a point of information that they are entirely aware of. It is a part of Office Depot and relevant in how they operate. Do explain how this is "spam" in contrast to posting...say.... the Return Policy information which is one several other retailers page? Or, more pointedly how is this more relevant then posting the Private Brand listing or Recycling programs? If someone is interacting with Office Depot, the LPG or Return policy is just as relevant to them and their interaction.

-Secondly, the POV. I will be more then happy then discuss any objectionable phrasing to help best maintain an NPOV. Agne27 15:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

  • A couple other notes. I was looking up Wikipedia policy to see what areas of the article needed to be worked on, in particularly about Companies Notability and I found these two points 1.)Recommendations for products and services Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company is so large that this would make the article unwieldy.

2.) Criteria for products and services This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.

-Now with only a cursory look at Google (admittedly I'm short on time to do a more exhaustive search), I found a number of complaints on Consumer Sites about service failures from Office Depot's return policy & low price guarantee like Compliants.com, Consumer Affairs, My 3 Cents, and Complaint Center. A common thread to many of this complaints is the misinformation about return policies and price matching-valid & notable information that consumers want to know about a company. In addition there are several PC World consumer affair articles about the return policy at Office Depot and other retailers-indicators of the importance to consumers about these policies. another PC article. Overall, I think these policies are notable and entirely relevant to a company's article. In stating them plainly and straight forward you can best maintain a NPOV. The Wikipedia criteria for Spam circles around advertisements which I don't see where stating a company's policy equates to advertising for them, especially when that information is more to the consumer or wiki reader's knowledge and benefit then the company's.Agne27 15:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


If someone is interacting with Office Depot they will go to the Office Depot website not on Wikipedia. Details of their customer policies are not of encyclopedic interest. For that matter I don't thing the recycling programs have much business being there either. Pascal.Tesson 15:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

All the links you give are essentially to individual complaints. The info that was on the Office Depot entry made absolutely no reference to these (and shouldn't as that info is inverifiable). It was just info taken off the company's website and in fairness to smaller retailers that do not have a Wikipedia article, I think the customer service details should not be in there. Pascal.Tesson 15:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


  • In light of Wikipedia's desire to enhance the depth of company descriptions, including the placement of their activities and product developments in context, thereby providing connections between things and their origins that we often forget or overlook and the applicable notability of the policies in how they relate to consumer watchdog and consumer affairs site, I think they are well within Wikipedia's guidelines for "encylcopedic". This is unless, of course, they are advertising and "Spam". The burden of proof for the Spam tag is on you to show how stating policies that are notable and relevant to a Wiki reader equates to Advertisement.Agne27 16:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that you should quote that part of the guideline. I see very little in there that supports the inclusion of detailed consumer support policies. In fact you will not find this info on Home Depot, Wal Mart, Kmart, Best Buy, Future Shop, you name 'em. Pascal.Tesson 16:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you've substantiated your main contentions.

  • 1.) Spam. The tag references external links and spam. In your last reply every single retailer you referenced had similar external links (like to officedepot.com, homedepot.com, etc). The link that you deleted was in reference to the LPG Policy. What you have not established is how that policy (as well as the return policy) constitute as being Spam to merit the tagging. According to Wikipedia guidelines, the closest it could be is as Advertisements masquerading as articles. However, you have not established how stating a company's policy constitute an Advertisement. Please establish this.
  • 2.) Encyclopedic Interest. It is your contention that inclusion of those policies are not encyclopedic. In reply, I've referenced some of Wikipedia's guidelines for notability in business related articles in particular the part where it is said Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company. While I understand that you may take a personal view that products and services should not be included, current Wiki guidelines do. If you wish to take issue with those particular Wikipedia guidelines, this article is not the proper forum to do that.
  • 3.) NPOV. I share with you a desire to best maintain the NPOV of wikipedia articles and I still wish to work with you on this front. However, I do not see the view that plainly stating a company's policy constitutes a POV in any matter since it is not presented in either a favorable or unfavorable light nor is there any impression of endorsement or discontent. If you can demonstrate any POV in the wording of any of those polices, that would better substantiate the POV contention.

I understand your deletionist persuasion and I applaud your work on Wikipedia. However, I do believe that significant edits, especially deletions, need to be better substantiated in order for them to be valid. I encourage you to better present the reasoning behind your 3 main contentions. Agne27 04:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let me adress these. WP:SPAM is indeed most concerned with external link spamming and it is true that there is no official policy or guideline concerning acceptable content with regards to promoting a certain company. That same guideline however says "Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language". Furthermore, I strongly feel that the article was giving undue weight to customer service of the company thus contributing to a non-neutral point of view. The 1-800 number for customer service was strong indication of spam intent. Also note that the retailer pages I gave do not have this information. I never stated (please reread my last message) that these pages do not have external links, they do and that's fine. But none of them refer to specific customer service policies. Of course, all retailers especially in North America have such policies and inclusion of those policies in the Wikipedia article serves to give them an importance or a distinctive aspect that they do not have. This is also, as I mentioned before, unfair for competitors that do not have Wiki entries because they're smaller companies. Also, the quote Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company is correct but honestly I think you are misinterpreting it: the customer service is not something that the company sells, it is customer support. This is why I think it's ok to have the house brand names in there but not the customer service details.

What is still present is your attempt to craft Wiki policy within this article versus going through the proper policy channels. While the merits of your personal view have a valid basis, these are still "Pascal's Policy" versus "Wiki-Policy". Your actions are rather unfair and arbitrary to the editors of this article to whom you did not give a chance to compromise and work together with before you installed "Pascal's Policy" on the article. Some other points

  • 1.) Sales Oriented Language - Stating a company's policy is not in the sales realms. It is a factual reference to a facet of a company's business model. Better examples of something sales oriented would be the "Slogan section" of your Future Shop reference, the Service & Replacement Plans (talking about the sales oriented features & benefits) of your Best Buy reference, as well as the Blue light special referencing special deals in your K-mart example. Those items are much, much more sales driven in focus then a Return or LPG policy, which is clearly more customer service focus. Again you're trying to establish this "Advertisement Spam" but you are falling short in trying to equate a company's Policy with Advertising. IMO, this is the brunt of your contention as well as your weakest point.
  • 2.) NPOV. For a retail establishment, customer service is proportionally more relevant to a business then other factors. Retail is very much a Service Industry so it's natural and very relevant for service related facts to be included in an article about a retail establishment. In your opinion, would the article about McGill University be a non-neutral point of view because overall the article gives more weight to references about its Academic & Research then its history? I would say the average person would reply "No" because it is natural to expect an Academic Institution to give undue weight to the academic and research nature of that institution.
  • 3.) 1-800-Number. It is fine to take exception with this point and it was an easy edit that could enhance the overall quality of the article. However, rather then take the mud off the wheels you capsized the whole wagon. You have not substantiated the need to remove the entire policy portions.
  • 4.) Other Wiki Articles. We all know that wikipedia is a constant work in progress, with differing degrees of quality across the board. On some level it is unfair to try and justify a massive edit because one company's page includes different factual information about it. I will point out that none of the articles you referenced are classified as a "Featured Articles" or even "Good Articles". In fact, both the Best Buy and Wal-Mart articles have disputes and needs for clean up in their own areas. They are all clearly in their own right-works in progress- and you should not hold the "omissions" in their articles against the quality of this article. As for "smaller" retailers-the notability factor that they have to grapple with applies to all aspect of their articles, not just customer service. Office Depot has achieved a degree of notability that warrants its inclusion on Wikipedia. Office Depot's customer service policies are discussed on Consumer watchdogs and Consumer affairs sites which adds to thier own notability.
The notability factor as well as the high relevance that these policy have to an article about a Retail business merits their inclusion in the article. While rewording and refashioning of the sections can be made to improve their overall quality, the bottom line is that your massive deletes are unjustified. They are unjustified at least till you go through the proper Wiki-channels to change the guidelines that you object to. That said, I think you should seriously consider reverting your own edits as the proper course of action. Agne27 15:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe the "Recommendations for products and services" section of Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) is being taken out of context here. The entire paragraph reads:

"Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company is so large that this would make the article unwieldy. In that case, it is preferable to keep minor products in lists, and major products in their own article."

This particular guideline refers to the situation in which someone wishes to add a product or service that X company offers somewhere in Wikipedia. It indicates that products/services generally do not merit articles of their own and in such cases should be added to X company's article, versus having an article of their own. The guideline does not say "we should add to Wikipedia all products/services the company offers."

Considering this, the return policy of Office Depot is in itself not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, especially as verbose as it was (taking up roughly ⅓ of the entire article). Every retailer has a return policy, and many nowadays do offer price-matching criteria. These policies are standard operating practice; they don't fit the mold of being a unique business model that would merit inclusion.

However, if (per Agne27 above) there are sizable and well-covered complaints regarding Office Depot's return policy, then the issue should likely be covered in summary in the article. One paragraph or small section could summarize the return policy (providing a citation to the complete policy itself). A following paragraph or section could detail the complaints. All, of course, should provide proper references.

As prior to Pascal's edits there was no mention of the issue with the return policy, the policy itself had no place in the article, and as such removal of the policy was proper. It should not be re-added unless it is needed to provide background information for the addition of the "return policy issue" (and even then, it should not be nearly as verbose as it was). --AbsolutDan (talk) 17:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree with AbsolutDan's sentiment that discussion of the return policy should be limited to those aspects which specifically contribute to knowledge about Office Depot, which is to say those portions that define the company, and those portions which have sparked significant controversy. For those who feel that the entirely of the return policy text would be useful as a reference, it seems like Wikisource (instead of the WP article space) would be a more suitable location. --Alan Au 19:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I vote no on the return policy too. It is really kind of redundant because nearly every company has the same type of return policy. As previously mention it was also rather gawdy and ugly. I can see a case for the price match policy since it looks like office depot has a unique feature--the after rebate bit. But the external link is a no-no. Peace. 205.157.110.11 22:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Proposed Compromise

I appreciate all the feedback and it looks like there is room for compromise. I can see the reasoning for excluding the return policy and would concede its exclusion. However there does seem to be room for the LPG policy to be included. Is this an avenue that would be agreeable to pursue? Agne27 15:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I could agree to an inclusion if it's kept reasonably brief, and focusing on its uniqueness. Plenty of stores have price-match policies - if the addition indicates how OD's is unique I think it would be ok. Just my $0.02. --AbsolutDan (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
As a follow-up, if we are going to list the price-match policy, listing the controversy surrounding it would probably be a good counter-balance for POV purposes --AbsolutDan (talk) 20:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The "controversy" around it is most notabily the amount of misinformation that seems to be "common knowledge" about the policy that produces complaints among consumers. Ex #1, Ex #2, Ex #3, Not a consumer site but the thread references how to complain to BBB, etc and includes more LPG misinformation Ex#4 near bottom, and Ex #5. For NPOV purposes, what do you think would be the best way to present that? Agne27 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately I don't believe those would qualify as reliable sources for this information. Can you find a newspaper article or some other story-type writing in a RS that discusses the controversy? --AbsolutDan (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Branches per counrty - to be expanded

Like with the Toys R Us article, I started a per country section. It still needs to be inhabited, but I am sure it'll grow. I will try to add the flags. gidonb 00:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The numbers in this section are out of date; additionally, the data changes with some frequency. Relevant information can be found on Office Depot's Web site, however, the breakdown of stores/locations/license agreements/joint ventures per country is not provided. In the interest of keeping the article accurate, I propose that this section be either a) deleted or b) updated to reflect the information available. 8dPF (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I added the {{POV-check}} tag because the opening paragraph (at least) needs to be re-worded, it sounds like an advertisement --AbsolutDan (talk) 12:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I rephrased the first sentence, as I could find no solid evidence that OD is, in fact, the largest, and, if it's true, that should be connected to a citation. I also took out 'leading-edge', because I don't think that's NPOV. Petronivs 14:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
In fact, Staples has been consistently out-performing Office Depot over the last few quarters. I'm lacking source material for that other than internal communications, though. AWedig

Yo dog. Our stock has been kicking staples @$$. Now if we just stop with the recycle paper jack and the millions we are losing then maybe we would be onto something. - Pete

[edit] Weird question

Okay there is this book that is out about Office Depot (It has an ISBN number and cataloged in the LoC and stuff) but I don't think you can buy it anywhere. It was given out to employees and it has a lot of useful historical stuff about the company's founding and the failed Staples merger etc. It would make a great source for the article and turn it into more of an encyclopedia article then an advertisment.
But the rub is that while anyone could order this book from Office Depot or the Publisher (and could be verified by anyone), right now it is just employees who have the book and mostly it would be employees who would be motivated enough to use it to reference the article. That seems like it would be a conflict of interest but how is the information going to get to the article?
Could this be a case of WP:IAR with the obvious expectation that other editors will review material and make sure that it doesn't cross any POV or advert lines? 205.157.110.11 14:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted Information

I deleted the following. It was listed at the top of the page before the toc:

EMPLOYEE TREATMENT Office Depot treats employees much like office products...they are merely consumable goods. Many employees work 40 or more hours per week, but are not labeled as "full time", therefore they receive no benefits of full time employees. Office Depot promotes "WorkLife" as one of its programs as a balance between work and life, but this does not apply to its employees. For employees of Office Depot, Work is all that matters. This is especially true of store management. It is not uncommon for store managers and assistant managers to work 70 or more hours per week, especially since Steve Odland became CEO and cut payroll. Many AutoZone employees have expressed that they are very happy to be rid of Mr. Odland and that they now have the staff necessary to run a store properly. Office Depot management must make up for the cut in payroll so Steve can look good and move onto his next company. Hopefully, this will occur soon.

Pgrote 02:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

Although I feel it not neutral to bash Odland, I did agree with this point of poor employee relations. Therefore, I have added relevant content that has links to credited sources without attacking Steve Odland or any other individual. (although I do feel he is the button pusher with previous behaviors at Auto Zone.)

A lawsuit is very controversial. Please do not remove this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.35.104.1 (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Price Match Policy

I've noticed some question regarding the Price Matching Policy at Office Depot. I am an employee of store 2127 (Two Notch Road; Columbia, South Carolina). Our policy is as follows
1)Proof of Price through a print media. The advertisment to match can not be online.
2)The store you want us to match must be in the general area of our store. We can not
match the price of a Staples store in Georgia from an Office Depot in North Carolina. --Amaraiel 14:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Comp USA is gay! Staples is better! OORAH STAPLES. BOO COMP USA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.50.1 (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)