Talk:The Bay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Why is the French title used in Ottawa? 81.158.205.240 4 July 2005 01:31 (UTC)

  • In Ottawa, the chain uses both The Bay and La Baie. I suspect they do the same in Moncton. Skeezix1000 18:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It should be quite apparent as to why the chain uses both names in Ottawa: the city is officially bilingual and a large percentage of its citizens are fluent in both languages. J2rome 06:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] The Bay Flagship Store in Downtown Winnipeg

There is another Flagship Store for The Bay in Downtown Winnipeg. Located at 450 Portage Avenue. And it's one of the flagship downtown stores. The 5 Flagship Downtown Stores are Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal. Please do not remove "Winnipeg" from the flagship downtown stores. Please keep it. Okay? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steam5 (talk • contribs)

  • Is there an actual flagship designation? Has the chain officially identified 5 flagship stores? If not, then I think we should take this revert war down a notch, since there is no officially correct answer (unless someone can point to an official flagship designation source). There are, however, historical reasons for including Winnipeg, even if the square footage is on the low side, given that HBC had its headquarters in Winnipeg for decades (even when the official head office was in London). I know Eaton's always used to consider Winnipeg as HBC's home base. Skeezix1000 18:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • There is a flagship designation, it is a region code (one any national retailer uses to organize management on a more regional basis). The flagship code is national because all the flagship stores share the same market share policies. The general manager of the flagship stores answers directly to the board of directors (of which he is a member). A simple way to verify Winnipeg as a flagship store might just be to call and ask. --Kmeister 00:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Not a bad idea, but we'd have to be careful about not violating Wikipedia:No original research. I'm not sure that it would, but one would have to give it some thought. Skeezix1000 12:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah I had actually thought about that. What about a local flyer? Sometimes they have references to the flagship stores/events. Kmeister 04:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the revert of the Ottawa flagship

I'm curious to know the justification is for that. I apologize that I'm not party to previous discussions that you noted in the revert comment (discussions that seem to be absent from this page), however certain practices can be noted to qualify Rideau as a flagship. I can back this information up with numerous official websites, including a labour day event adversitment that clearly refers to "downtown flagship Bay stores".

Notable, but not verifiable with any sort of online reference include the free gift card practice on early holiday/weekend mornings. While normal stores receive and distribute only several hundred of these cards, Rideau receives nearly a thousand. One might point to volume/traffic as a reason for this, however it's not a big secret that flagships celebrate their status with promotions and instore events at a rate beyond that of smaller stores. On statutory holidays (like the Labour day event, for instance) cards will be specially printed with the dates and the promotion. The cards read "valid at all flagship stores in..." (listing all the flagship stores) and the merchandising that is blatantly different between flagship designates and regular stores. Even a simple google search with the terms hbc, rideau, flagship results in a list of official (although often cached) documents that clearly reinforce this claim--one such being the Santa event, with wording that makes it as clear as the previous reference that Rideau/Ottawa is in fact a flagship. --Kmeister 19:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

  • The discussion is above (along with the revert war over the addition of Winnipeg, which you will see from the article history), and you contributed to the dicussion. As for the revert, my only comment was that the addition of any flagship store should be substantiated first, given the earlier back and forth over Winnipeg. When something has been the source of controversy in the past, the regular rule about citing sources should be pretty rigorously applied. That's all. If you've provided sources which show Rideau Street (or any other Bay store, for that matter) to be a flagship, then we're off to the races. Skeezix1000 12:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the clarification. I'll add Ottawa to the list now. On that note, Winnipeg is not on the flagship lists of the documents I was able to find. Something to think about. --Kmeister 04:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Previous revert

Understanding the evidently contentious nature of the original contribution, I have revised it. I'm posting it here first--to discuss it--rather than unnecessary reverts:

Recent additions to larger (namely flagship stores) of the Bay include the Pharmamart, a centre that includes basic grocery and household items and among other amnetities, a pharmacy. This can be interpreted as an attempt to compete directly with Shoppers Drug Mart, Wal-Mart or others, and also as a response to the success of the basic grocery addition in the modern Zeller's prototype.
  • Do you think that they are trying to compete with Wal-Mart through the introduction of a (relatively small) Pharmamart, or are they simply trying to lure shoppers into their flagship stores by offering that a product line (groceries) that is not widely available in the downtowns? I don't know the answer. Other than that observation, it looks fine. Skeezix1000 13:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, truth be told I don't think the Pharmamart is meant as direct competition to Wal-Mart. That was the purpose of the Zellers market. Initially one may look at it with reservation saying what place does a Pharmacist or Kraft Dinner have in the same store I buy my suits and furniture? As far as market share goes, Zeller's is starting to carry higher end merchandise like expensive bedding and more brand name clothing. Comparatively, the Bay seems to be trying to move down a notch. This is where it becomes tricky, because Zucker wants to push the Harry Rosen/Holt Renfrew limits on the clothing side, so the Bay can't really move down in terms of its primary products. However the advantage of the Pharmamart is that it brings that Zellers core product--basic everyday necessities--into the store. I don't think the Pharmamart is anything more than a giant convenience store to most. What I'm driving at here is that it is intended as nothing more than to fill the Sears gap which sits firmly in the middle of Zellers and the Bay. Its really too early to say whether its working, but my guess is that they've focused these on downtown stores because typically suburban Bay's are just a hop and a step from a Zellers--which rarely exist downtown. Anyway, lets keep this discussion going. --Kmeister 04:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Fur

I just made an additonal edit here for grammar and for clarification. The Bay didn't stop selling leather products in 1991 so it wasn't a decision based on merely killing animals for products, but the public's/activist's perception that it was done inhumaely. I should also mention that the CBC archive isn't the best reference for the statement because the interviewed Bay executive does not say that the decision was based on protest or acknowledge it as the actual cause for the drop in sales. Coolbrook76 00:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Established year is 1964

1964 should be the established year because it could too be ambiguous to figure out which year is really the foundation of The Bay chain.

Some could say that 1881 is the founding year because that's the year HBC openned it's first department store (under the "Hudson Bay Company" brand). Others could say it's 1845 because that's when Morgan's was founded. Other could simply say it's 1650 because that's when the HBC was founded and, isn't The Bay just the HBC which incarnated itself as a brand to fit the department store concept, unlike Zellers, Fields and formerly Simpsons which are more legal entities.

Since The Bay is more a brand than an entity, it's best to simply put 1964 to avoid any confusion and dispute. Heck, I don't even think the Hudson Bay Company itself knows what is the truly founding year of The Bay if we judge by the content of their website. The website never mentions if it's the chain started in 1881, Morgan's, both or none which is officially the predecesor of The Bay.

Farine 01:42, 10 April 2008

You're correct that the date of the establishment of the Bay is ambiguous. But 1964 is most definately not it. We typically do not add incorrect dates to an article simply because it may be difficult (or impossible) to assess the correct dates, or to "avoid confusion".

1964 simply marked a rebranding of the chain. That's all. Department store banner and corporate name changes are common (e.g. T. Eaton Co. Ltd. → Eaton's of Canada → Eaton's: Sears, Roebuck & Co. → Sears; Henderson, Renfrew & Co → Holt Renfrew; R. H. Macy & Company → Macy's, etc.), yet aren't treated as establishments or re-establishments of the respective firms. The Bay isn't just a brand - it's a chain of department stores. And it would be odd to treat 1964 as the establishment date of a chain that operated stores long before that time.

So that leaves the issue of determining the actual year of establishment. It's difficult, as you rightly point out, because the company has been engaged in trade since the 17th century, and its retail role has evolved (as has the nature of retail itself). Arguably, the chain's establishment matches the corporate founding in the 1670s, because the company started trading beaver pelts and opening trading posts shortly after receiving its Royal Charter. And frankly that's the date on the bronze plaques outside the Bay store a block away from where I sit writing this. Alternatively, the HBC website states that the "retail era began" when HBC yielded sovereignty over its territories to Canada (although let's not put too much stock in text drafted by the company's PR department for its website). Finally, 1881 is also in contention because it marked the opening of HBC's first department store. And there is, as you point out, the date of 1845 when the first Morgan's shop opened.

I lean towards 1881, but others may prefer the other dates. Given these different milestones, I propose that the establishment year in the infobox be set as follows:

1670 - HBC incorporated by Royal Charter
1845 - First Morgan's shop opens in Montreal, later acquired by HBC
1870 - HBC's trade monopoly ends, and its focus shifts to retail trade
1881 - HBC opens its first department store
It's a little odd to have such a list in the "establishment" field of the infobox, but this is an unusual situation, and the above list nicely summarizes the long evolution of HBC's retail activities. I would leave 1964 out completely. It's an important date, and obviously merits mention in the article, but it has nothing to do with the "establishment" of the chain. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


Actually it wouldn't really be inapropiate to have a list in the infobox. Many articles on Wikipedia do have such lists in their articles. Just look at Universal Music Group or Atari, for example. If we go with this idea, I would just include the 1964 on the list though.
However no matter how I find this option interesting, I don't think it would be a great idea in the context of The Bay. It would be just too confusing for people who come to get their info exclusively on the infobox and are not interested on reading the article.
You cannot really compare the example of The Bay with that Eaton's or Holt Renfrew. While these companies did renamed themselves, it was clear that they were the same companies. Just like when Miracle Mart renamed itself "M Store" in 1987, it was clearly the same company which only rebranded itself. With the The Bay it is, as we both agreed before, ambiguous.
Finally,an establishment year doesn't necessarily have to be about a company. It can be about anything like an infrastructure (for example, an airport), a TV channel, a city or country, and yes even a brand name. Regardless as to whether you consider The Bay chain as an entity or not, the name "The Bay" itself is just a brand. Just like "Walmart", "Microsoft" and "Coca-Cola" are brand names of Walmart Stores, Microsoft Corporation and Coca-Cola Company. Since the founding year of The Bay chain is undefined (and the HBC website doesn't seem to be much of an help), it is best to go with what we have which is the name.(Farine) 01:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how this is different than Eaton's or Holt Renfrew. This company was the same in 1963 as it was in 1965. 1964 was just a rebranding exercise. There was no merger or other corporate event that one could argue resulted in a new company, I'm sorry, but it's just silly to believe that this chain was established in 1964 when it operated stores for years before that. And this article isn't about a brand, it's about a chain of stores. Like so many other retail chains, it shortened its name in 1964. That's all. Ambguity as to the chain's establishment is no reason to use an incorrect date. I'm pretty open to discussions as to what date, or dates, would be appropriate, or whether we should even include an establishment date, but I feel pretty strongly that we should not be using an incorrect date out of convenience. Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
1881 makes sense, especially that the former Morgan's stores in Ontario were known as "Hudson Bay Company" stores from 1960 to 1964 before being renamed "The Bay". However it's important to go we go with what is formal, not personal perception. I find it hard to indisputely put 1881 in the infobox when this year is not even mentionned on the HBC timeline at http://www.hbc.com/hbcheritage/history/timeline/acquisitions/
Therefore there's two options I can propose. The first could be to include that list you were mentionning earlier on the infobox but by also adding the 1964 year. The second could be that either you or I send an e-mail to the HBC to find what is the official founding year of the Bay. Farine 01:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


1964 is not the establishment of the chain - it was the year the banner name was shortened. That's all. Retailers do that all the time, and are not reestablished each time. If there is a field in the infobox for branding or marketing milestones, that's where 1964 would belong. Your second suggestion would violate WP:OR. The first HBC department store opened in 1881, but there are also other dates -- for example, the HBC site dates the first store (saleshop) in the modern sense of the word to 1857. Thus, the rationale for the list, because there is no "one" date. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This article should not be about any particular marketing period. It is about HBC department stores. The first one was founded in 1881 and the department stores today are still part of that HBC division. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, what do you think of the revision to the infobox? My own inclination is to just go with 1881, but I agree that there are different milestones that are relevant, and although in my opinion 1964 has nothing to do with the founding, in the context of the list I have far less problem with it. And there isn't another field in the company infobox where 1964 would fit. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
You know what? I think we should just leave out the founded date from the infobox. It is meant to be an at-a-glance facts about the subject. If it is that complicated, it should just be explained in the article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd be fine with that - I mentioned the possibility of doing that above. I'd want to make sure though that Farine is okay with it before doing it.
I personally tend to lean toward 1881. But because we don't have any indispute proof from the HBC that's it's the founding year, that's why I'm opposed that we put solely 1881 on the infobox although I now agree that it shouldn't be solely 1964 neither.
I would either go with the list (except that I would remove the 1870 from it) or just leave blank the foundation on the infobox. The year 1845 could probably also be removed from the list. Morgan's may be the ancestor of The Bay in Quebec, but I wouldn't consider it the forerunner of The Bay in Ontario.
Farine 18:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I somewhat boldly went with this and just left 1670, 1881, and 1964 in the infobox. 3 important dates doesn't seem too bad. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for not responding until now. I managed somehow to inadvertently "unwatch" this page, and out-of-sight/out-of-mind, I suppose. I'm fine with removing 1845 for the sake of brevity. 1870 should be kept, however, since that's the only date we have that HBC treats as its transition year from fur trader to retailer (according to its site). 1870 is far more relevant than 1964. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
We dont need 1870 since this year concerns the history of Hudson Bay Company, not the The Bay department store chain. In fact, for the history of the The Bay chain itself (Im not talking about the HBC), 1870 would be more irrelevant than the years 1845 or 1964.
Farine 2:44, 25 April 2008