Talk:University Painters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Sept 25th, 2007

It is apparent that the company had edited previous version of this article to remove the negative news currently engulfing the company.

[edit] October 3rd, 2007

Clearly, CEO Josh Jablon has vandilized the page. He erased the entire entry and simply copied and pasted blurbs directly from his company website. How blatent can you get? Check the history of these pages.

Page is now protected from further vandilism. You cannot edit and hide public information just because your mistakes are finally catching up with you.



[edit] October 23rd, 2007

The company logo probably should be added, that would make the entry much better. Regarding bias, the only legitimate press on company success is found on their own website which is linked. The rest of the information is relevant to the extent that is is verified in legitimate press coverage and/or very relevant and current happenings directly involving the company. Adding back Mary Garofolo's report because her story was not a hit piece and the points she covered were verifiable through public record. She is established press and her investigation contains truthful data directly related to current events surrounding the company. --- Requesting moderators or long time member comments regarding this matter to show fairness. Justanoldstudent 19:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Malicious Web Posting

This Wikipedia Listing was first set up for University Painters by a disgruntled former sales representatives of one of the University Painters businesses. This business was Maxco Development, Inc. Much of the information created or listed under the name "justanoldstudent" is false and disengenious at best. We will try to correct and clarify the information in a non biased way. There are many University Painters businesses, former franchise owners, sales reps and others that were not at all involved with the suit filed in Ohio relating to Maxco Development, Inc and Ohio Sales Reps in the summer of 2003 an 2004. Maxco Issued a press release in 2006 after the suit was filed.

PRESS RELEASE March 14, 2006

Maxco Development, Inc. dba University Painters Response to OH Attorney General’s Suit Against Company

Joshua Jablon responded today to the recently announced Ohio Attorney General’s suit against Maxco Development, Inc. dba University Painters.

“It is unfortunate that the Ohio Attorney General’s Office filed suit on March 9th in the Franklin County Common Pleas court, based on information, I believe, to be misleading and representative of only the limited experience of a small group of underperforming managers,” said Jablon. “University Painters provides a unique business experience for young people, most of whom reflect upon their experience as being the most rewarding and valuable learning experience about business that they have had. We have mentored and taught hundreds of students about running a business, and we are proud of our results.”

Jablon spoke specifically to the Attorney General’s allegations that the “company preys on the inexperience and trusting nature of young people.” “The company entrusts young people to be capable of doing great things, which is something I am proud to be associated with. We go to great lengths to explain the potential risks as well as the potential rewards associated with running a business – to the managers and to their parents. This is, after all, an entrepreneurial experience, unlike a summer job with a set salary, that requires managers to be self-starters, who can market and land paint jobs, and produce them smoothly. It is an opportunity that is not for everyone, and certainly not for the student with limited motivation or desire to work hard. The company provides instruction and training, but in the end, like everything, results from manager to manager differ based on a student’s motivation and hard work.” Jablon added, “there is nothing positive for the company when a manager fails, and to imply in any way that failure is a desirable outcome for the company is untrue.”

Jablon also dispelled the notion that students who sign up for this business experience have “no realistic chance to profit from the venture.” Jablon explained that “the vast majority of our managers who devote themselves to their businesses profit both financially and from a career development standpoint. The managers who don’t succeed are the ones who decided not to devote the time and energy necessary to succeed. It’s no different than the students who succeed in the classroom and those who don’t.”

Jablon hopes that the Attorney General’s office speaks to managers who have succeeded with University Painters. Jablon is confident that the Attorney General’s office will have a completely different view of the company if it does so.

Jablon closed by saying that he looks forward to having the opportunity to meet with the Ohio Attorney General’s office in the near future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jablon (talk • contribs) 21:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Malicious Postings

The Wikipedia description contiunes to be edited by individuals who intend to be defamatory rather than present accurate facts.Josh Jablon 02:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Jablon

Please don't accuse me of being malicious. I just removed a bunch of blatant advertising from the page, to keep it in line with Wikipedia's rules. I suggest that you have a look at WP:ADVERTISING and WP:COI for an explanation. Dawn bard (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Malicious Posting

The creators of this page set it up to be defamatory because of their failed University Painters businesses while in college and have tried to increse web traffic to the site they have created called www.universitypaintersscam.com and have encouraged users and any other former disgruntled individuals to assist them in a negative internet advertising campaign against all University Painters locations. The intended result is to discourage homeowners from seeking the painting services of University Painters other franchise locations and to try and group all University painters together as if they were one company. The goal is to portray the Ohio litigation as if it effects all University Painters locations and businesses. The Majority of University Painters business owners have great businesses and paint thousands of homes each year with great customer satisfaction.Josh Jablon

All I did was remove your advertising copy - there's absolutely nothing malicious about that. You are clearly the one with the conflict of interest here. Dawn bard (talk) 13:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

We certainly don't use the page for advertising as it contains very negative subject matter. Which information do you deem to be advertising? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.152.17 (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, how about this, for starters:
In order to contact the University Painters® business in a particular region or town about obtaining an estimate for housepainting services, prospective customers should go to the company website at UniversityPainters.com or call 1-800-390-4848.
or this:
University Painters® uses superior products from Sherwin Williams, Duron Paints & Wallcoverings, Benjamin Moore and others.
The repeated use of the registered trademark symbol isn't exactly encyclopedic, either. Dawn bard (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] malicious ?

What does intent have to do with quality of information? Jablons intent is to promote his business and that is ok, but this is not the venue for that. Nor is it the venue for bashing his company either. Rather, it is an encylopedia entry for quality, qualified information. Intent by either party is meaningless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.222.97 (talk) 00:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


Let's all make sure the information is accurate. I certainly don't view this as advertising. It has been used by justanoldstudent to pretend to describe the company but do so in a negative light. Justanold student should disclose his real name and relationship to the company. I am the owner of the trademark so you know where my loyalties lie. I am happy to contribute in an accurate way but can't leave incorrect information in the listing. The logo was put up because someone asked that it be there. I have not objection to its removal. The Exxon site has a company logo on it?Josh Jablon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jablon (talk • contribs) 10:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If justandoldstudent is a disgruntled former employee or franchisee or whatever, the he or she certainly has a conflict of interest, but so do you, clearly, and as far as Wikipedia policy is concerned, you're on equally shaky ground editing this article. You might own the trademark, but you don't own the article. Dawn bard (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article expansion ideas

As it stands, the article gives too much weight to legal controversy. Here are some areas which could use some additional focus:

  • Why did it switch from students?
  • How many franchises are there?
  • What is the rate of growth—or growth history—in total number of franchises and in terms of growth of the average (or median) franchise?
  • Where is it based now?
  • How is variability between locations handled? That is, is there reason to think that a job in Philadelphia (say) is comparable to Austin?

Just a few ideas to get started. —EncMstr 15:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been reading about this and I don't think the article gives too much weight to the legal controversy. Look, they're getting college students to run franchises basically. I don't think the Ohio Attorney General's office would chase down a frivilous law suit like some other law offices might. As it stands this is a major peice of the University Painters story and it strikes at the very basis of their operation. It would be as if to say an Enron wiki entry was giving too much weight to their legal problems back in the day.69.211.222.97 (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that mentioning noteworthy cases is appropriate, but service businesses like this commonly receive complaints and lawsuits: Usually a lot of them. My point is that a huge portion of the article text is devoted to that. The rest doesn't do justice describing the company in the most basic of dimensions such as the number of locations, annual revenue, etc. —EncMstr 22:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
You are somewhat starting to convince me, but still, this Ohio law suit isn't the same as the normal complaints that service businesses like this receive, as you say. I would agree that if this entry talked about all the BBB complaints against the company, that would be ridiculous because those are specific case-by-case things which all have their own details. All service companies have those problems. But lumping this Ohio law suit into that same class would also be incorrect - this isn't one of those little complaints and this isn't a frivolous little thing - like I said, its a major case against the company. I think the article gives the correct attention to it. - As a side note, I think it would be hard to talk about locations, revenue etc. because of the nature of the company; it's a private firm that sells franchises, so real numbers would be next to impossible to confirm. Anyway I digress :)69.211.222.97 (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Judge Pheiffer dismissed

The entry says that Judge Pheiffer dismissed the State of Ohio's claims against the owners but the Civil Case Detail page on the State of Ohio's cleark of courts site does not reflect this. Until this claim is substantiated via public record, this claim should not be in the entry???? Just curious. Where is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.222.97 (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, the reference was for the sales act itself rather for the civil case. I have removed it per WP:V. Marasmusine (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)