Talk:Best Buy/Archive 1

Questionable deletions from "Criticisms" section

Best Buy was under investigation by the attorneys general of several states. Omission of that fact from the criticism section no only violates the NPOV of Wikipedia on this article, it also is misleading. The current editors of this page clearly have a vested interest in the outcome. For example: "On May 26, 2005, Wisconsin Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager filed a lawsuit against Best Buy Co. for alleged mistreatment of customers. This mistreatment included the alleged misrepresentations of product rebates, service plans, and the return & exchange policies." used to be part of the old section and was edited out to make best Buy look better.

I came across the following this morning:

"Best Buy also promotes shady services like installing Norton Anti-Virus on new computers, when all the computers Best Buy sells already come with Norton Anti-Virus preinstalled."

The problem with this statement is, quite frankly, that it does not mention that the computers come with a trial version of NAV installed. Therefore, I'm going to NPOVify it. The reason being is that most -- say 95% -- of computers purchased from a retail store (including Dell) come with trial software. Also, the use of the word "shady" is a POV term and I'll remove that as well. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 15:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

All computers Best Buy sells come with a full version of Norton Anti-Virus with 60 days of free updates. After the the cost of an additional year of updates is $20 USD. I fixed the statement to clarify the fact that Norton Anti-Virus is the full version, and indeed functions properly after the 60 day update period. Masterhomer 18:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Just curious, but do you have proof? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 21:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

It is usually listed in the OEM specifications, and can also be found on websites of the OEMs [1] . It is not listed on Best Buy's website, however. [2] Masterhomer 00:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually Masterhomer you are wrong. Not all machines come with a 60 day trial of Norton. You are correct that many machines are loaded with some form of antivirus but many machines are loaded with antivirus from Norton's competitors. --Kevdog 01:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

It sickens me that so many relevant facts are missing from this article. Why is there no controversy section for this company? Best buy is quite possibly the least ethical retailer in this country.

Let me give you all a little education. I happen to work for Best Buy. Incidently, I was a member of the Geek Squad that did the NAV installations. While it is true that not all computers that Best Buy sells come with NAV pre-installed, most do. Incidently, Toshiba computers come with McAfee. To correct the current situation, computers that come with Symantec software pre-installed come with NIS '06, not NAV. Additionally, it is a full version software that has a 30-day or 60-day trial, after which you must purchase a full version product key. After that trial expires, the software will still work. However, you will NOT be able to recieve updates, which makes the software useless. Having AV software and not updating the definitions is just as bad as not having anything at all. As for the return policy, returns on most items are within 30 days WITH RECIPT. Certain items (e.g. laptops, cameras) are 14 days. If the item (e.g. laptop, camera) is opened and returned, the customer is liable for a 15% restocking fee. There is NO restocking fee on most items. As for customers being mislead about the service plans (e.g. PSP, PRP), that is not the immediate fault of Best Buy Co., Inc., as a whole. That is the fault of the individual stores who do not train their associates correctly in what the PSP or PRP offers and the terms which are included with them. The same thing goes for product rebates. If the store does not properly train its associates on how the rebates work, you have a breakdown of the system which results in misleading statements and representations. As for BBY being the "...least ethical retailer in this country," I know that is a statement from a person who is not informed about the inner workings of BBY and who would rather spout detriments, rather than give an educated opinion. D48project 05:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Response to $100 software setup

Obviously the person who wrote this does not know that most, if not all, computers come with a trial of Norton Internet Security, which includes Norton Antivirus plus Norton Firewall, Norton Privacy Control, Norton Parental control etc. It is now well established throughout the tech-savvy community that Norton Internet Security hogs way too many resources from the computer, degrading its performance. Also, many users of NIS report problems connecting to the internet with ease. This is due mainly to an over-protective firewall. Many average users have no idea how to configure the firewall, thus becomes one of the sources of frustration towards Norton products and computers in general.

Plus, the author was wrong about the spyware protection. No computer comes with a full version of real-time spyware protection.

The purpose of the $118 advanced security setup is to setup the computer with just Norton Antivirus and Webroot Spysweeper ($80 value). Geek Squad installs only these two programs and then sets up the Windows firewall, which is sufficient enough for most computer users. The computer is also optimized by going into msconfig and turning off startup programs, while also tweaking a couple settings in "My Computer" for faster perfomance. Geek Squad also updates Windows XP with the latest critical updates.

As a result, the customer gets an optimized computer with only Norton AV and Spysweeper running in the background, protecting them for a full year. This is not a poor sales practice, it is a valuable service that increases customer satsifaction with the products they buy from Best Buy, thus increasing loyalty for the company.

What the author failed to understand is that most computer users never renew their trial subscriptions, because most of them dont care, that is until they get viruses/spyware. And most customers dont know which programs are best for their computer, security or performance wise.

I will remove this segment from "Poor Sales Practice"

-suprastr8_6er

Sounds like a hell of a "value", I'll optimize Windows myself, and install something better than Norton and Windows Firewall. Namely Psygate for firewall and AVG Anti-Virus Free Edition. Both are free and available at Download.com. Thankfully for Best Buy, most people are too tech illiterate to know what to do. But, I also know to advise people not to get ripped off.

---Jhouserok, Best Buy for Business Gold Member

With all due respect "suprastr8_6er" your comments read like an advertisement. Purely "best buy" speak. If you could do us all a favor and leave your slanted opinions at the door it would be appreciated.

To add to your comment about the rest of the work done besides the msconfig and performance changes, Best Buy's Geeksquad now implements a tool named MRI Customizer. This tool also removes unneeded programs, desktop icons (special offers, sign up for free trials, etc), and turns off unneeded 3rd party services that come on the computer as well as tuneup startup like msconfig would. These things are not known to the average user (services.msc, etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.20.228.66 (talk • contribs)

While the above comments do read more or less like an advertisement, I still wouldn't classify it as a 'poor sales practice', and probably wouldn't think it's important enough to be included in a wiki article. It's basically a service that Best Buy offers to their customers. Some people buy it, some don't. I personally wouldn't buy it, because I'm generally knowledgeable enough to do such routine and mundane things myself anyways. But if something like this serves a value to someone, and they want to buy it, fine with me. Dr. Cash 17:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Jhouserok - are you kidding me?
Talk about not getting the whole concept of neutral discussion... o_O

Many at-home families have no concept for software tweaking, or the benefits v. drawbacks of some free programs, have no idea what a "service" is as far as windows is concerned. Even if an associate sat down with them for an hour and explained in detail every little facet of the process involved, there is a good chance they would still not get it, screw something up, and then hold that store/employee liable for fixing it. These are people that need to strongly consider having their computer prepared for them.

As a network administrator, I see varied levels of computer literacy every day, and have been offered the pitch at best buy many a time when helping friends buy units. They are providing a service, and making a tidy profit off it I'm sure. That is the fact of it, and nothing more. Is it ripping people off? Well... If I were to get the service, I'd just be stupid - because I can do it myself. If the user on the third floor who constantly calls me up because her keyboard isnt working were to take advantage of it... I think it would probably be a good idea.

Are they selling you software? Yes. Fact
Are they selling you a service? Yes. Fact
Are they making money for those? Yes. Fact
Are they making it easy for the end user? Yes. "Easy" is debatable, really, but I think in this scope it fits as a fact.

• Are they offering it properly?

This is the ONLY point of debate from what I can tell. Neutrality dictates we leave our personal feelings about "whatever" out of this. It has been shown in the past, from what I can tell on here, that Best Buy has mangement problems and training issues in several of its stores - and I think this is worth mentioning. However, stating that offering a service that many people choose to take advantage of (and in many cases should take adv of) is a "bad" practice... well, it does appear to be a little skewed. Defiant103 15:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment on the "Criticisms" section...

"The cashier at first refused to accept the $2 bills, not knowing that it is actually against federal law not to accept any form of cash payment for a debt..."

Agreed. Unless someone can name a statute requiring it, the statement should be deleted. MFNickster 16:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Not true. At least, I'm 99.9999% sure it's not true. Could someone please backstop me on the following:

It's not against federal law to refuse to accept payment of any sort. It's only against federal law for agents of the federal (and by extension any state or municipal) government to refuse to accept cash for payment of a public debt - in other words, if you try to pay your taxes, your speeding ticket, or your federal flood insurance premiums with cash, the IRS, the Sheriff's Department, or the Dept. of Housing and Human Services HAVE to accept the cash in any denominations. If you go into McDonald's, however, and try to pay for twenty Big Macs with all pennies, they can tell you to get out and never come back - they're a private entity and have that right.

What trips people up is the notation on the front of all US Federal Reserve Notes (that means dollar bills, etc.): "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." All that means is that US Federal Reserve Notes (and by extension, minted coinage) MAY be used as a form of payment for debts. It doesn't mean that it has to be accepted by any entity - the law applying to the federal acceptance mandate is a separate section of the Federal Reserve Act.

Further, this whole story reeks of urban mythitude. I think Best Buy takes plenty of flak without taking fire for hiring incompetent employees. This same story has been told of Taco Bell, and - if memory serves - McDonald's. Can someone post some verification? If it's true, fine, but if it's not, I'm going to weigh in that it should be stricken. If we had to post a note on every WikiArticle about a company in the US that hires incompetent employees, then every US corporation (at least every one with a location in Macon, Georgia) would have to be pegged.

Either way, if I'm right, I think it's a pretty good idea to strike at least the quoted sentence - federal law is confusing enough without someone actively disseminating untruths.

Here's a link to a news article about the incident. I also found a link to the original Baltimore Sun source, but their site is subscription-only, so I didn't read it.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43685

MFNickster 16:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this section should be removed. --Kevdog 02:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC) To add to your comment about the rest of the work done besides the msconfig and performance changes, Best Buy's Geeksquad now implements a tool named MRI Customizer. This tool also removes unneeded programs, desktop icons (special offers, sign up for free trials, etc), and turns off unneeded 3rd party services that come on the computer as well as tuneup startup like msconfig would. These things are not known to the average user (services.msc, etc).

I'd be for removing mention of the $2 bill incident entirely. It's an insignificant isolated incident, even if it's true. Unless it resulted in a major lawsuit or policy change or has happened repeatedly, none of which appear to be the case, it's not really worth adding. If Wal-Mart can kill a guy in the parking lot and not get mention, I don't think Best Buy needs stories like this either.

If you want a dirt story, mention their apology letter for numerous stores forcing Xbox 360 customers to get extra stuff if they wanted their console.

Riotgear 05:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Customer Centricity and Criticisms

I felt a further definition of "Customer Centricity" was inline as it is a *huge* part of Best Buy's current direction. A paragraph was therefore added to the History section following the previous statement about segmentation.

Furthermore, the criticisms here are mostly very subjective and outdated and written in a very biased tone with no qualifying statements. It is highly unlikely that any company that follows the Best Buy model would intentionally practice bait and switch as this would be instantly recognized by the public and be disatrous to the company. Best Buy is the leading electronics retailer in America, they don't need to bait and switch. Having read enough Best Buy literature, the company's training and policies strictly prohibit misrepresentation. As employees are non-commission they have no motivation to intentionally misrepresent product other than poor leadership or lack of knowledge. Rather than altering the criticisms I simply added a qualifying statement to preface them.

Actually, some employees are commission based and therefore would have a motivation to intentionally misrepresent products.

What employees are payed on commission? Staus 21:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to know what employees are paid on a comission basis? Even in their high-end Magnolia Home Theater, the employees are still paid on an hourly basis. This is part of the reason they were able to recruit from disenfranchised Ultimate Electronics employees.

no one at best buy is on commision. i cant say whether the employees at a magnolia stand alone store do or not, but if you go into a best buy no one is on commision.

To clarify, No, Best Buy employees are not paid on commision, but they do have an extensive bonus structure, from managment all the way down to line level employees that is based around gross margin and overall store net oporating profit. It is in every empoyee's financial interest to sell and attach the most profitable items.

And what bonuses are these? Do you have a source for your claims? Paul Cyr 07:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

If your district net operating profit is over 103% You'll recieve "Blue Crew Bucks". Full time employees can get up too 1500 dollars. It is not just based on how many PRP,PSP and accessories you sell. It is also based off of how high your shirnk is.

For what it's worth, I completely overhauled the Customer Centricity and Brands sections. It read too much like an advertisement, and there were numerous references in there that cannot be cited. I tried first to just search for sources for all the information on there, but I couldn't find anything. I tried to keep as much of it intact as I could, but only as long as I was able to find a source for it all. I'd appreciate hearing feedback on this and let me know what you think? B2bomber81 06:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms

The sentence, "Best Buy has many critics of the way they do business." implies that misrepresentation and bait and switch are simply "the way they do business." Someone needs to come up with a better more objective way to phrase this. Most of these criticisms are based on the personal perception of the critic, not on actual business practices.

Bait and switch is not a big part of the criticism of the company, but there was a notable incident that possibly involved bait and switch, and invovled thousands of people. Also some critics believe that manipulating stock levels is bait and switch. It is not. But since critics consider it bait and switch and it is a criticism section, it should stay in the section with an explanation of how it's not bait and switch. Masterhomer 05:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Masterhomer, where is it published in a reliable publication that "critics consider it bait and switch" Just because you consider it bait and switch doesn't mean it should be included. --Kevdog 02:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing illegal about refusing cash payment...

... so would the people (mostly people who have something against BBY) stop adding this to the page? From the ustreas.gov site:

"There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy." [3] -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 10:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

It is against against federal law not to accept cash to pay off a debt, for obvious reasons. Maybe the article is not clear, but this guy was not purchasing a product, he was paying a debt to Best Buy, he owed Best Buy money, thus making it illegal for them to refuse any form of cash payment. Masterhomer 04:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Which law is that? It's irrelevant anyway, because the Best Buy staff did not believe the $2 bills were cash. MFNickster 05:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The fact that it was illegal was a strong part of the criticism of the incident. I can find the exact law, but it is generally printed on every US bill. It should also be obvious to you why it exists. If you owe debt do you want the debt collector to only accept 1958 pennies as form of payment? Technically a retail establishment can create a policy like that, but not for payment of debt. Masterhomer 06:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

If it is truly illegal, then what is the penalty? Please find the law - but be aware that the Coinage Act of 1965 does not set any penalty for refusing cash. A quick Google search turned up no results, so I suspect that there is no such penalty. Please read this page before you reply: [4] MFNickster 14:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no penalty, but if Best Buy accepted the cash payment or not, as long as he offered to pay it, the debt is nullified. So basically, he could have left, and be cleared of his $114 debt to Best Buy legally without actually paying anything because Best Buy refused to accept 'legal tender' for payment of debt. Masterhomer 21:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Well then. If he insisted that he had paid the debt, and Best Buy claimed he didn't, then he might have grounds for a civil suit, but that's a far cry from there being a "federal law against not accepting cash." As far as I can tell, there is no such law. At least, nobody has been able to identify it. The people who criticized Best Buy on those grounds were in error, obviously. MFNickster 05:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: regarding the comment "Right from the same page: "This statute means that you have made a valid and legal offer of payment of your debt when you tender United States currency to your creditor." Absolutely correct, but because you made an offer doesn't mean they must accept it. As I wrote above, the customer may take them to court over the debt, but the police will not come knocking on the business door. MFNickster 07:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It's a bit of a red herring, anyway. Best Buy didn't refuse the payment merely because it was cash; if they had been offered $20 bills or had known the $2 bills were legitimate, there would have been no problem. They would have done the same thing if offered $20s that they believed were counterfeit. MFNickster 19:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I concur. This situation was blown up by people on the anti-BBY websites and summarily distorted by the press. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 21:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed... this section should be removed. --Kevdog 02:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, paying off a debt and paying for an item one is purchasing are logically equivalent. If you want to purchase an item, you owe a debt to the store that must be paid before you can take that item out. Applejuicefool 17:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Questioning two sections

I almost made these a part of my last edit, but decided to look for some feedback before doing so.

Is there a source for the claim at the beginning of the "Lawsuits" section? "Best Buy is the second largest target of lawsuits in the United States." It seems like one of those claims that's been exaggerated by repeated retelling. I'm guessing it started off as something far more innocuous, like being the #2 target of lawsuits out of all retail chains, or something similar. Without a source, I think it would be best to remove this comment entirely.

Also, the "other incidents" section under the heading "Criticisms," and the "Incidents" heading, seem redundant. There is a bit of a division, since the "Other Incidents" paragraphs all, for lack of a better term, put Best Buy as the "bad guy", where the "Incidents" (really only one Incident) has the customer acting irrational. I'm not sure how to best correct this. CrayDrygu 03:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Because there is sense of bias I feel it should be removed. --Kevdog 02:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

POV Editing Required ASAP

This entire article is ridden with unformalized comments bordering on malicious libel, as well as revealing portions of Best Buy's business plan that I am sure are intended to be at least somewhat confidential. This article requires editing with extreme prejudice. Phantomopus 18:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Please 'be bold' and edit it! We are all basically volunteer fact-checkers, so anything you can verify and document is very much welcome. If you have any suggestions for better NPOV conformance, please bring it up here on the discussion page. 132.239.194.225 19:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The last time I checked, Best Buy has already disclosed large portions of its business plan. For example, Business 2.0 magazine ran a feature story on Best Buy in late 2004 which was done with the company's cooperation and discussed many of its weird business practices like the regular pep rallies at every store. --Coolcaesar 23:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

--- I agree with Phantomopus that this entire article is laced with comments that are extremely one-sided and shouldn't belong in an encyclopedia.

Examples (and these are non verifiable sources)

However, it is not uncommon for individual locations to suffer from poor leadership that either fails to recognize and correct, or occasionally even encourages, poor salesmanship

Best Buy has at times been accused of bad sales practices, and in general taking advantage of people for monetary gain,

Many ex-employees describe working for Best Buy as "being part of a cult". In order to get product specialists to what Best Buy wants them to, and yet keep them off of direct commission, Best Buy created a "sales culture" within every store.

These goals are known by the company formally as "Step 3" goals, perhaps an analogy to a humorous South Park business plan.

Best Buy has been accused of bait and switch tactics on many occasions, advertising a product and then refusing to sell it at the advertised price. -> This is only part of the story as this was a price advertised online and as many of you know many stores have different prices in their store than online.

One disturbing case involving bait and switch occurred in a Portland store during the initial sale of the XBox 360

Some employees who write to the site have been known to discover it from other employees or from anonymously written sources within the stores (such as in a bathroom stall or in the break room), perhaps signaling that this is a widely known website by Best Buy employees.

When you see the Best Buy encyclopedia entry it seems with the long list of slanted criticisms (which appears to be made mostly by one member that has also been messing around with other wikipedia entries) that all Best Buy stores are bad and that you will get extremely poor service. The reality is that your experience varies store by store and it is very uncommon that you will get treated poorly.

I would like to see the elimination of the criticism section.

I dont personally agree with the criticism section at all..

But if you are to include one, why not make one quick, brief and to the point and without any biased comments (like the microsoft one) like most encyclopedias (if they even include any criticism) And perhaps include the many praise and awards that Best Buy has received. Company of the year 2004 by Forbes. Praise for it's innovative ROWE implentation. Marketwatch's survey of having the lowest cost for electronics (even lower than Walmart) And its big contributions to Hurricane Katrina, Toys for Tots, its Teach program, the Best Buy Children's Foundation and its many employee volunteer programs to name a few.

--Kevdog 21:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with this, in fact I would encourage it. Include both complaints and criticisms in the article and make sure to link them to articles. A Google news search isn't that hard to execute and should bring up articles for both sides of the spectrum. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 01:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the Microsoft article is a good example. The actual article on Microsoft is quite smaller then the one that one that documents criticism. Masterhomer 21:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

BestBuySux.org

This is not the place for promoting personal web pages

An encyclopedia entry is a statement of facts about a subject. Comparing this article to that of many other articles about similar companies, it is obvious to see that there is a lot of conjecture, unfounded argument, and opinion. I continue to see bestbuysux.org added by Masterhomer in an attempt, I believe, to promote the site. The site is anti-subject. While there are many anti-disneyland, we do not see each one posted in it's article. The article should stick to hard facts about a subject and remain neutral, and never one-sided.

Why is it anti-subject? It is an anti-Best Buy site, and a very large one at that. Most of references for the criticism of Best Buy come from that web site, by employees of Best Buy. Masterhomer 21:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

- Please explain why the opinions of people who post a web forum belong on an encyclopedia entry? --Kevdog 05:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

While there are many anti-disneyland, we do not see each one posted in it's article. Please take a look at the anti-walmart links at the Walmart article. Themindset 18:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

-Again the Walmart controversies are well documented in the mainstream press But we're taking Best Buy's criticisms from disgruntled employees on a web forum? C'mon here. --Kevdog 21:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Did it occur to you that the employees are disgruntled because of the cited practices? I personally was threatened with being fired for not tacking on "free" netflix subscriptions running register when [[Spider-Man_(film%)|Spider-man]came out. I was told "don't tell them just add it on" and this was by the manager under the general manager. This disgruntled me quite a bit and later helped lead me to the decision to quit. Criticism is a necessary part of fact which is what encyclopedias are supposed to be comprised of and in the case of Best Buy, what they say and what they do are completely different.

You are wrong. Encyclopedias include information based on verifiable sources. Unfortunately your personal experience and opinion is not one of them and don't belong in an encyclopedia. Try bestbuysux.org

Criticism Fork

Now that there is a fork I feel the duplicated entries on the main page should be removed.

I also take issue with much of the information on the Criticism page. According to Wikipedia, the material on this site should be verifiable, and unfortunately the material on the Criticism page is not. Excerpt:

"Wikipedia should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research. The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia. Verifiability is the key to becoming a reliable resource, so editors should cite credible sources so that their edits can be easily verified by readers and other editors.

One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher."

--Kevdog 05:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

If BestBuySux.org is reputable is a matter of opinion. None the less, there is at least one hundred media sources that mention or document criticism of Best Buy, and a web search for possible criticisms of Best Buy yields over 20 million web pages. Typically, original research claims require documentation much less then that to be valid. Masterhomer 01:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh really? A google of: "Best Buy" criticism yielded 240,000 hits, the vast majority of which are completely irrelevant. User:Kevdog

-Bestbuysux.org is actually monitored closely by the Best Buy corporation. It allows the company to watch for actions outside of the standard operation procedures and react accordingly.

Brands

The main article is missing information on the brands from Best Buy, such as VPR Matrix, & Insignia.

• There is some discussion of the brands I wrote in the History section Masterhomer 01:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

PSP/PRP return policy

Please edit your section on Performance Service Plans and Product Replacement Plans (PSP/PRP). Not all PSP/PRP can be returned with in thirty days for a full refund. PSP/PRP can only be returned for a full refund during the return/exchange period for the product that the PSP/PRP is covering. Some products, such as digital cameras/camcorders and Desktop/laptop computers only have a 14 day return policy. To receive a full refund on a PSP/PRP for these items they must be returned with in the 14 days. After that you will receive a prorated amount.

As a Best Buy employee I find this to be a nice entry for Best Buy. Thanks.

Response to PSP/PRP return policy

Actually, PSP and PRP's carry their own return policy independent of the product purchase. You are correct that certain items such as computers can only be returned within 14 days, but PSP and PRP's can be returned for a full refund within 30 days and prorated after that. For reference see the middle portion of the PSP brochure (for CPU & Wireless) under Cancellation: "This Plan can be canceled by you at any time for any reason by sending to us a notice of cancellation: (a) within thirty (30) days of the receipt of this Plan, you shall receive a full refund of the price paid for the Plan provided no service has been performed, or (b) after thirty (30) days, you will receive a prorated refund, less the cost of any service received."

--Kevdog 19:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not true, Computer service plans have a return policy of thirty days as stated in the PSP brochure. Some stores say 14 days however so there is no confusion with the customer. Also, after the thirty days the customer can still return the service plan for a prorated amount.

Deletion of Best Buy Criticisms

Somebody keeps deleting my criticism about Best Buy concerning their handling of LJKelley in their Destin Store. LJKelley claims he was treated badly at Best Buy. This is a criticism of the cancellation of RewardZone Certificates with no notification to the customer or handling of this issue properly when a customer tries to redeem such a certificate in the store. Obviously somebody is trying to protect BestBuy or is working for them and deleting certain things.

The criticisms are unverified, original research and do not have a neutral point-of-view; all of which are prohibited on Wikipedia. As well, it is also Wikipedia policy to assume good faith in regards to disagreements, please do not accuse someone of having hidden motives. Paul Cyr 01:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Please also note blogs such as http://www.marklyon.org/wordpress/index.php?p=166 which include comments and various more reports concerning basic Customer Respect and the Lack of Customer Service. There are thousands of these complaints on the internet, yet wikipedia is lacking credibility by not addressing it in this article. There are numerous of people that seem to criticize the Customer Service in BestBuy. I still stand on the fact that their are hidden motives here... I could come back here and post hundreds of links to address where someone is criticising BestBuyover this. Here is another site about Reward Programs. http://www.comparerewards.com/archives/000425.html Look at the comments

Blogs are by definition opinion-pieces and are not NPOV. A news outlet would have to have reported on the event to be included. Every business has bad customer service experiences. Per WP:NOT the article is not going to include a list of everyone's experience unless it is shown to be notable by receiving news coverage. As well, please use a colon to indent your comments. Paul Cyr 02:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Best Buy is not original research. Over the course of many months POV editors have been making this article look like a investor promotion for Best Buy instead of an NPOV article. As such, I believe an NPOV need should be added to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.163.180.164 (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:FAITH, WP:NOR and WP:CITE which I feel completely address your concerns. In the mean time I've reverted your edits and downgraded the tag to {{POV}}. Please read over those policies. After that if you still feel that you have a valid complaint I'll be happy to discuss it with you. Paul Cyr 05:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, this entire article other then the Customer Cent. section would be against WP:CITE. The article way too baised using words like Best Buy *will*, Best Buy *always* stuff like that sounds better in a sales brochure then an encyclopedia article. It is obvious that whoever wrote these articles wrote it to promote Best Buy.

Please see my reply below so I don't have to copy-paste. Paul Cyr 18:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Why no discussion on Scorecards and Perf. Management?

There is this huge section on CC but nothing on Best Buy's performance management policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.163.180.164 (talk • contribs)

Can you WP:VERIFY your information about the policy? Paul Cyr 05:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, this is silly since the entire article is referenced by a single Forbes news article on Cust. Centicity. 69.163.180.164 06:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Well there's the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right". What I suggest you do (and I'll help as well), is look at the article sources, and then any sentences in the article that are not sourced below, put the tag {{fact}} beside them so that we can either find proper sources or remove them. We can't simply balance POV with POV; at the end of the day, WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:VERIFY must be satisfied. Paul Cyr 18:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I did searches on the internet for sources for information on this. Anyone that has worked for Best Buy know how perf. management works, but it is unpublished information which Best Buy does not wish to be known to the general public. The only sources that have plenty of information of the internals of Best Buy could be considered of poor quality, eg. Blogs, or "hate" websites. I have added some information on Perf. Management to the criticisms section, but not into any detail, and I believe it is fine this way. As a Ref. I have added a popular hate website BestBuySux.org, but I'll try to identify it as such Jrlove 23:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

BestBuySux.org is not a valid "reference" in any sense of the word. It is the very definition of bias/POV. Also, you did go into detail, discussing exact percentages and future business goals. Since these statements, by your own admission, cannot possibly be reliably verified, they have no place in this article, even if "anyone that has worked for Best Buy" knows about them. Remember the Wikipedia policy on verifiability. Please read it before adding any more information. CrayDrygu 00:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I am currently employed at Best Buy and can assure you that there is no "scorecarding" being used. It is the employees job to discuss the different services that Best Buy has to offer. We are specifically instructed NOT to pressure the customer for any services or sales. The service plans and geek squad services are both truly good services. Some people will take them, some won't. Everyone is different and it is the employee's job to inform the customer on the different options they have. I would say that scorecarding and pressuring customers is a thing of the past. Employees no longer work on commission, so there is no pressure for the employee to sell anything he/she does not believe in, only to inform the customer on what is available for them to take advantage of. --Hater2win 07:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh what the most inaccurate statement I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Please refrain from making biased statements. Coderx 03:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

worked there for three years they score card EVERYTHING! sales, Laber, services, margin, revenue, inventory. they use a program called ME national ScorecardTeefkicker 16:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not based on what you know or believe to be true, but what is verifiable. Paul Cyr 04:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Remember, Wikipedia requires that information be based on verifiable sources. Unfortunately personal experiences and opinion is not one of them and don't belong in an encyclopedia.

Actually, no. See WP:CITE, WP:VERIFY Coderx 03:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Incidents

I decided to be bold and remove the following 'incidents' section from the article:

*On May 27, 2005, a 44 year old New Port Richey, Florida resident named Marlene Anne Bagnall allegedly held 58 year old Best Buy service technician John Meyer at gunpoint in her home due to his inability to repair a television. The aforementioned television had been previously serviced, though it had not worked to Bagnall's satisfaction. At gunpoint, Bagnall demanded that Best Buy give her a new television. Meyer could not call the police because Bagnall allegedly threatened to kill him as well as turn the weapon on herself (see: murder suicide) if he called. Once an unnamed Best Buy employee verbally promised Bagnall that she would receive a new television, Meyer was allowed to leave.

After leaving the premises, Meyer immediately called the local sheriff's office, which resulted in Bagnall's arrest. She was summarily charged with aggravated assault and unlawful imprisonment. She was subsequently released on a $10,000 bail prior to May 29, 2005, and has apparently had a history of mental disorders, which her husband claimed were being treated with medications.

[5].

*In February of 2005, a Mike Bolesta became mad at the staff of Best Buy after being told that he was to be charged for a car radio installation after initially being told it would be free. To show his anger, he spent 57 $2 bills to cover the fee. After believing that they were counterfeit by the cashier, he was arrested, later released, by the police.

A video of a customer was recorded by the LP (loss prevention) cameras and posted to the internet. http://www.filecabi.net/video/boogietime.html

Most of these stories really have nothing to do with BBY itself, and are most likely not unique to BBY, either. In other words, incidents similar to this could happen (and probably do on a weekly basis, in just about any major retailer in the U.S. (or the world). Are we seriously going to write about every little detail that happens in every retail store? Seriously,...

Though I gotta admit, the video of the boogie dude was kinda funny,... But more appropriate for youtube.com than wikipedia.org. ;-) Dr. Cash 21:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I chose to remove the criticism secion in regards to the riot outside of a Best Buy store for the Playstation 3. It wasn't their fault that the riot occurred and should not have been included as a criticism. If anything, it should be put as a separate section for neutral media attention. I re-emphasize the above writer's statement. This could have happened at any major retailer in the U.S. and really doesn't need to be listed. --Andysund 10:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Expansion

They are building 2 Best Buys in Puerto Rico and 1 more planned

Criticism: Just proportional?

According to this WIki entry, BBY has over a thousand stores in North America. Is it possible that with soo many Company-client interactions, the 'problems' seem more numerous, but are in fact, proportional (i.e. 30% dissatisfied customers out of 1,000 is a whole lot less than 15% of 10,000) to other retailers? Is there any way to find out? -- Cybersquire 15:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No Christmas Criticism

Is it really necessary to include every slightly trivial thing? All of the other criticisms have many people involved, and don't represent the POV of a single organization. Bgold4 18:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't read the article very closely. It doesn't represent the POV of just a single organization. The reason that many retailers are returning to "Merry Christmas" is because of the overwhelming response in past years from people upset at the retailers attempts at disassociating themselves with Christmas. This news article isn't any different than the PS3 incident or the Xbox incident. It's source is citable - why not include it?

NPOV

Sounds like mostly pro-Best Buy people are editing this article. It is important to include negatives as well as positives on Wikipedia, to support a neutral point of view. The website www.bestbuysux.org should also certainly be added to the External Links section as it is a website that has achieved national media attention in many cases, and contains well over 5 years worth of articles numbering in the 10,000s from both customers and employees.

I agree.. anyone else? Bgold4 14:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we want Wikipedia to be neutral, right? I agree. Jgcarter 01:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Kialari 05:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

bestbuysux.org

Why was this website removed? Honestly, its a valid critical site! We post New York Times articles that are critical of different subjects, why not a website of former employees at BestBuy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.150.170.114 (talk • contribs)

I get a 404 not found when trying to load 'www.bestbuysucks.org' and 'bestbuysucks.org'. Irregardless, if you're trying to promote your own website, wikipedia is not the place to do it. Sites must be certain guidelines for notability to be valid as external links. Dr. Cash 01:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The actual website is bestbuysux.org .. I think it's an interesting read (gives anti & pro bestbuy comments from customers & employees, along with articles pertaining to BestBuy)... I don't see why the external link section should be limited to sites Best Buy owns when there are others out there Bgold4 02:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed this website now and I agree that it should not be in the external links. For two primary reasons; (1) The message board requires a login to get anywhere. There's also way too much legal information all over the site and it's difficult to really get to the content without getting bored over all the legal info. And (2) there's no identifying information on the site regarding who put it up, or at least I can't find it easily. Is this site maintained by an organization the is critical of the company's policies (like wakeupwalmart.com or walmartwatch.com), or is this site just put out by a bunch of disgruntled teenage customers whose parents let them buy a domain name? It is primarily because of these two reasons that I dismiss this site as non-notable. Dr. Cash 18:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The bestbuysux.org website is actually run by a disgruntled best buy employee. (I think it states that somewhere on the website.) I agree with your opinion of it, and don't think it belongs on wikipedia either. It's just a lot of propaganda and rants from other disgruntled employees and digruntled customers. B2bomber81 04:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he alleges he was illegally searched. But in any event, I agree that it should not be linked to, since it is a website with little notability. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 14:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right, he does allege that he was illegally searched. I think I was thinking of another website I've seen. I forgot that and I apologize. B2bomber81 07:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference Links

What is it that reads like an advertisement in the reference links? I'm interested in hearing feedback on this. B2bomber81 04:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Nothing anymore now that Dr. Cash cleaned it up/fixed it Bgold4 20:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Consumer Relations/ Media Attention Section

This is an article that is being repeatedly posted on the Best Buy page. Am I wrong in thinking that this type of article doesn't have a place on wikipedia? Wikipedia isn't about consumer protection. There are other sites out there for that type of thing. This is an online encyclopedia (hence the name wikipedia right?), and you don't see consumer protection notices in a set of Brittanica's, right? B2bomber81 07:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Momoj, you continue to add the Consumer Protection section on the page, but again, I will explain why these articles are not appropriate for wikipedia. First of all, your first link to businessweek.com references a story that is already covered on the article - the Bestbuy website preorders for PS3. So it is redundant. Your second link goes to CRMlowdown.com which does not appear to give any kind of information on who owns the website. It just looks like one person or company's POV on the subject and doesn't cite any particular incidents as their criteria for the list. I read it, and it just reads like a rant. And I will add that Circuit City is on the same list. So I am curious why you aren't as eager to post this kind of information on that wiki page, if you believe in it so much? I suspect you just have a grudge against the Best Buy company. Lastly, the El Paso times link is a news article. Not a consumer protection notice as you keep labeling it. It details one lady's frustration with the company. We have discussed on here already that we are not going to get into the practice of detailing every single customer complaint or Best Buy customer service issue that hits the news. The articles that are on there right now regarding the PS3 and XBOX issues received national media attention that resulted in press releases from the company. Your rants on Best Buy don't have a place here. B2bomber81 16:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to add consumer protection information to the Circuit City page as well. I encourage you to do so. Do not assume Circuit City is somehow protected. Consumer information on the front page makes sense and I believe the majority of Wikipedia users would agree. Employees and agents of Best Buy are routinely editing this page and as a community we must show fair and balanced information pertaining to Best Buy. Thus consumer information is pertinent and relevant to helping Best Buy improve in the long run. --Momoj 05:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

consumer information is pertinent and relevant to helping Best Buy improve in the long run

I have to correct you on this statement. Wikipedia is not here to help or hinder Best Buy's business. The Best Buy wiki is here to provide information about the company. This truly is an online encyclopedia. You also said as a community we must show fair and balanced information pertaining to Best Buy. Wikipedia is not about being "fair and balanced". Wikipedia isn't a news channel. There is a difference between being balanced and being neutral. For the article to be balanced, it would include both positive and negative articles about the company. Neutral is defined as "not aligned with, supporting, or favoring either side in a war, dispute, or contest." So for the article to remain neutral, sections on the Best Buy page such as Consumer Protection and Criticisms really should not be on there. I think the Criticism section could be renamed to continue to include the stories about the XBOX's and PS3's, but really the statement regarding Geek Squad could be construed as having a negative lean. What are your thoughts? Anybody else want to get in on this discussion too? I want to hear everybody's opinions on this. B2bomber81 07:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This is simple economics. In a perfect world a retail company such as Best Buy would never engage in any business practice that attempts to create a power advantage over its consumers. However we live in the real world and Best Buy is a multi-billion dollar corporation with many economic and political power differentials. So to be completely NPOV is nonsense when it comes to some people deleting consumer protection from the wiki. The vast majority of wiki users are indeed fall on the consumer side of the equation and thus would be interested in relevant information to protect their rights given we live in an inperfect market. I did not create the criticism section though I agree that the content is relevant and should be accomodated somehow if not under a different heading. --Momoj 15:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there are many consumers that use wikipedia for that. However, there are many other websites, such as Better Business Bureau, that already cater to this. Why reinvent the wheel, so to speak? BBB specializes in that field. We shouldn't allow wikipedia to turn into another platform for people to use to rant on companies that they don't like. I do believe though, that it's appropriate to link to news articles about the company. Such as what we have going with the currently-named "Criticisms" section. Those all are serious issues that received national media attention, and they provide just the facts without the rants. Looking at the page this morning, someone has merged the "Consumer" section with the "Criticisms" section, and it looks pretty good. Someone did remove the links to businessweek.com and crmlowdown.com. But as I mentioned earlier, business week link was really just a repeat of the paragraph xbox360 article, and the crmlowdown really was just made up of rants and speculation. And that really doesn't have a place here. But perhaps now our discussion should be moving toward determining what the Criticisms section should be renamed? Perhaps something to the effect of "In the news..." That way it would infer that section is only intended for news articles, not complaints or rants, about the company. Thoughts? B2bomber81 21:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

One thing Wikipedia is NOT is a corporate site. Attempts to remove documented independent consumer perceptions of the company tends to be seen as biased toward the company. Obviously the perception is that certain Best Buy agents cares more about blocking information rather than providing useful information for the majority of the users of this wiki. The BBB is fine and I think I should add a link to this section in the future however the BBB does not have a consolidated site nor provides direct links so it might take some time.

Also wholesale deleting of sections is not the route one should take. I think fears this section will become a soapbox are unfounded and there is no evidence this is the case. For those editors who are not agents of Best Buy I welcome you to add your unbiased input to this discussion so that we can all benefit with useful pertinent and readily accessible information on Wikipedia. --Momoj 23:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverted...again. Don't claim to be making changes based on a consensus that doesn't exist. If anything, consensus says that your section does not currently belong as written. bestbuysux will never be an appropriate link as it's content is completely unverifiable. Anyone could make up any story they want and send it in to be posted. As explained above, we also don't need another link to the PS3 issue as it's already covered. That leaves 2 links...one blog rant that makes no mention of sources and one that I moved into the criticism section. --Onorem 00:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not an agent of best buy sux but I think it is a good thing to talk about in relaation to sources. Verifiable consumer information. Well what might one need to do to find this information? Best Buy obviously has millions of customers so finding customers is not the problem. The issue is whether or not consumer testimonials are "verifiable" I think in the case of bestbuysux it does satisfy the requirement. Given there are both pro and con points of view. The information is presented uncensorced (except for personal information black-outs) and the information is presented simply in date chronological order, I see no reason to believe the years worth of data is somehow bogus. In the absence of a better source I believe bestbuysux is an appropriate forum for discussing the consumer perspective both pro and con. A simple link from wikipedia does not l abridge anyone's knowledge. In fact is does just the opposite. --Momoj 01:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I propose a wiki user feedback message under this section. Ask the wiki community to chime in if they think this section was useful or not. Us very few should not be in the business of deleting relevant consumer information. My proposal would simply implore site users to contribute to this discussion. As already demonstrated, I think the majority of users would find this information both helpful and relevant to this wiki. --Momoj 03:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

We are not done with this discussion momoj. To say that we came to a consensus is not true, and is misleading. What I did say, was that this morning's version (#91815233) was a step in the right direction and thought it was good. There was no consensus. Now Momoj, your actions have become that of a vandal. You have gone from just adding your sensless consumer section, to deleting whole sections for your benefit, without regard to the quality of the content. I get the impression now that you simply have a beef with the company, and that your intent is to use the Best Buy wiki as your own soapbox. It stops now. I've reverted the page back to Onorem's version from this afternoon. Wikipedia is about working with others - you are hell-bent on running it according to your own set of rules and standards, which are completely against those which Wikipedia has set forth. When you decide to follow the wikipedia guidelines, we will discuss this issue further. Otherwise, I suggest you go find another hobby. B2bomber81 06:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where articles need to maintain a NPOV. It's not a place for anyone to place his/her opinions or, similarly, other people's (consumers in this case) opinions from completely unverifiable and unreliable sources. Also, reviewing your contributions, which have been made only in this article and its talk page, worries me really. ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately no one is talking about the real issue here which is whether the customer side of the equation is relevant to a wikipedia page about best buy. If you think customers are not important to a business then you need to brush up your economic knowledge. Whether or not I personally contribute to other pages is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Deleting the section wholesale does not address the issue. I have stated and I will reiterate I am willing to discuss this issue with as many wiki users as possible to gain the consensus. We should invite others to chime in on the issue. Also as far as verifiable sources. I addressed that already. I can put in the BBB but the BBB is fragmented. If you have sources that you think are "verifiable" then please let's have it. Best Buy sux has many many letters written to and FROM the corporate management of the company. Can anyone tell me that these are not "verifiable?" I think not. Let's talk. --Momoj 16:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the real issue is that you are ignoring the comments of everyone on here. Several people have posted now (as you requested) and have said that your edits to the page are inappropriate. I feel like a broken record. bestbuysux.org is a non-verifiable source, as is the crm website. You cannot use wikipedia for posting consumer opinions. You are vandalising the page. Put whatever spin on it that you like momoj, but it's plain and simple vandalism. B2bomber81 16:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually only you and one other person (who incidently is an agent of the firm) has made any negative comment on the issue. Clearly if you look at the other discussion topics there is clear evidence of users wanting to see consumer information. I ask again, are letters to and from corporate headquarters NOT verifiable. Please answer this? Then we can also ask. Are hundreds of documented cases written independent of each other verifiable? Your constant refrain of "vandalism" is weak at best as illustrated by your continued nonpublic attacks on those who support an open wikipedia.

Also the best buy sux link has not been there for quite a few versions. Evidence you are not reading what you are deleting. Shame on you. --Momoj 17:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the letters posted on BestBuySux.org and other consumer websites are not verifiable per policy. We have no idea whether or not these letters are accurate, since we have no means to verify them, thus the information should not be added. End of subject. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 17:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I can only assume that I am the one you are accusing of being an "agent of the firm", since you accused me of that on my talk page. I have absolutely no ties to Best Buy and it's offensive IMO for you to continue to accuse me of having any other interest in this matter. At least 6 people have commented about your edits on your own talk page. More than just 2 people have commented in this section that your edits are inappropriate. I have no problem at all adding critical statements to the article about Best Buy, but I do have a problem with some of what and entirely how you are trying to add them. The person running bestbuysux obviously has an agenda. That person can pick and choose what to include, or make up things entirely. There is no way to verify it. It is not a reliable source. Even if you could prove that a few letters were actually sent by Best Buy's corporate headquarters, the rest of the website is useless. It's been explained repeated what was wrong with the other links. The removal of the bestbuysux link from your edits doesn't change that they should be reverted. You keep saying you want to follow Wikipedia policy. Fine...then stop adding your section until consensus is reached. That's how it's supposed to be done. --Onorem 17:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

NO means to verify letters to and from corporate management written on corporate letterhead signed by corporate officers? Give me a break. Let's see..you give them a call if you wish to verify it. done. --Momoj 17:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You obviously didn't read what you're responding to. Shame on you. I said that even if the letters are real, the site is still inappropriate to link to. Not that it matters, but where are the letters from management on letterhead? Are they just mixed in with the rest of the letters? I tried reading through many of the pages, but the whinefest became to much to handle and I couldn't make it through the rest. --Onorem 17:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing on company letterhead. There are letters on the site from people alleging to be (or having been) in leadership positions. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 19:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Bestbuysux has been gone for awhile. Why are you still discussing it. A section on consumer perception and experience is a great section and has loads of potential to the broader wikipedia community. As for agents of best buy obviously not liking this..well they are the ones with the agenda. There is nothing we can do to stop their use of the wiki and I am not putting any effort into doing so. --Momoj 17:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Judging by your comments, you, sadly, fail to recognize the greater issue. It's not so much the fact on a section on customer perception and experience, but rather where this information comes from. We alrady have information on customer issues from verifiable and reliable sources, such as the PS3 pre-order fiasco on BestBuy.com and the Xbox 360 bundling issue experienced by the company last year. What you wish to add is not verifiable or reliable, and regardless of how true or untrue they are, they have no place on an encyclopedia. Period. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 19:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Now that we have the new Media Section..let's see the best buy agents go to work again. I will bulk up this section soon. --Momoj 22:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that calling this section 'Customer Relations / Media Attention' is appropriate for this article. Adding 'Media Attention' seems to me like an attempt to drive people's attention (particularly the media) towards it, probably for some sort of agenda purpose. That's definitely not what wikipedia should be about. 'Customer Relations' doesn't seem to accurately describe the content of the section, and sounds to me like a section that would be on Best Buy's official public relations website. I don't really see a problem with having a 'criticisms' or 'controversy' section, as long as it is kept under control and doesn't turn into a total rant. See the Criticism of Wal-Mart article for an example of how this can be done. The most important thing to remember is to keep this in a neutral point of view. We don't want an overglorified press release on how great best buy is (leave that to their own website); nor do we want a page of complete and total rants that go into all the details of why best buy sucks (leave that to the critics personal websites). The Wal-Mart article(s) in general are pretty good examples of how things can be tamed down a bit; there was a HUGE wiki-war not too long ago between both pro and con wal-mart sides there, which got about 100 times worse than the debate over here. It seems to have toned down quite a bit (though there are still some minor issues here and there). Dr. Cash 23:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone is able to put information on this page. Not just those on the payroll of corporations. If you have a problem with the content then discuss it. The content of the links is verifiable, NPOV, and RS. --Momoj 23:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:EL for guidelines on including external links in articles. You might also want to see that I provided all of your links at the bottom of this talk page as well, for editors to use as a reference in improving the article in an encyclopedic manner. As you have written them, they are not encyclopedia and not acceptable to be included in that fashion. Dr. Cash 23:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to be taken half seriously you'd begin by not threatening me privately. Also it would help if you stopped hiding your motives. Thirdly, deleting others' original content is vandalism. Each link is introduced with NPOV text. It is not a list of links but original verifiable data about Best Buy. Which is what this wikipedia article is about. Thank you sir but the section stays. --Momoj 00:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I will certainly be happy to flesh out the article a bit if quantity matters most and I will do so soon. I thank you for your input and your eagerness to create a more informative page. --Momoj 00:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

About your links Momoj - please explain what relevancy the CNET article has? I don't see that it provides anything that can't be found on Best Buy's website or in their store. The NPR link is irrelevant, because wikipedia is not a consumer counseling website. B2bomber81 00:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

First, I did not threaten you (publicly or privately). I reported you to the administrators for your second violation of the 3 Revert Rule within a 24 hour period. Big difference. I'd revert your last reversion, but then I would be in violation of said rule, so hopefully someone else will do that for me. I also do not appreciate your blanking of my user talk page and inserting rather rude and inapproppriate comments after this. As for my own personal motives, I have none. I don't work for best buy, don't own their stock, never have, probably never will, could care less. When I see areas of articles that could use improvement, I try and help out as best as I can. That's all. On the contrary, it's clear to me that you have some rather narrow-minded and specific goals and agenda in mind that you wish to make clear to everyone through wikipedia, and you should be reminded that wikipedia is not your personal soapbox. Dr. Cash 00:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Momoj has been blocked for 24 hours due to violation of policies, particularly NPOV, 3RR and CIVIL (particularly the slander and blanking of User talk:Derek.cashman). -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 01:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Demographics Citation

Maybe I'm just missing something, but is the citation for the demographics section working? the citation says something like <ref="giantgamble \">, and when I click on it it brings me to the very bottom of the article, rather than to the reference. Bgold4 15:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed it. It was referring to the first reference (#1) mentioned in the article. The proper format for that should be:

In the original reference, name it, like so, "<ref="name"></ref>".

To refer to that same reference later on, use this: "<ref="name"/>". Dr. Cash 17:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

General Vandalism

We all want to have a great informative wiki. We need to look at genuine vandalism such as what has occurred recently today. Let us be mindful that vandals and corporate agents are the real threats against a free and open Wikipedia. --69.118.52.13 00:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

External links in article text

Momoj added the following links to the beginning of the 'media section':

Best Buy Resells Customer's Hard Drive Without Authorization http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcyemfJ5H3o&NR

Best Buy invokes DMCA to its advantage. http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2006/11/blackfridayinfo.html

NPR Podcast to help with obtaining better customer service from Best Buy http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5024153

Cnet Reviews Best Buy service. http://reviews.cnet.com/4011-5_7-300628.html

I am including these links here as they could potentially be used as references to contribute to improving the article, but it is generally bad form to add external links directly to the article text itself. Notable links should be added to the end of the article, in a list format (external links section). But I don't think any of these are particularly notable enough to stand on their own in external links, but could be of use to editors in improving this page (hence, why they are being moved here). Dr. Cash 23:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Protecting the page

I protected the page due to the current edit war. It looks like everyone here needs a cooldown period. So please. Talk this out. --Woohookitty^(meow) 12:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)