Talk:ASDA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Ethics 2 84.9.165.16 edit 3 Request for clarification 4 George Clothing copyvio 5 Turnover 6 Unsourced Garbage 7 NPOV dispute 2006-09-03 8 Floorplate 9 POS 10 Explanation for removal of "Merger with J Sainsburys" section.

[edit] Ethics

Could a sensible section on the ethics of this supermarket be added perchance? Despite winning awards recently, Walmart are embarking on a 'chip-away' policy to worker's rights.

lobos

[edit] 84.9.165.16 edit

To the anon user above, thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. I have removed your contribution[1], because it violates our policy of having a neutral point of view. That said, since ASDA's parent company Walmart is notorious for its labour practices, a Criticism section would probably be useful. Please remember though that it needs to have the aforementioned NPOV (at the least an opposing point of view should be given), cite sources and generally look like an encyclopaedia article. Also, it needs to be properly sectioned like the rest of the article, rather than dumped at the end. --Last Malthusian 17:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Freedom of speech regardless of neutrality is my democratic right of being a member of the united kingdom, i will exercise that right at whatever cost and if it means changing this article 24 times a day, then so be it. The public have a RIGHT to know what ASDA hide.

Freedom of speech, yes. Freedom of Wikipedia contributions, no.

From 84.9.165.16 No Freedom of wikipedia, says who???? Who's interested in ASDA then , you all work for ASDA and in secret want to to be seen as some glorifying edifice to the UK retail sector? F**k OFF !!!! This company is inhuman in its practices, its twisted pathological (we must beat Tesco) ideology and you can FORGET about moral and ethical issues, because behind the scenes it doesn't have any moral convictions.

To 84.9.165.16

• Perhaps if you had the guts to actually register and give yourself an identity, your views on ASDA might command a little more respect. Regardless of this, however, you seem to have a very warped idea of what Wikipedia is actually about. An encyclopaedia is based on balanced fact, not personal animosity, and anything stated must be proven in some way. For example, the fact that ASDA hasn't won any employer awards for a couple of years does not mean it has been taken over by Satan. There are discussion forums if you have a point to make and there are doubtless sites on the internet dedicated to your cause, but the main entry in Wikipedia is NOT the place to express them. They WILL be removed within minutes and eventually the page will have to be locked, so please leave it alone.

Lupin|talk|popups 16:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The public have the right to know what ASDA hide, but not on Wikipedia they don't - this is an encyclopedia, not a place to spread rumors/POV about ASDA. — Wackymacs 16:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

How do we stop the constant (4/5 times a day) abuse of this article? Ive looked on help but to no avail... --TFoxton 19:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

4/5 times a day isn't a lot - other articles get vandalized more than 10 or 20 times a day, and most of those are protected against IP users and only let registered users edit - you could do that with this article, but I don't think its necessary to lock editing from IP users because plenty of users are on RC patrol so vandalism gets reverted quickly. — Wackymacs 19:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for clarification

On the article, I just read (emphasis mine):

"In 2005, the company was criticised by some of its employees for the treatment their fellow workers received in both stores and depots across the country. A recent posting on the GMB Union website heralded the attempt to get TESCO to honour some of the 20% Christmas staff discount which ASDA dropped for reasons of 'operational profit protection'. ASDA decided to give the discount in December 2005, but with a maximum spend imposed."

Can someone clarify why TESCO is mentioned here? Is that just subtle vandalism (i.e. it should read ASDA), or is there something more behind it? Mike Peel 23:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Is correct. The union attempted to get Tesco to offer the discount to ASDA staff as a PR stunt. Not sure if they did or not.

• It was mainly on Beers Wines & Spirits where the issue arose. ASDA excluded (initially) BWS from the 'extra discount day' in Dec 2005 (20% as opposed to the normal 10%) to 'protect profit margins'. After the Tesco wires starting buzzing and it was reported that they would offer the discount (we were told in my store that they would) Asda included BWS but with a cap of £100 spend on it.

Thanks. I've tried to edit the text to make this clearer - could you have a look and make sure it's accurate, please? Mike Peel 15:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah sounds fine.

[edit] George Clothing copyvio

From the looks of it, the entire George Clothing section was lifted by 82.34.176.180 from this Brand Republic article. The whole thing was painfully unencyclopedic anyway, so I've reverted the section to the previous version. Matt Eason 13:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turnover

The figure given doesn't make sense, given that ASDA is ahead of Sainsbury's in grocery market share and has a stronger non-food business. Are we confident it includes the whole business? Eg, George. They have to file accounts for each subsidiary, but it is easy enough for a multi-national to slice up its operations in such a way that the full picture is hard to see. What is the source? Carina22 19:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was wrong: http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/90/90031.html. So it should be £26bn?!? --TFoxton 23:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced Garbage

The Market share section which i have marked with NPOV, is, in my opinion, absolute bullshit. the wording is terrible from below that point, and it seems to be written in a tone which would be expected of a blog, and not an encyclopedia article. I'm a big fan of truth, and i think that such things make unfair statements about any company, so someone clean it up, please. Thanks James S 10:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Calm down, will you. Yeesh. I can't find a source for the second paragraph, but the first paragraph is pure fact. -- Zanimum 18:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Beside, why didn't you clean it up? If you claimed to know left from right, and were willing to write a paragraph on how "bad" three of our sentences were, you could fix the article yourself. -- Zanimum 18:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV dispute 2006-09-03

I have a problem with the following text in the "Union" section:

However, taken into account the surveyed high level of staff satisfaction, it is not surprising that union membership is low - estimated at one in five employees.

It is certainly POV, and is possibly original research. I and many colleagues in my department are union member, but we are all satisfied with our jobs and yet choose to remain a trade union member. Rather than remove the claim I have indicated POV in order to allow the author and/or other Wikipedians the chance to supply a suitable citation for it. Rugxulo 23:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Floorplate

The paragraph on Essentials mentions the "floorplate" of the store. In North America, this would be the "floor plan". Is the term correct in Britain? GreatWhiteNortherner 03:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POS

Does anyone know why ASDA continue to use such an out dated POS system? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.64.187.1 (talk • contribs).

• Let's put it another way. What commercial benefit would they gain from spending tens of millions of pounds on technology and the same again on staff training, with the resulting reductions of staff serving customers while this is going on? (This isn't intended to be a rhetorical question, though it might seem that way). Notinasnaid 09:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Depends. I don't know anything about ASDA's systems, however let me give one scenario where it would benefit. Sainsbury's had 13 (I think, I know it was 12-15) different POS systems, all requiring their own support etc. That was replaced with the NCR/Retalix system. It might have cost a lot but there must also have been massive savings in support and training. Another issue is productivity; the "dated" POS systems according to the original contributor may not be very user friendly. New systems are much more intuitive and at the simplest level let operators work faster. I also don't think the "with the resulting reductions of staff serving customers while this is going on" argument stands up - Sainsbury's managed it. Mark83 17:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    • ASDA is unlikely to replace the SMART system owing to the fact that it is globally linked to all over Walmart stores (I can't remember exactly where I heard that but I'm pretty sure it was off Walmart's own intranet; Pipeline). From my experience when I used to work for ASDA, the system does the job it is asked to do and while the hardware isn't always the most reliable, the software, once trained and experienced in its use, is a very fast an powerful system. That said, as Mark83 suggested, the comment that there is a reduction of staff during the necessary training is incorrect. The only staff who actually use the system are shop floor colleagues, Managers and customer service desk staff and even then, when they are being trained, it is often during their own time through the use of 'training hours' to account for the increased wages. As for the tills... well, they're slow and falling to pieces but I believe ASDA are taking the route of if it ain't broke, don't fix it.(Auzdafluff 20:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC))
      • Auzdafluff that's interesting, however the question as raised is about POS, i.e. Point Of Sale, i.e. tills. You seem to be focusing on back-room systems (I'm guessing the stock system?) And you seem to agree with the original contributor, that it is outdated. Mark83 20:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation for removal of "Merger with J Sainsburys" section.

I have removed the following:

In February 2007, speculation was rampant that ASDA may bid for the UK's second largest supermarket, J Sainsburys should a private consortium make an approach for the company. Experts suggested that despite the implications a merger of its size would have on competition within the industry, ASDA would be able to present itself as the favoured party due to fears surrounding the consortium bid and suggestions that the purpose of the bid may be for asset stripping resulting in the loss of J Sainsburys anyway.^[1]

The combined retailer, owned by Walmart would be the only realistic chance of any retailer catching up with Tesco in the short to medium term.^[2] The resultant company would hold over 1047 stores, both large stores including ASDA's ASDA*WALMART supercenters, along with ASDA Superstores and J Sainsburys similar sized Sainsburys stores, along with ASDA's supermarkets and Sainsburys even smaller Local and @ stores. It would still be just over half Tesco's total store bank, but would hold (if marketshare was not affected) around 33% of the market; 1.8% more than Tesco.^[3][4][5]

Reasons:

• Not a reason for removal but the company in question in J Sainsbury plc, not "J Sainsburys". Both the "s" and the lack of apostrophe if it were correct are glaring mistakes.
• Two of the references are Wikipedia articles, which is unacceptable. Wikipedia can't cite itself.
• Another reference is Reuters - I've learned from experience that these quickly become broken links.
• The asset stripping argument is weak. Read the current (3 March) Economist - "Private equity stands to make more money from investing in a business than shutting it down, because a growing business is worth more than a shrinking one. Indeed studies have shown that buy-outs in Britain create jobs in the longer term."
• "resulting in the loss of J Sainsburys anyway" - not only is it less than encylopedic language, but the idea that a takeover would see the Sainsbury's brand disappear is ludicrous. Even given the company's dire state from the late 90s to mid 00s the brand has still remained remarkably strong.
• The whole second paragraph is supposition/speculation. Mark83 16:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)