Talk:Best Buy/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Just curious, but do you have proof? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 21:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is usually listed in the OEM specifications, and can also be found on websites of the OEMs  . It is not listed on Best Buy's website, however.   Masterhomer  00:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable deletions from "Criticisms" section 

message: 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)
thread_title: Response to $100 software setup

message: 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)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: ... 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."  -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 10:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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:  MFNickster 14:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  There's nothing illegal about refusing cash payment... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Questioning two sections 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  POV Editing Required ASAP 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: BestBuySux.org

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Criticism Fork

message: 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)
thread_title:  Brands 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Response to PSP/PRP return policy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Actually, no. See WP:CITE, WP:VERIFY Coderx 03:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no discussion on Scorecards and Perf. Management? 

message: 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..
:*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)
thread_title: Incidents

message: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism: Just proportional? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yeah, we want Wikipedia to be neutral, right? I agree. Jgcarter 01:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Kialari 05:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  bestbuysux.org 

message: 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)
replies: text: Nothing anymore now that Dr. Cash cleaned it up/fixed it Bgold4 20:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference Links 

message: 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)
thread_title:  General Vandalism 

message: 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)
thread_title: External links in article text

message: 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)
thread_title:  Protecting the page 

message: Substituted at 20:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment