Talk:Dixons (UK)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Content removed from article for NPOV

I have moved some content from the main page into this discussion page. As the article currently stands, this text stands out as heavily biased. The content itself is eligble for inclusion, but the whole article needs rewriting and extending (incorporating this content) in order to appear an unbiased, encyclopaedic article.

The content in this box was removed from the article for being incompatible with Wikipedia:NPOV. Please read the content and references and add to the discussion below the box.

The content below has been reinstated since User Chris Throup - who originally removed it is an employee or associate of Dixons as this link shows.

The chain has long suffered the reputation that its staff are unhelpful [1][2].

In November 1998 Dixons came under fire because of the prices it was charging for personal computers. Peter Mandelson said he was worried that consumers were getting a "raw deal" because of the store's dominant position in the market [3]. Intel's chief executive at that time, Craig Barrett, said that Dixons charges "ridiculous margins" [4]. The Intel Architecture Business Group said "Dixons has classic channel presence and can determine what gets sold at what price." Dixons responded that it could not make sense of the comments. The Consumers' Association said "Dixons controls over half of the high street distribution of PCs and they seem to be using this enormous market power to keep prices to consumers high" and has a "monopoly position in the high street" [5]. Criticism continued into 2000 when competitor John Lewis, with the support of two Members of Parliament, accused Dixons of sifling competition in the market by striking anti-competitive deals with suppliers [6].

The retail chain was criticised by the Consumers' Association in 2003 for the way staff pressured customers (through "dodgy sales tactics"[7] and "dubious practices"[8]) into purchasing poor value extended warranties [9][10], an issue which was widely reported in the press [11] [12][13][14][15][16][17], with Dixons facing particular criticism by virtue of supplying one-in-four of all extended warranties [18] accounting for 40% of the store's profits [19].

Also in 2003 The Daily Telegraph and The Independent reported that the chain had been selling used goods [20]. Dixons had been investigated by more than twenty-two of thirty county trading standards offices; in the previous two years thirteen counties had prosecuted the company and five had issued formal cautions, another 12 were contemplating prosecution [21]. Furthermore the chain has made a number of advertising claims which the Advertising Standards Agency judged were misleading [22][23][24] and advertised in-store credit in a way that the Office of Fair Trading ruled unlawful [25].

[edit] Discussion of removed text and subsequent revisions to it

  • So, if I understand you correctly, provided that there is more on the history of the company and its day-to-day business (ignoring all the stuff it gets censured for throughout the press and standards authorities) you'll allow the content back once the proportion of the article that is taken up with criticism is reduced below a certain percentage? Is that correct? --bodnotbod 00:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not exactly a question of percentage, more a question of undue weight.
The policy of having a neutral point of view is not to hide different points of view, but to show the diversity of viewpoints. In case of controversy, the strong points and weak points will be shown according to each point of view, without taking a side. The neutral point of view is not a "separate but equal" policy. The facts, in themselves, are neutral, but the simple accumulation of them cannot be the neutral point of view. If only the favorable (or the unfavorable) facts of a point of view are shown in an article, the article will still be non-neutral.
This needs to be an article about the company. So, what is the company history? What does the company do now? What is the company known for?
This content will have a place there, but I think it needs to be balanced. For example, if we include criticisms from the Consumers Association, it is only fair to include John Clare's reply. Also, some of the links you have added are not specific to Dixons. Those that apply to the DSG International group as a whole might belong better in that article. Those that also apply to completely seperate companies (eg Office of Fair Trading press release should probably have that made clear. --throup ✆ ✍ 08:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


  • OK, I'm game. Where can I find out about a retailer's history? Where did you get your info about the company's origins from? My usual sources probably won't be much use: they seem to return stuff about share prices mostly. --bodnotbod 06:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


  • In the meantime, since I haven't had a source for the history, I've added a bit more to the criticisms - there was a whole issue with Peter Mandelson and Intel castigating their PC pricing I hadn't previously known about until I did research looking for a company history. What I shall do soon as to break the issues down into sections so that the criticisms and Dixons' responses can go in dialogue with each other, because many of Dixons replies to the concerns are very interesting. I'm also still keen to hear about the history of the company, as I'm sure that's interesting too. Oh, and I've formatted this page to help anyone who finds us either by accident or through the boiler on the article, so that they can join the discussion. --bodnotbod 13:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


  • Great. One of the best sources of info about the company history is at the group website: www.dsgiplc.com. The "about us" section has a full corporate history--much of the early stuff is exclusively Dixons and later on it becomes a mix. Takes a little sifting to work out which bit applies to which chain. For current details of all of the DSG chains, the annual reports in the "investors" section have a lot of good information.
One of the areas of the NPOV policy which concerned me here was to do with how we select facts.
If only the favorable (or the unfavorable) facts of a point of view are shown in an article, the article will still be non-neutral.
One of the "rules of the media" is that a story criticising a company or individual will propogate more readily than a defence or rebuttal, regardless of the truth of the matter. I would think it worth selecting a few of the links you have discovered and add them in to the article, instead of them all. For example, we don't need 7 news stories telling us that extended warranties have been criticised.
When it comes to integrating the criticisms into the article, I would also think it worth including them in the article at a point appropriate to the timeline. For example (as I notice we have both made edits to other areas of the group) Currys have introduced a new service agreement (whateverhappens) since the extended warranty report, so in that article the report should be mentioned before we discuss Currys as it is today. Similarly, if Dixons have made changes since the report (I don't know if they have, but I know their management has merged with Currys; it says so in the group's latest annual report) then we should do a similar thing here.
I won't have any more time to think on this tonight (I've got a play to perform!) so I'll end my ramble here. I'll catch up with things tomorrow. --throup ✆ ✍ 17:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


  • Hello. I won't be doing much more today either. But to take your points one by one:
    • One of the areas of the NPOV policy which concerned me here was to do with how we select facts... If only the favorable (or the unfavorable) facts of a point of view are shown in an article, the article will still be non-neutral.
  • What you fail to account for is that you are at liberty to document the opposing view here too. Instead of doing so you chose instead simply to remove all my text from the article. Your demonstration of "selecting facts" by "removing all the ones you didn't write" suggests a gap between your pleasant words and the less compromising truth of your action. However, removal of the text is only an interim solution, and it is hoped that someone who has found convincing counterclaims to the criticisms adds them here before a form of the above text goes back in the article. I'm sure you wouldn't want to count on me to adequately counter the myriad claims of anti-competitive behaviour. Indeed, I think I am not up to the task. It is certain that Dixons own press office failed effectively so to do, I'm unlikely to fair any better. And you kind of muddy your keen sense of NPOV when you point me towards the company's own website as "one of the best sources" of its history (you provide not a single other). I guess you have a marvellous sense of irony, and I appreciate the joke, thank you.
    • One of the "rules of the media" is that a story criticising a company or individual will propogate more readily than a defence or rebuttal, regardless of the truth of the matter.
  • I agree that criticism makes for good copy. However your implication that the truth does not matter is wide of the mark, since I have no doubt Dixons can afford a fantastic legal department with which to fight any unjust statements made against them. Another rule of the media is that you don't invite expensive lawsuits. Looking at any of those stories, what strikes you is the worrying weakness of Dixons defence. However, you are correct that Dixons responses need to go into the article, and I shall endeavour to place them in. It will not, I'm afraid, go much towards painting them in a better light since their arguments are weak. Furthermore they are fighting for their own self interest, whereas the forces ranged against them; government, individual MPs, ministers, authorities of various kinds, will inevitably be seen as less partial.
    • we don't need 7 news stories telling us that extended warranties have been criticised.
  • I disagree. Since this section of the article proves so contentious I would fear removing one of the references because once I have done so I can imagine someone saying "where's the evidence that this was 'WIDELY reported'? One/two/three articles doesn't equal widely". So I think it's vital all claims are given maximum support so that if the wider community has to referee on this matter they have all the evidence to hand.
    • When it comes to integrating the criticisms into the article, I would also think it worth including them in the article at a point appropriate to the timeline. For example (as I notice we have both made edits to other areas of the group) Currys have introduced a new service agreement (whateverhappens) since the extended warranty report, so in that article the report should be mentioned before we discuss Currys as it is today.
  • I agree that criticisms need to go in the correct article (Currys/Dixons), but I disagree with the timeline assumption. On many other articles criticisms are put in their own section, eg McDonalds#Criticism / Nestle#Criticisms_of_Nestl.C3.A9.27s_business_practices / Coca_Cola#Criticisms / Pepsi#Criticisms / The_Gap_(clothing_retailer)#Criticisms / Benetton#Criticism... Timelines tend to make for very staid, unflowing articles if followed too rigorously. At any rate, the criticisms cover a span of a mere five years, so in terms of the entire history they are probably well left as a unit.
    • Currys have introduced a new service agreement (whateverhappens) since the extended warranty report, so in that article the report should be mentioned before we discuss Currys as it is today.
  • I never thought I'd be excited to see the terms of a new service agreement, I look forward to you writing about it. I'll have a look at that history and also try to cobble some sense together from Dixons awkward fidgeting after each new accusation was thrown at them. --bodnotbod 19:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


  • This dicussion is getting a little hard to read :-). As a general response, I am not expecting you to do all the hard work here; my reason for starting the discussion here in the first place was for the two of us (and anyone else who wants to, of course) to work together on the article. If I just wanted to censor the article, I would not have backed up the text I removed. I am firmly of the belief that we both want to have a balanced article which is both informative and compliant with the NPOV policy, otherwise we wouldn't both be here.
And you kind of muddy your keen sense of NPOV when you point me towards the company's own website as "one of the best sources" of its history (you provide not a single other). I guess you have a marvellous sense of irony, and I appreciate the joke, thank you.
Um... I don't really know what to say to that. I would love to hear how content such as "Charles Kalms opened the first Dixons photographic studio at 32 High Street, Southend. The business was incorporated as a private company called Dixon Studios Limited and registered on 27 October 1937 with share capital of £100." can be seen as biased. I was not suggesting we include the company's advertising copy in the article, but I don't know of a better source for such things as dates and places. But if it was that easy to make you chortle, I might reconsider a career in stand-up.
As to a seperate criticism section, I gladly concede to your suggestion after seeing these other examples. I am certain I had seen a Wikipedia guideline advising my original suggestion, but seeing as I can't find it any more, it can't have been a good guideline! --throup ✆ ✍ 11:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC) (continued in next section for clarity)


[edit] Working towards a new article

I thought it would be worth putting some of our discussion into practise to see how it pans out. I have created a subpage of this discussion for us to try out ideas before incorporating them into the article: /proposed.

Initially I have copied the current page and incorporated the criticisms table you have been working on from your user page. Once you have had a chance to express an opinion here, I am planning to expand on the company's history--unless, of course, our discussion here takes us down a different route. --throup ✆ ✍ 11:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Please go ahead and expand the history. I had a look at the link you provided a few days ago and if I recall correctly I was a bit worried that your short history was already bordering on being a copy, not really due to NPOV but because I assume it's copyrighted material. I had a good, long think about whether I would expand the history as I suggested I may but it's hard NOT to simply copy a source when you only have the one source to go on and that source is written as tightly as an encyclopedia article is (ie you can't transform it from one style (eg. discursive and colourful) to another (straight, factual) to avoid copyright problems).
I'm happy for you to go ahead and expand how you will. I suspect youhave much more interest in the history than I do. At some point I assume we'll have a bit of a ding-dong when it comes back to ths issue of the criticism section, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it. Incidentally, I did find an interview with Mr Kalms... um... ah, here it is interview (and no, don't worry, it isn't another criticism thing - I haven't even read the whole of it) Might come in handy for recent history. --bodnotbod 14:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

This article has now been made unbalanced in favour of Dixons by the removal of all criticism to a remote sub page. I have added a small para to the main article as a place holder. Lumos3 22:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I see Throup hasn't taken up my suggestion that he expand the history. I'll go and see if he's still interested. --bodnotbod 19:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I came across this article randomly, with no special axe to grind. Some of the criticisms about PC pricing seem to be from quite a while ago - I wonder if they still apply? It does have something of the "....and another thing!" tone about it. Maybe a shorter summary of the most recent and serious criticisms, rather than "everything bad about Dixons that google can find", would balance it better and actually be more useful?

I did find the fact that they made 40% of their profit from extended warranties absolutely fascinating, and if I may make a minor suggestion, I think that would be an excellent addition to the page on extended warranty. --Enlad 22:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The chief architects and arguers of the article are myself and Throup. I granted that the amount of criticism I dug up overbalanced the article and Throup seemed keen to develop the history. However, I fear he has correctly assessed that were he to expand the history I would expand the criticism in line with the total article length. His solution to this concern has been not to develop the history, it seems (for I have invited him repeatedly to continue the good work he started). At any rate, the article currently stands at a compromise I can just about live with. After all, it's not me that's ripping off the less educated shoppers of Britain who tend not to read reviews magazines or do comparative shopping on the internet. --bodnotbod 03:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately they'll never read this either... --Enlad 11:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've called time on this charade. For some considerable time I've known that Chris Throup is an employee or associate of Dixons as this link shows. - The fact that he accused me of POV led me to remain quiet about this so he could dig himself into an ever more embarrassing and shameful hole. But since he hasn't contributed to Wikipedia since November I tire of waiting to administer the coup de grace. It's interesting to note, is it not, that Dixons pernicious business methods and horrible disdain for the public at large extends even into the private conduct of it's lowliest employees. --bodnotbod 20:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Currys.digital

Why has this article been set up so that Currys.digital redirects to Dixons? It isn't called Dixons any more, so surely it should be reversed, ie. Dixons should redirect to Currys.digital.


[edit] Merge proposal

The reason that there is a separate Currys.digital article is that an anonymous user changed a simple redirect into an article in its own right. Unfortunately, they did the newbie thing of cutting-and-pasting material from Dixons en masse, which is almost always a bad thing. Apparently they were attempting to "move" it, but I don't know if they'd realised (improper "moving" aside) that leaving the original article as a dupe is bad style, both from a reader's and a maintainer's point-of-view.

There may be a case for having separate articles... but only if "Dixons" now refers to a noticeably distinct business/entity from Currys and Currys.digital. If it's just a minor branding difference on some stores, it should stay as a section within a single article.

However, regardless of whether separate articles are warranted, it's clear that the cut-and-paste near-duplicates setup that exists just now is pointless. Fourohfour 11:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think they deserve seperate articles, as Dixons is an online store, and currys.digital is a high-street store, but agree the currys.digital article needs to be re-written. Sprinkles 03:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Dixon's is also very much still a high street store - just not in the UK. Wikipedia is written to a world perspective, not a UK one. --Kiand 03:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep separate, but rewrite to differentiate the articles. The Dixons article should cover the history of the company up to the time of rebranding and the continuence of the name on the internet etc, and the Currys.digital article should cover the history of the company since rebranding.DWaterson 11:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep separate - different businesses, different histories. Dixons is more than just a footnote in the history of the British (at least) high street. I see no justification for a merge. 138.37.199.206 09:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm aware that the Dixons high-street name is being retained in Ireland. What potentially concerned me wasn't the name (I'm not strongly in favour of either), but two almost-identical articles apparently describing the same business entity. Cut-and-paste (or even substantial overlap of subject matter) makes maintenance pointlessly tedious for editors, and isn't any better for readers (spot the few different facts amongst the duplicate info).
In short, there's more than one way to arrange this, but can we please have it so that there aren't two articles covering (almost) exactly the same thing? Possibilities:-
(1) The Dixons article is historical, noting the present use of the name for the website and Irish stores, but referencing them to Currys.digital, which describes the current setup.
(2) There is a single Dixons article, which notes the alternate Currys.digital name at the start, and also includes historical information, the Irish stores and the dixons.co.uk website.
You could make a case for either of the above, or perhaps another arrangement. The existing cut-and-paste dupes are just pointless though. If they really are distinct businesses, we should write the articles accordingly. Fourohfour 22:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep separate they are now 2 diffrent outlets aimed at diffrent consumers
Dixons (Irish high-street) and Currys.Digital (UK) appear to be different names for (basically) the same high street operation aimed at the same part of their respective markets. That's the only difference I can see.
This articule is not about Dixons (Irish High street) 6 stores but about all of dixons. But if you wish to compare the 2 retail outlets lets compare.[26] PAGE 12 SEVENTH PARAGRAPH, The rebranded store will offer a larger range of products including white goods and sda, which the dixons store dont offer as they supplie only brown goods. Therefore Dixons is purely aim at the digital consumer while currys.digital is also focused at the same digital consumer it also provides much more covering the needs of other consumers --Ghostavatar 14:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Whilst I accept what you say, the article seems to contradict itself saying that "the Dixons brand will focus exclusively on e-commerce operations", but then goes on to discuss the Irish Dixons stores(!)
This is why I dislike splitting articles too far along marketing lines. Marketing can, and often does, mean that different names are used for the same thing, and the same name is used for different things; and further, that they don't worry too much about contradiction or changing things round. I don't think moving articles around based on some marketing guy's intended target for the next three months is a good idea.
and will continue off in there seperate directions.
Speculation and extrapolation. What proof do you have of this? How do you know the parent company won't decide tommorow to use a single high-street and/or website brand?
[27] PAGE 12 SIXTH PARAGRAPH, Dixons to focus exclusively on e-commerce. PAGE 12 EIGHTH PARAGRAPH, Shows there intent to differentiate the two names through diffrent markets (retail and e-tail). As for tomorrow who know what might change, thats why wikipedia is a work in progress. --Ghostavatar 14:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Given the amount of extrapolation and speculation masquerading as "fact" on the Internet, and the fact you gave no references at first, I believe my scepticism was warranted. However, that's as good a source as any.
"As for tomorrow who know what might change"... well, to be fair you implied it when you said "and will continue off in there seperate directions". :-)
Personally I'd say that this was DSG's *intent* rather than what *will* happen, but it's no big deal.
This divergence of dixons and currys.digital will become more dissimilar overtime as they venture into diffrent markets.
Ditto. Have Dixons made clear they intend using the brands in increasingly different manners?
yes[28] PAGE 9 SECOND PARAGRAPH, DSGi Plan to merge dixons with pixmania taking dixons into the european market. --Ghostavatar 14:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Although i completely agree the currys.digital needs to be rewritten.
Here is a suggestion for the start of the rewrite
Currys.digital is the rebranded name for Dixons retail outlets in the UK excluding Ireland and the Dixons Tax Free stores operating from UK airports. In April 2006 the Group decided to move its focus for the Dixons chain from the high street and concentrate purley on e-commerce. The stores were subsequential renamed Currys.digital as an extension of Currys (also part of DSG international plc retail outlets) to allow Dixons to break free from the high street. The rebranded Currys.digital markets itself as a specialist division of Currys aimed at the technology focused consumer with the product ranges of Cameras, Personal Computers, Audio and Video equipment as Dixons had in the past, while offering a range of large and small domestic appliances that the traditional Currys stores sell.
Ghostavatar 23:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Too focussed on details about the name and missing the big picture. The start of an article should be a brief overview of the company and not get bogged down in this type of stuff.
As I said before, if the high-street Dixons (in Ireland) and Currys.Digital are just different nameplates for the same operation, run by the same people in the same manner, then they don't warrant separate articles . If they were to be split along historical/present lines, it might be justified. The difference in names can be briefly noted in an overview for a Currys.digital/Dixons High Street article, and explained in greater detail later on in that article. Fourohfour 11:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
As for being run by the same people, yes they are own by the same parent company. [29][30]PAGE 28 but Dixons will be managed under Nick Wilkinson Group Managing Director - Emerging Business Division and e-commerce division, While currys will be managed by Peter Keenan - Managing Director UK & Ireland Electricals, as for the Ireland stores they will managed under Declan Ronayne - General Manager DSG Ireland Ltd. --Ghostavatar 14:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
You may have a case. This discussion is starting to get *very* long.
Whether they warrant separate articles and how exactly they should be split is still open to question. Whatever's decided, the articles should be split along sensible lines that (a) Don't change according to the vagaries of quarter-to-quarter ephemeral marketing focus, (b) Don't split related information for the sake of it and (c) Don't overlap too much. Fourohfour 12:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newspaper quote

Here's a quote from a newspaper article that will have an impact on this debate.

Despite insisting he had "no concerns" about rebranding the former Dixons stores, which saved the group money, he admitted that the future of its 200-odd high street stores was in doubt. He said the group would not be renewing the leases on its Currys.digital stores because of the upward pressure on rents.

John Clare interview in the indepentdent 18 January 2007

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.38.132.100 (talk • contribs).

[edit] "Merge debate ended"- this is still a dupe...

There's still a lot of duplicate information in Currys.digital and Dixons. Since this is indicative of bad organisation (from a reader's POV) and hard to maintain, it should be dealt with. Which information belongs where- any thoughts? Fourohfour 17:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Currys digital logo.gif

Image:Currys digital logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Dixons.png

Image:Dixons.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Currys digital logo.gif

Image:Currys digital logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)