Talk:J. D. Power and Associates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Lots of unsupported slamming going on

Clearly no "supporter" would ever say anything like that. Simply doing some basic research shows that J.D. Power has always been an independent company that's managed to piss off lots of the big car companies (along with other industries) by giving a venue for customer experiences, both good and bad. Companies would nearly always rather keep that kind of information under wraps -- too bad for them that the 'net and places like this make that impossible to do, particularly when the research of proven independent firms like J.D. Power can be accessed by anyone.

           This article is unbelieveably biased.  It should be deleted and redone.

[edit] Huh?

"JD Power supporters however point out that their surveys are influential and therefore it doesn't matter if they are reliable." -that "supporters" viewpoint doesn't sound very supportive, if I knew what supporters actually thought I'd change it, but I didn't even know there was a debate 216.207.246.230 03:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Merger

There is another article for "J.D. Power". Shouldn't the two be combined, and one deleted?

yea i just found it. they should be merged. 70.111.251.203 17:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
They are 2 separate things. This is the company, J.D. Power is the man. --Froalskiner 06:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Odd...

I always figured they were owned by a certain crappy US car company.

I guess direct ownership would be too obvious. They probably get paid under the table.

24.110.60.225 21:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consumer Reports

HAHA. What eveidence is there that they are "not for profit"? Utter nonsense. CJ DUB 23:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The publisher of Consumer Reports ("Consumers Union of United States") is a nonprofit corporation. It is registered as such with the Internal Revenue Service of the US Government. Exia 02:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References?

No cited references except for the company's website, and no cited source for the "Criticism" section. I don't dispute or support anything in the article, but it would be improved by some external information on the subject.

-- Epimetreus 06:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced criticism

I removed the Criticism section because the claims could be considered libel if false, and they are unreferenced. There were also counterclaims randomly inserted in the text, which made it a real mess. -- Beland 23:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Potential conflicts of Interest

What do we think about linking in a discussion on conflicts of interest? J.D. Power faces a silimar conflict of interest that appears in other industries as well. For example, accounting firms are paid by the very firms they objectively audit - potential conflict. Also, there are ratings firms (Moody's, Fitch, S&P) that rate the debt of companies and get paid by the companies that issue the debt - potential conflict. I think this is the broader issue that should be linked in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chichi2186 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Tag

Due to all the issues with sources pov, conflict of intrest, ect., I have tagged the article with {{Noncompliant}} for cleanup.HondasareGOOD (talk) 05:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

The criticism section is very poorly written. It's obiously some kind of edit war with two biased opinions. I have tagged it with {{OR-sect}} and {{POV-section}} due to this.HondasareGOOD (talk) 03:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you expect me to believe that JD powers is unbiased. You are kidding right? I am physician and you would think that when it came to people's lives that would be the only place where corruption would not exist but i assure you that the FDA and pharmaceutical industry as well as in basic and clinical research. corruption is rampid. Question everything !!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.31.237.186 (talk) 16:45:29, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions of "independent and unbiased"

It seems to me that the opening statement that the company conducts "independent & unbiased" surveys is causing a lot of the friction. Why not just state that the company conducts surveys and leave it at that? Hatcat (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blogs as Citations?

I remove the power for pay critisim because it used a blog as it citation, really, I think that if you are going to write something like that you have to actually have a source that is relying on facts and not just what the source has heard

[edit] Consumer Reports

I removed the reference to Consumer reports since it's not really relevant to this company. I also cleaned up some of the wording in a few other sections.--Froalskiner (talk) 05:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)