Talk:Sears Holdings Corporation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Illinois This article is part of WikiProject Illinois, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Chicago Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles related to Chicago.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Antique cash register This article is part of WikiProject Retailing, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to retailing companies and topics on Wikipedia. You can help out by editing the article attached to this page, and by visiting the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.
Retailing To-do: | edit | history | watch | purge — SEC(SHLD)


Contents

[edit] self-Biased article?

reading this article, i noticed that it looks like this article only seeks to promote the company.

It seems to me the information on this page is of a more factual nature that is not primarily "promoting" the company. For example, if the Coca-Cola article were to say it was the most sold beverage in the world, the statement would be factually true, and not intended as promotion saying "Buy coke, everybody else does." If anything, I would say the page casts SHLD in a negative light, given it mentions the failure of Sears Grand, Nike pulling their shoes, etc, and the bankruptcies.

Sentineneve 00:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Section of Text

There appears to be a missing section of text discussing Sears' understanding of the relationship between farmers and general stores and his eventual move into the mail-order catalogue business to attract rural business. This is a fragment that doesn't make much sense:

"Richard Sears knew that farmers often brought their crops to town where they could be sold and shipped, and then bought supplies, often at very high prices, from local general stores. The catalog business grew quickly. By 1894, the Sears catalog had grown to 322 pages, featuring sewing machines, bicycles, sporting goods and a host of other new items."

The Montgomery Ward and Aaron Montgomery Ward articles seem to have some information regarding Sear's copying Ward's mail order business to rural areas but the Sears article seems in context (what's left of it) to imply that Sears came up with it first. I don't know what the original author intended or if he was correct.

[edit] Logo

Can someone pull the official Sears Holdings Corporation logo off their website to replace the Sears retail and Kmart retail logos that are in the info box? 69.134.50.153 18:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Done. tregoweth 04:53, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

The logo from the 60's-90's listed is purely Australian isnt it? I didnt think the US chain used the italicised K. --Crazycrazyduck 05:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current Kmart Business Level Strategy

Does anyone know where I can find information on Kmarts current business level strategy for a paper I need to write?

Take it from an insider pal... there is no business strategy. Our stores work on a very simple formula: "Not enough profit being made, Cut hours" BUT, without hours there's no associates to help customers. Trust me, I'm in a "Big" Kmart; there are 5 people who run the store: 1 manager, 1 supervisor, 1 cashier, 1 girl in softlines (clothing) and 1 poor guy in hardlines (Sports, Electronics, Hardware, etc)... and he has to get carts, do carry outs, and cover breaks. If someone can find a "business level strategy" for K-mart, you might wanna tell Kmart about it.

Most strategys are kept confidential.


>Your wrong about the strategy. Its "get enough people to invest in the company, so we don't have to rely on people coming to the store and buying stuff". Which is pretty much what you said.

[edit] Split Into 3 Individual Pages

  • I believe we should split the information up into 3 seperate pages. One for Kmart prior to merger, one for Sears Roebuck prior to merger, and one for Sears Holdings Corporation, post-merger. I don't know if this has been posted before so please move it if it already has.

[edit] Split

Should this all be in one big article by itself? Or should this be broken off into articles for K-Mart and Sears. Personally I think it'd be better split - especially if more material gets added for one chain or the other.
JesseG 19:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I strongly encourage you to split this up. Vegaswikian 22:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree -- both main components have a very long and rich history prior to the merger that is done a disservice being cramped together here. older ≠ wiser 00:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Here's a third for that motion. Sears Holdings is an umbrella presiding over two different chains with rich histories. Why not organize the company's entries in the same manner: one entry for Sears Holdings, and then one entry each for the two components (legacy Sears and legacy Kmart/S.S. Kresge)? --Captadam 14:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree. It is easier to have the history of the Sears Holdings company and its current state all in one location. It reads easier. Sears Holdings is a company that has absorbed the "rich histories" of two defucnt companies. The histories of Kmart and Sears are now the history of Sears Holdings. If you split, there will the Sears Holdings page will be nothing more than a stub. Wikipedianinthehouse 20:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • No, there should be a short summary section for each in this article with a main article link to the respective articles. And I would dispute that having the histories together them them easier to read, I think the conflicting timelines make this merged history very confusing to read. older ≠ wiser 02:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree this should be split up. --Caldorwards4 04:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Some of the examples of the chains I put in this artical were sold or closed before Sears Holdings was formed so this needs spliting and soon --Caldorwards4 02:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. It's silly to, for example, go in the Montgomery Ward article and see references to them competing in 1900 with a company that was formed in 2005. Jkonrath 22:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed on splitting. The sections on Kmart and Sears each should be moved off to their own articles, and replaced with a short paragraph with a {{main}} tag to the full article about each legacy company's history up until the date the merger became effective. Personally, I see the Sears Holdings Corporation article as a place to discuss the combined company from the date of the merger forward. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree they're all just chains of one company now. Should we have separate articles for every company that ever got acquired? What this article really needs is a re-edit to better merge the information that's here. Ewlyahoocom 14:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Eh, not really. For one thing, Kmart Corporation and Sears, Roebuck still exist as entities underneath the umbrella of Sears Holdings. For another, both companies are extremely significant in their own right: the legacy Sears was for years the largest retailer in the world. It built the world's tallest building and was omnipresent. Very significant company. And Kmart pioneered the discount department store concept that has really helped to change the face of suburban and rural America. These two companies are important historically, even though they are both shadows of their former selves under the Sears Holdings umbrella. Discussing them both only in the Sears Holdings article denies their important histories. Just my $.02. --Captadam 14:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree to split this! ---71.33.21.122
  • I agree, sooner or later, this article will get WAY too big.
  • Strong Split Not only because there are two notable companies which have each had an independent history for over 100 years, but because Sears and Kmart are still operated as separate retail chains with unique identities. Trying to squeeze all of the information on both of these chains into one article is akin to trying to put the histories of all 1200+ radio stations owned by Clear Channel Communications into one article. DHowell 05:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that this article should be split.Toonmon2005 00:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree in favor of a split. There should be separate articles for Kmart and Sears, Roebuck & Co. since they were both very notable companies on their own in the past. --Dynamite Eleven 01:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree to split using Wikipedia:Summary style and {{main}} pointers to the articles. --Christopherlin 00:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Agree to Split, Although both companies are owned by the same company, many other large companies that have seperate subsidiaries or brands have seperate pages for their large brands or aquisitions. (Examples would be Kroger, General Motors, Proctor and Gamble, Time Warner, Disney and more)(Hypernick1980 02:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC))

agree to seperate sears/ kmart for store information and history, but sears holdings corporation article should still exist. I reverted the edit. The main Kmart article is terrible! The images are so disorganized!

  • I agree. A reader comes here looking for information on sears and wades through the troubles for K-Mart. Separate. --RedJ 17 21:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. K-Mart and Sears have very distinct histories -- if done properly, the reader will not be confused. In fact, it would result in clearer, less cluttered articles. The Sears Holdings article would deal with the corporation as it exists today, and on a go forward basis. The comparable situation is the Hudson Bay Company in Canada, where its department store banners (Zellers and The Bay) have their own articles, as do the department store retailers that HBC has absorbed over the years (Simpson's, Woodwards, Morgan's, etc.). Mass confusion has not erupted in Canada as a result. Skeezix1000 17:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that we have reached strong consensus that this article should be split into three articles, one for Sears Roebuck and Company, one for Kmart, and one for Sears Holdings Corporation (Hypernick1980 02:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC))

  • Looks like that to me too. pfahlstrom 22:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree with the vote to split. There is a lot of information here, and three articles (KMart pre-merger, Sears pre-merger, and Sears Holdings post-merger) would cut this down into more manageable chunks, and we can link everything together.
  • Strong Agree to Split Per Skeezix1000 and many other of the split supporters. The "old" companies in many of these examples are notable in and of themselves and deserve separate treatment. In many ways they are distinct entities despite their ultimate absorbtion or takeover. Fluit 01:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Agree to Split Per gwiner I am a perfect example of why this needs to be split - I came here looking for more detailed history on the early pre-acquisition Sears and Roebuck Company, and instead find all sorts of irrelevant info about other companies - it is a very confusing read. Each of these retailers has a distinct, important, and detailed history that needs to be individually referenced. Fluit 01:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree because Sears and Kmart have different histories. A seperate page for the "Sears Holdings" should also be seperate. Diediemydarling 06:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3 Pages

Sears and K-Mart and Sears Holdings should have seaprete pages. Sears should be like all other department store pages and have locations and only be Sears, just the same with K-Mart. Sears Holdings should be the overall business page

Definitely agreed. A Sears Holding Company page would be of more interest to those looking for technical, back-end information. --72.224.153.104 02:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date/Location

Why is Sears Holdings listed as having been formed in 1899 in Detroit (Kmart)? Since Sears was the acquiring company, shouldn't it instead list the date/place of the Sears Roebuck founding? Istvan 22:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That's an error, I fixed it now. Alexzero77 19:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Alexzero77

Actually, Kmart Corporation acquired Sears, Roebuck. The company then renamed itself Sears Holdings and moved its headquarters to the old Sears headquarters in Hoffman Estates. Although, if you want to be REALLY technical, then you can change the actual date of formation to either the date that Kmart came out of bankruptcy (and issued new stock), or you can reference the date that Sears Holdings was organized. Structurally, it really is a different company from both Kmart and legacy Sears. --Captadam 13:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split completed

The discussed split has been completed, and this article is now three: Sears Holdings Corporation, Kmart, and Sears, Roebuck and Company. The demarcating line is the merger. I've also gone ahead and repointed a number of different redirects for the different companies. Thoughts? SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I noticed ALOT of errors and problems with the new articles. They REALLY need fixing. I don't know why they're part of the defunct category, and the spacing is screwed up. Also, it's "Kmart," not "K-Mart." I'm probably going to give up on this now because whoever split the articles did a TERRIBLE job! 21:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC) Alexzero77
I placed the predecessor organizations in the "defunct" category because they were replaced by a new company - Sears Holdings Corporation. If you think the split was poorly done, by all means, be bold and do something about it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject: Retailing

Hello, a new WikiProject called Retailing has been created, and we invite anyone who is interested in joining to sign up. If you would like to join it, then list your name on Wikipedia:Wikiproject/List_of_proposed_projects#Retailing. Tuxide 00:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big Kmart

Noticing the back-and-forth addition and removal of the "Big Kmart" passage, I'm curious... what's the harm in including it? The format is still very much in use, and a passage about it seems highly appropriate for the article, as it does differentiate between "Big Kmart" (which is something of a misnomer) and conventional Kmarts.

Thoughts? SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Big Kmart should be listed, since it is marketed separately from regular Kmarts. This is no different than distinguishing Target Greatlands from regular Targets. Tuxide 02:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sears Essentials stores

I saw that this article states that Sears Essentials stores will be converted to Sears Grands because it was a failure, and lists it as a former chain. On the Sears website both the Essentials and Grand chains are promoted, with a store locater search option for "Sears Mall, Grand & Essentials Stores", with a link to that page about the Essentials concept, and another box at the top promoting it. Does anyone have any information on these stores, or references for the statements about the Essentials chain being discontinued? I checked the Sears Holding Corporation website for press releases, but I could only find one announcing the new Essentials concept, from February 2005 (I would think the stores would need to be open longer to determine that the chain is a "failure") Dan128 06:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy

Claims #3 retailing spot behind Wal-Mart & The Home Depot. The Kroger page also makes this claim. Which is correct?

Kroger is the nation's 3rd largest retailer with over 10 billion more dollars in sales over Sears in 2005

I also noticed the above discrepency based on the following information from the Sears Holdings homepage:

'Sears Holdings Corporation...nation's third largest broadline retailer...'

Although the descrepency might come down to interpretation of what "broadline" retailer means, due to the fact that Fortune Magazine clearly lists Kroger as having greater revenue in it's list here:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/full_list/index.html

So is this accuracy problem just spin on Sears' part?

[edit] Nike Line

I would like to raise the debate about this paragraph:

In 2005, Nike announced that it would no longer allow its products to be sold in Sears stores. Analysts speculated that Nike did not want its shoes and apparel sold in Kmart stores, and terminated its sales agreement with Sears Holdings to prevent this.

While Nike may not chose to sell Nike BRAND shoes in Sears/Kmart I do not think that holds for the othe other brands they own including Converse, Champion, Shaq, and Dunkman which are targeted to the retailers key demos.

Also, the Sears in my area is still carrying Nike.

[edit] Other Sears concepts

I just added a section on concepts that Sears no longer uses, including their Catalog, HomeLife, and Neighborhood Stores. I have a few questions:

  • When, and why, did Sears phase out its catalog stores?
  • Did Sears ever operate Brand Central stores separately from the main stores? If so, when did they start and stop doing so?

(Edit: Forgot to sign it.) TenPoundHammer 19:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:SearsHoldingPNG.PNG

Image:SearsHoldingPNG.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 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 04:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Nascar craftsman truck series logo.jpg

Image:Nascar craftsman truck series logo.jpg 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) 14:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)