This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
1800Flowers is a major online floral service. Currently ranks no. 1 in Google for the search word "flowers". My entry replaces several external links to 1800flowers
Please sign your posts. Being No 1 may be because it pays Google lots of money... Maustrauser 11:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
It is listed at No. 1 in the organic part of Google, not in the paid part--RYK 18:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Fact checking
This page and the dot com page had discrepant info aobut founding date (1986 and 1975). Can someone please check this? Avraham 21:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the ext link says the now-CEO opened his first retail flower shop in 1976 and acquired the 1-800 number in 1986. ×Meegs 07:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Some questions were raised concerning the company being "among the first retailers" to establish ties with AOL and CompuServe, as well as an online retail site. The source for this information has been added to the page. Hcl777 4:37, 20 August 2007
Which source do you think is adequate verification of these facts? I put the fact tags in because when I read through the 3 sources I did not find good verification. As far as I can tell none of the sources for this article seem to be independent or even particularly rigorous. There's the company page and then two interviews with company reps. I don't see anything that indicates someone unconnected with the company asserts they were among the first (let alone anyone not connected with the company who is an expert on Internet or marketing history). -- SiobhanHansa 20:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I have put in the reference section two independent sources: Internet Retailer Magazine, and Shop.Org which should put this to a rest. Hcl777 07:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I undid Camilla's removal of several entries in the "References" section. These articles were the sources which SiobhanHansa requested. Internet Retailer, Shop.Org, Direct Magazine, and SeekingAlpha are all well-respected, unbiased media sources for the Internet Retailing industry, and there is no indication that the company influenced these sources in any way. Hcl777 17:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Some Edits
Hi all. I just made a number of edits to the page to address the concerns that the page did not cover the importance of the subject matter. Most of the information is from a combination of the company's Investor Relations site (of course, keeping it objective), as well as various Web sites and news sources from the 1990s (e.g., Red Herring, Smart Computing), which substantiate the statement that "many regard it as an Internet pioneer"--I believe this is the main reason it was not removed after the AfD vote...this is currently the most well-known floral retailer in the U.S.
I agree 100% with the decision to remove the "Corporate Governance" section as non-encyclopedic. I debated whether to add in a "Companies Owned" section, but at the end of the day, there is precedent in Wikipedia articles for other retail conglomerates such as IAC/InterActiveCorp, particularly since several of the companies (e.g. Fannie May) are of historical significance.
A user using a Canadian dial-up service continues to vandalize parts of this article that talk about the BloomNet wire service. He/she is logging in through various dial-up IP addresses (206.162.235.4, 209.226.186.69, 229.226.186.63, 206.172.78.40, 206.172.78.120, etc.), and in addition to vandalizing this article, also seems to be font of vandalizing the floristry article.
If you don't feel that BloomNet is an important part of this company, let's talk about it here. But please, don't waste your time and ours, nor jeopardize all users on your IP address block by continuing this childish behavior. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hcl777 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
Court case
a recent edit added information on a single court case. The case had not been resolved, the source appears to be a blog (though I believe a better source could be found) and the information just isn't encyclopedic. We wouldn't put in an individual case of the company providing excellent service, this sort of thing should be used only if it's indicative of their general service or the case becomes ground breaking or otherwise impactful on the world at large. While the whole situation must be terrible for the family involved in the case such information really isn't appropriate for a Wikipedia article. -- SiobhanHansa 13:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
The sources for this section seem less than reliable. I am not arguing the claims are untrue, but source 6 makes no mention of this problem, and source 7 is an unreviewed consumer complaint. as far as criticisms of the company go, this doesn't appear to be a relatively common one Mike corsillo (talk) 18:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Conflict of Interest Edit Request: Correcting the Title of the Article
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.
What I think should be changed: I am an employee of 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc. and am disclosing my conflict of interest. This edit request is not intended to be promotional in any way. Can the title of the article page be corrected to 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc. rather than 1-800-Flowers.com? Can the capitalization of the company name above the infobox be corrected to 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc.?
Why it should be changed: The current title of this Wikipedia article does not reflect the accurate company name. The content of the article discusses the company and its family of brands, and the current title is inaccurate and only reflective of one floral brand, 1-800-Flowers.com, which is owned by 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc.
References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):[1]
Hey @SkyBlue406010:! I appreciate your being forthcoming on the WP:COI– it's refreshing. As for the name change, a plurality of the sources used on the page use the current name or "1-800-Flowers.com".[2][3] It is possible that the capitalisation is something we could talk about in the article, but i think the [[WP:COMMONNAME|common name] is sufficient for now, if not to add a ".com". theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Theleekycauldron: thank you for your response – I appreciate your help.
“1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc.” and “1-800-Flowers.com” are two different entities, despite the very similar formatting and spelling. As this article already suggests, 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc. owns more than 12 brands – some of which are referenced in this article under the Subsidiaries section. 1-800-Flowers.com is just one of those brands. 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc., is also traded on Nasdaq under ticker symbol FLWS, which is referenced in this article [1] - it is not listed under the 1-800-Flowers.com brand name as this article inaccurately implies.
For background, the company was in fact named 1-800-Flowers.com after its ecommerce site went live in 1995. However, when the company went public and started acquiring different brands, it renamed itself 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc. (the corporate entity) and kept 1-800-Flowers.com as a separate floral brand – similar to how Harry & David and Cheryl’s Cookies are both individual brands under the 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc. umbrella. To have this article title only reflect one brand of this significantly larger organization is misleading to the reader and inaccurate.
There are several other inaccuracies on the page that I would like to suggest edits for (including information that is 30 years old and no longer accurate) but wanted to start with this one. Please let me know if you have any other feedback on the above or if you have any questions. I’m happy to share additional sources if needed. Thank you again for your response and help! SkyBlue406010 (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
@SkyBlue406010: happy to help :). I understand the discrepancy– if there's anyway you could provide reliable, secondary sources referring to the company by its proper name, I'd be happy to support a move. Otherwise, the name should probably stay and we can talk about adding information about it to the article itself. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Theleekycauldron: here are a few secondary sources[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] that reference the accurate company name. Are these sources sufficient to move the name of this article to 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc.? I can also share the company’s corporate logo, given this article currently includes the floral brand logo. If you need anything else from my end, please let me know. I can provide alternative sources and answer any questions. Thank you! SkyBlue406010 (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
@SkyBlue406010: I'm still a little iffy? these sources seem to hover around the level of self-published blogs or indirect primary sources, as opposed to WP:RSP-greenlight sources like The New York Times. There is a discussion to be made about capitalising the title of the article, but I think adding the ", Inc." is probably not something that's reachable, given that it's not actually a significant part of the company name. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Theleekycauldron: here are some alternative sources[10][11][12][13] that reference the company name as 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc. and they are approved WP:RSP-greenlight sources. Please let me know if these sources help confirm that this article title should be updated to 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc. – as this is the accurate name and multiple reputable sources refer to the company as such. It’s important to include the “Inc.” because this is what differentiates the corporate entity from the singular floral brand. I’m happy to provide additional sources.
Also, would you be able to update the logo in the infobox to the corporate logo? I’ve uploaded it here
for reference. Thank you for your help! SkyBlue406010 (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
@SkyBlue406010: Hi! Sorry, I've been gone a while–very busy recently. I'll change to 1-800-Flowers.com, but the articles provided (one of which is a primary source, one of which is down, and another is a video) don't quite give me a reason to make the title all-caps. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Theleekycauldron: thank you for your help and updating the title of this article to 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc. I was wondering if you would be able to take a look at my most recent edit request (below) and make those changes? Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you! SkyBlue406010 (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Conflict of Interest Edit Request: Correcting Information Under Title
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.
What I think should be changed (include citations): I am an employee of 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc. and am disclosing my conflict of interest. This edit request is not intended to be promotional in any way. Underneath the title of the article, the second sentence reads, “The company’s focus, except for Mother’s Day and Valentine’s Day, is on gift baskets, using the name 1-800-Baskets.com.” The company can be described accurately by saying, “1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc. is an online provider of gifts, with brands spanning gourmet foods, gift baskets, floral products, personalized keepsake items and more.” Can this change be made? [14](Source: https://www.reuters.com/companies/FLWS.OQ). As is, the sentence is inaccurate because 1-800-Baskets.com is only one brand owned by 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc.
The third sentence reads, “Their use of "coyly self-descriptive telephone numbers" is part of their business model: 800-GOODIES, 800-CANDIES and "a bunch more in reserve." Can this be removed? That sentence is inaccurate as 800-GOODIES and 800-CANDIES are not part of the 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc. family of brands. [15](Source: https://www.1800flowersinc.com/our-brands)
The fourth and fifth sentences read, “1-800-Flowers provides Same Day Delivery using ‘a network of local florists who provide and deliver the bouquets.’ For the company's gift basket offering, a hybrid solution is how they've worked around the limitation of "local retailers can’t be expected to have in stock at all time." Would it be possible to remove these two sentences altogether because of the outdated source, and the fact that it only applies to the 1-800-Flowers.com floral brand?
Why it should be changed: The first few sentences in this article contain incorrect information that should be updated for accuracy.
Partly done. Not doing the first one because "gourmet foods, gift baskets, floral products, personalized keepsake items" is PR jargon and Wikipedia is not the place for advertisements. But I did rewrite the last bit to "They also use the name 1-800-Baskets.com", as this seems like a factual improvement. Happy to make the correction in the second one—according to the New York Times source given, those were about McCann not this particular company, and so the content should not have been there. Happy to do the third one too as outdated and not high-quality content anyway. — Bilorv (talk) 14:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Conflict of Interest Edit Request: Correcting Infobox
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.
Approved
What I think should be changed: I am an employee of 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc. and am disclosing my conflict of interest. This edit request is not intended to be promotional in any way. Can the date founded in the infobox be updated to 1976, to accurately represent the founding? Additionally, can the website in the infobox be updated to the 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc. corporate website, www.1800flowersinc.com?
Why it should be changed: The date of the company’s founding is currently 1982 in the infobox but this in inaccurate. The company founder, Jim McCann, purchased his first floral shop in 1976 which founded the company that is now 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc. In the infobox, the company’s website is currently listed as www.1800flowers.com but this is inaccurate because this is the website for only one brand, 1-800-Flowers.com, and not the company as a whole.
References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): [1][2]
What I think should be changed: I am an employee of 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc. and am disclosing my conflict of interest. This edit request is not intended to be promotional in any way. Can Personalization Universe be removed from the subsidiaries section as it is not currently part of the company’s family of brands? Additionally, this section does not include 1-800-Flowers.com, PersonalizationMall.com, Wolferman’s Bakery, Moose Munch, and Simply Chocolate. Below are suggested, non-promotional, descriptions for these brands:
1-800-Flowers.com, a floral and gift retailer
PersonalizationMall.com, a provider of personalized products
Wolferman’s Bakery, an online retailer of baked goods
Moose Munch, provider of gourmet food gifts
Simply Chocolate, a destination for chocolate gifts
Moreover, the descriptions for BloomNet, Harry & David, Napco and The Popcorn Factory contain inaccurate information. Below are suggestions to update the existing inaccurate brand descriptions:
BloomNet, a floral and gift industry service provider
Harry & David, a retailer of gourmet food gifts
Napco, a provider of floral and décor items
The Popcorn Factory, a retailer of popcorn and snacks
Would it be possible to remove subsidiaries from the infobox box or update it to reflect all the brands currently owned by 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc.? (all of which are: 1-800-Flowers.com, 1-800-Baskets.com, FruitBouquets.com, Shari’s Berries, The Popcorn Factory, Cheryl’s Cookies, Harry & David, PersonalizationMall.com, Napco, DesignPac, Moose Munch, Wolferman’s Bakery, BloomNet, and Simply Chocolate.
Why it should be changed: 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc. currently owns more than a dozen brands, and the subsidiaries section contains inaccurate information including brands not owned by the company and incorrect descriptions. In the infobox, the subsidiaries section only includes Harry & David but 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc. currently owns 14 brands, listed above.
References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): [1]
Hi @FormalDude: thank you for your help with the above edit request. Would you mind reviewing this request and letting me know if it is approved? Thank you! SkyBlue406010 (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Partly done. Not doing the first one because "gourmet foods, gift baskets, floral products, personalized keepsake items" is PR jargon and Wikipedia is not the place for advertisements. But I did rewrite the last bit to "They also use the name 1-800-Baskets.com", as this seems like a factual improvement. Happy to make the correction in the second one—according to the New York Times source given, those were about McCann not this particular company, and so the content should not have been there. Happy to do the third one too as outdated and not high-quality content anyway. — Bilorv (talk) 14:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Approved
