Talk:TigerDirect/Archives/2012

Founding date discrepancy

There appears to be a discrepancy in the date this company was founded. I'm leaving it as 1987 for now, but please be aware that some sources are reporting a date of 1988. If someone can come up with a definitive source, such as an interview with Gilbert Fiorentino or public record, please let me know and make any corrections if necessary. —RaD Man (talk) 08:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

TigerDirect is the end result in a series of companies and products - all coming from a direct marketing background. Immediately prior to TigerDirect was TigerSoftware, the true start of "Tiger" in 1987.

TigerSoftware, Inc.: 10/20/1987 Tiger Direct, Inc.: 10/20/1990 [1]

TigerDirect, Inc.: 5/26/2005 [2]

1987 is the correct year —Preceding unsigned comment added by LUVLEE17 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ties to OnRebate

• I'm not sure how to do it properly but it probably should be mentioned that they own/operate onrebate.com and globalcomputer.com

The previous unsigned comment was added by 68.226.2.177 (contribs/talk), at 11:36 UTC on 12 January 2006.

• They should rot in techie hell for perpetrating such a vile fraud. Someone write it up with the right level of anger but not as many curse words as I would use. GRR!!!

The previous unsigned comment was added by 72.17.207.50 (contribs/talk), at 17:36 UTC on 11 April 2006.

• For the record, here are two sites that have frontpaged on Digg in the past, regarding TigerDirect and its ties to OnRebate: [3] and [4].

--Bp28 06:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I was really shocked when I read this article. Tiger Direct is a really shady company, not that it stops me from ordering from them - you just have to be careful. This page makes them look like a saint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.158.189 (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Tiger Direct has been long known to filter bad reviews on its own site and tries so very hard to cover up its bad reputation on others. No doubt the same thing is occurring here. Meinsla (talk) 06:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

InfoWorld

• I remember recently skimming a copy of InfoWorld and finding an article mentioning TigerDirect and problems relating to OnRebate. Unfortunately, I don't own a subscription to that magazine, but think it probably would be a decent source for issues relating to OnRebate and TigerDirect. Smeggysmeg 05:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, gol durn it . . . how shall I best put it in the most objective and genteel terms? The pattern of Tiger Direct's behavior relating to refunds and defective merchandise rings so very, very resonantly with this writer. Luckily in the end, after an approximate three-month sojourn of waiting, emails, unconsummated phone holds, and non-factually oriented promises by TD customer service representatives, American Express was finally able to wrest back a refund plus a little something extra for my return shipping. --PLK

Ratings section

• Not sure what all the drama is about, ive been doing business with TigerDirect for over 7 years; thousands of dollars spent on offf-lease systems, AV equipment and ive never ever had a problem with returns, rebates, etc...seems like there are a few people here with an agenda... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.142.66 (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
• It looks to me like the ratings section was put together by TigerDirect's PR department. It's a laundry list of how popular and great TigerDirect is, and any website, opinion, or otherwise is refuted right after it is mentioned. A lot of what's presented is statistics, which is a good hard fact and hard to refute, but all more opinion-oriented statements are shot down right away. I'll obviously need to find sources to back this up, but I've encountered huge bulks of negative opinion regarding TigerDirect, especially with the rebate site they own, OnRebate.com, which I thought was mentioned in this article but it seems is there no longer. A common perception is that they use OnRebate to make their prices look lower and then never follow through with reimbursing the customer for the rebates. Smeggysmeg 15:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• Rating sites are compilations of opinions of those that have transacted with TigerDirect. While there may be some customers with negative experiences, it seems and the ratings indicate that the overwhelming majority have had good experiences. As with all companies, it is important to take into account the volume of business when looking at negative comments. This ratings section is referenced, impartial and uses the main rating sites as a source.
• ISSUE CORRECTED Countchoc 09:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Reverts by TigerDirect employees consistently remove complaint sites and negative reviews from the article. Bias does not necessarily mean it does not belong in the article, as the reviews of this retailer are relevant and important. There are many well respected review sites that conclude TigerDirect is a terrible company, yet these references are continually removed and reverted with no explanation. Trigger hurt 01:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Re. BBB "pattern" is 2+ complaints: the company has THOUSANDS of complaints! Irrelevant data snipped. -Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.60.252 (talk) 09:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Agreed: the reputable sites I have ever cited have been very quickly removed or buried. I agree wholeheartedly with the censorship tag. --Ninjagecko

What's with the "Late 1990's launch of an NEC CD player for $1000". What is that? A music CD player? An external USB CD-ROM drive, in the late 1990s, for $1000? Even in 1999, a CD-ROM drive cost $100-$200, tops, not $1000.-User:wpostma —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:23, August 26, 2007 (UTC).

Look for current updates of ratings from BBB, BizRate, reseller ratings on the web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LUVLEE17 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• i did...says that Tiger Direct was accredited only 2 days ago on the main BBB site...http://www.seflorida.bbb.org/BusinessReport.aspx?CompanyID=27000500 Osmo250 (talk) 06:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but WP:RS trumps obscure words every time

Per edit summary: "I'm sorry, but pure obduracy does not entitle you to unilaterally remove content. Please DISCUSS issues you wish to address as you have been invited to".

It's generally the burden of the editor adding content to show notability and verifiability, but in the spirit of ycarudbo and in response to your request (plus making me go look up "obduracy"), I've started this discussion instead. :)

Seriously, the section and sources I removed have no place on Wikipedia--info sourced to epinions, shopzilla, pricegrabber and other anonymous- and user-contributed reviews and ratings are not accepted as reliable sources. Are there articles and sources that meet WP:RS that we can draw from to work on creating a better article? Otherwise, the edits need to be removed. Flowanda | Talk 06:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I wasn't addressing you, but the several anonymous users who persistently removed the ratings section. No, user reviews may not strictly be a reliable source, but tens of thousands of customer reviews, taken in aggregate, and described as what they are (non-authoritative) seems to me to be a useful contribution. I've removed the two most non-neutral links. Feezo (Talk) 10:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

removal of single-entry blog and user-generated ratings

I have removed tigerdirectsucks.org for obvious reasons -- it is a single-entry blog by an anonymous user about a single incident. No authority, no mentions anywhere else other than similar sites, no sources, nothing other than a single personal experience. I also removed ratings attributed to Amazon, epinions, cnet, shopzilla user reviews because they do not meet the criteria for reliable sources. Please discuss here before adding such content; the burden to show relevance and notability is on editors adding content, not removing it. Flowanda | Talk 10:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ratings sites inclusion

An ongoing source of unproductive editing seems to revolve around edits sourced to various review sites. Please, let's discuss them here first as a way to achieve consensus as to what should and should not be included. Until then, they should not be included in the main article. I've voiced my opinions in above discussions, but that's just a starting point. Flowanda | Talk 02:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of this article is to provide information about the topic. Consumer review sites are extremely relevant when the topic is a retailer. The review sites left in are the most reputable ones, and are linked to the correct pages. This is extremely helpful for readers that come here before making a decision on whether to shop with this particual retailer or not. The amount of editing involved in maintaining the information should not be a factor in keeping it. I have left in all other edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.8.148.21 (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

computer.com - why does it redirect here?

Why does computer.com redirect here? The page says nothing about a link between them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.185.116 (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I second this question. If no explanation can be provided, the computer.com redirect should be deleted. CraigWyllie (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Computer.com was owned by TigerDirect for a period of time [5] during which it redirected to TigerDirect.com. It was sold and is no longer TigerDirect. [6] and [7]

Any redirect (and this section) should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.181.136 (talk) 04:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Censhorship; lack of balance.

The BBB (negative) rating history, the well-researched longer list of (mostly positive) reviews, and the (neutral) OnRebate.com connection should not be censored. There have been edit wars in the past on these issues. I believe there is strong support shown on this page for this position. --IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 16:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tiger_Direct&diff=prev&oldid=272750008. Censorship is recurrent over the long term, hence the tag must remain indefinitely.--Elvey (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

There would or should be no objection to making note of the BBB history if that is available. If it can be shown that the company failed to maintain a satisfactory rating and then began to maintain a satisfatory rating, in fact improving it from unsatisfactory all the way to an A+, that would be fair and unbiased. Is that possible? Lasbrisasppl (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ratings Section - Unnecessary

I say we get rid of the ratings section all together. It isn't necessary and it appears its initial inclusion was a move (perhaps by TigerDirect themselves) in order to paint them in a better light. Now that the section has been reduced and edited back to a more neutral tone, it serves little purpose. Meinsla (talk) 02:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Concur with proposal. However, fair ratings would likely show that its problems are relatively frequent, as it's BBB troubles attest.--IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 07:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, fair ratings would make apparent this company's fraud and abuse. Unfortunately, this section currently states nothing in regards to it. meinsla ^talk 06:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Now that IRDT has removed the Ratings section, I'll remove the 'neutrality disputed' template that I put up, unless anyone has any objections. meinsla ^talk 10:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The ratings section then could be replaced with an "Awards" section. There is significant precedence to include this as long as it can be reserved for honors given the company by third parties. Lasbrisasppl (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What awards has this company been given, and by who? meinsla ^talk 19:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

YouTube stuff required

I was wondering, shouldn't we add TechUpdate, Albert Inbox, Logan Inbox onto the article. I mean it is true that a lot of reviews have their own inbox, but TigerDirect's inbox does have a recognized partnership, as some of the videos does uses other video, such as iTunes visualizer with copyright. --Ramu50 (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I can't figure out what you're trying to say.--IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 07:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Me either. meinsla ^talk 12:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

So Systemax have YouTube Channels

• TigerDirectBlog
• CompusaTV

Both of these channels are video reviews and they provide other services.

The service include inbox and TechUpdate. Inbox is straightforward, you send questions they answer all of them in one videos at every interval. e.g. per month, per 2 week...etc.

• Since Albert and Logan are well-liked in the Channel, the inbox service is name after them. Albert Inbox and Logan Inbox. Except Logan quit on early 2008 due to family conflict, thought some people argue System max fired him due to a budget problem (but this seems impossibly since Logan have been working for TigerDirect for 2 and half years.)

Anyhow the Inbox itself does seem to have a partnership with Logitech, since they do invite a lot of Logitech people for video reviews. There have also been people from Intel and Nokia quite a few times.

TechUpdate is a another services, instead providing through websites, blogs or RSS feeds, they use YouTube videos.

Except there is one thing I don't get it, they keep on advertising there is a beta version of Computer.tv not sure is it a brandname or an upcoming social network related community for enthusiasts gamers. --Ramu50 (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Censorship Templates Removed

It seems an editor has removed the censorship/unbalanced tags from the article. I don't necessarily agree I'm not entirely comfortable with this action, as I feel that as long as this article exists at all it will be a target of TigerDirect's shady business practices. However, in case the the editor in question has some insight that I don't, I won't re-add the tags, but the moment I see this article start looking anything like it did a few months ago, that {{censor}} tag is going right back on. meinsla ^talk 05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"graphic or otherwise objectionable"

I really have to disagree with the usage of the "censor" template at the top of the article, which says, "Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable..."

That template is going to scare away a lot of people who, upon seeing it, will fear that there are gross/disturbing/sexual images and text within the article.

I realize you're trying to make a point about the article not being censored, but there has got to be a better, more appropriate template to use. Warning readers that the article contains "graphic or otherwise objectionable" content is, in fact, a non-neutral point of view, in addition to being totally inaccurate. What is the goal here: to convey that the article is not censored, or to scare people away from the article?

—BMRR (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to improve things, feel free to find and use or create a better template. Feel free to do so, otherwise, please stop censoring. I think a better template, e.g. that deals more specifically with censorship of work not related to sex or violence, or text doesn't exist yet. Perhaps censorship of content such as 1984 or bomb making instructions isn't as much of an issue here.--Elvey (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps improving the extant template and what it links to would be the most appropriate means to the goal you seek.--Elvey (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

With reference to the TWO above sections which discuss censorship! Please don't steamroll over them again. --Elvey (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Slow down. I think you have me confused with someone else. "Please don't steamroll over them again." Again? This was the first (and only) time I've ever edited this article. "Please stop censoring." Censoring? Removing an inappropriate template can hardly be considered censorship. Also, please bear in mind that you don't own this article, and even though you may believe that things should be done your way, that doesn't mean your way is the only way. It's good to "be bold" and all that, but it's also good to listen to other people's points of view. Lack of an appropriate template does not justify the use of an inappropriate one. —BMRR (talk) 02:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like he/she was referring to your ignoring the previous posts above that already address this topic. He/she pointed out that you had "steamrolled" over them and you were merely told not to do it again. I'm not taking sides, I'm just clarifying. meinsla ^talk 11:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Point taken, but I don't feel that I was steamrolling over anything. I've read the previous posts, and while I'm sure that the problem of people trying to censor the article is real and legitimate, that still doesn't justify the use of a tag that essentially tells the reader "STOP! This article is probably going to offend you! Turn back now while you still have a chance!" If the recurring censorship is really such a problem, warnings should be placed on the talk pages of the editors who are doing the censoring, and if they keep doing it after being warned, take it up with WP:AIV. Putting a big scary tag at the top of the article isn't going to solve anything, but dealing with the editors who are causing the problem is much more likely to have a positive impact. I mean, if the tag has been there for a while and the problem continues, clearly the tag isn't working... time to try a different approach, I think. —BMRR (talk) 03:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Bringing up the shady problems again

via the South Florida Business Journal here http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2009/08/31/daily85.html?jst=b_ln_hl, which states that the state is suing tiger direct and onrebate for not reimbursing their customers. i move to add this information to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.253.107 (talk) 11:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting. And certainly worth mentioning in the article. I might add it in sometime when I get the chance, if someone else doesn't get to it first. meinsla ^talk 19:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

This edit was rather one-sided and the mere fact that it was edited without stating both sides of the story as mentioned in the article referenced clearly shows bias on the part of the editor. The information was updated to add additional facts reporting in the article that was referenced. Lasbrisasppl (talk) 13:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, but source them properly, as noted in edit summary.--Elvey (talk) 13:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe I am the one to originally add the information. I added what I felt the necessary information was concerning the case. There wasn't a whole lot of relevant information and it was almost verbatim. I am happy to see other editors assist in making sure that all the information is present and cited but disagree with your assertion that my edits are "biased." meinsla ^talk 19:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I will add that this article hasn't had the best track record and there have been many cases of bias in favor of TigerDirect in the past, so forgive myself and other editors when we're a bit careful in the information that is added. You mention that it appears many of the editors here "have an axe to grind" in letting the world know the company's fraud and abuse. Not that this necessarily merits inclusion in the article at this point in time, but it really says something when you hear the large amount of negative opinion regarding TigerDirect when it comes to dealing with their rebate department or customer service.

And now that I think about it, doesn't it seem much more likely that bias be on TigerDirect's side? Obviously there are people (TigerDirect's management, for example) that would benefit from an article with a pro-TD slant. I fail to see who gains anything for the opposite. meinsla ^talk 02:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

BBB dispute template should be removed.

Why is that template here? The reference to the BBB webste clearly shows that the company has a satisfactory A+ rating. It appears factual and neither subject to dispute nor any claims of bias. Lasbrisasppl (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Since nobody disagreed after a month's time I removed it. Lasbrisasppl (talk) 15:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You ignored the Censorship section above. Cited edit and template restored. --Elvey (talk) 13:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

No, the censorship section is still there and nobody responded to my earlier comments. You cited an edit based on a broken link. If you can find the source then fine. The source you link to does not exist. So there's no reputable article sited to back it up. That's the point. Lasbrisasppl (talk) 14:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand RS. It does not require that sources be online currently, or at all. Please stop POV pushing. It's well established that their BBB rating was unsatisfactory. You appear to have a WP:COI. --Elvey (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no affiliation with Tiger Direct and am not even a customer and I have to say that according to the BBB website the company currently ("since 10/01/2008") has a satisfactory rating and is an BBB accredited business. Perhaps the article should state the current rating but indicate past issues with the BBB as part of the history section. Lee C Thompson (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed the line about how company created a "niche" by offering rebates

If you look on the TigerDirect.com website and count the active rebates you will find far fewer rebates than many of it's competitors.

One would have to say that Amazon, Buy.com and Newegg.com play the rebate game harder and faster than TigerDirect due to the proliferation of rebates across those sites. Lasbrisasppl (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The emphasis is documented in the state and federal complaints. "The retailer's advertised prices often reflect manufacturer rebates, which are then processed by OnRebates.com,, another Systemax unit that serves as a clearinghouse for manufacturers' rebates." - per SPTimes --Elvey (talk) 13:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That is actually not factual. While you may say that Tigerdirect's use of rebates is documented in complaints brought against the company you may not say that TigerDirect created a niche by offering rebates. The "emphasis" is not documented. Nor could you say from the evidence that TigerDirect relied any more on rebates then any other seller in its market. Lasbrisasppl (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, "The retailer's advertised prices often reflect manufacturer rebates, which are then processed by OnRebates.com,, another Systemax unit that serves as a clearinghouse for manufacturers' rebates." is not factual? They were the leader; if "Amazon, Buy.com and Newegg.com play the rebate game" too, that doesn't mean that Tiger Direct wasn't aggressive in exploiting the rebate niche market. In the '09 court filing (http://assets.bizjournals.com/cms_media/southflorida/pdf/TigerDirectComplaint.pdf), the Florida Attorney General states "Tiger Direct's "rebate processing department frequently had backlogged unattended stacks full of boxes full of unprocessed rebate forms. and that it's a "fact that many rebate application remained unattended and unprocessed for months." Are the noted routine hold times of over an hour, and fake downtime notable?--Elvey (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't believe that any unbiased individual would confuse the unsubstantiated and untested claims of a vigilant attorney general's complaint with what can reasonably be considered factual. The AG's complaint will be addressed in the court system and a trial will determine the outcome. You're assuming that the outcome is a foregone conclusion. You're saying that Tiger was the leader in using rebates in the manner you claim everybody else does now? Where was that reported? By some blogger with no research? How is that not an opinion? It seems that every hack on here with an axe to grind wants to bully others into accepting their POV is actually a fact and anybody who disagrees must be a moron. Lasbrisasppl (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I am for its inclusion. TigerDirect has always relied very heavily on rebate marketing and this has been true, in the least, for several years, and their failure to honor them has made them as big as they are today. It's unfortunate that there are not sufficient sites out there that currently document this, but as I said in previous posts on this talk page, there used to be many sites on the net that detailed TigerDirect's shady business practices. Not surprisingly many of them now redirect to TigerDirect's homepage instead (no doubt TD's doing). I'll keep looking for other sources to try and back this up. meinsla ^talk 04:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

re: "TigerDirect has always relied very heavily on rebate marketing and this has been true, in the least, for several years, and their failure to honor them has made them as big as they are toda." That is baloney. That statement reflects pure bias. You can go count the number of rebates on TigerDirect.com and you'll find less there than you find on Amazon or Newegg or any of TigerDirect.com's other competitors. Regarding the attorney general's complaint, you also have to note that in response to the complaint Tigerdirect argued that it's not true. If you want to state that a company has used rebates in its marketing and has had public complaints about the fulfillment of those rebates then you can create a blanket statement and apply it to pretty much every computer and CE reseller in the country.

What is clear is that a whole bunch of editors have a hard on for TigerDirect. Those who cry about others POVs and bias are usually the same ones who will stop at nothing to spread their own--well-disguised under the heading of "facts"Lasbrisasppl (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"That is baloney. That statement reflects pure bias."

"Those who cry about others POVs and bias are usually the same ones who will stop at nothing to spread their own--well-disguised under the heading of "facts"

I guess I'll have to agree with at least one thing you've said. meinsla ^talk 21:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed (also known as TigerDirect.com)

... as the TigerDirect also has TigerDirect.ca and other sites depending on the country. If we re-add TigerDirect.com we should add the full list of URLS - and being in list form it would need its own place for that. 68.144.96.176 (talk) 03:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC) KermEd

Semi-protect

Because it seems that some people having a relation to Tiger Direct are editing this article does anyone think a semi-protect would be necessary? 69.136.72.16 (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I do, but I don't think I can 69.136.72.16 (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)