Talk:Vistaprint/Archive 1

COI vs Wikipedia standards : recommend article deletion or complete rewrite

This article clearly does not meet wikipedia content standards: COI, NPOV, quality, and relevance.

The article is so clearly lacking NPOV that it may do more harm than good for the company image. Marketing / PR : take note, advertising on wikipedia does more to hurt your reputation than build it.

Personally, I would be embarrassed if this were my company (COI: I do not work for any company related to publishing). The introduction to the patents section reads: "One of the company's early hires was an in-house patent attorney". How is that relevant to anything?

As the article is written now, it should be be flagged for deletion.

Do I hear a second motion for deletion, OR, alternatively, a proposal for a complete rewrite?

I think this needs to be rewritten or deleted without the help of the PR team Ianthedeveloper (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm planning on doing a very thorough edit of this article over the next few weeks, particularly to address some of the remaining heavy advertising-sounding language and make sure that the headings are relevant and an accurate representation of the information. Hopefully this will help address some of the points that you made! Annclaale (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.93.61 (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

COI Discussion

In taking into consideration points that were made on the COI, I would like to bring some things into light with User:75.34.179.39& Centrepull and have condensed the page since we went through this discussion a few months back with the original reference below. Granted Jason and I are both PR representatives from VistaPrint however the majority of the edits including the economics of the printing press were added by people not employed or associated to the company. We merely make edits to the page that relate to incorrect facts or updates from our earnings reports. We are not openly advertising for teh company or writing false information.

" Granted Jason and I are both PR representatives from VistaPrint " NPOV is not a suggestion, it is grounds for deletion.

The edits were made by Wiki editors like yourself, some of which added names to their edits outside of IP addresses. I would like the COI to be removed, but will honor Wiki rules and would like to at least have someone signing thier name to the tags added instead of autonomously posting with an IP address. If a name is not associated with the tags I can assume that this is a case of vandalism and will remove them from the page all together on Friday at 5:00 p.m. EDT

I look forward to your response. --Jeff Espo 16:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_bold.png Bold text

There is a distinct COI problem with Vistaprint employees editing the Vistaprint article. This issue is not ameliorated by such editors being 'frank' about their status. The fact is that Jeff Esposito is employed to monitor and improve Vistaprint's public standing and image. By definition, he cannot edit with NPOV. Vistaprint employees and/or any meat-puppets they may use should refrain from editing this page.Wikipedia:COI specifically states:

COI editing is strongly discouraged

In the article, while most other aspects of Vistaprint's activities are up to date, there is less indication that the Reward Program controversies continue (and in fact, an implication that Vistaprint might be withdrawing from the MWI/Vertrue Reward Program). I have added a more up-to-date paragraph to the Reward Program controversies.

The results of some of the class actions filed against Vistaprint over this issue need reporting, rather than just the filing.

Regarding the statement "referral fee revenue from membership discount programs will decline in absolute dollar terms over that period of time", some time has passed since that statement was made. It may be time to add or replace it with a more current statement, especially as this statement has been regarded as a response to criticism of Vistaprint's links with MWI/Vertue.

The compete.com statistic has no ref, and there are already sufficient pointless 'big numbers' in the opening paragraph, so I have removed it.

This article requires extensive reworking, and some trimming. Most of it resembles the preamble to an upbeat end-of-year report than a neutral WKP entry. Does anyone also agree that the infobox has too many unnecessary entries in it? Surely the name of the Chief Marketing Officer (Europe) is a piece of information that should be more naturally found on the Vistaprint website than here. Compare the info box for Microsoft.

---

Centrepull (talk) 07:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

References

COI tag

It should be noted that while the initial creator of this article does have a COI, he has been quite frank about disclosing his COI on his user page, as soon as I asked him about it. The presence of the tag should not be over-interpreted. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the conflict-of-interest tag, having made the original content more NPOV - i.e. removed the parts that looked somewhat like advertising - and included what I believe is an NPOV description of VistaPrint's activities in the UK, with references. OldSpot61 (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

How is this new article NPOV? It reads like an advertising brochure with a criticism section

Criticism

I have removed the references to the VPRewards program in NZ, the program runs in only the US and UK markets Jeffespo20 12:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Largest?

The first sentence of this article claims that VistaPrint is the largest online print shop, and there is a citation at the end. However, the citation only proves that they have 15 million customers, not that they are the largest. I'm inserting a 'citation needed' on the claim to be largest. If anyone has a better reference, please feel free to update. thanks, FashionNugget (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC) You can also determine for yourself the size and quality of other websites with similar services at All Style Designs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.8.3.180 (talk) 02:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

VistaPrint Logo

This is the new logo from VistaPrint in 2009, it has been tied in with a new location wide site design, not on the US site yet

Jakingsbeer (talk) 20:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

SPAM

CAN SOMEONE PUT SOMETHING ABOUT THE FACT THE COMPANY BOMBARDS PEOPLE EVERY DAY WITH RELENTLESS SPAM ?

SO CALLED OFFERS. WHEN YOU TRY TO PURCHASE SOMETHING, IT DEFAULT SELECTS 20+ OTHER THINGS YOU DIDN'T WANT TO BUY

VERY HARD SELL VinDibs (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

COMPLETELY BIASED, was this created by the company themselves?

Is just an advert for the company?

Where is the objectivity , there are lots of sites on the net about spam and the unethical practices of the company and yet, this article does nothing but praise the company

If this were a person article it would not be presented in such a biased way

VinDibs (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

"this article does nothing but praise the company" - Not strictly true. Yes it needs work (and feel free to contribute if you wish) but there is a criticisms section which does redress the balance somewhat. If you have a reputable source for the incessant spamming they are giving people, feel free to add it in the article. That's the thing with Wikipedia, if you know something is wrong within an article you can change it - providing you have credible evidence that stands up to scrutiny. I myself can't as I have had no dealings with them. If you have dealings and feel that strongly about their operations, you can contribute to the articles cleaning up. MrZoolook (talk) 12:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Rewards Program

Edits were made to the membership rewards program section to streamline and update information with current facts and figures. The section was very confusing and contained outdated and inaccurate information that did not reflect the current state of affairs, including the elimination in November of 2009 of Vistaprint’s past advertising of third party membership discount programs and the dismissal of the class action suit in question. [Speculation around fiscal forecasting and reporting was also removed, as this program was terminated in 2009 and has not had any impact on Vistaprint’s financial results for some time. It also had no effect on the company’s long term growth prospects, as has been proven out with subsequent earnings announcements and publicly reported financial results.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaykeith29 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Subjective and/or divisive language

Starting with the opening line:

"Vistaprint ... empowers more than 12 million micro businesses and consumers annually with affordable, professional options to make an impression."

The whole article is advertising puff. Hardly a sentence goes by which isn't subjective or divisive.

"It’s rare that a highly successful company mirrors its original business plan ... Amazingly, the vision and the insight into an unfulfilled customer need which Robert Keane..."

The only saving grace in this entry is that it's so blatant, one's sure to see it for what it is. I'd rather this than a carefully crafted article appearing to be objective, but which wasn't.

Other than aggressive promotion and obfuscated pricing, together than a general consensus that if you wanted business cards you might as well got to them anyway, I knew very little about Vistaprint before reading this article. I now know little more.

I'd sub this to remove the subjective elements myself, but I know nothing about the company so there's a danger I'd cloak what is presumably a one-sided view in moderate language. Unfortunately, whilst independent, I'm also ignorant of the industry sector. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.8.199 (talk) 10:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Amazon

What is the relationship between Vistaprint and Amazon? It would seem to me that the huge growth of Vistaprint was predicated largely on its advertising through Amazon. Was there some link between the two companies, or was this simply a long-term (and possibly quite expensive) strategy of Vistaprint's? Dadge (talk) 14:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The two companies are currently running a joint TV advertising campaign, so the link is clearly still there and yet the article makes no mention. Odd. Dadge (talk) 01:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 14 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. This discussion has been open for two months now and no consensus has formed as both sides present valid arguments. (non-admin closure) Calidum T|C 15:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Vistaprint → Cimpress – This page is about the company Vistaprint N.V., which changed its name to Cimpress N.V. back in November 2014. Vistaprint is now a brand within the larger Cimpress company. Ticker symbol, financials, patents, and the bulk of references in this article refer to the parent company Cimpress, rather than being specific to the Vistaprint division. There is page history at Cimpress (due to my incorrect move attempt), so this move requires an administrator. I will update the article after the move with new logo, financials, etc. and create a new section specific to the Vistaprint division.Relisted -- Calidum 05:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC) Pjhansen (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

None of the sources in the article date after 2013 so the bulk of references clearly won't mention Cimpress at all. What evidence do you have that Vistaprint has changed its name to Cimpress? Sionk (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Evidence of the corporate name change is available here: Corporate Parent of Vistaprint Renames to Cimpress... Cimpress History I have changes planned to the article to bring it up to date, but didn't want to cause confusion with Cimpress references until after the article rename/move was complete. Happy to make the updates now if preferred. Pjhansen (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The first site started that it was the parent company of vistaprint that changed there name and appears to be treating Vistaprint and Vistaprint N.V as two separate entities. From what I gathered Vistaprint NC changed it's name whereas the Vistaprint service did not.--174.91.184.226 (talk) 19:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)All primary sources above. Try providing some sort of secondary coverage to prove anyone's noticed. Has the Vistaprint brand name been discontinued? The article would need amending/updating (and sourcing with reliable secondary coverage) to support any page move. Sionk (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

For clarity... this article is about Vistaprint NV, the company. There is no company called Vistaprint anymore, as their name has changed to Cimpress NV. Industry commentary on the change is also available. There is a service called Vistaprint, provided by Cimpress, so the brand continues to live on. Only a small portion of the article is relevant to the Vistaprint brand. Is it preferable that I make updates to the article now or after the move? Pjhansen (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Updates to the main article have been made, sans the company name/logo in the infobox and opening paragraph - I will wait until the move is complete to update these. Pjhansen (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support as per logical presentation of information. Vistaprint (however its name is rightly presented) is a subset of Cimpress, the larger entity. As an encyclopaedia (in the cycle of rearing of knowledge) I do not think we should get the cart before the horse (my interpretation of the current situation). The "Vistaprint" page would still act as a redirect to "Cimpress" page and the first line of the page as followed by other content would give a full picture of the situation. GregKaye 07:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Full disclosure, I work for Cimpress and am commenting here to help clarify the relationship between Cimpress and Vistaprint. Vistaprint N.V. no longer exists and has changed it's name to Cimpress N.V - citing primary source SEC filing. Vistaprint is part of a portfolio of customer facing brands owned by Cimpress N.V. Citing secondary source Printing Impressions story. Suggest Cimpress has an entry and that Vistaprint and other Cimpress brands exist as entries within that page. Cwadsworth (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAME. The printing service is still overwhelmingly called "Vistaprint", and that is the historically significant and commonly referred to name for this. Given that they haven't even rebranded, this seems unlikely to change. If the parent company turns out to be notable independent of the well known Vistaprint, then a separate article can be created for that.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Please see the opening statement. This is a company page, not a page about a specific service. There is a small section in the article dedicated to the printing service - the rest of the article is about the parent company Cimpress. Pjhansen (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose but tempted to relist again. This is a difficult one, lots going on, there may be a case for renaming, rescoping, lots of options. But it still hasn't been made above. Andrewa (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support with the change in scope: Vistaprint is now a division within Cimpress. The article should cover the whole of the company, which is the notable topic, and the current name is not an adequate title for such an article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I've added a new source that clarifies what's going on. The parent company, which is what this article covers, has been renamed "Cimpress", and that's reflected in the more recent sources. "Vistaprint" remains the consumer brand in North America. I doubt that one brand is notable outside of the larger company.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Just... write a new article on the parent company, right? Doesn't seem that hard. --BDD (talk) 02:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

First question... what should the article be about? Suggestion above is that it's about the NASDAQ listed company. There seems to me to be consensus on that. If so then the infobox should be updated now, to accurately reflect the company name.

Second question... what should it be named? There seems every chance that most people who have dealings with this organisation still call it Vistaprint. It's likely to have more customers than shareholders.

Third question... then is there a sensible way to bring the official company name into line with the article title? A split is the obvious solution. There seems to be plenty of material for two articles there, one on the company and the other on the Vistaprint service. Both appear to satisfy the GNG.

The article needs a moderate amount of non-COI editing, there's a significant amount of sales pitch there, with obvious need to check for copyvio problems. And it's a bit of a ramble at present, with material specific to the (current) Vistaprint not being clearly identified and separated from that of the parent company. A total rewrite as two articles would be a good investment if we have volunteers to do it, in my opinion.

That would not require a move of course.

It should also be noted that there was a previous cut-and-paste move attempt. Andrewa (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Content for Review

In the interest of transparency, I work for Cimpress and am using this talk page to suggest factual content that will help bring certain elements of this article up to date.

"Business" With regards to the reference - while its European offices are in Barcelona, Spain Cimpress has European offices in: Switzerland, France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Germany, Norway, Italy, Austria and Spain

With regards to the reference - Its three printing facilities, which total almost 74,000 square metres (800,000 sq ft) of production space, are in Deer Park, Victoria, Australia; Windsor, Ontario, Canada; and Venlo Cimpress operates many printing facilities across the world which total more than 1,000,000 square feet of production space. The company’s manufacturing facilities are in Canada, the Netherlands, Australia, France, India, Austria and Italy. http://www.piworld.com/article/cimpress-creating-a-custom-platform/

With regard to the reference - the company maintains a customer service call center, Vistaprint Jamaica Ltd., in Montego Bay, Jamaica. Each of the company’s brands operates one or more customer service call centers.

History February 2014 - company acquires People & Print Group, a Dutch web-to-print company that is now called Printdeal. http://www.printweek.com/print-week/briefing/1150706/cimpress-seeks-advantages-of-scale April 2014 - company acquires Pixartprinting, an Italian web-to-print company that sells to graphic artists. http://www.printweek.com/print-week/briefing/1150706/cimpress-seeks-advantages-of-scale April 2015 - company acquires three more web-to-print companies in Europe including: Exagroup and Easyflyer (France); Druck.at (Austria) http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/168277/cimpress-continues-acquisition-spree-agrees-to-buy-druckat http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/166455/cimpress-to-buy-webtoprint-firm-exagroup-for-102m http://frenchweb.fr/basee-a-orlean-la-start-up-easyflyer-est-rachetee-par-cimpress-vistaprint/190989

Controversies With regards to the reference - four class-action lawsuits were filed against Vistaprint; All of these claims were dismissed by the District Court in Texas as documented in a 10-K filed by the company in 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC): http://ir.cimpress.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=188894&p=IROL-secToc&TOC=aHR0cDovL2FwaS50ZW5rd2l6YXJkLmNvbS9vdXRsaW5lLnhtbD9yZXBvPXRlbmsmaXBhZ2U9NzEyOTE2NCZzdWJzaWQ9NTc%3d&ListAll=1

Cwadsworth (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Bringing Content Up To Date

Full disclosure, I work for the parent company of Vistaprint and initiated a similar discussion about a year ago in these talk pages. A good portion of this content is out of date and the article itself is still reflecting Vistaprint to be a publicly traded company. This is no longer true as Vistaprint is one brand within a larger portfolio owned by Cimpress (Nasdaq: CMPR). I am happy to bring this article up to date with well cited sources but wanted to raise this to the community first. Cwadsworth (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I would welcome such an update. Like you, I tried to make updates last year to much resistance from the community. I am not affiliated in any way and happy to help review any proposed changes for neutrality. The tough part here is that Vistaprint used to be a company, but is still a brand. I wouldn't want to see the infobox and historicals around the company Vistaprint be lost. Anyone have suggestions on how to handle? Is there a precedent? Pjhansen (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Vistaprint. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081207174945/http://www.graphicartsonline.com:80/article/CA635204.html to http://www.graphicartsonline.com/article/CA635204.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080513052250/http://www.printaction.com/default.php/online/interview_Paul_Tasker to http://www.printaction.com/default.php/online/interview_Paul_Tasker
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.printaction.com/default.php/magazine/july07_interview

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vistaprint. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090206235103/http://ojaconsultores.com/Documents/PatentedPathToProfits_Forbes.pdf to http://ojaconsultores.com/Documents/PatentedPathToProfits_Forbes.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Vistaprint. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081207023321/http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20031121/business/business3.html to http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20031121/business/business3.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120222163919/http://www.manroland.us/Company/News/archives_display.asp?ID=428 to http://www.manroland.us/Company/News/archives_display.asp?ID=428
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121108054603/http://www.pr-inside.com/final-judgment-in-the-case-of-r1150874.htm to http://www.pr-inside.com/final-judgment-in-the-case-of-r1150874.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Vistaprint. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120218131824/http://www.printweek.com/news/742237/MAN-Roland-700/ to http://www.printweek.com/news/742237/MAN-Roland-700/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080805220257/http://careers.vistaprint.com/manufacturing.html to http://careers.vistaprint.com/manufacturing.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120904221916/http://www.consumeraffairs.com/scam_alerts/mwi.html to http://www.consumeraffairs.com/scam_alerts/mwi.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Technical Editing

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2023 and 5 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Annclaale (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Annclaale (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)