Talk:Phones 4u

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Awards[edit]

Are any of these genuinely notable??

"Best Retailer" at the 2008 Mobile Industry Awards.[3]

"Best National Advertising and Marketing Campaign" at the 2008 Mobile News Awards

"Employee of the Year 2010" ?

Seems to me they're not and don't deserve a place here, unless anyone knows better?

Pjbeef (talk) 10:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added citation needed to the latter two. Widefox (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revision[edit]

Seems a good candidate for a flagged revision? Petertt (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the tone of the article, it looks as if that a P4U employee or a PR firm working for P4U has rewrote the article!!!

-Agreed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voodoochilli (talk • contribs) 11:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unverified statements[edit]

"Phones 4 U are also known for deliberately altering customer's details so that they will be more likly to be accepted by the networks when performing credit checks.

P4U also mis-sell customer's insurance, by offering them a cashback amount, free mobile phone accessories, normally a Jabra Bluetooth handset."

This needs removing or suppoted with evidence --88.105.28.58 11:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC) (creating account today!)[reply]

Phones 4 U mis-sold me a phone and 18m contract when all I needed was a charger. They repeatedly lied to me and fobbed me off. Don't touch them with a bargepole.

If you walked in to a Phones 4 U shop for a charger and came out with an 18 month contract and a phone, it says far more about you than it does about them. Davetibbs 17:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phones 4 U are a rip-off. Their customer service is inexistent and they lie all the time. Avoid them at all costs.

Adverts[edit]

I can't describe how much I DETEST those stupid idiotic adverts!! They've tried to go for the funny/surreal/random humour thing and missed the mark completely! 87.194.8.180 08:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The adverts are good, deal with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.172.183.147 (talk) 11:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The adverts are incredibly strange, whether they're actually any good is a matter of opinion. I remember them, but not for the right reasons. I wouldn't go there Davetibbs 17:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind some information on the previous advert campaign involving Flight of the Conchords or the actors in the current one, if anyone's got any? Vigimael (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


External links and COI[edit]

I removed the linkspam by this editor User talk:94.72.249.26. Note this editor has been asked if they have a COI. Widefox (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I notice the new single issue editor User:Kyle.jack is now editing this. I have removed the spamlinks added by this editor. Please see WP:EXT for appropriate links. Widefox (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The editor has disclosed User talk:Kyle.jack a WP:COI. I have tagged the article. Widefox (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sales & Service[edit]

Perhaps a more up to date view of the company's performance regarding both its sales and customer service is needed? The sales figures (other than what I have just added) are slightly out of date and the service section doesn't really go past 2008. (please sign your comments User:94.72.249.26)

COI[edit]

User:94.72.249.26 - I asked you on your talk page User talk:94.72.249.26 if you have any connection with Phones4U. That was 4 months ago. What is your reply? Also, it would help if you create an account, and disclose any WP:COI on it. I have reverted one of your edits and added back a reference to the complaint that you removed, and am marking the article with COI I consider your toning down of negative [1], adding speculation about future US business and (previously) adding external links to be breaking WP:NPOV. Please stop now, and discuss edits here first. Widefox (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair looking at the edits you have changed the part regarding the complaint wasn't actually toned down (in my opinion). The original version stated "The Inquirer" as a source (which is hardly reputable or unbias) and has nothing of the company's response to the adverts, simply mentioned people filed complaints. The change the editor made (regardless of who they are) cited a reference to a much more reputable website (the BBC) and much more accurately reflected the event in its entirety (i.e. the complaints were filed, and then were dismissed). I'll declare now that I have a potential COI, which I'd rather not go into detail about, but not one that I feel makes me unbias. I have to say the article itself is both a) outdated and b) rather bias against the company. I think it might be re-looking at the tone of the article in general. Compare it to Phones 4u's biggest and main rival (Carphone Warehouse) and you'll see far more positive information regarding the company on there. Just my two pence. EDIT: Also something worth noting the previous user you have accused of having a COI added information stating Phones 4u had a 25% loss of earnings, hardly a positive bias.R Blake (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Several editors have removed promotional material from this article. I'm afraid you're attacking a source I did not put in, I merely restored it, as it was removed. Is there any question that it is not valid, or has disproportionate weight? This article needs more refs not less. Not having the companies response is not an issue - it is WP:NOT a corporate site. I notice you haven't made many edits - could you state your WP:COI on your page please. If you feel the article fails WP:NPOV, please detail here so we can fix it, if you have a COI, you should let others fix it. What is outdated? At least the name is correct today! I do think the controversial adverts produce a negative tone. My understanding is this is a balanced section and possibly proportional due to the big emphasis put on promotion by the company? How would you fix it? Articles stand on their own merits, not in comparison or reference with others. If you consider CPW too promotional, please detail on that talk page not this. Widefox (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do apologise if you saw my comments as an attack, they really weren't meant to be, just saying that perhaps the editor hadn't made the changes with any malice, and pointed out not all the additions were positive (i.e. the 25% loss of earnings wouldn't be added by someone trying to big up a company in my view). The Inquirer isn't really a reputable source, for example the entire tone of this specific article shows a complete lack of objectivity, so maybe isn't the best source to use to cite the complaints (I'm sure there are others). Personally I feel quoting sources like that removes credibility from an article. From my understanding the company has made a lot of changes and invested in a lot of new products etc and moved away from the company described in the article (which comes across as rather bullish regarding Offcom complaints etc. Makes no mention of the company ending its partnership with it's repair centre and making a new one with the repair company Anovo as a result of the Offcom investigation etc.). Likewise Phones 4u has managed to secure quite a few notable unique handset releases over the last year or so, and has even offered unique tariff ranges (I believe it's called JUMP, I believe it was mentioned in the Telegraph?). However none of these are mentioned.
The reason I pointed to the CPW page is simply as an example of a more balanced page, it mentions charity work (which Phones 4u does donate to a charity for example, though I'm not sure which one) whereas the focus by previous editors of this article seems to be digging out all the controversies and complaints and entering in no information regarding growth, sales figures, product ranges, store locations etc. I'd really rather not go into detail regarding a potential COI, neither do I intend on editing the article in any serious way. I simply thought considering looking at the talk page a few people have made edits you seemed to think are due to COI you could do with another point of view on the subject.R Blake (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed all the issues you cite above. In replacing The Inquirer ref, the first refs I came across detailed the magnitude of complaints. Details about shops, ranges etc are correctly available from the external link. I have marked needing update, although not being an expert on the company (like yourself) I shall leave for other editors to update or remove that tag and the COI tag. Thank you for your feedback. Widefox (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good edits overall, glad the feedback was useful! RB (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Products - JUMP[edit]

Since I've got a potential CoI on this issue I wont add it myself, however I think Phones 4u's JUMP (Just Upgrade My Phone) proposition is worth noting. It's the only one of its kind currently available in the UK and is seen as one of it's leading strategic products. Some sources are: Phones 4u's support site, Link 1,Link 2, link 3. --RB (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

phones 4u say its completly free to you the customer whats not in large advert on buying phones is when you reject there offer you have to pay £8 95 to get your phone back. its in the small print somewere so people beware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.112.191 (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Phones 4u. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 09:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


historical names[edit]

I did some work for these back in the 1980s. Mobile phone sales side was called "Midland Cellular". Airtime side (i.e, the people the ongoing phone service contract was with) was a distinct company called Midland Airtime Services. I never saw "Midland Mobile Phones". I will try and see if I've got any paperwork... 5.66.32.81 (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Phones_4u&oldid=1208125172"