Talk:Vistaprint

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)

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)

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

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. 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: 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)