Talk:Aldi

I am quite sure that the Albrechts still completely own Aldi. That is also the reason why they are the richest people in Germany. Quite some value considering that Aldi even own almost all their sites.... It is also misleading to write that they earn 1.5 billion a year as Aldi famously have always reinvested all their profits and the Albrechts being the people they are, would never spend 1.5 billion a year or stash it away in their bank account if they can reinvest in their company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.2.246.90 (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Romania does not have any Aldi Markets!!! (Topic OPEN)

The reference is based on an article. I don't know yet definitly to which Aldi Romania will be allocated, but I am quite sure it won't be Aldi Nord (North). I recommend to remove it in the listing. 85.127.158.114 (talk) 08:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Preferential treatment for US/UK websites?

I recently reorganised and expanded the Aldi article's External links section (also here).

• • User:Doco removed the links to all (non-German) international subsidiary websites, except those for the UK and US.
  • I reverted this.
  • The next day, Doco removed all international subsidiary links except the US & UK ones.
  • I then removed the links to the US/UK sites, saying Either include all or no international subsidiary websites. The US and UK are not "special".
  • Doco reverted this, saying: This is the English-language wikipedia, dear IP vandal..
  • I reverted this, saying: rv: Your belief that US/UK entities are supposed to get preferential treatment in this encyclopedia is mistaken. And quit the unfounded name calling. Even if you were right: What about Australia/Eire?

I'm pretty sure Doco will revert again, and I could of course revert him again, but I don't want to get bogged down. Which brings me to this page. Please comment: Should US/UK entities get preferential treatment in this encyclopedia? If not, I believe we should either include all or none of Aldi's international subsidiary websites. It would also be cool if other people could watch the article: I don't think it's good for me to get any more entangled there. 86.56.48.12 18:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The question of whether the U.S. / U.K. are special is irrelevant to the goals of Wikipedia, in my opinion. Unless User:Doco can make a case that removing the non US/UK links furthers the content or clarity of the information, I'm predisposed to say that more information is better than less, and thus we should leave the links in. I'll watch the page as well.Chrisbbehrens 03:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we should include none of the subsidiary websites, and have removed them. Including particular ones is systemic bias, based on guesswork of what the reader will want to be linked to. They are all available under the first external link anyway, and the external links section should be kept to a minimum (per WP:EL). Trebor 18:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Setting WP:EL aside for a moment, I think the preference should be for English speaking sites. If you link to a page on a French or Italian site, it wouldn't do me any good - in fact, I couldn't even confirm that the link is even relevant to the article. I don't think we should believe an English site over another language, but if I had to chose 3 sites out of 10 or 100 to link to, I think that we should chose 3 English speaking sites, as those are ones that will be of the most use to an English speaking audience. If a link to a non-English language site is absolutely necessary, then add a second link in the same line that points to a Babelfish translation. Yes, I'm aware that there are multi-lingual Wikipedia readers, but there are also other languages for Wikipedia as well. The policy is that articles are English-only, so EL's should be English-only as well. -- TomXP411^[Talk] 06:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We should focus on relevance to English language readers, not abstract ideas of intellectual purity. Luwilt (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

cheap property

"In the United States, Aldi often locates its stores in areas with cheap property, which is often synonymous with proximity to high concentrations of impoverished minorities." Um, do you have some statistics to back up this assertion? I have seen them in all sorts of locations with all sorts of population demographics.

My change regarding Aldi not raising prices after increase in VAT

I erased the following sentence:

"Likewise, in late 2006, the company announced it would not be raising its prices in Germany, despite an increase in value-added tax from 16 to 19 percent in 2007."

Aldi actually only said they would not raise most of its prices. And while they kept their promise, that was not very surprising, because they mostly sell food and drinks and other items of daily life. The VAT for those goods had been and remained at 7%, no increase in 2007. So while their slogan was true, it does not serve as an example of how to build a reputation by using transparent pricing schemes. It's just advertisement. Blur4760 19:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Competitors Section (DONE!)

Is the Competitors Section really necessary? It's going to get pretty messy, as people are already listing American supermarket chains (of which there are COUNTLESS). Eventually the list could number in the thousands when supermarkets from every country that has an Aldi appear. Perhaps only "Top Competitors" by country would make more sense. 70.135.223.251 08:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

To use DiCaprio's words in Catch Me If You Can: I concur. Blur4760 14:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have stripped the competitors section as it was turning into an ugly long list and replaced it with a brief text about the main, direct competitors. It should be kept short and crisp. doco (☏) 14:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Greece not adequately included (DONE!)

I know there are some stores in Greece but unfortunately I cannot find out how many to allow me to properly update the article as I cannot speak Greek. All I can tell is that it is Aldi Sud. Sce8pmh 14:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually there are no stores yet. They are sarching for staff and building stores. Buy thes haven´t opened them.

I have updated Greece. 08:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.158.114 (talk)

Difference between Aldi Sud and Aldi Nord

I wasn't aware that Aldi was split into two different markets. The article doesn't indicate what, if any, differences there are between them. This should be made clearer in the article. Yorkshiresky 13:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

afaik they do work together but are seperated companys. (for a customer the only difference ist there are different things cheep in one week here and the other week there)194.76.29.2 15:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

In fact they are two different companies (different logos) sharing one concept. They don't sell the same products (at least they don't use the same names. So Aldi North toothpaste and Aldi South toothpaste are called differently, etc.). I'm from southern Germany and when I happen to find myself in an ALDI North market (whether in Northern Germany or France) I notice this immediately because the products are different. So even though there is apparently a certain degree of cooperation (they are brothers!) the difference between ALDI Nord and ALDI Süd is like the difference between Lidl and Aldi Süd. The public nevertheless just speaks of ALDI, also because they never are direct competitors. I hope that made things clearer. By the way, the article lacks sources, right. But at least from a German perspective I can't find any mistake. The article wouldn't be any better with sources. Markus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.132.11.108 (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know it has changed now, but in the earlier days only Alid Süd was offering tobacco. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.36.192.67 (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

"fake brands"

Shouldn't the fact that all of the brands on the food packaging is made up and that all the packaging is based on real companies? 139.168.34.166 (talk) 12:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Er...what? If you are referring to the fact that several Aldi products are their own brand, that's relatively par for the course - e.g. "Hy-Vee" brand or "Sam's Choice" brand products (for Hy-Vee and Walmart/Sam's Club respectively). --66.211.10.20 (talk) 04:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

All packaging from any company is "made up", 139.168.34.166. However I too (in the UK) noticed a degree of coincidence in the past between the "Aldi own" brand packaging and the equivalent "well known" packaging (which is what I suppose you mean by "real companies"). We're certainly not talking "Calbury's" chocolates or "Nestafé" coffee (Trading Standards would be on them like a rat up a drainpipe for "passing off" were that the case), but a blind man on a galloping horse might have been forgiven for mistaking some of Aldi's packaging for a better-known competitor's. That tendency seems to be reducing nowadays, though; perhaps Aldi feel that they are gaining enough market penetration for their own packaging and ranges to stand on their own merits. 81.129.207.110 (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Reputation

Did an Aldi employee write that section? It is poorly written and needs sorting out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.29.80 (talk) 12:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Confusing statement?

Under (for some slightly hard-to-fathom reason) "In-store layout" the article states: "Aldi mainly sells exclusively produced, custom-branded products (often identical to and produced by major brands)". Surely a product "identical to" a major brand is hardly "exclusively produced". "Custom-branded", perhaps, but "exclusively produced"? The statement also requires sourcing. 81.129.207.110 (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)