Talk:Primark

BHS Ireland purchase

AKAIK, BHS never is one of the ex-BHS sites, incidently. --83.70.59.159 17:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Jervis Street. They were an anchor tenant there when it opened, although I actually think thats closed down again by now - I can't remember seeing it last time I was there. --Kiand 19:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge Penneys into this article

Primark is a very cheap shop :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.28.99 (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

As suggested at Penneys by someone else - I'd support, Penneys and Primark are one and the same, even the logo is the same, only the logotype is different. They offer the same proposition and services. Penneys actually predates Primark, however since Primark is their corporate name (the Penneys stores have "Penneys - Operated by Primark" on their packaging) I would suggest leaving it at this location with a redirect at Penneys.

--Rdd 16:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

How it works

I'm not sure the information contained there has any place in an encylopedia, but I've moved it here in case somebody wants to put it back in.

--Rdd 16:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

How it works: Each section (or department) runs the operational side of the business. The (tactical) floor manager selects the stock that should be ordered and placed on the shop floor. The manager (strategic) controls the local shop, unlike other companies franchise system. The manager remain in control of the store and can function independently from other local chains.

Departments and codes: 1=Accessories. 2=Socks and Tights. 3=NOT USED. 4=Womens Apparel. 5=Childrens Wear. 6=Mens Wear. 7=Shoes. 8=Womens Wear. 9=Special deals / Reduced Clothing. 11=Homeware 23/24=Xmas Shop 26=Sportswear 27=Todlerswear Pay: Standard wage for Sales Assistants. £3.69 per hour (under 18) £4.92 (£5.55 with London weighting) per hour (over 18) No paid breaks or lunches Overtime is standard rate Biometric hand system installed

here pay is £3.83 under 18, £4.99 over 18, no overtime 81.156.33.251 08:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Advertising

I have cut the paragraph -

• This reputation has come about despite the company spending very little on advertising, which has consisted of little more than press releases to local newspapers as new stores have opened. A major exception to this is their Christmas advertising campaign, which has run on radio each Christmas (and occasionally on Irish television). In contrast to their main competitors, Matalan and George at ASDA, Primark have never advertised on television in the UK, and there is evidence that most of Primark's customers first heard about the store through word of mouth.

I REALLY don't think that its sourcable. Can't imagine any company not marketing itself in one way or another - If its important please discuss Mike33 13:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It may be - I have started working in a flagship Primark store, and the above statement is more or less true; the HR person who finished off the induction said almost the same thing as the above statement.

In any case, it has advertised on UK Television, although possibly only Northern Ireland, not Great Britain. NotMuchToSay 19:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be a couple of contradictions in the article about advertising, with one section saying they do not advertise, and another saying that they do... Also the largest store in this article claims to be Manchester, but in the Oxford Street article it claims to be there. I have never been to either of these stores, or seen any advertising, so am not really in a position to correct it myself. Craighennessey 00:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

in regards to floor space the Manchester store is the biggest in the company having 100,000 sq ft but originally Oxford Street waa the biggest when opened, Manchester took the position when TK Maxx relocated giving Primark the full building. Advertising is only fairly new within Primark, when opening a new store there is local coverage but on a whole the company doesn't really have advertising. Penneys have a christmas advert and a jingle which is well known in Ireland but unheard of in England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.140.173 (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Tidy up

I have had a go at tidying it up, but there is still loads to do. Comments on my alterations would help me as I am fairly new to this--Screen42 23:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this paragraph is slightly confusing:

All workers in their associated factories are paid a living wage that as a bare minimum covers all their basic needs and are consistent with local wage laws. All associated factory are paid the equivalent of at least the UK minimum wage in their country. Primark has deals with factories in Madrid and Vietnam and do not manufacture clothing in Bangladesh. "All associated factory are paid" - should it say, "All associated factory workers"? Also: in the paragraph before, it quotes Geoff Lancaster talking about raising standards in Bangladesh - which appears to contradict the final sentence above. Can anyone make this clearer?217.68.21.230 12:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I changed this whole section as it was both unsourced and factually incorrect. 86.136.142.95 18:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed vandalism

I removed a comment left by someone: "Its totally fabulous for lil cheapie bargains and you can customize them and if you go wrong it doesnt really matter beacause they are so cheap!"

Lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.22.12 (talk) 07:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

It is noted in the Trivia that Primark is pronounced "Pree-mark" in NI, but "Pry-mark" in Great Britain. When I lived in Glasgow everyone said "Pree-mark." Is this just a Glasgow thing, or should the trivia be changed to "Pree-mark" in NI and Scotland? Spiderdust 04:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

no you are right, in scotland it is pronounced preemark, probably due to the fact that the scottish head office is in dublin and is not the same as the english head office Davidb90 14:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say this was purely down to the accents of the Scottish and the Irish to be honest rather than it having anything to do with where the head office is based. My Husband and all his family are Scottish and all pronounce it 'preemark' but if u asked them why they pronounce in that way none of them would be able to make the connection with the way they pronounce the word to the fact that the head office is in Dublin. They dont know where the head office is. The Scottish pronounce a lot of words differently to the English purely because of the difference in their accents. For example, Scottish people pronounce the world 'police' as 'polis'. The general way they sound their words is completely different in many respects.TammiMagee 10:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

nope sorry your wrong, neds pronounce 'police' as 'polis', polis is just wrong, nothing to do with accent. the point i was trying to make is if the staff in scotland pronounce it preemark, then the customers are going to do the same. "The general way they sound their words is completely different in many respects" and generally correct! the english cannot (or do not) pronounce 'wh' 'aw' 'r' 81.156.33.251 08:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I live near Birmingham, and most people I know say "Pree-mark". Honestly, this is the first time I've ever read that British/English people say "Pry-mark". In my experience, they just don't. 86.132.141.178 17:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC) I live near Edingbrugh, and we call Primark Pree-mark. In england they call it Pry-mark and in Ireland they call it Penneys. Honestly just stick to the one name. MON/30/03/09 18:13PM

I remember a Christmas TV advertising campaign on Ulster TV during the eighties with the slogan "Primark, got a whole lotta things for Christmas, got a lot for the family" - it was definitly pronouned 'pree-mark' back then, however i have family in liverpool who insist on calling it 'pry-mark'.

That advert campaign (with the slogan "Penny's, got a whole lotta things..." etc) has ran every Christmas in living memory in the Irish media, until very recently. Incidently, the Primark name was apparently invented due to the company's inabillity to use Penny's outside of Ireland due to registration of the name by JC Penny.--Rdd 16:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have only ever heard the word pronounced with primary stress on the first syllable, ie /'pɹaɪmɑːk/ or /'pɹiːmɑːk/, et cetera. 130.88.85.111 (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm in Wigan, and it's always Pry-mark. If someone said 'Preemark' they would get very funny looks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.199.137 (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If it was meant to be pronounced 'Preemark' then would the spelling not be Pree or Prea. Pri is usually pronounced /aɪ/ as in Prime or /ɪ/ as in Primitive. The word Primary is only one letter different from the word Primark and Primary is pronounced /aɪ/. I was told that the actually pronunciation is prɪmahrk but due to certain accents in Ireland it was often mispronounced with an ee sound instead of ɪ.

Why does the pronounciation section have "Northern Ireland, Ireland" listed? It should be Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, or in this case, seen as it is a whole island thing, just "Ireland." Am I Right?--82.46.48.147 (talk) 13:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

More Vandalism

Removed "It is also Reilly Marshalls (of Nottingham) favourite shop, it is reported that he once spent an astonishing £11 there in one go. He purchased ten shirts, six pairs of socks, twelve t shirts and three pairs of jeans" from the article, why is this article so prone to vandalism? This comment was left by §©ʁİƃƀȴıŋ’ Ƨł₥ȫȠ ^{talk|contribs} 15:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"Fat Wear"

Is there actually such a department??? Artybrad 22:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No[[1]]. I will remove. This comment was left by §©ʁİƃƀȴıŋ’ Ƨł₥ȫȠ ^{talk|contribs} 17:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Store Structure

Is this section necessary? Is it of any interest to anyone except employees? There is nothing remarkable or significantly different compared to other retailers, and I have looked at other retailer's articles and none seem to have details regarding staff pay and low level management structure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandygatt (talk • contribs) 01:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree - this is a Wikipedia page, not Primark's corporate website. If no one has objected within a week I will remove this section. Smurfmeister (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Source?

Removing:"2009 primark are planning to make verious adverts on televison. They have recently said that they do make children make their clothes" Don't Know Whether It's Just Bad Spelling Or Just Completely False. And I Sincerely Doubt The Second Part. Give Me A Source, I Might Believe It. Until Then I'm Removing It QuietusExtraho (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you really criticising someone's spelling before capitalising every word in your post??? Smurfmeister (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

New Logo

I have just uploaded the new logo, I had a few problems with the uploading because Wikipedia keeps thinking it's a duplicate, I have now also included a Non Free rationale on the logo page. Bevanl (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC).

Number of stores?

The article differs from the "Company Profile" section on here. Which is right? --HighKing (talk) 09:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Headquarters

Are the headquarters definitely in Ireland? I can find no reference on the Primark, now the ABF website confirming this. Pennys may have started in Ireland, but where does Primark come in? Was it a merger or take-over or just a different name?Darkieboy236 (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Definetly in Mary Street, Dublin, this was even stated on the BBC Panorama programme on the company. This may change since Arthur Ryan is retiring. As for the Penneys/Primark, its just a different name. The chain was owned from the very beginning by ABF and originally called Penney's. The name "Primark" allegedly came about due to fear of litigation from J.C. Penney. Rdd (talk) 19:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, see http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31978D0193:EN:HTML for an authoritative account. Most relevant fragment below. Anyone up for updating the article as appropriate (ideally creating a 'history' section)?

5. On 26 February 1976, to settle their pending litigations and proceedings, Penney America and the ABF Group entered into the notified agreement, which became effective on 27 August 1976 (the operative date) and which is outlined below. (a) The ABF Group shall not use "Penneys" as a trademark or - except as a business name in Ireland - as a trade name in any country of the world, shall change all company names or titles, so as to eliminate "Penneys" therefrom, and shall never organize or acquire a business which includes this name. It shall also proceed to phase out step by step in Scotland and Northern Ireland all use of "Penneys" as a trademark, trade name or otherwise. Such phasing out shall be completed during 1978. Penney America shall cause the trademark registrations of "Power", "Quinnsworth", "Finefare", "Fine Ware" and "City Girl" to be relinquished. They acknowledge that the word "Primark" is not confusingly similar to "Penneys". While these trademark registrations and "Primark" may be used by the ABF Group, "Penneys" may be used by Penney America as a trademark and, except in Ireland, as a trade name in all countries of the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.155.151.233 (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

pronunciation

Seems odd that the stress would be on the mark. Can anyone confirm? kwami (talk) 23:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Out of date information

Some of the information on the page is out of date.

The total number of stores primark now has is up to 232 due to opening new stores in the united kingdom (bexleyheath). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattricus (talk • contribs) 23:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

2013 Savar building collapse

This is an event with a tangential connection with Primark at best. It shouldn't be mentioned in the Primark article. --HighKing (talk) 11:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with your two sentences. We can count how many articles in just The Guardian about both Primark and the incident.

Anyway I put up a tag to ask for third opinion here. Best, New worl (talk) 11:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I'm assuming that the below blockquote is the content in question?

On 25 April, 2013, a garment factory in Rana Plaza, Dhaka, Bangladesh, housing some 3000 workers collapsed, causing the deaths more than 400 people. Primark is one of the recipients of clothing made at the factory. The part of the factory making clothes for Primark was on the second floor.

Yes, Technical 13. It was the only part in the section Incidents that was deleted twice by HighKing who kept using a bunch of WP terms. New worl (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

My questions that may help figure this out are:

Does the factory "only" make clothing for Primark?

Is it the "only" factory that makes clothing for Primark?

How much coverage did Primark get in the article covering the story about the collapse?

Let's start with those questions and see if we can't find out whether or not it should really be in there. :) Technical 13 (talk) 11:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I've updated the paragraph to better reflect the noteworthy elements of the link between Primark and the collapse of the building. To answer your questions:

1. the factory did not solely supply Primark - it was an 8 storey building that housed many different factories, shops and a bank. The various factories producted items for a range of customers including the Benetton Group, Joe Fresh, The Children's Place, Primark, Monsoon, and DressBarn. (New worl has added the same info to all those articles).
2. It is not the only factory. Primark has many many suppliers throughout the world.
3. Well - take a look at the wikipedia article 2013 Savar building collapse. Primark does get a mention, especially in British press (gives it a British angle - same press wouldn't mention Joe Fresh or Benneton in the article, whereas in the US press it's vice versa).

It's a tragic event, and has it's own article, but it is only tangentially related to the companies that were the customers of the factories. The factories were independently owned. Note that originally this was tacked into the "Criticisms" section (and still is in "criticisms" sections in other articles). How can it be a "criticism"? That is potentially libellous, inferring that these companies had some part or fault in the building collapse. --HighKing (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Are there any reports of Primark being impacted by this? Would a single sentence like "The 2013 Savar building collapse (affected|impacted|caused) Primark (in a certain way|to do something to fill the lack of supplies coming in)." have any reliable sources to cite it with? This way, the collapse could be mentioned in a way that will allow the reader to follow the link to read up on it if they chose, but not have all the extra details that I agree probably do not belong. Technical 13 (talk) 12:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

There are no reports of Primark being impacted - but this BBC article reports that Primark (and Loblaw) said they will be offering aid to the victims, and this articles states "Primark has been working with other retailers to review the country's approach to factory standards and will now push for this review to include building integrity". That's about the only Primark relevant discussions in *all* the articles. It's an event, for sure, but in my opinion it simply doesn't meet the criteria to mention it at all in the articles on the various retailers. I've no problem with the 2013 Savar building collapse article listing the various retailers that used these companies as suppliers, but it's not necessary to list the building collapse in each article on each retailer. --HighKing (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Technical 13 for your volunteer support. I agree that going to the article 2013 Savar building collapse is a good approach. I can see a bigger picture there, more than a building collapse. I think the Pope have a part of a big picture here: On 1st May, Pope Francis spoke out against the working conditions in the factory: :"A headline that really struck me on the day of the tragedy in Bangladesh was 'Living on 38 euros a month'. That is what the people who died were being paid. This is called slave labour. Today in the world this slavery is being committed against something beautiful that God has given us -- the capacity to create, to work, to have dignity. How many brothers and sisters find themselves in this situation! Not paying fairly, not giving a job because you are only looking at balance sheets, only looking at how to make a profit. That goes against God!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by New worl (talk • contribs) 14:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The Guardian has an image here. How it may be named! New worl (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Your comment of "I can see a bigger picture here" worries me. Wikipedia isn't a news channel, or a mechanism for publicizing a particular point of view. For example, the pope comment isn't relevant to the Primark article, because the pope doesn't mention Primark. So why bring it up? Adding this into "Criticism" sections shows that you are looking at this incident with a POV which includes associating Primark with the low wages and dangerous working conditions. Unless you can find sources to back up your view (and they meet the criteria for sources), the rest is simply WP:OR. --HighKing (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure that you don't see any link between the image and 'Living on 38 euros a month'? Do you see the image yet? New worl (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

HighKing and New worl, I'm marking this as "helped" now and will continue watching it and commenting where needed. WP:NPOV is very important here, I agree. I also think that in regards to the original question, that the collapsed should be mentioned "if" it had some citable impact on Primark as my suggestion above says. The pope has nothing to do about this discussion, slavery and whatnot doesn't belong in this discussion either. Let's stay on topic New worl... Technical 13 (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

'Sweatshops' & Primark

You have been with Wikipedia longer than I am and I thought you know more about Wikipedia values, pillars, etc. than I do...

But now I will do some Google search for you so that all editors can change the article in Wikipedia spirit.

(edit conflict)(edit conflict) I'm not sure if that is intended to be some kind of threat and or whom it may be directed at. What I can tell you is that vandalism will not be tolerated and I won't hesitate to report it and let an administrator figure out what your comment above implies. I can also tell you that if I was an administrator on this wiki, I would likely consider that a threat and you would end up blocked. Technical 13 (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

2009

1. Primark linked to UK sweatshops
2. Primark in storm over conditions at UK supplier

2008

1. protest hits Primark shows some of India's poorest people, including children, working long, gruelling hours for poverty pay on Primark clothes in slum workshops and refugee camps. Another article Another one

2006

1. War on Want report finds child labourers in Bangladesh making Primark clothes for 3p an hour. Another source