Talk:Bain & Company

Archives (Index)

2011 2014 2017 2018 2019 2020

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

A couple suggestions/requests

I would like to:

• Remove an uncited editorialized comment ("first true acquisition") from the end of the history section
• Add the recent acquisition of Pyxis

To this effect, I suggest replacing the last sentence of the "Recent history" section with the following: "Bain & Company acquired FRWD, a digital marketing agency based in Minneapolis, in 2018. Additionally, it acquired an analytics firm, Pyxis, the following year." Pinging @North8000: and @GermanJoe: who have participated here in prior discussions. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to be of assistance. Best regards. Robbrosell (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks fine, I did it. North8000 (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Unsolicited edit request

A self-identified representative of Bain & Company recently contacted me on my talk page to request that I make an edit to this page. For transparency I have added that communication to this talk page:

Hi Discott. My name is Robb Rosell and I work for Bain & Company. You recently added a "Zondo Commission Findings" sub-section to the page about Bain cited mostly to The Daily Maverick regarding criticisms of the firm's work for the South African government. The Daily Maverick does not mention Bain's point-of-view, though other sources like the Financial Times do. The Financial Times source said:

< blockquote >Bain & Co said it was disappointed that the report “mischaracterises” its role at South Africa’s revenue service (SARS) but that it would continue to co-operate fully with authorities.  “While we made mistakes in our work with SARS, we remain confident that we did not in any way wilfully or knowingly support state capture at SARS or elsewhere,” it said. “There are no new facts considered in this report; the report relies heavily on the affidavit and testimony of one witness who admitted to having ‘no first-hand knowledge’ of Bain’s work at SARS.” The consultancy said the report appeared not to have factored in two affidavits it had submitted to the inquiry. < /blockquote >

I wanted to see if you felt the page would be improved by adding a sentence with the firm's defenses to the accusation, in order to summarize multiple points of view. Something like "Bain & Company said the report mischaracterized its actions and that it was cooperating with authorities."

Robbrosell (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

:Hi Robbrosell, I will look into this. The Financial Times is a good source and I am sure that their reporting of Bain & Co's opinion on the finding is accurate, its a pity that it is hidden behind a paywall which limits its use as a source. In order to resolve the single source issue you mentioned I have added citations from additional sources so as to strengthen the reliability of the section; thank you for highlighting that. I have also decided to move this discussion to the Bain & Co Wikipedia article talk page as discussions such as these should rather live on the talk page of the article in question so as to improve transparency. I have also sought to some add additional points of view on these findings. I do want to add that I am not very happy about large companies accused of serious corruption and undermining the basic functions of a country making requests for changes to be made to Wikipedia pages. It reminds me of the time that representatives of the Gupta Family made requests to have their Wikipedia page amended to include their point of view.--Discott (talk) 09:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

::Upon reflection I feel that the reason for the unhappiness in my previous message was unclear. I want to clarify that what I took umbrage at is the request (especially a request from a large corporate involved in significant controversy) contacting me directly on my personal talk page without leaving a request on the article talk page. It is problematic as it comes across as not fully transparent. It was this pattern of request making that reminded me of the Gupta Family incidence. Everyone has the right to make requests for changes to articles. In this case the requested change to include Bain & Co's response to the commission findings is reasonable, fair and likely improves NPOV. However the most correct course of action would have been to have left that request on the talk page of the Bain & Co Wikipedia article and then, if you wanted people to look into it quickly, contact individual editors (such as myself for example) to notify us of the change request on the article's talk page. From now on I will continue this conversation on the Bain & Co talk page.--Discott (talk) 12:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I would consider putting something like that in myself, but I'd need to review the provided sourcing which I'm unable to do because it's behind a paywall. If someone else is willing to review and possibly put in, I'd encourage them to do so. Or possibly the requestor could provide an additional source. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I've just added a cite of the non-paywalled version of the FT article to our WP article, but for some reason it only shows on the archived version. Even though I'm able to read the original page in my browser without a subscription to FT, or being signed in (I do have an ancient account), a link to it just shows the subscription page. I am no fan of the way Bain employees are constantly trying to influence the content of this article, whether it's interns or whoever. As far as I'm concerned, it speaks volumes about their corporate mentality. Frankly, I despise them. Carlstak (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for spending the time to look into it. I think Discott already found other sources that include similar comments, but I can email a PDF copy of the Financial Times piece to anyone that wants it. Best regards. Robbrosell (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I couldn't get either link to work, I'd be happy to review if you email. North8000 (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@North8000: I can’t seem to email you through Wikipedia. However, if you email me at Robb.Rosell@Bain.com I can reply with a copy of the article. Robbrosell (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I just did that. North8000 (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I received the pdf of the article and read it. I can confirm that it contains or supports the above requested wording and doesn't have much more in it regarding Bain's response. IMHO the above requested wording doesn't say much. It appears that some of it has already been added along with some substantive statements by Bain which are already in the article and I don't see more additions that I would be inclined to make at this time. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Recent "controversy" edits to Bain & Company page

My name is Robb and I work for Bain & Company. I was hoping another editor would give a second opinion on two recent edits:

• Controversies section: A new "Controversies" section was created to house the two controversies that had dedicated sections. These controversies have attracted substantial publicity warranting placement in the page. However, my understanding is that dedicated Controversies sections are generally discouraged by WP:CRITS. I would think the controversies would go in the History section based on their placement in the chronology of the firm's history. However, even if kept in separate sections, Wikipedia's guidelines seems to discourage creating a Controversies section.

• Lead: Adding the "recent controversy" in South Africa to the end of the Lead feels like WP:RECENTISM. South Africa is one of 50+ countries Bain & Company operates in. While there has been a lot of publicity about a recent controversy there, I'm not sure it belongs in a 1.5 paragraph summary of the firm's entire history.

Naturally, I defer to impartial editors and appreciate your time objectively weighing my points. If there is anything I can do to be of further assistance, please let me know. Pinging @North8000:, who has responded to some of my requests on this page historically. Best regards. Robbrosell (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

For the next 2 weeks I'm here just for brief moments. So just a few comments. IMO that shouldn't be in the lead....the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. Also the wording is a bad summary at best. I might take it out.

I usually don't like controversy sections. They distort what's included and in some cases are POV'ish in spin-identifying things as controversies. Those concerns apply less here so I'm near neutral on that, Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The really should have a general sentence on the South African controversy instead of the current problematic one. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@North8000: Just checking in. Thanks for looking into this. It sounded like you were going to rephrase the sentence in the Lead and either leave the Controversies section or get a third opinion. Is that about right? Let me know if there is anything appropriate I can do to be of assistance. Robbrosell (talk) 13:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I left my own editing involvement as a maybe.....but I'll give it a try. North8000 (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

To me the South Africa issue section looks like it needs work. And is also possibly overly large/undue considering their geographic and temporal scope of operations. I'm not overly interested in working on this article but thought I'd take a quick looks at what's in the sources to potentially improve it. Basically the Zondo Commission report is given as a source for the Zondo commission report....it being gigantic and primary has all of the pitfalls of that. All of the other sources are behind a paywall and so I sort of hit the limit on how hard I wanted to work at this. If anyone has any good sources that aren't behind a paywall I'd be happy to look at them. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)