Talk:OfficeMax

Naperville, IL

Consolidation of corporate headquarters (Itasca, IL) and retail HQ (Shaker Heights, OH) expected to be completed in second half of 2006. -- Robocoder (talk | contribs) 03:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Office Warehouse

Up until about 1993, OfficeMaxes in at least the Raleigh, NC area were called Office Warehouse. Should this be mentioned?--Jnelson09 14:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Found the answer to this one: Home Quarters Warehouse, which vanished at the same time, owned Office Warehouse. All the locations in the Raleigh area became Office Max after HQ went out of business. --Jnelson09 (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Financial Problems

Shouldn't this be removed or edited now that the stock is doing extremely well and they are in the black?

Edited yes... but not removed... it is part of omx history. I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen again, considering how mis-managed it is. - 3/11/07

Logo

The only logo that should be used is the tab and I have edited the page to show this. Anyone who would like to read about it can go to http://styleguide.officemax.com .

Major points to read from this site is; "The OfficeMax logotype should NEVER be contained in a shape other than the "tab"" and "The OfficeMax tab graphic will be used as the primary graphic identity for OfficeMax."

* It looks like the "file folder tab" logo is gone, and the "rubber-band ball" logo is back from a few years ago.  
  Now, I wish they'de bring back the "Rubber Band Man" character and the "Rubber Band Man" song, particularly for the back-to-school and Christmas shopping advertising campaigns.  

Njbob (talk) 12:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that according to wikiscanner that Officemax has edited this page more than 200 times. I also noticed that nowhere are the financial scandals mentioned where OfficeMax was cheating suppliers on rebate claims.

Shouldn't the ImPress logo be included in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshman1019 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

1Q FY2007 Results

The report was just released today. Is this worth covering in the article? --JustGags 07:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

ImPress Names

I made a note that in some areas, the name is still ImPress Print & Document Services. I work at an OfficeMax in Jacksonville, Fl and thats what all the employee business cards and advertisements say. Also, who ever gave a better description for the MaxAssurance, i want to thank you. I've only been working there about a month and that text will definitely help me sell it. --Abynion08 00:44, June 08 2007 (UTC)

Judging from new signage, OMAX is getting rid of the "ImPress" name and moving towards just a "print center" descriptor 24.118.73.28 (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

False Rebate Claims

This section was in the article twice, so I removed the latter of the two.--ChandlerH 14:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Who owned OMax between 1995 and 2003?

There is a big gap in the history section. 205.157.110.11 15:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

* Answer:  OfficeMax was a shareholder owned company, publicly traded on the NY Stock Exchange, symbol OMX).

Njbob (talk) 11:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Price Match

This section reads like an advertisement for the store. Several stores offer price match, and it isn't encyclopedic that they do. The addition of the 2 cent phrase is completely redundant also. The section should be removed. Ejfetters 17:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Further reviewing the article, several sections look like advertisement for the company the way they are worded. The ink refill section, the credit card apply section, etc. Furthermore, there are several uncited claims in the article. The article needs to be reworked so it is NPOV. Ejfetters 17:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I edited the price match section to simply state the fact that the policy exists without trying to hype it the way the previous text did. I'm not sure if the section should be removed; there are many major retailers that do not offer price matching (Target, for example), so it's a fact that distinguishes them from other retailers. I'm not sure I fully grasp which facts would be considered "encyclopedic" for a retailer, though. BostonHMann 19:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Article still looks like an advertisement in several areas. The Best Buy article looked good to me before, I will look it over again and see if that is a good NPOV retail article. Ejfetters 06:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The entire "Customer Incentive Programs" section seems unnecessary and all of it reads like an advert. The entire section could be deleted, clearing up the appearance of an "advertisement" in a single stroke. The Best Buy site certainly seems to be more informational and more appropriately organized. A section on Customer Incentive Programs that takes up most of the page certainly does not seem to embrace NPOV. Perhaps a standard template should be developed for corporations in order to avoid these types of issues?

Ranking

As of 2009 while Staples is still much in the lead, Office Depot has fallen behind OfficeMax both in store locations and NYSE stock (3.86 vs 1.10, Feb 26). As such, I'm going to edit the intro to reflect this. Feel free to dissent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ademska (talk • contribs) 07:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Although OfficeMax is clearly the stronger company, Office Depot has significantly higher gross revenues, almost twice as many employees and higher market cap. Saying that OfficeMax is the second largest office supply retailer is not strictly speaking accurate at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FroznMbryo (talk • contribs) 18:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Fill out history of company, boise cascade, holdings of the Cuban electric company

This article is lacking in the history of the company, and its acquisition by the Boise Cascade company. Some detail should be included about the claims to Cuban property (OfficeMax is the largest single property claimant). It appears that this information was removed in these series of edits, with little explanation why. riffic (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)