Talk:Bain & Company/Archives/2018

Recent Edits

I noticed at some point in the article's history, a good chunk of information summarizing the firm's history (see below) was trimmed from the lead.

Bain was founded in 1973 by former [[Boston Consulting Group]] VP William Bain. In the 1980s the firm grew internationally. Bill Bain later established the investment company [[Bain Capital]]. Bain experienced several setbacks and financial troubles from 1987 to the early 1990s. [[Mitt Romney]] and [[Orit Gadiesh]] are credited with returning the firm to profitability and growth in their sequential roles as the firm's CEO and chairman respectively. In the 2000s, Bain continued to expand and create additional practice areas focused on working with non-profits, technology companies, and others. It developed a substantial practice around working with private equity firms.

It was replaced by poorly-sourced and promotional content:

The firm provides advice to public, private, and non-profit organizations around the world, including 60% of the Fortune 500. Bain is consistenly recognized as one of the most prestigious firms in the industry, and is recognized as one of the best companies to work for by Glassdoor.

I think this needs to be reversed. CorporateM (Talk) 03:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Done - thanks for pointing this out (by the way: content like this is why I advocate for a complete ban of BS sources like Vault and most of Glassdoor). I have also removed the excessively detailed "recruitment" addition with lots of WP:PEACOCK language and a probable conflict of interest. Of course a short description based on unbiased expert sources would be OK. GermanJoe (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I suspected the recruiting information was added by a college student looking for a gig at Bain, as oppose to a COI, but I suppose it doesn't matter either way. Sometimes Glassdoor/wetfeet do in-depth historical profiles with a lot of good encyclopedic information. I think WP:ORGAWARDS is the best rationale for removing them in most cases, but I am partial as the author of that essay. CorporateM (Talk) 18:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE?

I am affiliated with Bain & Company. @Xoloxolo: recently added a sub-section to the page now called "South African Corruption Inquiry" relying on citations 33-39. From what I've gathered by skimming the citations, Bain & Company restructured the South African Revenue Service (SARS) and that restructuring may have been a factor in the organization's later financial failure.[1] Bain was also criticized for not raising red flags when it won a large government contract with no competing bids.[2] I wanted to draw attention to it as a possible WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM issue as right now there is a devoted section for a recent news event. Pinging @GermanJoe: @North8000:. CorporateM (Talk) 18:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

It does seem wp:undue. A $4 billion worldwide company with 45 years of history and 1/6 of the article is about an inquiry in South Africa where they are not even accused of doing anything wrong. North8000 (talk) 19:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, please. This article has historically been a puff piece composed mostly by employees of Bain (no longer, thanks to non-conflicted editors) without disclosure of conflict of interest. Where were the protests by other Bain employees who also edited the article? The added information is pertinent and sourced. Carlstak (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I am affiliated with South Africa as I am a citizen. A country of about 50m people of which 37% are unemployed and many live in abject poverty, with a 350-year history of oppression and violence. An international consultancy may have acted corruptly to cripple the tax authority, resulting, inter alia, in a 1% increase in Value Added Tax to plug the lost revenue gap. This is a regressive tax that hurts the most vulnerable poor. I'm sorry if this does not appear important to a Bain employee, it certainly is important to those who can no longer afford the basic necessities of life. Bain may or may not be complicit. Bain may just have a rogue partner in a 3rd world country. We don't know for sure, but the material is very carefully sourced. Xoloxolo (talk) 13:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@CorporateM: @North8000: @Carlstak: I hope the recent news that Bain's own investigation has found that it "fell short" has settled the fact that Bain played a central role in an very messy situation in South Africa - an entire country and the future of millions has been seriously and negatively impacted by another of the world's top management consultancies (Mckinsey is the other). There is a real chance that Bain (or at least certain Bain partners) may (possibly?) have acted in a corrupt and/or criminal manner - the facts are piling up - South Africa's investigative reporters are on to it. I'm no expert Wiki editor but I think there is nothing WP:UNDUE about this scandal at all, based solely on the Bain Global Boards own recent statement where they have practically begged to pay the money back. I will, however, go and re-edit the section - it could be shorter, certainly tighter, but the basic facts remain. Xoloxolo (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. I read a little more in the sources and my current impression remains the same regarding weight and potential wrong-doing. Aside from that it does appear that the did a bad job with big consequences. But I would not press harder on this without learning a lot more, which I have not done. Maybe this will become clearer as time passes. Regarding specific items, on the "Massone was not able to explain how a heavily discounted R2 million diagnostic project grew into R164 million project, allegedly in breach of South Africa's public procurement laws." The first statement / implication appears contrary to the provided sources, and the second is a far-reaching accusation which I don't see in the provided sources. North8000 (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Xoloxolo's additions are a welcome and necessary counterpoint to the bland recitation of banal information about a company that has a prior history of being a bad actor. Carlstak (talk) 02:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Leadership

Someone recently added a "Leadership" section complete with ® symbols. My understanding is that these kinds of sections are often associated with COI and promotion. They also violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY #7 against "simple listings". I ask that the section be entirely removed. I am affiliated with Bain & Company. CorporateM (Talk) 22:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Agree it doesn't smell right. Carlstak (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Alumni listcruft

I have removed this section (added in November 2017 by a possible COI editor) as largely unsourced listcruft per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Without independent expert sources (to show that such a list has encyclopedic relevance to begin with) and additional context, such an indiscriminate trivial list is just PR fluff to polish the topic's resume but doesn't add to an encyclopedic overview of the topic. Sourced neutrally-phrased details about this aspect could be added as prose where appropriate. GermanJoe (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)