Talk:ProFlowers/Archive 1

Archive 1

Initial comments

Whoever is writing this article is obviously looking to use Wikipedia to advertise their company, probably in conjunction with an SEO campaign.

Note: "Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products; or articles created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, may be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies."

Words like "fresh high-quality products", the "Brands" section, and the entire paragraph about "fresh cut flowers for everyday and special occasions such as Thanksgiving, Christmas, birthday and anniversary events" has no place on Wikipedia. Also, is there really a need for all those external links?

The community should decide whether this is a NN company or not--but please, get rid of the sales pitch!

Remove External Links Section

Dan 20:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC) I think that all the external links should be removed. The link to the ProFlowers site is already within the profile; there is a seperate page for Liberty Media, and the video of boxed flowers doesn't pertain to the article and is not referenced in the article.

ProFlowers video

Someone should really investigate what kind of pressure ProFlowers/Liberty Media put on the Bloomery Florist in Butler, PA to remove a video ad that demonstrated an actual example of receiving frozen ProFlowers flowers in the winter. In the matter of two days, the video was removed from YouTube and the reference was expunged from Wikipedia. I can only imagine the threats the Liberty Media legal department put on that little independent florist that put that video up. I smell a complete abuse of power and perhaps a violation of that florist's freedom of speech, but of course, I can't put that on the main entry. Still, it galls me enough to put it here. Signing as anonymous because I don't want them coming after me too! 166.217.217.251 (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Easy Savers

As witnessed by others and myself, 209.247.78.54 insists on removing the paragraph about Easy Savers, as well as other embarrasing info, and even some discussions on this page. This is a valid information which has its place in the litigation section. As noted above, "Wikipedia is not an advertising service", so please refrain from using it as a PR tool. --Wako Niko (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Update: the Proflowers Easy Saver issue has been filed as a class action lawsuit http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32635113/ 74.190.132.120 (talk) 14:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Shari's Berries does not use chocolate

the section on Shari's Berries is not correct, the company does not use chocolate, they use a candy coating instead (the coating does not meet teh FDA regs to be called chocolate.

Source: asked their customer service if milk/white/dark product contained cocoa butter (that is required by FDA to be called chocolate). Also reviewed their ingrd. list, no cocoa butter was listed.

68.219.15.21 (talk) 12:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

January and February 2009 comments

This is a completely biased attack on ProFlowers. The whole article should be deleted and started over. It really comes off as a local florist attack on ProFlowers.

It also is misleading to the point of inaccuracy. For example, the statement that ProFlowers "uses local florists" for same-day delivery leads one to believe that ProFlowers is deceptive about the use of local florists. Instead, same-day or late-ordering customers at ProFlowers are directed to Florist Express which states "florist-arranged deliveries for same-day delivery" and "Flowers hand-delivered by a florist." These statements are on the top of the first Florist Express page.

Again, the author(s) of the ProFlowers are using Wikipedia as a means to further their agenda, not give the unbiased truth about ProFlowers. For that, they should be ashamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.218.37 (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Missing history? Jared Polis

"In 1998, he launched ProFlowers.com, a Web company to sell flowers direct from growers to consumers; its parent company was sold to Liberty Media Corporation in 2006." http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/30/freshman.year.bios/index.html

Fraud Claim

70.61.199.67, that is not an acceptable post, personal views are not allowed on wikipedia and if that claim is true you should have no problem sourcing it. Any more edits like that could get you banned. Seareever (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Proflowers Video Rebuttal

To be fair - that is not a function of ProFlowers/Liberty Media - it's a function of the carrier who delivered the flowers. I worked at ProFlowers in the early days, and this was an occasional issue - the FedEx or UPS driver would leave flowers on the doorstep in freezing weather rather than leave a note, or leave them with a neighbor. This is outside of the guidelines that are given to the drivers regarding these deliveries, and indicate a driver who is not paying attention - not an issue with Proflowers. Brichardson2001 (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Litigation Section Relevancy?

I question why the litigation section is relevant? The litigation resulted in a settlement, and certain marketing changes were made. The litigation is not ongoing - and was such a small point, that I question what relevance it has today? This entire section reads as if posted by someone who had issues with Proflowers. I worked at Proflowers in the early days BEFORE them going public, and as I recall - the claim was that Proflowers was shipping "direct from the grower to you". In some instances this is absolutely true (some growers are located in the US). In others, they ship to a Proflowers owned warehouse first (because of customs issues - some flowers come from outside the US), and then directly from there to the customer. A subtle difference - one noteworthy enough to result in marketing changes, but not significant enough for anyone outside of a competitor to care.

In addition, the section makes a claim that "as of 2008, Proflowers is once again making a claim...", which appears to be an opinion. The reference attached to that claim is a reference to the joint press release between Proflowers and FTD dated 2006. The reference does not support the claim, and the claim should be removed.

The sentence in this section: Florist advocacy groups continue to take umbrage at ProFlowers' marketing which disparages the role of the local florist, particularly since ProFlowers itself uses local florists to fulfill its same-day, late next-day and Sunday delivery orders.

should be a clue as to the reason behind the original inclusion of this section. I find it telling that the article says very little about Proflowers and it's marketing position regarding "Direct from the Grower" and it's delivery model using FedEx and UPS, but has a section on litigation focused on that very model. Brichardson2001 (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate "source"

In the article source [1] points to a scam site where an OPINION is posted regarding Proflowers. This is not an appropriate use of a source. If the opinion is true, the original poster should be able to provide a VALID reference, and reference the claim itself in the article. In addition, this "source" does not support or source information for ANY claim or fact in the article. I call for removal of source [1].

I know I've posted three issues today - and I honestly have no loyalty towards Proflowers - I haven't worked for them in years. But this entire article appears to be an attempt to generate negative PR against the company, with no valid proof to back up the claims (even the references to litigation are quite mild - resulting in settlements, with Proflowers admitting no wrongdoing, not any fines being levied by the FTC, etc). This is NOT an example of a good WikiPedia article. This article should undergo a massive rework, or be deleted completely in it's current state. Brichardson2001 (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Proflowers Advertising Boycott of Rush Limbaugh

This section makes assertions not available from the listed references, including opinions. While the title is accurate, Sandra Fluke has not called herself a "liberal activist" as in the article, and hasn't been linked publicly to any other controversies. Sandra Fluke's "personal lifestyle choices" is inaccurate, as she has stated that she is not a prostitute and has no known record of such arrests or convictions. Fluke was not publicly demanding that the university fund her birth control costs, but was promoting that certain policies requiring all insurers to provide birth control coverage should be in place universally, including the Catholic university. The Obama Campaign didn't include Catholics, nor their leadership, as part of the "War on Women" in it's materials. The final sentence would need information to verify Proflowers was receiving "demands from the Obama campaign and feminist groups".

Using the term Boycott also implies "an expression of protest, usually for political reasons" or other consumer activism. There is no information about the reason for ProFlowers' withdrawal of their advertising from his shows that provides evidence thereof. PiercedRichard (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The section cited no sources whatsoever, so I have removed it. Unless sources referring to this boycott can be found in independent mainstream reliable sources, there is no justification for inclusion in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)