Talk:Salesforce

Article reads like an advertisement

This article still reads like an advertisment produced by Salesforce.com marketing. The first paragraph which should simply describe what this product is. Move the accolades to a section that includes criticism for a balanced lookTylerchill (talk) 22:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

This article reads like it was produced by a marketing firm (and it very likely was). It sounds more like a press release or the introduction to an annual report than a NPOV encyclopedia article. Therefore, I have added the advert tag. If you are knowledgeable enough about salesforce to edit this into a more formal, NPOV, and encyclopedic format (I am not), please do so. Kwertii 22:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The page edit history at http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Salesforce.com&action=history provides ample and obvious evidence that this page is the target of one or more ongoing Wikispam campaigns by marketing companies representing Salesforce and/or its addon app vendors. See e.g. the frequent anonymous insertion of blatantly POV accolades to the insertion of links like "". Marketing guys, you've been made. Wikipedia is not a billboard. Editors, be on guard. Kwertii 22:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ad cleanup

I've gotten rid of some advertising/marketese type stuff (apparently that's not the first time this has happened), but it could use some additional work on NPOV and less ad tone. I'll keep an eye on it as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone keeps adding a link to Sofia Works. They are a UK Consulting Partner for Salesforce.com and I do not think they are notable enough to be linked to. I assume Salesforce.com have many partners and the article cannot list them all. --Sleepyhead 13:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read below an extract from the Wiki guidelines on adding external links. This site contains relevant information about salesforce.com, and will aparently be further enhanced to provide users with more information about the software.

"What should be linked

Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/WP:External_Links) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.152.0.58 (talk) 10:45, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

It may have been changed (I can never figure out the history page), but as a user of SF, I think this looks pretty NPOV. There is no "this app is the best in the world and the other ones pale in comparison" type of things that I would consider NPOV. Citable sources are definitely needed, but at the risk of incensing others, I am going to remove the ad tag. Mechroneal 16:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello from salesforce.com

Hello folks, I manage social media at salesforce.com, and I officially represent them on Wikipedia. I am not new to Wikipedia, and I know, and will play by the rules. This article is sub-par, and I'd like to help in any way I can. In the immediate time frame, I can:

• clarify which partners are noteworthy and which are not
• provide guidelines on our brand names
• help correct factual inaccuracies with sources

In a slightly longer timeframe, I'd like to help improve the flow & content of this article.

- Kingsley2.com (talk) 00:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Kingsley, maybe you can succinctly explain what the salesforce.com product(s) is? I had to go to your website to get any idea at all. Even there, nearly every explanation of products and services is pitched using marketing language that is targeted for developers and programmers (along with the accompanying hype). Is there any way to get an explanation of what the product is (not the benefits of using it, etc.)? Stevenmitchell (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• Steve, I could probably help with this topic. I used to work there and then had my own business helping small businesses and nonprofits use the product. I had to spend a lot of time explaining what features meant, and which ones were feasible at what cost. Will try to get to it this weekend because it's kinda fun to help out and I'm trying to get up to speed on the wiki markup. Oakye —Preceding undated comment added 23:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC).

Salesforce name in body of the article

I propose that the first reference to Salesforce.com stay, and change all following references in the body of the article to Salesforce only, without the ".com" (which is how it's more commonly referred to in conversation). Any disagreements? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crysb (talk • contribs) 13:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd say usage is 50/50 in conversation. I do agree that the article needs to stop going back & forth. Just my $.02 Midlakewinter (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There actually is a difference. Salesforce.com is the company, and Salesforce (without .com) is the name of the web application. They do get mixed up sometimes, but that's the official difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.194.150 (talk) 02:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Salesforce.com is only used in financial documents, I guess. Otherwise both the company and the product are called Salesforce. It is better to standardize the article with Salesforce.Amart13 (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Outlook Integration (under Products and services)

Requesting comment on this language "This reinforces the view that Salesforce arbitrarily change features offered with no explanation." "The view" is particularly difficult to cite and seems POV to me. Additionally, this (if true) seems like a minor feature grievance and I'm not sure if it is relevant or valuable to article viewers. Is it proper to relocate to criticisms or remove this language? Midlakewinter (talk) 12:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be unsourced commentary, and from a cursory glance I didn't see any sourcing for the 'silent removal' comment either. Are there sources for either of these comments, or are they original research? In either case, the 'view' comment should most definitely be removed without an explicit source.

Unrelated to the RFC, the article seems to be a bit of a mess in general. I notice there was a comment in October last year above about the mix of Salesforce and Salesforce.com references. The company seems to refer to itself (as opposed to its products) on its website exclusively as 'salesforce.com' (with lowercase S where it doesn't appear at the beginning of a sentence), and this should be the way the company is referred to consistently throughout the article. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct re: salesforce.com. I hadn't noticed that. Will update for that & the 'view' comment. Thanks Midlakewinter (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Super Bowl XLV halftime show commercials

I recognized the Chatter commercials in the Super Bowl XLV halftime show and described their relations to the Black Eyed Peas and Will.i.am. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.8.42 (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Removing product info from Company entry

A lot of the entry's content is specific to salesforce.com's product and not the company itself. I would think it makes sense to vastly slim down that content. Using Hubspot#Products_and_services as a model. Any thoughts?Midlakewinter (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Where did the product information go? I came here looking for the article for the "product" that seems to be salesforce.com. There's clearly such a product, for example, SF has a manual for it here (28 megabyte, 3818 pages and so it may take a while to download). --Marc Kupper|talk 07:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

"Founded" Discrepancy

In the main text, it says "The Company was founded in March 1996..." yet in the box on the right it says 1999. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.31.4 (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I'd like to propose merging the Force.com article into Salesforce.com. Though Force.com is mentioned in the New York Times, this is not a sufficient reason to create a separate article about the product. The section on the product in Force.com is unsourced, so will benefit from the NYT article to verify it exists. Failing a merger, the Force.com article is ripe for a Articles for Deletion discussion IMO. Sionk (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think Force.com merits an article, and as the talk page indicates, it has been of most interest to Salesforce.com staff who wisely have refrained from editing the page. Leutha (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You both bring up good points and I agree that Force.com doesn't seem to be able to stand on its own. A merger with Salesforce.com would be a good move. Stesmo (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I think as long a a redirect from Force.com to Salesforce.com exits it would be beneficial. I used this content as a reference to verify Force.com was a website, platform related to Salesforce.com and that I wasn't being phished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.160.96.25 (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I support the merger. Content seems to be duplicated on both sides, among the confusing and overlapping product line. Its been a year since the merge was proposed, and so I'm being WP:BOLD and completing the merger. With the exception of 2 statements in the Release Cycles section, and 1 statement in the Lead section (data centers), all content has been included into Salesforce.com. Can someone with better knowledge of the Salesforce.com series of products please clean-up the list of services? -- Wonderfl ^(reply) 17:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Representation of product line

The article has a very confusing list of products/services offered by Salesforce Inc. I'm responsible for merging Force.com with Salesforce.com but yet I have only the most basic understanding of the overlapping terms, sales jargon and product suite titles. Not to mention all the acquisitions that were also re-branded and merged into the "Salseforce1 platform" (or whatever they call the overall platform).

Can someone with some knowledge of the product line please clean it up, while refraining from inserting meaningless statements such as "Sales Cloud" as the titles of the sections. I've renamed the sections to follow a single standard, which is the domain name. Thus Salesforce.com, Work.com and so on. Please stick to this system since it improves understanding of a very confusing product line. Please improve the sections requiring expansion (messages added into article itself). Any other changes may be suggested and/or implemented. -- Wonderfl ^(reply) 17:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 13 April 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Salesforce.com → Salesforce – Seems strange to have the company's URL as the title of the page. The company is called Salesforce or Salesforce Inc., not salesforce.com relisted--Mike Cline (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Kaladinrahl (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Obviously, the name should be used and not the web address. Vlādis Mānisqā (talk) 06:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC).
• Oppose "Salesforce" should redirect to Sales force -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 09:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: Better to move it to Salesforce Inc. (or leave it where it is) and redirect Salesforce to Sales force. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
• Move to Salesforce Inc. CookieMonster755 (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
• Relisting Comment - the official, legal name of this company is Salesforce.com, inc. Page 7 of 2015 Annual Report so the company URL is indeed part of its official name. Whether or not Salesforce is sufficient as a common name remains for this RM to determine, but Salesforce Inc. would be inaccurate. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • If their legal name (and their NYSE listing) includes the ".com" and they aren't more commonly referred to as "Salesforce Inc.", let's just leave the article where it is (e.g., see WP:NCCORP regarding omission of "Inc.") – but redirect Salesforce to Sales force (which I will do now). —BarrelProof (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The primary meaning of "Salesforce" is a sales force, not a website. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Salesforce 1

How else would one pronounce "salesforce 1"?108.225.17.141 (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Salesforce.com. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140110090251/http://work.com/blog/2011/09/introducing-bohdan-zabawskyj-rypples-new-vp-engineering/ to http://work.com/blog/2011/09/introducing-bohdan-zabawskyj-rypples-new-vp-engineering/
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/610yADEeP?url=http://www.readwriteweb.com/enterprise/2010/12/beyond-babel.php to http://www.readwriteweb.com/enterprise/2010/12/beyond-babel.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130710033813/http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/newsitem.asp?ID=59728 to http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/newsitem.asp?ID=59728

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Salesforce Lightning link

Hey, I'm not a regular editor, but I noticed that the Salesforce Lightning section links to a partner blog. Shouldn't it lead to the official Salesfoce site for it instead? https://www.salesforce.com/eu/campaign/lightning/

Markus.lautenbach (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Removing a blatantly promotional ref.

So called "case study". This ref, "Purkayastha, Debapratim and Chakraborty, Barnali (2020). "Corporate Culture and HR Practices at Salesforce.com, Inc.|Human Resource and Organization Behavior|Case Study|Case Studies". icmrindia.org. Retrieved June 14, 2020." Is total puff, to say the least. Reading the abstract of it (the rest is conveniently behind a paywall) is enough to tell that this is not something to base the corporate culture section on. I'll include the abstract below.

Founded in 1999, Salesforce began its journey as a company specializing in software as a service (SaaS). In 2020, it became a global leader in customer relationship management, or CRM, software. According to analysts, a strong corporate culture and HR practices were a huge driving force behind its continuous business success. The case discusses in detail Salesforce’s culture based on the concept of Ohana, a deep-rooted support system nurtured inside the company. In addition, the company’s culture emphasized certain core values, behaviors, and experiences. The case then sets out to describe how the company managed to make Salesforce a great place to work and maintained this position as it continued to grow. The case also explores the company’s HR practices. Salesforce’s focus on employee wellbeing is also explained in detail. The leaders at Salesforce believed that its culture fostered dialogue, collaboration, recognition, and a sense of family, and helped its employees drive the company’s purpose, vision, and impact. The case ends with a discussion on whether Salesforce’s unique culture could be preserved as it continued to grow.

Who are these mysterious "analysts"? Lots of ambiguous language. Written like a scientific study, but it's a load of puff.

Goodbye to this ref, and anything it backs up, because the stuff it does, is basically paraphrased from it. The Alternate Mako (talk) 13:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Removed the puff reference and the puff it propped up. Also found an issue with the only other ref in the "positive" lead of this section. Not looking good here. The Alternate Mako (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit Request

Hello! I’m Anna. I work for Salesforce. I have some edits to request for this article. I’ve tried to make them as readable as possible. Please let me know if I could improve the way I make requests or if you have any questions! I look forward to working with the Wikipedia community on improving this article!

I have 14 requests.

1. In the last sentence of the first paragraph, please add “ecommerce” and “collaboration” to the list of focuses: “sales, customer service, marketing automation, ecommerce, analytics, collaboration, and application development.” These are supported later in the article.

   Partially implemented Added e-commerce per the Demandware acquisition. I am guessing you meant GoInstant the browser collaboration startup for the collaboration focus, but I don't know what that means, as just collaboration means so many things, and we don't have a browser collaboration article to explain it. --GRuban (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

2. In the History section, please improve grammar and readability by changing “tagline ‘the end of software’” to “end of software tagline and marketing campaign”

    Done --GRuban (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

3. Also in the History section, please remove sources [27] and [28], which are opinion pieces, as well as the sentence: “Journalists covering the acquisition emphasized the price Salesforce paid for Slack, which is a 54% premium compared to Slack's market value, as too high of a premium for the company, with views varying from the premium being too concerning for investors to Salesforce playing the long game.” This sentence is written vaguely and cherry-picks opinions from two op-eds.

    Not done. True, these sources are opinion pieces, yet, there isn't really a way to write that a company overpaid for another company without it being an opinion. We've got an article about Peter Cohan, the first author, and he seems to be the author of a large number of business books from major publishing houses. We don't have articles about No Jitter or Focus Finance, so I replaced them with articles from TechCrunch and The Motley Fool. Note that the Fool article disagrees with what it calls "the chatter", but it does confirm "What that chatter says is that obviously, Salesforce must be overpaying for Slack.". --GRuban (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

4. At the end of the History section, please add back “On 5 April 2022, Salesforce announced a 5 year partnership with Formula One” as well as its source. It was removed without explanation, although it is notable.

    Not done@InvadingInvader: That was removed in this edit, and I'll ask the editor who made it for their reasoning. It was not obviously a mistake. --GRuban (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

   Not in support of the Formula One inclusion in history. Maybe if a Marketing and Sponsorships section can meet WP:DUE, then it would be a bit more acceptable. But not at all in History. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

5. Please replace the Salesforce Platform section with the following text for accuracy and readability purposes: “The Salesforce Platform provides developer tools to build customer applications, integrations with other technology applications, and Salesforce’s suite of automation and AI capabilities. In 2021, Salesforce released Dynamic Interactions, a group of low-code tools for app development, which let customers automate complex tasks. Salesforce Platform includes security and governance to every activity across all Salesforce Clouds. The Platform connects the Customer 360 with MuleSoft, Slack, Tableau, and other technologies.”
6. Between the AppExchange and Trailhead sections, please add a new “Customer 360” section with the following text: “In 2018, Salesforce introduced Customer 360, a platform that integrates Salesforce products into one place for customers. Using technology gained from the MuleSoft acquisition earlier in 2018, the platform integrated customer data across Salesforce applications. In 2021, Salesforce integrated Slack into Customer 360, allowing companies to resolve customer issues faster and teams to collaborate across departments within an organization.”
7. Please update the Operations section so that the second sentence says “Salesforce has 110 offices, including Hong Kong ,Israel, and Sydney]” and please add that “The Dow Jones Industrial Average added Salesforce to the index in August 2019.[6]”

    Done HouseBlaster^talk 22:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

8. Please update the Culture section with the following information:
   1. In 2016, Salesforce completed a salary audit of its 17,000 employees, spending $3 million to eliminate unexplained gaps in pay. The company annually audits salaries for pay equity, spending more than $22 million since 2016.
   2. In 2021, Salesforce announced a “Work from Anywhere” policy, which gave employees the option to work fully remote, partially remote, or in-office.
   3. In November 2021, Salesforce expanded existing gender affirmation coverage from its trans and nonbinary U.S. employees to trans and nonbinary employees all over the world. The coverage includes a $40,000 reimbursement for gender affirming treatments, four weeks of paid leave following such treatments, a $1,000 legal name and gender change reimbursement, and a $500 wardrobe reimbursement.
   4. In April 2022, Salesforce extended protections from California’s “Silenced No More Act” to its employees across the United States, giving employees more power to speak out against harassment and discrimination throughout the company.
9. In the Finances section, please update the paragraph as follows: “For the fiscal year 2022, Salesforce reported revenue of US$26.49 billion, an increase of 25% year-over-year and 24% in constant currency. Salesforce ranked 126 on the 2022 Fortune 500 list of the largest United States companies by revenue. And please remove the old outdated sources for that text.

    Done HouseBlaster^talk 22:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

10. Also in the Finances section, please remove the unsourced table.

     Not done: there is a source for the table (next to "Year"). HouseBlaster^talk 22:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

11. In the 2016 - Present section, please improve grammar and readability by changing “From 2019 to 2021 saw” to “2019 to 2021 saw”

     Partly done: I changed it to "Between 2019 and 2021, Salesforce made...". HouseBlaster^talk 22:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

12. In the Subject to a Phishing Attack section, please improve grammar and readability by changing “Salesforce has stated that” to “Salesforce stated that”

     Done HouseBlaster^talk 22:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

13. In the Disability Discrimination Lawsuit section, please remove the sentence “at a time when the firm has been publicly challenged about its commitment to equality.” This is not backed up by a notable source.

     Partly done I have added a {{citation needed}} tag. HouseBlaster^talk 22:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

14. In the Salesforce Ventures section, please fix the typo of “SVF” to the correct “SFV”

     Done HouseBlaster^talk 22:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Annasf3986 (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi--I fixed No. 14 and No. 12.

Re: No. 10, this is the source? https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/CRM/salesforce/financial-statements Sawitontwitter (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Annasf3986 Need any help on these? What's left to be done? --FeldBum (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

References

September 2023 Edit

@Ohnoitsjamie I have updated the content and please approve, if it is not under the WP policy . Rakish (talk) 03:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Missing Evergage acquisition

I tried to add the 2020 Evergage acquisition but I can't figure out the markup to include it. If someone wants to add it...?

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/salesforce-acquires-evergage-will-use-personalization-to-enhance-customer-data-and-deliver-more-relevant-experiences-301000691.html Nikjft (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

For info: Salesforce involvement with other companies' business activities

One example of recent note is Salesforce involvement with ATT billing, where ATT has its own system via such addresses as account.att-mail.com, using established ATT email addresses, but emails are being now sent to non-ATT email addresses purporting to be from ATT.com with IP addresses that originate within Salesforce in San Francisco, and additional external companies such as Oath Holdings Inc. I won't suggest that this is indicative of significant involvement by Salesforce in other national business entities of which consumers might not be aware. Neither do I suggest that this suggests that there is any relevance to recent revelations that a very extensive amount of ATT customer data was compromised and accessed without authorization.

I'm unsure how to represent this within the article given that Salesforce personnel continue to be explicitly involved with it, so leave it here for others to weigh and consider. 2600:1700:EA01:1090:10DF:7BAE:D6AD:7514 (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)