Talk:Market of Choice/Archive 1

Archive 1

Bias?

Parts of this article sound somewhat biased in favor of Market of Choice's policies, particularly this paragraph:

"The Market of Choice seems to have created a perfect blend of management strategies. They are aware that by giving employees autonomy, they will be effective when collaborating as a team. When employees feel that their work is valued by management, and they receive positive reinforcement in terms of promotions and increased responsibility, operational performance will be increased while keeping the commitment to quality central."

--Penguinonice4 00:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality (or lack thereof)

I'd like to amplify Penguinonice4's observation that "Parts of this article sound somewhat biased in favor of Market of Choice's policies."
Penguinonice4 has put it mildly. This article is written from such a consistently pro-management point of view that I would be flabergasted if the author was not an investor in MoC, part of MoC management, or directed by the aforementioned parties.

My favorite selection is this:
"Another reason these incentives serve as a direct benefit to Market of Choice is the fact that the company has tremendous appeal in the labor market, giving it a competitive advantage in hiring valuable and skilled employees. This allows the company to save money in management-related costs because superior employees need less direction and can be afforded more responsibility. Also, Market of Choice does not have to bargain with unions, simply because its employees are satisfied and have little interest in organizing a union. [emphasis my own]"

Other examples are easily found. While this type of writing may be acceptable for business proposals, it is an egregious abuse of the wikipedia system. As a I assure readers that this is not a consensus opinion on MoC policy in my community. I encourage knowledeable persons to edit this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deleriamour (talk • contribs) 04:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

An employee's perspective

February, 2007

I am glad someone saw through this article. I am a current MOC employee and I can tell you that this representation is a joke. Honestly, the employees are not paid well unless they become part of the 'family business.' A family that is highly critical, conservative and outright pompous. Employees and management (especially management members among one another) are completely disrespectful of the customers whom they trash in the break room after only a 2 minute interaction, if that.The managers are often the accepted close friends or family of the owner and are a very elitist bunch. Of course not all employees are this way. Mainly, from my experience, it is the management and lifers of the company. The company may carry organics and 'natural' foods, but on the whole the stores are selling you the idea of the food and the market you shop at, not always good foods...... And as a side note to consumers: many foods are touted as 'natural' but are far from it, often still containing high fructose corn syrup, 'natural'/'artificial' flavorings, preservatives, nitrates etc...... To be fair, the produce and bulk sections are nicely done, often with good deals, and the specialties like wines and cheeses offer good deals and hard-to-find selections here and there. But sections like the deli and bakery are outright rip-offs often marking products up so that the customer pays double or -as often is the case- more. Remember, you are paying not only for the physical food, but for the presentation of it and the labor to get it for you. As far as employee treatment goes, the main body of management and the actual laborers are detached- employees are names on the payroll. And there is an attendance system similar to the 'three strikes and you're out' approach that show little consideration towards the employees' circumstances. I swear the inspiration for this 'occurance' system came straight from some grade school's tardy policy. However, it should also be said that this company has exceptional health care benefits for full-time employees. But it should also be said that many employees are kept at just a few hours below full-time to deny them of the benefits. However, these are the only benefits and employees receive no discount, no matter their hours or years on the job. And although some foods are given to Food for Lane County the company is on the whole very wasteful. Additionally, there is a sexist protocol in place that requires men and woman to have different standards in appearance. As an employee my review may be a bit biased- but, it is informed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.21.44.38 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-11 01:56:44 (UTC)

Marketing Misrepresentation

This article is plagiarism directly from the company's own website. and should be removed or completely rewritten from an unbiased source. as it serves little value then to further the company's attempt to control it's brand perception. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by N750il (talk • contribs) 2007-02-20T00:11:36 (UTC)

I searched for a few phrases, but didn't find a match other than from this article. Can you give some examples? —EncMstr 21:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Article in general

First, this is probably going to be a AfD article as four stores is hardly notable. But, if those editing can prove notability through properly cited and sourced information coming from third parties, then the article would survive Afd. However, besides the notability policy, please also read the following policies as well: WP:COI (I'm not saying the editor is biased or does work/own the company but it seems likely), WP:MOS, WP:CITE, and then also to see what should be in an article about a company you can view a FAC status article here: Microsoft. For instance the info on McDonalds is not relevant, and is only staying since it is the only sourced info in the article. Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions.Aboutmovies 06:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice work! —EncMstr 21:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Much better--the person who added most of that stuff says he is marketing student--class project perhaps? I took out the McD's info--it no longer made sense in context. BTW, would anyone object if I archive the stuff that on this page that isn't directly related to improving the article? This isn't really the place for a product review. (Full disclosure: I used to shop there, but other than that I don't have a strong feeling about the place pro or con.) Katr67 06:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to archive. I only left the McD's because I didn't want someone yelling at me for removing sourced content, otherwise it would have gone as being irrelevant to MOC. Aboutmovies 21:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Cited

This article is now 100% cited. --76.105.154.250 (talk) 05:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Multiple issues including notability

The content sounds like advertising and I highly doubt the Wikipedia needs it. --2601:1C0:CB01:2660:C3F:46ED:C254:50EF (talk) 05:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed logo update

The logo on the page is an outdated version. We would like to update it since Google is using Wikipedia as the source of the logo when you search from the company. The new logo is reflected at the top of the Market of Choice website.[1] Dturell (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done The code on that website made that much harder than it should've been. As an fyi, Wikipedia isn't responsible for where Google gets its info. Grayfell (talk) 07:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)