Jump to content

Talk:Debenhams

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former names

[edit]

Debenhams was not formerly Debenham and Freebody. It was formerly Marshall and Snelgrove on Oxford Street.

Marshall and Snelgrove / Debenhams is on Oxford Street, and Debenham & Freebody was on Wigmore Street. Marshall & Snelgrove bought Debenham & Freebody at some point - there were tunnels and whatnot between the stores that disappeared when Marshall & Snelgrove / Debenhams was rebuilt in the early 1970s. I think the name was changed roughly the same time.

Debenham & Freebody was much more upmarket that Marshall & Snelgrove/Debenhams and closed getting on for thirty years ago.

Ranbys of Derby was also incorporated in the mid/late 70s http://derbyshire-peakdistrict-co-uk.leia.parcomweb.net/derbyheritagewalk2c.htm 217.36.18.129 (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of former locations

[edit]

The removal of former locations of branches by Mark83 should have been made an area of discussion before action. The wholesale deletion of correct factual information is unacceptable in my opinion. The former locations of stores is relevant not only in terms of the company's history but as part of the local commercial and social history particular to each of the locations to which the article is linked.

AndrewSE19

Agreed - and there is an enormous West Midlands perspective in the branches. Also the section which has former names is very incomplete (i.e. Canterbury used to be Lefevres) and not completely accurate, i.e. Crawley was originally going to be let by Owen Owen but that never actually happened. Also agree with Knorad that the whole style of the article is awful. - Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.240.50 (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the above - I hadn't noticed that both Allders and Roches are missing that added 16 stores - Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.240.50 (talk) 07:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section on "Recent financial problems and profit warning" is appalling. It needs to be purged to about a quarter of its current size and completely rewritten. It reads like it has been lifted out of the editorial page in a business magazine. - Konrad

Complete rewrite

[edit]

I propose completely re-writing this article in the same style as other FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 articles with a properly referenced history section, a factual and balanced section on operations which does not read like an advert and then a summary of where the stores are by region and by country. The number of tags suggests that this is currently one of the most unsatisfactory articles on Wikipedia. Comments welcome Dormskirk (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now completed Dormskirk (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Company Structure

[edit]

An Anon IP editor has been making widespread changes throughout Wikipedia along the lines of inserting "Republic of Ireland" and "Northern Ireland" into articles. The type of editting is connected to an ongoing ArbCom process. This article was originally structured to reflect the corporate structure - please discuss changes first. --HighKing (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Debenhams/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This might be B-class if it did not have the completely unnecessary lists of locations. WP:NOT a directory. Daniel Case 22:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 22:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 13:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Debenhams. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 19:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Debenhams. 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:

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) 16:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Table of stores and locations

[edit]

I added to the table of branches last night, without adding references. I'm sorry I failed to add the references at the time. I do have these references and intended to complete these today. Can you please reinstate the table if possible. Thank you. AndrewSE19 (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my view the table should not be reinstated unless it can be properly sourced in its entirety. There was extensive unsourced information before you added to it and unless you can source the whole table then I don't believe it should be reinstated. But if you can source the whole thing...then great. Dormskirk (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your reply. I have two different references, both in paper print form. One was published by 'Debenhams Quality Control Department' in November 1969 and lists the names of Debenhams stores and their addresses at that date. I think this gives a clear snapshot of the department stores which traded under the banner 'a Debenham store' at that date. My second source is the book 'Fine Silks and Oak Counters: A History of Debenhams Ltd 1778-1978', published 1978, which details the names and locations of the many Debenhams branches over the years. I feel there is a need for a recent source of the details of the branches which remained at the time of the sale of the Debenhams brand and website this year and an expanded table or list of these stores within the article. When I have the time to add the references, in full, I will reinstate a table or list. It seems to take me so long to write. AndrewSE19 (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK. That sounds like a plan. Many thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Future

[edit]

I'm not that comfortable with the lead at the moment, as it seems to be mixing the former company that is in liquidation with the new online operator. The lead at time of writing is "Debenhams is a British online retailer which previously operated a series of department stores in the British Isles and Denmark." Yes, it is now a British online retailer, but that is unconnected to the department stores. The website is operated by a distinctly separate company owned by Boohoo and the lead sounds like they also operated the stores. What do others think about this?

My original thoughts were to keep the article focused on the previous department store business, with the current mentions of the online future under Boohoo, as I feel it won't be particularly noteworthy as an online brand. Cloudbound (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly fork time! Agree that this page should be about the company Debenhams. The brand is just keeping the name alive Davidstewartharvey (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose establishing a fork at this time: it needs a lot more material about the new online operation to justify that, in my opinion. Dormskirk (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now we're a few months in and a single store has opened, would it be a good idea to split the Boohoo ownership off as Debenhams.com? Cloudbound (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, as it looks like BooHhoo are making a real go for it.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my comments above, I would not have a problem with this, if enough material can be found to justify splitting. Dormskirk (talk) 10:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Products and Services

[edit]

This section looks as if this section began as a description of what services the shops provided, written at a time when the shops were open. It was right that when the shops closed the paragraph be converted into the past tense. Now the shops recede into history is all the information necessary or of interest? Some of it obviously is but for instance do we need all the services or all of the brand names. At the time some of those even ought to have been taken out as being advertising. My own view is that the decline of department stores is partly due to the concession system which made like items (eg trousers or shirts) more difficult to find as they were spread out all over the shop rather than being in one place. If any published source agrees with me this could perhaps be added. More likely the reasons for introducing the concession system is probably published spomewhere and could be used. Spinney Hill (talk) 09:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for decline and disclosure

[edit]

A new section relating to this might be useful if the sources are there specifically relating to Debenhams would be useful. I don't have the sources for this I am afraid. Were the wrong goods sold? Did Debenhams neglect their core market? Was there under investment? Was their advertising inadequate? Should they have concentrated their efforts on stores in towns where their rivals did not exist or had failed? Spinney Hill (talk) 09:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem for Debenhams was not one particular reason. Although they had the largest number of stores, they actually made smaller profits than smaller rival John Lewis. If you visited many of yhe Provincial Stores, like Banbury, it had not been updated since the 90s (it was like a time warp). Also, what had helped the store grow, buying rivals and selling the property off to companies like British Land to reinvest, came back to bite them back when those favourable rent deals came to an end. They didn't reinvent themselves when tastes changed, the last time was Designer's at Debenhams, which was a success but they stagnated and didn't continue to evolve. Another issue was the constant Blue Cross Sales, which meant customers would hold back buying waiting for the sale to arrive. Instead of pricing competitively they were hiked up to high. A perfect example was toiletries which were about 15 to 20% dearer than Boots, who are normally dearer than everyone else! However I don't think there is many or any articles that discuss how it collapsed (except for Drapers but that's paid fire wall). However within the next few years we will have a detailed breakdown in print.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Norwich stores

[edit]

I have recently been revisiting the department stores of Norwich: Buntings, Garlands, Curl Brothers and Chamberlins. This was because i found that the Drapery Trust owned company, Ipswich department store Footman, Pretty & Co held a controlling interest in Curl Brothers. When i created this page, this information wasn't available (back in 2014). I have now found that Chamberlins had a controlling interest in Buntings, which were both purchased by Debenhams in 1949. Buntings had moved next to Garlands after the bombing of their store, which was also owned by Debenhams (not found precise date of purchase but was prior to 1949), and pictures on pinterest show the building with Buntings there and then without the store (Garlands name in its place). Bearmans guide in 1968 shows Curl and Chamberlins wholesale businesses had been merged, but I cannot find evidence of what happened to Buntings (only evidence is a recollection of a son of a former staff member). I can also not find evidence of Chamberlins store fate. Local historians list it as 1950s becoming Marshall & Snelgrove, but i cannot find any prood. Pictures of the market place still show Chamberlins during 50s, and 60s pictures (dated late 60s) show Tesco. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

just added store list from 1956 Investor article to the Debenhams page. In it Chamberlins does not exist as a store, just a wholesaler, but there is 12 branches of Marshall & Snelgrove so it might be right, or the store was run by Marshall & Snelgrove under the original name due to customer goodwill.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the interesting list you added from Investors Chronicle 1956, a great snapshot of Debenhams stores at the time. I have not heard of an 'N Dudley' before. I've been trawling the net for information but so far drawn a blank. Do you have any thoughts on where this store was? Thanks for any ideas you can share. AndrewSE19 (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AndrewSE19 I think its a misspelling of Z Dudley in Kingsland Road, Dalston. That was part of Drapery Trust.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks David. As Z Dudley is listed separately I've assumed its a different store but it could well be an error in the source material. AndrewSE19 (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amount of Employees.

[edit]

Hello, readers. Now that the company is Defunct does the company still have any employees and do we update the amount of employees figure to show that? Crazyattaker1 (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The company went into liquidation in December 2020 so the number of employees retained by the liquidator is likely to be minimal by now. However, it is probably more useful to the reader to show the number of employees before the company went into liquidation. Dormskirk (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dormskirk Alright thanks. I didn't want to change the amount until somebody else says I should. Crazyattaker1 (talk) 08:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Debenhams&oldid=1206910205"