Jump to content

Talk:Eaton's

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.26.45.111 (talk) at 00:21, 22 June 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Untitled

I'm from St. Marys. The first store was in Kirkton, just outside St. Marys!

Untitled

My recollection is that the eatons brand wasn't created by Sears, but was invented by Eaton's just prior to its complete collapse, as an attempt to attract younger, hipper shoppers to its stores. Am I out to lunch on this? - Juliand

  • You are not out to lunch. The only difference in "eatons", owned by Sears Canada and "eaton's", owned by the family was the apostrophe, and the lack of major appliances. The lower case "e", which by the way, some people claimed T the symbol for the drug ecstacy and the aubergine colour of the lettering was Eaton's attempt at modernization that did not catch on with a buying public that was flocking to the discounters and specialty retailers in the 'burbs. Without the hard goods and furniture, the large department stores were left trying to fill the square footage with goods of the type that Holt Renfrew and Co. sells. They blew it with over-expansion in the 70's and early 80's. Building full-line department stores and mini Toronto Eaton Centres in places like downton Guelph was sheer folly. They didn't concentrate enough on prime sites such as the amazing Yorkdale in Toronto or even Polo Park in Winnipeg. Lets face it. The later Eaton boys just didn't have the vision to preserve their place in some of the best retail locations in all of Canada. I just have too much stuff in my brain. - Dale
  • The "e" logo (lower case "e" in a circle) was something that Eaton's came up with before its bankruptcy in 1999 (decades earlier, Eaton's had used a capital "E" in a diamond). It's one of the few marketing/branding elements that Sears kept. The lower case "eatons" name was all Sears Canada; Eaton's was still using "Eaton's" (with a capital E and an apostrophe) right up until the end. Skeezix1000 13:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great to see that this article has been expanded so much. Bravo.

Too Polite

I think the person who started this is a bit too polite and one sided.

"A rapidly changing economic and retail environment in the late 20th century proved difficult for Eaton’s, and the chain went bankrupt in 1999"

How about "someone squandered great grand dad, and grand dad's empire". Sure the times were changing and there was a recession (there is a recession every 10 -15 years), but a few key people had their heads in their asses and allowed a over 100 year old national brand go into bankruptcy.

Yes my friends, this puppy, if not already, should be in every Canadian Business, Business Management and History Book. What a shame.

The buyout and supposed rebranding was a very lazy attempt by Sears Canada to appease Torontonians (Eaton Centre), and Canadians. They did not put any real effort into it, and converted everything to Sears within a year and a half. In the end it was really about bargain basement price or "bankruptcy" sale as some customers know it by. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.55.13.207 (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Small 'e'/Aubergine

The Small E and Aubergine Ad were not a movement of Sears relaunch as far as I can recollect. That was part of Eaton's failed attempt to relaunch the store brand following their brankruptcy. If you note the end of the Aubergine ad it mentions Nov 25. Sears' relaunch completely missed the holiday season which is one of the reasons it failed. Rendar 07:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The aubergine thing was part of the Sears relaunch. The relaunch, by the way, did not miss the Christmas season entirely, but a number of retail experts were of the opinion that an end-of-November opening was too late within the season. The small "e" was initiated by Eaton's itself, before its final bankruptcy, but Sears made more prominent use of it. Skeezix1000 12:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're completely right. I got thinking and started doing some archival digging in newspapers and what not. I believe it was the small e that confused me. As you said, that was originally started by Eaton's. However, I do recall something being off from the Holidays. It could have been the arrival of my first new Eaton's catalogue, which came some time in February. I also dealt with this all from a prairie perspective (Red Deer...ergo Calgary store) so the timing could have been completely different from the main centres of Toronto/Montreal. In the end it was probably the complete lack of change in most of the stores that killed it. A pity they didn't reuse the Kingway Eaton's in Edmonton which had been one of Eaton's prototype stores and was absolutely gorgeous. 68.148.112.210 06:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I worked at Eaton's in Vancouver from 1995 - '98 I remember a manager screening an eaton's (small 'e') aubergine ad for us in the lunch room. I left in December of '98, so this would have been in the autumn of that year. I remember the ad had the circle-e logo.154.5.28.31 04:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With some more work and peer review, I could see this article being a likely FA candidate in the near future. --Madchester 10:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article ought to be nominated, it's concise and well-written.

As member of Eaton's staff up to 1998, I remember being told of the above-The-Bay/below-Holt-Renfrew positioning strategy and screenings of the eaton's aubergine ads at managers' meetings - well before the Sears acquisition. I've flagged claims to the contrary in this section with a citation request. If nothing happens in the next while, I'll either remove the text or move it up to the section that describes the company's decline. Thoughts? Cap'n Crust (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone do something about that awful-looking logo? It looks like it was slapped together in MS Paint (which it might've been). ShadowMan1od 17:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Lady Flora McCrae Eaton" - sorry, no

The style "Lady" with a first name (as in Lady Flora) is only ever used to refer to the daughter of a duke, marquess, or earl. It's never, never used (at least not correctly) to refer to the wife of a knight. She would be simply called "Lady Eaton" and nothing else. The first name is not used with the style. The way I've left it is the normal way it's written both legally and socially. "Lady Flora" is just plain wrong and smacks of the woman putting on airs.

In the same way, Barbara Amiel calling herself "Lady Barbara" is wrong. This however is her own fault for trying to sound more posh than she really is. Let's not follow her bad example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.68.238 (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Heart Broken"

As an American, I've only shopped at Eatons twice, in the 1980's. It was the only store I ever found with good quality leather gloves and a hat that fit me. As testament to the quality of the goods I purchased, they have worn out just recently (2008) and I was hoping to go back to Eatons to replace them on my third visit to Canada. A darn shame!

Eaton's in Quebec (section)

User:70.26.45.111 has been inserting some text into the article about Eaton's in Quebec in the 1970s and the effect of Quebec's language laws (i.e. the removal of the apostrophe in the Eaton's name in that province). User:Apple2gs has reverted the changes. I have no opinion on the content itself (other than I doubt the correctness of one element of it, which I shall explain below), and whether it should be included or not, but I will say this:

  • 70.26.45.111 was justified in making his initial bold edits to the article, and Apple2gs was equally justified in reverting changes with which he disagreed.
  • 70.26.45.111 and Apple2gs subsequently began reverting one another. I have reverted the article to how it stood before 70.26.45.111's edits. His/her edits have been challenged, and as per WP:CON and WP:BRD, if 70.26.45.111 still wants to implement the changes (s)he should seek consensus for the changes here on the talk page. Further reverts are not appropriate and could lead to a block.
  • I wish both contributors would be more careful in how they interacted with one another. Comments like "Back again to cause trouble, are we?" and "No editorializing like you are so fond of" are unnecessary and contrary to Wikipedia policy. I ask that both editors have regard to WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL as they discuss this further.

Cheers. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to initiate the discussion, I believe one of 70.26.45.111's insertions may be incorrect. The removal of the apostrophe from the name Eaton's in Quebec was not directly caused by Bill 101/178. While Quebec's language legislation controlled ads, billboards, wording on signage, it did not affect trademarks such as Eaton's. Trademarks, and usage thereof, are strictly within federal jurisdiction. So while many chains may have changed their trademarked names in Quebec, it was a business decision. The Bay, for example, switched most, but not all, signs to "La Baie". To this day, some chains maintain usage of their English trademarked names in Quebec (even in face of some controversy) -- Home Depot, Second Cup, etc. And, as an aside, Eaton's did not remove "Eaton's" from all advertising in the province -- they continued to refer to the store with the apostrophe in ads in the Montreal Gazette, on tv ads on English-language tv stations, etc.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All I have done is correct the article so that it includes exactly what happened, in both the text and footnote. Eaton's was in no way intimidated or pressured into making the changes to their signage and ads. All they were doing, like many other business in Quebec at the time was FOLLOWING the law as enacted by the Assembly Nationale. Debate about the law and how it was received by the general public is for another article. I am at a loss to see how the facts are not sufficient in this or any other case on wikipedia. There is no reference or citation for the previous unsupportable assertions. Eaton's business decisions were made dispassionately, with their bottom line always first and foremost (and they changed their signage policy without a iota of fanfare or publicity.) In the interests of veracity, I'll revert the article back to the intellectually honest status.70.26.45.111 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not revert the article again. You need to obtain consensus to make these changes.

You have also not responded to the issues I have raised with some of your proposed content. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong, all business had to comply with this:

Sections 1, 58, 69, 89, 205, 206, 207 and 208 of the Charter of the French Language, R.S.Q., c. C‑11, provide:

1. French is the official language of Québec.

58. Public signs and posters and commercial advertising shall be solely in the official language.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the cases and under the conditions or circumstances prescribed by regulation of the Office de la langue française, public signs and posters and commercial advertising may be both in French and in another language or solely in another language.

69. Subject to section 68, only the French version of a firm name may be used in Québec.

89. Where this act does not require the use of the official language exclusively, the official language and another language may be used together.

205. Every person who contravenes a provision of this act other than section 136 or of a regulation made under this act by the Gouvernement or by the Office de la langue française is guilty of an offence and liable, in addition to costs,

a) for each offence, to a fine of $30 to $575 in the case of a natural person, and of $60 to $1150 in the case of an artificial person. b) for any subsequent offence within two years of a first offence, to a fine of $60 to $1150 in the case of a natural person, and of $575 to $5750 in the case of an artificial person.

There was nothing about trademarks, indeed, if there was you wouldn't have seen hundreds of taped and painted out apostrophes in Montreal at the time (where I grew up and lived.) Indeed, many companies that had names that read as text (National Cheese Co. Ltd. to La Cie de fromage nationale Ltée) had to change their names fully, and these were most certainly trademarked, which is why the case went to the Supreme Court. And this makes the current situation, where many newer multinationals retain their full name in English, stunningly hypocritical, but I guess times change.70.26.45.111 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it not hypocritical, but you are still wrong in your assertion. Section 69 of Bill 101 made only the French version of a company name legal and usable in Quebec. The Supreme Court decision of December 1988 (I stand corrected, I mix them up ...) determined this was unconstitutional (re: Canadian Charter of Right.) Bill 178 instituted new signage restrictions, which maintained the prohibition on English outside signage (including signage using a company's trademarked name) but repealed Section 69 that made it illegal to have a company name in a language other than French. And, as we know, the Liberal gov't promptly Section 33'd this with "notwithstanding."

So, what do you say to this ... Just the facts, ma'am. (This certainly disproves the unfounded assertion that Eaton's was intimidated or pressured, so I as I have clearly edited and have proven, all they were doing was FOLLOWING the law of the day.)70.26.45.111 (talk)

That's helpful, but I am not sure that what you have provided is the full answer. It doesn't explain how many companies continued to use trademarked English names throughout this period, long before Bill 178. I stand to be corrected. But from a consensus perspective, I can say on this one piece I am not convinced as to its accuracy. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, lots of companies were forced to change after 1978, the OLF made sure of that, and it took a decade to get a SCC ruling. My favourite, and my favourite bar in NDG, was Ma's, which I only ever knew as Maz ... figure why they changed the name? It was only after the Liberal gov't came to power that the OLF really started to lighten up, and remained so even after Lucien Bouchard took power, as he really was a bit of a softy (and had his eyes on the real prize ... which he almost got.) I couldn't disagree more, the 78 to 85 decade was the period of the most strenuous enforcement of Bill 101. Do you have evidence?70.26.45.111 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, you remain unconvinced of what? The accuracy of my facts? They are taken from the SCC ruling in Ford v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712, December 15, 1988. How much fuller can my argument be? I have stated the law and the amended law. Eaton's was following the law. The OLF enforced the law. The SSJB made sure of this.

Certainly all of this counts for something ... tho this is wikipedia, the cyber-space truth forgot. Nothing here surprises me. 70.26.45.111 (talk)

"I'm sorry, you remain unconvinced of what? The accuracy of my facts?" Wow. I again refer you again to WP:CIVIL. I started to type a response about how Ford does not deal with trademarks and why the clauses you've cut-and-paste here are not necessarily as conclusive as you think they are, but it is just too exhausting trying to have an adult discussion when the other person thinks snark is a good substitute for consensus-building. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh cry me a flipping river! What is it with the "cult of consensus" on wikipedia. It seem to be a short hand for rule of mediocrity. Consensus-building is no excuse for sloppy research and inaccuracies. What in the world does Ford have to do with Eaton's? And how can THE LAW not be conclusive ... seriously, what in the world can I be missing? Seriously, fire with both broadsides! Let me know why my arguments isn't 99.9% better than what the previous editor posted.70.26.45.111 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before investing anymore time in this debate, I suggest you review this anonymous user's Talk page, in particular his incivility towards others and complete disregard and disrespect for Wikipedia rules and guidelines. After dealing with his continued harassment for 4 and a half years, it's been made quite clear his presence on Wikipedia is just to incite mischief and provoke contributors; myself in particular.
As for "THE LAW" in Quebec, it should be pointed out the United Nations has officially denounced it, stating Quebec laws are in violation of breaking international covenant on civil and political rights, and violate basic human rights and freedoms.
Furthermore, I am of the opinion the entire section "Eaton's in Quebec" should be removed. The information contained in that small section is all political in nature and bares no relevance to the former department store. The information contained is simply: 1) Eaton's catalog, staff and signage were bilingual (French and English). 2) Quebec separatist spread myths to make the store a scape goat. 3) It lost its apostrophe 'S in the 70s. None of these facts are unique, they could be seen applied to everything in this province. I suggest preserving "In 1910 Eaton's produced its first French catalogue" by merging it into the "The Eaton's Catalogue" section. Don't see the value in any of the other text or having any historical significance. Please share your thoughts. --Apple2gs (talk) 07:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as always, you started this. You couldn't contain your urge to add your own opinion (intimidate, pressure) and add more verbiage when the simple truth of the matter was Eaton's was being a good corporate citizen and simply complying with a law. It doesn't matter what you, I or the useless United Nations thinks of it. (I'd think the SCC would be somewhat more germane.) Your baseless assertions are unsupported and unverifiable. I'll revert back to a truthful and verifiable version of the article.

After that, you can do as you please. Delete the whole section if you want. Just don't post lies.70.26.45.111 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

70.26.45.111, you would have a much easier time convincing people if you were able to remain civil. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To someone living outside Quebec, Quebec's draconian language laws sound completely absurd, unreal even pure fantasy. Where else in the civilized world can you find actual Language Police, of which enforcement includes treating the verbal, written or visual presence of English as a criminal offensive. All under the guise of protecting the French language? "Intimidation" and "pressure" is wording that is actually too weak for the situation here, if anything. It should be noted these laws were engineered as a form of soft ethnic cleansing, as-is, they've already driven out well over a quarter of a million English speakers from the province of Quebec. Countless head offices have also been intimidated and left too over language laws and other hostilities here. All this political nonsense and xenophobia is the reason Montreal (and Quebec as a whole) is so deep in the hole its in now. Of course, interesting as all this may be, I don't see any reason to include it in an article about a defunct department store. It just does not belong--any of it.
One thing I will add, at least you have shown you are indeed a Quebec language extremist. Hence where all this harassment started 4 and a half years ago (over an article edit where I reverted the name of the Montreal Olympic Stadium; you decided the article title should be French and I changed it to back to English, in compliance with Wikipedia's Common Name guideline; plus the fact its official name is English anyway. This led to you following and harassing my edits to most of the other articles I've contributed to since. A form of obsessive revenge if you will). I've told you I welcome your contributions when you act civil and have constructive things to say or add, but I don't appreciate you constantly trying to bait me.--Apple2gs (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well don't just sit on your hands! Its agreed. The section should go ... its pretty well useless anyways, and anything that takes your excesses and verbiage out of wikipedia is fine by me! Heck, we are probably the only two people on the planet that cares about this. Oh, I may loathe your writing style, and given the insults you've called me, I have questioned your mental health ... but I've never once commented on your nationality, politics, race, sexuality or any other personal integrity related matter. I know it may be asking too much, but do the same.

I'll delete the section.70.26.45.111 (talk)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eaton%27s&oldid=498753770"