Talk:American Greetings

Initial comments
The reference to "Tom Wilson" points to the wrong Tom Wilson: the article it points to is about the record producer, not the Ziggy cartoonist. (I'm unsure how to correct this directly, or else I would.) 63.174.247.33 21:26, 10 October 2005

Merge
This article should be merged into Hallmark Cards because American Greetings appears to be a Public Subsidiary of Hallmark Cards. Let's talk about it. Miracleimpulse 05:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Where in the world are you getting that idea from? Care to produce a reliable source?  I don't know anything about the Greeting card industry, but a simple Google search doesn't produce any information that would support that.  You'd think there would be at least a passing mention in the WSJ or other business newspaper if one company had purchased the other.--Isotope23 17:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless you provide a source for this, there is nothing to discuss Miracleimpulse.--Isotope23 22:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I know that Miracleimpuse has been blocked for disruption, but for the record, American Greetings' SEC filings describe Hallmark as the company's largest competitor, and there are no Form 13D's on file as would be required if Hallmark (or anyone else) owned more than 5% of American Greetings' stock. Newyorkbrad 01:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware of how big American Greetings actually is? Look at thier corporate information and see all the characters they own; the companies they own, or acquired over the years. If anything, they would buy Hallmark! 142.167.166.206 (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC
--Isotope23 17:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Isotope23, I see you've listed a request for comment, but you haven't set up the discussion here. The article for AG seems generally fine for what it is (a corp. entry) but it really could use some references. I don't think it should be merged with Hallmark unless someone can come up with some convincing reasons why - even if AG was owned as a Hallmark subsidiary, if it has an independent operation, branding and stock listing it seems pretty darn separate and would warrant it's own article. Robovski 05:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As indicated above, I've checked the public SEC filings. The two companies are unaffiliated; unless someone comes up with some evidence of the "subsidiary" theory, there's nothing to talk about here. Newyorkbrad 07:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the section Robovski, I got sidetracked between listing it on RfC and coming back here to add a section on this.--Isotope23 14:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If there is going to be an RfC, please post the link to it? Thanks, Newyorkbrad 15:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Content dispute RfCs don't have to go any further than a link on the relevant RfC page - all discussion remains here, on the article talk page. If you're thinking about all that business with certifiers and responses, that's usually reserved for user and admin conduct RfCs. I think there are a few content RfCs where that approach was used, but it would be the minority where that was needed. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And this certainly isn't one of them. There's nothing to talk about. Hopefully this non-issue won't come up again, anyway. Thanks for the clarification. Newyorkbrad 15:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I opened this RfC as suggested by the WP:DE guideline to make sure we are establishing a clear consensus that there is no reason for a merge American Greetings to Hallmark Cards.--Isotope23 17:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Newyorkbrad 17:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As per the discussion on Talk:Hallmark Cards, I agree as well. The only "evidence" I've seen is a few presidents jumped from Hallmark to American Greetings, which doesn't prove anything (heck, you make a case that American Greetings is "stealing" employees).  Anyway, the whole "article merge" thing is the wrong approach - companies that have merged still have seperate articles (such as FleetBoston Financial and Bank of America, HP and Compaq, etc.)--Transfinite 18:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed the RfC because I think we've established a consensus here against any sort of merge. If anyone disagrees, let me know and I can relist it.--Isotope23 20:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That the former president of Hallmark Brands USA is the current president of Carlton Cards is not speculation.


 * That the founding president of The Hallmark Channel is the current director of The Hatchery is not speculation.


 * That Hallmark now makes all Disney greeting cards is not speculation (Gibson has been sliced up like a piece of meat between American Greetings and Hallmark).


 * That the flagship American Greetings Carlton Store at Chicago's Merchandise Mart recently closed without notification and was replaced by a Hallmark Gold Crown Store is not speculation. (Note to Transfinite: Saw this one for myself.)


 * That American Greetings and Hallmark promote Sweetest Day using nearly identical verisimilitudes is not speculation.


 * That American Greetings and Hallmark are blocking nearly every patented new greeting card concept from the market is not speculation.

"All things being equal, American Greetings and Hallmark Cards are a Monopoly ." Miracleimpulse 07:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Um ... by definition, I don't think two competitors can be a monopoly. It may be true that between the two of them, they have the lion's share of the U.S. greeting cards market, though that could certainly be noted, if it is relevant to anything, without shrieking and insinuating some sort of conspiracy. But this fact certainly doesn't support your claim a few days ago that one of these companies is a subsidiary of the other. Newyorkbrad 13:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe you are correct Brad! Perhaps monopoly isn't the correct terminology. Is cartel a better choice? What about mafia? Subsidiary is a nice way of putting it; I was being polite. Which one fits best? Miracleimpulse 18:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Certainly not "mafia" which has highly defamatory and inflammatory overtones with no basis to support them. "Cartel" insinuates antitrust violations and therefore would also be inappropriate. An NPOV statement that "(name of company) controls about (number)% of U.S. greeting card sales" might be in order.
 * In general, you have to be much more careful how you put things. Your use of the word "subsidiary" to be "polite" was very misleading. Several editors, including me, took you as literally believing that American Greetings is a subsidiary of (meaning "is owned by") Hallmark and did time-consuming research to investigate your claim. Please don't do that to your fellow editors again.
 * It's been observed that you seem to be upset with the greeting card industry. If that's how you feel, it might be more productive for you to edit a different set of articles for awhile. You are functioning as a single purpose account on these articles and the way you are doing so is troublesome. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * (Cross-posting from Talk:Hallmark Cards) Miracleimpulse what are your sources on the information you're using to show American Greetings and Hallmark Cards are a cartel? I'd like to look into this. --Transfinite 18:03, November 14, 2006
 * Indeed. I cannot find any evidence of this, as I stated above. I noticed this in my watchlist from the RfC from early November - is this still going on? Robovski 00:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think there's any pending issue at the moment. Newyorkbrad 01:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course the issue remains. Hallmark Cards and American Greetings are using Wikipedia for purposes of disinformation and mass deception on this page, the Hallmark Cards page and the Sweetest Day page. Wikipedia needs to do something about this, before their credibility goes straight down the tubes. Miracleimpulse 21:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Before you continue to make outlandish and unsubstantiated claims like that, you better have sources that back you up.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Outlandish?" "Unsubstantiated?" "Sources?" Once again, the Hallmark Cards and American Greetings articles are completely unsourced articles. Many of the sources on the Sweetest Day page are dubious advertising websites at best. What a laughable double standard. Miracleimpulse 23:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between finding resources for article and substantiating claims for directly attacking two major American companies. You should do both.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Miracleimpulse, you still haven't answered my question. What are your sources on your "American Greetings and Hallmark Cards are a cartel" theory? --Transfinite 01:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There you go Transfinite. That took about 15 minutes. If you really want to investigate it, just use a Google search. Also, just for the record, I did not say that American Greetings and Hallmark were a cartel, although some aspects of the term seem to fit. Miracleimpulse 06:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's start with Thomas H. Johnston, president of Carlton Cards retail and Senior Vice President, Creative and Merchandising. You make it sound like he jumped ship from Hallmark straight to American Greetings, but that isn't the case.  According to American Greetings' 2006 SEC Form 10-K filing: "Thomas H. Johnston was Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Sutton Place Gourmet, a Gourmet food retailer, from July 1995 until July 2000, where he remained as Chairman until February 2001. He was Managing Director of Gruppo, Levey & Co., an investment banking firm focused on the direct marketing and specialty retail industries, from November 2001 until May 2004, when he became Senior Vice President and President of Carlton Cards Retail. Mr. Johnston became Senior Vice President, Creative and Merchandising in December 2004."  If Mr. Johnston had went directly from Hallmark to American Greetings, that may be suspious.  He hadn't worked for Hallmark in at least 9 years before he was hired on at American Greetings.  That isn't as fishy as you make it sound. --Transfinite 23:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AGLogo.gif
Image:AGLogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Really in Cleveland?
The article lists AG as being in Cleveland, and AG's web page says it is in Cleveland. As far as I understand, though, the HQ is actually in Brooklyn, and the Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce web page claims the headquarters. Shouldn't it say Brooklyn for the city? Cleveland is just a post office for AG.

This Has Got To Stop
A user named Fcirillo2010 keeps turning this article into blatant advertising for the company. If this doesn't stop, either I or somebody will need to request that this article be protected. Worst case scenario, we may need to have this user blocked. I'm going to be checking back periodically to make sure things are on the up and up.Brittany Ka (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

WE Simon LBO
William E. Simon's company took the company private in 1982 which means that Westray acquired the publicly traded shares. The firm was taken public again in 1984. The Edgar database does not go that far back so the details, including the financial impact on the company, are not generally available. If Gibson benefited from this transaction, that would be unique. Simon left behind a trail of destruction. David Cary Hart (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on American Greetings. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jun/07/american-greetings-snaps-up-clinton-cards
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=250037
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2011/03/30/higher-prices-american-greetings-hallmark/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=9448711
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150509004937/http://www.ukgreetings.co.uk/index.php to http://www.ukgreetings.co.uk/index.php

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Gibson Greetings
Gibson Greetings has its own history and should have remained a stand alone page linked to American Greetings.RichardBond (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Skyline Studio
This article is missing their involvement with Skyline Studio, which was a division of American Greetings Corp. OneSmallStepForMan (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)