Talk:Jeff Jones (executive)

Image to add
Hi there! I've uploaded an image of Jeff Jones provided by H&R Block to Wikimedia Commons and the image's release has just been confirmed on the file page. Chetsford: Would you be in favor of adding the photo to this article? Here's the file File:Jeff_Jones_2017.png.

For full disclosure: I do have a financial conflict of interest as I am here on behalf of H&R Block (via PR agency Ketchum, as part of my work at Beutler Ink). Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 20:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Chetsford (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Chetsford: Thanks for adding the photo (and so quickly!) 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 14:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Request for some small fixes
Hi, Chetsford, I am back to request a few tweaks to this article, based on recent notes I've received from H&R Block, as Mr. Jones has just revisited this article and realized there are a few errors. Also pinging Whoisjohngalt, who has assisted with updates to the H&R Block article.

1. The source used for Mr. Jones' year of birth is inaccurate. His actual birth year is 1967, but I've been unable to find another source that confirms this. If editors feel it's necessary, H&R Block have offered to send a scan of his ID to OTRS to confirm the correct year. For now, I wonder if editors can please remove "1968" from the infobox?

2. Also, Mr. Jones is no longer on the board of the Association of National Advertisers. Per his official bio on the H&R Block website, he formerly served, not currently. Can editors please remove this detail from the article?

3. I would like to clarify that Mr. Jones' work with General Motors Company, MillerCoors, and Procter & Gamble Co. was actually as his clients while working at Leo Burnett; he was not employed by them. Below, I suggest revising the top portion of the Career section to move this detail. These changes affect the second and third paragraphs of that top portion.

4. Finally, and this is just an observation as I'm returning to look at this page: what would editors think of simply removing the summary sentences at the start of the Career section? ("Jones is a business executive... " etc.)

For full disclosure: I do have a financial conflict of interest as I am here on behalf of H&R Block (via PR agency Ketchum, as part of my work at Beutler Ink). Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 17:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Whoisjohngalt for making the changes to address parts 1-3 of my request. Regarding part 4. do you or Chetsford have any strong feelings about cutting the following from the start of Career:
 * Jones is a business executive, with a background in marketing and advertising. Prior to his high-profile roles with H&R Block, Uber and Target, Jones worked in a number of positions spanning corporate and agency advertising.
 * Also, given his last two (and arguably most high-profile roles) have not been marketing and advertising focused, does it also make sense to trim the first sentence of the introduction to remove the following in red and simplify:
 * Jeffrey J. Jones II is an American business executive, marketer and advertiser.
 * Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 21:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, Whoisjohngalt: I see you've removed the two pieces of wording above. Thanks again and I think I'm all set on this page for now! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 14:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 16912_Rhiannon - sorry for ignoring you, I just saw your ping! Chetsford (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries at all, Chetsford! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 13:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Request for board membership
Hi there! On behalf of Jeff Jones and H&R Block as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I'm back with a request to update this article to include Mr. Jones' role on the board of directors of Advance Auto Parts. As with most board appointments, this has not generated a lot of media coverage. I'm wondering if editors would consider the use of a primary source to add this, as potentially being a case that would fit primary sourcing guidelines that state "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts …". If editors prefer not to make this addition due to lack of secondary sourcing, I understand.

Here's my proposed update and markup in the collapse boxes below, new wording in green:

Since I do have a financial conflict of interest, I won't edit the article myself and am looking for an uninvolved editor to review and make changes as appropriate. As you have reviewed earlier requests of mine here: Would you be able to take a look at this suggestion, too? Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 22:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Whoisjohngalt. Good to see you again, 16912 Rhiannon.
 * Thanks so much, Whoisjohngalt! Appreciate your help again here, hope you're doing well. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 19:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)