Talk:Skagen Denmark

This article looks like it's been written by Skagen's Marketing Department
Needs to be more neutral in it's language! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.164.84.210 (talk) 13:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right. -- Hoary (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have reverted it twice since the above remarks were made. FAO Skagen people, please be reminded that content in Wikipedia is not advertising - you're lucky to have an article at all given your company is not that well-known.  Please do not spam Wikipedia.  Mezigue (talk) 08:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Using the opportunity of looking at it for the first time after my page move to correct (new) corporate name, I deloused it a bit. It does not read promotional now, but the corporate aim now in quotes needs sourcing, so it for now has a Template:cn riding its tail.  Disclaimer: I bought a Skagen watch, quite taken by its design, and Wikipedia is the first place where I could read that it is actually an American watch company that exploits/uses the Danish design principles for manufacture and marketing, not to omit, design of watch products.  It is a solid company and it certainly deserves to have a English Wikipedia article about it, especially as it is widely marketed by Costco and Costco.com as well as small outfitters available through Amazon.com.  The article actually needs expanding to make it obvious that the watches are made in Asia (mostly, for example, as is mine, a steel model variant of the one in the picture on the right, in Japan; the wristband, a steel mesh, in China).  --Mareklug talk 20:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Deprodded
I googled Skagen and found a load of worthless junk (as I would for any watch brand), but also, among the first twenty hits, a gushy newspaper article that demands of the reader: Think of Bang & Olufsen audio systems, Hasselblad cameras, IKEA, Skagen watches, Georg Jensen jewellery, Orrefors crystal and all that sleek-looking teak furniture the Scandinavians have been famous for over the decades. This of course is not informative in itself, but it's enough to show that something's there. And I therefore removed the prod template. -- Hoary (talk) 14:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * maybe, it's a trivial mention from our perspective - I'll have a lot for better sources when I have a minute - if that's about the level of it, it wouldn't survive AFD, but you were clearly right to remove the prod. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The bigger problem is of what's "encyclopedic" about wristwatch brands.


 * Wristwatches, or anyway those that people want to natter on about, seem primarily a matter of male vanity. I mean, this isn't 1960 any more: the cheapest quartz wonder is precise enough for most people, and if you're worried about the battery dying you can upgrade to a solar-powered model, supplement your cheapie with a second, backup cheapie in some niche of your bag, or just use your cellphone. Watches are advertised to be drop-proof, hurricane-proof, pickaxe-proof or whatever, but the huge majority of males are basically chair/couch potatoes and so don't need this. And the few who actually involve themselves in the rugged pursuits so favored in watch advertising could accept that their cheapie might be destroyed and therefore carry along another cheapie with them.


 * (Does any pilot actually use the microscopic slide rule around an "aviator" wristwatch? Well, maybe: when explaining this wonder to the kid, whose eyes are glazing over as he wishes pops would shut up and let him concentrate on his playstation.)


 * All in all talk about the mechanism and mechanical aspects seems rather beside the point.


 * What's left? Looks, but men being men most can't bring themselves to say that this is important. And brand, which is sheer silliness.


 * I suppose that these problems will only heighten in the weeks to come, as it's the season in which the "quality" newspapers carry watchporn ads presumably intended to drum into wives' heads the notion that it's "refined elegance" (etc) rather than insanity to spend the cost of a vacation on a wristwatch for hubby, a wristwatch that provides no significant horological benefit over what hubby either already has or could acquire for a pittance.


 * Of course, if these Skagen wristwatches are cheap that's something in their favor. -- Hoary (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * heh - I actually use a fob watch because I like to think I'm a better dressed Doctor Who - but that's just me ;-) --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is just dandy and ok after my cleanup now in April 2014. For more illuminating (I hope!) commentary see my contribution one section up. --Mareklug talk 20:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Major 1 May rewrite of this important article, from POV-neutral party
As a company selling for over US $200M, and a rags to riches startup appearing as a case study in an international business text,, , , this story certainly belongs here.

So I did a major rewrite today, after finding sources herein that were press releases (self-published, non-neutral), other sources that were incomplete and so unverifiable (Hollensen, the textbook earlier represented as an authorless PDF, and YAHOO Finance, also heretofore authorless).

I made all of the text consistent with the Bloomberg article/entry, which meant removing the unsourced information about company leadership in the infobox. While this may have been formally correct—it is likely Fossil mgmnt info—it is not sourced, and Bloomberg lists the three individuals that now appear.

In addition, I rewrote the lede, to differentiate brand (which is what the title suggests that this article is about) from the company Skagen Designs, the latter of which was bought by Fossil, is reportedly being maintained by Fossil as a subsidiary, while this new business entity continues to offer the Skagen Denmark brand of products. Since the quote regarding the company's aim is unsourced, it was paraphrased in the lede, and left as a quote, with in the main body. An earlier self-published deadlink source was simply removed form the lede.

Next, while I left in the range of products because of web evidence that it is accurate, some specific products lack sourcing and are so marked.

Otherwise, I made the references to currency consistent as US $ (wikilinked), and made the company's founding and development as subsections of the same History section. Therein, the list format was made standard, all through (and I made the overused Hollensen textbook case study to appear once, rather than for every line <--see note in the article markup regarding this-->). Therein, I also replaced turnover with net sales (as more readily understandable to U.S. readers), but footnoted the nuance so the article remains accurate on this rigorous business point. The press releases, as noted, were removed, and placed in External links.

Otherwise, tags were added to the article, sections, and periodically inline, to indicate the material I couldn't source but that appeared to be accurate and so worth saving.

Bottom line, there was significant unsourced material (removed), the one solid Bloomberg reference was underused and at times at odds with the earlier text (resolved), and some solid first new material edits were made (turnover, acquisition description, pronunciation, etc.).

As noted, this is a worthwhile article, and there are many further sources to tap. But it is true, it was badly sourced going into today's edit. Look to the new Further reading section as I find more sources that can be excerpted to improve the quality of this article. Le Prof 71.239.87.100 (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Quick skim suggests you've done a good job! :-) --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)