User:Icerat/Corp page guidelines comments - draft

Content Guidelines
I've been looking into the issue of content guidelines for company articles. One of the "problems" is that broadbased traditional encyclopedias, such as Brittanica, have quite small coverage of companies so it's difficult to judge what should be considered "encyclopedic". Take for example the EB articles on Yahoo and Wal-Mart. A bit of history, a bit on competitors, and maybe a (very little) bit on controversy/criticism. By contrast these articles on Wikipedia are extensive (see Yahoo!,Walmart) and even have entire separate articles on for example, history (History of Yahoo!,History of Walmart) and criticism (Criticism of Yahoo!,Criticism of Wal-Mart). On other words, we don't really have historical "encyclopedia" guidelines to set the path here, instead wikipedia has to do that itself. Interestingly, if one tracks back through the history of the larger company articles, a lot of the development seems to have occurred essentially due to an "arms war" between supports and critics of the companies.

Further insight for a possible structure comes from various business intelligent reports. These typically provide some brief history, key personel, financial data, product categories, and competitors. Other sources, such as the well-regarded multi-volume International Directory of Company Histories have, not surprisingly, extensive chronological histories of the companies, and some summaries of current financial data, number of employees, subsidiaries. "Controversial" issues are rolled in to the chronologies. (eg Wal-Mart)

To get some perspective on what's been happening on Wikipedia, I've reviewed a range of articles, trying to look at a range of company types and home countries. Some of the WP articles reviewed include -


 * amazon, microsoft, godaddy, pepsico, walmart, yahoo, cannondale, dell, chrysler,at&t, renault, bhp billiton, Pfizer, Goldman Sachs, Shell/Royal Dutch Shell, Starbucks, The Walt Disney Company, Meijer, cadbury, icici bank, adidas, lufthansa, mont blanc, sanyo, seiko, avon

The review reveals no "standard" approach to companies articles apart from the commonly used company template, however a range of themes do arise, though actually headings differ. I've summarised these below, with examples of headings used in various Wikipedia articles. {|
 * - valign="top"

History

 * timeline
 * key dates
 * logo changes
 * acquisitions and divestments
 * investments
 * spinoffs

Sales and Marketing

 * Marketing and sponsorship
 * sales and marketing
 * marketing and branding
 * naming rights and sponsorships
 * sponsorships
 * promotions
 * endorsements

Controversy

 * controversy and criticism
 * legislation and litigation
 * health & safety
 * suites & claims

Products and Brands

 * products and services
 * products and technologies
 * brands
 * products marketing
 * intellectual property
 * product range and customer service
 * production
 * research and development

Operations

 * corporate governance
 * corporate affairs
 * corporate organisation
 * accounting
 * financial data
 * corporate information
 * corporate affairs and identity
 * operations
 * executive pay
 * Policies

Structure

 * ownership
 * corporate structure
 * subsidiaries and alliances
 * divisions
 * organization
 * subsidiaries
 * partnerships
 * company divisions
 * principal subsidiaries
 * principal divisions

People

 * key people
 * board of directors
 * alumni
 * officers and directors
 * executive management
 * advisory board

Locations

 * facilities
 * locations
 * websites
 * head office
 * software development studios
 * offices and locations

Culture

 * culture
 * employment and diversity
 * health & safety

Recognitions

 * awards
 * accolades
 * recognition

Corporate Social Responsibility

 * charitable activities/philanthropy
 * sustainability/environment
 * corporate social responsibility
 * environmental initiatives
 * environmental record

Other

 * in popular culture
 * competition
 * rankings
 * market share
 * }

Suggested Structure
WP:STRUCTURE recommends that "controversy" should be "folded into the narrative" rather on than isolated. On this basis I suggest a common content template something like the following. Actual titles might need to be adjusted to suit the article (eg the term "Corporate" may not be applicable). Sub-headings would be used where appropriate (eg Sales Data)


 * Lead
 * History
 * Corporate Structure
 * ownership,subsidiares, divisions, parent companies, key people


 * Business Operations
 * incorporation locations, corporate culture, business model, sales figures


 * Products, Services & Brands
 * brand categories, R&D, rankings, competitors


 * Sales and Marketing
 * advertising, sponsorships, endorsements


 * Awards & Recognition
 * Corporate Social Responsibility
 * philanthropy, environment