Talk:Category killer

this sounds like some made-up term aka not a real thing. if ya folks want an article about it whatever but somewhere reference the authentic word/phase it is copying (in this case probably monopoly). the wiki article for Euphemism has a lot of info on this type of thing. 66.239.57.207 (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not the person who tagged the list as being questionable, but quite a few of the American "category killers" are not universally so. That is, they may be regional category killers, but not nationwide, which makes the list appear misleading. The following companies are ones that I've never seen (and, with the exception of IKEA, never heard of):

Hobby Lobby

The Rag Shop

IKEA

R.E.I.

Eastern Mountain Sports

AlphaGraphics

Dick's Sporting Goods

Now, admittedly, I'm in Florida, which is a bit out-of-the-way as far as retailing goes, but these stores aren't nationwide category killers to the extent of some of the others. The Dark 13:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I am from Nebraska, and we have both Hobby Lobby and Dick's Sporting Goods here, and they are big-box stores. I usually define "category killer" as a type of superstore that is not a hypermarket, but more like a specialty big-box store such as Best Buy. Tuxide 09:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this article needs a lot of clean-up, I think the list should be removed, only a few companies are true category killers. 70.146.81.193 15:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There's one very easy solution. And I'll implement it, and probably have it immediately reverted. Lexicon (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No that is exactly what needed to happen. 70.146.81.193 15:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if the article focused on the terminology "Category Killer" rather than trying to list and justify them all, this will be a better article. As it is, it's perhaps best to start over. None of it's referenced anyway. Shame, since it could be a great article. Any other thoughts on a reboot, and what direction that should go? --BizMgr (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Pacerier (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC): ❝

Merge this article in a section under Network effect?

❞

As mentioned above, I think this article needs a whole rewrite that I don't have the time to do right now. If someone tackles it, here are two major problems I have with it right off the bat:

1. eBay is not a Natural monopoly, and is currently under terrific pressure from the Amazon.com marketplace, as well as losing market share to Craig's List (the 2000 reference cited barely post-dates the dotcom bubble, and is wildly misrepresentative of the c2c marketplace today).

2. Walmart's emergence as a superchain had little, if anything, to do with the decline of the traditional department stores. In fact, Walmart could technically be considered a department store.

That article doesn't touch, and should:

• Software CatKill (such as Microsoft Office), especially in relation to business models or techniques used to achieve and maintain that CatKill status.

• Monopoly and Trust terms, and their correlation to CatKill. Especially if someone is willing to tackle the legal remifications and differences between them.

Whew! Good luck! Lemme know if I can help. --BizMgr (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with all the previous comments that the definition of 'category killer' is incorrect/ vague/ inconsistent (comments made in 2007 and 2008). The definition in the lead section places too much emphasis on market dominance and omits category specialisation which, in my view, is the key criterion. In addition, the definition in the lead section appears to be inconsistent with the definition provided in the main article. Surely the lead section should summarise the main article, and make an effort to preserve the meaning and intent of other material?

Here are a few definitions plucked at random from the Internet:

• Investopedia : Large companies that effectively put less efficient and [less] highly specialised merchants out of business [emphasis added] (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/categorykiller.asp)

• Oxford Dictionary : A large store, typically one of a chain, which specializes in a particular type of discounted merchandise and becomes the dominant retailer in that category. [emphasis added] (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/category_killer)

• Marketing Binder [Glossary] : Category killer refers to a large specialty store, offline or online, that carries a large selection of products in its category. [emphasis added] (http://www.marketingbinder.com/glossary/category-killer-marketing-definition/)

• Harvard Business School 'Working Knowledge' "Category killers," those highly focused retailers that specialize in a category of goods... their wide assortment, aggressive pricing, large stores, extensive store network, and deep expertise in the categories they served proved a massive competitive advantage. (http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/retailing-revolution-category-killers-on-the-brink)

• Robert Spector - “specialize in a distinct classification of merchandise such as toys, office supplies, home improvement- while offering everyday low prices and wide and deep inventories”. Robert Spector, Category Killers: The Retail Revolution and its Impact on Consumer Culture, 2005

The common thread through all these definitions is specialisation in a category. But this is not mentioned in the opening section. In other words, a category killer carries a deep product assortment within a given category. In practice, many category killers are engaged in redefining the nature of their category -extending the boundaries of the category so that they can retail more and more product lines. I would like to cite a few examples, but heaven forbid, that I should be too "promotional" by actually naming a commercial operator.

The problem with the current definition is that a phrase from a much longer definition has been taken out of context, giving undue emphasis to 'market dominance'. This is a great example of how, in the Wikipedia environment, verifiable sources take precedence over accuracy of content. The existing definition will never be challenged because it has a verifiable source. No-one stops to consider whether the transcription, paraphrase or interpretation of the original definition is accurate or not. Having put up a bad definition, this then sets the scene for all subsequent changes and editing decisions. Meanwhile everyone is content because at least the rubbish content appears to have a reputable source. Is it any wonder that poorly conceived content, gradually gets worse and worse over time, and eventually the entire article becomes scheduled for deletion (Afd). What a waste of potential!

Implications of Incorrect Definition for Article

• The emphasis on market dominance is misplaced; a category killer that is new to the market may have market dominance aspirations (i.e. has the potential to become dominant); but not actually be dominant. Yet, provided that it carries a broad product assortment within a coherent theme (e.g. office needs, home DIY), it can be classified as a category killer (even though at the time of market entry when it would have had insufficient time to penetrate the market and become dominant). The key is the product assortment, product range and specialisation. Similarly, a firm that is dominant in the market is not necessarily a category killer - we need to examine its product range/ assortment before drawing conclusions about category killer status.

• Now if we accept this definition, many of the examples on the page (Amazon, E-Bay, Google) do not qualify as category killers because they do not offer a specialised range of goods and services. These examples were recently deleted on the ground that they were unsourced/ unreliably sourced and overly promotional in character. In fact, they should have been deleted because they were conceptually problematic in relation to the accepted definition of a category killer. (For instance, E-Bay is an auction site, it does not specialise in any product category, rather it will auction just about anything, and while it may be a dominant auction site, the lack of specialisation would preclude it from being classified as a category killer). A Department store cannot be classified as a category killer - because although it may have a broad product assortment (fashion, jewellery, food, furniture, manchester, electronics, white goods, etc), there is no evidence of specialisation within a category.

Removal of most examples

Recent editing changes have removed most of the examples. This is fair enough, because some of those examples were not really category killers and should never have been included in the first instance - and very likely would not have been included if an accurate definition had been provided. However, in my view, they were deleted for the wrong reasons (lack of reliable sources) - when some of them should have been deleted as being entirely inconsistent with the accepted definition of a category killer. Thus, these examples served to obfuscate (i.e. add to confusion by concealing the real meaning of the concept) and did little to clarify meaning.

Having said that, a few carefully selected examples could be very useful in terms of clarifying what types of retail outlets qualify as category killers and what types of stores are not category killers. Sadly in the current climate of denouncing any content that could be construed as "commercial" or "promotional", suitable examples are unlikely to get up.

Example: Super Automotive Category Killer (SACK)

A section dedicated to super automotive category killer (SACK) which is now the ONLY example of a category killer in the entire article. By the contributor's own account " little has appeared in the academic literature to date" on this subject. Therefore this example constitutes questionable content for Wikipedia. Not only is it unsourced, it would appear that it is unverifiable. Indeed, it is unlikely that reliable sources can ever be found to support this content. Perhaps the lack of academic attention is because these outlets are not true category killers. In my view, it is highly debatable that the cited examples (stores that sell 500 or 1,000 cars) qualify as category killers at all. Simply because a store carries a large inventory does not mean that it is a category specialist. If, for example, a car dealer sold motor-cycles, alternative transportation devices, automotive accessories, spare parts, tickets to car-racing events, video games with car-related themes, etc then perhaps, just perhaps, it might meet the criteria set out in conventional definitions.

Where to from here?

If we accept that the examples provided should not be reinstated, but should remain on the deleted list, what's left in the article?

• A misleading definition in the lead section
• Contradictory definitions of the core subject (lead vs main article)
• A heading labelled 'Examples', where all the actual examples have been deleted for being too "promotional" in character (i.e. an empty heading)
• One section devoted to a highly debatable example of a category killer, namely super auto category killer (SACK)
• A lengthy and rambling discussion about the environmental factors impacting on the automotive industry (where the relevance to category killers is unclear, vague or drawing a very long bow)

In other words we have an article that makes very little substantive contribution to any understanding of what it means to be a category killer, and presents confusing, contradictory information about the concept. It fails to discuss how these types of stores have affected shopping behaviour, market competition or changed the retail landscape. No amount of inserted references will address the fundamental issues with this article. So while, editors are fussing about and worrying about 'reliable sources' to support the existing content, the reality is that the existing content itself needs to be challenged.

Some kind soul has added the tag that 'additional citations are required for verification'. But no amount of referencing will address the conceptual problems that arise from the inadequate definition AND the errors of interpretation, not to mention the lack of focus that is evident in this article. Indeed the definition and its current interpretation are so far removed from any consensus definition that it would be very difficult to locate reliable sources at all!

On the Talk page, commentators have been signalling these definitional issues since at least 2007 (9 years ago)! In all that time, nothing substantive has changed. Editors are simply wasting their time inserting citation needed and similar tags when the material itself is so fundamentally flawed.

Issues that could be considered include:

• category killers as disruptive forces in retail
• the way that shopping behaviour has changed as a result
• the that category killers have reshaped the competitive environment
• how category killers are seeking to expand concepts of 'category'
• trend toward larger retail footprints (retail space) for category killers
• selected examples would be helpful for some users (Home Depot in DIY category; Barnes and Noble in Books; Best Buy in Electronics, Office Depot in Office Supplies; PETsMART in petcare and Toys R Us in Children's toys and bicycles. (Services are rarely cited as category killers in the literature - EBay is NOT a category killer)

Conclusion/ Recommendation

This page could be deleted in its entirety with no loss of value to Wikipedia or its users. And, deletion is the likely fate of this article. Alternatively the entire page contents could be deleted and replaced with more accurate and more focussed content that actually elucidates the concept of a category killer. Sadly, this alternative is unlikely in the current climate of 'deletionism/ challenge everything.' This article does not need better quality references or more references - it needs a complete reconceptualisation and restructure.

BronHiggs (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Per your suggestion I stubbed the article. It is easier for a rewrite to happen from a stub. Jbh^Talk 20:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the entire point of my lengthy commentary on the Talk page. Commentary about a definition is not the same as a definition per se. I object to having my comments about a definition advanced as an alternative definition.

A category killer specialises in a given category of goods. At least four different definitions were provided, each with appropriate sources. Every definition contained the term specialisation, and this is the key to understanding the nature of a category killer. Any definition that misses out on the word 'specialisation' fails to capture the essence of a category killer. BronHiggs (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

You said the article was worse than useless so I stubbed it to get the ball rolling and give you a cleaner area to work in if you wished. (Stubbing is the most that can be realistically done since it is a notable topic and does not meet any of the deletion criteria.) I have added the 'specialization' but I do not edit in this field other than to deal with obvious violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines so I am not going to try to re-write the article.

My understanding was that the phrase you used was essentially in line with the source I cited without being either a copyright violation or an overly close paraphrasing of it. If not please change it. Jbh^Talk 21:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Jbhunley The article in its existing form was indeed useless, and I believe that I provided ample explanation as to why that was so. You did add the word 'specialisation' to the definition in one edit, and then removed it in the next editing change (according to the editing history). Whatever! I am no longer willing to make editing changes to articles - however I have added some comments and suggested content to a number of talk pages in the marketing area. I am simply acting on advice given to me, over and over again, by well-meaning editors - that subject matter experts should refrain from editing in their subject area; that new content should be put out for discussion before being added to articles and that all new content should be developed in a Sandbox until such time as it is perfectly formed and ready for "prime time" display. So, it seems that the partial definition will have to remain. It is unsourced and arguably constitutes 'original research' which no doubt will give my enemies new fodder for their lecturing and badgering. So be it! BronHiggs (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

It was added in this edit which is the current version. Is the definition as it stands (A category killer is a retailer that specializes in and carries a deep product assortment within a given category and through selection, pricing and market penetration obtain a massive competitive advantage over other retailers.) a reasonable one line definition? As to it being "unsourced" if the source listed is insufficient that is my fault, not yours and people should criticize me about it not you. The only reason I mentioned you in the edit summary for the initial stubbing is because I was using words you wrote which should be attributed to you, not me, for copyright purposes. The history of a an article is how copyright is attributed and if you transfer another editor's words it is proper, well it is actually a legal requirement but lots of people are sloppy about it, to attribute it in the edit summary. Jbh^Talk 01:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Jbhunley OK. thanks. I am sorry about that. I am being paranoid. My Wikipedia experience over the past four weeks has been very dispiriting. I have been berated and lectured for content that I did not create, and that was in the article many years before I even first considered joining. I have had all manner of content deleted - from external links to a professional association through to an internal link to a relevant WP page and had all sorts of accusations hurled at me, have been badgered by editors who insist that it is for my 'own good'. On some pages, new content has been deleted within a minute of adding it. I have been given confusing and contradictory advice about policies and guidelines and most of the time, when I refer to the policies, I have even less of an idea what is really going on. BronHiggs (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@BronHiggs: No worries... You have had a rough go of it here. Please always feel free to ask if you are having issues with other editors of some Wikipedia policy/guideline/arcane custom or whatnot. I can not promise to agree with you but I will do my best to explain what is going on and try get you to the places/people that can deal with the matter if I can not.

To some extent Wikipedia is broken-as-designed because it is set up to allow, almost prefer, non-experts of widely varying abilities (We have everything from one Nobel laureate which I know of to schoolchildren here) to edit any topic. That makes it very difficult for people used to writing their own ideas from their own expertise/knowledge to adjust because all of a sudden the only thing that counts is what you can back up with a direct citation. Ultimately it is possible to get a handle on editing here and for it to even become an enjoyable way to pass some time. Jbh^Talk 02:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Jbhunley Thanks you are very kind. I have reluctantly reached the conclusion that I will never be able to adjust to the Wiki way. For me, accuracy of content is paramount. This is not to imply that sources are not important - indeed they are. But a writer has a responsibility to preserve the integrity of the source by making suitable paraphrases and interpretations. My take on it is that 'group-think' is going on inside Wikipedia where the verifiable source has become more important that the accuracy of the content. Too many editors simply check that there is a source, but fail to investigate whether the content is an accurate or fair reflection of that source. Thus the prevailing mindset is actually getting in the way of improved content. Just a few examples that I have observed:

• Two Large slabs of plagiarised text sat on the Marketing page for more than 8 years but were never challenged because they had verifiable sources (I have since reported these and they are now being investigated)
• One large slab of plagiarised text sat on the Marketing research page for 7 years but was not challenged because of the source (also now under investigation)
• The concept of a historical 'era' in marketing history (a distinctive stage in the way marketing was taught) was confused with a marketing 'orientation' (a way of doing business) on the Marketing page but was never challenged because it had three sources. The sources had not made this mistake and referred to 'orientations' (not eras) - the error was inserted by the Wikipedia contributor. Any attempt to change this content was immediately rejected by a zealous editor patrolling the page on the basis that the ideas had already been covered more than adequately and there was no need for change
• Corrections to factually incorrect statements about the origin of the 4 Ps on the Marketing page, were challenged and removed because an over-zealous editor was of the view that the 'evolution of marketing' was the same as the 'history of marketing' and the page didn't need both. The factually incorrect material remains to this day and is unlikely to be amended in the foreseeable future due to the actions of several zealous editors who appear to automatically reject any new content
• (an example you are familiar with). A definition of category killer taken from a reliable source, left out two important sentences and thus inadvertently gave the definition an inappropriate bias. This was not challenged for years - but set the tone for the entire article and influenced many editing decisions so that the article's contents gradually moved further and further away from the essence of a category killer
• On several marketing pages, I have seen a number of terms used very loosely. One example is word-of-mouth marketing (instead of word-of-mouth referral) which elevates a customer action (a referral) to the status of a sub-discipline of marketing. This has not been challenged for some 8-9 years because it has a reliable source (but the source never referred to WOM as a type of marketing). I have identified a dozen or so similar terms, that once accepted for an article, get copied and pasted onto other marketing articles where the new term becomes the received wisdom.
• On numerous pages, irrelevant content is allowed to stand because it includes good sources- no-one it seems wants to delete verified content
• On other pages, users' requests for practical examples of concepts (as per Talk) go unheeded due to a number of problems - any mention of a company name is immediately suspicious as potentially promotional; editors who don't understand the subject area cannot always follow the example's details and will challenge it. I have had very little success getting examples up - there are just too many grounds for objection in relation to commercial examples.
• Some content about the emergence of the positioning concept -see Positioning (marketing) was challenged because of the source publication date. The content referred to an article published in 1969, but the source was dated 1972 so was considered to be inferior. It had apparently escaped the objector's attention that the publication was a compiled volume of original articles that were considered to be seminal.
• I have been advised multiple times that primary sources are not permitted under any circumstances, yet when I consult the policy that these well meaning editors suggest I read, there I find to my amazement that according to Wikipedia, "primary sources are not evil", "primary sources can be used in certain situations" and "context is important" for evaluating the usefulness of primary sources. Do these well-meaning editors actually read the policies before recommending them?
• Similarly, I have been advised multiple time that every claim, no matter how small, must include a source. Similarly when I go to the policy I discover that Wikipedia makes a distinction between verifiable and verified and goes on to point out sources are more important for controversial claims. I have come to realise that on Wikipedia, everything is potentially controversial.
• I have been advised multiple times that subject matter experts should not edit in their subject area. Apparently these editors have failed to notice the tags on the top of the pages that they are patrolling which indicate that an expert is required to restructure the entire article.
• Many other anomalies, examples of biased content and content that is just plain wrong remains unchallenged because a culture of fear operates. Editors are too afraid to make substantive changes, so they just fiddle around on the edges. e.g. On the Marketing Research page, Arthur Nielsen is incorrectly named as the pioneer of marketing research in the 1920s. Any standard history of marketing research shows that its history can be traced to the 18th and 19th centuries. Marketing research was being taught in universities well before 1920. But the Nielsen claim, which is repeated several times throughout the article, is unlikely to be corrected in the short term. In another silly example, over on the Marketing discussion page, users have requested a simpler definition than that provided by the AMA. So there is a little 'edit war' going on. One editor changes the definition to a perfectly acceptable alternative. Another editor changes it back to the AMA definition. The first editor, careful to wait for 8 days, changes it back to the simple form, followed by the second editor who also waits for 8 days and changes it back to the AMA definition. This has been going on for a very long time. I can think of several solutions to this problem that would make everyone happy - but sadly this page has become a 'no-go' zone due to the actions of aforementioned zealous editors who patrol the page regularly and remove all new content. Meanwhile the page is unstable because content keeps changing all the time and many factual errors remain.

The marketing pages on Wikipedia are a joke. I have seen people go to ANZWERS and other similar sites, seeking explanations of simple concepts because the Wikipedia version is useless and often incomprehensible. Academics regularly advise marketing students to refrain from using Wikipedia because the content is so uneven and unreliable. In my naivety, I believed that I could improve things. (And, I did manage to restructure 3 major marketing topics - two of which have now had their quality tags removed and no doubt the third will also pass the test when or if someone gets around to reviewing it). Unfortunately I had not realised how difficult it would be. I had not bargained on petty-minded, over-zealous editors acting as 'trolls' (they call it patrolling, but really it is trolling). I had not bargained on well-meaning editors sending me 7 or more messages daily, each containing mini lectures detailing everything they thought I had done wrong and why I needed to change my ways. Nor had I bargained on the discrepancies between accepted practice and policy. And finally I failed to understand that WP policies and guidelines are so complex and convoluted, spread across so many pages that it is actually possible to find any reason at all that can be used to defend a challenge to new content.

P.S. I should also mention that I have detected at least 5 instances of what I call 'source doctoring'. This consists of copying prose from one source (typically a very low-level source such as study notes or lecturer-generated powerpoint slides), but then adding different sources throughout the prose to suggest that the material had a more academic origin. This is a form of fabrication and is very unprofessional. And, I have also detected a number of cases of what I call 'prose doctoring' which consists of going through some copied content and replacing every 6th to 8th word with a synonym from an online thesaurus in an effort to mask the true source of the content, presumably in the hope that plagiarism detection software will not detect the original source or recognise it as plagiarism. This is also very unprofessional and can lead to inappropriate content where the synonym used is taken out of context. Some of this type of material had been evident for almost a decade and editors are not picking it up! BronHiggs (talk) 04:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)