Talk:Lord & Taylor

What in the world is a "Digital First Retailer?" You can't just drop in a new term and not link or post a reference. KJRehberg (talk) 00:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Seconding what appears to be a call to amend this language.

It would appear that "digital-first" would not accurately reflect the corporation's present status as a digital-only retailer. Encyclopedic style would dictate word choice with clarity - over ambiguous or nebulous terms i.e. "weasel words".

Citations indicate that Saadia operates no retail locations under the L&T brand.

Do we have any objection? Or would this serve as consensus to maintain consistent verbiage and refer to an online retailer as such, across similar articles? IE - ModCloth, Gilt, Wayfair 173.52.238.71 (talk) 07:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Digital first is a specific kind of e-commerce retailer which usually operates no brick and mortar stores. The language is fine. Stupidcupid6 (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Source? 173.52.238.71 (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=digital+first+retailer

Term does not seem to be of academic merit, it's found exclusively in first-party sources in relation to L&T's "transformed" operations -- it's fairly evident these are marketing-jargon euphemism for "online retailer" and "bankruptcy", respectively. 173.52.238.71 (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Previous wording seemed better and more to the point, especially as it made clear that the bankruptcy was the reason for the turn to e-commerce.Orenburg1 (talk) 08:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

"Digital-first" is a retailer whose main focus is online. I like the older wording better, and I've reverted thusly. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

No citations and the paragraph reads promotion. Seems odd 108.53.84.25 (talk) 23:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Opening up a discussion regarding the Promotional tag that User:Skywatcher68 after User:Everybodywantsthis25's recent edits. I took a pass to work toward a more neutral, encyclopedic tone, even leaving many of the recent edits in place rather than reverting it wholesale.

User:Everybodywantsthis25 reverted the edits and removed the tag, so, to avoid an edit war, I'd like to ask for consensus around the tone to avoid the risk of this appearing like paid editing or promotional material.

I re-tagged and placed a (level 2) warning on Everybody's user talk regarding the promotional content. Any further action along those lines will result in a WP:COI notice there, followed by action at WP:COIN, if necessary.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

One example of promotional writing from the lead: This transformation resulted in the company being positioned at the forefront of modern consumer habits, but also reflected a long-standing reputation as being an innovator in the retail industry.

Sourced to:

• L&T themselves
• Retail Dive, doesn't support text
• Forbes contributor (not RS)
• Retail Wire, based on Retail Dive's article above, doesn't support text
• Fast Company article is all about the logo change, doesn't support text
• Press release

L&T being "at the forefront of modern consumer habits" is not supported in the body. The only relevant mention in the body of innovator/innovation is The partnership was seen as a bold strategic move, and was praised by many as an innovative approach to blending traditional retail with digital platforms, which cites 3 sources, none of which support that claim. (And seriously, calling selling online an "innovation" in 2018 is stretching credulity.) Schazjmd (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

On a hunch, I ran This transformation resulted in the company being positioned at the forefront of modern consumer habits, but also reflected a long-standing reputation as being an innovator in the retail industry. through Hive's AI-generated content detector; came back as 100% positive. Now I'm wondering how much content from Everybody is from some chatbot.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I apologize for not contributing to this conversation sooner. I think it can be widely agreed upon that online retailing IS the forefront of modern consumer habits, it would be no problem to find some significant article to support this. I am not using a chatbot, in fact I’m strongly against using them. Everybodywantsthis25 (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Worth noting that if you look at this diff and press Ctrl-F you'll find two instances of ?utm_source=chatgpt.com in the sources added, showing that he did indeed use ChatGPT. – numbermaniac 02:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Or at least quoted somebody using ChatGPT.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

In retailing, a department store selling fashion through a large big box discount retailers high profile website is considered to be a breakthrough actually and in retailing could certainly be considered an innovation. 72.45.129.166 (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

You need independent sources that consider it a breakthrough and an innovation. Schazjmd (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

that wouldn’t be hard to find sources that substantiate what you’re attempting to question but it’s very unnecessary for anyone with a business perspective. Everybodywantsthis25 (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Content must be verifiable by the reader. Schazjmd (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Dont you think that sounds very over reaching? No not all content must be verifiable by the reader. Please refer to “the sky is blue” page on Wikipedia editing. Everybodywantsthis25 (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

The article doesnt use breakthrough, but it does use innovative. Here’s an article that uses that exact language. Was the first result that came up. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/business/walmart-lord-and-taylor-website.html Everybodywantsthis25 (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

To clarify this assertion, the language in question is from an executive at Lord & Taylor. It is not the stated analysis of the New York Times or an unaffiliated industry expert.

The specific language (my emphasis added):

“This is a tremendous growth opportunity,” R.J. Cilley, a senior vice president of digital at Lord & Taylor said in a conference call on Tuesday. “We are growing our footprint to reach exponentially more customers.”

...

“This innovative flagship on Walmart.com is an entirely new model for us and demonstrates the evolution of Lord & Taylor,” Mr. Cilley said in the statement. Mad Jim Bey talk 18:04, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Right, that's clearly a WP:PRSOURCE even though it's in the Times.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

It’s still from the New York Times. They don’t publish quotes that wouldn’t be true. Everybodywantsthis25 (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Point is, Wikipeida is not for repeating public relations talking points. Which that clearly is.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Just because an executive said that it’s innovative doesn’t make it a public relations talking point. What he’s saying could be based in widely perceived fact, which it obviously is because regardless, again, it’s not hard to find a credible source explaining that online retailing is innovative. I’d also like to point out that was the first result I found in a search engine and has also not even been added to the article. Everybodywantsthis25 (talk) 18:24, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

It wouldn’t be hard to find references that use this exact language, online retailing is still considered highly innovative, it’s a matter of fact. Everybodywantsthis25 (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Online retail is commonplace in 2025. Schazjmd (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

“Online retailing is commonplace in 2025” - while thats true the reality is its innovating and rapidly growing everyday Everybodywantsthis25 (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello Stupidcupid6, it's been a while. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2025 (UTC)