Talk:Boston Consulting Group/Archives/2013
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
POV
It's s little bit POV to say BCG is the world's leading advisor on business strategy. Can someone change this to make it sound neutral. JakeH07 (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)JakeH07
- Agree, it's a company claim. Will remove or call out as such Filippo Scognamiglio (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Why should we care?
Why should we care that Bain came out of BCG? why should it be in the intoduction. also...why should the article share information about the british conservative party? the firm works for the auto task force as well but that is not mentioned... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.182.208 (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Agree should not be in the intro. The fact itself is very significant however, given that Bain (together with McKinsey and BCG) is now one of the three top-tier global consulting firms; The other info mention can also likely be cleaned up - I will look into it Filippo Scognamiglio (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Advertisement for BCG?
This article is not only written as a BCG brochure as its claims are in some cases false. Almost all references are from BCG's own website that is, at best, biased. This article should be rewritten or deleted as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.152.161 (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- In the 2 years since the above was written, not much has changed. THe article still feels like an advertisment. I removed the sections "Industry Expertise & Capabilities", "BCG's thought-leadership website", and "Offices" which were much too detailed and made the page feel like BCG's website. I also and think that the list of notable alumni should be moved to it's own page. The page still needs significant work, and still feels like an advertisment.Sanpitch (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- So keep changing it. Doesn't look like anybody else is going to. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Someone added the "offices" back without justification; I reverted the edit. I also moved the alumni section to its own page, since it was such a ridiculously large part of the main page. Sanpitch (talk) 04:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- I will be re-writing the article in the next few weekends Filippo Scognamiglio (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- In the 2 years since the above was written, not much has changed. THe article still feels like an advertisment. I removed the sections "Industry Expertise & Capabilities", "BCG's thought-leadership website", and "Offices" which were much too detailed and made the page feel like BCG's website. I also and think that the list of notable alumni should be moved to it's own page. The page still needs significant work, and still feels like an advertisment.Sanpitch (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Some ideas
According to Vault.com, this company is no longer ranked #1 in the "best consulting firms: prestige" category and therefore I have removed the claim. The company is listed in some "Best companies to work for" lists but I am in doubt whether these should be included on the first paragraph, as the introductory paragraph is about the overview. And IMO, there are too much about recruitment, and they are unreferenced.--Lakokat 07:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- I like the idea of cutting more of the self-promotional cruft from the article. It looks like McKPartner reverted some of your edits. I'll support all judicious editing of the article back to something more reasonable. Sanpitch (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- I like the changes that Lakokat and Mean as Custard have made. I think the list of publications is also rather self-serving, but I'm not enough of an expert to know if any are important to keep.Sanpitch (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Will look into those. Several publications are likely to be key to keep, as BCG made of publishing ideas on corporate strategy part of it's very own strategy. Several minor ones however may not need to be referenced Filippo Scognamiglio (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I like the changes that Lakokat and Mean as Custard have made. I think the list of publications is also rather self-serving, but I'm not enough of an expert to know if any are important to keep.Sanpitch (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Planning to update this page - looking for editors to partner with
Hello folks,
As written on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Business page, I noticed the Boston Consulting Group entry is rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
I would like to invest some time over the next few days to improve that entry, and the Bruce_Henderson and Growth-share_matrix which go with it naturally.
I'd appreciate the partnership of any willing editor to ensure that any updates conform to Wikipedia's high standards!
Filippo Scognamiglio (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- I came to this page because my brother in law works there and I've never received a clear answer about what he does there. And there's not one word about what that company DOES on this page. Why the big secret ? Or is that some smokescreen ? -- G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.127.96.38 (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)