Talk:General Mills/Archives/2014

Pillsbury?

This article talks about Pillsbury's developing foods for NASA astronauts in 1962 (see extract below). My concern is that, until General Mills, Inc (GMI) aquired Pillsbury in 2001, Pillsbury was a rival company. If Pillsbury developed the space foods, it should be credited for that in the article about Pillsbury. GMI wouldn't aquire Pillsbury for another 39-years. If the description of Pillsbury's role is accurate, GMI would have had no influence over Pillsbury's effort back in 1962.

{{When NASA astronaut Scott Carpenter launched into space on Mercury capsule Aurora 7 in 1962, he was carrying with him the first solid space food – small food cubes developed by Pillsbury’s research and development department. Taking Pillsbury scientists more than a year to develop, space food cubes were followed by other space-friendly foods, such as non-crumbly cake, relish that could be served in slices, and meat that needed no refrigeration.[6]}} --Better Nate than lever (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Pet Incorporated

Why does this article (or the wiki in general) make no mention of Pet Incorporated?

http://www.answers.com/topic/pet-incorporated?cat=biz-fin

I was just reading the copyright information on a box of Old El Paso taco shells and it says that the product is distributed by the Old El Paso Division of General Mills Cereals, LLC and then down lower it says © 2007 Pet Incorporated. A Google search only brings up that Answers.com article as the only concrete information on Pet - they don't appear to have a website so my hunch tells me that they're owned by Mills now. There's also no wiki article on Pet, which is kind of odd because if you read that article, they've made some pretty big products. IndigoAK200 (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Pet owned Old El Paso. Pillsbury bought Pet. General Mills bought Pillsbury. Thus General Mills owns the brand. Mark @ DailyNetworks talk

Nestle

Anonymous(64.165.10.191), why do you insist that Nestle is a brand marketed by General Mills. Nestle is a company in its own right, completely independent of General Mills. The two have a marketing partnership in europe to market cereals, but this does not give General Mills ownership of the neslte brands. I realize your changes don't explicitly say this, but the implication is there and can be confusing to readers. Along these lines, Nesquik should be listed as a Nestle cereal. Jmeppley 17:58, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Washburn Crosby Company

The article says:

General Mills's original name was the Washburn Crosby Company

In what year was the name switched to General Mills? WpZurp 01:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Eddie Bauer

Eddie Bauer is defunct? Sure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.87.184 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 16 March 2005

Milk 'n' Cereal Bars

Content from Milk 'n' Cereal Bars was merged into this article after this AfD debate. Please edit this content to fit the article where appropriate. --bainer (talk) 07:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas

In case you ever played this game, in the level where you steal the jet pack from the Army Base (Black Project), they mention after it is taken "That's a $60 million project! Get the general mills on the line!"

Does this article have any relation to this situation? --NicAgent 20:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

This article really needs to be re-written. Clearly written by a corporate shill looking for free advertising. Parts of it are even written in first person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.232.69 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 11 May 2007

This page is definitely in need of a rewrite. The important dates given are not in any logical order, which makes it difficult to follow the history of the company. There are also important pieces of information that are not present in the history section, and some of the information could even be taken out. Secondly, the marketing section needs some serious revisions. This section currently names the Millsbury advergame as the only marketing strategy. The company uses many other strategies such as using characters on boxes to attract children or clearly marking health benefits of their products on the packaging to attract more adults. Much of the Millsbury information on the page needs to be deleted because it really does not have a lot of relevance to the company and the wide variety of their products. I think it is important to cover the broad spectrum of business ventures this company covers instead of just focusing on the cereals they are known for. More pictures would be beneficial as well. cjhurlbu —Preceding comment was added at 17:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ingredients from China

how many of your products are made or have ingreediantsmade in china? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.140.250 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 1 July 2007

Photo request

Why not show a picture of the Geneneral Mills headquarter, like the one at http://www.citynoise.org/upload/14733.jpg. It is kind of special.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.33.142 (talk) 01:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pillsbury.jpg

Image:Pillsbury.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

The article read as a promotion for General Mills, which, given the sources, was not surprising. I renamed “History and Accomplishments” to the neutral “History” and removed the “Customer Satisfaction” section; the contents thereof were either deleted (first paragraph violated NOR and NPOV) or appended to history. The remaining paragraph appears to still violate NPOV. A rewrite is also needed to remove peacock words, etc. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 14:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Puffing Gun

The puffing gun was invented by Lester Borchardt, not Thomas R. James Gungasdindin (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

As mentioned above, the article isn't quite NPOV, so I've added a POV tag. I intend to refine the copy, check out existing refs/sources, and add more sources myself over the coming days. Cheers, Conor (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Marketing Campaign

In addition to the marketing campaigns mentioned, the General Mills have a Spanish free subscription magazine called Que Rica Vida (QRV) to increase their share at the untapped demographics of un-acculturated hispanic households.

QRV sends information of the GM products, recipes and other food related articles that add value to the spanish speaking community and thereby trying to develop a customer loyalty.

Now they have expanded the strategy with a new show at the Univision network. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Issaccheriyathu (talk • contribs) 16:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hockey Players? Many mistakes in this article

The CEO of this article was some hockey player and that is not true. It is Ken Powell. And then the board of directors is listed incorrectly. This article needs much work.

-Kristen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.234.148 (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Partnership with Neopets.

I Believe that the Genreal Mills/Neopets partnership that ended in 2008 should be listed, it is very noteworthy. Altenhofen (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality (again)

Was surprised to see a section that basically advertised spending one's food coupons on the General Mills and Pillsbury websites had managed to survive on there under the "General Mills brands" section - was actually a little appalled. Anyway, I've deleted it in the interest of neutrality. Seeyoshirun (talk) 10:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Largest company in Minnesota

Hello. I noticed someone reverting the addition of General Mills's statement about the Minnesota gay marriage ammendment. I think that should stand here. No way is this a "smear tactic" which is what the edit summary said. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

NPOV/DUE on additions

I've reverted a section that Editor:Pass a Method added, I initially thought it was talking about General Mills being opposed to gay marriage and took a closer look and realized it is GM's opposition to an amendment that bans gay marriage. Either way, I am not sure that this is a major or even minor part of the company's activities, and as such, it doesn't seem to be more than a random bit added. I will say that I am less opposed to its inclusion since the company VP seems to be the one saying it, and taking a position on this, but even so, it probably still needs to show somehow the way the company is doing something different, or how customers have changed buying habits or something of consequence, otherwise, it seems like just a random addition. -- Avanu (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Avanu here. The gay marriage amendment has nothing to do with anything else in the article, and hanging it here would be using the article as a WP:COATRACK. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi gentlemen. I've heard of coatracks and agree they should be avoided but an article today by Cyndy Brucato in MinnPost overrides that, "The emphasis on inclusion translates into marketing opportunities, like General Mills’ multiple rankings on the “Best Places to Work” lists." -SusanLesch (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I added the reaction from today. Maybe one of you will wish to edit my words. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Official website??

I don't quiet understand why I could loose the ability to sue General Mills if I'm clicking on the link to their website. The article says: " Official website [Warning, visiting this site may negate your ability to sue General Mills for any reason.] [65] " 87.174.255.124 (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)