Talk:Base exchange

Military history: North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Retailing Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Retailing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of retailing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RetailingWikipedia:WikiProject RetailingTemplate:WikiProject RetailingRetailing articles

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Retailing To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : SM Lanang Premier
Copyedit : Retailing in India
Expand : :- Please expand this project's list of articles. The subcategories of Category:Retailers is also an excellent starting point.
- Expand this project's image gallery page

- More articles for expansion: Automated retail, Big-box store, Chain store, Hypermarket, Store manager
NPOV : Retail loss prevention
Photo : Retail design
Stubs : Leakage (retail), Retail geography
Verify : Department store, Discount store, Retail clerk, Retail in the Republic of Ireland, Retail media, Retail software, Suggested retail price
Other : * Please add this project's banner {{WikiProject Retailing}} to retail-related talk pages. Also, bots can be utilized to automate this task.
- Also, add biographies to the articles list.

–When a task is completed, please remove it from the list.

DoD personnel with Exchange privileges

Can DoD Civilians use Base Exchanges now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.240.236.8 (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some DoD personnel have Exchange privileges, it often depends on whether they are a local hire or brought over from the mainland if you are overseas. It is almost a moot point now, given that exchange privileges are practically given away where we are (Guam). There are many theories for this, and since no official reason has been given, we are left to wonder. Given that the Exchange is a "for profit" enterprise, it could be just another way to increase sales, often to individuals with questionable credentials. Many active duty stationed out here feel that many individuals who have exchange privileges do not meet the criteria for same (non-military, exchange employees + their families, etc.), particularly given that many of our folks are in the desert right now to earn those same privileges. On the mainland, we found prices in the community (Walmart, etc) to be comparable or more competitive than the exchange and thus rarely shopped there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Degarota (talk • contribs) 05:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheap

Can someone explain why their prices are so much cheaper?--76.173.255.40 (talk) 08:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the main reasons they are cheaper is because they have less overhead to pay for. The building/physical property is on land that is owned by the Federal Government and therefore lease/purchase overhead and any state or local property taxes are not factored into their cost model. Other things that factor into the prices is the reduced advertising (no TV or radio ads) and willingness by some companies to allow the exchanges to sell below the "fixed" price. For instance, Bose generally does not allow discounting of their products but will allow the military exchanges to price below MSRP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.128.42 (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page Title

I would argue that "Base Exchange" refers specifically to the Air Force exchanges, and is not used by any of the other services. A more universal name for these establishments is "Military Exchange" and would more accurately reflect inclusion of all serves exchanges into one page.--138.163.128.42 (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, can civilians somehow get licenses to operate businesses on Base Exchanges???

Cause, hey, no rent, no advertising needed due to guaranteed clientele, no taxes - seems like a damn lucrative business opportunity! Aadieu (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the AAFES at the base. Some give permits to local vendors. Others have a mini-mall, the shops have low rent and can advertise in the base newspaper. The downside is that the base's chain of command may not approve of a business, you're still competing with business off post and service members get paid on the 1st and 15th. You can be guaranteed customers on payday. The days between, not so much.173.135.203.153 (talk) 05:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I managed a computer repair and sales store for a company out of Arizona in the Travis AFB, California Exchange complex from May 2000 to May 2001 when the store closed. Because we were a civilian contractor, and not AAFES, we were required to charge state sales tax. Several customers were surprised and upset about it, but rules are rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.181.52 (talk) 06:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Navy Exchange

Can be adequately covered in a section within the parent article. A dedicated article is not needed. RadioFan (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree with you RadioFan, a paragraph covering Navy Exchange should be added here and Navy Exchange deleted. JMHamo (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree (though as the author I admit my bias). NEX and AAFES (as well as the smaller ones) are completely separate entities that have unique histories and business practices. They are not accessible to a large portion of the population, but are integral to military members' lives on base, which would make them notable enough for separate articles.

As a compromise, how about a small paragraph (3-4 sentences) in the Base Exchange article with links to the separate articles? I would argue that given the companies' sizes (revenue and location), as well as the importance in the military community, that they are notable enough for separate articles. 76.95.98.12 (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That uniqueness is not represented in the article. Can that be substantiated with references to significant coverage in 3rd party sources?--RadioFan (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I vote no. The Navy Exchange is a proper entity, whereas the proposed merge is with an article of general description. Shentino (talk) 09:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Army and Air Force Exchange Service

Can be adequately covered in a section within the parent article. A dedicated article is not needed. RadioFan (talk) 02:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I vote no.

Not only are AAFES and NX separate proper entities that should not be merged together at all, but if they WERE to be merged, it should be with a generic article about military exchanges in general, which I oppose for the reasons I've stated in the other merge proposal.

Shentino (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also vote no. It would be like trying to merge "Super Market" with Albertsons. David Brazzeal (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Globalization

I've added a Globalization tag to the top. While AAFES, NEX, MCX and CGES are the bulk of the military exchanges that are mentioned on Wikipedia, there should be some mention of NAAFI, CANEX and others, too.--ip.address.conflict (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why separate exchanges?

A question that comes to my mind and very likely to others' is why the army and air force operate a joint system but the other forces have separate exchanges. You might think that it would be more efficient to have a single system for all of the armed forces. If there is information about this, it would be nice to include it.Bill (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]