Talk:Multi-level marketing/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Criticism section?

I wonder if Criticism is an accurate title for the section as it doesn't contain criticism so much as various lawsuits. Especially when MLM has often been accused (this is my experience) of being a scam and having high drop out rates and low percentages of people turning profits. There are other criticisms I have heard too such as emphasis on recruiting far more than selling in many companies etc. and as mentioned here on the discussion page, cultish tendancies. Since there are so many criticisms of MLM, it is odd to see a criticism section that only contains a couple of lawsuits. Slumdogdiggity (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand this statement. Of the some 18 references in the Criticism section only five are expressly related to lawsuits while the rest come from journals or well respected papers. If you look at the paragraphs nearly ever point above is brought up.

• The first two paragraphs (FTC) address "exaggerated income claims" and "greater incentives for recruitment than product sales"

• Third paragraph quotes from three peer reviewed journals and touches on "cults", "pyramid schemes" "organizations rife with misleading, deceptive, and unethical behavior", and "the exploitation of personal relationships for financial gain" as well as "MLM is completely devoid of any scientific foundations", and "Multi-level marketing companies (MLMs) have become an accepted and legally sanctioned form of pyramid scheme in the United States."

• The fourth and later paragraphs all address the failure rates for MLM.

So other than the drop out rate what is not covered in all that?--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Distinguish from network marketing?

Perhaps there is a difference, but is there an example of a company using network marketing which does not use multi-level marketing. I think if you can actually find something to say about network marketing which is not about multi-level marketing, you should start there before making edits to this article.

It should also be noted that you're damaging the category tags, even if your edit was otherwise correct (which I don't think it is.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The definition I wrote is not incorrect. And it is more correct than the version you keep reverting back to. Please see the FTC documents referenced in the article itself. Multi-level marketing is not multi-level marketing without its unique compensation structure. In addition a company can utilize a network marketing strategy (i.e. be a network marketing company) and not be a multi-level marketing company. (And yes, I could provide examples of such companies. Is it really that hard to believe that a company could exist and rely on word of mouth marketing through the personal networks of its distributors and compensate them only for the sales they make and NOT from the sales of people they recruit?) That is the difference.

In addition to this and in reference to your revert of the article content I created for network marketing, I hardly consider two "yes's" (one of which claims pyramid schemes are the same as MLM) with nearly zero discussion a "consensus." For an actual discussion I turn your attention to this very talk page (Talk:Multi-level_marketing#MLM and network marketing). (discussion was archived here Enric Naval (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC))

Just as there is a difference between an illegal pyramid scheme and a multi-level marketing structure, there is a difference between multi-level marketing and network marketing. MLMs are generally legal as long as individuals are not compensated for enrolling others in the structure. This is why they are differentiated from illegal pyramid schemes. A network marketing company is only a multi-level marketing company if marketers are compensated for the sales of other marketers they recruit...thus creating uplines and downlines and multiple levels of marketers. If independent distributors (i.e. marketers) are compensated on their own sales efforts and/or cannot be compensated by sales of a continuous downline of other marketers, the company is not multi-level. This does not mean it cannot be using a network marketing strategy.

I am surprised to see an administrator continue to revert edits that have been made in good faith and that improve the encyclopedia instead of opening a dialogue and/or making his own edits. Even if there were acts of vandalism a revert should not be performed if other useful edits were made. It is not difficult to simply make specific changes without affecting the entire article. In this particular case there was not even vandalism...there is simply a disagreement of wording. Not only is that alone not enough to warrant multiple reverts, there is simply no reason to remove the internal links and citation references I included with my change.

Again, there has been much more discussion on this topic than the two "yes's" to the merge proposal you referenced, and from that discussion a separate article was requested. In addition, even if this were not the case, there is a distinct difference between the terms and they warrant their own articles. I will recreate the content for Network marketing and include a proposed merge tag. I hope you will continue this discussion but also respect the edits, which do improve the encyclopedia. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 01:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it MLM should be distinguished from network marketing. Fixing the latter article to include something not about MLM, which has not yet been done, is the first step. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is there's no real consensus on this in the "real world". There's sources that say they're the same, others that say they're different. There's a similar debate going on in the swedish wikipedia.I it's been common usage amongst some to call MLM "pyramid selling" (in swedish of course). Indeed I believe in the UK that the original law that made MLM legal actually referred to it as "pyramid selling". The problem is that other countries had MLM and "Pyramid Selling" meaning different things, with the later illegal (basically a pyramid scam with a bogus product). So folk who've called MLM "pyramid selling" (quite a few wikieditors there!) are determined that the MLM related article should say they're pyramid selling companies. The problem is, various EU commission documents and directives say "pyramid selling" is illegal throughout the EU. This means the Wikipedia articles are effectively calling the companies illegal. To confuse it, the EU docs never really seem to define what it is.

Confusing it even further is when you have companies like Melaleuca, which clearly uses a multi-level compensation plan, going out of there way to say they don't do MLM. I think what they're trying to do is distance themselves from the many many clear pyramid scams that call themselves MLMs in order to try and look legitimate. Indeed, I suspect it may be possible that the majority of companies that call themselves MLM are actually illegal pyramids. I think this utter confusion even spreads to what would otherwise be considered reliable sources.

Which all in all means this article is going to be a pain in the a** to get even close to consensus.

--Insider201283 (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Did anyone actually read the FTC sources. They distinguish MLM from pyramid schemes (and, to some extent, Ponzi schemes), but do not mention network marketing at all. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I read them and found them useless in this regard and so found FIVE scholarly papers (Pratt, Michael G.; Rosa, José Antonio (2003), Vander Nat, Peter J.; Keep, William W. (2002), Merrilees, Bill; Miller, Dale (1999), Cahn, Peter S. (2006)) across three different fields (including business) saying that network marketing is just another name for MLM. That should slam the door on those who keep claiming they are different things.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It's been several months and Network marketing still doesn't have any proper reference for the distintion from MLM. The only independent sources are those of the FTC, and both of them say that MLM and network marketing are different names for the same thing. I'm going to redirect it here. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I added the names of "direct selling" and "referral marketing". --Enric Naval (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

More potential references

Looking around for more information on MLM I found some interesting references connecting it to "pyramid selling" or saying that nearly all MLM opportunities are scams:

• Purchasing scams and how to avoid them by Gower Publishing Company Trevor Kitching pg 4
• The guide to franchising (2004) by Martin Mendelsohn Cengage Learning Business Press pg 36
• SCAMS - and how to protect yourself from them (2008) by Timi Ogunjobi Tee Publishing pg 13-19
• Expert Fraud Investigation: A Step-by-Step Guide By Tracy L. Coenen Wiley pg 168 :"Multi-level marketing companies (MLMs) have become an accepted and legally sanctioned form of pyramid scheme in the United States."

This should put a few more nails into this as now even Wiley is saying that MLMs are effectively bogus.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Financial & Tax Fraud Education Associates (cited in Forbes Best of the web 2000) has a long article on Multi-Level Marketing (MLM) going over the problems MLMs have and pointing out that thanks to the internet what viability they had has disappeared.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Better sources regarding criteria needed

I removed the reference to Babener because the man contradicts himself in his 1997 FTC v. JewelWay - New Concerns For Industry: The Fifty Percent PLUS Rule and FTC v. Futurenet which portray lower amounts from the 70% in the Amway case. The FTC own web site doesn't seem to give any percentage just general guidelines.

On the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive it is unclear to someone not versed in legal doctrine if personal consumption is allowed. For example the UK version clearly states "“consumer” means any individual who in relation to a commercial practice is acting for purposes which are outside his business" which to a non legal expert would mean that sale to a "distributor" who does not sale it does not count as a consumer.

I also removed the direct quote by Peter Vander Nat because it lacked two critical things need to find it and double check: title and author of the article in the WSJ. When those can be provided it can be put back in.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Many sources are not WP:RS

This article is unbalanced and and relies greatly on sources that are not WP:RS

• Terry Sandbek, Ph.D. "Brain Typing: The Pseudoscience of Cold Reading" Journal of the American Board of Sport Psychology

This is not an authentic academic journal, as is obvious from a review of the website [1]. Articles are published only on the website, with the "inaugural issue" in 2007, and the last in 2008. As best I can tell no article has ever been cited in a peer-review published journal.

• Taylor, Jon M. (2002). "Comparing Recruiting MLM’s with No-product Pyramid Schemes, and with Gambling". Consumers Awareness Institute. Retrieved 2009-06-25.

Self published article on a website

• FitzPatrick, Robert L. (August 4, 2002). "The 10 Big Lies of Multi-Level Marketing". Consumers Awareness Institute. Retrieved 2009-06-25.

Self published article on a website

• "What's Wrong With Multi-Level Marketing?". Vandruff.com. Retrieved 2009-06-29.

Self published article on a website

• "Why the FTC Lets MLM Run Wild in America". pyramid scheme alert. August 13, 2008. Retrieved 2009-06-04.

Self published article on a website

• Taylor, Jon M. (2004). "Top Ten Things I Learned from Ten Years' Research on Network Marketing or MLM". Consumers Awareness Institute. Retrieved 2009-06-25

Self published article on a website

• "Unilevel Compensation Plan". The Compensation Plan. network-marketing-business-school.com. Retrieved 2009-08-28.

Self published article on a website

• "Spencer Reese of Law Firm Grimes & Reese".

Self published article on a website --Insider201283 (talk) 12:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note that Arthur Rubin, TheEditor22, and myself all agreed that Fitzpatrick and Taylor were reliable sources with TheEditor22 and I agreeing on this point on the Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_1#When_does_an_person_become_enough_of_an_expert_that_we_can_used_his_self-published_material.3F Reliable sources Noticeboard. Also Insider201283 has had previous COI problems regarding particular MLMs even going as far as saying User_talk:Insider201283/Archive_2#SEO "I have no problems being accused of violating WP:COI - I am." and User_talk:Insider201283/Archive_3#Conflict_of_interest getting dinged again for COI issues. I should mention that youtube has a set of very pro Amway and Quixtar videos under this exact same name.

Also contrary to what Insider201283 thinks a badly designed web site does not translate into unscholarly. The actual Journal of the American Board of Sport Psychology site clearly states: "The Journal of the American Board of Sport Psychology is a peer reviewed journal devoted to disseminating scientific and popular research-based articles in an efficient and timely manner. The Journal also publishes technical reports, editorials, opinions, special features, and letters to the editors, as well as classified and other advertising. Peer-reviewed articles are posted in PDF format, requiring that you have ADOBE Reader. If not you can download it for free at www.adobe.com."

Worse for Insider201283 a link to the American Board of Sport Psych. is provided by [Adams State College http://www.adams.edu/academics/sportpsych/] who has the following accreditations: North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCA-HLC) Accreditation, Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (CCNE); Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP); and National Association of Schools of Music (NASM), Commission on Accreditation.

Carlstedt PhD, Roland A. (Editor) (2009) Handbook of Integrative Clinical Psychology, Psychiatry, and Behavioral Medicine: Perspectives, Practices, and Research Springer Publishing Company ("Springer Publishing Company is extremely proud of our history -- publishing academic and professional works for more than 50 years.") on page 3 clearly states that Carlstedt has published articles in The Journal of the American Board of Sport Psychology and Biofeedback, Cortex, Brain and Cognition.

So an accredited college recommends it and a publisher who had been publishing academic and professional works for more than 50 years uses it as why an author of its Handbook of Integrative Clinical Psychology, Psychiatry, and Behavioral Medicine: Perspectives, Practices, and Research is trustworthy. Oh just in case Insider201283 regales us with some other nonsense Springer Publishing Company also puts out A Guide to the Standard EMDR Protocols for Clinicians, Supervisors, and Consultants, Chemistry and Physics for Nurse Anesthesia: A Student Centered Approach, Handbook of Forensic Neuropsychology, Second Edition, and EMDR and the Art of Psychotherapy With Children: Treatment Manual and Text just to mention a few.

Talk about major egg on the face. Sheesh Insider201283 do you even know how to do actual research before posting this nonsense?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The link you gave on RS/N does NOT support your claim that Arthur Rubin agreed with you. Arthur Rubin did not even contribute to the discussion. TheEditor22 did, however he was a partisan in the dispute - and it's worth noting he was banned for his editorial behaviour on WP. By contrast, independent editors User:Jezhotwells and User:Jakew on that thread, and User:KillerChihuahua on this RS/N discussion all said no. I'm more than willing to put each article up on RS/N for further comment if you wish. Oh, and COI guidelines have changed since that very old discussion you linked to. "outing" someone by connecting their WP account with a site elsewhere, as you just did with Youtube, is also a bannable WP offence. Don't do it. --Insider201283 (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I've listed the first article (Sandbek) on RS/N - Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#www.americanboardofsportpsychology.org--Insider201283 (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Pointing out possible COI is not outing expecially as you have flagged once beofre by an administrator and two other editors for this behavior in the past.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you pointed out my youtube account. The other issues were addressed several YEARS ago, including a trip through WP dispute resolution processes - where, incidentally, an arbitrator said I really didn't have the COI I thought as a naive new editor. In any case, little more than ad hominems on your part, which says a lot about the strength of your argument. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I pointed out a youtube account with the same name I never said is was your account. I have finally tired of your antics here and have gone to an administrator to sort this mess out.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Sort what mess out? I posted a list of my concerns on the talk page. You disputed them, we're now looking at them on RS/N. This is pretty normal procedure Bruce. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Gaming the system for starters. The only major dealing I have have with MLM off of Wikipedia is with some guy named Icerat over in the MLM thread of Randi's website and he claimed to be you. Note at no time did I accept Icerat's claim he was you so unless you are Icerat WP:OUTING does not apply. Furthermore, Icerat shows clear WP:COI towards reliable sources. When two Wiley and one Sage Publishing were presented he stated that since they called MLM legal pyramid schemes "Which just goes to show they're not reliable sources." and more to the point Coenen, Tracy (2009) is the latest of the Wiley publications.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, I provided you with MANY links from government authorities around the world stating "pyramid schemes are illegal". As such stating something is "a legal pyramid scheme" is a clear oxymoron and clear evidence the author is NOT a reliable source on the topic. If someone states something, and they're provably wrong with a multitude of indisputable authoritive sources, then they clearly are not reliable. I have every good faith intention of getting this article into an encyclopedic form, including addressing controversies over the topic. Your insistence on using a variety of non WP:RS sources to push your POV is a major roadblock towards that goal. There are a multitude of clearly WP:RS sources available, let's use them. You'll note in the list above I've included pro-MLM sites in the list of sources I think should not be used. --Insider201283 (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Two Wiley publications and a sage publication are not RS because they don't agree with your clear COI nonsense?!? First you say Wiley is reliable regardless of who the author is and what he says and now you are saying the exact OPPOSITE?!? GIVE ME A FREAKING BREAK!--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, I never said any such thing. Though I must say that your position that my view, which is the same as governments around the world, is "nonsense" says quite a lot about your POV on this.--Insider201283 (talk) 10:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You implied as much with your comments regarding Carroll (2003) and Coenen (2009) not being usable despite the fact they are supported by Salinger (2005) and yet also saying (as shown by the archive) that Rubino is usable...simply because he was published by Wiley. Well newsflash so are Carroll (2003) and Coenen (2009) and unlike Rubino they are supported by another WP:RS published by Sage. I will say that the material regarding the name "pyramid selling" is a mess as there are RS as recent as 2007 that call MLM this while equally RS expressly state that "pyramid selling" is illegal and MLMs are different.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Whether something is usable or not depends a lot on the context, as is noted in much discussion on RS/N about Carroll's book. I don't think I've ever made an argument about Rubino's book, I haven't read it. The point is that we HAVE an ultimate authority about whether something is legal or illegal, and that's governments. They have CLEARLY stated that "pyramid schemes" are illegal. There should be no dispute about that. "legal pyramid scheme" is thus an oxymoron, it's simply not something that can exist. Anyone saying it can (and this includes you apparently) has clearly not researched the law in the area and thus is clearly not a good source to discuss the legality or otherwise of something. Now with regard "pyramid selling" that's a different term altogether and has a whole list of other issues. In some jurisdictions "pyramid selling" has been something "legal", in others it's been considered synonymous with "pyramid scheme" and thus illegal. In some places it's changed over time. For example in some European countries "pyramid selling" was a common term to describe legal MLM operations, however EU law now equates pyramid selling and pyramid schemes, and they are illegal. So the term is now incorrect. A discussion on confusion over the terms is certainly something I think should be in the article, I'm just not sure there is an RS actually discussing it so it may fall under OR.--Insider201283 (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Here we get your typical weasel words of "I don't think" or "I don't believe" when some point you raised before that was totally shredded in the past is brought back up. You did this with Cruz and got I called you on the carpet for it and am doing the same with Rubino.

The Talk:Multi-level_marketing/Archive_2 is interesting as you expressly states "The books I've listed are only from recognized publishing companies and not self-published." and you provided that total ridiculous list that included Kiyosaki's self published book "The Business School for People Who Like Helping People" a man known for claiming his cat as his business partner as an unethical (and according to John T Reed illegal) way to get out of contracts. You replied directly to my comments of "As my University of Chicago Press example shows even the most scholarly publishing house can go into vanity book land so going just on the merit of the publish house may not be enough. The Rubino book does have a few problems--he doesn't have a degree in the relevant field and he appears to be the sole editor. In "Great Formula: For Creating Maximum Profit with Minimal Effort‎" by Mark Joyner Page 194, Rubino talks about the future release of The Ultimate Guide to Network Marketing in context with the expansion of his MLM formula. COI problems galore." on July 8, 2009.

On the issue of RS talking about "pyramid selling" the problem here is you have the legal definition and the common definition. When the common definition is used even companies in the EU (like [ACN]) say "A pyramid selling scheme is any business where the primary form of compensation is derived from the fees that others pay to join the business, rather than from the sale of products or services to end consumers." you know there are going to be problems. The most problematic thing is the very often use of the word scheme in much of the literature rather than the world model. The term "scheme" automatically puts things into a negative light and yet even supportive sources like Koehn (2001) use the word when talking about MLMsBruceGrubb (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, I already pointed out common usage of "pyramid selling" in europe and that the article should address this. That's not the same as "pyramid scheme", which has had clear definitions for decades. As for Rubino, you're claiming I'm stating Rubino is usable and then you support your claim by quoting places where I said it's "problematic"???!?!?!? How exactly do you justify that? With regards Kiyosaki, as I've said before I think it's probably NOT a good source to use. I'd note though that it is actually NOT self-published, published by Tech Press. A discussion over on WP:SPS has also made clearly that even something like CashFlow Technologies, which originally published the book, is not considered "self-published" either for Wikipedia purposes. Nevertheless it's relatively low standard on the quality scale as far as I'm concerned, with no sources of it's own, and should be avoided except perhaps to indicate his opinion of the industry. As for the cat thing, I had to look it up and it was, in Kiyosaki's own words in the very next sentence, an absurd illustation - I make this absurd statement to illustrate how absurdly easy and simple the game is.

So so far, your argument to use clearly poor anti-MLM sources seems to be based on the argument that I'm biased and am trying to also exclude poor pro-MLM sources. Yeah, that makes sense! --Insider201283 (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

(remove indent)Sorry Insider but the edition you linked to was by Cashflow Technologies Inc (a publisher owned by Kiyosaki and who he is the president of so yes it is self-published despite your claims to the contrary. Furthermore, there is nothing even on TechPress own webpage that shows they would qualify as a reliable publisher. You have claimed a peer reviewed (Crez) wasn't, publishers that were reliable when they were pro-MLM magically become unreliable when they have anti-MLM statements, article by such papers as The Times, and the list goes on.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, seriously, can you take a breath and read what I write? I said the TechPress edition is not self-published - I didn't say the book was a reliable source - in fact I said in my opinion it is NOT a source we should be using. Furthermore, as you've already pointed out ad nauseum, and which I always agree with you, just because something is by a legitimate publisher doesn't make it automatically a reliable source for every issue it addresses, other factors need to be considered. --Insider201283 (talk) 10:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

pyramidschemealert.org and mlm-thetruth.com were both listed on RS/N last year with regards this article and both were rejected as reliable sources [2] [3]. I'm removing the claims supported by them. --Insider201283 (talk) 10:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I've put up the False Profits book on WP:RS/N for comments [4]--Insider201283 (talk) 11:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Bruce - I assume (Carter, 1999) refers to Ruth Carter's self-published book? Do you have the Hopfl & Maddrell, 1996 reference? I cannot find it. --Insider201283 (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The statement is exact quote from a peer-reviewed journal (Carl, Walter J. (2004) "The Interactional Business of Doing Business: Managing Legitimacy and Co-constructing Entrepreneurial Identities in E-Commerce Multilevel Marketing Discourse" Western Journal of Communication, Vol. 68) so it doesn't matter what (Carter, 1999) is in reference to.

I should mention the exact same line in unreferenced form appears in Phillip G. Clampitt's Communicating for managerial effectiveness 3rd edition (2004) Sage Publications on pg 667. I choose the Carl (2004) one because it is in a peer reviewed journal (Western Journal of Communication) and and unlike Clampitt Carl tells you where the ideas in the statement come from.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, this seems to me a flagrant attempt to get around the spirit of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I've posted it on RS/N for comment [5]--Insider201283 (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

(remove indent) Insider201283, you are straw grasping again. This is a direct quote from a peer reviewed journal ([see http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=LL1MnRtmmx2ppdCZ2276JGfxKBQl9Gy1yt139NmNvGzhMgC23Qdq!-1659539997!-1970812899?docId=5002106110] for a partial extract) and therefore not a "flagrant attempt to get around the spirit of Wikipedia policies" especially as the Carl quote is clearly the better one (providing direct inline reverences). Besides it has been you who have been called on the carpet several times for overt pro-MLM pushing and possible COI issues as can be seen by your talk page archives.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Also David Underdown sided with me on the main issue on the "Does reference of self published websites in scholarly or peer reviewed sources make those sources reliable?" section right above and this show a clear attempt at WP:GAME by creating your own sub threads five hours after I created mine. Furthermore user:Arthur Rubin and user:TheEditor22 (who based on User talk:TheEditor22 made some bad choises in keeping to the spirit) agreed with my main point.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, I have no idea what you're talking about "gaming" with creating sub threads etc. What thread are you talking about? The fact you continue to cite someone as "support" who got banned from WP for bad faith editing is pretty funny though! --Insider201283 (talk) 12:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Order of sections??

I'm no fan of MLM groups, since I think many of their more naive members do end up becoming somewhat brainwashed (even if that's not intended by the higher-ups), but that said--what in the world is the criticism doing first? You can't have a criticism of something you haven't even described yet. I recommend moving the criticism section to the end and adding a short paragraph in the introduction about the controversy. I've worked on several 'controversial' articles, and i've never seen one that starts with the controversy. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 02:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

yes, definitely needs reordering. There's been a large amount of editing done recently by an editor pushing a particular POV. The positioning of the section is just part of that. I'm presently putting many of his sources through RS/N so there's no dispute they're unacceptable, a deal of his text has already been removed.--Insider201283 (talk) 11:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

While we are at it do we really need a Compensation plan section? It already is looking somewhat WP:coatrackish and doesn't really add to the article. Also if you compare the graph of a Binary plan to that of an "Eight-Ball" Pyramid_scheme and you see other problems and the Binary plan article doesn't do a good job of explaining the system.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Something about different styles of MLM is important, but the current compensation plan section definitely needs rewriting sourcing. I've no idea why you think WP:coatrack applies since the idea of a multilevel compensation plan is what differentiates MLM from other sales compensation plans. Though thanks for the coatrack reference, I hadn't seen it before and, with respect, it describes well much of your approach to editing this and related articles. --Insider201283 (talk) 13:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that the Criticism section should not be first for the reason stated, "You can't have a criticism of something you haven't described yet.". I found it odd (and biased) seeing it placed at the top when I first read the article. Leave it, but it should be moved nearer the bottom. Leave the Compensation section also. prhartcom (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Incomes

Various other reports regarding profits by MLM members have been stated by

• The Times: "The Government investigation claims to have revealed that just 10 per cent of Amway’s agents in Britain make any profit, with less than one in ten selling a single item of the group’s products."
• Scheibeler, a high level "Emerald" Amway member: "UK Justice Norrisfound in 2008 that out of an IBO (Independent Business Owners) population of 33,000, 'only about 90 made sufficient incomes to cover the costs of actively building their business.' That's a 99.7 percent loss rate for investors."
• Newsweek: based on one MLM company's own 2007 income disclosure statement "fewer than 1 percent qualified for commissions and of those, only 10 percent made more than $100 a week."
• Business Students Focus on Ethics: "In the USA, the average annual income from MLM for 90% MLM members is no more than US$5,000, which is far from being a sufficient means of making a living (San Lian Life Weekly 1998)"
• USAToday: "While earning potential varies by company and sales ability, DSA says the median annual income for those in direct sales is $2,400."

I've moved this here to talk because it's not "criticism" and putting it in criticism is not neutral. Given context (eg amount of hours effort put in etc) they may be considered very positively. I think (but am not sure to be honest) that it's fine to have them in the article, but it may be original research as it requires defining which companies are MLM and collating the data. What is definitely needed is participation stats, dsa.org has some on hours worked etc. I'm not sure if any article on any other industry includes statistics on average wages, particularly from one country though???? --Insider201283 (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not criticism? Come on, Insider201283 this is smacking of desperation to keep bad things about specific MLMs or MLMs in general out of this article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

a) This is not OR since all the sources are talking either about MLM in general or about specific MLM companies. (I hope you don't want to argue that Amway, Quixtar or MonaVie are not MLM companies)

b) This should be rewritten, placing first the statement about MLM in general, and then the examples of specific companies.

c) Just make a new section called "Income".

--Enric Naval (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Insider201283 makes points; i.e. the incomes could be in line with the amount of effort put forward, therefore these incomes are useful but not necessarily criticism of MLM. We should present the data and let the reader decide if this is a good thing or a bad thing. If an editor has a bias going into this situation that "MLMs are bad and this proves it", such an editor should use caution to try to avoid straying from a neautral point of view.

I agree that Enric Naval also makes valid points; i.e. this may not be OR. The new section could be created called Income and just present the sourced data, allowing it to speak in general terms about MLMs. In the cases where the data speaks of a specific MLM I recommend keeping my earlier edit which modified the sentence to be more general—the reader may then follow the footnote and learn which specific MLM company(ies) are involved in the data if they so desired. prhartcom (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(I just noticed I smoothed over one MLM to make it more general but neglected to do the same for two others; this would have to be done.) prhartcom (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, I explicitly said I think this info SHOULD be in the article - how is that "smacking of desperation to keep it out" exactly? To be honest I'm starting to get used to you putting words in my mouth. Anyway, it deserves a section as an inherent part of the MLM strategy is the income opportunity, but as already mentioned it also needs context. It's not inherently "criticism" at all - take AMway's average income data, which includes people who simply registered as to obtain discount pricing and happened to buy enough to get a further discount. Or someone who just joined and merely asked someone, once, if they wanted to buy something - and the said "no". They're in the average calculations. $2400 bucks a year is pretty good for one question! On the other hand, a guy who has been developing a business for 30 years and is making $10 million a year is also in the data. Context matters. Primary sources are fine for straight data, so we can use corporate income disclosure statements. They all use different methods of calculating though, which makes it even more confusing.--Insider201283 (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

But the problem is that $2400 net or gross? The two are very different. Even the DSA's own comment to the FTC does not mention the word gross with regards to income once making it hard for a layman to evaluate what it is talking about. The DSA's web site on direct sells in general is again hard to really determine what the numbers are telling you.

Also if ...For Dummies qualify as WP:RS as you implied earlier (because they are published by Wiley) then the 2009 Home-Based Business for Dummies by Paul Edwards, Sarah Edwards, Peter Economy with its statement that in 2006 the typical Quinxtar/Amway distributor made $115 a month before expenses (ie gross) is the better source. Also Edwards points out that some 20 percent of direct sales (part of the the number the "$2400" number USAToday gave) are not in multi level marketing (pg 39) and they make some $6 billion with those in multilevel marketing making $24 billion. This shows the problem with having only part of the data with no way to to connect the numbers together.

I should mention that direct sales is not simply asking one question (getting a job is the one form of direct sales everyone does. Did you simply say 'will you hire me'? No so why should it be any different with any other product?) Also according to Edwards few MLMs even give distributor statements and one of the reason Amway/Quinxtar does is due to a settlement with the government (Sadly Edwards is not clear as to how that settlement came about).--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

(1)I've made no proposals to used the "Dummies Guide" as a source for anything in the article. All I've done is list it in a list of potential sources. Sources have to be evaluated on more than just the publisher. (2) The $2400 was the average from the DSA. It's a gross income. I did find a source for that, but also confirmed it by emailing them and asking. (3)Does the Edwards reference have a source for their claim re direct sales? It's contrary to official industry statistics.(4) AFAIK most DSA member companies have earnings disclosure statements. A quick google found some form of income disclosure for Avon, Amway, Jafra, Mary Kay, Herbalife, Primerica, Tupperware, NuSkin, MonaVie, Melaleuca, Oriflame. That's 11 of the top 13 MLM companies. The 2 missing probably have them too.

Again, your memory fails as Talk:Multi-level_marketing/Archive_2#Sources_for_the_article shows otherwise. Along with Ziglar we also had self publisher drivel like Kiyosaki and Poe and prefacing this list of good, maybes, and horrid was the clear statement "The books I've listed are only from recognized publishing companies and not self-published. As such they are considered good sources under Wikipedia guidelines WP:RS and WP:V." Well The Business School for People Who Like Helping People which was one of the books you listed was neither of these.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, your ability to read fails you. In Talk:Multi-level_marketing/Archive_2#Sources_for_the_article I provided a list of sources for discussion. As I've already pointed out to you, books published by, for example, Cashflow are NOT considered SPS as they have editorial staff and processes, but that doesn't really matter as (again, as I've already told you but you conveniently keep ignoring), the book has also been by TechPress.[6]. The books I listed are good under WP:RS and WP:V. That doesn't necessarily make them sources we should use, it depends on the context. Business school for example probably shouldn't be used for more than noting Trump and Kiyosaki's support for the model.--Insider201283 (talk) 11:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

(remove indent) Come on Insider201283, Cashflow can clearly be shown to be a company Kiyosaki owns Trying to claim that author of a book who as documented by the Business Entity Information of Nevada is not only President of the publisher but also is the Secretary, Treasurer, and Director is not self published is pure insanity. Also as user:Arthur Rubin and I both pointed out and are supported by such people as John T. Reed (whose views on real estate gurus like Kiyosaki and real estate investment in general have appeared in such reliable publishers as MSN Money, CNN Money, and even the New York Times) Kiyosaki is hardly an expert unless it is in very questionable and potentially illegal advice. If anything Kiyosaki is the poster child of what is wrong with MLMs.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh good grief, Bruce, don't you have anything better to do with your life than argue about irrelevancies? Nobody is trying to use Business School as a reference ... yet here you are expending all this energy to say it shouldn't be used!!! WHO CARES??!?!??! --Insider201283 (talk) 10:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Insider20128, you are expending all this energy defending a publisher and author that can't be defended.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record TechPress by their own admission "played a key role in the global success of the Rich Dad brand in coordinating international rights for the Rich Dad series of books (over 26 million copies sold worldwide)." That they claim credit for making a man who admits to using his cat as a business partner as a contract dodge and whose advice has been said to be at best unethical if not outright illegal famous does not make them very credible.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)