Talk:Multi-level marketing/Archive 3

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  More potential references 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Better sources regarding criteria needed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Order of sections??