Talk:Noom

• Keep. To be honest, I do not understand why this article is considered to be an ad.

Is the language promotional? No; the tone is neutral. For example, instead of saying that Noom has X employees, the article states, “Noom says it has X employees.”

Is the content promotional? No; the facts cited seem to be objectively relevant and do not bathe Noom in a positive light. Here are a few specifics: Each claim is footnoted. The sources are varied. The article is succinct. And the controversy section is entirely critical.

Would it help if we removed ”nice to know” details such as the founders’ backgrounds?

I am confident I can fix the problem, and I am eager for your help.

Thank you. PetesPizza (talk) 12:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Partnerships

I propose adding a section for Partnerships. Thoughts? Thank you.

In 2019, as a result of an obesity partnership between Noom and Novo Nordisk, patients taking the diabetes medication Saxenda received free access to Noom for one year.

In 2020, Noom was integrated into Eversana’s patient-service programs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PetesPizza (talk • contribs) 19:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Eversana removed – there is no info or context telling us what Eversana is, and the source doesn't tell us that, either. In addition, Noom is only mentioned as an aside in the source, so clearly not particularly relevant. As for the Novo Nordisk partnership, that's just sourced to a press release. I think that also needs to be removed unless there are actual secondary sources talking about it. --bonadea contributions talk 12:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback.

I think you’re right about Eversana but mistaken about Novo. Why do you think https://www.fiercepharma.com/marketing/novo-nordisk-teams-trending-weight-loss-app-noom-to-help-patients-obesity is a news release? It is a news article.

What’s more, FiercePharma, while not a WP:RS, is a well-known trade publication with editors and writers: https://www.fiercepharma.com/about-us.

Either way, I’m fine without the “partnerships” section; in the scheme of things, these partnerships aren’t terribly notable.

Thank you again. —PetesPizza (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Lede

I propose adding the following sentence to the lede:

"Its methods are based in behavior change[1] and cognitive behavioral therapy."[2]

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32008396/

[2] https://mhealth.jmir.org/2020/4/e14817/

Any objections or suggestions?

Signed, PetesPizza (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The sources don't support that statement, and out of context it reads as a random marketing blurb. The article needs to become less promotional, not more. --bonadea contributions talk 11:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again for your thoughts.

Respectfully, it seems to me that the sources *do* support that simple statement. We can disagree about to what extent Noom’s methods rely on behavior change and CBT, but serious studies, along with significant media coverage, back up the basis of this claim.

Here’s a compromise I’d like to propose:

“Its methods are based on psychology.”

Here are five sources:

1. “Noom, the subscription-based digital platform that focuses on the psychology behind nutrition.” https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lifestyle/lifestyle-news/noom-two-books-simon-schuster-1234978723/

2. “Noom isn't a diet app — it uses psychology to guide you on your health journey.” https://mashable.com/review/noom-app-review

3. “Though food choices are key, the app focuses more on the psychological aspects behind those choices and slowly changing old habits.” https://www.yahoo.com/news/noom-diet-taking-over-instagram-191611445.html

4. “Noom differentiates itself in the crowded weight loss space by its reliance on psychological principles of behavior change and a signature coaching program. Each user is assigned a coach to guide you through the weight loss process using techniques from cognitive behavioral therapy.” https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/eating-mindfully/202005/is-noom-diet

5. “Noom ... uses lessons that rely on cognitive behavioral therapy techniques.” https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/reviewedcom/2021/01/28/noom-review-what-happens-year-after-you-try-weight-loss-app/4281869001/

I welcome your thoughts. Thank you for the dialogue. --PetesPizza (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

About the first two sources, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32008396/ (Hildebrandt et al., 2020, "Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Health Coach-Delivered Smartphone-Guided Self-Help With Standard Care for Adults With Binge Eating", Am J Psychiatry 177(2), 134-142) says "a smartphone app developed to facilitate CBT-GSH". That is not the same thing as "Its methods are based in behavior change[1] and cognitive behavioral therapy.". Furthermore, and more importantly, four of the seven authors are affiliated with Noom: two of them including the first named author Hildebrandt have "equity ownership" of Noom, Inc, and Hildebrandt is also on the advisory board of the company. The other source (Meelim et al., 2019, "Multidimensional Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Obesity Applied by Psychologists Using a Digital Platform: Open-Label Randomized Controlled Trial", JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 8(4):e14817) does not make any claim that could support the statement "based on CBT". We shouldn't use that source anyway. The study was financed by Noom, Inc, and the second author is an employee of them. In addition, it says "The Noom Coach app is one of the most popular smartphone apps currently available" which is a doubtful statement to say the least, and they base it on a very flimsy source.

"Uses psychology" doesn't mean anything, to be honest. It is phrasing that might be appropriate in a headline on Mashable, but not in an encyclopedia article. --bonadea contributions talk 09:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

bonadea, Thanks for your continuing research. In its coverage, the media has consistently described Noom as having roots in known psychological principles. See, for example, the five links and excerpts above. If not "Its methods are psychology-based," then what do you suggest to reflect this coverage? Thanks. PetesPizza (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

As it stands, the current lede, "Noom is a subscription-based app for tracking a person's food intake and exercise habits," does seem to be an oversimplification, since the majority of the app and support within the app is directed to detailed lessons and group forums focused on the psychology behind food intake and weight loss. Would love to see something more accurate, while not moving toward promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pickalittletalkalittle (talk • contribs) 18:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for your feedback, Pickalittletalkalittle. I wholeheartedly agree that the current lede is too simple. What do you think about this alternative?

Noom is a subscription-based app for tracking a person's food intake and exercise habits. The company is known for its emphasis on behavior change and mental wellness.

I provided various links above to document "behavior change" (or more broadly "psychology"). Here are links to document "mental wellness":

1. "With the introduction of a new feature called Noom Mood, [Noom is] expanding into mental wellness." https://www.engadget.com/nood-mood-annoucement-160517322.html

2. "Noom ... just launched Noom Mood, a program for mental well-being to help people develop and implement the techniques and healthy habits needed to manage daily stress." https://www.popsugar.com/fitness/what-is-noom-mood-program-for-mental-health-48553053

3. "Noom is taking its first big step toward becoming a diversified digital health company with Noom Mood, a smartphone wellness app targeted toward people with daily stress and anxiety. Like the company’s weight loss program, Mood ... primarily draws on concepts from cognitive behavioral therapy." https://www.statnews.com/2021/10/14/buoyed-by-its-popular-weight-loss-app-noom-enters-the-crowded-field-of-digital-mental-health/

4. "Noom is now diving into the behavioral health space with the launch of Noom Mood. The new platform was designed to help individuals manage stress and anxious thoughts, as well as boost health habits." https://www.mobihealthnews.com/news/weight-loss-company-noom-launches-behavioral-health-product

PetesPizza (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Excellent support; excellent lede. I'm on board, PetesPizza — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pickalittletalkalittle (talk • contribs) 20:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Pickalittletalkalittle! I'll make this change now. PetesPizza (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Research and claims of efficacy

I have just removed the claim "Noom helped users with hypertension lower their blood pressure" from the "Research" section[1]. The source is a report in a publication that identifies its purpose as "providing news, analysis, and data to innovators at provider groups, payers, pharma companies, tech and venture capital firms as well as startups" – in other words, very far from what we need for a biomedical claim. Furthermore, the study it reports on was a trial study on 50 individuals, carried out by Noom's own research team. 40 of the participants finished the trial, so what we have here is a tiny sample of non-randomised individuals in a non-independent study.

Any claims of medical efficacy in a Wikipedia article must be adequately sourced and must not be misleading. This guide is quite useful reading. --bonadea contributions talk 12:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

That’s a good point! Thank you so much for explaining. My apologies for not digging into this study further. --PetesPizza (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

removing additional promotional elements

add a reference to. the best source, [2]; remove references to PRWeek. or other press releases,; Reviews by Chicago Tribune, USA Today. and Good Housekeeping.[4] are relatively worthless. Don't focus on them, Focus on the science. Reword the app section so it doesn't sound lik. directions to the user. Find a better heading than Controversy, like consumer complaints. DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you greatly for these specifics, DGG! They are most helpful. Let me see if I can address them one at a time.

1. add a reference to. the best source, [2]

I don’t understand what this refers to. (The second footnote is a review of Noom in USA Today.)

2. Remove references to PRWeek.

I’m not sure I understand why we can’t cite PRWeek for a basic fact (when the app launched). Even though PRWeek is not considered a WP:RS, the publication has its own Wikipedia article.

Nonetheless, this is an easy fix: I will change the source to https://www.forbes.com/sites/monicamelton/2020/01/14/weight-loss-app-noom-quadruples-revenue-again-this-time-to-237-million/.

3. Reviews by Chicago Tribune, USA Today. and Good Housekeeping.[4] are relatively worthless. Don't focus on them, Focus on the science.

Doesn’t the fact that something has attracted such significant and reliable coverage underscore its notability?

It seems wrong to discount all reviews because they’re reviews.

Indeed, I’d venture to say that reviews are how many people learn about apps.

Can you help me understand the problem here?

4. Reword the app section so it doesn't sound lik. directions to the user.

You got it! How’s this?

At the outset, Noom asks users to record their physical information (such as weight, height, and age) and their experiential information (such as lifestyle, goals, and obstacles). On an ongoing basis, users then record their meals and exercise.

Users receive feedback in several ways: through articles and quizzes, and from a human coach and other users.

5. Find a better heading than Controversy, like consumer complaints.

I thought the word “controversy” for a heading was standard operating procedure? But I can see why being more specific is better. I’ll change “Controversy” to “Complaints.” Thank you.

—PetesPizza (talk) 14:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I need to tell you that not everything in Forbes is reliable by our standards. Only those articles written by current staff memebersin heir capacity as journalists, that are objective news articles and not interviews where the person says what they please, are considered to eet therequirements of WP:NCORP. The article yo ucite is not aby a current stafff member. And it is an interview where the company representive is allowed to promote his products however he wishes. WP:NCORP was addopte in large partt o make it clear that such are not aceptable references. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, DGG. To clarify: You're referring to the fact that I replaced https://www.prweek.com/article/1497816/noom-goes-war-industry-titan-weight-watchers with https://www.forbes.com/sites/monicamelton/2020/01/14/weight-loss-app-noom-quadruples-revenue-again-this-time-to-237-million/.

Yes, our standards consider interviews to be unreliable. The latter is not an interview. An interview is a Q&A, printed in that format. This is a news article, which — like most news articles — is based on an interview, together with the reporter's own research and reporting.

Also, can you point to the requirement that a WP:FORBES reporter — acting in a straight news capacity rather than a sponsored-content capacity — must currently work here for his or her article to be considered reliable? If that's true, it would invalidate a massive amount of otherwise reliable content.

Thank you.

—PetesPizza (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

an article where the writer simply epeats the words of the proprietor is not reliable, any more any other version of the proprietors own statement would be. Getting such articles written is PR, not journalism. DGG ( talk ) 23:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the continued dialogue. I'm glad we agree this is not an interview. Now you say the article "simply repeats the words" of Noom. Please point to specific examples from the text where the reporter and her editor act as a stenographer. Thank you. --PetesPizza (talk) 01:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

MEDRS

I inquired about the sourcing forthis article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, see the Wikproject Medicine--see [3] and [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=next&oldid=1038461235&diffmode=source] -- there may also be further discussion. This should probably be taken into account. DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for caring so much to research this, DGG.

We deleted the "partnerships" section already; see above here on the "talk" page. This included the reference to Saxenda.

If you have suggestions for the CDC recognition, I'd welcome your thoughts. The sentence in question seems pretty straightforward: "In 2017, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recognized Noom as a diabetes-prevention program, the first mobile app to achieve this status."

Thank you.

Edits From Bonadea on July 28, 2021

A few weeks ago, bonadea made a variety of edits to Noom's page. I'd like to review four of them:

1. Structure. “It is reasonable to assume that readers are more interested in what the app does (or aims to do), than in the details about the company's background and finances.”

Good point — thank you!

2. Better Business Bureau. Thank you for editing this. In retrospect, you’re right that the previous language gave too much weight to Noom’s response. Yet the rewrite seems to go too far in the other direction.

For example, I think it's important to note that the number of complaints represents 0.03% of all customers (admittedly, according to Noom).

What's more, I just checked https://www.bbb.org/us/ny/new-york/profile/health-and-wellness/noom-inc-0121-150555, and the BBB's current rating for Noom is a B.

So, let me propose a compromise: Let's change:

"Noom's CEO said in response that they "take each [complaint] very seriously", but based on the large number of complaints, the BBB gave the app a D rating."

to this:

"In response, Noom's CEO said, 'While the complaints on BBB represent less than 0.03% of [our] customers, we take each one very seriously.'"

What do you think?

3. Number of Employees. Can you help me understand why the number of employees is always irrelevant?

What’s more, 2,600 employees seems like a lot.

The size of a company seems like something our readers would want to know, no?

(Note: I’m fine without this stat; I’m just confused why it was deleted.)

For what it's worth, the lead of GoDaddy's page says, "As of June 2020, GoDaddy has more than 20 million customers[6] and over 7,000 employees worldwide.[7]" And the source for the latter is GoDaddy's own website, whereas the source for Noom's employees is the Wall Street Journal.

4. Funding. Why is the amount of capital that a private startup has raised “of very minor relevance”?

Valuation is a standard metric by which startups are measured — and one the media focuses on.

$540 million is a lot of money.

The VC firms cited not only have their own Wikipedia pages; they’re also some of the most prominent names in the industry.

In other words: The amount of capital raised seems like something our readers would want to know.

Thank you.

—PetesPizza (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• BBB rating: the source says the rating was "D", and unless there is another secondary source (not the BBB themselves, and not Noom themselves) reporting on it, we should stick to what the existing secondary source says. Adding the company's own claims about the number of complaints versus the number of customers would be undue emphasis.
• Number of employees: that info is still there – what I did in this edit was to change "In 2020, Noom generated $400 million in revenue. [...] As of November 2020, Noom says it employs 2,600 people." into "In 2020, Noom generated $400 million in revenue, and as of November 2020, Noom says it employs 2,600 people." I pounce on single-sentence paragraphs, it's a knee-jerk reaction :-)
• Regarding funding and startups, we might wonder whether the amount of startup funding a company had will interest J Random Reader in Botswana or Japan or New Zealand in 25 years' time, but that kind of speculation isn't particularly helpful (I'm guessing it won't, but I obviously can't know!) The information might be worth including if it were discussed in secondary sources, but in this case, the source was this press release. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 15:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I thought I'd seen something about startup capital somewhere. The notability guideline for companies discusses "trivial coverage" and talks specifically about "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: [...] of a capital transaction, such as raised capital". While that is discussed in terms of what makes a company notable, it indicates that it isn't considered very relevant in terms of content, either. Full guideline here: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Examples of trivial coverage. --bonadea contributions talk 15:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

bonadea, Many thanks for explaining and engaging. I understand your point about Noom’s own claims. However, if we exclude the current rating of B, then it’s misleading to include the old rating of D.

So, may I suggest that we remove the following part of the sentence:

"but based on the large number of complaints, the BBB gave the app a D rating."

Alternatively, we could add something like this:

"(as of August 2021, the rating is a B)."

I welcome your continued thoughts. PetesPizza (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I've followed-up with bonadea about the BBB issue, but I haven't heard back. It's been two months. So, unless anyone objects, I plan to remove the following:

"but based on the large number of complaints, the BBB gave the app a D rating."

Interestingly, as of today, the rating is now an "A": https://www.bbb.org/us/ny/new-york/profile/health-and-wellness/noom-inc-0121-150555. --PetesPizza (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Advertisement Template

I believe the concerns that triggered this template have been discussed and addressed. I'm ready to remove this template unless anyone objects. As always, I welcome the thoughts of the community. PetesPizza (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Criticism

I feel that we are not doing a good job covering the criticism here. Firstly, we should avoid having a dedicated Criticism section per WP:CRITS if we can. It's not forbidden but it is far better to cover the criticisms in the main body of the article. Secondly, I feel that we are not covering the depth of the criticism. We don't need to detail every single bad thing that anybody ever said about Noom but we are failing to cover major aspects of it which have been covered in reliable sources. It doesn't take much to find good sources. Here are a few:

• NBC: What you need to know about the weight-loss app Noom, according to a dietitian which looks at the programme and lists some serious criticisms including the qualifications of the staff, the food categorisations and the calorie targets.
• Cosmopolitan: What are 'personalised' diet apps like Noom really doing with our data? which focuses on data protection and data sharing issues.
• Mic: Noom is fat-shaming your childhood which focuses on the way Noom advertises as well as other issues.
• Treatment of staff:
  • Business Insider: Noom markets itself as an anti-diet lifestyle app. Users say they find themselves counting calories, receiving canned advice from burned-out coaches, and taking on expensive subscriptions.
  • Law 360: Ex-Noom Health Coach Will Arbitrate Unpaid Wages Suit which suggests that staff were underpaid. This is behind a paywall and also we don't know the outcome of the arbitration. This may or may not be useful but it is probably worth checking.
• The billing issues ended up in a Class Action suit which was settled with Noom paying out $62M! Why is that not in the article? Seriously? (OK, I'll add it shortly.)
  • Business Insider: https://www.insider.com/noom-weight-loss-app-settles-lawsuit-address-consumer-complaints-2022-2
  • Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/noom-diet-app-reaches-62-mln-settlement-over-automatic-subscription-renewals-2022-02-14/
  • CNET: https://www.cnet.com/personal-finance/how-to-see-if-you-qualify-for-a-piece-of-nooms-56-million-class-action-settlement/

--DanielRigal (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)