Talk:Primerica/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Criticism Section

I removed 'and criticisms' from the title of the 'Ratings, awards, commendations, and criticism' section because that section contained only praise and no criticism. I think that a 'Criticism' section should be added to this article, independent of the 'Ratings, awards and commendations' section. I am unsure of how to do this myself (perhaps I do not have the authority?). Articles like this one from the New York Times could be added to my proposed 'Criticism' section: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/16/nyregion/at-latest-job-fair-a-warning-not-to-take-some-jobs.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pirate fishrick (talk • contribs) 18:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

That article simply states that Primerica was there and that people show know what they are getting into before joining. Nothing good nor bad about the company. It even states Primerica is "legitimate to be an organizer of the event." It did say the ones outside the arena were mostly schemes and scams. You could infer from the article that Primerica was INSIDE the arena. Not a criticism, but not a compliment either. rjhancock (talk) 00:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE leave the criticism section alone. Stop deleting it. Censoring criticism does not change the fact that this company is highly controversial. I don't see how censoring the 'other side' is fair representation of this company. You can't have a huge section of "awards" and not allow for criticism.

Please leave the criticism section there. If you have a problem with the criticism, please change the text but leave the section in place. There is genuine criticism of Primerica, just as there is genuine criticism about Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. If you remove the criticism section completely, then the article is violating NPOV. --OMouse (talk) 03:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

As it stands, the first paragraph starts with a vague and unsourced criticism and drifts off into a discussion about compensation. It's unencyclopedic, badly written and unsourced. The second paragraph cites a dubious source (see other discussion for details) and ends up not being a criticism at all, but a refutation of that criticism. Little of what is written adheres to the standards of wikipedia. The rest runs counter to what the section is supposed to be about. Once those are removed there is nothing left to the section. That is why the section was removed. If you have anything to cite from credible sources, please do so. But without those sources there is no way to build a balanced article. Monkey Bounce (talk) 06:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah shit, I forgot to include the change I made earlier to the section. I just wanted to revert it quickly and then edit, oops! Let me dig through the history and find it. The change included a CBC source, which is more credible than Rip-off Reports. Oops, I was thinking of the wrong article! Nevermind. --OMouse (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

So you removed everything in the section but left the header. Then, when someone removed the header, you reverted. I'm hoping to prevent a truly unnecessary revert war here. Care to explain why we need a header to an empty section? Monkey Bounce (talk) 08:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, I noticed that you accused the user who removed the header of vandalism. I'm beginning to suspect that you are operating with less than good intentions.Monkey Bounce (talk) 02:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The first and only paragraph of the criticism section contains multiple POV statements, and contains anecdotes, without citations, to support the idea that Primerica is somehow operating under an unethical business model or below ethical standards. I came to this article to get some information on this company and most of the sections were helpful except for this Criticism section which, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see, as a whole appears to be written by some disgruntled former employee. In addition, the statement about the $199 fee for state licensing is incomplete. There are currently two methods of obtaining a state business license as a Primerica agent - one costs $199, the other costs $99, and a full disclosure of the purpose of the fee, as well as a receipt of the application for independent business license for the state of operation, is required to be given to the potential agent, according to Primerica policy. The tone of the Criticism section, and specific statements made in this section, not only omit that information but paint a false picture. It has taken me a lot of research to attempt to verify the claims made in this section, as well as to determine Primerica's actual operating standards. Leaving a criticism section up for this article is fine but if a statement is made without supporting evidence, it's merely an anecdote and should be removed. I therefore will remove the statements without citations as they are solely such anecdotes and do nothing to inform the reader of actual, documented, evidence of criticisms. 134.79.57.22 (talk) 02:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A Dubious History

Primerica has a dubious history and in the interests of equitable coverage should be included in any article on it. As part of that heritage, it should be noted in this article that Primerica was prohibited from practicing in the State of New York for a period of time. Additionally, they may have been prohibited from practicing in other U.S. states as well. Stevenmitchell 23:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The company you're spaking of is A.L. Williams. The reason they were stopped from operating is the insurance industry was pushing bad press and makig false claims against them. There's been no such action taken to my knowledge since Primerica's been the company name.Thegzeus 19:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to state that, being a former agent myself, I don't believe for one second that the $199 fee goes to "government courses". Why? First of all, if it is a state-sponsored (or provincially-sponsored) program it wouldn't be "$199" everywhere- it would vary. Second of all, if it's a government program, then you should be able to get your license following the completion of the program. The fact that you don't indicates that it most likely isn't government-sponsored.

I would also like to state that the previous revision's assertation that the opinions of former agents can be "dismissed" to be rather disgusting. We are not merely a class of fifty or so people- thousands of failed recruits come every year, as the company loses between 90-98% of its workforce annually. In a subjective article, these complaints- which are substantial- should not be brushed aside but rather brought to the light, since neutrality demands that nothing hides its bad side. I am not saying that Primerica cannot provide a legitimate business- some people have managed to succeed, and I congratulate them. However, for a Wikipedia article to denounce the accusations of many as unimportant stands in the way of everything that Wikipedia is about, since neutrality isn't about hiding anything.-RomeW

HUH? I took my test and got licensced immediately after I finished my classes. 4 days after, in fact. What's your company's turnover rate? Well, a better comparison would be the industry or national average overall. My point still stands. People quit alot of things.Thegzeus 19:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not know, but I do know the company has high turnover rate-1, http://www.ripoffreport.com/view.asp?id=136894&view=printer 2]. Yes, people quit a lot of things, but not all of those things are labelled as such a "great opportunity" as Primerica is.-RomeW 20:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the way it's phrased now is not very good. But if I understand it, the $199 goes to cover Primerica's costs in providing a state-mandated licensing course, whatever that state's requirements are -- the teachers, the books, the tapes, etc.

And no, it will take some time to reach an NPOV presentation on this, since so many people feel strongly about it. Primerica's definitely not for everyone; there is a high attrition rate, and it's a lot more work than most people expect to make a decent living at it -- definitely not a get-rich-quick scheme. The trick is in presenting the company's weaknesses without demonizing it all as "a big scam". I've had family members involved in the company for almost ten years, and they are doing very well without any sort of underhandedness, so I know that it's possible -- and I do believe that Primerica's a legitimate company with no conspiracy to exploit or defraud anyone. But as you say, I've also seen upwards of 90% of the people they recruit disappear from the business within a few months, and this article should not try to ignore the reasons they criticize the company. Nor should it ignore that the very fact that each hierarchy has a certain independence means that there ARE bad agents out there whose actions reflect very poorly on the company. Let's just try to work constructively towards an honest NPOV view -- attributing views properly, and not turning the article into an attack on or defense of the company. — Catherine\^talk 17:12, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That is true- it's not very neutral. Upon reading what we have now, I think that the version we have now is the best we have- it keeps the bad areas but neutralizes them. I'm still a little skeptical of the $199 fee though- I mean, if it really were based on training fees from the US states and Canadian provinces it wouldn't be uniform, it would vary (since every state has different costs associated with this kind of procedure. Perhaps if the statement also read, "though this claim is disputed by former agents" it would be even more satisfactory.

I'd also like to state that I don't believe Primerica are fraud artists, because legally they do not fruad people. Everything they do is legal- they just use any loophole they can find to "hide" the bad aspects. For example, about "duping" people into the $199 fee: they'll bring it up in the presentation (in my case, it was presented as a "course" they offer and is a lot less expensive than at a college, in my case Humber was used), explain it a little (throwing in the bit about the scholarships, which was what drove me out of the company in the end because it seemed like I couldn't get a dime before I finished the course, when I was made to believe that I could do some "training sessions" in front of families that would qualify me) and then get on about how great the company is. You don't remember the presenter saying anything about it (and I had to listen carefully the second time around to catch that as soon as I got hired I'd pay the fee), but, if you try to say in a court of law that "you were not made aware of it," they can turn around and say that they did say something, because they actually did- they just presented it in a way that made you forget about it. I personally call it a "legal scam", because it's advertized as a potential way to make lots of money but in reality very few make that money.-RomeW

The 199 retainer is the same everywhere to simplify paperwork for everyone. Think of the amount of increased paperwork for it to be differnt in every state. Furthermore, look at the cost of being liscenced by doing it yourself. It's almost always higher than $199. It's approximately $700 in MN. That includes classes(required by law), books(part of the class), and the liscence itself(well over $100 alone), and the exam($60). The first failed exam is paid for as well.

"Legal scam?" That implies that Primerica makes money off of failed recruits. If htey fail, how did the company make money? If they quit in 4 months they get the liscencing portion of the retainer back! $40 most likely doesn't cover the full cost of the background check for many areas and recruits. They just LOST money. The company makes money when a sale is made. Salesment don't make money if a sale isn't made. If someone is in the sale of financial product in any prokerage agency system the manager doesn't make money off a recruit if the recruit doesn't make a sale.

Did you READ the IBA? Personally I read all legal documents before signing them, especially if they involve a transfer of money.

How many appointments did you run before you quit? I'm just trying to qualify these statements. You're also generalising the entire company based on one office. Ever been to a bad McDonalds?

What you've described is NOTHING like what I experienced, other than training appointments are needed. Guess what? I got paid when they were done.Thegzeus 19:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I was told the $199 fee was for a licenscing course, so I could become a life insurance agent in Ontario. I later find out that it's for company-training and that I'd still have to take the Ontario course. Since I didn't get that far I'm not sure what would have happened if I failed, but I've read that you'd be on the hook for other attempts- Primerica only pays for the first attempt. Furthermore, I still lost $60 because of a "background check"- I quit before taking the course, but I still lost money. Regardless, the $199 fee was advertised as a provincial licensing fee yet it's the same in every other state/province- far too fishy for me to take seriously.

First of all, to be labelled a "scam" the company has to be deceptive about the opportunity- it doesn't have to be successful at it. Primerica was certainly deceptive about the opportunity (and, as I've shown and you can clearly see, I am not alone in feeling that way). Furthermore, a scam does not need to earn money off every failed recruit for it to be successful- all it needs is to dupe enough people to go far enough along into the company so it can make money off them. Now, I classify it as a "legal scam" because Primerica does, one way or another, state the reality in full- it's just presented in such a way that you don't notice the bad side. I had to go to a couple of "opportunity nights" before I caught the presenter say that the $199 fee is due upfront when you apply- I didn't catch it the first time around because it was only one sentence in a two-hour long presentation. Primerica probably does make legitimate money, I'm not denying that- but it does mislead a lot of people into thinking they're getting "an easy opportunity" when they're not.

Unfortunately, no I didn't read the contract before I signed it- I learned that the hard way. I was so giddy that I didn't care, and too naive to think that I'd actually fall for a scam. I've now learned my lesson.

I didn't go to one training session, and when I tried to get out to make some money- I was told I could before the training- I was constantly and consistently brushed aside. That's what made me quit- I couldn't stand just sitting around doing nothing. They really wanted to make sure I took the course so they could get every penny out of me that they could and, me being a University student at the time, I couldn't afford to wait. There are lots of other people with similar stories- look them up online- so I'm not alone. Furthermore, yes, there are "bad McDonald's" and "bad Wendy's", etc.- *but* none of those companies advertise their work as an opportunity to secure financial independence. Primerica did; and it failed.

I'm not saying that it can't work for anyone- lots of people made it work and I'm glad it's working for you. The fact remains it's a legal business with a real opportunity- if you're willing to put in the amount of work required. However, I was misled into thinking I wouldn't have to work a lot and I'd make a lot of money, and given the amount of people who complain about it, I'm not alone in feeling how I feel. If Primerica was upfront that it'd be a lot of work and I'd have to pay for my training before I got to make my millions, then I probably wouldn't be this upset.-RomeW 20:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

In Oklahoma, where I was licenced, the $199 fee was refunded beyond full. I was refunded $200, a dollar extra. This amount was spoken of during the business meeting, it was told to everyone that when they completed six (6) training or qualifying appointments, they would receive $200 total ($100 per three [3] meetings). And yes, they presented the fact that they are not offering the opportunity as a "get rich quick scheme." It was told well in advance that is was to be thought of as a buisness ownership position in which you were 1) both making money by offering debt elimination for families; and 2) recruiting to build you're team to help more people than you could by yourself. And from personal recruits quitting, every single one of them quit telling me that they didn't think they could continue earning money by personally finding their clients; they just disliked the idea of not having customers come to them, they had to find them. thebigcomfycouch61 14:40, 10 July 2006

each office is managed independently with PFS maintaining supervisory control for compliance purposes. I work part-time helping families and believe I have made a significant improvement in the lives of several people. I left a 13 year career in the legal industry to spend more time with my children. This business allows me to make a signficantly better income than saying "Welcome to Walmart". I have NEVER attempted to force someone into a service they did not need or was against his/her personal philosophies, and I am very selective about those whom I even mention this opportunity to, because it takes a special person to make it and frankly, it's a waste of my time to chase people around. I have an honest, open relationship with my clients and as a result, I'm as successful as I need to be at this time in my life. I like to learn and have invested not just money, but hundreds of hours of my valuable time learning every aspect of financial services, our mission, our services, our products, and our competitors services/products. This business is not for everyone. You have to want it and you have to be willing to work for it. Can you become wealthy? Personally, I am not wealthy - I don't work enough to be! But several people have and I applaud them for their hard work and desire to be leaders. While in the legal industry, I saw firsthand the incredulous amount of illegal acts by representatives of a lot of companies. It's just like at the office - you have hard workers and you have people who try to get the paycheck without the work. The larger the company, the more there usually are. The company, and the largest majority of people associated with this company, are just trying to make a living AND be able to sleep well at night. There are a lot of quitters in life, because it's easier to quit and blame someone (or something) else for your failure than to admit you weren't willing to pay the price for success - and not just in this business - in life!! BTW - if you do decide, after submitting an IBA, that you can't cut it, you have 6 months to get your licensing application fee back, less a $40 administrative fee. PFS's licensing department is non-profit. They really don't make a dime on you! --Shieldspfs 19:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it *can't* work at all- Primerica isn't for everyone, and it certainly wasn't for me. However, I was tricked into believing that I'd be joining an opportunity to make millions without a lot of work, and that "anyone can do it". Neither statement turned out to be true. I'm glad it's working for you- just understand that there's a lot of people (including myself) who aren't happy with their own experiences who have very legitimate complaints.-RomeW 20:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

IN REALITY, NO ONE IS BEING TRYICKED INTO ANYTHING THEY DONT WANT. IF PRIMERICA DIDN'T WORK OUT FOR YOU IS BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T PUT THE WORK BEHIND. YOU ALSO THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS A GET RICH QUICK TYPE OF THING. AND IT ISN'T. TRUE, OVER 90% OF THE PPL THAT JOIN END UP QUITTING. MORE THAN HALF OF THESE PPL QUIT BEFORE THEY EVEN BECOME LISENCED! HOW CAN YOU EXPECT TO MAKE MONEY IN THIS COMPANY WITH OUT YOUR LISENCE?? PRIMERICA IS NOT FOR EVERYONE, BUT THEY SURE DO GIVE EVERYONE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SOMETHING OF THEMSELVES. DONT LEAVE PRIMERICA BITTER BECAUSE IT DIDN'T WORK FOR YOU, ITS OBVIOUS THAT YOU DIDN'T PUT THE WORK BEHIND IT.

MONZON —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.60.116.178 (talk • contribs). 22:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Purported cult

This material is from the article List of purported cults, which we are paring down to a pure list. Editors here can best evaluate its statements and decide how to integrate it into this article. Thanks, -Willmcw 10:58, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Primerica

Primerica is a large financial services company, which is a member of Citigroup, and is considered a cult by some of its opponents. According to the testimonies of victims, Primerica seeks converts by luring friends and relatives of its employees, some of which purchase insurance and some join full-time as recruiters deriving profits from new converts, thus employing a MLM scheme. Some accuse Primerica of employing mind-control

Primerica attracted criticism due to what some describe as dubious practices, unscrupulousness and agressiveness in client relationships and usage of religious practices to prevent employees from quitting Primerica and disclosing the truth about it. During the regular meetings, recruiters shout "yes" and "amen" and demonstrate other distinctive qualities of a cult.

The company combats negative public image by funding advertizing and PR campaigns.

References:

• http://www.mlmsurvivor.com/links.htm - MLM practices, Primerica.
• http://ww3.primerica.com/public/who/articles/metamorphosis2.html - Primerica responds to accusations of being a cult.

17:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)17:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)~

In general,Primerica suffers from some of the same issues as other MLM businesses. I should clarify that MLM does not mean scam, it's simply an entirely voluntary hierarchy system based on amount of members recruited/business done (either through volume or dollar amount). Most of these issues have to do with the impossible difficulty of controlling such a large representative base. One greedy rep, and now people get screwed. The top of the hierarchy's message to reps is always the same: be honest and help people. Some members take the traditional approach to high pressure insurance sales, which turns away potential reps and clients. Every MLM suffers from some organizations that participate in unethical practices. However, the quality of services offered through Primerica are undoubtedly high and definitely in demand for any willing and able rep to build a lasting and profitable business with.

The products/services offered and compensation provided to reps are what differenciates PFS from other MLM systems. There is a real demand for what Primerica offers to middle class families, not overpriced groceries. The system also does not suffer from hundreds of dollars in investment per month to be successful. The licenses gained are legitimate, the need is legitimate, and the vast majority of reps follow the rules and guidelines set by the company.

On the subject of the one time $199 fee, this fee was talked about towards the end of the Overview, and explained thoroughly by the RVP. The fee is broken down into two parts:

1.)$40, non refundable. Goes towards federal and state background checks. No Felons, please.

2.)$159, refundable. This is for the prelicensing courses provided by the company. The cost of the course is over $500. The $159 is the amount that the rep puts towards that amount. The company pays the rest. If a rep does not get licensed in 120 days, the fee will be refunded and the rep will no longer exist with the company.

In ending, I have not heard any "Amens" or mention of "God" in correlation with the company or any of its members. Generalizing the business as a cult is simply irresponsible and ignorant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.174.22.26 (talk • contribs).

I was at a meeting today and there were several employees placed as foils at the meeting who would shout out agreement whenever the recruiter said something, and supply facts when he called for them. It felt very much like a cult to me. Especially with all of the videos of Ferraris and big houses and promises of a better life. Markleci

Were the things that the 'recruiter' said true? If so, I don't see why one WOULDN'T agree. How does 'promise' of a better life and REAL rich people driving their ACTUAL CARS=cult? If anything you make it sound like one of many 'get rich quick' plans ala infomercials. I'm honestly dumbfounded by your response to it. i'm guessing they played the video from the Success from Home magazine(July 2005 the entire issue was dedicated to Primerica). John Adison speaks of how hard it is to succeed with Primerica in the video. No promises are made in an opportunity meeting. Furthermore 'placed' and 'foils' implied they were secretive about the fact that they were reps(ask them before them meeting, they'll tell you.). It's common, in fact almost REQUIRED for reps to attend the meetings. Especially if they have guests. Was the person who invited you there? of course they were, or at the least their upline. 'Flis' itself implies that there were people speaking agaist the things they said. Again, I find your response odd and most likely that of osmeone LOOKING for a reason to dislike the company. This IS verifiable information. I'm at almost every meeting our office has. I speak from experience. I can quote people here if you like. I'd like more specific information so I can make a more detailed response to what you're saying. --Thegzeus 16:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if what the recruiter was saying was true, having employees pretend to be members of the audience is dishonest and highly questionable. If the "REAL rich people driving their ACTUAL CARS" were highly atypical results then that is not an honest promise, and does have some of the earmarkings of a cult. The meetings themselves do sound like get rich quick plans, even if the people running them are careful to mention "all of the hard work" as an aside. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.218.86.204 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 31 August 2006

I can't believe that so many people are arguing about the $199. i mean come on people the average smoker spends $150-$200 a month to KILL THEIRSELVES. this is only a one time deal, and yes, most of it does get refunded. but you have the ability to make that and much more before you are even done with the state mandated tests that qualify you for the reimbursement. and no it's actually quite the opposite of a get rich quick scheme. it is very hard grueling work (not physically) but you have to work on yourself. i have been involved with the company for about a year now and i can honestly say that it has changed my life. my marriage is better, i feel more self confident, and most of all i see all the negativty in the world and want to make a difference. and whoever wrote about primerica having the same troubles as any other MLM company is completely false. how do you think real estate works? if you recruit and train someone you make a percentage of their efforts. am i wrong? primerica is the only company in the world that actually gives anyone a chance (besides convicted felons and anyone with out a GED or equivalent) what other company completely disregards past mistakes. or looks at the school you didn't go to, or the race you're not, the sex you're not, how pretty you're not, and gives you a chance. i think smart people in general are turned off by our company for the sole reason that they have to start from the bottom. i mean why not let mommy and daddy send you to an ivy leauge school,or go into hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to go to an ivy leauge and not expect to have an easy high paying job at the end. these people don't even enter the real world until they are in their mid to late 20's. but they're who we're supposed to listen to? this business isn't for the fainthearted. if you had a chance to work hard and build a business in 5 to 10 years that would take care of your family for generations would you even worry about the $199 or anything else for that matter. i think people get too caught up in this "my company will take care of me" idealism and lack to take complete control of their lives. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.50.102.130 (talk • contribs).

I was invited to a few Primerica meetings in 2004. One was in a hotel conference room and it was very nice and professional. Another one was in a local Primerica office and it seemed very cult-like. It kind of turned me off when the representatives were degrading other "J-O-Bs" (as they liked to call them). As with most companies it depends on the representative you are dealing with. I was seriously considering it, it just knew it was not a career I would enjoy.Draconis77 23:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I hear a lot about the Cult-Like behaviors and i'd just like to say that all of these offices are INDEPENDANT so every office acts INDEPENDANTLY i do believe it when it was said earlier that people were shouting "amen" and other cult-like stuff, but you have to remember that every office is INDEPENDANT. I belong to an office and NYC and we do not say "amen" and such. Also, we do not have large scale advertising. All advertising is local to i'd say about 10 square city blocks, which would be hardly advertising. It's just as much advertising as a small buisness would do. PR? We have no PR.As for cult-like behavior and bad business practices at SOME offices: A lot of people get greedy when they see that they are making money and want more, so a few office heads might take part in illegal or immoral buisness practices which i encourage any and all to be reported to the proper officials and the main office in Atlanta, Georga! Also if you are associated with the company and do not get your questions answered by anyone in the office i suggest you try another office because that office is not for you, thay are suposed to help you with any and all questions and problems you have about the company, and if they don't you should try contacting whats called an OSJ or SNSD!

I don't know about cult per se, but I can attest to that their recruiting methods are highly irregular, even questionable. When I was contacted by a recruiter, I was told where and when to go -- that's it. I spoke briefly with a guy claiming to be a VP, but it opened up with a triangle scheme-style seminar. It had all the signs -- revisionist history, suggestion, and a salesperson-esque demeantor wherein statements are implied to be accepted as fact. Dissent was obviously discouraged. How can I tell? Because I was the only one who wasn't drinking the Kool-Aid. Mind you, I wasn't being disruptive. I quietly and attentively listened, but I didn't nod and murmur in approval to the gospel. Within ten minutes I was personally pointed out and removed from the room. I had not uttered a single word. That said, alarm bells and red flags were going off like crazy in my head (it was deja vu to my experience with Equinox International), and my skepticism probably showed on my face -- I'm not a good bluffer. Is this anecdotal evidence? Yes, but I believe I'm giving an unbiased account that warrants further investigation, not blanket dismissal. They did not vet their recruits, they specifically targeted the uninformed, and then told them how to think. In a seminar format, recruits are not given the opportunity to ask questions. My last comment is that I have also worked for non-scam companies which employed similar tactics to keep their employees under control. I have no evidence to claim Primerica is an MLM scam, but it does employ aggressive corporate propaganda and deceptive recruiting practices. One is not necessarily the other; the complaints are substantial, the accusations not necessarily so.66.213.29.2 17:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Dragonchild

Similar State Fees

RomeW: You are right in that each state has different fees for getting licensed, and I'm writing this to clarify why the company consistently asks only $199. What the company does is it subsidises (SP) the cost of training and licensing but makes it easier for it's agents by asking for the same fee in submitting an independant business application. The license, facility, materials and instructor generaly costs more than $199.00, so the company makes up the gap.

As an example it may cost (and these are examples don't take them as the actual expense) $450 for the company to license a person in California, $250 in Kansas and $220 in Maine, but the company only asks $199.

The reason they do that is to make it easier on their field reps. I live in Kansas City, 2 miles from the state line. I spend time in both states. If I did have someone interested in a career how confusing would it be to say licening is $199 in KS but $250 in MO? What if we lived in a tri-state area?

The office I'm licensed to work out of is one of the best in the company at licensing people which is 30%. In fact the company has asked the owner of our office to develop material on how we have such a hight recruit to code ration, because some offices have a recruit to code ration less than 1%.

As for people quitting, the company ratio's are about the same as those of most colleges. Simply look at how many students start as freshmen and compare that to how many graduate with a bachelors, then masters, then PHD's. Any individuals success is based on their effort, and people who don't work or can't be disciplined quit. Assuming everyone would be successful is as realistic as expecting everyone who goes to college to come out with a PHD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CaptainNeda (talk • contribs). (It seems that this paragraph is implying that one is only successful if he or she recieves a Ph.D, I recommend rewording this. Many students are quite successful with only an associates or batchelor's degree. Further, regarding the majority of undergraduate institutions: Most schools that only graduated one to thirty percent of its enrolled students would probably be investigated and would then most likely have its accreditation suspended or even revoked) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.176.65.165 (talk • contribs).

CaptainNeda- I still don't believe it, and that was not the explanation I was given. I was told that was all I needed to pay for the license- no one told me that Primerica is chipping in too. Besides, if Primerica is able to pay for part of the license, why make the price so prohibitive? $199 is a lot to ask of people like myself who were students and broke, and it's not like Primerica doesn't make enough money to cover the entire expense. -RomeW 02:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Section Reads like two people having an argument. This is not an encyclopedia article by any stretch of the imagination. "See if another bank can do that - most cannot" WTF? I'm removing the elements most obviously contributed by the Primerica apologist. 216.99.240.244 01:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's SAYING that sucess(IE, successfully completing the schooling needed to recieve a PHD) takes alot of time and hard work. I got that the first time I read it, and double checked the language used to make sure. --Thegzeus 16:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have studied this company for almost 3 years, including paying the $199 over 2 years ago and gaining access to company websites, meetings, and literature. I believe Primerica offers a great opportunity for many things- financial education, self improvement, making money, and a chance to share all these things with others.

Personally, I have only made a few thousand dollars, but that's about equivelent to my effort to make money! I don't understand what all the fuss is about. This company has had enemies since its beginnings. I read Art Williams' autobiography "Coach" and found it very interesting, especially since I have now met several of the people mentioned in the book. They are very gracious, humble, and giving people.

My points:

1)$199- Big deal! My wife spends more than that in 2 trips to the mall. It's nothing for the amount of insider knowledge I have of the financial industries we all use everyday. And now the IRS sees me as an independent agent (self-employeed) so I get tax benefits that employees do not receive. I haven't read that thought anywhere- saves me hundreds more that my $199 cost. It's also neccessary to address the need to cover some of the cost to be labeled "independent" by the IRS verses being an employee.

2) MLM- Confusing! There's no universally accepted definition of MLM. The best description of Primerica's structure is a combination of a general insurance agency and a real estate agency. It's "tiered commission." No one gets paid until something is sold. It seems that most MLM's get a discount on their product or service that they can then resell.

My question is, "Why would Citi be related to a MLM?" And a tougher question is, "Why could the SEC and NASD allow anything questionable to sell securities?" Both answers led me to believe that there must a very high level of legitimacy with this business structure.

Like any business (and apparently college), MLM or otherwise, there is some level of risk involved- you may fail! Do you know anyone looking to stike out on their own in search of more money and choices in their lives? I have "risked" only a few hundred dollars and a some spare time. Someone please show me where I can get the same deal for the energy and automotive industries! I would bet they make a lot of money on my ignorance.

--Futurethinker 23:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC) ==

"I have...made a few thousand dollars" --> so that would put you in a conflict of interest in this discussion. --RealGrouchy 00:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No, a "discussion" is a two-way conversation. My relationship with the company gives me more credibility to speak on the subject. This site is supposed to be based on factual information, not uninfornmed opinions. If knowing more about the subject via personal interaction is a "conflict of interest," then we would all be forced to hold our tongues. --Futurethinker 22:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Corporate Links

It is redundant to link all 8 corporate sites in this article. Each of those links are linked directly from the primary corporate site. Please do not add them in again Anazgnos 20:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the policies and guidelines and a NPOV guidelines, inclusion of the Official corporate sites is permissable. Linking all corporate sites is not redundant. They do not redirect to the primary site, and their focus is for products and/or services Primerica offers. Please do not delete them again. A1794 08:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Look guys how can the company pay for every single insurance license? I don't know about other states, but in Texas the license I got was a Group 1 General Lines Insurance License. It allows me to do life insurance along with dental and health. If the company paid ALL of the cost, what would stop anyone who wanted this license to do any of these things to just use the company for a few weeks to get licensed and then take it somewhere else??

Unsigned Comments innapropriately posted in main article

(relocated from main article:" "To use a word like "scheme" implies wrong doing of some sort. The disclaimer sized sentence at the end of the paragraph is not enough to contradict the inflamatory language in the beginning of the paragraph.

Also, whose criticisms of Primerica are these? Non biased? Please rethink. Thank You."

I don't feel "scheme" was overly negative or inflammatory in context but I have nevertheless removed it.

I will work on threading references to existing articles containing the criticisms listed. I believe this is a fair and impartial summary or the criticisms that are commonly levied against the company. If you wish to add a balancing perspective at this point the article could certainly use some more information on what services or products Primerica alleges to offer, which I do not claim to be knowledgeable enough to provide. The services should be described impartially and not hawked or cloaked in rhetoric, as appeared in previous revisions. Anazgnos 21:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms

Hey look, an add for primerica on wikipedia. Great! (primerica intentionally left lowercase) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitchhollister (talk • contribs) 04:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we're having problems again...this section used to be a lot bigger. Now, it's been reduced and "spun" even though many criticisms still exist.-RomeW (talk) 09:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

These criticisms exist, and are being reported on fairly and neutrally. This portion of the article should not be treated as an opportunity to defend the company or discredit criticisms as they are stated. If needed, a seperate paragraph or section regarding responses to criticisms may be entered. 70.183.63.108 21:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Gnarlyocelot - if you're going to edit the article please be sure to copy the code and not just the text...you removed all the citations and external links in the criticism section...which I'm certain was unintentional. I don't really object to the bulk of your changes, but you need to avoid the appearance of the whole "here's the criticism...and here's why it's bullshit" defensive tone. Anazgnos 19:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

OK...at this point I don't think there's anything to do but seperate "criticism" into a seperate section from "defense against criticism", if that's what you guys insist on doing. Constant qualifiers and "here's why it's not MLM" (etc.) is overly defensive and non-neutral in the context of a basic list of fully referenced criticisms. For example the phrase "disqualifying pyramid scheme accusations", or other such qualifying statements, violates NPOV. I will work on parsing the two when I get a chance and then you can add to the "defense" section to yr heart's content, at which point I expect the "criticism" section can be left well enough alone. Anazgnos 16:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with the bulk of the new section, but non-neutral comments (such as: "speculations are in error" - Who says so...you? The "speculations" are a given via a published reference. see NPOV) will continue to be pruned. YOU (the writer) cannot classify or qualify statements. If you want to present an opinion or characterize a statement or suggest conclusions, you MUST provide a reference to a credible, previously published source. Anazgnos 19:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Some, some, some...no no no. The citations don't characterize those actions as being limited, they refer to them as being general. You can't qualify cited statements according to your own opinions. Anazgnos 20:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Gnarlyocelot - effectively every statement in the current "criticism" paragraph is cited. You cannot change the intent of the cited statements by adding the qualifier "some", as in "some say" or "some agents", etc, to each of them. That serves to contradict or editorialize the content and intent of the cited statements, which is not permissisble according to NPOV guidelines. If you wish to put a slant on/discredit the cited criticisms, do so in the "discussing/addressing" section, and do so with your own cited references - not with your own opinion. Anazgnos 20:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Referred to Mediation Cabal Anazgnos 21:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

GnarlyOcelot: Anazgnos, first, my sincerest apologies; i did not realize there was a section where the article could be discussed. I think we've both been getting a little frustrated but now that we can actually exchange viewpoints hopefully this will be more fruitful. Im not entirely familiar with how this works. 1. How do i send you messages directly and 2. is this how we should continue communicating? Through this wikipedia box? Let's make this a good fair article. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gnarlyocelot (talk • contribs).

you'll want to "sign" your comments with four of these (~) to get the fancy sig and date/time stamping) We've got a mediator on the case at the link posted above (and right here)...I'm just trying to get NPOV policy call on the usage of "some ___" to qualify the statements in the criticism section, and he advised I get in touch with you privately to make sure you were aware of the discussion. So my complaint is as stated above. I'd say just pop on over to the mediation page and state your position on the most recent edits there. I'm not on any kind of crusade here - I'm just trying to get this article to NPOV status. In good faith I refraining from further reversions/edits until this issue is resolved. Anazgnos 07:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and pasted in the "compromise" paragraph. I took the "addressing" section out as well since it was adressing things that are no longer present in the main paragraph, but if you want to bring some of that back, feel free. Anazgnos 16:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Reversions

User "Lyean" - You have reverted this article to a previous revision two times. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked according to Wikipedia policy. The previous article is not acceptable according to Wikipedia NPOV standards. Thank you. Anazgnos 20:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this the reason it now has many links to scam sites and is SIGNIFICANTLY shorter than it was a week ago? One week earlier it was accurate, detailed, and informative. now it's short, inconclusive, and has as much info as some small amature band entry... I'm sorry if that comes off crass, because it is well WRITTEN, but waht's written doesn't inform very well.--Thegzeus 20:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The version I can only assume you are referring to was, to be sure, longer. The current revision is the result of a judicious pruning of that text. All text removed was at best either NPOV, comprised needlessly convoluted and irrelevant deluges of figures to support blantantly NPOV statements, constituted blatant hawking or sales-pitching of Primerica's services, or was of inappropriately informal tone. The worst of it seemed to be copied from a Primerica pamphlet (or should I say tract?)...except (or perhaps accounting for) the fourth-grade reading level. I agree that they may not be enough content here, and I've invited anyone knowledgeable on the subject to expand that content, with no takers. Anazgnos 23:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Tract? You have some kind of agenda here, and I'd like to know what it is so we can move forward with a clear idea of where we're heading. You're extremely rude, sir, and I'd like you to at least pretend to understand basic courtesy.

No takers? There was alot of info, and you can fix the tone without deleting the content. I can provide someone with info if they can set up the page. I was reading at a high school level in 4th grade, and I've...maintained that so I figure I could write something up in Word or such and have it converted...

And no, it won't be copied word for word.Thegzeus 23:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the version I was trying to mention

Excuse my lack of skill in the method of posting here. I'm not used to it yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Primerica_Financial_Services&direction=prev&oldid=54732891

This version is far superior to what we have left. Additions to would better than removals from it, I believe.

The cult comments are...ludicrously one-sided, so those are out.

A fair discussion of both sides of NEW criticisms is in order. Once a good balanced set with both sides represented equally is available, we can then move forward. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thegzeus (talk • contribs).

I'm going to have to insist on the previous revision, the result of the moderation request. An impartial observer deemed that one relevant and neutral. I submitted to considerable cuts to my original text as a compromise. The version you've instated smacks of blatant attempts to spin and counter criticism, i.e., couching POV in superficially NPOV language.

Rather than focusing on the criticism section, I might suggest that you consider expanding the descriptive elements of the main article. If you're versed in Primerica's methods and operations you'd presumably be qualified to do so; I am not. As long as that space is not used to spin criticism or hawk or play up the wonderful benefits that Primerica offers.

And as far as the "cult" comments being "one sided" - you'll note the reference link on that statement is Primerica's own site. The statement is that they have been referred to as a cult, and the support of that statement is Primerica's own acknowledgement of that allegation. Curious readers will be taken directly to Primerica's own corporate spin on that issue; I really think you have nothing to complain about there.Anazgnos 04:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I was speaking of the extended version and the 'ripoff.com' quote.

You're speaking almost as though you have an egenda agaist promerica.

I'm trying to get the facts straight, and I do work with primerica. I'm very well versed.

Simply seperating the criticism that have any basis in fact and anyting to counter them that can also be referenced(I can give names, quotes, reference internal memo etc.) into two sections seems fair.

The $MART loan section being shortened to that degree seems pointless. There were several NPOV statements that could ahve been removed without nixing the entire section.

The theory of decreasing Responsibility can be sourced from either a Primerica Website, or Success from Home magazine, July 2005. Many other products are discussed there as well.

The wording can be changed, but nothing in that version was false.

Additions(such as specific sources of information) were neccesary.

Note that I haven't done it, I'm simply waiting for people to assist in revisions. It needs them, but the current version gives no info of any worth. The corporate links have more info, making this entry useless.

I could grab several pieces of info and that magazine and make a complete entry, but I am NOT EVEN CLOSE to well-versed on how making entries works here.

No WYSIWYG? I can't do it.

I just now noticed who you were, and that you'd deleted where you'd said you were "done with this" and I should "make it into whatever corporate blow-job wet dream" I wanted to.

What was your original text? What's your experience with the company?Thegzeus 23:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Anazgnos/Thegzeus, This article is under review by Primerica to expand and or edit the main points of the article. Primerica will adhere to the policies and guidelines set forth by Wikipedia (NPOV). A1794 12:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. It's great to see compliance getting involved in this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.122.148.198 (talk • contribs).

I'l like to note that I am not the one who reverted it. I leave this to the hands of the proffesionals.Thegzeus 16:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV problems... big time

First of all, there is no mention in the article that this is an MLM business. Primerica is to insurance what Amway is to merchandising. It is very disingenuous to skirt this fact. Also, the Products Offered section is nothing more than an advertisement. I am going to refer this to the moderators for review. If we wanted a whitewashed, sanitized advertisement for the company, a link to their web site would suffice instead of this poor excuse for an encyclopedia article. It is nothing more than propaganda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.45.112.212 (talk • contribs).

It's no more MLM than any insurance agency. They all have the opportunity to recruit and overwrite. Products offerd are just that. If it's a fact, what's the problem? There are some major differences between a modified prokerage agency and MLM. MLM often requires a monthly minimum purchase requirement. They're ALL retail sales as opposed to direct sales(you keep the difference between the actual cost and the purchase price in retail sales, you're paid by the company based on production in direct sales). No offence intended, but you need to research how insurance and other financial companies compensate before you call Primerica MLM. Also, even among those people who choose to label Primerica MLM, third-party companies rate Primerica 5 out of five stars in every area. Regardless of that, multiple levels of compensation does not MLM make. Real estate isn't MLM, neither is Edward Jones or Ameriprise(who've been under legal action far more than any Citi company. Go there and complain.)

The current version is minimal in it's description of the products, it's sticks to pure fact, and it's mostly constructed by people that don't like the company and a moderator.

You seem to be against Primerica and upset that the entry doesn't speak AGAINST them and thus see it as NPOV. Please give me reason to see otherwise.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.122.148.198 (talk • contribs).

Please sign this entry as well.Thegzeus 23:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

PS. See: "Primerica at MLM Survivor" Tadaaa. Thegzeus 23:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is so obviously an advertisement, non NPOV and not to Wikipedia standards that I can't believe that it is still here! This makes us (Wiki editors and contributors) ALL look bad! (Franklooper (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC))

Some Thoughts

The article currently states: "The industry likes to focus the consumer's attention almost entirely on the interest rate and the monthly payment, whereas Primerica representatives are trained to focus on the total cost of the loan (total interest expressed as a dollar amount) and the client's "debt freedom date"."

This is pretty word-for-word from Primerica. I don't think I'd see this in a Britannica article, were they to address Primerica. "The industry likes to..." You mean the largest multinational banking conglomerate in the world (Citigroup) isn't "The Industry"? The whole $MART loan section needs to be re-done. It needs to describe what it is, exactly, how is it different from traditional refinancing, and perhaps a counter to its draw-backs. I'm tempted to do this myself, but maybe post it here in the discussion page and see what senior Wikipedians think. The $MART loan can be a good product, but this depends very much on the customer's current loans and financial situation. It is certainly not a magical panacea.

So, as a summary of what I mean: instead of using Primerica wording for explanation of products, such as "The Industry", perhaps Wikipedia should use more correct and more neutral terms such as "traditional financial institutions," etc. Primerica's products do differ in many important ways from traditional banking and yes, this article should say so and explain it. But having been through many Primerica meetings, this article sounds a lot like them, not like an encyclopedia.

I'll think about the $MART loan section, post it here later, and see what people think. Perhaps even an example would be great for showing how it can work differently from traditional financing, with a ficitional customer etc. Anyone good at graphs? Gaviidae 10:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You are all very intelligent and have impressed me with your strong vocabulary and ademant concern for this organization, perhaps finding something better to do with your time... and mine. - B-Rizzle (Time-Waster) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.226.66.208 (talk • contribs).

I see no mention of Primerica's thirst for infant blood. I'd like to include something along the lines of "Primerica requires fresh human infant blood to grow. Primerica must be stopped. If allowed to continue, Primerica will consume all new infants born in the world." Anazgnos 22:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

---The main page needs some serious cleaning up and editing. The addition of the SEC suit against Primerica because a few moron RVP's concocted a ponzi scheme needs to be clarified and explained as such. The time that this event occured was soon after Art Williams sold the company. During this time, the company lost roughly 150,000 representatives, and a very few that stayed on took advantage of the company's weakened position to orchestrate a ponzi scheme that ended in their being terminated from the company.

Funny how people always blame the parents for their children's misbehavings. Until it is your child who is getting into trouble with the law will you take responsibility for that child even though you have told them many times NOT to do certain things???? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.26.72.106 (talk • contribs).

Compliance issues are EXTREMELY important, and are a subject of every leadership school as well as a good sized portion of POL, the training intranet accessible to PFS reps. Part of why some people find it so important to smear PFS as much as possible is because it does things so differently, and because it keeps its standards so high, whenever there's a failure its detractors point, yell, and scream about it. The reality is that 99% of the time, PFS reps do the right thing, and that the 1% where someone screws up, the company works harder on to boost its already industry leading compliance. No company's perfect, but there are few out there that work as hard as PFS's home team does to support the field force and keep compliance higher than the rest of the industry.

I don't mean to embarrass any fellow internet users that detract heavily to PFS, you certainly have the right, but our company crushed the life insurance industry in the 1980's, when they tried to regulate and sue us into oblivion. They lost, we won because we did the right thing for people. Instead of criticising the proven system of success that exists in our company, it's ok to recognize that what we do for families is unparalleled in the industry today. Simply put, there is no better company with higher standards working hard to correct the harm done to average people by the rest of the industry. Have you sat at kitchen tables with a family who's mortgage broker put them in an arm with negative amortization, which will mean they will lose their house in a few years? How about seeing a family paying $400 a month for 4 or 5 VUL's? It's a mess out there in middle America, and with the amount of debt people carry and with foreclosures spiking, the proof's in the pudding.

So, instead of crying about how we have a hybrid system (best parts of the broker/agent, franchise, and MLM systems) and that once in a great while, some moron rep will do the wrong thing and get terminated ASAP, it's ok to write a non-biased article about how the company is really out there to help families. I used the $MART loan to change a family member's life when they'd been rejected for a refinance TWICE because of credit issues. We help people. Don't ever forget that. Brandon----------- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.128.224.163 (talk • contribs).

Write an article that describes in a few words as possible, what the company does, in factual terms. Not what it wants to do, or tries to do, or intends to do, or why it does it. There is no other way to prevent the article from being a constant battle between zealots and critics. Anazgnos 21:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the theory of responsibility should be on here, other products that Primerica sells such as mutual funds from Franklin Templeton, and AGF (which has one department dedicated to Primerica... as I was told by a representative from AGF).. RRSPs, RESPs (in Canada)... the training system they have, the courses they offer (LLQP course program provided and government regulated in Canada). Also their guarantee, which is if you score 80% or above at POL you are guaranteed to pass OR they will pay for your next provincial licensing fee....... if criticisms can be put on this article, what about saying how hard working the reps are and RVPs willing to go out of their way just to help people get ahead? Or the fact that they won't quit on you until you quit? Or what about the psychology behind average peoples thinking:? the fact that people are lazy and want things for free, and when help is in front of your face you don't take it? Or the fact that people make excuses to get away from doing any work?? Or the fact that people fake being interested and tell you they want to learn more, and when asked to come check it out they say 'yes' and give you a fake number? Maybe they should put in this article that what university students learn about in psychology for thousands of dollars, PFSL reps learn for FREE. FNA is for FREE too.... ahh how strange and ironic this world is. What I would really like to know is how much really do people know about Primerica when they start saying negative things about the company. To clear this up even more though, Primerica is not the bad guy going around and messing up peoples lives.. it is up to the individual to decide that. It's a wrong thing to judge a person by their parents and the sad thing is people do that. As we all know people judge by looks and that is wrong, the same type of people judge representatives by their company and not the person; not only is that wrong, but it is stupid.... One thing I learn is valueable in my life by my RVP is that skeptical people want information. After all the information is supplied to them, and all their answers are given, they are still unsatisfied. Why? It is because people want to hear what they want to hear. So the best way to answer somebody is to let them answer it themselves. It is because people don't like to disagree with themselves, so give them that chance to look at themselves objectively for once... ahh people can't handle the truth is true....—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.26.72.106 (talk • contribs).

Can you guys (the primerican drones)...seriously...please...just try to read some of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before doing anything else on this? Try to get some handle on what NPOV means and what is allowable, and what isn't? Anazgnos 17:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

We'd prefer a truly objective article. It's not necessary to have a pro-PFS article, just one that states the facts, the REAL facts. The neutrality of the article is debated because of the conflicting statements paragraph to paragraph. Just because a section is called "Criticisms" doesn't mean it needs to throw up all over the rest of the article. It should be noted that the system Primerica utilizes is a Hybrid of the "Broker/Agent" system, the "Franchise" system, and the "MLM" system, and that overrides are a part of EVERY sales organization. The money "flows up" like every other business ever created. It's called p-r-o-f-i-t. Please keep in mind that in a business like Primerica's, most people simply do not work. Statistically speaking, most people never attain much of anything in life, and that's simply a matter of personal drive to succeed as well as the ability to dream. Most people utilize the traditional "corporate job" path, which is widely trodden and therefore not likely to be profitable long term. When they come to Primerica, they have been inundated with the "wrong stuff" for building a business. If they can undo the philosophies that they have been conditioned with that makes them broke every day, they have a chance of pursuing success with PFS. If not, they should stick with what they have and work on improving it by cutting expenses and saving money. We show them both ways and let them decide. The company was founded to give ordinary people the opportunity to do extraordinary things part time.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.128.224.163 (talk • contribs).

____________________________________________________________

Anazgnos, these entries seem to conflict (in language only, not in attitude). Can you clearly explain what you are bringing to the table in this debate? You appear to be one sided and should perhaps bow out of further editing of this subject.

"I see no mention of Primerica's thirst for infant blood. I'd like to include something along the lines of "Primerica requires fresh human infant blood to grow. Primerica must be stopped. If allowed to continue, Primerica will consume all new infants born in the world." Anazgnos 22:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC" and

"::Can you guys (the primerican drones)...seriously...please...just try to read some of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before doing anything else on this? Try to get some handle on what NPOV means and what is allowable, and what isn't? Anazgnos 17:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)"--Futurethinker 21:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous...I am a mom of two who loves staying at home and enjoying life. I have recently been to a Primerica meeting, and I have come to conclude that this is a do-able venture. Of course, there are downfalls to EVERYTHING! It is true that 90% fail to thrive in this business, but you have to put in time and effort to reep the rewards. I knew from the beginning what the meeting was about. I knew that the front row of gents and ladies were Primerica people. If you did not know, you need to consider a little more schooling on reality. What is wrong with supporting and being passionate about your business? Every business has a pyramid of employees. Starting with the CEO/Owner and trickles down to the common bottom of the line worker. Who can argue with that? I will come back and update when my husband and I have reached $100,000 mark. I will be happy to comment on any wrong-doings or foils if I ever come across such a thing. I have researched and found evidence of success with Primerica. They have been given awards and praises from several companies, such as DALBAR and Standard and Poor. Is this something to be overlooked? I think NOT! I am excited about my opportunity, and all of the negativity coming from these websites have not swayed my opinion thus far. I believe everything has a balance of positive and negatives. This has been proven through science. YIN-YANG...If you live your life being negative towards everything, you will never have peace with oneself. 74.193.187.32 (talk) 16:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

'What is wrong with supporting and being passionate about your business?' Nothing at all, but the above reads like a commercial for Primerica. If that's what everybody called unbiased then I don't even know what to believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.124.14.13 (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Historical Facts about Primerica

An Associate with Primerica can be viewed as participating in a self-improvement program with a heck of a compensation package in the back end. Some books that associates are encouraged to read are: "Think Like a Winner" by Dr. Walter Staples, "Success is not an Accident" by Tommy Newberry, "Beyond Positive Thinking" by Robert Anthony, "The Magic of Thinking Big" by David Schwartz, "Think and Grow Rich" by Napoleon Hill, and "Success is a Journey" by John Maxwell. One other book that is imperative to the structure of Primerica is "The Cash Flow Quadrant" by Robert Kiyosaki.

The most recent book that was brought to the attention of the Associates within Primerica was, "How to Raise Your Own Salary" by Napoleon Hill. This particular book is where Napoleon Hill interviews Andrew Carnegie in the early 1950's about the famous success formula. This book was out of print for years and was recently brought back into print. In this book, Andrew Carnegie explains the four pillars of Americanism and in fact explains what Americanism is.

In addition, a more recent book was written by the founder of A.L. Williams, now known as Primerica. The book called "Coach" by Art Williams, describes in detail the history of Primerica and what the company is based on.

A challenge is set forth to all who have read this message, a dare to take the time and read these books written by the most influential writers, speakers and business men of all times. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mzpotter (talk • contribs).

• • To the above anonymous commenter - you obviously don't get out much or any have any actual real-life experience... Stevenmitchell (talk) 05:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Corporate Response

Primerica Financial Services has analyzed and revised the Primerica Wikipedia article. We believe Primerica has complied with the policies and guidelines Wikipedia has set forth. Please review for NPOV and consideration in removing the NPOV dispute box tagged to this article. Primerica Financial Services is committed to providing the most accurate and unbiased information to make the Primerica Financial Services article better. --A1794 14:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Cite your references. The above paragraph is irrelevant. --RealGrouchy 20:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

There are no references to cite. As a representative of Primerica Financial Services, I am attempting to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to provide an unbiased article regarding Primerica Financial Services. In an attempt to remove the NPOV dispute tag and article tone tag attached to the top of the article, I am asking other editors to review the latest revisions I made to the article and determine if the tags can be removed.--A1794 15:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia exactly smile on a given corporation writing and overseeing their own article? Anazgnos 04:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. How can User A1794 be unbiased if he's writing about Primerica, on behalf of Primerica? That seems to be the very essence of bias. -- Minaker —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Minaker (talk • contribs).

As far as I am concerned, User A1794 is an imposter, and is illegally claiming to be a[n authorized] representative of Primerica. The user should point to something on Primerica's official website which authorizes him/her to make such a claim (ironic that he/she removes criticisms of Primerica on the basis of not being cited, while not citing his or her authority to represent Primerica). Assuming, however, that User A1794 is , it is not up to the company to declare the article NPOV, particularly to effectively take one side in an "edit war". --RealGrouchy 22:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Some Examples of the Kinds of POV Statements that Really Can't Be Allowed

Just as an example, I have isolated the following blatantly POV statements from the article. At a bare minimum, they would need a citation, but many really couldn't conceivably be allowable by any stretch.

• " The loan industry generally focuses the consumer's attention almost entirely on the interest rate and the monthly payment"
• "...is agressively marketed as a debt-elimination program because the program is structured for the consumer to get out of debt with the lowest total cost."
• "which can be invested so the client can retire sooner and/or better."
• "Most banks focus on refinancing, pulling equity out of the home, interest only loans, equity lines of credit and ARMs. These products keep consumers tied to a bank forever."
• "The average consumer is led to believe that they can never own their home."
• "If one compares the amount of interest a borrower pays over the life time of a mortgage after several refinances, all the refinance charges and fees, to a $.M.A.R.T. Loan which is designed to be the last loan the borrower will ever have."
• "The FNA helps clients identify financial problems in the following areas" (who qualifies that it "helps" in a factual sense? What factual support is provided to show that it is actually helpful? Or is it merely alleged to help? If one truly wishes to avoid POV, such questions need to be considered)
• "The $.M.A.R.T. Loan product is a comparatively simple product for the mortgage industry"
• "Hands down, the $.M.A.R.T. Loan is the better solution."
• "Primerica is in the best position to educate consumers about finance because they offer mortgage products, life insurance (income protection) and investments."

In each case, you could either a) provide a credible, reputable published source that states any of the above, and quote them directly, b) provide an official Primerca source and preface the statement by saying "Primerica alleges that..." or something similar, or c) remove any such statements entirely.

There are still numerous other POV or unsupported statements in the article. This is just to get you started in the right direction. Anazgnos 04:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Anazgnos, Why are vandalizing the article page? (Revision as of 19:13, 21 August 2006) A1794 20:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't vandalism...it was parody. There is no qualitative difference between unsourced statements referecing the disease-curing properties of Primerica programs vs. statements like "hands down, the SMART loan is the better solution." At least we know you weren't really sincere about "attempting to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines"....Anazgnos 01:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Anazgnos, If you were a true unbias editor, you would not have made the edit - just remove the questionable content. As you may know, this article is constantly being revised. If you looked at my contribution history you would see the edits I have made to the article and realized the edits you referenced were not made by myself. I have tried to monitor the article and remove NPOV statements. After your last objections, A2143, removed sections of the article that you felt violated NPOV policies. I feel at the this point this needs to go to arbitration.A1794 22:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I certainly did remove the NPOV statements. They were put back in every single time I looked at the article thereafter. Clearly, my edits in question were "whimsical" and were not intended to be taken seriously, but as sort of reductio ad absurdam. I'm not really going to defend them. I apologize if they caused offense. As you can see the article has been nominated for deletion, which, even if not approved, may result in some better, more impartial oversight. Anazgnos 23:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Nominated for Deletion

In addition to apparently deadlocked NPOV disputes, this article may not meet Notability Criteria for Companies and Corporations, and has been nominated for deletion. Anazgnos 22:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing spam 8/29/06

I've trimmed down the article to its essentials - what the company is, its history and some links. The section on its products is spam and the section on criticism is unsourced, so it has to go. If you can source it, feel free to replace the information. Aplomado ^talk 23:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The trouble with criticism

Is that, historically, as long as Primerica-people themselves are hovering over this article, every time any criticism gets introduced, there is an effort to neutralize it with the kind of POV language and spam that the article used to be full of, where every criticism is met with a counter-claim and pro-Primerica jargon is inserted to offset, and an edit war generally ensues.

I wouldn't suggest that no criticism should ever be added, but interested parties should at least consider the possibility that the incredibly dry, POV, spam, and crit-free version of the article that has more or less stably persisted for the past few months may be the lesser of two evils. Anazgnos 21:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see sources for the dry material. There is a source for the criticism. We can stub this article by removing all unsourced info. But in the meantime we need to include all viewpoints in order to be NPOV. -Will Beback 01:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with sourcing all info. I agree with keeping all viewpoints in order to be NPOV. However, the latest edits to the article have been made under the criticism section, the sourced material redirects to a porn site. Apparently, this is a forum owned by Ken Young, other edits have been made to point to an alternate site, run by Ken Young (www.kenyoungpresents.com). The problem I see with this, which has been raised by another editor - that Ken Young is a competitor - is this a fair use of NPOV? Add to the fact that one of his sites redirects to a porn site and I feel I must answer no. Primerica 14:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

History

The history section goes far beyond what is included in the provided sources. Is there any way that we can verify the material? -Will Beback 22:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I see an editor has added some sources, which is great, but I'm not sure how we can verify them. Where can one find the "Primerica Financial Services Press Release, July 1, 1992" or the "1983 A.L. Williams Corporation Annual Report"? -Will Beback · † · 21:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Just because it cannot be search for, and found, on the internet does not mean the source doesn't exist. It is up to the reader to do a little research. Primerica 13:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Where did you find these sources? -Will Beback · † · 21:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

In the public domain. Try EdgarOnline. Primerica 16:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

EdgarOnline might have the Travellers annual report, but they don't have the Primerica press release or the A.L. Williams Corporation annual report. Unless we can verify the information we'll have to remove it. -Will Beback · † · 18:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

As I stated before, do a little research. Just because you couldn't find it on the internet doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The specific statements you are wanting sourced are in the public domain. These are not just facts that were made up. Primerica 21:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me ask again - where did you find this information? -Will Beback · † · 21:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This information can be found online - on the Citigroup website. 67.33.128.90 04:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Good, thanks for finding that. -Will Beback · † · 18:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Commissions

An editor added this material:

• Primerica consultants earn commissions both on their own sales and on the sales of employees they have referred to the company. In fact, during job interviews, prospective new employees are presented with expected income values that strongly depend on having several people below you providing you with a constant stream of commission money.

These appear to be straightforward assertions. Do we have any sources about how Primerica awards commissions? -Will Beback · † · 00:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Those were my personal experiences with the company when I went there for a "job interview" about 18 months ago. We were presented with a probable six figure income, that was then broken down into numbers that relied heavily on second generation commissions. And that leads to the usual MLM business model that Primerica is alleged to participate in. Now I know that WP has a rule about original research but am not enough of a wikinerd to know if this applies here or not, I just wanted to add something to the section, because how it appears now is pretty silly. A single line of criticism vs. 20 lines of history isn't doing justice to reality. 80.218.90.50 10:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You are not required to have a team of people beneath you to earn commissions. You would also not expect to run a business without help either. The only employees in the company are located at the home office, all of the agents are independent contractors. The income levels typically mentioned can be duplicated by simply doing "the numbers" like any other business. Commissions are awarded (and taken back) based on sales of products only. Like in the rest of the financial services industry, a commissioned agent receives a portion of the money being sent up. However, in cases such as life insurance, if the insurance is denied or canceled within the first year, the commission is taken from the agent since it was merely an advance, or interest free loan, from the company.

The Commission structure it self will have to be requested from an agent. There are currently no online, publicly available, sites displaying the full table. Rjhancock (talk) 06:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality concerns

See this on the COI noticeboard. MER-C 09:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What's the deal with User:P747AH. Looking at his edit history, all he's done is deleting criticism from the Primerica page, and went into discussions/flamewars with users who edited the page against his wishes. Also, his first edits were empty edits to User:Primerica which leads to my belief that he's nothing but a paid shill for the company to edit the Wikipedia page to their wishes. He certainly isn't qualified to edit the article because of his association to company described and the resulting neutrality issues. 80.218.90.50 09:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

How does stating the history of the company, with sourced links, account for tagging the article with a NPOV dispute? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A1794 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC). — A1794 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

One of the issues is the constant removal of criticism of the company. Another is that the history section is very long but there's almost nothing about what the company does, its products or services. -Will Beback · † · 21:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that the Primerica article was written by employees of Primerica. I felt like I was reading an advertisement. A reputable business does not solicit. I get so annoyed when I'm going about my business and people try to sell me things. I'm very disappointed with the neutrality of this article. A Ratings and Awards section? What a better way to boast? Absurd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitchhollister (talk • contribs)

Ext links

Strikes me there are far too many external links here. As soon as the various subgroups and initiatives are individually notable they can have their own articles. Until then the following links appear to violate WP:EL:

• Primerica African-American Leadership Council
• Primerica Business Opportunity
• Women In Primerica
• Primerica Financial Needs Analysis
• Primerica Financial Solutions
• Invest With Primerica
• Primerica Shareholder Services
• Primerica Newsroom
• Generation Primerica

Can anybody show why these satisfy :EL? Otherwise they can be removed. Be aware that "they are useful links" is not :EL friendly. Deizio talk 12:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Is Primerica a Multi-Level?

Concerning this quote "Primerica has been criticized as a multi-level marketing (MLM) company.[4][5]". I request that it be reworded.

1. The first link reads "More Primerica complaints include allegations that it is a pyramid scheme or an MLM scam". If one is to use this as an authoritative source, Citigroups division should be called an illegal "pyramid scheme" as well. One can find uneducated criticisms anywhere on the web. This link needs to be removed.

2. The definition of a "multi-level" is still developing. If we absolutely must label Primerica a multi-level, at least have the professionalism to avoid marking it as a "criticism". That's unacceptible in an encyclopedia of this caliber. Traditionally, "criticized" multilevels are those that (one way or another) make a profit internally (meaning, a significant amount of the business is done within the heirarchy as opposed to externally, with clients). These multilevels are criticised and likened to pyramids because people are buying from themselves and their upline in hopes of building their business (when obviously, they are the business the multilevel is building!). It's a crafty way to get committed customers. Primerica on the other hand, as cited in the article, has over 6,000,0000 clients and only 100,000 representatives! This fact alone excuses Primerica from being a "criticized multilevel" or likened to a pyramid in any meaningful respects. That's a 60:1 ratio simply assuming all primerica reps are clients! Clearly Primerica is not a "criticized multilevel" where the company is churning out customers. Because of that common misconception and the negativity associated with the word "multilevel" i request that we try and avoid using it unless necessary. If it must, lets at least have the professionalism to dissociate it with criticized multilevels, not associate it. Thanks.

Gnarlyocelot 05:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC) — Gnarlyocelot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

1. Primerica has been characterized as being a multi-level marketing plan by reliable sources. We can't change that fact.

2. It doesn't matter what a multi-level marketing plan is. We have no way of establishing, on our own, the truth or falsehood of statements calling Primerica a MLM. All we can do is report them.

3. You persnally agreed in mediation last summer to text which made more extensive accusations about Primerica then the current text does. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-30 Primerica. The current article is more carefully sourced than it was then, so there is even less cause for complaint.

If there is a source which rebuts the characterization of Primerica being an MLM then it would be appropriate to inlcude that. Do you know of such a source? -Will Beback · † · 10:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Will, thanks for the response.

1. (a) May i ask what reliable sources you're referring to? (b)I dont think either of those links would ever be appealed to in a real encyclopedia, do you? (c) Why don't we also add in criticism that Primerica is accused of being a pyramid scheme (since its in the same exact sentance of the source).

2. Do you report when Wal-Mart is accused of being run by the mafia? or aliens? If i can find some websites of equal or greater quality accusing Wal-Mart of such things, should Wikipedia "report them"? I can find 20. Even if the Multi-Level aspect does belong in the Primerica article, your reason here is bad (double-standards = logical fallacy).

3. My goal is accurate reporting. The article right now is absolutely misleading. The professional thing to do is follow the "Moon landing" example. Since there are enough who deny it happened, it can be mentioned, but since scholarship and educated opinion refutes it or clarifies it, those must be cited as well. I do agree that the best option is to mention that many come out with the impression that Primerica is a "multi-level" and a "pyramid" (mention BOTH), but these also should be clarified. Again, "criticised as a multilevel", especially without clarification, is unacceptably misleading.

Thanks again.

72.64.93.89 19:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC) 72.64.93.89 19:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

So, you don't have a source which rebuts the characterization of Primerica as an MLM, then? Anazgnos 21:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The reliable sources are listed in the article. One of them, a book, was mentioned in a press release on Primerica's website, a press release which was uncharacteristically removed after we added a link to it here.(Here's the Google cahce version [1]) This article isn't about WalMart. I'd be surprised if you could find a reliable source calling them an alien operation, but that's for another talk page to deal with. If you can find sources which clarify the characterizations of Primerica as an MLM, or if you can better summarize the sources we already have, then be my guest. In the current article, we present the verifiable assertions in information in a neutral fashion. That's what Wikipedia ia all about. -Will Beback · † · 23:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand, we both want this to be accurate and fair. As mentioned before, if this encyclopedia is going to label Primerica a multi-level, then at the very least shouldn't we reword "criticized as a multilevel". On what grounds is having a multi-level structure criticism? Let me clarify:

(a) Is it wrong to "make money off other people"? Is that not the definition of business? Employees never get paid for the full fruits of their labor, how then would the owner make money? Brokers get money when their agents sell (the case for most financial organizations). Should we say on every company that has a tiered commission structure "criticized as a tiered commission structure"?

(b) Is it criticized as a commission job? Should we say on every company article that gives commission "criticized as a company that pays via commission".

(c) Should we say "the military has been criticised as an organization that recruits". Is recruiting wrong? I have various life insurance companies try to recruit me all the time, have you not? At the higher levels, how many companies dont recruit?

The "criticism" lies in the making customers out of employees by teasing them with an opportunity. Primerica is exempt from this criticism for reasones explained above. Otherwise, i need to know why we dont apply this "criticism" to virtually every organization on Wikipedia? I hope you see where i'm coming from.

Gnarlyocelot 02:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I changed it from "criticism" to the more neutral "characterization"[2], but another editor (one who happens to edit from Primerica's corporate office) changed it back to "criticism".[3] Personally I don't see describing a business model as "multi-level marketing" as a criticism. If we all agree we can change it back to a "characterization", a "description", or some other neutral term. -Will Beback · † · 02:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with characterization. Gnarlyocelot 02:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

regarding "deceptive job interviews"

Currently the last sentence reads: There have been complaints that some representatives have recruited new members using deceptive job interviews. [6]

I suggest the following amplification.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

While prohibited by corporate office [6], there have been complains that some representatives have recruited new members using deceptive job interviews. [7]

[6] “https://pol2.primerica.com/home/ > Compliance > Guidelines and Policies > Policies and Procedures Section 1.4”.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The web address for Flash articles is always the same as the homepage, so the link order is the best we can do. The website is only accessible to agents, but I can do a ‘print screen’ and e-mail it to you. This information is the web form of the Annul Compliance Handbook.

Section 1:4 of “ Introduction and General Guidelines” reads:

Unfair, misleading or deceptive prospecting is prohibited. Specifically, the following issues are crucial to our business:

• Recruiting is an individual, personal process. Make sure that all potential recruits clearly understand what the :Opportunity Meeting is before you invite them.

• Misrepresenting who you are or who you represent, the nature of the Primerica opportunity (i.e., implying that it is a job, salaried position, etc.) or " tricking" people to attend an Opportunity Meeting is prohibited.

These are other quotes I can cite as needed.

1. “I understand that I do not make any money from recruiting and that earnings are based on the sale of products.”

2. “Each recruit should be personally interviewed prior to an offer of association with Primerica. If the recruit appears qualified, they should be asked to complete and sign the IBA.”

Gnarlyocelot 02:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Information has to be verifiable by any editor. WP:VERIFY I suppose I could vouch for its authenticity on this page if you send me the page, though that's not optimal and other editors might not be satisfied. -Will Beback · † · 02:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It might be better if we acknowledge that the source isn't public. Maybe something like, "There have been complaints that some representatives have recruited new members using deceptive job interviews. However this practice is prohibited by the corporate office's confidential Policies and Procedures manual." -Will Beback · † · 02:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That will work for now. I've got access to the Annul Compliance Meeting DVD and booklet at the office (both manditory, hours are logged and licenses are lost if not attended). I expect in the future, when i have the sources, it will read something like: "However this practice is prohibited in written and video form during it's manditory Annul Compliance Meeting." Where should I e-mail the "print screen" of this compliance page? Gnarlyocelot 03:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You can email me at [4]. -Will Beback · † · 04:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I Left Because of Moral Issues

Having considered Primerica for a solid year (I live in the Los Angeles area), I decided to give it my all to see what I could make of it. I learned something that made me quit. My RVP insisted that Primerica is not a Multi-Level Marketing Business, but merely a modified brokerage. The validity of this depends upon whether or not the structure pulls consideration (value or money) from new recruits that is a significant portion of the income of the company. Previous discussions on this page have targeted the $199 Primerica charges as a start-up cost. This is nothing. Forget about it. The liscensing costs the company far more than that. The consideration taken from the new recruit is in the form of clients and referals, which technically costs them nothing, but is invaluable to the business. When a new recruit goes on training appointments, their upline (trainer) has the opportunity to make a sale which, statistically, happens 70% of the time (according to my RVP). That is because of the great products, which I believe are perfectly viable.

In my case, it was impressed upon me that I needed to go through 6 training appointments so that I could be refunded $200 ($1 more than the $199). This sounds like a good deal, but it has an encouraged (though technically not required) stipulation in practice: I am the one that has to find the 6 clients in the target market ($30k - $75k annual income, owns a home, married, has children, age 25 - 45). The training appointments don't count towards my six unless they are with people who satisfy at least four out of five of these requirements. My RVP said that it is not the case that I am required to find my own clients to train with, but my experience proves different. In the six months I have been seriously pursuing this business, I have come to the conclusion that it is not just a requirement, but the "blood of the business" (to quote my RVP directly). Before getting started, the new recruit is required to provide the most valuable thing the business can ask for: warm-market, target-market clients, with the leverage of "helping" their friend (the new recruit) pushing them to seriously consider the pitch. When asked directly, my RVP had to admit that the vast majority of the sales made by the company are done so in this situation.

Because company policy requires consideration (something of value) from its new recruits that is, in fact, the primary source of income for the business, I call it a multi-level marketing business. The business would not survive without new recruits and the clients they bring in. Here is where I draw a line. Is it moral to build a business on the prospect of future business? This is a question with a variable answer. Primerica doesn't technically require anyone to make their money off of recruiting people who bring in sales opportunities for their training sessions, but it is written everywhere in the training materials and repeated emphatically at every meeting. "Recruit, recruit, recruit!" This is the one thing that has bothered me and, apparently, everyone else. I say no, it is not moral to run a business this way because of precisely what I ran into.

I gave it my best shot. I talked to my friends and family. I told them that I was getting started with a company and needed to do some training appointments. You know what they said? Nine out of the ten couples I approached said: "We have been approached by Primerca representatives too many times already. We're not interested." Now, granted, I know a lot of people that are actually very good with their finances already, and truly don't need the Financial Needs Analysis that Primerica offers. What disturbed me was that they had already been approached multiple times. I was told that Primerica only had a 1% share of the market, and saturation (maximum consumer demand) of the market was hundreds of years away in the future. But saturation is the percentage of people who are willing and able to buy the product.

Problem: if Primerica's income is from new recruits and 90% of those recruits fail to continue because they realise it's an MLM, wouldn't the market begin to get filled with people who have gotten wise? Wouldn't people begin to say: "I've heard of you, I know what you do, and I don't think there's an opportunity any more?" I would call that market saturation, wouldn't you? Even if the moral issue of "getting there first" and leaving the members of your business to deal with the real work doesn't bother you, beware that the maximum potential saturation level of Primerica in the financial market is much lower than they would like you to believe. The business model is built to be exponential, creating hoards of ex-primericans. However, the products are sound and useful to a very large market, so the company continues to generate sales. Weird, huh?

In conclusion, I think that Primerica's services are honest and helpful, but that the business model, that of extracting clients and the statistical sales that result from new recruits, is unethical. It isn't fair or honest to the recruit, claiming a blind eye as to whether or not the opportunity really exists. This business might be made ethical in the opinion of some by not using this leverage, but no one who does that makes any money. And that rather kills the point of calling it a "business," doesn't it?

celloscratch@gmail.com 02:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC) http://primerica-the-mlm.blogspot.com/

Removed Citation

I removed the citation to Primerica's Corporate Policy (where it states that Primerica forbids MLM schemes), because you need to log in to view it. If we can find a source that states the same thing without needing a login, please post that instead. If not, we can put that citation back in. Thanks. -RomeW 06:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That seems appropriate. I told user:Gnarlyocelot that it wasn't verifiable and he responded that he'd send me a screenshot of the page. He never did and that was in mid-January. The Primerica handbook is probably confidential anyway. -Will Beback · † · 07:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Critics

I am employee of Primerica and have been for several years. On a technicality, and in the traditional sense of the word, I am not an employee, but more of, say, a subcontractor. I don't work for Primerica, rather for myself and my family. If I want to make money, I go out and do it. If I would rather sit at home and play video games or fool around online, I can do that as I please.

I have NEVER heard ANYONE in the company say such things as "Government sponsored" when referring to the $199 fee. The fee is basically to make sure the people who walk through the door are there with good intent, not just to have something handed to them. I've seen many people in both the Bricktown and Neptune, NJ offices come and go. Out of the 20 odd people in my class, there are only maybe 3 still around. I've seen people come in working dead end jobs as waiters and go on to make 50+ thousand in a year and I've seen people come in and only manage 5 thousand.

Just like everywhere else you can possibly go, It may not be for you. I sat through six months of meetings and did research online before I even thought about coming up with $199 for the course. Had I been a little more motivated before, I wouldn't have even had to come up with the money in the first place. Like stated before, if you can do 6 presentations (which is a way to train you anyway), you can get your re-inbursement (or if done before your course is scheduled, You'll receive your 200 dollar "re"imbursement to put towards your course).

I have heard of cases where people pressure others to join the company and will definitely be one of the first to say there are bad people in the company and it messes things up for the rest of us. I had a girlfriend when I first started the business who was invited by someone from one of our offices up North. She came in and decided to give it a try. The woman who invited her and was to be her upline lied to her and told her that "the $199 fee needs to be paid in cash". This is a total lie, the lady took her money and took off. She was soon after fired and fined for repeatedly doing this. There was another guy who had friends buy policies and other products from him so he could get to RVP (Regional Vice President), then once he was there all of those policies were cancelled. The company looked into it and he was soon fired and fined as well.

Overall, it is a good place to work, if you don't mind taking risk and working hard. It's NOT for everyone and most of all, NOT A GET RICH SCHEME. I am now located in the Neptune, NJ and we make sure to stress, in every meeting, this fact.

On a side note and my individual experience has been that optimists tend to (but not always) do better and last longer. The pessimists seem to doubt everything from word go and rarely even go past the initial op meeting. This is MY sole opinion and not to be taken as anything more than that.

GangrelNitemare 07:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

So what was the point in telling us then? Unless this is lying around in a magazine article somewhere, your opinion about the company you work for is worth zero. The Kinslayer 09:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Getting the $200 after doing six presentations is in fact not true for all hierarchies. Most offices give you the money back once you pass the state test and get licensed. Timberlax 05:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The $200 after 6 presentations is part of the "Scholarship" Program. It is meant for people who are unable to come up with the money needed to cover the IBA fee. Basically, $100 per 3 presentations. The RVP's should not be charging, the now, $99 and do the program. It should be one or the other. Once the Life test has been passed and the license issues, Home Office automatically reimburses the cost of one test and fingerprints. Rjhancock (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

have anyone notice the cost of all the financial products of this company? They are consistently higher than anyone else. Why is that you would ask? Ripping people off you might answer. Houston

The cost of the products are competitive to the rest of the industry. However, if you compare products on price alone, you are an idiot. Compare prices and features and you will see Primerica is more cost effective than most, if not all, other products out there. Yes I did my research before joining. Rjhancock (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I was GangrelNitemare, but I lost my login information so I created a new account. Here goes:

1 - Kinslayer, My experiance means nothing to anyone and I know that. There are others who make fantastic money with the corperation and others who find it to be too much of a bother. If you would take a few minutes out of your life and stop reading half-truths and other misinformation on the internet and pick up Money magizine or other magizines of that sort, you'd see that Primerica is in the news for doing a lot of good things. Our name has been dragged through the mud by other insurance companies. We've been noted in several books, unfortunately, I do not have the list of these books, but I will get them up within 2 weeks so you can get your fill of hard facts from third-party sources.

2 - As far as reimbursement of the course fees goes, it's done in a different manner in different teams. When I came into the company, I was in Brick, NJ. There they required you to do the 6 presentations to get that money back. My team, however does it differently. We are (and were when I was in Brick as well) running out of the Neptune, NJ office and we do not give a direct reimbursement of the course fees. Now, if you break it down, even not getting the money reimbursed you are still making out like a bandit. The cost for you to do this on your own in NJ is aproximately $3,000 or more. The way my team goes about the reimbursement (for lack of a better term) is, if you are licensed when you start your training, because you CANNOT earn a commission if you are NOT licensed, you can sign off on half the application, meaning, you will receive half the commission level you are at. I.E. if you are earning 25% commission on life insurance sales, you would instead earn a 12.5% commission. Not bad considering you aren't doing anything more than watching someone else do the work.

The course fees and regulations have recently changed in the state of New Jersey. The course used to be a 40 hour course and renewal of ones license was every 4 years along with proof of 48 hours of continued education credits. The course is now 24 hours, cost is down to $99 dollars for the class, and renewal is every 2 years with 24 hours continued education credits. Continued education is required as laws are changed/added and rules and regulations on the industry are changed/added.

3 - Huston, I suggest you also pick up a book and take a good read. I have had only one case where I could not save someone money on their life insurance. This is ONLY because they purchased a policy and were able to increase the face value to $500,000. Shortly after they increased the face value to half a million, they were diagnosed with heart disease and, at 25 years of age, received a pacemaker. Due to their condition, even their current insurance company couldn't give them more coverage, nor could they obtain a second policy without paying a small fortune.

As the largest company in its field, Primerica would be shut down if it were doing anything illegal. There are thousands of employees - self-employed individuals - in Primerica and, unfortunately, soem are overly aggressive or down right greedy and will attempt to mislead people in an attempt to create business for themselves or to get people recruited. A few years back there was a problem with one of our offices in Woodbridge, NJ where we fired people for taking recruits money. Instead of accepting a check/money order, they lied to the recruits and said they had to pay the $199 in cash and never contacted them again. These people were taken care of swiftly and cannot get their license ever again.

Primerica is a company founded on saving people money and getting them out of debt. The company would not have survived this long without keeping true to this very idea. I will return, as stated, with a few titles for those of you who are willing to get out from behind their computer moniters and read a book so you can get some outside information/opinions on Primerica.

ACaruso84 03:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Another sucker !

Sadly that sucker is me but I only lost money as I barely invested time in that scheme, they're not lying to you but only blinding you to the facts. Their weekly speeches (more like praise) is aimed at low income people promising them and their like to get out of their torment but the way to achieve it is to aim at higher income people. The structure itself is very much like a pyramidal scheme except this one you can make money but at what cost ? How many hours of hassling do you need to make a sale and for what money exactly ?! They keep a lot from you in those speeches and with all the hidden fees, it comes down to an average salary but drilling people, making dubious sales and cold calls (telemarketing) seems pretty low and should be paid much more to take away your pride. I much prefer practicing a trade which directly help people and the economy rather than scooping between the cracks while annoying people. DynV 03:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I saw the comments that you left on the Primerica Financial Services talk page. While reading your comments, I noticed that you may have been given the wrong impression about the company. You said, "Their weekly speeches (more like praise) is aimed at low income people promising them and their like to get out of their torment but the way to achieve it is to aim at higher income people". Since Primerica is part of Citigroup, there is no need to rely on higher income clients to help you make money; Citigroup is the most profitable company in the world (almost $2 trillion in assests). The system is very effective too, and it's not one of the world's (and Canada's) fastest growing companies for nothing. I recently became a business owner with Primerica, but I'm not going to preach to you about the company over the internet. I think you weren't fully told how the company works, or you must have misunderstood something. You should get all of your questions answered. Peace. Blackjays1 03:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind and straightforward reply ! Sadly all I see as a reply is the companies propaganda and my initial response was what I experience with this hard lesson costing me 250$ Canadian. Not only was I told to use whatever tactics to push sales by my direct superior but as I was hesitant to use selling tactics, I was brought to one of the office responsible and she really pushed the bottom of the barrel tactics : family, friends, activity partners, ex-colleagues, cold calls, ... you name it, she said it ! Of course she added all the company supposed benefit to myself and to society but what I would've gained as monetary gain, I would've lost in pride and trust : no one would've seen me as a person anymore but as a businessmen using social affinities to push a sale, what a rip off ! Unless you don't care about family neither friendship or you're a superb marketer (which you could make much more money in other fields), you're in for a deception ! --DynV 05:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I can understand your dilemma, but you don't literally have to be a "businessman" to do this work. To me, it's simply talking to people. That's it! Talk to people about how their income, job and life are treating them, then give them the opportunity to make it better. The best part is that your income INCREASES annually, and you help out some people along the way. It may seem like propaganda to you, but it's just common sense. I can't see why anyone wouldn't want to do this. Blackjays1 01:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You call cold calls talking ? It's marketing ! Help others ? That's funny because the business target people that are well off, so probably know how to make sound financial decisions, so they don't really need help so in fact you're just PUSHING your product to them. I know people that sell insurance for non-Multi-level marketing and they make a very good living without PUSHING their products. For me and everybody I know, business practices such as Primerica are unacceptable. --DynV (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place for this debate, guys. Let's focus on ways to improve the article. Thanks. Monkey Bounce (talk) 04:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

curious

I have to admit, when i first attended a seminar/company overview, I was curious as to how the business worked. Granted they make you go to a few overviews to fianlly get your answer. But that is only because they are getting a feel for you and to see if you have the determination and drive that the business needs. After attending the 2007 Atlanta Convention, I found that only people with drive and determination to succeed were in attendance. So many people need security and stabilty and a guarauntee that a paycheck will be there on Friday. As with many commission based careers, Primerica IS commission based. I don't understand why people are knocking the business. There are many careers that are commission based but don't offer the oppourtunity to become wealthy unless you work countless hours and put in years and years of work. And the fees explained aren't hidden like you say. Obviously you weren't paying attention during the overview. They clearly list your fees in black and white/plain english. Primerica IS NOT AIMED AT PEOPLE WITH HIGHER INCOMES. It is a service that is greatly needed for middle-class families/individuals who need and seek financial guidance. The once $199 fee has dropped since and is now $99 and covers the entire costs of all liceses associated with the business. That includes Life and health, mortgage and a secruities license. So if you feel like the business isn't for you, you are free to job hunt elsewere. LICENSED AND ALL. PRIMERICA IS ALSO THE ONLY COMPANY THAT DOES GOVERNMENT BACKGROUND CHECKS WITH THE FBI. In no way are you forced to sell a product noone needs or has never heard of. It is strictly for the consumers benefit. Primerica serves you knowledge on how to save and invest your money so you can have a better retirement. Because lets all face the hard core facts... social secruity will be none exsistant in the near future. So for those of you who choose to knock the business, please read the proper literature and evaluate yourself because from my experience, for those who knock it want things to be done FOR THEM and choose not to work hard for their successes. jasminsheree 11:18 pm aug 8, 2007 Jasminsheree 04:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You also have to remember that the reason you get a commission is because Primerica is the company of Citigroup that sells ALL of Citigroups other comapnies products example: most of the investment type products that Primerica sells is through Smith Barney....Who owns Smith Barney? You guessed it Citigroup. Another example: Primerica offers 1st and 2nd mortgages through Citimortgage, and just incase you didn't already figure it out Citigroup owns that too. Does it seem that a company that has to sell products for its parent company won't telemarket, recruit good salesmen, and create a means to motivate and somewhat keep there employees producing profit? I think not. All the people criticizing a company that helps the most neglected people in the U.S. (the middle class) And why are the so ready to do it so easily? They are trying to create a monopoly on the whole finanical market. I guess no one remembers Carnagie and Rockefeller. Oh yeah! And i guess none of you know that a grandson of the Rockefeller was a former executive of Citigroup...Hmmm He wouldn't follow his Grandpa's footsteps in business practices, do you think he could've help stratigize how the biggest financial company in the world could make even more money? BlueIceUnltd 20:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

What a fascinating hypothesis. Too bad the facts don't prop it up. Over the last few years Primerica has switched from selling Citigroup products to selling products like MetLife variable annuities, GE long term care insurance, and Pre-Paid Legal, all exclusively. They no longer market Smith Barney mutual funds. I'm not even sure they exist anymore. Plus, all of the auto and homeowners they offer are outsourced to other underwriters. So, out of all products Primerica offers, only loans and life insurance are actually offered by the parent company. If anything, Citi has been moving away from integration, offloading the mutual funds and spinning Travelers off. Some monopoly. Monkey Bounce 19:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Life Insurance is offered through Primerica Life Insurance, not Citi. The loans are the only real item that is Citi specific. 76.186.202.72 (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

SEC ruling

• In 1998, the US Securities and Exchange Commission censured and fined PFS Investments Inc. for its failure to properly supervise a group of registered representatives in Dearborn, Michigan that ran a scheme, in 1992, selling unauthorized investment products.

Why is this material being removed? I don't see what policy would call for its removal. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The material is almost 10 years old. It doesn't add anything to the article. Its one ruling. Doesn't need to be added. If there were multiple rulings against the company, then I could see the point of adding an SEC Rulings sub-section to the criticism section, but there's not. Why put it in there? 68.208.8.29 17:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the age of the material, we have a large amount of history that is older than 10 years, so if everything older than that is irrelevant then we need to cut a lot. The "SEC ruling" section was created because another anonymous editor deleted the material because he claimed it wasn't criticism (it had been in the criticism section). I don't think a single SEC ruling is irrelevant. However we could put it in the history section instead. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

After looking at your edit history to the Primerica article and the edit history itself, the sentence was deleted over six-months ago, by another editor. If there was an issue with it being removed, why didn't you bring it up then? You stated you were stuck trying to balance the article. Were you not around then? If the article needs an administrator to monitor its positive/negative statements, then it should have one which is a little more diligent. I tell you what, if you can find me another company featured in Wikipedia that has one SEC ruling against it, similar to what you're proposing, and its currently stated in its article, then I'll concede to adding it to the history section. 68.208.8.29 18:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I can't watch this article as closely as you'd like. I watch thousands of articles and I'm just a volunteer. The assertion that a single SEC ruling is irrelevant doesn't make sense. If a person were convicted of committing a crime, would we argue that it shouldn't be included if he didn't commit several more crimes? Of course not. There are many examples of articles reporting single instances of SEC actions. Since the SEC can break up a company, one action may be all it takes. See North American Light and Power Company, Liberty University, W. R. Grace and Company, Dictaphone, McAfee, Penthouse (magazine), Dell, and so on. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I concede. I think the best place for it should go in the history section. Do you have a problem with me adding it there? 68.208.8.29 19:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being reasonable. Go ahead and add it to the history section. Inspired by your references to the edit logs, I checked to see when this was previously deleted. It was deleted quite often, including by someone using an IP address in the 68.208.8.X range.[5][6], an editor who removed other criticism as well.[7][8] The last time the SEC material was removed it was by an IP belonging to Primerica, presumably an employee.[9] He also removed other sourced material which I think we should restore as well. If there's no objection I'll do so. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. As far as adding other sourced material, in regards the edits you sited, reference numbers 5 & 6 refer to the SEC topic. This I will edit. Reference 7 seems to be a dead link. Reference 8, I believe has been resolved already within the copy and looking at previous edits within the history.[10] Reference 9, is the only one I think can be added. Are there others you think should be added? 12.163.2.10 20:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this the same editor as 68.208.8.29? The only material, other than the already agreed upon SEC fine, that I propose re-adding is the material removed in this edit [11]. The other links were just provided to give a fuller context for the history of critical material removal. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, same editor. You can add the BBB reference. I have added the SEC reference to the history section. 12.163.2.10 21:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

IP 12.163.2.10 is registered to Primerica. Therefore it appears that you are a Primerica employee or agent. Employees of a compnay have an inherent conflict of interest. The Wikipedia guideline WP:COI calls upon editors with a conflict to use the talk page to discuss proposed edits, and strongly discourages them from editing relevant articles directly. Due to the long history of Primerica employees (or maybe just one employee) editing this article, particularly to remove critical information, it is important that this guideline be followed. Future deletions of sourced criticism may be regarded as vandalism and dealt with appropriately. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Primerica logo.png

Image:Primerica logo.png 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 19:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed Promotional Material

I deleted the section titled "PFS Superstar - True Born Leader, 'Mr. PFS', 'Best of The Best'" because it's unencyclopedic. I can see from the edit history that this section's been removed & replaced a couple of times, so I wanted to make a note of it here -- it looks like self-promotion, in violation of WP:SOAP, I think. Uncat 06:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's completely inappropriate and pointless, adding NOTHING to the article and violating several neutral POV measures. This is an encyclopedic article, not a personal blog. If the user continues doing this, he/she should be blocked from editing. Timberlax 08:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"Pyramid Scheme"

I've removed these claims, as they have cited http://www.pyramidschemes.com/ as a source. That site, at least as far as I can determine, is a blog, as opposed to a verifiable source. --Mhking (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, as near as I was able to tell, that website never once even mentioned Primerica. The reference is either very hidden or isn't there at all. Monkey Bounce (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

People have to realize that pyramid schemes are ILLEGAL. Primerica has been around for 30 years and has never been successfully sued. If it was a pyramid scheme Sandy Weill, the former CEO of Citigroup would not ruin his reputation by buying it in 1989. -Timberlax 18:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

From all-panning to all-praising?

When I first looked up this article (probably soon after my own personal interaction with the company), it was composed almost entirely of negative criticism, and now it has evolved into almost entirely unbridled praise (even the "criticism" section attempts to mitigate a past criticism). It seems that this article has been rewritten solely to repair the company's negative reputation. The article as it stands should be deleted and be rewritten from scratch, with better balanced positive and negative points. Wikipedia is not a place for exposés or advertisements. Mal7798 (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the difference between "praise" and properly cited sources. People like to come on here and put up negative stuff without a credible source because they had a negative experience, which is actually a violation of NPOV anyways. The criticism section contains a sourced quote that shows how even some credible sites like Ripoff Report can be wrong about what the company stands for. Besides I don't see other company articles have paragraphs of negative "opinions." - Timberlax 04:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timberlax (talk • contribs)

I think one reason that there's less critical material than before is that most of it was poorly sourced. Can you find some articles in reliable sources that include critical comments? If so they can be added. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I only have personal experiences to reference, so I cannot make any appropriate editions to the article. (And I don't see how recalling them even here is appropriate, despite my temptation) But it seems every reference to this company's alleged unethical behavior has been systematically deleted. If I had read this article as it stood at the time of my own experience, I would have had no experience with them all. I know that Wikipedia is not a consumer advocacy site, but this company is so overwhelmingly subject to negative criticism--warranted or not--it should be reported in this article; not necessarily that the criticism is true, but that it exists. (For example, if one million people believe without reason that coffee drinking causes foot fungus, it would of course be inappropriate to state "coffee drinking may cause foot fungus", but it would be appropriate to state that so many people believe that it does).

If one million people (for example) try to edit this article to include negative criticism, why would that not be noteworthy enough to include somehow, and if not, how could that information be made appropriate? Also, what safeguards are there in place in Wikipedia to prevent representatives of this corporation from deliberately removing all negative references?

Mal7798 (talk) 06:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Your points address core topics related to the founding principles of Wikipedia but I think your interpretation of them is incorrect. One of most basic policies, "verifiability", says that everything in the encyclopedia must be verifiable. Another is "no original research", which says that this project should not be a publisher of original ideas or research. Our jobs, as Wikipedia editors, is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. If a large number of people have lodged similar complaints I'd hope that some significant news source would cover it. If this is a notable problem then some known entities like Business Week, Forbes, Wall Street Journal, 60 Minutes, Dateline, Salon, or Slate is likely to have reported on it. Or if they haven't perhaps they will in the future. We can summarize whatever the reliable sources say. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Current round of vandalism

The latest edits remove all reference to the Ripoff Report's current stance on the company while citing them as a critic and cite a 10 year old SEC document as being a "current" investigation. Clearly, someone has an axe to grind against the company and is eager to twist sources any way they can to get the result they want. Monkey Bounce (talk) 08:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected the article because there's a slow-speed eit war with no attemtps at resolution. Please use this talk page to discuss the article and to agree on improvements. Once some progress is shown we can unprotect it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

And within 12 hours of the protection expiring, the edit wars begin again. Monkey Bounce (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Primerica Convention Gallery

I don't see how the Primerica Convention image gallery really helps to improve this article. I would also argue the 2007 Primerica Convention section is unnecessary, also. For the broad scope of the history section, the 2007 Primerica Convention sub-section, seems too specific and focused. What about previous Primerica conventions? I feel if the convention is going to be mentioned, it should also include past conventions, too. There's enough information about the Primerica conventions to create its own article. But I'm not sure that's needed, either. Regardless, the 2007 Primerica Convention section should be deleted. P747AH (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I somewhat agree that the gallery isn't really needed since it doesn't improve the article after thinking about it. However, the convention section is significant because two new financial products were introduced at the event and it marked the company's 30th anniversary. Timberlax 18:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timberlax (talk • contribs)

Okay, I see your point. I think the current [article] is fine. P747AH (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Major Rewrite Needed

This article needs a *major* rewrite. It is incredibly biased towards the company and uses company pages (or other questionable sources, such as a blog post from Palminfocenter.com) for the vast majority of its references. It used to be much more balanced last year but it's taken a turn for the worst now (I suspect it's agents (which provides a conflict of interest, especially since I see a lot of them on this talk page). I don't have the time to do the re-write at the moment, so I stuck the "Neutrality" and "Advertisement" tags here and restored the "Criticism" section (although I don't like that section as it stands).-RomeW (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The article has been edited of unnecessary sections. "Neutrality" and "Advertisement" tags have been removed. P747AH (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

May I ask why removing almost everything on the company's history necessary? Does it hurt anyone to know the history behind the company because it helps to better see how the company evolved from a general agency. There were alot of citations in there that justified the history section. It took much effort by many editors to put it all together to now see it all wiped out. And to RomeW: are you suggesting Palm is lying about its own product? -Timberlax 06:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The article should a concise summary of the company. It should give a brief history of the company, its awards and criticisms for visitors looking for summary information about Primerica. The majority of the history section was about ALW. This should/can be re-directed to the AL Williams article — if you feel it needs to be in there. The section about the Palm was not really an award or rating, so I deleted it. If you can rework it to conform to a ratings/award, please do so. As the article stands now, I feel it is concise and fairly balanced. The main issues editors have with the article is either too much positive or too much negative. I appreciated BigMacd24's editing and research into why Rip-Off Report's reference should be deleted, but fact remains, there are criticisms stemming from recruiting and Rip-Off Report did reverse its opinion of the company. These are the reasons for my edits. P747AH (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

ALW existed until 1987 when it was purchased by Primerica. Do you think having a history since 1987 would makes sense in this article? Everything else before that could be moved to the ALW article. And also why the sudden change of mind, given that you approved the article as it stood a week or so ago under the Convention Gallery discussion? -Timberlax 17:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timberlax (talk • contribs)

Ripoff Report 'criticism'

A cursory examination of the 'ripoff report' review, website, and ripoff report shows that it's probably not a reliable source. It seems to be, (at best) a blog where consumers can post complaints of companies, or (at worste) a muck racking website which posts unfavorable reviews and then extorts money from the company to alter them. Either way, it doesn't seem like an appropriate 'varifiable source'. As much as I am loathe to remove information and not have anything to put back in it's place, i'm afraid until a reliable sources can be found, i'm going to remove the entire section. Bigmacd24 (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you've been living under a rock but Ripoff Report is actually a popular consumer complaint website and it's been mentioned a few times as a main place to review complaints. You provide no backing as to why the website is "probably not a reliable source" and none of the details of your "cursory" examination. The reliability comes from what the founder of the company has found and it's clearly quoted in his words. -Timberlax 04:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timberlax (talk • contribs)

I have to agree with this. Ripoff Report is not just an aggregate of user reviews, and the linked-to report is a summation of what appears to be actual journalistic investigation into the complaints. The link should be restored. -- 216.231.35.114 (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If you remove the link, there is no citation at all for the claims of deceptive interviews. My feeling is either the link stays or the whole section is removed until there is a citation. Otherwise, it's just hearsay and speculation.Monkey Bounce (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Good to see such interest in the page, also, kudos to everyone for talking about my edit here instead of just reverting. I kinda agree with Monkey Bounce about removing the whole section, it was my intent to do so yesterday, but the 'citation needed' seemed more convincing last night than it does today. Timberlax's review of the ripoff report describes it as the internet equivalent of 'the national inquirer'. I realize the review that was linked is from 'the president of ripoff report' but i'm not 100% on that making him a reliable source. As for the review apearing journalistic, that's all fine and good, if the reviewer is a reliable source. I'm going to spend a bit of tonight reading up the exact policies regarding this. But I figured i'd drop a note in here first. Bigmacd24 (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I looked into it a bit deeper, and from the way I read things, it seems fairly safe to describe the report as an annonymous internet forum, combined with self published editorials from the owner. WP Policy on anonymous forums is clear, they're a no no for reliable sources. As for self published sources, it's a more generalized rule, but probably a no again. It's a bit of a toss up with the editor of ripoff report, on the one hand, he meets the requirement that established reliable sources have reported on him. (Various news stories when googling rip off report) that generally establish him as some form of consumer advocate. But at the same time he more or less openly admits to taking money from companies he writes reviews of. It's tricky, so instead of deciding weather or not Rip Off Report is a 'reliable source', why don't we just treat it as a questionable source, and examine what good it brings to the article. As far as I read it, it's a consumer advocate recanting previously held views about primerica, and saying they are an okay company. Is this piece of information particularly relevant to the article? As it exists right now, the 'criticism' section of the article would consist of more or less just this piece of information. Criticisms: A questionably reliable source once said something bad about the company, and now says something good about the company. WP:SPS has a good guide on this sort of situation, if the information was really worth reporting, wouldn't a reliable source have published it? This post is getting kinda long, so i'll cut it off here, i'm removing the criticism section as a whole, with a suggestion that it be recreated only when we've got some reliable sources. If Rip off report counts as one is currently moot, it's a response to criticisms which we aren't currently reporting. Bigmacd24 (talk) 10:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Your deductions are logical and I 100% agree with what you said. (PS does anyone know why it says my comments are unsigned even though I put the four tildes??) -Timberlax 02:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised, Bigmacd24, you decided to remove the "Criticism" section because it has questionable sources yet maintained the rest of the article's content, which uses almost entirely sources provided by Primerica and other questionable sources (such as the blog post from Palminfocenter.com). I certainly agree that the Criticism section isn't that great but you've tipped this article incredibly towards the Primerica end and far away from Neutrality, which is what a Wikipedia article should do.-RomeW (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm back, and so is the criticism section. Recently edited by Atlas, a new user who's only entry into the encyclopedia is this article. Actually, I kinda like Atlas's take on it, except that my previous objections to the entry still stand. There are currently no verifiable sources in the criticism section, so I think it needs to go. Rome, is the article fair and balanced? Maybe, maybe not, but I think the answer to a bad article isn't another bad section. Are there any reasons we should keep the section based on it's own merits, and not just 'evening out' a theoretical 'npov' meter?Bigmacd24 (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts are still pretty constant on this, there is currently no varifiable criticisms about primerica. I've looked, I can't find any. I'm aware some people might bare the company ill-will, but this does not merrit a section in the encyclopedia. If there are any reliable sources with actual criticisms of Primerica, please, recreate the section, but as it stands, this sort of thing doesn't belong here. (ripoff report, questionably reliable, and not even a criticism) Bigmacd24 (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism reverts

Well, I promised myself I wouldn't revert the page again till I got some folks agreeing with me, but I went and did it anyway. The criticism section was restored by user:68.224.139.31 who seems to have copied and pasted the text of the article from the article page and not the code. If we end up going back, please make sure to revert to the earlier version. That said, please don't revert until we have a chance to talk about it. If you feel like it, revert it, and /then/ post in here, and I won't change anything until we get some form of concensus. My reasons for deleting the criticism section are described below, but mainly that the section doesn't cite any criticism. I don't think it's appropriate to have the criticism section without there being criticism from a notable source. Wikipedia isn't a soap box to write reviews of companies, that's what rip-off report is for. Bigmacd24 (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the Ripoff report is that it's not a good source. That said, it does seem to represent a common complaint from recruits. Even so, we can't really use material sourced only to websites that don't meet the standards. The danger is that by removing all criticism we give the appearance that there is no criticism, only praise. I used a newspaper archive to see if I could find some better sources and haven't yet found any that address the issues in the Ripoff reports. However I did find some old fines and lawsuits that are not mentioned in the article and which should be added. FYI, I've mostly reverted deletions of material without any explanation. I'm glad to see these issues being discussed for a change. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"The danger is that by removing all criticism we give the appearance that there is no criticism, only praise." But by having only anecdotal statements without citations in the criticism section, it paints the picture that there are no valid documented complaints legally filed against the company. Public opinion is one thing, and perhaps there should be a public opinion section stating equal numbers of positive and negative anecdotes. But a criticism section should be held to higher standards than simply "and this one former employee said," and "I heard from a friend's sister's brother that this one guy knew a former agent who once said blah blah blah." I came to this article to learn a little about this company and if there are valid, legally filed claims against the company, I'd like to see those in a criticism section. Then again, this is Wikipedia after all and there are plenty of criticisms of that. Maybe the good old days of fact-checking are gone?

Most notably:

• The New York Department of Insurance has fined National Benefit Life, a subsidiary of Primerica Life Insurance Co. and a member of the Travelers group, $500,000 for submitting false pre-licensing certificates of education for 80 of its agents.
  • "N.Y. imposes $500,000 fine on Primerica Life subsidiary" King, Carole. National Underwriter. Erlanger: Nov 7, 1994. Vol. 98, Iss. 45; pg. 1, 2 pg

There are some others, but that's a big fine. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really. $500k in the insurance industry is chump change. However, that is probably the largest fine PFS has received. You should look at some of the competitions fines. On average, I have seen them range from $4 million to over $1 billion for doing stupid shit. rjhancock (talk) 06:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The Criticism section is being removed by Primerica!

The IP address making the edits is 12.163.2.10

Look up the IP address at http://geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm?GetLocation and you'll see it originates from Duluth, GA, the same city that Primerica is headquartered out of.

Do a whois on that IP address (http://www.arin.net/whois/index.html) and you'll find:

AT&T WorldNet Services ATT (NET-12-0-0-0-1) PRIMERICA FINANCIAL SRVICES PRIMERIC159-2 (NET-12-163-2-0-1)

These are obviously not NPOV edits, can we get a moderator to step in here and prevent this abuse? Chesspieceface (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Primerica employees are allowed to edit this article, so long as they comply with WP policies. Regarding the criticism section, please read the previous section on this page where we discuss it. While there's no doubt that PFS has received criticism (who hasn't?), any criticism we discuss in the article must be cited in reliable sources. "RipoffReport" does not appear to qualify. Newspaper or magazine articles woud qualify. A well-sourced "criticism" section would be fine - but a poorly sourced one does not belong. Does that make sense? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is RipoffReport not a "reliable" source? I think that it is because it is the source of the strongest criticism of Primerica, and for that reason alone.

It is also mentioned in this discussion that Citi, Primerica's parent company, is the most profitable corporation in the World. It would be easy for a corporation so profitable to encourage and even fabricate "reliable sources" of information and to suppress negative criticism.

It is also mentioned in this discussion that Primerica is oriented towards those of lower incomes. It would be more difficult for lower income people to find the resources or the time to locate the "reliable sources" necessary to back their criticisms.

And yes, Primerica employees are just as permitted to edit this article as anyone else. And they have motivations to do so that others do not have.

Keep all of this in mind when evaluating defenses of this article, as well as the limited number of persons defending it. Mal7798 (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what more I can say. RipoffReport simply doens't meet the standards for a relialbe source, though it may be suitable for a simple external link at the bottom of the article. Searching for sources doesn't require any money, all it takes is time at a library or on the internet. I thinks folks have searched and not found anything useful. If you'd like more coverage of this topic I suggest contacting local, regional, or national media sources to interest them in the story. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It "simply doesn't meet the standards for a reliable source" is the best answer? That is essentially equivalent to "it just doesn't--take my word for it." Although that answer was meaningless, it was quite quick to appear. Primerica likely has a "Wikipedia Article Editing and Citation Fabrication" department and keeps it operating 24 hours a day just in case someone reveals the truth about the corporation in the wee hours.

Fortunately the sheer volume of the discussion on this article likely ensures that anyone will be curious enough not to be deceived by it or its topic. Mal7798 (talk) 05:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've answered this question before on this page, so I'm not going to repeat myself. I gave you the link to the policy so you can see for yourself what the standard is. I've personally spent an hour or so searching databases and the only thing I found which was particularly negative about the group was a large regulatory fine, the details of which I posted on this page if you'd like to add it to the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

They're removing the entire section instead of using citation-needed smacks of censorship. I've added more sources including established blog news sites. Chesspieceface (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

None of the links you added appear to be a reliable source. Please see the guideline at WP:RS, and the core policy at WP:V. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The section that has been removed includes two sources. One is to a website that is not a reliable source, and the other is to a Wikipedia talk page, which is not allowed because of conflict of interest and the fact that a forum (which is, for all intents and purposes, what a WP talk page is) is not a reliable source. Also, you mentioned that a {{fact}} tag was not added and you view this as wrong. Well, according to Jimbo, it is not wrong at all:

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

–Jimmy Wales

So you see, this section can not be included unless you can find more sources to back up your allegations. This is the case with all Wikipedia content, but it is especially important to back up your statements if they are defamatory because if they are not backed up, Wikipedia (or even you) could be sued for libel. Thingg^⊕⊗ 19:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is no more than free advertising

This isn't an objective article on Primerica. It is no more than a glowing corporate history, concocted by Primerica itself. There is alot of valid criticism of Primerica and other MLM's and criticism should be included for an objective look at the compnay. I am not accusing Primerica of being a pyramid scheme, but nonetheless, criticism of the company is warranted and should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.75.175.18 (talk • contribs)

that's a common complaint about this article (see above) and it may even be a common complaint about the company, but without reliable sources that make the assertion we cna't add it to the article. If you'd like to help you can research the matter and find something that meets the standards of WP:RS. Otherwise it's just personal opinions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Checking: What's with all this vandalism?

When I compare this article to any other article for any other financial services (click on any other brands in the CitiGroup template at the bottom of the page), this article is definitely one of the more developed and well constructed articles. Yet people complain there's no information here?

Then there's the whole criticism section complaints. I looked them up in the history and they sounded like nothing more than the typical juvenile whining and conspiracy theories against big companies. What exactly does Primerica do that piss people off so much? I'm really laughing my ass off here. If these people really got "scammed," then the first thing they should do is go to the authority, not whining about it on Wiki. LoL.

On the other hand, since this organization seems to have existed for over 3 decades... if it IS a scam, it really doesn't make sense that Citi would buy it, and government hasn't closed it down. o.o

Although i do agree with the neutrality check since subjective words like "largest" and "most competitive" are used so often here. Someone should go through it and change the tone to be more objective before removing POV-check tag. Ssh83 (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

A mere mention of their questionable recruting practices (which was present in this article in the past)--even a single sentence--or even their reputation of such--would be sufficient to most of those complaining, I believe.

In 2005, I was told by Primerica themselves at an "interview" that I was fully qualified to be a "financial consultant" for their company--despite having ABSOLUTELY NO EXPERIENCE IN THIS FIELD. The only step in getting me "hired" was payment of the licensing fee. I did not respond to any advertisement of this company--they called me at my home and scheduled an "interview" despite never having any previous knowledge of my existence. About a year later, my fiancee received a call from Primerica, informing her that she had been granted an "interview" for a "financial consultant" position as well, despite having ABSOLUTELY NO EXPERIENCE IN THIS FIELD as well. I cannot believe that a company could be a successful financial firm if they were ready and willing to hire me as a "financial consultant"--especially when I NEVER APPLIED at this company to begin with. But since this is all personal experience, and not documented in a "reliable" source, mentioning this practice is apparently inappropriate. I just hope that those reading this article are aware that Wikipedia cannot be reliable itself if members of questionable organizations are just as welcome as anyone to edit articles about the questionability of their organizations.

Either Primerica is a firm which uses a shotgun call list approach to recruit inexperienced persons to sign up as new "financial consultants", or independent offices fraudulently claim to be affiliated with Primerica when they are not. Mal7798 (talk) 02:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've no personal knowledge of Primerica. OTOH, I've had this page on my watchlist for almost 3 years. The complaint above is apparently the most typical. I don't believe I've seen any complaints about the financial products themselves. To the best of my knowledge (INAL), there's no law against the type of deceptive recruiting that is the typical charge. If that's the case then the authorities wouldn't do anything about it. Even so, it doesn't mean Wikipedia can do anything either. These complaints don't seem to have been reported in any reliable sources so they're not on Wikipedia's radar. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Why have you had this on your watchlist for almost three years? (paranoia?) And how can anyone know that you are not lying when you claim to have "no personal knowledge" of Primerica? You have personally defended nearly every negative criticism of this company on this discussion page. You definitely have a personal grudge against any negative criticism of this company, yet you CLAIM that you are in no way associated with them personally.

If you review MY postings on here, you can see that I never commented whatsoever on their PRODUCTS; only their recruiting methods are questionable. I am not even convinced they even offer any financial services whatsoever (except of course to make their higher executives financially independent through swindling potential recruits).

You think it is not against the law to use deceptive recruiting methods? At least this appears to be an admission that they DO use deception--you just don't see anything objectionable about it! (And you were the one who introduced the legality issue into this--Freudian slip, perhaps?--I only questioned their ethics) And you expect it to be believed that you have no personal interest in this company?

So--you (1) have no personal knowledge of this company; (2) have been watching this page for nearly three years; (3) are aware of the nature of the standard complaints against this company; (4) do not believe that their deceptive recruiting methods (which you had previously unequivocally dismissed as fabrications) are illegal; and (5) you call attention to this company's products, which have not been the topic of the negative criticism of this company. And you expect it to be believed that you have no personal interest in this company? Mal7798 (talk) 02:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do expect you to assume I'm working in good faith. "Assume good faith" is a Wikipedia policy. I've edited over 10,000 Wikipedia pages, and I don't have any personal connection to the vast majority of them, including this one. I got involved in this article because it was on a list I was cleaning out, and I've stayed involved because of the obvious NPOV problems. The article is regularly edited by employees of the company, and you can bet that they tend to remove criticism, so I've tended to favor its inclusion in order to preserve NPOV. However the fact remains that all matrial in Wikipedia nneds to be verifiable from reliable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

People do get interviewed for working with Primerica. The company has strict guidelines on how agents are to recruit people, if one agent is going against that, they should be reported. Because a few offices (alright, might be more than a few) use deceptive practices, they will be closed down in due time. Primerica, and the industry in general, makes sure of that. Anyone can do Primerica because, with a decent trainer, the proper training is provided. Primerica was created so that someone with no experience and a job could do something part time to earn some extra income helping families get educated about finances and taking care of them.

If you do not believe you could do something where you are trained to do it with a support system in place, how did you get the job you have now? You were trained by someone (supposedly) more knowledgeable than you and given people or sources you could go to to get the information you needed to do your job. Rjhancock (talk) 06:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In regards to criticism of the company, most complaints come from competition or individuals who either did not understand what they were presented or quit the business with sour grapes. That being said, there are issues around. In my own experience as an Agent for the company, I have come across a few (1 or 2 that I can recall) that were legitimately wronged by their previous agent(s). All and all, you will not find a more compliant company in this industry. The SEC fine that is mentioned and one regulatory fine (Less than $15k) are the only 2 fines I know of ever levied against the company. Rjhancock (talk) 06:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This Article is Almost Useless

As Primerica was an important part of Sandy Weill's empire in his drive to build what ultimately became Citibank, why have all the original reference's to Sandy Weill's takeover and ownership of the firm - that were originally listed in the article - been removed? Also, this firm, Primerica specifically, has had a lot of legal troubles with state regulatory agencies, most notably with New York state... Why is there no mention of this? For some reason this article looks as if it has been "cleaned" by someone with an agenda. Even the Sandy Weill article is notoriously bereft of all the criticisms that surrounded him during his career. Is the internet becoming as antiseptic as television? How is it that information disappears like this and who benefits? Seriously, most of this information in here now consists of half-truths, which essentially leaves it as non-truth. This article is in dire need of revision... Stevenmitchell (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

In response to your comment I checked the article history and found that a large chunk was removed back in March without any viable reason. I've restored that chunk.[12] There may have been other wortwhile arts that were deleted, so you may want to check for yourself. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Added Criticism and Press Section

Without being able to do much research, I felt it necessary to add the criticism section, since this company is plagued with controversy over its recruiting methods and aggressive sales techniques. I will do some more research later, but I feel it would be negligent to say nothing of this company's troubled history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicanery (talk • contribs) 14:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree absolutely, and I am certain that many people here would be pleased if somehow you could keep it from being instantly deleted. It seems the Primerica shills are using their assertion that Ripoff Report is not a reliable source as justification to remove any criticism. Mal7798 (talk) 05:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it was deleted again... I was contacted by this company this afternoon and they do seem to have a very shady background. But the Wiki article seems to have been written by the company! It needs to be unbiased... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.234.66 (talk) 04:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Have any of you actually looked at the ripoff report page lately? Don't look at old links, just go the the main website and search Primerica and you will see that ripoff report has changed its tune since it investigated the company. Look at your "sources" regularly and refresh them, or check this link to the article.... http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/229/RipOff0229393.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minibass (talk • contribs) 17:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought it had been established that Ripoff Report is an unreliable source of information. If they are now of the opinion that Primerica is a legitimate corporation, then I am finally in agreement that Ripoff Report is totally unreliable, thank you. It is rather convenient that the primary source of criticism against Primerica has done a complete about face like this. I suppose eventually Primerica would get to everyone. If Ripoff Report is not reliable, then surely neither is Wikipedia.

I am also thoroughly convinced that this article is under total control by Primerica and there is nothing that can be done to change this. This company clearly has enough income to devote full time work to media spinning. I should be thankful that I was too intelligent to be fooled by them, and I should accept that if the only thing standing in the way of others being taken in by this would be a Wikipedia article, then those so taken in are better off parted from their money anyway. I suppose I could stand in front of one of their offices and picket--if I can even find out where they have moved their offices to this month--but even I have better things to do. I think I have done all I can now. I suppose I can take solace that this belief is widely shared despite this article. Mal7798 (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ripoff Report is unreliable. Any place where one can post positive/negative comments without fear of reprisal, is inherently unreliable. Wikipedia is more reliable because of the number of eyes looking at articles and the need for sources being cited. This article is not under total control of Primerica because I personally have seen editors revert changes made by Home Office. There are discussions of this further up this page.

There is an old saying, you seek and you shall find. If you were looking for the negative in the company, is it any wonder you found something you didn't like? If you do not understand the simple concepts Primerica uses, you are not qualified to give advice to anyone regarding their finances. Especially on who they should do business with. Your advice could cost your friends hundred's of thousands of dollars in lost death benefits/retirement savings/excess interest. But if you are fine knowing that, it is your right not to do business with this admittedly controversial company. rjhancock (talk) 06:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I sent an e-mail to Ripoff Report suggesting that they have been 'compelled' to change their tune, and challenging the mission and objectivity of their site and purpose. Their sudden and unexplained ingratiation towards Primerica aside, the editorial preamble before each article is unnecessary and detracts from the overall mission of the site. Instead of getting a personal response from Ripoff Report, they copied and pasted a template defending Primerica. I replied back, telling them my concern wasn't with Primerica, and they forwarded my e-mail to a Primerica rep. who copied and pasted another template, with the usual song and dance about the company's accomplishments. Now, while this is all mildly amusing, it's obvious to me that Ripoff Report's new-found opinion on Primerica is mechanical; the true reasons may never be made public. If you're going to consider Ripoff Report as a source, ignore the website's conspicuous disclaimer and focus on the pages upon pages of negative testimonials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.123.189 (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion of logo/image

Why was the company logo and picture of CEO deleted? No explanation behind that. -Timberlax 04:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There was no edit edit summary when it was removed, so I have replaced it. Kevin (talk) 04:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Citicorp Trust Bank, fsb to CitiMortgage

I changed this once before. Citicorp Trust Bank, fsb no longer services Primerica Loans. They are now serviced by CitiMortgage Directly. Not only was an internal memo sent out about it, it also states as much on the web site for Citicorp Trust Bank, fsb. I will change it back. Rjhancock (talk) 01:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocking By IP

Isn't there a way in the software to block edits by IP address? That way those accounts that are known to vandalize pages for the sake of it can't edit anymore. Or at least put a 15 or 30 day hold on them? It can also be used to block companies from editing their own pages. Rjhancock (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There are two tools that cover what you're asking about. One is "semi-protection", which prevents all IPs or brand new accounts from editing the page. The other is IP blocking, which blocks specific IP or IP ranges from making any edits at all. There is no tool for blocking specific IPs from editing specific articles. Both of these tools are used only in cases of vandalism or edit warring. While this article does get occasional vandalism, it is infrequent enough to handle without use of the tools. Editing which either favor or disfavor the subject inappropriately is a bigger problem than vandalism, but there are no special tools to handle it. That leaves the default solution of simply keeping an eye on the page and fixing problems as they come up. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If Primerica is going to have an "Awards and Commendations" section, it better damn well have a Criticisms section. This business pays its employees in Kool-Aid and training materials. This is nothing more than a bona-fide cult. If someone comes on here and becomes victimized by these Primerica Children of The Corn, then its on your shoulders. I've tried my best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.123.189 (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with a "criticism" section in this article. But it has to be based on reliable sources. "Ripoff reports" doesn't qualify. There is a built-in bias towards article subjects in Wikipedia, because self-published sources are allowed in articles about themselves so long as the assertions aren't overly self-promotional. See WP:V and WP:RS. I'd rather see poorly sourced awards removed rather than have poorly-sourced criticism added. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

"This business pays its employees in Kool-Aid and Training Materials." A) It's employees are paid like any other W-2 employee in a company. B) It's independent contractors are paid on commissions twice a week via a check or direct deposit. The problem with legitimate criticism is that it is hard to come by. Most of the problems you speak of, and choose to spread as misinformation, is directly related to the INDIVIDUAL you were in contact with and not the company. Everyones experience will be different since people are different. And by my counts, for every 1 person with a problem, there are at least 100 people that have been helped. By telling people to stay away, you could be doing more harm than what you claim Primerica is doing. rjhancock (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Primerica no long apart of Citi

Primerica has been seperated from Citigroup and is currently in Citi Holdings waiting to either be spun off or sold. Should this be reflected yet or wait until it has happened. As of Jan 14th, the sales force was instructed to start marking Citi off of business cards and marketing materials. rjhancock (talk) 06:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure this is true as I've heard the same thing. If you or anyone else finds a citation, this should be mentioned under the sale of Primerica section (and obviously some changes in the infobox about the company will be necessary) -Timberlax 06:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timberlax (talk • contribs)

Here are references about that:

• http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2009/01/15/citigroup.html
• http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/726be14a-deab-11dd-9464-000077b07658.html
• http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=atWGo2QLv8ss&refer=home

Cheers Nicolas1981 (talk) 11:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

As of right now, Primerica is a Sub of Citi Holdings. What happens next is what I was in reference too. In my opinion, Primerica will be spun back off into its own company like it was before the Consumer Credit merger, but I have no facts to back that up at this time. rjhancock (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Quick update, based on news clippings and internal scuttlebutt, the sale is complete. My thinking is because Citi is suppose to be announcing a $8.3 Billion profit this quarter. The only way they can is by selling PFS. I updated the logo to the current one (and a higher res one). Also, regarding the POV added into the content, if there is little to no negative content from a reputable source, does that still matter? rjhancock (talk) 06:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If you could link to any online press clippings that'd help. As of this announcement on April 3, it still seems to be a part of Citigroup. [13]

As for the lack of negative content, WP:NPOV says that all significant points of view should be included (presuming they can be found in reliable sources). If there are no reliably sourced negative views then there's nothing we can include.   Will Beback  talk  06:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is the link from a short while back. It does not say Primerica specifically, but given past quarters performance and value of assets, it is the most logical conclusion that PFS got (will be) sold. [14]. I should have clarified my comment, there is the warning on the page about content swaying one way and not the other, if little negative content can be found, should that still be there? The quotes, I agree, should be moved out to WikiQuotes though. It doesn't really add anything to the article. rjhancock (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

When the ownership of PFS changes, according to reliable sources, then we should promptly record that fact. But not any sooner. I don't understand your comment about the content swaying. Can you be more specific?   Will Beback  talk  05:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Links behind subscription links

What are the rules for links that lead to subscription pages? I tried going to the one that was added at the Financial Times, even registered to see the article. I was immediately turned away saying I had already exhausted my views this month when I had just signed up 10 seconds before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjhancock (talk • contribs) 14:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There are two rules, depending on how the site is being used. Sources for assertions in the text may require subscriptions or other payments, just as buying a book or travelling to a library incur a cost. See WP:RS. On the other hand, links added to the end of the article for more information should not require any payments. See WP:EL.   Will Beback  talk  21:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I should point out though, that the description says Primerica was an under performer. If that is the description of one of only 2 branches of Citigroup that even made a profit last year, then the writer is an idiot (article writer, not user). For reference, Smith Barney was the other one. Both branches are being "sold" as "bad bank business." rjhancock (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Grave Concern

I am extremely concerned with the content of this article. It extremely biased in favour of Primerica, containing only positive quotes and references about Primerica, while a quick "google" search on the company reveals a vast majority of negative quotes and references. I suggest that the content of the article should be edited to reflect a less biased point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.169.15.155 (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That has been under much debate. The thing about the vast majority of that information is that it was posted in a public forum where people have a believed anonymity or from agents from other companies that have a vest interest in taking business away from Primerica. People complain about the recruiting aspect, except that is SOP in virtually every business. People complain about having to pay to join, yet that goes towards background checks and processing and licensing fees. More money is lost than gained. People complain of having a bad experience, well, that happens with ANY company. It is just amplified with Primerica due to over 100k reps vs. about 10k reps at other companies.

I am not suggesting they shouldn't be taken into consideration, but without an actual documented wrong doing by a court, they are simply opinions and can't be included in a Wiki article. rjhancock (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Even referenced content is been deleted (recent example). I would guess this kind of company relies on a positive image, so there are about 100k persons out there who need this company to have a positive image. That's difficult to balance, and as for me I don't have time to play this game. Please more editors add this page to your watchlist. Cheers Nicolas1981 (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Timberlax was incorrect to delete that material. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines allow for subscription-only sources. See WP:V and WP:RS. I've restored it. Rjhancock is correct above in that we can't include what doesn't have a source (free or otherwise). Postings to forums don't count. See the same pages as already cited.   Will Beback  talk  01:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've tried going into that subscription link several times using several different emails. The site keeps trying to extort money from me instead of letting me read the article. I've tried using Google Cache to no avail as well. Is there any other way to access that content that doesn't require paying for it? I think it is a bit unfair to ask people to pay just to verify information. rjhancock (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Nicolas1981, Would you mind adding an except to it? Financial Times is still saying they can't do anything unless I pay them for more articles when I haven't read any. rjhancock (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Disregard. I was finally able to get in and add the one paragraph comment. I also updated the reference links to better meet Wiki standards, I hope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.202.72 (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Some sources, like books, require that we pay money to see them. Cost is not a factor in the reliability of a source. However it is helpful if editors who have access to hard-to-find materials can add quoted excerpts, in the footnote or in the text.   Will Beback  talk  20:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, however one can still verify information in a book using a library and a camera phone. However in this day and age with the internet, general research material should be free or by donation. But that is just my opinion. 76.186.202.72 (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Even library research can cost money. While I can easily drive or walk a couple of miles to my nearest branch library, getting to the large cetral library takes $5 or more for parking or other transportation costs. I've copied microfilmed newspapers there at a cost of $.25 a page. Another time I spent $10 to request an interlibrary loan. So even sources in libraries can cost money. (And let's not mention overdue fines...)   Will Beback  talk  05:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Glad you could finally access it. The news article was actually available for free when I accessed it, probably because it was recent enough. Back to the section's topic, I would like to mention that similar bias occurs on most multi-level marketing articles, see for instance this diff. It is unfortunate that I will be very busy for a month, dear editors please add these articles to your watchlists and find more facts. Cheers Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

"Ratings, awards and commendations"

I've trimmed the long blockquotes from the "Ratings, awards and commendations" section, some of which weren't really relaible sources, and renamed it "reception", a generic heading.   Will Beback  talk  03:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)