Talk:Vemma/Archives/2014

MLM vs, Affiliate marketing

This link was recently added by an IP as a source to indicate that Vemma has switched from a multilevel marketing model to an affiliate marketing model. I don't think the link is an especially good reliable source, but even if we accept it, it makes it very clear that there is no change in business model, and this change is strictly about terminology used. I do not believe we should use marketing buzzwords or euphemisms in Wikipedia articles, and I think policy agrees with me. If reliable independent sources start describing Vemma as being "The Amazon.com of nutrition" or whatever, well... I don't think we'll have to worry about that for a long time, but if that ever happens, then we can change how the article describes the business model, but not sooner. Grayfell (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, once again: Business for Home makes it clear that it is an advocacy site which is designed to promote MLMs and other similar schemes. It is not a neutral source for information on this. Additionally, press releases are also not an acceptable excuse for hiding the business model of a company. Sources agree that the company hasn't actually changed their model, so calling them something else is marketing BS and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 10:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Really... First of all the fact you call a Business for home.com not credible has nothing to do with the essential fact that Vemma switches to Affiliate marketing. If anything Business For Home would take offense to Vemma switching to Affiliate Marketing and would right a hurtful article about it if they only promoted MLMs. Nothing is being hidden if it's in a press release. Explain to me how an organization and a business website which i additionally put which have no affiliation with Vemma would try and hid it's structure? Theres nothing wrong with either format. Your sources also must be BS if mine are BS but thats great to know that only your opinion counts. Especially the opinion of an individual who has no network/affiliate marketing experience at all.

I neither support or dislike MLM's or Affiliate marketing. So before you start accusing industries such as these "schemes" in the first place, have an unbiased opinion. Thats what this website was made for. Not for you to write whatever the F you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.72.6.146 (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

From the source: "Vemma’s Compensation Plan won’t change; they will just describe it differently". Enough said. A press release about the preferred terminology is not worth mentioning. Saying that they used to be MLM and are now Affiliate is deceptive, since there has been no change in their business model. If you have a reliable source, that isn't just Vemma promoting themselves, saying that something has changed, then we can use that. Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not my opinion, and not your opinion. If the source isn't good enough, then the content shouldn't be changed, no matter how much Vemma desires otherwise. As long as we have actual newspapers calling it an MLM, and their business model hasn't changed, then the article should still call it an MLM. If you can't find a better source, you're wasting your time. Grayfell (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Just because the compensation doesn't change doesn't mean the form in which that compensation is delivered did not change. Everyone when they enroll in Vemma is now being considered a customer until they refer the product which then they will be affiliates. I can show you videos and links of our CEO saying that he is going to be calling us affiliates. Our compensation plan already works differently than current MLM plans which is why the company never called themselves an MLM. They would always call themselves network marketers and their distributors Brand Partners. The expansion of products and exclusive accessibility of the customer loyalty program makes the transition easier from a customer to Affiliate, there is no more separation relative to signing up. You have other links on this page from Vemma.com and the CEO, yet when I post links directly from Vemma's CEO, you tell me that the source is too biased. So there has to be some middle ground.

I have provided a total of 3 sources explaining this transition and furthermore have evidence in the compensation plan showing how the company now more closely reflects affiliate marketing. Please acknowledge it, thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.72.6.146 (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

As for links to Vemma's website, they are considered WP:PRIMARY sources. They are acceptable for basic, non-controversial info about the company, or for information that is presented as being the company's own statement. It can be a subtle point, but it's an important one. So yes, there is middle ground. Since this is a controversial point, accepting Vemma's PR without any further comment is absolutely not it. We also have to be mindful of WP:WEIGHT. Just because Vemma says something, that doesn't mean Wikipedia should repeat it. This is why secondary sources are almost always better. Wikipedia is not in the business of re-hosting Vemma's website, or of providing a press-release service.

When you say things like "Our CEO", it makes me concerned you have a WP:COI and might not be coming at this from a neutral point of view. The different terminology that the company uses internally to describe its distribution plans is not the issue. MLM has gotten a bad reputation, so companies are eager to figure out a different way to describe the same thing, that's clearly what's happening here. The practice of considering affiliates 'customers' has been around since the dawn of Amway, and probably earlier. That doesn't change anything. If the amount of money affiliates can make is determined by not just their network, but their extended network, then the adjectives they use in their promotional Youtube videos is irrelevant. They are an MLM, and Wikipedia is not served by buzzwords and press-releases. You have indeed produced some sources. My contention is that they aren't even close to good enough. The only secondary source, which is itself borderline, makes it clear that this is a change in name only.

I have reverted my recent edits to avoid escalating this WP:EDITWAR, so I'm asking you to respond in a timely manner to clear this up. Grayfell (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is an interesting source that, in addition to supporting the fact that Vemma is an MLM, also might help explain why they are so eager to distance themselves from that label. Grayfell (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

First off the link you have provided is biased to say the least. The author clearly believes MLM marketing is another way of defining a pyramid scheme. It is unfortunate that hither you ro the author know the these schemes are illegal in would not be in a company such as Vemma's. So your evaluations and the ones of those who have no inside information to this industry is unreliable. You obviously have a biased yourself against this totally being a bad company. Notice how I never edited the FTC complaint against New Vison? Cause that is true, it happened. MLM's begin pyramid scheme like you think is unreliable and flat out wrong to say the least. Its obvious you are biased. You even deleted the credibility with the links about Chirs Powell and the Pheonix Suns too even though those links came from Credible and non Vemma related websites! Those do not even have to do with Affiliate marketing yet you delete that credible information.

You simply do not have enough of a neutral biased about this company which has good products and a good business model. Even though I am not apart of that business model, you easily deserve not to edit this article due to the fact that you have not either bought or viewed a Vemma business model page and undergone the process itself. You are gutting you information from people who have done the same (ex: NY Post that doesn't even spell "Verve" correctly, TINA which is biased towards every company, and an FTC page written by an individual who has no knowledge of legitimate MLM's and Affilaite Marketing due to his statements)

Thank you, and message me if you somehow being to neutrally view this company in a respectful way — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.72.6.146 (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, now I'm sure your an affiliate. If you think that editors are only qualified to edit articles on products they have personally been involved with, you are deeply, deeply mistaken about how Wikipedia works.

As for the sponsorships, Wikipedia is not a provider of free advertising. If these deals are remotely noteworthy, find a solid, WP:SECONDARY source discussing them. The Chris Powell thing is only supported by Vemma's own website, and by Powell's own website. This is an issue of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. The Phoenix Suns have gone out of their way to distance themselves from Vemma's business model after Boreyko misrepresented the endorsement deal. If you want to include the Suns endorsement, you need to include the whole story, which is far from flattering. It's not even that interesting, so I would just assume leave it out. Grayfell (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok heres the point your making. You say that Vemma and Chris Powell's sourcing is not noteworthy yet you already have it in the article in the first sentence, so your contradicting yourself. Chris Powell's point that I make is off of his website which has no affiliation with Vemma.

I am a customer, nto an affiliate, you should prob not judge people based on wheat you don't know.

Your sources you clearly try to use to claim this is a pyramid scheme are off. They aren't even punctuated correctly. Like I said "Vemma" and "Verve" should be spelled correctly if the article is somewhat factual

And according to previous comments, Truth in Advertising, should not count as a source since it's mission is to criticize every company in every way possible.

I am not free advertising through the Suns or Chris Powell, these are just patented facts. I don't make claims like "it's the best drink in the world on there" And even still you cut out my credible LiveStrong link which is not affiliate with Vemma also, no wonder you have no much talk on this page

Again your biased is clearly coming up. You should do investigation from the FTC and sources as such to really determine what Pyramid Schemes and such are as opposed to using editorial articles and opinion based articles.

Like I said, i kept the part in about the FTC, thats true, i would have erased it if i was biased for Vemma, you on the other hand are biased against it. The pyramid scheme allegations weren't even in there until i edited this then you decided to fight back like a little kid and put them in there with sources that don't even know that they are speaking about within the company, you should get your sources check and really check through them

And also having the Suns distance themselves from Vemma might be the biggest lie you've said yet, please show me where that has come from... You have no sources showing that for sure.

Please, be unbiased and quite frankly a educated editor.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.72.6.146 (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

This is clearly going nowhere. You're right about one thing: I do have an opinion. If you think that means I'm 'biased' so be it. Even if I am biased, why don't you focus on showing how I am wrong instead. If you think that TINA's analysis is wrong (not biased, but wrong), please explain how. If you think that TINA is untrustworthy (again, not biased, but factually unreliable) please explain how.

I still don't know what spelling errors you're talking about, they're certainly no worse then the ones on this talk page. Either way, typos don't invalidate a source. TINA's mission is to criticize deceptive advertising, not to "criticize every company in every way possible".

Even if I accepted your arguments about Vemma no longer being an MLM (which I do not) I'm not clear why you are removing the content about Vemma seeking college students as distributors. Are you saying that is also incorrect?

Source about the Suns: [1] Regardless, it's a routine endorsement that happens all the time and doesn't mean a damn thing. They paid money for the right to be associated with the Suns, Wikipedia isn't a platform for advertising. Find a secondary source that it has actually impacted anything other than Vemma's advertising budget.

I am not saying that Vemma should be labeled as a pyramid scheme in the page, I am saying it is an MLM. Network marketing and MLM companies such as Avon, Cutco, Vector, Xango, Amway, Scentsy, etc. etc. etc. have ALL been investigated and subject to scrutiny for their marketing methods. Why should we ignore it when it happens to Vemma? I'm not saying the company is illegal, I'm saying the company should be labeled based on what it is, not based on what it claims to be.

Livestrong has bland info on the content of Vemma's products, which they collect from Vemma. It could, theoretically, be used to support that info if such a source was needed. I don't think anybody is arguing that Verve doesn't have vitamin B and mangosteen. If you want to include that as a supporting source for the caffeine content, go for it. Signed, a biased and uneducated editor, Grayfell (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Greyfell,

admitting your biased when writing a page that is supposed to be factual is very objective, just as are the reports from TINA and the NY Post. The facts are incorrect and the only way to prove they are incorrect is by actually undergoing the Vemma Affiliate process. And in having multiple individuals I know undergo that process, the facts on the sites do not add up to what you do in order to become part of Vemma and be part of the business model.

Either way i will not change the page from the way it is now, wikipedia is wikipedia for what it is.

You cannot claim Livestrong is bland and the Vemma Verve being the official drink of the Pheonix suns is incorrect. Livestrong is a credible and very impactful company that makes changes in peoples lives. It's mission is to help people. So by calling it bland is actually offensive. But that link is there because in listing those important ingredients it differentiates itself from other Caffeine drinks that are bad for you such as Red Bull, Monster, etc. You won't see any of those drinks on a health and wellness information site like live strong.

Also your link about the NBA not clearing Vemma i have seen a hundred times and you have to realize in order for Verve to be in the Suns arena in the first place. The Suns, not the NBA had to check our business model up and down. The NBA had no need to investigate which is what they never cleared our company. The drink has it's own lounge in the stadium. The company doesn't get in the arena and isn't able to supply it's product in the aren unless something cleared the company as ok

About the pyramid schemes. That is why Vemma is moving away from MLM structure. Vemma is significantly different from Avon and Amway and etc. So even if they were illegal. Vemma's customer base which i am a part of and it's free sign up make it different than the usual MLM structure. So comparing Vemma to a pyramid scheme which compares it to other MLM's gives the company a bad name and only makes it look like MLM's did over 30 years ago.

If you wish i will show you information on the process of how it actually is to become an affiliate in Vemma.

Thank you 198.108.87.142 (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Livestrong does have articles about the content of Red Bull and Monster Energy. Acting indignant that I find the factual, routine information contained on Livestrong's website bland is not helping the situation.

Objective? Yes, I try to be objective, did you mean subjective? I'm not even sure what you're talking about.

As long as reliable sources call Vemma a MLM, this article should as well. Simple as that. I don't care if Vemma is a pyramid scheme or not, I care that reliable sources have labeled it a pyramid scheme. Are MLM and 'affiliate marketing' mutually exclusive? No.

Find a reliable WP:SECONDARY source that The Suns approved of Vemma's business model. That's it. Find one and I'll stop talking about it, otherwise I'm going to keep removing it as being WP:UNDUE weight.

I'm not going to go through the affiliate process, so please stop suggesting that. This isn't a forum for network marketing, and this only reinforces my opinion that you're not a neutral participant in this discussion. Grayfell (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

There are so many issues I could object to there, but i'll just make one point. How does a company act as an official product of a professional sports if the company is not checked out up and down. I don't think any pro organization would waste time with an illegitimate company. I mean the LA Galaxy are sponsored by Herbalife. Even though they get all the hate they do, it's still around, growing and not just that but the Galaxy wouldn't have put Herbalife on David Beckhams chest if it wasn't a legit company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.108.83.211 (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

This is about Vemma, not Herbalife (which is definitely an MLM), but regardless, who's saying it's not a legit company? I'm saying that Vemma is a MLM, and that mentioning every sponsorship is undue weight. After looking over the source, the Sun's unusual status as an affiliate (or brand partner or whatever) makes their sponsorship deal arguably notable, so I'm not going to remove it again. Of course, I'm not going to restore it if someone else removes it, either. The Chris Powell thing however, still needs sources that aren't from Vemma's many websites, Powell's website, or press releases, blogs, Youtube videos, or other WP:SPS. I haven't found any of those, or any good indicator that such sources exist. Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion or advertising, and that's all this is. Grayfell (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Since there has been no response or development, I am re-instating the MLM link. There are many sources, including ones internal to Vemma [2] that call it an MLM. Enough with the marketing jargon: described in clear, concise language, it's a multi-level marketing company. Grayfell (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

If the company wants to be called an Affiliate Marketing company I don't see why you would go so out of your way to continue to label them as an MLM. Wiki shouldn't be about your opinion of that of the NY Post or some other semi-legitimate news source. This isn't a place to police what anyone believes the company should be called. They call themselves an Affiliate Marketing company, that is a fact direct from the source. It's not for any of us to decide whether we agree with them our not. I'm not editing anything, but I think you should consider why you are so adamant about labeling this company a certain way. Maybe an amicable solution is to change the wording to say Vemma refers to themselves as an Affiliate Marketing company and call it day? Jcsquardo (talk)

I don't know how you know my name, but I consider that to be extremely rude, bordering on stalking. I hope you'll show the good sense to remove that immediately. Why I'm so adamant is none of your concern, and you should be talking about edits not editors.

As for you suggestion, why the hell should Wikipedia care that Vemma goes out of their way to call themselves the latest corporate WP:EUPHEMISM for MLM? Wikipedia isn't a platform for press-releases or marketing campaigns, and as far as I can see, that's all this is. No, the NY Post may not be the greatest newspaper, but it's still a legitimate newspaper. Wikipedia is concerned with reliable sources, and the NY Post is one. Search Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you don't believe me. This article has almost been deleted for lack of decent sources, so when a source comes along that accurately discusses the issue, let's not throw it away just because it's also saying something that the company would rather ignore. Letting them be the sole arbiter of how they get described defeats the purpose of having an article. Grayfell (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

NY Post Ref

The only reference in the NY Post article cites the truth in advertising source that is already cited, there is no new or original information included. I am removing the reference again for this reason, given a source already exists I don't see why this would be an issue for you. I'm not going to battle back and forth removing this source so if you want to put it back on again go ahead and take the win. Jcsquardo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for letting me win. How generous of you. The NY Post article is referencing the TINA article, but it is a WP:SECONDARY source. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's guidelines more. WP:OUTING might also be a good one to start with. Grayfell (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't help yourself...not surprised. You citing WP:SECONDARY for this source doesn't make it true. There is nothing about that article that qualifies it as a secondary source, it is not providing new content or thoughts based on the other source, it simply cites it in the article. I don't see how randomly putting a first name on here does anything, you confirming it was the only outing that occurred. Never understand why people feel the need to hide behind some pseudonym when writing in a public place unless there is some reason you aren't comfortable with someone knowing who you are. I won't revert as I said, carry on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcsquardo (talk • contribs) 19:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Multiple Issues

Noticed that a delete decision was reached on this article some time ago, and yet it has re-emerged. Aside from the issue of notability, the current version has multiple problematic issues (e.g., unreliable sources, promotional in nature). Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm interested in improving this article, and dealing with any factual objections you (or anyone) may have regarding it. In response to your comments above:

Noticed that a delete decision was reached on this article some time ago

That is correct--several years ago; five, if memory serves.

...and yet it has re-emerged.

A request was made, and an administrator unsalted the Title so the page could be recreated, and now it has been. You seem to imply there is something wrong here. I'm not aware of any rule saying that articles once deleted, may never be recreated. Time moves on, things change. If there is an objection here, please state it.

Aside from the issue of notability...

I see no reason to avoid the issue of notability--it's an important one, so let's tackle it head on. Please add your comments about lack of notability below, and let's improve the article so we can deal with them.

With reference to supporting notability, as one example, the company is a multiple award-winner, as was noted by Bloomberg News' mention of eight awards in two prestigious competitions. That's a reliable, independent, third-party source. These were previously present in the article, but unfortunately, you deleted the paragraph with the award mention and the reference to it on 15:11 16 June with the edit summary,

awards for trade booth design, promotional sponsorship, etc are WP:TRIVIA and WP:PUFFERY; especially problematic when based on non WP:RS

It's true that by deleting supporting 3rd-party references, and leaving only the ones from the company itself, the topic now looks much more slanted than it was before. My intent is to improve the article and deal with any objections. I don't understand why you would have deleted this reference, and then immediately followed that edit by adding a banner indicating that there aren't any third-party references?

Continuing with your comments, you say, the current version has multiple problematic issues (e.g., [[WP:RS|unreliable sources]], [[WP:PROMO|promotional in nature]].

Would you please be specific about which unreliable sources you are talking about, and in connection with what? If I'm looking for a list of what products a company sells, it seems reasonable to look at the "Products" listing on their website. Obviously, I wouldn't rely on their website for an assessment of quality or public opinion about their product, or anything else where their bias would be a factor. Their product list doesn't seem to be in that category, but maybe you were talking about something else.

Regarding "promotional in nature", I checked the six points at WP:PROMO (intention, text not links, references, no self-promo, consensus, no sig-links) and none of them apply. If you are unsure about #4, then you're free to add {{uw-spam1}} to my Talk page, but please be prepared to back it up. Ceteris paribus, I dislike MLMs, but hopefully you can't see my personal opinion in this (or any) article text I write.

I must say that the edits I've seen so far from you do not seem to tend in the direction of improving the article, but rather moving it towards a state where it may be deleted again. My intention is to improve the article, and I hope yours is, too.

I would like to readd the missing paragraph with the supporting data and third-party references, perhaps adding more references and dealing with any other objections you put forth subsequently, and then follow that up after some delay by removing the three banners you added on June 16 if they no longer apply. Do you have any objection to that plan, or another approach you'd like to take?

Any additional references or supporting data you could find to improve the article would be most welcome. Mathglot (talk) 08:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The issues, as I already outlined, are pretty straughtforward:

1. Notability -- I raised the point about the article having been previously deleted for lack of notability; the article still does not appear to meet standards for notability (WP:ORG). That's not something we need to argue about here. The article can simply be nominated for deletion again and the WP editorial community can decide its fate.

2. Awards -- As I pointed out already, the text that was added about the awards was not supported by the sources that were cited. The only appropriate course of action was to delete the text and misquoted sources in question. Lastly, as pointed out already, the blog site that was cited in this context does not meet WP:RS.

3. Other issue -- for example puffery, promo, WP:RS, etc., have been largely resolved through my recent edits, which were performed after I left my comment above.

4. Tags -- I've removed the tags that no longer apply and added a new one regarding notability.[3]

Clear now? Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your recent points: 1. Notability, I don't see why not. It has 12 refs now, most of them from reputable organizations and not the company itself. Is that enough?

2 Awards - Huh? I'm not sure what you mean by not supported by the sources. They mention the awards, or list the awards--other than that, I don't get it. I've restored and improved the old Recognition section, adding new awards and refs, one from Bloomberg, two from Wall Street Journal, plus the two that were there previously for a total of five refs now for that section. I hope that's enough. Maybe could get more if you want. How many is enough?

In the Criticism section, I tightened up the refs, adding a missing title, and better distinguishing between the FTC Complaint and the D&O (Decision & Order). I also restored enjoined over reprimanded. The latter means punished or sanctioned for something done in the past. This didn't really happen, they never really admitted anything and there were no penalties (that I could find). Rather, the FTC legally forbade them to engage in certain deceptive practices in the future, which is the definition of enjoin.

3. Thanks, glad you could help take care of that.

Clear now?

Better, but not completely. I had previously asked for help with a couple of things, including being more specific about which sources you thought were unreliable. If I don't know what's broke, I can't fix it.

I looked at your Talk page, and I see that you have had an interest in MLM articles in the past. I haven't, and don't. I have nothing against you nominating it for deletion, other than frustration at the time I spent on it in good faith. For me, this is just one article among many, and I'm trying to improve it. All this talk talk talk is making that harder, because all my time seems to be spent here, rather than on the article itself, plus it's taking time away from other articles I prefer. So if you want to delete it, go ahead. I just wonder what the emergency is. Maybe you've had run-ins with folks on other MLM articles, I don't know. When I first created this page, warts and all, I got a positive review and a Great start! on my talk page, which made me think I was doing the right thing. Sure, the article is imperfect, and no doubt it needs more references, and other fixes, too. New articles don't spring from Zeus's head fully formed, don't they get to live a little while as stubs, while a group of editors coalesce around it and hopefully, improve it? That's how I thought it worked. Anyway, this is slowing me down too much, so I will leave this article to others now, and go work on something else. Best of luck with it, whatever way it goes. Mathglot (talk) 06:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding notability, the subject of the article was previously deemed non notable and the article was voted for deletion. I don’t see that the subject has become any more notable since then. The criteria for notability are described in WP:ORG. Ultimately, it’s no individual editor’s call as to whether or not a subject is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in WP. The article can be nominated for deletion and the broader editorial community can reach a consensus. Simple.

Regarding the awards, as I pointed out already, the awards were trivial – they were for a booth at a trade show and for a promotional sponsorship. It would be misleading to vaguely state that the company won awards without describing the details (which indicate how trivial the awards were in reality). Additionally, press releases were cited to support the text added about the company receiving the awards. Self-published sources are not sufficient in this context; a link to a third-party independent source (i.e., one not affiliated with Vemma) or the organization that allegedly gave the award would be required. Thanks for your good wishes. Rest assured that the article will be handled capably without further input from you. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The way I read it, you're not using Template:Multiple issues correctly.

As the instructions say, Using too many individual article message boxes can distract from the article and make it unpleasant to look at. The {{multiple issues}} box is not supposed to sit stacked on top of other boxes to make even more boxes--the point is to reduce the multiplicity of boxes down to one, so the article isn't top-heavy with them. So if you follow the template instructions you'll end up with a box called "multiple issues" with two bullet points in it, one each for the two other issues you've identified, "notability" and "third-party references". At that point, you can delete the other two boxes, leaving only the one, instead of three as it is now.

You've deleted the Recognition paragraph again. I won't restore it--I've already said I'm through working on the article, at least for the present--but I don't agree with your assessment that the awards are trivial. Earlier, you told me, or perhaps only implied, that if the award was noted by a third party source, that would make it more notable. So I went and found some other sources, like Wall Street Journal, or Bloomberg, or Business Week who published notices about the awards. But the paragraph is gone again, along with the references. Earlier, it was because it wasn't 3rd party, now it's because they're "trivial"? Who decides what award is trivial? Do you watch the Oscars? The Academy Awards are awards given by Directors, Actors, and other film people to Directors, Actors, and other film people. In 2010, The Wolfman won Best Makeup, and is so credited in the WP article about it. Should we delete this reference, as puffery or trivial, because it is film people awarding a trivial award to other film people? So, it's not Best Picture, or Best Actor, so what? It happened, it was truly awarded, notice was duly taken of it, and reported elsewhere, and ended up in Wikipedia. I don't see how the awards mentioned in the deleted paragraph are any different. They're puffy, silly awards about booth design or makeup, awarded by industry people to themselves to make them look good? And newspapers reported on it with a straight face? Then so be it--it happened thus.

You've removed references to two trade journals containing articles about the ingredients the company uses in its products, claiming failed verification; Vemma makes no claims whatsoever in any of these sources, and vague undefined claims about effectiveness are non-encyclopedic). Of course Vemma makes no claims in those articles--they didn't write them, they appeared in independent trade journals, so that's just silly. Perhaps you're right that the claims made on Vemma's website are vague and undefined, perhaps they're even false, slanderous, illegal, who knows--but they *did* make them, are you claiming they did not? And they reference the trade journal articles. Remember that we're not seeking truth here, we're documenting what's out there, preferably in third-party sources. You can't on the one hand (re: awards) claim that there are no third-party references, and then, when third-party references are provided in another area (claims of product effectiveness) disregard third-party references that are supplied, and now claim that thrid-party references are irrelevant, and what now matters is that "vague and undefined claims... are non-encylopedic". Let them be vague claims, if that's what they are, maybe we can even find a third-party reference documenting their vagueness, and include that. Maybe we can even find a third-party reference that goes beyond "vagueness" all the way to "false, misleading" or worse, and include that--oh wait, we already did, or rather, I already did, in the very first version of the article, in the FTC D&O as referenced in the Criticism section.

In response for my request for details concerning which sources you found unreliable, you twice responded elliptically if at all. You could have said something specific, like, "Your reference about widgets in note eleventy-seven citing "Business Week" is not a reliable 3rd-party resource, please remove it and find a better one" which would have allowed me to fix it. But you chose not to do that. So after guessing what references might be reliable and adding them (WSJ? Bloomberg? Dun & Bradstreet?) you just deleted them all again.

I notice that the critical FTC references I added myself are still there, but very few of the references that might be construed as in any way supporting 3rd-party notability remain. The 13 references are down to five; besides the two FTC refs, only three others remain, all from the company website itself. Three warning boxes sit on top of the article with various warnings. An objective view of the article as it now stands certainly would appear to be that of an article with insufficient notability and hardly any third-party references, that should therefore be nominated for deletion.

I've already said I won't be modifying the article, but I'd like you to respond to this question: in all honesty, do you think you have been acting in good faith here, trying to improve the article? Or, do you have some agenda with respect to this company or to MLM companies more generally, that might affect your ability to maintain a neutral point of view about it? When I do diffs of the article just after you have edited it, it always seems much the poorer to me, and it seems like it's being prepared as a "good candidate for deletion". You seem very capable and knowledgeable about the ins and outs of WP--more so than me, certainly, and it sure would be nice to have your cooperation in making it better, instead of feeling like I'm running into a brick wall with every edit I make. Mathglot (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

It is important to distinguish between reliable sources, and press releases published by reliable news outlets. The award section removed by Red appeared to be supported by the latter. The Bloomberg cite was from Marketwire, which is a press release service and is pure puff. I don't have a WSJ subscription, but I'm pretty confident from looking at it that it is also a press release. Comparing the Academy Awards with the AMA Phoenix Spectrum Awards is not especially helpful. The Oscars are followed by many, many people who are not involved in the film industry, and sources reflect that. When I looked for info on the Spectrum Award the coverage was mostly companies tooting their own horn. The DSA Ethos Award is worse, as Vemma's own press releases were the most common search result by a wide margin.

As for the two trade journals, Red's comments seem entirely appropriate. The sources were supporting the following sentence: "Vemma claims that Vemma, their basic antioxidant product, has been proven effective in randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind studies." If the sources aren't talking about Vemma's claims, why are they attached to that sentence? Why are they in the article at all? Grayfell (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Grayfell has outlined the issues precisely as I saw them. Moving on -- a couple of suggestions for Mathglot. First, it’s very poor form to question whether I am editing in good faith. A pillar of WP is the assumption of good faith. Questioning motives in a situation like this where the editorial issues are so straightforward is unnecessarily adversarial. Don't do it. Second, your comments on this page are excessively long and meandering. Instead, focus strictly on well-delineated editorial issues, as the Talk page is intended to be used. Long-winded comments unnecessarily eat up the time of your fellow editors and are more likely to be ignored. Thirdly, press releases and self-published sources are not considered when judging whether an article meets WP’s criteria for notability. Fourth, if/when an article gets nominated for deletion, it’s SOP for other editors to do a search to see what’s been published about the subject and to take that into consideration. Lastly, your decision to not edit this article anymore seems reasonable. Rest assured, it’s in capable hands now. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The capable hands have failed to this point, no mention of material from professionals, only from news journalists and critics. Not unbiased and not a legitimate article.

174.44.118.18 (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Affiliate vs MLM (again)

While searching for WP:RS about the recent changes in Vemma's distributor model, I came across this blog by an attorney named Keven Thompson, who seems like he might be an expert in multi-level marketing. To be clear, I don't think this quite qualifies as a usable source, although more info about author could change my mind. The reason I mention it is because it very articulately explains how comparatively minor these changes are, and why Vemma is still an MLM even if it chooses to call itself an affiliate marketing company. As much as Boreyko compares the company to Amazon, there are many crucial differences, and the multi-level structure has not changed. The addition of even more press releases and primary blurbs from Vemma's many websites doesn't address the underlying issue. These changes might be noteworthy (barely) but Vemma still has a "genealogy" (an industry euphemism for pyramid), Vemma is still a member of the Direct Selling Association which is over 90% MLMs, and, unlike Amazon, Vemma still terminates members for promoting other programs. This is all setting aside the crucial fact that affiliate marketing and MLM are not mutually exclusive. Grayfell (talk) 07:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

^^^

You are still trusting the opinions of blogs for information. Meanwhile I found legitimate info from he Wall Street Journal and CNBC. Talk about credibility again

Also Vemma has always had a similar affiliate structure, they have customers that do not become affiliates with commission unless the refer the product or declare as an affiliate.

--

Both of those sources are press releases, not reputable news sources. Both the CNBC one and the Wall Street Journal one are actually from PR Newswire, which is a press release service. They are written and paid for by Vemma. They are neither secondary, nor neutral. Find better sources, or leave it alone. Grayfell (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

I was just going through some articles correcting references that were not formatted correctly. The CNBC one was not formatted correctly. You and the editors here can certainly use whichever references you feel are most appropriate for the article.

ciao!!!

Carriearchdale (talk) 05:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

If the statement from Vemma comes saying that they are Affiliate Marketing, then that's as credible if not more credible than an outsider source. You re basing your knowledge on a blog with no proof and you are join off of what you "think" not what they facts from the company state. Who knows more about the changes in our company than the CEO BK Boreyko, watch this interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BITFDkTDe1E#t=1039

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.72.6.146 (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Your opinions about what is and is not credible are not consistent with Wikipedia policy. We need reliable independent sources. Newspapers are more reliable that paid press releases or YouTube interviews. Nobody is denying that Vemma's founder would like the company to be called an affiliate marketing company, but that is not currently supported by the company's behavior, or by sources. As I've said so very many times, find reliable sources or leave it alone. Also, please learn how to sign talk page comments. Grayfell (talk) 04:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Yet you just took a source from Business For Home.com and used it when above you removed a link a while back from the same site cause it was biased.

"Business for Home makes it clear that it is an advocacy site which is designed to promote MLMs and other similar schemes. It is not a neutral source for information on this" - Greyfell

Explain that to me? It's ok if it's biased against Vemma but if it's from the same site and it's a positive review its not credible

Your argument is flawed Greyfell, admit it.

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.72.6.146 (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, 207.72.6.146, do you want to discuss the validity of Business For Home as a reliable source? I'm all for that. WP:RSN is a great way to get community consensus on a source, and I would love to see more neutral editors involved in this article. Repeatedly reverting to your own preferred version, with no regard for any of the other problems involved, is not acceptable. Every source must be evaluated on its own merits. I still think that Business For Home not a great source. It's only use in the article is a blurb about an interview with Boreyko which is used to support a point in combination with other sources. Even if we remove it, the article is still going to be pretty much the same. This one source doesn't magically prevent the company from being described as the Amazon.com of energy drinks. Please discuss on the talk page rather than edit warring. Grayfell (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

It shows how much you know, the Amazon.com of Energy Drinks? We don't rely on Energy products, you need to research this further and you have to actually see how this works from the inside out not the outside in

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.72.6.146 (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

"We"? If you have a conflict of interest, please do not edit the page. Continue the discussion here at the talk page. Verve isn't an energy drink now? Just because your company doesn't want to call it an energy drink, I can still call it that. We've already gone over how much caffeine it has, and the word 'verve' is a synonym for energy! Once again, nobody is expected to have first-hand knowledge of the company in order to edit this page. We go by reliable, secondary sources as much as possible. Not press releases, not personal opinions, not advertising. Grayfell (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey genius, I'm not saying to not call it an energy drink. But why do you focus only on that aspect of it. Our Bode line is probably one of the best lines we have. What about Renew? What about NEXT? Do you know what those are? Verve is only one of the lines

As yes i'm saying we but i do not have a conflict of interest. Notice how I never took out the FTC issue and the Italy issue? Maybe if I did I would have and put some more ridiculous stuff in.

Like I said, if anyone has a conflict of interest it's you. You are relying on a blog to prove that this is an MLM company when our structure form the company itself goes by Affiliate marketing. You are contradicting yourself withe the credible information argument — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.72.6.146 (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand what a conflict of interest is. It's in your personal interest to recruit more Vemma sellers and sell more Vemma products. Right? You get money for selling Vemma. I don't have that interest, since I haven't had any financial transactions with Vemma at all. If Vemma becomes bigger than Coca Cola, it doesn't make any difference to me, and if it gets shut down by the FTC, it also doesn't make any difference to me. That's why I don't have a conflict of interest. If you're talking about the blog above... you do realize that it's not actually being used in the article, right? It's here on the talk page because I thought it was a useful explanation of a few things, that's all.

The Business For Home article isn't what's keeping this article from describing Vemma as the "Amazon.com of (fill-in-the-blank)". Doesn't matter, without better sources, Vemma shouldn't be described as an affiliate marketing company. Also, note that "affiliate" isn't capitalized.

As for the recent changes, the article already explains that Vemma never required sign-up fees-that's sort of the point. The source specifically mentions sign-up fees, so we mention them in the article. Another source explains that the company never required sign-up fees, so we mention that.

Before you start implying that I'm stupid, please take the time to learn how to sign your name properly.Grayfell (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Buddy, there are countless articles out there talking about our switch to affiliate marketing, and you are ignoring all of them! How ignorant are you?!

174.44.118.18 (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

How many of these 'countless articles' are reliable sources, and how many are blogs set up by distributors to grow their downline? Newspapers and consumer advocacy group provide neutral commentary of a controversial issue. If you know of reliable sources that discuss this issue, please bring them here. Grayfell (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Now I draw the line at the continuously added negative press. This is saddening. You have only recently added information that is not only false but that is entirely negative showing that you have a biased. You also included an article that includes my name in it. If you decide to use this article as a source and project it negatively. There will be serious consequences.

and also all of those articles about the affiliate marketing switch are actually accurate and are not blogs. It's about the factual information about the company. Stop sounding like we brainwash people, you are the only person projecting negative information and attempting to brainwash people. Consumer organizations are not neutral in the least bit, Get your facts straight honestly

174.44.118.18 (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

How is the information false? Can you provide any reliable sources to back up that statement? I have included pretty much every reliable source I have found about the company. I would be thrilled to expand positive coverage of the company, but only with additional reliable sources. You might find this useful: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.

Since you have declared your conflict of interest, I would strongly advise you to discuss this here, rather than repeatedly removing sourced material from the page. I can see how this might be stressful, but I do not know who you are, and have no inclination to find out, and so it is not practical for me to avoid articles that mention your name. Grayfell (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Well lets see, saying Truth In Advertisement isn't biased but saying business for home is biased shows a clear bias on your part since they both have different agendas according to you

The articles you chose and info you chose are from news reporters and people of non credible sources. All your other wikipedia pages have information that comes from people within the same field, why not Vemma and network marketing? Why do you choose to pry information from individuals who are not professionals

Maybe these could help:

http://www.businessforhome.org/2014/08/vemma-ceo-responds-to-accusations-in-the-media/

Search (Just to name a few):

Robert Kiyosaki: Business of the 21st century

Eric Worre: Go Pro

All links from professional material, maybe you should take a look at quality information, cause it's not me showing the bias

174.44.118.18 (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

www.businessforhome.org is in no way a reliable source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Do Kiyosaki and Worre specifically mention Vemma in their books? Robert Kiyosaki is certainly noteworthy. It looks like Kiyosaki gave a speech at a Vemma conference, but that doesn't seem like a big deal, by itself, and I can't find any secondary coverage of the event. Eric Worre's book is a problem. His only claims to fame is being wealthy, which isn't necessarily enough, and being a championship poker player, which has nothing to do with Vemma. The Go Pro book is published by "Network Marketing Pro Inc", which is owned by him. In other words, it's a WP:SPS. Since it's an SPS, it can only be used in limited situations, and only if Worre can be verified as an expert in his field, by other, independent sources. I don't think that's likely, since I can't even find any usable reviews of the book. It's all blogs and promotional crap. If you want to give actual links, or page numbers, or something, instead of just throwing out search terms, that would be helpful. Grayfell (talk) 02:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

That's humorous to say the least since you used a Business for Home link on this article in the past to talk negatively about the company, BIASED

Also Kiyosaki and Worre are network marketing experts! What industry is Vemma in according to you? Exactly, you don't know what you are talking about, you are talking advice to make an referable article from news outlets over professionals, that's insane!

Worre and Kiyosaki have made multiple books and tools relative to business building. Worre spoke at the Vemma Convention in San Diego. Worre also has his own website and his own tools and incomes to back up his statements.

What about Jim Rohn? If none of the float your boat then Jim Rohn is a person with multiple versions of expertise to look up to. Shouldn't be hard to find information on him considering he is an expert in the field

Ps: Kiyosaki has specific videos and outlets and links from Rich Dad Poor Dad where he talks about network marketing:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPTL-Ceo3iE

http://www.wynman.com/kiyos.html

http://www.thebusinessofthe21stcentury.com

174.44.118.18 (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Uh... I'm not actually the one who said Business for Home was unusable, that was NeilN. Notice the signatures? You'll also notice that I'm not the one who's reverting your edits, although I would've if I'd noticed them first.

Did you actually read my response? I'm agreeing that Kiyosaki is significant. I'm asking if you can provide a usable source where he mentions Vemma. Not just MLM or network marketing or whatever the euphemism de jour is. I'm asking if you know of a WP:RS where Kiyosaki has specifically mentioned Vemma. Yes, Kiyosaki's opinion can, possible, be included. This is an article about Vemma. So what have they said about Vemma? None of those links mention Vemma, they are just Kiyosaki promoting himself. Again: We are looking for reliable sources about Vemma. Not about network marketing.

Wikipedia favors WP:SECONDARY sources, such as journalists, academics, and other impartial analysts. This has already been explained several times. If you don't understand that, you're just wasting our time. Grayfell (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)