Business C‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Marketing & Advertising C‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 (2005–2008) Archive 2 (June–Sept 2009) Archive 3 (Sept 2009-April 2010)

Just for future reference, can someone lay out the distinct difference between multi-level marketing and basic reselling? As far as I can see, MLM is the same as a company (for example, a domain hoster) selling on the rights to a domain to another company, who then in turn sell them on- anyone can then buy a domain, and every 'member' must pay the member above a monthly fee. Is this not multi-level marketing too? TheOneAndOnlyAnonymouse 21:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymouse909 (talk • contribs)

For the older "stair-step" type multi-level marketing compensation plans, used by companies like Amway, you are correct, it's essentially no different to other wholesale/retail distribution systems - someone resells to someone who resells to someone who resells to a consumer. Indeed the FTC in it's Amway investigation found the "number of levels" was very similar to traditional distribution networks. With "newer" plans, like binary or matrix, it's not quite so simple, with payment plans that aren't based on simple volume markup profit margins. --Icerat (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What makes multi-level marketing "multi-level" is very simple... and it is the only defining factor that makes MLM MLM. Say you are selling books and the publisher gives you commissions for every book you sell. That is SINGLE-level marketing because you are receiving commissions on 1 level.

Now say the people you sell the book to decide they also want to share the books with others, just like you are doing with them. The company decides to pay you more commissions for finding people who are not just customers, but also want to help distribute their books. So now you are receiving commissions on 2-levels. You have now hit "multiple-levels" of commissions.

Many MLM companies pay out commissions on multiple levels and that is why it is called MLM. It is very simple, there is nothing illegal about this, however people have used this "structure" to do bad things and make money where there is no actual product - those are ponzi and pyramid schemes.

Does this clarify?

Tpmeli (talk) 16:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)tpmeli[reply]

MLM is a blend of retail and Affiliate Marketing. Before the internet (and still some today), distributors would have to buy wholesale from the company and sell to customers at retail prices. Most MLMs are now internet-based, and the sales process is more like the affiliate commission model: an affiliate markets a product, the customer buys through a coded link, the company collects the funds and ships the product, and the company sends a commission to the affiliate. What makes MLM different from the other 2 is the distributor must be sponsored into the business to qualify as an affiliate, and there is usually a joining fee. The sponsor earns a set commission on all sales generated by the new distributor, and any distributors they sponsor. Some companies also pay the sponsor a one-time commission for new distributors (a finding fee).DeknMike (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Direct selling is basically just a WP:POVFORK of this article. In fact, both articles explicitly state that they are the same thing. —CodeHydro 01:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, per Retailing By Patrick M. Dunne, Robert F. Lusch direct selling and multi-level marketing are two different things--direct selling is the distribution method while multi-level marketing is one of several compensation plans used in direct selling. Sadly the number of sources that confuse the two far outnumbers the sources that correct the misunderstanding.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well both articles will have to clarify that information, though we'd need an example of a case of direct selling that is not multi-level marketing, otherwise the distinction is merely hypothetical and too liable to POV forking to be worth a second article. —CodeHydro 12:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, here what I found: Of the companies under the Direct Selling Association, 99.6 percent of sales involved some form of multi-level marketing compensation in 2009, according to the DSA website. The distinction really seem negligible, but I'll let others have their opinion. —CodeHydro 12:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amway back in the 1970's said that there was a multi-level form of direct selling ("Person to person" sales plans... "dream" opportunity or business nightmare? LIFE Feb 27, 1970). "Why Direct Selling No Longer Works" gives an insight to the ultimate decline of direct selling--the long tail method makes such a business model ineffective to moving products to consumers at the lowest price possible.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement. They are one in the same. One is just newspeak for the other. Plenty of sources available. What more do we need to merge these two? Micahmedia (talk) 03:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, I must say that there are very very few Direct Selling companies that do make single-level marketing sales. Perhaps adding a section in the direct selling that describes both single and multi level marking, with clear indication that direct selling involved multi level marking in the vast majority of cases, may be an easier solution than merging... just to give the 0.4% of single-level sales a voice without directly associating them with the negative connotations of pyramiding. What do you guys think? —CodeHydro 21:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless anything is found saying this that is both recent and reliable I say eliminate the direct marketing article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do quite a bit of work with the direct selling industry, and I can tell you that combining the "direct selling" and "multi-level marketing" (MLM) pages would be a mistake. Direct selling is a sales channel (or product distribution method), comparable to traditional retail outlets, internet shopping, and the like. MLM is a compensation system, more analogous to bonuses, commissions, profit-sharing, etc. While many direct selling companies employ an MLM compensation system, not all do. The two terms are simply not synomymous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DCFlyer23 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly we need a realible source that tells us this. So far the majority effectively say they are the same thing.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are simply not the same thing in a number of important ways. The door to door vacuum cleaner salesman is involved in direct selling. Furthermore, given the size and growth of the network marketing industry, and the diverse issues associated with it, it deserves its own presentation, though the current page stinks due to blatantly prejudiced editing. --Vejeestu (talk)

"Direct Sales vs. Network Marketing Understanding the difference will help you determine which opportunity is the best fit for you. By Michael L. Sheffield | May 19, 2003

Many of us who make our living from this arena still debate what the difference between network marketing and direct sales is. Even so, the vast majority of experienced network marketers would define these terms this way.

Most experts would agree that network marketing is a part of the direct selling concept where products or services are offered on a one-on-one basis and sold directly by the salesperson to the consumer. However, the two approaches offer very different benefits to the salesperson.

Direct sales companies are known as "seller-based," which means they give more income to the distributor when he or she makes a sale at retail. Direct sales companies usually market higher-ticket, one-time-sale, durable items such as air and water filters, cookware, art, home accessories, etc. With the direct sales business approach, the majority of the available profit designated for the salesperson's commission goes to the person who makes the retail sale. That person usually earns a significantly higher percentage of the designated sale commission than does the sales management that may be supervising his or her work.

Unless they have been appointed as sales managers, successful direct sales people are paid based on their personal sales rather than on building an organization of other salespeople. And since most products marketed by direct selling companies tend to be durable goods rather than consumable goods, there usually is limited potential for residual income. Obviously, there are exceptions, such as the residual income experienced in insurance sales, but usually when the sale is consummated, the salesperson is moving on to the next person and potential sale. Immediate commission checks are usually higher than in network marketing, so if you want quick money, direct sales is your ticket.

If you want to build a long-term residual income, however, you should consider network marketing. Network marketing distributors still sell, but the sales process usually begins with their "warm" market of friends and relatives. Network marketing companies typically offer retail commissions that are much lower, since more of the available commissions are directed toward bonuses paid to various upline management people in the sponsor tree.

In turn, you can also sponsor a downline of distributors that not only sell but also consume products, making them your customers as well." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vejeestu (talk • contribs) 06:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MLM you must: pay to join, you can never make more money than the person 'above' you and products are not sold to the general public eg no advertising through media, need to buy 'through' someone or have membership.

Direct Selling companies do not usually do any of these and generally work in with larger companies that use it as a suplement to the rest of their marketing/advertising eg launch a new product through media advertising, then making use of a direct sales company to follow up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.237.58 (talk) 08:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"you can never make more money than the person 'above' you" - This is patently untrue, an unreferenced opinion with no basis in fact. I know of many cases that contradict this statement. It is plainly evident that much of the editing of the network marketing page is driven by a need to control the subject rather then allow a balanced presentation. Vejeestu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Again this is all well and good but we need a reliable source to tell us this. It has been stated that so much of Direct Selling Association's membership is made up of MLMs that in 1999 Consumers' research magazine called it "an MLM lobbying group" (Consumers' research magazine: Volume 82; pg 12) which is what James Walsh stated a year earlier (You can't cheat an honest man Page 184). Furthermore, Kleeneze one of the founding members of the Direct Selling Association still does direct selling--now using MLM as its main selling method (Lancaster, Geoffrey; Paul Reynolds (2002) Marketing: the one-semester introduction, Page 197)

"According to Neil Offen, president of the Direct Selling Association in a recent article in Network Marketing Magazine, single level direct selling companies accounted for 75% of the organizations membership in 1990 with 25% being Multilevel. Now, 77.3% of DSA members are structured as MLM verifying a new age of marketing has arrived commanding the long awaited accompanying respect." (Sheffield, Michael L. (1999) Direct Sales Journal June / July 1999)

This shows the problem--in the space of nine years MLM went from being the minority membership in the Direct Selling Association to a super majority. If this wasn't enough there is something called single level network marketing (Krishnamachary Rural Marketing: Text & Cases Page 280) which since network marketing is also used as a synonym for MLM would dump the old single-level selling model into the MLM basket and explains how and why people can talk about "single level MLMs"--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, Direct Sales is the name of the industry and the overarching umbrella-term. Multi-level marketing refers to compensation plans that use levels. Network Marketing (in its true verbiage definition), is a compensation plan that does not use levels. However, many MLM programs utilize the Network Marketing moniker to distance themselves from some of the reputation behind the term MLM. In the long-term, I would vote for keeping the Direct Selling and Multi-level Marketing pages separate, and perhaps we all could do a better job in cleaning up the definitions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leef5 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You write, "Again this is all well and good but we need a reliable source to tell us this." And yet an assertion as thoroughly dogmatic and unreferenced as - "you can never make more money than the person 'above' you" is left in place for the sole reason that is pleases those who police this topic. There are no research references to prove that this is utterly false, other then the self-evident fact of the structure in which anyone at any point in the structure can find success and surpass those above, depending on the compensation system. Furthermore, the frequent reference from the start of the topic to "pyramid" or "like a pyramid" gives credence to a basic fallacy. If one can prove that the average network marketing structure is more like a pyramid then a modern corporation, please show the evidence. When I posted a number of legitimate, common and worthwhile references to sources that support network marketing as a legitimate business option, they were three times removed. This remarkable approach to controlling a topic brings down the entire cause of Wikipedia. Vejeestu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Vejeestu, your contribution to the article about industry supporters was accurate. It just needs to have some sources, that is why it was reverted. And of course, blanking out sourced sections is not allowed either. Please continue to participate in discussions and contribute to this article using sourced material. Thank you. Leef5 (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found the World Federation of Direct Selling Associations online site does a great job defining several of the terms. THe WFDSA is the overall worldwide association that all of the individual DSAs are members of in each country. In particular, the "FAQ" was most helpful with "What is the difference between direct selling and multilevel marketing?" and "What is the difference between single level and multilevel compensation plans?". Based on this official definition. direct selling is the distribution method (vs. retail sales) and multi-level marketing is the type of compensation plan. Direct sales companies can also use a single-level marketing plan. Finally, there is the "sales strategy" on whether the company uses person-to-person marketing, party plan (Tupperware, Pampered Chef, etc), or both. I believe this is as a reliable source as we are going to get with the parent organization of the industry. Leef5 (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's reliable, but only in a limited sense. It's a trade organization; it should accurately describe how their members want to be seen. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--How about the Federal Trade Commission? Have you ever read any of their documents about compensation in commission-based pay industries? There you can find out everything you will want to know about compensation. Then you could become a reliable source instead of claiming there are none! I think we can all agree that skepticism does not warrant misleading commentary. As someone who has worked in more than one commission-based pay job, I can tell you that in any business -- whether it be software, appliances, insurance, real estate or bio-medical whatever -- whoever owns the business you are working in is getting a cut of sales, and anyone who manages your region is getting a cut, and so are the ones recruiting the sales teams. Some are listed as MLMs, and they will allow their salespeople to make a higher and higher cut, sometimes over the regional manager's cut, in order to keep them happy and to compensate them for training new salespeople or other work. Sometimes these better salespeople become the regional manager or higher ups in the company, and the people who recruited them are no longer making a cut off of them. Yes, companies that do this are also listed as MLMs.

Keep in mind we are talking about sales jobs, not administrative or back-office processing or R&D jobs, which are salaried in these same companies. Sales is highly rewarding to some and highly disappointing to others. It is curious to me how people revere the big successes in sales and advertising (David Ogilvy, Howard Schultz, Warren Buffett etc.) but get upset when they find they can't succeed in it!

(On a personal note, no one who has half a brain stays in a business they can't make enough money in. I started as a secretary in finance -- I stayed because I found I could make more money in finance than anywhere else. I knew many people who didn't, however. I myself tried sales in other industries and I didn't mesh well with the regional managers or others. I don't know why. I seem to only do well in finance. I know people who have done extremely well in other industries where I failed. I don't think the problem is the commission structure, I figure it has to do with me.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.94.52 (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the FTC sometimes it is more hindrance then help. "Many pyramid schemes will claim that their product is selling like hot cakes. However, on closer examination, the sales occur only between people inside the pyramid structure or to new recruits joining the structure, not to consumers out in the general public." -- Debra A. Valentine, General Counsel for the U.S. Federal Trade Commission regarding pyramid schemes at the International Monetary Fund’s Seminar on Current Legal Issues Affecting Central Banks. Fine but other documents show that that FTC still counts distributors as consumers which by Valentine's comment above make no blasted sense.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't mutually exclusive. You can both count distributors as consumers and also note that pyramid schemes often only have "internal consumption". The question is whether it's legitimate consumption or driven by the marketing plan. It's can even be an issue within the same company. If you have, for example, a network of MonaVie distributors who do nothing but drink it themselves - but they do so because they love and want the product, then it's fine. On the other hand if they're buying it primarily in order to get commissions and to convince others to join, then there moving on to illegal pyramid territory, where the product purchases are effectively becoming "defacto payments for recruiting" and income isn't coming from legitimate sales. Amway actually kicked out a significant group of leaders over this issue several years ago. High internal consumption is a red flag there might be a problem, it doesn't define there is a problem. Motivation for purchase is what matters. The problem is of course that this can be extremely difficult to judge, and can often be a blend of issues. Having significant external sales (in real terms, not percentage) provides evidence the product has legitimate demand at the price it's being offered for. It's not necessary but it makes it a heck of a lot easier to determine if something is legit or not. --Icerat (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lead in to the Income level section expressly states: "Several sources have commented on the income level of specific MLMs or MLMs in general"

USAToday meets WP:RS requirements and most of the reliable sources in that section are making comments about specific MLMs. Ergo there is no reason to delete the comment about Fortune especially as the Attorney Generals of four states are investigating the company and another four states are looking into complaints.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This section quotes an article which then quotes Eric Scheibeler regarding Amway. Scheibeler was involved in a lawsuit with Amway at the time, and was also working for the plaintiffs in the UK case (they lost). That's not exactly a non-biased view. The actual UK court judgement does not support Scheibeler's claims. Norris did not make this finding. Suggestions on how to handle it? --Icerat (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No reply? Also, it would seem that adding in the actual claims from various MLMs from income disclosures might add some balance. --Icerat (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So I went through the long string of "also called" sources just now, and half of them didn't actually say that MLM == network marketing or MLM == referral marketing, or anything even remotely like that. (They did tend to say something about MLM, but not about alternate names for it.)

In two other cases, the citations that supposedly supported "referral marketing" did not contain those words, but did contain "network marketing", so I've moved them to that name. And in a couple of cases, the citations were redundant and less clear (e.g., a source that talks about network marketing, but never explicitly says that MLM is exactly the same thing), so I've simply removed those.

It is good to cite solid reliable sources, but it also good to avoid WP:REFSPAM and citation overkill. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(reviewing the edits in depth) Oh, you already knew that, sorry for my harsh comment. It's just that I get pissed off when I am told that I can't use a source, only because it doesn't use exactly the exact word that someone believes to be the correct term. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay. I was actually dismayed to see how many lower-quality sources are available on this subject. We agree that when the sentence in question is one that says "____ is another name for MLM", then any source we name really ought to have exactly that name in it.

If you've got a good source that explains the distinction between "real" referral marketing and MLM being passed off under that name, then I think referral marketing ought to be added to the "some people conflate..." bit, like direct selling. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I have seen that "referral marketing" way more times in non-MLM context than in MLM context. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved to User_talk:Mackverma). --Enric Naval (talk) 09:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot rationally deny that MLMs do have minimal sales requirements, and that those (at least, in the specific example given) include personal sales, whether or not the product is actually used. The "80% rule" (that 80% of products ordered be sold or used, before additional orders will be accepted), common in MLM agreements to avoid the appearance of requiring (illegal) personal purchase requirements, is not enforced; some would say intentionally unenforced.

As for Taylor being an expert, you may have a point. However, the DSA "surveys" cannot be used, if you make the rational assumption that the DSA represents their members, rather than their members' distributors/sellers/members. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, Arthur, I cannot deny they have sales requirements (as practically all commissioned sales opportunities have), but this is irrelevant to the contention. The text I deleted specifically claimed MLM companies "require" that the product be "purchased" by the distributors themselves as a prerequisite to earning commissions. Virtually all MLM companies allow for monthly quotas to be met, all or in part, by sales to customers, and do not require the product be purchased by the rep themselves. In fact, it is commonly considered quite taboo for an MLM company to require the purchase of anything other than a distributor kit (typically $20-$50).

In my 21 years of full time research and analysis of MLM I have heard of a "50% rule", "60% rule" and most often a "70% rule", but this is the first time I have ever encountered an "80% rule". There is, in fact, only a "70% rule", which is one of the "Amway safeguards". It also has nothing whatsoever to do with who buys the product or how much is sold to reps vs. customers. It's sole purpose is to guard against front loading and/or stock piling of inventory. The rule (as you stated, only a common company policy, not a law) simply demands that the product be sold, sampled or consumed by someone.

The Federal Trade Commission has specifically declared that "In fact, the amount of internal consumption in any multi-level compensation business does not determine whether or not the FTC will consider the plan a pyramid scheme" (emphasis mine). They go on to say, "The critical question for the FTC is whether the revenues that primarily support the commissions paid to all participants are generated from purchases of goods and services that are not simply incidental to the purchase of the right to participate in a money-making venture." In other words, the FTC only cares about the motive for buying the product, not who buys it. While there are certainly some number of MLM companies with token, overpriced products that are purchased only by their reps, albeit voluntarily, the majority of MLM companies have distributors who are passionate, die hard endorsers and consumers of their products (and yes, sometimes to a fault – but that's another issue). — User:MWave 21:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for Taylor being an expert, you may have a point. (Arthur Rubin)

However, the DSA "surveys" cannot be used, if you make the rational assumption that the DSA represents their members, rather than their members' distributors/sellers/members. (Arthur Rubin)

It is my position that the accuracy of the source should be the primary factor, not the identity of the source. I am often confronted by MLM critics with the accusation that I am biased. I respond that, yes, I am – But why does that make me wrong? For that matter, why are those who are pro-MLM considered to be unacceptable sources of information about MLM, but those who are con-MLM are cited as credible sources throughout the Multi-level Marketing page? Some, like Taylor, Robert FitzPatrick, Tracy Coenen, and Dean Van Druff are devoutly anti-MLM, some arguably to the point of obsession (one has written a 50,000 word anti-MLM manifesto). Yet their content and references are openly accepted herein, even going so far as allowing them to include direct links to their definitive anti-MLM websites. But then, those like the DSA, or myself, with considerably and demonstrably greater experience and expertise related to the subject of the page, are exempt simply because our equivalent, or in some cases lessor bias is towards MLM rather than against it.

This "minimum sales requirement" section is only one of several on this page that are replete with misinformation and duplicity that can be proven to be misleading, embellished, or utterly in error. I certainly have no issue with a balanced portrayal of MLM, including its challenges and criticisms. My own "pro" MLM website is chocked full of both. All I ask is that this page not be a sounding board for anti-MLM propagandist's. As it currently stands, it most certainly is.

Thanks for listening, Arthur, and considering a new point of view. — Len Clements User:MWave 21:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both MWave and Arthur Rubin are correct. Although the DSA could be considered a reliable source for certain pieces of factual information, because it is a trade group, sourced contributions from the DSA must be scrutinized carefully as trade groups want to put the industry in the best light possible.

Now, on the other hand, if MWave is indeed Len Clements as signed above, he does have a significant knowledge base on the subject of MLM - I would even venture to say more so than any of us here. I have read his book "Inside Network Marketing" (which passes WP RS tests) that I obtained from my local library. Although he is an advocate of MLM in general, in this book, he didn't hold back any punches calling it like it is naming companies and business practices that are unethical.

MWave - because of your inside knowledge of the industry and business practice, I encourage you to contribute to this article and related articles. However, any changes you are proposing must be sourced using a reliable source, otherwise, as far as Wikipedia goes, it doesn't exist. Because you are an self-proclaimed industry advocate, your text must also meet WP:NPOV guidelines to ensure this is factual, neutral, and sourced material. Your personal website normally cannot be a reliable source because it does not pass the RS test as lacking editorial oversight. However, it could be argued you are a WP:SPS Expert:

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

Besides your published book, where else have you been published by reliable third-party publications?  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 17:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest reading through Talk:Multi-level_marketing/Archive_2#Another_criticism_of_MLM where the RS of Taylor, FitzPatrick, and Clement were evaluated. A lot of high quality sources for backing up WP:SPS claims for Taylor and FitzPatrick could be found (used as supporting evidence or reference material in articles appearing in Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal, Journal of Business Ethics, Western Journal of Communication, System Dynamics conference paper, American Board of Sport Psychology, McGeorge Law Review, and a book published by Juta Academic ie "South Africa's pre-eminent academic and law publisher") but nothing for Clement was ever produced.

As I mentioned in Talk:Multi-level_marketing/Archive_2#Careful_with_some_of_these_soucres Random House is all over the freaking map in terms of meeting WP:RS guidelines and Prima Lifesyle was Crown Publishing Group's self-help, cooking and parenting division and was formally discontinued June 1, 2003.

I would also point to WP:COI regarding any future article edits by MWave if he is indeed Len Clement especially given edits like [4]--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Len Clements as signed above, he does have a significant knowledge base on the subject of MLM - I would even venture to say more so than any of us here."

While I am sure that he appreciates you conferring the mantle of authority, I see no acceptable evidence to support the assertion. His authority on this subject, if any, has to be backed up by reliable sources, not speculative opinions. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My statement was of course speculative - I am assuming that none of the editors participating in this article discussion recently (besides MWave) have written books about MLM or been used as expert witnesses in court proceedings. It is not up to me to confer authority, just a fairly straightforward assessment.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 16:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce, thanks for the links- I read through that discussion (mostly an argument between yourself as Icerat (as his WP alias has changed)). I'm not seeing any "consensus" reached - more like a discussion that just stopped being discussed with both parties maintaining their original positions. What is your basis for considering books published under Random House's Prima Lifestyles imprint to be non-RS? Because the imprint was closed and the books moved to Three Rivers Press? Do we have precedence for marking an imprint (or even publisher for that matter) as non-RS after it closes/merges? Please enlighten.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 16:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two things here. First, editor Arthur Rubin agreed with my actual point: "However, not all imprints from reputable publishers are reliable. "Astrology for Dummies" would not be a usable reference as to the effectiveness of astrology, even if it did make claims. How much more if the book is about MLM from an MLM distributor. Even if it were generally edited for accuracy, it couldn't be trusted as to "facts"."

Second WP:BURDEN is quite clear on this: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" (sic)

So it was the burden of an editor to show that the imprint is RS and not the other way around. Wiley's For dummies imprint meets basic RS standards but there is nothing to even suggest Prima Lifestyles met the requirements and given some of the stuff they published I have serious questions regarding the quality of the books under that imprint. Things like 7-Day Detox Miracle, American McGee's Alice Strategy Guide, The Einstein Factor, The Enchanted Cat, The Healing Mind don't really indicate anything on par with Wiley's For dummies imprint much less the academic Wiley-Blackwell imprint.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not all imprints are reliable - however, is your review of the titles you listed that this imprint carried based on your review of those books? Or was this just a cursory review of titles you felt weren't up to par? There are over 400 books in that IMDB list, across a fairly broad spectrum of subjects. I can't find any precedence why this particular imprint is being singled out as an unreliable source.

And why are we comparing imprints? The argument here for excluding Prima Lifestyles is your opinion that the quality of the books with For Dummies is better. They both appear to pass the RS test, so I'm unsure why we are making comparisons between the two. In fact, I recall there is even a "Network Marketing For Dummies" book written.

Lastly, I'm unclear why a book written about MLM by someone who has been in the business would be considered unreliable. That would be on par to excluding a book written about corporate management theory because it was written by someone who is in management at a corporation. Why the disparity? This really isn't a matter of RS, this is a merely a matter of gleaning the appropriate citations from the text in an NPOV manner. Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 18:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All this tap dancing avoids the main issue--what even hints at Prima Lifestyles being reliable? At least For Dummies has something but Prima Lifestyles doesn't. I should mention that Network Marketing For Dummies is relatively speaking old--2001. As far as the "why a book written about MLM by someone who has been in the business would be considered unreliable" nonsense one need to only look to Talk:Multi-level_marketing/Archive_2#Careful_with_some_of_these_soucres and Kiyosaki to see the flaw with that idea.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any "flaw" with that idea - just seeing Arthur Rubin's personal opinion on that matter. WP:SOURCES covers this (emphasis added)

Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers.

Searching through RS/N, I can't find any instances where Prima Lifestyles, an imprint of Crown Publishing Group, and division of Random House, has been challenged to its reliability as a source. If we have an official source beyond 2 users opinions, that would be a preferred center of debate.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 14:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Publishing Group in general has been kicked around in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_43#Pat_Buchanan and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_87#TM_research_quality where it was pointed out "No person is a WP:RS. Only published works are. (And of course, not all published works are WP:RS, only those with a reputation for accuracy and fact checking are.) Keep in mind that academic and peer-reviewed publications are considered the most reliable sources" and it was pointed out earlier "Crown is not an academic publisher" to which I add that we don't know kind of peer-reviewing (if any) Prima Lifestyles had. Again per WP:BURDEN an editor has to show that an imprint is RS and not the other way around and to date nothing to show Prima Lifestyles was anything but a vanity imprint has been produced.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is helpful? "several statutes have placed additional regulations governing the activities of the MLM companies such as: (...) Prohibiting MLM companies from requiring distributors to purchase minimum initial inventories (except in reasonable quantities)" [5] , "Franchising & licensing" American Management Association, 2004, p.355

"The MLM companies cleverly institute minimum purchase requirements for each distributor or member who wishes to receive commission payments related to those they recruited into the scheme. (...) The members tipically spend far more money on minimum purchases, [other stuff], and the like that they will ever earn in commissions or overrides." "Expert Fraud Investigation", Tracy L. Coenen, John Wiley and Sons, 2009, p. 168-169

"'Front loading is a related, fraudulent process whereby even representatives of legitimate MLMs are required to buy large, expensive amounts of inventory. These types of companies often require distributors to buy the goods because there really isn't a legitimate demand from other people for the goods. It is only the promise of making large windfalls that motivate the purchase of unusually large overpriced goods or services. In these cases, when the organization collapses, individuals are unable to sell their inventory and are left with substantial financial losses." Fraud Examination", W. Steve Albrecht and others, page 546, Cengage Learning, 2008 [6]

--Enric Naval (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "For a very revealing exposé of Jon Taylor's ignorance and disingenuousness..." You cant say stuff like that here (see WP:BLP) and you can't support such mudslinging attacks using self-published sources. It would not be inappropriate for me to delete those comments, but I'll let them stand for now as an illustration of what not to do. Please don't do it again. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly agree with Rhode Island Red, except the quote from MWave was cut short - he was talking about Jon Taylor's opinion on the 70% rule. MWave, please stick with the facts re: living people, and not any characterizations that may be construed as personal attacks. You are allowed to refer to your SPS website in article talk space when making an argument (just to save us all the time of having you say the same thing you've already said somewhere else), but none of that can be included in any WP articles unless you are deemed to be an SPS expert (similar discussion was had re: Stephen Barrett)  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 19:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, please do not refer to this self-published commercial website here again (c.f.WP:SELFPROMOTE). Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having him link to prior relevant published articles (albeit SPS) in article talk space is acceptable when making an argument for a position - the policy you quote is in regards to article space.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 21:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the WP policy basis for your assertion? The editor is linking to non-RS, self-published material on his own website offering commercial services/products. If the editor has a relevant comment to add here, they should simply add it rather than linking to a commercial SPS. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the text that was deleted was sourcing non-RS sources (comments by an individual on an FTC proposed rule). Not sure why this text was ever allowed in the article. I think this whole section needs a revamp, sourced from actual RS. The sources Enric Naval identified may be a start.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 19:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back on the point, saying that (all) MLMs have minimum inventory sales requirements before new orders are accepted appears to be false. I'm not sure how one would calculate an "80% rule" for, say, Tupperware: the salesperson is not in possession of any of the stock. Everything is ordered from the warehouse. How do you require that 80% of nothing be sold before new orders are accepted? The same appears to be true for Avon, Pampered Chef, and many of the other large MLM groups. Most of these have a minimum dollar sales (you have to sell an average of $75 a month to remain a salesperson [I don't know what the real dollar levels are, but most seem to have a rule like that]), but there's no inventory and thus no rule about selling the old inventory before placing new orders. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, less reputable MLMs will require to buy inventory in advance, regardless of what Avon does.

Second, let's assume a MLM like Avon, and let's apply what I have read in RS about how this works. A woman becomes an Avon salesperson, with no initial inventory requirement. The first months she sells to her circle of acquaintances and covers easily the minimum sales requirement. Then she starts running out of friends that haven't bought from her, so the sales slow down. The first time she doesn't meet the sales target, he sells a couple of items to herself so she can reach the target that month. He is told/promised/implied that increased sales in future months will help her cover these loses. The salesperson uses the items for herself, or tries to sell them directly to other persons. She perseveres a few months while the sales go down and down because of encouragement and propaganda from Avon. Eventually she gives up and leaves Avon, but she is now stuck with of dozens and dozens of Avon items that she won't be able to get rid of and that she can't return to Avon (there is now a law requiring that 80% of inventory is bought back by MLMs companies, but since Avon has no inventory and the woman was selling this stuff instead of stocking up as inventory, Avon doesn't have to buy back anything....). --Enric Naval (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• First, let's not turn the subject of this article into Disreputable MLMs. We should never say that "MLMs do this" when the fact is actually that "Some, mostly disreputable, MLMs do this". In particular, it's inappropriate to ignore what the largest, oldest, and most successful MLMs do to focus on the practice of the smallest and shadiest ones.
• Second, if there's no inventory, then there's no inventory. You can't sell an inventory that you do not possess.
  Your hypothetical scenario about buying Avon products to meet your minimum sales quota is equally applicable to a person working in a traditional commission-based retail store or a salaried outside sales position. (Who wouldn't secretly sell himself $20 in merchandise if that kept him from losing his $2,000 monthly base salary?) There's nothing special about MLMs here.
  This is strictly anecdotal, but the fact is that I have met several women who have worked for these companies, and zero of them have taken that approach. Either the sales level was incredibly low, so the smallest bit of effort resulted in sufficient sales, or the company had some sort of "temporary leave" policy, so occasional inactivity didn't matter, or they just quit. The biggest MLMs in the world are largely staffed by women who are looking for a short-term, small-scale, part-time benefit, not by people who believe they'll get rich quick by selling cure-o'-the-month and are willing to gamble it all on squeezing just another month out of it. That's why the turnover is so high with these companies: the saleswomen don't go buy a bunch of Avon for personal use every month: they just quit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Dunno, looking around Internet [7], Avon has no minimum sales requeriment, but you need to sell 50$ each campaign (every two weeks?) to make a profit? If you don't order for 6 campaigns (3 months?) all your extra benefits are removed. The more you sell, the higher the percentage you get paid. If you become a "leadership representative", then you have a 250-400$ requirement depending on your level[8]. Yes, it looks like Avon is one of the best MLMs out there. But is this an exception to the rule? What is the typical MLM like? That should be answered using sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• One question you'd need to ask to get a meaningful assessment is this: What's "typical" mean to you? Imagine that you have a list of a dozen companies. One has 100 sales people. The rest have three. Do you line them up from largest to smallest, and pick the company in the middle, so that the "typical" MLM has three sales people? Or do you say that the big MLM has three times as many sales people as all of the others combined, so the big one is the "typical" company, meaning the one that affects fully three-quarters of the MLM sales people in your list? Both "the company in the middle" and "the company that employs the middle sales person" could legitimately be described as "typical", but you will get very, very different results depending on your choice.
  Since I see MLM issues as largely a consumer/sales person protection issue, it's my opinion that "typical" ought to be determined by how many individuals are affected by it, not by how many pieces of incorporation paperwork have been filed. And on that basis, Avon, Tupperware, Mary Kay, Pampered Chef, etc., with their millions of sales people, are very much the "typical" MLMs. Avon reports 5.8 million sales reps in 2010[9]. Mary Kay has more than 2 million.[10] Tupperware has about 2 million.[11] That's a lot of people. It would take a lot of these small-scale, shady operations to outweigh those powerhouses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be talking about the typical distributor rather than the typical MLM company. It could be argued that the typical distributor would be one from Avon or Amway et al., given that they have the largest distributor pools. It could be argued that Avon and Amway are the most well-known MLMs. But I don't agree that these companies necessarily represent the typical MLM based on their size. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, each individual sales person is technically a small business and therefore its own "company", so one person selling for Avon is probably the typical MLM business. But yes: In Fast food, I'd focus on McDonald's and KFC and Subway, rather than independent, locally owned fast-food restaurants, even though there's only on McDonald's and thousands of small fast food restaurants. McDonald's has a far greater impact on the fast food industry, and is far more likely to be relevant to our readers than individual, independent fast food restaurants. In MLM, I'd focus on Avon and Amway and Tupperware, rather than the smallest and least-known MLMs, even though there's only one Avon and hundreds of Avon-wannabes. Avon is far more likely to be relevant to our readers than the tiny MLMs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, when the Attorney General's office refers to MLMs as pyramid schemes, they didn't mention anything about Avon, Amway, and Tupperware. The process on the Talk page should involve proposing specific content to include in the article rather than trying to establish artificial constraints. I don't agree with the direction your argument is headed, but it's a mott point until someone proposes content for inclusion. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't name any specific businesses at all, but it directly says that "well-established, legal multi-level marketing operations" exist.

My proposal is more about not including misleading information, i.e., that there's an 80% inventory rule (which doesn't exist in many of these "well-established, legal multi-level marketing operations") or that there's an 80% buyback law (which doesn't appear to exist in 99% of the world's legal jurisdictions). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has strayed all over the place; it's very unclear. Perhaps we should try to wrap up this thread by putting some tangible proposals on the table. What text is specifically in question? What are the sources associated with the text in question? Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The timeline was interesting, but ....

1. Complete without a source (and it would have to have a single source, to avoid comparisons between related entries with different sources)
2. It's about "direct selling", not "multi-level marketing".

Among other problems. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that many MLM companies are not necessarily pyramid schemes but also some MLM companies are pyramid schemes. However, I can hardly define by this article how a legitimate MLM company differs from an illegal pyramid scheme. It would be nice to see examples of MLM companies in the article. Can anyone really tell me the difference between those two because it seems that it is very difficult to distinguish between the 2 types. It is said that Donald Trump and Warren Buffet consider MLM (or network marketing), to be a very good business model. Now whether they truly said that or not it is unknown and also whether their statement represents the truth is also unknown but if they said that, they certainly refered to legal network marketing companies and not something illegal like these pyramid schemes. I understood that to distinguish between a legal and an illegal MLM company is to see what the intention of the customers really is; so if the customers just purchase a product with the intention of selling it to others, then it is a pyramid scheme, if they intend to buy products to personally consume themselves and then purchase some to sell to others then it is not a pyramid scheme? It is confusing where do I draw the line? — Preceding unsigned comment added by U1012738 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering as the article points out some people consider ALL MLM companies pyramid scheme you question has no answer.--216.31.124.114 (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have read this FTC document on MLM Multilevel Marketing and it states that the way to distinguish between a legitimate and an illegal (pyramid scheme) MLM company is, if distributors sell more products to other distributors than to the public — or if they make more money from recruiting than they do from selling...then it is a pyramid scheme and thus illegal. So the line is drawn on where the most money is made (from the public (legal) or from recruiting (illegal)) --U1012738 (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a line of distinction, but I'd have to say that it's not generally recognized. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the Burnlounge final decision had somewhat clarified that line, but not via product sales numbers. The line is actually "are distributors primarily motivated by opportunity to earn rewards from recruitment, or opportunity to earn rewards through sales of items?" I reference an article by Kevin "The MLM Attorney" Thompson on clarification:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2270643-battle-over-burnlounge-both-sides-claiming-victory Kschang77 (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is a simple one and is based on the sale and distribution of product. If there is a high entry investment and the way a participant earns their money is to find and convince others to invest the same or similar amount then it is an (illegal) pyramid scheme. If a person makes money through the movement of products (& services) it is a legal MLM/ direct marketing program. Foolscrown (talk) 11:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How can I add my article to this or other articles refering to network marketing as I think that my article would be of use to people looking at different types of network marketing companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mb007inc (talk • contribs) 13:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't. If you have your own MLM company, you may suggest it for a Wikipedia article (if, potentially, it meets notability requirements), or to any number of directories, including DMOZ. (I am a DMOZ editor, and I know it accepts some MLM companies.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin is correct. The reason you can't is because Wikipedia is edited with the intention to improve Wikipedia, not to improve your multi-level marketing business. Prhartcom (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article on his MLM has been deleted. Twice. Once in 2005 as essentially having no content, and once (in 2011) speedily as pure advertising. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into the history, a wikilink in the first paragraph was to pyramid selling, not pyramid scheme. Both terms lead to the same article, by the way. It was changed by an IP in January [12]. The sources are all offline, and I don't have access to them. The sources were added to support 'selling' in 2011 [13]. Although pyramid selling is a redirect, it's not an unambiguous synonym. If the terminology used in the sources was 'selling' I think it's probably best to stick with that. Grayfell (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. MLM clearly has a pyramid structure. According to the description by the FTC, a legal MLM and an illegal pyramid scheme are distinguished by how benefits are achieved. There are no differences in structure. Thus, "pyramid selling" would be an accurate descriptor. (again, the text in the lead can be writtten a bit better, to explain things like this) --Enric Naval (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful not to make the mistake of confusing anything with a pyramid structure with the illegal "pyramid scheme". For example, any corporate structure is shaped like a pyramid. Yes, the article should continue to say MLM is also called "pyramid selling", but the term "pyramid selling" should not be linked nor should the link redirect to "pyramid scheme". Simply remove the link from the term "pyramid selling". Prhartcom (talk) 04:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, it's just confusing an already complicated issue. I've de-linked the term. The connections with pyramid schemes are already covered repeatedly in the lead. Grayfell (talk) 05:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the cross-link from 'pyramid scheme' to 'pyramid selling' exists, it's a de-facto assertion that MLMs are pyramid _schemes_, and thus use an illegal sales method. Options as I see it are (a) fix the cross-link to point to a different, not 'pyramid scheme' page, (b) remove the link and leave the term (which IMHO is a bad idea), or (c) remove the assertion entirely. Since the supporting sources are non-existent, they should be removed...at which point (c) becomes the only viable option.--Cprael (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, dear wiki-users. I have a small question I need help with. You were talking about minimum sales requirements before, and I researched the question, too, but in a little other way. I considered the ways MLM companies build their relationship with their distributors.
Some companies accept anyone as a new distributor. Others require some minimum sales (1 package of products, for example). There are also other types of companies, which have more complicated acceptance procedure. For example, a new candidate registrates himself as a potential distributor. He must vists minimum 2 seminars or meetings, and get a recommendation from an active disctributor or severl active distributors. Only as soon as he gets those recommendations and visits several seminars he receives the active distributor status and is able to buy product with discount and represent the company.
My question is: where and how should I present this information? Should I create a new page Relationships building methods of MLM companies or a new topic on this page?
Will be waiting for your responses. thx Un1kumik (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not worth creating a new page, but if you find reliable sources discussing this aspect of multi-level marketing, post them here and we can provide additional guidance. Andrew³²⁷ 12:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. When I made my research I used their official sites and some books. But, at first, official sites and info, provided by the companies themselves. This is the basic information that is often posted on their websites, it answers one of the basic questions "How can I become a distributor?". Info from other sources, as a rule, was not confirmed by the companies or by some other sources, so I took it into account just like an opinion or an alternative point of view. Anyway, I understand the official sites of the companies may be considered as advertisements, thus I'll try to find more secondary sources. I'll make some draft so that you could take a look and we could discuss the details :) Un1kumik (talk) 07:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Honestly I don't think there will ever be a need for a separate article on the topic, but let me know what you find. Andrew³²⁷ 10:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is. I'm ukrainian, so the examples are mostly related to ukrainian\russian legislation and companies, but it's not a problem to find some new links if you think it is necessary. I think I'll also add some more examples of the companies at the end of the article. P.s. At the moment I'm working with the russian version of this text in russian wiki, too. Un1kumik (talk) 09:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basic principles MLM-companies use to build relationships with their agents

Relationships between MLM-companies and their agents must be based on legislation of the country the company operates in. For example, regardless of the statements of MLM-companies, agent in the Russian Federation (RF) and Ukraine must be 18 years old (the age full civil capacity is got, [article 34 of the Civil Code of Ukraine; http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/435-15; ar. 21 of the Civil Code of RF http://base.garant.ru/10164072/3/#block_1003].

Activity of MLM-companies is regulated in 6 USA states, particularly there is a rule to not promise that an agent will get any fixed income. [«Multilevel Marketing». Encyclopedia of Small Business]. At the same time, the RF and Ukraine legislation states that in the RF "the salary of a worker is mentioned in a labor contract ..." [ar. 135, RF Civil Code], in Ukraine - in a collective agreement and labor contract, [ar. 13, 21 Ukraine Labor Code] and its rate “can’t be less than the subsistence rate of a working-age population” [ar. 133 RF Labor Code; http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/322-08/page3 ст. 95 Ukraine Labor Code]. As a rule, relationships between famous international MLM-companies and their agents are built on contractual basis (Amway, Herbalife, Mary Kay, Oriflame [https://www.amway.ua/_fileserver/item/10925/UR_terms.pdf, http://www.herbalife.ru/terms-of-use.html, http://www.marykay.ua/uk-UA/BeaBeautyConsultant/Pages/Get-Started-Today.aspx, https://ua-eshop.oriflame.com/iframe/custom/ua/consultant/Registration.pdf). Thus the contract between an MLM-company and an agent is not a labor contract, and the money agents get is not a form of an ordinary salary. Accordingly, agents do not get any social guarantees, provided to employees.

Basic principles and requirements for getting the “agent status”"

At the same time, remember that legislation does not regulate the requirements or actions a person must fulfil to become an agent. This is determine by the internal regulations of MLM-companies. Candidates must meet several requirements to become agents of an MLM-company. These requirements are different for every MLM-company, but the common requirement is to buy or sell a certain amount of an MLM-company products.

For example, to become the agent of Amway in Ukraine, the candidate must [14]:

1) refer to the applicable "distributor" or register on the company website;

2) fill out the contract;

3) buy some set of products;

4) pay a fixed annual one-time payment for administrative services

Bing Han International demands their candidates to meet almost similar requirements: [15]:

1) visit the office of the company or register on the site;

2) get recommendations from two active agents;

3) buy or sell one product company;

4) visit 5 special company trainings.

According to the comments by the management of the company, the requirement to visit trainings is based on the idea that only as soon as the candidate have visited them he is able to act in accordance with the company's mission, principles and business rules. [16]. At the same time, Amway (like many other MLM-companies) also declares the requirement for distributors to meet the company's mission and its principles [17], but not officially makes its candidates visit their trainings for becoming an agent. Un1kumik (talk) 09:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings to all. Are there any proposals for my text? Or should I publish it? Un1kumik (talk) 10:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm misunderstanding or overlooking an independent source, it seems to be inherently unencyclopedic per WP:NOT, especially WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:SOAP. --Ronz (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About WP:NOTHOWTO - I don't understand which of the 9 points are you relating to. Pls, detalize this moment. About WP:SOAP - pls, tell me what you'ld like to be deleted or edited. I'm here not to advertise anything. I made a small research I thought to be useful, because I could not find this information in a gathered and systemized form anywhere. According to those rules, I'm not going to post any kind of my own, original, not scientific research - I just want to make a good useful wikipedia text full of interesting facts and looking really "encyclopedical". So, pls help me with that, let's discuss the matter :) Un1kumik (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an independent source? If not, then it will be hard to make a case to include even small parts of it. --Ronz (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Independent source that discusses the same question I discuss? I didn't find, that's why I want to post it here. What is the problem with independent source? I provide information: "To become an agent of such MLM companies as Mary Kay, BingHan, ... a candidate has to buy one of their products, or sell it", then I provide the link - directly the official sites of the companies, where they say "you must buy one of our products". Isn't it the primary source? It is not so much about an independent source, but more about a primary one. Un1kumik (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a forum for general discussions, nor advertising. --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. And what do you mean, saying so? Do you mean that the question "How MLM companies build their relationships with agents?" is worthless, it is not scientific or encyclopedical, it is not worth attention? The question is not general but very specific, with examples and sources. I'll use some international, USA, Canada laws and codes as sources. Un1kumik (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The question of “how MLM companies build their relationships with agents" (1) is not necessarily worthless per se; (2) is definitely not “scientific”; and (3) is not “encyclopedical” (sic) because no secondary sources have addressed the question in the comprehensive manner in which you propose: e.g., cobbling together “international, USA, Canada laws and codes as (primary) sources”, and I don't see any way of addressing this question in the WP article without violating WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:IINFO, and WP:FORUM. In summary, the question may be interesting but in this case it just doesn't seem to be encyclopedic. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. That's the answer I was waiting for. Can you give me some short list of advices that will help me make the article encyclopedic? Because I'm not sure I understood all your arguments correctly. Thx again :) Un1kumik (talk) 08:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I don't see a way of addressing the topic you wish to address without violating policy. It would require good secondary sources that discuss the topic comprehensively, but those sources do not appear to exist. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see :( Thx. Can you give me the rules you think would be violated? 'Cuz I'm a little confused with their number, I'm a new member. And I'm also consused that my text would violate the policy, 'cuz I think where should I take the info from if not from the primary sources?.. For example, if I want to write smth about a book, I should include citations from this book, of course... Un1kumik (talk) 07:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The current "history" section has a number of inaccuracies.

The "modern" MLM allegedly started in 1934 with founding of "California Vitamin Corporation" by Carl Rehnborg and started off as direct sales and referral marketing (when people started referring customers to Rehnborg). Rehnborg was not that much of a marketer, and one day, when he got another referral, he said something like "why don't you sell it for me, and I'll give you 25% discount". Thus multi-level marketing was born. The company renamed itself "Nutrilite" in 1939.

I got these off Nutrilite's website and the book authored by Sam Rehnborg (Carl Rehnborg's son) called "The Nutrilite Story".

Kschang77 (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nutrilite is included in the history. What's the problem? --Ronz (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings all. My name is Thomas and for transparency I work with a legitimate network marketing company (young living). I would like to suggest many edits to this article that would improve its Neutral Point of View and give many areas of it more [weight]. Right now the article is lopsided with mistaken opinions instead of facts.

One important organizational suggestion is that the article should indeed clearly distinguish between illegal pyramid schemes and multi level marketing in general and deal with both of these under separate menu items.

Pyramid schemes are an illegal form of MLM. They are the "bad rose" in a garden of flowers. They absolutely do not represent all the flowers (or MLM companies) themselves.

For those confused - this article has some great pointers to make the distinction - http://www.sec.gov/enforce/investor-alerts-bulletins/investoralertsia_pyramidhtm.html#.U_NP3_BX-uY - I am looking for a good [source] that might be source-able here.

Before I make any more suggestions I would like to invite the group to request any ways they would feel more comfortable with my contributions knowing I am a member of a network marketing company (and hence not violating any COI).

Thanks Tpmeli (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)tpmeli[reply]

The article already discusses illegal versus pyramid schemes in some detail and cites various sources that are both reliable and secondary; in practice, the legal line separating legal and illegal MLMs is not always a clear one, and the article discusses that detail as well. The SEC document you suggested linking to is in fact already cited in the article. I don't see any issues with WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE. WP:COI/WP:SPA is a sensitive issue in situations like this, and editing the article directly would be frowned upon to say the least, but you can always put forth new high quality WP:RS if you know of any. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me this article is pretty biased. I'm layman in this area and the entire article reads like "this is why MLM is bad and you shouldn't do it." It also seems poorly organized and could use some cleaning up. Perhaps a list of some larger companies that were closed down by the government as well as some well known legit MLM companies would help clear up some of the confusion? Ancyker (talk) 05:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing that particular bias here. Although there are exceptions, most reliable, independent sources on MLMs tend to be skeptical of their viability, and Wikipedia should reflect what reliable sources say. To do otherwise would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. Both news coverage and academic coverage of MLMs as a larger topic strongly tend to highlight the low/negative return on investment and legal-grey area they exist in, or at least acknowledge that they are controversial. Wikipedia already has a list of MLMs: List of multi-level marketing companies which includes some that have been shut down. Picking some of those MLMs which are still operating as examples of legit companies would be editorializing, not to mention it would be hard to maintain, since the turn-over rate of MLMs is so high. Grayfell (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this should be high importance, even in marketing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Arthur Rubin:

• Per Multi-level marketing#History, it's a longstanding practice (85 years old at least), not some neologism.
• As the article states, "there are over 1,000 firms using multi-level marketing in the United States alone" implying that it is a widespread practice.
• The interviewee in this CNBC article estimates MLM sales in the "tens of billions" supporting the assertion that it is a widespread practice. The Economist published a 2011 estimate of 16 million people involved with $30 billion in sales, just in America.
• It's a widespread enough practice in America that the United States Federal Trade Commission devotes part of their website to cautions regarding it. The same goes for Industry Canada's Office of Consumer Affairs: [18]
• As of this writing, it's got 39 Interwiki links, meaning 39 wikis thought it was important enough a subject to warrant a non-English article. This includes articles in some smaller wikis like Tamil and Thai which you'd expect to be devoted to only the most fundamental subjects like Book, or Food, or Moon.
• If you can read other languages (or use Google Translate), you'll notice that the French have a law or laws governing MLM practice, as do the Spanish and those are just two articles that I checked.

Using Wikipedia:WikiProject Business/Assessment#Importance scale, I'd say it's at least a "High", although IMHO, it's not fundamental enough to understanding the broader topics of business, marketing, or advertising to warrant "Top" like, say, Publicity or Sales. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 11:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

in the section 'income levels' there is this quote, from the times:

The Times: "The Government investigation claims to have revealed that just 10% of Amway's agents in Britain make any profit, with less than one in ten selling a single item of the group's products."

Based on my understanding, this means 10% make a profit, but less than 10% sell anything. So some agents are making a profit without selling anything? The cited article is paywalled so I can't check how this confusion has arisen

86.177.144.224 (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the original sentence: "Many courts and portions of the public assert that all MLMs are essentially pyramid schemes even if they are legal." To my knowledge, no court (let alone "many courts") ever stated that all MLMs are essentially pyramid schemes. Besides that, as the pyramid schemes are illegal, it makes no scence for the court to say that all MLM's are illegal even if they are legal. Can anyone provide a reliable source for the "many courts" claim?--Historik75 (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have found that Timi Ogunjobi, the author of the book SCAMS – and how to protect yourself from them, actually owns Tee Publishing which published this book. This makes it a self-published book and thus can be considered unreliable. See for example here: https://www.gmdu.net/corp-714458.html Moreover, he is not an expert in MLM (he is a technical writer and web designer - see here: https://www.packtpub.com/books/info/authors/timi-ogunjobi). Therefore, I removed it from the sources.--Historik75 (talk) 08:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pity as the idea that MLM was an outdated system was reasonable.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed several stories over the past few weeks about the Trump Network, Donald Trump's failed vitamin/supplement MLM. Maybe it's just because the guy is front and center in the news right now, but this seems noteworthy to me regardless of current events. I'm wondering if it's worth mentioning in the Criticism section or somewhere else in this article. Here are some links: [19][20].Kerdooskis (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The History section is not even a complete sentence at this point. Does anyone know of a reliable source or two that covers the history of MLMs? Also the Setup section doesn't have any sources, yet it's really the only section of this article that describes the "what/how" of MLMs. Is there some legal or other authoritative source that defines MLMs that can be cited? I'll look around and see what I can find myself, but does anyone else have some ideas for improving these sections?Kerdooskis (talk) 22:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't this edit contradict the rest of the article? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As much as certain industry critics, and some Wiki editors, may disagree, state and federal regulators, in the US and over 100 other countries, have declared multilevel marketing programs and illegal pyramid schemes to be two separate and distinct entities. This page is specific to multilevel marketing. Although I understand the need for a general discussion as to what defines a legal MLM venture, and the issue of illegal pyramids who have attempted to disguise themselves as legitimate MLMs, I cannot even begin to understand the rationale behind adding an entire section devoted to nothing more than a single web page that describes how one specific country defines an illegal pyramid (and which doesn't reference multilevel marketing even once). There are, in fact, well over 100 other countries that have defined, and outlawed, pyramid schemes essentially "because it is considered an unfair form of trading and bad business". How is the seemingly random inclusion of just Australia's definition of an illegal pyramid even remotely appropriate within an encyclopedic article about the 50+ year old multilevel marketing industry which currently operates legally in all but three of those same 100+ countries (China, Nepal, and the small island nation of Bahrain being the only exceptions)? --Mwave (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot begin to understand the rationale behind that edit? Alright. That doesn't seem like WP:AGF, but I agree that it's not supported by the source, and have removed the section. Pyramid selling redirects to pyramid scheme, and it's appears that the schemes are what the document is discussing, not MLMs. Pyramid selling is a recognized term for MLM, as supported by multiple sources, so mentioning Australia's ruling on that is reasonable and this appears to have been a good faith edit. Any disagreement on what this document means would be solved by better sources. Grayfell (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neil: Not sure if this is the right place to put this, but here goes.

Thank you for the invitation to discuss my contributions with you. I can see that you have a great deal of experience with Wikipedia, this is my first attempt to contribute.

My concern with Wikipedia's content regarding MLM is that is is very one-sided, biased against any positive descriptions at all. It dwells on the so-called "controversial" nature of the business, without any attempt to explain why some 17 million Americans and 50 million individuals worldwide have chosen this "controversial" industry to participate in.

There is no real attempt to portray the successes of the industry, the fact that some of these companies have a track record stretching back more than 30 years. The fact that, leaving aside the top income earners and the lowest income earners, there are thousands of 'average" people who have earned more than $1,000,000 in their MLM career. NuSkin for instance has a "Million-dollar-earner" wall in their new head office in Provo, Utah that has more than 1200 names on it.

Companies such as Avon and Mary Kay are household names, trusted by two generations or more as a source of quality products at fair prices. Amway is approaching $10 Billion in annual sales, and has survived scrutiny from more than 60 countries.

Key note speakers at MLM companies include some of America's most notable individuals, including former presidents, Pentagon Generals, business leaders. Reputable companies are highly rated by the Better Business Bureau. Some have high Dun & Bradstreet ratings. The latest ones are now publicly traded, and meet the quarterly scrutiny of the SEC.

The criticism of the industry on the other hand, largely comes from a fringe group of commentators with very little credibility. I can't speak to why these people feel the necessity to constantly attack the industry and the people in it, but it does no service to Wikipedia to promote these people and their biases.

My suggestion to Wikipedia is to separate the attacks from the industry page if you feel the need to include them, and put them in their own category. I think you would be hard pressed to find another industry page that has such a biased and negative view. Search Auto Industry, Oil Industry or Arms Industry for instance and despite the constant attacks on these industries Wikipedia make no mention. These pages area full of industry facts. The MLM page on the other hand , is full of references to criticism, legality, lawsuits, price fixing, cults, and so on. This is a completely false reflection of the industry itself, but rather a compendium of those who have chosen to attack the industry.

And most of the info there is very dated. Kind of like using Ralph Nader's criticism of the auto industry in the 1960s as a focal point when discussing the auto industry. The criticism of MLM is - and should be on Wikipedia - a footnote to the evolution of the industry, not the defining characteristic of it.

If I might ask a personal question, do you have a personal bias to MLM? Have you had any (perhaps negative) personal experience which is colouring your view?

LeeFairbanks (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)Lee Fairbanks[reply]

(talk page stalker)Have watchlisted the article based on this. -Roxy the dog™ bark 15:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LeeFairbanks, I think you have it backwards. Let's look at the sources you used:

• A blog shilling for MLM events with a grand total of 82 posts
• A law firm whose livelihood depends on MLM clients
• A MLM association
• A blog for a law firm whose livelihood depends on MLM clients
• A blog post by a MLM lawyer
• A site shilling for MLM
• Another site shilling for MLM

These are "the fringe group of commentators with very little credibility." Let's see what independent sources have to say: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26] There's probably content in these sources that could be incorporated into the article. As for your personal question, I think the last two paragraphs you tried to add here shows who's editing with a personal bias. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, hope this is the right place to respond, these pages are very confusing.

I appreciate you taking the time to try and defend your page and you're resistance to updating it, but respectfully, I don't find your references to be "independent" sources. Nor are they factual. What is more factual than an MLM organization, and a law firm? The MLM sites you claim are "shills" use facts. Your sources are journalists. I am a journalist. I understand this industry very well. These articles are written to comment and exploit on a specific current event or topic. They are not scholarly articles. They are not based on facts. The first one, from thestar.com references pyramid schemes, complete with a full-colour diagram that explains what a pyramid scheme is, then talks about a family squabble. That's not an article about MLM at all. Courts around the world have clearly differentiated MLM from pyramid schemes, and all major companies abide by those differences. There are no facts in this article. Specifically, it speaks about the actions of individuals within the industry, not the actions of the industry itself. The second article from USA Today is also only 1 person's opinion, unsupported by any facts. It comes to the ridiculous conclusion that Michelle Van Etten is not a small business owner, but rather a customer. Here's a fact: The US government (and all government around the world as far as I know, and the company I work with is in 60 countries) require MLM distributors to declare their income as "business income". The third one, from Bloomberg, explains the phenomenal success of one MLM company, their amazing growth in sales. This side of MLM is not covered at all in your page. It's like writing about the auto industry and only covering the dealer network and not the manufacturer and then filling your page with comments from people who had problems with servicing and repairs. I will repost my edit, and give you one last chance to allow the updating of your site to properly reflect the topic. After that, I will take this complaint to the next level for mediation. There is no point in you and I continuing this personal debate. LeeFairbanks (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Lee fairbanks[reply]

LeeFairbanks, it's just going to get reverted again since you don't seems to grasp what we consider what is an independent reliable source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This mixes facts (many unsourced) and decidedly non-neutral opinion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. DMacks (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There also appears to be a conflict of interest with the edits. --Ronz (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. -Roxy the dog™ bark 14:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this change, the ISBN, publisher, author, and date match Making Money with Your Computer at Home. The title Franchising & licensing: two powerful ways to grow your business in any economy was (according to worldcat) by Andrew J Sherman, and was published in 2004 by AMACOM. Google books allows for searching of Making Money, but not Franchising. Making Money doesn't show any hits for the word "pyramid" which suggests it's the wrong ref, and was probably a copy-paste error combined with automatic fill-in. Since I cannot confirm either source, I've removed it for now pending further discussion. Grayfell (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added here. It might be best to keep it out. --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the article this statement is cited: "DSA says the median annual income for those in direct sales is $2,400".

What the DSA (currently)actually says, is: "More than 20 million Americans are involved in direct selling in every state, congressional district and community in the United States. In 2015, direct selling generated more than $36 billion in retail sales."

If you divide $ 36 billion by 20 million Americans, this is an average of $ 1,800 per person and year in revenue (or $ 150 per month). And this is revenue, not income!

The actual income is revenue minus costs (for the products, phone bills, transportation, taxes etc.), and therefore is very likely less than $ 75 per month on average or a meager $ 900 annually! Erland Eschenwald (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's verified by the reference: Peterecca, Laura (September 14, 2009). "What kind of business do you want to start?". USA Today. pp. 4B. Retrieved September 14, 2009.

To update this, I think we'd need better sources to avoid original research problems. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding references, the FTC has web pages on the fate of Fortune Hi-Tech Marketing: they were ruled to be a pyramid scheme. Over $3.7 million was returned to the people who got conned into this Pyramid Scheme.--2606:A000:7D44:100:B0E8:9A19:D7BC:DC8 (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article states "Many pyramid schemes attempt to present themselves as legitimate MLM businesses," yet it fails to define the difference between a pyramid scheme and a "legitimate" (cough cough) MLM business. Could that be because there is no difference? This article should just redirect to "pyramid scheme." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.192.133.64 (talk) 15:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Network marketing is nothing but a promoting business deals under various products by mobile devices in google maps and send videos of your own business in google account Ismail Athaullah (talk) 08:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article has undergone an extensive rewrite by one editor recently but much of the content is not referenced, which is problematic to say the least. To avoid having these changes rolled back to an earlier version of the article, I suggest that the editor in question, or anyone else who wants to pitch in, attempt to provide reliable sourcing for this material. Thanks and best wishes. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-level marketing, abbreviated as MLM, also called pyramid selling This is now known to be an incorrect statement as Network Marketing / MLM etc is a respected , regulated industry and Pyramid selling is, in most countries actually illegal.

Here is an explanation from the UK Direct selling association. http://www.dsa.org.uk/consumer-advice/illegal-schemes/ 2A02:C7D:CC6:E500:617D:A5B1:8347:2CD8 (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Please provide a neutral, reliable source that distinguishes between the two terms in common usage. – Train2104 (t • c) 23:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replace "advertized" with "advertised" in the "Participant financial loss, company financial gain" subsection, as advertised is an exception to the rule, it ends in -ise in all dialects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences#Exceptions_3 83.33.34.157 (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I've disputed this page, for accuracy is the convoluting of terms in relation to one another which are unrelated.

• Not all Network Marketing companies are MLM; "Networking marketing" has to do with how the communication(method) of the business opportunity is passed around.
• Multi-Level Marketing companies are companies were you get paid a larger amount on volume from a person below you, another tier/or level rate for the next person down. i.e. 8 % for someone you sponsor, then 5% for the next person down and then lets say 3% on a person below that, and perhaps 1% etc thereafter. Those are "levels". As the organization gets deeper you earn less on each "level".[27], Examples of those ACN, Amway
• Pyramids are something different, and are based upon getting paid just for signing someone up. I.e. You bring someone into the "scheme" and you get a check simply based upon that.

FTC, BBB, Mass. Sec of State hence the FTC(or equivalent shut them down right away), The examples given here aren't necc. correct for all companies so an example should be given where that pertains to an entity which is accurate, verifiable, and clear and concise. Lumping a string of terms together with weasel words isn't helpful. CaribDigita (talk) 10:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Network marketing is a lesser used synonym on multi-level marketing, as is pyramid selling (not to be confused with pyramid scheme). The sources cited establish this fact. Your definitions of multi-level marketing and pyrmaid schemes does not jibe with the FTC source you cited, nor with these WP:RS.[28][29] You would need to provide proper sources, if any exist, to back up your arguments, and be more specific as to which parts of the article your arguments pertain. The points you raised certainly do not apply to the entire article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Huffington Post article could provide some new, useful information for the "Criticism" section, as could this Quartz article. Kerdooskis (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qnetindia (talk) 06:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference - 5 Important Attributes to carry for Successful Network Marketing

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Nihlus 21:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The FTC just published some new Business Guidance on MLMs that may be a useful source for defining MLMs, lead information, criticism, etc. Kerdooskis (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In many places, it is claimed that Network Marketing by its very own nature, must force in-system sales, i.e, sponsors selling to their downliners. However, the truth is that in a legitimate Network Marketing system, selling to the distributors themselves is against law; and end-consumers are outside the system. So, it's just a new way of product distributions, i.e, a form of direct selling. In this case, any financial loss is improbable, such that each distributor earns - even with no downline - earns a net profit, or breaks even at worse.

In fact, those at the bottom-level of such an organization can (and most probably will) earn a decent income equal to the average wage of most common jobs in the same society. However, a many great number of companies and organizations misuse the idea of Network Marketing to emphasize on recruiting rather true sales to outside customers, and this has resulted in dissatisfaction among participants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.244.130.166 (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2018‎

According to the FTC, 99% of participants in MLM schemes lose money. Regardless, this talk page isn't a platform for discussing the topic, it is a place to discuss how to improve the article. If you have a suggestion for how to improve this Wikipedia article, based on reliable sources, feel free to share it. Grayfell (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The FTC absolutely did not say, nor has it ever even remotely implied, that "99% of participants in MLM schemes lose money". The document you linked to is obviously not produced by the FTC but rather by Jon Taylor, a prolific anti-MLM propagandist who has no connection what-so-ever to the FTC or any government or regulatory agency. In fact, the only reason this document even appears anywhere within the FTC's website is because back in 2008 they allowed the public to submit comments regarding the proposed New Business Opportunity Rule which they publish, unconditionally, within the applicable "Public Comments" section. That's why it says "public comments" in the URL path. Note within the Rebuttal Comments (submitted after the FTC exempted MLM companies from the proposed rule) that 11 of the 27 comments submitted are from Taylor (the one you linked to is #21 on the list). Mwave (talk) 08:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, no reliable sources describe Taylor as "a prolific anti-MLM propagandist", so that comes across as a personal attack. Don't do it again please. Aside from that, no actionable editorial suggestions in the comment; please keep it productive. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia defines WP:Propaganda as, "a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position." Can you identify what part of Wikipedia's definition (or even Webster's for that matter) causes "propagandist" to be a "personal attack"? On what grounds do you base your request that I cease & desist my challenges to Taylor's WP:RS and WP:NPOV status, both within the MLM article and now here on this Talk page, due to (among other reasons) this specific Wikipedia guideline that explicitly states, "the inclusion of propaganda outlets as sources of information may be problematic for Wikipedia"? If an editor, or his sources, can't be called out as a producer of propaganda without violating WP:PA then why do these guidelines even exist? And when a claim is made within a Wiki article that’s extremely disparaging towards MLM you allow it to stand source-free for 16 months (even when challenged) because you’re certain such sources must exists somewhere, but when a popular source of anti-MLM material (is that better?) is challenged, you immediately declare, as a matter of fact, that “no reliable sources” exist (I was going to attempt an acerbic quip here about the need for a WP:DOUBLESTANDARD directive – but there already is one!).

You then allege that I provided, “no actionable editorial suggestions” in my comment, and that I, “please keep it productive.” So, when one of the most active editors of the MLM page, who has been contributing to its development and influenced its tone for well over a decade, publicly declares his demonstrably false belief that the Federal Trade Commission has determined that "99% of participants in MLM schemes lose money", it is not productive to inform that editor of the facts? So, would this also apply to an active editor of the Burzynski Clinic article if they were to boldly state within its Talk page that “According to the FDA, 99% of patience on Antineoplaston therapy went into remission”? I’m betting you’d find it productive to correct them, right there on the Talk page.--Mwave (talk) 08:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROPAGANDA is an essay and provides no insights pertinent to this discussion, so citing it is pointless – it is not a WP “definition” as you suggested. You labeled Taylor as a “propagandist” to denigrate the source, when in fact he is a well-recognized and widely cited expert on and critic of MLM. It serves no purpose to take random pot shots at a source like you did, especially when it is just opining and not connected with an actionable suggestion. If in fact you are arguing that Taylor is not a WP:RS, then it is an argument you will not win because numerous WP:RS have cited him as an expert. Aside from that, please don’t soapbox. The TPG is for editorial discussions about improving the article, not the airing of grievances and personal opinions. Again I see no actionable editorial suggestion here. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Multi-level marketing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120508042320/http://business.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/inv08-bottom-line-about-multi-level-marketing-plans.pdf to http://business.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/inv08-bottom-line-about-multi-level-marketing-plans.pdf
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/69poZrMWG?url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/08/01/a-drink-s-purple-reign.html to http://www.newsweek.com/id/150499/page/1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, the sentence in question, “There have been calls in various countries to broaden existing anti-pyramid scheme legislation to include MLMs, or to enact specific anti-MLM legislation to make all MLMs illegal in parallel to pyramid schemes, as has already been done in some jurisdictions”, clearly contains several WP:Weasel Words. Although general, ambiguous words like “calls”, “various”, and “broaden” are debatable only because they are not cited as specific example within Wiki guidance, there is no doubt that the reference to “some” jurisdictions is applicable considering it is used as a Weasel Word example no less than five times. This includes the on-the-nose prohibition against “Unspecified places or events” WP:WHATPLACE, which could not also be more precisely applicable to the phrase, “various countries”.

Also, your response on your talk page still leaves my primary question unanswered. That is, if calls to enact MLM legislation here in the US is sourced by referencing actual MLM legislation, in the specific, clearly defined country where MLM is by far the most prominent, is not “critical news” due only to it being “under consideration”, then how can the mere consideration of any such action anywhere else be an “insufficient” reason for omission – even if everything in this sentence is true and verifiable?

Finally, your reply also begs the question, How long is a “Citation Needed” tag allowed to linger on a single sentence that contains multiple unsourced WP:PROVEIT, and unverified WP:VER claims before it is deemed too long? Wouldn’t your belief that it is “supportable”, and that you’re reasonably certain “those sources exist”, demand that the original author provide them within sixteen months? Or, "don't just insist there must be sources out there somewhere, prove it by providing them", per WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. And there’s certainly no shortage of other anti-MLM editors who would be highly motivated to save this very deleterious assertion regarding MLM. Yet, even after almost three weeks since my objection to it, and two weeks after your, (albeit indirect) call for it, the “Citation needed” tag remains. Need I remind you (which I'm sure I don’t), that WP:UNSOURCED dictates, “Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source” (emphasis mine). The only exception being that, “editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references.” Six… teen… months.

And it will still be there 16 months from now – because no such person or entity exists, anywhere on Earth. Oh, I'm sure you can find a few anti-MLM bloggers and op-ed articles all over the world calling for the abolition of MLM (or any industry for that matter), but none that will pass WP:RS, WP:SPS, WP:VER, and all other applicable Wiki vetting.--Mwave (talk) 05:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please indulge me a bit further (I know I’ve been verbose – thanks for hanging in) by allowing me to respond to your statement, “I also noticed that you may have a WP:COI with respect to this article, which would preclude you from editing”, and your follow up concerning rules against WP:SPA (which I must assume is meant to tacitly implicate me, since it has nothing else whatsoever to do with the issue being discussed). What "doesn't look good" (or is at least ironic), is that after I’ve made edits to this page over the last 6.5 years you’ve chosen this particular one to invoke a potential Conflict of Interest claim (which, I know you know but want you to know I know, is a guideline, not a policy). As for Single Purpose Accounts WP:SPA, I have made 53 total edits and 31 (58.5%) have been to pages unrelated to MLM. The other 22 edits are concentrated in this area because it is my field of expertise, covered by WP:EXPERT. This is the one that says, “Subject-matter experts are well-equipped to help articles achieve a truly neutral point of view by identifying gaps in articles where important ideas are not discussed, or places where ideas are over- or underemphasized, and to identify optimal and recent sources in their fields.” Yeah, if the editors will let them.--Mwave (talk) 05:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This sure reads like someone picking up a conversation in the middle, and it's not clear who you're talking to, or what you're talking about. Try and approach this from the perspective of someone reading this talk page for the first time. Does it make sense? Will anyone at all know what this is about years later?

I assume this is about this edit from weeks ago, correct? This is definitely sourcable, and examples in reliable, independent sources can be found. Here's one discussing tightening regulation in China which specifically compares MLM to pyramid schemse:[30] Here's a call for regulation in the US:[31] In the Philippines it appears to now be tied into cryptocurrency (of course) described as a "chain referral" scheme.[32] How about Singapore's "Multi-Level Marketing and Pyramid Selling (Prohibition) Act"?[33] Here's someone in saying that Iranian MLMs "go beyond the legal framework" and that "the government is going to tighten its grip on them and finally shut them down" like it did with pyramid schemes ten years before.[34] Compiling all this into a section would be a great project for a neutral editor with some time and a bit of patience, but it's not a good project for one who is here to right the record. Nothing is going to be a good project for someone here to right the record, because that's not how Wikipedia works. Grayfell (talk) 06:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[35], [36] Forum posts are obviously not reliable sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually forum posts can be reliable sources per WP:RSSELF but they have the same high bar that any self-published source has. So if someone from Google itself or directly connected with them replies regarding Google policy then that forum post would be considered a reliable source.

Flash (LG Connect Moderator, Maps Top Contributor, Map Maker TC, RER and Regional Lead) and given the relationship Connect Moderators have with Google moderators he would seem seem to fit the reliable source criteria as I understand it.

The reason regarding the removal of MLMs from Google maps is explained: "Legality is not the determiner to be on the map. The map is not useful if just anything is mapped. If they have no storefront, why would we want them on the map? The map is a tool to help you find a place. People will look up the type of business they want and navigate to it. To find no business there is not helpful at all and defeats the purpose of a map. Google does not want that bad user experience, and really neither should the business itself."--Professor Phantasm (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchyte I don't see the bias. The information that is negative about MLMs seems accurate and largely sourced. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Galobtter: Some examples of where the wording could be modified (both are unsourced):

• Indeed, the largest proportion of participants must operate at a net loss (after expenses are deducted) so that the few individuals in the uppermost level of the MLM pyramid can derive their significant earnings—earnings which are then emphasized by the MLM company to all other participants to encourage their continued participation at a continuing financial loss.
• It is important to distinguish between the MLM company itself versus the so-called "independent businesses" run by the MLM participants.

Much of the "Business model" section is unsourced and seemingly written by people in a way that means this article can be used as a "see, MLMs are bad" sort of thing. Participant movement, for instance, could be rewritten in a way that says that some people actually do see success in these businesses, though the vast, vast, majority fail (source (has some of the important info from that 300+ page document). Here's it at the moment: While participants' movement up the pyramid of an MLM can be accomplished in theory, and indeed this is one of the distinguishing factors between MLMs and traditional pyramid schemes (besides featuring actual sales of products or services), said upward movement is so extremely improbable as to render it practically impossible, despite all efforts and investments of time and money by a participant. Instead, the sentence should note that the chances of success are extremely slim (and provide data and a source!), not "extremely improbable as to render it practically impossible", independent on "all efforts and investments of time and money by a participant". There's also this by Robert L. FitzPatrick that provides more insight, like "More than 50% of all commission payments were transferred to the top one-percent in ten of the eleven companies [Arbonne, Cyberwize, Free Life, Herbalife, Melaleuca, Nikken, Nuskin, Reliv, Usana, Your Travel Business, and Amway]" and "The MLMs sustain their operations by annually churning 60-90% of all participants who quit the schemes and stop purchasing the MLM products after suffering financial losses". I don't think the sole {{refimprove}} tag is enough. Anarchyte (talk | work) 13:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that many multi-level marketing companies have "multi-level marketing" listed as their only industry type in their infoboxes. This seems strange to me, since I am used to thinking of multi-level marketing as a business model, not as an industry. I can understand why it could be thought of as an industry, but I think it would be helpful to also list the conventional industry that each company is a part of, if appropriate, as some infoboxes already do. Is there any consensus on this? Alweth (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good question. My understanding is that, in general, the content of infoboxes is decided by consensus on an article-by-article basis. This assumes that most editors will value consistency, and broadly agree on the purpose of these infoboxes. Individual infoboxes often describe how they are intended to be used, so Template:Infobox company (for example) includes both "industry" and "products" as fields. Another field is "revenue", which hints at a deeper problem, since MLMs are typically privately traded and precise numbers are often hard to come by. Often we do not have any accurate source for what the proper "industry" a MLM company is, much less specific financials, but we usually know that it uses MLM. If a significant source of revenue for a company is from MLM recruitment, wouldn't that be properly listed as at least part of their industry? If not, how would this be indicated? We try to summarize information in proportion to reliable sources, and if those sources repeatedly emphasize a point, so be it. As an extreme example, there are (or were) some self-described MLMs, such as Fortune Hi-Tech Marketing, for whom MLM was the main source of revenue, and any products sold were basically incidental. It's tempting to say that those weren't real MLMs, but reliable sources say differently, so that's not an option.

If MLM is the primary reason a company is noteworthy, which is very often the case, the infobox should probably indicate that if it's reasonable to do so. Likewise, if a company's primary industry is based on independent contractors, it's reasonable to consider this an "industry".

Another closely related problem is that, from experience on Wikipedia, I know that infoboxes attract spammy edits. They tend to get bloated with buzzwords if not monitored. Their purpose is to provide a very simple overview of stand-alone points of info, especially for mobile viewers. If an MLM sells cosmetics, it's not helpful or neutral to also mention "skincare", "wellness", "beauty", "nutrition" etc. This may not be directly related to your comment, but it's worth keeping in mind. Grayfell (talk) 07:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this article is necessary, when you already have an article about pyramid schemes, and this article confesses that they are the same thing.68.53.153.55 (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article is a hit piece on MLMs, using slight of hand references by anti-MLMers; the references from Taylor that claim to be from the FTC are in fact his comments rebutting an FTC report endorsing MLMs. DeknMike (talk) 04:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a list of accusations, well into WP:BATTLE territory. Please identify independent, reliable sources about article content; strikeout accusations against editors; and refrain from further claims about editors. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 04:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Pyramid Scheme is an illegal form of gaining funds by selling memberships; the only income is from intangibles. MLMs are wholesale distribution companies that rely on an evangelical / missionary model to open additional retail outlets for products. Income is derived solely by selling products at retail. The wholesale and overhead costs are then distributed to the direct-line supply chain. DeknMike (talk) 02:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a biased version about this industry and impacting a negative emotion among the people. 2409:4042:2691:7A7F:CCFD:3637:AEEB:8B90 (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add the below section at last ofter the china section:

Bangladesh

In 2015, all types of domestic and foreign MLM trade were banned in Bangladesh.^[1] 43.245.122.108 (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done PrussianOwl (talk) 00:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flame away; it’s deserved. But please someone help me convey this comment properly; I have read but did not understand information about this process. Here is the comment:

I am not sure how to proceed, having never done this before. And I certainly do not want to suggest that I support MLM; I agree with most of this page’s discussion. But MLM is not universally banned, which suggests that at least some jurisdictions have acknowledged differences between MLM and pyramid schemes (which I understand to be universally or near-universally banned). Of particular concern are the percentage figures about who profits from MLM businesses and their generality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:300:200:d8b0:5e65:9e0b:66f9 (talk • contribs)

If you have an edit to make, be bold. Otherwise, the {{POV}} is problematic because the grounds for it are unclear, so I am removing it once more. El_C 06:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that makes sense. I was trying to point out the issue for someone to notice and address, but I do not care enough to address it myself. Thanks. Spm2005 (talk) 06:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can always use the less severe measure of inline templates, like ^{[clarification needed]}, etc., for example. El_C 06:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That’s very helpful, thank you. I had never really known how those came about. Spm2005 (talk) 06:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help, Spm2005. See also: Template:Inline cleanup tags. El_C 06:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One reference was added and removed. [37] Do we need more?

• https://www.vice.com/en/article/mb9z3x/multi-level-marketing
• https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29779808/
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/01/sometimes-life-is-like-a-box-of-cacao-products/

I think that is enough.

@Grnwng: Do you have a preference? I think the Washing Post should be fine alone. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, we do not need "more" references for a vague and subjective adjective. We need to remove it. See WP:LABEL. See WP:NPOV. See basic common sense. Grnwng (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would object to the removal on the grounds of "well-sourced" and "covered by body text" per policy. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Well sourced" means nothing when you are talking about subjective statements. You cannot make subjective statements without violating the NPOV policy; you can only report that the subjective opinion is held by somebody. The word controversial is subjective and vague, and useless to the reader. If you replaced controversial with, say, dubious or harmful or clever, then I am sure you would be able to comprehend that it would not and could not reflect a neutral point of view. If you were really desperate to include the word, then it would need to be framed along the lines of "the practice is widely regarded as controversial", which would just be clunky and lame, and is redundant with the text in the lead which describes exactly why it is a problematic thing. Grnwng (talk) 19:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good source which should stay on the page, and it plainly supports the term. DougHill (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It plainly doesn't support the term. No source can, because it is vague and subjective. It is as if you were to write "Berlin is a dirty^[1] city". If you think such a sentence would represent verifiable facts in a neutral way, then you are dangerously clueless about what those terms mean. Grnwng (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No source can I'm afraid that's fundamentally incorrect, and backwards. If it's well-referenced, then it's removal is a POV violation. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"If it's well-referenced, then it's removal is a POV violation" - utter bullshit. You have not got a clue what a neutral point of view is. You are actually arguing that if a biased viewpoint appears in a source, then it would be wrong not to report it as factual. That is absurd.

And, as I have pointed out repeatedly, the MOS says that controversial is "vague and subjective" and should be avoided. But you appear to be completely unable to process that simple and clear guideline. Grnwng (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

if a biased viewpoint appears No one said that but you. It's not being argued, so please drop it.

WP:POV begins All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

WP:WEIGHT begins Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grnwng, The MOS says 'best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject' which appears to the the case here. MrOllie (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean you can present it as if it's factual. Somebody quoted a reference that uses the word "unethical". You think "Multi-level marketing is an unethical marketing strategy" would be acceptable? Obviously, it would not. Grnwng (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grnwng, If 'unethical' were widely used by reliable sources, yes, it would be acceptable. Are you suggesting that NPOV means that nothing can ever be criticized in Wikipedia's voice? - MrOllie (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can hardly believe that's a serious question. Of course that's what I'm saying. That's the definition of a neutral point of view. Nothing can ever be criticised in Wikipedia's voice, because criticism is not neutral. Have you ever actually read WP:NPOV? Grnwng (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing can ever be criticised in Wikipedia's voice, because criticism is not neutral That's simply wrong, and I've already quoted POV and WEIGHT above as to why. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil." You cannot seem to comprehend that "controversial" is not a factual, verifiable word, can you? I have not seen from you even a glimmer of understanding that it is subjective and vague. Grnwng (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You still think it's an opinion and no reference matters? That never flies. I see LABEL thrown around in a lot in cases like this, but even in articles under sanctions it doesn't matter if the sources indicate otherwise. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, it's not an opinion that "controversial" is an opinion; that's a fact. If you really sincerely believe that you can turn an opinion into a fact by finding a source that holds the opinion, then I dread to think what damage you are doing to Wikipedia out of utter ineptitude. Grnwng (talk) 00:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So the answer appears to be that you reject all references on this matter no matter what they say. Let's get you blocked again. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No reference can turn any subjective statement into a verifiable fact. If you think that means I am "rejecting all references", you're an idiot. If you are desperate to include the word "controversial", you can use it, if you present it correctly as an attributed opinion. But you apparently don't understand that. You've tagged the word as inadequate, even while edit-warring to keep it in the first sentence. Your behaviour here is truly ridiculous. Grnwng (talk) 08:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grnwng, The word 'controversial' is not an inherently subjective statement, and is fairly commonly used across wikipedia as a statement of fact. Consider for example History of the race and intelligence controversy, which would not exist if your inflexible interpretation of NPOV were shared by the community. - MrOllie (talk) 13:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the sentence X is a controversial Y, whatever X and Y are, it is subjective. It amazes me that I need to explain this, but here's a patronising example: you could neutrally say that there was a controversy over the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the supreme court. You could not neutrally say that Amy Coney Barrett is a controversial attorney. The fact that the word has been tagged as inadequate by the person edit-warring to keep it in the first sentence should tell you that this is an utterly ridiculous dispute. Stop tying yourselves in knots to defend the absurd; just leave the bloody word out and let's move on. Grnwng (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Grnwng was a cban-evading sock. DMacks (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(This was originally a part of the above discussion --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Frankly, the sources on the page do indeed support a stronger term such as "dubious or harmful". DougHill (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More descriptive wording would be preferred. I was thinking of breaking up the first sentence into at least two parts, which would give us some flexibility on how much detail to add. I don't want to touch the article until we get the edit-warring stopped.

What are some short descriptors that the best sources use? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's MOS (or other general consensus) say about synonyms? They really clutter up that first sentence. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for help at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Best_practice_for_addressing_multiple_article_topic_synonyms. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The edit-warring has been stopped. I've gone ahead and restored "controversial" and tagged it as vague.

I'm also noticing that there's a definite lack of detail in the article about all the controversies surrounding MLM. I've not searched the article history to see if some was removed.

Identifying the highest-quality sources would be helpful. I'd expect academic sources exist, but if we have them they're not the prominent sources that they should be.

The Wharton ref could be used more, though it's a book review of http://www.erikgerman.com/portfolio/my-fathers-dream/ --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From the Skeptic's Dictionary: "intrinsically flawed", "legal pyramid scheme". DougHill (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving us some alternatives to consider.

SkepDic isn't a great source, so I don't think any summaries from it should be presented in Wikipedia's voice without other references.

"Intrinsically flawed" is vague as well.

"Legal pyramid scheme" seems good, though one of the main problems with MLMs is that the line between legal and illegal can be thin and varies. I expect we can find more references along this line.

The SkepDic article has a long list of further reading. Nothing is standing out from it for me, but I've not looked at any of them closely. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/04/multilevel-marketing-yoga-pants-facebook/558296/

  Looks useful. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• https://www.vice.com/en/article/mb9z3x/multi-level-marketing

  It's from Vice, so I'd hope we can find better. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29779808/

  We argue that, while being a controversial business model, MLM is not fraudulent from a legal point of view. However, it is an unethical strategy obviating all the principles of beneficence, nonmaleficence and autonomy. Useful, and the references should be useful as well. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/01/sometimes-life-is-like-a-box-of-cacao-products/

  Might be useful. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the ethics of MLMs need to be expanded upon, and belong in the lede. The pubmed linked ref above seems to be just one of many high-quality articles on the topic. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out above, I think we should break the first sentence apart for a number of reasons.

There's a very helpful response at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Best_practice_for_addressing_multiple_article_topic_synonyms. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP, editors have disagreed with your removal of the word "controversial" as being vague. Please explain why here rather than just reverting. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:WTW. Rather than using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies. The mere word "controversial" is not informative in the slightest. 82.132.214.74 (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is a summary of the article. The relevant information about the controversies are present in the body.--McSly (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should summarise the controversies, and it does summarise the controversies. The mere word controversial is not informative in the slightest, and simple, common sense guidelines exist that say don't use it. And why are you opposed to grammatically correct English and factually accurate statements? Or are you just reverting those changes to try and assert ownership of the article? 82.132.214.74 (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WTW does leave the door open for labeling controversies when reliable sources overwhelming document the controversies as such, and that is definitely the case with this topic. MrOllie (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]