WikiProject Business		BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Business and economics portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Business 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.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's priority scale.

Contents 1 Percent of Marketing Industry 2 Compensation 3 Different meanings UK/USA 4 Redundant categories 5 POV? and a position on the categories argument 6 Companies, Notable or not?? 7 External links, stay or go? 8 Independent Business Owner 9 removed section 10 Father of Network Marketing speaks... 11 Criticism of MLM 12 Semi-protect? 13 XanGo, Noni 14 Questnet 15 MLM and network marketing 16 In Re Amway and price fixing 17 Criticism section of MLM not Balanced by a Proponant section. 18 POV 19 External links 20 New Section moved from top 21 Market Saturation 21.1 Disputed Text 22 mlm-thetruth.com 23 Cults and MLM 24 Cultish behavior 25 Criticism section? 26 Distinguish from network marketing? 27 Another criticism of MLM 28 merge tag 29 Sources for the article 29.1 Books 29.2 Papers 30 Careful with some of these soucres 31 Multitude of self-published source 32 pyramidschemealert.org & mlm-thetruth.com

[edit] Percent of Marketing Industry

I have family member that has currently fallen victim to one of these schemes and is telling me numbers that I believe to be inaccurate, "That there are more millionaires in MLM or Network Marketing than in any other industry in the USA" Can we please put up some actual numbers on the article that are sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.139.85.43 (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Compensation

Unilevel compensation is not the same as Stair-Step Breakaway. I fixed this by removing Unilevel from the Stair-step area and adding a Unilevel explanation. Also, the explanation of stair-step breakaway seems to be related to a particular company, not a true definition of the plan. I will fix this when I get time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.107.32 (talk) 04:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Stairstep breakaway has been fixed to be a more general definition. Djglove (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I added Hybrid compensation plans to the article today. Would it help if I cited particular companies and documents that showed examples of these plans? Djglove (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Do the documents use the same terms? What sources do you have for the terminology?--Insider201283 (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that many company compensation plans use the same terminology. I think that the new Direct Selling Association site may have definitions as well. Perhaps that would be better than "examples from particular companies. Djglove (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the DSA definitions would be better than specific examples. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I found appropriate references for the compensation plan section and cited them. Djglove (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Different meanings UK/USA

MLM in the UK has a completely different meaning; maybe that should be mentioned in the article...

And we should also not forget the situation in other countries like in Asia. Most of Amway's current sales volume comes from Asia. And in 1998 China had banned all MLMs including Amway, although things have changed somewhat since then. See also the Amway page. -- Knverma 23:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Clarification - China did not ban MLM, they banned all direct selling.--Insider201283 00:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Meaning? China banned direct selling but allowed MLM? -- Knverma 00:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a little misleading to say "MLM" was banned when the ban was far more widespread than that, encompassing all direct selling businesses. It implies a specific problem with the MLM model, which it wasn't. --Insider201283 01:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, we can say that all direct selling was banned. Regarding your second line, yes China seems to have a problem particularly with the MLM model. The second China article cited on Amway page specifically mentions about ban on bonus on downline sales volume, although bonus on individual sales was allowed. -- Knverma 01:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that Amway edit needs to be properly sourced to an original news article, but nevertheless the ban was on Direct Selling and the concern I believe was more about large groups of people getting together and perhaps being "educated" in ways the chinese government may not approve of. --Insider201283 01:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Both citations are to newspaper articles, so what is the problem? On the other hand you say "[...] I believe [...]" without citing any sources. -- Knverma 01:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I would also add that the two terms are not interchangeable. Network marketing is about the structure which is created. Multilevel refers to the commissions paid on more than one level in the structure. It is quite normal for a company to have many, many levels in it's network but only to pay the independent contractors/distributors on one level. Therefore I move that we do NOT merge the two categories. (Credentials: full time network marketer for 13 years, and paid multi-level! lol)

Five scholarly paper covering business, medicine, and anthropology all say network marketing is just another name for MLM. In the face of such WP:RS all your supposed "credentials" do is bring up the WP:COI red flag faster than a 30 car pile up at the Indianapolis 500.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant categories

I am removing the most redundant categories:

• Category:Marketing (Category:Multi-level marketing and Category:Direct marketing are already subcategories of Category:Marketing)
• Category:Promotion and marketing communications (Category:Direct marketing is already a subcategory of Category:Promotion and marketing communications)
• Category:Business (Category:Business models is already a subcategory of Category:Business)

See Wikipedia:Categorization#Creating subcategories: “A good general rule is that articles should be placed in the most specific categories they reasonably fit in. For example, Queen Elizabeth should not be listed directly under People, but Queens of England might be a good place for her.” Rafał Pocztarski 08:34, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are misreading the quote. Notice it says categories (plural), not category (singular). In fact if you read the category article it is made clear that articles should be placed in several categories. It goes on to say that the category system is designed not as an hierarchical system but as a matrix system with multiple cross links. You seem to be using a criterion something like "In deciding what category to append to an article we should choose the one and only one best fitting category". That is not how the system is intended to be used. We cannot forget that this is fundamentally a navigational system. It is a mechanism that allows people to find articles and particularly related articles. It is basicly a replacement for the old system of lists such as wikipedia:Business and economics navigation. If your intention is to hide the article, then you would reduce the number of categories that it can be found in to a bare minimum. I suggest to you that a better criterion to use is "If a person browsing a category would find the article relevent to that category, then it should be included in that category". I am going to replace the categories unless you can convince me that someone looking through the marketing category, for example, would NOT find an article on multi-level marketing relevent.mydogategodshat 02:11, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Someone looking through the Marketing category, can already find an entire subcategory of Multi-level marketing so this is hardly hiding anything, contrary to your accusations, and quite frankly I have no idea why would I want to hide that article in the first place. If I was indeed using the criterion of “In deciding what category to append to an article we should choose the one and only one best fitting category” then I wouldn’t have left the Multi-level marketing article in three different categories, namely Category:Multi-level marketing, Category:Direct marketing and Category:Business models, now would I? Please keep in mind that before your recent edit [1] the article was only in one category, the most appropriate one, Category:Multi-level marketing. What we have now (i.e. Category:Multi-level marketing, Category:Direct marketing, Category:Business models, Category:Marketing, Category:Promotion and marketing communications and Category:Business) is I believe exactly the situation described in Wikipedia:Categorization#Creating subcategories, but on a much larger scale. If you don’t agree that having six categories, half of which are subcategoeies of the other half, is too much and having three categories that I left in my edit [2] is enough, then it seems that we might need to request for comment. Please tell me what is your decision. (Please do not change the headers of my comments because doing so breaks the links. I know that the categories are related, I have never said they were not. I only think that half of them are redundant which in fact would be impossible if they were not related.) Rafał Pocztarski 05:09, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Having been awaiting your answer for a week, I am now preserving categories: Multi-level marketing, Direct marketing and Business models, while removing redundant: Marketing, Promotion and marketing communications, Business, for reasons I have explained above. If you disagree with that, please request for comment. Rafał Pocztarski 21:01, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] POV? and a position on the categories argument

"Multi-level marketing (MLM) (also called network marketing (NM)) exhibits a business model which exemplifies direct marketing." (italics added) -- Sounds like POV to me. As far as I can see, multi-level marketing isn't even mentioned on the "direct marketing" page, why not if it exemplifies it. I'm not really sure that it neatly fits into traditional direct marketing.

As for the categories, I tend to agree with the multi-category organization and the point that this is not heirarchal -- DH 2005.04.07

I removed the NPOV tag as from what I read here, none of the complaints about the page are still extant. Grackle 22:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Knverma deletes information and put following on my talk page

I deleted the following material:

• The MLM model does not guarantee the success of any individual involved in this model. The success :will depend primarily on amount of work done by the individual like any other business model and is :not a good model for persons who bare not willing to work hard and expect results.

because it is unsourced, and actually says nothing factual. It is like saying if you don't work then :you won't achieve anything. Such things can be said in any article. If you have any more precise :statements (statistics etc) from some source, it could be added to the article. --Knverma 13:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this within Wikipedia guidelines? 75.73.188.53 02:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Knverma is right - your addition of that text is against wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Even though you've removed the bit about "mediocre persons", it's still inappropriate. Αργυριου (talk) 03:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank You I am sure same guidelines are applicable to all editors equally. Because I noticed a lot of similar statements which now I know should be removed 75.73.188.53 04:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Companies, Notable or not??

I'm removing the "notable" word under Multi-level_marketing#Companies section. Until we encourage more wikipedians to add companies, we cannot grow this topic and be comprehensive. If this list grows too long we can start a "List of Multi-level marketing companies" topic or category. Of course affiliate links and referral codes must be prohibited. If you are adding companies, then keep the list alphabetized and wikify it (i.e., write, [Company Name] ). --Perfecto 01:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm reverting the change to reflect "notable". The point of the article is to provide information about Multi-level marketing not to gather a comprehensive list of MLM companies. According to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia policy specifically states that "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising", "External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic", Wikipedia is not a "mere collection... of external links or Internet directories." Edwardian 23:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

IMHO (1) "notable" is POV, and (2) shouldn't we deny minor companies that have separate articles, say Kleeneze.

Based on the previous reverts I see that companies that have articles (blue links) are somehow generally accepted. Is the following a better guideline then, instead of continual reverts?: Develop an article first on your MLM company, before adding it to this list.

How about prohibiting external links in Multi-level_marketing#Companies altogether, since, as you said, an Internet directory Wikipedia is not. --Perfecto 01:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

You are correct. "Notable" is POV, so I have changed it for the time-being to "well-known". Personally, I think notability is sufficient for inclusion and can be reached by consensus of the average Wiki reader.

Kleeneze is indeed a minor company and not well-known outside of MLM circles nor is it notable other than it has been around for a long time. We could take it to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion if you think it should go.

I think the better guideline is this: Develop articles for MLM companies that are well-known or notable. If they are sufficiently well-known or notable (to an average reader of Wiki), then include them in the list.

Personally, I think the external links should be referenced within the appropriate articles... not here. Edwardian 06:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you re: removing external links in this section. I disagree though with your suggestion that Wikipedia cover only well-known or notable companies. Any well-written article (not a stub) about an MLM company deserves listing here. As I said, the end goal I see is to encourage the list to grow for eventual move to a separate List of Multi-level marketing companies article. I mean a wiki list, not an extern link list. IMHO "well-known" or "notable" restricts Wikipedia's coverage of any industry article.

"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." Why should Wikipedia mention things that are not well-known or notable? Edwardian 20:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

We could have saved ourselves a bit of time. I just noticed that List_of_network_marketing_companies already exists. Edwardian 05:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] External links, stay or go?

Recently, Tregoweth removed the entire External Links section, citing " (cleaning up external links (Wikipedia is not a link repository; linking to totally-pro and totally-con sites not really helpful))." Well, anonymous visitors have been making edits again that are nothing but added HTML links. We got part of this issue cured when we spun off List of network marketing companies. My question is, do we want an External Links section or ban it altogether?

• If it stays, then what's our acceptance criteria?
• If it goes, then how do we encourage these (presumably) siteowners to add NPOV content instead?

--Perfecto 02:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Independent Business Owner

Right now Independent Business Owner is redlinked. Is there an article that explains this term and terms like downline and other Amway type terms? Perhaps it could be called List of Multi-level marketing terms MPS 14:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not think so. WP:Be Bold and do it. --Perfecto  16:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Question: Does "Independent Business Owner" have a unique meaning in MLM? It seems to be a self-explanatory term. tregoweth 16:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Googling Independent Business Owner IBO [3] gets 9 of ten hits that are quixtar related. I will take your advice and start something and see where it goes. MPS 17:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK only A/Q use the acronym "IBO" -- try searching without the acronym. The term really just means that the sales representatives (agents) of a given firm are independent contractors and not employes. AFAIK, all independent contractors (e.g., some plumbers, real estate agents and sculptors) are, for tax purposes of many countries, self-employed business owners. IANAL or an accountant, though. -- Perfecto  02:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Response: What if the requirement is just corporate sites only? Not the Associates/Distributors. Its fairly easy to tell these days if its the main site or not.

[edit] removed section

I removed the section below:

== Online MLM ==

Online MLM businesses have evolved real fast in the past 5 years. To date, there are over 5,000 websites dealing with MLM product and services. The most successful online MLM business so far is Six-Figure Income (SFI), with over 150,000 members. As these businesses are based online, many of them offer little or no real value to the members. Those businesses that offers little value often close down fast, with as much as 50% of those companies closed in less than 1 year. Many people feels the pinch and the loss in their investment with those companies.

As a result, some feel that online MLM websites are mostly fraudulent, which makes online MLM much more difficult to operate.

Some people join online MLM businesses want quick success. This is nothing wrong and there are many tools and businesses that existed to help them. These business are often called "Downline Builder" and some of those websites include Empowerism and Traffic For Less.

This was added by User:219.75.98.205 whose only other contributions were spam links. It doesn't seem to me that it adds much to this article, doesn't cite its sources, and is a thinly-veiled advertisement for the empowerism and trafficforless links. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 02:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the section as written is biased, but is there a place in the article for a scholarly and well-supported discussion of "online MLM"? IOW, maybe we need an online MLM section, just not this one. MPS 14:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Father of Network Marketing speaks...

Self promoting post —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.36.229 (talk • contribs) deleted by USER MPS

Sounds like you are Editing with a conflict of interest This is not the appropriate place to self-promote like this. I suggest you delete this post before someone else deletes it for you. Peace, MPS 03:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Why bother? He hasn't actually made the edit he suggests; and I'd like to keep his earlier post up as rationalization for the merger of Network Marketing into this article. Argyriou 05:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'll delete it myself. Arg, if you are really interested, you can always look in the history Wikipedia talk pages are not the place for experts to claim credit for their theories. If this person wants credit for coining "Network Marketing" as a euphemism for "MLM" hen he had better publish this at a reputable source we can cite. I am not, mad, just trying to hold wikipedia to its WP:NOR standard. MPS 04:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of MLM

An anonIP editor has taken to removing per se, even though Amway had made deceptive and illegal claims from the sentence in the criticism section which reads

• Amway in particular is a frequent target for critics for generating considerable revenues from selling instructional and motivational materials to its participants. The FTC issued a decision, In re. Amway Corp. in 1976, which indicated that multi-level marketing was not illegal per se, even though Amway had made deceptive and illegal claims.

Please don't remove this information again. It is important to state, in a section on criticisms of MLM, that while MLM itself was not ruled illegal, that the biggest MLM company was found guilty of fraudulent behavior. I also reverted the paragraph about some small MLM company going bankrupt, leaving its distributors unpaid. With just the information stated, that's not a problem with MLM - lots of businesses go bankrupt, leaving creditors unpaid. Argyriou 18:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

---

The portion of criticism related to market saturation is simply an opinion. (now removed) There is no evidence suggesting that any product line being sold through Network Marketing has ever reached market saturation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.107.32 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 24 March 2008

I've undone your removal of sourced material. Please don't do it again. Argyriou (talk) 06:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protect?

Should we request semi-protection for this article? Most of the spamlinks being added are added by anonymous users; semi-protection should cut down significantly on the problem. 23 of 24 of the most recent spamlink additions were done by anonIPs. Argyriou (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• That's probably not a bad idea; if some more people agree, I'll be happy to semi-protect it. —tregoweth (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] XanGo, Noni

I'm arguing with several XanGo distributors at that article, and could use some input. For one thing, the MLMers are indignant that they don't get to use the article for marketing, whereas the Tahitian Noni company has taken over the Noni article and no one has complained. If anyone here has the energy to try to NPOV the Noni article, that would be appreciated. Zora 04:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone needs to add Shaklee to the list MLMs. Thanks.

[edit] Questnet

Its surprising to note that there is no article about Questnet, which is one of the worlds fastest growing network marketing companies, and is already world biggest E-commerce business

[edit] MLM and network marketing

Hi Britcom, I don't understand this footnote you inserted. You agree that Quixtar is a MLM? --Knverma 20:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The ref note means that if you get a commission check directly from the company, then you work for a network marketing company, if you get a check from an upline rep, or take your commissions as retail profit from what your customer pays you, then it is some other kind of marketing plan. A company can be both MLM and Network Marketing, or Direct Marketing and Network Marketing, etc. (I can't say what Quixtar is, I haven't seen their biz op. ) In other words if the company rewards you for building a network, then it is "network marketing" whether or not you get multi-generational (downline) bonuses. But if the guy who sponsored you also pays you, then that is pure old fashioned MLM which existed before network marketing. I suppose one could say that network marketing is a better way to do MLM or any other kind of direct selling. --Britcom 22:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Quixtar is the successor to Amway in some countries like US. The latter is of course a typical MLM and is also mentioned by your reference. In particular it has multi-level payments, although the payments come directly from the company (in most countries). This is a bit new, "direct distributors" had more responsibility earlier in Amway for product distribution and probably also payment distribution, but now Amway seems to have even removed the "direct" pin level.

Anyway even the article you cite doesn't talk of the method of payment (from company or from upline) as the difference between MLM and network marketing. The only line I found in the article about the matter is: "Network marketing is quite simply using your relationships to sell a product or service".

Also, how about looking at additional sites besides the one you gave [4] [5]. On what basis did you choose this particular website as the authoritative source? --Knverma 05:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well if there are no MLM levels, then naturally you would have to be paid either by straight commission from the company, or by point of sale retail markup. So in a way, the source does refer to method of payment.

I think the most relevant statement on the sourced site is:

...it can include multi-level marketing...

Therefore network marketing need not include MLM, it can include some other pay plan.

What that means to me is that any business where you market to your warm market and teach others to do the same qualifies as network marketing regardless of if you get any downline bonuses or not. So that means that even a non-MLM one dimensional pay plan that is marketed through your warm market would still be defined as network marketing.

The site used in my source is by Shawn Casey, JD, who is an attorney and author of several books about internet marketing. He is a well known marketing guru. Bio --Britcom 11:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

For the moment it seems all we can say is that some sources call them the same and other sources consider them different.

BTW do you have some particular example in mind, some company which uses network marketing but not MLM style? --Knverma 14:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Three examples come to mind: (1) When PayPal first started they payed $10 for each referral who signed up and paid the new member $10 as well. (2) Cognigen Networks (Long-Distance etc.) used to pay on only one level both commission and rep bonus. Cognigen has since gone MLM at the request of many of their members. (3) Ronco usually offers its customers a free bonus product if they promise tell a friend about the Ronco product they bought.

I would say that in many cases the Terms network marketing and MLM both apply to a particular business, in other cases one may apply but not the other. --Britcom 01:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If you think that network marketing has a distinct identity from MLM, please write an article about it. Really - I'd rather see an article about Network Marketing that isn't MLM propaganda than have a not-well-justified redirect. Go here, and replace the redirect with an actual article which explains Network Marketing, and how it is different from MLM. Please be sure to include sources for your claims. Αργυριου (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Something must be must be missing in the description the situations above with PayPal and Ronco because they both sound very much like forms of pyramiding and according the FTC pyramiding is illegal in most states. On a side note anything on Robert L. Fitzpatrick author of False Profits: Seeking Financial and Spiritual Deliverance in Multi-Level Marketing and Pyramid Schemes that shows he might qualify under WP:RS?--67.16.90.86 (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] In Re Amway and price fixing

12.104.244.6  (talk · contribs) has edited the Criticisms section, saying that a citation for "However, Amway was found guilty of price fixing (by requiring "independent" distributors to sell at the low price) and making exaggerated income claims.[3]" was needed. This is untrue. The case document, which is referenced, clearly state that Amway required distributors to sell at a particular cost, in violation of price-fixing laws. It's in the summary at the top of the opinion, and detailed further down. User:Argyriou (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The reference does not mention that "Amway was found guilty of price fixing requiring distributors to sell at low price" as mentioned in the article. If we want to keep this statement in the article, then we need citation. Else this statement should be deleted. 75.73.188.53 04:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does. I'll reproduce the first paragraph of the reference for your benefit:

"This order, among other things, requires two Michigan corporations engaged in the door-to-door marketing of various household products, and two corporate officers, to cease allocating customers among their distributors; fixing wholesale and retail prices for their products; taking retaliatory action against recalcitrants; and disseminating price-listing data which fail to advise that price adherence is not obligatory. Respondents are additionally prohibited from misrepresenting potential earnings and other relevants to prospective distributors."

The details are in the other 120 pages, but the summary is the source for what is claimed here. (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section of MLM not Balanced by a Proponant section.

In addition I think that there should be more of a historic context entered into this article.

Also I think perhaps the description of MLM should include it's purpose as an advertising and marketing strategy as opposed to just being described as a business model as there may be businesses that use MLM as a means of testing the market or promoting a particular product,service or line of product/service that does not necessarily constitute the majority of that business's inventory, practice or service activities.

In the future I would hope for more facts about MLM origins, and perhaps a section that addresses the concerns of many MLM proponents. e.g. that the MLM industry is targeted and dissected unfairly as it often counters the deliberate corporate pion conditioning prevalent in modern education systems(just one example.) I mean if popular criticisms are covered maybe there should be a section covering the proponent views.

In fact I think an effort should be made to build,or find comparison statistics to chart income levels for MLM workers compared to other industry workers but I suppose that may or may not have a place in a definitive article, unless it sites any statement indicating the income success or failure rate of its investors in comparison to other investments or careers.24.1.103.99 00:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue of balancing "criticism" sections is a thorny issue all over Wikipedia. However, in this case, it's pretty clear that MLM is, in general, a scam, and the criticism section in this see article article is actually rather mild considering the damage that MLM does, and the cult-like brainwashing that appears to be necessary to get new recruits into established MLM schemes.

This article does need more about the origins of the legitimation of pyramid schemes, and does need statistics which show just how bad a deal most MLM actually is for anyone except the scammers who start MLM companies. Argyriou (talk) 02:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree that it is CLEAR that MLM is in general a scam...this is not fact nor an accurate generalization. On what basis do you say MLM damaging, in the realm of advertising promoting and marketing? As a business plan type by comparison to corporate or franchise structures? Or do you mean to the index of personal finance statistics? On any of these basis, I think one would be hard pressed to denigrate MLM in general by comparison mathematically, logically, or even ethically to any corporate, or traditional franchise business model. The start up failure rate of any business is high. The difference between most MLMs I know of and staring up a franchise is that the overhead cost is comparatively ridiculus. As for corporate schemes, The only way to financially profit from a corporation is to work for them as an employee/contractor, or invest in their shares if they are publicly traded. In most cases I'd say that only the second option offers potential to gain any kind of fortune, and often this not much better than gambling since you have almost no say in the operation of the company unless you are a major shareholder. I think it could be lucrative to be an investor but not really to be an employee. As for a traditional franchise or small business I'd rather "fail"(probably because everybody in your social network is an everyman for hisself peon work harder not smarter consumers only here mentality popular cultist and thinks your in a pyramid scheme cult) at an MLM and maybe lose a $40-$500 a year investment than FAIL at one of these. How about going $30,000 into debt because you couldn't turn a profit on a Krispy Kreme franchise you bought (now THATS damage.) traditional business models have absolutely no corner on ethics, financially or otherwise. Many corporations wantonly damage the economy and environment of any community they touch (Wal Mart). "Hollywood" is said to be the greatest polluting industrial base in the world. You mentioned brainwashing, and generating cult-like followings, This is a common practice in all areas of marketing/advertising promotion and industry. Brainwashing with dress codes,keywords, and office politics is the norm. I used to work for G.E.FA periodically we would have training sessions to reinvent our office culture and I just as often could barely contain myself from bursting out in laughter and ridicule at the buzz words they were trying to train us to use. eg one day we were no longer customer service representatives we were now customer DELIVERY representatives. We had to memorize terms like PMCSE Positive Memorable Customer Service Experience! Work for any Six Flags or Disney theme Park and you won't be an employee, you will become a backstage "actor" or "host"!(and you BETTER act like you believe in what your doing) My point is that a cult like presentation or following is hardly an indication that something is a "scam". I think its time to study MLM further if there is to be an entry for it in the wikipedia, without any real study of MLM structures perhaps there is a need for economists who can attest statistics and studies to show wether MLM is damaging to the economy then it should be cited here on the wikipedia. Anything less is POV.24.1.103.99 19:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that has anything good to say about MLM, feel free to use it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

this link explains exactly how MLM sets people up to fail. In a conventional franschising opportunity, new members are granted exclusive territories so that they are able, if they are good salesmen, to develop a large enough market to build a business. In MLM, there is no control over where new businesses with the same products will pop up, and due to the nature of MLM, all dealers have a greater incentive to recruit new dealers than to develop sales prospects for the product.

I've been to MLM recruiting meetings. They are cults. Argyriou (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The wictionary defines cult as follows: Noun Wikipedia has an article on: Cult

Singular cult

Plural cults

cult (plural cults)

1. A group or doctrine with religious, philosophical or cultural identity sometimes viewed as a sect, often existent on the margins of society. 2. Devotion to a saint. 3. A group that exploits members psychologically and/or financially, typically by making members comply with leadership's demands through certain types of psychological manipulation, popularly called mind control, and through the inculcation of deep-seated anxious dependency on the group and its leaders.

the definition that could most widely be applied to MLM would likely be #3. Yet,This definition could also be used to describe any leader based community,office setting,social group,or business organization larger than mom and pop(actually how many mom and pop businesses don't try to use these kind of methods to secure the help of their heirs.) Please find me an advertising firm or product that does not use any of these measures to win consumers. so I will not argue this point it is almost entirely POV based.Yes MLMs, and any rock band,sports team,religious group or goal oriented organization of any kind with leaders for that matter are cults. I think the key word in culture is cult. I do not think it is safe to say that a group status as a "cult" alone has any definitive bearing on the ethic or viability of its products or goals.

I have been a member of an MLM for about a few months prior to my introduction to this MLM I had already attended a few meetings for others and have been approached by various people offering MLM products in my own experience they were invariaby awesome products o services that I simply could not afford to invest in at that time. I have yet to encounter any edict or mind control attempt by any representative or anyone in my upline that is not in keeping with the dynamics of a personal sales pitch or informative company newsletter. In fact if I could I would be more likely the one to use such a method against some of them to get them motivated to operate more consistantly in my favor, but that would be unethical ;). the reality is that most persons in any MLM are likely to be your average joe or jane trying to make a prospective customer or team member. They are likely to be inexperienced, and yes probably a bible thumper from a team of bible thumpers, who may have joined an MLM in hopes of securing an income that doesn't obviously involve selling out to the big bads.(although how anyone can be certain these guys aren't investing in MLMs is anyones guess.) see this article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayer_Amschel_Rothschild_family#Zionism and for good measure watch this video:http://myspacetv.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=2104576 anyway I did check out the link posted by Argyriou:http://www.mlmwatch.org/01General/10lies.html and I look forward to investigating this site and its creators thouroughly but It seems largely POV to me. btw WTH is this? it seems adware-ish to me I got the link from MLMwatch.org: http://web.archive.org/web/20010418184354/www.herbalawsuit.com/

 example of STRONG but POV article bullet points touted as fact/authority:  

"Lie #4: MLM is a new way of life that offers happiness and fulfillment. It provides a way to attain all the good things in life.

Truth: The most prominent motivational themes of the MLM industry, as shown in industry literature and presented at recruitment meetings, constitute the crassest form of materialism. Fortune 100 companies would blush at the excess of promises of wealth, luxury, and personal fulfillment put forth by MLM solicitors. These appeals actually conflicts with most people's true desire for meaningful and fulfilling work at something in which they have special talent or interest."

Total POV and probably inaccurate as an article I googled seems to illustrate unless, as is most likely,most people arent finding traditional jobs that fulfill this "meaningful"(surprised? not really) requirement: http://www.laidoffnowwhat.com/CareerSatisfaction.htm

You know - I could spend some time to bother to refute your childish assertions about the differences between MLM and legitimate coprorate work, but you're just some anonIP, and thus I don't need to take you seriously. Argyriou (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

we don't need to make this a childish argument about you and me Argy, I feel you are definately entitled to your opinion but I just wish people would make more effort to be fair in their judgment and not go off of total POV and tout it as fact or authority. I feel people should avoid allowing their prejudice and conditioned brainwashing responses to try and denegrate the efforts of others. Your argument seems to me to be that I should shut up and be quiet because the critisism was not so bad. I only feel that the Wiki about MLM could use some balanced reporting entry! since there was going to be a criticism section. I've got some decent sources here that say some good things about MLM oppurtunities.

Robert Kiyosaki author of "Rich Dad Poor Dad" is reported to have indicated that he would have joined a MLM business if he had to do it all over again. Here is a follow up interview with the investing guru: http://www.greatestnetworker.com/ArticleView.asp?ID=1531 (obviously he does not imply that all MLM are created equal..which they are not, If anyone intends to be succesful at ANYTHING they should do their "homework".)

Warren Buffet famed stock investment expert now owns three direct selling(read network Marketing) companies and says they're the best investments he's "ever made." http://www.directsellingnews.com/archive/2005Nov/archive1105_headlines.php

David Bach author of "Start Late Finish Rich" indicates that he believes direct selling industry now deserves serious consideration as a way to create a second home based income stream for yourself. ok I found a page full of heavy hitter qoutes including the boss himself Donald Trump: http://www.healthybusiness.ca/quotes.html

It makes since that MLM should eventually outpace big industry m, because instead of one administration making rash decisions and spreading a product or service by heavy investment, You have armies of already mostly loyal customers using word of mouth AND multimedia to spread their own experiences and message, which I firmly believe "peer pressure" is still stronger than any ad.

Just look at the this story taken from an article from the previously cited website posted by Argyriou http://www.mlmwatch.org/13Victims/fox.html a pity though it sounds like they did not take control of their business op, and let themselves be dictated and did not do their own homework. Pressure sales is a feature of all sales related businesses and wherever there is sales there will be pressure salesmen until sales pressure is outlawed! In which case we all might as well go live under Castro's regime(he still alive ain't he?) Myself Pressure is just not my style I have more faith in my product and self than that. Btw if being an anonip is reason enough to discount what I say then why does wikipedia allow anonip entries? (I'm just too lazy to register I will someday trust me. I just don't troll wikipedia spewing toxic POV attitudes all day. With that said I leave It to the good registered Wikipedians to continue this discussion and the development of this Wiki, until someday I am called again to reemerge from the shadows and fly as Anonip anti-critic.24.1.103.99 01:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Robert Kiyosaki got totally trounced by John T. Reed in regards to Kiyosaki's claims. Direct selling does not equate to MLM (true direct selling eliminates the middle man while MLM increase the middle men) so that is a non starter, and I have no idea how Donald Trump even relates to MLM. The Ten Big Lies of Multilevel Marketing page is correct in that MLM by its very nature cannot give what it promises. The door-to-door salesmen of the 1920's and late 1940's through early 1950's largely disappeared for a reason--a brick and mortar store had better profit margins and the coming of malls (1956) and superstores (1980's) made the door-to-door salesman redundant. Also those door-to-door salesmen got their product directly from the manufacturer rathern than some downline. The MLM model as often presented can't work-simple mathematics proves it can't work.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Whilst the article does contain some criticism of MLM, it occurs as an afterthought. The top sections of the article are pure peacockery extolling the virtues of MLM. Mayalld (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a new complaint for this article. The top paragraph contains a jargon-filled, but relatively factual description of MLM; the next section gets right into questions of the legitimacy of MLMs. The next secton is an explanation of some MLM jargon; the next is criticism. I think most MLMs are scams or cults, but I don't see how this article is particularly violating WP:NPOV within the bounds of WP:RS and WP:V. Argyriou (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I edited the mlm page yesterday (12/1/08), completely changing the introductory body text and included 2 external links as they were the source of the information. Both external links were non-commercial and non-company specific websites and whilst the body text has remand unchanged the links have since been removed. Why?

My understanding is that the DSA (direct selling association) is the one of major governing bodies of multilevel marketing and therefore it would be a creditable external link to include for people seeking more information. (http://www.dsa.org)

Additionally network marketing business school is an education site about the industry and the source of most of my information. Additionally it has good information about how to distinguish the difference between mlm and a pyramid scheme, provides a good history of mlm, and goes into more detail of the different compensation plans. It provides a lot more information that could possibly be listed in wikipedia and therefore I would think it would be another link worthy of inclusion. (http://www.network-marketing-business-school.com/network-marketing.html)

I though that wikipedia was about providing quality information. If this is the case why have these links been removed as they add value to the readers? More interesting is that fact that some of the existing external links (ten big lies of mlm and the skepic’s dictionary) claim that all mlm plans are flawed pyramid schemes. Whilst I can understand trying to be unbiased, I think that it doesn’t do wikipedia any favors when you make reference to mlm being a legitimate business model in the text, but then provide links they say it is a scam. To me this would just confuse the readers. Why is it that these links are deemed to be creditable but a link to one of the governing body’s not?

Whilst I agree that it is necessary to warn people looking to get involved with mlm about the dangers of pyramid schemes that present themselves to be a legitimate mlm company, both of the external links I included provide these warnings.

I propose that the links be returned. If you disagree please add to this discussion such I can understand why.

Thank you. Norfolkisland (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Network-marketing-business-school is clearly commercial. I'm not sure about DSA, actually, but it may be commercial. And your changes to the introduction go entirely too far toward the premise that MLMs are legitimate, which has not been proven. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

What about using some obviously impartial websites like the Federal Trade Commission, or The Better Bussiness Buero? It's impossible to give anybody too many ways to continue their research on their own. 67.80.96.206 (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Section moved from top

Editing of the page re: Amway being a Unilevel or Stairstep Breakaway plan

In both the main MLM page and also the page referring to the above topic, I am changing the usage of AMWAY as an example due to the following:

Whoever has used it has cited that AMWAY qualifies in this category because if "a distributor becomes a manager and "breaks away" from his or her original manager...The original manager loses his or her managerial overrides and, instead, receives a percentage override from the sales of the entire breakaway organisation."

This is not entirely true: A platinum (aka direct) IBO/distrubtor, when they attain this level, becomes eligible to recieve a 4% downline bonus on their own downline direct qualified distributors. Their upline direct (or above) distributor still recieves their original 4% of their downline platinums business, as applicable by the AMWAY sales and marketing plan.

For example:

The creation of the new platinum business (B), downline of the original platinum (A) now recieves the 4% leadership bonus of the platinum business (C). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbrb2222 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Market Saturation

I removed paragraph about market saturation in MLM. There is no documentation of this POV on the cited reference. It should be either proven that such saturation exists or not included. Djglove (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The cited reference contains several pages of analysis on that topic, and the end of the reference contains other references that do support the analysis regarding market saturation. DMacks (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Then those sources should be cited. I have never once seen empirical evidence showing proof of market saturation in any MLM product category. In fact, Direct Sales as an industry as steadily grown (nearly doubled in volume in the U.S.) over the last 10 years. This article is obviously slanted towards Anti-MLM and it is only fair that the Anti-MLM side hold to the same standards as positive information being posted. In addition it is downright ridicules to pull a paragraph that is clearly cited (on the FTC site no less), but in disagreement with the anti-slant. Again, there is not one single example of market saturation in the cited reference or in any of the reference that he/she references.Djglove (talk) 03:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

MLM is not the same as Direct Sales, and the sentence is properly sourced by the reference. If you can find reliable sources that market saturation has not occured, you may add that to the paragraph. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No, MLM is a subste of Direct Sales, though I believe these days MLM makes up around 90% of Direct Sales. You need a reliable source that market saturation *has* occurred, not that it hasn't. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

We have a reliable source; it (was) in the article the last time I checked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What's the source? Reality itself proves this "source" is not reliable. The oldest MLM in the world, Amway, continues to have increased sales growth. The links I removed, and which you reverted without comment, despite my explanation as to their removal, also do not even come close to fulfilling WP:RS --Insider201283 (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see now the source is VanDruff, a self-published article on a personal website. Reliable? Are you serious? I suggest you review WP:SPS in particular. --Insider201283 (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It's self-published, but (apparently) by a recognized expert, so it's allowable if it doesn't violate BLP. And, as for Amway, they have not had consistent sales growth, according to generally reliable sources, but they keep expanding their product line, so it may not be a problem for them until the entire MLM market is saturated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but just because you think he's an expert doesn't make it so. I suggest you read Len Clement's anti-mlm zealots series for a good overview of why that paper of VanDruff's is so ridiculously flawed. As for Amway's sales data, I refer you to this graph. The sources for that graph are Amway's published sales data. Seems your "reliable sources" are somewhat less than reliable.--Insider201283 (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The graph is clearly not reliable, coming from another Wiki, but shows a significant reduction in sales from 1996 to 2000. (Inflation-adjusted figures might be more interesting.) marketwaveinc and the author of "anti-mlm zealots" are clearly pro-mlm zealots, so the articles should be discounted. It's possible that, if van Druff's article is objectively false, that might be used to indicate he's not an expert.

Finally, any economist should be able to predict market saturation in the MLM model. Even if van Druff is not an expert, I'm pretty sure I can find a paper by David Friedman on MLM predicting market saturation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

OOPS, but http://www.consumerfraudreporting.org seems an adequate source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh good grief. Market Saturation is an issue in ALL businesses, MLM is nothing special in that regard. consumerfraudreporting.org? C'mon get serious here, please. You can't just keep digging up any old website and claim it as a "reliable source". As for the "graph", the data in it is all from Amway/Alticor press releases. If you want to do your own graph to check it for reliability, feel free. As for VanDruff, he's clearly an anti-mlm zealot, so by your standard his article should clearly be discounted. As for "objectively false", please read the Clement's article and make your own decision on that. Clement's points out where his article is false. VanDruff is making the classic mistake of equating the MLM marketing strategy of recruitment with the Pyramid goal of recruitment. I see from your user page you're likely a mathematician, so I suspect you might be making the same error. To give one example of his *factual* errors, here's this comment of VanDruff - "Imagine buying a product or service in the real world and having to pay overrides and royalties to five or ten unneeded and uninvolved "distributor" layers". He doesn't understand the marketing plan. It's extremely rare for there to be "five or ten" "distribution layers" in MLM. Indeed, the FTC in FTC vs Amway found that more than 90% of the time the number of "layers" was about the same as traditional distribution - 3 or 4. If you understand the marketing plans you will see this is entirely predictable. Analyses like VanDruff's are predicated on a false understanding of the business model. He assumes it works like a pyramid, and then discusses the weakness of pyramids as if they exist with MLM. --Insider201283 (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Grumble. Your claim as to the FTC finding in Amway is objectively false, whether or not it's from the FTC report. As a reluctant participant in two MLMs which don't (or didn't) have non-distributor customer registration, I can assert that we can "see" 13-17 people above me in the chain, although it's unlikely they all get overrides. (I should add that neither has ever had specific bonuses for recruitment, although they both require a certain number of active subdistributors in order to receive overrides on any subdistributors.) I suspect the usual number, in the plan in which we technically have a subdistributor, is 4 regular plus 3 executive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually you're partly right, I checked. The actual figure given by the FTC was 70% are within 3 levels and 99% within 7 levels. So "90%" is somewhere between 3 and 7. It's obviously going to vary depending on company and compensation plan. I would almost guarantee that few of the "13-17 people above" you were getting overrides. Plans generally have limits based on sales volume. In Amway for example, once a group exceeds around $20,000-$25,000/mth in sales, the "multi-level" aspect of the compensation plan effectively stops. It doesn't matter whether this is 1 level or 50 levels. The FTC figure tells you it naturally seems to stabalise and not that different from traditional distribution. This is the part many anti-mlmers like VanDruff and others seem to have missed. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I still see no example of any MLM/Direct Sales product line reaching saturation. (MLM makes up over 90% of Direct Sales volume). You want objective so you rely on Anti-MLM sources, but those sources are as nonobjective as the clearly pro-MLM sources that you suggest are not appropriate for this category. Name one product or product category in MLM that has been saturated (the cited source can't) and I will gladly drop the subject. You can't suggest that saturation occurs with zero evidence and then suggest that I prove it doesn't occur. It's called proving non-existence. It's like asking me to prove that UFO's have not visited the Earth. "One cannot prove something that does not exist. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims." - Jim Walker's "List of common fallacies" Djglove (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's standards are not "can't prove it's wrong so leave it in". This section clearly is not backed by WP:RS sources and should be removed. We'll give Arthur a little longer to see if he can back it up, if not it should be removed. --Insider201283 (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Arthur, do you seriously believe that any website that anyone can publish is a legitimate source under WP:RS and we can use them to put anything in Wikipedia? If anything that "new" source is even poorer than VanDruff. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If I wanted to make a WP:POINT, I'd delete the compensation section, as it's unreferenced. Why don't you work on finding references for YOUR assertions as to compensation schemes, instead of deleting adequately sourced criticisms. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't even started on the rest of the article yet :-), but please, put citation requests in where you believe they are needed. The source you have given does not even come close to WP:RS, please at least explain why you think it does. i've stated it doesn't fit WP:RS as, amongst other things, it's a self-published website, you've given no explanation at all as to why you think it is appropriate. I will take the disputed text, put it here in Talk, and we can debate it here rather than continue an edit war. --Insider201283 (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not quite true. You replaced the unsourced Compensation plans section with another unsourced section. But, that's another matter. (And we're probably both pushing 3RR.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I replaced the unsourced compensation plan area with common knowledge information about MLM compensation plans. I can look at a compensation plan and categorize it by it's characteristics, however finding a source that will meet your approval is another story. I will continue to dig into this. We might want to continue the comp plan discussion in the comp plan section above. Djglove (talk) 01:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed Text

Another criticism is that MLM programs are set up to make most distributors fail, as there is an incentive to continue to recruit distributors even as the products have reached market saturation, thus causing the average earnings per distributor to continue to fall.^[1]

Arthur Rubin claims http://www.consumerfraudreporting.org/MLM_saturation.php is a reliable source. It is an anonymously run website with no apparent authority. WP:SPS says self-published material is acceptable only when produced by an established expert on the topic who has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. The site clearly fails this test as it is anonymously run. --Insider201283 (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I've asked for others feedback on at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Consumerfraudreporting.org --Insider201283 (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think WP:3O would have been better. On the other hand, I disagree that it's anonymously run. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't that site have Google Ads? Wouldn't that make it commercial? None the less, there is no evidence proving the point. No example of a company or product category that reached saturation. I have been called an expert in Network Marketing, I have been quoted in published books on the subject, but my MLMBlog.net site has Google Ads on it so it has been classified as a commercial site.Djglove (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Arthur, I can find no authorship information on the website, that makes it anonymous enough. I can also not find the website cited in any reliable third-party publications. Arthur, I've read your user page and article, you're obviously an intelligent guy, yet seem to strongly believe in this "saturation" issue. Are you willing to entertain the possibility you've misunderstood something with regards to MLM? Legitimate MLMs have the exact same market forces controlling potential product saturation as any other company - the market. Many MLMs go out of business when the market for their products diminishes. Larger companies like Amway do what any other company does, if a product becomes less popular, then they drop it from their line. Heck, at one stage Amway marketed bomb shelters. VanDruff's misunderstanding seems to come from his assumption that products are only marketed through MLM because there is no or little legitimate demand for them, and that demand only arises due to the attached business opportunity. The major flaw in this argument is that if it's true, then virtually by definition it's not a legitimate MLM. Legitimate MLMs have legitimate products with legitimate demand. More than 80% of the revenues of the largest and best known MLM, Amway, come from cosmetics, skincare, and nutrition. These are not exactly unusual products that aren't marketed through traditional channels. MLM has a number of advantages however, particularly with "higher end" products - a person to person workforce who are able to educate the consumer about the benefits of the product. You can't easily do this kind of education through traditional marketing methods. VanDruff seems to be writing from the perspective of considering sham products marketed by sham companies that try to disguise themselves as legitimate MLMs. Funnily enough, even then traditional market forces still apply. If they're not shut down by the courts, they tend to go out of business through lack of further demand. --Insider201283 (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

One other thing I just realized. The claim is "there is an incentive to continue to recruit distributors even as the products have reached market saturation". This is a demonstrably false claim. If products have reached market saturation, then by definition there is no more market for the products. If there is no market for the products then there is no incentive to continue to recruit distributors since in legitimate MLMs money is only made through sale of product to end users. VanDruff seems to be under the (unfortunately all to common) misapprehension that money is made through recruitment. It is not. It's a strategy for increasing sales volume. I repeat, by definition, if the market is saturated then there is no possibility to earn income, and thus there is no incentive to recruit. --Insider201283 (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in many MLMs, A makes more money by his downline selling to end-users, than the "traditional" profit of the difference between retail and wholesale. So, even if the market were saturated, there would be an economic benefit in recruiting. I suppose if the legitimate/traditional profit exceeds the probable override, then there would be no such incentive. I can't put it in the article, but it's obvious that if there's an economic advantage to the recuriter to recruit in a saturated market, then the market will probably saturate. Sort of a reverse tragedy of the commons. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Arthur, if the downline can sell to end-users, then by definition the market isn't saturated. QED. Please, you're obviously smarter than this and are letting preconceptions cloud your thinking. --Insider201283 (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, you didn't read what I wrote. If "A" is a member selling to a consumer "C", he often has an economic benefit (in terms of compensation) by recruiting "B" and asking "B" to sell to "C". ("B" gets the [recommended] profit margin, which may compensate to the point where there isn't a real benefit to "A".) Hence there (may be) a benefit to "A" to recruit people, even if there are no new customers available. I hope, when that is the case, the business becomes legally a "pyramid scheme", but it's not at all obvious. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Arthur, if "A" is selling to "C" and he recruits "B" to sell to "C" instead - "A" makes less money. Making LESS money isn't exactly "an economic benefit" is it? For any given volume, which is the scenario you outlined, the more people you recruit to generate it, the less money you will make. There may be some exceptional situations where this isn't true, but I can't think of any.--Insider201283 (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You apparently haven't read the compensation plans you describe. In the case of -- well, a company which shall remain nameless, which I used to participate in their plan -- the recommended markup was 10%, but, under certain circumstance, you could receive 25% for the sales of your downline, but only 10% for your own personal sales. Hence, if you transfer a customer to your downline, you make a 5% profit. In Cell Tech's 2004 compensation scheme, (a [Stairstep breakaway plan]] with the unique property that the total commission paid to you and your downline on a sale depends only on your commission level), this couldn't happen except in the relatively rare circumstance that your downline sales are inadquate to maintain your commission level. I haven't studied the 2007 commission scheme, since we no longer have a downline. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] mlm-thetruth.com

This site meets WP:ELNO as a link to avoid. Namely, it's a POV site that "misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research". --Insider201283 (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I disagree with you that mlm-thetruth has any misleading statements, I thought I'd remove http://www.directselling411.com/glossary-and-faq/industry-faq/, a page which has clear mistruths. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That is an official site of the body representing the industry. I've read it and cannot see a single mistruth. --Insider201283 (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, the author of the mlm-truth page, who is not the owner of the site, seems to qualify as an expert in economics, so unless you can find a specific untruth, the link should stand. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

How many do you want? Here's a major falsehood that permeates his entire site and misunderstandings of the business, re FTC vs Amway -

The FTC judge dropped the charge that Amway was a pyramid scheme, subject to "retail rules" that specified that (1) 70% of products had to be sold to non-distributors

This is a completely false statement (the rest is as well, but that particular one is rather gregarious). The FTC ruled it wasn't a pyramid scheme because payment wasn't made for recruiting (the sine qua non of an illegal pyramid). Various rules, including the 70% rule, existed before the FTC case and the FTC agreed they prevented potential abuse of the marketing model. Furthermore, the 70% rule does not say what Taylor says it says and never did. In 1976 it said 70% of product purchased must be sold at wholesale (ie to downline) or retail (to an end user) to receive a bonus. The FTC has since explicitly clarified this to state that if the distributor is the legitimate end user, it counts as a retail sale. Amway's 70% rule never said anything about required sales to non-distributors, and neither did the FTC. Taylor and his accomplice FitzPatrick have spread this lie about the 70% rule all over the place. It's a lie - they made it up. You can read more on the myth, including quotes and sources, at MYTH: 70% Retail Sales Rule.Oh, and he's not an economist. He has a PhD in Applied Psychology. --Insider201283 (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The most obvious lie in directselling411.com is that 50% of the people make money. Not even the indiviual MLM knows whether their distributors make money, as informal retail sales have to be considered. Furthermore, the people who don't make money are unlikely to respond to a survey, if survey there was, so the methodology would necessarily be faulty. Credible estimates by reputable economists seem to run 10-20%, although I can't find any online at the moment.— Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a reason you can't find any online. There isn't any credible estimates by reputable economists stating that. I can't find the claim that "50% make money" on the site, but even so it's quite possibly true. The site clearly talks about "direct sellers". As credible researchers know, the majority of people who join MLMs and other direct sales groups do so not as "direct sellers" but purely as shoppers. Certain incredible researchers would have us believe that somewho who signs a form because they want products cheaper, and then gets the products cheaper, should be labelled a "failure". This is an official site, by a government recognised industry representative group, reporting actual statistics. Just because you don't want to believe the truth doesn't make the truth lies.--Insider201283 (talk) 08:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right. http://www.directselling411.com/glossary-and-faq/industry-faq/ doesn't say that half of mlm people make money. In fact, it only has two questions related to MLM at all, one of which is "What is the difference between direct selling and multilevel marketing?". The statement that over half of direct sellers make (net) money is also unsupported by any possible study, but it's also not related to this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If you actually bothered to read what is on the sites instead of ignoring anything contrary to your world view, you'd note that 97.9% of Direct Sellers are involved in Multi-level Compensation structures. You're a mathematician - do the math.--Insider201283 (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we can assume that that survey only covers DSA members. But, even if those numbers were (generally considered) accurate, combining it with the relevant data from http://www.directselling411.com to get something relevant to this article would be WP:SYN.

Sure, but is that happening? It was simply listed in external links and you claimed it wasn't valid and removed it. It's clearly a valid site under WP:EL --Insider201283 (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I claimed it wasn't valid, but, after reading the discussion above, the truth is that it's clearly not relevant, and nothing from that page could be included in the article because its relevance depends on facts (assertions, anyway) on other sites. I still think the statement I quoted is a lie, but it's not a lie about MLM. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

So, the DSA represents the Direct Selling industry. MLM is a subset of Direct Selling, so this is the industry representative body, and further more, the Direct Selling industry is 97.9% MLM. And the site is not relevant and not talking about MLM? You might be a mathematician, but your logic skills seem somewhat lacking. --Insider201283 (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

mlm-thetruth is a site that should be avoided. Any site that is takes an extremist stance, in favor, or against mlm should be avoided because you won't get a fair and balanced opinion. For example, they state that you are more likely to be profitable with roulette than in mlm. What they don't say is that the same stat is true for starting your own business. They also don't say that more people have become millionaires from mlm than playing roulette, and that's not even debatable. if the site was credible, it would also point out those things. ::::: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluediamond77 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I can see your point. However, eliminating extremist sites would leave us with hardly anything to say. (It's probably not true that more people have become millionaires from MLM than from roulette, if you exclude the founders of MLM companies. However, the number of people who have become millionaires from roulette is particularly hard to quantify, so it probably shouldn't be said. The chances of winning at roulette can be determined mathematically, so that comparison could stand.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The author of mlm-thetruth has been cited in several peer-reviewed papers. This firmly establishes him as an expert in the field and allowable under the self-published guidelines of WP:RS. Deal with it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cults and MLM

Does anyone have any citation for this statement? I might be willing to concede using "Some MLM programs..." (even that is a stretch) but I don't see any evidence that "Many MLM programs feature intense motivational programs, which can be hard to distinguish from cult propaganda."...at least no more so than corporate motivational programs. Microsoft, Apple, etc. Input? Djglove (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think, for any given major MLM, we can find a generally reliable source that THEY use an "intense motivational program", etc. That doesn't support the statement as written, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I am going to change the statement to "some" and investigate this further. Djglove (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

After reading the citation for the following statement, I think that some liberty has been taken..."Some of the "Independent Business Organizations" within Amway have been accused of operating as cults." Recommend taking directly from the article stating: "So-called corporate cults are businesses whose techniques to gain employee commitment and loyalty are in some ways similar to those used by traditional cults." Djglove (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cultish behavior

Accusations do not count as legitimate non biased information. End the generalization to end the confusion as to whom, what and where these cultish behaviors have been observed. Otherwise, my first impression is that associate motivational training to teach them how to be effective sales people must be wrong and if it's wrong, then it's wrong for traditional conventional corporate businesses, too. Thus, loyalty to a brand and truly believing in it must be cultish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.247.50 (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Although I agree that some MLMs (including those I've been involved in) have exhibited cultish behavior, we need a reliable source to that effect. On the other hand, accusations can be reliable sources, if the person in question is considered an expert in the field. On the gripping hand, I cannot distinguish motivational training from traditional brainwashing techniques, so if we can find a reliable source for that, it should be in the articles discussing that, as well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

An expert on what however? For example, can a supposed expert on cults be considered a reliable source for a groups behaviour if they've never researched the group themselves? That doesn't seem at all a "reliable source" to me --Insider201283 (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree that that source is not reliable, as there's no sign of whether the author is an expert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

On the Quixtar or Amway article I had no luck dealing with an admin regarding the RS standard of three different supposed "cult experts" websites. Next to nobody in academia talks two of them even remotely seriously, and the third is definitely on the fringe. None of them have done *any* research into Quixtar or Amway at all. On the other hand, an author with a PhD in pyschology who spent 5 years research Amway directly, including attending meetings and interviewing folk - well, his opinion on the "cult" matter was dismissed because he's not considered an expert on cults! I don't care if you're the world's foremost expert on flying - if you've never done research into possums then you're not in a position to state whether they can fly or not (some can by the way, or an approximation of it). If you were a flying hobbist that was good at self promotion, then there's no way your opinions would be given weight on wikipedia. With "cults" however, that doesn't appear to apply. --Insider201283 (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's possible to provide an expert opinion that Scientology is a cult without attending meetings. In fact, it would be dangerous for a cult expert (or anyone potentially writing anything critical of Scientology) to attend Scientology meetings.... Study does not necessarily require attending meetings. Still, writing an expert opinion requires study of some sort. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Attending meetings would only be one aspect of studying this type of phenomenon (i'm a former social psychologist and researcher). Neither Rick Ross (confirmed through personal communication) and Steve Hassan (from my reading of his work) have done little more than read internet reports and speak to a handful of folk - an extremely biased (I use the term statistically), self-selected sample. From my own analysis virtually all of this sample comes from one Amway sub-group and it's affiliates, with this group representing at the most 10 percent of Amway North America, and significantly less of Amway worldwide. While trying to discuss this via email with Rick Ross his response was to became abusive and brush me off as brainwashed. And this passes for "expert opinion" on wikipedia? It's not just the A/Q articles either. It appears that these "cult experts" , who are primarily self-published and self-promoting, and other "anti-cult websites", have quite a deal of credibility within the wikipedia editorial community for reasons that appear to be little more than a manifestation of confirmation bias.--Insider201283 (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that Wikipedia, in general, is opposed to cults. Just look at Quackwatch (unless you wish to claim that they're a cult), with the fourth-party criticisms included. Now, possibly Wikipedia is biased against MLM organizations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch I find to be much like Wikipedia - a generally good resource that can be way off base on certain topics, due to evident bias. I don't think Wikipedia is monolithic enough to say it's "against" cults (whatever that means - I'm an atheist, so I guess I'm "against" cults), but it's apparent to me that some sources more easily get granted WP:RS status than others. I'm sure that "cults" isn't the only topic this happens in. Similarly with MLM, and the bias exists not only in the wikipedia editorial community, but in the internet as a whole and mainstream media as well. I'm close to concluding that the reason for this is that the majority of enterprises that call themselves MLM are actually illegal pyramids and similar illegal schemes. They try to disguise themselves as MLMs when in fact they are not. While technically non sequitur it's not suprising that the understanding of what an MLM is suffers. On a regular basis I deal with people who make claims about Amway and other MLMs that simply are not true. The claims are however true for the many illegal schemes that falsely claim to be MLMs. There are entire sites (eg mlm-thetruth and pyramidschemealert) that rail against the evils of MLM, when much, perhaps even most, of what they talk about simply doesn't apply to MLM at all - it applies to the scams trying to hide under the legitimacy of MLM. The MLM industries poor job of educating opinion leaders (eg wikipedia/dmoz/wordpress admins on the internet) has simply amplified this problem. --Insider201283 (talk) 11:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section?

I wonder if Criticism is an accurate title for the section as it doesn't contain criticism so much as various lawsuits. Especially when MLM has often been accused (this is my experience) of being a scam and having high drop out rates and low percentages of people turning profits. There are other criticisms I have heard too such as emphasis on recruiting far more than selling in many companies etc. and as mentioned here on the discussion page, cultish tendancies. Since there are so many criticisms of MLM, it is odd to see a criticism section that only contains a couple of lawsuits. Slumdogdiggity (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Distinguish from network marketing?

Perhaps there is a difference, but is there an example of a company using network marketing which does not use multi-level marketing. I think if you can actually find something to say about network marketing which is not about multi-level marketing, you should start there before making edits to this article.

It should also be noted that you're damaging the category tags, even if your edit was otherwise correct (which I don't think it is.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The definition I wrote is not incorrect. And it is more correct than the version you keep reverting back to. Please see the FTC documents referenced in the article itself. Multi-level marketing is not multi-level marketing without its unique compensation structure. In addition a company can utilize a network marketing strategy (i.e. be a network marketing company) and not be a multi-level marketing company. (And yes, I could provide examples of such companies. Is it really that hard to believe that a company could exist and rely on word of mouth marketing through the personal networks of its distributors and compensate them only for the sales they make and NOT from the sales of people they recruit?) That is the difference.

In addition to this and in reference to your revert of the article content I created for network marketing, I hardly consider two "yes's" (one of which claims pyramid schemes are the same as MLM) with nearly zero discussion a "consensus." For an actual discussion I turn your attention to this very talk page (Talk:Multi-level_marketing#MLM and network marketing).

Just as there is a difference between an illegal pyramid scheme and a multi-level marketing structure, there is a difference between multi-level marketing and network marketing. MLMs are generally legal as long as individuals are not compensated for enrolling others in the structure. This is why they are differentiated from illegal pyramid schemes. A network marketing company is only a multi-level marketing company if marketers are compensated for the sales of other marketers they recruit...thus creating uplines and downlines and multiple levels of marketers. If independent distributors (i.e. marketers) are compensated on their own sales efforts and/or cannot be compensated by sales of a continuous downline of other marketers, the company is not multi-level. This does not mean it cannot be using a network marketing strategy.

I am surprised to see an administrator continue to revert edits that have been made in good faith and that improve the encyclopedia instead of opening a dialogue and/or making his own edits. Even if there were acts of vandalism a revert should not be performed if other useful edits were made. It is not difficult to simply make specific changes without affecting the entire article. In this particular case there was not even vandalism...there is simply a disagreement of wording. Not only is that alone not enough to warrant multiple reverts, there is simply no reason to remove the internal links and citation references I included with my change.

Again, there has been much more discussion on this topic than the two "yes's" to the merge proposal you referenced, and from that discussion a separate article was requested. In addition, even if this were not the case, there is a distinct difference between the terms and they warrant their own articles. I will recreate the content for Network marketing and include a proposed merge tag. I hope you will continue this discussion but also respect the edits, which do improve the encyclopedia. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 01:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it MLM should be distinguished from network marketing. Fixing the latter article to include something not about MLM, which has not yet been done, is the first step. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is there's no real consensus on this in the "real world". There's sources that say they're the same, others that say they're different. There's a similar debate going on in the swedish wikipedia.I it's been common usage amongst some to call MLM "pyramid selling" (in swedish of course). Indeed I believe in the UK that the original law that made MLM legal actually referred to it as "pyramid selling". The problem is that other countries had MLM and "Pyramid Selling" meaning different things, with the later illegal (basically a pyramid scam with a bogus product). So folk who've called MLM "pyramid selling" (quite a few wikieditors there!) are determined that the MLM related article should say they're pyramid selling companies. The problem is, various EU commission documents and directives say "pyramid selling" is illegal throughout the EU. This means the Wikipedia articles are effectively calling the companies illegal. To confuse it, the EU docs never really seem to define what it is.

Confusing it even further is when you have companies like Melaleuca, which clearly uses a multi-level compensation plan, going out of there way to say they don't do MLM. I think what they're trying to do is distance themselves from the many many clear pyramid scams that call themselves MLMs in order to try and look legitimate. Indeed, I suspect it may be possible that the majority of companies that call themselves MLM are actually illegal pyramids. I think this utter confusion even spreads to what would otherwise be considered reliable sources.

Which all in all means this article is going to be a pain in the a** to get even close to consensus.

--Insider201283 (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Did anyone actually read the FTC sources. They distinguish MLM from pyramid schemes (and, to some extent, Ponzi schemes), but do not mention network marketing at all. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I read them and found them useless in this regard and so found FIVE scholarly papers (Pratt, Michael G.; Rosa, José Antonio (2003), Vander Nat, Peter J.; Keep, William W. (2002), Merrilees, Bill; Miller, Dale (1999), Cahn, Peter S. (2006)) across three different fields (including business) saying that network marketing is just another name for MLM. That should slam the door on those who keep claiming they are different things.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Another criticism of MLM

SOme editor tried to remove this under NPOV and RS ground:

Another criticism of MLMs is that the odds of breaking even or even making money are far worse (less than 1%) than other types of businesses.(Taylor, Jon M. (2002). "Comparing Recruiting MLM’s with No-product Pyramid Schemes, and with Gambling". Consumers Awareness Institute. http://www.mlm-thetruth.com/ShockingMLMstats.htm. Retrieved 2009-06-25. )(FitzPatrick, Robert L. (August 4, 2002). "The 10 Big Lies of Multi-Level Marketing". Consumers Awareness Institute. http://www.mlmwatch.org/01General/10lies.html. Retrieved 2009-06-25. ) "The vast majority of MLM’s are recruiting MLM’s, in which participants must recruit aggressively to profit. Based on available data from the companies themselves, the loss rate for recruiting MLM’s is approximately 99.9%; i.e., 99.9% of participants lose money after subtracting all expenses, including purchases from the company."(Taylor, Jon M. (2002). "Comparing Recruiting MLM’s with No-product Pyramid Schemes, and with Gambling". Consumers Awareness Institute. http://www.mlm-thetruth.com/ShockingMLMstats.htm. Retrieved 2009-06-25. )

Several things.

1) This is in the CRITICISM section and is there for covered under NPOV.

2) Jon M. Taylor has an MBA as well as a PHD. This makes him as an expert and therefore a RS.

Ergo NO LEGITIMATE grounds for removal of this material.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Taylor's website is a self-published POV work. Having an MBA and PHD (in psychology) does not automatically make you an expert in every possible topic. While he likes to claim he's been "recognized as a court expert", he fails to mention that many courts have also refused him as an expert. Please review Len Clement's Anti-MLM Zealots article for a review of just some of the problems. --Insider201283 (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Same goes for FitzPatrick btw. --Insider201283 (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Jon Taylor is used as a reference in Wong, Michelle. A. (2002) "China's Direct Marketing Ban: A Case Study of China's Response to Capital-Based Social Networks" Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal regarding MLMs.

Robert L FitzPatrick is used as a reference in Koehn, Daryl (2001) "Ethical Issues Connected with Multi-Level Marketing Schemes" Journal of Business Ethics 29:153-160. The actual book False Profits was used as a reference by Walter J. Carl, Phd in his "Organizational Legitimacy As Discursive Accomplishment in Multilevel Marketing Discourse" paper at the Organizational Communication Division of the National Communications Association conference Nov 21-24, 2002.

Being used in peer-reviewed journals fits the "established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" requirement about using self-published material. Never mind being used as a reference in a presentation paper.

Leonard W. Clements of Marketwave by contrast appears to have COI problems and there is nothing about how reliable his publication is. You can't use a questionable source to justify the removable of people whose work has been used as references in peer-reviewed journals

I'm going to go and find more Journal references using FitzPatrick and Taylor and put them in when I restore my edit (I'm at four right now so the two above are not the only support I have found.)--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Woker, TA (2003) "If It Sounds Too Good to Be True It Probably Is: Pyramid Schemes and Other Related Frauds" and Carl, Walter J. (2004) "The Interactional Business of Doing Business: Managing Legitimacy and Co-constructing Entrepreneurial Identities in E-Commerce Multilevel Marketing Discourse" Western Journal of Communication, Vol. 68. Two more uses of FitzPatrick. Doesn't look like you have any ground to stand on and I have just started and I am going to post EVERY reference I find here.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Terry Sandbek, Ph.D. Brain Typing: The Pseudoscience of Cold Reading American Board of Sport Psychology uses both Taylor and FitzPatrick under the section regarding MLMs.

Cruz, Joan Paola; Camilo Olaya (2008) "A System Dynamics Model for Studying the Structure of Network Marketing Organizations" uses Taylor as a reference four times and one of those times is to validate this statement: "It is considered that 99% of NMOs’ distributors lose profits because the costs associated with building the business exceed the returns."--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I applaud your efforts in finding suitable sources to back Taylor's credibility as a reliable source...However, my concern with the Taylor source referenced in the article is the actual nature of the content itself.

While Taylor may have been referenced in other third party publications, when looking at the site in question (the one cited in the article) I did not see any mention of any place in which that information was published. In addition, there are no real raw data given and even if there were, again, this is the work of an individual who may or may not have a bias and which is not mentioned to be published or reviewed in any fashion. On top of this, only final numbers are presented. Nowhere is there any mention or description of the data gathered or how they were analyzed or interpreted to come to those conclusions.

There are only two things included that even come close to this. One is the mention that "Gambling statistics were obtained from Caesar’s Palace in Las Vegas, April 6, 2001." Again, we just have to take his word for that...but even if that is true a) there is no proof offered to support it and b) it has no real bearing on the information being referenced in our article here. The other is:

The estimates are based on our careful analysis of reports published by the MLM companies themselves. These extraordinary loss rates were derived by removing three sources of deception from the reporting of these MLM’s:

(1) the practice of not counting ALL who signed on as distributors (agents, consultants, etc.) in the population of recruits who attempted to make the program work for them, but instead counting only those still “active;” i.e., deleting all dropouts in the calculation,

(2) not subtracting expenses, especially products and services purchases from the company to "do the business," and

(3) assuming legitimate sales of products (to customers not in the network) that did not occur.

So, here Taylor claims to be gathering data "published by the companies themselves" but offers no other information as to where they were published, where one might find them, or even what those data are. He goes on to say that the numbers he arrived at were reached by "removing three sources of 'deception'." From the list of what those sources are he implies that he was able to 1) obtain the exact number of all who signed on as distributors (despite the fact that this information was left out of the published sources he claims to have used), 2) obtain the exact amount of expenses accrued by every one of these distributors as a result of "doing the business", and 3) derive exactly how many reported sales were not actually sales (i.e. they did not occur).

How any single person (or organization for that matter) could obtain information like that is a mystery to me. Short of every single distributor who signed up keeping a detailed log of business expenses and then Taylor obtaining such data or interviewing each person, there is no possible way to know how much any one person spent to "do the business". Not only does he not mention how he got such information, he neglects to even give a hint as to what that information is.

And finally, this of course all assumes any analysis was done in the first place. Again, no proof has been offered for this.

Do any of the sources you provided detail (or at least reference) the actual data from the web page in question? --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 11:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Bruce, given you have access to and have apparently read all of these journal articles, it is quite obvious that THEY should be being used as sources, and not a personal website. Wikipedia policy is clear that SPS like websites should be avoided if possible. Given Taylor and FitzPatrick have easily provably false misinformation on their wesites (eg "70% retail sales rule") they obviously are not reliable sources and have some issues. Use the better sources and avoid self-published personal websites, particularly on a topic that can be controversial. --Insider201283 (talk) 11:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW Bruce, I'm not suggesting Len Clement's website should be used as a source for this article. As far as I'm concerned it shouldn't be. Just like FitzPatrick and Taylor, while he has been cited in numerous books and articles he has an obvious POV. None of these websites should be used as sources, whether pro or con. As you have shown, there are plenty of 3rd party published sources available that can be used - I can supply a bunch more too. So how about we agree not to use self-published websites, whether pro or anti-MLM. --Insider201283 (talk) 11:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I neglected to mention earlier that it would appear that the original argument was that this man and his personal website qualify as reliable sources simply because he has some letters that follow his name, and that the information provided does not need to be neutral because it is provided in a "criticism section." This is not so.

A criticism section is meant to provide information on the criticisms raised by others...not present them as facts or to allow for non-NPOV content. A NPOV can be maintained throughout a criticism section. An encyclopedia is supposed to deliver information about subjects. If a certain subject garners criticism in the outside world the encyclopedia can provide a documentation of such criticism from a neutral point of view. It is in this context that such unreliable sources can be used (i.e. when speaking about those individuals or opinions). In other words, one might be able to use the sources in question as examples of individuals who have criticized, but not necessarily as legitimate criticism of the subject of the article. WP:RS, WP:PSCI and WP:V all touch on this.

However, WP:SPS is quite clear in this situation. The information provided and presented in the way it was in this article goes against official English Wikipedia policy. The source is not only self-published, it is shoddily presented and offers no real credence to itself while treading in the realm of fringe theory...not necessarily there, but along those lines. This, plus the "statistics" it provides offer nothing to the use of any formal scientific method or verifiability.

I will attempt to rework that section of the article so as to keep some of the information in it, but even then the community may very well reach a consensus that Taylor (or FitzPatrick) or any of their criticisms are widely-enough held to garner a mention in our encyclopedia. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding WP:Rs#Extremist and fringe sources, WP:PSCI, WP:Verifiability#Questionable sources are actually saying. You seem to saying that if a peer review journal uses Fitzpatrick or Taylor thent he statement is usable but if we present the very same information on it own it somehow magically becomes a unreliable source; TELL ME HOW THIS MAKES A LICK OF SENSE! If Fitzpatrick or Taylor are unreliable on their own then they certainly don't magically become readability if they are used to support an argument (as Cruez does) in a peer reviewed report and conversely if they are reliable enough to be used as supporting evidence in a peer reviewed article then they must be reliable on their own or they wouldn't have been allowed in the peer reviewed article reference for a claim in the first place.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, the Cruez article is not peer-reviewed. It's a conference paper, these are usually not peer-reviewed before presentation. Indeed, I find it extremely unlikely that any reputable journal would publish an article using a guys website as a citation.--Insider201283 (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Clearly you didn't bother reading up on the requirements of System Dynamics conference papers (something I did). The requirements for the 2007 conference papers were as follows: "Papers may be submitted from January 2, 2007 to March 26, 2007 and must be in sufficient detail for the referees to judge their meaning and value. Submissions must be in English and should be 5 - 30 pages in length (there is also a maximum 2 MB electronic file size). Abstracts will not be accepted. Submission of models and other supporting materials to enable replication and aid the review process is encouraged in all cases (maximum file size 2 MB in addition to the paper). [...] All works submitted will be assigned for double blind peer review. The results, with the oversight of the program chairs, will determine whether a work will be accepted, and the presentation format for the work." Other than the dates the 2009 requirements are the same. So contrary to what you claim the Cruz paper WAS peer reviewed unless you can find proof 2008 was handled differently.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Mea culpa - but to be honest that's frankly quite shocking. I spent a decade in academia, including submitted to peer-reviewed journals and evaluating way too many other papers, and that's really quite sad. As JohnDoe0007 pointed out, Taylor's "research" is virtually non-existent. For someone to cite it, based only on a webpage, and have that accepted in peer review? A tragic example of poor standards. --Insider201283 (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

What's perhaps even MORE shocking is that one of the cits is Taylor's "5 Red Flags" paper, supposedly presented at a 2002 Economic Crime Summit Conference. We might make that 6 red flags though, as a google can find no references to this summit except with regards Jon Taylor. Must have been a major conference indeed! :) I have a sneaking suspicion our friend Cruez may not have viewed the actual conference proceedings ... --Insider201283 (talk) 20:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Several things here. First Google searches: 1) They only lists things for which there is an internet presence and not everything even as recent as 2002 and 2004 is accessible on line. 2) Google searches use text so if the information is in a format like a pdf composed of photoscans, or archived away in some compressed format (like .zip) Google will not directly see it. 3) Many times Google searches will display the most recent version of a page so if the page is updated then odds are Google will find that version and NOT the one for several years ago. 4) poorly designed or limited access sites that can restrict what Google can find.

Unfortunately the Economic Crime Summit site is not a very Google or even Internet Archive friendly site. It is very graphics heavy providing Google with little to nothing to look for and many missing pages when you Internet Archive archive it. So while you can bring up the 2002 Economic Crime Summit Conference the overview link that would tell you who presented what doesn't work. The 2004 Economic Crime Summit Conference archive (remember that other versions say either 2002 and 2004 or 2004 Economic Crime Summit Conference for Taylor's report) is even worse as that was in three places and none of the archived links tells you anything aobut the papers presented.

However, what Internet archive has of the 2002 Economic Crime Summit Conference DOES show how limited Google is. "Impact of Advances in Computer Technology in Evidence Processing" and ""Impact of Advances in Computer Technology in Evidence Processing" were two programs for the Wednesday, May 8 2002 Economic Crime Summit Agenda. Google cannot find them! I will repeat that; Google cannot find two programs we know were part of the 2002 Economic Crime Summit Conference. Google can't find two entire programs and you are making big deal about it being unable to find a single presentation paper?!? You have any idea how insane this sounds?!?

Second if you had actually bothered to READ Cruz's paper you would have known the references were Taylor, J. (2002) "Five causal and defining characteristics of product-based pyramid schemes or recruiting MLM’s". Economic Crime Summit Conference 2002. Revised March 2006 and Taylor, J. (2004). "Who profits from multi-level marketing (MLM?" Consumer Awareness Institute and known problems Google has finding them. If you look for Cruz "Five causal and defining characteristics of product-based pyramid schemes or recruiting MLM’s"using a general Google search Google will say it cannot be found but if you use Google scholar Google will find it. So you can see even if you have the exact term different parts of Goggle don't find the same things. So you statement about what your search produced is useless because there are limitation to what Google can find.

Third, go to the the FTC's web site. Bring up # 178 FTC Matter No.: R511993 16 CFR Part 437 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Business Opportunity Rule. Go to 522418-13115 of Jon Taylor's many documents. Click and read. I would say consideration by the Federal Trade Commission in it's rebuttal process should be enough.

Finally, regardless of what YOU or JohnDoe0007 think or feel Wikipedia relies on what can be proven and it has been proven to any reasonable extent that Taylor's statements were good enough to be used in a peer review paper and put on a government web site and as such are good enough to be used per Wikipedia:PRIMARY. Deal with it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Bruce, as I stated, the FTC published EVERY comment, and rebuttal, that was submitted. If I'd submitted one, it would have been published. You'd note that Len Clements is also on that list, and as noted is also referred to in 3rd party sources. He's pro-MLM and I don't think his website should be used as a source either - and as far as I know there's no clear factual errors on his site like there is with Taylor. If Taylor is used then Clements should be used. I assume you concur?

Again though, as I said - the fact we're having this discussion is indication that Taylor is a controversial source. Self-published sources like websites should be avoided. There is no need to use Taylor's (or Clements) website as a source as you've made abundantly clear, there are plenty of higher quality sources.--Insider201283 (talk) 07:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Several things. First, Taylor states the original paper was a white paper ie an authoritative report while Clements makes no so such claim about his "Anti-MLM Zealots" paper. Furthermore if Taylor had not given his white paper either the 2002 or 2004 Economic Crime Summit Conference don't you think Clements would have pounced on this fact? But Clements carefully avoids this issue as well as the fact Taylor's white paper report has been used as a reference in peer reviewed journals including the 99% of people lose money statement.

Second, Taylor gave a rebuttal to Clements statements in Stock price plummets as the news gets out. Weak defense by Len Clements debugged and points out several of the same things I do: Clements has COI problems out the wazoo and that some of Clements' statements are very questionable (taking Kohm's statements out of context really hurts Clements' credibility especially with the COI issues). Oh the fun with Usana isn't over: Man accuses Usana of operating as pyramid scheme.

Third, Taylor's statements have used to back up claims in peer reviewed papers in the area of MLM like Cruz and Woker and even in fields outside the area as demonstrated by Sandbek. McGeorge Law Review presents itself as a "student-run, scholarly journal" and they have this little gem: Pareja, Sergio, (2008) "Sales Gone Wild: Will the FTC's Business Opportunity Rule Put an End to Pyramid Marketing Schemes?" McGeorge Law Review, Vol. 39, No. 83. Google scholar even brought up a Korean paper Sam-Hyun Chun, (2008) 방문ㆍ다단계판매의 판단기준에 관한 비교법적 고찰 "A Comparative Legal Review on Definition of Door-To-Door Sales and multilevel marketing" but since I can't read Korean I have no idea on how Taylor is used in it but from the English abstract ("MLM program is a highly leveraged product-based pyramid scheme in concept, structure, and effects.") I suspect it was as a reference against MLMs.

Finally, what scholarly much less peer reviewed stuff does Clements' statements appear in? So far that we have seen NONE. Again, Clements has not referencef in scholarly much less peer reviewed material while Taylor is so there is no real reason to keep Taylor out.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

<---Ok, let me get this right. One of the reasons Taylor's website is a good source is because he calls one of his writings a whitepaper. Another reason is because, along with every other person who commented, his comments about a proposed business opportunity rule were published on ftc.gov. A third reason is because he's cited in a self-decribed opinion piece in a student run journal - an opinion piece that declares a number of companies to be illegal pyramids, despite the fact they have been legally investigated (in the case of Amway, for years) and found not to be. Ouch, reality hurts. Yeah, some strong reasoning there Bruce. On the other hand, the reason why you want to use Taylor's website as a source and not one of the many actual peer-reviewed papers, or even the FTC itself, is because .... because .... nope, you still haven't answered that question.--Insider201283 (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No you did NOT get it right, not even close. Taylor is valid mainly because he was used as evidence in peer-reviewed papers one of which you tried to say wasn't peer review. The white paper and FTC stuff is just icing on the cake. You are blowing smoke. Either find a peer-reviewed article that Clements is worth beans or give it up.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(remove indent) While I have not had time to read these a quick search produced some references that should be usable and give this article its badly need reference material (if I found an actual online version I have provided a link):

Herbig, Paul 1997,; Rama Yelkurm "A Review of the Multilevel Marketing Phenomenon" Journal of Marketing Channels, 1540-7039, 6:1 Pgs 17–33

Nat, PJ Vander ; WW Keep (2002) - "Marketing fraud: An approach for differentiating multilevel marketing from pyramid schemes" Journal of Public Policy & Marketing pg 139-151

Cahn, PS (2008) "CONSUMING CLASS: Multilevel Marketers in Neoliberal Mexico" Cultural Anthropology, 23:3, Pages 429-452 (This I have read an even though I am an anthropologist I'm not sure of his point in it.)

Muncy, JA (2004) "Ethical Issues in Multilevel Marketing: Is it a Legitimate Business OR Just Another Pyramid Scheme?" Marketing Education Review

Sparks, John R. (2001) and Joseph A. Schenk "Explaining the Effects of Transformational Leadership: An Investigation of the Effects of Higher-Order Motives in Multilevel Marketing Organizations" Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22:8 pp. 849-869

Micklitz, HW; B Monazzahian, C RÖßLER (1999) "Door-to-door selling—pyramid selling—multilevel marketing" Study commissioned by the CEC.

I also got a few clunkers like: "The Failure rate with multilevel marketing is very high" Michie, Justin "Street Smart Internet Marketing"

"What’s more frightening is if your network marketing opportunity fails (and over 90% of them do), this “once-in-a-lifetime” opportunity may haunt you for a lifetime, as friends, family, co-workers, remind you that your big dream turned out to be nothing." Harris, Cathy (2006) "Multilevel Marketing aka “Pyramid Schemes” – Good or Bad?"

So there is a lot of Wheat and some chaff.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Higgs, Philip and Jane Smith (2007) Rethinking Our World Juta Academic uses [MLM Watch website http://www.mlmwatch.org/] as well as Fitzpatrick as references. "Juta is respected as South Africa's pre-eminent academic and law publisher". So here we have yet another scholarly reference not only showing Fitzpatrick is a reliable source but giving us MLM Watch as one as well. The more I dig the more it looks like what little scholarly information there is regarding MLMs is negative.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"Multi-level marketing carries negative connotations and is illegal in special forms known as pyramid selling, snowball systems, chain-letters, etc." Schmidt, Andreas U. (2006)"Multi-level markets and incentives for information goods" Information Economics and Policy Volume 18, Issue 2, June 2006, Pages 125-138

The abstract on this one is a very interesting read: "The wake of the recession has witnessed a boom in direct selling schemes also known as pyramid selling, multi-level marketing or network marketing." Sarker, Rinita (1996) "Pyramid Selling" Journal of Financial Crime 3:3 Pg 266 - 268. If the main body has similar text then the effort to say these are different things just took a major hit to the head.

Business students focus on ethics By Leo V. Ryan, Wojciech Gasparski, Georges Enderle has an article by Angela Xu of the China Europe International Business School goes over the problems with MLMs (including a lack of a good definition) and states "For this reason, the MLM is also called Pyramid Sales" showing even more problems with separating MLM from pyramid selling.

This fragment I found is interesting: "Multi-level marketing is a pyramid scheme in reverse. An operator will sell large quantities of something to the target and they are expected to sell these on to their friends at a mark-up." Ahmed, Tanzila; Charles Oppenheim (2006) "Experiments to identify the causes of spam" Aslib Proceeding 58:3 Page:156 - 178--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] merge tag

Are you kidding me? All I did was change it from saying "it has been proposed that article X should be merged into article Y" to the less specific "it has been proposed articles X and Y should be merged."

During my additions to Network marketing I realized that if anything, it might be more appropriate the merge Multi-level marketing into the Network marketing article, as the latter is the one that is the more general term (i.e. it encompasses more facets of marketing and speaks to an overall strategy as opposed to a specific structure of compensation within a strategy, which is what multi-level marketing is). This, in addition to the explanation of multi-level marketing that is now included in the network marketing article, made me consider the possibility that members may end up deciding to merge the others the other way...so I adjusted the tag to be more general and open that for the discussion. I personally believe they each warrant their own article, but I felt the diaogue should at least be opened.

And again, I didn't remove the tag...I didn't even reverse the statement of the tag...all I did was to remove the specificity so that "which should be merged into which?" could be part of the discussion....and I was the one who put the original tag there in the first place.

Not all changes on Wikipedia require discussion and consensus before they are made. In fact, most don't. Please understand the edits I make are in the vein of WP:Better and I ask that you use common sense and do not revert due to lack of prior consensus or discussion. That type of activity is counter-productive to the evolution and progression of the encyclopedia and can discourage individuals from contributing...especially newer ones...and especially when those actions come from an administrator. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 07:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding me. You've changed the meaning of the tag, against a probable consensus. Futhermore, neither FTC source refers to "network marketing", so we don't have any reliable source distinguishing the two terms yet. If you can find a reliable source distinguishing network marketing from MLM, go ahead. Otherwise the merge should be restored, with a short paragraph on customer referral bonuses, which is the only other form of network marketing you've mentioned in that article. 07:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(remove indent) Gummessonm, Evert (1994) "Making Relationship Marketing Operational" International Journal of Service Industry Management 5:5 pg 5-20; Vander Nat, Peter J. and William W. Keep (2002) "Marketing Fraud: An Approach for Differentiating Multilevel Marketing from Pyramid Schemes" Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 21:1 pg 139-151 and Bloch, Brian (1996) "Multilevel marketing: what's the catch?" Journal of Consumer Marketing 13:4 pp. 18-26 all identify network marketing as another name for MLM. Bhattacharya, Patralekha and Krishna Kumar Mehta (2000) "Socialization in network marketing organizations: is it cult behavior?" Journal of Socio-Economics, Volume 29, Issue 4, Pages 361-374 identify Amway, Mary Kay, Nu Skin, Shaklee and the like as Network Marketing Organizations or NMOs and this is the same term Cruz uses. I think five different peer-reviewed articles should be enough to demonstrated network marketing and MLM are the same thing.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

We've already established that the names are many times used interchangeably. And just because a company utilizes a multi-level compensation structure does NOT mean that it cannot also use a network marketing strategy (thus making companies who do, Amway, Mary Kay, Nu Skin, Shaklee, etc. both multi-level marketing companies and network marketing companies. This is a large part of the reason the names are used interchangeably...that, and the fact that most mlm companies have pushed the term "network marketing" as their preferred descriptor and concurrently distanced themselves from the term "multi-level marketing," despite them technically both being correct for those particular companies.

They have done this of course because of all the negative publicity garnered for the term thanks to the mlm companies that have been in trouble with the law as well as the general legal scrutiny over multi-level marketing in general (with its close likeness to illegal pyramid schemes and the fact that many illegal schemes have used the cover of multi-level marketing to claim legitimacy)...which of course was the reason for the creation of the cited FTC documents that distinguish between the two to warn and explain what is illegal and what is not. In addition, it is quite possible the FTC does not fully distinguish between mlm and network marketing because a) those two documents were written many years ago, when the term "network marketing" was only beginning to be used to describe mlm companies, b) at the time there were few other companies utilizing a network marketing strategy as a large part of their overall business plan, so therefore the term was not widely used in general, c) there is nothing illegal about network marketing or multi-level marketing, so there was no need to distinguish between the two in a government/legal setting.

The main points of this are already somewhat pointed out in the network marketing article. Why is it so hard to believe that a company can have different aspects to its business plans and different marketing strategies?

If you wish to call a company that utilizes a multi-level compensation structure a "multi-level marketing company" and a company that utilizes a network marketing strategy a "network marketing company" then you may call AT&T Wireless Services, Comcast, Vonage, and Wachovia along with the endless list of other banks, cable/satellite TV providers, cell phone carriers, Internet service providers, online gaming companies that all offer compensation for friend referrals as "network marketing companies," as they utilize a network marketing strategy as part of their business plan. This however does NOT mean that they are multi-level marketing companies...as they simply aren't. They do not utilize anything that even resembles a multi-level marketing model...OTHER than the use of network marketing (a strategy most multi-level marketing companies use). Of course those well known large companies use the strategy along with multiple other strategies, but it [network marketing] is one still used nonetheless.

So just as one might call McDonald's a "fast food company" or "restaurant company" it is just as much (if not more) a "real estate company" (something that has been detailed in many different places ).123 Now, of course if one were asked "What is McDonald's?" the general answer received would be along the lines of the two former descriptors, despite the fact that the largest portion of assets, net worth and at times revenue is generated from real estate...making the firm more a "real estate company" than anything else. Just because someone might call a "spade" a suit of playing card doesn't mean it's not a spade. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 08:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This is all well and good but remember we have to be able to prove it through reliable sources.

"In network marketing (also known as network direct selling or multilevel marketing)," (Pratt, Michael G. nd José Antonio Rosa 2003) "Transforming work-family conflict into commitment in network marketing organizations" The Academy of Management Journal Vol. 46, No. 4, pp. 395-418

...multilevel marketing (MLM), also called “network marketing,” dramatically increased... (Vander 2002) "Marketing Fraud: An Approach for Differentiating Multilevel Marketing from Pyramid Schemes" Journal of Public Policy & Marketing Volume: 21 Issue: 1 139-151

"Multilevel selling or multilevel marketing is also known as network marketing..." (Merrilees 1999) "Direct Selling in the West and East: The Relative Roles of Product and Relationship (Guanxi) Drivers" Journal of Business Research Volume 45, Issue 3, Pages 267-273

"Multilevel marketing (also known as network marketing and MLM)" Cahn, Peter S. (2006) "Building down and Dreaming up: Finding Faith in a Mexican Multilevel Marketer" American Ethnologist Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 126-142

... It is sold worldwide via the internet in a multi-level (network) marketing system. Marcason, Wendy (2006) "What Are the Facts and Myths about Mangosteen?" Journal of the American Dietetic Association Volume 106, Issue 6, Page 986

There you have it; at least five peer reviewed papers accrooss several disciplines that expressly and directly state that "network marketing" is just another name for MLM.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

As for the legal argument homeopathic medicine is also legal in many areas despite the fact of dozens of papers such as Linde, K, et al. Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999 Jul;52(7):631-6; Ernst E, et al. Meta -analysis of homoeopathy trials. Lancet. 1998 Jan 31;351(9099):366); Belladonna 30C in a double blind crossover design - a pilot study. J Psychosomatic Res 1993; 37(8): 851-860); "The end of homoeopathy" The Lancet, Vol. 366 No. 9487 p 690. The Vol. 366 No. 9503 that all showed at best homeopathic medicine to be little better than a placebo (in some studies it actually did worse than placebo).--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What in the world does that entire nonsensical paragraph about homeopathic medicine have to do with any of this? --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because it is legal doesn't mean it works. That blunt enough for you?--67.16.90.198 (talk) 02:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently not. Maybe I should be more blunt. So what? Again, what does legality, and whether or not something "works" have to do with a merge tag on Wikipedia? --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 09:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to ask what does this have to do with FIVE RS that say MLM is network marketing?--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sources for the article

BruceGrubb in sections above has given numerous sources to be used for the article. I thought I'd setup a separate section just to provide sources for discussion. I haven't read all the sources provided by Bruce, but he seems to think they're primarily "negative" and says there doesn't seem to be many "positive". I thought I'd help him out. The books I've listed are only from recognized publishing companies and not self-published. As such they are considered good sources under Wikipedia guidelines WP:RS and WP:V.

[edit] Books

• Your First Year in Network Marketing, Mark Yarnell
• Network Marketing for Dummies, Zig Ziglar
• The Direct Selling Revolution: Understanding the Growth of the Amway Corporation, Professor Dominique Xardel
• Inside Network Marketing, Leonard W Clements
• The New Professionals: The Rise of Network Marketing As the Next Major Profession, James W Robinson & Professor Charles King
• The Ultimate Guide to Network Marketing, Dr. Joe Rubino
• The Business School for People Who Like Helping People, Robert Kiyosaki
• Why We Want You To Be Rich, Donald Trump & Robert Kiyosaki
• Wave 4: Network Marketing in the 21st Century, Richard Poe

[edit] Papers

• Determinants of Consumers' Satisfaction and Acceptance of Direct Selling, Alturas, Santos & Pereira
• Coughlan, Anne and Kent Grayson (1998), “Network Marketing Organizations: Compensation Plans, Retail Network Growth, and Profitability,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 15 (December), 401-426
• Grayson, Kent (1996), “Examining the Embedded Markets of Network Marketing Organizations,” Networks in Marketing (Dawn Iacobucci, ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 325 - 341.

more to come ... --Insider201283 (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I've listed a lot more potential sources here. In addition I believe the following sources clearly DO NOT qualify under Wikipedia standards.

• http://www.skepdic.com/mlm.html
• http://www.vandruff.com/mlm.html
• http://www.mlmstartup.com/articles/binaries.htm#what
• http://www.mlmconsultantadvice.com/babener_11.html
• http://www.pyramidschemealert.org/psamain/news/MLMInfluenceBuying.html
• http://www.mlm-thetruth.com/Top10thingsIlearned.htm#Recruiting%20MLMs
• http://www.mlmwatch.org/01General/10lies.html
• http://www.mlm-thetruth.com/ShockingMLMstats.htm

All of these are self-published websites. Most of these are self-evidently not allowed, a few may garner argument. MLMWatch is run by Stephen Barrett of QuackWatch fame and that site has been much discussed on controversial on wikipedia. It passes as a sometimes source because he's a doctor, the site is about medical practices, and many reputable sources cite him. With regards MLM, Barrett has zero qualifications and the site is not cited by many reputable sources. As such IMO it's a poor source. Skeptic's Dictionary suffers from much the same problems. The Babener source on MLM compensation plans is debatable, I think we need better. --Insider201283 (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Careful with some of these soucres

Not all of these may meet the requirement of WP:RS

Yarnell's book is by Prima Publishing better known through their Prima games division and is part of the Random House Information Group. We are using a game manual publisher as a RS on MLM who is owned by a printing company that is all over freaking map in terms of meeting WP:RS guidelines? You have GOT to be kidding!

The ...for dummies books are good for basic reference material but their quality varies too much to be considered reliable across the board. Now if they refer us to original material that is reliable sourced that is something else.

Xardel's book is through Blackwell Pub who is now a part of Wiley. Now Wiley InterScience is "The leading resource for quality research" but this is not under that imprint. This is a maybe. We need to know the quality of the different divisions.

Clements' book is by Prima Lifestyles another division of Prima Publishing. So same problem as Yarnell.

Robinson's book is put out by Three Rivers Press which is own by Crown Publishing who is owned by Random house. So same problem as Yarnell.

Rubino's book is put out by Wiley so this another maybe.

Kiyosaki is by Cashflow Technologies which he owns. Self published and given the questions regarding the quality of the information in his Rich Dad, Poor Dad has been put forth by none other than John T Reed (whose credentials are back up in such publications as MSN Money) these are totally useless.

The papers are another issue.

The Alturas, Santos & Pereira talks about direct marketing and customer satisfaction feed back. It barely mentions Multilevel marketing and only in terms of customer acceptance not distributor success.

Grayson's paper is to "develop, analyze, and calibrate a dynamic decision model of the growth of a retail NMO." He does give us statistics but they are so insanely complex they look like the kind of stuff you see for quantum physics. Also on the distributor side of things not every thing is a bed of roses either. It useful but will give most people who read it a headache.

Grayson's chapter is good solid easy to understand read and is by a publisher (Sage Publications) that has good credentials. This is a good one.

So out of this list we get six that are not really usable (two of which are self published questionable material), two maybes, a paper that at best tangentially touched on the topic, another that looks like it belongs in a physics book, and one understandable by mere mortals chapter by a scholar publication. Not exactly the best of beginnings.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You have GOT to be joking. You argue that a self-published website is an allowable source, but books published by the world's largest publishing company, Random House are for some reason to be avoided?? Another book, by a Professor of Marketing at one of the world's leading business universities (ESSEC) and published by a global company specialising in academic work, Wiley is a "maybe"? Bruce, you're really destroying your credibility here. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

According to this press release, Prima Games was one of three divisions of Prima Publishing. Just because it was "better known", by you, does not somehow make Prima Publishing none RS. I've read a number of books by Prima Publishing and never heard of Prima Games. Prima Games may be better known today because it's still operating, whereas Prima Lifestyle was merged into Three Rivers Press. I note however you also disparage Three Rivers Press and Crown Publishing. Do I really need to go to RS/N to get an opinion on whether these are reliable sources? It seems you suffer from a well known logical affliction of the anti-mlm brigade .... if it's pro-mlm then by definition it can't be trusted! I live in vain hope that some day the large, broad hammer of reality will finally drive such an afflication out forever. Alas, confirmation bias is forever strong. --Insider201283 (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Insider201283, just what part of Taylor and FitzPatrick being used in PEER REVIEWED PAPERS did you not understand? What peer review papers use Kiyosaki's books as business references (opposed to cite them and then tear them apart)? Go look under WP:RS#Usage_by_other_sources and try to understand how realizable source actually works and not waste our time on your ideas on how you think it works.

Never mind that John T. Reed points out that such publications as the Wall Street Journal "Rich Men, Poor Advice: Their Book Is Hot, But Their Financial Tips Aren't." and Kiplinger’s Personal Finance "They say they want you to be rich" are not thrilled with the Rich Dad books either.

Furthermore, I was looking at the merit of publishers not authors or content in my quick survey. Three Rivers Press/Crown Publishing Group has also produced such little gems as Dr. Gundry's Diet Evolution, Stop Aging, Start Living, Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War", How the South Could Have Won the Civil War, and I think you get the point. Clearly there is some vanity book publishing going on here putting this publisher's reliability into question. I mean eating certain foods will turn off genes?! GIVE ME A BREAK HERE!

You can NOT use Wikipedia to back up ANY claim per Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources: "Articles and posts on Wikipedia, or on websites that mirror its content, may not be used as sources..." and as I pointed out Wiley has different divisions; you are not going to hold something out of Wiley's living division (Dummies, Pillsbury, etc) to the same standard as its academic divisions. I made this mistake using the University of Chicago Press as an example; boy was I embarrassed when someone presented some vanity books as a counter example (in particular The Gold Leaf Lady and Other Parapsychological Investigations). When you have what is supposedly the largest university press in the United State putting out the occasional vanity book you have to ask yourself who else is doing this. Random House for example has its share of vanity books like Angels in My Hair, Linda Goodman's Sun Signs, The Science of God, etc. This what I meant about Random House being all over the map in terms of WP:RS.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Says it all really. You fully admit you weren't looking at specific cases, but at publishers as a whole - and you've pretty much excluded Random House and Wiley!! Amazing --Insider201283 (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, btw, certain nutrients (ie things you find in foods) have indeed been shown to change gene expression[6]. Funnily enough, though I'm sure to your horror, some of the companies leading the research in this area are Nutrilite and Interleukin Genetics - part of Amway. --Insider201283 (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought I smelled an error in statistical processing in the first detailed report of extracellular chemistry and gene expression. Probably the same statistical methods which show that most Amway distributors make money.... (Only half kidding, really. The statistical methods used in the first paper I read were clearly faulty. Later studies seem to have confirmed the effect for some externalities, although I don't remember specifically one for nutrition which used proper methods credible.)

However, he's right that not all imprints of Random House and Wiley avoid pseudo-factual books, and some may actually seek out such books. I haven't checked any of the specific references in question, but, your "rebuttal" to his argument has no weight that I can see. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

For crying out loud Arthur, perhaps you should check the references before you comment. Two of the books he dismisses are by Professors of Business/Marketing, published by recognized publishing houses. Another, by a recognized publishing house, is by a court certified NWM expert who (despite claims to the contrary by Bruce) has been cited a number of time in the literature. This has to be taken in the context of Bruce wanting to use a self-published website (not a book or paper) as a source, based on evidence like the fact that the site owner gets himself on Foxnews and is quoted in student papers of such high quality they give the site domain name (not even a page or access date) as references. Yet books by Professors of Marketing from major publishing houses are "doubtful". Give me a break. --Insider201283 (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Self-published papers that were used in PEER REVIEWED PAPERS and as for Clements being a court certified NM expert we don't know things like what state, county, or city court he was certified by or what cases he was involved in. That would tell us just how good that court certification is as the quality varies. It is really annoying that looking for 'Clements "court certified"|"certified court" expert "Network Marketing"' produced only blog, self promotionals, and others parroting nearly verbadum what Clements is saying. I can find a John Clements (same problems BTW) who is a Court certified Expert Witness in the area of bladed combat for the state of Texas making you wonder what the state coroner does. Something here just doesn't look right. Of course with "experts" who have cats as buisness parners a LOT doesn't look right.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin gets it. Unless we can show that the division of Random House in question is known for scholarly books then there is no reason to claim they are reliable source by default as you want to. As my University of Chicago Press example shows even the most scholarly publishing house can go into vanity book land so going just on the merit of the publish house may not be enough. The Rubino book does have a few problems--he doesn't have a degree in the relevant field and he appears to be the sole editor. In "Great Formula: For Creating Maximum Profit with Minimal Effort‎" by Mark Joyner Page 194, Rubino talks about the future release of The Ultimate Guide to Network Marketing in context with the expansion of his MLM formula. COI problems galore.

COI galore? Great, looks like we can remove Fitzpatrick and Taylor then ... since they earn their living by criticising MLM companies.!--Insider201283 (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Insider20128, Fitzpatrick and Taylor are used in PEER REVIEWED PAPERS so this argument is DEAD; DEAL WITH IT. You have not provided even a single demonstratively peer reviewed source that that uses statements made by Rubino as reference while I have provided such papers for BOTH Fitzpatrick and Taylor including one you claimed wasn't peer reviewed after I said it was (Cruz). When that little gambit blew up in your face in spectacular fashion you started rambling on about how you couldn't believe believe it--which did nothing to change the fact that as I sated before Taylor WAS used in a peer reviewed paper. I should mention the book that Rubino claims is in "his" Joyner really isn't--he is just the editor and only one article in that book is really "his" in any case.

So instead of mostly demonstrative peer reviewed stuff like Cruz like I went and found we get mostly questionable sources one of who stated he had a cat as a business partner. No, I am not letting that one go as long as you keep harping on Fitzpatrick and Taylor who are used in PEER REVIEWED PAPERS. You can't win this so stop POV pushing.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Bruce, I ask again - why are you so against using the peer-reviewed papers as sources? Why are you so insistant on using personal websites when we clearly have plenty of quality uncontroversial sources to use? --Insider201283 (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Insider, I don't understand your point. The only papers you provided were Alturas, Santos & Pereir and two by Grayson. The Alturas paper at best only talks about networking marketing in a very tangental manner and the first Grayson is throwing around some very complex statistical math. You can't use that here any more than I can use Fischer, Roland (1994) "On The Story-Telling Imperative That We Have In Mind" Anthropology of Consciousness. Dec 1994, Vol. 5, No. 4: 16 that in the abstact states "There is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived, to give an example, and Christianity is based on narrative fiction of high literary and cathartic quality. On the other hand Christianity is concerned with the narration of things that actually take place in human life." and in the main body there is this: "It is not possible to compare the above with what we have, namely, that there is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived." in the Jesus myth article. The Anthropology of Consciousness is peer reviewed by any reasonable standard and is published through the American Anthropological Association but it was NOT useable because the article appeared to go outside the Journal's range of expertise. Grayson's statistical article has the SAME problem--is this within the area of expertise of that journal? I have a minor in math and it makes my head hurt making you have to wonder if the reviewing panel even knew what they were looking at.

As for the books there is no evidence that they went through the peer review divisions of the respective publishers. I sincerly doubt that that there is any kind of peer reviewing for the For dummies division out of Wiley and certainly not for the divisions out of Random House that do vanity books.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

<----Bruce, I haven't even read the "Dummies" book, I've no idea as to it's quality. I'm collating suggestions for sources that look prime facie OK but each would have to be taken on their merits. Peer-reviewed articles by experts on the topic are generally the "gold standard". Self-published websites are generally somewhere at the bottome of the pile as to what we should be looking for. Books by acknowledged experts in the field are clearly closer to the top of the pile than the bottom. A number of the articles that both you and I have posted I think may be best used to check their reference lists to find other sources, rather than be used by themselves. Just because I've listed something doesn't mean I think it's the bees knees of references, it means I think it should be looked at. I plan on ordering some of these references that I don't have. The Grayson article I think has some very interesting findings with regards the sponsoring/retailing balance and I think most definitely has a place. The very fact that academics are doing such studies speaks towards the legitimacy of NWM, and with respect, I think that's part of your POV challenge here - it's clear you believe the entire industry is somehow bogus and that virtually by (your) definition, if something isn't a mouthpiece for the theories of FitzPatrick and Taylor then it must be suspect. The reality is that they verge on WP:FRINGE. They've been rejected by virtually every officially body that has considered their claims, including numerous courts, the FTC, and SEC. Since they claim pretty much every MLM is a pyramid they get it right occasionally, but to claim that large multi-national companies like Amway and Herbalife are illegal and have somehow hoodwinked the lawmakers of dozens and dozens of countries over decades is simply ludicrous. The fact is their sites contain many easily disproved falsehoods (like the 70% "retail sales rule" mentioned on this page above) and are highly POV and misleading. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Books by "acknowledged experts" would be toward the top of the pile, if there were such a thing as an "acknowledged expert" in the field of network marketing who is not a participant. If a participant, there's an obvious conflict of interest.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That's part of the problem, it's difficult to become an "expert" and either not be involved or get involved. One of the largest Amway distributorships is Dr Peter Müller-Meerkatz out of Germany. From what I understand his doctorate was on marketing and in particular pyramid schemes. As part of his research he studied Amway, with the common misconception it was a pyramid, and the end result was he finished his doctorate, joined Amway, and now has an extremely large business (I believe his groups turnover is in the 10 figure range). Len Clements was involved in an MLM (same one as Taylor as it happens) and later became an independent MLM advocate. When you understand the model fully it's difficult to not be involved somehow, and from what I understand he is now a rep for some company (note that he wasn't when he wrote Inside Network Marketing). There are hundreds of books on NWM, but most of them are written by network marketers. This isn't surprising. I think you'll find most books by mathematicians are written by mathematicians too! Having said that, AFAIK of the books I listed, none of Poe, Clements, Xardell, Robinson, or King had any COI at the time of writing. Neither Trump nor Kiyosaki for that matter either, though I for one certainly don't put their works high in the list as sources for much other than their opinions. On the other side of the coin, both Taylor and FitzPatrick apparently have their entire livelihoods based around being critics of NWM. They clearly have a pretty substantial COI as well. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

If these people are that good then why are articles out of the peer review area like Cruz, Woker, Sandbek using Taylor, Fitzpatrick, and even Vandruff instead of them? Something just doesn't add up. Nevermind they are not being used just in business papers but papers in anthropology, law (Juta) and psychology as well. Either the scholarly review boards across four different profession have lost their marbles and the Law students have lost theirs as well or these people are considered reliable. I wager the later is more likely.

I should mention that when you set down and think about it, MLM structure itself seems fringe in of itself as it bucks basic concepts in business such as market saturation, the supply and demand price curve, and common business sense regarding middlemen (part of the reason the door to door salesman disappeared). To date nothing actually answering these issues has been presented.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Bruce, I don't know how you think MLM operates, but you're wrong on all of these points. It's no wonder we're somewhat at odds here. Legitimate MLM is prone as much (or as little) to market saturation and supply-demand as any other business and typically has much the same or fewer middlemen (ie those earning a percentage of the margin) as traditional distribution. Indeed for both individual reps and the companies themselves one could argue it's less prone to market saturation and supply-demand issues as it's low cost and lack of fixed outlets means the company and/or reps can move in to new geographic markets with relative ease, or incorporate new products into the existing networks to tap entirely new market segments. A case in point at present would be MonaVie, who I think found the premium juice market rather overloaded with competition and difficult in the current financial circumstances, and rapidly brought to market an energy drink, tapping into a growing market segment. --Insider201283 (talk) 01:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The market saturation stuff comes form another paper Herbig wrote where he talked of the ‘Myth of saturation’ and Mark Yarnell (of Nu Skin fame or should that be infamy? His latest little gem is IE crystals and yes that was an intentional bad pun.) Even though we seem to have falure of Are the Products Legitimate? question everything supposedly is chugging along fine as can be

While we are on that point take a look at Dokoupil, Tony (2008) "MonaVie Acai Juice: Cure-All or Marketing Scheme?" NEWSWEEK, Aug 2, 2008 for a more unbiased look at MonaVie. "Meanwhile, most of the million-strong sales team is really just drinking the juice, according to MonaVie's 2007 income disclosure statement, a federally required printout of their distributor earnings. More than 90 percent were considered "wholesale customers," whose earnings are mostly discounts on sales to themselves. Fewer than 1 percent qualified for commissions and of those, only 10 percent made more than $100 a week. And the dropout rate, while not disclosed by MonaVie, is around 70 percent, according to a top recruiter." So much for making money with this little gem if you are in the downline. Insider, I have to really have to ask; do you do ANY research before spouting off some of this stuff?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Realated to this just why did you think that a book published in 1998 was going to have any relevent thing to say about Taylor when at best his earliest reference in any of these papers is to a book he did with Fitzpatrick in 2000 and whose main referenced work came out in 2002? That is like looking for President Grant's memoirs in books published in 1884. I really don't understand that.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The New Professionals was published in 2000. FitzPatricks' vanity-press book, False Profits was published in 1997. --Insider201283 (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

But you made a big deal about Taylor not being in that book but his first paper worth noting by anybody other than himself wasn't until 2002 so why would a 2000 book mention him? Hmmm?--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Taylor's first vanity publication in the MLM, or at least the first I'm aware of, was The Network Marketing Game: Gospel Perspectives on Multi-Level Marketing, world was in 1997. So in more than a decade of writing about MLM/NWM he's barely managed a mentioned in the many, many scholarly works in NWM, and had nothing of significance published himself. The question remains - why are you obsessed with citing a personal website when there is a multitude of quality sources available?--Insider201283 (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

((interpolated break)

Kiyosaki as an expert has got to be the biggest joke in the list. His cat is his business partner?1? GIVE ME A FREAKING BREAK. Is it name Luna or Artemis and does it talk as well?--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I was just listing some options. I haven't mentioned it since and you seem slightly obsessed. Given it's self-published I've no problem at all considering it unworthy. --Insider201283 (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Having said that, I see now you're referring to the second Kiyosaki book, which is coauthored by Donald Trump. Do I really need to provide references for Trump as an expert on "business"? Though published by Kiyosaki's press, it clearly goes beyond "vanity publishing" and I don't think anyone seriously believes Trump and Kiyosaki couldn't have got another publisher if they wanted. --Insider201283 (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Trump could buy another publisher if he wanted, but he might have difficulty publishing in a reputable publishing house, even so. And Kiyosaki is a known liar* in his self-published books; even a reputable scientific publisher wouldn't rehabilitate his work in my opinion, unless they sent in a forensic accountant to verify his statements.

* I don't think this violates BLP; if it does, please change it to "Kiyosaki has been reported to be a liar by reliable sources". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Besides self help books in general got a lashing in Carpenter, Felicity (2005) "Satire and Self-help: The Satirical Potential of the Self-help Industry": "The simplistic nature of self-help books has prompted psychologists to also respond to some of the exercises offered in these texts. Some psychologists reject the commonly prescribed exercise of writing positive affirmations on the basis that people suffering from low self-esteem will not believe these affirmations because they ‘don’t value their own opinions very highly’ (Swann, in Paul and Fried, 2001, 2). Another exercise popular in self-help texts is to visualise yourself succeeding. Psychologist Shelly Taylor doubts the usefulness of this exercise because it ‘enables you to enjoy the feeling of being successful without actually having achieved anything’ (in Paul and Fried, 2001, 2)." Since it is a thesis it is more useful for the reference in it:

Paul, A., and Fried, S. (2001) “Self-Help: Shattering the Myths,” Psychology Today, vol.34, issue 2.

Other than that, a student paper (with all the marks form his teacher still all over it), and ""Meritocracy" at Middle Age: Skewed Views and Selective Admissions" by Ramsay in Imagining the Academy (calling Rich man... a ""get rich quick" book" and then proceeds to essentually rag on the whole anti-Meritocracy concept for the next couple of paragraphs) there doesn't seem to be much out there even remotely scholarly (using it the broadest sense I can) that even uses Kiyosaki and what little that does uses him in a negative manner.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Bruce, you seem to be waving an extremely broad brush here. While there's clearly much rubbish amongst so-called "self help" books, there's also gems. Most of the broad brush criticism I read of "self help books" is written by people who clearly haven't read much! While we're substantially off topic, there's some more recent studies on affirmations that have confirmed the problem of their use by people with low self esteem. Interesting stuff. Back on topic, Donald Trump I think can clearly be considered an "expert" in entrepreneurialism, and in the book mentioned he gives his opinion on MLM. It's interesting to note that since then he has also specifically endorsed one MLM (ACN) and indeed recently announced the startup of his own MLM (Trump Network). Warren Buffett also owns an MLM (Pampered Chef) and Unilever, another large traditional retailer, also has an MLM company (Unilever Network). All of this speaks to the credibility and mainstream acceptance of MLM (actually, I think we should go with the Network Marketing moniker) and has a place in their article, properly sourced of course. The Trump/Kiyosaki book is clearly a RS/V source about their opinions. --Insider201283 (talk) 10:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you should choose a moniker as much as you should say what you mean. Not to say that there is anything inherently good or bad about either one, but despite what someone with an obvious bias, who wishes to paint as negative a picture as possible over as much an area as possible says, there is a difference between multi-level marketing and network marketing. Just because many people use the terms interchangeably and many reputable sources say they are used interchangeably (e.g. with phrases such as "also called") does not mean they are the same thing. Just as millions of people use the words bar, pub, tavern, and club interchangeably...or the words "toilet" and "restroom" or "stereo" and "radio" or "money" and "cash"...This does not mean they are the same thing. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 10:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I still don't understand how you can discount entire publishing companies (some of the largest in the world, no less) and concurrently argue for the validity of personal websites as sources for Wikipedia. It really doesn't matter if the author/owner of the website is used as a reference in "peer reviewed" sources (as mentioned before, your use of the comment/rebuttal petition to the FTC is useless...as Insider201283 pointed out the FTC published EVERY comment, and rebuttal, that was submitted. That's like saying a classified ad in The New York Times is a reputable source because of where it could be read.) If actual valid sources exist that detail any factual (i.e. provable) findings determined by Taylor or Fitzpatrick, then use those. There is no reason a personal website (especially one as rudimentary and that makes such strong claims without any detail or evidence of any actual research as that one does) should be used as a source for our encyclopedia. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, in the Kiplinger article you reference ("They say they want you to be rich") as a reputable source against Kiyosaki...after bashing the book with no real concrete critique, the author Thomas M. Anderson goes on to recommend instead that "If you are genuinely interested in learning more about real estate investing, which is not for the faint of heart, check out 'Investing in Real Estate,' by Andrew James McLean and Gary Eldred," a book published by...Wiley. So that must discount that entire writer as well as anything he has written...including that article, yes? --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

As I showed with the University of Chicago example the size of the publisher doesn't mean squadoo--their quality does. When you can show a publisher engages in vanity books then the publisher as a whole suffers and the more you such books you find the more it suffers. Wiley publishes Astrology For Dummies, Nostradamus For Dummies, Tarot For Dummies as well as Bad Astronomy: Misconceptions and Misuses Revealed, from Astrology to the Moon Landing "Hoax", Pseudoscience and Extraordinary Claims of the Paranormal: A Critical Thinker's Toolkit. You seemed to be saying we can use Nostradamus For Dummies as a WP:RS in a relevant article simply because it is ultimately published by Wiley; do you have any idea how insane that sounds?!

I would like to understand how a paper in a peer reviewed paper is reliable when referenced there but magically because unreliable if refereed to directly. WP:RS states that self published material CAN be used if is it from established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. The claims of Taylor and FitzPatrick have been used in peer reviewed papers as reference material and if counters by Clements or Kiyosaki (I don't think his cat can write though he can seem able to run a business) are published in such works then we can use them. SO far we haven't seen much in that regard.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Bruce, you're really starting to lose credibility with nearly every post. I did not say anything about the size of the publisher equaling quality or validity as a reliable source. I did however point out that the author of a source you referenced as a valid one (in it's negative claims against another) actually recommended a book published by Wiley...so which is it? Is your first source no good or can Wiley publish quality material? You can't have it both ways.

And even more importantly, we are not talking about citing a paper that was referred to in a peer reviewed paper. For the fifth time, we're talking about a personal website that includes zero references to any real sources of any kind, zero evidence and details concerning any research or reports conducted but which does include many incredible claims despite that. Are you actually attempting to claim reputable peer reviewed sources reference Taylor's personal website as a source for anything with merit? --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 12:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

JohnDoe, you're misreading Bruce's claims. We should not use anything authored by Kiyosaki, directly or indirectly, unless confirmed by an independant reliable source, even if published by a reputable publisher. We may use Taylor and FitzPatrick's web sites if the sites are favorably reviewed in peer-reviewed papers, although those peer-reviewed papers would be preferable if they cover the same material. And if peer-reviewed papers favorably reference Taylor's website, then obviously you're not reading it correctly. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think you've got the direction wrong - any journal (or other source) accepting articles that use personal websites as sources, without even properly citing them ... well, that's reasonable evidence to me that care needs to be taken when assessing articles from that journal. This is especially the case when it is easily confirmable by anyone that the website(s) in question are highly POV and have false or misleading information on them, as is the case with Taylor's and FitzPatrick's sites. Given there are plenty of quality sources there is ZERO justification for using self-published websites as sources.--Insider201283 (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

What you personally believe doesn't matter squadoo but rather what the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia are. "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available" (WP:V). Taylor and FitzPatrick are used in both peer reviewed and academic material. While we are on that issue are you telling you found NOTHING positive in Herbig, Muncy, and Sparks?! Or have you even READ them? Herbig is a real pain because he tries to say Network marking and MLM are different: "...in network marketing, the product is predominant and sales of the product is emphasized whereas in the case of MLMs, the product often is irrelevant or secondary and the emphasis is not placed on selling product but on recruiting other salespeople to in turn recruit still others." Oh boy.

Muncy is far better and is actually giving five questions to separate the wheat from the chaff: How Is the Money Being Made?; Are the Products Legitimate?; How Much Does It Cost to Be Involved?; How Much Work Is Required?; and How Long Has the Company Been Around? He is willing to say that the baby shouldn't be throw out with the bath water but given how easy it is to create claims and have shills. I find his advice at the end of 'How Much Does It Cost to Be Involved?' to be insanely wrong headed. "To do so, they may have to attend—and pay for—a training seminar, even before they become part of the opportunity. Doing so encour­ages students to think like businesspeople where infor­mation is valuable and often must be purchased." is effectively buying a pig in poke and how any businessperson would agree to that is beyond me.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Bruce, most of these posts are nearly useless. You misrepresent what someone else has said, respond to it as if it meant something completely different and then take it in another direction entirely with tangents. The majority of your posts end up being book reports that have little to do with the real issues. If you wish to quote legitimate books and other sources, then quote them in the article and cite them. As you so eloquently put it, "What you personally believe doesn't matter squadoo"...It really doesn't matter if you think "Muncy is far better" or that you "find his advice[...]to be insanely wrong headed," or that "how any businessperson would agree to that is beyond [you]."

None of that nonsense is relevant. We're talking about the legitimacy of citing the personal websites of Taylor and Fitzpatrick. You have yet to provide any reasonable evidence to suggest why those sites should be used as viable sources. Again, if any work those two men have done is referenced as viable in some other reputable source (as you continue to say it is) then reference that reputable source...or the original source of the Taylor/Fitzpatrick work that is referenced in the third party source. You say you would like to know "how a paper in a peer reviewed paper is reliable when referenced there but magically because unreliable if refereed to directly." If you are attempting to claim that Taylor/Fitzpatrick personal websites are referenced as viable in some reliable source (such as a peer reviewed paper), then I suggest you show where. Otherwise, your argument is useless. Simply because a person or work they have done is referenced (even in a reputable source) it does not mean that everything with that person's hand in it or name on it is viable...especially a rudimentary website like mlm-thetruth.com. Again, if some peer reviewed paper actually sourced or referenced mlm-thetruth.com and the content within it as a reputable, I would like to see it. Otherwise you need to cite the actual reputable sources which contain the material you wish to use in the article. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You are still blowing smoke. They are used in peer reviewed papers. DEAL WITH IT.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

And with that you've all but vindicated my point. Either produce these peer reviewed papers that cite those personal websites as viable sources or else they should be removed as you have offered no evidence to support that they are usable as sources in the way you used them in the article. Again, it does not matter if someone has produced something that was referenced in a reputable journal or peer reviewed paper...that does not automatically make anything else they write, create or put their name on inherently viable. Unless these "peer reviewed papers" you keep talking about (but have yet to produce) specifically utilize those websites and claim them as viable sources (and more importantly the content within them that you reference in the article) then those papers do nothing to help your case for those websites and their content staying in the article. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 01:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin I am not misreading anything. We're talking about two different things here.

1) Bruce used an article ("They say they want you to be rich") as a reputable source against Kiyosaki...he used it as an example that Kiyosaki's theories are questionable, etc. In that very article, the author Thomas M. Anderson not only does not give a true critique with valid argument points against the Trump/Kiyosaki book, he also goes on to recommend that the reader instead check out a book--which has plenty of critics of its own, by the way--published by Wiley...a company Bruce explicitly calls out as an example of publishing material of questionable nature--in the same post, no less.

Bruce only mentioned the company in the first place for the sole purpose of attempting to discount the validity of the sources Insider201283 listed which were published by that company. So essentially Bruce is saying: "because Wiley published Astrology for Dummies, we really can't trust it as a reputable publisher...and Kiyosaki has a lot of critics...here's a an article from a reputable source criticizing the book he co-authored with Donald Trump." (Again, Bruce essentially says both of these things in the very same post.) So basically we are to discount Wiley as a publisher all together because of a handful of titles that it has released, but we are to accept Thomas M. Anderson's critique as valid despite the fact that he recommends a text published by that very company as the ideal read instead of the Kiyosaki/Trump book. So which is viable? As I said, Is the Anderson article no good (despite it being published in reputable sources and Bruce saying it is) or can Wiley publish quality material?...Can't have it both ways.

2) Bruce has continued to argue that the personal websites of Taylor and Fitzpatrick are viable sources despite their questionable nature and lack of detail and supporting evidence for the extreme claims they blatantly make. His only support for this argument has been his claim that these men have been cited in "peer reviewed papers" and other reputable sources. One example of such "reputable sources" was the rebuttal mentioned in the FTC hearing/report...which we have already established was not the FTC giving any sort of credence to Taylor or his work at all as Bruce suggests...it was simply a reporting of every comment and petition that was submitted. I have yet to see any actual reputable source that offers any viability to these men or their "research"...let alone their personal websites. That is the point. Bruce wishes to use personal websites as reputable sources yet has produced nothing viable that supports why we should.

I'll say it yet a 4th time: It does not matter if someone has produced something that was referenced in a reputable journal or peer reviewed paper...that does not automatically make anything else they write, create or put their name on inherently viable. Unless these "peer reviewed papers" Bruce keeps talking about (but has yet to produce) specifically utilize those websites and claim them as viable sources (and more importantly the content within them that is referenced in the article) then those papers do nothing to help the case for those websites and their content staying in the article. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 02:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

1) That source seemed OK for the purpose stated the last time I read it, even though he does point to his own real estate methods. It had been possible to make money in real estate by using information which is generally available, but is not generally known to be available.

2) I tend to agree with you. Bruce needs to provide sources; however, the web site(s) would be usable if reviewed favorably in peer-reviewed papers, although using the review as a source would almost always be better. I haven't seen the peer-reviewed papers, either.

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". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that going back over some of the sources I have already use that Sandbek's paper creates some problems for those trying to keep these sites out. He references MLM Watch, VanDufff's website, MLM Survivor.com, and http://www.pyramidschemealert.org and his final conclusion is "By its very nature, MLM is completely devoid of any scientific foundations." One thing that is not clear in there paper--it is part of the [Journal of the American Board of Sport Psychology] that is "a peer reviewed journal devoted to disseminating scientific and popular research-based articles in an efficient and timely manner. The Journal also publishes technical reports, editorials, opinions, special features, and letters to the editors, as well as classified and other advertising. Peer-reviewed articles are posted in PDF format, requiring that you have ADOBE Reader." Please notethat Sandbek's article is a one star and that is "for the researcher and practitioner (more technical/scientific)PEER-REVIEWED". Welcome to the 21st century where peer reviewed journals are no longer dead trees but multimedia web pages in their own right.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sandbek's paper creates no problems at all - it's clearly not a reliable source. It's simply a "survey of websites" and reports what some critical websites are saying. Even then, the paper is so well researched and fact checked (not) that it actually claims "Multilevel Marketing (sometimes called network marketing) began in the 1980s as a new and innovative method for making money." It's clearly not much good for anything I'm afraid. --Insider201283 (talk) 11:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Basically you are saying that even though it in a journal that states that is is peer reviewed but we can't use it because it don't agree with your views. Sorry but Wikipedia does NOT work like that.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the article may be usable as a source for a sports psychology article on the topic of "brain typing". It's almost certainly not usable as a source for an MLM article. All of which is moot because AFAIK you've never even suggested using the article as a source, you're simply wanting to use it to back up your claim that anything written by FP should be automagically green lighted. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

1) I'm not sure if the "source" you're talking about is the Anderson article or the Trump/Kiyosaki book it talks about, but either way I'm not sure I understand how what you just said is relevant to the point I was making in my #1.

2) Everything you just said there is basically what I've been saying all along on this topic...but all we keep getting from Bruce is posts littered with ill-formated citations of a bunch of random books that talk about mlm along with his own book-reportesque commentary which goes off into irrelevant tangent after tangent, never offering any advancement to the discussion or support for the argument of the validity of the websites. And as you can see this is all usually followed up with some sort of useless "I'm right and you're wrong, deal with it" comment to close.

As I said, pretty much useless. Unless the proof for the validity of those websites is provided in the next few days, I say they (and the content cited from them) should be removed from the article. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I finally got tired of this nonsense and threw this at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard so we can see if there is any kind of general guideline about using self-publised verisons of references that are used peer-reviewed papers and what the threshold is for the "established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" section of self-publised sources.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Multitude of self-published source

Bruce Grubb continues to add a multitude of self-published sources to this article, as well as other generally unreliable claims - such as allegations made in a court case against Amway - a case Amway won. The latest SPS violation is a self-published article by Bill Berkowitz. Bruce, I've essentially been ignoring your edits because as per Talk:Network_Marketing these articles are essentially going to need to be rewritten from the ground up. --Insider201283 (talk) 12:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with perhaps general rewrite, but from the ground up? I seriously don't think that's necessary. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 13:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, obviously we pull in existing text where it's well written, relevant, and well sourced but I think we should come up with some kind of structure first. Compensation plans is an area that concern me. I've found two books dedicated to it The Compensation Plan Primer and MLM Compensation Pay Plans but both appear to be essentially self-published. The New Professionals has a section on it but it doesn't appear to extensive, I'm waiting for a copy of the book. Given the literature essentially says MLM is the compensation plan, this section is important. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There's another self-published Rod Cook book, How to Start Your Network Marketing, Modern Party Plan or Web Affiliate Company that covers plans too. I'm doubtful he qualifies as an "expert" by WP standards though. Ahh, Len Clements book Inside Network Marketing has a whole section. I'll order a copy. The book is by a recognized publisher and is cited by academics and journalists (King & Poe) so I think it passes muster. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Another self-published compensation plan book - Understanding Multi-Level Commissions and Their Role in a Successful Company by Mark Rawlins.

Richard Poe's Wave 3: The New Era in Network Marketing and Wave 4: Network Marketing in the 21st Century have compensation plan info. I'll add 'em to my shopping list.

Berkowitz is through Inter press service “largest and most credible of all ‘alternatives’ in the world of news agencies” (Boyd-Barrett, Oliver and Rantanen, Terhi; eds. (1998) The Globalization of News. London: Sage Publication). Hardly "self-published". First Cruz, now Berkowitz. Insider, do you do ANY research before posting this garbage?--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I could be wrong on this . I thought the Berkowitz piece was from his "Conservative Watch" column, which is an opinion column. Either way, the whole section is not written WP:NPOV and moving into WP:OR (not to mention the WP:BLP concerns. --Insider201283 (talk) 23:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I was right about it being a reposted opinion piece (which is pretty obvious reading it). Here's the original artice on religiousdispatches.org --Insider201283 (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Insider201283, but you are straw grasping in your effort to keep this piece out. The "Republican Benefactor Launches Comeback" story went over the ISP wire Jan 28, 2009 while the Religion Dispatches piece February 11, 2009 ie about two weeks AFTER the ISP piece. So the ISP wire is the original and the Religion Dispatches is the opinionated rework not the other way around. Never mind I found an earlier The Times article that stated the UK government was originally claiming only one in ten made any profit. Later in the Times it was reported "High Court dismisses claims against Amway" the Times reported "The High Court heard that between 2001 and 2006 the number of British agents not earning any bonus income at all varied between 69 per cent and 78 per cent. In 2004/5 only 74 agents out of 25,342 earned more than £10,000 in bonuses." --BruceGrubb (talk) 05:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you understanding what you're wanting to do here? "The Hight Court heard" --- you're wanting to publish allegations from a plaintiff in a court case they lost. There's a reason why such things are generally frowned upon as plaintiffs are naturally not NPOV and tend to give one particular, not neutral perspective. For your own education, though also disallowable on WP, the plaintiffs completely ignored retail profit (despite the court finding 40% of sales were by retailing agents), only mention wholesale volume bonuses, and neglect to mention only 6% of agents were purchasing products to retail (as opposed to personal use) - and customer volume was a requirement to earn a bonus in the UK. Plaintiffs allegations in a court case are not reliable. As for the Berkowitz piece, you may be write about the timeline, but it's still clearly an opinion piece--Insider201283 (talk) 09:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

--Insider201283 (talk) 09:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you also check out Neutrality and Verifiability--Insider201283 (talk) 11:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Considering you have been fighting nearly every attempt at bringing anything negative about MLMs to the point of claimin peer reviewed papers are not peer reviewed I find this laughable.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Bruce, what I have been fighting is putting in hearsay and rumour. Re the peer-reviewed paper, I simply missed it on the site involved, you pointed out my error, I accepted it. That's it, no big deal. --Insider201283 (talk) 07:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The Times is considered a reliable source. Court testimony is considered primary source and "Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." WP:primary -The times is just reporting not interpreting.-BruceGrubb (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Bruce, "court testimony" is not only a primary source, it's inherently unreliable and extremely POV. Court judgements are primary source and may be used, with care. Right now you are falling in to the very trap you warn against above of interpreting the material to advance a particular POV. You're taking a POV claim from a court case against one MLM company (a case the MLM company won) in one country and clearly trying to advance a position about MLMs in general with it. If a court found most people who were involved with MLM "lost money", and that was reported by a 3rd party reliable source, then you'd have a reasonable case for it's inclusion. BTW, I'm holding off doing much in the way of edits to this article as I'm awaiting the arrival of more quality sources on my desk. Wave 4 has apparently arrived today and I'll pick it up this afternoon. --Insider201283 (talk) 10:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"The False Lure of Multi-Level Marketing" By David John Marotta (various papers) Aug 3, 2009 is yet another slam at MLMs. When basics mathematics shows the model cannot work as promised t time to realize the smoke and mirrors for what they are...smoke and mirrors.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Bruce, "basic mathematics shows" is code for "I'm talking about pyramid schemes, not MLM". It's predicated on the assumption that the model relies on recruiting for profit, which is a pyramid scheme. You'd think the fact there are MLM companies that are 70yrs and still growing strong might be a hint that "cannot work" might be a bit off base. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Even legitimate Multi-Level Marketing methods have elements of pyramid schemes built into them: 1 seller recruiting 2 sellers who in turn recruit 2 more into infinity. Since you are effectively increasing the middle men Economics 101 says that the progression of unsustainable if you expect everyone in the chain to make some degree of profit.

The biggest headache in all this is the journal literature. First there you have prospective of the person who creates the MLM structure Schmidt, AU (2009) - "On the Superdistribution of Digital Goods" Journal of Universal Computer Science 15:2 and then you have papers like Cruz that try to focus on what is going on within the MLM structure itself regardless of how it was set up.  :::Second, there seems to be little agreement on what constitutes a MLM and even neutral papers can't seem to make up their minds:

Koehn, Daryl (2001) "Ethical Issues Connected with Multi-Level Marketing Schemes" Journal Journal of Business Ethics Volume 29, Numbers 1-2 calls MLMs schemes even though the over all tone of his paper is there are good and bad ones.

DeJUTE, ANTHONY M. ROBERT D. MYERS† DONALD K. WEDDING (2008) "Wheeler-Lea Versus Pyramidal Sales" American Business Law Journal Volume 10 Issue 3, Pages 207 - 220 states: "We are not challenging the concept of multi-level marketing as such, but rather the pyramidal selling of distributorships in lieu of or at the sacrifice of the sale of product."

Finally, they can't even agree on when the whole MLM thing begin. I have seen claims for 1920s and other saying 1970s with a lot in between with 1940s being an exception.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Bruce, MLMs do not "recruit into infinity". That's pyramid schemes. They "recruit" to much the same levels as other product distribution businesses. For example, Manufacturer "recruits" exporter who recruits importer who recruits wholesaler who recruits distributor who recruits retailer who recruits customer. It stops at the customer - and if anyone anywhere along the chain becomes big enough, the chain breaks and they start again, dealing direct with the manufacturer. It's naturally limited by volume, it's not "infinite" any more than *any* business would like to recruit every person on the planet as a customer. The problem with pyramid schemes is that the money is made by recruiting people who are promised they can make money by recruiting people who are promised they can make money recruiting people etc etc etc. That is not the multi-level marketing model. Quite obviously, people get confused and think it is. One reason is that schemes that are doing that call themselves MLM to try and hide the fact they are pyramid schemes, not MLM. In an MLM, you don't make any money by recruiting, you make money through product sales. "Recruiting" in itself is no more a money making venture then a retail store getting people to sign a bit of paper saying "yeah, I'll be a customer!". It doesn't matter how many they recruit, they won't make a cent unless they actually become customers. While I haven't access to the full DeJUTE article, the quote you gave indicates they're talking about pyramids again - not MLM. By definition in an MLM your not "selling distributorships". If someone claims MLM didn't begin until the 1970s, then you know they're not a reliable source and shouldn't be used for anything. The first absolutely confirmable mutli-level marketing I've found was when Nutrilite introduced downline commissions in 1945. Update: I've obtained the DeJute et.al Paper and it is actually quite old, from 1973, not 2008 as you indicate and so not much use except perhaps historically. The paper predates for example FTC vs Amway, which helped clarify what the differences between MLM and Pyramid schemes were. The examples they give in the paper are companies which were indeed determined to be pyramid schemes, and not legitimate MLM, eg Holiday Magic, Dare to be Great, Koscot. --Insider201283 (talk) 11:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

(remove indent)Insider201283, you have a real weird idea as to what is a reliable source. Just because it conflicts with your perception of history doesn't mean it isn't reliable. Sure there are articles in the Western Journal of Communication that claim the 1940s were the start but then you have articles in Business students focus on ethics that claims the 1920s while some articles in Journal of Small Business Management say lat 1960s while an article in International Journal of Service Industry Managemen pointed to the 1970s. Clearly how you define Multi-level marketing has a large factor on when you put it starting at.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I should mention that USAtoday pointed to the DSA itself saying direct salers on average (medium) income is only $2,400 a year. Not your year is it?--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] pyramidschemealert.org & mlm-thetruth.com

Response on RS/N are that these sites do not pass muster under WP guidlines. To further confirm this, I noticed over on the Monavie article a WP admin removed a whole bunch of the article that had pyramidschemealert as a source. He said Talk:MonaVie#pyramidschemealert.org in the talk it was not WP:RS. I will remove it from this article shortly. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The administrator claimed problems regarding WP:BLP on WP:RS not noticing that the problematic material actually came from Forbes If anything the Forbes article was WORSE calling Monavie a "a pyramid atop a pyramid" and saying "Sounds rather like a chain letter, doesn't it?". If anything pyramidschemealert.org was actually more NPOV than the more reliable Forbes article was. Just isn't your month is it?--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)