Talk:Multi-level marketing

Reverting scholarly-sourced content

There is no reason to auto-revert sourced material without evaluating. If a reader would dare to look at the sources, they would see I'm quoting and accurately representing the source material. Consumer Awareness Institute was at its heydey a single person operating out of his house with self-published pdfs, and a review of the Utah Secretary of State website says CAI no longer exists. I searched Google Scholar this afternoon, and it was blown away in an instant with a lie about its veracity. DeknMike (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mike, there are a couple of examples I noticed in your recent edits that weren't faithfully summarizing their sources or that go beyond what one could reasonably assume based on the source.

• In a study of Chinese immigrants published in the International Business Review, the authors found that across a variety of host Western countries, many of these individuals used this social networking model to start their entrepreneurial journey.: This source didn't research a variety of Western countries, it only surveyed 194 Chinese immigrants in one country: Australia. This one primary source would hardly be representative of all Chinese immigrants in Australia, let alone in most Western countries.
• Since then, the industry has grown to become a significant part of the US economy.: This source is from 1989, and it's about Direct Selling, not specifically MLMs. It would perhaps be relevant for contemporary information about the history of Direct Selling businesses, but it certainly isn't relevant for a claim about the current state of MLMs. The way it's written makes it sounds like MLMs are currently a significant part of the US economy. Maybe they are, but the cited source doesn't support it.

Politanvm ^talk 02:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

• Although the study used Australia as its model, it expressly made the applicability to all Western nations, since it was analyzing Chinese immigrants in general, not the nation of Australia. Quote: "Many Chinese immigrants start their entrepreneurship business by joining major network marketing businesses in Western host countries. ... We develop and test a model of network marketing business entrepreneurial action of immigrants. The findings suggest that social environment positively affects motivation, self-efficacy and social competence. Social competence and self-efficacy has a positive impact on entrepreneurial actions."
• As for Direct Selling, the author's text equated the two (page 17), and the existing article also addresses the correlation
  • ""Network marketing" and "multi-level marketing" (MLM) have been described by author Dominique Xardel as being synonymous, with it being a type of direct selling
  • The Direct Selling Association (DSA), a lobbying group for the MLM industry...94.2% of DSA members were using MLM, accounting for 99.6% of sellers, and 97.1% of sales
• I can see your point about 'significant' - since 5% is a small percent. Noted. We'll work together to find the right way to say it.
  • The right way is not to ignore it's positive impact on household income for a segment of the population where an extra $200 a month is significant.
  • Other sources indicate the majority of the distributors were actually discount price customers, and AARP discussed how many from that segment did make an income, which is certainly more than 0.3% claimed in by the Article.

DeknMike (talk) 03:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Under no circumstances can we cite a 1989 study for any statement about the current US economy. Never. Not ever. Simply not an option. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Read that again. I did not say the 1989 numbers were current. That comment was in the "HISTORY" section DeknMike (talk) 04:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

You are using a 1989 source for statements regarding what "the industry has grown to become". The implication that you are describing the present is clear. And you don't have a source for that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mike, a few points:

1. You may be misreading the Chinese immigrant study. The researchers start with a generalization about Chinese immigrants in Western countries, as a reason for their more niche survey. Their findings have no meaningful relevance outside Chinese immigrants in Australia (and again, it's a very small sample even for that audience). Their findings suggest that the social environment within network marketing organizations positively affects self-efficacy, which in turn positively affects the entrepreneurial actions undertaken by Chinese immigrants in conducting their network marketing business. Social environmental influence impacts positively on their motivation to establish their own network marketing business and social competence. However the effects of motivation and social competence on entrepreneurial action were not supported., which is entirely different from what you added (...that across a variety of host Western countries, many of these individuals used this social networking model to start their entrepreneurial journey.). Moreover, it's a primary source, not a reliable secondary source, so it's not really due for inclusion anyway (WP:PRIMARY).
2. The Biggart source is from 1989, when only 25% of DSA members used the MLM business model. This further illustrates how this book about direct selling has little relevance to talking about MLMs/Network Marketing today.
3. By it sounds like MLMs are currently a significant part of the US economy., I didn't mean that 5% is an insignificant amount. The emphases is on MLMs (because Biggart isn't talking about MLMs, she's talking about direct selling) and currently (because the book is over 30 years old).

Respectfully, most of your editing on this article feels like an attempt to "right great wrongs" and protect the reputation of MLMs. It may be more productive if you propose edits on this talk page first, before making them directly to the article. I know it probably doesn't feel fair, but it's a standard part of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You've made some WP:BOLD edits to the article, and they were reverted, so the best practice now would be to discuss them here. Best, Politanvm ^talk 03:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Yes, in the old days we tried to make sure the Wiki platform held reliable data, and removed original sources or articles from news sources that appeared to be sales talks for a new book, particularly for opinion stories. That's the wrong I'm trying to right. As this talk page shows(and the archives), many have noted its obvious bias, but have been unable to get balanced information added. How would you recommend I proceed? DeknMike (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Size and income projections

• Grandview Research (a business research firm) says "The global direct selling market size was valued at USD 189.71 billion in 2021 and is expected to expand at a compound annual growth (CAGR) of 6.1% from 2022 to 2028" Key companies profiled are Amway Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.; Herbalife Nutrition Ltd.; Avon Products, Inc.; Vorwerk; Nu Skin Enterprises; Tupperware Brands Corporation; Oriflame Holding AG; Belcorp; Mary Kay Inc. [1] It's unclear from the article, but the $200B in 2022 is probably gross revenue. Net would be difficult to estimate.
• Seeking Alpha says the industry revenues are flat as a percent of the US economy, being 0.84% growth. Since Grandview said sales were increasing, that means they were equaling the overall economy's growth (until inflation hit).
• How big is the industry? Seeking Alpha (another stock research company) says "It is difficult to know the exact number of MLMs based and operating the United States, but a good guess would be 600-700" companies. They also note the industry is starting to segment their 'distributor' lists into which ones are actively trying to sell versus joining for the discount; they estimate 9.6 million Discount Buyers, 27.3 million Preferred Customers, and 6.8 million full or part-time Direct Sellers. [2]
• The Motly Fool is a well-known business and stock advice firm. It says "Assemble a team of, say, 20 or 30 people, and you may indeed manage to pad your bank account with thousands of dollars each month...(however) If you're looking to earn a little extra money on the side and there's a particular product line you're eager to sell, then an MLM could be a good fit. But don't expect to strike it rich with an MLM." [3]

DeknMike (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

What is the exact text/edit you're proposing to the article, based on these sources? Politanvm ^talk 04:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Seeking Alpha isn't a stock research company, it is a blog host. The content is user generated. Motley Fool is a stock picking service, not a reliable source. Grandview Research has a very poor reputation, to put it mildly. MrOllie (talk) 04:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

um... you do know 'blog' is a distribution platform widely used? ABC/NBC/CBS corporately don't write anything, but are platforms using blog technology to host articles by individual authors; your outlink to forecastinternational.com is a WordPress page. As for these sources...

• [Seeking Alpha], "in 2013, Wired named Seeking Alpha one of the "core nutrients of a good data diet." In 2007, Seeking Alpha received a Forbes' Best of the Web designation and was selected by Kiplinger's as Best Investment Informant."
• Motly Fool - Of the 10 pages of links on Google, most agree with DayTradingz.com, which say "The Motley Fool is one of the biggest financial services companies worldwide. Their website covers everything from investing basics, stock market analysis, retirement planning, and personal finance advice."[4] BI says Motley Fool "has long offered copious articles and resources on investing and financial topics." [5]
• Grandview Research is one of hundreds of market research firms that is widely quoted in the financial field and government publications (note 3 in a NIH report [6])
• Your reference (Forecast International) is an analyst firm for the Defense industry, but without any reviews as to its trustworthiness. The article said Grandview Research was a fraud because they predicted the global Smart Cities initiative would rise to $567.45 billion in 2014. Are you quibbling over the veracity of the number? The current valuation of that market segment grew to $1,090.64 billion in 2021, so following their prediction would have been quite profitable. I find your allegation baseless.

DeknMike (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

The difference is that I am not proposing that we use forecastinternational in the article. If you really think Seeking Alpha is a usable source, take it up at WP:RSN or similar - or look up past discussions of it there and save everyone some time. MrOllie (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Most of the discussion at WP:RSN about Motley Fool and Seeking Alpha were about the reliability of their stock picking. Discussion for Fool says "They also seem to fit the lens of opinion/analysis more than anything else." That fits the use for this article.

regarding Seeking Alpha, RS says to use the credentials of the authors, not the site itself. That particular author is William Keep, Former Dean, School of Business and former Interim Provost / VP for Academic Affairs, current Professor of Marketing at The College of New Jersey. He co-authored a 2002 academic article on MLM and pyramid schemes with Dr. Peter Vander Nat, then a senior economist at the FTC, and served as an expert witness in the prosecution of pyramid schemes in Gold Unlimited, brought by the US DOJ. Looks like a reliable source. DeknMike (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Inaccurate sourcing

The Participants section claims that 99.6% of participants lost money, and also claims the finding was endorsed by FTC (note the url is titled "Reports from Federal Trade Commission website"). However, the claim was actually a self-published pdf entered into the comment section against a proposed ruling, and the statistic didn't make it into the final ruling. Reference: /www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/ Recommend deletion of this source unless corroborating evidence can be discovered from a neutral source. DeknMike (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

While I actually share some of your qualms, I am not sure this is all that compelling an objection. Other reliable sources seem to look at this very paper as carrying some authority, like The Washington Post, Northeastern's Student Newspaper, The Guardian, etc., and more seem to consider Mr. Taylor an expert. For me the citation passes muster, but reasonable minds may differ on the subject. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 21 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. No support for the move. Original proposer agreeing to "yield." No consensus for making MLM the primary redirect. Fuzheado | Talk 07:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

---

• Multi-level marketing → MLM
• MLM → MLM (disambiguation)

– Search engines (Google, scholar, DDG, bing) bring up Multi-level marketing for MLM as top results. Although Scholar does give the most mixed results and with the term being spelt out in titles, general usage seems to indicate the MLM strongly refers to Multi-level-marketing. WP:PRIMARY TOPIC, WP:CONCISE. Akalendos (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

You are proposing to change the current article title, which is a clear and unambiguous description of the subject matter, to an abbreviation that needs a disambiguation page? What exactly is that supposed to achieve? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

hmm, decent point. I yield. What do you say about turning MLM into a primary redirect? Akalendos (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, though I'd favour making MLM a primary redirect instead. 162 etc. (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  Sure, this is what should be done. Akalendos (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose it's inappropriate to have the abbreviation as the title. --Killuminator (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose renaming article as "MLM" is neither unambiguous nor is there evidence of it being the most common name for this topic. I do suspect that this meaning of MLM is the primary one though, so support changing the redirect of MLM to point here (with hatnote to the DAB page at MLM (disambiguation)) seems reasonable. DMacks (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

It seems we have consensus.

• I admit this was a mistake. I'm really quite new and just found WP:MOVE and got a little trigger-happy.
• A redirect would be much more appropriate.
• I consent to closure.

Sorry and thank you all for humoring me and my errors Akalendos (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

We don't have consensus. IT is way too soon to close this as having consensus, tho I would say it is reasonable to strike the first bit as it appears you've withdrawn that bit. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Sure yes, I am wrong yet again. I guess I'm not sure I get the difference in this case, as I am the only one advocating for this silly and excessive move, but yes. For sure. I've just striked the text. Even now, it seems I find a way to continue clowning about. Akalendos (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I meant striking the move for this to MLM. THere does seem to be some support to move MLM to MLM (disambiguation) tho ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

done Akalendos (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not sure there is a primary topic for "MLM": the dab page got 827 views last month [7], and only a third of these (or 276) resulted in a click for this article's entry [8]. But if you look at just the outgoing clicks from the dab page, then the proportion would be more like two thirds (or 60–69%). – Uanfala (talk) 12:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose move and primary redirect. Status quo achieves the best result. The disambig page is more useful for readers looking for the other topics. -- Netoholic @ 19:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose move (per all the above) and primary redirect (per Unafala).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose—clarity for readers, please. Tony (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Oppose and also oppose making MLM a primary redirect. Dicklyon (talk) 10:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

picture

what does that picture have to do with the contents of the article? 2601:18F:80:1C0:C20D:ADD5:6ED0:F96E (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)