Talk:MonaVie

Complaints

This is the most biased article I have ever seen. Isn't it supposed to talk about what the product is in the introduction? i.e. Company X is fruit juice vs. Company X is the most scandalous corporation in the world and that's all they're known for... Drpeter2 (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I am also surprised that many of the references are obviously biased, this entire page should be rewritten. There is obviously a bias with the language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YorbaLindaOCMan (talk • contribs)

Please refer to WP:TPG. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason every source used in the introduction is negative, is there no neutral/positive information regarding Monavie. 69.108.80.108 (talk) 06:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you find any? If not, what does that tell you? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

There are many neutral/positive credible articles about Monavie. I just don't see how something like "its CEO was previously involved in false health claims of another beverage" is relevant to the general company introduction, it comes off very biased and negative.69.108.80.108 (talk) 06:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it true? And where are these "neutral/positive credible articles"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if it's true or false. I just don't see how the CEO's past is relevant to the intro section of the page. Are we to assume the CEO did crummy business in the past, so he must still be doing crummy business. I'll pull together some neutral sources. I am by no means an endorser of Monavie, but this page does read extremely negative.69.108.80.108 (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If you aren't "an endorser of Monavie", and you "don't know if it's true or false", why are you assuming that a neutral source won't be equally negative? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I just don't see why someone past would be relevant to this, he appears to be accused of something .. yet it's written here as a fact referring to Monavie. I just think that should be removed 69.108.80.108 (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

this seems like a very unbiased neutral source http://amarillo.com/stories/111408/fea_11683137.shtml69.108.80.108 (talk) 06:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"If a person wants to drink this juice, go ahead. But drink it because you like it, not because you think you won't get cancer if you do so. Until double-blind, placebo-controlled studies are done by independent, third-party research firms that publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals, don't believe everything you hear". Exactly - the ridiculous claims made by some people pushing this produce are meaningless. It is fruit juice. Which on the whole is good for you (in reasonable amounts). You can buy this anywhere. Or make it yourself from fruit. You don't need to involve yourself in 'multi-level marketing' with characters with a dubious background to do this. Fruit juice is good probably for you. Monavie probably isn't... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure how that reads to 69.108.80.108 as an unbiased source. I do agree that "its CEO was previously involved in false health claims of another beverage" does not need to be referenced in this article. Edgar Valdezzz (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

At least 2 high profile sources (Newsweek and Salt Lake Tribune, both cited in the WP article) wrote pieces about Monavie, and both featured significant coverage about Larsen's involvement with Dynamic Essentials and Royal Tongan Limu. Whether or not 69.108.80.108 and Ed understand the significance of this information, the task at hand is only to report what reliable third-party sources think is significant. That is why it's in the article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I call for deleting the statement "as a privately-held company, MonaVie isn't required to publish financial data." this lacks relevance to the article and appears as a bias as this is a fact of all privately held companies.YorbaLindaOCMan (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Can I ask, given your repeated attempts to remove all negative information from this article, whether you have any connection with MonaVie? If so, you need to read WP:COI, and if not, I'd like to see an explanation as to why you are so concerned about our portrayal of this dubious enterprise... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not have any connection to Monavie, nor have I tried to remove all the negative information. I am a neutral party, looking for neutral information. This article has things that are written in a complete and utter bias. The term you use dubious proves my point. I have had friends who were distributors and were successful. I never distributed the product, but have researched it quite a bit and found that it's not as bad as this article claims.YorbaLindaOCMan (talk) 05:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

If you are going to make sweeping proclamations about "complete and utter bias", you might want to at least attempt to back it up with a detailed explanation. The talk page isn't a complaint department. It's a place where editors can coordinate their efforts to improve the article by discussing specific content. Vague complaints are not helpful in that regard. Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The "call for deleting" the statement "as a privately-held company, MonaVie isn't required to publish financial data" and the complaints that it "lacks relevance to the article" and "appears as bias" are so far off base I have to wonder a bit about the motive of this editor as well. All it took was checking the reference that was cited in the article (in Newsweek by Tony Dokupil) which contains the following statement in reference to Monavie's income claims: "as a privately-held company, MonaVie isn't required to publish financial data." So the statement is (1) not irrelevant, (2) not biased, and (3) not going to be deleted. Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"I am a neutral party". Really? "I have had friends who were distributors...". Then you aren't neutral, are you? "I never distributed the product, but have researched it quite a bit...". Oh really? Why? What is it that interests you so much, as 'a neutral party', that your sole contributions to Wikipedia have been to present MonaVie in a positive light? Why are you 'researching' this particular purveyor of fruit-juice-based products? Why does it matter to you? Why, if the products themselves are so beneficial, are those marketing them so keen on preventing people from actually purchasing direct from the supplier, and would rather involve people in a convoluted 'multi-level' supply system that seems to do nothing other than draw in more and more people into a system that can only disrupt commerce between supplier and consumer. If you actually have 'friends' involved in this scheme, you ought, as a friend, to advise them to purchase their fruit juice elsewhere... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. I've researched quite a few things on wikipedia and most articles are written completely based on unbias. Ofcourse the critism section is warranted as Monavie has been the source of complaints in the past, however I do think some sections in this a page are written as a complete bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YorbaLindaOCMan (talk • contribs) 22:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

That is your opinion. You are entitled to that opinion. We, on the other hand take note of the fact that once you discount the hype produced by MonaVie and its supporters, almost all reliably-sourced material is negative. 'Bias' in Wikipedia terms isn't related to some abstract concept of 'neutrality', but instead in not reflecting accurately the views expressed in sources. If MonaVie attracts a large amount of negative commentary due to the way it does business, it would be 'biased' not to take note of that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Although I understand what you are saying, this article focuses primarily on the negatives from 2007-2009. From my own personal research it appears Monavie has developed into a more sophisticated brand and most of the allegations are not relevant to the past several years. I thank you for your explanation.YorbaLindaOCMan (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not just a matter of past allegations but these allegations refer to distributors and not the actual company. MonaVie from my understanding cannot control what it's distibutors do or don't do. Am I correct?85.163.156.168 (talk) 09:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Monavie 2.0

There appears to be no section within the page regarding current happenings at Monavie. Since conception Monavie has changed quite a bit. I would like to propose a new section for the page regarding the growth and new divisions of Monavie; including Monavie 2.0.Edgar Valdezzz (talk) 09:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, why is there no recent happenings section?YorbaLindaOCMan (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

That's putting the cart before the horse, since no one has yet proposed any specific new content for inclusion. A "Recent Happenings" section sounds like something to be avoided (c.f. WP:NOT#NEWS). If there is notable new information from independent sources, it should be woven into the article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Monavie is not a Pyramid Scheme and does have scientific research.

Please correct this sentence in the Monavie article. It is not a pyramid scheme, this insinuates that the company is operating illegal.

This is an MLM company, Multi-level Marketing.

Also there has been scientific research, not just on the Monavie products. But on the actually fruits and vegetables that are the ingredients in Monavie products.

As with ALL MLM companies and other self-employed business venture, you are an independent distributer / independent business owner, your compensation is directly based on the efforts that you put in. Unfortunately many MLM-ers (and small business owners) do not have the patience and perservance to do what needs to be done, in order to be profitable.

Ivy888 (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that MonaVie is a pyramid scheme - it says that "the business plan is similar to a pyramid scheme", and we cite the sources that we use to verify this. I suggest you read the Forbes magazine article on the subject. [1]

As for 'scientific research', the only research that would be relevant concerning the supposed benefits of MonaVie's products would be any that was directly about such products, and which was published in a mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journal - see our WP:MEDRS policy for further information on this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Monavie is not a pyramid scheme, wikipedia lists it as an MLM company http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multi-level_marketing_companies. The Forbes blog is the opinion of one blogger. A pyramid scheme is illegal, Monavie is legal. Please removed pyramid scheme from introduction. YorbaLindaOCMan (talk) 10:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Your edit has been reverted.[2] Our role as editors here is not to debate legality but to accurately summarize what other sources have reported. The Forbes article cited in support of the statement in question is not a blog as you incorrectly asserted. On a side note, MLMs can be pyramid schemes; the two terms are not mutually exclusive. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The Forbes article is an opinion of one individual not published in the magazine, clearly a blog. The source is invalid for such a strong statement and I have removed it for legality reasons. MonaVie has established itself as a legal MLM that goes beyond just selling juice.YorbaLindaOCMan (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The Forbes article neither a blog nor is it the opinion of just one lone individual as you allege. Perhaps you failed to notice that it was authored by two people (Emily Lambert and Klaus Kneal), not that the number of authors has any bearing on the article's qualifications for inclusion -- and the article clearly meets WP policy requirements. You don't get to delete content you dislike[3] merely because you alone have deemed it invalid based on criteria that have no basis in WP policy. If you keep blanking content in this manner, it's very likely that you will be blocked from editing on WP. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Monavie page is biased and misleading

When you compare the Monavie page to, say, the page for AMWAY, which is also a multi-level marketing company and a company steeped in controversy in its past, it is clear that the AMWAY page is more balanced and the Monavie page is clearly biased.

There are studies by nutritionists and doctors showing the efficacy of acai and absorbancy in the body. Many of the criticisms are supported by non-scientific, non-journaled articles themselves which is the same complaint leveled against Monavie.

The multi-level, network marketing approach used by Monavie is no more a pyramid scheme than any insurance or corporate marketing department where sales people receive one commission, brokers receive overrides, managers receive bonuses, and corporate execs receive management bonuses. The compensation plan allows any distributor to surpass their upline, is compensation offered in conjunction with product sold, and does not meet the definition of a pyramid scheme within wikipedia itself, i.e., "A pyramid scheme is a non-sustainable business model that involves promising participants payment or services, primarily for enrolling other people into the scheme, rather than supplying any real investment or sale of products or services to the public."

I recommend that the page be deleted or modify to delete its obvious biases.

Tony Hammond

Tonyhammond (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, "studies by nutritionists and doctors showing the efficacy of acai" are irrelevant, unless they (a) refer to MonaVie products directly, and (b) meet WP:MEDRS regarding any claims of health benefits. Secondly, our articles are based on what reliable sources say about the topic, rather than on the opinions of contributors - particularly those who seem over-keen on presenting a contentious organisation in a more favourable light than external sources would seem to justify. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)