Talk:Primerica/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2017

Primerica is NOT a multilevel marketing business model. RaGuTi (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Also this issue has been asked and answered multiple times above. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Greyfell

Greyfell is clearly bias and should be removed from his post as approving Wikipedia postings for this page. He is clearly incapable of having a neutral outlook. He cites reasons why certain content cannot be approved due to not being vetted by the publisher, but then allows other content to be picked as a "credible source" that has the same editorial standards. Forbes vs. Business Insider for example. Forbes vs. Huffington Post for example. I move for consensus that Greyfell no longer have any authority over this page.

Greyfell violates WikiPedia's "Talk Page Guidelines" as he holds a specific view and is incapable of being neutral on this subject matter:

"The purpose of an article's talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or WikiProject. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. When talk pages in other namespaces and userspaces are used for discussion and communication between users, discussion should be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia.

The talk page associated with an article is named "Talk:Example", where "Example" is the name of the article. For example, the talk page for discussion of improvements to the article Australia is named Talk:Australia.

When writing on a talk page, certain approaches are counter-productive, whereas others facilitate good editing. The prime values of the talk page are communication, courtesy and consideration. The following list is designed to help Wikipedians use talk pages effectively." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.186.217.209 (talk) 02:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, then. Copypasting from a guideline page on talk pages is probably not a good way to improve this article. Yes, I hold some "specific views", as do you, or at least I sure hope so! This doesn't really make any difference, because we're people, not machines. Wikipedia works, more or less, on WP:CONSENSUS. This means that editors work together towards the goal of writing an encyclopedia. I do not think the many promotional sources proposed improve the article. I have tried to explain why, when it seemed like it was productive to improving the article. Sometimes, I haven't really bothered going into detail, and judging from posts like this, I think it's pretty clear why. I do not have any specific privileges related to editing this page, other than having an WP:AUTOCONFIRMed account in good standing. You can also create an account if you wish, but even if you do so, you will still need to establish consensus for changes made to this or any other page. The changes you have proposed in the past did not seem likely to gain such a consensus. The way to change that would be to discuss them, not to make sweeping threats to a mostly empty room. Grayfell (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2018

Change #1: In the first paragraph, above the "contents" box, change "As of 2017, it reported 121,471 independent representatives." to "As of September 30, 2017, it reported 124,436 licensed independent representatives."

Reason: updated number as stated in the companies Earnings Release, which can be read at the following link: http://s22.q4cdn.com/709213704/files/doc_financials/2017/Q3/PRI-3Q-2017-Earnings-Release_11.7.17.pdf Robertgk2017 (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done I don't think it's particularly important to get it exactly right in the lede of all places, but it's easy enough, either way. If, by any chance, "Change #2" involves removing the multi-level marketing label, or if it involves adding promotional content or obscure awards, please know that you will need consensus for any substantial changes of this nature before using this template. Start a discussion, and be prepared to cite reliable, independent sources for such changes. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2018

Since this topic seems to be of high debate, for a more neutral read on this article, please change first sentence from "Primerica, Inc. is a United States-based multi-level marketing company that sells insurance and financial services.[5][6][7][8]"

CHANGE TO: "Primerica, Inc. is a United States based corporation that distributes and underwrites term life insurance through its subsidiaries Primerica Life Insurance Company, Primerica Life Insurance Company of Canada and National Benefit Life Insurance Company of New York. Primerica's investment subsidiaries include PFS Investments, Inc. and PFSL Investments Canada Ltd., a broker-dealer, which distributes retail mutual funds, annuities and segregated funds; and Primerica Advisors, an Investment Adviser Firm, which distributes managed mutual fund and ETF investments. Primerica distributes additional financial services primarily on behalf of third-parties. While Primerica has denied it publicly , Primerica has been regularly labeled and considered by several as a multi-level marketing company.[8]"

This is a FAIR AND BALANCED informative description. Thank you for your considerations! 2600:8800:3A81:51B0:DDC4:603C:AD7E:169 (talk) 06:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

References

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.

As for the proposed changes themselves, Wikipedia strongly favors reliable, independent sources, and "considered by several" is what's known as weasel wording. Primerica has been labeled a multi-level marketing company by reliable sources, and Primerica is considered a multi-level marketing company by reliable sources. Reliable sources are what Wikipedia is uses. The CEO's rushed, self-congratulatory comments, or perfunctory WP:PRIMARY listings, are of limited value for multiple reasons. Grayfell (talk) 07:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

That response makes no sense. I read above that "Grayfell" has a clear bias. Your sources are not "reliable"... lol... seriously, have you read your sources? The Huffington Post! Business Insider from a terminated employee in jail??? This is B.S. at its finest! CNBC isn't allowed because why exactly? Also, WP:WEASEL... this is stupidity at its finest. This page is calling for a more NEUTRAL approach and you call it weasel wording. Your response doesn't sound very neutral. Wikipedia needs to be fixed. No encyclopedia would ever read like this page does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:3A81:51B0:DDC4:603C:AD7E:169 (talk) 07:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Uh huh. I'm sure you did read the above post, which was made by an IP address from the same location. Perhaps, by coincidence, you two even know each other... If you think that Veneziani's confessed battle with drug addiction and subsequent crimes in some way effects the reliability of this article he wrote, which was 6-years earlier and for a reputable publication with an editorial team and fact-checkers, please take it to WP:RSN. Huffington Post's news division is distinct from it's "The Blog" section, and it's "contributor" content. Again, per past discussions at WP:RSN, this news content is generally reliable unless we have a specific reason to think otherwise. CNBC asked the CEO his opinion, and he gave it. We could, hypothetically, use this, but why? To explain that he once, in passing, disagrees with the MLM label? This isn't WP:DUE weight, and doesn't belong in the lede. Grayfell (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2018

173.79.123.47 (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Primerica is not multi level marketing company

 Not done: This has been asked and answered multiple times above. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2018

Primerica is a Corporation with the franchise system, that mean you have the opportunity to start part time and build all the way to a franchise owner (RVP) is not a MLM company, since you don't make any money out of recruiting and no one is obligate to buy nothing, Pyramid Skim are prohibited in this country, when some one look into primerica through wiki and see MLM company this add is robbing the opportunity to some one to have their own bussines.

Primerica is a regulated company with a franchise system. Andyluis23 (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and is not a platform for promotion. Grayfell (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

MLM again

Heathererdmann (talk) 23:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)== Finance and Insurance == Primerica is not an MLM company, please effectually do the proper homework and federal research: the company SIC primary Code is 6411 - Insurance Agents, Brokers and Service, and 524210 - Insurance Agencies and Brokerages. Please use the SEC and Edgar Search the primary base for that information and not someone's cousin as it would seem was the case in the ignorance of the industrial identifier. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1475922/000156459018003151/pri-10k_20171231.htmHeathererdmann (talk) 23:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

By somebody's cousin, you mean Business Insider and Slate? Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, with a strong preference for third-party sources. WP:PRIMARY legal documents, such as SEC filings, are notoriously prone to misinterpretation, and are not given any special weight, regardless. Even setting that aside, I do not see where MLM is discussed in that dense, routine filing. Reliable sources say they are MLM, and therefore, so does Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2018

Primerica is Not a Multi-Level Marketing Company. Primerica is an agency/franchise model company. 216.201.203.34 (talk) 04:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: This statement is supported by reliable sources. LittlePuppers (talk) 05:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2018

Primerica, Inc. is a United States-based Network Marketing company that sells insurance and financial services. As of September 2017, it had 124,436 independent representatives 68.197.214.94 (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sam Sailor 16:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

List of products

This is regarding this edit

I have two concerns here. First, infoboxes are very poor at handling lengthy lists of details like this, and this particular infobox is already kind of bloated, with both a logo, a decorative photo (which is too small to be informative at all, by the way), non-notable 'key people', etc. It is not possible for this infobox to list every actual product sold, so trimming this to be a true overview of available products seems like an improvement. Was this list comprehensive? Probably not, nor would that even be desirable if it were.

Another problem is verifiability. Generally, reliable primary sources are barely acceptable for this kind of thing, but this link completely fails to support the entire list, which makes it inappropriate. Every entry should be sourced, but this would be excessive, and far worse, this isn't even handled properly in the body of the article, where there is room. This should be handled properly in the article first, and only then, should this information be selectively summarized in the infobox. The point of an article is to summarize, and the point of the infobox is to summarize the summary. Grayfell (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

That editor...won't be able to join this discussion. DMacks (talk)

10 years? Dang. I've removed that photo since I noticed how bad it is. It's a blurry snapshot of... a stage? Somewhere? with an indeterminate number of people? It's uninformative filler. Grayfell (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2018

Wikipedia has Primerica Financial as Multi-level company, however they're not registered has one. They are actually registered as a Financial services company. 108.173.9.220 (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. DMacks (talk) 02:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2018

Change this: In October 2015, James Wilcox, a school district superintendent in Longview, Texas and other Primerica representatives were censured by the Longview school district for holding Primerica recruitment pitch meetings at a local high school. The meetings generated numerous complaints and violated the school district's employee policy manual, which prohibits employees from using their position with the district "to attempt to sell products or services".[36] In 2017, Primerica representatives reportedly tried to recruit students on the campus of Brooklyn College, in violation of the college’s rules.[37]

to: In October 2015, James Wilcox, a school district superintendent in Longview, Texas and other Primerica representatives were censured by the Longview school district for holding a Primerica recruitment pitch meetings at a local high school. The meetings generated numerous complaints and violated the school district's employee policy manual, which prohibits employees from using their position with the district "to attempt to sell products or services".[36] The one parent complaint filed in 2016 with the Texas Education Agency regarding this meeting was closed without any action taken against Mr. Wilcox. Mr. Wilcox has remained a Longview ISD superintendent, with trustees saying he continues to be the best person for the job . In 2017, Primerica representatives reportedly tried to recruit students on the campus of Brooklyn College, in violation of the college’s rules, but college officials were not able to confirm that Primerica has been recruiting without permission.[37]

I think that this section should be updated to include the outcome of the situation. Tesile (talk) 12:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

References

 Done ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 14:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

 Undone: This request has been partially undone. @Tesile: Since part of this request was changed, modified or undone since I added it to the article please review the history and see why the editor changed the article. Please don't reopen this edit request to have the exact same edit request made when part of it was undone by another editor. If you feel this edit should remain intact please start a discussion here on the talk page to reach a consensus. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 02:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

 Note: Also Tesile according to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If the edit appears to be a conflict-of-interest edit please use {{request edit}} for further edit requests. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 02:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Alucard 16: Thank you very much. Yes, I now have permission to edit the Primerica Wikipedia page directly. My concern is that so far, each time that I have made an edit, the majority if my revisions have been removed/changed back. @Rhode Island Red: Can we discuss the changes I made that you removed here? Two revisions that you removed that I would like to discuss:

1) I do recommend that this page starts by describing Primerica as a company and its offerings, as opposed to starting with the distribution model. For example, per my revisionon 10/8, it could read "Primerica, Inc. is a United States-based insurance and financial services company that distributes its products and services through a distribution model that borrows aspects from franchising and direct sales model." Then, we could write a specific section specifically on their operations and distribution model.

2) Under "Sales force recruitment and Earnings" I updated: "...'to attempt to sell products or services'. The district's school board banned Primerica from Longview ISD campuses and directed Wilcox to "not allow any meetings of this type on any LISD property in that future".[36][37] A parent complaint filed in 2016 with the Texas Education Agency regarding the meeting was closed without any action taken against Mr. Wilcox.[38]. In 2017, Primerica representatives reportedly tried to recruit students on the campus of Brooklyn College, in violation of the college’s rules.[39]

to....

"...to attempt to sell products or services".[36] The one parent complaint filed in 2016 with the Texas Education Agency regarding this meeting was closed without any action taken against Mr. Wilcox. Mr. Wilcox has remained a Longview ISD superintendent, with trustees saying he continues to be the best person for the job (citation: Longview News Journal). In 2017, Primerica representatives reportedly tried to recruit students on the campus of Brooklyn College, in violation of the college’s rules, but college officials were not able to confirm that Primerica has been recruiting without permission.[37]"

I think that it is important to include the fact that Mr. Wilcos remained has remained a Longview ISD superintendent, with trustees specifically mentioning his credibility and success in the job in order accurately represent Mr. Wilcox and to represent the situation without bias.

Can we come to a compromise? Perhaps we can compromise and include that he has remained a Longview ISD superintendent.

108.7.187.15 (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Tesile (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Primerica is an MLM, so no, I don't support any proposals that whitewash this fact. Secondly, the text about the Longview superintendent seems fine as it stands in the article now. It's not germane to Primerica whether or not he currently holds the superintendent position. BTW, what did you mean that you have "permission" to edit the page. Do you have a WP:COI? Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

108.7.187.15 (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red (talk) What I meant by I have "permission" was that I have access to edit the page through the permissions of Wikipedia and am an autoconfirmed user.

My concern is that I have updated this page to reflect the latest data from Primerica's latest SEC filings and articles/info that has been published in 2017 and 2018 and you have removed almost all of my revisions. My goal is not to dramatically change the Primerica page, but to simply update it to reflect the latest data and to dive into more detail into what they provide, for example term life insurance and and investment and savings products. Are you opposed entirely to editing the first sentence of this page, and to expanding the "Business Model" section to include more info about their offerings like term life insurance and and investment and savings products? 108.7.187.15 (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

SEC filings are self-published by the company. They are not reliable independent sources with editorial oversight and therefore are usable only in a very limited context. Also, your edits went well beyond what you just described above; i.e., downplaying/whitewashing the MLM aspect and delving into tangents about the Longview superintendent's current job status that are not germane to the subject of the article. I already indicated and explained my opposition to those edits and that has not changed. You are more than welcome to propose any other suggested updates here where they can be discussed. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Tesile (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red (talk) I think you may have a misunderstanding of the accuracy that is involved with SEC filing. It is a crime to sign and submit an SEC filing that is false. It is the role of the SEC to monitor for stock manipulation and fraud. That being said, I disagree and believe that SEC filings are factual sources that can be used as references on Wikipedia. We can agree to omit the extra sentence I added about the superintendent staying in his role and being great at his job. That section now links to the article I recommended and that should suffice. Onto a different but related topic, I would like to add information about term life insurance and investment and savings products that Primerica offers to this page. Do you take issue with that? Tesile (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

You're new so it'll be a bit of a learning curve. SEC filings are not refereed by the SEC. They are, for WP purposes, WP:SELFPUB, so their use is limited to things like revenue claims, etc -- very basic stuff. That disqualifies anything that smells like WP:PROMO. Rather than filling the article with even more tedious cruft (already a huge problem with the article) from SEC filings, reliable independent news publications should be the focus.I suggest you read up on WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY and when you have, propose any text changes here. I also suggest you read up on WP:SPA and WP:COI. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red (talk) I appreciate your knowledge of Wikipedia! There are several reliable news publications that have written about Primerica and defined them as a leading financial and insurance services company including The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Forbes , and Bloomberg Law . What I would like to do is just refresh a couple sections as I've mentioned like the first paragraph and I'd like to add a section on the insurance and financial services they provide. Based on the fact that you have rejected the revisions I've made so far, have made blanket statements as though I want to whitewash their business model, and that you have stated that SEC filings can't be used as references, I feel like you may be a little biased when it comes to this article. I am a supporter of using quality references and abiding by Wikipedia's guidelines, but I would like to get a third party input so that we can come to a healthy agreement that isn't entirely decided upon by one person. I'm just going to list a third party request to see if we can have some help negotiating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tesile (talk • contribs) 01:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC) Tesile (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Once again, if you have new specific text to propose, then go ahead and do so. You didn't respond to any of the points I made. Don't make accusations of bias simply because you get reasonable push-back, especially not with the optics of you being WP:SPA and subtly POV pushing. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Note, your claim that I said that “SEC filings can't be used as references” is demonstrably false. I said specifically “SEC filings are self-published by the company. They are not reliable independent sources with editorial oversight and therefore are usable only in a very limited context…They are, for WP purposes, WP:SELFPUB, so their use is limited to things like revenue claims, etc -- very basic stuff. That disqualifies anything that smells like WP:PROMO.” I chose my words very carefully and you simply did not listen.

You also proposed removing the fact that Primerica is an MLM from the company’s description in the lead, which is whitewashing, given that there are numerous WP:RS cited in the article that establish this fact (the 3 links you posted are scant, use inconsistent terminology to describe the company, and are essentially worthless). I’ve seen a lot of attempts at this particular type of whitewashing of MLM articles (always unsuccessful), often by WP:SPA editors. The reason you are getting pushback is because your proposals are off base. Your accusation of bias is completely unsubstantiated, and again, not cool. You might consider taking a break from this and trying to get some editorial experience working on other WP articles with which you don't have such a close connection. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Tesile, the WP policy on conflict of interest was pointed out to you on your Talk page on October 3, 2018,[1] and you have been cautioned here about the issue as well.[2][3][4] You have nonetheless continued to edit the article directly, and your recent edit summary indicates that you are doing so on behalf of the company (i.e., "These changes were requested by legal representation of the company and require modification in order to reduce liability from outside parties"),[5]) in apparent violation of the COI policy, which requires that you disclose your COI and refrain from editing the article directly. Please respect the policy going forward or you may be blocked. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2018

The opening of this article lists Canada, United States, and Puerto Rico. Two nations, and a territory of one of the nations listed. That seems inappropriate. Dennis M. Myers (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want made. Please make precise change requests. In any case, given your number of edits and account age, you should be able to edit the article yourself. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't seem the least bit inappropriate to me and I see no reason to change it. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2018

Primerica is a company that utilizes the positive components of various business models, combining them to form the business model that they have. The company's business model is similar to a real estate brokerage model, except that all agents have the ability to be a broker. Correctinfo092 (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: WP:NPOV, WP:PEACOCK. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 23:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Request for edit

Some proposed changes

Information to be Changed:

CURRENTLY SAYS: "In 2017, Primerica representatives reportedly tried to recruit students on the campus of Brooklyn College, in violation of the college’s rules."

Proposed Change: "In 2017, Primerica representatives reportedly tried to recruit students on the campus of Brooklyn College, in violation of the college’s rules, but college officials were not able to confirm that Primerica has been recruiting without permission."

Explanation of issue: Citation #40 clearly states "Although Stewart has claimed to have had a first-hand encounter with Primerica on campus, college administrators have not yet been able to confirm that Primerica has been recruiting without permission."

• COI DISCLOSURE: This was a paid edit and disclosed on User Talk page per COI policies in good faith.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay Bestille (talk • contribs) 21:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

That suggestion seem a little too WP:SYNTH to me (i.e., grafting the last line of the article onto the statements in the first part of the article). The reporting was by the newspaper The Excelsior, which noted: "To confirm, Stewart showed The Excelsior Humphries’ number from his cell phone’s call log. It matched with the number that The Excelsior called in order to inquire about Primerica’s presence on campus." There's also this: "Primerica is not permitted to recruit on campus, and a warning was issued to Brooklyn College Public Safety shortly after The Excelsior’s inquiry on the matter." The text currently in the article is merely one line, and it qualifies the charge by saying "reportedly". Whether or not campus officials were able to confirm it after the fact seems irrelevant (how could they possibly do so?). Seems like The Excelsior was satisfied with the evidence enough to report the incident and to follow it up by issuing a warning letter to school officials. I see no need to add an additional qualifier about whether or not campus officials were able to confirm it, as that would seem to unduly negate the credibility of the reporting. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Reply 02-JAN-2019

  Edit request implemented  

1. Quoted passages from the source were added to clarify the issue and to bring the statement more in line with the reporting as printed in said source.
2. Despite the claim that their paid edit is disclosed, no such disclosure exists on this talk page (in the usual place just below the header) nor on the editor's talk page in an easily identifiable location.
3. The COI editor is reminded to sign all posts left on talk pages.

Regards,  Spintendo  22:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Notes

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2019

Primerica is not an American multi-level-marketing company. MonikaWoods (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Nihlus 04:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2019

Hello, My name is Jason Ferrie, I have been with Primerica for 15 years and I just noticed that Primerica is listed on your page as a Multi level marketing company. Although Primerica does have some characteristics of a MLM it is not a Multi level company. To be a MLM you have to be registered with the state as such and we are not, we are registered as a financial services company. Just wanted to bring this to you attention to make sure all the info on there is correct. Thank you Jason Ferrie 97.88.224.240 (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done – We follow what reliable sources say. – Þjarkur (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Remove: Multi-Level Marketing Company. Add: Financial Services Provider. Before Primerica send a cease and desist. Cuecarbon (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done – We follow what reliable sources say. DMacks (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Primerica is not MLM, once again -

This "talk" is going to be reliable as much as possible as far as articles/websites you'll be directed to. I did my best to research and look into both sides of this story. I also tried to find .ORG websites or FTC regulations. The topic of discussion is the statement made by Wikipedia - “Primerica, Inc. is a United States-based multi-level marketing company that sells insurance and financial services.[3][4][5][6][7][8]” This is ONLY a “talk” about if Primerica is MLM or NOT. No other subject matters for this discussion.

Here is why this is a discussion in the first place. Regardless of opinion, Primerica has lots of success helping families with their financial needs. Here's this website link: http://www.Primerica.com/public/Primerica-term-life-insurance.html to show what is current as far as life insurance goes. You can find more throughout the website. Primerica is NYSE company, so all info is up to date and accurate for shareholders to accurately determine investing in Primerica stock or not.

SO, because they do in fact help people - "new hires" or recruits are necessary to expand as a business. However, when new interviewees are told to view WIKI and see that Its states " Primerica is a Multi-Level Marketing Company" - They are turned off because of what MLM companies have done with their business strategies in the past. More concerning to the interviewees, they are worried it’s a scam. To quickly dissolve the “scam” issue, not a pyramid scheme, just a straight rip off of money and illegitimate products. (also, not MLM but in the next section) 1. Primerica doesn't scam people - https://www.bing.com/search?q=yahoo+finance+pri&form=EDGTCT&qs=HS&cvid=0d2b9c6ffe7c45f38cb9a75cf79dcb71&refig=64205e1fc03d4f7db37df5dce431227f&cc=US&setlang=en-US It’s a NYSE company for many years now. I think most know or agree; Primerica doesn't scam people. In addition, Primerica was listed through Forbes as one of the 50 most trust worthy companies - https://www.forbes.com/sites/kathryndill/2015/08/03/americas-50-most-trustworthy-financial-companies-2/ Wiki has noted that one already as well. Also, the research done by Warburg Pincus surpasses my own - https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704486504575098070564793184 investing $230 million in the spin off from Citi. So, I hope thats enough to take the scam piece off the table.

2. Primerica is not a pyramid scheme - http://www.sec.gov/answers/pyramid.htm Here is the government definition of a pyramid scheme... I’m using .Gov not a blog/opinion website. It states that pyramids "make money by SOLELY recruiting others, also handing in your money and getting others to do the same." In Primerica, you cannot make any money for someone else joining the business. As an example: You can recruit 10 people and make no revenue/profit/income. There is no profit margin for recruits joining Primerica or its reps.

Here's a link to just see different examples - https://www.google.com/search?q=Primerica+Pay&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj3x5qLmojjAhVPqp4KHcvVAHAQ_AUIESgC&biw=1280&bih=643 It’s hard to find a published Comp plan, but all the ones you will find, they never say or show you making money for recruiting a person. There are "Overrides" but that is from a sale being made, not someone joining. Talk to any representative or visit any compensation page or article - with Primerica, you cannot make any money recruiting anyone, because it doesn't cost anything to work there. If you want to pay for a license through them, (you can find $99IBA FEE and $25 POL FEE)- You can pay those if you would like, if not- you don't have to but you will have to come licensed. The fees involved with the license are optional through Primerica, as well as the technology support you can access, it is not a requirement to come unlicensed.

Back to this link - http://www.sec.gov/answers/pyramid.htm It also explains it looks like a legitimate MLM (Multi-level marketing company)

• • implying that there are legitimate MLM's**

SO HERE IS OUR TOPIC OF DISCUSSION- Soo... Is Primerica MLM? First note that there are LEGITIMATE MLMS and ILLEGITIMATE MLMs (Pyramid schemes and other fraud)

HERE are the arguments – NO Primerica is not MLM

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Primerica+glenn+williams+is+this+mlm%3f&&view=detail&mid=BFBE6D3F1B7BBA5765ABBFBE6D3F1B7BBA5765AB&&FORM=VRDGAR

• • • This is a link to a 3 min video from CNBC and the CEO Glenn Williams of Primerica. The question is asked at 2:25min - Glenn’s response is "No"

I will admit, I'm not a top-notch researcher - but people are buying Primerica shares https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/DTIL/holders?p=DTIL And if the CEO was lying, he would be lying to the entire company as well as all the shareholders of PRI stock.

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/business-guidance-concerning-multi-level-marketing Here is the FTC definition, as well as - Here is what MLM is... www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0065-multilevel-marketing

Referring to the second link... Second paragraph (in blue) states if they A> make money by recruiting and B> selling to your team. Third paragraph says you have to "buy into the company." At Primerica, its already covered that they don't make money recruiting others. So they can't do "A." And you do not have to sell to your team, which is "B". There is no "buy and resell" product in Primerica. If a rep chooses to buy Life insurance or and investment, they cannot take their life insurance and sell it to someone else... Buying as a representative of Primerica is no different than a client purchasing. In addition, you don’t have to buy anything in order to join Primerica. You don't have to own a mutual fund or life insurance. There is no start up kit of any kind.

That’s why the answer is “NO” it’s not MLM. There is a tiered compensation plan, but legally and technically for the sake of misrepresenting the company, it is not MLM based on FTC and Government definitions.

LAST ISSUE - There are links to "prove” that Primerica is an MLM on the wiki website... I will do my best to prove otherwise with more credibility. Here is the list of links Wiki provides, as well as new information I am providing that I believe proves otherwise. NONE OF THE ARTICLES LISTED BY WIKI (3-8 in the links) ARE ARTICLES PROVING OR DISPROVING THAT PRIMERICA IS AN MLM OR NOT. 1. https://www.businessinsider.com/citigroup-Primerica-ipo-2010-4 ---

The author “Vincent Veneziani,” for credibility, refers in the article to http://www.pinktruth.com/?option=com_content&task=view&id=617&Itemid=123

Which is Mary K. A long lasting MLM... Not sure why this would be more credible than Primerica CEO stating "NO" on national television, in the 3 min video from above.

Vincent Veneziani also uses an “Articlesbase  .com”  website, which is blocked as wiki’s Spam black list. This website that doesn’t work. Probably because it was inaccurate and was taken down. 

and lastly… Vincent Veneziani was not the most credible person either - https://medium.com/@vincentv/the-end-of-a-long-road-of-crime-89d6f396af66 his own blog.

2. https://slate.com/business/2016/05/the-government-is-finally-closing-in-on-herbalife-herbalife-will-fight-back-hard.html

There is only one line in this article. This is article is not particular to Primerica or Pramerica’s business model. “” Then, the Direct Selling Association convinced the FTC to exempt MLMs from a new “business opportunity rule” by arguing somewhat incredibly that it would put too big of a strain on the companies to comply. MLM critic Bill Keep, the dean of the School of Business at the College of New Jersey, called the FTC’s decision an “erroneous conclusion” that was “naïve.” The rule was adopted in 2011 to protect individuals from unscrupulous work-at-home businesses. Timothy Muris, who was head of the FTC during the Bush era, along with J. Howard Beales, the director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection during the same period, lobbied for the exclusion as representatives for Primerica Financial, an MLM that sells insurance. “”

Here are the actual court hearing documents – A. https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_comments/2006/07/522418-11929.pdf B. https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/trade-regulation-rule-disclosure-requirements-and-prohibitions-concerning-business-opportunities-ftc.r511993-00025%C2%A0/00025-57369.pdf

Reading the documents multiple times – you can conclude that this was an issue against Direct Selling Association and FTC – Primerica is a/ or was apart of Direct Selling Association. This separates Primerica and MLM in the middle of the first document “a”.

3. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/senate-republicans-fiduciary-duty-rule_n_55ad90d0e4b0caf721b3afda This article is about the DOL rule, long since past now. The term “MLM” is again loosely used. This article is not about what an MLM is, or if Primerica is or isn’t one. Also, the links within the article don’t work either, for some.

4. https://www.amazon.com/Primerica-MLM-Making-Network-Marketing-ebook/dp/B004EYSZLO Amazon? Someone described their book, and that’s credible? Pam Hogan did this with lots of companies for personal financial gain. https://www.goodreads.com/author/list/924524.Pam_Hogan Why is this relevant? I don’t know…

Here: https://abcguys.com/getting-rich This is an unbiased view on financial services, does reference Primerica on pg. 66 – saying “They offer straight forward financial advice without any tricks or “gotcha’s.” Or here: https://abcguys.com/financial-freedom This is an unbiased view on financial services businesses, franchises, MLM’s, and many other businesses. On pg. 87 they show the difference between Primerica and MLM.

Just to confirm, they have a note in their book “The authors never worked for Primerica, received any money to promote Primerica, and have never owned any Primerica stock. “ Again, these books are general, Primerica is not the topic of discussion for these books, there are just small statements made about Primerica.

5. https://archives.cjr.org/the_audit/an_alternate_history_of_citigr.php This has one line in it… definitely not a “fact checked” statement. There is no grammatical/punctuation to make it a complete sentence. It has a link to “sketchy” – an article written in 1994... Today, we’re in 2019 – 25 years ago this article was written. Maybe Primerica looked “sketchy” in the 90’s – but like many articles that inaccurately projected Pramerica’s dissolve, this one doesn’t look any different. The “sketchy” article also does not address the MLM definition or if Primerica is or isn’t MLM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BestBizman (talk • contribs) 00:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The company is not a MLM. mLM are required to register with Ste state Primerica is a marketing company not a MLM RHRuckman (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@RHRuckman: That's a great example of WP:SYNTH, which is strictly prohibited. DMacks (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2019

Remove: Multi-Level Marketing Company. Add: Financial Services Provider 149.61.198.78 (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Correct the mistakes ASAP

Remove: Multi-Level Marketing Company. Add: Financial Services Provider Cuecarbon (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done – We follow what reliable sources say. DMacks (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2020

Primerica is listed as a general agency and marketing company not multilevel marketing here is the official source. http://www.snl.com/interactive/lookandfeel/4245322/PRI.Company.Overview.pdf

Please change: Business model Primerica, Inc. is an insurance and financial services company that uses multi-level marketing[3][4][5][6][7][8] to sell financial products and services.

Business model Primerica, Inc. is an insurance and financial services company that Uses the general agency and marketing model to sell financial products and services.

Joeywealthy (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Not done, we reflect secondary sources rather than primary sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Request Revisions and Additions on 7 April 2020

Based on Federal SIC and NAICS codes, Primerica is not an MLM. Please make revisions and additions below.

1) The SIC and NAICS codes for Primerica are Finance and Insurance, not Direct Sales. These are the true classifications by the federal government, which does not recognize Primerica as a direct sales (MLM) company.

"SIC Codes were established in 1937. The system was built with a strong foundation and was updated numerous times until 1987. The planning of NAFTA as a Free Trade economic community between the U.S.A, Mexico, and Canada led to a new approach for a classification system for the member countries. SIC codes required an update and were in need of more specific classifications. In the interest of the member countries, a new system (NAICS) was established in 1997."

"The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is the standard used by Federal statistical agencies in classifying business establishments for the purpose of collecting, analyzing, and publishing statistical data related to the U.S. business economy."

"The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is used by businesses and governments to classify and measure economic activity in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. NAICS is 6-digit code system that is currently the standard used by federal statistical agencies in classifying establishments (individual business locations). NAICS organizes establishments into industries according to the similarity in the processes used to produce goods or services.

NAICS codes array the economy into 20 sectors, which are separated into 99 3-digit subsectors, which are divided into 311 4-digit industry groups, which are further subdivided into 709 5-digit industries, and finally disaggregated into 1057 6-digit U.S. industries."

For Primerica's SIC Code and NAICS code, please see

To see the Direct Sales NAICS code, please see

2) Multi-Level Marketing and Multi-Level Commission are not the same thing. For example, a realtor at a 50% commission level that splits the commission with their broker 50/50 is an example of multi-level commission. Primerica uses the same business model, it is multi-level commission similar to that in real estate.

3) Another difference is that in an MLM people are paid for recruits vs in multi level commission, payment is only made when there is production, such as the sale of a house (in real estate) or the writing of a life insurance policy (in insurance industry). A broker makes zero money unless his agents are out there conducting transactions, the same is with Primerica. There has to be production and people being helped. Both of these inddustry's requiring licensing, making them even more similar.

Primerica is more similar to the real estate industry than it is an MLM.
Here are some examples:
1.) Multi-Level Commissions which mirrors broker/agent splits in real estate.
2.) The $25 monthly fee is for the dashboard that it's insurance agents use to take applications. This is not a required fee, it is optional and agents can opt in or out, similar to real estate agents that have to pay for the MLS access.
3.) Agents sit for state licensing exams. Real estate agents sit for their real estate exam, insurance agents sit for an insurance agent exam.

SUMMARY:
Correction 1: Removing mention of MLM in the first line of the Business Model section and replace with "multi-level commission" structure.
Correction 2: Add "publicly traded" in the first line of the Business Model section. Replace:
"Primerica, Inc. is an insurance and financial services company that uses multi-level marketing[3][4][5][6][7][8] to sell financial products and services."
with
"Primerica, Inc. is a publicly traded insurance and financial services company that uses a multi-level commission structure to sell financial products and services."

Correction 3: Removing mention of MLM in the first line of the Sales Force Section and replace it with "multi-level commission". Replace:
"In Primerica's eleven-tiered multilevel-marketing system,. . ."
with
"In Primerica's multi-level commission system..."

Revision Request: Replace in Sales Force Section
"As of 2010, Primerica required its sales representatives to pay a $25 monthly fee, and it is estimated that these fees netted the company revenue of $2.5 million per month from its own employees.[5] "
with
"Agents are considered independent contractors, therefore new representatives affiliating with Primerica must complete the Independent Business Application (IBA) and pay a one-time fee of $99 in the U.S. or $103.95 (includes applicable taxes) in Canada. This covers the background check, finger printing and licensing exam fees. In addition, agents have access to a full range of tools with which to do their business, called Primerica Online. Primerica Online (POL) is an intranet website that provides representatives with access to tools and resources to help them grow their businesses. A Full-Service subscription to POL is required to access its full range of information and functionality. Initially, Full Service POL costs $25 per month for representatives in the U.S. and $28 per month for representatives in Canada. POL can be accessed without charge to access more limited information, e.g., compensation and compliance information. Full-service access is not required but is recommended."

Addition Recommendation: Add a section comparing it to the real estate industry
Addition Recommendation: Recent Awards:

1. Forbes: America's Best Employers By State 2019 and

2. Forbes: Best Employers for Women 2019 and

3. Forbes: America's 50 Most Trustworthy Financial Companies

4. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Top Workplaces of 2020 and this is the 7th year in a row Primerica has received this award

5. Best of Gwinnett 2019: Best Employer

6. Best of Gwinnett 2019: Best Community Foundation

7. Dalbar: Mutual Fund Service Award Numerous Years

8. AM Best: Financial Strength Rating as A+ Superior

KireinaKalonne (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Reliable sources indicate that Primerica is an MLM. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2020

Replace this statement "Primerica, Inc. is a United States-based multi-level marketing company that sells insurance and financial services." with "Primerica is the largest independent financial services marketing organization in North America, serving middle-income households in the U.S., Canada and the territories of Puerto Rico and Guam." Ely08stan (talk) 01:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Sounds incredibly promotional JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2020

Primerica is not a Multi Level marketing company and all references to that are opinion. They are a registered company on the NYSE and are regulated by State Insurance Commissions and FINRA, neither of which would allow them to operate as a MLM company. You need to remove the indicators relating to such. 50.220.28.142 (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

We follow how WP:RS describe them. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Primerica is not an MLM.

It's registered under the SEC as a general agency. Calling it an MLM is blatantly false. Brockmcc22 (talk) 04:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think that's historically accurate. There are plenty of sources that describe the company as MLM. That said, the way MLM is written in the article seems like that's how the company identifies itself but based on all these talk edits (from reps of the company??) that doesn't seem to be the case... So it might be better to say that the company "has been described as MLM." Any objections? ALSO, in general, this page seems quite bad / unfocused to me. It's promotional, there's tons of unnecessary content and really arbitrary stuff. There's a lot that I'd want to fix. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Likeanechointheforest (talk) Whay sources are you referring to? Because the only source listed in the article is a source from over 11 years ago. Primerica Financial services is a registered Financial services company. Attributes like mandatory inventory purchases or mandatory recruiting to suspend fees/costs that are attributed to MLMS are not an attribute of this company, and describing it as an MLM only serves to bend the truth, which is something that a websites of facts shouldn't be doing.Brockmcc22 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Brockmcc22 (talk), please check sources 4-7 Likeanechointheforest (talk) 13:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree! Primerica is NOT an MLM company. JeanneVD (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

A.L. Williams was MLM, and A.L. Williams became Primerica. Therefore Primerica was MLM historically at the very least, which must be mentioned. Coupdeforce (talk) 03:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

What even

Just writing to note how obvious the people who work for Primerica are on this talk page. You can't just state that a company isn't an MLM because someone who works for them say they aren't, when that accounts for the majority of their business model. I can tell you my turd is a chocolate brownie all I want; that doesn't make it not a turd. Primerica is very obviously an MLM - you have to buy your way into employment, and every employee is recruited by other employees to make revenue trickle up a pyramid. --208.113.0.174 (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Edits requested w/ declared COI

Hoping to get some assistance with some suggested edits, as I have a COI and do not want to update the page without review. Here are the requested edits:

Remove picture that says it is a "Primerica Building in Hillsboro, Oregon" and replace with the Primerica HQ building (here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Primerica_HQ_Building.jpg)

Also, I would like to provide some suggested edits to the financials. We just filed a 10-K today that includes these details to replace the existing old information.It can viewed/referenced here:

Proposed changes to the right-side summary bar:

All numbers are in US dollars and for the year ended December 31, 2021

Revenues $2.71 billion Operating income $511.12 million (that is actually income before income taxes, not operating income) Net Income $373.36 million (that is actually net income attributable to Primerica, not net income) Total Assets $16.12 billion Total Equity $2.08 billion (that is actually Total Permanent stockholders’ equity, not total equity)

Also requesting the addition of Peter Schneider, President to the "Key People" section.

Thanks so very much. TermLifeOG (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)TermLifeOG

 Partly done: I got the image, but pdfs arent working on my computer right now, I'll look at the rest tomorrow if noone else comes by before then. Leaving the tag open until then. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 08:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for updating that image @IAmChaos. Please let me know if can do anything to support you regarding the other requested edits TermLifeOG (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@IAmChaos: Have you finished reviewing the changes above? Is this ready to be closed? Z1720 (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh thanks for reminding me, I'll look now! Happy Editing--IAmChaos 04:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

References

 Done @TermLifOG: sorry I forgot, thanks for the ping. Closing the tag now, feel free to reopen if you need anything else. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 04:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@TermLifeOG: - (with an e) Happy Editing--IAmChaos 04:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so very much! TermLifeOG (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Edits Requested w/ Declared COI

Looking for some assistance to make come updates.

Infobox Update

In the "Industry" section of the box, it lists "Multi-level marketing." This is not a type of industry.

Less urgent of an update, but still important. We would also like to add a new section to the Primerica page. We would like to add some information on the Foundation which we launched in 2010. Just would like to include some basic info on its mission and giving. Here are the requested changes and accompanying sources.

PROPOSED TITLE FOR NEW SECTION: FOUNDATION

The Primerica Foundation is a charitable organization sponsored by Primerica, Inc. It was established in 2010.[6]

Since its inception, the foundation has donated over $6 million to nonprofit and community organizations in Gwinnett County, Metro Atlanta, and the state of Georgia.[7]

The Primerica Foundation works with approximately 100 nonprofit and community organizations annually, who help families and individuals in need. The foundation has awarded 600 grants, which has impacted more than 4 million lives. [8]

The foundation’s efforts include a donation of $175,000 to COVID-19 relief,[9] donations to the American Red Cross,[10] and a sponsoring partnership with Gwinnett County’s first homeless relief shelter.[11] In July 2022, the Primerica Foundation awarded a $50,000 grant to the City of Refuge which will use the grant funds to help underserved and low-to-moderate income families and individuals achieve self-sufficiency – a central focus of both organizations. [12] TermLifeOG (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

javahurricane wondering since you have been active on our page whether might take a look at this request and offer your thoughts? TermLifeOG (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@IAmChaos:could you assist with reviewing these recommended updates please?(talk)TermLifeOG (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Request edit on 14 November 2022 - What Primerica Sells

In the list of products Primerica offers, we should include Medicare Advantage plans through easyMedicare. EZMedMan (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 02:01, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

pri-ex21_27.htm (sec.gov) EZMedMan (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I can make the addition if nobody else can! Would link to the home page (easymedicare.com) which includes mention that they are an affiliate of Primerica. EZMedMan (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Please don't. This does not seem terribly notable, and continuing to add promotional material for your affiliate is problematic. Sam Kuru (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)