Talk:Shaklee Corporation

Proposed articles on specific Shaklee products

I don't understand the deletion of the article I proposed on Vivix, or the mention of the product line on both the resveritrol page and on the Shaklee Corporation pages (which mentions the cleaning product and vitamin supplements as product lines). The mention of Vivix remains on the muscadine grape page but now the Vivix link is broken.

I am not pointing to any resources for ordering the product line, but the product line is of interest both to anyone interested in a liquid resveritrol supplement (as opposed to a powder/pill based supplement) and people interested in a resveritrol product produced from muscadine grapes instead of from Japanese knotweed. The articles I proposed were informative, the same way a Playstation 3 article is informative about another company's (Sony's) product lines. No specific representative or distributor of Shaklee products would benefit from the articles written, as no links to any particular websites were in the articles presented. I didn't even point to literature that Shaklee Corporation has made available about the product line.

So, what gives?

The Crisses (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No mention of efficacy of products?

We shouldn't have an article about an MLM company that sells placebos ("nutritional supplement" products with no proven value) without at least mentioning the fact that the stuff being sold is unnecessary / unhelpful. I'm not the right person to write that paragraph but it really does need to be inserted. Someone reading the article as it stands now could come away with the impression that this is a legitimate company selling worthwhile products. The fact that it's not needs to be mentioned in some even-handed way. —SaxTeacher (talk) 12:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This article does need more information about the efficacy of the products; I hope that is rectified in the near future. I agree that you should not be the one to insert your bias that you believe this company is not legitimate and that its products are not worthwhile, presumably because, as you pointedly state, this is an MLM company. This is your opinion which you incorrectly state is fact. I am not an expert of MLM or nutritional supplements, I am an editor, but I do note in my limited research of published documentation on this company that it has a long history (over 50 years) of no bad press that I can find. I also note that multi-level marketing is obviously legitimate marketing that has demonstrated success by many successful companies including this one (I see no correlation between any company's reputation and that company's choice to use MLM). And I am starting to learn that this company, unlike what I have noticed in other, younger nutritional supplement companies, seems to be a bit of a pioneer in many ways (including published research, but I am still compiling this information). Let's begin to provide published information about the efficacy of the products, and let's continue to keep a neutral point of view. prhartcom (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

There is always criticism out there of MLM organizations and Shaklee is no different. Perhaps some reference to it would be appropriate? This may be a good starting point as it includes a brochure and highlights the unrealistic nature of the claims.

Or perhaps that's something generic enough to just dovetail off ot the existing Multi Level Marketing article.

Some other items (will add as I find):

• The Consumer Awareness Institute (cited on the Multi Level Marketing article), lists Shaklee as one of 81 DSA member firms that qualify as a recruting MLM or product-based pyramid scheme and should be investigated by the FTC under Section 5 of the FTC Act.
• Although from the 1970's, it might be worth mentioning a couple of decisions against Shaklee made by the FTC:
  • 84 FTC 1593
  • 87 FTC 239 (modified later by 97 FTC 916).

Variant3 (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)