Talk:Vector Marketing

Proposals Suggestion

propose restore the introduction sentence for Business model "Vector Marketing is a single-level direct sales group that builds its work force through advertising via newspapers, direct marketing, word-of-mouth, posted advertisements, letters and various media on the internet" there is only one source that says they are an mlm all the rest don't. Jadeslair (talk) 05:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, "single-level direct sales" is basically meaningless as a descriptor, so that's not going to work. I would accept linking to direct selling. Grayfell (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Untrue. I do not care much about whether the article characterizes the subject as "multi level," but two sources were linked in a post, to which you replied, in the section above. VQuakr (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

And actually there is a third source that refers to the company as MLM.[1]

This source is incorrect. The sources quote "For both your sales of the plan's goods or services and those of other people you recruit to join the distributors." This is not part of Cutco/Vector's compensation plan. You don't get paid off the sales of recruits. At least that appears to be the case according to their official literature. https://vectormarketing.com/pay/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.9.64.4 (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

propose remove "Vector frequently advertises in newspapers and on fliers posted but its ads rarely explain the nature of the work" or rephrase to Vector has advertised in newspapers and fliers, those ads in 2004 have been noted as not explaining the nature of the work. Jadeslair (talk) 05:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

There are many sources already used in this article which support the assertion that Vector's advertising is extremely vague and potentially misleading. I would rather see this rephrased to explain that, rather than whitewashed, or rephrased to downplay one facet while ignoring others. Grayfell (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

No; no source has been presented that states the content of ads has substantially changed. VQuakr (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Addressing both above: There are a number of old sources, those same sources say Vector has or will change their policy. Actual ads 1, says direct selling of knives, 2, says sales, cutco one on one, 3,says conducting cutco demonstration also declares pay. I doubt there would be an article that says "Company now uses normal advertising methods!" Obviously I am not implying that these should be in the article as sources but they should help with decision making.

The gist of nearly all of the secondary sources cited about Vector's marketing practices describes them as vague, misleading, and at least somewhat predatory/exploitative. This point should be thoroughly addressed in the article, and it is more or less in the current version. This remains part of the company's history regardless of whether or not Vector subsequently changed their policies and practices, and there is no reliable evidence that they did. If there is a reliable source that quotes the company saying that they planned to change their practices, that could conceivably be included as well, but under no circumstances would it be appropriate to whitewash the company's past by expunging information about their practices in the past. I am inclined to agree with Grayfell that the text in question could conceivably be revised to explain and summarize the issues more clearly, but again, removing this text altogether would be highly inappropriate. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, part of their history. It is written in present tense. I Believe we have consensus on that. Jadeslair (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

So then why would you have suggested deleting (whitewashing) the material altogether? What modification would you now propose to make instead. I think that ultimately the description of the issues the company has had with misleading sales practices and violations of labor laws will be expanded, not expunged. I get the sense though that this is not the direction you were hoping for. Unintended consequences right? Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I will leave the modification up to you since you do not let me edit the article. I stated one way above. Whitewashing, humm, call it what you want,the sentence is misleading. Jadeslair (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

propose remove In addition to vague job descriptions due to WP:EDITORIALJadeslair (talk) 05:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Per above. If that is explained, then the transition between the two paragraphs could be rephrased accordingly. As a transition, it seems like very light-weight editorializing to me. Wafer-thin, barely a kitten's whisker of editorializing. Grayfell (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not clear why you think this violates WP:EDITORIAL. VQuakr (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

from within WP:EDITORIAL "to highlight something as particularly significant" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talk • contribs)

Referring to vague job descriptions does not seem like editorializing to me. If anything the issue seems to have been underplayed in the article, judging by what many of the sources cited in the article describe. I think ultimately this aspect will be expanded upon to give a clearer picture of the company's practices which have been scrutinized and criticized. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jadeslair: what adverbs or prepositional phrases functioning as adverbs are being used "to highlight something as particularly significant"? VQuakr (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not an english professor but "In addition to" It provides emphasis. Maybe I am wrong, if so feel free to tell me. Jadeslair (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:EDITORIAL applies to editorial commentary. If we started a sentence with words like "shockingly", "notably", or "remarkably" we would be in violation. "In addition to" is just a transition that does not convey undue emphasis. VQuakr (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

propose remove the Popular Science reference, it is not about the company, does not say anything about the company and is basically a blog post reprinted from here; http://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/2013/08/26/did-i-participate-in-a-ponzi-scheme/ideas/nexus/ WP:BIASED (second paragraph)Jadeslair (talk) 05:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't hinge an entire section on it, but as one source among many, I don't see any major problem. I do not see how WP:BIASED applies here, and biased is not the same as opinionated. Popular Science is free to republish from blogs if they wish. Since it is a passing mention, it's probably not vital, but lets set it aside for now. Grayfell (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not a reliable source, I am not saying Popular Science over all is not a reliable source but the article certainly is not. WP:NOTRELIABLE. Popular mechanics did not change anything, an indication that there was no editorial oversight. The author had a conflict of interest, the author was the subject of the article.. Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, not for others. This part of one of WIkipedia's core items. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talk • contribs)

The article would not meet the definition of self published, since it was ultimately published by Popular Science, a publication which meets WP guidelines for reliable sources (ie, reputation for accuracy, editorial oversight, fact-checking, etc.). The fact that this article may have been published elsewhere previously is immaterial. Even if it was reprinted in its entirety without any changes, this would not be indicative of a lack of editorial oversight on Pop Sci's part. It may simply be the case that the Pop Sci editors did not deem that the article required any additional editing or modifications. As for COI, I see no basis whatsoever for that claim. You seem to be misinterpreting WP:COI. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

It mentions the subject. Please explain why you think there is a violation of WP:BIASED. VQuakr (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

It is a personal account, a diary is a primary source, the fact that it was reprinted does not make it secondary, unless it was analyzed. The writer lumps all companies into the same barrel with very little fact checking and tries to get the viewer to take the same view. Jadeslair (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You're going way out on a limb with these assumptions about fact checking and whether or not "it was analyzed". The source (Popular Science) is WP:SECONDARY, not WP:PRIMARY. As pointed out above, this is not a stand alone citation; it is backed by two others sources. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

no assumption, they did not show an analysis, that is what would be needed. Jadeslair (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

According to what WP policy? It would appear that you are inventing arbitrary rules and grasping at straws. Cite a policy please. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:ANALYSIS Referring to secondary sources " It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources" Jadeslair (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing in WP:ANALYSIS that precludes the use of the Pop Sci article. Again you seem to be grasping at straws. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I cited policy, It violates that policy. I am going to remove it. WP:ANALYSIS It is a first hand account.

No, it doesn't. Stop edit warring. VQuakr (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I gave very good examples and detailed why it is not a valid source. WP:BIASEDWP:NOTRELIABLEWP:ANALYSIS If you would like we can get some administrative assistance for a clear violation of the rules. Did you read the article? Jadeslair (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to take it to the reliable source noticeboard. Everyone here seems to find your argument unconvincing. VQuakr (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, here it is. Jadeslair (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rhode Island Red: here is the discussion about that popsci url that you reverted Jadeslair (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

As a courtesy, it would be nice to notify the participants on he talk page thread when you post a query to RSN. There is still no consensus for removal; hence the reversion. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I did, look two lines up. In reference to three and four lines up, and then specifically tagged you when you did something relating to it. Jadeslair (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

:My bad. Sorry! Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Propose remove sometimes through misrepresentation of affiliation with the school.[6] the statement is not in the source cited nor is it paraphrased Ray Angle, director of Career Services at Webster, has received positive feedback from Webster students who have worked for Vector in the past and warns against being too sensitive to allegations.Jadeslair (talk) 05:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Look harder: "When confronted by lecturers, the recruiters say untruthfully that they are affiliated with the SBCC Career Center, according to the employee." Grayfell (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

That is not the same statement. Unless the sources have a laundry list of affiliations then the statement is not true. It could be phrased "some recruiters have be found to misrepresent affiliation with the SBCC Career Center but this is not Vectors policy." because in the source they state it is not Vectors policy. That covers due weight and since it is in the business model section it implies that it is part of their business model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talk • contribs)

No, the statement being supported is, "They recruit sales representatives from high schools and college campuses in the United States and Canada, sometimes through misrepresentation of affiliation with the school." That is supported by the reference given. VQuakr (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

VQuaker, you are right about the section, I copied the wrong section. The context is the United States and Canada, the article does not say Vector claimed to be affiliated with the schools nationwide, just Santa Barbara and specifically SBCC Career Center, a reader is likely to think they did this Nationwide and in Canada. I don't know whether they did or not but the article does not support that they did. It does not even say Vector, It says "some recruiters" so I think it would be appropriate to rephrase. Wikipedia:Verify, from the second paragraph "must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." Jadeslair (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

We can certainly add more detail about how the company's recruiters misrepresented that they were affiliated with SBCC, but I doubt you'll be any happier with the result. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Consensus has emerged that the court case doesn't merit mention.

propose a discussion 'In the 2008 case Vector Marketing Corporation v. New Hampshire Department of Revenue Administration, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire ruled that Vector employees are independent contractors and Vector is thus exempt from the state business profit tax.' seems to me that would not be notable, they were correct. [17] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talk • contribs) 05:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC) Yeah, I would prefer a WP:SECONDARY source for this. If it's significant to the company's business model and how it treats its (non-)employees, it should be supported by something else. It seems like it would be significant, so hopefully a source can be found. Primary court documents are rarely usable by themselves. The only obvious exception I can think of would be an article about a specific case. Grayfell (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC) Why does the fact they won the case, make it irrelevant? Notability is not a factor in determining if content should be included in an extant article. VQuakr (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC) It should have never been included anyways. It is original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talk • contribs) I don't think the court docket adds anything. It's arcane and difficult to interpret. Besides, the article already states that the company's distributors are independent contractors, and it is supported by reliable secondary sources. Is there anything significant in the docket that I might be missing? Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC) Definitely not original research, but there seems to be consensus here that it is not of sufficient relevance to the company to include. VQuakr (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

propose I've seen other articles directly cite social media posts as credible sources on company and political outreach. If that standard could be applied equally, would it be fair to cite high ranking Vector officials and/or writers from credible magazines' posts about certain topics? Wikipedia should be neutral, and although I have no intention of whitewashing this page, I think it would be a better source of information if policies or terms were defined by both pro and anti vector sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.77.161 (talk) 10:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Very unlikely that social media sites would be considered WP:RS -- for defining polices and terms or pretty much anything else. But there's nothing to consider in the absence of a concrete proposal for content/sources to include. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Multi-level marketing?

I don't understand why Vector is described as a multi-level marketing company. Its representatives only earn money from the volume of knives they sell, not from signing anyone else to become a salesman. The company signs people up through pervasive advertising, not through signing people up under other people. This needs to be fixed. --Sanya3 (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Multiple, recently-published RS call it a MLM: "Loyola’s Jackson explained that Vector is a multi-level-marketing company (MLM). Vector is the sales branch of Cutco Corporation, which produces kitchen accessories, especially knives. Cutco is an example of a multi-level marketing company. etc. It is up to anyone disputing this to provide sources to the contrary. Note that I've started an SPI here about the recent edit warring and use of throwaway accounts. SmartSE (talk) 10:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Loyola article stated that the student believed it to be an MLM, not that it actually was so. As Joel, a Vector Marketing corporate W-2 employee, says in that article, entry level reps (1099M independent contractors) are paid per appointment, or a commission on sales, whichever is highest, and not for recruitment. I can send you internal company documents on exactly how district managers (not summer office or branch managers) are paid a launching bonus (depending on whether a rep has completed the signing process and been "launched" from training with a kit) per rep, but their job description is the only one in the company that involves recruitment. Another student made it sound like it was mandatory to put all of his contacts into vector's system (it's not, I know for a fact that it was totally his choice per company policy). It's fake information being presented as true, and then cited here as such. If reps are not required to buy product or recruit friends, things that are often cited as characteristics of MLMs, then why should we label the company as such? We need to organize categorical differences between these terms, and not just cite students blindly. A better term that I've seen used both in Vector Ads and in company jargon would be 'outside sales' which is defined on Wikipedia's 'Sales' page. I think it's curious that no one has made this point yet. Seeing as this term applies more accurately than multi-level marketing and is not as vague as direct sales, would this be a substitution worthy of consideration? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.77.161 (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2018‎

You will need to find reliable sources for this. First-hand experiences with the company is not usable. Neither is original research about the definition of MLM, nor are primary documents from within the company which have been selected and compiled by a rep to support a specific conclusion. We are especially not interested in repeating company jargon. Jargon should be avoided, because we're not a recruiting tool, we are trying to explain the company in terms an outsider would understand. As has already been discussed on this page, Wikipedia strongly favors independent sources for multiple reasons. Grayfell (talk) 04:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

So the default option is to perpetuate fake news? Joel isn't a rep, he's the National Public Relations Manager. He can spin things, but if he lies he gets sued or fired. And by jargon, I meant that as a former Vector manager I literally ran ads titled "OUTSIDE SALES POSITION OPENINGS" on my branch's facebook page. Go to LinkedIn and type in "outside sales" and you'll find job openings at every company from New York Life to Tesla, where job descriptions and pay structures across industries are similar. I get that wikipedia isn't a recruiting tool, but "outside sales" is a familiar term to many who have been in the sales world, and would clarify misunderstanding in a way that would benefit the reader. If the term is unfamiliar, one could follow a link to an adequate explanation. MLM is misleading and false, the articles cited have quite obvious factual errors as well as an obvious slant against the company. I'm starting to wonder whether you may be perpetuating this information maliciously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.77.161 (talk) 09:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

You still have provided no reliable sources at all. Sales#Inside sales vs. outside sales had some spam sources which I just removed, but it still explains that "outside sales" is used specifically to contrast with "inside sales". It's not a business model, but an indicator of certain aspects of one set of roles within a business. Absolutely nothing about any reliable source I've seen suggest that Vector is a "outside sales business", nor is it clear what that would mean. MLM and outside sales are not mutually exclusive, and using a vague term that's also used by "every company from..." suggests that it's too broad to be informative. It's also pretty clearly euphemistic, since this would be replacing a controversial-but-specific term with a vague-but-bland alternative.

I have no direct involvement with this company at all. You, however, very clearly have a conflict of interest and have removed sources and changed the wording to make the article more flattering. Speculating on how "malicious" my motives are will not reflect well on you. Instead, comment on content, not on the contributor. The way to do this is to propose actionable changes backed-up by reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Update June 2018 I have reverted to MLM instead of direct marketing per this discussion, and the source. The reliable sources do seem to use the term multi-level marketing, but I would invite any further discussion or comment below. --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I support this action. Phearson (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Updates template removed

I've removed the template:update, which had been there since October 2016. This article has an active talk page, so if there is something that needs to be updated, it should be mentioned here. If sources support this, we can discuss how to implement these changes. Grayfell (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)