Talk:The Cobra Group/Archives/2015

Multi Level Marketing

Whilst not a pyramid scheme, it would definitely be worth pointing our that the Cobra Group is a large Multi Level Marketing, door the door sales group. The principal being that you join the company as an independent contractor who earns no salary. Makes sales and moves up 'Cycle of Development' (ie, level 1, level 2). Each level puts more people under you, you earn commissions based on their sales, etc, etc. It doesn't cross the line into an illegal pyramid scheme, however its structure is essentially the same as any of the thousands of MLM schemes out their. The whole principal being the higher your 'level' and the more people under you in the tree, the more you earn.

I also think the the list of companies operating under the cobra group should be placed back in the article. It seems it has been removed, as companies in the cobra group try not to make it known what they actually are, and make an effort to present themselves as being independent, standalone 'marketing' companies. And Biggest fraud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.132.226 (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC) http://www.appcogroup.com.au/about-us-1/mythbusters#MYTH%203

Regardin the first point you make I think we need to find the most neutral common ground possible in terms of definition of the company simply to avoid constant changes and reverts from pro- and anti- cobra group people. I think that depending on who uses the term MLM can be seen as having either positive or negative connotations and therefore will probably be disputed just like the Pryramid scheme label. Whatever the cobra group gets tagged as in the description will need to come with undisputable referneces to avoid having the article content changed constantly. At this point I do think that a simple tag of Marketing Company would probably be sufficient to keep most people happy until a more specific (and well-referenced) description can be found.

As for the second point, I agree that it would be very helpful to have a list of cobra companies eitehr back in the article or at least a list that the article links to. I was the person who (at the suggestion of someone on this discussion page) initiated the old list and put the first few names in there. I think it was removed due to "non-encyclopedic content" or something along these lines. This is easy to understand as it can be hard to verify the companies on the list. I did put quite some time into researching the companies listed and providing links where possible to their websites etc and other references to verify the status of the individual companies but it was still removed. I would suggest that we try to compile a new list, but split into two sections: previous companies and current companies, and try to provide as much information on each one as possible to ensure that they are indeed related to the cobra group. I know that this is hard due to the nature of the cobra group businesses and how much information they readily release to the public, also some companies seem to play down their connections to the cobra group, whilst some others seem to use it as a selling point. Anyway I'll do what I can to help with any efforts made to get better coverage on the article.

Meanwhile here's a little (dodgy) site that markets itself as a jobs/recruitment site but is quite clearly a cobra group advertisement...actually quite amusing to look at...I love the lame photo of the woman with the cartoon hand "LET US HELP YOU FIND A DREAM JOB"...whole site looks like it was made by some high-school students... [1]--!---slappdash---! (talk) 15:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello. The real key, whether we are talking about things in support of Cobra Group or against it, is that they be verifiable. In other words, sources need to be found to show the list of related companies, or to show that someone reliable considers them a multi-level company. tedder (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was trying to say...but you said it better. Just trying to point out past difficulties involving the list of companies also. I assume that it was removed because it was hard to verify the existence of the companies etc. because we have been through it all before...hahaha..sigh...--!---slappdash---! (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, we've been through it before, and the best way to keep it from happening is to have only sourced content on there. It's hard to argue with references :-) tedder (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Pyramid scheme

Could someone please enlighten me as to why this page is updated every day and the opening sentence states that the company is a Pyramid scheme when the rest of the article refers to the fact that they are a marketing company and at no point seems to suggest that they are taking money in the form of investment from the general public? A pyramid( or "Ponzi" as the americans call it) scheme is clearly explained on these very pages and commonly understood to be a system where people are invited to invest money for the potential of market beating returns. The scheme uses new money that it continually attracts to pay the original investor's the interet they are due. The scheme is unsustainable as sooner or later the fund will run out of new investors with which to pay the old. Would anyone like to offer a different or "new" version of this long standing definition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.82.173.11 (talk) 09:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

No point in arguing over the definition of a pyramid scheme, just change the description of the cobra group in this article to something more suitable. I think that "marketing company" used to be in the place of "pyramid scheme" in the opening sentence, and no references were given regarding the change, so personally I don't see the harm in changing it back as it is clearly a better description. On the other hand "best described as an outsourced salesforce" makes me grin. A monkey in silk is a monkey no less... --!---slappdash---! (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

-- Try googling Cobra Group Scam. Chump 12:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chump of Che Bu (talk • contribs) http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=223274http://dsmaxaftermath.proboards.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.43.217.70 (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracies - 2nd request for review

Hello,

I represent Cobra Group and Appco Group and I am concerned that there are a number of fundamental inaccuracies in the Cobra Group Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cobra_Group).

I have detailed these inaccuracies on the article's talk page previously, but have had little response – essentially none of the factual errors have been addressed.

I would very much like for the article to at least be factually correct and would be grateful if you could look into the below issues:

• 1st line: this is the most basic/serious error because Cobra Group and Appco Group are not interchangeable as the first line implies 'The Cobra Group or Appco group.' Appco Group is a separate entity, which sits under the Cobra Group umbrella. As this article is entitled Cobra Group but is almost entirely about Appco it might help if the title is changed or the content is clarified so that it is accurate in this regard.

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 04:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for reviewing and making changes to this page to make it more factually correct. However, this 1st sentence still does not reflect the information provided in the source material cited . This source clearly distinguishes The Cobra Group from Appco Group. Please can you review? Callcott1 (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Further evidence of the distinction between Cobra Group and Appco Group can be found here Callcott1 (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The sources we need to use are credible, independent newspapers, not sources that are published by or affiliated with the subject of the article. I don't think those BusinessWeek profiles are acceptable either, because they are just boilerplates in a database. I see that the company positions itself as a diversified set of companies, but the sources I have found say that The Cobra Group is just a re-branded version of Appco and is a door-to-door marketing company. This suggests to me that perhaps the other activities are not significant enough to be worth noting. Or something else - as editors we can only repeat what is stated in credible, independent, secondary sources, which for smaller business articles is usually the media. CorporateM (Talk) 15:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@CorporateM:, sorry to attract your attention, but there's an Appco Group entry on the companies house website states that Appco's previous name was "THE COBRA GROUP MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED". Dolescum (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yah, I think for whatever reason, they may technically be separate companies, but are considered the same thing. I don't think however it is our role as Wikipedians to investigate additional primary sources to establish the truth for ourselves, rather we should just repeat what secondary sources say. CorporateM (Talk) 01:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• 1st paragraph: Appco is a door-to-door marketing company. Cobra Group is not. Cobra is in fact a diversified group of companies, one of which (Appco) is door-to-door.

 Not done The credible independent sources have said that Cobra Group is a door-to-door company. CorporateM (Talk) 15:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see information on the source that the page owner cited for this statement . Again, it supports the accurate statement above that Appco is the door-to-door company (not Cobra Group). Callcott1 (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Further historical information of the relationship between The Cobra Group and Appco Group can be found here: Callcott1 (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• 1st paragraph: Cobra Group is not headquartered in London. The Cobra Group HQ is in Hong Kong as indicated on the company website.

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 15:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• 2nd paragraph: Appco Group's central operations are run out of London and there are Appco offices in 27 other countries across the world, as well as an affiliate network of legally independent marketing companies.
• 2nd paragraph: Neither Cobra or Appco was founded as an offshoot of DS-Max. This is absolutely incorrect. Chris Niarchos was associated with, but did not work for, DS-Max. He then founded his own organisation (Cobra Group, of which Appco is a subsidiary) as a completely separate entity. DS-Max is not the parent company of Cobra or Appco. Please correct this information.

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 04:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Callcott1 (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• 3rd paragraph: 'Cobra Group represents firms in industries such as telecommunications, home security, energy and financial services.' This is incorrect - as is the next sentence as they both refer to the work of Appco Group, not Cobra Group. A significant part of Appco Group's business is the fundraising sector – it is not simply 'Contracted by some charitable organisations' – and more information about its work in this sector can be found on the Appco Group website. Firms in telecommunications, home efficiency, financial services, insurance, sports, telecommunications, Pay TV, etc are also represented - but again, by Appco Group, not Cobra Group.

Further to my comment above, please refer to the source cited by the page owner which makes the distinction between Cobra and Appco, which represents the firms in the aforementioned industries (not Cobra). Callcott1 (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Further to my comment on Appco Group not simply 'contributing' to 'some charitable organisations', I would like to request that this is considered for review to accurately reflect that professional fundraising is a significant part of Appco Group's core business as per the following sources: , , , Callcott1 (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

 Not done These are primary sources, in that they are affiliated with the events and constitute Original Research. We need a secondary source (like a professional journalist) to gather this information, assess its significance and establish the neutral way of reporting it. CorporateM (Talk) 15:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Responses within the community: 'The BBC found misleading practices by representatives, leading the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Energy Select Committee to release a report threatening to ban energy companies from using direct sales.' This sentence implies that Cobra Group's practices were the sole reason for the report and this is certainly not the case. Could this be rephrased so that this statement is more neutral and accurate.

Neither of the sources cited directly criticises Cobra or Appco so I would question the strength/neutrality of the source. Callcott1 (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done It now says as a result of the BBC investigation. CorporateM (Talk) 15:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Sponsorship: this section is relevant to an article on the Cobra Group, but not to an Appco Group entry. As mentioned in point 1, the current article focuses on Appco but is entitled Cobra, which is misleading/inaccurate.

 Done Seems to be a non-issue. I'm going to leave it as a Cobra Group article probably. CorporateM (Talk) 15:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Legal issues: in paragraph 2 it correctly states that Appco (NOT Cobra!) 'Has an affiliate network of legally independent sales companies' and I suggest that fact should be made clear in this section. And again, these legally independent companies are contracted to Appco NOT Cobra.

If you can provide some credible, independent sources (major newspapers) about the issues here that are not cherry-picked. I will re-write it more neutrally. CorporateM (Talk) 04:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Appco is a 100% owned subsidiary of Cobra. Cobra Group's 2009 financial report by Grant Thornton makes this clear. Furthermore, this document from Dudley council directly states "Cobra Group t/a Appco Group Support" and references dates in 2013. This looks a lot like Appco and Cobra are separate entities in name only. Dolescum (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

As well as the inaccuracies, this article gives quite an out-dated and fairly negative insight into Cobra and Appco, but a previous discussion thread mentions a desire to include positive information for a balanced view.

I'm not in any way suggesting the negative content be deleted, but if this article is indeed to be focused on Appco Group, more positive information can be found on the British Red Cross website and in client testimonials on the Appco Group website, but I understand these may not be seen as neutral if they are on the organisation's own site.

 Not done Yes, the company website can only be used for non-controversial information, such as HQ location, number of employees, annual revenue and current CEO. I'm not convinced the current article is bias, because most of the substantial stories in the media that come up in a quick Google search are about scammy business practices. You would really need to provide in-depth news analysis that is more positive if you wanted to sway the article. Such sources should not be brief mentions, press releases, websites affiliated with the event, etc. but the same kind of investigative profiles that are used for the negative information. CorporateM (Talk) 15:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Information panel: Cobra Group was founded in 1988 (not 1986); the headquarters for Cobra Group are in Hong Kong (not London). Many thanks for considering this information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Callcott1 (talk • contribs)

 Done There is no citation for it either way, so I'm comfortable just going with 1988 for now. CorporateM (Talk) 15:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

My first thought is that we may need to rename the article to Appco Group if that is what most of the information is on. CorporateM (Talk) 04:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that if the above requested distinctions cannot be made, this page is more relevant to Appco Group (not The Cobra Group of Companies). Callcott1 (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Further evidence/historical information on the differences between Cobra and Appco can be found here Callcott1 (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting though that this source says Appco was just rebranded to Cobra Group. It's not usable because it's an op-ed, but there seems to be some issue going on there. CorporateM (Talk) 14:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This article contains disputed Contradictory information that may not have been picked up by prior editors

As a campaign was waged against this article last year by a company representative, a dispute/contradiction is now clearly visible within the article itself. There is no mention of the company being founded in Sydney, as this was clearly unnoticed for several years by prior editors I am within my rights to list the article as self-contradictory and therefore factually in dispute as it's categorical placement gives the strong impression the Company has some sort of "1986 founded in Australia" connection to New South Wales, which personally I, and other prior employees, am aware of. Either the company was founded in Sydney Australia or it was founded in Hong Kong or another country! If we cannot say this company was founded in Australia, what is the point of listing it as an Australian Article? Discuss please. If the previous user from the company is still around he should possibly make suggestions on how the company is "officially" connected to Australia and Sydney in order to clear up the facts from Cobra's official position. Colliric (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Another self-contradictory statement(of a lesser importance) is found in the infobox. Danny Rae is listed as the sole founder, then immediately the article states "Key People: Chris Narchios" with the statement "founder and Ceo". Well that's easy to fix, obviously Nachios should be listed as Co-founder as per Wikipedia's usual style and shifted up a little. Colliric (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)