Talk:Isagenix

New page edits
I am editing to update outdated, incorrect and or unreliable sources. I also added further factual company information to make the page more informative. If any of these sources are not deemed acceptable, please let me know. Also, I am not sure if I worded the last sentence about the studies that have been done on Isagenix products, so please let me know how best to word it. This is also more factual information for the reader to be aware of. None of this is promoting or showcasing a favored point of view, only factual information to create a more balanced history/description page about the company. Also, I am not sure what Guy is saying about me being in promotional videos for Isagenix, that is not correct. Melizdean (talk) 05:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Galobtter many of the changes you just reverted are incorrect information and the sources currently provided even show... please advise why they were reverted when it is incorrect information. Also, what qualifies as a "notable" award? Please advise the specific policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melizdean (talk • contribs) 05:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Galobtter how was it "well-sourced content that most distributors did not earn money with company marketing about millionaires" when the author didn't have a source provided in her article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melizdean (talk • contribs) 05:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Galobtter Here are my proposed changes:

(1) Proposed change: This goes to a dead link "The company, based in Gilbert, Arizona, was founded in 2002 by John Anderson, Jim Coover, and Kathy Coover. "

New source:

(2) Proposed Change: This is out of date and goes to a unreliable source "In 2016, the company reported revenues of approximately $924.3 million. www.owler.com/company/isagenix|title=Isagenix Competitors, Revenue and Employees - Owler Company Profile

New info & reliable source: In 2017, the company reported revenues of nearly $1 Billion.https://issuu.com/greenlivingaz/docs/glaz_dec2017-greenliving_final_opti

(3) Proposed Change: This is incorrect and the source you point to even shows it "Jim Coover is chief executive officer, company president, and chairman."

New content SAME source: Jim Coover is company chairman.

(4) Proposed change: New content providing factual historical information with sources that are credible/notable awards

New content: In 2017, Jim Coover was selected in the Phoenix Business Journal Arizona Corporate Excellence Program as CEO of the Year. www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2017/11/03/ace-ceo-of-the-year-jim-coover-brings-isagenixs.html. The company has been recognized publicly for its corporate citizenship, including being named one of Phoenix Business Journal’s Largest Corporate Philanthropists in 2018 for its cash contributions to Arizona Charities.www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/subscriber-only/2018/10/26/largest-phoenix-area-corporate.html

(5) Proposed change: This information is incorrect and the source it points to is unfounded/not credible "Distributors are required to actively recruit new members to earn money. The company's promotional materials highlight people earning more than $100k per month; however, most distributors earn less than 500 dollars per year." ALso, I am guessing this one was the copyright violation so I have changed it.

New content: Distributors are required to actively enroll new customers who purchase products to earn money. https://www.isagenix.com/~/media/30F3E46319FA415C9CD6272DBEF5108C|title=Introducing the Isagenix Customer First Program In 2017, approximately 78,000 U.S. distributors earned compensation. As of Dec. 31, 2017, 254 Isagenix distributors globally earned $1 million in cumulative gross earnings since joining Isagenix. Those in this group averaged approximately 6 years as a distributor before earning $1 million in cumulative gross earnings, with the longest being over 15 years. https://www.isagenix.com/en-US/library/earnings-statement

(6) Proposed change: The product in this authors critique is no longer sold by the company. Since it looks like on the talk page there is no chance removing it, I am proposing a minor addition

New content: Physician Harriet A. Hall published a lengthy critique of Isagenix products in Skeptical Enquirer, in which she said that many of the claims made about the products are false, and that the amount of vitamin A in some of the products (which are no longer sold by Isagenix) is dangerous and goes against the recommendations of The Medical Letter.

(7) Proposed change: The product section is not balanced but based on the talk page history it looks like many have tried to add cites to product studies. Can we at least put something like the following. I am open to disucssion, just something that notes that there are studies that have been done on products by research institutions.

New content: Many clinical studies by research institutions have been completed on the efficacy of Isagenix products including studies by Arizona State University, University of Illinois at Chicago, and Skidmore College, however, these studies are not recognized as credible sources on Wikipedia due to Isagenix commissioning the studies. In all of the studies, however, they state Isagenix was not involved in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data.


 * Galobtter Please be specific on which of these are promotional editing and copyright violations. P.s. this took me forever, I don't know how you guys all have the patience to do this... Melizdean (talk) 05:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see any indication that Green Living Magazine is a reliable source. I did change 3; those bizjournal awards are non-notable and do not merit inclusion. Choice magazine is a reliable, independent source and I see no indication that the information is incorrect. Please provide a source for Isagenix no longer selling those products. The clinical studies have been discussed above. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide specifics on Green Living Magazine not being a reliable source? It is not a blog, it is a monthly mass publication in Arizona. Also, what is the policy you can give me details on why the Business Journal awards are not notable? Please provide more specifics so I can understand why. The source for Isagenix no longer selling products with the vitamin A is http://isaproduct.com/. I know the clinical studies have been discussedon the Talk page. What I proposed didn't include any of the studies themselves, just reference that they have been done. What is that in violation of? I appreciate you providing context so I understand. Melizdean (talk) 06:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, in the first paragraph with the blank source and then unreliable source, shouldn't those be removed completely until I find a source that meets your requirements? Melizdean (talk) 06:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh and then for Choice magazine it says "The company's promotional materials highlight people earning more than $100k per month; however, most distributors earn less than 500 dollars per year." but in her article she doesn't link to/cite any company promotional materials, nor does her article even include that statement that is included on Wikipedia at all. She probably removed it because it isn't true... Melizdean (talk) 07:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Despite the shiny, happy people in the promotional material making up to $171k a month, the harsher financial reality is that the majority of members who 'share' the product with family and friends will make "less than $500 a year" is in the article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ok I missed that. But do you see that she is literally making that fact up as she isn't pointing to any source herself? She isn't linking to the said "promotional material" How is that credible information? Also, see my message to Guy below Melizdean (talk) 12:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Uh, not linking the advertisement does not mean that the statement isn't true. The earnings statement supports the fact; it says "50% (about 39,000) made more than $337" which is the same as saying that most people earn less than 400 or 500 dollars. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Odd rules, but OK. However, 50% defines half, not most. Most would be more than 50%. In addition, the fact in this article at the top that doesn't have a source but is still being kept, states that Isagenix has "200,000 active associates" which is not true, and so therefore this statement about earnings is grossly misrepresented. If you think the earning statement supports the fact then why can't we use the earning statement as a source?Melizdean (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any MLM that is any different. Virtually nobody makes money from MLMs. The best that most people can hope for is to offset some of the costs of products they were probably going to buy anyway. All MLMs have a similar model_ they market the company and the scheme, not the product. Not for nothing are they often described as pyramid schemes. You'd need extraordinary evidence to show that this scheme is any different, and the only sources offered thus far are affiliated (mainly based on press releases, which are untrustworthy precisely because MLMs are basically pyramid schemes and rely on a constant supply of new marks). Guy (Help!) 09:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Guy, this is a broad statement about direct selling industry which includes 100s of different companies and is not specific to Isagenix. So this sentence if kept it should not be specific to Isagenix as she has no proof/source in the article. The Isagenix earnings statement is a legal document and doesn't get any more factual.
 * Also, based on your statement (which does not apply to Isagenix because the company operates legally and is not a pyramid scheme it sells actual product to actual customers. The definition of a pyramid scheme is that it is illegal and people make money by recruiting people, not product users), this page is seeming more like a biased outlet similar to Reddit versus an encyclopedia...very disappointing that you are spreading misinformation. Melizdean (talk) 12:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * All MLMs are based on recruitment not product sales. That is how they work. The idea that MLMs are all effectively pyramid schemes is not especially controversial, other than to those operating MLMs of course. I understand that you are a spokesperson for Isagenix, and fall into the latter camp. I, on the other hand, have no vested interest so feel no compunction about saying it as it is. Guy (Help!) 13:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Guy, that is not true that all direct selling companies are based on recruitment and Isagenix is not. You can go to the website and see that we are selling/marketing products. How do I request a 3rd party neutral mediator? Although you say you have "no vested interest," you have a personal opinion and are casting an incorrect view on Isagenix. The company is not a pyramid scheme or it wouldn't be in operation for 16 years. ALso, unless you have proof that Isagenix is a pyramid scheme you are spreading misinformation Melizdean (talk) 13:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Let's be very clear here.
 * 1. Dietary supplements are a scam. They enrich the urine of the customer, and they enrich the supplier, and that's about it. There are very few exceptions, all of which are prescribed by medical professionals in cases of medically diagnosed deficiencies. So the company plays within one of the most notoriously unethical industries, one fraught with fraudulent studies in pay-to-play journals, inflated claims, implied claims that cannot be supported as explicit claims and so on. Any product sold on the basis of structure/function claims is presumptively bogus - and these claims are themselves only legal due to industry lobbying.
 * 2. MLM is a scam. "Our studies, along with those done by other independent analysts (not connected to the MLM industry), clearly prove that MLM as a business model – with its endless chain of recruitment of participants as primary customers – is flawed, unfair, and deceptive. Worldwide feedback suggests it is also extremely viral, predatory and harmful to many participants. This conclusion does not apply just to a specific MLM company, but to the entire MLM industry. It is a systemic problem.".
 * The sources clearly show that most people make no significant money from participation in this, or any other, MLM scheme. This is again true of every MLM scheme, and in fact has to be true, because otherwise the scheme would fail. If you search Google for isagenix average income you get a promoted answer: "The average Isagenix salary ranges from approximately $50,000 per year for Associate to $100,000 per year for Promoter. Salary information comes from 100 data points collected directly from employees, users, and past and present job advertisements on Indeed in the past 36 months". You also get answers from journalists and other independent sources, a representative one being: 83.3% earned no commission, 11.5% earned less than $500, and only 0.04% earned more than $50,000. It is this yawning disparity between the promoted maximum income and the actual income of most participants that leads so very many sources to conclude that MLM, including Isagenix, is a scam.
 * Wikipedia is not here to help you market your product or business. You and others have made tendentious and commercially motivated edits to this article and you are still here to promote that even though you now know you may not edit the article directly. But not editing the article is only part of it: you also have to accept the answer when it goes against you. Or you will be banned from Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 14:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Banning my account is irrelevant as I no longer will be submitting edits. You have definitely made it clear with your last reply that no matter who submits an edit, if it goes against your personal and one-sided view of the dietary supplements and direct selling industry that it will not be acceptable no matter how credible the source is. Melizdean (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not so. Genuinely neutral and objective text from reliable independent secondary sources will be welcomed. You just have to understand that the bar is set high, because Isagenix exists in the intersection of two sets, supplements and MLM, both of which are borderline fraudulent. Guy (Help!) 16:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll add two things. First, referring to "direct selling" is an obvious tell. We are not talking about direct selling here (a broad blanket term of which MLM is only a subset); we are talking specifically about multi-level marketing, the most pernicious form of direct sales. The term "direct selling" is used by MLM companies as camouflage because MLM has such a tarnished reputation and the mere mention of the word tends to immediately repel the vast majority of potential customers.
 * Secondly, the issue of whether or not Isagenix stopped selling certain products is is irrelevant to Harriet Hall's critique. You can't simply editorialize and insert an unsourced qualifier into her statement as you did here, twice, which was a clear case of WP:SYNTH, not to mention the fact that the basis for her overall critique of the company's claims was not specific to any one product, all of which makes your edit warring even more indefensible. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Needs to be edited
The isagenix pic is out of date 101Fake101 (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Photo
The photo is outdated I edited it but it did not fix Isagenix123456789 (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It has been a while but it looks like this was handled Jmbld (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Products and Business Model Section
I am wondering if this section could be organized better or split up. It currently reads more as a Criticism section. This sentence The company also sells "Financial Wellness" product bundles to their multi-level marketing distributors. comes from the Isagenix product catalogue, which appears to be an outdated link and should be removed either way. Jmbld (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)