Talk:Market America

Link to Multi-level Marketing
I don't really know what I'm doing, so didn't want to make any edits on my own, but it was frustrating to come here trying to find information about Market America, clicking on the link that said it was multi-level marketing, and have that link take me to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_marketing. I realize this is a thorny issue, because many don't believe it IS multi-level marketing, but having the link go somewhere else is both frustrating and insulting to the reader. It makes the whole page feel less reliable.

Sorry if this isn't where I should be putting this. And I'm not trying to insult those who don't want it listed as multi-level marketing. I'm just trying to get more information about the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bohdel (talk • contribs) 20:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * A lot of these companies send employees and agents to the articles to try to get "multi-level marketing" or similar terms removed. That might be what happened here. I just removed it specifically because the editor who altered that link didn't explain the change. You don't need to have patience with edits like this; the term has really negative connotations but it's accurate, well-sourced, and important.  City O f  Silver  20:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I didn't want to get in the middle of anything, especially since I don't know what I'm doing, but I love wikipedia, and it made me angry in a way that prevented me from being quiet. Bohdel (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * No need to apologize. This article has frequent drive-by vandalism, and the link replacement was one tactic I hadn't seen before. Thanks for the heads-up. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Def. not Multi-Level Marketing explained. There are no "levels". YouTube
 * Ebates Cash Back vs SHOP.com Cash Back: Compare cash back sites -- CaribDigita (talk) 05:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why you think that a random youtube video is a useful source to bring into this discussion. CBS News and Bloomberg are reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * However doesn't mean their editor is right. They're still wrong.  Multi-Level is something completely different.  ACN  (with its seven "levels" of compensation) anything beyond those 7-8 "levels" you no longer gain income from in your 'network'.  Then there's Amway (with its 9-10 levels of compensation for example you get paid or "compensated" in "levels". Someone you personally sponsor in ACN "1st level" you get x amount and the deeper you earn the percentage drops less and less.  Amway has levels also.
 * In Market America there's no "levels". The volume flows up 100 percent (of 100 percent).  AND you can place volume you earned deep-down in your organisation to help your business partners gain checks as well since (after all), the volume is undiluted and it still comes back up to you. There are no multi-levels in Market America if those "editors" had done their research right. CaribDigita (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't really know how to respond to that tangle of words. It made no sense, has no rooting in WP policy/GLs, is unsourced personal opinion, and offer no actionable editorial suggestions. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow. Does Market America also freshen your breath while you chew? If supplies are limited, should I act now, before it's too late?? When striped of it's absurdly promotional tone, this comment seems to claim that personal WP:OR should override sources. That's not helpful at all. Grayfell (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The "Market America can't be an MLM because there are no levels" argument doesn't hold water. Here's an independent source that might clarify things a bit: Understanding Multi-Level Commissions, which identifies the commission structure of Market America and Usana (another MLM company) as a binary plan, which is something exclusively used by multilevel marketing organizations (and yes, it involves levels). - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You'll note that same source you posted about Market America a few lines above calls it "Unilevel" ("Uni" meaning "One" Level) for the same reason because the Business Volume "BV" doesn't change each level which is what MLM is.  It would be entirely accurate to say Market America is "Network Marketing", or "Binomial", or even "Social shopping" but it's pay structure isn't Multi-Level that's a horse of a different color. CaribDigita (talk) 06:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What page number(s) does the above source call Market America unilevel? Do you have any (other) reliable sources for any of these buzzwords/euphemisms? Grayfell (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources refer to Market America as an MLM, and a quick look at the company’s 19-level compensation plan shows that it is clearly an MLM – it’s no different, fundamentally, from that of other MLMs. There’s nothing to debate. BTW, “network marketing” is nothing more than a lesser used synonym for multi-level marketing, so if you’re OK with describing the company as “network marketing”, you are tacitly admitting that it is an MLM. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The "19-level" compensation plan to which you refer was apparently misinterpreted. These are 19 compensation thresholds that may be achieved by any Unfranchise Owner, reflecting only what the owner is earning, not a particular manner in which the owner is compensated. Each Unfranchise owner, if you review the compensation plan in the manual, is compensated in exactly the same way. Accumulating volume and receiving compensation when certain thresholds are met. There are no percentages and levels. It is not a multi level structure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElaineMN (talk • contribs) 02:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Au contraire. The information I linked to above shows in no uncertain terms that the business model is MLM. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Market America is not an MLM company per their websites and other soruces
I've gone through the website of Market America on this link https://www.marketamerica.com/site/company It states:

''Founded in 1992, Market America Worldwide is a product brokerage and internet marketing company that specializes in One-to-One Marketing and Social Shopping. The company provides a system for entrepreneurs to supplement their income, while providing consumers a better way to shop.''

The above is also supported by 3rd party sources like INC Magazine on this link:

https://www.inc.com/profile/market-america  and

Direct Selling News resource on this link:

https://www.directsellingnews.com/dsn-announces-the-2019-global-100/

I am therefore making a good faith change at the lead section to reflect what the company represent as seen in the reliable sources above. I am also removing 2 former sources as they contain the wrong description on the company. Let's edit according to verifiable info. Thanks Estarosmārṭ (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't appear to understand reliable sourcing. As I explained to you on your talk page, my talk page, my edit summary, despite by your revert there is already consensus and the sources quite literally call it this. Some PR garbage they put out saying "we're not MLM!" is about as reliable as a cult saying "we're not a cult!" Praxidicae (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Praxidicae is correct. You can relitigate this as much as you want, but if Market America started calling itself an airline tomorrow, it doesn't change anything. They're still a MLM. Using a second source as direct selling news is interesting, that's a common euphemism for MLM companies anyhow- just like "one to one marketing" is. tedder (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with Praxidicae. WP:INDEPENDENT sources do not support the changes being proposed. I should add that sites which merely list the names and locations of corporations and lack any further editorial insight or in-depth analysis are not sufficiently authoritative in this case for Wikipedia to report that MA is something other than an MLM. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Fellow editors, let's argue in clarity. I spent some time to check each of the sources currently used on the page. Here are the findings:

1. https://www.inc.com/profile/market-america this one is in support, calls it "product brokerage and Internet marketing company"

2. https://web.archive.org/web/20111018031444/http://images.marketamerica.com/lib/downloads/USA/corporate/201106015423269.pdf This is silent on both terms

3. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/marketamerica-federal-racketeering-lawsuit/ This one says it's an MLM while reporting about their lawsuit

4. https://web.archive.org/web/20140528193145/http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_27/b4235068745806.htm This one says it's an MLM

5. https://web.archive.org/web/20160505150531/https://www.internetretailer.com/2011/04/04/market-america-plugs-technology-upgrade-shopcom This one is silent on both terms

6. https://web.archive.org/web/20101217071214/http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2010/12/shopcom-backed-by-bill-gates-and.html This one is silent on both terms

7. https://www.isotonix.com/Learn/Delivery This one is silent on both terms

8. https://web.archive.org/web/20100920212241/http://www.marketamerica.com/brands-213/prime.htm This one is silent

9. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2010/08/prweb4377234.htm This one is silent

10. https://web.archive.org/web/20110823201756/http://www.marketamerica.com/index.cfm?action=shopping.wpAddStoresSS This one is silent

11. https://books.google.com.ng/books?id=Bw8rSSPg298C&pg=PA6&redir_esc=y This one is silent

12. https://web.archive.org/web/20140611135126/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-113313524.html This one calls it "Direct Selling" company

13. https://www.bizjournals.com/triad/news/2010/12/15/market-america-to-buy-shopcom.html This one calls it " Internet retailer" in support to "Direct selling"

14. https://web.archive.org/web/20110923221415/http://www.internetretailer.com/2011/09/19/market-america-completes-heavy-lifting-integrating-shopc This one calls it "Direct selling"

15. https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr16131a.htm This one, a legal suit calls it "direct marketing company" in support of  "Direct selling"

16. https://www.bizjournals.com/triad/stories/2001/10/15/daily28.html?page=all This one calls it "Direct selling"

17. https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/0115126D:US This one calls it "online retailer" in support of Direct selling

18. http://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=2&pdf=MjAwOC8wNy0xMjU3LTEucGRm This one is a dead link 19. https://web.archive.org/web/20110927050546/http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/sc/pc081212.htm This one is silent 20. http://www.ojd.state.or.us/sca/WebMediaRel.nsf/Files/01-21-10_Supreme_Court_Conference_Results_Media_Release.pdf/$FILE/01-21-10_Supreme_Court_Conference_Results_Media_Release.pdf This one is silent

21. https://www.truthinadvertising.org/marketamerica/ This one is silent

22. https://www.courthousenews.com/class-accuses-market-america-racketeering/ This one is silent.

From the above, We can that  Refs  1,  12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17   clearly calls the company "Direct selling"

Then ref 3 and 4 calls it an "MLM".

So, it's even clear from from the page that we have 7  sources listed that calls it "Direct Selling" as against  the 2 sources that calls it an "MLM"

Moreover the company's website  says it's a Direct selling https://www.marketamerica.com/site/company Same with these two sources https://www.directsellingnews.com/dsn-announces-the-2019-global-100/ and https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/market-america

Also there's a big difference between MLM and Direct Selling.

''Multilevel marketing (MLM) is a strategy that some direct sales companies use to encourage existing distributors to recruit new distributors

''Direct selling is selling products directly to consumers in a non-retail environment.

We even have the descriptions on Eng wikipedia See Multi-level marketing and Direct selling.

This issue has lingered for a very long time on this page. It's very clear that the company is not an MLM. We owe it a duty to keep English Wikipedia in a good light. The platform should be a gateway for accessing the right information not the wrong. We must be candid to the online world when editing English wikipedia.

Calling the company an MLM when they are not is totally wrong and against what English wikipedia stands for. I don't have business arguing on this if truly the company is an MLM. From the above, the truth is very clear.

Here's the bone of contention

"Direct sales" describes the business model where independent contractors (or representatives or distributors) sell a company's products and/or services directly to consumers. ... The difference is that in the "MLM business model", the independent contractors also make money from recruiting others to work for the company"

Market America sells directly to the consumers in their form of network marketing. They don't make money from recruiting others just as MLM does. Please let's understand this.

Labeling the company MLM is indeed damaging. It's been a very long issue on their page. Let's remove the MLM stigma from the page and add "Direct selling or one-to-one selling".

Estarosmārṭ (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * it appears our friend has now taken their WP:TE window shopping at DRN. Praxidicae (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "Market America sells directly to the consumers in their form of network marketing. They don't make money from recruiting others just as MLM does." @Estarosmārṭ: have you read the article? The company makes money by requiring new recruits to pay a fee and buy a set amount of products monthly from the company. I'm beginning to think that WP:COMPETENCE may apply here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * FYI. Market America allows persons to join as Sales Associates as allowed by law. Those don't recruit anybody. They don't take part in the compensation plan, they are simply retail quality products and earn on the markup. They submit their two (2) sales receipts to Market America (to prove they have a business which sold/retailed at least $200.00), pay the sale tax to the states involved, and that's for the most part it. They can bring in other Sale Associates but they would get no compensation for that as a Sales Associate. Also as a Sale Associate they don't have to buy any set amount of monthly products. Only what they intend to retail. CaribDigita (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks but we’d need a 3rd party independent source for that rather than personal experience. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

truthinadvertising.org database

 * https://www.truthinadvertising.org/marketamerica/

This is number 21 on the above list. Esta said it is "silent". Here's what it says: "May 2017: A class-action lawsuit was filed against MarketAmerica, a multi-level marketing company that sells a variety of products, for allegedly operating an illegal pyramid scheme in which individuals are rewarded for recruiting others to join the pyramid."

That suit is still ongoing; it's been consolidated with others into an arbitration suit, which means it'll probably get settled out of court with no admission. Of course. But the reality is that Truth in Advertising (TINA) has an entire database about Market America.


 * https://www.truthinadvertising.org/market-america-database/
 * https://www.truthinadvertising.org/market-america-summary-action/

There's the database and the summary of it. TINA comes right out and calls them a MLM in the first sentence of the summary.


 * https://www.truthinadvertising.org/what-you-should-know-about-market-america/

There's a "what you should know", basically the large overview from TINA on Market America.

This article (published yesterday) from BakerHostetler article reviews the TINA claims in unusually frank language. The lede says " Multilevel marketer yanks ads after watchdog threatens to call the feds", then goes on: "The trick with multilevel marketing schemes, or MLMs, is that sometimes people are being sold economic success and the lifestyle that comes with it rather than an actual product.
 * https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f10620b3-6d39-4971-b4c8-f02d45cc7e3f

Consider Market America, an MLM founded by former Amway distributor JR Ridlinger and his wife, Loren, that calls itself a “product brokerage” – a convenient title. [...]

Truth In Advertising, Inc. (TINA), just laid out allegations – which, if true are a devastating critique of Market America – on its website, although the watchdog stopped short of summoning the FTC for a deeper look into the company’s advertising. [...] Ridlinger allegedly pulled down all 750 of the ads after TINA threatened to call regulators."

Feel free to look through some of the claims that TINA has collected. It's far from "silent". It's very clear Market America would prefer to avoid that label, but that's not the concern here. It's just tendentious arguments at this point. tedder (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "Avoid a label". Does the label fit? Market America doesn't make much of the 'stuff' that persons who sign a contract with the company sell. Hence it is a "product broker". The company uses its tracking system to find out what folks want by reports. It goes out and then sources a company that can do it economically under an exclusive brand for the company. If an item doesn't sell, Market America stops selling the item and might just introduce something else. By doing this they're not tied to any one product.  What else would you call that? CaribDigita (talk) 07:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You're talking about literal labels? That's not what I was discussing. tedder (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

'''It's incorrect to declare it an MLM when the lawsuit case is still in arbitration '''

The current page says Market America is an MLM – this is legally incorrect, and it is important to fix.


 * The MLM description is only an allegation in a 2017 lawsuit that has yet to be decided – the case is in arbitration.
 * While the lawsuit and allegation should be noted – that’s fair – leading the entire Wikipedia page with an as yet legally unproven allegation is unfair and looks biased. Wikipedia articles should be neutral and not have biased information.
 * Sources which describe the company as what it is legally – a “product brokerage and internet marketing company” should be added to the article.

Leading the entire Wikipedia page with the “MLM” description is legally inaccurate; it’s also hugely pejorative against the company while litigation is pending and as yet unresolved.

The following article on Forbes clearly states that Market America is a product brokerage and Internet marketing firm:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/shawnsetaro/2016/04/17/the-community-dont-really-support-you-fat-joe-remy-ma-on-entrepreunership-market-america-tv/?sh=55ebd0f9646f

Other sources that mention Market America as an Internet marketing and product brokerage company:


 * https://greensboro.com/market-america-turns-26/article_d4d0d30d-8743-520d-91df-a5cf115d09c3.html
 * https://www.wfmynews2.com/article/news/market-america-holds-international-convention-in-greensboro/83-110e6d9b-1f71-426e-9de7-e11523d763d6
 * https://www.bizjournals.com/triad/news/2017/05/18/market-america-leap-of-faith-drove-struggling.html

It should be changed from an MLM to "a product brokerage and internet marketing company". Given the fact that so many editors have already suggested to do this in the past, I think it's the right thing to do. Morris999 (talk) 11:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

There is a substantial disagreement on this talk page whether Market America is or is not an MLM
Everyone can see - the entire thread makes clear - that there is substantial disagreement on whether Market America is or is not an MLM. There are excellent, high domain authority sources on both sides of that argument.

However - and this is vitally important - those are journalistic disagreements.
 * They are not legal disagreements.
 * And the law is what matters.

Legally, as of June 1, 2021, there is absolutely nothing - no court decision, no judicial opinion, nothing - that supports referring to Market America as an MLM.

In fact, the MLM allegation has been in litigation since 2017 - and has yet to prevail in any court of law in any nation on Earth.

That’s an inarguable fact.

Please cite any legal ruling that proclaims Market America is an MLM - or please admit that you cannot do so, because no such legal ruling exists.

That’s the critical point here.

As such, referring to Market America as an MLM is in the very first sentence of its Wikipedia page - is legally inaccurate and overwhelmingly pejorative.

Mentioning the allegation and ongoing litigation is fine. But stating a highly pejorative conclusion that no court has reached as fact - in the very first sentence of this Wikipedia page - is inaccurate  and does not align with Wikipedia rules.

The fairest way to resolve this dispute is to say “Market America is a product brokerage and Internet Marketing company. It was founded in 1992 by JR Ridinger, etc. In 2017, a lawsuit was filed alleging the company is an MLM / that lawsuit remains pending.”

Something like the prior paragraph is legally accurate AND fair to all sides here.

Can you meet us halfway? Isn’t that a fair ask?

Morris999 (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia isn't a court of law, it's an encyclopedia with its own editorial policies and guidelines. Editors add content that summarizes what is contained in reliable and independent sources. Also I should mention that if you have any affiliation with the company, please review our conflict of interest policies. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Since you brought it up, here is what Wikipedia itself says about journalistic ethics:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards

Excerpting a particularly relevant portion: “while various codes may have some differences, most share common elements including the principles of truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness, and public accountability, as these apply to the acquisition of newsworthy information and its subsequent dissemination to the public.[1][2][3][4] Like many broader ethical systems, the ethics of journalism include the principle of "limitation of harm."

Defining Market America as an MLM in the very first sentence of its Wikipedia page is untruthful, inaccurate, subjective, non-impartial, unfair and absolutely damaging and harmful.

Yes, a lawsuit alleged Market America is an MLM - but that case is pending, and no ruling or judgment has occurred.

Forgive us, but how can you declare a defendant "guilty" before the legal process plays out?

How is that in any way fair or appropriate under Wikipedia rules?

Here are even more very recent sources that say Market America is not an MLM - Newsweek, Forbes, Entrepreneur, PYMNTS (and we can provide many others):


 * https://www.newsweek.com/best-online-shops-2020
 * https://www.entrepreneur.com/author/jr-ridinger
 * https://www.pymnts.com/buy-now-pay-later/2021/sezzle-teams-with-market-america-to-bring-bnpl-to-shop-com/
 * https://www.pymnts.com/buy-now-pay-later/2021/sezzle-teams-with-market-america-to-bring-bnpl-to-shop-com/
 * https://www.forbes.com/sites/shawnsetaro/2016/04/17/the-community-dont-really-support-you-fat-joe-remy-ma-on-entrepreunership-market-america-tv/?sh=285ec2a5646f

Proposed - a remarkably fair compromise solution:

"Market America is an Internet brokerage and product marketing company, founded in 1992 by JR and Loren Ridinger. Headquartered in Greensboro, North Carolina, the company employed around 800 people as of 2016.[1] The services offered by the company include household cleaning supplies, jewelry, personal care products, auto care, cosmetics, dietary supplements, custom websites, water purifiers, and weight management products. A 2017 lawsuit accused the company of being an illegal pyramid scheme.[3] "

Why do you object to this compromise? Morris999 (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you're trying to resolve this on the article's talk page, but please do not alter the article without an explicit consensus given your disclosed COI. I'd be happy to read through the material above and see if there's anything supporting a recent change to your firm's business model, but I'd be surprised. Kuru   (talk)  23:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * My impressions after a look at the sources provided:


 * The newsweek.com link is to a list. If Market America is mentioned, it is only as a list entry, so it's not a good source for anything other than Market America being on a list.
 * The entrepreneur.com link is to an author profile of JR Ridinger who has helpfully supplied his own company info and bio blurb.
 * The pymnts.com links are to a commercial site that "partners" with the businesses they promote.
 * The forbes.com link is to an interview with a minor celebrity who is also a Market America executive.
 * None of this content is the kind of WP:INDEPENDENT sourcing that provides editorial comment and analysis regarding the status of the company, such as from Truth in Advertising. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your time.

We will keep our argument focused and pithy – in hopes that it may persuade everyone in this thread to accept a reasonable compromise.

Imagine that “Company XYZ” has a Wikipedia page.

One fine day, a plaintiff asserted that the company was an “MLM.”

The plaintiff never prevailed in any court. No court of law, in any country on Earth, ever ruled in the plaintiff’s favor.

Would it be fair and accurate to have the very first sentence of Company XYZ’s Wikipedia page read that “Company XYZ is an MLM”?

Of course not. That would be absurd.

Yet this is precisely what is happening to Market America on its Wikipedia page.

The very first sentence of the company’s Wikipedia page declares that “Market America is an MLM.”

This is plainly stated as fact - when it is not a fact. It is a highly pejorative allegation. How is that fair?

When we objected to the “MLM” language, in this very thread, we were told, “Wikipedia is about journalism, not courts.”

We respectfully disagree with that. We believe our legal argument is decisive.

But we will even play along with this premise.

If trusted journalistic sources are dispositive in Wikipedia disputes…

May we present over 25 highly trusted, news, business and technology media sources that have published the precise assertion, word for word, that: “Market America is a product brokerage and Internet marketing company.”

TechCrunch agrees: https://techcrunch.com/2010/12/15/market-america-acquires-bill-gates-backed-shopping-site-shop-com/

The New York Post agrees: https://nypost.com/2011/04/21/loren-in-wonderland/

BizJournals agrees: https://www.bizjournals.com/triad/news/2019/09/26/fast-50-no-48-market-america-shop-com.html

Inc. agrees: https://www.inc.com/profile/market-america

Entrepreneur agrees: https://www.entrepreneur.com/author/jr-ridinger

SeekingAlpha agrees: https://seekingalpha.com/news/3622478-verb-adds-market-america-shop-com-expands-clients-base

The New York Daily News agrees: https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/bronx/fat-joe-lands-new-gigs-tv-marketing-company-article-1.1734357

RetailDive agrees (major ecommerce news site): https://www.retaildive.com/ex/mobilecommercedaily/newly-merged-market-america-shopcom-drive-commerce-via-mobile-social

PYMNTS agrees (major ecommerce news site): https://www.pymnts.com/buy-now-pay-later/2021/sezzle-teams-with-market-america-to-bring-bnpl-to-shop-com/

BusinessInsider agrees: https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/market-america-shop-com-partners-with-hurdlr-to-further-support-unfranchise-owner-financial-success-worldwide-1028641676

Billboard agrees: https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8513963/merch-madness-clothes-supplements-tyler-khaled-no-1-billboard-200/

Forbes agrees: https://www.forbes.com/sites/shawnsetaro/2016/04/17/the-community-dont-really-support-you-fat-joe-remy-ma-on-entrepreunership-market-america-tv/?sh=18570d7e646f

Markets Insider agrees: https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/market-america-shop-com-ranks-8-in-the-2018-grant-thornton-north-carolina-100-1027597430

Crunchbase agrees: https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/market-america

The BBB agrees (and gives Market America an A+ rating): https://www.bbb.org/us/nc/greensboro/profile/internet-marketing-services/market-america-shopcom-0503-4002355

RelationshipScience agrees: https://relationshipscience.com/organization/market-america-inc-24332

Enterprise Times (UK) agrees: https://www.enterprisetimes.co.uk/2021/05/04/retail-ecommerce-news-from-week-beginning-26-april-2021/

Haute Living agrees: https://hauteliving.com/2017/04/haute-living-miamis-2017-haute-100-list/633551/

IntelligentCIO agrees: https://www.intelligentcio.com/north-america/2020/10/16/market-america-deploys-sales-enablement-platform-verbcrm/

CBS2 Greenboro agrees: https://www.wfmynews2.com/article/features/market-america-worldwide-president-marc-ashley-surprises-cone-health-heart-vascular-staff/83-a86d2de3-d3dd-43ee-a396-1997192be6e9

Greensboro.com agrees (Market America’s hometown paper): https://greensboro.com/news/business/market-america-to-gather-in-a-big-way/article_7abf8177-6656-56e2-ad69-b3a7e19a007c.html And agrees again: https://greensboro.com/market-america-turns-26/article_d4d0d30d-8743-520d-91df-a5cf115d09c3.html

Apollo.io agrees: https://www.apollo.io/companies/PJsPlace---Market-America/5d096087a3ae61dbc0c06999?chart=count

Yahoo! Finance agrees: https://www.yahoo.com/now/sezzle-signs-partnership-deal-top-120200597.html

Retail Insights agrees: https://www.retailitinsights.com/doc/the-best-way-for-e-commerce-businesses-to-sustain-during-times-of-uncertainty-0001

Every one of these trusted sources agrees - word for word - with the precise assertion that “Market America is a product brokerage and Internet marketing company.”

They have published that assertion, word for word, on the sites and in their publications.

So, some questions: Are all these sources lying? Are they all inaccurate? Were they all hoodwinked?

Or maybe – and we suggest this is worth considering – all of these sources have reported that “Market America is a product brokerage and Internet marketing company” because… that’s precisely what Market America is.

Bottom line: An awful lot of major business and news sources say that “Market America is a product brokerage and Internet marketing company.”

This is overwhelming evidence. This is not even close at this point.

And guess what? We still are not done.

Because we are reasonable people, and don’t believe in making anyone feel lesser, we're hopeful that a compromise will be reached to resolve this issue.

We again suggest that this text should be the first paragraph of Market America’s Wikipedia page:

“Market America is a product brokerage and Internet marketing company (*myriad of citations here), founded in 1992 by JR and Loren Ridinger. Headquartered in Greensboro, North Carolina, the company employed around 800 people as of 2016.[1] The services offered by the company include household cleaning supplies, jewelry, personal care products, auto care, cosmetics, dietary supplements, custom websites, water purifiers, and weight management products. A 2017 lawsuit, still unresolved, accused the company of being an illegal pyramid scheme.[3]

The compromise is wholly fair, to ALL parties – and even mentions the 2017 lawsuit and its still unproven allegations in the first paragraph.

We ask that you allow our suggested compromise to be published.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Morris999 (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , That is a long list. I clicked on a few links, and found that they were not independent (they were based on interviews, self-written bios attached to author profiles, reposted press releases, etc.). Posting a long list isn't going to help make your argument if it is mostly of low quality sources. MrOllie (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Section break

 * In the spirit of cooperation, we will address your questions, directly and completely.

LEGAL ARGUMENT:

The very first sentence of Market America’s Wikipedia page explicitly states, “Market America is an MLM.”

The current language is legally objectionable, inaccurate, and pejorative.

We repeatedly have asked you to cite a single legal decision, by any court, anywhere, ever, that says “Market America is an MLM.”

You have yet to cite any such legal ruling that backs your position.

If you have evidence, please show it.

If not, we ask again that the MLM language should be removed from the first sentence and paragraph of the company’s Wikipedia page.

This is a reasonable ask.

JOURNALISTIC ARGUMENT:

We also gave you 27 high domain authority journalistic sources backing our position.

You dismissed this evidence: “A long list won’t help you.”

So as per your request, we will be specific:

1.	Tech Crunch: (Domain authority: 82) https://techcrunch.com/2010/12/15/market-america-acquires-bill-gates-backed-shopping-site-shop-com/

“Internet marketing and product brokerage company Market America has acquired Shop.com, an online comparison shopping engine provider

Question: Do you object to TechCrunch as a valid Wikipedia source?

2.	NY Post: (Domain Authority: 83) https://nypost.com/2011/04/21/loren-in-wonderland/

“And despite her busy schedule, Ridinger, co-founder of the Market America consumer product brokerage and Internet marketing company…”

Question: Do you object to the New York Post, as a valid Wikipedia source?

3.	NY Daily News (Domain Authority: 79)

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/bronx/fat-joe-lands-new-gigs-tv-marketing-company-article-1.1734357

“"It's a product brokerage company," he explained. "We don't manufacture anything. We just go with what's hot." – says Fat Joe.

Question: Do you object to the New York Daily News as a valid Wikipedia source?

4.	Inc.com (Domain Authority: 80) https://www.inc.com/profile/market-america

“A product brokerage and Internet marketing company, Market America employs one-on-one marketing in an online shopping environment.”

Question: Do you object to Inc. as a valid Wikipedia source?

5.	Entrepreneur (Domain Authority: 80) https://www.entrepreneur.com/author/jr-ridinger

JR Ridinger is the founder, chairman and CEO of Market America Worldwide and SHOP.COM, a global product brokerage and internet marketing company that specializes in one-to-one marketing.

Question: Do you object to Entrepreneur as a valid Wikipedia source?

These five high domain authority sources (among many others we cited previously) back our position, word for word.

We have literally dozens of other sources we have already supplied in this thread backing our position that Market America is “A product brokerage and Internet Marketing company.”

If you disagree, we ask: 1)	Where is your counter evidence (legally)? 2)	Where is your counter evidence (journalistically)?

We are being interrogative in this thread - not declarative - in hopes of reaching a fair compromise here in which truth prevails.

Again, we propose this compromise edit:

“Market America is a product brokerage and Internet marketing company (*citations), founded in 1992 by JR and Loren Ridinger. Headquartered in Greensboro, North Carolina, the company employed around 800 people as of 2016.[1] The services offered by the company include household cleaning supplies, jewelry, personal care products, auto care, cosmetics, dietary supplements, custom websites, water purifiers, and weight management products. A 2017 lawsuit, still unresolved, accused the company of being an illegal pyramid scheme.[3]”

Please consider our proposed edit.

If not, please explain why not, directly.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Morris999 (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , We're not part of the legal system, we don't use court decisions to make editorial decisions here. Re 'We also gave you 27 high domain authority journalistic sources backing our position.' No, you didn't. You gave us 27 low quality sources that weren't independently written. That is only evidence that your PR department has been working overtime. MrOllie (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is well beyond tendentious at this point, Morris999. tedder (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @Morris999, legal and journalistic arguments are not appropriate here. Editorial decisions are made by WP:CONSENSUS based on Wikipedia policy-based considerations. The sources you have provided are either passing mention of the company name in a list of businesses, regurgitated PR releases, or interviews with Market America executives — rather than independent analysis of Market America's business model. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

You assert that “Market America is an MLM” in the very first sentence of the company’s Wikipedia page.

No court of law has ever agreed that Market America is an MLM – so the assertion is legally inaccurate. We asked you to provide any legal evidence for your claim; you failed to do so.

Instead, you claim, “courts don’t matter” on Wikipedia. Wikipedia contains thousands of legally themed pages, and thousands of legal decision citations. Your argument cannot withstand honest scrutiny.

We cited 27 sources that word for word back our claim that Market America is “a product brokerage and Internet marketing company.”

You replied that “a long list won’t help us.” Isn’t overwhelming evidence typically dispositive on Wikipedia?

As per your request, we submitted – in our last post – five excellent sources, that word-for-word back our contention that Market America is “a product brokerage and Internet marketing company.”

We asked you to explain why sources like TechCrunch, the NY Post, Entrepreneur, the NY Daily News and others are so objectionable to you – particularly since these publications have been cited successfully hundreds of thousands of times on other Wikipedia pages.

You evaded our question – again.

You then brought up consensus. Wikipedia is clear: “ When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also '''suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution'''.”

We repeatedly have offered to compromise: “Market America is a product brokerage and Internet marketing company (*citations), founded in 1992 by JR and Loren Ridinger. Headquartered in Greensboro, North Carolina, the company employed around 800 people as of 2016.[1] The services offered by the company include household cleaning supplies, jewelry, personal care products, auto care, cosmetics, dietary supplements, custom websites, water purifiers, and weight management products. A 2017 lawsuit, still unresolved, accused the company of being an illegal pyramid scheme.[3]”

Why won’t you entertain a compromise?

Why can’t we work together constructively here and compromise? Morris999 (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , Misquoting us and then arguing with the misquotes won't help make your case either. You need to actually try to understand and engage with the points being made about independent sourcing. Your Techcrunch link is a barely rewritten press release. The Ny Post article is an interview with one of your employees. NY daily news article is, again, an interview with one of your employees. Inc.com profiles are paid advertising. The Entrepreneur link is an author profile page and was written by one of your employees. We are not going to undercut the high quality, independent sources we have from CBS news and Bloomberg with PR-driven puff links. MrOllie (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * @Morris999. I agree with MrOllie. The previous replies by non-COI editors have explicitly described why the sources you offered fail WP:INDEPENDENT. And I'm not sure why you insist legal protocols have any bearing here, as it has been repeatedly explained to you why they do not. That said, I would not object to modifying the lead sentence to say: "Market America is a North Carolina-based multi-level marketing company founded in 1992 by JR and Loren Ridinger that describes itself as a product brokerage and internet marketing company." This can be sourced to a 2020 analysis by Truth in Advertising (organization). Of course this would require consensus by other editors to implement. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for considering a compromise. We are sure we can work this out, together. We respect you, we respect your perspective, and we respect Wikipedia.

We are not trying to be "tendentious." Please know that. We simply have a professional difference of opinion; let us try to bridge that divide.

We need to comment on your key sources - please hear us out.

You cite CBS News and Bloomberg as unassailable sources that Market America is an MLM. May we explore that - and go to what these articles say? Fair?

The CBS News article begins, "Multilevel marketer Market America..." According to whom? There is no source given. This is an allegation, presented as a fact.

We already repeatedly have established there is no legal support for this allegation, in any court ruling, ever. Who is the source - and what is this "MLM" assertion based upon? CBS News never tells us.

Surely, an unsourced, anonymous claim cannot be dispositive here?

The CBS News article continues: "The May 30 lawsuit brought by California residents Chuanjie Yang and Ollie Lan accuses the Greensboro, North Carolina-based company of violating the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and California state law. It claims the company targets Chinese-American immigrants..."

The key verbs here are "accuses" and "claims."

"Accuses" and "claims" are not synonymous with "is.”

These are allegations, not facts.

Moreover, and this is critically important, these claims and allegations already have been tested directly in an actual court case brought by the plaintiffs. So far - the court has declined to agree that Market America is an MLM.

In essence, the current Wikipedia page convicts Market America of being an MLM while the actual case is pending and in arbitration.

Shouldn't that strike any reasonable person as unfair?

Another excerpt from the CBS News article: "Market America has never been accused by any federal, state or international regulator of being anything but a legitimate business enterprise," said Clement Erhardt, the company's general counsel. "We are incredulous that anyone would characterize or associate Market America with such practices, as our actions demonstrate that we are in fact the opposite of what is alleged. Market America will vigorously defend this case, considers itself a victim in this action, and will seek every possible recourse under the law."

That comment is sourced – and is on the record!

The point: The CBS News article proves there is significant dispute about “MLM” and other claims. Frankly, we could cite it in our argument that Market America is NOT an MLM.

Next up: Bloomberg - that article opines: "Market America is the latest and most sophisticated incarnation of multilevel marketing, that controversial business model that exploits the get-rich-quick dreams of every red-blooded American."

Says whom, exactly? What is the source for this anonymous claim?

We know it is not a legal source - we have established that. Is this simply an unsourced opinion?

We would like to know - but we cannot tell. Why? Because this article has no identifiable author. There is no byline whatsoever.

Bloomberg gives us an anonymous claim, completely unsubstantiated, published by an anonymous author. (If we are wrong, please name the claimant and author.)

How is it fair to claim that Bloomberg “proves” Market America is an MLM? It does nothing of the kind.

The Sydney Morning Herald story also has no sourcing whatsoever. Again - we have an unsubstantiated and unsourced claim.

Houston Chronicle - same situation: Unsourced claims presented as fact.

Finally, TINA - the article you cite begins: "Market America, a North Carolina-based MLM that describes itself as a “product brokerage and internet marketing company,” and its larger-than-life founder James “JR” Ridinger like to stand out in the direct selling industry."

Again - where is the sourcing for the "MLM" claim?

In contrast, the sources for Market America being “a product brokerage and Internet marketing company” are so manifold even TINA quotes that language directly.

In every one of your best citations – the articles you claim are dispositive - all the "Market America is an MLM" sources are anonymous. Every single article is allegation and opinion based.

Given that, we ask again: How is it fair to flatly state that, "Market America IS an MLM" in the very first sentence of the company's Wikipedia page?

At best, the “MLM” claim is highly disputed; at worst, the "MLM" claim is specious.

The compromise we proposed - repeatedly - is legally accurate and fair. We are VERY willing to work with you to solve this – and again, we appreciate your time.

We might be able to agree to "MA describes itself as a product brokerage and Internet Marketing firm. The company was created (etc.)... In 2017, a lawsuit, still unresolved, alleged that Market America was a pyramid scheme."

Open to other ideas, too – we know we can get this to a better place.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Morris999 (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Morris999, your, and your company's position, are well documented here, including your requests for compromises. I don't see there's any change in your verbose arguments or understanding of the difference between Wikipedia and a court of law. tedder (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

We disagree and challenge every source you provide which claims, “Market America is an MLM.”
CBS NEWS The CBS article begins, "Multilevel marketer Market America..." According to whom? Who is the source? What is the proof? We are never told.

The CBS News article says: “With a $7.3 billion valuation and a sales force of 180,000, Market America has operations in Canada, Mexico, Taiwan, China, Spain, the U.K., Singapore and Australia. It vehemently denied the lawsuit's claims.”

The CBS News article adds: "Market America has never been accused by any federal, state or international regulator of being anything but a legitimate business enterprise," said Clement Erhardt, the company's general counsel. "We are incredulous that anyone would characterize or associate Market America with such practices, as our actions demonstrate that we are in fact the opposite of what is alleged. Market America will vigorously defend this case, considers itself a victim in this action, and will seek every possible recourse under the law."

The CBS News article does not provide any dispositive evidence that Market America is an MLM; rather, the article shows the issue is hotly disputed, and legally unresolved.

BLOOMBERG The 2011 article provides no evidence or sources. There is no byline for its (anonymous) author. In fact, in 2021, Bloomberg says this about Market America: “Market America UnFranchise operates as a holding company. The Company assists its subsidiaries with marketing and distribution services. The Company offers services such as merchandising and marketing tools, training, and support structure.” (citation: https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/0272658Z:US)

So the 2011 Bloomberg article cannot be dispositive of the MLM question – even Bloomberg (2021) disagrees.

SYNDEY MORNING HERALD Again, an MLM assertion is unproven and unsourced.

HOUSTON CHRONICLE Again, the MLM assertion is unproven and unsourced.

TRUTH IN ADVERTISING Again, the MLM assertion is unproven and unsourced.

DALLAS MORNING NEWS Again, the MLM assertion is unproven and unsourced.

The MLM claims in these articles are opinion masquerading as fact – nothing more.

Journalists disagree about whether Market America is an MLM. This entire Talk Page thread proves that point, conclusively. We offered over twenty journalistic sources that say, “Market America is a product brokerage and Internet marketing company.” (The New York Post, Tech Crunch, Entrepreneur, Inc., Billboard, Biz Journals, etc.)

Additionally, no court of law ever has agreed that “Market America is an MLM.”

We propose this compromise: “Market America describes itself as a product brokerage and Internet marketing company.(*many citations for this) Founded in 1992 by JR and Loren Ridinger, and headquartered in Greensboro, North Carolina, services offered by the company include household cleaning supplies, jewelry, personal care products, auto care, cosmetics, dietary supplements, custom websites, water purifiers, and weight management products. Others allege that Market America is an MLM; in 2017, a lawsuit accused the company of being an illegal pyramid scheme.[3]

We would welcome further discussion on compromise text.

Thank you again for your time and consideration. Morris999 (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , We don't require reliable sources to show their work or identify their own sources. Re: your 'over twenty journalistic sources', and 'no court of law' you would benefit from reading WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Specifically about your Bloomberg link, that is a profile page. Those are written by the subject companies and should be treated like a paid advertisement. MrOllie (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The CBS News affiliate in Greensboro, NC says Market America is, “a product brokerage and Internet marketing company”: (https://www.wfmynews2.com/article/features/market-america-worldwide-president-marc-ashley-surprises-cone-health-heart-vascular-staff/83-a86d2de3-d3dd-43ee-a396-1997192be6e9 ).

TechCrunch agrees: https://techcrunch.com/2010/12/15/market-america-acquires-bill-gates-backed-shopping-site-shop-com/

Yahoo! Finance agrees: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/market-america-worldwide-shop-com-131500520.html

The New York Post agrees: https://nypost.com/2011/04/21/loren-in-wonderland/

Retail Insights agrees: https://www.retailitinsights.com/doc/the-best-way-for-e-commerce-businesses-to-sustain-during-times-of-uncertainty-0001

Retail Dive agrees: https://www.retaildive.com/ex/mobilecommercedaily/newly-merged-market-america-shopcom-drive-commerce-via-mobile-social

The Better Business Bureau agrees: https://www.bbb.org/us/nc/greensboro/profile/internet-marketing-services/market-america-shopcom-0503-4002355

Many excellent third-party sources say precisely that Market America is not an MLM.

As we explained, every single source that says otherwise provides zero evidence for the claim. No court of law has ever agreed Market America is an MLM, either.

All we are asking for is a compromise here regarding the MLM language – it is a very reasonable ask. Might we compromise?

Morris999 (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * It appears you are proposing a false compromise, and it also appears you are ignoring what other editors are telling you. Wikipedia is not a platform for public relations, so this behavior is now becoming tendentious.
 * Specifically, the sources you have listed appear to be unreliable, irrelevant, or both. None of this newest batch of sources you have listed actually say that Market America is "not an MLM", precisely or otherwise. Read what others are saying and respond accordingly, please. Grayfell (talk) 23:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)