Talk:Multi-level marketing

Size and income projections
DeknMike (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Grandview Research (a business research firm) says "The global direct selling market size was valued at USD 189.71 billion in 2021 and is expected to expand at a compound annual growth (CAGR) of 6.1% from 2022 to 2028" Key companies profiled are Amway Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.; Herbalife Nutrition Ltd.; Avon Products, Inc.; Vorwerk; Nu Skin Enterprises; Tupperware Brands Corporation; Oriflame Holding AG; Belcorp; Mary Kay Inc. It's unclear from the article, but the $200B in 2022 is probably gross revenue. Net would be difficult to estimate.
 * Seeking Alpha says the industry revenues are flat as a percent of the US economy, being 0.84% growth. Since Grandview said sales were increasing, that means they were equaling the overall economy's growth (until inflation hit).
 * How big is the industry? Seeking Alpha (another stock research company) says "It is difficult to know the exact number of MLMs based and operating the United States, but a good guess would be 600-700" companies. They also note the industry is starting to segment their 'distributor' lists into which ones are actively trying to sell versus joining for the discount; they estimate 9.6 million Discount Buyers, 27.3 million Preferred Customers, and 6.8 million full or part-time Direct Sellers.
 * The Motly Fool is a well-known business and stock advice firm. It says "Assemble a team of, say, 20 or 30 people, and you may indeed manage to pad your bank account with thousands of dollars each month...(however) If you're looking to earn a little extra money on the side and there's a particular product line you're eager to sell, then an MLM could be a good fit. But don't expect to strike it rich with an MLM."


 * What is the exact text/edit you're proposing to the article, based on these sources? Politanvm talk 04:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Seeking Alpha isn't a stock research company, it is a blog host. The content is user generated. Motley Fool is a stock picking service, not a reliable source. Grandview Research has a very poor reputation, to put it mildly. MrOllie (talk) 04:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * um... you do know 'blog' is a distribution platform widely used? ABC/NBC/CBS corporately don't write anything, but are platforms using blog technology to host articles by individual authors; your outlink to forecastinternational.com is a WordPress page.  As for these sources...
 * [Seeking Alpha], "in 2013, Wired named Seeking Alpha one of the "core nutrients of a good data diet." In 2007, Seeking Alpha received a Forbes' Best of the Web designation and was selected by Kiplinger's as Best Investment Informant."
 * Motly Fool - Of the 10 pages of links on Google, most agree with DayTradingz.com, which say "The Motley Fool is one of the biggest financial services companies worldwide. Their website covers everything from investing basics, stock market analysis, retirement planning, and personal finance advice." BI says Motley Fool "has long offered copious articles and resources on investing and financial topics."
 * Grandview Research is one of hundreds of market research firms that is widely quoted in the financial field and government publications (note 3 in a NIH report )
 * Your reference (Forecast International) is an analyst firm for the Defense industry, but without any reviews as to its trustworthiness. The article said Grandview Research was a fraud because they predicted the global Smart Cities initiative would rise to $567.45 billion in 2014. Are you quibbling over the veracity of the number? The current valuation of that market segment grew to $1,090.64 billion in 2021, so following their prediction would have been quite profitable. I find your allegation baseless.
 * DeknMike (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The difference is that I am not proposing that we use forecastinternational in the article. If you really think Seeking Alpha is a usable source, take it up at WP:RSN or similar - or look up past discussions of it there and save everyone some time. MrOllie (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of the discussion at WP:RSN about Motley Fool and Seeking Alpha were about the reliability of their stock picking. Discussion for Fool says "They also seem to fit the lens of opinion/analysis more than anything else." That fits the use for this article.
 * regarding Seeking Alpha, RS says to use the credentials of the authors, not the site itself. That particular author is William Keep, Former Dean, School of Business and former Interim Provost / VP for Academic Affairs, current Professor of Marketing at The College of New Jersey. He co-authored a 2002 academic article on MLM and pyramid schemes with Dr. Peter Vander Nat, then a senior economist at the FTC, and served as an expert witness in the prosecution of pyramid schemes in Gold Unlimited, brought by the US DOJ.  Looks like a reliable source. DeknMike (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Inaccurate sourcing
The Participants section claims that 99.6% of participants lost money, and also claims the finding was endorsed by FTC (note the url is titled "Reports from Federal Trade Commission website"). However, the claim was actually a self-published pdf entered into the comment section against a proposed ruling, and the statistic didn't make it into the final ruling. Reference: /www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/ Recommend deletion of this source unless corroborating evidence can be discovered from a neutral source. DeknMike (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


 * While I actually share some of your qualms, I am not sure this is all that compelling an objection. Other reliable sources seem to look at this very paper as carrying some authority, like The Washington Post, Northeastern's Student Newspaper, The Guardian, etc., and more seem to consider Mr. Taylor an expert.  For me the citation passes muster, but reasonable minds may differ on the subject.  Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 21 February 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. No support for the move. Original proposer agreeing to "yield." No consensus for making MLM the primary redirect. Fuzheado &#124; Talk 07:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

– Search engines (Google, scholar, DDG, bing) bring up Multi-level marketing for MLM as top results. Although Scholar does give the most mixed results and with the term being spelt out in titles, general usage seems to indicate the MLM strongly refers to Multi-level-marketing. WP:PRIMARY TOPIC, WP:CONCISE. Akalendos (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Multi-level marketing → MLM
 * MLM → MLM (disambiguation)


 * You are proposing to change the current article title, which is a clear and unambiguous description of the subject matter, to an abbreviation that needs a disambiguation page? What exactly is that supposed to achieve? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * hmm, decent point. I yield. What do you say about turning MLM into a primary redirect? Akalendos (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose, though I'd favour making MLM a primary redirect instead. 162 etc. (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, this is what should be done. Akalendos (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's inappropriate to have the abbreviation as the title. --Killuminator (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose renaming article as "MLM" is neither unambiguous nor is there evidence of it being the most common name for this topic. I do suspect that this meaning of MLM is the primary one though, so support changing the redirect of MLM to point here (with hatnote to the DAB page at MLM (disambiguation)) seems reasonable. DMacks (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * It seems we have consensus.
 * I admit this was a mistake. I'm really quite new and just found WP:MOVE and got a little trigger-happy.
 * A redirect would be much more appropriate.
 * I consent to closure.
 * Sorry and thank you all for humoring me and my errors Akalendos (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't have consensus. IT is way too soon to close this as having consensus, tho I would say it is reasonable to strike the first bit as it appears you've withdrawn that bit. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure yes, I am wrong yet again. I guess I'm not sure I get the difference in this case, as I am the only one advocating for this silly and excessive move, but yes. For sure. I've just striked the text. Even now, it seems I find a way to continue clowning about. Akalendos (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I meant striking the move for this to MLM. THere does seem to be some support to move MLM to MLM (disambiguation) tho ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 21:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * done Akalendos (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * I'm not sure there is a primary topic for "MLM": the dab page got 827 views last month, and only a third of these (or 276) resulted in a click for this article's entry . But if you look at just the outgoing clicks from the dab page, then the proportion would be more like two thirds (or 60–69%). – Uanfala (talk) 12:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose move and primary redirect. Status quo achieves the best result. The disambig page is more useful for readers looking for the other topics. -- Netoholic @ 19:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose move (per all the above) and primary redirect (per Unafala).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose—clarity for readers, please. Tony (talk)  00:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and also oppose making MLM a primary redirect. Dicklyon (talk) 10:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

picture
what does that picture have to do with the contents of the article? 2601:18F:80:1C0:C20D:ADD5:6ED0:F96E (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism
Undoing every single change I made without any meaningful justification is pure vandalism. If you don't understand English grammar, or simple content guidelines like WP:WTW, you have no business editing Wikipedia at all. 81.136.216.20 (talk) 09:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's see...you edited against some sort of talk-page consensus. That's agaist WP:CON policy. I explained my edits based on standard WP policies and guidelines (eventually giving up doing it piecewise because it was too complex for me). So what I did is explicitly excluded from the WP:VANDALISM definintion. You called it vandalism, which represents a failure on your part to follow the WP:AGF behavior policy. You made the same edits repeatedly, even after someone made good-faith objection. That is against WP:EW behavior policy. You hang your hat on a single style-guide item, despite it being only a guideline (and therefore by design subject to rational exceptions). Do you maybe want to change your approach and tone? DMacks (talk) 09:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * FYI to anyone reading this, this is WP:LTA/BKFIP, who has been community banned for years. It isn't worth arguing with them. MrOllie (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Good eye. DMacks (talk) 18:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)