Talk:The Cobra Group/Archives/2013

recent activity
I am in support of a balance article showing positive AND negative reports on the company. Someone is persistantly removing references to any negative reports and thereby compromising the neutrality of the article. I have replaced the references, and gone out of my way to find positive reports to balance against the negative ones. This has proven to be a hard task. I request that if people wish to help create the balance this article needs, they do it by adding, not by taking away. Find the positive articles/reference/news/information and add them. If you cannot find them, maybe they are not there. I agree with Cokehabit that some protection may be needed due to what I suspect to be employees or associates of the cobra group and related companies vandalising the page.

Anyone agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.105.2 (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

If possible, I suggest a block or something of this nature to be placed on the following IP address: 79.121.174.249. They appear to be an employee of the Cobra group, or else some other person who benefits from posting promotional material in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.105.2 (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Jobs With all the companies under cobra are 100% commission only! Most staff end up going home with less than minimum wage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.60.212 (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Protection
Can we get this page semi-protected if the vandalism continues? I tried about a week ago but it was turned down. Cokehabit (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

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 Fcku22 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

WARNING
Vandalising wiki with promotional information is unacceptable and may result in bans being enforced. Rotovia (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Attention: Read before editing this talk page
All editors are reminded that the purpose of a talk page on Wikipedia is to discuss encyclopedic matters relating to the subject page, and not to discuss the subject itself per WP:NOT. Therefore I have deleted all the irrelevant discussion about the company as it simply does not belong here. A quick Google search yields a forum which has been discussing the company - feel free to post there or anywhere else on the internet about this, as long as isn't here. Thanks. Caissa&#39;s DeathAngel (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion
It would be good to compile a list of all businesses known to be a part of the 'Cobra' organisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.226.89 (talk) 10:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

recent updates on companies
I added Biramint, playfair, sc promotions and cdmg and I know first hand they are under cobra because I worked for one of them (for safety will not note which one) and had face to face contact with the owner of each of these companies —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daemann (talk • contribs) 14:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

reporting user user: gobananasman and ip address 79.121.174.249
CAn someone assist with reporting these users (possibly both are the same person.) It appears to me that they are employees of one of the companies associated with the company in question on this page and they have interests to protect, they are putting promotional material into the atricle and removing anything that can be perceived as criticism. This page needs more protectioon and it is not right for people associated with the companies to be promoting it here. Please help!

--Gobananasman (talk) 12:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Protection
Is there any way to get this page protected?

--79.97.105.2 (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Why? Remember to focus on the content of the article. tedder (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Title
I'm going to move this to Cobra Group (company) as that better complies with naming conventions than the current title. – ukexpat (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, ukexpat. tedder (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"Legal Issues"
I added this section today, but this is just a quick effort, and no doubt needs some clean up etc. Also the section title should probably be changed, if anyone can suggest something more appropriate... --!---slappdash---! (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I have added more to this section, but still think it probably needs some cleaning up, and possibly the section heading to be changed...--!---slappdash---! (talk) 03:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The whole section has been removed a few times recently, with people claiming that the companies mentioned are not part of the cobra group. The information in this section contains valid references from reputable sources. The companies mentioned ARE part of the cobra group (or were at the time of the incidents in question)...if anyone can provide evidence to the contrary please do so...until then, surely there is no reason to remove this information...?

I'm gonna replace the section, if anyone has a problem with this, perhaps we could discuss it here before blanking it again? --!---slappdash---! (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Just make sure there are references to link Cobra to those companies. For instance, if article1 says "Company ABC has done these bad things", there also needs to be a source that says "Company ABC is a subsidiary of Cobra Group". tedder (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This is covered in the articles, if the people blanking actually bother to read the articles...cheers man.--!---slappdash---! (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The user with IP address 79.121.174.249 is still blanking the section regarding legal issues involving companies associated with cobra group. He/she writes "The legal issue were not against the cobra group but independant contracted companies so not relevant. They are not Cobra Branches as suggested(sic)". The problem with this statement is that the workers (whether sub-contracted or employed directly by the cobra group) are directly associated with the parent company (The cobra group) and therefore there is a connection between the cobra group and the actions of their workers/sub-contractors. This is made evident by the cobra group's own brochures (see the first reference regarding the boss wpl case). It is fair enough for the cobra group to build their reputation on the positive aspects of the sub-contrators and the contracted companies, and it is understandable for the cobra group to take credit for the beneficial actions of these workers, even going so far as to mention the workers in the promotional literature they publish. What is not fair is for people associated with the cobra group to attempt to rewrite history outside of their own offices by denying the connections as soon as the company gets some bad press. There is an undeniable link between the parent company and the individuals mentioned in this article, whether it is something that the cobra group is proud of or endorses is irrelevent to the article. Maybe if the cobra group were to release a statement apologising for the actions by these people with links to their company, then that could be included in the section. As long as it is well referenced of course, hahaha...--!---slappdash---! (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The article referenced cannot be verified via the Sunday Mail, the names mentioned cannot be searched via the Sunday Mails website. The article itself is not archived on the official Sunday Mail website. Tony Freeman, has never worked for or been associated with the Cobra Group. The article does not in fact state that he has had a connection. Fiona Mctaggart has never been Scottish Charities Minister according to her own website biography. All of this seems to draw the validity of the into question and as such this piece has been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadouglas1 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

New source(s)
http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2011/02/coopers-job-ad-ruled-offside.html

http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2010/08/cobra-group-makes-a-mint-while.html (this one is particularly good in identifying their scammy employment structure)

http://www.sundaysun.co.uk/news/north-east-news/2010/10/17/north-red-cross-charity-collectors-probed-79310-27486744/2/

http://www.dailyadvertiser.com.au/news/local/news/general/residents-tricked-by-sales-tactics/1754587.aspx

85.228.211.116 (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Inaccuracies for review
Hello,

I represent Cobra Group and Appco Group and I am concerned that there are a number of fundamental inaccuracies in this article, which it would be great if you could look into. I have outlined them below.

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 1st paragraph: Cobra Group is not headquartered in London. The Cobra Group HQ is in Hong Kong as indicated on the company website

4. 2nd paragraph: Appco Group's central operations are run out of London and there are Appco offices in 25 other countries across the world, as well as an affiliate network of legally independent marketing companies.

5. 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.

6. 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. The largest aspect 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.

7. 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[6] threatening to ban energy companies from using direct sales.[7] 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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: and

11. 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.--Callcott1 (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)