Talk:Vector Marketing/Archive 1

Changes May 2007
Copied a section from the cutco page to match discussion of recruiting controversy.

Changed "required" to "encouraged" in the criticism sections. The rep contract agreement doesn't require these things.

Various revisions for accuracy in the criticism section.

Added more information to all three sections to increase accuracy and content. Razordaze 00:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Dispute tag
I don't see any reason for a dispute marker if there has been no discussion on this talk page. Can you give an example of your disagreement? What sources do you have for your requested view? What is your requested view? - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  19:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I left a message for the anon who first tagged this article, 24.9.10.235, but he/she never got back to me. The original tag was, but I changed it to  in the hopes that the user would be more specific about their concerns. In this case, the tag should definitely go.    [  +t ,  +c ,  +m  ] 20:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

First of all I didn't recieve any notice. Thanks for waiting and assuming I spend every waking moment here.

Second of all, there is clearly a NPOV issue here. It's bad enough that the article even claims it's not a MLM organization when it clearly is. Anyway, you want citations. Here they are:

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Also note that the first two articles are the same two cited on this very same Wikipedia article. But there is scant mention of these unfair practices, and once again, the article totally glosses over these issues alltogether now.

Well, now that that's settled, I'll be adding the NPOV tag again.

...and the spam-filter won't even allow me to post the citations. Oh well.

...nevermind. Turns out petition online is on the blacklist (and I can't blame the admins for adding it there). Here are the other citations: —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)
 * http://consumeraffairs.com/news03/save.html
 * http://umsl.edu/~nki4z3/articles/vector.html
 * http://www.badbusinessbureau.com/reports/ripoff104760.htm
 * http://chapelhill.indymedia.org/news/2004/10/12052.php
 * http://www.loyolaphoenix.com/media/paper673/news/2004/10/06/News/Vector.Marketing.Makes.False.Promises-743458.shtml
 * http://www.theguardianonline.com/media/paper373/news/2003/10/01/Opinions/Response.To.Vector.Marketing.Story-518823.shtml


 * You have added some links and restored the POV tag. I have removed the tag since the idea is to discuss your objections and only add a POV tag if they are unresolvable and not merely a single user.


 * What you need to do in this discussion is present your issues. There are currently no issues.  Just some links with no explanation.  Can you give us a list of points that you feel are not represented in the article?  I would like to have a complete article but you haven't told me what needs to be added.  -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  14:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Let me be clear. I don't want to argue with you or fight the POV tag.  I want to know your suggested additions and work to see how they can be included. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  14:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

article restored
who the hell completely erased the article? I've restored it to the last edit because I really can't be bothered checking what was wrong with it, but erasing the entire article because you don't agree with it or because you work for Vector Marketing is NOT how wikipedia works. edit: 64.3.63.178 was the IP associated with it. Arilakon 05:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I like how you are so unbiased that you would immediately suggest that an employee would have done that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.102.38 (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to point out to the person who added the comment "I like how you are so unbiased that you would immediately suggest that an employee would have done that," that the person did not immediately suggest that an employee had done it, but rather it was implied that it was done by someone who didn't agree with it. Now that we have all of the childishness out of the way, I must agree with Arilakon. What needs to be done is for the page to be editted so that it is not biased in any way. That's it. Now stop your whining and do it already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.242.184 (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

May, 2006
Article in serious need of sources and verifiable info. -- OnPatrol 22:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

verifiable
Could you please give some specific examples of what is considered "verification." I read the Wikipedia guidelines on this and I still don't know what would be adequate. Perhaps you could refer me to an article that does this well? Thanks for any help you can offer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)


 * Did you really read the page "verifiable"? Here's a quote from a box near the top of the page:
 * 1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
 * 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
 * 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.


 * Also, there are many links to further information on that page. Please sign your comments with ~ which will put your user name, date and time on your comment.  OnPatrol 22:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I really did. It is not clear to me how "reputable" is determined.  Is any other internet site, for example, "reputable?" As I'm sure you are aware, the internet can give the impression of credibility.  Yet the content of a site can be highly one-sided, an article can be skewed, and even Wikipedia is not immune to this, despite it's NPOV policy.


 * I am making an honest attempt to work with this system and have devoted some considerable time to understanding the policies and culture of this site. It can be very discouraging to get a response like "did you really read it?"  I'm not sure what I did to provoke that response, since I thought this was supposed to be a helpful process and not an adversarial one. Sarahba 18:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * On the WP:Verifiable page at the top, there is a link to Reliable sources. Perhaps that may help.  Also from a link on that page, Citing sources. You're quite correct that Wikipedia is not immune from POV.  Or, as we've discovered, from misunderstanding.  I appreciate your desire to contribute and urge you to continue.  -- OnPatrol 18:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Multi-level marketing
I just noticed that in the reference to the page for vector marketing (as in the reference from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector), Vector Marketing is described as a Multi-level Marketing company. Yet in the article, it is said that they are not a Multi-level Marketing company. And then at the bottom, under categories, they are listed under MLM. I'm not a business person, so I do not know which is correct. But it would be nice to see it corrected so that the article is consistent throughout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.127.177.180 (talk • contribs) 20:28, September 29, 2006


 * Vector Marketing is NOT a multi-level marketing company; it is a direct sales organization and its sales reps generate their income through sales and commissions, not from recruiting other sales reps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.231.4 (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree, Vector marketing when I worked for them told me not to say that I worked for them and that I was an "independent contractor." Cutno (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * How does being and independent contractor factor into whether or not it is a multilevel marketing firm? That said, sales reps can be paid a percentage of their referrals CPO, which does not come out of their referrals income, and neither does it alter their promotions or commission rates. Either way, it should not make up a very significant percentage of the average employee's income. Now, there is the fact that Division Managers, Branch Managers, Sales Managers and Assistant Managers are paid based on office performance, which can be either a fixed or variable percentage of the office CPO depending on position, and Branch Managers are encouraged to sell on their own during July. That might qualify it as a multi-level marketing firm. That said, the managers are paid based on performance of the office that they are managing, so I don't know what exactly to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.102.38 (talk) 02:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Now, there is the fact that Division Managers, Branch Managers, Sales Managers and Assistant Managers are paid based on office performance, which can be either a fixed or variable percentage of the office CPO depending on position, and Branch Managers are encouraged to sell on their own during July. That might qualify it as a multi-level marketing firm."


 * So, in a way... yes? Cutno (talk) 13:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * But multi-level marketing describes a strategy where distributors of the product are rewarded for recruiting other distributors. Vector relies on recommendations to expand their customer base, but these referrals aren't paid by the company to refer more people. So... no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.107.7 (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * would just like to point out that wikipedia doesn't care about the internal workings of this company, wikipedia cares about reliable sources and verifiability. what any person thinks about whether vector marketing is multi-level or not is irrelevant, the source thats supports the content is all that matters. WookieInHeat (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Big change.
As a number of people have mentioned, there is a problem with this page. Because I am lazy, I took the lazy man's fix. If you don't already know, the problem is that most of the information about the company is exactly the company's spiel (without citations). I provided a temporary remedy by citing the source for the entire section "Detailed business model:" the company itself. If you don't know why reiterating the company's own tagline like a mouthing fish is a problem, take a look at the criticism section, which I made more prominent.

Wikipedia shouldn't be a place where Vector marketing gets a chance to defend itself against criticism and where those criticisms are glossed over. It should be a place where those criticisms are aired. I suppose people will say that Wikipedia should include "both sides" of the issue. But really it's not a two-sided thing. It's just everybody against the company (and it's few successful employees, who constitute something like 5% of recruits).

Ultimately, I think that the entire "Detailed Business Model" section needs to be deleted or rewritten, and an actual review of the criticisms needs to be included (rather than links to where you can read about them). But as I said: I'm a lazy man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)


 * Just like you, I'm a lazy man. So I'm going to assume that this hasn't been specifically responded to yet. I will assume that the page which is a replication of the their "spiel" was like that a while ago because as it stands today (08/08/08) there is no possible way that anyone could possibly think this article is a fair, accurate portrayal of Vector. It is incredibly negative and focuses entirely on criticism.


 * As for the statement "Wikipedia shouldn't be a place where Vector marketing gets a chance to defend itself against criticism" is ridiculous. Wikipedia is not a place to bash companies and have them portrayed as such horrible places to work. There are several pages that have "responses to criticisms" and "criticisms of criticisms" and so forth.


 * Next, in response to "there is only one side to this argument". This is such an incredibly stupid statement for a number of reasons. First of all, the pompous attitude that views opposite to yours are not real views and that an "issue" by definition has two sides. There are plenty of people who were successful with Vector, and some who were not. To assume "5%" succeed is completely arbitrary and should not regarded as an accurate approximation. Second of all, even if most people did not succeed that is not a reflection on the company, but on the individual. Those who do succeed through the company is through not fault but their own they are INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS. After showing the product and doing paper work, there's no way any company can be so unanimously (and legitimately hated) by everyone. It is clear that all those who use Wikipedia as their won rant forum are simply failed sales people or Communists who hate all corporations.


 * Overall, this page is an utter mess. The problem though is that people treat this page like a forum or like this page was a open debate. It needs to be entirely rewritten to like like most other pages which is (after facts, dates etc.) here is what the company says and offers... and then here are some valid sources who criticizes the company. It comes off as bias against the company overall, but it is not to be fixed by imposing bias views FOR the company, which is equally as useless.


 * In the future, please be aware that other people views count for something, all issues have two sides and that fixing a biased page by making it based the other way does not work.


 * INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR DOES NOT EQUAL MLM. Independent Contractors exist in all types of business, such as Insurance sales, construction, consulting, etc etc. Vector, by definition is not a multi-level marketing company.  They are a direct sales company.  These two are often misunderstood as the same.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethanbourne (talk • contribs) 15:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Big Change 2: the return of Big Change
I made another big change along the same lines. This article is approaching good. The problem now is that, as stated at the top of the page, it is not well-referenced.

Probably the most controversial of the changes made here is the use of "highly-criticized" in the introduction. But often I expect people check Wikipedia just to get an idea of what a product or company or anything is. They read the header, say, oh so that's it, then leave. That Vector Marketing is highly criticized is an important part of its identity. In fact, I've never discussed or heard mention of any other aspect of this company.

I also deleted a list of books. I don't know why there was a list of books. Apparently they were case studies about Vector, but if that's so the titles didn't give it away. The books were listed without any indication as to what was inside, so all they did was give a hazy impression that some people who write books like Vector's business practices. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.151.162.247 (talk) 07:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Article protection
This article has been temporarily semi-protected, meaning unregistered or newly registered users are restricted from editing it. This was necessary because of large scale deletion of all information that reflects even somewhat poorly on the subject, even one item that is well-referenced and cited to reliable, third-party published sources.

That being said, I do realize the article needs some clean-up to reflect a purely neutral point of view. Let's discuss here and see if we can fix it together.

For starters, I have removed the statement that Vector has been criticized for "Using abusive pressure-tactics to encourage reps to make more appointments." Unless we can point to a solid source for that statement, it absolutely should not be in the article. I have also removed three other practices listed as "unfair and deceptive" which seem to be neither. Those statements were also unsourced.

And just so everyone knows, I have no relationship with Vector or any of its critics, nor have I ever. This is just one of many, many articles I edit as a Wikipedia volunteer. If any other editors here do have such a relationship, please disclose it and read Conflict of interest. -- Satori Son 13:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Tatar addition, independent contractor details
Please, be aware, as an independent contractor with vector, the terms of contract termination are very clearly defined, and none of the conditions are part of the criticism section. Therefore, Vector does not MAKE it's CONTRACTORS (not employees) do anything mentioned therein. They are not and can not be considered employees under the rep agreement, and as part of the rep agreement may not legally be denied base pay without warning. If you wish to contend that base pay has been withheld in breach of contract, by all means assert so, but with verifiable citation in place.

The Tatar citation does not really make sense in the business model section. It belongs in the criticism section, with all the other accusatory material.

With that, I'm undoing SpringReturning's undo. --Razordaze 09:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this is simply ridiculous and strongly disagree with Razordaze's undoing of my undo. This is part of a section called "criticisms," not "actions performed by vector." The list presented is a list of things for which Cutco and Vector have, in the past, been criticized. The merits of those criticisms are not discussed for any of them, including the ones Razordaze has allowed, and thus are rather irrelevant.


 * If you wish to assert that these criticisms have never been launched against Vector, by all means assert so, but with verifiable citation in place.


 * I am not going to make any further reverts, but will leave that to others, if they agree. --Springreturning 08:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not that criticisms have never been launched, it's that the way you were asserting them is factually inaccurate. Most the bulleted criticisms are either accurate observations of the consequences of working as a contractor. And the section must necessarily consist of "actions performed by vector" that have been met with "criticisms," otherwise they wouldn't be valid. Unless you're contending that it should be a section filed with criticisms that aren't valid? What would be the point of that?


 * To assert that a rep contract says something that it does not (that base pay may be terminated at any point, that reps are not told this, and so on) is factually inaccurate and substantively slander / libel. It's just as factually inaccurate to call reps under contract employees, as that is also specifically referenced in the agreement and clearly not the case.


 * On the other hand, if you're saying that base pay WAS stopped prior to contract termination, that would be both a breach of legal contract and ethics, there'd be potential for a lawsuit, et cetera.


 * Furthermore, according to the guidelines of wiki, one doesn't have to refute an claim lacking verification, but simply delete it. Any part of any article that doesn't have a citation backing it is vulnerable to this, and you don't have to "assert so, but with verifiable citation in place" as cause for removal. --Razordaze 17:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Plagerism deletion request
The following uncited text appears under the headline "Criticism"
 * "Vector was sued by the Arizona Attorney General in 1990, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in 1999, and was ordered by the state of Wisconsin not to deceive recruits in 1994. Each time their legal trouble revolved around allegedly fraudulent recruiting tactics, and each time Vector settled and promised not to mislead their recruits."

At the bottom of the article, an unnamed link links to a Consumer Reports article which states
 * "Vector was sued by the Arizona Attorney General in 1990, ordered by the state of Wisconsin not to deceive recruits in 1994, and sued by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in 1999. Each time their legal trouble revolved around allegedly fraudulent recruiting tactics and each time they settled and promised not to mislead their recruits anymore."

Clearly, this is plagerism and must be revised. I cannot do so, since I am an unregistered user and this article is locked. However, it is also clear that there was no malious intent, since this article links to the Consumer Reports article from which the text was taken. Nevertheless, the text must be revised with proper citation (perhaps a blockquote) or simply deleted.

Between revision and deletion of this text, the appropriate choice is deletion. While Consumer Reports seems an unbiased source of information, the article was, in fact, not written by Consumer Reports. At the top of the article, under the title and date, Consumer Reports added "Submitted by SAVE." SAVE is Students Against Vector Exploitation. This group has a grudge (I believe to be legitimate) against Vector Marketing, thus are biased. The SAVE article provides no citations for their facts. Therefore, since this information is uncited and may be biased, it has no place in a Wikipedia article. Of course, the SAVE article is a wonderful external link and should be required reading for anyone considering becoming a victim "independent contractor" of Vector Marketing.

For the same reasons, the text
 * "David Tatar, a supervisor with the Wisconsin Consumer Protection Dept. was quoted in 1996 by the Washington Post as saying "that state surveyed 940 Vector recruits in 1992 and found that almost half either earned nothing or lost money working for Vector" and "workers in that state earned less than $3 a day on average selling cutlery for Vector."

should be deleted. It is word-for-word plagerism from the SAVE article. Since the text has not been placed in quotation marks, the citation is assumed to refer to the quotations within the SAVE article, which is false. The text should be referenced and placed in blockquote to identify the entirety of the text as being a word-for-word quote. Oddly, it is cited as originating from a Washington Post article. However, for the same reasons as the previous text, unreferenced facts from a biased organization have no place in Wikipedia, thus the text should be deleted.

Since both these examples of biased and plagerised text appear under the Critisms headline, it may explain the "large scale deletion of all information that reflects even somewhat poorly on the subject," which has caused this article to become locked.

In an unrelated comment concerning cleanup, the words "sales," "college," "sued," "recruitment," and "legal" should not be hyperlinked as it is Wikipedia policy no to hyperlink individual words. The phrases "high school," "craigslist," "myspace," "facebook," "United States," "Canada," "Puerto Rico," and "Wisconsin" should not be hyperlinked as they have no significant relation to the article. Finally, the hyperlinking of the retrieved dates in the References should be removed.

Happy editing --Stephen D. Eakin (unregistered user) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.110.238 (talk • contribs) 14:12, July 24, 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not see a Consumer Reports references. Are you referring to the ConsumerAffairs.com link? If so, you're right: I don't think that qualifies as a reliable source, since it's essentially a press release from an advocacy group (Students Against Vector Marketing). I have removed that paragraph until one or more quality citations can be provided.
 * As far as the Washington Post link, I'm not sure why you think it is "odd" for the information to be cited back to the Washington Post article. That is where the information originally comes from, not SAVE. Follow the link to the article abstract and you can easily verify it yourself. I have reworded it somewhat to assuage your plagiarism concern, but most of it was a direct quote of Tartar anyway (with quotation marks as required). -- Satori Son 20:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Consider the following text from the article:
 * David Tatar, a supervisor with the Wisconsin Consumer Protection Department, was quoted in a 1996 Washington Post article as saying "that state surveyed 940 Vector recruits in 1992 and found that almost half either earned nothing or lost money working for Vector" and "workers in that state earned less than $3 a day on average selling cutlery for Vector.”

If this text is written by fellow Wikipedia contributors and which contains quotations from The Washington Post, then why is it nearly identical to the fifth paragraph of the SAVE article from the consumeraffairs.com link (Yes, Satori Son, you were correct). SAVE reports:
 * David Tatar, a supervisor with the Wisconsin Consumer Protection Dept. was quoted in 1996 by the Washington Post as saying "that state surveyed 940 Vector recruits in 1992 and found that almost half either earned nothing or lost money working for Vector" and "workers in that state earned less than $3 a day on average selling cutlery for Vector.”

Since the SAVE article predates this Wikipedia article, we can eliminate the possibility that SAVE plagiarized Wikipedia. Clearly what happened here is a Wikipedia author found the SAVE article, which provided uncited quotations from the Washington Post. Knowing that citing the SAVE article would lead to a problem in validation, the author researched the original article from the Washington Post. Then, the text from the SAVE article was plagiarized, but cited to the Washington Post. This is why I suggested it was odd that the text was cited to the Washington Post. What needs to happen is that this text needs to be significantly reworded. The quotes can stay, but the in-between words must be changed.


 * On a separate note, can we please remove the criticism which states, “heavily recruiting High School and College Students with little or no experience.” This criticism is laughable. Restaurants, especially fast food, heavily recruit high school and college students with little or no experience (McDonald's fry cook, restaurant hostess, pizza delivery). So do grocery stores (night stocker), retail stores (cashier), and let's not forget the military. There is nothing unethical in recruiting high school and college students.


 * Sincerely,


 * Stephen D. Eakin (unregistered user)


 * --69.22.110.238 09:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Misleading Citation
From the introduction:

Through training and work experience, representatives learn a range of skills that help them pursue careers. These include:[1]

Presenting themselves professionally Demonstrating product value Building a customer base How to work for commission Organization/time management

The source cited is actually a press release from Vector Marketing themselves. I don't often check source material, but is that common or acceptable? Hybrid1486 05:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversy and Criticism / Negativity
Showing only the critisisms of Vector Marketing is both misleading and detremental to the organization. By only showing the critisims (as opposed to the advantages as well), the page becomes biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Troywinkelman (talk • contribs) 07:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can find some positive info on Vector that has been published in a reliable source, then you should absolutely add it to the article. Balance is important, but verifiability is critical. — Satori Son 12:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply to Satori Son


 * Dear Satori Son,


 * While I understand your need for reliable sources, I think that it is absurd to only show the critisisms of Vector Marketing. Sure, you can list only the cons in reference to certain topics (such as the Jonestown Mass Suicide, Hitler and the Holocaust, etc.)  However, Vector has provided me with a $300 paycheck for working part time.  Furthermore, I am a Senior Advisor, which took me all of a month to attain.


 * All I am saying is that there are more than negative aspects about Vector and rather than only post the negative, Wikipedia NEEDS to post the positives as well. Otherwise, the article is biased and thus unreliable and horribly done.


 * Sincerely,
 * troywinkelman
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by troywinkelman (talk • contribs)


 * And what I have not seen are verifiable sources, other than from Vector Marketing itself, about the "good" facets of this company. Additionally, the tone of the article, I think, falls on the side of being generally positive towards Vector. Drakkenfyre (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Vector Marketing logo.gif
Image:Vector Marketing logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Edits
I added a detailed view of the commissions and interview. I also added a few criticisms and cleaned up the language to be more neutral. I also realize that most of what I added cannot really be cited or defended, and as such, someone should probably make notice of that. It is all factual and informal practice.

I hope that this edit is agreeable to everyone, though I realize I have nothing but my own experience as an FSM and assistant manager to go on. We didn't really have a solid MANUAL that I can cite or anything, though pay scales and management practices are all detailed on a website you have to log into. I'm trying not to be biased. I had a good experience with Vector and its presence on my resume got me a great job. My goal here was to put enough information on here so that people unfamiliar with the company could see exactly what happens during the interview and get an idea of what a career with the company is like, not to encourage them to attend or promote the company in any way. However, I do feel that the article is needlessly biased toward the negative. '''If few people who complete training stay very long or make much money, that is important to this article. If many people have been and can be very successful and make good money with this company, that is also important. The fact that the company cannot scam anyone; that is of the utmost importance to this company's article,''' and is something which, until now, has not been spelled out for people interested to learn more about VM on Wikipedia.

The criticisms I added are, I believe the only real criticisms that one can make - that rich people do better than poor people, that you have to put a deposit on the samples, the recruiting strategies can be sketchy, conferences cost money, and that managers work pretty damn hard for little pay, unless they recruit and train a consistent sales team and have high retention.

The fact is that I'm not rich, I had to scrounge for the sample kit money, and I didn't know a lot of people. Through being a student of the business and working really hard on my networking skills, I made many many friends, had a fun, lucrative job, met some of my best mentors, found a great community of smart and successful people, and got some of the best training I could ever imagine.

I was VERY LUCKY I didn't see this wiki page as it used to look. I would never have given this company a chance and would have missed a great opportunity.

Anyway, if you have any constructive comments... (email redacted)

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.74.26 (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the article to its previous version.
 * I appreciate your frankness about your strong conflict of interest, but I recommend you to read Wikipedia's advice about such situations (and about why Wikipedia is not a free advertising space).
 * You also make it clear that your additions violate a basic principle of Wikipedia, verifiability: I also realize that most of what I added cannot really be cited or defended. I am sorry that you spent your time in vain, but there is a clear notification of this policy ("Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.") right below the edit area which appeared when you clicked "edit this page"; it is unfortunate that you overlooked it. See also Reliable sources.
 * Some of the information you added might be a valuable once sourced properly, for example the name of the CEO, but much is needless internal detail. (You might also want to look up the meaning of business model - details about company structure, personnel, salary figures etc. do not belong under this heading.)
 * Another basic principle of Wikipedia is the neutral point of view. Your comment about the only real criticisms that one can make - disregarding all others, including those reported by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as illegitimate - clearly indicates ignorance of that principle, and this also shows in much of your article text. (For example, compare your description of the recruitment process to the perspective descibed in the CBC article.) Personally, I get the impression that you are used to writing promotional texts, but don't have much experience in the neutral, factual style expected in an encyclopedia. It might be a good idea to start contributing to Wikipedia in areas which you are less attached to.
 * The "criticisms" that you added are unsourced as well, and frankly, some seem to look like straw man arguments to me. You also distorted and deleted sourced criticism.
 * Anyway, if you have any constructive comments...  - the discussion about how to improve this article should be held on this talk page (so that all interested editors can participate and refer to it later), not in private over email.
 * Regards, High on a tree (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree completely. You took the wrong action against my edit and so I will explain further. Deleting the entirety of my editions to this page serves nothing other than to affirm one's conclusion that the company is a scam. You talk of a logical fallacy, but you are guilty of one. You are affirming the consequent. "If changes are made which promote this company, a former or current rep or manager has made them." This is probably true, but just because I am a former manager does not mean that I necessarily will have a conflict of interest and make promotion-motivated edits. Your sort of handling of information is not what Wikipedia was founded on. I resent that you would assume I'm trying to sell or promote the company by offering facts. Do more research. Listen to the videos on the company website and you'll see how differing the opinions can be. What I've added is my neutral perspective. I can do little better, and doubtless anyone else can. Criticism is often so general, and lacks the meat of such legitimate specified statements such as, "In 200X, the state's legislature ruled against a local Vector Marketing office, that it should be transparent without misleading college students in its advertising material." This did happen in a state a few years back, and I would gladly add it to the page, if I remembered the facts of the matter. Medium-range sales companies like Vector have a more difficult time handling differing or unfavorable business practices across North America, but that does not absolve the company of allowing this to occur. That is why it is a criticism, voiced by various sources that I'm sure I could find.
 * I made it clear in my post that I had no conflict of interest and that I was presenting neutral information. I specifically that my language is not intended to promote the company, but to give detailed information that is vital to this article. The number one question is always, "What would happen if I went into an interview?" The receptionists are purposefully unwilling to give too much information but it is the manager's job to slowly introduce candidates to the concept of direct marketing and how it differs from door-to-door and telemarketing. I realize that this does sound positive, but that is a fact. The company is sketchy because it knows that college students have preconceptions about the sort of business they do. However, this is not something I would put on Wikipedia because I know it would be useless justification, instead of straight facts. The fact is that VM is sketchy, but it is not a scam. It has been criticized as appearing as such, however, which is also fine. These facts, however, can come from no other person than a former representative or former manager. Working with the company for 2 years, I also know that even the "cited" criticisms are misleading. To be more correct, it should have language equivalent of "Some former representatives felt that they worked harder than the company led them to believe they would." That's the reality. The reason I added the criticism about differing experiences is because that is where the problem lies. Without citing the exact office from which this offended former representative worked, the criticism is not a founded claim about the company as a whole. The article as I have written provides information that Wikipedians expect to find. My point about "real criticisms" is that those criticisms apply to the entire company as a whole and its practices. Claims that Vector misleads or pushes its representatives to do 'this' and 'that' is the same as claiming, on the Applebee's wiki page, that "'Applebee's' managers mistreat their employees." Unless there is a study of a random sample of 'Applebee's' restaurants that supports the claim that the company trains its managers to mistreat employees, then that claim cannot be "cited" on a page that interviewed one or two former employees from a restaurant in Boston. My perspective from the viewpoint of someone familiar with the training of Vector managers. The fact remains that there is an admin manual on www.vectorconnect.com, but it is impossible to cite because it is a log-in website for use only by company reps and managers. As that is the only offical, only source, there is no other option than to relate the material as best I can.
 * My point is that there are so many Wikipedia articles just like this one with claims which have not included citations, but that need expanded information regardless. So I completely expect those articles, and this one, to be flagged with "Original research" or "Citations Needed." Great, I will find them. If you find any of my wording deliberately promotional, then take it out. That was not my intention. I respect anyone's decision to put "citations needed" next to my language that they "challenge," to use Wikipedia's wording. If you only challenge my changes in the criticisms, then change them or put "citations needed," but to completely wipe this page of all but biased criticisms because of its controversially seems to me to be an ignorant and pompous move. Yes, I was a manager and a representative, but I have no more stake in the company. I do, however, believe that the previous wiki, at worst, libels Vector Marketing and, at best, presents a scant, piss poor account of a company that works with more college students than most any other private organization in the United States.


 * I stand by my account of Vector Marketing and I submit that it is valuable. Do not delete it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.74.26 (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What I've added is my neutral perspective - thanks for affirming again that this is your personal perspective. As for "neutral": You completely misunderstood Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy. It is not about declaring one perspective "neutral" (in this case: that of 76.105.74.26/Vector Marketing) and the others as invalid (in this case: the critics'). It is about representing all notable views fairly, without stating a own perspective at all. This can entail describing views that you personally are completely disagreeing with.
 * You are affirming the consequent. "If changes are made which promote this company, a former or current rep or manager has made them." - a straw man argument just like the "criticisms" you added to the article. I did not say that; I said that apparently you are in a conflict of interest between a) the presumably strong emotional and professional attachment to a company which apparently is an important point in your CV, b) the desire to write an encyclopedia conforming to Wikipedia's principles; and that you should take seriously the advice that Wikipedia gives to editors in such situations. Experience shows that it is difficult to free oneself completely from a) and let only b) guide oneself, especially if you are new to Wikipedia. I really think it would help you a lot if you gained some Wikipedia experience first by contributing to other articles whose subject is not as close to your heart as this one. - This is just advice, which you can ignore, but you do so at you own peril. Despite the obvious COI, I would not have reverted your changes if they had appeared to conform to Wikipedia's principles, but as explained, they did not.
 * So I completely expect those articles, and this one, to be flagged with "Original research" or "Citations Needed." - Again, I appreciate the frankness with which you admit that your additions violate Wikipedia's verifiability and original research policies. Your error lies in the assumption that just because there are some other of Wikipedia's more than 2 million articles which temporarily contain material which does not conform to these policies, you are entitled to violate them in a grand scale in this article. Do not delete it again - please read Verifiability:
 * The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. [...] Any edit lacking a reliable source may be removed
 * I am not saying that the current version of the article is perfect. If you can point to specific statements and explain what is objectionable about them, we can work on that; and if you find reliable published sources for the statements that you inserted, we can consider adding them back.
 * Regards, High on a tree (talk) 12:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the awards that vector supposedly had because there were no references to them. 74.33.120.35 (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Still working on neutrality
Reworded good chunks of the page in order to avoid blatant negativity. Removed some external links as they are minimally pertinent and most definitely biased beyond belief. I would highly advise using this Talk page prior to reverting edits, as this is a topic of some controversy and, in turn, palaver would facilitate much better results (in regards to the quality of the article). Phentos (talk) 05:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the external link to SAVE due to the site being both defunct and fallacious. After analyzing their content, I scribed a response which I attempted to email to the address listed. It was returned by the daemon as being disabled. I hold that the campaign is not worthy of an external link, but may, instead, be more appropriate for incorporation into a content section. Phentos (talk) 07:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I like your edits. Since there is a section about criticism, maybe there should be a section about praise for the Vector program.  I worked for them 2 years and advanced through the entire sales rep promotion ladder (50%), and then went on to manage for them as a branch manager.  I'm 21 years old and I ran my own (profitable) business, self-funded, from the ground up.  That experience has gotten me so far in life and that's something you dont' hear much about vector.  I'd be willing to write a section, but I want a second opinion on the idea before I start.--MaizeAndBlue86 (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The main reason I hadn't razed the entire 'Criticism' section was that I lacked the time to properly assimilate it into another section. It's a large scale project insofar as editing goes and I hope someone more ambitious undertakes it before I decide I must. Phentos (talk) 04:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed external link to 'investigative report' as it was not even remotely qualified as a source. Phentos (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of negativity, this page is written in an obnoxiously pro-Vector fashion. There are numerous qualifications and needless information that would be far more appropriate in company literature than in an encyclopedia. Michael.A.Anthony (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality
David Tatar, a supervisor with the Wisconsin Consumer Protection Department, was quoted in a 1996 Washington Post article as saying "that state surveyed 940 Vector recruits in 1992 and found that almost half either earned nothing or lost money working for Vector" and "workers in that state earned less than $3 a day on average selling cutlery for Vector."[3] However, as with all systems where skill determines return, there can be no consistent trend regarding success rates.

Removed the last sentence. 71.68.15.63 (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? As I mentioned previously, prompting citation is more effective than deletion. If you lack a capacity for neutral presentation, don't edit. Replaced deleted material. Phentos (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You cannot possibly be serious. For a direct analogy, try a paragraph in the evolution article like this: "Evolution is an accepted Scientific fact... But as with all systems where man has interpolated data, there can be no actual proof it is real."  There is proof.  There is a consistent trend.  And it is written about in that study. The end. Michael.A.Anthony (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The quote from the Wisconsin Consumer Protection Department while accurate leads to erroneous conclusions. For example, it is possible for a sales rep to earn as little as $0 per day - just by not going to any appointments. It is not an hourly gig, it is a per appointment gig. And subtracting the cost of the samples is dishonest since its merely a security deposit and not a purchase. Finally, training provided for free to non employees (which is what a 1099 worker is) is already a benefit to the worker and that time does not reasonably come out of "work time" since in other places you have to pay for the training. Nobody pays commission workers (the $16 is what is referred to as a "draw") to attend training. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.160.56 (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Those who complain DID make appointments and reported them to the Manager. Otherwise, I don't think Tartar would have come after Cutco. But Regardless, Mr. Tartar's statement caused a change in the contracts that are issued. I think its significant enough to keep on wikipedia. Phearson (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

suggested changes
I think it's important to mention that sales conferences are optional, the criticism section only says that representatives have to pay and are reimbursed with product equivalent to the cost of attending. I have worked with the company for 3 years now and people visiting the page should know that representatives are not required to attend sales conferences because they cost money and those who choose to attend recieve product as reimbursement.

I also noticed that there is no mention of the scholarships that the company awards to the top student representatives for every campaign (there are 3 campaigns in the Vector fiscal year) and also the fact that several schools in the United States offer college credits to students for their work experience with Vector, Purdue University and Illinois State are two examples that offer this type of "paid internship."

And lastly the external link to an investigative report is very outdated. The base pay represented on the page is about $8 less than the current base pay. There are several other websites out there that would constitute as investigative reports so I'm sure one with more recent information could be found.

71.189.58.151 (talk) 09:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the link to which you refer. Phentos (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed that referance 8 is connected to the marketwire website. I don't believe that this website should be used as a reliable source, as it appears to be just a release source for Vector and other companies and may not have an editor on staff to review these releases. Cutno (talk) 10:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)