sign unsigned, section, reply with link |
refactor talk page: legibility, sign unsigned, rm unrelated/WP:NOTFORUM comments |
||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{talkheader}} |
{{talkheader}} |
||
{{controversial}} |
{{controversial}} |
||
==The Knife Kit Rental== |
|||
In Guelph, Ontario, Canada it costs $117.87 |
|||
I know this because I work for Vector Marketing in Guelph, Ontario. So far I have learned that the kit price changes depending on region, people in other cities told me they pay $125, and some in BC,Canada said they pay $175. I am a previous employee in Georgia, and here it was 145 in 2008. I am also an employee and the kit cost $145 and is completely refundible upon request. The cost is merely a security deposit, if an employee doesnt want it, he/she gets a full refund, if he/she wants to keep it, then he/she keeps it at the discounted price. |
|||
In canada the price is $99 plus any taxes in your province. |
|||
No exceptions. (across canada, the prices only vary by taxes) <span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.151.126.87|68.151.126.87]] ([[User talk:68.151.126.87|talk]]) 08:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
The price definitely changes with region and is that so surprising? Are gas prices the same in canada as here in oregon? how bout milk eggs or any other consumer item?? I have been a cutco rep since 1990. I have purchased (and kept both) sample/demo sets. I still use the one i have in my kitchen to this day 19 years later (my mother comandeered the other for her kitchen). I was told both times the cost was refundable and thankfully i wasn't that silly. i wouldn't trade my cutco knives for all the steel in germany!!! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/97.115.46.64|97.115.46.64]] ([[User talk:97.115.46.64|talk]]) 07:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:97.115.46.64, What does any of that have to do with the article? While there may be a valid point as to price variation, why would you add information about how you own the knives (your mother included), and would thumb-down steel in Germany? Please focus on how the article can be helped instead of telling people about your possessions (and your mother's). [[User:Cutno|Cutno]] ([[User talk:Cutno|talk]]) 04:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==international== |
|||
Thanks Razordaze...for your righteousness. |
|||
No need to beat others....In fact is very difficult to tell what international really means in the business sense, when it comes to the U.S.A and Canada due to the huge percentage of trade with each other and a huge non physical border, ....physically and mentally. |
|||
So in many companies that operate within the two countries on both sides don't think of the United States or Canada as "International". |
|||
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|||
"Yes, the nation of Canada, is in fact, not a part of the USA. Hence, if a company operates in Canada and America, it is "international." A parallel program for Cutco International IS still in development, and currently operates in Korea, Germany and Australia. |
|||
--[[User:Razordaze|Razordaze]] 07:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)" |
|||
Under "Business Model" it says, "Currently, a program for "Vector International"** is still in development" |
|||
yet if you read the letter it says, "Vector is an international company established in 1981." |
|||
19:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Changes May 2007== |
|||
Copied a section from the [[cutco]] page to match discussion of recruiting controversy. |
Copied a section from the [[cutco]] page to match discussion of recruiting controversy. |
||
Line 38: | Line 11: | ||
Various revisions for accuracy in the criticism section. |
Various revisions for accuracy in the criticism section. |
||
Added more information to all three sections to increase accuracy and content. |
Added more information to all three sections to increase accuracy and content. [[User:Razordaze|Razordaze]] 00:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
[[User:Razordaze|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? - [[User:Texture|<font color=red>Tεx</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>τ</font>]][[User:Texture|<font color=red>urε</font><!-- TANSTAAFL -->]] 19:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC) |
|||
I took the following out of the "criticisms" section: |
|||
Furthermore, a rep who only achieves the base per-appointment will likely eventually be terminated, since he is costing the manager - who pays the base rate out of pocket. |
|||
* Failure to mention the shipping costs and taxes to customers until after the product is shown. |
|||
The pay rate one doesn't even make sense as managers cannot "terminate" reps, contractually they are not allowed. It just doesn't fit. And the manager does not, only a portion of the base pay out of pocket...how can a page as well watched as this one contain out and out lies? |
|||
The second complaint is irrelevent as when reps present prices, they do it in a "retail" price, followed by a monthly payment - which any consumer can figure don't multiply to an exact amount of the retail price. Not to mention what retail company INCLUDES tax in their pricing on the shelf? How could that be construed as misleading? |
|||
---- |
|||
I'd like to thank this article for saving me a lot of trouble. i got a letter from them today. A letter which ended up in my garbage can. |
|||
[[User:Freelancepolice|Freelancepolice]] 23:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Id like to point out that heckels is a real knife company. You could even click on the link and go to its wikipedia entry... |
|||
This entry does have serious problems. It is very slanted against the company, and while almost no company can say they do not have valid criticisms, many of the criticisms are either out-dated, exaggerated or simply not true! I am new to this site, so if somebody can explain to me how to put links on here, I would like to share the positive articles I have read from independent sources about Vector Marketing to go along with the negative ones on here. |
|||
::i agree with you, i think that this article may need a re-write and remove alot of the complaints and angry stuff against Vector. I came to this article to see what this company is, and all i got was complaints and negative stuff about the company. It just says like that they get collage kids to sell knives and the rest on is negative stuff about the company [[User:Kuzmaster|Kuzmaster]] 19:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
This article has some serious problems, and portrays this company as a legitimate business when it definitely is not, and is a predatory and unethical scam. The article does not emphasize these traits enough, and instead talks about their practices like they are normal. here is one suggestion: |
|||
-in the graph showing the commission rates, i suggest having a column with "time spent" and the commission compared with another column-"minimum wage".[[User:24.185.138.171|24.185.138.171]] 17:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
I am putting up this neutral dispute marker because I feel this article simply glosses over the various complaints about Vector Marketing, and almost seems apologetic towards Vector Marketing. [[user:24.9.10.235]] |
|||
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? - [[User:Texture|<font color=red>Tεx</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>τ</font>]][[User:Texture|<font color=red>urε</font><!-- TANSTAAFL -->]] 19:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:I left a message for the anon who first tagged this article, [[Special:Contributions/24.9.10.235|24.9.10.235]], but he/she never got back to me. The original tag was <nowiki>{{POV}}</nowiki>, but I changed it to <nowiki>{{POV check}}</nowiki> in the hopes that the user would be more specific about their concerns. In this case, the tag should definitely go. <font color=green>[[User:Szyslak|<font color=green>{{IPA|sɪzlæk}}</font>]] [ [[User talk:Szyslak|+t]], [[Special:Contributions/Szyslak|+c]], [[Special:Emailuser/Szyslak|+m]] ]</font> 20:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC) |
:I left a message for the anon who first tagged this article, [[Special:Contributions/24.9.10.235|24.9.10.235]], but he/she never got back to me. The original tag was <nowiki>{{POV}}</nowiki>, but I changed it to <nowiki>{{POV check}}</nowiki> in the hopes that the user would be more specific about their concerns. In this case, the tag should definitely go. <font color=green>[[User:Szyslak|<font color=green>{{IPA|sɪzlæk}}</font>]] [ [[User talk:Szyslak|+t]], [[Special:Contributions/Szyslak|+c]], [[Special:Emailuser/Szyslak|+m]] ]</font> 20:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC) |
||
Line 83: | Line 30: | ||
...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: |
...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: |
||
* http://consumeraffairs.com/news03/save.html |
|||
* http://umsl.edu/~nki4z3/articles/vector.html |
|||
http:// |
* 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://umsl.edu/~nki4z3/articles/vector.html |
|||
* http://www.theguardianonline.com/media/paper373/news/2003/10/01/Opinions/Response.To.Vector.Marketing.Story-518823.shtml |
|||
{{unsigned}} |
|||
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 |
|||
Line 102: | Line 43: | ||
: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. - [[User:Texture|<font color=red>Tεx</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>τ</font>]][[User:Texture|<font color=red>urε</font><!-- TANSTAAFL -->]] 14:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC) |
: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. - [[User:Texture|<font color=red>Tεx</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>τ</font>]][[User:Texture|<font color=red>urε</font><!-- TANSTAAFL -->]] 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. - [[User:Texture|<font color=red>Tεx</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>τ</font>]][[User:Texture|<font color=red>urε</font><!-- TANSTAAFL -->]] 14:57, 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. - [[User:Texture|<font color=red>Tεx</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>τ</font>]][[User:Texture|<font color=red>urε</font><!-- TANSTAAFL -->]] 14:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC) |
||
== article restored == |
== 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. [[User:Arilakon|Arilakon]] 05:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC) |
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. [[User:Arilakon|Arilakon]] 05:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC) |
||
edit: 64.3.63.178 was the IP associated with it. |
|||
I like how you are so unbiased that you would immediately suggest that an employee would have done that. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.64.102.38|72.64.102.38]] ([[User talk:72.64.102.38|talk]]) 01:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
:I like how you are so unbiased that you would immediately suggest that an employee would have done that. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.64.102.38|72.64.102.38]] ([[User talk:72.64.102.38|talk]]) 01:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.119.242.184|75.119.242.184]] ([[User talk:75.119.242.184|talk]]) 17:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
::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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.119.242.184|75.119.242.184]] ([[User talk:75.119.242.184|talk]]) 17:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
== May, 2006 == |
== May, 2006 == |
||
Line 118: | Line 58: | ||
== verifiable == |
== 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. |
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. {{unsigned}} |
||
---- |
|||
: Did you really read the page "[[WP:V|verifiable]]"? Here's a quote from a box near the top of the page: |
: Did you really read the page "[[WP:V|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. |
:1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. |
||
Line 128: | Line 67: | ||
:Also, there are many links to further information on that page. Please sign your comments with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> which will put your user name, date and time on your comment. [[User:OnPatrol|OnPatrol]] 22:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC) |
:Also, there are many links to further information on that page. Please sign your comments with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> which will put your user name, date and time on your comment. [[User:OnPatrol|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. |
|||
== verifiable continued == |
|||
::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. [[User:Sarahba|Sarahba]] 18:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::On the [[WP:Verifiable]] page at the top, there is a link to [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]]. Perhaps that may help. Also from a link on that page, [[Wikipedia: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. -- [[User:OnPatrol|OnPatrol]] 18:20, 9 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. [[User:Sarahba|Sarahba]] 18:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
17:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
:On the [[WP:Verifiable]] page at the top, there is a link to [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]]. Perhaps that may help. Also from a link on that page, [[Wikipedia: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. -- [[User:OnPatrol|OnPatrol]] 18:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Sales information == |
|||
Sales representatives get a binder to show to customers, and in it is a lot of info. If someone compares this info with some reliable info online, a lot of it is unverifiable. One thing I remember was when they compared it to Henckels and said it was cheaper, but it isn't. One thing I think the article is wrong in saying is that Cutco knives are serrated. They aren't really, they have a recessed edge, since the point of the Double-D edge is that it has the benefits of both serrated and straight edge knives; keeping the clean cut of straight edges and keeping the sharpness that serrated knives have. [[User:128.6.176.12|128.6.176.12]] 20:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Henkels now has many different product lines. For instance, Henkels International is generally regarded as being much lower quality than Henkel's professional series. The prices reflect the differences in quality. Most price comparisons to Henkels are based on the Professional series or above (which are most comparable in quality to Cutco) and come from retail stores such as Williams-Sonoma. However, Williams-Sonoma no longer carries Henkels in its catalog, therefore Vector has changed its comparison to Wustof, a similar high-quality brand (whose price in Williams-Sonoma's catalog is more expensive than a comparable set of Cutco).[[Special:Contributions/12.188.211.6|12.188.211.6]] ([[User talk:12.188.211.6|talk]]) 19:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Multi-level marketing == |
== Multi-level marketing == |
||
Line 151: | Line 77: | ||
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. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:139.127.177.180|139.127.177.180]] ([[User talk:139.127.177.180|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/139.127.177.180|contribs]]) 20:28, September 29, 2006</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
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. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:139.127.177.180|139.127.177.180]] ([[User talk:139.127.177.180|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/139.127.177.180|contribs]]) 20:28, September 29, 2006</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
||
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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/207.38.231.4|207.38.231.4]] ([[User talk:207.38.231.4|talk]]) 01:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
: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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/207.38.231.4|207.38.231.4]] ([[User talk:207.38.231.4|talk]]) 01:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
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." [[User:Cutno|Cutno]] ([[User talk:Cutno|talk]]) 19:50, 17 June 2009 (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." [[User:Cutno|Cutno]] ([[User talk: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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.64.102.38|72.64.102.38]] ([[User talk:72.64.102.38|talk]]) 02:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
:::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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.64.102.38|72.64.102.38]] ([[User talk:72.64.102.38|talk]]) 02:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
:::"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." |
::::"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? [[User:Cutno|Cutno]] ([[User talk:Cutno|talk]]) 13:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC) |
::::So, in a way... yes? [[User:Cutno|Cutno]] ([[User talk:Cutno|talk]]) 13:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC) |
||
== Big change. == |
== 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. |
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 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. |
||
Line 169: | Line 94: | ||
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). |
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. |
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. {{unsigned}} |
||
: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. |
|||
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|||
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. |
: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. |
: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. |
: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. |
: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. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Ethanbourne|Ethanbourne]] ([[User talk:Ethanbourne|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ethanbourne|contribs]]) 15:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
: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. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Ethanbourne|Ethanbourne]] ([[User talk:Ethanbourne|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ethanbourne|contribs]]) 15:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
== Big Change 2: the return of Big Change == |
== Big Change 2: the return of Big Change == |
||
Line 212: | Line 136: | ||
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. |
: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. |
: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. --[[User:Springreturning|Springreturning]] 08:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC) |
:I am not going to make any further reverts, but will leave that to others, if they agree. --[[User:Springreturning|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? |
::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. |
::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. |
::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. |
::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. --[[User:Razordaze|Razordaze]] 17:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC) |
||
--[[User:Razordaze|Razordaze]] 17:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Har. A couple of my friends got caught up in all of this. When I tried asking the newest one anything about the business, I couldn't get any straight answers out of him. So he ends up putting me down for an interview due to some requirement (apparently all new recruitees have to try and recruit others, and the original recruitee will recieve a small percantage from their new guys). When I got the call from these guys telling me I had an interview, my first reaction was "Uhh.. what?" Then I started asking some questions about how it all works. I had managed to squeeze a little bit of info out of one of my friends, but not too much. Vector's reply was to come in for the interview if I wanted any answers. |
|||
So I go in, already dead-set on not accepting any job they try to throw at me if need be -- all I wanted were some answers. So I go in for the first six-minute interview, and find out that this guy who put me down also had another guy in there for an interview during the same slot I signed up for -- he was just as in the dark as I was. When I started asking the same kind of questions to the supervisor interviewing me, his reaction was to wait 15 minutes for the second interview where I'll find out all I need. The "second interview" turned out to be an hour-long orientation (though thakfully, he cut out half of it), with three of us in one room, getting demonstrations on the cutco cutlery. He asked us to take notes on what he was saying, and made sure we wrote some specifics down (ex: Pay rates, 3 initial training stages, 2 of which he said up front were without pay (though they were the longest ones)). As it turns out (from best I could tell between the "interview" and information from my friend), each rep starts off by getting names from people they know. The rep's friend calls said people, who end up getting in contact with the original rep. In the end, you basically get your uncle's cousin's mother to buy cutlery. After that phase is complete, then you start dealing with the customers they already have and go out to make personal appearances. |
|||
Anywho, after the "interview", we were given another application form to fill out. Even though I completed it and handed it in, I told him then and there that this whole thing wasn't for me. The supervisor just kind of looked back at me with a somewhat suprised expression, though I could hear him saying "ditto" multiple times under his breath. |
|||
So there ya go. |
|||
--[[User:Hssarth|Hssarth]] 12:47, 15 October 2007 (CST) |
|||
== Plagerism deletion request == |
== Plagerism deletion request == |
||
The following uncited text appears under the headline "Criticism" |
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." |
:"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." |
||
Line 262: | Line 174: | ||
Consider the following text from the article: |
::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.”'' |
:::''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: |
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.”'' |
:::''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. |
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. |
::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,<br /> |
::Sincerely,<br /> |
||
Stephen D. Eakin (unregistered user)<br /> |
::Stephen D. Eakin (unregistered user)<br /> |
||
--[[User:69.22.110.238|69.22.110.238]] 09:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC) |
::--[[User:69.22.110.238|69.22.110.238]] 09:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC) |
||
== Misleading Citation == |
== Misleading Citation == |
||
Line 286: | Line 198: | ||
Organization/time management |
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? |
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? [[User:Hybrid1486|Hybrid1486]] 05:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
[[User:Hybrid1486|Hybrid1486]] 05:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Controversy and Criticism / Negativity== |
==Controversy and Criticism / Negativity== |
||
Line 294: | Line 204: | ||
:If you can find some positive info on Vector that has been published in a [[WP:RS|reliable source]], then you should absolutely add it to the article. Balance is important, but [[WP:V|verifiability]] is critical. — <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">[[User talk:Satori Son|<b>Satori Son</b>]]</span> 12:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC) |
:If you can find some positive info on Vector that has been published in a [[WP:RS|reliable source]], then you should absolutely add it to the article. Balance is important, but [[WP:V|verifiability]] is critical. — <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">[[User talk:Satori Son|<b>Satori Son</b>]]</span> 12:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
''Reply to Satori Son'' |
::''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 |
|||
--- |
|||
I agree with troywinkleman. I just began to work for Vector and I've noticed no tricks or any scam. It's simplre really; if you put in the effort, you get paid well. People who complain probably just weren't cut out for sales. |
|||
So, at least balance the negativity with the positives. That is, it provides great sales training (which is so valuable that I don't see why people would want to be paid for it); also, the environment is conducive to positiveness and openness... And the money is great if you work at it, like I said. |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/69.235.91.146|69.235.91.146]] ([[User talk:69.235.91.146|talk]]) 05:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Please be aware that Vector is paying people to criticize critics. lots of places on the net have had cut & paste blasts from people claiming to come from Vector and saying they make lots of money. Not only that but they make personal insults to the critic to character assassinate them. [[Special:Contributions/74.33.120.35|74.33.120.35]] ([[User talk:74.33.120.35|talk]]) 19:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
: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. [[User:Drakkenfyre|Drakkenfyre]] ([[User talk:Drakkenfyre|talk]]) 00:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==Training program== |
|||
Hi, I am currently schlepping through Vector's training program, and have a copy of their training manual. I am trying to be neutral but they seem to change the rules every four pages. I don't know whether it is legal to document this information so I shall not place it on here until I receive some sort of response in the affirmative. Please note that this is from their manual. |
|||
However, I do think that their should be some neutral editorials referenced on the page as I felt a sinking sensation when I read the article, no one wants to believe they were just lambasted for four hours by a smiling, "Hey I'm Your Buddy, I'm Your Pal" type person, I don't think that the training is unpaid, but I will quickly uncouple myself from them if it is. |
|||
As proof of what I have I have taken some high resolution photographs of the document in question, and am expecting that I'll be asked if I 'Shopped' them. The resolution is high and I believe there will be tell tale signs if someone 'Shops' these photographs. To protect myself and the manager I have not shown the names and contact info written on the cover. I will not provide these photos unless I am told that it is legal, if it is not, I will delete this talk entry or expect it to be deleted as I do not wish to take part in what may be construed as industrial espionage. |
|||
Signed A Concerned Trainee. |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/67.171.135.48|67.171.135.48]] ([[User talk:67.171.135.48|talk]]) 11:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:: Hey go right ahead! Vector doesn't want more problems, so they won't sue if add the pics! [[Special:Contributions/74.33.120.35|74.33.120.35]] ([[User talk:74.33.120.35|talk]]) 19:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Here's my response: |
|||
::Dear Satori Son, |
|||
The training is very well conducted and it is of a very high quality. There would be NO REASON that Purdue University would require their marketing majors to go through Vector's training if it was not. By the way, no rules change every four pages in the training manual. If you have questions, I can definitely answer them. The training is unpaid because we give you $325 worth of product on a whim. Also, the pay is ridiculously high, so I don't understand why some people are complaining because they invested their time to know how to work well and make a lot of cash. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/138.49.16.74|138.49.16.74]] ([[User talk:138.49.16.74|talk]]) 17:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
::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. |
|||
:Please cite your source that "Purdue University [requires] their marketing majors to go through Vector's training." [[User:Drakkenfyre|Drakkenfyre]] ([[User talk:Drakkenfyre|talk]]) 00:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::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. |
|||
I went though two days of the no payment training last week but dropped out after the manager tried to pressured me into buying the sample kit. I asked for a week to get the money and he then tried to pressure me into borrowing the money. At that point I realized he cared more about making a profit than he did about me as employee. I told a friend of mine about the job, and he got accepted for training. I'm waiting to see how it goes. Overall though I thought the company was very secretive and was trying to withhold information about the job Even 2 days into the training. I almost felt like they were trying to brain wash me into loving and wanting to sell their product. To say the least I got bad vibes. Personally I think the reason the don't pay for training is because the expect most of the recruits to drop out or be unsuccessful. Cuppedycupcake [unregistered] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/96.13.113.95|96.13.113.95]] ([[User talk:96.13.113.95|talk]]) 15:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
::Sincerely, |
|||
Well, if you want to know why he wanted you to get the sample kit today, which he already paid for, but makes no profit selling it to you, it is because trainees who don't sell anything their first weekend almost always quit. That and there is no way to sell Cutco without an actual product to demonstrate. If you want to know why they want you to love the product, it is because a salesman who doesn't look like they like their own product can't sell anything. The reason they expect most reps to be unsuccessful is that most people, when let to decide when they work, won't work. That's all there is. [[Special:Contributions/72.64.102.38|72.64.102.38]] ([[User talk:72.64.102.38|talk]]) 16:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::troywinkelman |
|||
::{{unsigned|troywinkelman}} |
|||
:: |
:::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. [[User:Drakkenfyre|Drakkenfyre]] ([[User talk:Drakkenfyre|talk]]) 00:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC) |
||
==Fair use rationale for Image:Vector Marketing logo.gif== |
==Fair use rationale for Image:Vector Marketing logo.gif== |
||
Line 350: | Line 228: | ||
[[User:BetacommandBot|BetacommandBot]] ([[User talk:BetacommandBot|talk]]) 02:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC) |
[[User:BetacommandBot|BetacommandBot]] ([[User talk:BetacommandBot|talk]]) 02:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
== |
== Edits == |
||
I added a detailed view of the commissions and interview. |
I added a detailed view of the commissions and interview. |
||
Line 366: | Line 244: | ||
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. |
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... |
Anyway, if you have any constructive comments... (email redacted) |
||
Thanks. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.105.74.26|76.105.74.26]] ([[User talk:76.105.74.26|talk]]) 12:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Thanks. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.105.74.26|76.105.74.26]] ([[User talk:76.105.74.26|talk]]) 12:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
Line 379: | Line 257: | ||
:Regards, [[User:High on a tree|High on a tree]] ([[User talk:High on a tree|talk]]) 23:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC) |
:Regards, [[User:High on a tree|High on a tree]] ([[User talk: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 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. |
::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. |
::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. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.105.74.26|76.105.74.26]] ([[User talk:76.105.74.26|talk]]) 19:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
::I stand by my account of Vector Marketing and I submit that it is valuable. Do not delete it again. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.105.74.26|76.105.74.26]] ([[User talk:76.105.74.26|talk]]) 19:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
::''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 [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|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. |
:::''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 [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|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. |
:::''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 [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence]]: |
:::''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 [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence]]: |
||
:::''The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. [...] Any edit lacking a reliable source may be removed'' |
::::''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. |
:::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, [[User:High on a tree|High on a tree]] ([[User talk:High on a tree|talk]]) 12:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC) |
:::Regards, [[User:High on a tree|High on a tree]] ([[User talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/74.33.120.35|74.33.120.35]] ([[User talk:74.33.120.35|talk]]) 19:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC) |
I have removed the awards that vector supposedly had because there were no references to them. [[Special:Contributions/74.33.120.35|74.33.120.35]] ([[User talk:74.33.120.35|talk]]) 19:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
Line 448: | Line 326: | ||
Both the [[Cutco]] and [[Vector Marketing]] articles have nearly identical Controversy and Criticism sections. It seems to me, and I believe other editors, that the controversy is not about the Cutco product, but rather the Vector business practice. It does seem that there is some information in the Cutco article section that hasn't made it into the corresponding section of the Vector article, so I am hesitant to just delete the superfluous section. |
Both the [[Cutco]] and [[Vector Marketing]] articles have nearly identical Controversy and Criticism sections. It seems to me, and I believe other editors, that the controversy is not about the Cutco product, but rather the Vector business practice. It does seem that there is some information in the Cutco article section that hasn't made it into the corresponding section of the Vector article, so I am hesitant to just delete the superfluous section. |
||
I instead propose a single Controversy and Criticism section to exist only on the Vector Marketing page. |
I instead propose a single Controversy and Criticism section to exist only on the Vector Marketing page. --[[User:Greenguy1090|Greenguy1090]] ([[User talk:Greenguy1090|talk]]) 19:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
:Second. The product is not controversial itself, supposedly its the marketing side of its approach. --[[User:SomeGuy11112|SomeGuy11112]] - 08/08/08 .... :) |
|||
--[[User:Greenguy1090|Greenguy1090]] ([[User talk:Greenguy1090|talk]]) 19:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::I disagree. People considering employment with CutCo will run searches for "CutCo," not "Vector Marketing." Leaving no section on the hiring controversies could lead people to believe that there have never been any controversies associated with CutCo. Keeping a section here could save a lot of people a lot of trouble. --[[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 15:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Second. The product is not controversial itself, supposedly its the marketing side of its approach. |
|||
--[[User:SomeGuy11112|SomeGuy11112]] - 08/08/08 .... :) |
|||
I disagree. People considering employment with CutCo will run searches for "CutCo," not "Vector Marketing." Leaving no section on the hiring controversies could lead people to believe that there have never been any controversies associated with CutCo. Keeping a section here could save a lot of people a lot of trouble. |
|||
--[[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 15:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
I have removed the suggestion. [[User:Cutno|Cutno]] ([[User talk:Cutno|talk]]) 20:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC) |
I have removed the suggestion. [[User:Cutno|Cutno]] ([[User talk:Cutno|talk]]) 20:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC) |
||
Line 478: | Line 350: | ||
:Can I also ask you to [[Wikipedia:Signature|sign your posts]] on this talk page by appending four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to them, and to append new threads to the bottom (you can use the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vector_Marketing&action=edit§ion=new new section]" link at the top for this). I had reverted your deletion because it did not contain any explanation in the edit summary, and because on this talk page there were no recent comments visible about this passage. |
:Can I also ask you to [[Wikipedia:Signature|sign your posts]] on this talk page by appending four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to them, and to append new threads to the bottom (you can use the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vector_Marketing&action=edit§ion=new new section]" link at the top for this). I had reverted your deletion because it did not contain any explanation in the edit summary, and because on this talk page there were no recent comments visible about this passage. |
||
:Regards, [[User:HaeB|HaeB]] ([[User talk:HaeB|talk]]) 22:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC) |
:Regards, [[User:HaeB|HaeB]] ([[User talk:HaeB|talk]]) 22:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC) |
||
== Student Against Vector Exploitation (SAVE) == |
|||
SAVE is a group founded by students and former "employees" of Vector Marketing. In Augest 2003, the group submitted an article on [http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news03/save.html consumeraffairs.com]. |
|||
"Vector Marketing is a company that targets students nationwide to sell Cutco kitchen knives with in-home demonstrations. They are encouraged to sell to their family and friends to start out with and are pretty successful in the beginning, since it's easy to sell to people that care about you and feel obligated to help out. But after that they must rely on referrals, which can be difficult since not too many people want to let stangers into their house to get a sales pitch on knife sets that typically cost several hundred dollars." |
|||
"Workers in [Wisconsin] earned less than $3.00 a day on average selling cutlery for Vector," David Tatar, a supervisor for the Wisconsin Consumer Protection Department said. |
|||
Read more: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news03/save.html#ixzz0JmrIkpVv&C |
|||
Vector Marketing is also facing several pending lawsuits and have lost past lawsuits. This first lawsuit against the copany was filed in 1990 by a former sells rep. |
|||
"Think twice before taking a job from Vector Marketing, no amount of money will buy back the time you loose selling these knives" says former personal recruit recipetionist, Jordan Smith who also worked as a sales rep "most legitimate jobs don't come and find you." |
|||
Vector Marketing is also mentioned in the [http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/071/RipOff0071189.htm Rip-off Report]. |
|||
[[User:Chantellestrada|Chantellestrada]] ([[User talk:Chantellestrada|talk]]) 03:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Chantelle Comeri, June 28th, 2009 |
|||
== Hummanity Blues blog == |
== Hummanity Blues blog == |
Revision as of 19:25, 15 December 2009
Companies Unassessed | |||||||||||||||||
|
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? - Tεxτurε 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 {{POV}}, but I changed it to {{POV check}} in the hopes that the user would be more specific about their concerns. In this case, the tag should definitely go. sɪzlæk [ +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:
- 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
— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
- 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. - Tεxτurε 14:56, 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:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|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 Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Perhaps that may help. Also from a link on that page, Wikipedia: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)
- 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."
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:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|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 Wikipedia: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.”
- Consider the following text from the article:
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)
- Sincerely,
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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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.
- 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 Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence:
- 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)
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'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)
Added POV Template
I've noticed that several people have complained that a controversy and criticism section exists. I believe one should based on numerous news reports that I've read, so I've created one that addresses the allegations made against the company and incldued rebuttals. Some have complained that is not neutral to report on criticisms of a company, but I find that argument unconvincing. A controvsery exists or has existed, as evidenced by stories in online general newspapers and student newspapers. To ignore that controversy would be just as biased as only reporting complaints about a company.
Note that people's general comments are not considered significant or adequate citations unless they are recorded in a significant source. I've read the talk page, and I can understand why some people don't think it's fair to criticize Vector Marketing. Despite allegations that the company is a scam, people have been paid legitimate money. I tried to reflect that sentiment in my edit, and the article can be edited to show even more support for the company if necessary. And if you've been paid, good for you. I couldn't be happier. But to ignore all the allegations against Vector Marketing because you don't believe it's a scam is not presenting a neutral point of view when there are those that do believe it is illegitimate. Their voices must be heard, and if the facts are against the complaints, point that out in the article. Mastermund (talk) 06:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, you might want to review Wikipedia:Describing_points_of_view; insofar as your voices are concerned, they aren't worthy of introduction not because of our beliefs but instead because they are not reliably sourced. Phentos (talk) 05:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
extent of company / location / other useful figures section?
anyone care to find out all of the states / countries that vector operates in? how much money do they make off the program / pay rates, etc? Nnnudibranch 20:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Merge proposal
Both the Cutco and Vector Marketing articles have nearly identical Controversy and Criticism sections. It seems to me, and I believe other editors, that the controversy is not about the Cutco product, but rather the Vector business practice. It does seem that there is some information in the Cutco article section that hasn't made it into the corresponding section of the Vector article, so I am hesitant to just delete the superfluous section.
I instead propose a single Controversy and Criticism section to exist only on the Vector Marketing page. --Greenguy1090 (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Second. The product is not controversial itself, supposedly its the marketing side of its approach. --SomeGuy11112 - 08/08/08 .... :)
- I disagree. People considering employment with CutCo will run searches for "CutCo," not "Vector Marketing." Leaving no section on the hiring controversies could lead people to believe that there have never been any controversies associated with CutCo. Keeping a section here could save a lot of people a lot of trouble. --Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the suggestion. Cutno (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
One Sentence
At the end of "Criticisms" the statement...
"students who work for Vector Marketing are considered independent contractors and are not reimbursed for money they spend on gasoline used while working or for the time they spend at training sessions, however, they do get to write off their miles driven going to and from appointments and office trips."
appears. I wasn't sure if this was deletable or not, or if its already been discussed. I figured I check here so I wouldn't step on anyones toes. The reason I suggest deletion is because the gas and miles is tax deductible; so people do get the money back. Also, for me, I get 16$ per appointment + 3$ per appointment "for travel". This is also very biased since all jobs require driving and very few (none that I know of) reimburse their employees. Therefore I find this to be inaccurate, biased, and a misleading comment and I just wanted to check here before I did anything, since this article is having enough trouble staying neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SomeGuy11112 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 8 August 2008
- The cited references are:
- Lucchesi, Nick (2004-02-04). "Vector Marketing targets unaware college students". News. The Journal. p. 2. Retrieved 2008-06-05. (But Vector also seems to have a number of downsides. "You have to attend weekly meetings you don't get paid for, you don't get paid for gas," said Bell [a former Vector seller].)
- Deal, A. Matthew (2006-09-26). "High wages for student work - but beware". Campus News. The Carolinian. p. 1. Retrieved 2008-06-05. (The main problem that Vector's detractors cite is that many employees of the company are "independent contractors," which means they are not eligible for employee benefits such as health insurance, employee training or payment for transportation. Since sales pitches are sometimes given in a person's home, sales representatives pay for their own gas.)
- So these newspapers have cited statements that you do not agree with - fair enough, but please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. This principle means here that we do not write our own opinions into the article, and that we do not include or exclude notable opinions according to whether we agree with them or disagree with them.
- This is also very biased since all jobs require driving and very few (none that I know of) reimburse their employees. - One could point out that your argument is obviously wrong, because most jobs only involve driving to and from the job before and after the work time, not during the job, and on those that do it is highly unusual that the employee has to pay the drives. But discussions like these are irrelevant and discouraged on Wikipedia, for the reason pointed out above. If we find another notable publication which contests this criticism, we can include that opinion too. Until then it remains your personal opinion.
- Can I also ask you to sign your posts on this talk page by appending four tildes (~~~~) to them, and to append new threads to the bottom (you can use the "" link at the top for this). I had reverted your deletion because it did not contain any explanation in the edit summary, and because on this talk page there were no recent comments visible about this passage.
- Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Hummanity Blues blog
I have once again removed the information about Vector being a "scam" that is cited to the Humanity Blues blog. There are official policies concerning why such an assertion, as cited, is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article: Please see WP:Verifiability#Reliable sources and WP:Neutral point of view#Undue weight. Also see the guidelines WP:Reliable sources#Statements of opinion and WP:External links#Links normally to be avoided. Thank you. — Satori Son 15:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Wall Street Journal article
Cutco and Vector Marketing was just in the Wall Street Journal because of the continual increase in sales during the recession and the opportunity provided for college students. It is titled "Nice Summer Job- If You Can Cut It" It explains it takes hard work but there is certainly money to be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.41.79.129 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- The article was "Summer Job: Nice Pay, if You Can Cut It" by Eileen Gunn on August 5 2008. tedder (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Controversy and criticism
"Vector Marketing, in the past, has required sales representatives to make a security deposit of $135 + tax in order to procure a set of knives for demonstrations..."
This practice continues at present, according to the hiring interview I attended yesterday. --Volkai (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Please see WP:NOR. Can you find a reliable source for it? tedder (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think that its possible to find a proper source, perhaps you could get the information in writing from the company itself? If possible, try to get it from a manger and insist that this information is given to you in writing with a signature. You could also tape recoard, but there are legal implications that you may need to search out about recording someone. Cutno (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)