Talk:Frank VanderSloot - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nomoskedasticity (talk | contribs) at 13:28, 6 June 2012 (→stick to what the sources state: +link). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:28, 6 June 2012 by Nomoskedasticity (talk | contribs) (→stick to what the sources state: +link)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Business

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: Idaho Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Idaho (assessed as Low-importance).

Requested articles

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Requested articles, because it is used for the administration of the Requested articles process or it was formerly listed at Requested articles.Requested articlesWikipedia:WikiProject Requested articlesTemplate:WikiProject Requested articlesRequested

It is requested that an image or photograph of Frank VanderSloot be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Idaho may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Untitled

I just added a link to this article: It raises WP:BLP issues, but I think it's fairly reliable, and as long as we describe it as 'allegations' rather than state it as fact, I think it can go in the article. Robofish (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Criticisms

Currently, over 50% of the criticism section are direct quotes from the subject. It should probably be focused on detailing the criticisms as opposed to the subject's responses. Additionally, I am not sure the wording conforms to community guidelines. This page will likely receive additional traffic as the subject is the media attention. However, I am not very sure what should be done. Trabisnikof (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I have added a summarized version of some of the complaints leveled against him, as including a section that has him responding to accusations without stating what he was accused of is pretty absurd. WhoIsWillo (talk) 02:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, I think the criticism should probably be moved to it's own section, as it doesn't really fit the content that surrounds it, and it's the main reason why people will be visiting the page now. WhoIsWillo (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Pyramid Selling, Multilevel Marketing, and Direct Marketing.

There seems to be a little confusing about exactly how Melaleuca works, and I think this is important for the article. Some sources say it is a pyramid selling model, such as the Mother Jones one and the Salon.com article. Pyramid selling links to Pyramid scheme, which is not what these sources are saying. It looks like they are describing multilevel marketing, which is different enough that it's legal. Although that term has very negative connotation, I can't really find any difference between what Melaleuca does and the strict definition of multilevel marketing. Melaleuca itself uses the term direct marketing, which is a very vague article in this context. As far as I can tell, they are not explaining that it's different from multilevel marketing so much as emphasizing that the seller doesn't have to keep the product on-hand, hence direct. Since most secondary sources, even fairly flattering ones such as the Forbes.com article use some variation of multilevel marketing I think we should go with that. This official video makes it very, very clear that they use a multilevel marketing model. Just because they call it something else, it is screamingly obvious that it is a multilevel marketing company. Grayfell (talk) 05:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Response. "Pyramid selling" is indeed a very negative term. Why use a term that libels the reputation of Melaleuca as well as libels the name of Frank VanderSloot when it does not at all describe the business activities of the company?

The Forbes article you mention is clearly an article about Frank VanderSloot, not an article on Melaleuca's business model. There is no evidence that the author of the Forbes article spent any time at all researching Melaleuca's business model. It is doubtful that she would consider herself an expert on that issue. An argument was made in Forbes the month following the month that the article appeared that pointed out that calling Melaleuca a "pyramid selling organization" was inappropriate. (Forbes Counter) While Forbes may be a reliable source for some things, its calling Melaleuca a pyramid selling organization was criticized immediately. Using an article that was immediately disputed by those who know more about the issue than the author seems to be unfair and significantly biased.

PYRAMID SELLING AND PYRAMID SCHEMES

The concepts of "pyramid scheme" (illegal) and "pyramid selling" (questionable but perhaps legal) both typically have to do with requiring some type of investment with the hope of getting several others to make the same or similar investment, thereby receiving back far more than the original investment. These types of schemes are risky, and they often damage people's lives. The risk is that after someone makes their investment, they may not be able to entice someone else to make a similar investment. They stand to lose everything that they invested. Pyramid selling, by its very nature, needs some kind of investment by its participants to build the pyramid. In Melaleuca's model there is no investment of any kind, nor is any inventory purchased. Melaleuca's model could never be deemed "pyramid selling" because it lacks any investment or outlay of cash.

Many MLM companies do indeed use a very similar model, requiring participants to purchase product inventory and entice others to purchase inventory. They try to legitimize their model by requiring the resale of the inventory to others. This methodology has been upheld to be legal and is called “multilevel marketing” (MLM). Melaleuca's model is the antithesis of both “MLM” and "pyramid selling" because there is no investment by participants and no reselling of product. There are, in fact, no multiple levels of distribution whatsoever (Melaleuca video). The company sells directly to the customer. Because of that, it cannot be accurately called either "MLM" or "pyramid selling". That's why it is called "consumer direct marketing". Melaleuca’s model could correctly be described as "referring selling", but it does not engage in multilevel selling or pyramid selling.

According to the Free Dictionary by Farflex, pyramid selling is “a practice adopted by some manufacturers of advertising for distributors and selling them batches of goods. The first distributors then advertise for more distributors who are sold subdivisions of the original batches at an increased price. This process continues until the final distributors are left with a stock that is unsaleable except at a loss.”

The Cambridge Dictionary Online defines pyramid selling as: “in business, when someone buys the right to sell a company's goods, and then sells the goods to other people. These people then sell the goods to other people.”

Melaleuca’s business model clearly does not fit either definition.

Not only is Melaleuca’s business model not pyramid selling or MLM, Melaleuca’s business model is specifically designed to prevent pyramid selling and multi-level marketing. What Makes Melaleuca Different.

DIRECT SELLING & MLM VS. DIRECT MARKETING

There's a great difference between "direct selling" and "direct marketing." Both types of selling are represented by different national associations.

Direct selling is defined by the Direct Selling Association as: "the sale of a consumer products or services, person-to-person, away from a fixed retail location, marketed through independent sales representatives who are sometimes also referred to as consultants, distributors or other titles."

Since no "person-to-person" sales occur in Melaleuca's model, Melaleuca's methodology could never accurately be described as "direct selling."

Multilevel Marketing (MLM) is defined by the Direct Selling Association as "a type of compensation plan found in direct selling."

Since MLM is by definition is only done by direct selling companies, and Melaleuca is not a direct selling company it cannot be an MLM.

Direct marketing "is the business of selling goods or services directly to the public e.g. by direct mail, telephone, Internet sales, catalog sales, rather than through retail outlets." According to the Direct Selling Association, those activities (internet sales, telephone sales, etc) are specifically not Direct Selling. Virtually none of Melaleuca's sales occur "person-to-person." Virtually all of Melaleuca's sales occur through a physical catalogue or online catalogue. Sales occur on the internet or via the telephone directly with the company.

According to Misplaced Pages, direct marketing "is a channel-agnostic form of advertising that allows businesses and nonprofits to communicate directly to the customer, with advertising techniques such as mobile messaging, e-mail, interactive consumer websites, online display ads, flyers, catalog distribution, promotional letters, and outdoor advertising." This describes Melaleuca's business as all of Melaleuca's sales occur through either physical catalog or online catalog and occur over the telephone or through the Internet, and all of Melaleuca's messaging to its customers occurs through, their published catalog or through mobile messages, e-mail, interactive consumer websites, online display ads, flyers, etc.

Melaleuca is clearly a direct marketing company but not a direct selling company.

Multilevel marketing has legal definitions as defined by several state statutes. All of the legal definitions from the various states refer to different levels of distribution. Louisiana: LAC 16:111.503 (2010); Maryland: Md. Business Regulation Code Ann. S 14-301 (2010); Massachusetts: ALM GL ch.93, S 69(a) (2010); Montana: M.C.A. S 30-10-324(3)(c) (2010) Melaleuca does not have any multiple levels of distribution. In Melaleuca's model, product moves directly from the company to the customer. Therefore, Melaleuca's model does not fit any existing state definitions of Multilevel Marketing.

Describing Melaleuca's business model as "pyramid selling" is highly problematic in that it would not only be inaccurate, it is perhaps libelous because of the extreme negative connotation of that term. Using the term "MLM" to describe Melaleuca's model may not be libelous, but is clearly grossly inaccurate. RoadPeace (talk) 10:23, 21 May 2012

Thank you for that detailed response. I've got a few points I'd like to bring up:

You're right about the term 'pyramid selling'. Although I don't believe it is libelous, it is polarizing and misleading. It was taken from the Forbes article, mainly as a compromise with someone who disagreed with the term multilevel marketing, since it was directly cited as such.

First of all, I am very weary of Youtube videos being used as citations here. It's bad form for Misplaced Pages, but I'm especially cautious for this topic. You may have noticed that there are a LOT of videos about Melaleuca on Youtube, many of them are very promotional in nature, and cannot be used as a non-biased source, and most of the rest of them are blatant attacks against melaleuca (usually as a back-handed promotion for some other home-based marketing model). If we can find a video from a legitimate news organization, I would be okay, but otherwise, I don't think those are going to fly. What we need, what what we always need it seems, are reliable, neutral sources. We don't have any about Melaleuca's business model, as most sources I can find are either very vaguely in praise of VanderSloot as a businessman, or journalistic comments about his conservative political activities.

What do you mean 'no "person-to-person" sales occur'? How are sales made then? My understanding is that people introduce the product line to others, who then order and receive the product from the factory-warehouse. It is still person to person, isn't it? The people involved are independent representative selling away from fixed retail organizations, aren't they? Also, you have linked to the wrong site. The Direct Sellers Association is at www.dsa.org, and Melaleuca is a member of that organization. Here is their profile page. The important thing to note here is that I see no evidence that Melaleuca cannot be both direct selling and direct marketing. The two concept are not mutually exclusive, and it appears that Melaleuca is both.

As for MLM, you have described many of the reasons why MLM has a bad wrap, but those are not things that define MLM. There are many disreputable MLM companies, but that doesn't mean that all MLMs are disreputable. As I said initially, Nobody here is saying that Melaleuca is disreputable. They have made it very clear that they do not want to be considered an MLM, for obvious reasons, but that doesn't mean that they aren't, technically, an MLM. The definition of Multilevel marketing, from the first sentence of the Misplaced Pages article:

"Multi-level marketing (MLM) is a marketing strategy in which the sales force is compensated not only for sales they personally generate, but also for the sales of others they recruit, creating a downline of distributors and a hierarchy of multiple levels of compensation."

They may very well be the 'good guys' in the MLM world, but they distribute percentage based commission to independent sales-people, as well as the people who initially recruit those sales-people. That makes them a multilevel marketing company, end of story.Grayfell (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

There is another issue with the usage of the term "multilevel marketing" related to the Forbes article. The Forbes article never describes Melaleuca's business model as "multilevel marketing." The only quote even reminiscent of such a description states, "And, in a departure from many multilevel marketing schemes, VanderSloot is insistent about not burdening new recruits with huge startup costs or a garageful of inventory." () The author is identifying characteristics that distinguish Melaleuca from multilevel marketing rather than indicate its inclusion. Essentially, the citation to the Forbes article is a misquotation. (Caloi Rider (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC))

That's a good point. The Forbes article actually says 'pyramid selling', which as RoadPeace mentions above, is misleading because of its similarity to 'pyramid scheme'. The article on MLM does list pyramid selling as another name for multilevel marketing, though, and that was the term I used at one point. Since pyramid selling is a redirect to pyramid scheme, I thought it would be clearer and less confrontational to change it to multilevel marketing and avoid any euphemistic redirects.

The problem is that there are few neutral terms for it, maybe because any neutral way to describe it becomes adopted by less-scrupulous companies in order to disguise and glamorize what they do, thus debasing the new term. I'm not really entirely comfortable with using the term 'multilevel marketing', but I don't think it would be appropriate to use doublespeak that obscures what Melaleuca does, either. Grayfell (talk) 03:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

There's a good reason to be uncomfortable with calling Melaleuca's model "MLM" or "multilevel marketing. "Melaleuca simply does not use a multilevel marketing model. You would have to be pretty unfamiliar with MLM or with Melaleuca's model to suggest that it does.

To understand the term, "multilevel marketing" it may be helpful to refer to the history of that term. In the early 60s several firms sprang up that used this model. Companies like Holiday Magic and Amway sold products to distributors who resold the product to others. In the Amway model, a distributor would have to do a certain volume in order to qualify for the level of "direct distributor" which allowed them to purchase directly from the company. "Direct distributors" would purchase large quantities of product and stock that product in their garage and make it available to other distributors in their downline. Those distributors would take possession of product and move it to their own garage and make it available to distributors in their downlines. In that model, product moved from distributor to distributor. Multilevel marketing came to mean multiple levels of distribution. In today's world, in MLM companies, product often moves several levels but at least two levels, i.e. first level = from company to distributor, second-level= from distributor customer. The risk inherent here is that distributor must invest in and maintain an inventory. If the distributor cannot resell the product, they are stuck with losing money on their original investment. Most MLM companies focus on moving product to their distributors. Often, very little of that product ever gets to end consumers. Many people investing in inventories get hurt because they lose money on their investment in inventory. The direct selling Association has beefed up its code of ethics to require companies to purchase back these inventories, when distributors decide to throw in the towel and stop trying to sell the product. But many MLM's try to avoid the buyback provisions required by the DSA, therefore leaving distributors out to dry and giving MLM a bad name.

It is important to note that with Melaleuca there is no person-to-person sales. The company creates and handles all sales transactions. Marketing executives simply refer customers to the company. A record is kept of who referred the customer and the person making the referral gets a small commission whenever the customer buys. That is a far cry from the MLM model. A huge difference is there is no inventory kept by the marketing executive, no investment, no way to get hurt, no reselling of product, and no appearance of any MLM type activities whatsoever.

Repeating the definition of Multilevel marketing in Misplaced Pages you refer to:

"Multilevel (MLM) is a marketing strategy in which the sales force is compensated not only for sale they personally generate but also for the sales of others they ::recruit, creating a downline of distributors and a hierarchy of multiple levels of compensation."

The operative word here is "distributors". To be a distributor one must distribute something. That word, alone, disqualifies Melaleuca from being multilevel marketing. Melaleuca marketing executives do not distribute anything. Therefore, they are not distributors. There is also no downline of distributors. The use of the word distributor is no accident here. All legal definitions from the various states that define MLM or multilevel marketing define it as having multiple levels of "distribution". With there are no multiple levels of distribution and no downlines. Hence Melaleuca does not practice multilevel marketing.

Summary:

Melaleuca does not fit the Direct Selling Association definition of Multilevel Marketing.
Melaleuca’s business model does not fit any existing state or federal definition MLM.
Melaleuca does not fit Misplaced Pages’s definition of MLM
Melaleuca does not fit any traditional or even non-traditional definition of MLM

Therefore, only an extremely biased person would try to cram Melaleuca into the MLM box when it just simply does not fit. One would have to have some significant bias to continue to insist on doing that.

Melaleuca has aptly defined itself as operating a Consumer direct marketing model. It compensates people on referrals they make to the company. There is no valid argument that suggests that Melaleuca does not practice consumer direct marketing. And there is ample evidence that Melaleuca uses the referral marketing model to refer customers to the business. It's been doing that for 26 years. RoadPeace (talk) 12:50, 24 May 2012

I disagree with a major point of your contention. What you described would be accurately called 'multilevel distribution'. While MLM and 'MLD' (if you will) have been historically linked, they are not the same thing. Again, from Multilevel marketing:

"Network Marketing" and "Multi-level Marketing" have been described by author Dominique Xardel as being synonymous, and as methods of direct selling. According to Xardel, "direct selling" and "network marketing" refer to the distribution system, while the term "multi-level marketing" describes the compensation plan. Other terms that are sometimes used to describe multi-level marketing include "word-of-mouth marketing", "interactive distribution", and "relationship marketing". Critics have argued that the use of different terms and "buzzwords" is an effort to distinguish multi-level marketing from illegal Ponzi schemes, chain letters, and consumer fraud scams. Some sources classify multi-level marketing as a form of direct selling rather than being direct selling.

I don't know who the 'Direct Selling Association' is, as there website you linked to appears down at the moment. The Direct Selling Association of America (of which Melaleuca is a member) has numerous MLMs as members, including Amway. If Amway is a direct seller, and also an MLM, why can't Melaleuca be the same? In fact, according to this pdf, more than 90% of direct sellers are MLMs. We are in agreement that they are direct marketers. I think their membership in the DSA shows that they are also direct sellers. So what definition of MLM are you referring to?

From the dsa.org FAQ:

"Q. What is the difference between direct selling and multilevel marketing?

A. Direct selling refers to a distribution method, whereas multilevel marketing refers more specifically to a type of compensation plan found in direct selling. A direct selling company that offers a multilevel compensation plan pays its representatives/distributors based not only on one's own product sales, but on the product sales of one's "downline" (the people a representative/distributor has brought into the business, and, in turn, the people they have brought into the business)."

Melaleuca's own trade organization includes both representatives AND distributors as being viable for inclusion in MLM compensation. The Montana Securities Department likewise does not make a distinction between distributor and representative for determining MLM status. I have not looked into any other government positions yet.

Since I do not concede the first three points on your list, I find the last one to be flawed as well. Melaleuca fits most traditional definitions of an MLM. Grayfell (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Response: You clearly do not have knowledge of which you are writing. It is called the Direct Selling Association, (not the Direct Selling Association of America.) Melaleuca Inc. is a member of several trade associations. Just because it is a member of the Direct Selling Association does not mean it is a "direct seller." In fact the associations definition for "direct selling" states that a direct seller, by definition, is involved in person-to-person sales. As pointed out above, Melaleuca's model does not include person-to-person sales. It's clear that you do not understand that. The fact that you do not understand it or do not concede it does not make it any less true. Just because Melaleuca has some things in common with direct selling, and, in general, must operate under the same laws and guidelines as direct sellers, and therefore finds it to its own advantage to be a member of the direct selling Association, does not mean it is a direct seller.

The Montana definition that you refer to above states: "Multilevel marketing firms sell goods or services through independent agents." Again, Melaleuca does not sell goods or services through independent agents. The company handles all of the sales transactions directly with the customer. The independent agents do not sell any goods or services whatsoever. They only refer customers and register those customers with the company. They do not make sales. How many times do I have to repeat this and how many different ways do I have to say it before you understand? Melaleuca does not meet the definition of a direct selling company. Neither does it meet any definition of multilevel marketing.

Misplaced Pages rules are that Misplaced Pages editors must come from a neutral point of view. Your repeated insistence on defining Melaleuca in a negative light makes it clear that you are not operating from a neutral point of view. You have admitted that MLM has a negative connotation. “Consumer direct marketing" and "referral marketing" are much more accurate than the terms you are suggesting. Besides being far more accurate, these terms are neither positive nor negative. What is your personal stake in this? Why do you insist on using terms that do not at all define Melaleuca's model and which, by your own definition are negative terms and therefore do not come from a neutral point of view? RoadPeace (talk) 9:26, 25 May 2012

To answer your question, I have no personal stake in this. None. Do you? I called it the Direct Selling Association of America because there are several different organization by that name based out of different countries, and my understanding is that some of the other ones are pretty sketchy. I thought it worthwhile to make it clear which one I was referring to. That's all I meant by that. As for the positive or negative connotations of MLM as a term, my point has always been that those connotations are not intrinsic to the term itself. Although the term has a lot of baggage, there is nothing illegal or inherently unethical about MLM, so if Melaleuca is MLM, we should call it that. Let me make it clear that it is not my intention, by calling Melaleuca an MLM, to cast it in a negative light. I am simply trying to describe it as what it is. So far, you're arguments against that definition haven't persuaded me that it isn't, and your repeated use of heavily promotional WP:PRIMARY sources also fail to persuade me. Simply because everything is distributed from a central location doesn't, as I understand it, mean that the sales aren't considered 'person to person'. It's your contention that I am mistaken about that. I think it's clear we need a few additional sets of eyes on this page, so I am posting a notice on the BLP Noticeboard. Hopefully we can get a few more experienced editors to help us out. Grayfell (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link to that notice, Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Frank_L._VanderSloot, for convenience. Grayfell (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Arriving here from BLPN -- I agree with Grayfell's approach to this issue, and in general with the idea that we shouldn't be over-using primary sources here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The Forbes article makes it clear that the Melaleuca model is a departure from Multi-Level Marketing Schemes therefore it is not a multi-level marketing scheme but rather “a departure from”. It is clearly not accurate or fair to label Melaleuca an MLM when Forbes states it is a departure from that model. The term direct marketing better describes the model in that Melaleuca customers buy directly from a catalog which is definitely direct marketing.

Melaleuca’s model fits all conventional definitions of Direct Marketing (Webster). Melaleuca does not meet any conventional definitions of multi-level marketing (there are no multiple levels of anything!). It doesn’t serve a NPV to label Melaleuca something that it is not.

Using the term MLM to define Melaleuca whose membership avidly despises the MLM model is contentious. This is extremely contentious and damages the company and Frank Vandersloot’s reputation unfairly and wrongly. WP:BLP rules state “Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.” --Not LTD (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You have misread the source. It does not say "in a departure from multilevel marketing schemes", it says "in a departure from many multilevel marketing schemes". In other words, this article offers the view that Melaleuca is a MLM model with a difference on a single aspect. Also note that in the other source Vandersloot himself says that Melaleuca is a MLM firm. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I have been watching the debate on this talk page with some amusement. Suggesting that Frank VanderSloot was talking about Melaleuca, Inc when he mentioned that he was operating an MLM company documents the writer is either extremely biased or totally uninformed as to the history of Frank VanderSloot and Melaleuca. Anyone who knows the history of the company at all knows the following: In December of 1984, Frank VanderSloot was recruited by Roger Ball to join the newly-formed Oil of Melaleuca, Inc as its CEO. (That was an entirely different company than Melaleuca, Inc.) Oil of Melaleuca, Inc was a multi-level Marketing company. The company had already been operating for 3 months when Frank Became CEO in March of 1985. It was Frank’s first and only experience with MLM. The company only lasted 7 months. It had marginal success in its first few months, but then failed, partly because of its MLM model. People were purchasing inventories of starter kits, but very little product was being resold to end consumers. In August 1985, Oil of Melaleuca closed its doors. In the 5 months of operating Oil of Melaleuca, Frank VanderSloot learned a great deal about MLM. He became very critical of the fact that MLM models are usually designed to sell inventories to unsuspecting get-rich-quick wannabes rather than selling product to end-users. MLM usually requires an investment of some type and only pays off if the participant gets others to make a similar investment. The result is that the first guy in wins and the last guy in loses. Frank thought that he could design a program that still offered a business opportunity to those who referred customers, but would avoid the MLM aspects altogether. He thought that a system where the company would carry the inventory and handle all sales transactions to consumers would create a viable company where every sale was to an end user rather than end up in someone’s garage. It was a model that was more similar to the corporate world he had come from. He launched a new company in September of 1985. He tried to approach the MLM distributors who had joined Oil of Melaleuca. They felt that selling tiny amounts to customers rather than large orders to distributors would not be a viable fast track to the wealth they were seeking. They left to join various MLM opportunities then in operation. But a few of the customers of Oil of Melaleuca did stay and some eventually referred other customers. Since Melaleuca’s customer referral model was so different from MLM, and since it resembled direct marketing rather than direct sales, the new model became known as “Consumer Direct Marketing.” Besides selling directly to customers, Melaleuca implemented several other principles that would never be found in any MLM company. For example, MLM companies traditionally reward large purchases and large investments with extra bonuses and larger discounts. This factor is what gives MLM its bad name in that it induces greater investments in inventory and creates greater risk and often financial disaster for the distributers who participate. Yet it is the concept that MLM’s thrive on.

Melaleuca does the opposite. Not only does Melaleuca not give extra incentives to larger purchases, it does not give any commissions on sales of over $150 per month, thereby eliminating any temptation for anyone to make an investment in inventory. Such a tactic would destroy any MLM company! This is just one difference. The list of opposites between Melaleuca’s model and MLM companies is endless. Frank VanderSloot has spent the last 26 years criticizing the MLM model in that it often destroys lives and often does not produce sales to end consumers. He has criticized the MLM model to the both the US Direct Selling Association and the World Federation of Direct Sellers. He is so critical of MLM, he has offered a $ 10,000 dollar reward for anyone who can identify a single successful MLM company in the United States that has started in the last 30 years. He has publicly stated there are none. In that Melaleuca started only 26 years ago, if Melaleuca were MLM, he would be saying that Melaleuca is not successful-hardly a supportable position, given that Melaleuca hit $1 Billion dollars in sales last year.

The point is Melaleuca is not MLM and has almost nothing in common with MLM companies other than it offers a business opportunity. It offers that opportunity in a way that can be considered the opposite of MLM. Besides being totally different, there are simply no multiple levels of anything.

Melaleuca is successful partly because it is not MLM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imaginenow (talk • contribs) 00:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Once again, we see someone using certain characteristics common to most MLMs as a generalized reason why Melaleuca somehow can't possible be a MLM. Find me a definition of MLM (from a reputable source, and NOT from a Meleleuca website!) that matches this line of thought, and bring it here. The idea that all of these finicky subtleties about how much is or isn't delivered at a time, or how strongly VanderSloot rejects the label, or the fact that they order from a catalog or website instead of from someone's garage, all miss the most important point. Multilevel marketing is about paying people who make sales a commission, and also paying the people who recruited those people a commission. By that reasoning, Melaleuca is a MLM company. Grayfell (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Mormon pedophiles

Claims linking any living person to support for "Mormon pedophiles/ Boy Scouts of America" is, IMO, a contentious claim requiring exceedingly strong sources - whcih are not provided. I suggest that this claim is a gros and egregious violation of WP:BLP and the edit warriors placing it in this article are violating WP:BLP in a gross and egregious manner. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Re edit-warriors -- at this point you're the only one who has repeated any edits re this topic. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see him supporting anyone, I see him as being quoted as "purchased multiple full-page advertisement in the investigating local paper discussing, among other things, the sexual orientation of the journalist breaking the story." Is this not true? It's incredibly well sourced. Hipocrite (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

You did not see the claim:

VanderSloot has also been criticized for his response to a series that exposed Mormon pedophiles working with children as part of the Boy Scouts of America ?

I rather thought the linkage of VanderSloot to "Mormon pedophiles" was quite clear there indeed -- but you missed it? YMMV. Collect (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Since the BLP post has gotten stale I'm copying my thoughts here in case they are of value:

To me it appears that we have two weak sources. A local newspaper (circulation 26,000) that is in direct dispute with the BLP subject and a psuedo-editorial by Salon (a web site that describes itself as "combining award-winning commentary and reporting"). These are not sufficient sources for contentious BLP information. In addition the current text as cited above is selective in its content and creates bias. However... I would support a neutral summary of the non-contentious information from the two sources being discussed, which I would word as follows:
In 2005, Vanderloot challenged local news coverage of an event involving pedophiles and the Boy Scouts of American by placing 6 full page ads in the Post Register. In February 2012, Vaderloot was criticized by Glenn Greenwald of Salon, for his "chronic bullying" tactics and "frivolous lawsuits against his political critics".-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

In order to support any claim of "frivolous lawsuits" we would need a source actually showing that such lawsuits were made and deemed frivolous by a court ("frivolous lawsuit" is a legal phrase with a precise meaning - we ought not perpetuate an incorrect usage of the term without strong sourcing for such a legally contentious claim.)

VanderSloot placed paid advertisements criticising articles linking child abuse with the Boy Scouts is what likely is sourceable.

No "frivolous lawsuit" charges even as opinion sans actual reliable sourcing that such lawsuits were filed and deemed "frivolous." Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you are correct. I believe WP:BLP specifies that lawsuits should be conclusive before being reported in a BLP and good sources are needed. And your proposed wording of the child abuse and Boy Scout thing is also better than what I suggested.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

stick to what the sources state

The 'Mormon pedophiles" stuff was not even supported by the article cited - which said the articles were about the national BSA and the Grand Teton Council and a single pedophile - and were not about "mormon pedophiles" - the wording now conforms precisely with the sources used. Cheers. Collect (talk)

The previous version was fine, perfectly in conformity with the source (as indeed was the one before today's edits). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Collect, did you review the source material carefully? It never mentions multiple pedophiles? This would be a serious breach by Nomoskedasticity - misrepresenting sources like that. Can you confirm the source never states that the paper secured evidence about more than one recent pedophile? Hipocrite (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I've added a reference to the Post-Register series of articles, so that readers here can see directly for themselves what sort of people VanderSloot was defending. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Categories: