Talk:XS Energy Drink

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is supported by the Soft Drinks WikiProject, a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to all non-alcoholic beverages. Please participate by editing the article, and help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on December 31, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

---

This article makes statements about currentlsales without dating the entry. #2 selling energy drink in US, 500,000 cans daily. When? Where is this information from? RJFJR 17:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

(Is 500,000 cans daily accurate? That is a lot of cans!) RJFJR 17:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Citation needed for 2nd paragraph - question 2 Referencing Alticor and Amway 3 Bev net 4 Not by Nutrilite 5 Ezine 6 Sales Data

[edit] Citation needed for 2nd paragraph - question

After the sentence "Independent Business Owners have reported..." Doesn't that imply a citation itself? Independent Business Owners affilated with Quixtar have reported these things. It is not possible to quote a person's personal experiences without specifically naming them, and we can't really name them here on Wikipedia because they are "non-notable" people ("Joe Smith says...") Barwick 20:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Referencing Alticor and Amway

In the interest of brevity, here goes:

Quixtar is not Amway. Amway is not Quixtar. Quixtar was never named Amway. Quixtar is a wholly new company launched by Alticor (who DOES own Amway, in addition to Access Business Group) in 1999. Yes, there are IBO's that were part of Amway that are now part of Quixtar, but they are two wholly separate companies. Just like Lincoln is not Jaguar, nor is my Jaguar Lincoln, Quixtar is not Amway. Nor is Quixtar called Access Business Group, or formerly known as Access Business Group, they are wholly separate companies, owned by the same parent corporation.

Any reference to Quixtar as "formerly known as Amway" is not only untrue, but also wholly irrelevant to the wiki article on XS Energy Drinks. Therefore it has been removed. Barwick 20:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't Quixtar distribute the same products as Amway? I thought the only difference was that they operate in different markets. And i thought that before Quixtar existed Amway operated in Quixtars N. American market. While it may be true that there is no formal connection between the two companies it is correct that Quixter superceded Amway in N. America. Or am I missing soemthing here? David D. (Talk) 01:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If the company is mentioned (Quixtar) then there should be no problem with including what it does. Only someone wanting to hide the truth would insist that a company get free advertising yet not mention what they really do. Ifnord 05:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

If you were to day "Distributed by AMD", would you include the words "a maker of silicon chips"? No, if I wanted to know exactly what AMD did, I'd click on AMD Barwick 19:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No reason why not. You see, no one would be embarassed or offended that they make silicon chips. No one would try to hide what they did. But this doesn't hold true for multi-leveling marketing companies. What would make one want to hide what they did? Unless they did things they didn't want people to know about... Ifnord 02:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No, much like "franchising" did in the 1950's, the "multi-level marketing" name has a negative stigma that goes with it, thanks to the actions of a few idiots in the industry (including a few IBO's who were part of the Amway business, Mary Kay, Avon, Shaklee, or even the Quixtar business). The point still stands, if I wanted to know exactly what Quixtar (or AMD even) did, I'd click on the link. In accordance with Wikipedia policy, there is no need to put extra stuff in articles. Barwick 11:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No need for extra stuff? Policy? You'll have to quote that policy to me, from your logic I should toss the carbohydrate stuff and the revenue as well. You think it's ok to say that Logic Nutrition comes from California but want to hide what kind of business Quixtar is? Ifnord 03:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because EXACTLY like the dispute between using the words "unscrupulous" and "undercover" in the "Amway/Quixtar" controversy section, although I pointed out that "unscrupulous" was EXACTLY descriptive of the investigations Dateline did, and nobody disagreed with that point, they STILL changed the word to "undercover" because "unscrupulous" *sounded* like it was trying to paint a picture. Including the phrase "Quixtar, a multi-level marketing company" is doing the EXACT same thing, you KNOW the word has a negative stigma, yet you choose to put it in. It sounds to me like those words are trying to paint a picture. Barwick 14:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Multi-level marketing is a type of company. Quixtar is an example of this type of company. I don't see what the problem is here. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. The only reason you would not want this info out is if you had something to hide. Ifnord 20:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bev net

Barwick, A word of warning regarding this edit summary. You can't create and host a web page and then use that as a primary source. You need the market share information from an independent source. David D. (Talk) 15:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

David D: you shouldn't assume I'm a complete moron that would do that. I was trying to verify the quote and have BevNet provide a link to their article or a scan of it. Barwick 17:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I did give you the benefit of the doubt with respect to time to find the source, but then in the edit summary it seemed that's what you were describing. Sorry i misunderstood, now i understand you mean as a way to confirm your source. I know its not easy to find because i did do a search myself. The market research data for market share i did find was not free and cost thousands to get access too. David D. (Talk) 17:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

So the 90 million is from their share holders perspectus? David D. (Talk) 17:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

They have no share holders perspectus, they're a privately held company. Barwick 18:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

So, this quote comes from where? Per Wikipedia:Citing sources, you have to cite where this quote is from. Ifnord 20:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not by Nutrilite

XS was not developed by Nutrilite, it was an independent company Logic Nutrition (on first cans) which was later bought and name was then changed to XS Energy, LLC. To this day, Quixtar does not own XS Energy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.33.49.251 (talk • contribs).

Article currently says "but the product is exclusively distributed and sold by Quixtar, a multi-level marketing company. XS Energy Drink was developed by Nutrilite." First, it does not say anything about Quixtar owning XS energy. Second How do you propose to rewrite the "XS Energy Drink was developed by Nutrilite"? David D. (Talk) 03:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone interested in how this arrangement really started and took place can ask me. I was the guy who came up with the idea of selling Logic Nutrition products through the Quixtar marketing machine. Only problem is the current owner of XS Energy (DV)forgot to include his friend that introduced him to Logic and it's products.

TD

[edit] Ezine

http://ezinearticles.com/ does not appear to meet the Wikipedia standards for sources. WP:RS. It does not appear to have editoral review in the normal sense. -Will Beback · † · 18:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

On further investigation, it looks acceptable. Never mind. -Will Beback · † · 18:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I checked before including. Site has editorial oversight and article was by a recognized journalist. --Insider201283 19:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sales Data

The reference citation for US Sales is from the founder and he cites Bevnet. I've had a colleague contact bevnet and they can't confirm it and don't think they ever made the claim. I've emailed XS Energy for clarification. I also contacted Amway Australia, who distributes XS there for information on sales in Oz and they said they had no information on that there either except for one of their own publications. All a bit fuzzy if you ask me, should stay out unless sourced better. Still notable as per uniqueness (multiflavour) (sourced) plus bevnet consumer survey (sourced) plus sales claims may be true (need better source). --Insider201283 04:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree too. We don't want to fall for a marketing ploy. David D. (Talk) 04:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, Internet Archive never dies - http://web.archive.org/web/20050224024435/http://www.bevnet.com/news/spotlight/xs/default.asp

Has the quote re #2 in sales and it's original source - IRI, which is apparently this company - http://us.infores.com --Insider201283 22:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"Advertorials" are little different from press releases. As before, if we want to say that the distributor claims certain volume or market position we can do so. But the archived article is not a Bevnet article. -Will Beback · † · 22:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Advertorials are supposed to undergo editorial oversight too, however I'm more interested in that article because it gives the original source for the claim - IRI. I've been unable to dig any further though. --Insider201283 23:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)