Talk:Scentura

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on February 18, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
Stub rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] From the article page

I removed all of this unsourced information to the talk page, if the creator needs a source, I can find one for her/him. Many of the articles listed can be used as a source. Calendar 18:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

==Example of a Scentura Employment Ad==

This is the driving core of Scentura's business, finding LOTS of people who can be "trained" to sell fake perfume in parking lots. Power in numbers. A very broad, vague, and universally appealling message is used to attract as many people as possible. When they call in for more information they are greeted with "a few simple questions to determine if the position is right for you". These questions include "are you available for work full-time?" and "do you have reliable transportation?", little else. Candidates are then given a time for an interview.

  • this ad was found under the "Admin/Office" jobs section of craigslist.org:

OFFICE HELP NEEDED ASAP! NO EXP NEC! (san jose north)
Reply to: see below
Date: 2007-09-17, 10:49AM PDT


Expanding company is looking for
18 to 25 guys/gals needed for help in a fun fast paced office.
No phone sales.
No experience necessary.
We are willing to train.
Competitive salaries!
Call today, start tommorow.
Please Call: 408-263-****.

  • Compensation: Depends on Experience.
  • Principals only. Recruiters, please don't contact this job poster.
  • Phone calls about this job are ok.
  • Please do not contact job poster about other services, products or commercial interests.

PostingID: 424798026

[edit] Borderline vandalism

A single purpose account continues to delete the 20 references in this article. The articles are all legit, and have simply been posted on Ripoffreport by another user. I am sure if I removed the link to ripoffreport, this user would still continue to delete.

The Long case is obviously legit also, in which Scentura was found to be a pyramid scheme.

This single purpose account has not attempted to work with other editors, instead he pushes his own version, deleting 20 referenced sources.

What links are broken? The single purpose account continues to say there are only 5 links broken, but deletes all 20.

This single purpose account continues to remove all sources, adding a pro-Scentura, unsourced skew on this pyramid scheme.

Arguments of single purpose account:

  • References didn't exist. Only 4 different links were working.
  • Proof that Ripoffreport.com is a fraud. Quit putting unverfied references.
  • Ripoffreport.com is a fraud. The case vs. Dan Long is also fabricated Most links are broken and pointing to the same site.
  • You have 5 broken links, 13 "references" that point to the same article in ripoffreport.com. 2 vague references from news reports about independent contractors.

These arguments cannot be all true. There are 20 references--in one edit, the single purpose account says there are 4 links of 20 working, and later says there are 5 of 20 working. Which is it? Why does this single purpose account delete all 20 references, instead of only the links that are broken?

The single purpose account also claims that the Dan Long case is fabicricated--which is a complete and total lie.

Calendar 18:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just checked every link and they all work for me (some were slow loading, however). Moreover, all seemed relevant as sources for the points asserted. Moreover, googling "+Scentura +pyramid" yields a large number of confirmatory additional sources. CIreland 18:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ripoffreport.com

FWIW, although this looks like a useful website for people trying to avoid being scammed, I don't think it qualifies as a WP:reliable source. However, there are plenty of other reliable sources referenced in the article that will give the reader a good picture of what Scentura is all about, particularly the court decision that it is a pyramid scheme. Why not just remove the ripoffreport.com links, and leave the others? Dlabtot 19:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. The ripoffreport site simply hosts the full articles, from newspapers, television stations, etc. I can move the articles somewhere else, if this user agrees to stop deleting the referenced sources. Calendar 19:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
well, actually, the links I followed (sorry, I don't remember which ones) were not full articles from newspapers, television stations, etc., but rather, personal testimonials from folks who had been victims of the scam. As far as preconditioning your actions on an abusive editor's agreement to stop being abusive... I'm not sure that's a good plan. Dlabtot 20:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is the one and only link to ripoffreport.com : http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff36647.htm it has copies of the articles.

Here are all of the full articles, from reputable news organizations across the United States which can be found on this ripoffreport page:


So these articles can be posted somewhere else if linking them to ripoffreport.com is the problem. Calendar 22:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I get it now. Check out WP:CITE#HOW, 'Say where you got it', that should help you clean it up. Dlabtot 21:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why the weasel words?

The lead states: "there are people who are critical of Scentura's business practices." -- there's no reason to say that. The reliably sourced statement: "In a court battle with a former distributor, the Illinois Appellate Court ruled that this company was a "pyramid sales scheme..." not only describes the business practice that is being criticized - being a "pyramid sales scheme" - but also says exactly who is doing the criticising - the Illinois Appellate Court. Further, the statement implies - without any reference to a reliable source - that while some are critical, others are giving praise. If this POV can be cited to a reliable source, than it should explicitly appear in the article rather than be implied with the weasel words "there are people". And finally, the article isn't really long enough or detailed enough to separate into sections. Dlabtot 19:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the "there are people" second sentence, another excellent point. While the sentence may work better in the criticism section, standing alone it is rather awkward and a weasel sentence.
I actually prefer the sections added yesterday by another user, but that is everybody's call. Calendar 12:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latest edits everything needs a source and a cite

The anon 66.167.79.158 had some good edits,[1] let me explain:

"Door to Door is knocking on someone's house. Scentura doesn't condone that practice."

Scentura goes door to door to businesses. The do not condone going door to door to houses.

I am quoting Stieffel, Kristen (September 2001). "Perfume Bandits. (Fake Perfume Offered In Parking Lots)". Orlando Business Journal 18 (16): 23.

Unless I am mistaken, the majority of the sales of scentura is from:

  • FFAR. (Friends, Family and Relatives) who new recruits are supposed to 'practice' selling on.
  • sell perfume door to door to businesses and
  • in parking lots.

So the "(i.e. business to business, corporate discount plans, person to person)" statment is vague and not covering the majority of the sales.

Also: ANY CHANGES PLEASE CITE WITH A REFERENCE.

RE: From: "Scentura is described by the Better Business Bureau as a "multilevel selling company." to "Scentura is described by the Better Business Bureau as a "multilevel marketing company." this is a direct quote, please do not change direct quotes for references, thank you.

You deleted a direct quote, from a cited reference:

The firm manufacturers inexpensive imitations of designer fragrances. Salespeople are sent out, often in pairs, to hawk the product door-to-door or, yes, in parking lots.

Please do not do this.

RE: "WMI was a door-to-door retail business which sold products such as luggage, toys and perfume." to "WMI was a wholesale business which sold products such as luggage, toys and perfume" again, this is a paraphrased quote from a cited reference. Please do not change it unless you have another referenced source.

RE: "Also World Perfume, which no longer exists, is a completely separate company from Scentura", "World Perfume is no longer in business because of many controversial business practices. Many people have confused World Perfume with Scentura and have viewed it as one and the same."

Yes. It is a seperate company, which the article acknowledges. That is wonderful if WP is out of business. The business practices of World perfume were taken from Scentura. The companies were almost identical. There is no need to argue this if indeed World Perfume is closed, and there are no references to back up these statements.

RE: "Daniel Long left with Johnny Whitworth and refused to return Scentura's merchandise."

Please cite a reference. Johnny Whitworth is not mentioned in the case. You can quote the case if you like.

RE: In 2001, the Illinois Appellate Court ruled that the contract between Scentura and Long was a "pyramid sales scheme", violated the county law and was unenforceable.

The Illinois Appellate Court is not a county court, it is a appeals court of the state of Illinois. Therefore the rulings of the Illinois Appellate Court are binding upon the entire state of Illinois. In fact, one other case later cites this case. It is good case law.

RE: "Training is from four to eight weeks." to "Training is from six to eight weeks."

I think you are correct. Maybe four to eight weeks was the training period several decades ago. I will restore this edit, delete the reference, and add a fact tag. Please provide a source for this statment.

PLEASE CITE YOUR ADDITIONS. For example, I would love to talk about the FFAR program for new trainees, and the training manuals, and some of the other practices of Scentura, but no news source mentions these items, so it has stayed out of the article. If it isn't sourced, it shouldn't be in the article.

Thanks. Calendar 03:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Information on new office moved to talk page

I removed the anons entry from the main page to the talk page:

Scentura currently has a office in Brooklyn, New York. This branch is located in an unmarked building adjacent to the trains A,C on Broadway Junction street. The company calls itself Linshe Management, G-Unit, and DSM as opposed to Scentura Creations. It relies heavily upon advertising in the New York Post and New York Daily News. The ad often looks like:

Wanted for New Off Loc
30 ppl
Cust Serv, Sales, Management
NO Exp Nec
Call Miss Johnson/Miss Torres/Miss Robinson 718-240-9063

This information is useful, but it is better listed on the talk page. The main page is supposed to look like an encyclopedia entry, with general information on the company, not specific offices listed by the public. Calendar 22:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)