Talk:Nu Skin Enterprises

Paragraph in Transit

I'm working on this article and I'm putting this paragraph here for now. I don't know if it's important enough to include yet. Intothewoods29 (talk) 02:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The Better Business Bureau, on the other hand, reports that the company has a "satisfactory record with the Bureau," signifying that the company "does not have an unusual volume of complaints, or any government actions involving its marketplace conduct."

References

Placenta!!?!!

someone should mention the placenta use it is notable -Paul the less —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.108.8.136 (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide more details? Leef5 (talk) 13:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Controversy Discussion

Because there seems to be a lack of consensus on what should be included regarding controversy claims, I am moving this discussion here until we can determine appropriate content, if any, that needs to be added.

Here is the paragraph that is currently in transit...

Pyramid Scheme Alert has alleged that Nu Skin operates using compensation system of a pyramid scheme or a multi-level-marketing system to mislead distributors and future investors.[8]

DrewP (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

What to include in the opening paragraph...

I thought it would be good to move the discussion on what to include in the intro paragraph for this company here so we can come to a consensus on what should or should not be there.

Seems to me that adding controversies into the opening paragraph is somewhat contrary to maintaining a NPOV. Look at company pages for companies like Avon, Ford, Citi, etc.

What do you think?

DrewP (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Arguably, the articles on those other corporations should include some mention of notable controversies in which they've been involved. But that misses the point.

The lead is supposed to briefly summarize all relevant aspects of the subject, in proportion to their handling by independent, reliable sources. It seems to me that this article is extremely light on independent, reliable sources and rather heavy on press releases and the like. The repeated charges of deceptive marketing, and the repeated large settlements paid by the company to settle these charges, seem like an important aspect of the topic and one of the few that is actually reflected by independent, reliable sources. On that basis, I think that some mention in the lead is appropriate, although I'm not wedded to the wording in my edit. MastCell ^Talk 16:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless the controversy is of defining nature of the company, it shouldn't belong in the lead. The lead describes in a nutshell about the basics behind the company. Is this particular controversy foundational to the explanation of what the company is? It does not appear so. I believe the controversy section is sufficient for article readers to find out enough about this particular issue. I do agree with MastCell that overall the article is light on reliable sources, especially for the age of the company. Leef5 (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, what would make it of defining nature? It seems to me that if an otherwise low-profile company has paid repeated, large settlements on charges of violating an FTC order about deceptive marketing, then it's an aspect of the subject significant enough to be covered in the lead. If there were a lot of independent, reliable sources describing other aspects of the company (as with Ford, Citigroup, etc) then I think there would be a stronger case for relegating the FTC info to a subsection, but that doesn't appear to be the case here. MastCell ^Talk 17:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Since the FTC settlements are from ~15 years ago, I don't see them as being company-defining. If they were defining, the company would have been shut down by the FTC and then we'd be talking about an article about a defunct company in which the FTC would certainly be a defining role. It appears that NuSkin has "cleaned up their act" if you will. If there are any recent re-occurring FTC issues, they should be brought to light and then perhaps we are talking about an ongoing issue with the company's marketing. Leef5 (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Leef5 on this issue. Unless I'm mistaken, a consent decree or settlement by its very nature is a non-admission payment by an entity to avoid a more protracted and potentially costly legal entanglement...hardly the stuff that would belong in an overview in my opinion unless it has a significant material impact on the company's financial results, which I very highly doubt these settlements did. 216.169.204.172 (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, since you are posting from a IP associated with nuskin.com, presumably you have more insight into the impact of these settlements on the company's bottom line than I. MastCell ^Talk 21:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Since your IP is clearly a WP:SPA, please register your account and update your bio with your company details (PR/marketing, etc). You are certainly welcome to discuss issues, but your actions will be watched as you have an obvious bias to the article's direction. Leef5 (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Extensive product descriptions

I reverted this edit because I don't think it's encyclopedic. The edit basically turned the majority of the article into a promotional-sounding product catalog. We should be aiming for a more encyclopedic tone. I think it's appropriate to summarize the products marketed by this company, but that summary shouldn't take up so much space. Surely the reader can click on the link provided, to the NuSkin web page, if they want detailed information from the company about its products. That's the role of a company's marketing arm, not of a neutral encyclopedia article. MastCell ^Talk 16:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - just because the material is sourced, does not automatically mean it is encyclopedic nor of appropriate due weight.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 17:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

So what would be the most appropriate way to add information that is relevant about a company and its products or services? I want to make sure that the information on this page is accurate and balanced. There are definitely positive and negative aspects to any company. However, it seems like there is undue weight given to minor things like the FTC settlements the company paid in 1994 and 1997 - 17 and 14 years ago respectively - while more current sourced information about products is removed even when it appears to be properly sourced and is considered to be materially significant information about the company (NOTE: I did not add this product info BTW, it existed when I started editing on Wikipedia). Why can some companies put lists of products or other offerings (take episodes lists for TV series that are clearly available on and even sourced from company sites, or companies like Apple, Inc. for example)? I'm new here, so my ignorance may be showing...please help me to understand so I can be a better contributor to this article and to Wikipedia as a whole. Nscomms (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

If other company webpages feature long lists of products, then they should be improved as well. It hasn't been my experience that this is the case. Certainly, our highest-quality corporation articles don't seem to feature such product catalogs, although Leef5 may have more experience with corporate articles than I and be better placed to address your question.

By way of comparison, Microsoft is a featured article. It prominently mentions Microsoft's legal difficulties and antitrust litigation, despite the fact that these issues occurred mostly in the 1990s. It also outlines Microsoft's product catalog without going into detailed marketing-based product summaries. I think that's a reasonable bar to aspire to for our articles on corporations. MastCell ^Talk 21:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...that is good input and helps me understand your edits a bit better.Nscomms (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Adding Company Historical Information

I'd like to beef up the company history in this article. It's helpful to look at the company's own published history as a staring point, but because Wikipedia does not like original sources like this, I found a third-party history originally published by the "Gale Directory of Company Histories" under the Nu Skin entry. It looks like this was last updated in 2004, so it doesn't cover recent history, but it does have some information that could be whittled down to help give a good historical picture of Nu Skin.Nscomms (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

If it is non-controversial/promotional history, 1st party sources are allowed. As long as they don't make up the majority of the article. When other reliable sources are available, we would prefer to use them. For items like company history, the basics can be referenced from the company's website generally without issue. I would like to suggest perhaps you propose some of the text for inclusion if it is substantial for non-COI editors to review.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 18:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Concur with Mr. Leef. Primary sourcing is usually fine for non-controversial material as long as you leave out the puffery, but third party sourcing is almost always preferred. The Gale directory is an excellent source, but it's a damn expensive book. It appears answers.com has some sort of re-print agreement? Here's the cite line if you need it:

• Pederson, Jay (2006). International Directory of Company Histories. Chicago: St. James Press. ISBN 1558625836.

Be careful if you're using someone else's excerpt of original material. Kuru (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

References

Editing by IPs associated with Nu Skin

There seems to be an issue with editors from IP addresses associated with this company edit-warring to remove material from the article. It might be worthwhile to review Wikipedia's policy on conflicts of interest, and to discuss the changes in question. I think that an appropriately sourced review of a Nu Skin Product is appropriate for this article, yet it continues to be removed by IPs from Nu Skin Enterprises (e.g. [1]). MastCell ^Talk 21:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I personally have a subscription to that site - the IP editors (with an obvious COI) may want to review WP:V#Access to sources which discusses the issue of verifiability. Just because the verified information is behind a paywall doesn't invalidate it as an WP:RS. If it means so much to you to see the information 1st hand, then pay the subscription and have a look.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 00:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with reliable sources behind a paywall. There's a tremendous amount of research that's a not free; theoretically most published analytical sources are not in the public domain. There are certainly situations where this is abused, but I have no reason to think this is the case here. Is there a real suspicion that the reference is transcribed inaccurately; or is this just smoke? Would be happy to verify if there's a real concern. Kuru (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Political activities

In 2011 two Utah incorporated business entities linked to top executives of Nu Skin each made $1 Million contributions to the SuperPac "Restore Our Future".. Restore our Future is a political action committee established by former aides to US presedential candidate Mitt Romney to support his bid for the White House.

It seems that these political activities are centered around individuals...not Nu Skin as a company. It would seem that this information would be more appropriate to be placed on the individuals page. (Blake Roney, Steve Lund) I can not understand how the contributions of individuals has to do with a corporation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezeug (talk • contribs) 20:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a similar blurb in the Amway article (see Amway#Political causes). It would be WP:OR if an editor drew the conclusion themselves that these were Nu Skin executives, but here the article text mimics the text in the RS. This is a fairly benign statement overall, and seems to meet WP:NPOV as this is just factual information.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 00:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI, this related article popped up this week. Seems to provide a richer source. Kuru (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

References

Just the Facts

I have been gone from Wikipedia for a couple of years, but recently decided to take another look. I forgot my past user name and password, so I have been trolling the pages of subjects I used to edit on and have seen a lot of activity on this article of late.

It seems to me that there is a bit of an effort from at least one company-related IP to add info. It also seems that there are one of 2 company opponents and one or 2 company opponents who seem to want to communicate only certain aspects of this company. As a publicly-traded company, there is a wealth of information available about this entity and dredging up really old settled lawsuits and making them the central point of a company summary is just as disturbing to me as company personnel trying to scrub that kind of information out.

I would suggest that before edits are made here we bring them to this talk page and figure out what is true, what is relevant and how the info should be presented.

by working together, we can create a great article that is worth reading.

Gordrick Gryffyndor (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that it's useful to dichotomize people into proponents and opponents, although I share your concern about edits from the company IP. I also strongly disagree that settled lawsuits cease to be notable because they've been settled. This article should not present only the most recent or the most favorable possible information; it should proportionately reflect the content of reliable sources. It's a bit frustrating to be (apparently) one of the few editors who's actually made an effort to add independent, reliable sources to this article (as opposed to simply company press releases and marketing brochures), and to be criticized for it. MastCell ^Talk 22:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean to offend... I do think that relevant information needs to be placed in the head of the article. My point is simply that it seems like adding information about lawsuits that takes up a full third to half of the lead seems a bit out of whack when there is a lot of other information that summarizes other aspects of the company as well. I agree that information should be presented proportionately. My sense is that this mention is not proportional to a full summary of the subject.

Also, I understand your reluctance to view someone who has been away for a while as any more credible than someone from a company IP. Your point is well taken and I am a bit rusty, so please be patient with me. :) Gordrick Gryffyndor (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you think the lead should make any mention of any of the various regulatory or legal issues? MastCell ^Talk 04:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. I think that facts presented proportionately provides the best overview of the subject for any article. Gordrick Gryffyndor (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The lead

I'd like to start some discussion about this recent revert. I strongly believe that, per our project guidelines, the lead section needs to reflect some of the regulatory material. We cover it comprehensively and appropriately in the article body, which makes its repeated removal from the lead all the more puzzling. This is clearly a relevant aspect of the topic, and while it should not be given undue weight, it clearly deserved mention in the lead.

I'm wondering if the editors who have repeatedly removed this material in the lead could explain their reasoning a bit more fully? I'm also going to mention in passing that I'm mildly concerned that this page is being heavily edited by IP editors registered to nuskin.com along with several newly registered accounts, but that's a side concern at present. MastCell ^Talk 22:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand that the lead needs to have a bit of controversy in it. I don't understand the need to take out the other edits that have been made. Each time you revert back to the old edit, it is taking out other information regarding additional brands that Nu Skin has acquired. 216.169.205.169 (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we incorporate the following statement in the Lead and remove it from the scrutiny section to reflect an unbiased view -

"In 1992, Nu Skin reached settlements with 5 states which had accused the company of operating a pyramid scheme. Following a 1994 investigation by the Federal Trade Commission, the company paid $1 million and signed a consent decree prohibiting it from making deceptive or unsubstantiated claims about its products. In 1997, the company paid an additional $1.5 million to the FTC to settle ongoing allegations of unsubstantiated promotional claims. As of February 2012, Nu Skin has an A+ rating with the Better Business Bureau" This seems to satisfy both parties and allows for a fair and balanced online article. This seems to also satisfy the argument regarding the lead, while still keeping the rest of the fairly balanced article intact. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the matter. (Ezeug (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC))

Material from the lead needs to be covered in the body of the article as well - it shouldn't appear solely in the lead. I have no problem with mentioning the current A+ BBB rating in the lead. MastCell ^Talk 21:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Add lead back

I agree that the lead should have some of the controversy surrounding Nu Skin. My intent in putting it in the controversy section was because there was quite a bit of it. I recommend using the below statement in the lead:

"Throughout the 1990s Nu Skin faced scrutiny through several investigations and lawsuits over allegations of misleading marketing practices, and operating a pyramid scheme."

and place it between the sentences beginning "One year later..." and "In 1996..." so to follow chronological order of events.

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.169.206.69 (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Investigation in China for possible pyramid scheme?

Check it out. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-01-21/nu-skin-to-review-china-practices-after-pyramid-scheme-claims Also, what I found on this blog is interesting http://amlmskeptic.blogspot.mx/2014/01/breaking-news-nuskin-in-serious-legal.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.148.3.122 (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested edit on 29 July 2014

In compliance with Wikimedia's terms of service, because of a COI, I am respectfully requesting an edit to this page, specifically the adding of a new section "Awards and Recognition", and the content below. I would like to disclose that I do not work directly for Nu Skin, but am employed by a company they employ. The purpose of this request is to add content to, and fill out the Nu Skin Wikipedia page. Below are the requested additions and their neutral, third party sources. BagongMali (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Awards and Recognition Selected awards, certifications and rankings - In 2010, Nu Skin was awarded a Stevie Award as “The Most Innovative Company” for its work in the health and beauty care industry. [1] - Nu Skin won in 2010 the Total Beauty Awards Readers’ Choice: Best Anti-aging Treatment for its ageLOC Future Serum. [2] - In 2011, New Beauty magazine awarded Nu Skin the New Beauty Choice Award – Best Anti-Wrinkle for ageLOC Future Serum. [3] - In 2011, Nu Skin won the Bravo Humanitarian Award for its Nourish the Children initiative. [4] - Nu Skin won in 2011 the Communitas Award for its Force for Good Foundation philanthropic efforts. [5] - In 2011, Nu Skin won the Utah Innovation Award in the category of Natural Products for ageLOC Vitality. [6] - In 2012, Dr. Joseph Chang, Nu Skin’s Chief Scientific Officer and executive vice president, was awarded the Golden Bridge Award for Most Innovative Person of the Year. [7] - Nu Skin was recognized by Utah Business Magazine as one of the “Best Companies to Work For” for 2012, 2011, 2010 and 2009. [8][9][10][11] - Nu Skin received the Golden Bridge Award for Best Overall Company of the Year 2013. [12] - In December 2013, Nu Skin ranked second in the MountainWest Capital Network Utah 100 for Top Revenue Growth Companies. [13] - In 2014, Nu Skin won the Communitas Award for its Force for Good Foundation philanthropic efforts. [14]

1. 2010 – Stevie Award – Most Innovative Company 2. 2010 – Total Beauty Award *Readers Choice – For Best Anti-Aging Treatment 3. 2011 – New Beauty Choice Award - Best anti-wrinkle (ageLoc Future Serum) 4. 2011 – Bravo Award – Humanitarian Leadership (Nourish the Children) 5. 2011 – Communitas Award – Philanthropy (Force for Good) 6. 2011 – Utah Innovation Award – Natural Products 7. 2012 – Golden Bridge Award – Most Innovative Person of the Year (Joseph Chang) 8. Utah Business Magazine’s “Best Company To Work For” Award (2012) 9. Utah Business Magazine’s “Best Company To Work For” Award (2011) 10. Utah Business Magazine’s “Best Company To Work For” Award (2010) 11. Utah Business Magazine’s “Best Company To Work For” Award (2009) 12. 2013 – Golden Bridge Award – Best Overall Company of the Year 13. 2013 - MountainWest Capital Network Utah 100 for Top Revenue Growth Companies 14. 2014 – Communitas Award – Nu Skin Force For Good BagongMali (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

References

this is just a bunch of badly sourced WP:PROMO. If you want to weed that down to things with coverage in media that is independent of BOTH the company and the entity giving the award, it may fly. Maybe. Jytdog (talk) 01:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Czech republic Nu Skin distributor case

Hello there, I would like to add the case which is well documented (7+ sources) and well known in Czech Republic, where distributor offered physical examination in kindergarten dressed as doctor. This lady found that all kids imunity is at bad state and recommended g3 nu skin juice to improve it.

I want to add it because it is quite usual with the company, as it uses some pseudoscience instruments to prove, that your body is generally in bad state and than immediately offer whatever they have to cure you.

I think it belong here as a sort of warning. I know the story is just about one distributor, but the same case generally was with Amway as one distributor spread among others gossips about Procter Gamble sign being a satanic symbol. And it is mentioned on Amway wiki page though it is moreless humorous story.

This story belongs here as it may warn people to be careful about Nu skin distributors and there is also a test of the g3 juice which proves that you can have just apple instead and you will probably get better effects.

I do not want to fight and I thought some PR staff might "protect" this page, but I hope it is not the case...

Would like to hear your opinions.

With kind regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.188.34.242 (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I removed the text from the article, for the following reasons.

First, the incident is not representative of the company as a whole. There are many other situations on Wikipedia where the actions of one local chapter/office/agent are not mentioned in the international organization's article, because the issue relates only to the local entity and not the company as a whole. If we were going to extend it to the entire company, we would need (a lot) more reliable sources presenting the claim.

Along that line, where the IP says "it is quite usual with the company, as it uses some pseudoscience," those are the type of assertions that require reliable sources.

Comparing this situation with Amway, the Amway/P&G situation has gotten a lot of widespread coverage, so that's why it rises to the level where it deserves a mention in the Amway article. By contrast, it's not clear that this is the case with Nu Skin.

Admittedly, one of the problems is that the sources are in Czech. That doesn't invalidate the sources, but it does make the story a lot more difficult to verify. Not only do we have to translate the article text, but sometimes we have to translate the masthead of the website to figure out the nature of it. (Newspaper and TV station websites are generally reliable, while personal blogs are not, but sometimes it takes a lot of effort to determine who the publisher is of the site.) —C.Fred (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nu Skin Enterprises. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090614055823/http://www.consumerlab.com:80/reviews/Multivitamin_Multimineral_Supplements/multivitamins/ to https://www.consumerlab.com/reviews/Multivitamin_Multimineral_Supplements/multivitamins/

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

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Updates to the Key People section in the Infobox on the right side

.

In the Infobox on the right side, there are some updates that need to be made:

According to this Bloomberg page , the “Key People” section should be updated to the following information:

Key People: Ryan S Napierski (President) Ritch N Wood (CEO) Joseph Y Chang (Executive Vice President) Mark H Lawrence (CFO)

Jakevh28 (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Jakevh28, 25 May 2017, employee of 97th Floor with Nu Skin as a client, creating a conflict of interest

I will decline this request as it appears promotional. The current list of Key People already appears to have proper sources other than the Bloomberg article. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

References