Talk:LuLaRoe/Archives/2017
 | This is an archive of past discussions about LuLaRoe. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Discussion during review at Articles for Creation
@Kent Westlund: As promised over at the AfC Help Desk, I'll be happy to start a discussion about getting your article published. Right now, one problem I see is that it still contains some promotional material (though I do recognize that a lot of progress has already been made in that direction). Another is that there is some unencyclopedic detail that is masquerading as substantial coverage of the company (e.g., the year-by-year listings of sales information). But, as noted at the Help Desk, the largest problem is the relative lack of attention to the very matters that are creating much of the national coverage of the company. I think that all of this can be resolved with a re-write, but I'd like to hear your general thoughts before getting into the details. I look forward to your response. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Quartz article
Likely very useful: Quartz article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Looks good. A lot of useful details. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed. Wicker, the author, was very thorough and did his homework. I wonder if this warrants inclusion somewhere on the multi-level marketing page, possibly as a basis for a new section even. Kerdooskis (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Controversy
There should be a section detailing some of the controversial topics related to lularoe.
- MLM sales models are controversial in themselves. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-lularoe-can-be-a-tough-sell-for-its-many-salespeople/ http://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-money-lularoe-consultants-make-2017-3
- Quality issues. http://www.businessinsider.com/lularoe-customers-complain-popular-leggings-are-tearing-2017-2
- Sales tax lawsuits. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fashion-marketer-lularoe-sued-over-sales-tax-charges/
- BBB F rating. https://www.bbb.org/central-california-inland-empire/business-reviews/online-retailer/lularoe-in-corona-ca-89069765/reviews-and-complaints
24.198.102.121 (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. The lead of this article, which calls out small stones showing up inside product pockets, refers to the company as "controversial." While there is no "Controversy" section as of yet, it seems to me like there is now more than enough source material (see list below) describing the company as controversial to use the word as a descriptor on this page.
- https://www.today.com/style/lularoe-leggings-under-fire-after-customers-say-it-easily-tears-t108835
- https://www.racked.com/2017/5/22/15640978/lularoes-consultants-unrest
- Kerdooskis (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe. When working on this article, I'd actively avoided adding a controversy section. This was mostly because of issues described in WP:CSECTION, but looking at it closer it seems especially difficult to manage. This isn't a business that happens to have some controversies, this is a bundle of controversies in a business suit. The entire business is controversial for many reasons, and the larger MLM model is itself controversial also, so it would be more accurate to integrate that into the rest of the article if possible. A controversy section would imply that these controversies are a single part of the company's history, but they are not. They are the main reason any reliable sources are talking about LuLaRoe at all. The article should reflect that. Grayfell (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable. I agree. Rhode Island Red (talk)
- Well said, Grayfell. You've done the most with this article, so I'll ask you: Where's the best place to start? I am inclined, based on your observations, to add a second paragraph to the lead that discusses the issues/introduces the controversy in general, ala the Juice Plus, Herbalife, or Vemma articles. You're right though; it is a can of worms. Is it worth opening? Kerdooskis (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe. When working on this article, I'd actively avoided adding a controversy section. This was mostly because of issues described in WP:CSECTION, but looking at it closer it seems especially difficult to manage. This isn't a business that happens to have some controversies, this is a bundle of controversies in a business suit. The entire business is controversial for many reasons, and the larger MLM model is itself controversial also, so it would be more accurate to integrate that into the rest of the article if possible. A controversy section would imply that these controversies are a single part of the company's history, but they are not. They are the main reason any reliable sources are talking about LuLaRoe at all. The article should reflect that. Grayfell (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Return policy backlash
LuLaRoe just weakened its return policy, and people are obviously not happy. Not sure what more to say at this point about this company. I know Buzzfeed is not considered a reliable source for Wikipeida; however, I'm sure more news outlets will pick this news up in the next few days, at which point I think it should be added to the article. Kerdooskis (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- Buzzfeed is sometimes a reliable source, mainly if it's from their "news" division (which shared a Pulitzer win a few years ago, and has a decent reputation among experts). This article isn't "community" content, which is entirely unreliable, but it's not "news" either, and I agree that a better source would be preferable. Grayfell (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- It looks like there is already some additional coverage, although nothing major.
- This one from the Hackensack Daily Voice may or may not be RS.
- ABC news has also picked it up for a blurb
- A local news channel reposted this from a consumer advocacy blog.
- This seems like enough to include at least a sentence or two. Grayfell (talk) 23:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- I've added a couple of sentences. Since we mention the return policy, it makes sense that we would mention the change in policy. We'll see if more sources show up. Grayfell (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the edit. I'll watch to see if a national publication picks this up, and if so, I'll add it as a source. But I think the two you included more than suffice for now. Kerdooskis (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- I've added a couple of sentences. Since we mention the return policy, it makes sense that we would mention the change in policy. We'll see if more sources show up. Grayfell (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Untitled
Per SwisterTwister's advice, I've removed the following references that came from regional newspapers:
- The Daily Express
- The Indianapolis Star
- The Times Leader
- The Democrat and Chronicle
- The Times Herald
I've retained the references from major independent news publications:
- Forbes Magazine
- The Boston Globe
- Business Insider
I've retained the references that highlighted controversies:
- Consumer Reports
- Pacific Standard
- Saving Advice
- Racked
I've removed these two reference that don't mention LuLaRoe by name
- USA Today
- Federal Trade Commission
I've removed this reference that SwisterTwister called a blog:
- Yahoo Style