Jump to content

Talk:Neal's Yard Remedies

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

Criticisms

[edit]

Lord knows I'm no fan of snake oil sellers, but I do wonder whether we need such a detailed timeline of the Guardian ethical blog saga? Wikipedia isn't Wikinews, and the whole sorry episode has been well covered elsewhere. I'm certainly not suggesting we remove all mention of it - NYR deserves a good roasting for this - merely that in an encyclopedic article we might not need to go into the finer details of who said what, when, and to whom. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, in the absence of any dissenting voices I will look to trim this down. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 13:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's well documented and supported by RS, and was picked up by other news outlets and the guardian covered it themselves. I'd rather you didn't. Verbal chat 13:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the section, apart from the poorly sourced facebook line. Verbal chat 13:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to think this still gives the episode a little more prominence than it needs - this is, after all, one fairly minor PR cock-up in the 29-year history of the company, yet it takes up around a quarter of the word-count. I would argue it's much less significant than the BBC/MHRA story, which gets marginally less space. But I'm splitting hairs a bit - I'm happy to leave the article as it is now. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I'd rather the other parts were all expanded - but I don't know much about the company apart from the two notable criticisms. Verbal chat 14:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Me neither. Maybe we should invite someone from Neil's Yard on to this talk page to discuss their company and answer any questions we have. We could call it something like "You ask, they answer". That'll work, right? --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What could possibly go wrong? ;) Verbal chat 15:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm new as a wikipedia contributor. I work for NYR and would be happy to answer any questions I can with regards the company in order to raise the quality of the article. Promise I'll be open and unbiased! :)Subliving chat 15:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

[edit]

I've just removed the "citation needed" tags from the article about its shops in Japan and it's status as a supplier to John Lewis. These are very minor claims and can be verified very easily by searching the Web. Motmot (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you add url references then please? Verbal chat 15:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no citations for the ingredient policy, which reads like a press release. Also, the use of proxy measures (natural, organic) instead of real outcome signifiers (safety, efficacy) make it largely information-free anyway. Seantellis (talk) 14:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merger with Neal's Yard Remedies Organic

[edit]

There has been a merger from Neal's Yard Remedies Organic to here proposed for just over a year. That article is short and seems to fit comfortably within the scope of this article. The only editing that's happened there since the merger proposal has been removal of puff. Does anybody have any last minute objections? Grayfell (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done. Grayfell (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neal's Yard Remedies. 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) 10:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Neal's Yard Remedies. 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) 04:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent COI edits

[edit]

Edits to this article by the following editors appear to be promotional and are suggestive of a conflict of interest:

I would ask editors to keep a close eye on this article. DuncanHill (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Multi Level Marketing?

[edit]

I am representing Neal's Yard under a COI disclosure which I am declaring here and here.

The lede wrongly describes my client as a Multi-level_marketing company. However, there are no sources to support this claim. Why? Because Neal's Yard Remedies are not a multi level marketing company. Could we please change this to something more aaccurate.Essayist1 (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is your goal to spread your client's spin, or to find relevant sources and represent them accurately? A fairly trivial search shows Neal's Yard is regarded as a MLM, no? What kind of marketing model does NYR employ? Alexbrn (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If we have no RS for this it should be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


How about this [[1]]? Less sure about this [[2]].Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's direct selling isn't it? Not an MLM because people are enlisted in a "flat" structure rather than them enlisting deeper levels themselves. Alexbrn (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that it is in some way both, or at least RS seem to be somewhat confused on the matter.Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. The NLM wording came form Rhode Island Red back in 2017[3]. Perhaps they could elucidate? Alexbrn (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the Scotsman ref is fine. In context of the previous paragraph and the rest of the section describing their structure, "the market" it's referring to Neal's Yard as entering refers to MLM. According to the Direct Selling Association (DSA), more people in the UK are taking up self-employed sales roles for so-called multi-level marketing companies. ... Avon is 125 years old but the market has new entrants all the time. Neal’s Yard, which has 60 stores worldwide selling high-end organic cosmetics, recently revealed it has more than 5,000 “independent consultants” representing its direct-selling division, NYR Organic, in the UK. Last month it launched a “social selling” operation in Ireland. The DSA has 41 member companies, which it says account for £2bn in sales annually and represent 80 per cent of direct sales in the UK. I don't see any other way to interpret those. --Aquillion (talk) 01:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That was my take, it refers to them as being part of the MLM "market".Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about this [[4]].Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neil's Yard Remedies (NYR Organic) has registered an MLM tax agreement with the state of Hawaii, according to the state government's website.[5] That is as definitive as a source needs to be for verification/citation purposes. It is clearly an MLM, although it seems the company goes to great lengths to not disclose that fact. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK so does any now have any objections to reinserting this?Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be more distinction between companies that derive some of their income from direct to consumer sales and companies who generate all their income from MLM. The type of companies MLM refers to don't have bricks and mortar stores, whereas NYR does. Essayist1 (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You opened this thread asserting that NYR is not an MLM when in fact the State of Hawaii's website indicates that the company itself registered as an MLM. As for the distinction that you wish to have included about revenue from DTC vs MLM, you would need to provide reliable sources that address the issue, otherwise it's a moot point. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As MLM has negative connotations, I think more evidence should be sought before making such a claim. A source can get it wrong. Instead, expand the article using easily available information or use terms the company uses such as direct selling. Jontel (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, the source in this case (the tax department of the State of Hawaii) didn't get the designation wrong because NYR itself filed a Multi-Level Marketing Company Excise Tax Agreement. There is no obfuscating that fact, and the use of weasel wording about "direct selling" would be inappropriate. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This video shows the company's compensation plan and distributor recruitment component -- it is without question an MLM comp plan.[6] We have enough sources now to have complete editorial confidence that we can call this an MLM; or at least an MLM company that happens to also have some retail stores. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK we have sources saying they are an MLM, and nothing (As far as I can tell) precludes them also using other methods as well. So do we have any sources (even themselves) deny they are an MLM?Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MLM is a subcatgeory of direct sales, so referring to direct sales in this case is a distinction without a difference, akin to saying that the NY Yankees are both a professional baseball team AND a professional sports team. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but they seem to use multiple varieties of it (a bit like the NY Yankees also having a football team).Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first thing Kindersley says in this video is "I absolutely love direct selling." Bye. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MLM is a form of direct selling, but not all direct selling is MLM, so your point is?Slatersteven (talk) 08:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have sought clarity on my client's business model. Here's what they have to say,

we are an omni-channel business, primarily retail driven with over 50 retail stores across the UK. Our products are also sold through our e-commerce site, as well as wholesale partners such as John Lewis and M&S, and also 20 markets around the world. The direct selling party-plan element is only one sales channel of business in the UK and US markets only.

In other words, the direct selling is only a small part of their overall business model. Essayist1 (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well this does not say that, if (for example) the US is their biggest market that would not make direct selling a small part of their overall model, as it may make up the bulk of US sales.Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FT Paywall: Please Quote for Verification

[edit]

The following text was added to the article, citing Financial Times: "In April 2009, the company began supplementing its shops and online distribution with direct sales called NYR Organics: this accounted for 18 per cent of group sales in 2010 and a quarter of sales in 2011.[7]" Since FT has a paywall, I am hereby requesting the full quotation from the article for verification purposes. Thanks in advance. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which part, there are at least 3 claims that might need sourcing?Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The entire part that was added today and which I quoted above, all cited to the FT article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well here is a source for it being set up in 2009 http://www.businessopportunitywatch.com/review-neal%27s-yard-organic-nyr.htm.Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not asking for additional sources. For the third time, I am asking for the quote from the FT article for verification purposes. Clear? Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Other source for direct sales https://uk.nyrorganic.com/shop/annemason_1/area/about-me/, they are a member of the "Direct Selling Association". Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, For info, I saw it and added it and, for whatever reason, the paywall was briefly lifted but has since descended, blocking me. Jontel (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tree planting

[edit]

Could we mention the company's frankincense tree planting somewhere in the piece please? https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/3070993/neals-yard-remedies-plants-roots-for-sustainable-frankincense-supply Essayist1 (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to find a number of sources about their eco initiatives and have a section on that.Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reads like a press release and seems like PR fluff. It's described as nothing more than a "plan", so not particularly notable. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I said tehre may be an argument for section about their overall eco friendliness. I seem to recall a claim out their factory, something about recycling as well.Slatersteven (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't yet see a compelling argument for a sentence about it let alone a whole section. Perhaps if it was mentioned by multiple recent high-quality sources in a context with some real meaty details, benchmarks of performance, and independent oversight, like this 2018 article in Forbes identifying industry leaders in recycling (including Estee Lauder),[8] then I might be swayed, but the only relevant sources I saw for NYR were either 2nd-rate beauty mags, PR/press release-type articles, or incidental mention with few tangible/significant details. The company vaguely saying that it plans some sort of recycling effort or uses recycled materials in packaging is not in itself particularly noteworthy. Note that even though Estee Lauder was identified as one of the industry leaders in environmental practices in the Forbes article, the details do not appear in the company's WP article. In NYRs case, I would have serious concerns about (a) scraping the barrel on source/content quality to facilitate WP:PROMO; and (b) violating WP:UNDUE and highlighting not particularly noteworthy information by framing it in a separate section. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You will not in my OP I said "It would be better to find a number of sources".Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Noted and addressed in my response above. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Their Eco incentives have been well documented in the mainstream press. Here are some examples,

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/beauty/tips-tutorials/time-start-eco-conscious-choosing-beauty-products/ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/beauty-industry-plastic-pollution-environment-climate-change-cosmetics-a8697951.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/8912428/Not-just-Tupperware-the-new-home-selling-parties.html

I think given the amount of undue weight given to poorly sourced, unfounded allegations of lead and cadminium in products as well as an outdated import ban, means that to keep the article properly weighted some of Neal's Yard Remedies' eco-friendlyness should be included. Especiacially as there are reliable sources covering this, whereas the sources used to support the negative claims are highly dubious.

Wikipedia's own policy on neutrality in relation to weight states,

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."

I think the false allegations of contaminated products are clearly minority views. Essayist1 (talk) 10:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but, what false allegations? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the primary sources used to back up these claims.

In March 2018, Neal's Yard Remedies was notified that their products Covent Garden Superfood Organic Greens Complex and Covent Garden Superfood Organic Cocoa Blend violated the California Health & Safety Code (Proposition 65) because the company had failed to provide required warnings that the products contained lead and cadmium, respectively, and thereby posed a potential health risk to consumers. In July 2018, the company was ordered to pay a settlement of $27,000.[20]

In October 2013, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration issued an import alert regarding the barring of shipments of the company’s Cocoa Eye Shadow from entry into the U.S. due to microbiological contamination.[21]

There is no mention of this anywhere else on the internet. The first paragraph is based on a response to a complaint, most likely made by some troll on big pharma's payroll for the purposes of spreading misinformation...

The second paragraph is clearly just a precaution, and again there is no mention of this anywhere else on the internet. The source certainly doesn't say that the product was actually contaminated, just may have been contaminated. Either way, it's a bit harsh. It's not like they have killed anyone or bombed the Amazon or tested psychoactive drugs on baby chinchillas. The way the page is, makes them out to be a satanic homeopathic terrorist cult!!!

I think a bit more balance wouldn't go a miss here. Generally people trust their senses, so when Neal's Yard's loyal customers (of which there are many) read some poorly sourced nonsense on here, they are more likely to doubt the credibility of Wikipedia than the efficacy of the soap they have been using for the past 20 years. Ultimately having poorly sourced criticism on this encyclopaedia reflects poorly on Wikipedia, not Neal's Yard Remedies.

Have you ever heard the story of the child who cried wolf?Essayist1 (talk) 12:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have to have an RS saying these allegations are false.Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know, and you should have an RS saying these assertions are true. Really, there is very little here to go on. If the state of California ever followed through with this the British tabloids would have had an absolute field day. Essayist1 (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A primary source such as this is fine for saying what the government did and why they said they did it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to the proposed inclusion of content on “eco-incentives” and “eco-friendlyness” (sic), the editor who is commenting here on the company's behalf provided 3 links: one mentions nothing even remotely relevant to anything ecologically related[9]; another merely says they plan to use recycled plastic in their bottles in 2025,[10] which is far from noteworthy; while the third article is from the Telegraph’s beauty tips section.[11] This has me now wondering whether this is all just an exercise at throwing spaghetti at the wall and hoping that something sticks. Combined with the editor's erroneous claims that the article contains “false accusations”, the assumption of good faith is being strained. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can we comment on content, not users. If you have an issue with a user take it to their talk page or ANI, not here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To whom are you directing that statement? You are free to comment on content if you wish, as I did above. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As it it formatted as a reply to no one in particular its is directed at everyone.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Look, we all know that reportage on legal issues such as the ones mentioned on this page belong on news sites. See WP:NOTNEWS. The lead and cadminium allegations, along with the contamination story have not been covered by any mainstream news outlets so I'm having a hard time seeing how they belong in the Wikipedia entry. From where I'm sitting this looks like a group of agenda editors throwing sprouts at the wall to see what sticks. Essayist1 (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Food Fight !! -Roxy, the dog. wooF 21:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, discussion seems to have devolved instead of staying on the topic of the thread (tree planting). Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neal%27s_Yard_Remedies&oldid=1204224963"