Talk:Video Professor/Archive

June 2006

This is what I'd found here:

" 'Video Processor' is a television-advertised product which claims to offer easy-to-use tutorials for a variety of computer-related subjects, such as learning Microsoft Word, Microsoft Windows, and eBay."

I'm attempting to correct it.

As of June, 2006, I have not, yet, purchased anything from this brand. I have not decided what I think of this company; though, I may, eventually, choose to purchase.

The spelling "Video Processor" is fascinating, as it does relate to microProcessor [??].

< http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:vFbkKangPOgJ:videoprofessor.com/aboutvideoprofessor/companyinformation/johnwschererbiography.html+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1 >.

Hopiakuta 23:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I, hereby, note that these searches do not work:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/_professor_video >;

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/john_scherer_professor_video >;

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/john_scherer >.

Hopiakuta 21:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Scherer = Layton

I searched online, but can't find anything supporting that these are the same person- at best, an uncanny resemblence can be proven. All of the connections were posted by User:142.176.13.19. I'm removing it. 130.101.31.41 02:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Advertisement

It appears that Video professor's owners are trying to use wikipedia for promoting their products and advertising their charity works. Microsoft and sony do much much more charity work. That does not mean that we should put information about their charity work in their ariticles and stop criticizing internet explorer or playstation 3 Masaimara 20:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Masimara,

Thank you for your edit, however when writing an article about a company by Wikipedia guidelines you need to show a NPOV. Charity work speaks of the character of a company and it is not advertising. Advertising is pushing company's products, proclaiming to be the best in an industry, etc. Also, let’s leave assumptions of who people are out. Please do not use Wikipedia as a soapbox that is one of the things Wikipedia is not. To answer, your question, if we should stop criticizing - Please read my article, clearly there is a Video Professor Criticism section.

Hi Skorganic,

I understand that you do not like the aricle about you company, but that does not mean that you should replace it with a biased article. Wikipedia has articles about a million companies. If all of these companies start behaving like you, then wikipedia will become a mess. You have already filled this article with an autobiography of the CEO John W. Scherer. Now you want to add his charity work and delete the criticism of his products. That is not fair. Scholarship for two high school students is not significant enough to be in this Encyclopedia. wikipedia has ariticles about many other companies and much more important people. Bill gates has donated 33 billion dollars, but we do not put it in the microsoft article. Please do not use Wikipedia to promote your propaganda. please use other media resources. You should be ready to accept the criticism of your products. The stuff you want to delete can not be biased as information was gathered from your own company's website. See "How It Works" From Official Video professor website. .If you think it is biased, then it means you agree that your company is not 100% fair to its customers and needs to change its terms of use/retun policy. Also information gathered from reputed news papers like washington post, Kansas City Star, St. Petersburg Times and Bangor Daily News (see references in the article) can not be dismissed as biased. Masaimara 17:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This article STILL reads like an advertisement. I find it funny that in the history theres a really biased edit by 24.8.240.198 among others recently... an IP on a Comcast cable modem in CO, same state VideoProfessor is headquartered ;) For the amount of criticism out there, the section on wikipedia is very small, compared to the adver-text that makes up the rest of the article... An entry on the Alexa_Internet rank?! How is that encyclopedia material... Rootstyle 08:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Rootstyle, please see comments below on how the current article is composed. Also see MicrosoftWiki article style. Thanks, Skporganic

Thanks there Skporganic, I have indeed read the Microsoft wiki on multiple occasions. If you can't see the difference between the Microsoft wiki and the wiki-vertisement of an article this one was/is.... updating the VideoProfessor URL below.... either your a VP employee or a VP fan (lol why?) Gimme a break the first page of google hits for Video Professor includes several scam/consumer activism links, that MIGHT just be more pertinent than the history of a tiny company that ships videos on CD. Rootstyle 16:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Rootstyle, the name of this page is Video Professor, so I think that it should have information about what the company does and who Video Professor is, just what Microsoft has. Not just talk about the criticizm, and have statements like Allegations of Scamming. Yes I agree Microsoft is certainly a much, much, much bigger company than Video Professor, however every company has criticizm. See Google results, now these people obviously are not satisfyed by Microsoft and they have their rant pages that are on Google and Yahoo and MSN, yet you do not see them as references in the criticizm section for Microsoft. I think you are setting double standards, due to the size and power of a company. And yes, a fan! Skporganic

You missed the point about the google search there... I wasn't suggesting searching for 'Video Professor sucks', just a search for 'Video Professor' [1] I'm not setting a double standard. Encyclopedia content is about relevance. You don't want to hear the history and details of every 1-person startup, or everybody who makes the evening news for 10 minutes. So yes a bigger *MORE IMPORTANT* company needs more details. Microsoft criticism is rampant on wikipedia, as wikipedia has a strong following among FOSS'ers. I'm not interested in arguing this silliness further, as your bias towards Video Professor is evident. (Where as I have yet to 'try my product', nor do I plan to to be honest :P) Rootstyle 19:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

How does this page not even have a criticism section? I've seen far less controversial companies with them. 72.210.66.209 (talk) 07:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

So this is getting a little bit annoying. Obviously these two versions are both a little bit biased. So why don't we make a combination. Please see new version, and discuss. I did some research and got rid of some inconsistencies in the criticism section that I corrected. Also, this is not a rant paan encyclopedia, so lets be better at making this entry as closest to an encyclopedia entry as we can. Allegations of Scamming is a little bit harsh, however no doubt there is some criticism. I also left references to reliable sources; however I did take out a few that were not. Rip off report is not a reliable source. Also, I have added this article back to a software stub. bubalica

I agree with the the edits made by Bubalica and Tlesher. This new version has only completely reliable sources and appears unbiased (Hi bubalica, you apparently forgot to sign your post. I added your name to above after checking this page's history)Masaimara 16:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Also you guys might have noticed that nearly all of the favourable Video professor edits were made in Colorado which is also incidently the Headquarter of Video professor (e.g. 71.212.195.94, 67.190.37.160 and 24.8.240.198). It raises the suspicion of conflict of interest and conflicts with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy 1Masaimara 16:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

WOW. There have been a lot of activities on the page in the past few days. Masimara, to answer some of your concerns, Video Professor is not my company, nor I work there. I have used their product though. I do agree that the Washington post, Kansas City Star, etc. are reliable sources, so I am adding them to my new re-written article. However, Rip Off report is not an ROR. Also, I took some of the feedback that you left for me, so I looked at the Microsoft page as an example and I basically re-wrote the Video Professor article following the Microsoft article example. Thanks! So the new version is live and hopefully we can stop this going back and forth.

Regards,

Skporganic Skporganic

{{editprotected}} Please change the link of http://www.videoprofessorhelp.com to http://www.letvideoprofessorhelp.com. Thank you, Skporganic

Y Done Riana (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please remove ^ Employee Defends Video Professor Amid Scam Reports http://www.infomercialblog.com/?p=97 as this is not a reliable source. Thank you alb10506

This is getting ridiculus. How can you know "The department is heavily adorned with motivating signs featuring catchy slogans such as “Ya Gotta Wanna,” festive balloons and colorful banners, all designed to create a supportive, positive working environment. The department is filled with row after row of customer service agents in cubes speaking enthusiastically with customers. When Video Professor CEO and founder John W. Scherer stops by for visits, he greets the agents between calls to check in with them and ask how things are going." unless you either work in the company or are the CEO and founder John W. Scherer himself. As you can see that nearly all of the favourable Video professor edits were made in Colorado which is also incidently the Headquarter of Video professor (e.g. 71.212.195.94, 67.190.37.160 and 24.8.240.198). I think that we should delete the sections Product Divisions and Business Culture sections. These are merely advertisements of videoprofessor products. Also I feel that Video Professor History Timeline section sounds like the autobiography of John W. Scherer and needs to be heavily edited. References #2 and #3 are just ads and needs to be deleted. Reference #2 http://www.driverguide.com/videoprofessor.htm in particular is full of annoying ads/popups. Also references #4 and #5 from Westword needs to be deleted. It is not a real newspaper but just a home-distributed advertising product that is distributed freely every week. Nobody pays a penny to read its so called news. I think compared to westword, Ripoff report and infomercial blog are much much more reliable. At least they do not have any financial incentive. In summary this page is being filled by Video professors employees or owners with video professor ads and they do not want to tolerate even the slightest of the criticism of their products.

Please replace Apparently, Video Professor has two offers; one is a Free CD offered through the informercals and the second one is online, where customers need to send one of the three CDs back. If customers fail to return a CD, they are enrolled in a continuity program, where they receive lessons on a monthly basis. with Apparently, customers were never explicitly made aware of the additional charge until after the credit card information was provided. Customers must send ONE of the three CD-ROMs back to the company if they do not want to be charged the $89.95 (or $96.25 as the case may be) for the extra lesson sent to them in addition to the "FREE" lesson for which they placed their order.

Please add "In effect, customers are billed $89.95 every five weeks." to the Video Professor Criticism in the end of the paragraph as its removal has destroyed the whole meaning of this section. Masaimara 23:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

or probably revert it to the revision (140669115) and go from there.Masaimara 23:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Masimara,

Please stop speculating and read the references I have. You can find all the info that I have in the article on the business environment on the Westword Article or the John W Scherer’s website. Also, I think that you are discrediting very good resources, such as Westword. Actually if you took the time to read the article that I reference you will notice that I am getting info from a very balanced, non-bias article. And I just cannot believe that you are using words like “nobody pays a penny to read it” to discredit a source. Also, it seems by the history of your posts, that the only page and only contribution that you have made has been on the Video Professor one. Obviously you hold a grudge or something, since the version you are proposing above is clearly very bias, and pertains to show only the criticism section of the company and not what it does and it is culture, like Microsoft has done, and I have followed the example. With that said, it is very clear that you are using Wikipedia for a rant and as a soapbox. I am trying to get a correct picture of this company and the criticism involved as well, and all you have suggested this whole has been the same without any solutions. My posts have evolved, with suggestions from other editors, some even that you have mad, yet you only go back to one and only version. That is interesting. So I guess you spend most of your time only on this article and trying to find way to discredit facts and accuse. Now those kinds of editors are something Wikipedia does not need.

I disagree with your suggested edits, since you are basically going back to your old very bias version.

Regards,

Skporganic Skporganic

Hi Skporganic, First of all, I have never bought any Videoprofessor product (or even seen one). (I do not need to as my computer knowledge is good). I have never talked to any videopreofessor employee before (ofcourse I am talking to you now). I do not work in any related company. So I Do Not have any Bias against your commpany Video Professor. I do NOT care what do they sell and what they do not sell. There are thousands of companies like this. I only care about one thing. I just do not want this website to be turned into a Company brochure. Your company is a very very small company. If wikipedia can not defend its articles against your company then it is quite powerless against defending itself against other much bigger companies and other organizations. If they start following your example then this wikipedia will become wikimess or wikiadvert. And comeon. when you write articles, you should not use sources like Advertorials. Have you ever seen any body quoting from westword articles before. It is not worth the Paper It’s Printed On. It is distributed freely for advertisement money. Please use some reliable newspapers as sources whom people trust enough to pay for their news stories. And one more thing, I do not know anything about you, so I am not putting my name or previous edits here at stake for this fight over an unimportant article about an insignificant company.Masaimara 23:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

May be we should just delete this article. This article is about an insignificant company who does not want a genuine article about it in wikipedia. No body will have a reason to fight then and we will not have to waste time over this article. Masaimara 23:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Masaimara,

Once again, Video Professor is not my company. But I dislike articles that were started as soapboxes. One thing I would agree is the time spent, I can certainly use my time writing other articles that are more informative. I will agree that this article can certainly get deleted.

Regards, Skporganic Skporganic 15:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} It is in agreement with disputing parties that the topic/page is not sutable for Wikipedia. Can we please add the neccessary tag so the page is deleted. Thank you, Skporganic Skporganic 20:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, This article is not suitable for wikipedia. Deletion is appropriate. Masaimara 01:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

OK guys, the article's unprotected. Good luck with it. ~ Riana ⁂ 03:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments on recent changes

Rip Off Report is not a reliable source; there are some allegations of information manipulation, until that is resolved ROR has been removed. Also, in the Video Professor Criticism section, the text reads that people complained that they did not receive a FREE CD that was promised from the infomercial when they ordered online, but instead they got three and had to return one and if not they would get enrolled into a continuity program. I think that part of this misunderstanding is that they are two different offers that the company has. One is online and one is infomercial (They each offer different things). So that is why the offer explanation of the offers has been entered back.Skporganic 13:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have never been a big fan of using rant pages as reliable sources, and I do not like Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia whose information is supported on that. You do not see Microsoft having pages like the following Why Microsoft SucksMicrosoft Sucks Forum in their criticism section. Also, the info on the offers that was added was incorrect, if you watched the infomercial that is not what they offer. Msaimara in some of your previous comments you mention that this is an insignificant company, yet for some reason you keep spending a lot of your time adding incorrect information and rant pages as your sources. Obviously you hold a huge grudge with this company. Now that is fine, however it should not be taken out on Wikipedia. This article is about the company and some criticism in the customer community. It is well sourced as it is, so not sure what you are trying to do, besides use Wikipedia as a Soapbox (Which Wikipedia is not).Skporganic 16:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

So whatever happened to getting this awful wiki deleted? "Can we please add the neccessary tag so the page is deleted."(sic) You've changed your tune Skporgy. 21:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)~

HORRID

This is one of the worst articles I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Why the heck does anyone care that Video Professor is ranked 105,774 by "Alexa." I took the link and it says right now 128,517. Should I update this, or just delete it altogether and avoid updating it every hour? I will delete it as it is un-needed information, and is very irrelevant. This page needs a major redo and as everyone knows the product is a scam. PHISHING.

Discussion on article changes

Please discuss changes here before editing. There is not reason why we need to be going back and forth on edits. The information presented in the newest edit by Nsk92 is not substantiated and it makes this page look like a soapbox or a frustration outlet. Please read Wikipedia's guidelines before making any more changes.Skporganic 12:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Skporganic's version of the page

Please, give me a break! I have never seen such a shameless case of self-advertising as the version of the "Video Professor" page authored by user Skporganic, who obviously works for "Video Professor".

Talk about objectivity and NOPV: "Video Professor is known for its enthusiastic customer service employees, and the customer service department is known as the liveliest place to work at Video Professor headquarters", "The department is heavily adorned with motivating signs featuring catchy slogans such as “Ya Gotta Wanna,” festive balloons and colorful banners, all designed to create a supportive, positive working environment. The department is filled with row after row of customer service agents in cubes speaking enthusiastically with customers"

Can you believe this? This Skporganic guy has absolutely no shame!

I tried to write a version of the page based on the factual information that I gathered from the web. The most vital piece of information about the company is its business model, namely the fact that when you buy a single CD, you enter into an automatic monthly subscription service. This is much more relevant than the various self-congratulatory details about Scherer's bio or the fact in 1998 -"CD-ROM lessons began to outsell VHS".

All the info in my version is factual and neutral. The most important "small print" details about how the company operates are contained at the "VP" own website in "How it works" section that is referenced from the page Skporganic is compaining about.

I should also stress that I have never bought a "Video Professor" product myself (I have been using computers for about 20 years since the days of DOS) and do not have any personal interest in the matter. But it irks me greatly when a dishonest company like "Video Professor" hires a shameless hack like Skporganic to push their product on wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nsk92 (talk • contribs).

"Unsubstantiated information???"

I would be very much interested which information from my edit Skporganic and the other "Video Professor" employees consider to be "unsubstantianted".

The main facts about how the company's business model functions (monthly subscription service etc) are taken from the company's own website, see "How it works" link. Similar information is contained in the Video Professor's "Use Agreement".

I basically kept all the links and references from Skporganic's version. I added one new link to the www.informercialscams.com and changed the Amozon.com link to another Video Professor product, that has 4 customer reviews rather than just one.

I summarized the substance of the customer complaints from these links without expressing an opinion about the merit of these complaints.

It seems to me that all this information is both correct, neutral and a hell of a lot more valuable and pertinent than the unabashed "Video Professor" pushing contained in Skporganic's edit.

Nsk92 00:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Outside view: When I looked at the two versions yesterday, in the heat of the edit war, I thought both versions were skewed, this one too far anti-company, and the other too far pro-company. Now that things have settled down a little, as I look at the current version, it seems, in my opinion, a little closer to NPOV than the other version. My only complaint is that for such a short article, it might give a little too much WEIGHT to the criticisms. I think all but two of the refs discuss the criticism, and the criticism paragraph is pretty long compared to the rest of the article. However, that may have more to do with the lack of other company info, than with too much criticism info. It's possible that some of the company-related information from the other version would help fill this gap.

The page is protected from editing until the 28th, and Skporganic comes off his block tomorrow. Assuming he comes back, and that you two can figure out a way to work together, you have a little less than a week to hash issues out on the talk page. In fact, if you both agree not to edit war and sockpuppet, you can ask at WP:RFPP to have the protection removed early.

I know little to nothing about this article; I stumbled on it yesterday because it's hard to miss a 60 revert edit war. If you guys would like some kind of mediator to help hash thru some of this, I'd be happy to give it a shot. The only problems are that (1) one or both of you might not consider me neutral, and (2) I haven't tried doing this before, so there might be a little bit of stumbling. If you both want that, I'll try. If one or both don't want that, there is WP:3O, WP:MEDCOM, WP:MEDCAB, WP:RFC.

In theory, two editors with a little creative tension between them, working together, help make better articles than one unmotivated editor. In practice, my experience has been that this often breaks down because one, or both, of the editors don't really want to work with someone else, they just want their way. I'd love for this article to prove me wrong.

Let me know if you'd like me to get involved in some type of informal mediation role. If not, I'll stick my nose back in here from time to time anyway, and maybe give an opinion here or there, jut because I'm curious how this article is going to turn out. --barneca (talk) 01:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Barneca! Thanks a lot for your comments. I agree with your criticism of my version of the page. It is probably true that the "criticism" portion of that page takes a rather large proportion of the entire entry and this could be balanced by adding some extra company-related info. I would be perfectly happy if you personally or another neutral party produced a compromise page and I would be quite willing to promise not to touch it myself. I would even go so far as to say that I would be happy if you entirely deleted my version of the page and wrote a new entry completely from scratch.

However, I am not willing to edit the page together with Skporganic or any other of the "Video Professor"'s hired guns. The entry created by Skporganic makes it abundantly clear that he is profoundly and fundamentally dishonest.

Sincerely, Nsk92 02:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

a newsarticle about VP

I just found a rather informative article about "Video Professor" in "Westword", a Denver area weekly newspaper. There really needs to be a link to this article from the main page. There is quite a bit of illuminating information there about the "Video Professor", both positive and negative, including the company's response and reaction to criticism.

One of the key passages reads: "The logic behind the subscription offer is a bit dubious: Why would a person who wanted to learn Microsoft PowerPoint be eager to tackle, say, Corel WordPerfect the next month?".

The answer is, of course, that, from a customer's perspective, on its face the monthly subscription business model does not make any sense. Nobody in their right mind would want to subscribe to a service that bills your credit card automatically $90 per month and sends you a tutorial for a software program that you may or may not have and may or may not want.

I am quite certain that no customer stays with the Video Professor willingly and knowingly for more than a couple of months.

It is clear that here is "How it really works": They succer a bunch of gullible people in getting their "free" CD without understanding the terms of the sale or ordering online without reading the fine print (lets face it, most of us don't read the fine print, assuming that it is just a bunch of irrelevant legalese). By the time the poor schmuck figures out what is what,- bam!- his/her credit card has already been charged once or twice the "convenient" monthly fee of $90 or so. Even if the customer manages to cancel the subscription immediately thereafter, the "Video Professor" has already bagged at least $200 of the customer's money and they can move on to the next victim. A "free" offer indeed!

At the very least this practice is highly unethical.

Nsk92 01:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing new

This model of "semi-automatic" subscription is nothing new. At the peak of the internet bubble there were thousands of companies working in this way, including various book, music, and video "clubs". In late 1999s I received several such offers weekly in mail. Therefore the company representative is basically correct that there is nothing unusual.

Therefore a proper solution would be to write a dedicated article about this marketing model and refer to it from here, with external references, but without much verbosity. May be such artcile is already written and even has a special name, I am not an expert in customer suckering, althoug I did write the article Sucker list :-) And wow! I see it on top of the Template:Confidence Tricks ! `'Míkka 16:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly true that the automatic subscription model is not new. However, the question is if this model makes sense for a particular type of product and if the fact that the subscription model is deployed is adequately explained to the customers. My contention is that the subscription model does not make sense for computer tutorials. If you are an average customer interested in a tutorial, you will be interested in a tutorial for a specific product, say Microsoft Office, that you already have and want to learn how to use. You will not want tutotials, at $90 a pop, for various programs that you don't actually own. There is another crucial difference with the way commercial bookclubs function (I actually belonged to one in the past). A bookclub usually would send you an advanced notice (a postcard) indicating what their "selection of the month" is. You are then given sufficient time to send this postcard back and indicate that you don't want to receive this particular book. Only if the club does not receive such a postcard from you within a specified amount of time, that they will send you the "selection of the month" and bill you for it. That is not how VP works. They don't tell you in advance what their monthly selection for you is and they don't give you an option to decline receiving this selection. You only find out what that selection is when the package containing it arrives from VP and by that time your credit card has already been charged or your bank account debited.

Another, apparently major source of complaints, is that the VP is not being sufficiently upfront with the new customers about the fact that a subscription model is being used. When you subscribe for a bookclub you can't miss the fact that you are entering into a subscription service. By contrast, the VP hides this fact into their fine print, and many people don't realize that they have entered into an automatic monthly subscription service until a few months have passed.

For these reasons I think that a wikipedia entry for the Video Professor must clearly specify what their business model is and, in the "criticism" section, give an accurate description of the major sources of complaints. Regards, Nsk92 18:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well the first problem is that this is based on your opinion "that the subscription model does not make sense for computer tutorials". I'm not arguing that it does make sense, but at that point you are including content based on your opinion, which isn't a good thing. Another problems is usings blogs and Amazon reviews as sources...

A better way to go about this would be to follow Míkka's suggestion; write a overall article about the business model and then link it in the article. If there are sourced criticisms of the business model specific to Video Professor they can be mentioned in a criticism section (provided they are sourced to reliable sources not just some random pissed off Amazon customer). I wouldn't give undue weight to this though; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a PSA. Present the facts in a neutral way and allow readers to decide for themselves.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There already is a stubby article on the general business model, Negative option billing. It is already linked-to in the lead; I'd move much of the lead lower down in the article. --barneca (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Isotope23 and Mikkalai. This article is named Video Professor, so it should have factual info about the company. Now, obviously there is some criticism and it needs to be responded to. I like the idea of having a new article about the business model and having that linked in the criticism section.

My suggestion is to put together an article that all parties will agree to.

Here is a suggested outline:
Company Info – Who Video Professor is? – from the site
Company table– from the site
History of events– from the site
Maybe the course list (it will benefit people and it will fill the article with internal wiki links since there are a lot of Microsoft tutorial products) – from their site
Video Professor Criticism – need help here , discuss the offer and the issue at hand, mention the model with a link.
External links
References

Here is the sample please work from it and let’s get it done:

Video Professor is a US company that develops and manufacturers tutorials for a variety of computer-related subjects, such as learning to use Microsoft Word, Microsoft Windows, and eBay. The company was founded in 1987 and is located in Lakewood, Colorado. Video Professor tutorials are aimed to educate users on general computer operation, using the Internet and Microsoft Office programs.

Video Professor, Inc.

Company type	Private
Industry	education
Founded	1987
Headquarters	Lakewood, Colorado, U.S.A.
Products	Learn Microsoft Office Tutorials, Learn Microsoft Windows, Learn Online Travel, Learn Quicken, Learn QuickBooks etc.
Number of employees	Over 300
Website	www.videoprofessor.com

=Video Professor History Timeline

1987 - Video Professor is founded with the production of its first lesson, Introduction to DOS, on VHS. 1991 - Video Professor's first infomercial is produced. Video Proessor Founder John W. Scherer appears with Jeff Conaway, star of the movie Grease and TV show Taxi.

1995 - Video Professor begins advertising in magazines and newspapers. Video Professor also expands its learning library beyond basic Microsoft titles.

1996 - Video Professor begins producing its lessons on CD-ROM as well as on VHS.

2002 – Video Professor begins offering lessons online, as well as on CD-Rom.

2003 – Video Professor discontinues offering lessons on VHS tape.

=Products Library from Video Professor

Learn Microsoft Access
Learn Digital Photography
Learn eBay
Learn Microsoft Excel
Learn Microsoft FrontPage
Learn HTML
Learn Internet
Learn Microsoft Money
Learn Microsoft Office
Learn Online Investing
Learn Online Travel
Learn Microsoft Outlook
Learn Personal Identity Theft
Learn Adobe Photoshop
Learn Microsoft PowerPoint
Learn Microsoft Publisher
Learn QuickBooks
Learn Quicken
Learn Windows
Learn Windows Me
Learn Windows Vista
Learn Windows XP
Learn Wireless Networking
Learn Microsoft Word
Learn WordPerfect

Video Professor Criticism

Add info. Pinetree895 19:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment

I'd leave out the product list. It's on their website and listing it here makes an article look like an advert. I'm also not overly sold on the timeline.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree about nuking the product list. I think leaving the timeline in is OK, as long as the information is sourced somewhere (company webpage, or newspaper article). (I'd get rid of the Jeff Conway part, tho). As I said above, I think we move the discussion and link to Negative option billing from the lead to a business model section, with a SHORT, SOURCED ONE-THREE sentence mention that there is some controvery related to this as practiced by VP, and linking to the Westword, or similar, article as a source. No need to go more in depth than that, I think.

The other version went into some detail about VP's philanthropic donations; not sure what to do about that. I'll look at other business articles and see what they do.

I think something like:

Lead

Info on founding

Timeline (maybe, if sourced and un-adlike)

Business model (which includes, but is not labelled, Criticism)

References

External Links

Would be reasonable

This is a rather incovenient way to edit an article; is there consensus here that everyone can act civilized and not go back to edit warring? Or is it better to have the cooling off period last a little longer? --barneca (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll unprotect if it is clear everyone can work by consensus.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The above outline sounds reasonable to me. I would perhaps suggest subdividing the "Business model" section intwo two sections, one about Business Model proper and another about Criticism. Nsk92 21:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead

Info on founding

Timeline (maybe, if sourced and un-adlike)

Business model (which includes, but is not labelled, Criticism)

References

External Links

looks good. Pinetree895 04:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a full product list is not necessary. Mentioning only a number of their biggest sellers, or the most well-known programs, will do. However, I think the Criticism section should labeled as such. It doesn't need the words "Video Professor" in it. In addition, the spaces in that area and at the end of that section should be removed. Nightscream 05:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep I agree that the product list is not really neccessary (I was going more for the inter linking to some of the other pages :). I still do vote for the proposed outline by Barneca, it is informative and fits Wiki well. I am gathering some refernces currently that would fit some of the sections mentioned in the outline above. What's the ETA when the article will be unlocked?Pinetree895 11:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Currently, protection ends on 28 August: [2]. Considering the recent history of having to protect this page 4 times in the last 2 1/2 months, and the fact that no one has specifically come out and promised not to edit war, maybe it's wise to keep the protection in place after all. Just thinking out loud, kind of off the top of my head: why not use the time to list and discuss appropriate sources here, as suggested by Pinetree895? Actual editing of the article, and proposed wording of the sections, can wait a few days. --barneca (talk) 12:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I can certainly promise not to edit war. However, if the protection is released, you guys would have to keep a VERY close eye on the page. Although I thoroughly detest Skporganic's version of the page and my last version is currently protected, in fairness, it may not be a bad idea for one of you to replace the article by a very short stub entry (perhaps even protected) for the time being, while you are working on a new version of the page. Regards, Nsk92 12:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on the no edit war - no reason for that. People seem to be communicating. I will be adding things I find and pieces of the article on the discussion page. I agree with Nsk92 to leave the article as a short blurb until we figure it out on the discussion page Thank you Pinetree895 13:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not entirely correct that "People seem to be communicating". Skporganic, who was involved in the war, has not been heard from since August 21. I have no idea what he is going to do if he comes back. Regards, Nsk92 13:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC).

I read through the discussion and I am glad that people are discussing changes on the talk page vs. getting into an editing war. I agree on the new outline above and the agreement to discuss changes here to make this article work. No need for edit wars, when people actually respond and try to work together :) Skporganic 19:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles for references

Here are some articles I found about the company, as well as the business model. http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/products/negative.shtm http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2003/04/28/newscolumn2.html http://www.westword.com/2006-04-20/news/prof-positive/ http://www.datastronghold.com/security-articles/general-computing/review-of-the-video-professor-computer-course.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinetree895 (talk • contribs) 19:52, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

BBB status

I am trying to figure out what the VP's status with the Denver BBB is. Does anyone have any solid info regarding this?

The Westword article mentions that "Video Professor had an "unsatisfactory" rating with the Better Business Bureau a few years back, but he [VP's communications director Olson] says that was because the BBB didn't really "understand" their business. Following meetings with bureau personnel to educate them on their approach, Video Professor signed up as a member last year, and lo and behold, the rating is now "satisfactory.""

However, when I looked up the link BBB Member Page, there is no substantive information there and it says that the data is being updated and a report is not available. However, when I searched the member list at the Denver BBB, Video Professor is not there. So are they a BBB member or not? Regards, Nsk92 20:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The are actually listed at 3 BBB. They have an unsatisfactory in Wisconsin... but that is based off of 1 report. They have a Satisfactory in British Columbia... and yeah, Denver seems to be down.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The BC and WI reports can probably be discounted, as they either have no useful info, or seem to refer to 1-person re-selling outfits, like those mentioned in the westwood.com article. The BC report specifically says the main VP report is on the Denver BBB page.

As Isotope says, Denver is currently down. But VP is not in their list of members, and www.videoprofessor.com doesn't claim to be a member. No way to be sure until the report is updated, but looks to me like they are not currently members. --barneca (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I have emailed the BBB to see how long they will have the report still updating so we can use that as a reference as well. Pinetree895 12:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit help

Here is a suggested version of the article. I need help in the business model section. I am posting this version and we can build the article as we go on the outline agreed.

Lead
Info on founding
Timeline
Business model
References
External Links

Video Professor is a U.S. company that develops, manufacturers and offers tutorials for a variety of computer-related subjects, such as learning to use Microsoft Word, Microsoft Windows, and eBay.

Video Professor, Inc.

Company type	Private
Industry	education
Founded	1987
Headquarters	Lakewood, Colorado, U.S.A.
Products	Learn Microsoft Office Tutorials, Learn Microsoft Windows, Learn Online Travel, Learn Quicken, Learn QuickBooks etc.
Number of employees	Over 300
Website	www.videoprofessor.com

Company Founding

The company was founded in 1987 by John W. Scherer and is located in Lakewood, Colorado. The company started with producing and offering VHS computer tutorials and since it has moved on to offering its lessons on CDs and most recently online.

Timeline

1986 - John W. Scherer launched a computer manufacturing company, selling computer clones to mom-and-pop computer dealers.

1987 - Video Professor is founded with the production of its first lesson, Introduction to DOS, on VHS. These early lessons were only available at trade shows or in retail stores.

1991 - Video Professor's first infomercial was produced in with Jeff Conaway, star of the movie Grease and TV show Taxi.

1995 - Video Professor starts offering consumers a "free lesson of your choice."

1996 - Video Professor began producing its lessons on CD-ROM as well as on VHS.

2003 - Video Professor Online was started with online streaming lessons.

2004 – New products Personal Internet Security development and launch.

2005 - Video Professor Spyware Protection software is launched.

Business Model

Video Professor uses a business model that uses a negative billing option.

References

• </References>

External Links

• Video Professor

Pinetree895 12:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

comments

Hi, Pinetree895.

A few comments on the new version of the page:

1) I do feel strongly that "Criticism" must be a separate section. That is pretty much the norm for entries for other companies, e.g. google,yahoo,microsoft,oracle corporation, etc.

2) My feeling is that the "timeline" and "company founding" sections need to be amalgamated into a single section, perhaps called "history" or "timeline" and written in the form of a narrative rather than a bulleted list. In its current state the "timeline" section looks fairly artificial and reads like a list of rather mundane facts. For example, "Video Professor Spyware Protection software is launched" is hardly a significant enough event to be mentioned in an encyclopedia entry.

3) Regarding the "business model" section. Admittedly, I am a partial observer, but I would argue that some of the language used in my version of the page can be used for this:

"Mainly, the company offers a subscription service similar to commercial book clubs. The subscription is activated by the first purchase of a tutorial CD on some subject. Subsequently the customer automatically receives another tutorial CD on a new subject, chosen by the Video Professor, every month until the subscription is cancelled, and the customer is billed a monthly fee of about $60-90."

This is brief, factual and accurate. Regards, Nsk92 17:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nsk92,

Thank you for your comments. On the timeline and company founding I see your point. I will get the founding info and timeline together, however I am still a big fan of the short to the point bulleted timeline. I'll get it re-done and tell me what you think, or if consensus disagrees we can go ahead and settle to do it one way or another.

On point one - I will let the rest of the people involved vote since in the previous discussion that was not part of the compromise so I do not want to be making that decision. Point two as well I am not 100% knowledgeable of their business model, however I am going through the FTC and trying their offer to see where they fit and then the suggestion was to write another article that could be linked here on the business model itself. Once again this was consensus decision and if we need to re-discuss that is fair. However I think that we really need to understand what their model is and have references to back it up, the same goes with the criticism (as Isotope23 mentioned above - a pissed off customer won't do it).

Nevertheless I see your points and we just need to open it up for discussion again and see how this article turns out. For now I will be following the outline agreed upon, that doesn’t mean that it will not change.

Thank you Pinetree895 12:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sales Model Info

So I looked around some more an basically the sales model that fits Video Professor the most is a Continuity sales model. I couldn't find anything on Wiki so I went ahead and created the page. I've also found that there are a few different offers that Video Professor has going throught their offers. One is throught the informercials where you have to call in, their online offer is then different from the TV one and they also have streaming videos with a third offer, so not sure what to do with that info. Anyways, I am making minor changes to the page, one is to add the new sales model info under business model. Please comment if something doesn't make sense.Pinetree895 15:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes

I must say that I intensely dislike the current state of the page.

Creating a "continuity model" entry is a fine idea in general. However, simply stating that the company uses a continuity business model conveys very little concrete information about this particular company actually operates.

In the case of Video Professor it takes all of 3 sentences to give an actual description of the company's business model:

"Mainly, the company offers a subscription service similar to commercial book clubs. The subscription is activated by the first purchase of a tutorial CD on some subject. Subsequently the customer automatically receives another tutorial CD on a new subject, chosen by the Video Professor, every month until the subscription is cancelled, and the customer is billed a monthly fee of about $60-90."

As I said, this info is taken from the company's own website, so it is factual and neutral. It is also a lot more informative than simply providing a general reference to the "continuity model". The above description is also brief and would not take an unreasonably large portion of the entire page.

I have not heard a convincing argument yet against providing this kind of info rather than just a general reference to "continuity model".

Second, the company timeline still reads as an advertisement.

For example, what is the item "2005 - Video Professor Spyware Protection software is launched" doing there? Should we also mention when some new pictures or the CEO bio were added to the website? Or when new airconditioners were installed in their HQ building?

Third, the "Criticism" section is still missing as are the relevant references. Without them the timeline entry "1995 - Video Professor starts offering consumers a "free lesson of your choice"" is rather misleading since the "free lessons" are the source of most of the contraversy regarding the company.

I would really like for some experienced editors to get involved in working on this page. Both myself and Pinetree895 are very new to Wikipedia and this article cries out for an experienced hand. Regards, Nsk92 17:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really what I would call an "experienced editor" as far as actual honest to God article writing is concerned, but I'll go thru in the next day or so and add/remove/change what I think needs changing. I'll do it in steps, so feel free to revert what you disagree with and leave the rest. Due to the history of this article, I'm putting myself on WP:1RR; I suggest that might not be a bad idea for everyone. Sneak preview: I plan on incorporating some of the stuff from the Westword article, adding a little about the early history of the company from that article and the company's website, reducing the timeline significantly, and expanding the business model section to a paragraph (rather than just link to the new article), including 1-3 sentences on criticsm of the company in reliable sources. Most of the sources that were in the article around early July are not reliable (blogs, letters to editor, etc) and won't make it back in. Frankly, it's possible there aren't enough truly reliable sources to make a criticsm section, and if so, it should be nuked. We'll see, I haven't looked thoroughly yet.

Ultimately, due to what I consider borderline notability, and the fact the company is private and doesn't have to tell the SEC anything, there isn't a whole lot of information available to put in this article. At best, maybe it could double in size and eventually lose the NPOV and Cleanup tags. --barneca (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Question/Comment. Company timeline says DLRS founded 1986, VP founded 1987 "with release of first video". Westword article says DLRS founded 1986, first video produced 1987 (as DLRS), name changed 1988. I've gone with Westword article for Company founding section, but what year should be used for lede and for infobox? I've gone with 1986, since it appears VP isn't really a different company from DLRS, but a change in focus and name. Open to suggestions.

1986, since that is part of the Video Professor history, even if it was under a different name.Pinetree895 12:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Another Q/C. I'm about to mention the marketing campaign, as that is one of (if not the) main reason they're notable in the U.S. Most of it is from the Westwood article, which is quickly developing into my main source. Westwood article seems pretty NPOV, pretty comprehensive, pretty reliable. From a Google search, I can't find any other legit, WP:RS, non-fluffy-press-release type articles on Video Professor. If anyone has access to a better database of articles than Google, I'd love to see a second comprehensive source. --barneca (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Barneca, how about the Denver Biz Journal, that is a pretty reliable source. Here is the link Denver Business Journal, maybe we can get some of the general info from there. Also, as an FYI, I finally got a response from the BBB and they said that the report is being updated and should be complete by Friday, so then we can use that as a resource as well.Pinetree895 12:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the Denver Biseness Journal and was not particularly impressed. It does not seem to be a journalistic outlet in the proper sense of the world. They do not appear to do any independent in-depth or investigative reporting, they do not have their own editorials and do not have an op-ed page. Most of their news stories are taken from national sources and their local segments appear to be kind of news-releases sponsored by specific companies for self-advertising purposes. Their 2003 article about Video Professor contains surprisingly little information. The Westword article, even though it is written from a rather sympathetic point of view to VP, appears to be much more detailed and informative. Unlike the Denver Biz Journal segment, it definitely represents a piece of independent journalism. Regards, Nsk92 15:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that I'm talking about a different article; see below. I, too, saw the DBJ, but frankly it looks like a more or less straightforward reprint of a company's press release. As Nsk92 points out, this is common in many "business journals" for cities; there are a few honest-to-God-true-journalism stories on the main page, some real semi-well-thought-out opinions on the ed and op-ed pages (I hadn't noticed that DBJ doesn't have one; are you sure? sometimes these things have editorial pages only a few times a week), and the rest is filled with fluff pieces and slightly edited press releases. I haven't looked, but I bet I could find a VP press release that matches the DBJ article almost word for word. Pinetree, if you feel strongly about it's inclusion, let me know and I'll actually go look for one (I assume you'd agree that if it is, indeed, basically a reprint of a press release it doesn't belong). But one reason I'm leaning towards significantly scaling back the criticism section is that we've also significantly scaled back the cheerleading sections that were there back in May and June. Undue weight, and all.

Clarification of my comment immediately above. Arg, I got confused. The DBJ article I was thinking of above is one that has been used previously, and goes on and on about VP charitable contribs, and was clearly a fluff piece. I think the charitable contributions don't need to be mentioned at all (almost every company makes some charitable contributions). However, the DBJ article Pinetree cited in their additions to the article today looks more reasonable, appears to have an actual reporter, and I wouldn't characterize it as a fluff piece or a press release. Although I share some of Nsk's misgivings about blindly using business journal articles like this as reliable, my own opinion is that this particular article is reasonable to include as a source. --barneca (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Very much looking forward to the updated BBB report, as reliable sources for the criticism section are few and far between, and to me that would be a reliable source. But keep in mind even if the rating comes back unsatisfactory, that doesn't mean the article can turn into a hatchet job. IMHO, still 1-3 sentences, they'll just be better sourced. --barneca (talk) 16:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

To do list

I'm done for a while (the real world is calling). Next steps, for anyone to do, as I see them (feel free to add/subtract/rearrange/redelegate/ignore)

• Comment on my two questions/comments immediately above
• Move CD-ROM and online grafs to "Business" section
• Beef up business section with a few sentences about the model (Pinetree, if you're here, since you wrote the new article, want to try summarizing it (with specifics related to VP) in a couple of sentences? It would give us something to pick apart :) )
• Beef up business section with a few sentences about criticsm, if we can find reliable source (Nsk92, if you're here, since this is your main area of disagreement, why not take a stab, and again, at least we'll have something to ruthlessly edit)
• Look up, thru prior history of this talk page, see if there are any other subjects that were discussed previously but that were never resolved.
• Massage article until (in a perfect world) Nsk92 and Pinetree895 (and any others) are reasonably happy, and remove NPOV and cleanup tags
• I know there's a better reference format out there, but know little to nothing about it. {{cite web}}, I think. This can wait til last, but we should look at making refs nicer.
• Check status of BBB report frequently until it is posted, then adjust cite and paragraph as needed.

--barneca (talk) 13:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

So what do you think

So, I'm done with my draft. I'd like to hear from anyone, but especially Nsk92 and Pinetree895, on what they think. In particular, whether the criticism paragraph is fair and not unduly weighted or unweighted, but also anything else. I'm taking the {{cleanup}} tag off, since, in my humble opinion, it's been cleaned up. I'm leaving the {{POV}} tag on until I hear from you folks. --barneca (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for good work, Barneca! I am reasonably satisfied with the current version, although I will have a few comments. I am travelling in Europe at the moment, with somewhat intermittent internet access, so I'll reserve more detailed comments for later. I'll probably want to suggest some extra references/links and some small changes in wording.

Looking at the page history, I noticed that in the last few days there were a few anonymous edits by 63.195.91.144, the last of which could be classified as vandalism. Although these edits appear to have been reverted quickly, the page still needs to be kept an eye on. Regards, Nsk92 19:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Some comments on the new version:

1) First, a technical question. I noticed that the "Prof Positive" reference appears in the list of references several times. Is there a way to have this reference listed once but to refer to it several times in the text? Also, I think it is better to give the name of the periodical ("Westword") explicitly in this reference, rather than only specify the name of the article and the name of the reporter who wrote it.

2) Since the article is now fairly short, I am OK with keeping "criticism" as a part of the "business model" section, rather than making it into a separate section.

3) Where criticism is listed, I have a few small bones to pick. I suggest replacing the sentence " The company has been criticized[6] for it's CD-ROM sales practice" by "The company has been criticized[6] for it's sales and advertising practices". As I understand, the customer complaints concern not just the sales practice as such but the nature of the advertising of the VP's "free" lessons, that are not exactly free. In fact, I would like to see some reference to "free" lesson offers made explicitly here. Perhaps something like this:

"Some complaints center on an alleged lack of clarity regarding the nature of the continuity sales model, and in perceived difficulty in contacting the company for refunds. Criticism has also been directed at the Video Professor's signature informercials offering free CD-lessons. Only one of the CDs in a package that a customer receives by signing for such an offer is actually free, while the other 1-2 CD's in the package must be returned withing a 10 days trial period to avoid being charged their full price. Others are based on the lack of choice the customer has in subsequent offerings. The company says that such complaints are rare, and promptly resolved. The company is currently not rated by the Better Business Bureau[7]."

Now, perhaps this is too long, but I hope you see my point.

4) I understand that sources that are directly cited as references in the article are supposed to be reliable sources, etc. Various websites providing actual customer reviews probably don't qualify as such, and, as I understand, that is why you did not include them as references. However, I think that a couple of links like that could be included under "External References" or "See also" headers.

E.g.:

Video Professor Complaints

and

Video Professor Defenses

5) I did not quite understand why you excluded the How it works link. The link appears to work fine.

Regards, Nsk92 07:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Nsk92. Thanks for the feedback.

1. The way I understand it, the reference needs to be fully listed each time because someone could come along, decide to edit the first paragraph, and remove the reference in that paragraph. If other paragraphs referred to it somehow, those references would be broken. I think. I admit I haven't looked at WP:REF much, and possibly a solution is buried in there. Anyone that knows how to fix that is more than welcome; it's that way now because I couldn't find a better system. And you're right, I meant to include the name of the paper, I'll look and see why it isn't showing, and fix that.
2. Great.
3. I worded it that way because, as far as I can tell (and, more importantly, as far as I could find in anything like a reliable source), no one has complained about the online tutorials, only the CD sales practice. I don't have much time this AM, but will look at your paragraph sometime today, and see if we can replace mine with yours, merge them, or if I want to argue more and keep my wording. Also, we'll see if Pinetree shows up today and has phrasing of his own to propose for that paragraph.
4. I'm slightly hesitant to do that, but not 100% hesitant, especially if the "defenses" page is a legitimate one, and not a straw man created by infomericals.com. I also need to re-read WP:EL, as this looks like kind of a grey area. If this kind of link is allowed, I'm strongly against a long list of complaint sites, but the links you give might be reasonable. I'll look at them, and I'd like Pinetree to chime in too.
5. When I clicked that link after visiting the VP website to look at the CD offer, it went to that page. When I clicked the exact same link after looking at VP's online tutorial offer, it went to a different page. There must be cookies it's leaving on my computer, and it chooses what page to return based on where I've been on their site. The CD offer seems to be the default, but since there is no stable page that the link always goes to, I didn't want to link it. Everything seems to be in the TOS, although it's in legalese. Didn't know if you were just asking, or if you think we should keep the old link. Let me know.

I'm going to fix the reference now, but everything else will have to wait. Of course, you could always tweak it yourself, and we could work from that too. --barneca (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I have read the "defenses" and most of them appear to be legit. Most comments are written by the VP's customer service reps, but they identify themselves as such in the postings. There are a few comments from the actual customers. They do not seem to have been hired by www.infomercialscams.com, if that is what you meant. Regards, Nsk92 15:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Barneca and Nsk92. First of all I apologize for taking so long to respond, I have been really busy. Barneca, thank you for taking it in your hands to get this article going. Here are my comments on the current article.

1. After doing my research on getting the sales model article in place I found that the continuity billing and the negative option billing even though are similar are actually different sales offers. So I would suggest just leaving the link to the continuity model and leaving out negative option billing.
2. The BBB actually just added their report, and the company has a BBB satisfactory record. I think that that part should be updated.
3. External links: Having Customers complaints or customer defenses I am not 100% sold one, especially since the source is www.informarcialscam.com. I just do not think that the website is a reliable source, especially since I did read an article recently of them being criticized for adding comments themselves against some companies. That is my 2 cents. Other than that I am ok with the article.
Thank you both for the cooperation and work put forth.Pinetree895 16:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with #1 and #2, and made changes. I'm torn on #3 (see below), but after thinking about it, I'm inclined to keep. Per Nsk92's point, External Links don't have to be reliable sources the same as References, and I think the pair of them pass the hurdles set up in WP:EL. I would certainly agree we shouldn't have one without the other, but having both seems marginally better to me than having neither. Still not 100% satisfied either, but I'm inclined to leave them until someone comes up with a better solution. But that's just my two cents too. --barneca (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Barneca's comments above (although I think that having both links in question is more than marginally better than not having either). I am in favor of retaining the two links to Complaints&Defenses in the External Links section. I am reasonably satisfied with the way the article looks now and would like to leave it in its current form for a while. Regards, Nsk92 05:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC).

External links

I tried to digest the guidelines for external links etc at WP:EL. It does seem that this is a bit of a grey area. As a matter of practice, it appears that external links to fan pages, external reviews, imdb.com, blogs, etc, are quite common for films, actors, singers, etc. Other examples of this sort are fairly common. The article for Dell gives an external link Consumer Affairs Customer Complaints under the "Customer complaints" header. Clearly, ideally such links should be avoided or kept to a minimum. This is usually possible if the article refers to a highly notable subject where there are lots of reliable sources available. But that is not always possible and is not the case here. I think that my suggestion for including two links in the "External Links" section Video Professor Complaints and Video Professor Defenses is an acceptable compromise in this particular case. Including both links would serve to preserve neutrality and avoid giving undue weight to a particular POV. Regards, Nsk92 11:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I read WP:EL again yesterday, and agree it's grey, and therefore a judgement call, and subject to consensus. Since you and I are the only ones active on this page now, and I agree that adding both links is the side I would come down on, let's do it, and discuss with whoever shows up later to disagree. Also, I'm inclined to remove the NPOV tag now. Finally, I'm taking your paragraph from yesterday, massaging it, and putting it in. I'll check back in maybe tomorrow. --barneca (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, very good, thanks. However, I noticed that you included "VP complaints" and "VP defenses" in the list of cited references. In all fairness to the "Video Professor", that may not be quite the right thing to do and that is not quite what I was suggesting. I was suggesting to include these two links in the "External links" section without citing them directly in the article. My understanding is that the guidelines for cited references (that are explicitly listed as "References") are more strict and that there one really should try to stick with "reliable sources". The standards for "External links" are less stringent, so it is OK to put these two links there. Anyway, that is what I thought. Regards, Nsk92 13:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You are 100% correct. I got distracted and tried to do it in a rush. I'll fix that. --barneca (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Very good. Thanks, and take it easy! Nsk92 15:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

October continuation of discussion

If you are removing the two external links, please explan why here. --barneca (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The two external links which I removed go to a sources that is reliable and does not meet Wikipedia standards. I simply went back to an earlier version you wrote. Wikipedeia is by it's own policy's to be neutral at all times, those links I removed are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.40.50 (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. OK, I'm quite willing to leave those 2 external links off for now, until I can think about it and reply (as you can see if you read above, I wasn't thrilled with them to begin with), and hopefully others can chime in too. But the version you reverted to is obsolete, and has incorrect information, and you've removed sourced, NPOV info as well. Any reason we can't revert to your previous version, where the links are gone but everything else remains, until this is resolved? I'm perfectly willing to put the NPOV tag back up too. --barneca (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be OK with me and it would meet the Wikipedia standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.40.50 (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, great, thanks, I've just done that. Like I said, let me think about the two external links, I'm not a big fan of them, but Im not sure they're inherently POV, especially when they're together, and the last time I looked at them, I liked the article a little better swith than without. I don't know if it's just you and I in here or not, so who knows if someone else will pt in their 2 cents. Anyway, it's fine as it is for a while, until we can find a consensus one way or the other. I will go ahead and put the NPOV tag back on, if nothing esle it might generate more opinions. --barneca (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not the greatest fan of informercialscam.com, so I would like to see the links off. I also suggest that the reference to the last part of the criticism section is the Denver Post article http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_6966387 vs. http://www.villagevoicenation.com/2007/09/infomerical_guru_video_profess.php. I just think that the newspaper article is a better source.Wikifan111 21:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Is the Denver Post article still available? I get an error when I clik the link. --barneca (talk) 12:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC). The Denver Post article is still formatted funny (at least on IE), but I can read it now. I have no objection to changing the ref from Village Voice to Denver Post. --barneca (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably the best solution is to include both of those articles as cites. The Village Voice one appears to be written in such a way that it is slanted against Video Professor, while the Denver Post article portrays more of the Video Professor side of the story. In my opinion at least, WP:NPOV would be best achieved by providing both links and letting readers make their own conclusions.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding external links: I don't like them enough to try to add them back. In the grand scheme of things, probably not appropriate. Regarding Denver Post/Village Voice, Adding both doesn't hurt anything, and helps give balance, so I'll go along with Isotope's suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barneca (talk • contribs) 16:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the external links are fine as is (i.e. with just one link to the official website). My biggest issue with today's edits were the removal of valid citations from text (leaving the text) with no comment... and done in such a way that it was messing up the formatting. That doesn't really further the goal of WP:NPOV.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You were right to defend against the anonymous reverts. I think both the Voice blog and the Denver Post column references are fine and not unduly slanted. The Voice blog is similar to others I've seen. Example: Seattle PI. Canuckle 17:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh, on second look, shouldn't the Village Voice ref be replaced with the Westworld blog entry that it advertises? Really the Voice ref isn't a newspaper article but a blog entry that is just a teaser for the full-length Westworld blog. PS - I also clarified the ref for Denver Post that it is a "business column" (and therefore opinion) rather than a "newspaper article" Canuckle 17:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on the cites. I missed that it was based on a blog. That changes things in my mind a bit. I don't pretend to know anything aboout the Westworld blog, but I'm not a huge fan of blogs as sources in articles... but you are correct, both cites are really opinions on the action. I guess the question is which best meets WP:RS or is balance best achieved by citing both as each has a slight slant?--Isotope23 ^talk 18:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Good catch, I didn't see the change to www.westword.com when you click thru the Village Voice link. I'd say just nuke the Westword blog; the Denver Post column is balanced anyway by the reference that follows it. --barneca (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Lawsuits

There are dozens... possibly hundreds of company articles that mention lawsuits. Just off the top of my head:

• SCO Group
• Web.com
• Overstock.com
• Enron

Give me some time I will dig up more.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Need more?--Isotope23 ^talk 13:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This page seems to be a battle ground for negative vs neutral, why not take it down and end the subject, aren't there better things to write about? It's obvious that Isotope23 is very negative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.40.50 (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Negative? Please... pull the other one. I've had almost no involvement in this article, I just watch it because it seems to be a magnet for some serious POV pushing on both sides of the debate. I'm all for a balanced article (in fact read my above comments about the sources for the lawsuit), but hacking out references (while leaving the text in) and messing up the formatting isn't the right way to go about that.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, a POV-magnet on both sides (take a look at June/July/August!). The whole reason I'm even involved is the fact that there was a POV edit war earlier. The lawsuit seems definitely notable, but I'd love for each side to discuss the best way to mention it here, instead of blind reverting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barneca (talk • contribs) 16:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, and you seem to have handled things exceedingly well here, which is why I've done my best to stay out of the way. --Isotope23 ^talk 17:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

Can we all just either get rid of this page or do like we did last time and decide on the version by consensus vote.Pinetree895 14:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "get rid of" is an option. Video Professor is clearly a notable company. Voting generally isn't the best way forward either. Discussing changes here is the best solution. It isn't always the easiest process, but it works.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The current version of the article is much improved and sourced. Could still be better, tho. If you have a reliable source that has information that is appropriate, please discuss here on the Talk page. Canuckle 16:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

(e/c) An AfD was tried earlier this year (if I wasn't lazy busy I'd find a link), the consensus was VP is notable, and if I had been involved at the time I would have agreed. The trick is to make it balanced. NPOV doesn't mean no pro- or con- information, it means balanced pro- and con- information, neutrally presented, with reliably sourced references. IMHO, that's close to what we have now. Pinetree, I agree, except for the word "vote". The trouble with this article is a tendency by both sides to start reverting repeatedly, with no discussion first. If we can figure out what each side really wants, we can probably find a compromise. --barneca (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with discussing changes on the talk page before manking changes. So here are my two cents.

1. I think that we need to have the previous version re-published, where we had the criticism portion under the business model.
2. Leave the info about the court case.Pinetree895 03:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't gotten any comments on the proposal I left on October 3rd. I'll go ahead and make the change and continue discussions. Thank you Pinetree895 17:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly feel that in order for this article to be wiki NPOV we need to go back to the version from Barneca from September 11th and add the lawsuit info. I saw the comment from Isotope23 on grammatical errors and formatting. I will work on that and re-publish. Pinetree895 13:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pinetree, your previous comment on this page from last week got lost in my ever-expanding watchlist, sorry. I didn't notice there was an outstanding comment requesting opinions. The way Mediawiki displays changes usually works well, but in this case, it was really hard for me to tell what you were proposing to change. It sort of looked like all you were doing is removing the "Criticism" section title, but I couldn't really tell with all the new paragraph breaks. Since several updates, link changes, and additions were made since the version you were reverting to, could I ask you to make changes to the current article, rather than revert to a previous version? For one thing, then all the noncontroversial improvements will remain. For another, it will be easier to tell what you're trying to change. And last, if you make what you think will be uncontroversial changes in one edit, and what you suspect might be more controversial changes in separate edits, then the noncontroversial changes you propose can remain, and we can focus on discussing just the parts where there is disagreement.

Is your main concern the word "Criticism"? Would "Controversies" or "Conflicts" or some other word starting with "C" :) be acceptable? Now that it's expanded, I don't think the complaints/BBB/lawsuit stuff really fits inside the business model section. I'll try to keep a closer eye on this page, and will comment here when you make changes to the article. --barneca (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Barneca, Thank you for your response. All I am trying to do is the following: A month ago we agreed that the criticism should go under the business model/offer, that is why we created the new page for the "continuity model". I would like to add that back with the misspellings taken care of. Then, add the lawsuit info under another section. Please see new version and make appropriate changes. That is all I am saying, stick to the facts. Thanks! Pinetree895 00:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't speak for others, but I have no real problem with this. No info lost, just reformatted and revised heading. I seem to vaguely recall reading somewhere that "Criticism" sections are discouraged anyway. --barneca (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Lawsuit?

Should we add a section about the company trying to sue individuals who criticize them? It looks like they're trying to go after Wikipedia members too: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/12/video_prof03.html Greenplasticme (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)