Talk:Stream Energy/Archives/2018

Removal explanation

Grayfell: Opening this discussion based on your request on 1/28. I see the issue with my "built on the idea" wording. Trying to paraphrase that from the accompanying DS source tripped me up, and will defer to your judgement that it's outside the ideal encyclopedia style. How would I word that in a more appropriate manner to illustrate the company's use of "independent associates" at its onset?

As for the removal, I found that that section sways away from Stream Energy's specific use of MLM strategies. I'm not sure if this is the right policy to have in mind (Synth) was guiding my thinking in these revisions, as it starts to touch broadly on a general MLM sales associate's job. I also noticed that only the Georgia sign-up cost is mentioned. Looking at (sales catalogues) I couldn't find a justified reason to include the cost for just one of the states they're in. Looking through the sources, this reads like recruiting for Stream. Thanks, Kendrickhaveadream (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for following up on this.

There are a lot of subtle little problems with this article specifically, and MLM articles in general, and I have to remind myself to apply restraint. The Direct Selling News source is an example. In general, I don't think it's a good source, so I'm reluctant to lean too heavily on anything published there. If Stream's idea was unusual or innovative (in the non-buzzword sense) we should be able to support that with a better source. If it's just another example of MLM, then I think we can link to MLM and avoid diving into the details, which is why "built on the idea" seemed less than ideal.

The source about the cost in Georgia is from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and is fairly critical of Stream. It's not recruiting, although I assume that isn't what you meant to imply. A near-constant issue with MLMs is the vast gulf between what associates spend vs. what they make and what they potentially make. This source is discussing these examples in that context, so I think this is helpful information. I would not object to rewriting this to be in more general terms, such as explaining that as of 2010, 90% of associates lost almost all of their investment, and less than 1% of associates made higher than minimum wage. This disparity is, in my assessment, the main point of the source, so this would be a better summary of that source, but there's subjectivity here, so I'm curious to hear what others make of this.

The part supported by Stream's disclosure, since that's a WP:PRIMARY source, would not belong by itself, so I understand why that should be discussed. This clarifies information discussed by the AJC source, so if that is rephrased, this paragraph should also be adjusted or removed. Grayfell (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Grayfell: Thanks for replyi, Looking through the Atlanta Journal-Constitution article, we can certainly include the disparity between signing-up to work for Stream and one's actual earnings with Stream without approaching (Synth) or (sales catalogues) with this summary:

Despite an influx of independent contractors (termed "directors") signing up with Ignite, the multi-level marketing arm of Stream, the vast majority of this sales force "lost nearly all their investments."

I agree with you on the use of primary sources. The above thesis from AJC (at this time our best third party source) speaks fairly to Stream's MLM practices. Kendrickhaveadream (talk) 12:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)