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 [??].
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)
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)
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)
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 1 Masaimara 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
{{ 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)
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 Sucks Microsoft 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)~
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.
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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. [1]
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 |
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. [2]
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
Add info. Pinetree895 19:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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 |
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. [3]
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.
Video Professor uses a business model that uses a
negative billing option. Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
Pinetree895 12:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
Thank you Pinetree895 12:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
-- barneca ( talk) 13:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
There are dozens... possibly hundreds of company articles that mention lawsuits. Just off the top of my head:
Give me some time I will dig up more.-- Isotope23 talk 13:48, 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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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 [??].
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)
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)
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)
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 1 Masaimara 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
{{ 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)
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 Sucks Microsoft 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)~
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.
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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. [1]
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 |
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. [2]
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
Add info. Pinetree895 19:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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 |
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. [3]
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.
Video Professor uses a business model that uses a
negative billing option. Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
Pinetree895 12:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
Thank you Pinetree895 12:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
-- barneca ( talk) 13:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
There are dozens... possibly hundreds of company articles that mention lawsuits. Just off the top of my head:
Give me some time I will dig up more.-- Isotope23 talk 13:48, 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)
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)
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 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)
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)