Talk:Cutco/Archive 1

Archive 1

Neutrality

The quality and method of sales of Cutco knives is somewhat of a controversial issue; however, the article mentions none of this. I'm putting up a dispute of neutraility banner. 24.9.10.235

There is no dispute, you or anyone else are free to add such information as long, of course, that it is cited and NPOV. I am removing the tag, as there is no dispute. Next time, just go ahead and properly add the information (previous edits had no cites nad I stated that that was the reason it was reverted, no other) and if people fight it then there MAY be a dispute but an NPOV tag is a a big deal and is simply not approprate here right now. You seem new, so I am assuming you just didn't know that.Gator1 12:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

^ addressed concerns by adding a more "mild" tag24.9.10.235

What you added was fine. I don't see the need for any tag, there doesn't seem to be any dispute as you were the one who thought there were POV problems with the article and you have added what you think is necessary. This isn't the way to go about this. However, in the name of civility, I won't remove the new tag in the next 48 hours. If no one dispalys a need for the tag within that time, it will be removed after that. Any problem with that?

Next time, just discuss what you see as problems first, without just tagging the article without explaining what you want. This has turned into a big waste of time.Gator1 12:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

First of all I did explain the need for such a tag (read my first comment, it's still right up there!) Secondly, I've edited quite a few articles without the need to cite every single point; anyone who pays attention to Cutco and Vector will know there's quite a bit of disagreement between the quality of both and the efficacy of the latter. Besides, I was in a hurry and was just hoping to get the ball rolling so that better informed and more dedicated people can take it up. I still think my original wording was appropriate without having to cast too much doubt on Cutco for their benefit. Lastly, as indicated by the source I did finally cite (thanks to your insistance, which is good I suppose) there clearly is descent among those who hold opinions about Cutco, and the only thing in this article that reflects that dissent is more or less the one sentence I added (and really, who cares about whether or not the Simpsons parodied them in a forgettable viginette?). Your insistence to remove the tag each time even when I gave my reasons each time followed by your comment of "this has turned into a big waste of time" shows that you truly do not care about the neutrility of the article; in fact call me crazy but now I'm led to believe you are in fact one of those infamous Cutco/Vector Marketing salespeople who are on constant PR alert and ready to snap back at anyone who dare calls their products inferior.

I also took the time to add some further citations. - 24.9.10.235

Wow....anyway... Know what? I like your edits. Just don't need the tag when there's no objection to what you want...call me crazy, call me an agent for Cutco (lol) whatever. Have fun and watch and watch your own POV, you obviously have some here for some reason. Are you actually opposed to removing the tag if if you get what you want and there is no objection? It's ahrd to imagine that you still think the article lacks neutraility when all of YOUR edits and cites are being allowed in at will.....that's just me though...Gator1 12:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I really don't see theneed for any hostility here. I AM AGREEING WITH YOU. Just because you get reverted once (for good reason) doesn't mean that you are allowed to put a tag and then accuse someone of being a Cutco agent. ...SHEESH if I WERE an agent why would I agree with the edit??? In the future, if you see an article that you think needs balance go ahead and add what you want (cite it YES it must be cited, don't give us the "it's so well known it doesn't need to be" line) and discuss it. The tags are only to be used if there is an ongoing discussion anbd people don't agree on an edit or series of edits. This article is not even close to deserving a tag, especially when no one is stopping you from doing what you want. In other words, in the future, don't put up a tag when you just don't get your way, it makes this entire Wikipedia thing much less fun.

Keep up the good work. Unless, for some good reason, you think we still need the tag, I'll just go ahead and remove it, because its not necessary and its marring the article for no good reason.(and that's the only reason..it's not that I'm selling knvies here (see my udser page, do you think I need to (or have time to) sell knives on the side LMAO!!!) If oyu think it should stay, please clearly say so. Readng your posts, I can't seem to find an argument why you think it hsould continue to stay even after making the edits you want....call ME crazy, but I can't imagine why you would thhink it still needs to stay.Gator1 13:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

I have removed the NPOV tag after reviewing the history and discussion. It appears that compromise text regarding marketing and quality have been added. Disputes over content such as this normally do not require a POV tag. Are there any outstanding issues that have not resulted in some compromise? - Tεxτurε 19:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Nope and if there are all we have to do is discuss it. Thanks for the help, although it's sad that it took an administrator to have to step in to solve this. I need to go and sell more knives now :)Gator1 19:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

While your tact could still use work I agree with the edits now. Oh, and nice strawmans, BTW. - I would also like to add a note that the compromise text was added after I added the NPOV tag. And I "really" appreciate the fact that you think it's "sad" that an administrator had to intervene. I just want to say that I feel thouroughly insulted in this whole matter thanks to your stubborness and a great deal of my faith in Wikipedia has been lost thanks to people like you, all just because I believe that Wikipedia should be a fair and balanced site - I'm not even trying to paint a bad picture for either Cutco or Vector, just wanted to add that there is a fair amoutn of criticism in the product and the article reflected NONE of this.

That said, I'd appreciate it if you would try and not to have my intelligence insulted any further, and that you very well know where I want you to stick those knives of yours. And I'm sorry if I sound anything but cordial right now, but lastly I want to make it outright clear that I feel outright bullied by you.

Just go the hell away, please. [user: you damn well know who]

I'm sorry you feel that way. I regret nothing I've said or done and I beelive I was totally in the right and that you were absolutely wrong in your approach. You obviously have hard feelings towards me but I want you to know that I have no hard feelings towards you. Have a good day.Gator1 12:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Features

A lifetime guarantee is not unique. Additionally, I believe the handle patent has expired. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Find me another brand of high quality knofe that have a lifetime warranty and I'll agree. The patents might be expired (never heard that before) but it would still be a unique handle unless you can show me a similar one. They seem very unusual to me. The word "unique" isnt all that controversial I thought. Every prduct tries to be different and Cutco is certainly different (for good and bad).

All Henkel's knives have liftimes. [1]

Both Henkels and Forschner have lifetime guarantees. (I think those are two of the major international knives. - I worked part-time for two years in a cutlery store.) - Tεxτurε 17:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The CUTCO guarantee does offer more protection. Look up the legal implications of a "lifetime guarantee."

I'm pretty sure it's a "Forever Guarantee," which is kinda unique, no? JesseRafe 19:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Besides the name, how is that different from a lifetime guarantee? —Dgies^t c 20:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a guarantee for the lifetime of the product regardless of who is in possession of it. So, it's the lifetime of the product rather than the initial consumer. Celarnor 04:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's be clear, we need to start being very precise about what things are actual FEATURES of a Cutco knife and which CLAIMS about their products are marketing. A lifetime guarantee is a feature -- the name of their lifetime guarantee is not. There are a vast number of knives on the market with "unique" handles -- this is not particularly interesting or worthy of inclusion as a FEATURE as such (in fact, the Cutco handle design is looking pretty generic and basic in a world where someone like Ken Onion is now doing cuisine knives). We need to not be lazy about this. Include the true features but anything that is a marketing claim, a marketing term, or something clearly intended to sway the opinion of people who know little about knives should be excised from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.106.188.82 (talk) 14:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Problem

This article now reads like an advertising brochure. I used to sell these things so I know the how the demos go. The article NOW has a POV problem. We need to remove a lot of the material as much of it is just commercial gratuitous praise on the product and is not encyclopedic. I will edit it to the way I think the article needs to look. If there is a revert then I will post an NPOV tag and others will have to take a look and help us out. I didn't want to post the tag without first dicussing the issues and putting forth my edits.Gator(talk) 16:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Double D Edge

Although Cutco markets the Double D edge as "not a serrated edge" it is , by definition a serrated edge. It's just a different tooth pattern.

Agreed. I see alot of Cutco marketing style editing going on in this article. It needs to written from a Neutral Point of View. Repeating the Vector marketing lines in the artcile is hardly NPOV.Gator (talk) 13:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Total rubbish - it is not a serrated edge at all.

Really? Actually it looks exactly like a serration to me. There are many serration patterns on the market, and every shop tries to claim theirs is different. As far as I can determine however, all serrations appear to work the same way -- they protect a recessed cutting edge that is arced or otherwise shaped to maximize the physical cutting length (i.e. a longer cutting edge over the length of the blade) and increase the duration of edge retention (important on a steel like 440A, in this particular case) while some form of leading edge tooth provides a bite for that recessed edge. What IS total rubbish however, is Cutco's claims that they can re-sharpen their "Double D" edge but a typical serrated edge cannot be re-sharpened; it is trivial to re-sharpen practically any serration with the correct tools (i.e. a ceramic rod with a round or oval profile). So let's be careful about calling out knife falsehoods, as you may fall on your own sword (pun intentional) when it comes to this particular company and their product. I believe it is most encyclopedically accurate to state that "Cutco markets a unique serration design, claiming it offers greater performance". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.106.188.82 (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Bullets

Is there any particular reason this entire article is written in bullets? It's rather unencyclopedic. -Elmer Clark 00:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a whole is rather unencyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.27.201.2 (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Actual information

Right now the article is still a bit like a brochoure, even though there is some negative information in it. I don't want to get into original research, but there are some facts about these knives I don't see discussed which would help to explain why these knives perform well in demos (and even in general) but are not the choise of professionals:

• Hardness -- the knives are hard. The material is harder than that of Wusthoff (I can scratch my Wusthoff with my Cutco but not the other way around; I can scratch both with tungsten carbide, of course)
  • The result of this is that they hold their edge very well, but are less user-servicable. This also explains why a demoer can cut through leather when a regular kitchen knife can't -- a regular kitchen knife wasn't designed to. If a kitchen knife should be designed to do this is another question. You could just make a knife out of tungsten carbide, but it would probably be expensive.
• Balance -- a Cutco chef's knife isn't balanced well; the center of mass should be where the handle meets the blade; instead it is down the blade a bit.
• Blade shape -- The hollow-ground blade is great for slicing things thin, but gets wedged in squash, for example, whereas a traditional wedge shape has a smaller effective angle.
• Grip -- The handles are designed for the way most people hold knives but is unsutable for a grip that many professionals and hobbiests prefer, grabing the bolster, and pinching the blade itself, shown here:[2]. The cutco blade is to shoort to facilitate this.

In short, I don't disagree with Cutco that their edges outlast those of other high-end knives -- I've seen it, it's impressive -- but for general-purpose cutting, the knives have serious design shortcomings. The question is: can this information be made non-original-research and neutral point of view? —Ben FrantzDale 19:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

What's interesting regarding your discussion of grip type is that the Cutco materials themselves claim their handles "lock the thumb" or some such, which actually makes it very clear they think your thumb would (or should) be placed on the handle, and not in the pinch grip so often used on a chef's knife. Not only did you find the knife not suited for a pinch grip, but the marketing material seems aimed at people who are unaware of it, thinking the handle is supposed to "lock" their fingers into place.

Regarding hardness, while 55-57 Rockwell is getting to the "hard" side for a kitchen knife, considering this "hard" at this point is very much behind the times. Forged Japanese knives of 60 Rockwell and above have been in vogue for years now, and Henckels and Kershaw/Shun are now using powdered steels for their high-end lines that exceed even that level of hardness, going right into mid-60s Rockwell levels (we're talking tool steel hard here). A stamped Cutco blade may be marginally harder than a forged Wusthof Classic, sure, but long gone are the days when 55-57 Rockwell could be considered a "hard" kitchen steel.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.106.188.82 (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sales information

Sales representatives get a binder to show to customers, and in it is a lot of info. If someone compares this info with some reliable info online, a lot of it is unverifiable. One thing I remember was when they compared it to Henckels and said it was cheaper, but it isn't. One thing I think the article is wrong in saying is that Cutco knives are serrated. They aren't really, since the point of the Double-D edge is that it has the benefits of both serrated and straight edge knives; keeping the clean cut of straight edges and keeping the sharpness that serrated knives have. 128.6.176.12 20:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to see a verification of sales information. As for Double-D, though, I'm not convinced. I would be convinced if someone could explain in detail how a Double-D edge avoids scuffing the cut. I suppose using a Double-D and a regular serrated knife on a homogenious object (e.g., a squash). —Ben FrantzDale 20:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The DD edge resembles this : \__/\__/\__/ where each symbol is a cutting edge. Given any non-giving surface can only touch the points, this protects the recessed edges, which in turn stay sharp much longer (as they only come into contact with whatever is being cut rather than the cutting surface, which is a major factor in dulling). I advise you to call the Vector line and simply have a rep come out and do a demo. Phentos (talk) 04:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

cleanup

I modified the references and corrected the link to the handle designer Thomas Lamb. Thomas W. Lamb was a theater architect. For what it's worth, i don't thnk the article is NPOV. talking about the quality of the product is inevitably going to be POV. You just have to talk about what they sell, how much of it they sell, who buys it, and who sells it. I think the article covers that. Richardjames444 00:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is about Cutco, not how it's marketed. Phentos (talk) 02:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this just an advertisement?

It sure looks like some Cutco rep logged in and put up lots of information. This article sounds more like a brochure than an informative encyclopedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.83.217 (talk • contribs)

• One of them probably did. This article has a lot of back-and-forth between proponents/opponents, and due to the Cutco sales model theres, um.. incentive to promote the product here. In the spirit of neutral point of view you can remove any blatant puffery which lacks proper references. --Dgies 23:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that we debate or anything, but perhaps an edit is in order to make the page more like an encyclopedia article instead of a brochure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.87.24 (talk • contribs)

If you have an idea, be bold. —Dgies^t c 20:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this statement; though it is hard to point out factual inaccuracies, this page looks far different than the last time I visited it (though that's been a while) and definitely has a tone that is indicative of (positive) bias, especially considering that, at least I thought, overall opinion on Cutco/Vector is pretty negative. (Not to mention, some of the information is taken directly from company handouts). Basically what I'm trying to say is that this page is one that could use work, and I'm also probably not going to get around to it myself. Topher0128 20:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Working on this. For example, I have removed any mention of "surgical steel" (an obvious marketing term). The Cutco steel should ONLY be referred to as being stamped 440A stainless. It is not necessary to add any sort of claim about "high carbon" or some such; yes, 440A is high carbon, but not as high carbon as 440C, for example -- it's just not worth pointing out. If we follow this pattern the article should read more factually and cleanly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.106.188.82 (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Forever Guarantee

The "Forever Guarantee" is different than a Lifetime Guarantee in more than the name. Quite obviously, it is not necessary that the purchaser of the knife still be alive to get the guarantee. Anyone who is in possession of a CutCo knife can send it in if something should happen to it, or it needs factory-resharpening or whatever. There's no proof of purchase or anything, just the CutCo logo emblazoned on the steel. My former next-door neighbor sent in an old-school knife that his mom bought in the 50s or 60s that had a wooden handle and was rusty and fairly dull and he never used, but just kept around. He was actually able to get it completely replaced with a modern one. Not trying to sound like an advertisement, but the guarantee is definitely better than the knife (which is good), and it's only fair to accruately describe it. JesseRafe 22:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR

I removed the table from the page that appears to be original research. It and its explanation is posted here for reference. VS 78 20:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

For one starting at 10% commission and arriving at 50% commission, and assuming Cutco breaks even at 50% of its quoted price, one would have generated for the company:

	Extra Revenue Generated
Trainee	(50%-10%)*(1000-0) = 400
Sales Rep	(50%-15%)*(3000-1000) = 700
Advanced Sales Rep	(50%-20%)*(6000-3000) = 900
Advisor	(50%-25%)*(10000-6000) = 1000
Senior Advisor	(50%-30%)*(20000-10000) = 2000
Field Sales Leader	(50%-40%)*(25000-20000) = 500
Senior Field Sales Leader	(50%-45%)*(30000-25000) = 250
Total	5750

Criticism

Myself and user 208.38.106.180 seem to be having a small disagreement over the inclusion of the criticsm section. Personally, in order to support Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, I believe that said section should be included. I would like to hear others comments, though, to avoid any edit warring. P3net 17:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I just had the following removed:

While Cutco blades are sharp and durable, they are not easily steeled and may require special sharpening equipment.

The ergonomic handles are designed with the assumption that they will be held with a baseball-bat grip; many chefs prefer alternate grips such as gripping the bolster, which Cutco knives lack.

I acknowledge that it isn't cited extensively, but the fact remains that professional chefs do not use Cutco knives and I think this page should explain why. I have a few Cutco knives and can say that yes, when sharp they are extremely sharp and they hold their edge way better than other knives. However, I gave away my Chef's knife because my Wusthof knife is easier to maintain (a steel and a stone and I'm good forever) and more importantly, I can grip it better by holding the bolster. Basically, I think this page needs to answer the question "If Cutco knives are so great, why don't the pros use 'em?" Can anyone find a citation that answers this? —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I would hesitate to use the phrase "the fact remains" without actually citing something other than anecdotal evidence. Phentos (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't necessarily mean a separate "Criticism" section. In fact, such a section in a small article may place "Undue weight". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.212.103 (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Dulling of Cutco knives

I would also like to point out that although the sales reps make it sound like these knives won't dull easily, they do become rather blunt in a matter of months. Captain Zyrain 13:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You aren't 'adding' anything. You're speaking anecdotally, which is so much dust in the wind. Furthermore, the DD edge remains sharp for years. The straight edges are just like any other blade (albeit with higher quality steel) and will, in turn, dull as would any other knife, especially when used on boards of glass or ceramic -- but certainly not 'easily' as you say. Phentos (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The knives stay sharp for years. The captain here doesn't know what he is talking about. My aunt and uncle have had a set for seven years and they still cut as well as they did seven years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.121.221 (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversies and Criticisms Section

The majority of the content of this section is not pertinent to Cutco (which is a line of kitchenware, not Vector). It is my wish that this section be heavily pruned for relevancy and a Vector Marketing link be inserted as a referral. Phentos (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This has now been proposed, comment at Talk:Vector_Marketing#Merge proposal. --Greenguy1090 (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality of Recognition section

The way/style the section is written projects like an advertisement to interest those who read this article to apply for employment with the company. The section uses shortcuts, like "rep.", which should never be in an encyclopedia article, further supporting this section was not written for the pure purpose of providing information. However, the main point is, this section adds no actual useful information to the article (ie. it has nothing to do with the history or production processes of the company), and only seems to give the company the appearance of a rewarding company to work for (which is not the point of Wikipedia articles). I suggest this section be outright removed. Nitroblu (talk) 17:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree it has no place in an article. I'll try to pend a summary of it onto the Vector Marketing section above. Let me no if the dispute is resolved now or remove it or change it as necessary! MistyHora (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in the advancement section

"Offices run by the various District Managers and Branch Managers employ assistant managers to assist their offices and promotions based on sales. Vector Marketing asserts that every person in the firm went through the training program and advanced through the ranks with everyone starting as a representative."

As someone who was an Assistant Manager for 6 months and a District Manager for 8, I can tell you that Assistant Managers are not "employed" by the DM or the company. They are still independent contractors, earning 0.5% to 2% of the office's sales as "payment."

Furthermore, does this even belong in the Cutco article? Wouldn't it be more useful on Vector Marketing?

24.218.209.39 (talk) 02:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

My deletions

I had deleted the first two paragraphs in the critisisms because they lack any source of credible evidence, and thus, they should not be submitted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Troywinkelman (talk • contribs) 06:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Redirect Alcas/Cutco Corporation.

I've noticed that in a recent edit that The parent company of Cutco was changed from Alcas Corporation to Cutco Corporation. I am still unsure if Alcas Corporation has indeed changed its name. Can anyone verify? Also, should the Alcas article be changed? Cutno (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:Coatrack Problems in the Vector Marketing Section

I removed the "criticism" section against Vector marketing as violation of WP:Coatrack, and an enthusiastic editor of this article named "Cutno" reverted my changes as vandalism and wrote a "welcome to wikipedia, please summarize your changes and don't just delete" message on my talk page. His changes were then reverted by another user, but he continued to add WP:Coatrack against Vector Marketing (though this time with milder claims and needed sources). In any case, I've erased these criticisms once again. Please read WP:Coatrack before you increase the article size by 20% by a criticism section criticizing another company. Take it to the Vector Marketing page Jasonayala (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how WP:COATRACK would apply here. You are claiming that this article is essentially devoid of content apart from the criticism section, which does not appear to be true.

Marketing is a major part of most companies' operations, especially so in this case - the fact notwithstanding that it is done by a subsidiary.

Wikipedia:Summary style might be the more applicable guideline here.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Jasonayala, The reason why the first set of criticisms were removed was because they lack the citations. After the deletions I replaced them with better cited Criticisms, because the article lacks a balance. Your claims of WP:Coatrack would actually work against you.--Cutno (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Vector Marketing - Controversy and criticism

Moved, see this section in Talk: Vector Marketing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutno (talk • contribs) 19:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is the controversy on Vector Marketing on the CUTCO page? It might be reasonable to mention it under the Vector section, but it makes no sense that almost a third of the article on CUTCO products is about the vector controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.203.228 (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Article Style

I agree with Elmer Clark and several others. I'm adding a Wikify tag (article needs to be rewritten in one consistent POV and style), as well as a Reads like an Advertisement tag to one of the sections. It looks like a lot of POV work has been done; let's now work on making this a well-planned article. - Bperry7 16 June 2006

Some products not made in the US

I worked for Vector marketing a few moths ago and while I was there we were all told that the ice cream scoop and the flatware were made outside the US. The metal was made the US but then they were shipped to Olean, NY and the handles were attached. I was able to find a site that also says this and I have added it as a citation Gimpy530

"Facts" and "Figures"

Check out this page: http://www.cutco.com/jsp/company/profile.jsp The "facts and figures" section is copied almost verbatim, including the order of the points and the title of the section, from the company's self-promotion material; and it has no other citation here or there. I put in a warning, but I think it should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.49.170.248 (talk • contribs).

Confusion

Regarding Tedder's last edit [3], is including the determination made on Talk:Vector Marketing regarding what kind of company Vector is, relevent? It would kinda defeat nearly everything discussed there when we came to the conclusion that Vector was both a MLM and a DS company. Phearson (talk) 04:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's the diff. Looking at the bigger picture, you are right- removing both MLM and DS is incorrect, and I wasn't seeing the bigger picture (that it isn't included elsewhere in the article). However it doesn't belong in a statement that says "since Cutco/VM is..", since that infers that MLM/DS is related to the tax policy that arises from independent contractors. I think that inference is modus ponens, but I was terrible in Logic classes. Can you re-add the MLM/DS in its own sentence? tedder (talk) 04:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is that complex in regards to the illogic argument. Our current consensus of what Vector is in regards to our discussion on the talk page of Vector Marketing (which of coarse, can be broken or changed at anytime, provided that consensus is clear) that it is a DS/MLM operator. I agree that both are confusing and hard to determine because not much of either are documented well in any Reliable source thus hard to Verify and as far as I can tell, controversial and disputed. But Per my suggestion in the above section, I think it would be moot if my suggestion could be acted upon. Phearson (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Cutco Foundation

Proposed text for new section, Cutco Foundation: "The purpose of the Cutco Foundation is to provide Cutco Corp. and its subsidiaries - Cutco Cutlery, Vector Marketing, Ka-Bar and Schilling Forge - a mechanism for contributing to the growth of the society in which its employees live and work. Vector Marketing is a sponsor of Pi Sigma Epsilon's annual Pro-Am Sell-A-Thon, an annual sales competition for college students." Any thoughts? Chicago2011 (talk) 01:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a mission statement, which in itself is not notable. See WP:MISSION. Phearson (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not. What wording tickles your fancy? Chicago2011 (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Try this, "Cutco created the Cutco foundation in 19xx to (insert cause here), and has donated to (here)." and most certainly reference. Phearson (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! The section has been added. I'd love your feedback. Chicago2011 (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you have it this time. Although, I like to comment that the two pages you linked seem not to have been updated past 2008 and 2006 respectively. But other then that, its fine. Phearson (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Old Merge discussion

Stale.
On talk:Cutco Corporation, there was a discussion on merging that article with this one. If no one objects, I'd like to act upon that. Phearson (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Agree. Make it so. tedder (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC): Article merged! please review and clean up as necessary. I also see some possible issues with the KA-BAR article. Do have a look. Phearson (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Merge Cutco and Vector? This looks good, by the way. I'm wondering if Vector Marketing and Cutco should be merged. Thoughts? tedder (talk) 04:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC) I remember one editor posting that it may confuse people looking for "Cutco" or "Vector Marketing". Both I think deserve their own articles. And speaking of merging, why not remove the content that's in cutco about vector and just leave the "See, Vector Marketing"? That way we don't have to go back and forth between the two because of the clearly separate discussions that go on in their respective talk pages. Phearson (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC) I don't really agree with a split. It's difficult because they are effectively the same entity. I mean, if it's a Venn diagram, there isn't much content that doesn't overlap. It's hard to talk about Cutco without talking about Vector and vice-versa. However, if they are two separate articles, we definitely need to include overlapping content written in summary style. tedder (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Here is Cutco's Family tree: Cutco	+---------------------+----------------------+	| Vector Marketing KA-BAR Shilling forge In the world of Business, Corporations have the ability to create smaller companies/entities called Subsidiaries or Holdings. One such example is Fox News Channel which is a subsidiary of News Corporation, which owns a multitude of other holdings such as The Wall Street Journal. Other companies you may be familiar with, such as Burger King and Taco Bell are also Subs. of a parent company. Why is this you ask? Larger companies like to make more money by branching out to different markets, and give the appearance of choice to the consumer if their holdings are working in the same industry. What I am trying to say here is that we should not merge Vector Marketing and Cutco for the same reason Fox News Channel and News Corp, aren't merged together. They are distinct. When you and I talk about Fox News, we are not generally talking about News Corp. When we talk about KA-BAR knives, we are not talking about Cutco. When we talk about Shilling Forge, etc. Unless we are playing "follow the money and paperwork" then yes, Cutco would come up, but such mentions in wikipedia articles about the parent company in a subsidiary company come up near the beginning of the article or its history section. TL;DR, The companies are distinctively different. Cutco sits and collects money/invests in its holdings, Vector sells knives to people, KA-BAR hocks to Military, and Shilling forge makes the knives. We should not merge them. Phearson (talk) 04:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC) I wanted to give a little more information regarding Vector on the Cutco page. On first glance, "Vector Marketing" sounded either like a trademarked sales technique or a generic type of marketing technique utilized by other companies. Without knowing a bit about Vector, it would seem like no one would click on the link to Vector's individual article. I think the two companies are connected enough to warrant distilling some of the more important and illustrative points from Vector's page to the section on this one. Greasyham (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Don't Merge they are two different companies both notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talk • contribs) 19:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Vector Marketing section text

I wanted to give a little more information regarding Vector on the Cutco page. On first glance, "Vector Marketing" sounded either like a trademarked technique ("Here at Cutco, we use our patented Vector Marketing™ system...") or a generic type of marketing technique utilized by other companies. Without knowing a bit about Vector, it would seem like no one would click on the link to Vector's individual article. I think the two companies are connected enough to warrant distilling some of the more important and illustrative points from Vector's page to the section on this one. Greasyham (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

This says Vector is single level marketing. The Vector wikipedia page says Vector is multi-level marketing. I am going to correct this change. Please do not change it back without explaining why the other page is wrong. BFGalbraith 23:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cutco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120907115600/http://www.lsureveille.com/opinion/blue-eyed-devil-don-t-get-scammed-looking-for-work-while-in-college-1.2700848 to http://www.lsureveille.com/opinion/blue-eyed-devil-don-t-get-scammed-looking-for-work-while-in-college-1.2700848
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110427204416/http://media.www.webujournal.com/media/storage/paper245/news/2004/02/04/News/Vector.Marketing.Targets.Unaware.College.Students-596811.shtml to http://media.www.webujournal.com/media/storage/paper245/news/2004/02/04/News/Vector.Marketing.Targets.Unaware.College.Students-596811.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)