Amway TV ad [Archive]

YoPopa

18th July 2008, 08:52 AM

Oh right, so all those deoderant ads implying that by buying their products aren't "selling a dream of success"?

Most products are marketed as helping you achieve something you want, doesn't matter if it's washing powder to clean clothes or ferrari's to pick up women.

The question is - will they actually help achieve that?
The products have nothing to do with my complaint. It is the techniques that are used to sell the MLM program, and MLM programs in general, to which I object.

Perhaps your point was that other products use "a dream of success" in their advertising? That is true. The difference is one of degree. When a friend or acquaintance is talking to you face to face and using high pressure sales techniques it is very different from seeing an ad on TV or in print.

Amway's reputation suffers because some people over-promise what it offers, and they've been spanked a couple of times over the years for not monitoring that better (as recently as the past year in the UK). What Amway offers, apart from the hundreds of products themselves, is a business opportunity, and they do that. There's no guarantees, and a lot of work involved.

If some "mucky muck" is promoting it as some easy get rich scheme, take it up with them and report them to Amway. As I tried to make clear. My direct experience was 35 years ago. I never complained back then. It took me almost 10 years to get to the point that I could admit to being scammed. Your mileage may vary.

How many of these "higher ups" have you encountered exactly, to make such broad and sweeping accusations? There are literally thousands of folk at the "diamond" level of achievement and above. What's your sample size for making your judgement of the behaviours and ethics of all of them? My sample size is small and I hope to keep it that way. My last encounter with someone in the program was with a friend about 5 years ago. He was in tough financial straights at the time. He started telling me about this new program that he was in. The one thing he said which impressed me the most was "It's not MLM". I knew at that moment that it was Amway and that it was MLM.

If you are in the program then I wish you the best of luck. Perhaps Amway has really changed since I was taken in.

icerat

18th July 2008, 09:11 AM

When a friend or acquaintance is talking to you face to face and using high pressure sales techniques it is very different from seeing an ad on TV or in print.

Of course, and in my experience "high pressure sales techniques" don't build a long lasting business relationship in any business. Do people do it anyway? Yup. Folk who think maybe it'll help make them a fast buck.

Doesn't work very well though, in Amway or any other business.

The problem is of course the people who use that approach damage the reputation of that business for others. The irony being the ones who use that approach fail and aren't around to have to put up with the reputation problems.

My sample size is small and I hope to keep it that way. My last encounter with someone in the program was with a friend about 5 years ago. He was in tough financial straights at the time. He started telling me about this new program that he was in. The one thing he said which impressed me the most was "It's not MLM". I knew at that moment that it was Amway and that it was MLM.

So you actually have very very little basis for making a sweeping statement encompassing thousands, indeeds hundreds of thousands of people if you include those making full-time equivalent incomes.

If you are in the program then I wish you the best of luck. Perhaps Amway has really changed since I was taken in.

Amway compensation plan hasn't changed much. New and better products have been included. Logistics have been dramatically simplified. More importantly, the percentage of folk using inappropriate (and ineffective) techniques has decreased dramatically.

Of course, by virtue of it's very size, even a very very very small percentage of folk doing the wrong thing can still be a significant number of people.

But it's improving.

Chupacabras

18th July 2008, 09:46 AM

But you know, the ads, I don't like them.

Yeah.

YoPopa

18th July 2008, 10:09 AM

Of course, and in my experience "high pressure sales techniques" don't build a long lasting business relationship in any business. Do people do it anyway? Yup. Folk who think maybe it'll help make them a fast buck.
Glad to see that there is some basis for us to agree. Where we split will probably be on where we draw the line to define high pressure. There are all sorts of pressures that folks can use to influence others. The most successful are subtle.

So you actually have very very little basis for making a sweeping statement encompassing thousands, indeeds hundreds of thousands of people if you include those making full-time equivalent incomes. Yep, is there a problem with that?

Amway compensation plan hasn't changed much. So it's still MLM. Same poop, different day.

New and better products have been included. Logistics have been dramatically simplified. More importantly, the percentage of folk using inappropriate (and ineffective) techniques has decreased dramatically. So they've gotten better a training people to use the more subtle high pressure techniques.

Maybe you've guessed by now that my basic objection is to MLM. Any technique or new phraseology which seeks to promote an MLM is ( IMHO, OK?) pure bunkum.

kittynh

18th July 2008, 10:27 AM

oh dear.

I mean I have a friend that works for a company that sells deodorant and many of the same products whatevertheheck Amway is calling itself.

The COMPANY pays for him to go to conferences and for furthering his education. The company he works for also does not run ads that seem to be selling "work for us" rather than a product. I mean the ad talks about the product, but not where to get it. You get it by going to someone that tries to recruit you. Because that's how they make money. NOT by selling product, but getting someone else to sell product and get involved in recruiting more people.

Oddly no, real business does not work that way. Pyramid schemes work that way.

Well if it's fun for you and makes you happy go for it. I have a friend that sells Mary kay. She loves the product and is still at the bottom rung and will never ever get a pink cadillac. She has even been told to QUIT by the higher ups because she never recruits anyone. She refuses saying throwing a couple of parties a month is her idea of fun and she gets her own make up for a great discount.

Makes you happy fine, but you sounds a wee bit indoctrinated. Ask most people about their work, and you'll hear a LOT of complaints. Hey everyone has a job that has a few things that make them nuts and if you say, "boy that coffee machine never works right!" and "my coworker plays her ipod so loud I can' hear it!" that's normal You don't get that with Amway-whatever because they ALL love it.

Or hate it (which happens later) with a deep an all abidiing passion. It's either or.

Find me one person that is "oh well, it was ok" and I'll be a believer.

Phase Inverter

19th July 2008, 11:15 AM

But you know, the ads, I don't like them.

Yeah.

One good thing I noticed about the ads is the fact that they clearly state that "Amway Global" operates in the U.S. as "Quixtar."

I remember a few years back when the "Quixtar" concept started, distributors would get to hide behind that name and never once mention the word "Amway" in their recruiting efforts. Of course, once you signed up, you'd notice that "Quixtar" sells exactly the same products as "Amway."

Amway is not like any other business. It is only like the businesses which profit by selling a dream of success. I met a few of those higher up mucky mucks myself. That was back when I was a naive young lad with very little money but lots of faith in others (about 35 years ago).

"If the dream is big enough, the facts don't matter" -Dexter Yager, Big Amway Muckety-Muck

JoeEllison

19th July 2008, 07:47 PM

One good thing I noticed about the ads is the fact that they clearly state that "Amway Global" operates in the U.S. as "Quixtar."

I remember a few years back when the "Quixtar" concept started, distributors would get to hide behind that name and never once mention the word "Amway" in their recruiting efforts. Of course, once you signed up, you'd notice that "Quixtar" sells exactly the same products as "Amway."
No doubt we have a lawsuit to thank for that.:rolleyes:

icerat

21st July 2008, 03:33 AM

oh dear.

I mean I have a friend that works for a company that sells deodorant and many of the same products whatevertheheck Amway is calling itself.

The COMPANY pays for him to go to conferences and for furthering his education.

The COMPANY also gets most of the profit. I own several businesses and none of the companies I buy the products I market from pay for me to go to conferences etc. In fact they charge me. Amway's conferences are generally free or close to it, what you are probably referring to is the conferences etc of a number of separate independent companies that have sprung up to support Amway business owners.

The company he works for also does not run ads that seem to be selling "work for us" rather than a product. I mean the ad talks about the product, but not where to get it.

There are other ads talking about that. These ads are purely brand building. Nike ads don't give the name of a local store either.

You get it by going to someone that tries to recruit you. Because that's how they make money. NOT by selling product, but getting someone else to sell product and get involved in recruiting more people.

Um, no. You actually make *less* money per sale by getting someone else involved and them selling the product. What you might do is increase volume. Just like a clothing store might employee staff, at expense, in the hope of increasing sales volume and overall profit. There's no money just in recruiting.

Oddly no, real business does not work that way. Pyramid schemes work that way.

No "real business"? Some network marketing agents have yearly turnovers in the billions and employ numerous support staff in addition to other agents. Not a real business? IRS and other government all seem to think so. Businesses recruit staff in order to increase sales. Network markets recruit other agents in order to increase sales. Same thing.

Pyramids recruit particpant because they make money from the recruiting. Neither traditional businesses or network markets make money from the recruiting.

Well if it's fun for you and makes you happy go for it. I have a friend that sells Mary kay. She loves the product and is still at the bottom rung and will never ever get a pink cadillac. She has even been told to QUIT by the higher ups because she never recruits anyone. She refuses saying throwing a couple of parties a month is her idea of fun and she gets her own make up for a great discount.

Good for her! She clearly understands the differences between the business opportunity and how some folk (her higher ups in this case) wish to run it.

Makes you happy fine, but you sounds a wee bit indoctrinated. Ask most people about their work, and you'll hear a LOT of complaints. Hey everyone has a job that has a few things that make them nuts and if you say, "boy that coffee machine never works right!" and "my coworker plays her ipod so loud I can' hear it!" that's normal You don't get that with Amway-whatever because they ALL love it.

So you think it's better to whinge and complain than be supportive? Don't worry, folk talk about problems all the time, and there's plenty to complain about.

Or hate it (which happens later) with a deep an all abidiing passion. It's either or.

Find me one person that is "oh well, it was ok" and I'll be a believer.

Ok - me. I'm an ex-Amway guy. I enjoyed it, made some money, went on to other things. A decade or so later, got approached by a friend, got involved again. There's plenty of "oh well, it was ok" folk, they're just not much motivated to go talk about it on the 'net. Why would they?

icerat

21st July 2008, 03:38 AM

Maybe you've guessed by now that my basic objection is to MLM. Any technique or new phraseology which seeks to promote an MLM is ( IMHO, OK?) pure bunkum.

In my experience most times people feel like that is because they have a misconception of what legitimate MLM is. The misconception has unfortunately been developed and enhanced by many scams that claim to be MLM since MLM is a legitimate business. Indeed I'm starting to conclude that most things that call themselves MLM aren't legitimate MLMs at all, but scams masquerading as MLM.

In normal language development that would actually mean MLMs does mean scam ... and legitimate businesses need some other description.

Legitimate MLMs aren't much different from traditional product distribution. Buy in bulk at a discount, sell in smaller lots at a markup. That's it.

Almo

21st July 2008, 01:42 PM

It has already been proven that Amway is in a blind spot in icerat's critical thinking abilities in this tread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=90468). I see this trend continues here.

21st July 2008, 01:50 PM

Oh right, so all those deoderant ads implying that by buying their products aren't "selling a dream of success"?

Whooeee, dude, take things out of context often?

icerat

21st July 2008, 04:01 PM

Whooeee, dude, take things out of context often?

My point was that marketing is marketing. All marketing is selling "success" in some fashion or another.

Do some Amway folk take that too far? Absolutely
Do some other marketing folk take it too far in their arenas? Absolutely

Dave_46

22nd July 2008, 10:06 AM

Peter Bowditch (spelling?) knows a bit about Amway, and has been campaigning for some time.

His website has info on the current front page.

Link http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/index.html

I think he posts here as PeterB

Dave

YoPopa

22nd July 2008, 02:37 PM

My point was that marketing is marketing. All marketing is selling "success" in some fashion or another.

Your point about marketing was off the mark as was already pointed out. To blithely say that "marketing is marketing" in this context is meaningless and absurd.

Marketing a product is not at all the same thing as marketing a business to sell that product.

Do some Amway folk take that too far? Absolutely
Do some other marketing folk take it too far in their arenas? AbsolutelyMore meaningless drivel unless your point is that some people are sleazy weasels 'and so what?'

The problem is that the MLM concept is a den for sleazy weasels. I followed the link that Dave_46 provided and found some interesting links on that site as well. It seems by the proliferation of lawsuits against Amway that I am not alone in my judgement.

From the ratbags website (http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/index.html) The position of the UK government is:

* Amway's product are not marketable. They are priced far higher than comparable goods. They are seldom sold to anyone other than the salespeople themselves.
* More than 99% of all Amway salespeople lose money. More than half quit the scheme within a year, after suffering financial losses
* The only way to make money in Amway is through "endless chain recruiting", a flawed and fraudulent system that guarantees only the top recruiters can be profitable and is illegal in England and most other places on the planet. (Some have termed this scheme a "closed market swindle.")
* Extreme deception is used to lure people into the scam

Almo

23rd July 2008, 11:11 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYHeeAIqir0

Got the link to the ad.

Love those figures, man.

dudalb

23rd July 2008, 11:21 AM

Long ago I found out that to the true believers, AMWAY is more like a religious cult then a business.

Almo

23rd July 2008, 12:20 PM

Long ago I found out that to the true believers, AMWAY is more like a religious cult then a business.

The only way to get people to accept the ridiculous nature of the business model is to engage the part of the brain used to accept religion. This has unfortunate consequences. :(

icerat

23rd July 2008, 01:07 PM

Marketing a product is not at all the same thing as marketing a business to sell that product.

If one of your products is a business opportunity, it's not that much different

More meaningless drivel unless your point is that some people are sleazy weasels 'and so what?'

The problem is that the MLM concept is a den for sleazy weasels. I followed the link that Dave_46 provided and found some interesting links on that site as well. It seems by the proliferation of lawsuits against Amway that I am not alone in my judgement.

It's a 50 yr old $7.2billion dollar company operating in 50+ countries. As such it has very few lawsuits.

From the ratbags website (http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/index.html) The position of the UK government is:[/quote]

It's the position of one part of UK government. The court dismissed the case. The DTI/BERR seems to have gotten their education about Amway the same place many other have - internet websites.

The ratbags site lists the same old same old bs.

It's amazing how otherwise rational folk can become dogmatic and fixed in their beliefs on extremely limited information and even less experience.

The ratbags guy lists many things that are simply false (eg if it was a real business you could sell it - well, you can sell it, and it happens relatively frequently).

You have to ask yourself if a company can last 50 years, operate in 50+ countries, have awards from the UN, works in close partnership with UNICEF, have more than one of it's owners head of the American Chamber of Commerce, had numerous American Presidents speak at it's seminars, won many independent consumer awards, win corporate citizenship awards, have numerous positive books written about it, including some by highly respected business academics, even have a PBS documentary, etc etc etc etc

Somewhere along the line you have to ask yourself - maybe, just maybe there's something going on that you've missed.

Think about it.

YoPopa

23rd July 2008, 06:13 PM

If one of your products is a business opportunity, it's not that much different

It's a huge difference when the "business opportunity" results in 99% of new business people losing money. Selling that kind of "product" requires some twisted logic and broken ethics.

The court dismissed the case. The court did not dismiss the case! The case was settled and Amway had to give up quite a bit to settle.

You have to ask yourself if a company can last 50 years, operate in 50+ countries, have awards from the UN, works in close partnership with UNICEF, have more than one of it's owners head of the American Chamber of Commerce, had numerous American Presidents speak at it's seminars, won many independent consumer awards, win corporate citizenship awards, have numerous positive books written about it, including some by highly respected business academics, even have a PBS documentary, etc etc etc etc

Somewhere along the line you have to ask yourself - maybe, just maybe there's something going on that you've missed. You can make a much better case of appeal to authority for most religions. Appeal to authority may work with your downliners but it carries no weight here.

RPG Advocate

24th July 2008, 12:00 AM

Long ago I found out that to the true believers, AMWAY is more like a religious cult then a business.

Not Amway by itself, rather the secondary businesses, usually called Amway Motivational Organizations (AMOs) that use cult-like recruiting tactics. Of course, some 95% of the ambots one encounters will be a member of one of these AMOs. These scummy organizations have their own names, such as:

Britt Worldwide
Worldwide Dream Builders
Network 21
Team of Destiny (defunct)
...and more

These organizations try to create an insular world for their members by limiting their time to participate in non-Amway activities by getting them to do something Awmay-related almost every day, like showing the "plan" (Amway's sales and marketing plan, the hook for suckers), going to seminars, or going to big weekend functions. In cult psychology, it's called mileu control and it's quite effective in shaping people's attitudes when certain pressure tactics are added. In the context of Amway, the pressure comes from one's upline; they claim that your Amway business can't succeed without books, tapes, seminars, and functions. If the recruit doesn't "plug in to the system", he will be abandoned by his upline. Further, talking to distributors not in one's AMO or distributors that aren't upline or downline will be met with sanction ("don't talk crossline").

These AMOs are really authoritarian, just like your neighborhood fundamentalist chruch, so yeah, making it like a religious cult is a deliberate attempt by the kingpins (generally considered those who have reached the "diamond" level or above) to keep the sheep in line and reap huge profits.

icerat

24th July 2008, 04:26 AM

It's a huge difference when the "business opportunity" results in 99% of new business people losing money. Selling that kind of "product" requires some twisted logic and broken ethics.

Or an approach that doesn't lead to that.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics. It can also be shown that >90% of people who do what is suggested to succeed in Amway, do in fact succeed.

The court did not dismiss the case! The case was settled and Amway had to give up quite a bit to settle.

Um, no, the case was dismissed. See BERR vs Amway UK (http://www.amwaywiki.com/BERR_vs_Amway_UK)

It is under appeal on a technicality. The primary concern was that Amway reps were overpromoting the opportunity and Amway was not overseeing this properly. Now they are.

I don't call that "giving up quite a bit", indeed I consider it an improvement.

You can make a much better case of appeal to authority for most religions. Appeal to authority may work with your downliners but it carries no weight here.

It was not an appeal to authority, I made no conclusion. What I suggested was that, based on the preprodonderous of evidence of others independent findings, perhaps you need to consider you may not have an accurate picture and should investigate further - with an open mind.

In my experience, even amongst skeptics the mind is remarkably closed on this issue., which I have to say has been extremely disappointing. It's one thing to have a particular belief based on past experience and limited knowledge. It's another thing altogether to be completely dismissive of the possiblity you are at least partly wrong.

icerat

24th July 2008, 04:33 AM

These organizations try to create an insular world for their members by limiting their time to participate in non-Amway activities by getting them to do something Awmay-related almost every day, like showing the "plan" (Amway's sales and marketing plan, the hook for suckers), going to seminars, or going to big weekend functions.

This has to be one of the silliest things I've read. It's like saying a personal trainer is trying to limit your time to participate in non-exercise activities by suggesting you exercise!

Clearly success in a business required learning what to do and doing it.

In cult psychology, it's called mileu control and it's quite effective in shaping people's attitudes when certain pressure tactics are added. In the context of Amway, the pressure comes from one's upline; they claim that your Amway business can't succeed without books, tapes, seminars, and functions. If the recruit doesn't "plug in to the system", he will be abandoned by his upline. Further, talking to distributors not in one's AMO or distributors that aren't upline or downline will be met with sanction ("don't talk crossline").

The regular list of falsehoods and generalizations. How much research have you done into Amway exactly? How many different groups have you evaluated and seen their approach?

These AMOs are really authoritarian, just like your neighborhood fundamentalist chruch, so yeah, making it like a religious cult is a deliberate attempt by the kingpins (generally considered those who have reached the "diamond" level or above) to keep the sheep in line and reap huge profits.

Again, how many of these different groups have you had experience with? Clearly you've done an enormous amount of research to be able to make such sweeping claims about dozens, perhaps hundreds, of non-homogenous groups of literally millions of people.

So please, share your research, or your sources. And I'm not interested in internet gossip sites or self-proclaimed experts. Actual indepedent folk with some credibility who've done actual research and can provide *there* research and sources.

YoPopa

24th July 2008, 06:26 AM

Lies, damn lies, and statistics. It can also be shown that >90% of people who do what is suggested to succeed in Amway, do in fact succeed.

The 99% who lost money just could not follow instructions? Blame the victims. Nice, real nice.

Um, no, the case was dismissed. To simply say dismissed is a half truth intended to create the impression that there were no merits to the case and the judge told everybody to go home. You should know that is not what happened. The judge approved a settlement.

See BERR vs Amway UK Thanks for the link to an AMWAY wiki. It shows even more conclusively how right RPG Advocate was regarding the increasingly cult-like behaviors of the devotees.

It is under appeal on a technicality. Not "a technicality" but several technicalities. Again from the ratbags website (http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/index.html):

Amway's product are not marketable. They are priced far higher than comparable goods. They are seldom sold to anyone other than the salespeople themselves.
More than 99% of all Amway salespeople lose money. More than half quit the scheme within a year, after suffering financial losses
The only way to make money in Amway is through "endless chain recruiting", a flawed and fraudulent system that guarantees only the top recruiters can be profitable and is illegal in England and most other places on the planet. (Some have termed this scheme a "closed market swindle.")
Extreme deception is used to lure people into the scam.

PeterB

24th July 2008, 07:13 AM

The ratbags site lists the same old same old bs.

...

The ratbags guy lists many things that are simply false (eg if it was a real business you could sell it - well, you can sell it, and it happens relatively frequently).

Hello Icerat.

Nice name, Icerat.

Why do you post anonymously, Icerat? Ashamed?

Why do you call me "the ratbags guy" rather than use my name, Icerat? My name is easily found by anyone with any ability at finding things out (which excludes Amway true believers, of course).

Why don't you take me on on my website, Icerat, rather than here? I promise to publish your idiocy words.

If Amway has sales of only 6 billion, Icerat, how many big pins can be turning over billions individually? Or are you lying about that too? I must add it to the collection of arithmetical myths that true believers spout without thinking.

icerat

24th July 2008, 05:54 PM

The 99% who lost money just could not follow instructions? Blame the victims. Nice, real nice.

And what did you just do, credit them with no free will? It has an extremely low cost of entry, with money back guarantee. Many people get involved then chose it's not for them. That doesn't make them failures or victims.

To simply say dismissed is a half truth intended to create the impression that there were no merits to the case and the judge told everybody to go home. You should know that is not what happened. The judge approved a settlement.

No, that's not true. In fact, BERR was not at all happy with what the Judge decided and has challenged the findings on the grounds he didn't have the right. There was no settlement at all between BERR and Amway.

What the judge did was highlight some issues with how Amway was operating prior to the BERR investigation, and accept undertakings from Amway that they would continue operations with the changes already implemented.

Thanks for the link to an AMWAY wiki. It shows even more conclusively how right RPG Advocate was regarding the increasingly cult-like behaviors of the devotees.

Oh yeah, having an open wiki with information is just so cult-like :rolleyes:

Not "a technicality" but several technicalities. Again from the ratbags website (http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/index.html):

Amway's product are not marketable. They are priced far higher than comparable goods. They are seldom sold to anyone other than the salespeople themselves.

FALSE. Amway's products have won many independent consumer awards around the world. There are hundreds of millions of dollars worth of products sold to people who have no connection with the Amway opportunity. Furthermore, as the FTC has stated on numerous occasions, many people join MLM companies not to be salespeople, but to simply purchase the products at distributor pricing. They are not salespeople, merely legitimate customers getting better pricing.

More than 99% of all Amway salespeople lose money. More than half quit the scheme within a year, after suffering financial losses

FALSE. While more than half do indeed quit in the first year (indeed in the first few months), they are able to receive a full refund on anything they purchased if they do not feel it was of value. The great majority have zero expenses about from their intial registration fee (which doesn't even exist in some countries). With zero expenses, how do you lose money?

The only way to make money in Amway is through "endless chain recruiting", a flawed and fraudulent system that guarantees only the top recruiters can be profitable and is illegal in England and most other places on the planet. (Some have termed this scheme a "closed market swindle.")

FALSE. It is (a) perfectly possible to make money through zero recruiting. (b) it is not an "endless chain". The MLM model itself has built in limits on the "size" of the chain. In the FTCs investigation in the 70s they found the number of steps in the "chain" was on average not significantly different to traditional product distribution. (c) A English judge just dismissed this claim about Amway. Not so many months ago a US judge dismissed much the same claim. If Amway is indeed operating in the illegal manner you think, why do those entrusted with those laws keep finding you are incorrect?

Extreme deception is used to lure people into the scam.

Unfortunately, this can and does happen and something I for one are committed to helping stop. It does nothing to build a successful business and damages the businesses reputation for those who are running it professionally.

icerat

24th July 2008, 06:00 PM

Hello Icerat.

Nice name, Icerat.

Why do you post anonymously, Icerat? Ashamed?

Now your being silly. Are all the others using nicks "ashamed"?

Why do you call me "the ratbags guy" rather than use my name, Icerat? My name is easily found by anyone with any ability at finding things out (which excludes Amway true believers, of course).

Because I couldn't be bothered looking it up. Sorry, you're not that important to me.

Why don't you take me on on my website, Icerat, rather than here? I promise to publish your idiocy words.

I have before, no interest in doing it again.

If Amway has sales of only 6 billion, Icerat, how many big pins can be turning over billions individually? Or are you lying about that too? I must add it to the collection of arithmetical myths that true believers spout without thinking.

$7.1 billion now. How many could be turning over billions individually? No idea, ask a better mathematician than me. Hmm, then again, not that hard - the theoretical limit, ignoring the intricacies of international and foster sponsorship, would be 6.1 billion plus 1.

Reality is of course nothing like that, but my guess is your understanding of the model is so poor you don't even comprehend my answer.

krelnik

28th July 2008, 07:56 AM

JoeEllison

28th July 2008, 08:43 AM

SCAmway had to change their name in America because everyone is onto their con game under the old name, right? It is a complete pyramid scheme. And there's no surprise that there's a cult-like attitude... sensible people don't fall for this sort of scam. The one's who get roped in are the sort who buy into the SCAmway lifestyle, since we all know the products don't really make anyone any money. You buy the products, the seminars, the tapes, the DVDs... really, the only people making the money are one set of SCAmway sellers who are very high on the pyramid, selling products to the other SCAmway sellers lower on the pyramid. I doubt any real money is being made by selling off-brand energy drinks and vitamins.

Stankeye

28th July 2008, 10:12 AM

The problem I have is not the "business" model or the selling of products, but the way in which they tell their new "members" that anyone who doesn't support them wants them to fail and is jealous of their "success". It trys to alienate the new members from their family and friends if those family and friends don't support them. This support usually means buying stuff or at least not telling them it's stupid.

My two encounters with friends who did this took this route. You could see the rift that Amway was trying to create between people who "support" and people who didn't.

I find that method and behavior despicable.
It's evident here by icerat brandishing that non-supportive claim here. So you think it's better to whinge and complain than be supportive? Don't worry, folk talk about problems all the time, and there's plenty to complain about.

It's how they do it. You aren't supporting me therefore you need to be removed from my life in order for me to succeed.

Disgusting.

Earthborn

28th July 2008, 12:42 PM

It has an extremely low cost of entry, with money back guarantee. Many people get involved then chose it's not for them.Does that mean they get their money back?

Bob Klase

28th July 2008, 01:46 PM

And there's no surprise that there's a cult-like attitude... sensible people don't fall for this sort of scam.

Unfortunately sensible people do fall for all sorts of scams, including this one.

PeterB

28th July 2008, 02:45 PM

I said:

Originally Posted by PeterB
If Amway has sales of only 6 billion, Icerat, how many big pins can be turning over billions individually? Or are you lying about that too? I must add it to the collection of arithmetical myths that true believers spout without thinking.

and Icerat replied:

$7.1 billion now. How many could be turning over billions individually? No idea, ask a better mathematician than me. Hmm, then again, not that hard - the theoretical limit, ignoring the intricacies of international and foster sponsorship, would be 6.1 billion plus 1.

Reality is of course nothing like that, but my guess is your understanding of the model is so poor you don't even comprehend my answer.

See what I mean about scambots and arithmetic? If Amway has a total world-wide sales turnover of $7.1 billion (even though the company itself offers a figure less than that), then the maximum number of participants turning over "billions" (note the plural) is three.

You can see some of my thoughts about MLM arithmetic at http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/ausscience0802.htm

icerat

28th July 2008, 07:48 PM

OK. Since there are "many", can you name five of them? Please include the name of the award, which product won it, when, and provide supporting hyperlinks to non-Amway sites.

Thank you.

http://www.rdasiatrustedbrands.com

Multiple awards over multiple years in multiple countries for eSpring and Nutrilite products. There's more than 5 there alone.

The award is "Most Trusted Brand Asia"

http://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/news/ng.asp?id=50330-nutrilite-comes-out

Nutrilite regularly tops this survey for Consumer Satisfaction.

http://www.consumerreports.org (subscription needed)

tested washing powders a couple of years ago, SA8 scored 99 out of 100, next best was 87 if I recall correctly

I'm not going to google in polish, cause I can't read it, but here's the Amway link for eSpring - "Product of the Year" -

http://www.espring.com/English-EU/polishAward_popup.html

Artistry has won packaging awards, can't find a link right now.

icerat

28th July 2008, 07:53 PM

The problem I have is not the "business" model or the selling of products, but the way in which they tell their new "members" that anyone who doesn't support them wants them to fail and is jealous of their "success". It trys to alienate the new members from their family and friends if those family and friends don't support them. This support usually means buying stuff or at least not telling them it's stupid.

I have a problem with this as well. While I know it happens, nobody I know personally operates their Amway business like this.

My two encounters with friends who did this took this route. You could see the rift that Amway was trying to create between people who "support" and people who didn't.

I find that method and behavior despicable.

So do I

It's evident here by icerat brandishing that non-supportive claim here.

huh?

It's how they do it. You aren't supporting me therefore you need to be removed from my life in order for me to succeed.

Disgusting.

Who is this "they" exactly? All 4 million or so Amway business owners in 90 odd countries and territories? You seriously can lump them all into "they"?

As it happens, "removing" yourself from people unsupportive and especially antagonistic towards your goals isn't exactly bad advice, doesn't matter whether you're talking about Amway or anything else.

icerat

28th July 2008, 08:03 PM

See what I mean about scambots and arithmetic? If Amway has a total world-wide sales turnover of $7.1 billion (even though the company itself offers a figure less than that)

Yup, such the expert.

Alticor's Global Sales top 7 billion (http://www.alticor.com/resource-center/releases/alticor-2007-sales.aspx)

, then the maximum number of participants turning over "billions" (note the plural) is three.

And didn't I say your understanding is so poor you wouldn't understand the answer?

A simplified example. How many folk can have revenues of $100 for $300 worth of goods?

Business A sells $300 of goods to Business B
Business B sells $299 of goods to Business C, $1 somewhere else
Business C sells $298 of goods to Business D, $1 somewhere else
...
Business XYY sells $100 of goods to Business XYZ, $1 somewhere else

$300 worth of goods, 201 businesses with turnover of $100 or more.

Indeed, there's no particular reason why there has to be $1 sold somewhere else. Ignoring taxes, expenses and such, you could theoretically have an infinite number of businesses with revenues of $300.

Company A sells $300 of goods to Company B who sells $300 of goods to Company C etc etc etc

No company makes any profit, but there you go.

Fact remains, how many folk have revenues of $1 billion out of all of Amway's sales is difficult to judge, even more so when the revenues can be judged to have occurred for two different businesses.

Told you you wouldn't understand, such is your poor comprehension of the business model. Not that this is that hard to understand, happens in traditional business as well. Believe me, both Coca-Cola and Wal-Mart count the same can of coke when they report revenue data.

PS but you're right, I did make an error - I was talking about over a billion, not "billions" as I wrote. My mistake.

icerat

28th July 2008, 08:21 PM

You can see some of my thoughts about MLM arithmetic at http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/ausscience0802.htm

And my thoughts on that is that it's nice arithmetic, pathetic statistics.

How homogenous is the group under discussion? Is the income even remotely normally distributed? What's the distribution curve of hours worked like? Is iteven remotely normally distributed?

Ask yourself those questions and you might understand that your nice arithmetic is meaningless to verging on dishonesty.

Of course, lumping in MLM with pyramid schemes and the old furphy of "geometric progression", as you do in that article, goes to show your complete lack of understanding of MLM. That issue applies to pyramid schemes, which is why they are rightly illegal, but not to legitimate MLMs. In the Amway model for example, the number of "levels" is not significantly different to traditional product distribution. You seem to have completely missed the fact there's an inbuilt limiter on the MLM part of the compensation plan, much the same one that applies in traditional business - past a certain level of volume purchasing, there is no further discount.

What's more there is no more a necessity to "recruit" in MLM than there is in any business wanting to increase sales. The exact same principlies of market saturation apply, and it has nothing to do with recruiting, it has to do with whether there's a market for your products or not.

You seem to have gone to the Jon Taylor/Robert FitzPatrick school of MLM, where you assume, falsely, that MLMs operate the same way as illegal pyramids, and then write authoritive sounding articles railing against the evils of MLMs, when in fact they're the evils of pyramids you're talking about. As a retired Australian scientist myself I'm ashamed that article was published where it was.

That kind of poor thinking backed by false assumptions, by otherwise intelligent, rational people, is one of the reasons why I'm on this board.

PeterB

28th July 2008, 09:23 PM

Yup, such the expert.

Alticor's Global Sales top 7 billion (http://www.alticor.com/resource-center/releases/alticor-2007-sales.aspx)

And didn't I say your understanding is so poor you wouldn't understand the answer?

A simplified example. How many folk can have revenues of $100 for $300 worth of goods?

Business A sells $300 of goods to Business B
Business B sells $299 of goods to Business C, $1 somewhere else
Business C sells $298 of goods to Business D, $1 somewhere else
...
Business XYY sells $100 of goods to Business XYZ, $1 somewhere else

$300 worth of goods, 201 businesses with turnover of $100 or more.

Indeed, there's no particular reason why there has to be $1 sold somewhere else. Ignoring taxes, expenses and such, you could theoretically have an infinite number of businesses with revenues of $300.

Company A sells $300 of goods to Company B who sells $300 of goods to Company C etc etc etc

No company makes any profit, but there you go.

Fact remains, how many folk have revenues of $1 billion out of all of Amway's sales is difficult to judge, even more so when the revenues can be judged to have occurred for two different businesses.

Told you you wouldn't understand, such is your poor comprehension of the business model. Not that this is that hard to understand, happens in traditional business as well. Believe me, both Coca-Cola and Wal-Mart count the same can of coke when they report revenue data.

PS but you're right, I did make an error - I was talking about over a billion, not "billions" as I wrote. My mistake.

So you admit that all sales are made in a round-robin fashion between participants in the scheme and no sales are made outside. Thanks for that.

PeterB

28th July 2008, 09:41 PM

I said:

You can see some of my thoughts about MLM arithmetic at http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/commen...cience0802.htm

and Icerat replied:

And my thoughts on that is that it's nice arithmetic, pathetic statistics.

How homogenous is the group under discussion? Is the income even remotely normally distributed? What's the distribution curve of hours worked like? Is iteven remotely normally distributed?

Ask yourself those questions and you might understand that your nice arithmetic is meaningless to verging on dishonesty.

The group is not homogeneous - it is very highly skewed, with a very small number of people getting the vast majority of the income. Just look at the figures for the UK - 32,910 losers, 90 winners. I would suspect the skew of hours worked would go in the opposite direction, After all, don't Diamonds spend their time strolling the beaches of the world while collecting residual income?

I notice that you didn't have anything to say about how pathetic the total MLM business looks when compared to a single real retailer.

NewtonTrino

28th July 2008, 11:16 PM

Scam alert!

Heed us who have seen this close up and avoid the brainwashing. Run run away!

icerat

29th July 2008, 05:58 AM

So you admit that all sales are made in a round-robin fashion between participants in the scheme and no sales are made outside. Thanks for that.

ROFL! Well that was a pretty pathetic (and wrong) excuse of a rebuttal, Peter. You can't just admit you were wrong?

“When men are most sure and arrogant they are commonly most mistaken, giving views to passion without that proper deliberation which alone can secure them from the grossest absurdities” - David Hume

icerat

29th July 2008, 06:09 AM

I would suspect the skew of hours worked would go in the opposite direction, After all, don't Diamonds spend their time strolling the beaches of the world while collecting residual income?

Seems you don't understand the concept of building an asset Peter. It's cumulative work that matters, not some "hourly rate". Even so, if you take an hourly rate approach it will be heavily skewed in the same direction as the income, perhaps with a minor tailing off at the high end.

I notice that you didn't have anything to say about how pathetic the total MLM business looks when compared to a single real retailer.

Oh, you mean where you create straw men and argue against them?

Anyone who has ever been shown the plan will have been told how multi-level marketing is about to replace conventional retail trade

I've not only been shown "the plan", I show "the plan", and I was never told that nor make that claim myself. I doubt MLM will ever replace conventional retail trade overall. Mind you in some countries and product areas it goes close. Amway ranks second in personal care products in Korea, outselling companies like Proctor & Gamble and Unilever. Globally, Nutrilite is by far the #1 best selling nutritional brand. Similarly, Artistry Cosmetics is ranked in the top 5 best selling prestige brands in the world, #1 in Germany and Japan. (source: Euromonitor (http://www.euromonitor.com))

krelnik

29th July 2008, 09:52 AM

FALSE. Amway's products have won many independent consumer awards around the world.

OK. Since there are "many", can you name five of them? Please include the name of the award, which product won it, when, and provide supporting hyperlinks to non-Amway sites.

http://www.rdasiatrustedbrands.com (http://www.rdasiatrustedbrands.com/)

Multiple awards over multiple years in multiple countries for eSpring and Nutrilite products. There's more than 5 there alone.

The award is "Most Trusted Brand Asia"

That's not an "independent consumer award" at all, that's a SURVEY of what brands people trust. Very different thing.

http://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/news/ng.asp?id=50330-nutrilite-comes-out (http://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/news/ng.asp?id=50330-nutrilite-comes-out)

Nutrilite regularly tops this survey for Consumer Satisfaction.

Again, NOT an award but a survey of people to see what products they were satisfied with.

http://www.consumerreports.org (http://www.consumerreports.org/) (subscription needed)

tested washing powders a couple of years ago, SA8 scored 99 out of 100, next best was 87 if I recall correctly

OK, now you're getting silly. You're quoting the score in a consumer reports product comparison? Did they make it their product choice? "A couple of years ago"? Could you be a little more vague?

I'm not going to google in polish, cause I can't read it, but here's the Amway link for eSpring - "Product of the Year" -

http://www.espring.com/English-EU/polishAward_popup.html (http://www.espring.com/English-EU/polishAward_popup.html)

And of course, even though I specifically asked you not to, you couldn't resist linking to an Amway site. I will admit that that one does seem like a legit award, however, I am somewhat suspicious of the awarding organization for some reason.

Google "World Foundation of Health, Heart and Mind" (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22World+Foundation+of+Health%22&hl=en&rlz=1T4IBMA_en___US271&filter=0): only an handful of hits, and every single one of them is about this exact award. I smell a rat. You'd think a "non-profit organization established in 1996" would be mentioned once or twice on the web outside of marketing materials for a product they gave an award to.

Artistry has won packaging awards, can't find a link right now.

Come on! A packaging award? That's like me asking you if your doctor is board certified, and you telling me he won "Best Dressed" at his prom.

The original idea that you were disputing was that Amway's products are mediocre at best, and nothing you couldn't get much more easily and cheaply at a corner store. We're looking for real independent proof that the products are better and worth all this extra distribution effort. And all you can come up with are "consumer satisfaction" surveys. The one award that actually looks like an award, appears to have been given by a some sort of bogus organization.

FAIL.

icerat

29th July 2008, 01:08 PM

That's not an "independent consumer award" at all, that's a SURVEY of what brands people trust. Very different thing.

Oh good grief. The site even says "award winners". What kind of "awards" do you think there are for products? Think the UN has a "best toothpaste" committee or something?

Again, NOT an award but a survey of people to see what products they were satisfied with.

And this is a good or bad thing? Is it a positive or negative for Amway products? "award" is just a matter of semantics. Isn't the point whether the products are actually any good or not? Whether they're more marketable than the competition or not?

OK, now you're getting silly. You're quoting the score in a consumer reports product comparison? Did they make it their product choice? "A couple of years ago"? Could you be a little more vague?

I could have directed you to a site with the info and article, but it's a site by Amway supporters, so I'm sure it would be disparaged.

And of course, even though I specifically asked you not to, you couldn't resist linking to an Amway site. I will admit that that one does seem like a legit award, however, I am somewhat suspicious of the awarding organization for some reason.

Oh good grief, it was presented by the former speaker of parliament and a vice-chair of a parlimentary committe, in the Royal Palace! And it's suspicious?

You guys really have to get your blinkers off.

You'd think a "non-profit organization established in 1996" would be mentioned once or twice on the web outside of marketing materials for a product they gave an award to.

Did you google the name in polish on polish google?

Come on! A packaging award? That's like me asking you if your doctor is board certified, and you telling me he won "Best Dressed" at his prom.

Are you claiming packaging is irrelevant in consumer choice of products?

The original idea that you were disputing was that Amway's products are mediocre at best, and nothing you couldn't get much more easily and cheaply at a corner store. We're looking for real independent proof that the products are better and worth all this extra distribution effort.

What extra distribution effort? Visit website, order, delivered home.

I'm pretty stunned you don't consider the opinions of consumers to be at all important in judging whether products are better than the competition or not.

Though from past experience in these kind of discussions I'm 100% certain that if a consumer survey ranked an Amway product poorly, that would of course be perfectly acceptable evidence for you.

And all you can come up with are "consumer satisfaction" surveys. The one award that actually looks like an award, appears to have been given by a some sort of bogus organization.

Talk about cognitive bias and extreme ethnocentricity. An award is presented in the Royal Palace by Members of Parliament in Poland but because you can't find much information about it in english, it must be bogus.

Try googling this instead - Światową Fundację Zdrowie-Rozum-Serce

Father Dagon

29th July 2008, 02:53 PM

Long ago I found out that to the true believers, AMWAY is more like a religious cult then a business.Of course it is. Cults and dictators always preaches mind over matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_of_the_will). The fact that most businesses are run by hard-nosed penny-pinchers who makes sound and conservative decisions after down to earth-observations is like garlic to these vampires.

Whatever the owners of grocery stores are thinking about, it's not heroism, it's how they are going to "steal" customers from the competition by selling twinkies 50 cents cheaper.

icerat

29th July 2008, 03:58 PM

I should probably just leave you folk to argue with yourself. There's little more than constant straw men and ad hominems. You've decided you know what you know and to hell with any evidence to the contrary.

Where we have strong emotions, we're liable to fool ourselves - Carl Sagan

krelnik

29th July 2008, 04:32 PM

Oh good grief. The site even says "award winners". What kind of "awards" do you think there are for products? Think the UN has a "best toothpaste" committee or something?

Organizations like J.D. Power & Associates give out awards. Magazines that cover particular product fields give out awards, for instance Motor Trend Car of the Year (http://www.motortrend.com/oftheyear/index.html). Even in my field, computer software, there are a number of awards (http://www.pcworld.com/article/140663/the_25_most_innovative_products_of_the_year.html) that are given out by independent organizations that judge the quality of products for consumers.

You said "many independent consumer awards", that's what I thought you meant. Independent meaning independently judged by experts in the field. If you meant surveys, why didn't you say "survey"? (On second thought, don't answer that).

And this is a good or bad thing? Is it a positive or negative for Amway products? "award" is just a matter of semantics. Isn't the point whether the products are actually any good or not? Whether they're more marketable than the competition or not?

Are you claiming packaging is irrelevant in consumer choice of products?

What extra distribution effort? Visit website, order, delivered home.

I'm pretty stunned you don't consider the opinions of consumers to be at all important in judging whether products are better than the competition or not.

None of that is on-topic to what you and I are discussing: that Amway products are good, in fact award-winning. Please don't try to move the goalposts or change the topic.

Did you google the name in polish on polish google?

Try googling this instead - Światową Fundację Zdrowie-Rozum-Serce

OK, with that tip I was able to find some references to the award on some government and news sites in Poland, and even verify that the people in the photo seem real.

So, for that I will grant you the score of 1 out of 5.

I'll grant you a second one for that Consumer Reports review if they made the product their "pick" (or whatever CR calls that) in the article, and you can provide some details.

You still owe us three more "independent consumer awards". Surely with the hundreds of products that Amway sells, this should be a walk in the park!

icerat

29th July 2008, 05:59 PM

You said "many independent consumer awards", that's what I thought you meant. Independent meaning independently judged by experts in the field. If you meant surveys, why didn't you say "survey"? (On second thought, don't answer that).

Reader's Digest calls them Awards, so I called them awards. Independent I meant as in independent from Amway, I never said "experts in the field".

None of that is on-topic to what you and I are discussing: that Amway products are good, in fact award-winning. Please don't try to move the goalposts or change the topic.

Which comes back to what I said, you apparently don't believe consumers opinions of products are a valid judge of whether the products are any good or not. That's the difference here. No moved goal posts or changed topics, just a different perspective.

I believe that when judging the potential of a business consumer opinions of the products are one of the most important factors. You apparently were looking for something else.

I'll grant you a second one for that Consumer Reports review if they made the product their "pick" (or whatever CR calls that) in the article, and you can provide some details.

No they didn't make it their pick. They got both the price and availability wrong and included that as part of their judgement. Either way, it still topped the testing for cleaning power.

You still owe us three more "independent consumer awards". Surely with the hundreds of products that Amway sells, this should be a walk in the park!

You've arbitrarily decided that awards judged by consumer opinion don't count. I believe consumer opinion is important. As such we're at an impass.

krelnik

30th July 2008, 04:42 AM

You've arbitrarily decided that awards judged by consumer opinion don't count. I believe consumer opinion is important. As such we're at an impass.

No, you said one thing ("independent consumer awards") and then extended it mid-discussion to include other things ("consumer satisfaction surveys").

We see this technique alot here, it's referred to as "moving the goalposts". In other words, when someone realizes they can't win the argument as formulated, they try to change the argument to something they can win. It is a standard technique used by people who do not have the benefit of the truth on their side.

Back to the (unmoved) goalposts of our conversation: if Consumer Reports didn't make it their pick, that doesn't count as an award, no matter what the raw score was. So you got 1 out of 5 requested awards.

You failed to meet my very simple request: 5 independent consumer awards over an unstated time period for any of Amway's hundreds of products.

Hence I stand by my contention that Amway products are NOT award winning and therefore not extraordinary.

icerat

30th July 2008, 08:17 AM

So I'm guilty of poor phrasing. What is the topic of interest? Whether I'm guilty of poor phrasing, or whether Amway products are any good or not?

The question as to whether what you consider an "award" is the same as what Reader's Digest considers an "award" is neither her nor there. The "goalpost" is establishing whether Amway products are any good or not.

As such, it's not I that are moving the goalposts, it is you. You're apparently have no interest in establishing the quality of the products or otherwise, merely in the semantics of what I said.

To any reasonable person, the results of independent consumer surveys by reliable companies speak to the quality (or otherwise) of a product or products.

balrog666

30th July 2008, 10:39 AM

icerat

30th July 2008, 01:54 PM

Have you actually even bothered to check out the site, survey, and methodology? Your very question displays either ignorance or arrogance.

The RDA Most Trusted Brand surveys have been occurring for almost a decade. While RD commissions them, they're run by Neilsen Company, a well respected research firm.

Their is no "ultimate touchstone" of consumer opinion, but clearly these are respectable surveys. My apologise if the results don't conform to your preconceived beliefs. Reality can be like that some times.

dudalb

30th July 2008, 02:13 PM

I have never been into YOUTUBE,but I would love to post a link to a clip of Alec Baldwin's classic rant on salesmanship in "Glengerry Glenn Ross". That seems so apporpriate for a discussion on Amway.

icerat

30th July 2008, 03:00 PM

I have never been into YOUTUBE,but I would love to post a link to a clip of Alec Baldwin's classic rant on salesmanship in "Glengerry Glenn Ross". That seems so apporpriate for a discussion on Amway.

Nice clip, never seen that or the movie. Heck of a cast!

How is it "appropriate"? It's not even remotely applicable to Amway. Anyone doing that approach is on a fast track to failure. Might work with large one off purchases like cars and real estate, but with relatively low cost consumables you need to build long-term lasting relationships with your clients (and downline for that matter).

Hard sell doesn't work.

But if you want to see something hilarious, check out Amway Neighbour (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zjnUxYCaR4) on youtube (posted by the copyright owner). It's a riot! I use it as a training video on how not to be successful with Amway :)

NewtonTrino

27th April 2009, 08:51 PM

blutoski

28th April 2009, 03:15 PM

Right, so there's this ad on TV for Amway/Quixtar.

They said how they helped over 3 million people run their own business, with revenue over $6 billion.

Wait... isn't that income of $2000 per person? Maybe they mean current revenue is $6 billion and 3 million people have previously been involved. That could mean 2 million have quit, but 1 million are still in. Wait... isn't that still only $6000 per person?

Either loads of people have quit, or the people on average don't really make much money. Both ways make it sound like not such a good deal.

I read through the thread to see if this was the company's revenues or if it was the salesteam's revenues. It's still not clear.

Assuming that this is the company's gross revenues, it's probably fair to say that the salesforce is only earning a margin - say 10% overall. That's somewhere around $200 per salesperson gross annual income before expenses and income tax. Mean average.

However, icerat does have a good point: that the income is not uniform, and is probably bimodal with 99.9% of the salesforce probably earning negative and 0.1% making some positive gains, some of them making lots of money.

The usual routine is to blame the victims - like any other cult, they're told weren't faithful enough, so it's their own fault the guru has their hard-earned cash.

Robster, FCD

28th April 2009, 10:58 PM

Icerat has renewed my conviction to stay away from Amway. Thanks.

Almo

1st May 2009, 02:28 PM

Glad to hear it!

NewtonTrino

1st May 2009, 08:52 PM

blutoski

2nd May 2009, 08:39 AM

In a way I'm sad. I wonder if he's even still doing the business or not. It's almost a sure thing that he lost several thousands of dollars since the last post unless he's high up (and hence in on the scam).

This is the thing... recruitment is very dependent on the impression of success, so the salesperson is incredibly motivated to fabricate success. I had a colleague who worked two fulltime jobs to obtain an expensive car and give the impression that Quixstar was working well for him. This was partly for recruiting, but also I think eventually because he didn't want to show failure.

(Note: he has since gone into real estate, and is still doing the same thing - second job is paying for the Mercedes)

We're so abstracted from any possible way to verify this: we're on the internet, and even if we were to know the person, we don't know how much of the income is actually generated from Amway versus spouse, inheritence, previous investments, or other occupation.

NewtonTrino

2nd May 2009, 08:52 AM

Absolutely true. I have no doubts that some people make big money as they are the ones that control these systems and the money has to go somewhere. I've also been in a position to verify this due to my biz dealings with them in the past. However, the kingpins making the cash aren't going to show up here and start arguing like Icerat. He's just one of the cult members. If he somehow managed to build a big enough organization he could tap into the scam money as well. Doesn't make the whole thing any better.

Anyway one very common line in that business is "Fake it till ya make it".

Hound01

16th May 2009, 04:30 PM

fuelair

16th May 2009, 04:57 PM

Oh right, so all those deoderant ads implying that by buying their products aren't "selling a dream of success"?

Most products are marketed as helping you achieve something you want, doesn't matter if it's washing powder to clean clothes or ferrari's to pick up women.

The question is - will they actually help achieve that?

Amway's reputation suffers because some people over-promise what it offers, and they've been spanked a couple of times over the years for not monitoring that better (as recently as the past year in the UK). What Amway offers, apart from the hundreds of products themselves, is a business opportunity, and they do that. There's no guarantees, and a lot of work involved.

If some "mucky muck" is promoting it as some easy get rich scheme, take it up with them and report them to Amway.

How many of these "higher ups" have you encountered exactly, to make such broad and sweeping accusations? There are literally thousands of folk at the "diamond" level of achievement and above. What's your sample size for making your judgement of the behaviours and ethics of all of them?

The biggest problem is that Amway is a pyramid scheme which has been somehow able to mostly stay ahead of the law. IF you are defending it because you or a family member/friend is involved, fine, but it should be shut down or forced to sell through stores. I do not care which.

Oh, by the by, if they are so upfront/honest/legitimate as you are saying then please explain why they NEVER identify the company when they try to get you to a first meeting. I have been to seven in various parts of the country and not one personal (to my face) invitation used the word Amway - even when I specifically asked what company they were asking me to meet about.

Bob Klase

16th May 2009, 07:17 PM

Can anyone recommend any good books on MLM?
One I read recently and really enjoyed was "False Profits" by Robert Fitzpatrick and Joyce Reynolds. I takes the reader through the usual MLM cycle of enthusiasm to despair ending with poorer but wiser.

Merchants of Deception is not about MLM in general, but specifically about Amway and the experiences of one person who spent years trying to make it rich. I read it a few years ago- you can download free in pdf:

http://www.merchantsofdeception.com/

quarky

16th May 2009, 08:06 PM

In the chapter of my life wherein I was surrounded by Mormons, they couldn't get enough of every pyramid scam that came along. The pyramid was highly compatible with their religious organization.

I sat through many of the promo sessions with various Amway-like organizations.
They all reminded me of chain letters. Most of them have gone out of business.
The "Cambridge Diet" was one of the more heavy handed ones. It was very 'sciency'.

Yet, in a way, capitalism itself is a pyramid scheme. A Ponzi scheme, even.

Evolution even has a bit of the old pyramid in it.

fuelair

16th May 2009, 08:34 PM

icerat

18th May 2009, 12:45 AM

Can anyone recommend any good books on MLM?
One I read recently and really enjoyed was "False Profits" by Robert Fitzpatrick and Joyce Reynolds. I takes the reader through the usual MLM cycle of enthusiasm to despair ending with poorer but wiser.

You could try "The Direct Selling Revolution" by Professer Dominique Xardel, former Head of ESSEC and Editor of European Harvard Business Review.

Or "The New Professionals: The Rise of Network Marketing As the Next Major Profession" by Professor Charles W King and James Robinson

That's assuming you want books by knowledgeable, respected business academics ... somehow I suspect you don't .....

icerat

18th May 2009, 12:49 AM

The biggest problem is that Amway is a pyramid scheme which has been somehow able to mostly stay ahead of the law. IF you are defending it because you or a family member/friend is involved, fine, but it should be shut down or forced to sell through stores. I do not care which.

It's not even close to a pyramid scheme. By definition a pyramid scheme is something where you make money by recruiting people. For any given sales volume, recruiting people in Amway will cost you money, not make you money.

Oh, by the by, if they are so upfront/honest/legitimate as you are saying then please explain why they NEVER identify the company when they try to get you to a first meeting. I have been to seven in various parts of the country and not one personal (to my face) invitation used the word Amway - even when I specifically asked what company they were asking me to meet about.

That's a legitimate complaint, and you answered it in your first paragraph. Misconceptions. You might want to check out this post - Why don't people just tell you it's Amway? (http://www.thetruthaboutamway.com/why-dont-people-just-tell-you-its-amway/)

timhau

18th May 2009, 01:10 AM

In the chapter of my life wherein I was surrounded by Mormons, they couldn't get enough of every pyramid scam that came along. The pyramid was highly compatible with their religious organization.

For some reason, a disproportionately huge number of the people in WinCapita, the largest economic fraud in Finnish history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wincapita), were evangelical Christians from some of our numberous small sects.

The fraud itself was a Ponzi scheme where the profits were supposed to come from currency trading. And as with the original Mr. Ponzi, some of the victims still think it was all for real and that the fraudsters who are either in custody or in hiding will come back any day now and make them fabulously rich.

Foolmewunz

18th May 2009, 01:38 AM

I'm curious if Icerat just monitors the forum for activity and pops up whenever this subject comes up.

I'm curious if his business has grown over the last year? Making any money yet Icerat? I didn't think so...

Bump for IceRat....

As long as you've decloaked, how abou it? Want to answer NT's questions?

Or should I put on Jerry Jeff Walker doing "Mr. Bojangles" while we get ready for you to dance around the issue for a few dozen posts?

Eddie Dane

18th May 2009, 02:21 AM

OK, having read this thread up to this point, I have a question.

As I understand it, there is a number of wonderful products with wonderful unique selling points working their way down the Amway ladder.

Presumably this stuff has to end up with a broad base of end consumers. Who the hell are these people?

I'm a discerning consumer and I have no trouble finding quality products for a good price.
In fact, these days I'm often pleasantly surprised how much good stuff is available for little money.

I personally work in an organisation that is in a constant battle to develop great products and get them to the customer at a sharp price.

The Amway system doesn't focus on the product at all. Today's consumers demand great stuff for little money and as far as I can see the Amway system can only lead to mediocre products with lots of middlemen.

Where are these Amway products supposed to go? Sold via Tupperware party model? it sure doesn't end up in my local supermarket.

Do the Amway sales people end up with a garage full of b-quality detergent?

IMHO people who fall for this really didn't think it through.

Eddie Dane

18th May 2009, 02:29 AM

For some reason, a disproportionately huge number of the people in WinCapita, the largest economic fraud in Finnish history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wincapita), were evangelical Christians from some of our numberous small sects.

But religion tells you a lot about someone's ethics. So, if you're a Christian you just know that other Christians are trustworthy.

And so it goes. The Turkish community in Holland got hit badly last year.
You know, by a nice bearded gentleman claiming real Islamic values.

Wow, make 10% a year in an Islamic investment fund that also sends lots of money to homeless orphans in Gaza? Sign me up!

El Greco

18th May 2009, 02:39 AM

I have a question: Do you know of anyone who has become wealthy only by selling Amway products without developing any "network" at all ? Given the advertised supreme quality of the Amway products, this should be perfectly possible.

icerat

18th May 2009, 03:40 AM

Can you name anyone who has become wealthy in any consumer product business by only doing personal retailing by themselves?

Most succesfull business do so through expanding their sales staff and outlets to increase volume. Opening new outlets and paying sales stuff cuts down on your profit margins, but it's hoped the increase in sales volume will offset the loss in per-sale profit. The exact same principle applies with Amway.

If you're a great salesperson and were interested only in personal retail sales then you'd be much better off in a "big ticket" sales business such as real estate where the per-sale profit was higher. Of course, as soon as you stop selling, then your income would stop. A smart person might look at starting their own real estate business and recruiting and training other sales folk to sell the real estate for them and move from personal selling into more of a training/management role and getting a percentage of the overall sales of their real estate business. Again, same principle applies.

Having said that I do know folk who makes solid incomes from retailing alone with Amway products.

icerat

18th May 2009, 03:56 AM

Bump for IceRat....

As long as you've decloaked, how abou it? Want to answer NT's questions?

Why? Do you seriously believe that whether I'm making money or not makes a difference? It only does if anyone is claiming nobody makes money with Amway. In which case, yes, I make money from Amway and have for a decade. I haven't been actively building the business at all for some time, working on other projects. Gee, guess that brainwashing just ain't very effective :cool:

icerat

18th May 2009, 04:06 AM

Presumably this stuff has to end up with a broad base of end consumers. Who the hell are these people?

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here? Are you implying that because you don't know who buys the products, then nobody does? :confused:

The Amway system doesn't focus on the product at all.

On what basis do you make that claim? Amway has 13,000 employees including thousands of R&D staff working on developing great products. Profit comes *entirely* from the sale of these products.

Today's consumers demand great stuff for little money and as far as I can see the Amway system can only lead to mediocre products with lots of middlemen.

That makes no logical sense to me. Profit only comes from product sales. Longevity and success in product sales only come from having happy consumers. Happy consumers can only come from having great products.

Amway's been around 50 years, is one of the world's top retailers, leads nutrition sales globally, is one of the top 5 in prestige cosmetics and top 10 in all skin care and cosmetics, ranked #1 in some markets. Clearly there's longevity and success.

How could this be achieved through mediocre products?

Where are these Amway products supposed to go? Sold via Tupperware party model? it sure doesn't end up in my local supermarket.

Not exactly the Tupperware party model, no, but yes sold through direct selling.

Do the Amway sales people end up with a garage full of b-quality detergent?

Amway's primarily a healthy & beauty company and has been for more than a decade. As for the detergent, I'd venture to suggest you've never tried it. It's not the cheapest, but it's certainly not "b-quality". Indeed Consumer Reports rated it #1 a few years ago, scoring 13% higher than the next best.

And as for "a garage full", that raises another point about "mediocre products" - Amway offers a money back satisfaction guarantee on everything. You can buy the detergent, use the whole package, tell Amway you didn't like it, and they'll give you your money back.

Seriously, apply some logic. They've had that policy for 50 years. How could they still be in business if the products weren't good?

IMHO people who fall for this really didn't think it through.

IMHO you haven't thought it through or are badly misinformed.

quarky

18th May 2009, 08:03 AM

I sort-of miss the door-to-door salesmen that were so common when i was a kid. Some of them tried so hard, with their vaccuum cleaners; brushes; knives; encyclopedias, make-up kits, and so on. My dad would torture them with embarrassing questions. My mom would be kind to them, and never buy the stuff.

Its like a lost part of Americana. Is Amway still doing door-to-door sales?

NewtonTrino

18th May 2009, 09:09 AM

Why? Do you seriously believe that whether I'm making money or not makes a difference? It only does if anyone is claiming nobody makes money with Amway. In which case, yes, I make money from Amway and have for a decade. I haven't been actively building the business at all for some time, working on other projects. Gee, guess that brainwashing just ain't very effective :cool:

I think it makes a huge difference. Care to prove it and post an adjusted income number?

NewtonTrino

18th May 2009, 09:10 AM

And for the record I know there are many people that make money, just not much off the products. They make it off of the "tools" and "functions" (brainwashing materials).

Bob Klase

18th May 2009, 09:14 AM

It's not even close to a pyramid scheme. By definition a pyramid scheme is something where you make money by recruiting people. For any given sales volume, recruiting people in Amway will cost you money, not make you money.

So the more people you recruit, the more money you lose? How does that work?

Sounds like the best way to make money is to never recruit anyone.

NewtonTrino

18th May 2009, 09:54 AM

So the more people you recruit, the more money you lose? How does that work?

Sounds like the best way to make money is to never recruit anyone.

Correct. You are making money for those above you in the pyramid who control the "tools and functions" though. That business is a nice inverted pyramid (those at the top get the most per unit those at the bottom get zero).

fls

18th May 2009, 10:00 AM

Seriously, apply some logic. They've had that policy for 50 years. How could they still be in business if the products weren't good?

Not relevant. Cite homeopathy as an example.

Linda

Bob Klase

18th May 2009, 10:28 AM

Correct. You are making money for those above you in the pyramid who control the "tools and functions" though.

Making money for those above you does not translate to losing money yourself. The question was 'how does recruiting people lose you money?', not 'how does recruiting people make money for those above you?".

Certainly most people in Amway lose money. But the money lost (for example, gas in driving around to meetings or driving to people's house to try to recruit them) is the same whether you actually recruit them or not.

Eddie Dane

18th May 2009, 12:19 PM

So, how do the products reach the consumer in the end?

And what kind of products are we talking about?

icerat

18th May 2009, 12:36 PM

Not relevant. Cite homeopathy as an example.

Linda

Can you name a single homeopathic company that offers a 100% money back satisfaction guarantee and is still in business after 50 years?

fls

18th May 2009, 12:47 PM

Can you name a single homeopathic company that offers a 100% money back satisfaction guarantee and is still in business after 50 years?

Boiron.

Linda

icerat

18th May 2009, 12:52 PM

Making money for those above you does not translate to losing money yourself. The question was 'how does recruiting people lose you money?', not 'how does recruiting people make money for those above you?".

In general, recruiting people doesn't "lose you money". If you own a store and you employee someone, you have to pay them either a salary or sales commission. If you sold 10 units before employing them, and 10 units after employing them, then your profit will be down because your expenses are up.

Does this mean through employing them you "lose" money? Not usually, because you'd hope to sell more. Selling 20 units for $3 profit each will make you more money than selling 10 units for $5 profit each.

Same applies for Amway. If you sell a product to a customer yourself, your markup is generally somewhere between 30% and 55%. If you "recruit" someone and they do the sale instead of you, then the markup you earn will generally drop to between 3% and 22% (US figures) - the salesperson needs their commission! So why recruit? Two people can do more sales than one. 3% on the sales volume of 20 people is probably more profitable than 55% of the sales volume of one person.

Certainly most people in Amway lose money. But the money lost (for example, gas in driving around to meetings or driving to people's house to try to recruit them) is the same whether you actually recruit them or not.

Most people "in Amway" don't go to a single meeting or try to recruit a single person - heck a large number never even buy in products after joining. You can argue they "lost" money because they paid a membership fee (and that's not even true in some Amway markets), but then they got did exactly what they paid for - the right to buy the products at a cheaper price, and the right to market and resell them. They "lost" money in the same sense you "lose" money if you sign up for a gym membership and then never go. Sure you wasted your money, but it's a bit harsh to blame the gym! Especially in the case where the gym offers to give you all your money back if you just ask.

icerat

18th May 2009, 01:00 PM

Boiron.

Linda

Have you got a link to their satisfaction guarantee? On resellers sites I've found so far it has disclaimers -

•Item was received in damaged condition or was defective
•Incorrect item was shipped (other than what you actually ordered). Read more
•Item is in new condition with original packaging.

ie it's not a satisfaction guarantee.

or

We will issue you a full refund for the cost of the product minus your shipping charges.

ie you still have to pay shipping.

Amway organises and pays for shipping on any returns, zero cost to the customer - well, except an email or phone call asking for the return slip. Heck, the first time I returned something I didn't know the drill and I just posted it off myself. They refunded the product and my shipping - in fact they gave me more for the shipping than I paid! See ... who says you can't make money from Amway :D

PS having said that, you're mostly right. Customer satisfaction does not necessarily mean a product is any good, but then we're talking business here, where sales and customer satisfaction are key. One would expect that customer satisfaction is an indicator of whether a product works or not. Personally I would argue that many homeopathic products *do* work. "Placebo effect" doesn't mean no effect, and a customer wants the effect, they don't care so much about the mechanism.

icerat

18th May 2009, 01:02 PM

So, how do the products reach the consumer in the end?

How do you mean "reach"? Do you mean delivery, or do mean in terms of customer awareness?

And what kind of products are we talking about?

Amway today sells virtually everything, which in my mind was actually a strategic mistake. They've refocused now back on to health and beauty products. Check out the main US site is probably the best way to see - http://www.amway.com

BenBurch

18th May 2009, 01:05 PM

In my experience with them, Spamway sells products that are overpriced and not as effective as others in their class.

And as my late father who was duped into this related it to me; People who make money on Spamway only can make money by duping people into becoming their downstream agents in large numbers, and those people usually find the merchandise that they MUST buy some of each month is un-sellable no matter how hard they try to sell it. So, the success of Spamway is not about the sale of the products to consumers, its about the sale of products to bottom-level new dealers who almost universally fail and have their garages full of unsold product.

Eddie Dane

18th May 2009, 02:16 PM

How do you mean "reach"? Do you mean delivery, or do mean in terms of customer awareness?

I meant buying the product. But now that you mention it, how is customer awareness raised?

billydkid

18th May 2009, 02:31 PM

I mentioned a year or so ago that one of our kids had gotten involved with them. He and his wife wouldn't listen to a word from us, or anyone. They kept telling us how rich they were going to be, and how they had actually met some of the High Muckety-Mucks at one of the many "conferences" they had to go to, at their own expense and travel. They kept telling us how these impressively wealthy higher-ups had assured them if they'd just stick with it, they'd be rich in no time!

A couple of months ago, I realized I hadn't been hearing a word about Quixtar. I asked my husband why, and he, in turn, asked his son.

Turns out that they had spent so much on conferences, packages, and "tools," that they couldn't afford to operate their "store" anymore and had to give it up. Apparently, they said, the only ones getting rich were the High Muckety-Mucks they'd met.

Oh, if only someone had just told them this could happen! :D
I think most of us have had our brush with Amway and the Amtoids with their lame manipulations and their "secrets". It turns people you think you know well into mutants for a time.

fls

18th May 2009, 02:53 PM

PS having said that, you're mostly right. Customer satisfaction does not necessarily mean a product is any good,

Exactly.

but then we're talking business here, where sales and customer satisfaction are key.

As they are for homeopathy.

One would expect that customer satisfaction is an indicator of whether a product works or not.

Why? We have lots of examples otherwise. 'Dietary supplements' are a billion dollar business, but the evidence shows that there isn't any reason to think that they work.

Personally I would argue that many homeopathic products *do* work. "Placebo effect" doesn't mean no effect, and a customer wants the effect, they don't care so much about the mechanism.

Except that the placebo effect is almost meaningless as it doesn't represent what most people think of as 'works'. Most people would consider 'works' to mean something like 'get better faster', or 'prevent death' or 'gets rid of my nausea', and placebo does none of that.

Linda

icerat

18th May 2009, 03:17 PM

Why? We have lots of examples otherwise. 'Dietary supplements' are a billion dollar business, but the evidence shows that there isn't any reason to think that they work.

And clearly I disagree with that assessment. In any case, customer satisfaction is an indicator, not proof by any means. Interestingly when it comes to "customer satisfaction" ratings, consumerlab.com surveys indicate that folk who purchase supplements that are closer analogues to food are generally more satisfied than those who purchase supplements that are entirely synthetic isolates, and by a very large margin. Now, it could be argued this is an artificate of price, as the later tend to be cheaper than the former, but it could also be that they actually work better - which would make sense if you believe that nutrients in food are actually worthwhile.

Except that the placebo effect is almost meaningless as it doesn't represent what most people think of as 'works'. Most people would consider 'works' to mean something like 'get better faster', or 'prevent death' or 'gets rid of my nausea', and placebo does none of that.

I'm not going to go hunting them up, but I'm pretty certain there's been a number of studies where placebos have caused self-reported decreases nausea or duration of things like colds, as well as things such as pain relief etc. If I recall correctly MRIs or similar are showing placebo-related brain effects showing they are working. Did you know that people think ice cream tastes better if it's in a round tub? Even shows up in the MRIs or MEGs or whatever they did ...

icerat

18th May 2009, 03:32 PM

I meant buying the product. But now that you mention it, how is customer awareness raised?

Consumers can purchase the products in five ways -

1. direct from an Amway business owner (ABO)
2. from an ABO's personal website
3. from an Amway website, if registered for access by an ABO
4. from an Amway website, by registering as an ABO
5. from an Amway "store", if a registered ABO or customer of an ABO

Brand awarness is raised primarily through word of mouth, but at various times Amway uses advertising and sponsorship to raise public awareness. That's been rare in the US the past 10-15yrs but that has changed recently, particularly with a focus on sports sponsorships.

ps I'm not going to bother replying to the inane posts

Bob Klase

18th May 2009, 04:35 PM

For any given sales volume, recruiting people in Amway will cost you money, not make you money.

In general, recruiting people doesn't "lose you money".

Thanks for clearing that up. Recruiting people will "cost you money", but recruiting people doesn't "lose you money".

The question was not 'how does it cost money if you have a store and you hire someone to come work for you. The question is "how does recruiting people in Amway cost you money?"

Your example is meaningless because you don't deal with a 'given volume'.

When you recruit someone for Amway, they don't work for you- they start their own business. You don't pay them a salary, and you don't pay them a commission on sales that you've been making (unless you're dumb enough to just give them your customers). You gain a commission on additional sales (if any) they make. Their business doesn't directly reduce the volume of your business.

In general, recruiting people doesn't "lose you money".

While technically true, it would be much more accurate to say "in general, joining Amway will cost you money and you'll be lucky if you ever get enough back to make it worth the time and effort you've invested".

fls

18th May 2009, 04:59 PM

And clearly I disagree with that assessment. In any case, customer satisfaction is an indicator, not proof by any means.

It's not an indicator if it occurs independent of effect. For example, homeopathy has no effect, yet surveys (not sure how reliable) show high customer satisfaction.

[QUTOE]Interestingly when it comes to "customer satisfaction" ratings, consumerlab.com surveys indicate that folk who purchase supplements that are closer analogues to food are generally more satisfied than those who purchase supplements that are entirely synthetic isolates, and by a very large margin.[/QUOTE]

This would clearly be subject to a selection bias.

Now, it could be argued this is an artificate of price, as the later tend to be cheaper than the former, but it could also be that they actually work better - which would make sense if you believe that nutrients in food are actually worthwhile.

I'm not going to go hunting them up, but I'm pretty certain there's been a number of studies where placebos have caused self-reported decreases nausea or duration of things like colds, as well as things such as pain relief etc.

Placebo (vs. no treatment) shows small changes in reported levels of subjective symptoms - someone will report that their nausea or pain is somewhat better - but there is no difference in whether or not they report the nausea or pain is gone. And other than for pain, it may be that there is no change in the symptom itself but only a change in what someone says about the symptom (an example of the Hawthorne effect). And there is no difference in objective measures or the resolution of an illness.

If I recall correctly MRIs or similar are showing placebo-related brain effects showing they are working. Did you know that people think ice cream tastes better if it's in a round tub? Even shows up in the MRIs or MEGs or whatever they did ...

We can definitely demonstrate that our perceptions are subject to suggestion. However, this isn't really what we ask of our medicines - we ask for substantial symptom relief, faster healing, prevention of dire complications, lives-saved.

Linda

NobbyNobbs

18th May 2009, 05:26 PM

I need to fess up and say that yes, I have used Amway products in the past and yes, I have found most of them to be very good quality, IMO. However, under the heading of "you get what you pay for", I also found them to be quite pricey. Being on a limited budget, I'd rather forgo the premium floor cleaner and buy the inferior brand at Walmart for half the price.

NewtonTrino

18th May 2009, 07:04 PM

Does anyone involved in this scam want to claim they are making money and PROVE IT?

BenBurch

18th May 2009, 07:28 PM

Newton, the ones with a big downline ARE making money. Some quite good money. But not selling that product. The people under them generally are not making big money, and often lose money on it.

The right question is to ask how many ABOs have been minted over the years, and how many are still active.

And I'd like to see one person who could make a fortune JUST selling the product. I doubt it can be done.

NewtonTrino

18th May 2009, 07:38 PM

Let me rephrase then.

Can anyone prove they are making a profit selling Amway product in this business?

By proof I mean a tax return showing an actual taxable gain.

I have no doubts the high up pins make big money from the tools business.

quarky

18th May 2009, 09:12 PM

No more door-to-door Amway sales? That's how i came to be aware of the fine products I didn't need. One guy was very hot to sell me some shoe polish, and i told him I only wear sneakers. He tried to convince me that i could polish my sneakers. He lost the sale, but it wasn't as bad as watching someone with a gambling habit.

After that experience, i started dealing with door-to-door sales-people and Jehova's Witnesses in a new way that was fun for me: I would offer them a dollar to leave and never come back. Its surprising how few would accept the dollar, and how many wouldn't come back.

icerat

19th May 2009, 02:32 AM

When you recruit someone for Amway, they don't work for you- they start their own business. You don't pay them a salary, and you don't pay them a commission on sales that you've been making (unless you're dumb enough to just give them your customers). You gain a commission on additional sales (if any) they make. Their business doesn't directly reduce the volume of your business.

Recruiting sales staff in a retail store doesn't reduce the volume of your business either, nevertheless you'll find their salaries or commissions in the "expense" column.

Another way to look at it, one which was more obvious before Amway took over the logistics. I would buy say $25,000 worth of good in the month at 55% discount off recommended retail price, then I would split that up and sell it to say 3 folk in lots of $8000 for say 45% of recommended retail price - giving me a profit margin of 10%.

This is exactly the same type of setup as in traditional distribution. Buy in large volumes, get a bigger discount, sell in smaller volumes at a markup. Exactly the same principle applies. The only differences is that instead of having to spend all the money upfront and potentially endup with a warehouse full of unsold stock, we order JIT and the volume discount is calculated monthly and paid as a rebate.

While technically true, it would be much more accurate to say "in general, joining Amway will cost you money and you'll be lucky if you ever get enough back to make it worth the time and effort you've invested".

Ok, I get the message, you clearly have no interest in actually discussing this in an adult manner.

icerat

19th May 2009, 02:42 AM

Placebo (vs. no treatment) shows small changes in reported levels of subjective symptoms - someone will report that their nausea or pain is somewhat better - but there is no difference in whether or not they report the nausea or pain is gone.

if you don't think a decrease in pain is important, you clearly have rarely been in extreme chronic pain.

And other than for pain, it may be that there is no change in the symptom itself but only a change in what someone says about the symptom (an example of the Hawthorne effect). And there is no difference in objective measures or the resolution of an illness.

We've really gone quite off-topic here. My point really is that customer satisfaction is a valid indicator of the value of a product to the customer. If a customer feels they've gotten good value, then they haven't been scammed. Doesn't matter if it's homeopathy or ice cream in a round tub. The homeopathy product might only be water, and the ice cream might be the same as in the square tub, but if the consumer feels they got value for money, then there's no real problem - especially if the person selling the product also believes the consumer was getting value for money.

BTW, this excludes instances where, for example, someone displaces effective medical treatment with something that actually has no real effect, such as the recent case of the girl in australia who died from excema that her parents were treating homeopathically. Clearly they did not get the "value" they expected from it.

But when you're talking about more subjective things like how you feel, or how clean you think your clothes are etc etc, consumer opinion is one of if not the most important factor.

Ferguson

19th May 2009, 03:15 AM

A roommate i had for one year in college was a Quixtar member and was constantly recruiting me, I always just said I didn't have the money to start a business, though he would tell me at length how much money I could be making. I was an avid Monster drinker (3-4 a day at the time :blush: ) and he was always trying to sell me some energy drink. I asked him why I would buy a single can of a drink I've never heard of from him for $3 when I can go downstairs and buy a 4-pack of Monster for $6, his only answer was the "convenience" of buying drinks from my roomate :rolleyes: .

He had four boxes of Quixtar crap, and they sat in our dorm room the whole year I lived with him, as I put up with him "pitching" to virtually every guest I had over. Even two years after we were roommates, he was e-mailing me about joining Quixtar, even though I had a year-long front-row seat to his desperate pleas for sales.

My mother has also fallen victim to a few of these "business oppurtunities." Frankly, it's very troubling and painful to me, as she recently suffered a foreclosure and had to move in to a small apartment, where she can barely afford her rent, yet she's always trying some as-seen-on-TV "business" which ends up costing much more than it provides.

I'm not saying it's impossible to make money on such systems. If my college roommate had been enterprising enough, I'm sure he could have found enough suckers for his pricey off-brand crap if he'd gone door to door off-campus (lots of elderly in the surrounding suburbs there), but the focus of his business certainly seemed to be evangelizing to me and anyone else unfortunate enough to hang out with me.

Eddie Dane

19th May 2009, 03:32 AM

icerat

19th May 2009, 04:46 AM

This is the distribution model? Buying my shampoo from some guy I happen to know? Sorry dude, I went to the supermarket on Monday.

I'd venture to suggest that unless his roommate learned a few things he won't have been too successful. One of the strengths of the model is it's low barriers to entry. One of the weaknesses is this means many peoples experiences are encounters with new, untrained, inexperienced reps.

Setting up your own webshop to sell this stuff? How many people would buy these products that way?

According to Internet retailer, Quixtar.com is the #1 health & beauty website in the US. According to Hitwise, the Amway Oz site is #2 in it's category there. Global sales are $8.2billion. So evidently quite a few buy stuff this way.

Sorry Icerat, the model seems geared to sell to resellers who sell to resellers who get stuck with it.

Care to explain how you "get stuck with it" when you don't order it until you want it (either for yourself or you have a customer order) and you can return anything for a full refund at no cost to yourself?

Eddie Dane

19th May 2009, 05:38 AM

Care to explain how you "get stuck with it" when you don't order it until you want it (either for yourself or you have a customer order) and you can return anything for a full refund at no cost to yourself?

If you can return the stock, or call it in when sold, I take that back.

But personally, I don't think I would be able to offload health and beauty products from my home.

And I say that as someone with a reasonably successful website that sells watches.

icerat

19th May 2009, 06:19 AM

But personally, I don't think I would be able to offload health and beauty products from my home.

That's not quite how it works. The products are generally better quality than the mass-market competition, but also higher priced. When compared with similar quality competition, they're generally more than competitive.

However, for someone to make a purchasing decision, they have to be educated on how the products are better and why they may be better value. This can be things like a cost-per-use comparison, increased efficacy, all sorts of things. It's the type of thing that can not easily be gotten across in high-speed mass-marketing. It's the ABOs job to explain (and show) a potential consumer why Amway's products are better. While this could be done in your home, it's usually much more effective in their home! While this requires a deal more work than simply having a website selling something, it does create loyal consumers. I moved countries a decade ago, yet 10 years later I still have folk buying things of my Amway site back home. I introduced them to the products way back then, they tried them, they liked them, they can't get them anywhere else, so they keep buying them from me (or rather my website) - and I get a percentage (well ... to be honest, my former wife gets most of it, but that's another story!)

And I say that as someone with a reasonably successful website that sells watches.

IMO consumables and watches are somewhat different markets. Our focus is really on developing resales, which doesn't apply so much with watches. Still, if you went out and about demonstrating your watches and showing people that they were better value compared to what they usually purchased, do you think you'd sell more?

fls

19th May 2009, 07:00 AM

if you don't think a decrease in pain is important, you clearly have rarely been in extreme chronic pain.

If you've had extreme chronic pain then you realize that what you wish for is relief from that pain - either resolution of that pain, or a meaningful reduction in that pain. What is not useful are reductions in pain that are too small to be meaningful, or that you are willing to report that the pain is decreased when asked but that the actual amount of pain is unchanged.

We've really gone quite off-topic here. My point really is that customer satisfaction is a valid indicator of the value of a product to the customer. If a customer feels they've gotten good value, then they haven't been scammed. Doesn't matter if it's homeopathy or ice cream in a round tub. The homeopathy product might only be water, and the ice cream might be the same as in the square tub, but if the consumer feels they got value for money, then there's no real problem - especially if the person selling the product also believes the consumer was getting value for money.

I agree that customer satisfaction is evidence that the customer is satisfied. But as you admitted earlier, that doesn't mean that the product is any good. When it comes to whether or not my floors are clean, I agree that satisfaction is a reasonable measure of whether my expectations were fulfilled. My point is that for some claims, satisfaction is not a measure of whether those expectations were fulfilled. Now whether or not the ice cream actually tastes better is a trivial concern. But when people take supplements, their expectations is that they will enjoy improved health. And in that case, their expectations won't be met if the product is not effective, yet it is relatively easy to persuade them to be satisfied (especially if you are also persuaded). But willful ignorance does not get you off the hook when it comes to issues of fraud and harm.

BTW, this excludes instances where, for example, someone displaces effective medical treatment with something that actually has no real effect, such as the recent case of the girl in australia who died from excema that her parents were treating homeopathically. Clearly they did not get the "value" they expected from it.

Yet, you will probably find that they are still satisfied with the product. And while the displacement was more dramatic in this case, the issue of displacement is only quantitatively different with your supplements. Any attention that is focused on measures that are ineffective are a loss of opportunity to focus attention on effective measures. People will forego effective measures because they mistakingly think they are using an equally effective substitute (how many times have we heard from people who take a multivitamin in order to continue to enjoy an unhealthy diet?). The supplement industry depends upon an atmosphere of distrust of medical practices. And by presenting non-evidence-based practices as though they were evidence-based, it misinforms people about what science and scientific evidence means.

But when you're talking about more subjective things like how you feel, or how clean you think your clothes are etc etc, consumer opinion is one of if not the most important factor.

I agree. I am not really concerned about whether people are being cheated out of clean clothes, but rather whether or not they are being cheated out of health.

Linda

Bob Klase

19th May 2009, 07:12 AM

Recruiting sales staff in a retail store doesn't reduce the volume of your business either, nevertheless you'll find their salaries or commissions in the "expense" column.

The volume in a retail store is based on people coming into the store. Hiring a salesman doesn't change then number of people coming in, so the sales you've been making by yourself are now split between two people.

Recruiting someone to start their own business with their own customers doesn't reduce inherently change the business you're already doing yourself.

Ok, I get the message, you clearly have no interest in actually discussing this in an adult manner.

Not when "an adult manner" seems to be a constant stream of invalid comparisons and Amway induced misinformation.

icerat

19th May 2009, 07:51 AM

The volume in a retail store is based on people coming into the store. Hiring a salesman doesn't change then number of people coming in, so the sales you've been making by yourself are now split between two people.

Clearly you've never been into an understaffed store were service was poor and you left. Traffic is one aspect contributing to the number of sales, yes. For some odd reason you seem to think that we don't work on that aspect? Of course we do.

In the other direction, imagine door-to-door sales (which is not what we do). Do you think a team of 20 people is going to make more sales than a team of 1?

Recruiting someone to start their own business with their own customers doesn't reduce inherently change the business you're already doing yourself.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. In our model, "recruiting someone ... with their own customers" is attracting a wholesale customer. We make less per-sale profit than we would with a retail customer, but they have their own incentives to increase their volume, which increases our volume.

Not when "an adult manner" seems to be a constant stream of invalid comparisons and Amway induced misinformation.

Care to actually point some out?

How about we keep it simple, a one line description.

We buy in bulk at a discount, then sell in smaller lots at a markup.

That's it, that's the business model.

firecoins

19th May 2009, 07:58 AM

My brother just achieved platnium level with Amway/quixtar. He is making money albeit I don't know how much. It took him 5 years. 1 person under him is on par to do it in 11months.

Many people who he signed up quit without ever having made a dime.

Bob Klase

19th May 2009, 08:03 AM

Clearly you've never been into an understaffed store were service was poor and you left.

Yes, clearly that's never happened to me.

In the other direction, imagine door-to-door sales (which is not what we do). Do you think a team of 20 people is going to make more sales than a team of 1?

Imagine a retail store which gets 100 customers per day (which is also not what you do- but you keep wanting to compare yourself with things which are not what you do). Do you think hiring a team of 20 sales clerks is going to increase the sales? That's one of the points you keep missing- recruiting dealers for Amway is not the same as hiring sales clerks in a retail store.

Care to actually point some out?

Not really. I have no interest in repeating other peoples posts (and points) that you've already ignored.

We buy in bulk at a discount, then sell in smaller lots at a markup.

That's it, that's the business model.

That may be 'your' business model. It's certainly not the typical Amway business model. If it was then there were be significantly fewer people who had problems with Amway.

icerat

19th May 2009, 08:16 AM

What is not useful are reductions in pain that are too small to be meaningful, or that you are willing to report that the pain is decreased when asked but that the actual amount of pain is unchanged.

Been a while since I looked at the data, but I'm fairly certain placebo has been involved in meaningful reductions in self-reported pain.

I agree that customer satisfaction is evidence that the customer is satisfied. But as you admitted earlier, that doesn't mean that the product is any good.

It's by no means proof, but it is evidence.

My point is that for some claims, satisfaction is not a measure of whether those expectations were fulfilled. Now whether or not the ice cream actually tastes better is a trivial concern. But when people take supplements, their expectations is that they will enjoy improved health.

Ok, but then we have to define what we mean by "health". For many people, a substantial part of that is a subjective asessment of feeling better. For example, I feel I think more clearly and are more productive when I'm regularly taking omega-3 supplements. I feel I have more energy when I regularly take the Double X supplement, and absolutely find it easier to get out of bed in the morning. I also get far few incidences of colds and flu-like symptoms, and far fewer recurrences of cold sores.

And perhaps more importantly - if I stop taking the supplements, the "effects" go away.

All placebo? Possibly. All anecdotal? Absolutely. Proof of effectiveness? Absolutely not. But just as clearly it's "evidence" than expectations have been met and the product is effective.

And in that case, their expectations won't be met if the product is not effective, yet it is relatively easy to persuade them to be satisfied (especially if you are also persuaded). But willful ignorance does not get you off the hook when it comes to issues of fraud and harm.

That's taking us into a different arena, particularly harm. With regards supplements, my personal experience is that they work for me. My reading of research in the field gives me a reasonable expectation that they should work, including mechanisms of why they should work.

Yet, you will probably find that they are still satisfied with the product. And while the displacement was more dramatic in this case, the issue of displacement is only quantitatively different with your supplements.

Excuse me? Are you seriously claiming that 2 parents with a dead daughter treated by homeopathic products are "probably .... satisfied with the product"? They may still defend the field, but I seriously doubt they're "satisfied with the product".

Any attention that is focused on measures that are ineffective are a loss of opportunity to focus attention on effective measures.

Please, people are capable of considering more than one option at a time.

People will forego effective measures because they mistakingly think they are using an equally effective substitute (how many times have we heard from people who take a multivitamin in order to continue to enjoy an unhealthy diet?).

How many times have we heard from people who claim that taking a multivitamin is an equally effective substititue for a healthy diet?

Let me count .... hmmm .... zero.

The supplement industry depends upon an atmosphere of distrust of medical practices.

No, it doesn't depend on "distrust of medical practices" at all. Some folk may use that as a marketing device, but it's certainly not necessary.

And by presenting non-evidence-based practices as though they were evidence-based, it misinforms people about what science and scientific evidence means.

I'd suggest you're limiting what constitutes "evidence". Large numbers of people reporting a products efficacy is evidence. No, it's not double-blind placebo gold standard evidence, and it may even be wrong, but it's nevertheless evidence. Quality studies showing that say, lower homocysteine levels is linked to decreased risk of heart attacks, combined with quality studies showing that taking some nutrient lowers homocysteine levels - that's evidence. It's not as good as full clinical outcome studies, but nevertheless it's still evidence.

When you have quality research indicating a plausible mechanism, plus quality research supporting various stages of the mechanism, plus sensible logical commerical and political reasons why full clinical outcomes studies would not be published .... well, it's a bit harsh to claim something is invalid because of the lack of clinical outcome studies.

I agree. I am not really concerned about whether people are being cheated out of clean clothes, but rather whether or not they are being cheated out of health.

Fair enough, but I'd suggest "Health" is not something easily measured objectively, which appears to be what you want. Indeed I'd suggest it's inherently subjective. You may be able to measure some aspects, such as mortality rates, or incidence of cancer or days of work or whatever, but there's far more to health than that.

Having said that, there's a bucket load of studies I'd like to do. Care to provide funding? :D

icerat

19th May 2009, 08:28 AM

Imagine a retail store which gets 100 customers per day (which is also not what you do- but you keep wanting to compare yourself with things which are not what you do). Do you think hiring a team of 20 sales clerks is going to increase the sales? That's one of the points you keep missing- recruiting dealers for Amway is not the same as hiring sales clerks in a retail store.

Sigh ... I never said it was. I said both were "expenses". Buying TV advertising is also a business expense, that doesn't mean buying TV advertising and hiring staff is the same thing.

Still, I'm pretty astounded you think folk hire sales staff with no expectation of an increase in sales .... wouldn't that drastically hurt profitability?

That may be 'your' business model. It's certainly not the typical Amway business model. If it was then there were be significantly fewer people who had problems with Amway.

That is the Amway business model. That's all it is. Now if you want to talk about the way some people try to market the Amway business model, then it's a different story. A lot of folk do stupid things. Things that either don't work or work but damage reputation. Indeed, most of the stories you read on the 'net involve people actively breaking Amway rules! They're not running an Amway business at all, they're doing something altogether different. Indeed a couple of years ago Amway in the US kicked out a group of leaders, who subsequently took something like 30,000 ABOs with them. In my opinion the way they were operating their Amway businesses was indeed an illegal pyramid. That's a lot of people, but it's still a tiny percentage of the Amway world, and what they were doing was not an Amway business. In an interview published today (http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2009/05/at_83_amway_cofounder_richard.html), Rich DeVos, one of the founders of Amway had the following to say -

Q: Looking back on on some of the major events in the company's history, what would you do differently now?

A: I would maintain better control on the business. I would have better and clearer rules. I'd have more police and enforcement-type things. We believed so much that people would do these things in the right way because they were right.

But the normal greed of all of us and a lot of these people just overcame them. They wanted to make more money now.

Criticising Amway for not properly monitoring the field and cracking down on the folk not following the rules is IMO perfectly justified. It doesn't make the model a bad model though.

Almo

19th May 2009, 11:28 AM

To icerat's statement of "how can they be in business if the products aren't good?"

Not relevant. Cite homeopathy as an example.

Linda

Bob's response to a poor analogy:

That's one of the points you keep missing- recruiting dealers for Amway is not the same as hiring sales clerks in a retail store.

icerat defends placebo:

Been a while since I looked at the data, but I'm fairly certain placebo has been involved in meaningful reductions in self-reported pain.

icerat rejects the "homeopathy is bad because it reduces the likelyhood people will get proper treatment" argument:

Please, people are capable of considering more than one option at a time.

More failures from the Amway side of the ring. And still all we get from him about his situation is "trust me I do well in Amway."

These long arguments just look like a form of recruiting. They are the manufacture of the illusion of success (mentioned by an earlier poster) necessary to keep such a venture going.

fls

19th May 2009, 11:31 AM

Been a while since I looked at the data, but I'm fairly certain placebo has been involved in meaningful reductions in self-reported pain.

Clinically significant reductions in pain (i.e. pain is "a little less") correspond to changes of 10 to 14 mm on a Visual Analog Scale. (http://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644(96)70238-X/abstract) The effect of placebo (vs. no treatment) corresponds to a reduction of 6.5 mm (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/344/21/1594)

It's by no means proof, but it is evidence.

I use the definition in my sig - evidence is anything that tends to make a proposition more or less true. Since customer satisfaction can as easily be present when there is no effect as when there is, its presence does not serve to make the proposition any more or less true.

Ok, but then we have to define what we mean by "health". For many people, a substantial part of that is a subjective asessment of feeling better. For example, I feel I think more clearly and are more productive when I'm regularly taking omega-3 supplements. I feel I have more energy when I regularly take the Double X supplement, and absolutely find it easier to get out of bed in the morning. I also get far few incidences of colds and flu-like symptoms, and far fewer recurrences of cold sores.

And perhaps more importantly - if I stop taking the supplements, the "effects" go away.

All placebo? Possibly. All anecdotal? Absolutely. Proof of effectiveness? Absolutely not. But just as clearly it's "evidence" than expectations have been met and the product is effective.

Except that the research indicates that while you feel that all these wonderful things happen to you as a result of taking these supplements, the same things would happen to you if you weren't taking supplements. Also, it requires a trivial interpretation of health such that death, disability, disease and discomfort have a minimal role in our state of health.

Excuse me? Are you seriously claiming that 2 parents with a dead daughter treated by homeopathic products are "probably .... satisfied with the product"? They may still defend the field, but I seriously doubt they're "satisfied with the product".

It seems crazy to me as well. Yet research shows that when faced with the failure of their beliefs, the greater the sacrifice made for that belief, the stronger that belief becomes after failure.

Please, people are capable of considering more than one option at a time.

Of course they are. I am speaking of opportunity costs.

How many times have we heard from people who claim that taking a multivitamin is an equally effective substititue for a healthy diet?

Let me count .... hmmm .... zero.

You need to get out more. :)

There is an example here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4712056#post4712056).

No, it doesn't depend on "distrust of medical practices" at all. Some folk may use that as a marketing device, but it's certainly not necessary.

This is almost (I don't actually know of any examples to the contrary) ubiquitous among supplement providers.

I'd suggest you're limiting what constitutes "evidence". Large numbers of people reporting a products efficacy is evidence. No, it's not double-blind placebo gold standard evidence, and it may even be wrong, but it's nevertheless evidence. Quality studies showing that say, lower homocysteine levels is linked to decreased risk of heart attacks, combined with quality studies showing that taking some nutrient lowers homocysteine levels - that's evidence. It's not as good as full clinical outcome studies, but nevertheless it's still evidence.

I'm simply looking at whether or not something is more likely to be true than not. The sorts of information that you refer to doesn't get you there. Not even for homocysteine, which at least has a few links established.

When you have quality research indicating a plausible mechanism, plus quality research supporting various stages of the mechanism, plus sensible logical commerical and political reasons why full clinical outcomes studies would not be published .... well, it's a bit harsh to claim something is invalid because of the lack of clinical outcome studies.

Except that under those circumstances we already know that with additional testing, most of these claims are subsequently found to be invalid. To stop at a point where far more claims are likely to be false than true, and suggest that we should act on those claims anyway, does not seem prudent.

Fair enough, but I'd suggest "Health" is not something easily measured objectively, which appears to be what you want. Indeed I'd suggest it's inherently subjective. You may be able to measure some aspects, such as mortality rates, or incidence of cancer or days of work or whatever, but there's far more to health than that.

Yes, there is more to health to that. However, "health" and "health outcomes" is my main area of research, and I can assure you that "I feel like I am better without actually being better in any way" does not form the bulk of what anyone means when talking about health.

Having said that, there's a bucket load of studies I'd like to do. Care to provide funding? :D

I am not persuaded that the results will be useful.

Linda

icerat

19th May 2009, 11:41 AM

icerat defends placebo

So do you believe "placebo effect" means "no effect"? If so I think you need to do a little remedial reading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo).

icerat rejects the "homeopathy is bad because it reduces the likelyhood people will get proper treatment" argument:

It was a generic argument, not one just about homeopathy. I'd be interested in your evidence that people who take supplements are less likely to seek medical advice when it would appear necessary, which is what I was querying. Might be true, I don't know, but I suspect it's unlikely. You seem to know, so show me the data. Heck, lets start with the data showing it's the case with Homeopathy.

More failures from the Amway side of the ring. And still all we get from him about his situation is "trust me I do well in Amway."

So you support Newton Trino's apparent position that an argument's validity rests primarily on the personal experience of the debaters involved?

At least we know how you think. Me, I prefer to stick with facts and logic.

These long arguments just look like a form of recruiting. They are the manufacture of the illusion of success (mentioned by an earlier poster) necessary to keep such a venture going.

ROFL! This response is always funny, and alas all too common .... any discussion that supports Amway or Network Marketing can be summarily dismissed as recruitment marketing, with no necessity to actually evaluate it on it's merits.

Dear oh dear.

Bob Klase

19th May 2009, 11:55 AM

Sigh ... I never said it was. I said both were "expenses". Buying TV advertising is also a business expense, that doesn't mean buying TV advertising and hiring staff is the same thing.

Still, I'm pretty astounded you think folk hire sales staff with no expectation of an increase in sales .... wouldn't that drastically hurt profitability?

Check with a few businesses. You're confusing cause with effect. It's not uncommon for folks hire sales staff to handle increases (or expected increases) in sales. Many businesses hire extra help between Thanksgiving and Christmas- they don't do it because the extra salespeople increase the business, they hire because the existing salespeople can't handle the expected business.

Your claim that recruiting Amway dealers is an expense the same way that Walmart hiring a new cashier is an expense is false.

That is the Amway business model. That's all it is.

That may be the 'official' Amway business model. It's the typical model for most 'independent' Amway business owners.

Criticising Amway for not properly monitoring the field and cracking down on the folk not following the rules is IMO perfectly justified. It doesn't make the model a bad model though.

It makes it an irrelevant model if it's widely ignored. And that's been the case for the majority of Amway's history since at least the 1970's.

icerat

19th May 2009, 12:31 PM

I use the definition in my sig - evidence is anything that tends to make a proposition more or less true. Since customer satisfaction can as easily be present when there is no effect as when there is, its presence does not serve to make the proposition any more or less true.

Tough standard. It excludes virtually everything - even quality clinical studies have a margin of error meaning an effect may appear present when there is no effect.

Except that the research indicates that while you feel that all these wonderful things happen to you as a result of taking these supplements, the same things would happen to you if you weren't taking supplements.

Hang on, I thought we'd established the studies haven't been done, yet now you're claiming they have been done? Care to share them? Remember, we're talking about the type of supplements I use, based on high nutrient plant concentrates.

Also, it requires a trivial interpretation of health such that death, disability, disease and discomfort have a minimal role in our state of health.

Ummm ... no. At no stage did I suggest they were not also components. Indeed, discomfort would quite clearly fall under the subjective areas I did mention.

It seems crazy to me as well. Yet research shows that when faced with the failure of their beliefs, the greater the sacrifice made for that belief, the stronger that belief becomes after failure.

Even if true in this case, it still doesn't follow that they'd be satisfied with the products efficacy.

You need to get out more. :)

There is an example here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4712056#post4712056).

Nowhere does he even imply he's taking supplements as a full replacement for a healthy diet. He seems to be using them as ... a supplement.

This is almost (I don't actually know of any examples to the contrary) ubiquitous among supplement providers.

Here is the website of the world's largest nutritional supplement company -

www.nutrilite.com (http://www.nutrilite.com)

Please provide me with a single example of that company exhibiting "distrust of the medical profession".

I'm simply looking at whether or not something is more likely to be true than not. The sorts of information that you refer to doesn't get you there. Not even for homocysteine, which at least has a few links established.

I know you're going to want supporting research, and I have it for each point, but I apologise in advance I don't have the time to dig them all out, here is the way I look at it.

1. The majority of people do not eat a recommended healthy diet
2. In many cases even the recommended healthy diet may provide nutrition for the avoidance of deficiency in most people, but not the negative effects of nutrient depletion.
3. A significant amount of research indicates larges numbers of people are deficient in one or more nutrients
4. Evolutionary processes combined with modern farming practices would predict that for some nutrients (particularly vitamins), the nutritional content of food would decrease over time
5. Other modern farming practices would predict that for some nutrients (particularly some minerals), the nutritional content of food would decrease over time.
6. Knowledge of human purchasing behaviour would further support 4 and 5 occurring.
7. An increasingly large body of material indicates that the overall nutritional content of food is indeed decreasing due to modern farming practices.

So ... I'm fairly convinced that the majority of people do not eat properly, and even if they did, for any given caloric intake it's harder today to get full nutritional needs than it was in the past.

(note: that's not to idolise the past, there were other issues then, including potential lack of variety)

8. A significant body of research nevertheless indicates that a diet high in fruit and vegetables leads to positive health outcomes.
9. Some research indicates that caloric needs are lower today than in the past due to lower activity levels (though an interesting recent study disputes this), meaning that, particularly combined with the above, people may need to consume excessive calories in order to receive sufficient micronutrients.

Ideal solution - grow food in such a way as to maximise nutrient content, eat healthy, and be active.

Reality - this doesn't happen and is difficult to achieve.

So you have perfectly logical, sensible reasons to believe that people may be suffering from the effects of inadequate nutrition, and you have plenty of research to indicate this is in fact the case.

One potential solution - nutrient supplementation, something even the AMA started suggesting back in 2002 (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/287/23/3127)

All of this makes perfect logical sense and is backed up by significant amounts of research in each area.

So then the question arises as to whether supplementation can help improve suboptimal nutrient status or not, and there's plenty of evidence it can.

Once your past that leap it's a matter of considering what form of supplementation would be most effective. Research indicates that in many cases plant-based nutrients are most effective. Furthermore, obtaining nutrients from existing food sources may mitigate against missing out on as yet unidentified phytonutrients. Indeed, research on some of Nutrilite's early plant concentrates show they contained significant levels of Vitamin E before it's importance had even been established or the current synthetic forms developed.

It seems to make perfect sense to me that high nutritional status plants converted into tablet form (with monitoring along the way) are a possible effective root to improving micronutrient status, and research shows it does indeed do this.

What's more, taken altogether you would predict that the health outcomes would be exactly what I experienced - fewer incidences of ill health and an increased sense of well-being.

Why you have such a problem with this I frankly don't really understand.

Yes, there is more to health to that. However, "health" and "health outcomes" is my main area of research, and I can assure you that "I feel like I am better without actually being better in any way" does not form the bulk of what anyone means when talking about health.

By contrast, I spent a decade in public health research and people's perceived health outcomes was most certainly an aspect of our research. To say that whether people feel healthy or not is irrelevant is to my mind incredibly , well, arrogant.

I am not persuaded that the results will be useful.

Right. Many people have suboptimal nutrient status. Suboptimal nutrient status has been shown to lead to poor health outcomes. Studies show nutrient status can be improved through supplementation.

But you don't think it's even think it's worth looking at whether supplementation can lead to improved health outcomes?

Oh dear.

icerat

19th May 2009, 12:39 PM

Check with a few businesses.

Ok I'll check ... hmm, lets ask me, I've owned 6 businesses, not counting my Amway businesses.

You're confusing cause with effect. It's not uncommon for folks hire sales staff to handle increases (or expected increases) in sales. Many businesses hire extra help between Thanksgiving and Christmas- they don't do it because the extra salespeople increase the business, they hire because the existing salespeople can't handle the expected business.

Yup, that too. But you seem to be confusing salespeople with cashiers.

Your claim that recruiting Amway dealers is an expense the same way that Walmart hiring a new cashier is an expense is false.

Oh, there you go doing it explictly! Cashiers!

Is that what salespeople do? Sit around waiting until a customer comes to them to give them money? Um, no bob. They're supposed to sell.

still , yeah, is what a lot do I guess .... :rolleyes: ... nevertheless, not what I'm talking about. Furthermore you are completely misrepresenting my position. I did not say it was

That may be the 'official' Amway business model. It's the typical model for most 'independent' Amway business owners.

Got any data to back that up?

It makes it an irrelevant model if it's widely ignored. And that's been the case for the majority of Amway's history since at least the 1970's.

Got any data to back that up?

Bob Klase

19th May 2009, 01:49 PM

Check with a few businesses.

Ok I'll check ... hmm, lets ask me, I've owned 6 businesses, not counting my Amway businesses.

I suggest you find a more credible source.

Yup, that too. But you seem to be confusing salespeople with cashiers.

Replace the word cashier with salesperson. The point is just as valid.

Is that what salespeople do? Sit around waiting until a customer comes to them to give them money? Um, no bob. They're supposed to sell.

So businesses don't have sales people that remain on site and only deal with whoever come in? Don't bother answering- we both know the correct answer so there's no reason for you to waste time with anther sidetrack.

If you want do want to take that road, then show me how hiring a sales person who is paid strictly by commission is going lost money for the person hiring them.

still , yeah, is what a lot do I guess .... :rolleyes: ... nevertheless, not what I'm talking about. Furthermore you are completely misrepresenting my position. I did not say it was

Then you've been misrepresenting your own position. Your basic answer to the original question asking how recruiting people lost or cost you money has been a constant stream of comparisons which you now claim are a misrepresentation of your position.

Got any data to back that up?

Certainly data that's at least as good as the data you've produced showing that you really do as well as you claim with Amway.

Got any data to back that up?

See previous sentence. Add to that "better than the data you've produced showing that it costs you money to recruit someone into Amway.

icerat

19th May 2009, 01:58 PM

If you want do want to take that road, then show me how hiring a sales person who is paid strictly by commission is going lost money for the person hiring them.

You appear not to understand the difference between a "loss" and a "cost". I never said loss.

Then you've been misrepresenting your own position. Your basic answer to the original question asking how recruiting people lost or cost you money has been a constant stream of comparisons which you now claim are a misrepresentation of your position.

Expand your thinking Bob. An expense can actually make you money!

Certainly data that's at least as good as the data you've produced showing that you really do as well as you claim with Amway.

I've barely said anything about my business.

See previous sentence. Add to that "better than the data you've produced showing that it costs you money to recruit someone into Amway.

I recruit someone in to Amway. They make a sale. I pay them a commission. Does that commission go in the expense column or the income column, Bob? If it's too hard for you, ask an accountant.

icerat

19th May 2009, 01:59 PM

Your turn, provide some data to back up your claims.

Bob Klase

19th May 2009, 03:07 PM

You appear not to understand the difference between a "loss" and a "cost". I never said loss.

What you actually did say was:

For any given sales volume, recruiting people in Amway will cost you money, not make you money.

If they don't make you money then you don't pay a commission, therefore there is no cost (real or accounting). Focusing only on the cost or commissions (and that's the only cost you have, so it's the only cost you can focus on) ignores the fact that there is no cost until they do make you money.

The original claim you made (cost you money, not make you money) remains false. There are two exceptions. One is the gas and other expenses you directly spend to recruit them (I admitted in an earlier post that those would be actual costs, so they're no longer pertinent).

The second is if your given sales volume remains the same under some circumstances- I also addressed that earlier- it only applies if you have a given volume before recruiting them and after recruiting them you allow them to sell some of your volume (to your customers) while you do nothing. And if they do nothing and you continue to sell the given volume yourself that still cost you nothing (that alone makes your initial claim false).

Expand your thinking Bob. An expense can actually make you money!

We're talking about Amway. There is no expense caused by recruiting someone until there is income. The expense is less than the income; there is no real 'cost'. The expense only reduces the amount of that money that you actually keep, but the amount of money you're left with always be higher than not paying the 'cost' and also not getting the income.

Where the numbers go on the accounting sheet has no bearing. The bottom line is all we're talking about. We're talking about whether money comes out of your pocket leaving you with less money than you'd have if you had not recruited someone.

I've barely said anything about my business.

Then it shouldn't take much to support what you have said.

I recruit someone in to Amway. They make a sale. I pay them a commission. Does that commission go in the expense column or the income column, Bob? If it's too hard for you, ask an accountant.

Accounting tactics are again irrelevant. You left out an important step. You recruit someone into Amway. They make a sale. They give you money made from the sale. Then you pay them a commission. At the same time you put the commission in the expense column (or sooner), you put income into the income column.

If the amount entered in the expense column is less than the amount entered in the income column then it has not cost you money.

Ask an accountant how to read the bottom line to see if you have more money or less money when you balance the commission against the additional income that caused the commission.

icerat

19th May 2009, 03:35 PM

The original claim you made (cost you money, not make you money) remains false. There are two exceptions. One is the gas and other expenses you directly spend to recruit them (I admitted in an earlier post that those would be actual costs, so they're no longer pertinent).

Yes, there are costs involved in recruiting, but that's irrelevant to my point. A cost=an expense

We're talking about Amway. There is no expense caused by recruiting someone until there is income. The expense is less than the income; there is no real 'cost'.

Just because income may exceed expenses doesn't mean the expenses did not occur.

Where the numbers go on the accounting sheet has no bearing. The bottom line is all we're talking about. We're talking about whether money comes out of your pocket leaving you with less money than you'd have if you had not recruited someone.

Where the numbers fo on the accounting sheet has no bearing? Tell that to the auditor.

Commissions are a cost, whether they helped create a profit or not doesn't change that fact.

If the amount entered in the expense column is less than the amount entered in the income column then it has not cost you money.

Sorry, it's still a cost, it's just outweighed by the benefits (income)

Ask an accountant how to read the bottom line to see if you have more money or less money when you balance the commission against the additional income that caused the commission.

How about you ask an accountant if "the bottom line" is a measure of your costs or not.

Bob, I admit I worded the earlier statement poorly. The key is "for any given sales volume". You're assuming increased sales volume, in which case recruiting someone still increases costs, but doesn't overall "cost you money".

Which takes us back to the earlier analogy. Employing staff (whether sales or marketing or whatever), is a cost - it costs you money - however it's expected that through increased sales or efficiency or whatever it will increase your overall profitability, making you money.

That's the point. Rather than arguing semantics how about we discuss it instead?

Do or do not traditional businesses recruit people in the hope that it increases overall income and thus profitability?

NewtonTrino

19th May 2009, 03:58 PM

Icerat,

HOW MUCH MONEY DO YOU MAKE FROM THIS BUSINESS? I dare you to PROVE that you've ever made a yearly profit.

icerat

19th May 2009, 04:34 PM

HOW MUCH MONEY DO YOU MAKE FROM THIS BUSINESS? I dare you to PROVE that you've ever made a yearly profit.

yeah yeah, so double dare me. So do you believe nobody in Amway has ever made a yearly profit?

Psiload

19th May 2009, 04:54 PM

yeah yeah, so double dare me. So do you believe nobody in Amway has ever made a yearly profit?

I knew a Pearl who claimed just under $40,000/year profit from his Amway business. He was eagerly awaiting making Emerald because he said his income would probably quadruple when he did. He readily admitted that his profit would jump that significantly because he would then be entitled to a much larger percentage of the tools and seminars money. He was a shameless defender of the tools and seminars racket. He was so steeped in the Kool Aid that he believed they were, "..vital components necesssary to building every successful Amway business!" I'd agree with him there, but in a much different way than he meant it.

He was envisioning the day when his only job would be, "...walking to the mailbox to get my Amway checks." Yeah... that and travelling to seminars to get your even bigger Amway checks. :rolleyes:

fls

19th May 2009, 05:08 PM

Tough standard. It excludes virtually everything - even quality clinical studies have a margin of error meaning an effect may appear present when there is no effect.

It is the standard used for evidence-based medicine. Quality clinical studies mean that it is far more likely that significant results represent a real effect than a false positive effect based on the margin of error.

Hang on, I thought we'd established the studies haven't been done, yet now you're claiming they have been done? Care to share them? Remember, we're talking about the type of supplements I use, based on high nutrient plant concentrates.

Read and understand the paper I cited earlier. The number of possible false relationships far exceeds the number of true relationships, so that any relationship that is proposed in the absence of evidence is far more likely to be false than true. Evidence begins to gradually eliminate false positives, but you don't get to even odds until you are talking about moving from efficacy to effectiveness studies. Without efficacy studies, you are still more likely to be wrong than right.

That leaves us with 'placebo effect' (which you mentioned) as the cause of your increased feeling that you are better off. Yet placebos, when compared to no treatment, have a very limited effect, at best, and don't include the list of things that you attributed to the taking of your supplement. Putting all this together means that the most likely outcome is that all those same things would happen to you regardless of whether you took the supplement, but the use of the supplement biases your recollection and attribution.

Ummm ... no. At no stage did I suggest they were not also components. Indeed, discomfort would quite clearly fall under the subjective areas I did mention.

Except that the subjective areas you mentioned excluded a meaningful reduction in discomfort. Which means that none of the things you mentioned correspond to any but the most trivial of health related outcomes.

Even if true in this case, it still doesn't follow that they'd be satisfied with the products efficacy.

I wish that were true.

Nowhere does he even imply he's taking supplements as a full replacement for a healthy diet. He seems to be using them as ... a supplement.

I agree. I think he admits (as would others) that it's probably not the same, but I see this as a very frequent excuse. And there any many times that the claim is made that that it can be considered equivalent to substitute the food with one or two components of the food. You do it yourself further down this post.

Here is the website of the world's largest nutritional supplement company -

www.nutrilite.com (http://www.nutrilite.com)

Please provide me with a single example of that company exhibiting "distrust of the medical profession".

It looks like you've provided me with a single exception, so that what I said earlier is correct. :)

I know you're going to want supporting research, and I have it for each point, but I apologise in advance I don't have the time to dig them all out, here is the way I look at it.

[QUOTE]1. The majority of people do not eat a recommended healthy diet

Evidence.

2. In many cases even the recommended healthy diet may provide nutrition for the avoidance of deficiency in most people, but not the negative effects of nutrient depletion.

Evidence

3. A significant amount of research indicates larges numbers of people are deficient in one or more nutrients

This all depends upon what is meant by "large".

4. Evolutionary processes combined with modern farming practices would predict that for some nutrients (particularly vitamins), the nutritional content of food would decrease over time

No it wouldn't. One could equally predict that the nutritional content of food would increase based on those reasons.

5. Other modern farming practices would predict that for some nutrients (particularly some minerals), the nutritional content of food would decrease over time.

Same as above.

6. Knowledge of human purchasing behaviour would further support 4 and 5 occurring.

No it wouldn't. Otherwise Nutrilite wouldn't be able to claim large numbers of sales.

7. An increasingly large body of material indicates that the overall nutritional content of food is indeed decreasing due to modern farming practices.

Research also shows otherwise.

So ... I'm fairly convinced that the majority of people do not eat properly, and even if they did, for any given caloric intake it's harder today to get full nutritional needs than it was in the past.

But that is not an evidence-based opinion. It is easy to fulfill your full nutritional needs within a reasonable calorie intake. In fact, your harping on calorie intake is misplaced, as nutrient poor foods tend to be higher calories than nutrient rich foods.

(note: that's not to idolise the past, there were other issues then, including potential lack of variety)

8. A significant body of research nevertheless indicates that a diet high in fruit and vegetables leads to positive health outcomes.

I agree.

9. Some research indicates that caloric needs are lower today than in the past due to lower activity levels (though an interesting recent study disputes this), meaning that, particularly combined with the above, people may need to consume excessive calories in order to receive sufficient micronutrients.

Caloric needs remain tied to activity. Nutrient rich foods tend to be lower calorie than nutrient poor foods.

Ideal solution - grow food in such a way as to maximise nutrient content, eat healthy, and be active.

I agree.

Reality - this doesn't happen and is difficult to achieve.

Directing resources at making it easy to achieve would be a useful use of resources.

So you have perfectly logical, sensible reasons to believe that people may be suffering from the effects of inadequate nutrition, and you have plenty of research to indicate this is in fact the case.

You will need to provide evidence.

One potential solution - nutrient supplementation, something even the AMA started suggesting back in 2002 (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/287/23/3127)

That is not "the AMA". It is simply an opinion piece. And this recommendation does not follow from your points above. If your points were true, then the obvious recommendations would be to change farming practices, make it easy for people to eat more fruits and vegetables, and make it easier for people to participate in regular physical activity. Not to do something else - something that is not backed by real-world research as to efficacy/effectiveness.

All of this makes perfect logical sense and is backed up by significant amounts of research in each area.

So then the question arises as to whether supplementation can help improve suboptimal nutrient status or not, and there's plenty of evidence it can.

Once your past that leap it's a matter of considering what form of supplementation would be most effective. Research indicates that in many cases plant-based nutrients are most effective. Furthermore, obtaining nutrients from existing food sources may mitigate against missing out on as yet unidentified phytonutrients. Indeed, research on some of Nutrilite's early plant concentrates show they contained significant levels of Vitamin E before it's importance had even been established or the current synthetic forms developed.

It seems to make perfect sense to me that high nutritional status plants converted into tablet form (with monitoring along the way) are a possible effective root to improving micronutrient status, and research shows it does indeed do this.

What's more, taken altogether you would predict that the health outcomes would be exactly what I experienced - fewer incidences of ill health and an increased sense of well-being.

Why you have such a problem with this I frankly don't really understand.

Because you are foregoing evidence-based practices - actual real evidence of the effects of a balanced diet and regular activity - and putting your resources into practices without evidence. You don't really know whether taking a few components of a food serves as an equivalent substitute for that food. It doesn't make sense that it would, since, as you have pointed out numerous times, it's much more complicated than that.

I will address the rest later.

Linda

icerat

19th May 2009, 05:09 PM

I knew a Pearl who claimed just under $40,000/year profit from his Amway business. He was eagerly awaiting making Emerald because he said his income would probably quadruple when he did. He readily admitted that his profit would jump that significantly because he would then be entitled to a much larger percentage of the tools and seminars money.

Just to note, the "tool" money comes from 3rd party "system" companies, not Amway. Some of those companies in the past would indeed base your percentages on the level you'd ever reached in the Amway business - and that percentage was maintained even if your Amway business later declined in size and you no longer had that Amway qualification.

This is a corruption of the basic economic idea that discount percentages are based on volume. In other "system" companies your "tool" income may actually decrease going from Pearl to Emerald, as it's likely numerous members of your downline organisation have now qualified for tool volume rebates, cutting in to your profit margin. It would only increase proportionate to the increase in tool volume. Not so with this group.

It's notable that every single lawsuit related to Amway "tools" and virtually every online complaint related to "tool profits" involve folk involved with the same "system" company or one of it's offshoots - a group that has never represented a majority of the Amway business (despite the claims of some of that groups members). I'm not a gambling man, but if I was I'd bet your friend was involved with that group or one of it's offshoots. (actually, in excess of 95% of all of first-hand online complaints about Amway of any variety originate with folk who have had experiences with this group)

Amway has since linked numerous of their bonuses and rewards to operating with "accredited" training companies. Part of the accreditation requirements include cleaning up the way in profit sharing is done. There's still some issues, but it's much improved.

icerat

19th May 2009, 05:35 PM

Putting all this together means that the most likely outcome is that all those same things would happen to you regardless of whether you took the supplement, but the use of the supplement biases your recollection and attribution.

Nope, at one stage I kept track of things like cold sores. There's always other possibilities, such as that I forget to take supplements when I'm more stressed, and increased stress triggers cold sore outbreaks.

That the effect is NOT placebo is still a possible explanation.

It looks like you've provided me with a single exception, so that what I said earlier is correct. :)

And that exception is the largest supplement company in the world - yet you missed it!

Re evidence, as I said, no time, though I'm curious if you're disputing the statements or just wanting the evidence? The data on poor eating habits is pretty significant and well known.

No it wouldn't. One could equally predict that the nutritional content of food would increase based on those reasons.

Which is why I said "some", as that is indeed the case. You would for example predict higher mineral content for the minerals used in fertilizer. You might also predict higher beta-carotene content in carrots, since people like to buy orange carrots, giving producers economic incentives to make them oranger - having the side effect of increasing beta-carotene content. And in fact, both of these findings have been made.

You might also predict that plants produced in soil that is not replenished with minerals would show progressively fewer mineral content. This of course happens. You might also predict that substances a plant needed to protect itself in the wild, but no longer needed in a protected environment such as in many modern farms, you might predict the substances would be bred out. This too has also been discovered to be the case.

No it wouldn't. Otherwise Nutrilite wouldn't be able to claim large numbers of sales.

I'm not sure of your point here?

Research also shows otherwise.

evidence?

But that is not an evidence-based opinion. It is easy to fulfill your full nutritional needs within a reasonable calorie intake. In fact, your harping on calorie intake is misplaced, as nutrient poor foods tend to be higher calories than nutrient rich foods.

No, I mustn't have explained well - that is in fact part of the problem. I disagree that it's "easy" - if it was, why do so few people do so?

Directing resources at making it easy to achieve would be a useful use of resources.

I do that as well :) So does Nutrilite for that matter.

That is not "the AMA". It is simply an opinion piece.

It was a little stronger than "an opinion piece". I may have pushed the association, nevertheless significant. It also includes references supporting some of my earlier claims re eating habits you were after.

And this recommendation does not follow from your points above. If your points were true, then the obvious recommendations would be to change farming practices,

Oh, I recommend that too. But I'd suggest it's easier for me to take a few decent supplements than get multinationals to dramatically change their practices! In the meantime, please do support farmers who produce quality food - if enough do it then the economics do change!

make it easy for people to eat more fruits and vegetables, and make it easier for people to participate in regular physical activity. Not to do something else - something that is not backed by real-world research as to efficacy/effectiveness.

I disagree with the latter assertion, though agree their are weaknesses. What I also disagree with is the idea this is an "either/or" situation.

Because you are foregoing evidence-based practices - actual real evidence of the effects of a balanced diet and regular activity - and putting your resources into practices without evidence.

This is not an accurate representation of my position at all.

You don't really know whether taking a few components of a food serves as an equivalent substitute for that food.

(1) I never claimed it did, indeed to the contrary, its' a supplement not a substitute
(2) it's more than "a few components". It's the fiber and water that's removed.

It doesn't make sense that it would, since, as you have pointed out numerous times, it's much more complicated than that.

One could argue that the process of removing fibre and water is simply a varient on other food processing techniques like snap freezing or even meal preparation and cooking.

Do you only eat raw, foods, or do you also eat cooked and processed foods? Why are you substituting them for raw foods? Do you have clinical studies to show that snap frozen beans are as nutritionally effective as raw beans? That corn flakes are as good as corn? etc etc etc

Indeed, I'd suggest Nutrilite puts a lot more effort into monitoring the nutritional content of their tablets and capsules than most food producers do with their products.

Funnily enough, Cheerios recently got an FDA warning because they were making claims they might help reduce cholestorel. The high fibre version I believe. The FDA said this made it a drug claim. Even if General Mills went and did a clinical study proving Cheerios lowered cholestorel, I believe this still wouldn't change the FDA position, Cheerios would just become a controlled pharmaceutical.

And you wonder why there's a shortage of decent published studies on particular nutritional supplements?

Ferguson

19th May 2009, 05:46 PM

(actually, in excess of 95% of all of first-hand online complaints about Amway of any variety originate with folk who have had experiences with this group)

Actually? In excess of 95%? :words:

So you've compiled every Amway complaint on the internet, and discovered its origin... how, exactly?

icerat

19th May 2009, 06:04 PM

Actually? In excess of 95%? :words:

So you've compiled every Amway complaint on the internet, and discovered its origin... how, exactly?

Ok, so I may have been a little overzealous in that statement.

What I did, with help, was collate every english language message published on the then 3 major "anti-Amway/Quixtar" websites (this was a couple of years ago). Every message was categorised as "negative opinion, first-hand experience", "negative opinion, second-hand (or more) experience", "positive opinion, first-hand", "positive opinion, second-hand", and "neutral, first hand, "neutral, second hand" and also the affiliated group noted. This could be established for a significant number of the first-hand accounts based on the information given (they'd typically mention names or group names).

What we found was actually pretty damn close to 100% of first-hand complaints came from the one group and it's affiliates. Interestingly, I also found the first-hand positive experiences and first-hand negative experiences were remarkably similiar in number, each constituting only about 20% of the messages. The *majority* of messages were actually from people with little (ie just joined) or no experience, but reporting stuff like "I was checking this out and discovered your website - thanks for warning me! Now I'm not going to join, or I just joined and now I'm going to quit!"

I also looked at the more formally published anti-Amway works, including several published books and ebooks. All of them were written by folk whose experience was with this one Amway group and it's affiliates.

In addition I looked at all Amway related distributor-distributor lawsuits (usually involving tool profits). Again, every single one of them involved folk working with this group and it's affiliates.

Using published sales data and some public information on particular bonuses that are based on overall groups size and percentage of Amway's total business, I was also able to establish this group did not appear to represent a majority of Amway, something a lot of folk had been claiming over the years (primarily folk who had been involved with that group).

icerat

19th May 2009, 06:12 PM

Linda, I realised perhaps we're over-complicating things and I haven't really explained our approach.

Acerola cherries are known to be an excellent natural source of Vitamin C.

Do you think dried cherries are an OK source of Vitamin C? What about if they were chopped up into a fine powder?

What if the cherries were specifically cultivated to increase Vitamin C content? What if they were then dried? Better or worse than the standard cherries? What about if they were specifically monitored for nutritional content?

Now, what if those dried cherries were put into a tablet form within a few hours of picking, optimised for maximal nutritional content?

Could you explain why, in your opinion, you believe the delivery shape of the dried cherries (tablet shaped) is having such a delitirious effect on their nutritional efficacy?

... cause that's pretty much what you're saying to me, at least from my perspective!

Almo

20th May 2009, 08:08 AM

Your turn, provide some data to back up your claims.

HOW MUCH MONEY DO YOU MAKE FROM THIS BUSINESS? I dare you to PROVE that you've ever made a yearly profit.

yeah yeah, so double dare me. So do you believe nobody in Amway has ever made a yearly profit?

It can't be someone else's turn to provide data if you haven't yet. Saying "your turn" implies that you've already taken yours.

fls

20th May 2009, 08:15 AM

Nope, at one stage I kept track of things like cold sores. There's always other possibilities, such as that I forget to take supplements when I'm more stressed, and increased stress triggers cold sore outbreaks.

That the effect is NOT placebo is still a possible explanation.

Without a control, it is not reasonable to draw conclusions.

And that exception is the largest supplement company in the world - yet you missed it!

Now that I think about it, I can think of some other supplement companies whose official websites avoid promoting distrust of medical practices. I see that more from the sellers and promoters of the products. The producer sites, like Nutrilite, mainly provide misleading information (from my prior list of concerns).

Re evidence, as I said, no time, though I'm curious if you're disputing the statements or just wanting the evidence? The data on poor eating habits is pretty significant and well known.

I am curious as to what information you would use to support each part of your claim.

I'm not sure of your point here?

I think that looking at where people are willing to place their resources (i.e. what kinds of products they buy) indicates that people are interested in providing economic incentives for improving the nutritional quality of their food, which could be applied to modern farming practices.

evidence?

You already made reference to increased mineral content and beta-carotene.

No, I mustn't have explained well - that is in fact part of the problem.

Then I must ask that you tell me what kind of information you are referring to that shows that healthy food is much higher in calories than unhealthy food for equivalent nutrient benefits. Because otherwise that makes no sense and seems to contradict everything that nutritionists recommend.

I disagree that it's "easy" - if it was, why do so few people do so?

This is a whole topic in its own right. But promoting the idea that taking a quick fix pill is a sufficient substitute is part of the problem.

It was a little stronger than "an opinion piece". I may have pushed the association, nevertheless significant. It also includes references supporting some of my earlier claims re eating habits you were after.

Regardless of its significance, it still does not support the use of Nutrilite products. It specifically supports the use of generic, store-brand, cheap multi-vitamins, rather than expensive branded vitamins or of fortifying specific foods with specific nutrients. It does not support using any of the products offered by Nutrilite and other supplement companies.

I disagree with the latter assertion, though agree their are weaknesses.

But that's the problem right there. Saying that shows that you are obviously unfamiliar with the significance of using evidence-based recommendations and that you are unfamiliar with what is meant by scientific evidence. And this reflects the information that is fed to you and other consumers by the producers of these products.

This is not an accurate representation of my position at all.

You are the one who just pointed to an opinion piece recommending the use of generic, cheap multivitamins or fortified foods as somehow supporting the use of a vast array of expensive, branded, inadequately tested and regulated dietary supplements.

(1) I never claimed it did, indeed to the contrary, its' a supplement not a substitute
(2) it's more than "a few components". It's the fiber and water that's removed.

A balanced diet provides an adequate source of nutrients. Some people in the US do not eat a diet that provides an adequate source of nutrients. There is no evidence that "supplementing" an adequate diet provides additional benefit. If you eat a diet that does not provide an adequate source of nutrients, there is evidence that adding some vitamins and minerals to your intake can provide you with an adequate source of nutrients - that is, you are attempting to supply essential nutrients that would otherwise be missing by "substituting" a dietary source with a pharmaceutical source. The research showing that benefit is based on specific vitamin preparations. If you are making a claim that your dried cherries are equivalent to a vitamin C pill (with respect to using the results from vitamin C studies as evidence for the use of your dried cherry pills), all your supplements represent are very expensive substitutes, less regulated as to quality and consistency, for generic, cheap, already available, regulated as to quality and consistency, vitamin pills.

One could argue that the process of removing fibre and water is simply a varient on other food processing techniques like snap freezing or even meal preparation and cooking.

Ah, so now it's food instead of a drug. Surely we can take into account the pleasure of enjoying a variety of tastes and textures, as well as the social benefits of preparing and consuming food in groups into consideration when mulling over the idea of converting our eating experience to that of taking pills?

Do you only eat raw, foods, or do you also eat cooked and processed foods? Why are you substituting them for raw foods? Do you have clinical studies to show that snap frozen beans are as nutritionally effective as raw beans? That corn flakes are as good as corn? etc etc etc

What do you think dietary recommendations are based on?

Indeed, I'd suggest Nutrilite puts a lot more effort into monitoring the nutritional content of their tablets and capsules than most food producers do with their products.

So now you are providing people with incredibly expensive food?

Funnily enough, Cheerios recently got an FDA warning because they were making claims they might help reduce cholestorel.

No they didn't. They got a warning for suggesting that it may treat hypercholesterolemia.

The high fibre version I believe. The FDA said this made it a drug claim. Even if General Mills went and did a clinical study proving Cheerios lowered cholestorel, I believe this still wouldn't change the FDA position, Cheerios would just become a controlled pharmaceutical.

Because it would be making a pharmaceutical claim. It is okay for Cheerios to say that it reduces the risk of heart disease by lowering cholesterol, which is not a claim about treating hypercholesterolemia.

And you wonder why there's a shortage of decent published studies on particular nutritional supplements?

Are you serious? If a decent study was published showing that Cheerios treated hypercholesterolemia, the only restriction would be that Cheerios does not use it to make a claim. The information can still be widely disseminated to Cheerios advantage. There is a reason that St. Johns Wort and Echinacea are big sellers among the herbals, even though they do not make claims to treat disease. That is because studies showing that they do treat disease have been widely publicized and are acting to their advantage.

Linda

fls

20th May 2009, 08:21 AM

fls

20th May 2009, 08:53 AM

By contrast, I spent a decade in public health research and people's perceived health outcomes was most certainly an aspect of our research. To say that whether people feel healthy or not is irrelevant is to my mind incredibly , well, arrogant.

'Perceived health status' correlates with actual health outcomes like mortality and morbidity. If people felt healthy regardless of whether or not they were deathly ill, or whether or not they were in chronic pain, or whether or not they were able to function with activities of daily living, or whether or not they were plagued with frequent cold sores, wouldn't feeling healthy be meaningless? Isn't it actually more important to feel healthy because you are healthy than it is feel healthy regardless of whether or not you are actually healthy?

Right. Many people have suboptimal nutrient status. Suboptimal nutrient status has been shown to lead to poor health outcomes. Studies show nutrient status can be improved through supplementation.

However, studies don't show that nutrient status can be improved by using "expensive and poorly regulated as to quality and consistency" supplements vs. plain old vitamin pills.

But you don't think it's even think it's worth looking at whether supplementation can lead to improved health outcomes?

Oh dear.

I think it's worthwhile looking at anything that may lead to improved health outcomes. You have yet to provide any evidence that following the path of "making vitamins or food much more expensive" is likely to be fruitful compared to "promoting a balanced diet with the judicious use of vitamin and mineral pills or fortified foods plus regular physical activity". I like to make good use of my resources.

Linda

Fireshadow

20th May 2009, 01:00 PM

Having read this thread and having some (admittedly limited) experience with Quixtar, I'm going to throw my 2 cents in. I do not like Quixtar for the following reasons:

Cost to benefit ratio is not great enough for people like me to succeed. In order to succeed in Quixtar, you have to have the resources to lay out the initial investment in product and time required for effective marketing of the products. This, coupled with the strong encouragement to purchase and use a product for which you can get an equivalent for half (or less) of the cost at a retail location, serves to be a detriment to people who are looking to the business as a way to get out of their wage-slave rut.

Any claims that recruiting people is a net cost against you is bunk. This is because, as was outlined in the demonstration given to me, you make money based on what you sell, and what your down-line sells. If you sell something to your downline, you get the commission for that sale. If that downline then sells the same product, you get a percentage of their commission for that sale, and so on down the line. If it's not sold further, no net loss to you. Thus, the more people you have in your line, the more money you make. Very simple, and directly contradictory to the claim that it costs to have people under you (outside of the initial costs involved in demonstrations/recruitment).

Also, on the same theme as my first point--if you are a minimum wage earner, or even just living paycheck to paycheck, the time involved in getting the business up and running is not necessarily an investment most people will be willing or able to make. The sheer scope of getting off the ground is overwhelming in many instances.

But the biggest red flag to me (and this may have simply been my experience due to my particular upline) was that during the pitch, despite the fact that the person who actually drove our involvement with the business was my wife, he directed all questions at me. I don't know if it's inherent in the business structure, but the impression that I got the entire time I was talking with him, and with what I read afterward, was that the business is sexist. The treatment received by our direct upline (the person who recruited us) after we left the business, contributed to that impression. I may be wrong, and this is solely my experience, but the whole thing reminded me of indoctrination in any number of churches/cults/what-have-you.

Furcifer

20th May 2009, 02:32 PM

I may be wrong, and this is solely my experience, but the whole thing reminded me of indoctrination in any number of churches/cults/what-have-you.

This deserves a thread of its own. What was it like being indoctrinated into a cult and which cult? (or was it a church?) How did you become involved in a cult in the first place? I've never talked with anybody in a "cult", although some of the Mormon kids going door to door have a look in their eyes that scream "cultist". I have met several Amway salesmen, but they never seemed "cultish", just enthuisiastic and overly optimistic. Of course they aren't the "higher-ups" you have experience with. I can't say I've ever been in the presence of a cult leader so I don't have any reference to draw from. Perhaps you could expand further on your dealings with cult leaders and your indoctrination process so we can get a better idea.

Fireshadow

20th May 2009, 02:41 PM

This deserves a thread of its own. What was it like being indoctrinated into a cult and which cult? (or was it a church?) How did you become involved in a cult in the first place? I've never talked with anybody in a "cult", although some of the Mormon kids going door to door have a look in their eyes that scream "cultist". I have met several Amway salesmen, but they never seemed "cultish", just enthuisiastic and overly optimistic. Of course they aren't the "higher-ups" you have experience with. I can't say I've ever been in the presence of a cult leader so I don't have any reference to draw from. Perhaps you could expand further on your dealings with cult leaders and your indoctrination process so we can get a better idea.

I can't really talk about those. They'll hunt me down if I spill any of the secrets. Besides, I was blinded by the sheer charisma of the cult leaders. I'm better now, though.

Ferguson

20th May 2009, 03:15 PM

I would seconds Fireshadow's "cult-like" assessment, not to paint with too broad a brush, but my Quixtar-roommate was constantly trying to convince me to join, when I would have a friend or girlfriend over, seldom would Quixtar go unmentioned by him, and he was always dressing up in suits and sunglasses to go to "business meeting."
This entire time I had a first-hand view of his lack of sales (the boxes of energy drinks and supplements which sat in our dorm), he had to pay a yearly membership fee, while him and his girlfriend were always listening to "propaganda" tapes, and telling me how in 2-5 years they'd own their own home.
At the time I worked for the university as a Security Guard, and was paid $9/hr for playing around on my laptop overnight "guarding" various university buildings and equipment, it was a fun job because of the "assignments," (i.e. a group of us would be assigned to protect ESPN or MTVU crews/personnel, or to "escort" the football team from point A to point B) despite all of that I complained about my job at length to him (as is human-nature, I think), while he would always push Quixtar on me, despite me receiving $200-300 paychecks every two weeks, while he seemed to be paying for the privilege of being a Quixtar IBO or APO or whatever they're called (I forget).

I wouldn't go as far as to say it IS a cult, but I think "cult-like" is an accurate description. His proselytizing about the future rewards for spending money now, and constant big-shot-meetings just reeked of Scientology-style indoctrination to me.

That said, I'm not saying Quixtar/Amway is more evil than any other "get rich" plan you see on late night TV (and there are dozens if not hundreds), I'm just pointing out that it seems to be cut from the same cloth of promising big to the "sheep" so the "cult-leaders" can rake in profit.

(ETA: Disclaimer: I've never been in a cult. My "cult" knowledge is based on TV, news, and liveleaks of Scientology info.)

Furcifer

20th May 2009, 04:32 PM

Yeah, I had a feeling "cult like" may be a little overboard. Just about anyone in a club or group can get a little crazy about it. Same thing goes for hobbyists IMHO.

From what I've seen of Amway its a little from column A and a little from column B. Same thing goes with Mary Kay. And I wouldn't just pin this on MLM alone, franchises in general operate in the same "Welcome to the family, now you're one of us" kind of way.

I'm not so sure about Amway, but Mary Kay operates, from what I understand as an MLM. And an MLM is just a fancy legal name for a pyramid scheme. But they make no outrageous claims and seem to fullfill their end of the bargain if you do what you're supposed to. I don't see any harm in it. Like anything if you approach it in the right way you can make a few bucks. (If you do the math I think those pink caddy's are making 100K a year and get about 3K a month in pension when they retire)

To be honest I'd be more concerned if a friend approached me with the idea of opening a restaurant than selling Amway. I think there's more to lose and a better chance of failure doing that than Amway. In either case I'd just give them the facts and throw them a few bucks when I could and hope for the best.

Ferguson

20th May 2009, 06:06 PM

Eddie Dane

21st May 2009, 04:52 AM

To be honest I'd be more concerned if a friend approached me with the idea of opening a restaurant than selling Amway. I think there's more to lose and a better chance of failure doing that than Amway. In either case I'd just give them the facts and throw them a few bucks when I could and hope for the best.

To be fair. Lots of businesses fail and Amway seems to provide a " just add water" of-the-shelve business.

If a lot of them suck at it, you can't really blame Amway for that.

I've seen a lot of salesmen getting a job, trying to bluff their way to the top and then failing abysmally. You don't have to be in a MLM construction for that either.

And since unsuccessful recruits don't cost the organization money, but actually bring in some cash, it is only natural that they get as many recruits as possible.

So, what is Amways core business in the end? Making money of the recruits or making money of the products sold?

icerat

21st May 2009, 05:35 AM

Cost to benefit ratio is not great enough for people like me to succeed. In order to succeed in Quixtar, you have to have the resources to lay out the initial investment in product and time required for effective marketing of the products.

I'd suggest you haven't understood the benefits. Still, it's not for everyone.

This, coupled with the strong encouragement to purchase and use a product for which you can get an equivalent for half (or less) of the cost at a retail location, serves to be a detriment to people who are looking to the business as a way to get out of their wage-slave rut.

This is an invalid argument. While from almost any supplier there are always products you'll be able to find cheaper elsewhere, the primary Amway brands cannot be bought from other sources and the nearest equivalents are generally more expensive, not cheaper. Furthermore, if you feel products are not good value, then I encourage you NOT to buy them. Buying them just gives incentive to Amway to manufacture crappy products. Use and promote the good ones. I'm confident that any person who makes an honest appraisal will find a large selection of quality products at a great price.

Any claims that recruiting people is a net cost against you is bunk.

Of course, which is why I never said it was a net cost.

This is because, as was outlined in the demonstration given to me, you make money based on what you sell, and what your down-line sells. If you sell something to your downline, you get the commission for that sale. If that downline then sells the same product, you get a percentage of their commission for that sale, and so on down the line.

No, this is not true. You get only one "commission", which is simply the difference between your volume discount and their volume discount. Indeed, if you're both in the same bracket you get nothing.

If it's not sold further, no net loss to you. Thus, the more people you have in your line, the more money you make.

You've apparently misunderstood the compensation plan. You make more money because more people will hopefully generate more sales volume, creating greater volume discounts. If it's all in "one line" you make nothing as there's no (or little) differential. That would be like a warehouse selling all their goods to one retailer at the same price they purchase from the manufacturer. What you need is multiple retailers buying in smaller volumes at a higher price. This is the same as the Amway model.

Very simple, and directly contradictory to the claim that it costs to have people under you (outside of the initial costs involved in demonstrations/recruitment).

The confusion here is between a line item cost and a bottom-line result

Also, on the same theme as my first point--if you are a minimum wage earner, or even just living paycheck to paycheck, the time involved in getting the business up and running is not necessarily an investment most people will be willing or able to make. The sheer scope of getting off the ground is overwhelming in many instances.

Absolutely, which is why minimum wage earners and other folk in desperate financial trouble are not the target market. Especially not when the products are not targetted to this group. Unfortunately of course, many new ABOs will, contrary to all advice, approach people they feel they have influence over, and are not "scared" of, which tends to be the kind of folk you describe. Needless to say, it doesn't work very well.

But the biggest red flag to me (and this may have simply been my experience due to my particular upline) was that during the pitch, despite the fact that the person who actually drove our involvement with the business was my wife, he directed all questions at me. I don't know if it's inherent in the business structure, but the impression that I got the entire time I was talking with him, and with what I read afterward, was that the business is sexist.

Actually, if you read various histories of Amway you'll find the exact opposite is true. Amway had board members had female distributor representatives on the distributor board 50 years ago. That was unusual. It certainly sounds like the person talking you was sexist though! And I'm aware of some groups that are quite religious and promote the whole "wive's be submissive to your husbands" kind of rubbish. As independent businesses it's been difficult for Amway to control that kind of behaviour (heck the FTC fined them just for telling distributors what price they should sell at). They've now put in place an accreditation system which explicitly states that the Amway business should not be used as a platform to promote specific religious or political viewpoints. That rules always been there, but with no real way to enforce. Now it's linked to accreditation, and non-accredited groups or leaders are ineligible for many of the larger, discretionary bonuses and rewards. It still happens alas.

The treatment received by our direct upline (the person who recruited us) after we left the business, contributed to that impression. I may be wrong, and this is solely my experience, but the whole thing reminded me of indoctrination in any number of churches/cults/what-have-you.

There's no question that some groups, particularly in the past, have operated their businesses like their own personal fiefdoms, including stuff that could be construed as cult-like. Fortunately that's increasingly becoming history. Still, it's a natural result of the networking model that organisations will develop reflecting the belief systems of the leaders. If you're a right-wing evangelical christian, your social network is likely to be similar people, so folk from your social network who join with your business will have similar beliefs, and so on.

icerat

21st May 2009, 05:44 AM

And an MLM is just a fancy legal name for a pyramid scheme.

Sorry, but I just need to correct this. Legitimate MLMs and pyramid schemes are not at all alike. Pyramid schemes are illegal virtually everywhere, and that's because they're an unsustainable model. Income is derived by recruiting people, not by sale of some legitimate products.

Confusion comes about because many pyramid schemes call themselves MLM to hide their true nature. Take a recent example, YTB travel. It called itself MLM, with the income potential ostensibly from selling travel and recruiting others who could do the same. In reality they were charging nearly $500 to join, and $49.95/mth for a website to promote travel. That in itself is of concern, but not too bad - the problem occurs when you earn part of that $500 for recruiting someone. You're now explicitly being compensated for the act of recruiting rather than the act of selling travel. What's more, something like 90% of YTBs revenues was from the joining and monthly fees, rather than travel.

In other words, the way to make money was to recruit people and it didn't matter if anyone bought any travel or not.

By contrast, in Amway, you can recruit a million people. If nobody buys anything, you'll not make a cent. What's more, you can recruit nobody, and just sell products and make a decent income.

Mary Kay, and Mary Kay reps, make their money through wholesale and retail product sales. Same with Amway. Same with Herbalife. Same with any legit MLM.

Unfortunately there's so many pyramid scams that call themselves MLM, trying to hide under that umbrella of legitimacy, that many folk now equate them and believe legitimate MLMs operate the way pyramid schemes operate. They don't.

icerat

21st May 2009, 05:48 AM

However, studies don't show that nutrient status can be improved by using "expensive and poorly regulated as to quality and consistency" supplements vs. plain old vitamin pills.

This kind of response amazes me.

If I understand correctly, you're claiming that food is better than synthetic vitamin pills, but food put in a pill shape is no better than synthetic vitamin pills.

What particular mystical power does a pill shape posess to have this effect?

fls

21st May 2009, 07:03 AM

This kind of response amazes me.

If I understand correctly, you're claiming that food is better than synthetic vitamin pills, but food put in a pill shape is no better than synthetic vitamin pills.

What particular mystical power does a pill shape posess to have this effect?

I will try again. :)

I am claiming that an adequate intake of essential nutrients promotes health, starting with a balanced diet plus judicious use of vitamin and mineral pills or fortified foods taking into account various barriers to obtaining an adequate intake of essential nutrients. I am saying that while food in a pill form may technically fall under those recommendations, no additional value is given to that food by placing it in that form. It simply becomes more expensive. And if you want to consider it a vitamin pill, in addition to or instead of food, no additional value as a source of a particular vitamin is given by having that vitamin in a form that is less subject to quality control and is more expensive. It is not useful to expend resources for no additional benefit.

Linda

icerat

21st May 2009, 08:09 AM

I am saying that while food in a pill form may technically fall under those recommendations, no additional value is given to that food by placing it in that form.

I disagree. For a start it can be easier to get higher levels due to concentration. It's also far more reliable, with a focus on maintaing nutrient content that does not occur in traditional food processing.

It simply becomes more expensive.

Not necessarily true either. Nutrilite's Double X for example is far cheaper than obtaining equivalent nutrition from food, and this isn't even accounting for the opportunity cost. Tracking down and preparing nutritious food generally takes a lot of time.

And if you want to consider it a vitamin pill, in addition to or instead of food, no additional value as a source of a particular vitamin is given by having that vitamin in a form that is less subject to quality control and is more expensive. It is not useful to expend resources for no additional benefit.

Might be the case if true, but you've made some important false assumptions. With decent brands there is far far MORE quality control than there is with normal food processing. Unlike food production, plants are specifically selected for nutrient content. Unlike food production, plants are specifically bred for nutrient content. Unlike food production, the plants are harvested at the time best suited for maximal nutrient content. Unlike food production, the plants are processed and packaged for maximal nutrient content.

And it's monitored every step of the way, from seed to final serving.

Now, maybe the food you buy is subject to greater quality control, but I'd suggest that's incredibly rare.

Almo

21st May 2009, 08:27 AM

And an MLM is just a fancy legal name for a pyramid scheme.

Sorry, but I just need to correct this. Legitimate MLMs and pyramid schemes are not at all alike.

And I need to correct this. Yes they are.

fls

21st May 2009, 09:24 AM

I disagree. For a start it can be easier to get higher levels due to concentration. It's also far more reliable, with a focus on maintaing nutrient content that does not occur in traditional food processing.

Concentration simply removes water. Whether one fulfills one's daily water requirements through food or through food plus water is irrelevant. Dietary recommendations take into consideration the nutrient content found in food after it has been prepared.

You keep switching back and forth between supplements as food and supplements as vitamin pills. Unless you are suggesting that supplements can serve to fulfill your protein, carbohydrate, fat and energy requirements, what is the point of referring to it as food?

Not necessarily true either. Nutrilite's Double X for example is far cheaper than obtaining equivalent nutrition from food, and this isn't even accounting for the opportunity cost. Tracking down and preparing nutritious food generally takes a lot of time.

As far as I can tell, Double X is a vitamin preparation. This means that it cannot give you the equivalent nutrition from food as it cannot supply your protein, carbohydrate, fat and energy requirements. If you are using food to supply those requirements, then you are also obtaining that "equivalent nutrition" for free. If that nutrition is not quite equivalent, then a cheap, generic multivitamin can be added. Expensive branded multivitamins are not necessary.

And your statement that tracking down and preparing nutritious foods takes a lot of time is ridiculous. I haven't had a kitchen for weeks - all I have to use is a microwave - and I can provide a balanced, nutritious meal for 6 people with 5-10 minutes of preparation using foods from my local grocery store or from other local sources. I suspect that this is easier than if I was trying to access an Amway supplier to fulfill all my family's nutritional needs.

Might be the case if true, but you've made some important false assumptions. With decent brands there is far far MORE quality control than there is with normal food processing.

Now you are back to talking about food. Which Nutrilite products are sufficient to supply your protein, carbohydrate, fat and energy requirements?

Unlike food production, plants are specifically selected for nutrient content. Unlike food production, plants are specifically bred for nutrient content. Unlike food production, the plants are harvested at the time best suited for maximal nutrient content. Unlike food production, the plants are processed and packaged for maximal nutrient content.

Which plants are a complete supply for your protein, carbohydrate, fat and energy requirements?

And it's monitored every step of the way, from seed to final serving.

Now, maybe the food you buy is subject to greater quality control, but I'd suggest that's incredibly rare.

I doubt the food I buy is subject to greater quality control. But is it necessary? That is, what value does that give me for my money?

Linda

icerat

21st May 2009, 02:07 PM

Concentration simply removes water. Whether one fulfills one's daily water requirements through food or through food plus water is irrelevant. Dietary recommendations take into consideration the nutrient content found in food after it has been prepared.

No, the concentration process can also remove fiber, and/or sugars.

You keep switching back and forth between supplements as food and supplements as vitamin pills.

I thought we were in agreement that food has vitamins in it? If you put plant concentrate in a pill, optimised for nutrition, perhaps fortified with synthetics (much like many food products) and market it's vitamin content, do you or do you not consider it a vitamin pill?

Unless you are suggesting that supplements can serve to fulfill your protein, carbohydrate, fat and energy requirements, what is the point of referring to it as food?

Since when was food only macronutrients?

As far as I can tell, Double X is a vitamin preparation. This means that it cannot give you the equivalent nutrition from food as it cannot supply your protein, carbohydrate, fat and energy requirements.

Double X is a mixture of organic plant concentrates (the number varies depending on market) fortified with vitamin and mineral isolates. Fibre, water, and most sugars have been removed. It's a micronutrient supplement, not macronutrient.

And your statement that tracking down and preparing nutritious foods takes a lot of time is ridiculous.

Please, educate the world. Most aren't doing it.

I suspect that this is easier than if I was trying to access an Amway supplier to fulfill all my family's nutritional needs.

Oh yeah, website ordering delivered to the door is tough stuff.

Now you are back to talking about food. Which Nutrilite products are sufficient to supply your protein, carbohydrate, fat and energy requirements?

Now you're back to pretending food is nothing but macronutrients

I doubt the food I buy is subject to greater quality control. But is it necessary? That is, what value does that give me for my money?

Security. There is wide variation in the nutrient content of most food stuffs, and there are increasing numbers of people deficient or depleted in one or more nutrients. For the price of a cup of coffee I think it's worth it. You obviously don't, and are much more disciplined in your food sourcing and preparation than most people are, including myself. Good for you! That doesn't mean there's not a legitimate market or legitimate need for our products.

Furcifer

21st May 2009, 04:21 PM

So, what is Amways core business in the end? Making money of the recruits or making money of the products sold?

See I don't know so I'd never bother with them myself.

Still like Icerat said earlier, the opportunity exists for any recruit to move his way up the pyramid. People are entitled to make their own mistakes and take chances. If your they type of person inclined to the "get rich quick" scheme your going to find one. Take a look at the number of people who entered into the "America's Best Invention" or whatever it was called. There are thousands of people spending tons of time and money trying to come up with the next "Pet Rock" or "Trivial Pursuit". Same glazed look in their eyes, the same blind faith in an idea that has a very high probablity of making them go broke before they get rich.

Anyways, my point is it isn't a cult, just a silly way to try and get rich quick. Of all the "schemes" this is probably the most harmless. At least it's under public scrutiny and monitored by the authorities. I think it might be a disservice to dismiss it as a scam and a cult. I seriously believe putting off people to Amway and the like will only drive them to worse things. I mean if a guy is going to spend 15 years trying to get rich selling Amway can you imagine what would happen if he wandered into a casino and won a few hands of black jack?

Furcifer

21st May 2009, 04:39 PM

Sorry, but I just need to correct this. Legitimate MLMs and pyramid schemes are not at all alike. Pyramid schemes are illegal virtually everywhere, and that's because they're an unsustainable model. Income is derived by recruiting people, not by sale of some legitimate products.

That's why I said "legal". It's a legal pyramid scheme. It should be called that openly, then it wouldn't lend itself so easily to those who would make it into something else. I think they should also be required to let people know how the profits are actually made. Just say "99 out of 100 people will buy $800 worth of stuff, sell enough to break even, give away the rest as Christmas gifts and never make a dime" Something like that.

fls

21st May 2009, 09:28 PM

No, the concentration process can also remove fiber, and/or sugars.

Okay, so it gives you less of what you need rather than more?

I thought we were in agreement that food has vitamins in it? If you put plant concentrate in a pill, optimised for nutrition, perhaps fortified with synthetics (much like many food products) and market it's vitamin content, do you or do you not consider it a vitamin pill?

If its main function is to provide a reasonably consistent quantity of a vitamin/vitamins, why not?

Since when was food only macronutrients?

I'm pointing out that food contains macro-nutrients and micro-nutrients, whereas your argument depended upon considering only the micro-nutrient components.

Double X is a mixture of organic plant concentrates (the number varies depending on market) fortified with vitamin and mineral isolates. Fibre, water, and most sugars have been removed. It's a micro-nutrient supplement, not macronutrient.

That was my impression. So the price is irrelevant since it is a far from adequate substitute for food.

Please, educate the world. Most aren't doing it.

It doesn't help that you and others in the supplement industry are spreading misinformation about how it is hard and difficult.

Oh yeah, website ordering delivered to the door is tough stuff.

The "difficult" part is that the delivered materials would be inadequate to supply my family's nutritional needs.

Now you're back to pretending food is nothing but macro-nutrients

I specifically mentioned both macro-nutrients and micro-nutrients, while you made reference only to micro-nutrients. Fulfilling macro-nutrient needs can also fulfill micro-nutrient needs, however fulfilling only micro-nutrient needs leads you with a pretty sizable deficit.

Security. There is wide variation in the nutrient content of most food stuffs, and there are increasing numbers of people deficient or depleted in one or more nutrients. For the price of a cup of coffee I think it's worth it.

But I can already buy that same security for much, much less by taking cheap, generic multivitamins. Why would I waste my money when I don't have to? I have other stuff I'd like to buy.

You obviously don't, and are much more disciplined in your food sourcing and preparation than most people are, including myself. Good for you! That doesn't mean there's not a legitimate market or legitimate need for our products.

You have shown that there can be a legitimate need for multivitamins. You haven't shown that there is a legitimate need for more expensive multivitamins, nor for the sort of widespread use that justifies a multi-billion dollar industry.

Linda

icerat

22nd May 2009, 04:31 AM

So, what is Amways core business in the end? Making money of the recruits or making money of the products sold?

No money is made through recruiting. It's all from products sold.

icerat

22nd May 2009, 04:37 AM

That's why I said "legal". It's a legal pyramid scheme.

The problem is that's impossible. "pyramid schemes" are by definition illegal. You can't have an legal illegal scheme

It should be called that openly, then it wouldn't lend itself so easily to those who would make it into something else.

You seem to be using the term to mean something else than it's normal definition. Could you explain what you mean?

I think they should also be required to let people know how the profits are actually made. Just say "99 out of 100 people will buy $800 worth of stuff, sell enough to break even, give away the rest as Christmas gifts and never make a dime" Something like that.

It depends on the country, but they are legally required to provide various statistics and have done so for decades.

icerat

22nd May 2009, 04:46 AM

Okay, so it gives you less of what you need rather than more?

Do you seriously believe folk in the western world are getting to few calories? Amongst the macronutrients, fibre perhaps, but there's no research at all to suggest a lack of protein or carbohydrate. There is research to suggest a lack of micronutrients.

I'm pointing out that food contains macro-nutrients and micro-nutrients, whereas your argument depended upon considering only the micro-nutrient components.

Because macro-nutrient depletion or deficiency is almost non-existent.

I specifically mentioned both macro-nutrients and micro-nutrients, while you made reference only to micro-nutrients. Fulfilling macro-nutrient needs can also fulfill micro-nutrient needs, however fulfilling only micro-nutrient needs leads you with a pretty sizable deficit.

Please, stop with the red herrings. I don't believe for a moment you think folk are deficient in macronutrients, and I've never claimed they are. If you disagree whether anyone is micronutrient deficient, fine, disagree, but stop with the distractions.

But I can already buy that same security for much, much less by taking cheap, generic multivitamins. Why would I waste my money when I don't have to? I have other stuff I'd like to buy.

You're contradicting yourself. You say food is the better source, but now you're saying synthetic vitamins are adequate. Which is it? Is food a better source of micronutrients or synthetics?

You have shown that there can be a legitimate need for multivitamins. You haven't shown that there is a legitimate need for more expensive multivitamins, nor for the sort of widespread use that justifies a multi-billion dollar industry.

Personally I think most multi-vitamins are a waste of money. The ones that aren't cost more because they're based around food. At present you're claiming both that food is a better source of micronutrition and that synthetic multi-vitamins are as good a source of micronutrition as food. You can't have it both ways.

fls

22nd May 2009, 12:05 PM

Do you seriously believe folk in the western world are getting to few calories? Amongst the macronutrients, fibre perhaps, but there's no research at all to suggest a lack of protein or carbohydrate. There is research to suggest a lack of micronutrients.

No, I'm saying that concentration leaves the amount of micro-nutrients unchanged, but removes small amounts of macro-nutrients, fibre and water, which doesn't really make it much different from just eating the cherries.

Please, stop with the red herrings. I don't believe for a moment you think folk are deficient in macronutrients, and I've never claimed they are. If you disagree whether anyone is micronutrient deficient, fine, disagree, but stop with the distractions.

I'm not claiming that people are deficient in macro-nutrients. I'm stating that it is necessary for people to eat food in order to satisfy macro-nutrient requirements. Since food also contains micro-nutrients, then eating food (something that we have to do anyway, an expense we have to bear regardless) already provides us with a way to satisfy our micro-nutrient requirements. If that food does not satisfy our micro-nutrient requirements, then the addition of specific vitamin and mineral pills or of a multivitamin pill is useful.

When you talk about your dried cherry pills, you are referring to them as a source of micro-nutrients, since you have agreed that as a source of macro-nutrients, their effect is negligible. However, you said, "Nutrilite's Double X for example is far cheaper than obtaining equivalent nutrition from food". Since we are now agreed that you were not talking about macro-nutrients, what you meant is that it is cheaper for you to eat food which satisfies your macro-nutrient requirements, but does not satisfy your micro-nutrient requirements, with the added expense of taking Double X in order to satisfy your micro-nutrient requirements, than it is to eat food which satisfies both your macro-nutrient and micro-nutrient requirements. Putting aside the issue of whether or not that is true, I am pointing out that if you have chosen to take pills in order to satisfy your micro-nutrient requirements, it is much cheaper to take inexpensive, generic vitamins.

If you are taking expense into consideration, the use of much more expensive vitamin pills doesn't make sense, and you have yet to provide any justification for this.

You're contradicting yourself. You say food is the better source, but now you're saying synthetic vitamins are adequate. Which is it? Is food a better source of micronutrients or synthetics?

It's not a matter of food vs. vitamins. It's a matter of, if you are eating food that does not satisfy some of your micro-nutrient requirements and you choose to satisfy those requirements with vitamin or mineral pills, why would I choose to spend a lot of money when I could spend less money to get the same thing.

Personally I think most multi-vitamins are a waste of money. The ones that aren't cost more because they're based around food. At present you're claiming both that food is a better source of micronutrition and that synthetic multi-vitamins are as good a source of micronutrition as food. You can't have it both ways.

Food has nothing to do with this discussion, as you have already admitted that your multi-vitamins do not serve as food, but as a source of vitamins and minerals. I'm saying that cheap, generic vitamins are as good a source of vitamins and minerals as your expensive vitamins.

Linda

Furcifer

22nd May 2009, 12:30 PM

The problem is that's impossible. "pyramid schemes" are by definition illegal. You can't have an legal illegal scheme
You seem to be using the term to mean something else than it's normal definition. Could you explain what you mean?
It depends on the country, but they are legally required to provide various statistics and have done so for decades.

Who are you kidding? It's a pyramid scheme, plain and simple. There's nothing that says a pyramid scheme has to be illegal, just that it operates in this manner. I'm not a big fan of Wiki, but even Wiki has MLM as a basic Pyramid Scheme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_scheme).

It's this kind of BS you're pulling here that gets people into trouble. It's a freakin pyramid scheme, legal or not it operates in the exact same manner with the exact same result. Trust me, I'm using this by "normal" definition. Normal people, when they hear how it works go "Oh, it's a pyramid scheme"

You'd be better off arguing that many things operate as "pyramid schemes", just not as openly or as obvious. That's how you're going to convince people ;)

As for the stats, yes they keep them and are public domain etc. (somewhere), but they (the recruiters) aren't forthcoming about them. With this type of business model it should be required information. I'm all about disclosure, even the lottery should say "You have a 1 in 26 million chance of winning, you're more likely to get hit by a car and die on the way to the lotto shop than you are of actually winning; Good Luck!"

Almo

22nd May 2009, 02:35 PM

Who are you kidding? It's a pyramid scheme, plain and simple.

He's kidding himself, and anyone else he can get to join the scheme. Look at the argument with fls about the ultility of food of all things. There's clearly some obfuscation going on somewhere if this argument can even begin to take place.

I applaud Linda for making clear arguments time and time again in this thread. If anything, this thread serves to show what happens when people buy into the whole Amway thing.

BTW, I stand by my OP and the silliness of the numbers touted in the Amway ad.

icerat

22nd May 2009, 08:03 PM

Who are you kidding? It's a pyramid scheme, plain and simple. There's nothing that says a pyramid scheme has to be illegal, just that it operates in this manner. I'm not a big fan of Wiki, but even Wiki has MLM as a basic Pyramid Scheme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_scheme).

What does the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_scheme)say in the first few sentences?

[QUOTE]Pyramid schemes are illegal in many countries, including the United States,[1] the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Canada, Romania,[2] Colombia,[3] Malaysia, Norway, Bulgaria, Australia,[4] New Zealand,[5] Japan,[6] Italy,[7] Nepal[citation needed], Philippines,[8] South Africa[9] Sri Lanka,[10] Thailand,[11] Iran[citation needed], the People's Republic of China,[12], Mexico and The Netherlands [13].

FTC, 1998 (http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/other/dvimf16.shtm") -

both pyramid and Ponzi schemes are illegal
...
Some people confuse pyramid and Ponzi schemes with legitimate multilevel marketing. Multilevel marketing programs are known as MLM's,(4) and unlike pyramid or Ponzi schemes, MLM's have a real product to sell.

SEC (http://www.sec.gov/answers/pyramid.htm)

The fraudsters behind a pyramid scheme may go to great lengths to make the program look like a legitimate multi-level marketing program.

Australian Government Scamwatch site - (http://www.scamwatch.gov.au/content/index.phtml/tag/PyramidSchemes)

Pyramid schemes are illegal
...
In contrast, people in legitimate multi-level marketing earn money by selling genuine products to consumers, not from the recruiting process.

You're in Canada?

Canadian Competition Bureau (http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/03035.html#schemes)

Schemes of pyramid selling are illegal

It's this kind of BS you're pulling here that gets people into trouble.

Uhh .... BS ... like actually knowing what I'm talking about. You are wrong. Pyramid schemes are illegal.

PbFoot

22nd May 2009, 08:18 PM

Okay, so Amway is a is a pyramid scheme, just every so slightly modified such that it skirts the letter of the law.

It's like taking a pint of piss and carbonating it. That will not make it into champagne.

-PbFoot

icerat

22nd May 2009, 08:47 PM

Okay, so Amway is a is a pyramid scheme, just every so slightly modified such that it skirts the letter of the law.

No, it's not even close to a pyramid scheme. Let's look at the Canadian example -

Section 55.1 of the Act defines a “scheme of pyramid selling” as an MLM plan with one or more of the following features:

•requires a payment for the right to receive compensation for recruiting others into the MLM plan (compensation for recruitment);
•requires purchases as a condition of participation (purchase requirement), other than a specified amount of product at the seller’s cost for the purpose of facilitating sales;
•includes inventory loading; or
•lacks a buy-back guarantee on reasonable commercial terms or participants are not informed about the guarantee.

Four features, Amway has NONE of them and isn't "close" or "skirting" ANY of them.

You either don't know what a pyramid scheme is, or you don't know how Amway operates.

Furcifer

22nd May 2009, 10:14 PM

Uhh .... BS ... like actually knowing what I'm talking about. You are wrong. Pyramid schemes are illegal.

Nice strawman. I never said pyramid schemes are legal.

Amway, Avon,Tupperware, May Kay are all legal pyramid schemes because they actually provide a product. I never said they were illegal, so there's no use quoting the law in that regard. I'm not trying to press charges against them for operating outside the law. Mmmmmkay?

What's the big deal anyways? Why all this effort to try and convince people Amway isn't what it actually is? I don't get it.

Derwoods

23rd May 2009, 12:56 AM

What percentage of Amway's profits are from "tools" and classes?

Are there any numbers on how much of Amway's profit comes from selling to people who are not amway business owners? Meaning only profits resulting from endusers outside the network.

icerat

23rd May 2009, 05:15 AM

Nice strawman. I never said pyramid schemes are legal.

Really? What does this mean then ....

There's nothing that says a pyramid scheme has to be illegal

My mistake. How could I possibly interpretate that as saying pyramid schemes can be legal.

[Amway, Avon,Tupperware, May Kay are all legal pyramid schemes because they actually provide a product.

pyramid schemes are by definition illegal (see above) You're now claiming these companies are legal illegal schemes.

I never said they were illegal, so there's no use quoting the law in that regard. I'm not trying to press charges against them for operating outside the law. Mmmmmkay?

If you call them pyramid schemes you're calling them illegal. That's what "pyramid scheme" means.

What's the big deal anyways? Why all this effort to try and convince people Amway isn't what it actually is? I don't get it.

Because it and the other companies mentioned are NOT what you say they are, and when you say it is a pyramid scheme, then you're saying they're illegal businesses operating on an unsustainable model based around earning money through recruiting people and getting paid when they join.

icerat

23rd May 2009, 05:36 AM

What percentage of Amway's profits are from "tools" and classes?

About zero. Probably a loss actually, since many are free.

Are there any numbers on how much of Amway's profit comes from selling to people who are not amway business owners? Meaning only profits resulting from endusers outside the network.

You've asked two separate (and leading) questions there. Just by signing an application doesn't make you a "business owner", even though Amway may use the term. A large percentage of folk who join, or remain in the network, do so because they are then able to get better prices. If you desire to purchase any more than a handful of products are year, then you are better off being a in the network even though you have zero intention of building a business. These folk may be considered "inside the network" but are not "participants in the scheme".

Canadian law (linked to above), addresses this issue explicitly -

A participant in an MLM plan is an individual who actively engages in the activities necessary to realize the benefits of the MLM plan.

According to some statistics revealed in a contract dispute lawsuit in California, less than 13% of folk who register in the network ever do even the minimum necessary to generate a profit. However, 50% of those who register to try it out continue to order products, so 74% of the folk ordering products are members of the network, but not "participants in the scheme", ie participating in the business opportunity itself. Shaklee, another networking company, reported to the FTC that 85% of their network members joined primarily to get the products at the distributor pricing, so this is similar. What percentage of volume comes from these types of members and what from active participants, I don't know. How many sales come from distributor sales to folk who are not members is impossible to determine as distributors are not required to report this to Amway unless the customer wants to order directly off the Amway site itself. In the US these type of customers account for about 5% of Amway website sales volume. I have around 20-30 regular customers, none of whom are registered with Amway in this manner, so if I was in the US (I'm not) they wouldn't be included in that statistic.

Bob Klase

23rd May 2009, 07:47 AM

Nice strawman. I never said pyramid schemes are legal.

Amway, Avon,Tupperware, May Kay are all legal pyramid schemes because they actually provide a product.

You're arguing semantics and I have to agree with icerat on this one. Pyramid schemes are, by definition, illegal. Some groups in Amway have (and probably still do) operate as a pyramid scheme, but Amyway itself doesn't. Therefore Amway is not a pyramid scheme.

That doesn't change whether Amway is a good idea or whether the majority of Amway recruits are lied to and misled. But calling it by a term that is defined as an illegal operation does not make it that illegal operation.

If you look at wiki, it also says:

A pyramid scheme is a non-sustainable business model

Even that definition fails since the business model has been around for over 50 years and there is no sign that it's "non-sustainable".

NewtonTrino

23rd May 2009, 08:11 AM

Icerat is simply an outright lying cultist. And make no mistake, this is a cult that using very effective brainwashing techniques.

The big pins (who are the only ones making real money besides the corp) make the vast majority of their profit from "tools". This includes cult like indoctrination meetings, audio recordings, books etc.

Icerat simply isn't high enough up in the hierarchy to know the true story. He's just a true believer who has been sucked in.

Notice that I asked him how much money he has made and gotten no response? This is because more likely than not he hasn't made any money (and never will). Fake it till ya make it as they say.

Icerat, here is my challenge to you. I will pay $500 to the charity of your choice if you show us your last 3 years of tax returns that show how much money you have made from this business. I'm sure you can send them to someone in this thread who can verify them and then I'll pay the money before they get released generally. Of course these must be independently verifiable.

I also suggest digging up some of the other threads on this where I go into detail about my background. I have a lot more experience with this business than Icerat does (with both family members being involved for 30+ years as well as having worked closely with a bunch of high level pins on computer software for the business).

Stay away it is a business cult and it will suck you dry until you blow away in the wind.

icerat

23rd May 2009, 08:27 AM

<yawn>

NewtonTrino

23rd May 2009, 09:04 AM

Yes I see. One thing I've noticed with these clowns is the lack of interest in actually making money.

How about you just state how much you've lost so far? What is your hourly income rate so far?

Again I don't dispute that people are making money. It's just that the real money is in the tools. I did a bunch of math in the other thread to show how this works.

Furcifer

23rd May 2009, 09:21 AM

You're arguing semantics and I have to agree with icerat on this one.

It's my understanding that the con commonly refered to as a pyramid scheme was established well before MLM's. MLM's evolved to circumvent the law.

I think it's foolish and deliberately misleading to represent them as anything but legal pyramid schemes.

Is Amway really sustainable or is it just that it hasn't collapsed yet? It seems to teeter on the edge, waiting for the next generation of "entreprenuers".

If it makes you happy I'll refer to Amway as a not illegal pyramid scheme :D

Furcifer

23rd May 2009, 09:41 AM

pyramid schemes are by definition illegal (see above) You're now claiming these companies are legal illegal schemes.

The problem was with the blanket statement. But yes, AFAIK these companies all took their busniess models from an illegal pyramid scheme for a reason. Can you offer a legitimate reason for the continued operation in this mail order, heirarchical manner when an actual business with a store front is much much more sucessful by comparison?

Because it and the other companies mentioned are NOT what you say they are, and when you say it is a pyramid scheme, then you're saying they're illegal businesses operating on an unsustainable model based around earning money through recruiting people and getting paid when they join.

And I say "Meh". It's just not realistic to refer to these companies as anything but legal pyramid schemes. If you don't like the double negative too bad, it really needs to be said.

Almo

23rd May 2009, 04:12 PM

Notice that I asked him how much money he has made and gotten no response? This is because more likely than not he hasn't made any money (and never will). Fake it till ya make it as they say.

Icerat, here is my challenge to you. I will pay $500 to the charity of your choice if you show us your last 3 years of tax returns that show how much money you have made from this business. I'm sure you can send them to someone in this thread who can verify them and then I'll pay the money before they get released generally. Of course these must be independently verifiable.

<yawn>

Never any evidence. Just talk. It really is transparent, dude.

Foolmewunz

23rd May 2009, 04:53 PM

I think I agree with the comments above that this is a great thread because it really, through the constant denial and defensive maneuvering of IR, shows involvement in Amway for what it is.

IceRat - the discussion on the food supplements alone.... in two separate threads, no less. If you were looking at anyone else, wouldn't you recognize this as cult-like devotion?

icerat

23rd May 2009, 05:51 PM

IceRat - the discussion on the food supplements alone.... in two separate threads, no less. If you were looking at anyone else, wouldn't you recognize this as cult-like devotion?

Uh ... wow ... so 10 years of independently researching nutrition topics, without any assistance or motivation from Amway, convinces me that there's a case for supplementation, and that the best supplements come from Nutrilite. And that's "cult-like"? Uh ... wow ... talk about clutching.

As for the 2 threads, I'm not sure how that happened, was a bit messy ....

icerat

23rd May 2009, 05:58 PM

The problem was with the blanket statement. But yes, AFAIK these companies all took their busniess models from an illegal pyramid scheme for a reason.

Oh good grief. Please, explain to me how pyramid schemes and Amway are similar, and don't bother mentioning anything that is similar in ANY distribution/marketing business.

Can you offer a legitimate reason for the continued operation in this mail order, heirarchical manner when an actual business with a store front is much much more sucessful by comparison?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "mail order, heirarchical manner"? The "heirarchy" is today non-existent in terms of distribution and has always been similiar to traditional distribution in terms of levels of markup and payments.

Your last statement is just false. Amway's two major brands are Artistry and Nutrilite. Nutrilite is the #1 brand in it's category in the world, and Artistry #4. Amway and Avon are both in the top 5 in the world in personal care products. Amway for example outsells both Unilever and Proctor & Gamble in South Korea.

So your claim that a "store front is much more successful" is simply false.

icerat

23rd May 2009, 06:04 PM

It's my understanding that the con commonly refered to as a pyramid scheme was established well before MLM's. MLM's evolved to circumvent the law.

Uhuh. Since you're such an expert, when and what were the first pyramid schemes and when and what were the earliest MLMs?

What "laws" are MLMs circumventing?

I think it's foolish and deliberately misleading to represent them as anything but legal pyramid schemes.

I think it's foolish and deliberaty misleading of you to continue to pretend you even remotely know what you're talking about?

Is Amway really sustainable or is it just that it hasn't collapsed yet?

This just reveals your ignorance. Why would it "collapse" any more than say Barnes & Noble?

It seems to teeter on the edge, waiting for the next generation of "entreprenuers".

Oh yeah, teetering (sales in millions by year) ....

http://www.amwaywiki.com/images/7/7b/Alticorsales1960-2008.png

If it makes you happy I'll refer to Amway as a not illegal pyramid scheme :D

What would make me happy is if you went and did some research before mouthing off any further.

Foolmewunz

23rd May 2009, 06:05 PM

Uh ... wow ... so 10 years of independently researching nutrition topics, without any assistance or motivation from Amway, convinces me that there's a case for supplementation, and that the best supplements come from Nutrilite. And that's "cult-like"? Uh ... wow ... talk about clutching.

As for the 2 threads, I'm not sure how that happened, was a bit messy ....

"Clutching"? As in "clutching/grasping at straws"?

I think you're mistaking who the drowning man is, here. You're making another blanket impressive statement that you should know by now we're going to ask you to back up, so let's get to it....

Ten years of indepently researching topics.....

How independent? How researched? What sources? What qualifications do you have?

Frankly, everything you've said thus far is stuff that a junior high school student could've come up with. And the fact that all roads lead to Nutrilite (Amway), and defence of their corporate line....?

Again, wouldn't that have you asking questions if it was a discussion of religion and every single answer seemed to come from the Book of Mormon or be in defence of the Latter Day Saints? (I've got nothing more against the Mormons than any other religion, just using them as an example.)

icerat

23rd May 2009, 06:07 PM

[QUOTE=Foolmewunz;4742370]I think I agree with the comments above that this is a great thread because it really, through the constant denial and defensive maneuvering of IR, shows involvement in Amway for what it is./QUOTE]

Sorry to come back to this post, but are you seriously referring to correcting of completely false statements as "constant denial and defensive maneuvering"?

Foolmewunz

23rd May 2009, 06:21 PM

I think I agree with the comments above that this is a great thread because it really, through the constant denial and defensive maneuvering of IR, shows involvement in Amway for what it is.

Sorry to come back to this post, but are you seriously referring to correcting of completely false statements as "constant denial and defensive maneuvering"?

Are you reading the same thread as I am reading?

Yes, that's what I'm referring to.

Furcifer

23rd May 2009, 06:22 PM

Oh good grief. Please, explain to me how pyramid schemes and Amway are similar, and don't bother mentioning anything that is similar in ANY distribution/marketing business.

To be honest I can't really, I'm speaking more to what I know of Mary Kay, and what I can remember of Amway. In them your "pricing" was based on the number of minions you enlisted as well as your order amount. I'm actually interested in how pricing, profit etc. are done with Amway. If you wouldn't mind explaining it in your own words (or I can Google it)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "mail order, heirarchical manner"? The "heirarchy" is today non-existent in terms of distribution and has always been similiar to traditional distribution in terms of levels of markup and payments.

Everything is done by mail order, and pricing is based on a heirarchy. Again, this is what I know of Mary Kay and what I remember of Amway.

Your last statement is just false. Amway's two major brands are Artistry and Nutrilite. Nutrilite is the #1 brand in it's category in the world, and Artistry #4. Amway and Avon are both in the top 5 in the world in personal care products. Amway for example outsells both Unilever and Proctor & Gamble in South Korea.
So your claim that a "store front is much more successful" is simply false.

Wal Mart. K-Mart. Sears. Target. et al.

Are you serious? You're really going to tout the South Korean market as anything meaningful? Please. I really don't care if Amway is the leading brand in Albania, Gabon and the Republic of Moldova. They don't seem to sell jack here in Detroit.

icerat

23rd May 2009, 06:41 PM

How independent? How researched? What sources? What qualifications do you have?

I have multipe degrees in health science (including postgrad) from a major university and spent a decade working for in public health research.

Frankly, everything you've said thus far is stuff that a junior high school student could've come up with. And the fact that all roads lead to Nutrilite (Amway), and defence of their corporate line....?

What "defence of their corporate line" are you talking about?

And you're right, a junior high student could come up with a lot of what I've said, because it's that obvious and that well known. Even a momentary effort can find a deal of research talking about declining nutrient content in plants and the poor eating habits of most people today, and increasing problems of nutrient depletion or deficiency.

quote]Again, wouldn't that have you asking questions if it was a discussion of religion and every single answer seemed to come from the Book of Mormon or be in defence of the Latter Day Saints? (I've got nothing more against the Mormons than any other religion, just using them as an example.)[/QUOTE]

Frankly I don't know what you're babbling about. I've barely said anything from any "corporate line" apart from what they claim about their quality control processes. You seem to be under the false impression the other stuff I've been talking about comes from Amway/Nutrilite. It doesn't. It comes from hundreds of articles from dozens and dozens of peer-reviewed journals. I simply don't have the time to write a treatise on it here for you folk.

Here's a quick summary article of some of the research on declining nutrient content of food (http://www.sehn.org/tccfoodnutrientsdecline.html) due to modern farming practices. Little more than logic and basic biology of is needed to predict this, yet on this forum it's been denied it's happening. I have papers from the US, Canada, Australia, UK, Denmark, and Sweden all with similar findings - the nutrient content of food is decreasing. It's not rocket science, particular with regards mineral content. The minerals come from the soil, if it's not being replaced, how does it get in the plants? Magic? And what about anti-oxidants and other phytonutrients? If the plants use them to protect against disease, and they no longer need to do this because we protect them .... what does evolutionary theory say will happen to production of these substances? Again, 100% predictable.

It also requires little more than logic and basic knowledge to understand that for example, if people eat less fish and spend less time in the sun or getting UVB exposure, then Vitamin D levels will likely decrease. It's 100% predictable, yet the constant mantra is that there's no problem with vitamin deficiences. A mantra that ignores the overwhelming research (http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/06/sun-vitamin-d-lifestyle-health-sun-vitamin.html).

And then there's the little more than reactionary obsession about "over-priced vitamins" that smacks of bias and intellectual laziness. The research is overwhelming that diets rich in fruit and vegetables are healthier, and there's also an awful lot of research indicating that synthetic vitamins don't seem to to do much. But increase dietary intake of fruit and vegetable nutrients with the aid of a plant concentrates? Oh no, waste of money! Just buy the cheap synthetics! Please ... where's the logic in that?

Furcifer

23rd May 2009, 06:43 PM

Uhuh. Since you're such an expert, when and what were the first pyramid schemes and when and what were the earliest MLMs?
What "laws" are MLMs circumventing?

I'm not an expert, nor do I play one on TV. I'm a guy who can put 2 and 2 together. I didn't know Amway was a pyramid scheme, I figured it out. So have other people, hence the inclusion in the Wiki article.

I think it's foolish and deliberaty misleading of you to continue to pretend you even remotely know what you're talking about?

I'm not sure Alticor has done to improve the pyramid scheme business structure from what it was. What I gather from people here and on the net is very little. They've made a move to "Direct Marketing" but still retain the pyramid scheme to survive ie. sucker some poor sap into sinking his $1000 into pitching this crap (decent crap) to his or her friends with the promise of fortunes to come. Fortunes that never manifest.

This just reveals your ignorance. Why would it "collapse" any more than say Barnes & Noble?

Barnes and Noble doesn't rely on its book club members for a substantial part of its income. They have gone to direct marketing, which has been a boom to the business and book selling industry on the whole. Still, they retain their storefronts. (I think, or did they get bought out in the Amazon/Chapters thing? Whatever, the point still stands :) )

What would make me happy is if you went and did some research before mouthing off any further.

I'd rather discuss this with an Amway representative on the net ;)

icerat

23rd May 2009, 06:48 PM

To be honest I can't really, I'm speaking more to what I know of Mary Kay, and what I can remember of Amway. In them your "pricing" was based on the number of minions you enlisted as well as your order amount.

Neither Mary Kay nor Amway bases pricing on the "number of minions you enlist"

I'm actually interested in how pricing, profit etc. are done with Amway. If you wouldn't mind explaining it in your own words (or I can Google it)

Simple. it's volume discounting. The more you buy, the cheaper you get it, so the bigger your profit margins on wholesale and retail sales.

Everything is done by mail order, and pricing is based on a heirarchy. Again, this is what I know of Mary Kay and what I remember of Amway.

Mary Kay does one-to-one retail sales and internet sales. They probably accept "mail order" too, Amway does, but it's been virtually non-existent for more than a decade.

Wal Mart. K-Mart. Sears. Target. et al.

They're not our competitors. There's was a corporate blog post addressing this issue a couple of years ago - Not Wal-Mart and Never Want to Be (http://adatudes.opportunityzone.com/2007/08/31/Not-WalMart-and-Never-Want-to-Be.aspx)

Are you serious? You're really going to tout the South Korean market as anything meaningful? Please. I really don't care if Amway is the leading brand in Albania, Gabon and the Republic of Moldova. They don't seem to sell jack here in Detroit.

I'm curious as to how you know Amway's Detroit sales numbers?

US sales are around a billion, it's one of the countries largest private companies, and has #1 in internet sales for health & beauty. And sorry, the rest of the world does matter.

icerat

23rd May 2009, 06:53 PM

I'm not an expert, nor do I play one on TV. I'm a guy who can put 2 and 2 together. I didn't know Amway was a pyramid scheme, I figured it out. So have other people, hence the inclusion in the Wiki article.

*what* inclusion on Wiki? The Amway article specifically references pyramid accusations and the fact they've been dismissed by every court that look at them. The "pyramid scheme" article has virtually no references outside the first paragraph and seems to be little more than someones opinion. I provided you with multiple links to references from around the world.

So while you and "other people" might have "figured it out", you figured wrong.

I'm not sure Alticor has done to improve the pyramid scheme business structure from what it was.

Alticor has NEVER had a "pyramid scheme business stucture". Ever.

What I gather from people here and on the net is very little. They've made a move to "Direct Marketing" but still retain the pyramid scheme to survive ie. sucker some poor sap into sinking his $1000 into pitching this crap (decent crap) to his or her friends with the promise of fortunes to come. Fortunes that never manifest.

$1000???? It's something like $45 in the US!

Barnes and Noble doesn't rely on its book club members for a substantial part of its income. They have gone to direct marketing, which has been a boom to the business and book selling industry on the whole. Still, they retain their storefronts. (I think, or did they get bought out in the Amazon/Chapters thing? Whatever, the point still stands :) )

So Amazon is a scam because they don't have store fronts? How about Costco, which relies on sale to members for its income?

I'd rather discuss this with an Amway representative on the net ;)

:boxedin:

icerat

23rd May 2009, 06:56 PM

Yes, that's what I'm referring to.

Oh right, I thought forums were for discussion. I didn't realise that when people said things that were blatantly wrong I shouldn't "deny" them in case I get accused of "defensive manuevering". :rolleyes:

Bob Klase

23rd May 2009, 07:16 PM

It's my understanding that the con commonly refered to as a pyramid scheme was established well before MLM's. MLM's evolved to circumvent the law.

Which might make MLM's stupid, dishonest, unethical and many other things, but not illegal. Pyramid Schemes are "illegal" by definition. MLM's can resemble pyramid schemes, they can have many similarities to pyramid schemes, but until they meet the other requirements of pyramid schemes they are not pyramid schemes.

I think it's foolish and deliberately misleading to represent them as anything but legal pyramid schemes.

I think it's foolish to represent them as something that 'by definition' is illegal unless they are violating the law that makes it illegal. If your goal is to warn people about the bad things about MLM then I think deliberately miscalling them by a name with a specific definition which they do not meet is only giving them (the Amway supporters) ammunition to counter all the bad things you can say about them that aren't incorrect.

Is Amway really sustainable or is it just that it hasn't collapsed yet? It seems to teeter on the edge, waiting for the next generation of "entreprenuers".

And what's the average and maximum lifespan of every other pyramid scheme (which actually meets the definition) that you know of? Can you find me a pyramid scheme (which actually meets the definition) that has last 50 years? How about a time frame until something that's "on the edge" collapses. Make it longer than Chrysler has lasted since they're also teetering on the edge and they've been around longer than Amway.

If it makes you happy I'll refer to Amway as a not illegal pyramid scheme :D

You can refer to roses as not flower pine trees- that won't make roses grow 80 feet tall and drop pine cones all over the place. Or you could refer to everyone death row for a single murder as not-multiple-person-killer-serial-killer.

You insist on calling it by a term with specific definition because you're desperate to make it look as bad as possible. In reality calling it by that term makes it look no worse than using actual, correct facts will show it to be, but makes you look as desperate to blacken Amway's face as icerat is to convince people that it's a great money making opportunity which is no different than selling cell phones at Walmart.

Furcifer

23rd May 2009, 07:21 PM

Neither Mary Kay nor Amway bases pricing on the "number of minions you enlist"

You sure about that? I'm not going to look into this and discover sales entered into the system by a Director get "kicked back" to them, they essentially pay less than their minions because they know they will get a percentage credited back to them on anything they order?

I'm curious as to how you know Amway's Detroit sales numbers?
US sales are around a billion, it's one of the countries largest private companies, and has #1 in internet sales for health & beauty. And sorry, the rest of the world does matter.

Meh, if you can't make here you can't make it anywhere ;) I don't know, I just remember what it was back in the early 80's when a number of people used Amway products. These days I know very few. It's pretty much a joke in these neck of the woods. But I could be wrong, there could be a smathering of underground Amway users I'm not aware of.

You've made a lot of claims that Amway isn't a pyramid scheme, but I don't think you've really proved much other than Amway has found a market outside of the US where they can peddle their wares to a new unsuspecting public. I mean seriously, don't you find it weird Amway is big in South Korea but doesn't really do much business in the US? Michigan is a really pro-union pro-American kind of state. If Amway weren't such a sketchy company they would be held in much higher regard here. You could make the arguement that they have been incorrectly labelled in the past and still carry that stigma, but I'm not hearing that. What I'm seeing is a lot of hand waving. I chimed in to give you some relief from the onslaught but you've done nothing but make claims that make me suspect you really are brainwashed and Amway is a cult.

Bob Klase

23rd May 2009, 07:38 PM

I'm not an expert, nor do I play one on TV. I'm a guy who can put 2 and 2 together. I didn't know Amway was a pyramid scheme, I figured it out. So have other people, hence the inclusion in the Wiki article.

You mean this wiki article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amway#Pyramid_Scheme_Accusations

Amway has several times been accused of being a pyramid scheme. A 1979 FTC investigation in the United States and a 2008 court judgement in the United Kingdom dismissed these claims.

I suppose we could look at the shape of the distribution structure and see that it's bigger at the bottom than it is at the top giving it a pyramid shape. Then we have to find other businesses that have a distribution structure that don't have a similar structure. Then it's going to be very difficult to find a business in the country which isn't a 'pyramid scheme'.

Furcifer

23rd May 2009, 07:49 PM

Which might make MLM's stupid, dishonest, unethical and many other things, but not illegal. Pyramid Schemes are "illegal" by definition.

Yes, that's why I included the qualifier "legal". There are illegal pyramid schemes and there are legal ones that operate as "MLM's".

This comes down to my understanding of the pyramid scheme and what people are calling MLM's. In not an expert, but I recall hearing on NPR a while back (I believe it was in conjunction with a review of the book "The Art of The Con" by Gary Cornelius, or maybe it was in the book?) that these MLM's grew out of the pyramid con. The con itself had been around since the turn of the century in various forms. It was in the late 40's or the early 50's this con evolved into what we are now calling MLM's.

That' what I remember, or at least that's how I remember it. If I'm wrong and MLM's were around before the pyramid scheme, then I would certainly agree with you, they aren't related. But if I am correct, then MLM's like Amway are just legal versions of the pyramid scheme.

I would agree with you however that misrepresenting Amway as having an illegal business model would benefit no one and only slightly less harmful than calling it a cult.

Foolmewunz

23rd May 2009, 07:57 PM

Oh right, I thought forums were for discussion. I didn't realise that when people said things that were blatantly wrong I shouldn't "deny" them in case I get accused of "defensive manuevering". :rolleyes:

Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree, then. What I see is constant defence of the gospel according to Amway. You claim you're no longer that involved, yet you seem to devote a whole lot of time to answering this thread... in fact, just about exclusive to any other activity on the forums.

Maybe you're just a latter day Gary Cooper, forced by your moral strength to defend the wronged, going out there at high noon on Main Street, regardless of the odds? I doubt it, though. You've apparently drunk the korporate Kool-Aid (yes, pedants, I know it was Flavor Aid, but then where'd we get our alliteration?), as you accept nothing that anyone says that is critical of Amway.

Furcifer

23rd May 2009, 08:08 PM

You mean this wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amway#Pyramid_Scheme_Accusations

No, the Wiki on pyramid schemes. But notice in that one:

In a 1979 ruling,[16][64] the Federal Trade Commission found that Amway does not qualify as an illegal pyramid scheme since the Amway system is based on retail sales to consumers.

If all pyramid schemes are illegal why put in the qualifier?

Anyways, it's an interesting game of semantics. I don't put a negative spin on the term "pyramid scheme". I think the problem is the word "scheme" can and does take on a negative connotation at times. In this case its a business "scheme" which isn't inheirently negative.

I still think calling it an MLM is misleading. It certainly can be described at a business model sharing such close similarties to a pyramid scheme that the FTC even laid charges against them in 1979.

Derwoods

23rd May 2009, 09:17 PM

Does anyone have any price comparisons in cases where the Amway product outperforms competing product available at retail stores?

Ferguson

23rd May 2009, 10:51 PM

Does anyone have any price comparisons in cases where the Amway product outperforms competing product available at retail stores?

It would depend on an individual's definition of "competing." To me, I would never buy an Amway drink since I can buy a brand I'm familiar with for cheaper at a store, however an Amway rep would be quick to point out that their drinks have their "special blend of nutrients" that I can't get anywhere else.

Skeptic

24th May 2009, 02:11 AM

The 3 million is people who have renewed in the previous year. The average is a global number and doesn't discriminate between those working for a full-time income or those who renew just to buy the products cheaper.

Buying Amway's products "cheaper" is a sucker's bet, since their products are usually three to five times more expensive than comparable store brands. Gotta pay that upline...

$2000/yr is also a decent income in many countries Amway operates.

Yeah, but not in the USA, where the vast majority of their members are. That comes out to less than minimum wage, even if you do it part-time. Taking a second job at McDonald's will make you a lot more money.

People on average don't make much money. On the other hand, people on average don't do much to make any money.

Actually, people in other jobs, indeed even in part-time minimum wage jobs, make more money on average than you make in Amway. You have to be REALLY GOOD in Amway to make about what an AVERAGE regular worker makes.

But if you're good enough of a salesmen to make money in Amway -- which means you need to be in, about, the tope 1% or 0.5% or so of the population -- you could surely make a lot more as a salesmen for just about any other product.

Amway is a sucker's bet.

Very very few of that 3million would even put 5 hours a week into their Amway business.

5 hrs. a week * 52 weeks = 250 hours. $2000/250 = about 7 bucks an hour.

If you work more than that, or make less than the average, your hourly wages in Amway are even worse, say, $4 an hour. Since Amway reps are "independent businessmen", in theory, they don't get any medical insurance, social security, severance pay, or anything.

The average Amway rep works to make his "upline" (in practice, his boss) money for $4 an hour with no benefits. In other words, the average Amway rep is, due to his stupidity in choosing this "opportunity", working in worse conditions than the illegal immigrant who doesn't speak a word of English and jumped the fence last night.

What a deal!

Amway is like any other business

Not really. It's a pyramid scheme. The "business" is just an excuse to funnel money from the lower-ranked in the pyramid to the higher-ups, by making them buy tons of ridiculously overpriced products nobody who isn't in Amway would touch with a ten-foot pole.

There is also the scam within the scam: the "motivational meetings" and so on organized by the higher-ups, where there isn't even any Amway product to buy -- the suckers actually pay the upline directly to hear him tell them how they're really good boys and girls, and how they should keep doing that "until they succeed".

Skeptic

24th May 2009, 02:18 AM

The whole "is it legal?" argument is besides the point. Whether Amway is legal or not, it is simply a pathetic pyramid scheme where only the top 0.1% or so make money which is funneled to them by the 99.9% of the suckers below them.

So what if it's legal? It's perfectly legal to take all the money in your wallet and throw it out the window. It's perfectly legal to lose all your money in slots at the Las Vegas casino. It's still not a good idea.

Still, it's a better idea than joining Amway: the end result is the same -- you go broke -- but at least you don't work your @$$ off for your "upline" doing it. In the casino case you at least have some fun.

Heck, when you take into account the dubious character of those "big wheels" in Amway, the ones who fleece the suckers, throwing your money out the window begins to look positively reasonable: chances are, whomever finds your money is more worthy of it than the your local Amway group's leader.

Jeff Corey

24th May 2009, 02:39 AM

I wonder how this is proceeding? http://www.pyramidschemealert.org/psamain/news/AmwaySuedasPyramidScheme.html

Nogbad

24th May 2009, 05:41 AM

I sat through an Amway presentation a long time ago (early 80s). It was fascinating from a social phenomenon perspective. The couple selling were nice young people and had that evangelical glow. They were determined to climb the pyramid and talked of being wanting to be "pearls" and I think there was a prize of getting to spend time on a boat and meet senior Amway people.

Anyhoo, they did have stuff to sell, washing powder and other household products but they seemed much more interested in getting us to join as sellers of said household products than sell said household products.

It is a pyramid scheme. It may abide by the law and pay its taxes but it is a pyramid scheme. Like any such scheme, get in early and you will make money but simple maths dictates that the lower levels quickly run out of population to recruit 8 new sellers or whatever it was at the time.

Contrast and compare something like Kirby which also sells by house to house selling. OK a Kirby is one expensive Hoover but it is the product they are selling not the right to sell Kirbys. It is a quality bit of kit and the only decision the customer has to make is whether they could justify spending that much on a Hoover.

I take it Amway have gone into the HerbalLife (sp?) territory with all this talk of vitamins?

icerat

24th May 2009, 05:44 AM

Which might make MLM's stupid, dishonest, unethical and many other things, but not illegal.

Stupid products or marketing claims can make an MLM stupid, just like any other business
Dishonest reps or management can make an MLM dishonest, just like any other business
Unethical reps or management can make an MLM unethical, just like any other business

All of those things happen in MLM, as they happen in other businesses.

icerat

24th May 2009, 05:48 AM

I wonder how this is proceeding? http://www.pyramidschemealert.org/psamain/news/AmwaySuedasPyramidScheme.html

It was kicked out and the judge ruled any disputes go to arbitration, as outlined in the contract. If the business was an illegal pyramid then the contract would have been invalidated. Of course, you won't find that on PSA. Fitzpatrick does the classic mistake of assuming MLMs are pyramids and then ranting about the failings of pyramids when those failings don't apply to legitimate MLMs.

Jeff Corey

24th May 2009, 05:50 AM

It was kicked out and the judge ruled any disputes go to arbitration, as outlined in the contract....
When did that occur? Do you have a link to that?

icerat

24th May 2009, 05:54 AM

Buying Amway's products "cheaper" is a sucker's bet, since their products are usually three to five times more expensive than comparable store brands. Gotta pay that upline...

You are incorrect. The majority of volume comes from the two major brands of Nutrilite and Artistry, both of which are generally cheaper than the competitors.

Yeah, but not in the USA, where the vast majority of their members are. That comes out to less than minimum wage, even if you do it part-time. Taking a second job at McDonald's will make you a lot more money.

The majority of Amway's members are not in the US. Amway is a business, not a job. Like any startup you will generally work for little or nothing for months or years to reach decent profitability. If all you're after is a few extra bucks and you have the time, then a second job is a better alternative.

The rest of your "analysis" is based on this false assumption it's a job. Please compare to starting an running a business, with all the attendent strengths and weaknesses.

Not really. It's a pyramid scheme. The "business" is just an excuse to funnel money from the lower-ranked in the pyramid to the higher-ups, by making them buy tons of ridiculously overpriced products nobody who isn't in Amway would touch with a ten-foot pole.

A ridiculous and unfounded assertion. Amway products have won numerous awards and recognitions around the world. (http://www.amwaywiki.com/Awards_and_Recognitions)

icerat

24th May 2009, 06:12 AM

When did that occur? Do you have a link to that?

Apologies, I was incorrect, I was thinking of a very similar case launched in California by some distributors who had been kicked out (TEAM). I'm not sure of the current status of this case. Docs are here -

http://www.amwaywiki.com/Pokorny_%26_Blenn_vs_Quixtar%2C_Inc_et_al

As the claims are virtually identical to the TEAM case it's extremely unlikely to have much success. I'd note the court refused FitzPatrick (pyramid scheme alert) as a supposed "expert witness". I'll see what else I can found out.

icerat

24th May 2009, 07:09 AM

Skeptic

24th May 2009, 07:41 AM

You are incorrect. The majority of volume comes from the two major brands of Nutrilite and Artistry, both of which are generally cheaper than the competitors.

Not true. They are, in fact, far more expensive. Let's take Nutrilite: Their vitamin C tablets (300 tablets) cost -- are you sitting down? -- $52.49. Compare this to, say, Shoprite's vitamins which cost (for 100 tablets) $3.95, or about one fifth the price of Amway's stuff. This 5:1 price difference is typical of Amway products. Amway lies and says it's due to the products "superior quality" -- their Vitamin C is "natural" or "organic" or whatever (yeah, like the molecules give a flying duck!) But the truth is that it is more expensive because ca. 70% or so of Amway's sticker price is payments and commissions to the "uplines" in the pyramid. Except for, perhaps, other, even more expensive pyramid schemes (I presume that's who you mean by "competitors"), Amway's products are ludicrously overpriced.

The majority of Amway's members are not in the US. Amway is a business, not a job.

Actually, It is a job. Amway reps are salesmen whose sales pay for their upline, their upline's upline's, and so on, comissions -- just like a saleslman in a store pays for his boss, his bosses' boss, etc., salary. It is only a "business" in one sense -- you don't get paid. Unlike salesmen in stores or other places, Amway folks work on full commission, get no salary, health benefits, or anything else. Heck, they don't even need to be fired if they stop selling -- they fire themselves by not renewing. It's no wonder their bosses, the "upline", love them so much. They work for them for free!

Like any startup you will generally work for little or nothing for months or years to reach decent profitability.

Not really. Startups finally become profitable IF THEY SELL ENOUGH PRODUCTS OR SERVICES TO THE PUBLIC. Amway folks only become profitable if they GET ENOUGH PEOPLE BELOW THEM IN THE PYRAMID. Nobody cares about the product -- it's just an excuse that officially makes the pyramid legal. It's not as if anybody except for Amway drones, brainwashed by their "upline" to be "team players", actually buys a $52.49 bottle of vitamin pills -- of which $40 or so is pure commission to the upline, the upline's upline, the upline's upline's upline...

The rest of your "analysis" is based on this false assumption it's a job. Please compare to starting an running a business, with all the attendent strengths and weaknesses.

WHAT strengths?

It is a business selling incredibly overpriced products, where nobody has any contractual guarantee of any territory, and in which you are very strongly encouraged to RECRUIT YOUR OWN COMPETITION. If Amway were a business where the goal was to make money selling products, it is a suicidal business plan -- it's as if McDonald's priced their hamburgers at $100 a piece, and encouraged every franchise owner, not to sell hamburgers, but to recruit every customer to open another McDonald's next door in order to "join the great opportunity".

Amway's pricing and strategy of recruiting make it crystal clear that it isn't a business, but merely a pyramid scheme where the real, indeed the only, money is found by getting people "under" you to buy tons of overpriced stuff so you'll get a comission... just like YOU paid tons of money to YOUR upline buying tons of overpirced stuff so HE'LL get a comission.

icerat

24th May 2009, 08:59 AM

Not true. They are, in fact, far more expensive.
Let's take Nutrilite: Their vitamin C tablets (300 tablets) cost

They are not "vitamin C tablets". You're not comparing like with like. Having said that, I happen to think that product IS over-priced.

But the truth is that it is more expensive because ca. 70% or so of Amway's sticker price is payments and commissions to the "uplines" in the pyramid.

"uplines" generally share in less than 30% of the price, similar to traditional distribution. You have no idea what you're talking about at all do you?

Except for, perhaps, other, even more expensive pyramid schemes (I presume that's who you mean by "competitors"), Amway's products are ludicrously overpriced.

Try comparing with other organic plant concentrates. Try comparing Artistry products with others in the "prestige" category. Pick any manufacturer, you'll always be able to find some product somewhere that has something vaguely similar cheaper elsewhere.

Why didn't you pick say the Daily Multivitamin? Didn't like the price comparison? Why didn't you pick Artistry and compare with it's competitors? Didn't like the comparison?

Nutrilite Daily (90 tablets), 180 tablets, list price $22.95 - 12.75c per tablet
* includes naturally sourced alfalfa, watercress, parsley, and acerola cherries and provides 100% or more of the RDA for 24 essential vitamins and minerals
Centrum Advanced Formula 325 tablets, list price $35.95 - 11.06c per tablet
* no organic concentrates, significantly less of many essential vitamins and minerals.

I'm willing to pay 1.69 cents more per tablet for a better product and so are many others. If you're not, that's your prerogative.

Actually, It is a job. Amway reps are salesmen whose sales pay for their upline, their upline's upline's, and so on, comissions -- just like a saleslman in a store pays for his boss, his bosses' boss, etc., salary.

Just like a corner stores' sales of "pick any product" pays for the local distributor which pays for the wholesaler which pays for the importer, which pays for the exporter which pays for the manufacturer

Welcome to business.

Not really. Startups finally become profitable IF THEY SELL ENOUGH PRODUCTS OR SERVICES TO THE PUBLIC. Amway folks only become profitable if they GET ENOUGH PEOPLE BELOW THEM IN THE PYRAMID.

I know there's little point in mentioning it again, since you've clearly ignored it every other time .... WE DON'T GET PAID BASED ON THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE RECRUITED.

If we did, then it would be a pyramid as you suggest.

It's not as if anybody except for Amway drones, brainwashed by their "upline" to be "team players", actually buys a $52.49 bottle of vitamin pills -- of which $40 or so is pure commission to the upline, the upline's upline, the upline's upline's upline...

Do you just pluck this figures out of your a**?? Your commission percentages are wrong, your claims on purchasing are wrong. As outlined in an earlier post above, the great majority of Amway sales are to people who have no "profit motive" for purchase.

It is a business selling incredibly overpriced products, where nobody has any contractual guarantee of any territory, and in which you are very strongly encouraged to RECRUIT YOUR OWN COMPETITION.

And they call "us" brainwashed ... do you actually think for yourself or do you just regurgitate the anti-amway talking points?

So ... Coca-Cola sells coke out their factory canteen. They also actively "recruit" wholesalers .... MY GOD! THEY'RE RECRUITING THEIR OWN COMPETITION!!!! People I recruit are not my competition, they're my customers.

The rest of your rant is predicated on the idea that there is no legitimate demand for Amway's products, and people only purchase them because of the profit motive. If this was true then you would be correct in your accusations of it being a pyramid scheme. However -

1. 25% of folk who do not renew their Amway businesses continue to purchase products as customers - they have no profit motive
2. 77% of folk registered with Amway do not do even the minimum required to earn bonuses, yet many of them continue to purchase products and renew their memberships. They have no profit motive.
3. Amway and Amway IBOs do hundreds millions of dollars in sales to people who are explicitly registered as customers, with no profit motive
4. Amway's products have won numerous independent consumer awards and accolades

Your assumptions are false, your conclusions are thus understandably also flawed.

Nogbad

24th May 2009, 09:15 AM

for the numerous posters who ignored the earlier links that explained what a pyramid scheme actually was, I'd be interested in your explanations of *why* you think Amway is a pyramid scheme?

It seems to be based on the idea that people earn come kind of compensation or reward based at least partly on the efforts of folk "lower" in the distribution heirarchy. Given this same setup exists in virtually any heirarchy, whether it be a company or other organisation, or traditional distribution, do you folk consider all heirarchical organisations to be "pyramid schemes"?

It is a pyramid because of the maths involved. In order to be up line one has to recruit down line and they turn have to recruit down line. Even someone competent in Standard Grade maths can determine that this is not a practical proposition for those a few links down the chain. As far as I could make out the couple that presented to us also bought their presentation kit from Amway.

If the products were the primary rational for the business and they are as good as claimed then people would know about them and seek them out.

All businesses are hierarchical but the income of the business is not determined by the numbers recruited in to sell but rather the optimum number of units shifted ideally keeping the supply chain as streamlined as possible. Amway is primarily about numbers of people not products (although it does have products). Some pyramid schemes didn't even bother with products and were rightly blasted as scams pure and simple. The presentation I was given extolled the benefits of joining up, the Kirby presentation which also happened back in the early 80s extolled the product. There is a big difference.

As a student at the time I was looking for a part time job, needless to say, I didn't join Amway but gave the really nice Kirby presenter the number of a wealthy older relative who did buy one.

fls

24th May 2009, 09:20 AM

And you're right, a junior high student could come up with a lot of what I've said, because it's that obvious and that well known. Even a momentary effort can find a deal of research talking about declining nutrient content in plants and the poor eating habits of most people today, and increasing problems of nutrient depletion or deficiency.

Here's a quick summary article of some of the research on declining nutrient content of food (http://www.sehn.org/tccfoodnutrientsdecline.html) due to modern farming practices. Little more than logic and basic biology of is needed to predict this, yet on this forum it's been denied it's happening. I have papers from the US, Canada, Australia, UK, Denmark, and Sweden all with similar findings - the nutrient content of food is decreasing. It's not rocket science, particular with regards mineral content. The minerals come from the soil, if it's not being replaced, how does it get in the plants? Magic? And what about anti-oxidants and other phytonutrients? If the plants use them to protect against disease, and they no longer need to do this because we protect them .... what does evolutionary theory say will happen to production of these substances? Again, 100% predictable.

It also requires little more than logic and basic knowledge to understand that for example, if people eat less fish and spend less time in the sun or getting UVB exposure, then Vitamin D levels will likely decrease. It's 100% predictable, yet the constant mantra is that there's no problem with vitamin deficiences. A mantra that ignores the overwhelming research (http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/06/sun-vitamin-d-lifestyle-health-sun-vitamin.html).

It does not help your credibility that you have characterized what I and others have said as the opposite of what was said.

And then there's the little more than reactionary obsession about "over-priced vitamins" that smacks of bias and intellectual laziness. The research is overwhelming that diets rich in fruit and vegetables are healthier, and there's also an awful lot of research indicating that synthetic vitamins don't seem to to do much. But increase dietary intake of fruit and vegetable nutrients with the aid of a plant concentrates? Oh no, waste of money! Just buy the cheap synthetics! Please ... where's the logic in that?

Foods contain nutrients of varying amounts. A balanced diet provides a more than adequate amount of those nutrients, but taking into consideration dietary habits, trends in the variation of nutrients, individual characteristics and social trends, some people may not obtain an adequate amount of specific nutrients. In addition to addressing each of those factors, it is reasonable for an individual to add to their nutrient intake so as to obtain an adequate amount. It has been demonstrated that one way this can be achieved easily and cheaply is by taking generic vitamin pills.

Your "plant concentrates" are either expensive food or expensive vitamins. You are asking us to either take them instead of simply taking in more fruits and vegetables, or you are asking us to take them instead of cheaper vitamin pills. The expense would be worth it if they provided more benefit than either of those strategies. Simply show us the evidence for either.

It is probably obvious that I am biased against the idea of taking a pill as a quick fix. I would rather that people simply eat an apple or carrot instead of popping a pill, but I realize that there may be more compliance with the latter. Although I have to say that you seem to put a helluva lot of effort into avoiding a balanced diet - far more than I put into maintaining a balanced diet. Why do all that research and why get involved with using Amway products when all you have to do is throw a few more vegetables and fruits into the shopping cart? Plus, I'd rather spend my money on yarn or multi-tools or books than on pills.

Linda

Skeptic

24th May 2009, 09:26 AM

Yeah yeah yeah -- it's not vitamin C tablets, it's "organic plant concentrates". Gee. So why do they actually say it is "Vitamin C with broader benefits" (http://www.quixtar.com/products/product.aspx?itemno=A4211) on the product's own home page? Oh, I'm sure those squiggly lines in the graph -- it retains some of the vitamin for 30 minutes! -- are worth that extra $50.

Sorry, bud. Vitamin C is vitamin C. It can be made in the factory for $3.95 per 100 (or less), or it can cost $1,000,000 a pill, be delivered microgram by microgram into the pill by deaf-mutes using ancient tibetian rituals that only collect the vitamin from rare plants that grow only on the pubic hair of virgin silkworms. The molecules don't care.

Besides, once more: it doesn't cost an extra $50 because it is "natural" or "special" or "organic". It costs the extra $50 because that's the commission that is paid to the uplines.

fls

24th May 2009, 09:33 AM

Why didn't you pick say the Daily Multivitamin? Didn't like the price comparison? Why didn't you pick Artistry and compare with it's competitors? Didn't like the comparison?

Nutrilite Daily (90 tablets), 180 tablets, list price $22.95 - 12.75c per tablet
* includes naturally sourced alfalfa, watercress, parsley, and acerola cherries and provides 100% or more of the RDA for 24 essential vitamins and minerals
Centrum Advanced Formula 325 tablets, list price $35.95 - 11.06c per tablet
* no organic concentrates, significantly less of many essential vitamins and minerals.

I'm willing to pay 1.69 cents more per tablet for a better product and so are many others. If you're not, that's your prerogative.

That's why I keep saying "generic". Costco's multivitamin tablets are 3 cents each.

I am willing to pay more for a better product. That's why I keep asking you for evidence that they are better.

Linda

Furcifer

24th May 2009, 09:34 AM

The whole "is it legal?" argument is besides the point. Whether Amway is legal or not, it is simply a pathetic pyramid scheme where only the top 0.1% or so make money which is funneled to them by the 99.9% of the suckers below them.

lol, that's it in a nutshell. Direct marketing is supposed to save the consumer money by cutting out the middleman.

I'd like see someone show how Amway resembles the direct marketing business they claim to be.

icerat

24th May 2009, 09:34 AM

It is a pyramid because of the maths involved. In order to be up line one has to recruit down line and they turn have to recruit down line. Even someone competent in Standard Grade maths can determine that this is not a practical proposition for those a few links down the chain.

This exact same critique applies to virtually all product distribution systems. Am I getting the impression you believe there's some kind of "endless chain"? This is a misunderstanding of the business model. As established in FTC vs Amway in the 70s, the distribution chain, and levels of profit sharing is of similar length to other product distribution chains. More than 70% of final consumers are with 4 "links" of Amway, 99% within 8. Similar length "chains" exist in traditional business. The "end" of the chain is determined the same way as in traditional business - there comes a point where your purchasing volume is so great you'd be better off dealing directly with the supplier/manufacturer yourself.

If the products were the primary rational for the business and they are as good as claimed then people would know about them and seek them out.

By this logic, if someone invented a true elixir of immortality, but nobody knew about it, then it doesn't work. Sorry, but that makes no sense at all. As it happens, people DO seek them out. As already mentioned, 25% of folk who stop being "agents" continue as customers - and that's in the context of understanding that 50% of folk who join never place an order in the first place - so they never tried the products.

All businesses are hierarchical but the income of the business is not determined by the numbers recruited in to sell

It's not determined by this in MLM or Amway either. You're thinking of pyramid schemes, were that does apply.

but rather the optimum number of units shifted ideally keeping the supply chain as streamlined as possible.

Precisely the same applies with Amway, its all about number of units shifted.

Amway is primarily about numbers of people not products (although it does have products).

As I stated earlier - recruit a million people, sell no products, make no money. Recruit nobody, sell lots of products, make lots of money.

On what basis can you claim Amway is "primarily about numbers of people"?

Some pyramid schemes didn't even bother with products and were rightly blasted as scams pure and simple. The presentation I was given extolled the benefits of joining up, the Kirby presentation which also happened back in the early 80s extolled the product. There is a big difference.

So if you instead happened to have gone to one of the many meetings promoting the products, then all of a sudden the exact same business model, with no changes at all, is suddenly not a pyramid? So if a friend is opening up a store to sell music, and he approaches you to be a business partner, then his business model is flawed, but if he approaches you to buy CDs, it's ok?

icerat

24th May 2009, 09:37 AM

That's why I keep saying "generic". Costco's multivitamin tablets are 3 cents each.

I am willing to pay more for a better product. That's why I keep asking you for evidence that they are better.

I have a 90 minute seminar on health & nutrition, with supporting references available, I've no intention of giving it here - which I'm sure you're glad to hear! :cool:

This is the idea behind the business model. The product "story" cannot easily be told through mass marketing, so it's told 1-on-1 and in small groups. That's what we get paid for - well, creating results if we do it well.

Furcifer

24th May 2009, 09:38 AM

I know there's little point in mentioning it again, since you've clearly ignored it every other time .... WE DON'T GET PAID BASED ON THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE RECRUITED.

If we did, then it would be a pyramid as you suggest.

Do you or do you not get a percentage of the sales made by the people you recruit? If you do then it's a pyramid scheme.

icerat

24th May 2009, 09:43 AM

Sorry, bud. Vitamin C is vitamin C. It can be made in the factory for $3.95 per 100 (or less), or it can cost $1,000,000 a pill, be delivered microgram by microgram into the pill by deaf-mutes using ancient tibetian rituals that only collect the vitamin from rare plants that grow only on the pubic hair of virgin silkworms. The molecules don't care.

Did you read what I wrote? It's not just Vitamin C. Vitamin C is ascorbic acid, that's what you get in Centrum. It's made from Corn syrup, acetone, and hydrocholoric acid. Ascorbic acid has important roles in the body. If that's all you want, by all means stick with Centrum or Costco. I believe, and the research supports that belief, that fruit and vegetables high in C contain other important substances, not just ascorbic acid.

icerat

24th May 2009, 09:46 AM

Do you or do you not get a percentage of the sales made by the people you recruit? If you do then it's a pyramid scheme.

Clearly you've decided on your own definition of pyramid scheme. Under your definition, I agree, it would seem that Amway, and indeed virtually any other business, is indeed a "3bodyproblem pyramid scheme".

Since you're using a different definition to that used in business and law, I'd request you stop commentating here in order to prevent further confusion, or at least preface your use of the term "pyramid scheme" with info clarifying it's your definition and that definition is different to the one normally used.

fls

24th May 2009, 09:53 AM

I have a 90 minute seminar on health & nutrition, with supporting references available, I've no intention of giving it here - which I'm sure you're glad to hear! :cool:

You could simply provide the citations for your references. I can look them up myself.

This is the idea behind the business model. The product "story" cannot easily be told through mass marketing, so it's told 1-on-1 and in small groups. That's what we get paid for - well, creating results if we do it well.

That is my impression as well - that the value in your business model is its ability to capture a particular population.

Linda

Nogbad

24th May 2009, 09:53 AM

icerat

24th May 2009, 10:00 AM

You could simply provide the citations for your references. I can look them up myself.

For reasons already discussed, the types of references you desire do not really exist.

That is my impression as well - that the value in your business model is its ability to capture a particular population.

All businesses have a target market, and generally require only a small percentage of that market to be very successful.

Nogbad

24th May 2009, 10:05 AM

Clearly you've decided on your own definition of pyramid scheme. Under your definition, I agree, it would seem that Amway, and indeed virtually any other business, is indeed a "3bodyproblem pyramid scheme".

Since you're using a different definition to that used in business and law, I'd request you stop commentating here in order to prevent further confusion, or at least preface your use of the term "pyramid scheme" with info clarifying it's your definition and that definition is different to the one normally used.

That is not an unusual definition of pyramid selling.

Another more common model is the seller buying the products direct from the supplier (Amway) and selling them on. The seller keeping all the sales money (apart from taxes etc of course). There is no particular value added to the process by a chain of up line remuneration.

icerat

24th May 2009, 10:11 AM

Business is pretty simple really, bits in, bits out and add value along the way.
The presentation I attended was something other and a bit strange to boot. I have a recollection of recruiting 7 people. If such a process were successful, my country's population would not support 8 links (every man woman and child and a few pets signed up by then). Therefore logically not everyone was going to get 7 and the linked benefits would not accrue.

What is shown in introductory business previews is generally a hypothetical model to get the idea across, they do not reflect how the business operates in the real world, which requires a deal more explanation, as well as tailoring to an individuals goals.

One could of course just sell the product - a perfectly reasonable thing to do. However, I don't know anybody that uses Amway products or talks about Amway products.

Now you know one. I haven't actively built an Amway business for a decade, but I still use the products. You probably also know others but don't know it. Seriously, out of the hundreds of people you know, how many of them do you know what shampoo, floor cleaner, supplements, cosmetics etc etc they use?

Perhaps Amway did sell vitamins back then but I mostly recall washing powder and the like.

Amway's founding grew out of a dispute within the Nutrilite company back in the 50s. Nutrilite as the US's first supplement company. Amway started with a concentrated organic cleaning product in 1959 and went on to add numerous other environmentally friendly cleaning products and it's what Amway became famous for. Over the years the competition in that arena increased, with other companies developing concentrates and jumping on the green bandwagon. While Amway still has those products and is very successful with them, if a company doesn't adapt to marketplace changes, it will fail. Amway bought out nutrilite in the 70s and through the80s and 90s developed that brand and the Artistry Cosmetics brand and they account for around two thirds of Amway's volume today.

fls

24th May 2009, 10:11 AM

For reasons already discussed, the types of references you desire do not really exist.

So your claim that the supplements are better was not a claim based on evidence?

Linda

Skeptic

24th May 2009, 10:18 AM

I believe, and the research supports that belief, that fruit and vegetables high in C contain other important substances, not just ascorbic acid.

Jeez. So take a multivitamin pill, then. Or some fibre. That'll cost you, say, another $4. Okay, then, to get the FULL effect of the Amway pill, you might have to spend $7, not $4. Sure makes it worthwhile to buy it for an extra fifty....

Oh wait, don't tell me -- Amway's super-duper seeekrit formula is unique. Only it gives you what you really need. That's why it costs an extra $50, right?

I suppose all these other products (http://www.quixtar.com/products/thumbnail.aspx?pid=409&ctg=622) are also just special. Like the month's supply of vitamins & minerals for the low, low price of $72, or the "concentrated fruit and vegetable tablets" for $40.

Browse around that web site -- get an idea of just what "great deals" Amway offers. Other SPECIAL products include, for instance, the $60 makeup kit, the $15 lipstick, $350 knife set (a steal at $60 a knife!), $55 scissors, $130 frying pan, and a few other choice "deals".

Practically the only products that are sorta-kinda reasonable -- just a tiny little 50%-100% markup from famous top brands, to say nothing about economy brands -- are either the cosmetic -- a field where prices are absurd from the start -- or items that cost next to nothing to manufacture, such as "sports drinks" or kiddie cold medicine.

Each and every one of those products is just sooooooooooooo SPECIAL it could not POSSIBLY have been made any cheaper.

Gotta pay that upline!

icerat

24th May 2009, 10:36 AM

That is not an unusual definition of pyramid selling.

Depending where you are, "pyramid scheme" and "pyramid selling" are either the same thing or different things.

Another more common model is the seller buying the products direct from the supplier (Amway) and selling them on. The seller keeping all the sales money (apart from taxes etc of course).

I disagree here, I don't think manufacturer->salesman->consumer is "more common".

It ranges everywhere from manufacturer->consumer to an extreme of something like

manufacturer->jobber->transporter->exporter->transporter->importer->national distributor->jobber->transporter->regional distributor->transporter->wholesaler->transporter->retailer->consumer with each layer earning some kind of profit.

The latter is an extreme of course, and the first becoming more common, particularly with the advent of the internet, but most distribution is still somewhere in between.

There is no particular value added to the process by a chain of up line remuneration.

Yes there is ---> incentive marketing.

icerat

24th May 2009, 10:37 AM

So your claim that the supplements are better was not a claim based on evidence?

That's not what I said.

icerat

24th May 2009, 10:43 AM

Each and every one of those products is just sooooooooooooo SPECIAL it could not POSSIBLY have been made any cheaper.

Clearly we have somewhat different philosophies on business. I'll quote Sergio Zyman, former Chief Marketing Officer at Coca-Cola:

The sole purpose of marketing is to sell more to more people, more often, and at higher prices.

There's variants, you can go the low price, low margin, high volume path, ala costco/walmart, or you can go high price, lower volume, high margin path.

Which one to take is a business decision influenced by the particular products you've decided to market. I refer you to the "not walmart and don't want to be" blog I linked to earlier.

Ferguson

24th May 2009, 10:48 AM

I don't think calling an MLM a pyramid scheme is so off-base. I call my car a lemon because it's always breaking down and stalling out. Some would say I'm not allowed to call it that because "lemon" has a legal definition which my car does not qualify for.
As far as I'm concerned, if it quacks like a duck, call it a duck, even if in court you have to call it a mallard.

icerat

24th May 2009, 10:55 AM

That would be appropriate if your car did actually break down and stall out, however it appears to me that many folk are calling Amway, or MLM, pyramid schemes based on attributes they don't actually have.

What attributes do you believe Amway has, and that other businesses you don't consider "pyramids" do not have, that makes you consider the term is appropriate for Amway?

Skeptic

24th May 2009, 11:24 AM

Clearly we have somewhat different philosophies on business.

Gee, I thought you said Amway is a great way to SAVE money? That's its products are competitively priced and usually lower than the competition? Now that I prove the opposite is true, suddenly I get a lecture why it is a "philosophical" necessity for them to charge such ridiculous prices. Frankly, I don't really care about the "business philosophy" that makes it, for some reason, necessary for a company's salesmen to sell a six-knife set for $350, a frying pan for $130, or a vitamin supplement bottle for $70. You can keep your philosophy, and I will keep my money and buy somewhere else.

I *do*, however, care about the fact that I can get equivalent (or better) products, without the hassle of having to find an Amway representative, let alone being harranged about how I must join Amway, since it is a "great opportunity", or wait for delivery... and all that from anywhere between 1/10th to 1/3rd or so of the price. Why is that? Is it because the companies that sell similar products so much cheaper are charities, out there to help the poor? Don't those companies care about maximizing profits? Well, they do, but they are REAL companies -- concentrating on selling products to consumers -- so they cannot afford to charge more than what the market will bear. Charging too much would lower their market share.

But Amway is not a real company. It cares nothing about selling products to customers. So it doesn't care what price the market charges for similar products, or how its high prices will effect its market share. In fact, it doesn't have a market share of actual customers -- nobody who isn't already in Amway ever buys those $130 frying pans or $70 vitamin bottles. It is a pyramid scheme, which only cares about moving money from the "downline" to the "upline" in the pyramid, by forcing the "downline" to buy these overpriced products so that the "upline" will divvie up the fat comissions.

Skeptic

24th May 2009, 11:28 AM

icerat's views -- "Amway's products are cheap but we must charge five times as much as the market for philosophical reasons, and if you disagree you're a @#$!! socialist, so there" -- are best illustrated in this (http://bp0.blogger.com/_O1bxbVAOtyg/SCGnhcJgBcI/AAAAAAAAAAM/Q6fqV5wrmso/s1600-h/CalvinEconomics.jpg) famous "Calvin and Hobbes" cartoon.

Derwoods

24th May 2009, 12:27 PM

icerat

24th May 2009, 12:45 PM

Gee, I thought you said Amway is a great way to SAVE money?

Gee, and you seem to be hallucinating. I never said any such thing.

That's its products are competitively priced and usually lower than the competition?

Yes, if you're already buying products of that category. Most people don't. You clearly don't. If you want to start buying better quality products it won't save you money, it will cost you more.

If you plan on just arguing with yourself, I'll go do something else.

In fact, it doesn't have a market share of actual customers -- nobody who isn't already in Amway ever buys those $130 frying pans or $70 vitamin bottles.

Clearly you are just interested in arguing with yourself. You ignore facts and statistics and just continue with your rant, reality be damned.

icerat

24th May 2009, 01:09 PM

Icerat, since the vitamin C example isn't a good one, could you provide us with a few examples where you would stand behind your amway product in a price comparison to its established retail competition? I am assuming that there must be some more simple comparisons that don't require 90 min of everyone's time.

Simple comparisons are not easy because there's so much subjectiveness in judging value. If I think Pasta A tastes better than Pasta B, then I might be willing to pay more for Pasta A, up to a certain point. Even washing powder isn't so simple to judge. Do environment concerns worry you? What about health concerns from soap residuals in clothes? If all you want is clean clothes then a 50c bar of soap can do the job. If you have other concerns you're willing to pay more.

You can only really do "simple" price comparisons when comparing the exact some product.

The next best would be to compare something like the Artistry product range. Artistry has been independently judged (by Euromonitor) to be in the "prestige category" of cosmetics and skin care, along with companies like Clinque, Lancome, Loreal, Shiseido. So we have an independent judge, not someone trying to sell (or attack) the product, at least telling us what brands are competitors. You can still argue that one brand is better than the other, or one specific product from one company is better than from another, but at least we're comparing products in the same ballpark.

Do that comparison you'll find Artistry very competitive, sometimes cheaper, sometimes more expensive, depending on what product features you're after.

We're not trying to sell on price, we're trying to sell on quality. If your #1 concern is price, then Amway products are not for you.