MLM

[tyr_13]

Alright, I didn't think that there would actually be much objection to the MLM episode, but there is a surprising amount. Some people even have books (!) to back it up.

As I posted asking people to come here to discuss the topic, I figured I might as well open a thread up from them. Don't want to intimidate the first timers.

[gtc]

There is a thead or two in the Economics and Business section (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=157410)at the moment on MLMs.

Nice tags.

[tyr_13]

Thanks for the link. And thanks, those are the only things I could think of with MLM. :)

[politas]

Everyone I know who ever got into Amway ended up with a box of useless products gathering dust in their garage or shed.

If it really did work, and was a valid way of earning money, then surely they wouldn't need to hide the fact that it's Amway when initially luring people in.

Since every other MLM is based on the same basic structure as Amway, it's easy to lump them all together.

[icerat]

Everyone I know who ever got into Amway ended up with a box of useless products gathering dust in their garage or shed.

Why did they do that? It's inventory loading and against Amway rules. It sounds like they were trying to "game" the system to get bonuses they didn't deserve.

If they were legitimate purchases they could have returned them to Amway, which has a 180 day satisfaction guarantee. Full refund, they'll even pay freight.

If it really did work, and was a valid way of earning money, then surely they wouldn't need to hide the fact that it's Amway when initially luring people in.

I see no logic in that claim, for two reasons. (1) they may need to "hide" it, because folk like Brian and yourself are actively and incorrectly telling people it's a scam. (2) what do you mean by "if it really did work". That's like wondering if machines "really can fly". MLM has "really worked" for decades.

[icerat]

Alright, I didn't think that there would actually be much objection to the MLM episode, but there is a surprising amount. Some people even have books (!) to back it up.

tyr_13 - I'm assume you're the podcaster. How could you possibly think that accusing a $100billion industry involving tens of millions of people and some of the world's largest companies as being illegal scams wouldn't raise some objections?

You seem to be getting mixed up and confused between MLM and Pyramid Schemes. At one point you delineate, but then get somewhat confused about the differences. A major issue of the industry is that scams start up and call themselves MLM because MLM is a legal, legitimate business model. Avon and Mary Kay, which you mention in your comments as not being MLM, both use Multilevel Marketing. You say in the comments they're not MLM because the income comes from product sales, not recruiting. This is the complete reverse. Legitimate MLMs are the companies where you only earn income through product sales. If you're making money from recruiting then you're an illegal pyramid scheme. Many of the flaws you talk about are the quite real flaws of pyramid schemes. They are not flaws of legitimate MLM companies.

Some of your comments are just plain wrong. For one example you cite the BERR vs Amway UK case, where it was stated that less than 1 in 10 people sell the products, but then go on to claim "the company has its distributors as a captive audience required to make regular purchases"

This is completely false, Amway has no such requirement "to make regular purchases". Yes, less than 1 in 10 people sell the products. What are the other 9 out of 10 doing? Well, internal statistics revealed in a dispute with some Amway distributers terminate for breaking the rules indicate that 50% of folk that join never even buy stuff after joining, and less than 13% ever sponsor anyone. Yet according to the BERR vs Amway UK findings, this 37% of people who don't sell and don't sponsor account for 60% of the sales volume!

So what's going on? Isn't it a far more logical possibility that people who like Amway products might want to pay the small yearly membership fee in order to get them cheaper and save money? Indeed Shaklee, another major network marketing company, reported to the FTC a couple of years ago that fully 85% of people who join their network do so simply to obtain distributor pricing.

I'd appreciate your responses to this before I move on to the (many) other flaws in your podcast.

[NewtonTrino]

Everyone needs to keep in mind that icerat is the most prolific amway defender on the internet. He runs www.thetruthaboutamway.com. Discussing this with him is like talking about the failings of the catholic church with a priest.

[Fnord]

So far, five different people have responded to the OP ... now if each of those five people have five more new people respond, and then those people have five new people respond ... eventually, the entire Interwebz will be logged in to JREF!

:D

[icerat]

and still nobody is addressing the concerns I raised

[NewtonTrino]

that's because they are about as valid as a homeopath whining that we won't look at their fakery

[icerat]

Please point out which issues I raised are invalid.

1. Are you claiming Avon and Mary Kay do not use multilevel marketing plans?

2. Are you claiming that Amway distributors are required to purchase products?

3. Are you claiming that a defining feature of MLM is that you are paid for recruiting?

[tyr_13]

tyr_13 - I'm assume you're the podcaster. How could you possibly think that accusing a $100billion industry involving tens of millions of people and some of the world's largest companies as being illegal scams wouldn't raise some objections?

Brian Dunning is the pod caster, and he posts here under the name Brian Dunning. And I'm sure he knew it would raise objections. I'm surprised that the objections are not just all spam advertising.


You seem to be getting mixed up and confused between MLM and Pyramid Schemes. At one point you delineate, but then get somewhat confused about the differences. A major issue of the industry is that scams start up and call themselves MLM because MLM is a legal, legitimate business model. Avon and Mary Kay, which you mention in your comments as not being MLM, both use Multilevel Marketing. You say in the comments they're not MLM because the income comes from product sales, not recruiting. This is the complete reverse. Legitimate MLMs are the companies where you only earn income through product sales. If you're making money from recruiting then you're an illegal pyramid scheme. Many of the flaws you talk about are the quite real flaws of pyramid schemes. They are not flaws of legitimate MLM companies.

Mr. Dunning was very clear on his definitions, and clarified more in the comment section under the transcript. There are legitimate companies that resemble MLM. They are direct marketing where local people are recruited to sell catalog items to their friends. However, they do not rely on recruiting more and more distributors, creating a horrendously long supply chain or 'pyramid'.

Besides that, legal or not MLM does have many of the same exact problems as pyramid schemes.


Some of your comments are just plain wrong. For one example you cite the BERR vs Amway UK case, where it was stated that less than 1 in 10 people sell the products, but then go on to claim "the company has its distributors as a captive audience required to make regular purchases"

This is completely false, Amway has no such requirement "to make regular purchases". Yes, less than 1 in 10 people sell the products. What are the other 9 out of 10 doing? Well, internal statistics revealed in a dispute with some Amway distributers terminate for breaking the rules indicate that 50% of folk that join never even buy stuff after joining, and less than 13% ever sponsor anyone. Yet according to the BERR vs Amway UK findings, this 37% of people who don't sell and don't sponsor account for 60% of the sales volume!

The other 9 out of 10 are eating the loss, having inventory that never sells. Plus you're being deceptive by counting the people who 'join' but never purchase. They didn't really join then did they?


So what's going on? Isn't it a far more logical possibility that people who like Amway products might want to pay the small yearly membership fee in order to get them cheaper and save money? Indeed Shaklee, another major network marketing company, reported to the FTC a couple of years ago that fully 85% of people who join their network do so simply to obtain distributor pricing.

No, it is not more logical. First off, who the hell likes Amway products? Secondly, Amway and Shaklee aren't the only MLMs. They aren't the be all and end all. If MLMs really make money by selling membership fees to 'distributors' and that is their main business, then they are not MLM. That makes them Membership, or Discount, clubs. Just like Costco.


I'd appreciate your responses to this before I move on to the (many) other flaws in your podcast.

Your focus on Amway gives away your status as an Amway rep, distributor, or other shill.

Also, I'm guessing that the latest post on the comment's page didn't go up because you kept in your tags to get hits on your Amazon account. It counts as advertising or spam, and gets cleaned off the comment page. Of course it never hurts to try another little scam right?

Oh, and Avon and Mary Kay are NOT MLMs, so they can't help you.

Although it is rather flattering to be confused with Mr. Dunning.

[Fnord]

Please point out which issues I raised are invalid.

1. Are you claiming Avon and Mary Kay do not use multilevel marketing plans?

2. Are you claiming that Amway distributors are required to purchase products?

3. Are you claiming that a defining feature of MLM is that you are paid for recruiting?
No, yes, and yes.

Next thread, please?

Oh, and before you ask, I have been involved in MLMs, including Amway/Nutrilite, Platinum Professional Cookware, Pampered Chef, several telecomm MLMs, and others (including Avon!). Each of them emphasized building profits through downline recruiting (rather than sales volume), and each one required that I (or my wife) purchase a "starter kit" -- the cost of which was to be taken out of our future sales and downline profits.

Been there, done that, and don't try to scam me.

[icerat]

Mr. Dunning was very clear on his definitions, and clarified more in the comment section under the transcript. There are legitimate companies that resemble MLM. They are direct marketing where local people are recruited to sell catalog items to their friends. However, they do not rely on recruiting more and more distributors, creating a horrendously long supply chain or 'pyramid'.

This is where the clear misunderstanding is occuring. Companies that rely on "creating a horrendously long supply chain" are indeed pyramids - but they are not multilevel marketing companies by any definition I've seen outside themselves and those they've conned. One of the companies he attacked, Amway, certainly doesn't do this. Nor do any of the 95% of companies that are members of the Direct Selling Association and use multilevel plans.

What you, and Mr Dunning, are calling MLMs are not MLMs. Furthermore it appears you've taken the failings of pyramids and then attributed them, incorrectly, to legitimate MLM companies. For some circular reasoning I don't quite understand he then excludes some well known MLM companies, such as Avon and Mary Kay and says they're not MLM even though they are (http://www.miamiherald.com/business/story/1288444.html), because they don't do the things that pyramids (not MLMS) do!

Besides that, legal or not MLM does have many of the same exact problems as pyramid schemes.

Such as? And please only list ones that do not apply to other business types as well.

The other 9 out of 10 are eating the loss, having inventory that never sells.

Again your point out a feature of pyramid schemes posing as MLM, not pyramid schemes. Inventory loading is explictly against the rules of legitimate MLM companies, and such companies all offer buy-back policies. With Amway for example you can buy anything and even if you use it, you can get a 100% refund. Anyone with unsold inventory is actively breaking rules to get bonuses or recognition they have not earned.

Plus you're being deceptive by counting the people who 'join' but never purchase. They didn't really join then did they?

Where in 100% agreement of the latter!But please tell that to Mr Dunning, as the "statistics" of "99% loss rates" etc include all of those types of people. It's he "including" them, not me.

No, it is not more logical. First off, who the hell likes Amway products?

Excuse me? My mother for a start. Me too. Insult me all you like, but leave my mother out of it! ;)

I'd venture to suggest you don't have much experience with Amway products. You may want to review this (incomplete) list of Amway's Awards and Recognitions (http://www.amwaywiki.com/Awards_and_Recognitions). Amway has some of the best selling brands in the world, and has won many independent consumer awards for all sorts of products.

I also refer you to a University of Westminster publication - Public Perceptions of Direct Selling: An International Perspective (http://www.abevd.org.br/downloads/selling.pdf). You'll note that people who actually had experience purchasing products from direct sales companies (which are primarily multilevel) expressed positive opinions of both the products and service. Negative opinions were more likely to be expressed by those who had not actually had any experience. Curiously then, people with experience have positive perceptions, but those with negative perceptions are relying on hearsay.

Secondly, Amway and Shaklee aren't the only MLMs. They aren't the be all and end all. If MLMs really make money by selling membership fees to 'distributors' and that is their main business, then they are not MLM. That makes them Membership, or Discount, clubs. Just like Costco.

I entirely agree. But first, neither Amway nor Shaklee make money from "selling membership fees", they're charged on a cost-recovery basis only. They make their money only from product sales. But yes, a great deal of their revenue is indeed through a "shopping club" type of arrangement. Even then you still need to market the service, and that's where the multilevel compensation aspect come in to play. It's not an either/or situation.

Your focus on Amway gives away your status as an Amway rep, distributor, or other shill.

My affinity with Amway is well known and not hidden. I run a number of pro-Amway websites. I'd please ask you to stick to talking facts though, rather than resorting to ad hominems.

Also, I'm guessing that the latest post on the comment's page didn't go up because you kept in your tags to get hits on your Amazon account. It counts as advertising or spam, and gets cleaned off the comment page. Of course it never hurts to try another little scam right?

The Amazon affiliate program is a scam?

Oh, and Avon and Mary Kay are NOT MLMs, so they can't help you.

Clearly, as I've already stated, you appear to be using the term "multilevel marketing" in a manner different to that which is generally accepted. I quote from the Westminster paper I linked to earlier -

In a multi-level marketing (MLM) company, the new participant is immediately offered the opportunity of benefiting not only from their personal sales, which again may be from person-to-person or party plan, but also from the sales of those who they may recruit, directly and indirectly, into the business. They will be paid over-ride commissions and bonuses based on the acceptance of their ongoing responsibility to train and motivate these recruits.

From the glossary of terms of an EU study on Door to Door Selling - Pyramid Selling and Multilevel Marketing (http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cons_int/safe_shop/door_sell/sur10_02.pdf).

Multilevel Marketing is a form of Direct Selling where Direct
Sellers are independent (buy/sell-) dealers who may
- purchase the company's products at a rebated price for resale or own and the family's use or consumption,
- resell them to consumers and/or independent dealers and
- recruit (sponsor) other independent dealers who in turn may recruit additional independent dealers.
They receive overrides based upon their own sales (or purchases) of such products as well as upon the sales (or purchases) of independent dealers in their direct recruiting line to the extent defined by the company marketing plan.

From the FTC (http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/invest/inv12.shtm) -

Multilevel marketing plans, also known as "network" or "matrix" marketing, are a way of selling goods or services through distributors. These plans typically promise that if you sign up as a distributor, you will receive commissions -- for both your sales of the plan's goods or services and those of other people you recruit to join the distributors. Multilevel marketing plans usually promise to pay commissions through two or more levels of recruits, known as the distributor's "downline."

From avoncompany.com (http://responsibility.avoncompany.com/page-35-representatives) -

The Avon Leadership Program is a multitiered compensation program that gives top-selling Representatives, known as Leadership Representatives, an enhanced career path. The program allows Representatives to obtain earnings from commissions based on sales made by the Representatives that they have recruited and trained, as well as profits derived from their own sales of Avon's products.[I]

From marykay.com (http://www.marykay.com/content/company/images/cpk_theopportunity.pdf) -

[I]Independent Sales Directors still maintain their customer base and sell Mary Kay® products while sharing the business opportunity with other women. Independent Sales Directors serve as mentors to Independent Beauty Consultants by providing ongoing leadership, guidance and recognition.
Independent Sales Directors can earn additional income through commissions paid directly by Mary Kay Inc.

[NewtonTrino]

tyr_13 - I'm assume you're the podcaster. How could you possibly think that accusing a $100billion industry involving tens of millions of people and some of the world's largest companies as being illegal scams wouldn't raise some objections?


Who else is objecting besides yourself? And you're involved with it...

[icerat]

No, yes, and yes.

Next thread, please?

Oh, and before you ask, I have been involved in MLMs, including Amway/Nutrilite, Platinum Professional Cookware, Pampered Chef, several telecomm MLMs, and others (including Avon!). Each of them emphasized building profits through downline recruiting (rather than sales volume), and each one required that I (or my wife) purchase a "starter kit" -- the cost of which was to be taken out of our future sales and downline profits.

Been there, done that, and don't try to scam me.

Ok, you have experience, but apparently not much knowledge, at least of Amway. I don't have much knowledge of the others.

1. How much money do you earn in Amway for recruiting say 20 people, none of whom buys any products?

2. How about the others?

I just registered with Amway in the US last week - contrary to your claim I was not required to purchase any "starter kit" (and didn't). Even if I was (and in some countries you are), if you can't sell the products or don't want them yourself you can send them back for a full refund. It's only if you want the products (sales volume!) that money is made by anyone.

[NewtonTrino]

Anyone who doesn't agree with icerat is "lacking knowledge".

[rhtufts]

My parents got sucked into Nikken (magnets) first and then Isagenics (cleansing diet). Both were wonderful magical products that will cure virtually anything that ails you and make you rich if you just sign up.

They first joined back in 97 or 98 and have been trying to make money ever since. So far they have spent all their retirement, are in credit card debt up to their ears and have refinanced their house. If only they can get that downline going... My dad still works the same job and my mom had to get a job for the first time. Pushing 60 and no way to retire in sight...

MLM's have ruined what should have been my parents best years.

.02
Russell

[gtc]

I'd please ask you to stick to talking facts though, rather than resorting to ad hominems.

Pointing out that you are associated with Amway isn't an ad hom.

Besides you have no credibility to be complaining about ad homs:

you know, when I first joined this forum (not for MLM discussion!) I was hoping it was full of nice, rational, logical people. It was pretty disappointing to find I was wrong.

[politas]

Why did they do that? It's inventory loading and against Amway rules. It sounds like they were trying to "game" the system to get bonuses they didn't deserve.No, they just found it impossible to make any money and ended up with a box of products they'd purchased "for their own use".

If they were legitimate purchases they could have returned them to Amway, which has a 180 day satisfaction guarantee. Full refund, they'll even pay freight.

Why didn't they apply for a refund? I don't know. Perhaps it was past the 180 day period before they worked out they had no use for most of it.

I see no logic in that claim, for two reasons. (1) they may need to "hide" it, because folk like Brian and yourself are actively and incorrectly telling people it's a scam.No, because we're saying it's an ineffective way to make money. If it was an effective way to make money, it'd be so obvious that they wouldn't need to hide their identity.

(2) what do you mean by "if it really did work". That's like wondering if machines "really can fly". MLM has "really worked" for decades.It's worked great for Amway, and a few people who started the whole system off in the first place. It doesn't work for anyone trying to get into the system now, though. The market is too saturated.

Compare and contrast Amway with companies like Enjo and Tupperware, that sell a quality product that people actually want, and where distributors make a commission on the things they sell, with no multi-level shenanigans.

[icerat]

My parents got sucked into Nikken (magnets) first and then Isagenics (cleansing diet). Both were wonderful magical products that will cure virtually anything that ails you and make you rich if you just sign up.

Don't know much about Isagenics, but in my opinon Nikken seems to be bogus products. Bogus products exist in any industry.

Any company that claims you get rich just by signing up is clearly bogus, though I doubt either of those companies did that.

They first joined back in 97 or 98 and have been trying to make money ever since. So far they have spent all their retirement, are in credit card debt up to their ears and have refinanced their house. If only they can get that downline going... My dad still works the same job and my mom had to get a job for the first time. Pushing 60 and no way to retire in sight...

MLM's have ruined what should have been my parents best years.

How is this the fault of the entire MLM industry?

[icerat]

Pointing out that you are associated with Amway isn't an ad hom.

calling me a shill is

Besides you have no credibility to be complaining about ad homs:

already apologised for that. I stand buy the sentiments though. There's an awful lot of people on Jref that aren't exactly rational. Now I know a lot of them are the generic woo supporters here to argue whatever, but the fact you get some otherwise ostensibly rational people who seem to just lose it when it comes to some topics (such as MLM) is just a little bizarre (and disappointing) to me. Whatever happened to objectively collecting and evaluating evidence, especially from independent or reliable sources?

[icerat]

No, they just found it impossible to make any money and ended up with a box of products they'd purchased "for their own use".
...
Why didn't they apply for a refund? I don't know. Perhaps it was past the 180 day period before they worked out they had no use for most of it.

They purchased stuff six months or more before they thought they might need it? No offence, but I think they dug their own hole more than a bit. Products can be returned after 6 months too, you just might only get 90% of your money back.

No, because we're saying it's an ineffective way to make money. If it was an effective way to make money, it'd be so obvious that they wouldn't need to hide their identity.

huh? I'm not sure what you're referring to here.

It's worked great for Amway, and a few people who started the whole system off in the first place. It doesn't work for anyone trying to get into the system now, though. The market is too saturated.

Amway's oldest market is the United States, 500 to 1000 new people qualify at the Platinum level and above every year (source (http://www.amwaywiki.com/Amagram)). That requires generating new turnover of at least $22,500. How can you claim it's "saturated" when new business is getting created all of the time? Heck, I just created new business in the US and I don't even live there.

Compare and contrast Amway with companies like Enjo and Tupperware, that sell a quality product that people actually want, and where distributors make a commission on the things they sell, with no multi-level shenanigans.

I love Tupperware, but Amway's brands are some of the most respected and best selling in the world (http://www.amwaywiki.com/Awards_and_Recognitions), winning multiple awards for quality and consumer satisfaction, and outsell Tupperware (http://www.mlmfacts.net/wiki/Tupperware) 4 to 1. To claim people don't want them is to ignore clear evidence to the contrary.

Furthermore, Tupperware is a multilevel company using a compensation plan very similar to Amway (http://order.tupperware.ca/pls/htprod_wwwcan/tup_opportunity.opportunity) (stairstep breakaway). Enjo I hadn't heard of before, but is clearly also a multilevel company (http://www.enjo.com.sg/page.asp?value1=39)

[NewtonTrino]

calling me a shill is


Given that you are the most prolific amway defender on the internet is this really an ad hom? Has it actually been proven that you have never been compensated for defending amway? I honestly think these are valid questions to ask.

My personal opinion is that you are not paid btw. I think you are just very enthusiastic. I just wish that the enthusiasm was tempered with a little bit more personal success in amway so that you could talk with more authority.

Since you seem to know some high level IBO's I wonder if it would be possible to arrange some sort of QA session with them? What if we came up with a list of pre-screened questions that he/she agreed to answer publically (e.g. here)? Do you think anyone would be game?

I'll come right out and say that none of the high level guys I know would touch this with a 10 ft pole. They don't want the light shining on the scam ;)

[Careyp74]

I think that perhaps there have been many people that have misused Amway and others in the past when the company was still starting out, and there may be a whole different experience now. I feel that perhaps peoples judgement is based on that past. Yes, Mary Kay and Avon are both MLMs that have been able to keep away from the bad image, perhaps because they are predominantly run by women? Just sayin....

I have not had any experience with them for years, so I cannot say what they are like today. icerat does, so I am willing to listen to what he has to say, but in an objective way.

As far as the companies that sell Woo, well, it is woo, maybe the fact that they are an MLM is not the main issue with them.

There are some points that are made that sound rational, like, if everyone did it there would be no one to sell to. Well, understanding business, I can say that a lot of the economy plays by the same rules, and if there is any proof that any MLMs are reaching saturation, that would be a good point to make. If not, it is just more rapid firing the thread.

I also like the ideas raised in NewtonTrino's last post, 11:01am. A chat with some higher ups would be very informative. Tell them it is a chance to recruit!

[politas]

Enjo I hadn't heard of before, but is clearly also a multilevel company (http://www.enjo.com.sg/page.asp?value1=39)Your definition of "multi-level" is too broad. Enjo representatives get a flat bonus fee if both the reps they train and themselves reach a particular sales target. They get no remuneration for reps trained by their trainees. It's an incentive payment for training, not marketed as being a primary income source, whereas Amway certainly promotes the downline income as a (potentially) substantial income source.

[politas]

And I note that the Tupperware page you link to mentions nothing about multi-level systems, and also, most importantly, gives a fairly realistic idea of average earnings ($2,000 per annum is clearly a little bit of extra money, not a way to make a living).

Why do you keep providing links to things which do not provide evidence for your statements? How can we trust anything you say, if you are willing to so blatantly misrepresent the information you present to us?

[politas]

My biggest beef with Amway is that professional speakers/motivators, who don't make their money through Amway sales or downlines, wander around claiming to show people how they can quit their jobs and live off an Amway business (eventually). Yet I've never met a single person who actually does live off an Amway business. Thus, my perception is that people who can live off an Amway business are very rare, and it is therefore a far more difficult to do than it is represented as by those professional speakers/motivators. The stucture is set up in such a way that the best way to make money with Amway is to recruit a lot of people who earn small amounts of pocket change.

[icerat]

Has it actually been proven that you have never been compensated for defending amway?

How could it possible be "proven". Both myself and Amway have stated I'm not paid by Amway for it, but still it's not believed.

I just wish that the enthusiasm was tempered with a little bit more personal success in amway so that you could talk with more authority.

I've had enough success to know it's possible to build profitable, long last incomes from Amway. I've had enough success to know it's not hard to get customers. etc etc

Since you seem to know some high level IBO's I wonder if it would be possible to arrange some sort of QA session with them? What if we came up with a list of pre-screened questions that he/she agreed to answer publically (e.g. here)? Do you think anyone would be game?

No idea, but I'll see what I can do. Come up with some questions. I reckon there's a fairly good chance I can get some answers.

[icerat]

And I note that the Tupperware page you link to mentions nothing about multi-level systems,

Ok, was obvious to me in the links on that page, but maybe not so much for the inexperienced, try this link instead (http://www.plasticstoragestore.com/pdf/Tupperware_Consultant_Breakthrough.pdf)

and also, most importantly, gives a fairly realistic idea of average earnings ($2,000 per annum is clearly a little bit of extra money, not a way to make a living).

Every MLM company is required to give a similar disclosure, Amway has been doing it for 30 years.

Why do you keep providing links to things which do not provide evidence for your statements? How can we trust anything you say, if you are willing to so blatantly misrepresent the information you present to us?

You only had a problem with one link, and I thought the presentation and the income disclosure were evidence enough. Clearly I was wrong. Hopefully the new link will satisfy you.

Here's another one from Direct Selling News, the industry trade mag -

The 100 Million Club (http://www.directsellingnews.com/index.php/site/entries_archive_display/the_100_million_club)

You'll notice Avon, Mary Kay, and Tupperware are all listed as having multilevel compensation plans.

[Antiquehunter]

Yet I've never met a single person who actually does live off an Amway business. Thus, my perception is that people who can live off an Amway business are very rare, and it is therefore a far more difficult to do than it is represented as by those professional speakers/motivators. The stucture is set up in such a way that the best way to make money with Amway is to recruit a lot of people who earn small amounts of pocket change.

FWIW - I have two acquaintances in my life who both are highly successful MLMers, both of whom started out in Amway. They built a dedicated downline, and shifted this network of folks through various startup MLMs. I don't like what they do, but they make money at it - quite a bit. I'm not saying its 'right' or a pleasant business, but it CAN work. I concur that this must be one of the toughest business paths to hoe, and is absolutely the furthest thing from a 'get rich quick scheme'. It is a get rich slowly and with a helluva lot of work scheme.

Icerat: You mentioned earlier that Amway doesn't profit from membership / startup fees. Perhaps so, I'm not motivated to research further. However one thing I DO recall from my dalliance with the organization in the late 80's was the rampant profiteering from selling conferences, conventions and weekly motivational tapes - often a combination of Amway products and 'network' products from (then called) Diamond Direct distributors. These products were expensive, pretty much useless and were a 'hard sell' to any distributors who were active in the business. I'm pretty sure that more money was made by the sales of this material than on the BV/PV commission structures by those in the 'loop'.

[icerat]

My biggest beef with Amway is that professional speakers/motivators, who don't make their money through Amway sales or downlines, wander around claiming to show people how they can quit their jobs and live off an Amway business (eventually).

Ok, I can understand how that would be a concern. The problem is it's generally not true. Except for "outside" speakers, the guys on stage are nearly always people who have actually built significant Amway businesses generating significant incomes.

Yet I've never met a single person who actually does live off an Amway business.

Where do you live? I can introduce you to one nearly anywhere in the world, give or take a hundred kilometres.

Thus, my perception is that people who can live off an Amway business are very rare, and it is therefore a far more difficult to do than it is represented as by those professional speakers/motivators.

Depends what you call "rare", there are hundreds of thousands of "platinums" and above. Founders Platinums, those who are qualifying month in month out with a properly structured business earn significantly above the average wage, from a part-time business. There are hundreds of thousands of them.

I'd also have to challenge your claim that most of these guys represent it as "easy". How can you interpet 10-20hrs of work a week, on top of a full-time job, facing the constant rejection typical of a sales-type profession, and with low income for at least several months and usually more ... which part of that sounds easy?

Still, easy compared to what? If you want to become an engineer you have to work what, 30,40,50hrs a week, unpaid, for 4 years or so before you start getting an income - on top of tuition fees. If you want to buy a McDonalds' franchise you have to work 1000 unpaid plus invest hundreds of thousand of dollars (http://www.bestfranchisereports.com/McDonalds-franchise.html) - just to get started.

Building an Amway business isn't easy, but compared to what?

I suspect a lot of people confuse "simple" with easy. It's a pretty straightforward business. Ignore the complexity of having to deal with people, it's pretty simple. But not easy.

The stucture is set up in such a way that the best way to make money with Amway is to recruit a lot of people who earn small amounts of pocket change.

That's not true either. The best way would be to recruit people who all earn lots of money. The reality is that it's all volunteer, and most people who join elect not to dedicate much, or any, time to it and don't make much money. If everyone put time in to make money, then the model works even better. Ever heard of the Pareto Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle)? It applies strongly to the Amway business. At any given time only about 20% of people are actually doing much. The rest are what I heard a guy today describe as a mix of wholesale price customers and "club members". The latter might do a little occasionally, might come along to meetings because they find value or have some future intent, but aren't actually doing much to earn an income, and most certainly don't expect to.

[icerat]

Icerat: You mentioned earlier that Amway doesn't profit from membership / startup fees. Perhaps so, I'm not motivated to research further. However one thing I DO recall from my dalliance with the organization in the late 80's was the rampant profiteering from selling conferences, conventions and weekly motivational tapes - often a combination of Amway products and 'network' products from (then called) Diamond Direct distributors. These products were expensive, pretty much useless and were a 'hard sell' to any distributors who were active in the business. I'm pretty sure that more money was made by the sales of this material than on the BV/PV commission structures by those in the 'loop'.

Yes, there's definitely been problems with that, particularly with some groups in the US. It's never been as widespread or universal as some would have you believe, but it has been a serious issue. Amway has been trying to deal with it for several decades. In the last 10-20 years the groups that were abusing that setup have become an increasingly smaller part of Amway's revenue, such that they've been able to implement various programs to rein them in without threatening the whole company.

Back in the 80s the groups that were notorious for this kind of behaviour made up more than a third of Amway's volume, and when the company tried to implement some controls they pretty much got their groups to boycott the company. At the same time a book was published about these groups that got a lot of publicity. While the book was really about these groups rather than Amway as a whole, it didn't distinguish and caused a lot of reputation problems (it still does for that matter). The boycott and the publicity caused sales to drop by some 40% and the owners had to focus on keeping the company together and they pulled back on the changes.

Several years ago Amway introduced an "accreditation" program for the multitude of companies that supply these products services. While often setup by "Diamonds" or larger businesses, they're wholling independent companies so Amway has no legal say in how they are run. What they did with accreditation was quite clever. Acheiving accreditation required a company to go through an audit of both their materials and any compensation plans they may have for promoting their products, as well as agreeing to certain guidelines such as not promoting political and religious topics at Amway-related training sessions.

The program was voluntary for a few years and a few companies undertook it. Then Amway said that if you're an Amway agent, and you want to earn various of Amway's discretionary, non-contractual bonuses (including free trips or various one off bonuses) then you either had to get accredited yourself, or be connected to an accredited training system.

This of course effectively required all of these third party companies to clean up there acts, or all the agents using them would promptly pack up and go to one who was. By this time the "troublesome" groups were a much less significant part of Amway and they had no real ability to implement something like the "boycott" of the early 80s.

There's still a few problems, but from my monitoring it really seems to have made a difference.

[vIQleS]

No, they just found it impossible to make any money and ended up with a box of products they'd purchased "for their own use".


I used to be in Amway - I used to just buy the products that I thought I would use... Despite the extreme pressure to "do [200?] bv [or pv or whatever]"...

When I stopped registering I had some stuff left over which I gradually used up (I think I may have ordered some more SA8 - which comes more concentrated then your average clothes washing detergent, although it's also very expensive).

Up until fairly recently, I tended to defend Amway - the system tehnically works (if you're able to put in the work, and happen (or can learn) to be the right sort of personality).

But more recently I've been hearing things on the various podcasts, and looking at the criticisms online, and I've basically dropped the idea that there's anything redeemable about the Amway system and MLMs in general...

The only thing I would say is that I'm a lot more positive now than I used to be. Which is good but not enough of a reason to join an MLM.

Compare and contrast Amway with companies like Enjo and Tupperware, that sell a quality product that people actually want, and where distributors make a commission on the things they sell, with no multi-level shenanigans.

Can't say I've ever been terribly impresed with tupperware (at least since the first time I saw the prices). I can get containers for a fraction of the price at the local 'cheap plastic crap' shop...

[icerat]

I used to be in Amway - I used to just buy the products that I thought I would use... Despite the extreme pressure to "do [200?] bv [or pv or whatever]"...

Was this pressure coming from Amway or the people you were working with?

But more recently I've been hearing things on the various podcasts, and looking at the criticisms online, and I've basically dropped the idea that there's anything redeemable about the Amway system and MLMs in general...

Which criticisms have concerned you in particular?

[NewtonTrino]

Which criticisms have concerned you in particular?

How about cult style recruitment tactics? Just for starters...

[icerat]

How about cult style recruitment tactics? Just for starters...

I didn't ask you, but could you be more specific?

[NewtonTrino]

Let's start with how amway distributors aren't upfront about what they are selling. As detailed in the other thread the flow of information is very restrained until it can be presented "properly". E.g. spun.

[icerat]

Let's start with how amway distributors aren't upfront about what they are selling. As detailed in the other thread the flow of information is very restrained until it can be presented "properly". E.g. spun.

I'm not sure how that is "cult-like" exactly, but the problem is we don't know what we are selling until we know what the customer is buying. Do you really expect people to go through the several thousand products in multiple different categories, as well as the myriad of possible business opportunities on the phone?

It's not as simple an issue as you make out. I could say any one of a dozen things to you about what it is I do that would all be true for me but which you might consider deceptive because it's not what you think I'm doing.

[politas]

I've never had an Amway person approach with an offer to sell me products. They are only ever interested in recruiting me. They're selling the business not the products.

Why can't you see the difference?

[BPScooter]

I'll be really brief about my personal experience. 20 years ago or so, an acquaintance from my hometown who had just received a military discharge got in touch with me and to some extent used our shared past to get together to talk about new ideas from the future. This fellow had gone through several troubling personal transformations in a short time and I was curious to see him, so he came over and described his new business. Didn't mention Amway early on, but once he figured out I didn't have a problem with that I said "what the hell" and signed up as one of his new downlines or whatever they called them. I was single, didn't need a lot of cleaning products, but bought a few boxes of things I wanted from their offerings. I liked the products and used them, bought some more, etc. I never wound up selling anything or getting a downline of my own, mainly because I was busy with my day job. He kept in touch occasionally, loaned me a few motivational tapes and let me know of some big "events" in the region, but I wasn't too interested in that. Mainly because I wasn't interested in having a second job (no matter its nature) and also personally I found the emphasis on material gain to be a little thin. I don't really want a big house, fancy car, etc. and my social life was fine, so those motivations weren't there for me. Eventually by doing nothing, nothing happened, and I moved, etc. Amway never bothered me, and I didn't bother it, and although in those pre-Costco days I never saw huge savings on products suddenly appear, I was very happy with the products I bought and used. That spray cleaner concentrate was really pretty good!

[icerat]

I've never had an Amway person approach with an offer to sell me products. They are only ever interested in recruiting me. They're selling the business not the products.

Why can't you see the difference?

Who says I can't see the difference?

Why do you think your limited experience gives you the right to imply I'm lying about what I personally do and my experience?

[NewtonTrino]

I'd like to point out that it's entirely possible for someone to not be lying but to simply be wrong.

[bookitty]

My cousin sold Arbonne for a while and tried to get me involved. The biggest problem I saw was that she has already approached 70% of the people I knew since she used every social gathering to mention it.

Normally in retail, you try to keep your competition low. With MLM's, part of the process is to recruit your own competition. That just doesn't make sense.

[Careyp74]

My cousin sold Arbonne for a while and tried to get me involved. The biggest problem I saw was that she has already approached 70% of the people I knew since she used every social gathering to mention it.

Normally in retail, you try to keep your competition low. With MLM's, part of the process is to recruit your own competition. That just doesn't make sense.

I am not defending MLM's, but when you recruit competition, they are no longer competition. They are your salespeople. Think of it as buying out the competition.

[icerat]

My cousin sold Arbonne for a while and tried to get me involved. The biggest problem I saw was that she has already approached 70% of the people I knew since she used every social gathering to mention it.

It would be tiresome if someone did that with ANY business or career they were involved in.

Normally in retail, you try to keep your competition low. With MLM's, part of the process is to recruit your own competition. That just doesn't make sense.

No, it doesn't make sense. It's also not really true. Many businesses have both wholesale customers (who resell to consumers) and retail customers (who are the consumer). Selling to a wholesale customer is, strictly speaking, "recruiting a competitor" since they compete with you for retail customers.

Does it "make sense" to you that PepsiCo sells Pepsi direct to consumers (retail) through it's own outlets (eg KFC), but also "recruits" wholesale customers who compete for the same consumer market?

It's no different - they're "recruiting competitors".

You're still profting from wholesale sales, you're just lowering your markup in return for greater marketshare.

[bookitty]

It would be tiresome if someone did that with ANY business or career they were involved in.



No, it doesn't make sense. It's also not really true. Many businesses have both wholesale customers (who resell to consumers) and retail customers (who are the consumer). Selling to a wholesale customer is, strictly speaking, "recruiting a competitor" since they compete with you for retail customers.

Does it "make sense" to you that PepsiCo sells Pepsi direct to consumers (retail) through it's own outlets (eg KFC), but also "recruits" wholesale customers who compete for the same consumer market?

It's no different - they're "recruiting competitors".

You're still profting from wholesale sales, you're just lowering your markup in return for greater marketshare.

I'm not sure that analogy works. Pepsi parcels out areas to give to salespeople. All businesses within that area deal with the same person who may have employees under him to do some of the legwork. If one of those employees is very good at legwork, he might be given his own, separate area.

It's not like Pepsi gives one area to a person and then tells them that they need to buy the products up front and find their own volunteer employees who will be paid by selling their own Pepsi products which they, too need to purchase up-front.

[icerat]

I'm not sure that analogy works. Pepsi parcels out areas to give to salespeople. All businesses within that area deal with the same person who may have employees under him to do some of the legwork. If one of those employees is very good at legwork, he might be given his own, separate area.

If one of that salesperson sells Pepsi to a corner store, is or is not that corner store in competition with the KFC over the road that also sells Pepsi and is owned by PepsiCo?

Are they not thus "recruiting competitors"?

It's not like Pepsi gives one area to a person and then tells them that they need to buy the products up front and find their own volunteer employees who will be paid by selling their own Pepsi products which they, too need to purchase up-front.

I'm not sure what the relevance of this is? This doesn't happen in MLM either.

[BPScooter]

Where do all those Amway-MLM products go? I think that's the question. Totally honest, if I had a chance nearby, from a friend, to buy products of a quality I enjoy... I'll buy the next product I'm offered, for a nice price, just to give the old Al Gore "finger" to the Walmart or the Chinese Imports or the Bush Administration or something else I might dislike for whatever reason I'm supposed to hate commerce or retail in general. I can't "grow my own." I gotta wipe my behind. Must buy product=toilet paper, for instance. If the company making the toilet paper I need is against my politics, I'll still buy the butt-wipe-product from them, if the price point is right.

[Epok]

My experience with MLMs is with Melaleuca but Amway seems to work in a similar way. I do see the cult-like influence of those MLMs. The people they recruit are sold into a lifestyle as well as many products. Anytime someone has a complaint about how they were treated by customer service reps when trying to return a product or cancel their membership the Pro-Melaleuca people lambaste the person for not doing their homework first or trying to claim that it was just one person and shouldn't reflect on the whole company but there are many complaints like those and it sounds like its set up to make it hard to return items or cancel your membership. For Melaleuca you have to send a certified letter through snail mail, fax and you have to talk to them on the phone just to cancel. Its easy to sign up but they make you jump through hoops to cancel. People like to use the argument that Sam's Club makes you buy a membership but its a bad analogy because Sam's Club isn't expensive and you aren't required to buy their products on a monthly basis. I don't buy the PepsiCo reference because they aren't afraid to put their product on store shelves. Melaleuca claims to save people money by bypassing the middleman but what they don't tell you is how much they charge you for shipping and handling. Very few of their products are cheaper than Walmart and they sell a lot of unneeded vitamins. Some people do make money off of MLMs but not enough. Most members struggle make a profit. It is sad to see so many people fall for these awful businesses.

Now I'm curious, Icerat, what kind of products does Amway sell? You don't have to be specific but I've noticed that MLMers don't like to go into much detail about how it works. Why so secretive?

[Almo]

The fact that most MLM recruitment experience stories include, "wouldn't tell me what the opportunity was unless I went to a meeting" is enough for me. Meeting means the need for peer pressure, which means it's not really a good opportunity.

[icerat]

Epok, I don't know about Melaleuca, but Amway's membership in the US is cheaper than Sam's Club, there is no requirement to buy stuff on a monthly basis, and refunds and cancellations are easily handled, no questions asked.

Re your last question, I'm not sure why you think "MLMers" are "secretive"? We pretty much spend out entire active time *trying* to explain what we do to people and get them along to information sessions. The last thing we are is "secretive". Want to try a product? No problem, I'll lend you one. Want to see what happens at a meeting? No problem, come along. etc etc etc. "secretive" is the last thing we are.

Amway today is primarily a healthy and beauty company, manufacturing over four hundred different products. It's #1 brand is Nutrilite, which is the world's best selling brand of nutritional/food supplements. It's quite unique in that rather than a selection of synthetic vitamins and minerals, which overwhelming research indicates has little benefit, Nutrilite researches and grows plants with high nutritional content, then through various patented processes concentrates this in to tablet form. Where the science supports it, they supplements will then be further enhanced with synthetic forms. Nutrilite also make various sports drinks and bars.

The second largest brand is Artistry, which is one of the Top 5 best selling prestige skin care, anti-aging and cosmetics brands in the world. With Artistry we're competing in the marketplace with the like of Estee Lauder and Clinique, not the lower end brands. Amway's actually launching a new lower end brand early next year though, BeautyCycle.

Other top brands include eco-friendly cleaning products. Amway began with this back in 1959, L.O.C. (Liquid Organic Cleaner) was the first product to bring the term "biodegradeable" to the consumer market. LOC and other cleaning brands such as SA8 and Dish Drops are still some of the most effective on the market, and are generally significantly cheaper per use than similar competitors.

Other Amway manufactured brands include eSpring and Atmosphere (home water and air filtration systems), Glister (oral care), Tolsom (men's skin care), Satinique (salon quality hair care), and various other lines.

All products are backed by a 100% satisfaction guarantee. You don't like it, give it back for a full refund.

This is where some "problems" arise. In addition to all the Amway manufactured brands, it's also possible to purchase products from other manufacturers through Amway. They're primarily there for the convenience of reps rather than for profitability, however, as you can an imagine with a 100% satisfaction guarantee, a company could not last 50 years and do $8.2billion in sales if it was marketing crap. So you can get toilet paper if you want, but it's top of the range toilet paper, not the cheap waterproof sandpaper toilet paper. You can get pet food, but it's the top of the range, top quality, type of pet food, not the middle of the range or lower quality stuff. What some people tend to do (and much of this is the fault of the poor approach of Amway reps) is look at the toilet paper and compare it to "normal" toilet paper in the local store, rather than to the "top" toilet paper. Go to your local supermarket and you'll find there's a whole range of different priced toilet papers - few people buy the top shelf stuff, but there's a market for those who want. Amway offers that category of stuff (let's face it, nobody wants to deal with returned toilet paper under a satisfaction guarantee!), people look in the catalogue, compare to what they normally buy and say "that's expensive!"

I'm not sure what you mean about being "afraid to put their product on store shelves"? It's got nothing to do with "fear", it's got to do with your target market and approach. If you want to sell something off a shelf, you need to spend a fortune on brand awareness and mass marketing. Without that you could put the product on the shelf, but nobody would buy it. Heck, everyone knows about Pepsi and Coke, but they still spend hundreds of millions a dollar in advertising to get you to buy it. How do you think a brand you've never heard of, that has characteristics that might make it more expensive upfront (like concentrated washing powder or organic plant concentrates), how do you think that would go sitting on a shelf? It wouldn't sell. If you'd never heard of Coca-Cola, and it was sitting on the shelf next to a can of cheaper generic store brand cola - would you buy the Coke? Probably not.

So our job as marketers is to tell the story of the products we offer, and instead of spending $$$$$ trying to do it via mass marketing, that money is instead directed to those who get results in getting people to use these brands.

As clearly is shown by the success of Nutrilite and Artistry, the approach works.

[icerat]

The fact that most MLM recruitment experience stories include, "wouldn't tell me what the opportunity was unless I went to a meeting" is enough for me. Meeting means the need for peer pressure, which means it's not really a good opportunity.

How about -

meeting means it's a lot more time efficient to show a bunch of people once, then each person one on one.

or how about -

meeting means it's possible for me, a new IBO, to get an experienced, successful IBO to explain the business

or how about -

meeeting means it's possible to meet a variety of people who do this business and evaluate what type of people do it

etc, etc, etc

Of course, I'm sure there's other people like yourself who have so little faith in themselves that they couldn't possibly survive seeing something in the company of others, they'd obviously be far too weak to resist all that peer pressure!:rolleyes:

I have some books and CDs that might be able to help you with your lack of confidence, Almo. Really, you should work on it, it's probably holding you back no end.

[NewtonTrino]

\
Re your last question, I'm not sure why you think "MLMers" are "secretive"? We pretty much spend out entire active time *trying* to explain what we do to people and get them along to information sessions. The last thing we are is "secretive". Want to try a product? No problem, I'll lend you one. Want to see what happens at a meeting? No problem, come along. etc etc etc. "secretive" is the last thing we are.


This is simply a lie. You said yourself that you don't tell people it's amway when first meeting them. The "secretive" mode is the only mode you know. How much profit did you make from amway last year?

And it's not just you... amway corp *is* secretive about a lot of stuff as well (they don't release very detailed stats on the distributors for example).


This is where some "problems" arise. In addition to all the Amway manufactured brands, it's also possible to purchase products from other manufacturers through Amway. They're primarily there for the convenience of reps rather than for profitability, however, as you can an imagine with a 100% satisfaction guarantee, a company could not last 50 years and do $8.2billion in sales if it was marketing crap. So you can get toilet paper if you want, but it's top of the range toilet paper, not the cheap waterproof sandpaper toilet paper. You can get pet food, but it's the top of the range, top quality, type of pet food, not the middle of the range or lower quality stuff. What some people tend to do (and much of this is the fault of the poor approach of Amway reps) is look at the toilet paper and compare it to "normal" toilet paper in the local store, rather than to the "top" toilet paper. Go to your local supermarket and you'll find there's a whole range of different priced toilet papers - few people buy the top shelf stuff, but there's a market for those who want. Amway offers that category of stuff (let's face it, nobody wants to deal with returned toilet paper under a satisfaction guarantee!), people look in the catalogue, compare to what they normally buy and say "that's expensive!"


* NewtonTrino Rolls eyes. How much is this amazing toilet paper?

[gtc]

Tricking people into coming along to sessions or refusing to answer reasonable questions about the nature of the 'opportunity' is 'being weird'.


Of course, I'm sure there's other people like yourself who have so little faith in themselves that they couldn't possibly survive seeing something in the company of others, they'd obviously be far too weak to resist all that peer pressure!:rolleyes:

I have some books and CDs that might be able to help you with your lack of confidence, Almo. Really, you should work on it, it's probably holding you back no end.

As is attacking people who don't like being lied to in an attempt to drag them along to a high pressure sales event.

A normal organisation wouldn't behave this way.

Re your last question, I'm not sure why you think "MLMers" are "secretive"? We pretty much spend out entire active time *trying* to explain what we do to people and get them along to information sessions. The last thing we are is "secretive". Want to try a product? No problem, I'll lend you one. Want to see what happens at a meeting? No problem, come along. etc etc etc. "secretive" is the last thing we are.So our job as marketers is to tell the story of the products we offer, and instead of spending $$$$$ trying to do it via mass marketing, that money is instead directed to those who get results in getting people to use these brands.

Nice attempt to change the subject. Being dishonest to people in order to get them to attend high pressure sales events is being secretive.

Not being honest to people at these events about the actual incomes that are generated by actual Amway reps is being secretive.

No ifs, no buts.

As clearly is shown by the success of Nutrilite and Artistry, the approach works.

But we've seen the figures for sales and incomes of Amway people in places like the UK. The sales figures are very low, much much lower than for brands sold in normal retail outlets. The income figures are also very low, across the board. Much lower than for supermarket employees.

Just what market share does Amway toilet paper have?

What market share does Amway have for its very expensive pots and pans?

What proportion of the market for lipstick does Amway have?

What proportion of the market for washing up liquid does Amway have?

[icerat]

As is attacking people who don't like being lied to in an attempt to drag them along to a high pressure sales event.

How many have you actually been to? The wons I attend are the antithesis of "high pressure".

Nice attempt to change the subject. Being dishonest to people in order to get them to attend high pressure sales events is being secretive.

Who is dishonest?

Not being honest to people at these events about the actual incomes that are generated by actual Amway reps is being secretive.

Independently audited statistics are "not being honest"?

But we've seen the figures for sales and incomes of Amway people in places like the UK. The sales figures are very low, much much lower than for brands sold in normal retail outlets.

UK figures are low. It's a huge opportunity! Nutrilite sales are 3 times that of their competitors (independent expert assessment). Artistry is top 4 in it's category and #1 in many countries.

That's three out of three you've simply stating falsehoods about.

The income figures are also very low, across the board. Much lower than for supermarket employees.

Again, false. Even the base level of Platinum earns significantly more than a supermarket employee for less work.

But of course you, dishonestly, want to compare the income of people NOT putting any hours into Amway with people working 40hr jobs!

You accuse us of being deceitful?

Just what market share does Amway toilet paper have?

Amway doesn't make toilet paper.

What market share does Amway have for its very expensive pots and pans?

No idea, it's not a brand we focus on.

What proportion of the market for lipstick does Amway have?

I told you, Artistry is top 4 in the world in prestige cosmetics, #1 in several countries.

What proportion of the market for washing up liquid does Amway have?

No idea. It's #1 in some countries, but again it's a minor Amway brand.

No tell me this - why would you, lipstick aside, pick minor brands that neither IBOs nor Amway is focused on marketing? The three major brands are Artistry, Nutrilite, and eSpring.

Artristry one of the best selling in the world
Nutrilite the best selling in the world
eSpring the best selling in Europe (don't know about the rest of the world)

That's Amway's major brands, and you ask about toilet paper, which Amway doesn't even make, cookware, which Amway makes but isn't a brand focus, and lipstick.

Why is that exactly? Is it ignorance of what Amway is actually about, or is it an outright deceptive tactic? This entire post of yours is deceptive. You claim "high pressure sales meetings", when they're anything but. You claim dishonesty to get people to attend, when that is clearly frowned upon. You then cherry pick obscure products and utterly ignore independent assessments of brand success.

And you have the hide to accuse me of being deceitful?

[icerat]

How much is this amazing toilet paper?

No idea I don't buy it.

But I'll look it up ...

There's a variety of choices ....

Scott® Two-ply Bath Tissue 80x605 sheet rolls $62.55 (78.2cents/roll)
Kleenex® Cottonelle® Bath Tissue 20x505 sheet rolls $27.59
Meadowbrook® Ultra Premium Bathroom Tissue 48x200sheet rolls $35.40 (73.8cents/roll)
(says similar to Charmin)
MEADOWBROOK® Gold Bath Tissue 48x200sheet rolls $34.00 (71cents/roll)
(says similar to Quilted Northern UltraPlush)
Meadowbrook® Bathroom Tissue 48x1000sheet rolls $43.20 (equiv 18cents/200sheet roll)

In my experience those complaing about the price of toilet paper cite the Meadowbook products and compare to something like Scott in their local store, conveniently ignore the Scott and Kleenex on Amway.

Checking CostCo -
Scott® Two-ply Bath Tissue (http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=11152581&search=toilet paper&Mo=11&cm_re=1_en-_-Top_Left_Nav-_-Top_search&lang=en-US&Nr=P_CatalogName:BC&Sp=S&N=5000043&whse=BC&Dx=mode+matchallpartial&Ntk=Text_Search&Dr=P_CatalogName:BC&Ne=4000000&D=toilet paper&Ntt=toilet paper&No=1&Ntx=mode+matchallpartial&Nty=1&topnav=&s=1) 20x500 sheet rolls $22.99($1.15/roll)
Amway 32% cheaper for 21% bigger roll
Kleenex® Cottonelle® Bath Tissue 20x505 sheet rolls $21.99
CostCo 25% cheaper

Couldn't find Charmin & quilted northern ultraplush on CostCo. Quilted Norther on Walgreens -

Quilted Northern Ultra Plush (http://www.walgreens.com/store/catalog/Paper/Ultra-Plush-3-Ply-Bathroom-Tissue/ID=prod4214465&navCount=1&navAction=push-product?V=G&ec=frgl_523000&ci_src=14110944&ci_sku=sku4213335) 12x200sheet rolls $9.99 (83cents/roll)
Amway 14.5% cheaper

Charmin in Drugstore
Charmin Bathroom Tissue (http://www.drugstore.com/products/prod.asp?pid=189337&catid=97359&aid=337953&aparam=charmin_bathroom_tissue_&CAWELAID=180896396) 24x200sheet rolls $21.99 (91.6cents/roll)
Amway 19.4% cheaper

Well whaddya know. Yet again I go check out a claim and discover it's actually bogus. In 3 out of 4 cases the Amway sourced product was significantly cheaper, and that's before we consider the final Meadowbrook product which works out A LOT cheaper.

Myth BUSTED

NOTE: I used Amway membership price as these products are targeted towards members. Amway yearly membership ($50) is the same as CostCo yearly membership ($50) and includes the possibility of further volume discounts. The Amway recommended retail price on these products is only about 8-9% higher than members price, meaning the cheaper Amway products above are still cheaper even at recommended retail price and no membership fee.

[gtc]

UK figures are low. It's a huge opportunity! Nutrilite sales are 3 times that of their competitors (independent expert assessment). Artistry is top 4 in it's category and #1 in many countries.

Claiming that you are number one or number four is meaningless. For all we know you have a completely bogus definition of the market for these goods to exclude sales from your competitors and to make yourself look good.

Sales position is particularly irrelevant as it tells us nothing about actual sales.


Again, false. Even the base level of Platinum earns significantly more than a supermarket employee for less work.

We've seen the statistics.

But of course you, dishonestly, want to compare the income of people NOT putting any hours into Amway with people working 40hr jobs!

You accuse us of being deceitful?

Lie. I want to compare the results of people who put the work into Amway that they are told to do (and buy the 'tools' that they are encouraged to buy) against the rewards that are implied when people sign up to Amway or against the results that would be had by getting a normal job in a normal company.


Amway doesn't make toilet paper.

You are being dishonest. You said Amway sells toilet paper. What is their market share?



No idea, it's not a brand we focus on.

A normal company knows these things.



I told you, Artistry is top 4 in the world in prestige cosmetics, #1 in several countries.

No you didn't. This is an example of the deceitful use of of statistics. Amway could have a market share of 0.01% and still be in the top 4 for 'prestige' cosmetics if there are only four companies that you consider to be 'prestigious'.



No idea. It's #1 in some countries, but again it's a minor Amway brand.

Which countries? Is this another example of defining the market segment in a way to make Amway look good?

No tell me this - why would you, lipstick aside, pick minor brands that neither IBOs nor Amway is focused on marketing? The three major brands are Artistry, Nutrilite, and eSpring.

I had no reason for picking those segments. I just know they are products sold by Amway.

Artristry one of the best selling in the world
Nutrilite the best selling in the world
eSpring the best selling in Europe (don't know about the rest of the world)

That's Amway's major brands, and you ask about toilet paper, which Amway doesn't even make, cookware, which Amway makes but isn't a brand focus, and lipstick.

Why is that exactly? Is it ignorance of what Amway is actually about, or is it an outright deceptive tactic? This entire post of yours is deceptive. You claim "high pressure sales meetings", when they're anything but. You claim dishonesty to get people to attend, when that is clearly frowned upon. You then cherry pick obscure products and utterly ignore independent assessments of brand success.

And you have the hide to accuse me of being deceitful?

Cry me a river.

If you want to claim that Amway products are popular then you have to pony up the info.

List the products, list the market shares and define the market segments (so we can see that you aren't arbitrarily excluding competitors to boost your claims).

[icerat]

Claiming that you are number one or number four is meaningless. For all we know you have a completely bogus definition of the market for these goods to exclude sales from your competitors and to make yourself look good.

Which part of "independently assessed" are you struggling to understand?

Lie. I want to compare the results of people who put the work into Amway that they are told to do (and buy the 'tools' that they are encouraged to buy) against the rewards that are implied when people sign up to Amway or against the results that would be had by getting a normal job in a normal company.

That's exactly what I want you to do as well. So why don't you do that instead of the bogus comparisons you're doing now?

You are being dishonest. You said Amway sells toilet paper. What is their market share?

Amway sells toilet paper, it does not make toilet paper. What's Toyota's share of coca-cola sales? The Toyota showroom down the road from me sells coca-cola. What's their marketshare? Who the hell cares? It's an idiotic question.

A normal company knows these things.

You want the phone number of my local Toyota dealer, so you can ask them if they know their marketshare of coca-cola?

No you didn't. This is an example of the deceitful use of of statistics. Amway could have a market share of 0.01% and still be in the top 4 for 'prestige' cosmetics if there are only four companies that you consider to be 'prestigious'.

Please, go find a dictionary and look up what "independent" means before you embarass yourself further.

Which countries? Is this another example of defining the market segment in a way to make Amway look good?

Oh yeah, now The Great Global Amway ConspiracyTM has stretched into major independent multinational market research firms.

I had no reason for picking those segments. I just know they are products sold by Amway.

Why didn't you pick the segments that Amway actually focuses on and cares about? Why not choose the segments that make up the vast bulk of Amway's sales, and 100% of their marketing budget?

If you want to claim that Amway products are popular then you have to pony up the info.

I've done that again and again on this and other threads. Links are available here Amway Award's and Recognitions (http://www.amwaywiki.com/Awards_and_Recognitions)

List the products, list the market shares and define the market segments (so we can see that you aren't arbitrarily excluding competitors to boost your claims).

Looked up "independent" yet? No fighting The Great Global Amway ConspiracyTM is there? :rolleyes:

[Epok]

I've noticed that a lot of Pro-MLMers come across as salesman. I mean, Icerat, you are trying to sell us onto Amway right here on this thread. Some of your post sound like a commercial. It sounds like you are trying to say that the products Amway sells are better than what you can get in the stores. As if Wal-Mart only sells Sand Paper Quality Toilet Paper™. And a lot of those health products that Melaleuca sells are unneeded woo. I think its funny how most of their vitamins have the disclaimer "This product has not been evaluated by the FDA and should not be used to treat, cure or diagnose any illness" yet in the same advertisement they are claiming just that.

And as for not recruiting competition (which you claim by using the PepsiCo analogy) MLMers make extra income by recruiting additional members and those new members in turn have to compete for recruiting other members. That turns into a whole mess of competition.

There is also this viral marketing (or whatever you call it) where MLMers will post things on the web with scam in the title and proceed to tell people how its not a scam but when someone posts a complaint they had with the company then they come outta the woodwork saying "Oh you did something wrong" or "That was just one person with a bad attitude". The company is never at fault for promoting bad business practices. Just check out some videos on YouTube and you will start to see a method. A lot of videos have only 3 comments and they are all from people who "absolutely love these products, I stopped going to random retailer because they are safer for the environment and are 100% organic". There is a lot of effort made to hide bad publicity but saturating the internet with the Pro-MLM rhetoric.

[Almo]

There is also this viral marketing (or whatever you call it) where MLMers will post things on the web with scam in the title and proceed to tell people how its not a scam... There is a lot of effort made to hide bad publicity but saturating the internet with the Pro-MLM rhetoric.

I find this quite disturbing as well. Google "Amway scam" then google "Pepsi scam". The character of the returned results are entirely different.

[icerat]

I've noticed that a lot of Pro-MLMers come across as salesman. I mean, Icerat, you are trying to sell us onto Amway right here on this thread.

All I'm doing is responding to false claims with factual information. If that's "selling" then I plead guilty.

Some of your post sound like a commercial. It sounds like you are trying to say that the products Amway sells are better than what you can get in the stores. As if Wal-Mart only sells Sand Paper Quality Toilet Paper™.

This isn't even true - with regards toilet paper I explictly named similar brands from other stores, and even linked to them.

And a lot of those health products that Melaleuca sells are unneeded woo. I think its funny how most of their vitamins have the disclaimer "This product has not been evaluated by the FDA and should not be used to treat, cure or diagnose any illness" yet in the same advertisement they are claiming just that.

In which case they are breaking the law, disclaimer or not. False advertising or otherwise breaking laws is a separate discussion.

And as for not recruiting competition (which you claim by using the PepsiCo analogy) MLMers make extra income by recruiting additional members

No they don't. If they do it's a pyramid. They make money by recruiting additional members in order to increase sales volume and take a cut in margin to do so.

and those new members in turn have to compete for recruiting other members. That turns into a whole mess of competition.

Yes, "cross-line" IBOs are in competition with each other for developing wholesale and retail sales.. Here the potential for market saturation does exist - exactly like in any other business!

And just like any other business, if a company somehow approaches a mythical saturation point, they change strategies or die. I suspect the market for rotary telephones, or indeed rotary telephone salespeople, is pretty close to saturated - the companies making and marketing such products either changed or died.

There is also this viral marketing (or whatever you call it) where MLMers will post things on the web with scam in the title and proceed to tell people how its not a scam ...

That stuff drives me nuts. In my opinion they virtually all ARE scammer. When you follow through with them they're mostly not selling any worthwile product, but simply selling a marketing system where you make money getting others to use the marketing system or actually only make money selling the marketing system etc etc etc. It's a classic pyramid scam.

There is a lot of effort made to hide bad publicity but saturating the internet with the Pro-MLM rhetoric.

And there's also been significant efforts by anti-MLMers to hide positive publicity through similar endeavours. Eric Scheibeler is in the process of contacting virtually every journalist on the planet and plugging his book, and hired an internet PR guy to edit wikipedia and setup multiple websites. Taylor and FitzPatrick regularly swamp the FTC and Attorney's General with their claims.

[NewtonTrino]

Can anyone else read Icerats last few posts without cringing?

Icerat, you are spinning so hard I'm surprised you haven't gotten dizzy and thrown up.

You are obviously completely brainwashed into thinking amway is the greatest thing in the universe when the facts staring you right in the face say the complete opposite.

I'm not going to both responding point by point to all of your garbage as I think you are doing a fine job of making yourself look like a maniac.

[icerat]

Oh look, all the anti-amway zealots just completely ignore yet again a post with clear evidence, including supportling links, showing their claims are false so they just resort to ad hominems.

What a surprise. :rolleyes:

[bookitty]

Back up a ways. When I mentioned that my cousin tried to drag me into Arbonne, I pointed out that she had already contacted the majority of my friends and family. Were I to become an Arbonne sales person under her, I would be trying to compete with her already established business. This would be problematic.

You compared it to Pepsi. But that still doesn't make sense. Pepsi has a recognized brand with an existing market. Pepsi limits the number of sales people to the amount that any area can support. Arbonne does not. In fact, quite the opposite. In addition to my cousin, I would also be competing with anyone else she managed to wrangle AND, presumably, the people under me.

In order for the Arbonne model of income to work, I would need to start with a very limited amount of consumers and then work very hard to limit that amount even further by recruiting more competition. Even if I branch out beyond my immediate friends and family, I am bringing in competition in these new areas. And the competition brings in their own, etc until the amount of potential consumers is very, very small.

So, how is this different from a pyramid scheme? And, can you illustrate this difference without using the analogy of a company that uses a completely different marketing technique?

[icerat]

Back up a ways. When I mentioned that my cousin tried to drag me into Arbonne, I pointed out that she had already contacted the majority of my friends and family. Were I to become an Arbonne sales person under her, I would be trying to compete with her already established business. This would be problematic.

Well, without knowing how Arbonne operates, my personal experience is that people buy off you not the company. Some people who wouldn't buy off your cousin will buy off you, and vice versa. Having said that, what business of any type grows to any significant sized through only selling to friends and family? That's fine if you want a hobby to maybe earn some pocket money, but if you actually want to develop a business then your friends and family are not your market.

You compared it to Pepsi. But that still doesn't make sense. Pepsi has a recognized brand with an existing market. Pepsi limits the number of sales people to the amount that any area can support.

Sorry, but I disagree with this assertion. There is nothing that I'm aware of stopping me opening up a store and selling Pepsi pretty much anywhere I'm allowed to open a store. Pepsi isn't going to go "sorry, the store over the road already sells Pepsi, so we're not going to let you". It simply doesn't happen.

Arbonne does not. In fact, quite the opposite. In addition to my cousin, I would also be competing with anyone else she managed to wrangle AND, presumably, the people under me.

As already pointed out, "the people under you" are no more your competitor than I would be a competitor of Pepsi, or a Pepsi wholesaler I buy off, and selling the Pepsi through my store.

In order for the Arbonne model of income to work, I would need to start with a very limited amount of consumers and then work very hard to limit that amount even further by recruiting more competition.

You're missing something quite fundamental in the model here. Your sentence there made no sense. You're essentially complaining that you selling more products is a bad thing, because then there are more people using the products so it's harder to sell more products! You do understand that when your downline buys a product, they're effectively buying it off you? That when they have a new customer, *your sales* increase?

Even if I branch out beyond my immediate friends and family, I am bringing in competition in these new areas.

Again you're saying "if I increase my sales, I'm just making it harder to get more sales!"

No No No. Yes, theoretically getting more wholesale sales makes it harder to get retail sales, but so what? You *want* to expand your wholesale sales as it's less work. Say you're making say 25% margin on your retail sales, and 5% on your wholesale sales. You're retail sales is naturally limited by how many people you can contact and how much you can personally sell and manage. You wholesale sales have no such limit. 5 wholesaler customers selling the exact same retail sales volume as you will make you as much money as if you did it yourself - but for less work. If they do more than that in retail, or create wholesale sales themselves, or you expand to 6 wholesale customers you're making MORE money than from your retailing for a lot less work.

If we go back to Pepsi again - how much do they make selling direct to the consumer (retailing), and how much do they make selling to wholesalers, franchises etc etc.

I'd venture to suggest that >99.999% of the sales volume comes from wholesale sales, not retail sales. Yet you think wholesaling is a bad idea because doing so is competing for the same retail space? I don't get it.

And the competition brings in their own, etc until the amount of potential consumers is very, very small.

So find a wholesale customer in another town. Voila, your sales increases and there's no issues at all of potential consumers in your local area - you've expanded out of your local area.

So, how is this different from a pyramid scheme? And, can you illustrate this difference without using the analogy of a company that uses a completely different marketing technique?

How is this different to a pyramid scheme? Well for a start, by definition in a pyramid scheme you make money through recruiting, not through sales of products to end users. Recruit a million people into Arbonne or Amway but nobody buys any products, you don't make a cent. Recruit a hundred people into a pyramid scheme make a bucketload. Then you'll get sent to prison!

What you seem to be missing is that network marketing involves a mix of creating wholesale customers and retail customers. While with the right products and in the right market place you can create a pretty decent income as a retailer, the idea for people who want to expand and create a significant business is to be primarily a wholesaler, not a retailer. The margins are less, but there's also a lot less work once it's setup. I can spend 10 hours a month getting $100 profit from a retail sale, or 10 minutes a month to get $20 profit from a wholesale sale.

[NewtonTrino]

Oh look, all the anti-amway zealots just completely ignore yet again a post with clear evidence, including supportling links, showing their claims are false so they just resort to ad hominems.

What a surprise. :rolleyes:

We have hundreds of posts going back and forth on all of these issues.

I think amway is a scam. You've shown us ABSOLUTELY NOTHING which refutes that basic point.

Anyway keep talking. You keep digging a deeper and deeper hole as you try to defend this wacky business cult.

[gtc]

Can anyone else read Icerats last few posts without cringing?

Icerat, you are spinning so hard I'm surprised you haven't gotten dizzy and thrown up.

You are obviously completely brainwashed into thinking amway is the greatest thing in the universe when the facts staring you right in the face say the complete opposite.

I'm not going to both responding point by point to all of your garbage as I think you are doing a fine job of making yourself look like a maniac.

This is absolutely true.

[Epok]

How about -

meeting means it's a lot more time efficient to show a bunch of people once, then each person one on one.

or how about -

meeting means it's possible for me, a new IBO, to get an experienced, successful IBO to explain the business

or how about -

meeeting means it's possible to meet a variety of people who do this business and evaluate what type of people do it

Here I see that you are just giving reasons for why it is easier to describe this stuff in person but you don't address the issue of why MLMers refuse to give any information unless they can meet with you in person. I can say from personal experience that I have seen this type of behavior because a friend of mine did exactly that to me. Now, I do believe that the reason that they do that is so you don't have a chance to come across any bad publicity about the company.

Of course, I'm sure there's other people like yourself who have so little faith in themselves that they couldn't possibly survive seeing something in the company of others, they'd obviously be far too weak to resist all that peer pressure!:rolleyes:

I have some books and CDs that might be able to help you with your lack of confidence, Almo. Really, you should work on it, it's probably holding you back no end.

This sounds like a thinly veiled insult while trying to sell someone onto your product.

Now I am asuming that Amway sells the same woo woo health products that Melaleuca does. What is a Pro-Amway/pro-woo person doing on a skeptic forum? MLMs are such a great hustle because they get their cult-like members to do the advertising for them. And just because Pepsi and other companies spend millions on advertising doesn't mean that you have to spend millions of dollars on advertising just to sell your product. There are plenty of successful, legitimate, non-MLM, non-scam companies that are very successful.

[icerat]

Here I see that you are just giving reasons for why it is easier to describe this stuff in person but you don't address the issue of why MLMers refuse to give any information unless they can meet with you in person.

Your overgeneralizing a bit here aren't you? If people ask me I certainly give them some more information.

I can say from personal experience that I have seen this type of behavior because a friend of mine did exactly that to me. Now, I do believe that the reason that they do that is so you don't have a chance to come across any bad publicity about the company.

This is one of the reasons, particularly for new people that don't have the skills or knowledge to be able to address comments and objections that come up. I can give you case after case of people who have said something like "if I'd known I was going to look at Amway, I wouldn't have gone. I'm glad I did because it's nothing like I thought".

I'm dealing with a guy now who isn't keen on coming to our seminars because of the chanting and candle waving he saw on Dateline. The thing is, in 10 years of going to these seminars I've never once encountered anything remotely like chanting and candle waving at any of our seminars. He thinks that's what we do. Today I did a followup with a lady who has been buying Amway products for years off some friends. They pretty much held tupperware party style stuff. I'm not interested in doing that, neither is she. Neither her "Amway" friends nor her had an inkling of the type of thing we do building professional networks.

Getting more information is *exactly* what we want people to do. Unfortunately due to past experiences and/or reading other people *entirely unrepresentative* experiences, many people decide NOT to get more information because they think they know everything already. Heck *I* am one of those people. When my sponsor called me up I asked him if it was Amway and said I wasn't interested. He said it was and asked me what I knew. I explained how I'd been an IBO before, he asked me a few questions and explained a bit how he and the team he was with operated. I was an Amway expert - I'd even been an IBO for cryin out loud. What he showed me and what I do today is NOTHING like I thought he was calling about. Too many people are like folk here - for some reason which defies logic they think an extremeley loose nit organisation involving millions of people, most of whom never have anything at all to do with eachother, trained by different people and different companies - for some reason they think everyone does it the same way!

So we have to be careful to ensure that people actually *do* get more information, rather than make a decision based on very very limited information. Now, having said that there's professional ways to do it, and there's unprofessional ways. My sponsor did it professionally. Others do not.

This sounds like a thinly veiled insult while trying to sell someone onto your product.

It was a joke. His problem is arrogance, not a lack of confidence. Believe me I'm not trying to "sell" him a damn thing. He has no interest in "buying" and I have no interest in trying to sell him anything.

Now I am asuming that Amway sells the same woo woo health products that Melaleuca does.

I've undertaken no research into what Melaleuca offers, so I can't say. Nutrilite is not "woo". Nutrilite employs over a thousand scientists and works with top research institutions around the world and has hundreds of published papers and conference presentations. I am a research scientist by training, that's my background before I went into business for myself. While obviously, just like in any other field, quality varies from study to study, and the scientific support for a product varies from product to product, Nutrilite is one hell of an impressive brand. All we ask is that people evaluate the evidence.

What is a Pro-Amway/pro-woo person doing on a skeptic forum?

I'm a skeptic. I did however make the unfortunate mistake of believing other skeptics collect data and form opinions based on the evidence. I've discovered that for some topics this simply isn't true - well, and the fact there's a lot of irrational woo believers on this forum as well. I've not done any research to see if the anti-mlmers here are primarily of that group, so I have no expectation they'll make rational, logical evaluations, or they're primarily misinformed skeptics who for some reason leave rationality at the door when evaluating a topic like MLM.

MLMs are such a great hustle because they get their cult-like members to do the advertising for them. And just because Pepsi and other companies spend millions on advertising doesn't mean that you have to spend millions of dollars on advertising just to sell your product. There are plenty of successful, legitimate, non-MLM, non-scam companies that are very successful.

I'm not sure what your point is here? There's plenty of successful companies in all fields. Amway, and many other MLMs, spends millions on advertising too by the way. I know some reps claim they "don't advertise", but it's not true, it's a myth. Indeed I saw one published study comparing legitimate MLMs to illegal pyramid schemes claiming to be MLM and they pointed out one distinguishing feature is that the scams do pretty much no traditional advertising at all, while the legitimate companies like Amway, Avon, Mary Kay etc all have multi-million dollar advertising budgets in support of field efforts.

[icerat]

This is absolutely true.

So which part of the confirmable facts and figures supported by links I posted is "spinning".

It's really quite straight forward. Price A > Price B or Price B > Price A.

Where's the spin?

Or you can't handle the facts so you've just got to make (and agree with) inane comments?

Personally if I was you or NT I'd be cringing in humilation. How long can you maintain the "overprice crap" myth in the face of clear evidence to the contrary? Don't you find it at all humiliating to espouse beliefs that are clearly and provably not true? Heck, at least with religion one can't really disprove the existence of a god, but your beliefs on this topic are being clearly disproved again and again yet you persist in your "faith"!

Quite amazing really.

[NewtonTrino]

I'm a skeptic. I did however make the unfortunate mistake of believing other skeptics collect data and form opinions based on the evidence. I've discovered that for some topics this simply isn't true - well, and the fact there's a lot of irrational woo believers on this forum as well. I've not done any research to see if the anti-mlmers here are primarily of that group, so I have no expectation they'll make rational, logical evaluations, or they're primarily misinformed skeptics who for some reason leave rationality at the door when evaluating a topic like MLM.


You realize this is exactly the same kind of tune that the woo wooers of all kinds spout right? Whether it's homeopathy, dowsing, whackadoo religion or amway we are always the ones who are "looking at the correct facts" or are "painting them all with a broad brush". We are supposed to believe that their particular woo that has all the signs of being complete garbage is somehow different. In your case it's extra funny because you have no choice to admit that huge portions of amway have done hugely fraudulent things in the past so you have to spin your group as being "special". Nothing could be further from the truth. Of course your group does a better job spinning this ridiculous business, they have no choice if they want to survive. But that's all it is, same crap in different packaging.

Icerat, come back when you've made some significant money from this scam. Then you can be the awesome model for how great this scam is (and show us you aren't making the vast majority of your money on the backs of those lower on the pyramid). Until then you have zero credibility talking about this topic. As far as I'm concerned you are simply one of the marks who hasn't realized they're being scammed yet.

[icerat]

You realize this is exactly the same kind of tune that the woo wooers of all kinds spout right? Whether it's homeopathy, dowsing, whackadoo religion or amway we are always the ones who are "looking at the correct facts" or are "painting them all with a broad brush".

So tell me what's "woo" about Amway products then NT.

We are supposed to believe that their particular woo that has all the signs of being complete garbage is somehow different.

A skeptic looks at the claims and the evidence and makes a decision. With regard homeopath and dowsing the suggested mechanism looks bogus, there's no other plausible mechanism, and testing finds no effect.

With the majority of Amway health-related products there are both science-based plausible mechanisms and research into efficacy.

A true skeptic would evaluate the evidence, not just dismiss it as woo for no particular reason than some guy once harassed them or explained the marketing model badly.

Icerat, come back when you've made some significant money from this scam.

Just for the heck of it I'll ask ... how much is "significant".

Until then you have zero credibility talking about this topic.

Right ... so I've used the products, sold the products, tried the business model, made money, read everything I can get my hands on about the business model and products, spoken to huge numbers of people who have both succeeeded and failed ...

... and I have zero credibility.

You ... have a relative who worked with it and did some programming for some folk once.

and your credibility is what exactly?

[NewtonTrino]

So tell me what's "woo" about Amway products then NT.


As usual you are purposfully misunderstanding. It's ok, I get your game now. Guess again what I'm talking about. It's not the products.


A skeptic looks at the claims and the evidence and makes a decision. With regard homeopath and dowsing the suggested mechanism looks bogus, there's no other plausible mechanism, and testing finds no effect.

With the majority of Amway health-related products there are both science-based plausible mechanisms and research into efficacy.

A true skeptic would evaluate the evidence, not just dismiss it as woo for no particular reason than some guy once harassed them or explained the marketing model badly.


Not talking about the products. Nice try though.


Just for the heck of it I'll ask ... how much is "significant".


Let's say a profit of 150,000 euros in a year. This should be easily achievable for someone with your vast amway knowledge.


Right ... so I've used the products, sold the products, tried the business model, made money, read everything I can get my hands on about the business model and products, spoken to huge numbers of people who have both succeeeded and failed ...

... and I have zero credibility.

You ... have a relative who worked with it and did some programming for some folk once.

and your credibility is what exactly?

My credibility isn't at stake as I'm not the one selling the snake oil. I love how you mischaracterize my experience. My dad has been involved for *30 years* and is still involved. My "some programming" was software that was used by hundreds of large pins to run their businesses. This gave me immense insight into multiple and large businesses including things like details on the tools scam profits. Frankly I think I've had a lot more inside access than you will have until you build a diamond level or above business. Have you ever had a chance to examine the business records of multiple diamonds? I have. They are crooks because of the tool scam. You admit that this scam exists, but you just don't care. Actually not only do you not care you think tools are great and fairly priced. This is all admitted on this board.

[icerat]

As usual you are purposfully misunderstanding. It's ok, I get your game now. Guess again what I'm talking about. It's not the products.

EPok raised the topic of "woo", directly in reference to products. I responded to his comments, you responded to mine.

Perhaps if you want to change the topic, you should said so.

So tell me, what exactly is "woo" about "find lots of people who want to buy your products, profit share with people who help you find lots of people who want to buy your products. Sell for more than you buy for."

That's all the business is about, what's "woo"?

Let's say a profit of 150,000 euros in a year. This should be easily achievable for someone with your vast amway knowledge.

Leadership expert John Maxwell once said "The greatest gap in life is the gap between knowing and doing"

Creating a business that profits €150,000/yr is not "easily achievable" for anyone. It's hard work and takes a lot of time, as you would expect for a legitimate business. I expect it will take me at least 5 years given my current goals and circumstances. If you're still hanging around this forum, I'll be sure to let you know.

Interesting of course that you seem to think people who set a goal to make €100/mth, and achieve it successfully, have somehow been "scammed".

They are crooks because of the tool scam. You admit that this scam exists, but you just don't care. Actually not only do you not care you think tools are great and fairly priced. This is all admitted on this board.

"tools" is a separate issue altogether. I'm more than aware some people have acted unethically in that area. That doesn't make Amway a scam.

Regarding selling tools in general, no I simply do not see how selling products of value at a good price to people who want them is a "scam". If you're doing false advertising, or whatever else, that's a different issue, but again that's a question not of the "selling tools" business model per se, but the marketing strategy used to promote it. Same issue as with Amway.

Despite your constant attempts to characterise my position differently, you'll get no argument from me that there's folk who have or do run their Amway businesses and/or tool businesses unethically.

[Epok]

I'm dealing with a guy now who isn't keen on coming to our seminars because of the chanting and candle waving he saw on Dateline. The thing is, in 10 years of going to these seminars I've never once encountered anything remotely like chanting and candle waving at any of our seminars. He thinks that's what we do. Today I did a followup with a lady who has been buying Amway products for years off some friends. They pretty much held tupperware party style stuff. I'm not interested in doing that, neither is she. Neither her "Amway" friends nor her had an inkling of the type of thing we do building professional networks.

I decided I didn't want to go for Melaleuca after I had my meeting and had a chance to do some research on it. And it wasn't just one newscast from Dateline that did it either. I spent many hours looking through many sources that were negative and positive. I saw more negative which is what influenced my decision. Amway gets bad press because the negative aspects of the company are overwhelming but ,unfortunately, people will still fall for the rhetoric of people like you.

Getting more information is *exactly* what we want people to do.

If this were true then you wouldn't have to hide the name of your company before you schedule your meetings.

Unfortunately due to past experiences and/or reading other people *entirely unrepresentative* experiences, many people decide NOT to get more information because they think they know everything already. Heck *I* am one of those people. When my sponsor called me up I asked him if it was Amway and said I wasn't interested. He said it was and asked me what I knew. I explained how I'd been an IBO before, he asked me a few questions and explained a bit how he and the team he was with operated. I was an Amway expert - I'd even been an IBO for cryin out loud. What he showed me and what I do today is NOTHING like I thought he was calling about. Too many people are like folk here - for some reason which defies logic they think an extremeley loose nit organisation involving millions of people, most of whom never have anything at all to do with eachother, trained by different people and different companies - for some reason they think everyone does it the same way!

So we have to be careful to ensure that people actually *do* get more information, rather than make a decision based on very very limited information. Now, having said that there's professional ways to do it, and there's unprofessional ways. My sponsor did it professionally. Others do not.

Why do you have "sponsors"? AA has sponsors and they are a cult-like group. They use misleading information and prey on people with low self-esteem who are at a low point in their life to bump up their membership.
The people who are very good at manipulative speech patterns are the ones who succeed at MLMs.

It would be nice if you would submit some evidence of your education since you claim to have a scientific background.


It was a joke. His problem is arrogance, not a lack of confidence. Believe me I'm not trying to "sell" him a damn thing. He has no interest in "buying" and I have no interest in trying to sell him anything.

I figured it was a joke. Its hard to take you seriously when you resort to that type of behavior to "advertise" for Amway. I see this a lot when someone makes a valid complaint against a MLM.



I've undertaken no research into what Melaleuca offers, so I can't say. Nutrilite is not "woo". Nutrilite employs over a thousand scientists and works with top research institutions around the world and has hundreds of published papers and conference presentations. I am a research scientist by training, that's my background before I went into business for myself. While obviously, just like in any other field, quality varies from study to study, and the scientific support for a product varies from product to product, Nutrilite is one hell of an impressive brand. All we ask is that people evaluate the evidence.

I looked up Nutrilite and it does sound like the kind of stuff that Melaleuca sells. I found this link http://www.nutrilite.com/en-us/Nature/WhyNutrilite/our-history.aspx I found this quote from the link to be incredible funny Carl supplemented his meager diet with soups from what was available: local herbs, grasses, and vegetables, along with rusty nails (for iron), and lime stone and ground-up animal bones (for calcium). C'mon dude, the guy was eating rusty nails. How is that not woo? Do you expect me to believe he was supplementing his diet with rusty nail and didn't Tetanus from it? And you claim that Amway employs over 1000 scientists just for Nutrilite. That is a lot of scientist. Can you find some links to any accredited scientific journals that they have published in that aren't owned by Amway? That is an extraordinary claim is it not?



I'm a skeptic. I did however make the unfortunate mistake of believing other skeptics collect data and form opinions based on the evidence. I've discovered that for some topics this simply isn't true - well, and the fact there's a lot of irrational woo believers on this forum as well. I've not done any research to see if the anti-mlmers here are primarily of that group, so I have no expectation they'll make rational, logical evaluations, or they're primarily misinformed skeptics who for some reason leave rationality at the door when evaluating a topic like MLM.

So when a few people disagree with your MLM you wanna discredit the whole group of skeptics. As if we are one entity. The people on this forum come from all walks of life. The only bond we have is that we like to question people's claims.




I'm not sure what your point is here? There's plenty of successful companies in all fields. Amway, and many other MLMs, spends millions on advertising too by the way. I know some reps claim they "don't advertise", but it's not true, it's a myth. Indeed I saw one published study comparing legitimate MLMs to illegal pyramid schemes claiming to be MLM and they pointed out one distinguishing feature is that the scams do pretty much no traditional advertising at all, while the legitimate companies like Amway, Avon, Mary Kay etc all have multi-million dollar advertising budgets in support of field efforts.

My point is that Amway is a shady company. Trying to lump Amway with Avon and Mary Kay is deceptive as well. Avon and Mary Kay are more upfront about their business practices and I doubt that their founders ate rusty nails. Haha, sorry I couldn't help sneaking that joke in there. I almost lost control of my bowels when I read that. Rusty Friggin' Nails dude. Thats it, I'm telling everybody about that one. We could start a thread that would last for 2000 pages making fun of Ol' Carl "Rusty Nail" Rehnborg.

[Epok]

I know it bad manners and really looked down on in the JREF community to make fun of and generalize someone but I hope we can make an exception in this case.

I would like to pass a vote around to the committee to rename Icerat "Rusty Nail Jr.". Normally one little tidbit of info like that shouldn't completely discredit someone or a whole company but I find that to be incredible and it could possibly explain a lot of the actions of Amway members. I would like dedicate the song Clowns Are Experts (At Making Us Laugh) by The Vandals to you, Mr Rusty Nail Jr. http://www.metrolyrics.com/clowns-are-experts-at-making-us-laugh-lyrics-the-vandals.html

[NewtonTrino]

EPok raised the topic of "woo", directly in reference to products. I responded to his comments, you responded to mine.

Perhaps if you want to change the topic, you should said so.

So tell me, what exactly is "woo" about "find lots of people who want to buy your products, profit share with people who help you find lots of people who want to buy your products. Sell for more than you buy for."

That's all the business is about, what's "woo"?


The woo part is that it's a good business opportunity.;


Leadership expert John Maxwell once said "The greatest gap in life is the gap between knowing and doing"

Creating a business that profits €150,000/yr is not "easily achievable" for anyone. It's hard work and takes a lot of time, as you would expect for a legitimate business. I expect it will take me at least 5 years given my current goals and circumstances. If you're still hanging around this forum, I'll be sure to let you know.


Of course it's not easily achievable by anyone. This is one of the main lies of amway. If you "do the work" and "follow the system" that success is guaranteed. It's a lie plain and simple. My business (which btw makes a helluva lot more than 150k euros in profit) isn't built on a pyramid of suckers either.



Interesting of course that you seem to think people who set a goal to make €100/mth, and achieve it successfully, have somehow been "scammed".


Find me some of these mythical people where this is their goal. This isn't how the opportunity is sold and you know it. What a crock.


"tools" is a separate issue altogether. I'm more than aware some people have acted unethically in that area. That doesn't make Amway a scam.


This is where we disagree. Why would you want to be involved with something that's so tainted that people run away at the name?


Regarding selling tools in general, no I simply do not see how selling products of value at a good price to people who want them is a "scam". If you're doing false advertising, or whatever else, that's a different issue, but again that's a question not of the "selling tools" business model per se, but the marketing strategy used to promote it. Same issue as with Amway.

Despite your constant attempts to characterise my position differently, you'll get no argument from me that there's folk who have or do run their Amway businesses and/or tool businesses unethically.

Now, I just extend this unethical model to ALL amway groups. They ALL operate this way even if you refuse to see it. Find me a group that doesn't sell tools into their group and I'll agree that it's more ethical although still crappy as a business.

[icerat]

Of course it's not easily achievable by anyone. This is one of the main lies of amway.

No, this one of the main lies of people like you - that Amway claims it is easy.

My business (which btw makes a helluva lot more than 150k euros in profit) isn't built on a pyramid of suckers either.

You've created a business that creates 150K in profit after everyone and everything has been paid and with minimal input from you? Good for you. It's rare.

Find me some of these mythical people where this is their goal.

I'm getting active now and done a few followups the past week or so -

First guys goal - 1000€ a month, after tax, to replace his income as a bus driver.
Second, a lady - 100€ a month, she basically wants to have home parties around sports nutrition for some fun and extra cash
Third, a guy - 1000€ a month, after tax, to allow him time to focus on writing more books. He's just published his first but realises he needs an income to be able to do more.
Fourth, a gal - 2000€ a month, to replace her income.
Fifth guy - he's already a successful businessman, an asset millionaire, been researching network marketing, and wants to generate an additional passive income of 4000€/mth, thinks this will be a good way to do it. His main goal though is to help others do it, but first he needs to learn how himself
Sixth guy - a successful internet entrepreneur, I don't know his $$$ goal, but he simply wants to incorporate Nutrilite into the products he's already offering people to aid against psoriasis, an area he has a personal interests in.

Not a single one of them has a goal remotely near your €12500/month. I'm sure they'd all *like* that, who wouldn't? but it's not what they're setting as a goal coming in to the opportunity.

This isn't how the opportunity is sold and you know it. What a crock.

No, what is "a crock" is your absurd claim to know how millions of independent business owners around the world operate their Amway businesses. You don't. I and the people I work with show the possibilities from €100 a month to €12000 a month and ask them what their goals are and what they want to achieve. It's exactly the same way it was "sold" to me 10 years ago.

This is where we disagree. Why would you want to be involved with something that's so tainted that people run away at the name?

Never had it happen.

Now, I just extend this unethical model to ALL amway groups. They ALL operate this way even if you refuse to see it. Find me a group that doesn't sell tools into their group and I'll agree that it's more ethical although still crappy as a business.

Your assertion that because someone offers training and support materials they are for some reason automatically unethical is absurd. When they do it cheaper than from alternative sources it's even more absurd.

[NewtonTrino]

No, this one of the main lies of people like you - that Amway claims it is easy.


So "the system" doesn't have a 100% success rate even if you execute as told RIGHT?


You've created a business that creates 150K in profit after everyone and everything has been paid and with minimal input from you? Good for you. It's rare.


Actually way more profit than that.


I'm getting active now and done a few followups the past week or so -

First guys goal - 1000€ a month, after tax, to replace his income as a bus driver.
Second, a lady - 100€ a month, she basically wants to have home parties around sports nutrition for some fun and extra cash
Third, a guy - 1000€ a month, after tax, to allow him time to focus on writing more books. He's just published his first but realises he needs an income to be able to do more.
Fourth, a gal - 2000€ a month, to replace her income.
Fifth guy - he's already a successful businessman, an asset millionaire, been researching network marketing, and wants to generate an additional passive income of 4000€/mth, thinks this will be a good way to do it. His main goal though is to help others do it, but first he needs to learn how himself
Sixth guy - a successful internet entrepreneur, I don't know his $$$ goal, but he simply wants to incorporate Nutrilite into the products he's already offering people to aid against psoriasis, an area he has a personal interests in.

Not a single one of them has a goal remotely near your €12500/month. I'm sure they'd all *like* that, who wouldn't? but it's not what they're setting as a goal coming in to the opportunity.


Bring them on to talk then.


No, what is "a crock" is your absurd claim to know how millions of independent business owners around the world operate their Amway businesses. You don't. I and the people I work with show the possibilities from €100 a month to €12000 a month and ask them what their goals are and what they want to achieve. It's exactly the same way it was "sold" to me 10 years ago.


I'm sure somebody somewhere only wants to make a few extra bucks but that's not how the opportunity is presented in the vast majority if cases. To claim otherwise is just plain lying.





Your assertion that because someone offers training and support materials they are for some reason automatically unethical is absurd. When they do it cheaper than from alternative sources it's even more absurd.

Selling training materials to your DOWNLINE for 10x what they cost to produce is what's absurd and unethical. Especially with the garbage that's on most of this "motivational" material.

[Epok]

I'm still curious as to what an Amway representative has to say about how Carl "Rusty Nail" Rehnborg claims to have ingested rusty nails as a supplement for iron. Are you ever gonna respond to that? Remember, I did post the link where you can easily find it and it is on the official Nutrilite website.

[gtc]

I'm still curious as to what an Amway representative has to say about how Carl "Rusty Nail" Rehnborg claims to have ingested rusty nails as a supplement for iron. Are you ever gonna respond to that? Remember, I did post the link where you can easily find it and it is on the official Nutrilite website.

Its woo, pure and simple.

It reminds me of this guy (http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?1.5lb_of_nails_removed_from_stomach_o f_human_hardware_store&in_article_id=768166&in_page_id=2).

'I swallowed 17 nails in February and didn't die,' he said. 'Five-inch nails, all in one day.'

[gtc]

Are there really millions of people in Amway?

[Epok]

Are there really millions of people in Amway?

There website claims to have markets in

* Argentina
* Guatemala
* Brazil
* Honduras
* Canada
* Mexico
* Chile
* Panama
* Colombia
* United States
* Costa Rica
* Uruguay
* Dominican Republic
* Venezuela
* El Salvador
* Puerto Rico

Which could very well be true. I can't find any info on exactly how many members they have though. Maybe Rusty Nail Jr. could find us a link though.

I also found something else that is pretty interesting. They have service the is similar to one that Melaleuca uses called Ditto Delivery "which allows consumers to specify an automatic monthly delivery of each product". If it is anything like Melaleuca's service then they probably make it hard to cancel an order. Its also funny how they use the term Independent Business Owner to make it seem like you actually own your own business when really its just a big ol' pot that all these people have their hands in.

I found this site http://www.corporatenarc.com/quixtar.php which is a watchdog group that isn't affiliated with Amway or any other MLM that creates dummy scam links that are actually there to make them look good. That site along with Wikipedia and the actual Amway website can give you a good idea of what is really going on.

[icerat]

So "the system" doesn't have a 100% success rate even if you execute as told RIGHT?

I doubt it, but even so completely irrelevant. Following "the system" as recommended is not in any way easy.

Bring them on to talk then.
bring your contacts on to talk.

I'm sure somebody somewhere only wants to make a few extra bucks but that's not how the opportunity is presented in the vast majority if cases. To claim otherwise is just plain lying.

No, it is you who is lying. You have no idea what happens in "the vast majority of cases".

Selling training materials to your DOWNLINE for 10x what they cost to produce is what's absurd and unethical.

We've already discussed this. It's (a) false and misleading to claim they cost 10x production costs. (b) those who make significant money from this do so by selling to *outside* their own downline.

You know this is true, but you've invested so much energy into this myth you promote that there's no way you'll ever admit it.

Especially with the garbage that's on most of this "motivational" material.

Again with the outright dishonesty. You have no idea whats on most of this material. You've never listed to anymore than a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of it, and almost certainly from the same group.

Here's the simple equation. I want certain materials I find of value. I pay less for it from one supplier than another, and am happy with the price I pay.

Oh yeah, I'm being scammed :rolleyes:

[icerat]

I'm still curious as to what an Amway representative has to say about how Carl "Rusty Nail" Rehnborg claims to have ingested rusty nails as a supplement for iron. Are you ever gonna respond to that? Remember, I did post the link where you can easily find it and it is on the official Nutrilite website.

Sorry, I missed that post. The story is that in the 1920s, along with many other foreigners, Rehnborg was trapped in an internment camp in Shanghai during the revolutionary war.

What he did was boil up whatever he could find, including any leafy green plants and rusty nails to try to get whatever nutrition they could. They ingested the broth, not the nails. Nutrition was not a well understood science at this time, but it appeared to Rehnborg that people who took his broth survived better than those that didn't.

From a purely scientific perspective that seems a quite reasonable observation.

Its woo, pure and simple.

???? Umm, how exactly? Iron is a vital nutrient in the diet. If you boil up rusty iron nails in a broth and ingest it you will get more iron in your diet. It's not particularly bioavailable, but it's better than nothing.

It reminds me of this guy (http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?1.5lb_of_nails_removed_from_stomach_o f_human_hardware_store&in_article_id=768166&in_page_id=2).

Why should it? Not even remotely analagous.

You do know that ingesting iron is necessary for normal life processes don't you? Nothing "woo" about it.

[icerat]

Which could very well be true. I can't find any info on exactly how many members they have though. Maybe Rusty Nail Jr. could find us a link though.

I'm not quite sure where this level of skepticism is coming from? Amway is a well studied company. Heck, the Grand Rapid Public Museum just opened an exhibit on Amway. (http://www.amwaywatch.com/north-america/united-states/335-grand-rapids-public-museum-opens-history-of-amway-exhibit)

I also found something else that is pretty interesting. They have service the is similar to one that Melaleuca uses called Ditto Delivery "which allows consumers to specify an automatic monthly delivery of each product". If it is anything like Melaleuca's service then they probably make it hard to cancel an order.

No, you add and delete products or delivery schedules whenever you want on the website. Not difficult at all.

Its also funny how they use the term Independent Business Owner to make it seem like you actually own your own business when really its just a big ol' pot that all these people have their hands in.

The IRS considers you an independent business owner, they have considerably more credibility than you. Still, that's only if you're actually operating it as a business, which most don't, and I'm in entire agreement it's just plain silly to call folk who just maintain membership to shop "independent business owners".

I found this site http://www.corporatenarc.com/quixtar.php which is a watchdog group

A "watchdog group"? Are you serious? It's clearly just a site setup for attracting google ads click traffic.

[NewtonTrino]

We've already discussed this. It's (a) false and misleading to claim they cost 10x production costs. (b) those who make significant money from this do so by selling to *outside* their own downline.

You know this is true, but you've invested so much energy into this myth you promote that there's no way you'll ever admit it.


The are selling them for easily 10x the production costs. I know because I saw the price breakdowns (at least for tapes). Actually it wasn't production cost, it's what the company producing them was charging. They could have had additional margin built in there.

Either way it's cheap to produce audio CD's. Anyway there isn't any argument here, you have previously posted the rebate schedule so you've already acknowledged the profits as you do again below.



Again with the outright dishonesty. You have no idea whats on most of this material. You've never listed to anymore than a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of it, and almost certainly from the same group.

Here's the simple equation. I want certain materials I find of value. I pay less for it from one supplier than another, and am happy with the price I pay.

Oh yeah, I'm being scammed :rolleyes:

Scientologists think the same thing about crap like dianetics. Just sayin.

[icerat]

The are selling them for easily 10x the production costs.

10x manufacturing costs perhaps. That's nothing like the same as production costs. Most things you buy costs significantly more than the manufacturing cost. On what basis do you believe that these companies should be so much more efficient than other companies? In particular, why do you think these companies should be much more efficient than other companies which produce similar materials for the same industry?

Either way it's cheap to produce audio CD's. Anyway there isn't any argument here, you have previously posted the rebate schedule so you've already acknowledged the profits as you do again below.

And you still haven't explained why this distribution network should operate differently to other distribution networks, including the Amway distribution network it supports.

Scientologists think the same thing about crap like dianetics. Just sayin.

Scientists think the same thing about non-crap like physics journals. Just sayin.

It's quite simple really. I find it of value, I buy it. You don't think it's of value, you don't buy it. Ain't capitalism grand? :cool:

[NewtonTrino]

10x manufacturing costs perhaps. That's nothing like the same as production costs. Most things you buy costs significantly more than the manufacturing cost. On what basis do you believe that these companies should be so much more efficient than other companies? In particular, why do you think these companies should be much more efficient than other companies which produce similar materials for the same industry?


How much of an idiot do you think I am? When you look at the volume they are doing the overhead costs are minimal for this type of operation. Also since I am in the software business I have a fairly good idea of the types of costs they are going to encounter creating these types of media. Also everyone needs to keep in mind that a lot of this stuff is just recordered from the conferences that everyone has already paid to attend (they do some original material as well of course).


And you still haven't explained why this distribution network should operate differently to other distribution networks, including the Amway distribution network it supports.


Again, do you think everyone on this board an idiot? Because they are milking their downline to fatten their pockets. That's why! The tool pyramid is inverted. The guys at the bottom lose money on the tools and the guys at the top make the most per unit. In your case it looks like most of the cash flows into Dornands pocket but I'm sure that the other big pins in his group has special participation deals. You posted a tools volume rebate schedule that only covers a portion of the profit margin.



Scientists think the same thing about non-crap like physics journals. Just sayin.


Exactly. In other words just because some reads material it doesn't make it true. It could in fact be crap and you could simply be mistaken that it's good.


It's quite simple really. I find it of value, I buy it. You don't think it's of value, you don't buy it. Ain't capitalism grand? :cool:

Look, I have no problem with it. I don't think that everything that's unethical should be prima facie illegal. I'm just trying to educate people so they can make their own decision. Ultimately I have little sympathy for those who get into this knowing it's history. There are many companies I refuse to do business that are far less damaging than the amway scam.

[icerat]

How much of an idiot do you think I am? When you look at the volume they are doing the overhead costs are minimal for this type of operation.

You're the one making idiotic comparisons, not me. Duplicaiton of CDs are just one aspect of a whole operation. You cannot take one aspect of an operation that encompasses websites, multimedia, seminars etc etc in multiple languages and dozens of countries and make judgements based on that. We've been through this before - you ignore office expenses, staffing, translaters, R&D, IT support, legal, accounting, travel etc etc etc etc etc.

Again, base manufacturing expenses is typically a minor part of the final price of ANY product.

I've asked before and you never answer - Why do you think these companies are so fantastically more efficient than other companies?

Also since I am in the software business I have a fairly good idea of the types of costs they are going to encounter creating these types of media.

So you're producing materials for 30+ countries in 20+ languages, having to sort through and edit hundreds of recordings a month, deal with thingsl ike Amway regulations, handle packaging etc etc etc .... you're doing all of these things and you honestly believe they cost nothing?

I don't think you're an idiot, but your providing some pretty solid evidence.

Also everyone needs to keep in mind that a lot of this stuff is just recordered from the conferences that everyone has already paid to attend (they do some original material as well of course).

Yes, conferences that can just as easily lose money.

Again, do you think everyone on this board an idiot? Because they are milking their downline to fatten their pockets. That's why! The tool pyramid is inverted. The guys at the bottom lose money on the tools and the guys at the top make the most per unit.

I provided the rebate scale, you even acknowledged it, now you completely ignore it! The "guys at the bottom" of the "tool pyramid" get the largest rebate, not the smallest. And how do they "lose" money? Any unsold stock goes to the companies bottom line, not theirs.

Or let me guess ... you're referring to the customers of the "tool" companies - the IBOs. Who are buying something they want, for a price cheaper than they can get it elsewhere.

Only in the bizarre world of the anti-amway zealot is buying something you want at a cheaper price than elsewhere called "losing money" :rolleyes:

In your case it looks like most of the cash flows into Dornands pocket but I'm sure that the other big pins in his group has special participation deals. You posted a tools volume rebate schedule that only covers a portion of the profit margin.

It covers the profit margins of the marketing network of platinums and above, which is the only area any real potential conflict of interest is an issue. Profit for the company itself is entirely different, and as far as I'm concerned they can operate on the same basis as every other company in the world - to operate at the highest possible margins for the most profit.

In your business, do you everything for free or are you actually trying to make money?

Exactly. In other words just because some reads material it doesn't make it true. It could in fact be crap and you could simply be mistaken that it's good.

I find value in it. I get to decide that, not you.

Look, I have no problem with it. I don't think that everything that's unethical should be prima facie illegal.

You think a company producing materials and services and selling them for a profit is unethical? Why? Isn't that what you do?

I'm just trying to educate people so they can make their own decision.

Yup ... I'm sure they're all enormously shocked to learn that a company selling them stuff is making money doing so :rolleyes:

seriously, what planet are you on? KarlMarxland?

[NewtonTrino]

You're the one making idiotic comparisons, not me. Duplicaiton of CDs are just one aspect of a whole operation. You cannot take one aspect of an operation that encompasses websites, multimedia, seminars etc etc in multiple languages and dozens of countries and make judgements based on that. We've been through this before - you ignore office expenses, staffing, translaters, R&D, IT support, legal, accounting, travel etc etc etc etc etc.


You simply don't need that many people to do this type of work. The number is people is also proportional roughtly to the volume. Making media products of this type is damn cheap these days.


Again, base manufacturing expenses is typically a minor part of the final price of ANY product.


In media it's typically content creation/production cost and duplication. Office overhead should be minimal in a real operation of this type.


I've asked before and you never answer - Why do you think these companies are so fantastically more efficient than other companies?


Media companies in general are insanely profitable. Especially ones that can produce content by selling people tickets to events.


Yes, conferences that can just as easily lose money.


Every week there are huge numbers of meetings. They wouldn't do that if they lost money. Quit trying to pretend we're morons.



I provided the rebate scale, you even acknowledged it, now you completely ignore it! The "guys at the bottom" of the "tool pyramid" get the largest rebate, not the smallest. And how do they "lose" money? Any unsold stock goes to the companies bottom line, not theirs.


I acknowledged that you had posted an scale which was woefully incomplete in terms of explaining where the money goes. Ludicrously so btw.


Or let me guess ... you're referring to the customers of the "tool" companies - the IBOs. Who are buying something they want, for a price cheaper than they can get it elsewhere.


Let me guess, you think these "tools" are comparable to some sort of real product. They are just church materials at the end of the day.


It covers the profit margins of the marketing network of platinums and above, which is the only area any real potential conflict of interest is an issue. Profit for the company itself is entirely different, and as far as I'm concerned they can operate on the same basis as every other company in the world - to operate at the highest possible margins for the most profit.


I disagree. Whether they are upline or not that company is still milking the pyramid. Having the company be owned by the upline is also an additional conflict of interest. Either way they are basically milking people who don't know any better and are told they are acting in their own best interest.


In your business, do you everything for free or are you actually trying to make money?


All I do is try to pay everyone well and deliver a high quality product for a cheap price. I don't find a bunch of suckers and then milk them until their credit cards are full.


I find value in it. I get to decide that, not you.


I agree. Just keep in mind that you could be wrong though. In fact billions of people on earth find great value in the bible. Doesn't mean their right.


You think a company producing materials and services and selling them for a profit is unethical? Why? Isn't that what you do?


When they are milking a pyramid, yes it's unethical. What a silly argument.


Yup ... I'm sure they're all enormously shocked to learn that a company selling them stuff is making money doing so :rolleyes:

seriously, what planet are you on? KarlMarxland?

Actually many of the distributors were shocked when the tool scam first came to light.

Karlmarxland? What does that have to do with anything? Because I think they are scamming people I'm a communist?

[icerat]

In media it's typically content creation/production cost and duplication. Office overhead should be minimal in a real operation of this type.

If that's all they were doing, and they're not. You continue to ignore all other issues.

Every week there are huge numbers of meetings. They wouldn't do that if they lost money. Quit trying to pretend we're morons.

Quit acting like a moron. Companies run things at a loss in hope of future profit all the time. Why do you think these companies are any different?

I acknowledged that you had posted an scale which was woefully incomplete in terms of explaining where the money goes. Ludicrously so btw.

That's the rebate scale, call me a liar all you want. I've had it from multiple independent sources.

Let me guess, you think these "tools" are comparable to some sort of real product. They are just church materials at the end of the day.

I don't buy "church materials", so I wouldn't no. I have however bought many similar "real products" from other suppliers.

I disagree. Whether they are upline or not that company is still milking the pyramid.

Oh yeah, shock horror, capitalism at work again. Company sell stuff, company makes money. Terrible, terrible stuff. :rolleyes:

Having the company be owned by the upline is also an additional conflict of interest.

How? As I pointed out in Amway Business vs Tools Business: A conflict of interest? (http://www.thetruthaboutamway.com/amway-myth-amway-business-vs-tools-business-a-conflict-of-interest/), the upline is nomore in a COI here than they are with the Amway business side of things. Furthermore, if they wish to expand their tools business, then the obvious way to do that is to provide materials that successfully expand people's Amway businesses, increasing the market for their tools.

Either way they are basically milking people who don't know any better and are told they are acting in their own best interest.

Oh yes, the Amway IBOs are all idiots and can't possibly make decisions for themselves attack. :rolleyes:

All I do is try to pay everyone well and deliver a high quality product for a cheap price. I don't find a bunch of suckers and then milk them until their credit cards are full.

So your customers are all brilliant and discerning individuals, but anyone who buys this stuff is a "sucker". Uhuh :rolleyes:

I agree. Just keep in mind that you could be wrong though. In fact billions of people on earth find great value in the bible. Doesn't mean their right.

Sorry, you're wrong there. If they find value in it, then they find value in it. It may not mean they or the bible is right or wrong, but it does mean they didn't get scammed. I'm an atheist, I've bought a bible, I thought it was good value. Was I scammed?

When they are milking a pyramid, yes it's unethical. What a silly argument.

Oh yeah, that selling stuff to people who want it, for cheaper than they get it elsewhere .... so unethical :rolleyes:

Actually many of the distributors were shocked when the tool scam first came to light.

The "scam" part is folk making more from tools than Amway and pretending it came from Amway or lying about the existence of profits. I never experienced either thing, and I expected people would be making a profit from providing goods and services.

Karlmarxland? What does that have to do with anything? Because I think they are scamming people I'm a communist?

You're constantly referring to a company that sells products for a profit as "scamming" and similar derogatory terms. Where's the scam in selling products and services to people who want them, at a good price.

[fuelair]

No, yes, and yes.

Next thread, please?

Oh, and before you ask, I have been involved in MLMs, including Amway/Nutrilite, Platinum Professional Cookware, Pampered Chef, several telecomm MLMs, and others (including Avon!). Each of them emphasized building profits through downline recruiting (rather than sales volume), and each one required that I (or my wife) purchase a "starter kit" -- the cost of which was to be taken out of our future sales and downline profits.

Been there, done that, and don't try to scam me.

Four of the six meetings I went to had that requirement. Two of the meetings I went to lost people I thought were friends for me (you don't blindside a friend with Amway trash meetings) - the second time I realized what it was as soon as I spotted the portable writing chart going in with a person not know to me - almost left then, but I like to keep up with flim-flammers (and that one was a doozy - opening up middle European networks - which, incidentally, we could easily do at home/from home.)

[gtc]

Only in the bizarre world of the anti-amway zealot is buying something you want at a cheaper price than elsewhere called "losing money" :rolleyes:

Coca Cola shares are currently $57.48. If someone sells me 100 shares at $50 each that would be 'buying something I want at a cheaper price than elsewhere'. But if I go to sell those shares tomorrow and the share price is only $40 then I will have 'lost money'.

People, if they are even given the choice, buy the tools because they are told it will help them to make money in their Amway business. But, in the vast majority of cases, the money and time spent on these tools seem to far outweigh any benefit that the buyers receive.


You think a company producing materials and services and selling them for a profit is unethical? Why? Isn't that what you do?

When they are milking a pyramid, yes it's unethical. What a silly argument.

Exactly. Almost no one argues that free market transactions are implicitly ethical.


seriously, what planet are you on? KarlMarxland?

Karlmarxland? What does that have to do with anything? Because I think they are scamming people I'm a communist?

Here is an IMF article about the pyramid schemes that rocked Albania (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2000/03/jarvis.htm). The way icerat is marketing his MLM in this thread reminds me of the way pyramid schemes are marketed. He is misrepresenting the way capitalism works (buying something cheap isn't any guarantee that you will make money) and arguing from some very odd ethical positions.

You can't convince people that you aren't promoting a cult like pyramid scheme if you behave like you are promoting a cult like pyramid scheme.

[NewtonTrino]

Furthermore, if they wish to expand their tools business, then the obvious way to do that is to provide materials that successfully expand people's Amway businesses, increasing the market for their tools.


No more time today but I wanted to address this. THIS IS A LIE. All you need to do is create tools which increase the amount of people pretending that they are working a business who regularly buy tools. You don't have to actually build amway volume or have a downline who is making money to be successful selling them "tools" which are nothing more than vapid motivational garbage meant to instill and us vs. them mentality.

Anyway, we get it. You love the "tools" they provide you. You don't feel ripped off at all! Great, but it doesn't mean you aren't getting ripped (along with all of the other suckers).

[gtc]

The "scam" part is folk making more from tools than Amway and pretending it came from Amway or lying about the existence of profits. I never experienced either thing, and I expected people would be making a profit from providing goods and services.

As you well know, the scam is bigger than that. People were being forced to buy tools they didn't need or want by their upline. There still seems to be pressure in that regards from at least some uplines. As you also well know, one of the indications that something is a pyramid scam rather than an MLM scheme is a lack of retail sales. Because there are no real retail sales (i.e. sales outside Amway IBOs) the tools business has been the subject of regulator interest.

[icerat]

Coca Cola shares are currently $57.48. If someone sells me 100 shares at $50 each that would be 'buying something I want at a cheaper price than elsewhere'. But if I go to sell those shares tomorrow and the share price is only $40 then I will have 'lost money'.

Shares have no inherent value. If I buy a book, then read it, the book has lost value but it doesn't mean I "lost money". I got what I paid for.

People, if they are even given the choice, buy the tools because they are told it will help them to make money in their Amway business. But, in the vast majority of cases, the money and time spent on these tools seem to far outweigh any benefit that the buyers receive.

There is no evidence to support that claim. Heck, even some of the recent Scheibeler published testimonials talk about the value they got out of the material.

He is misrepresenting the way capitalism works (buying something cheap isn't any guarantee that you will make money) and arguing from some very odd ethical positions.

And you are unethically misrepresenting my position. Take a book again. Company A sells if for $A. Company B sells it for $B.

I want the book. $B<$A and you're telling me Company B is acting unethically! How so?

[icerat]

As you well know, the scam is bigger than that. People were being forced to buy tools they didn't need or want by their upline.

Really? Forced? How? Were their kids held hostage or something?

I don't even understand in theory how someone is "forced" to buy something.

There still seems to be pressure in that regards from at least some uplines. As you also well know, one of the indications that something is a pyramid scam rather than an MLM scheme is a lack of retail sales. Because there are no real retail sales (i.e. sales outside Amway IBOs) the tools business has been the subject of regulator interest.

(1) Sales to Amway IBOs for legitimate personal use ARE "real" retail sales. The FTC has been clear on this, and there's no ethical reason why they shouldn't be considered that
(2) You're outright wrong to claim there's no sales outside of those to Amway IBOs
(3) I'm not aware of any "regulator interest" in the tools business - care to elaborate? This is news to me.

[gtc]

I don't even understand in theory how someone is "forced" to buy something.

Given how much of your life you dedicate to arguing against critics of the tool scam, your words sound hollow.

For those who don't know how it works, here are some links.

http://www.sequence-inc.com/fraudfiles/2008/07/10/the-tools-scam-run-by-quixtar-amway-kingpins/

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Amway/AUS/tools.htm

http://www.amquix.info/amway_tapes.html

http://who-got-the-gravy.blogspot.com/2006/07/amway-exposed-part-two-tools-scam.html

Plenty of information there about the '100% optional but 100% necessary' tool scam.


(1) Sales to Amway IBOs for legitimate personal use ARE "real" retail sales. The FTC has been clear on this, and there's no ethical reason why they shouldn't be considered that

Prove it.



(2) You're outright wrong to claim there's no sales outside of those to Amway IBOs

Prove it.


(3) I'm not aware of any "regulator interest" in the tools business - care to elaborate? This is news to me.

If regulator's haven't been interested in examining the tool scam then your first claim has to be bogus.

[gtc]

Shares have no inherent value. If I buy a book, then read it, the book has lost value but it doesn't mean I "lost money". I got what I paid for.

Again you show you don't understand how business works. Inherent value is a meaningless concept.

As I have said, the problem with the tools scam is that people who purchase the tools don't get what they paid for. The tools don't really help ordinary people to make money out of Amway.

When people start in Amway they are fooled into forking out huge sums of money for the tools. This means they start out with a big loss. At best it will take most IBOs years to claw back the money they have lost but they are compounding their losses by buying extra tools in the meantime.

People are left with the unenviable task of choosing whether to keep going in the hope of one day making some actual money or cutting their losses now.

No one wants to admit that they have been a sucker. So people stay in for months after they ought to have bailed out. The people at the top of the pyramid don't care because another sucker will be along soon.

[icerat]

Plenty of information there about the '100% optional but 100% necessary' tool scam.

None of that proved anyone was "forced" to do anything. You also ignore the inconvenient fact that **the vast majority of people who become Amway IBOs do not buy these tools**

Prove it.

Again? Why? Have you recently improved your reading comprehension? Read
Myth: It's a pyramid if most products are bought by ibos? (http://www.thetruthaboutamway.com/amwayquixtar-myth-its-a-pyramid-if-most-products-are-bought-by-ibos) and note in particular the FTC quotes given.

Prove it.

Gee, let me see, wanna see my customer receipt book? How about the fact that in the UK, in order to become a certified retail consultant you need to have 5 confirmed external retail customers - and there's been well over 16,000 of them registered since this system was put in place. Or how about the $34 million dollars worth of sales order by customers directly on the Quixtar website in North America, separate to any ordered by customers through IBOs, as revealed in TEAM vs Quixtar.

If regulator's haven't been interested in examining the tool scam then your first claim has to be bogus.

Huh? What are you babbling about? I've made no claims at all regarding regulators and tools sales. YOU have claimed they're interested. How about YOU provide some evidence for YOUR claim?

[icerat]

Again you show you don't understand how business works. Inherent value is a meaningless concept.

rubbish.

But if you're talking about supply and demand, well guess what - there's supply and demand. Newton Trino is the one arguing that it doesn't count.

As I have said, the problem with the tools scam is that people who purchase the tools don't get what they paid for. The tools don't really help ordinary people to make money out of Amway.

Got any evidence to support that claim? Or just lousy logic?

When people start in Amway they are fooled into forking out huge sums of money for the tools.

Gee, now I feel rejected. I've "started in Amway" five times now if you count different countries and I've never once started by "forking out huge sums of money for tools", whether fooled or otherwised.

Are some "fooled" into such things? Probably - but you're claiming everyone is. Put up some evidence.

This means they start out with a big loss. At best it will take most IBOs years to claw back the money they have lost but they are compounding their losses by buying extra tools in the meantime.

What utter codswallop. Our base "starting investment" in "tools" is a whopping $30 a month and a $20 seminar ticket. Sell a Double X and you cover that. Damn this is an expensive business! :rolleyes:

<snip the rest of the mindless babble>

[gtc]

You also ignore the inconvenient fact that **the vast majority of people who become Amway IBOs do not buy these tools**

You are always throwing in new claims like this one and accusing us of ignoring them. Do you have any proof of that claim?


Again? Why? Have you recently improved your reading comprehension? Read
Myth: It's a pyramid if most products are bought by ibos? (http://www.thetruthaboutamway.com/amwayquixtar-myth-its-a-pyramid-if-most-products-are-bought-by-ibos) and note in particular the FTC quotes given.

You are not being entirely honest here. Retail sales are one of the things that they most certainly do look at (http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/other/dvimf16.shtm):

There are two tell-tale signs that a product is simply being used to disguise a pyramid scheme: inventory loading and a lack of retail sales. Inventory loading occurs when a company's incentive program forces recruits to buy more products than they could ever sell, often at inflated prices. If this occurs throughout the company's distribution system, the people at the top of the pyramid reap substantial profits, even though little or no product moves to market. The people at the bottom make excessive payments for inventory that simply accumulates in their basements. A lack of retail sales is also a red flag that a pyramid exists. Many pyramid schemes will claim that their product is selling like hot cakes. However, on closer examination, the sales occur only between people inside the pyramid structure or to new recruits joining the structure, not to consumers out in the general public.

Gee, let me see, wanna see my customer receipt book?

If you are only hitting the 3% bonus level; then your customer receipt book wouldn't be very interesting.


How about the fact that in the UK, in order to become a certified retail consultant you need to have 5 confirmed external retail customers - and there's been well over 16,000 of them registered since this system was put in place. Or how about the $34 million dollars worth of sales order by customers directly on the Quixtar website in North America, separate to any ordered by customers through IBOs, as revealed in TEAM vs Quixtar.

We are talking about the tools, not the rest of the Amway business.

Are you claiming that the tools get sold to people who aren't part of Amway?



Huh? What are you babbling about? I've made no claims at all regarding regulators and tools sales. YOU have claimed they're interested. How about YOU provide some evidence for YOUR claim?

No. You claimed that the FTC cleared the tools scam. Then you claimed that no regulator was ever interested in it. The two statements can't be reconciled.

[gtc]

rubbish.

What is the inherent value in one of the tapes?

But if you're talking about supply and demand, well guess what - there's supply and demand. Newton Trino is the one arguing that it doesn't count.

No one is arguing that it doesn't count. We are saying that, if you want to claim that something is ethical, you have to do more than to point out that there is supply and demand for that product. There is supply and demand for narcotics but that doesn't mean that it is ethical. There is supply and demand for selling alcohol to alcoholics, that doesn't make it ethical to sell them that.


Got any evidence to support that claim? Or just lousy logic?

Yes. The fact that very few people make a profit from Amway, even before you factor in the cost of the tools.

Gee, now I feel rejected. I've "started in Amway" five times now if you count different countries and I've never once started by "forking out huge sums of money for tools", whether fooled or otherwised.

I am not convinced that you are entirely clear about how much money you have spent on tools, seminars etc during your time in Amway. However, we know you are an Amway insider, your experience is not likely to be the same as that of ordinary people who get involved with Amway.


Are some "fooled" into such things? Probably - but you're claiming everyone is. Put up some evidence.

No one is suggesting that everyone fails to make money out of Amway. Some people are obviously at the top of the pyramid and making money out of the tools scam.



What utter codswallop. Our base "starting investment" in "tools" is a whopping $30 a month and a $20 seminar ticket. Sell a Double X and you cover that. Damn this is an expensive business! :rolleyes:

So? You know as well as I do that ordinary Amway members are encouraged to fork out for way more than that on tools and you know as well as I do that the statistics show that very few people are earning margins of that much a month even before their other expenses are accounted for.

[icerat]

You are always throwing in new claims like this one and accusing us of ignoring them. Do you have any proof of that claim?
Yes, reality. Statistics are kept on this in our organisation, which is one of the largest in the world. I'm aware other organisations keep similar statistics. Fewer than half ever spend any money on anything at all after registering, of those who renew, typically no more than 20% are spending money "on the system". A new platinum group, which will have some 200 people in it will have only 15 or so IBOships seriously pursuing the business with expenses of any significance.

You are not being entirely honest here. Retail sales are one of the things that they most certainly do look

I just quoted the FTC - are you accusing the FTC of being dishonest? Clearly you didn't bother reading the article and links anyway, or you failed basic logic. As the FTC clearly stated (not me), the level of internal consumption does NOT determine whether something is an illegal pyramid. What it does is indicate that perhaps you don't have a legitimate product with legitimate demand and other things need to be looked at, such as the nature of the product, pricing etc etc. For example I'm aware of a class action being launched today against efusjon. They have few, if any, outside sales, but there major issue is that if you don't maintain your personal volume, then you lose your "position" - ie there's enormous incentive to purchase their products whether you want them or not.

If you are only hitting the 3% bonus level; then your customer receipt book wouldn't be very interesting.

Who says I'm only hitting the 3% level? Do you believe everything you read on the net?

We are talking about the tools, not the rest of the Amway business.

Are you claiming that the tools get sold to people who aren't part of Amway?

Ok, we were getting mixed up between the two separate businesses. The question with regard the tool system and whether there is "external customers" is another one, and very clear. In general only platinums and above are "participants in the scheme" (ie tool rebates). Every other IBO is an external customer. The vast majority of tools are sold to external customers.

No. You claimed that the FTC cleared the tools scam. Then you claimed that no regulator was ever interested in it. The two statements can't be reconciled.

I made no such claim. You claimed regulators were looking at the tools systems, I said I've never heard of that and asked for more info.

Why did you make the claim?

[icerat]

What is the inherent value in one of the tapes?

information

No one is arguing that it doesn't count. We are saying that, if you want to claim that something is ethical, you have to do more than to point out that there is supply and demand for that product. There is supply and demand for narcotics but that doesn't mean that it is ethical. There is supply and demand for selling alcohol to alcoholics, that doesn't make it ethical to sell them that.

What is unethical about selling books, seminars, and recordings of seminars?

Yes. The fact that very few people make a profit from Amway, even before you factor in the cost of the tools.

Right, so the answer is "lousy logic". Few people purchase the tools. Even fewer people apply what is taught on the tools.

your experience is not likely to be the same as that of ordinary people who get involved with Amway.

You're entirely correct. Unlike most people who get involved, I went to seminars and bought some materials. Unlike most people who buy this stuff, I applied what I was taught. Like most people who do this, I made money.

If you want to claim "the system" isn't actually very good at motivating people to do what is taught necessary to succeed, then we're in 100% agreement. The same problem of program compliance exists in many fields of endeavour. My last season in elite sport pretty much ended because I stopped regularly turning up to training and worrying about my diet etc etc. That doesn't mean the training and diet stuff didn't work, or it was unethical to promote it to the athletes - it just means I didn't do it. It doesn't mean all my various club, state, and national membership fees were unethical, it just means I didn't make use of them. It doesn't mean the money I spent up to that point on travelling to competitions etc etc was unethical, it just means I decided it wasn't something I wanted to keep doing.

No one is suggesting that everyone fails to make money out of Amway. Some people are obviously at the top of the pyramid and making money out of the tools scam.

Again, where is the "scam" in selling people something they want?

So? You know as well as I do that ordinary Amway members are encouraged to fork out for way more than that on tools and you know as well as I do that the statistics show that very few people are earning margins of that much a month even before their other expenses are accounted for.

And here comes the dishonesty. You want to consider the expenses of the very few people who are spending money on tools, and you want to match it with the income of everyone, including the majority who are not spending money on tools.

That's outright dishonest.

As for "what ordinary Amway members are encourage to fork out", I'm telling you exactly what we encourage people to fork out. You made this claim about starting costs, I'm telling you it's not how we operate.

Frankly I'm getting pretty sick of people like you claiming you know more about what I do than I do! I've just been on the phone with a downline as they register a new IBO - the new IBO was given a range of recommended startups which went from buying no tools at all to spending about $400 (which included two major conference tickets seminar). They've elected to spend $20 on a seminar ticket. They chose. I just personally sponsored another IBO in the US. They were given a similar range of startup alternatives. They've elected to spend nothing on tools, something we agree on since they're focused on offering Nutrilite to their current customer base, not on developing a network. The last two people we personally sponsored, one has spent nothing on tools, the other bought one seminar ticket, attended and enjoyed it. They then spent approximately 200x the cost of that ticket attending a seminar from a completely different company dealing with other business opportunities and they have decided to pursue that for now instead and simply remain a member/customer since they like the products and may refer some people.

That's reality, that's what I'm doing, on the ground, right now. Stop with this offensive BS claims that YOU know better than I do what I'm doing. You haven't got a clue. You've got some fantasy vision you're emotionally invested in for some reason, and you don't give a damn whether it's real or not, you're going to defend it anyway to protect your ego.

Grow up and accept that you don't know everything. Same goes for you Newton Trino.

[NewtonTrino]

Grow up and accept that you don't know everything. Same goes for you Newton Trino.


I'll give up when you stop lying. Deal?

[icerat]

I'll give up when you stop lying. Deal?

Apparently not, since then you would have grown up long ago. I have not lied once on this thread.

[gtc]

Notice the cult like logic at work.

If you don't succeed in Amway it has to be because you didn't follow the plan properly. How do we know they didn't follow the plan properly? Because they didn't succeed.

The possibility that Amway isn't the path to success, open to all, that it is claimed to be is never questioned.

No matter whether they attended every seminar they were told to attend, no matter how many tools they purchased, no matter whether they did everything else they were told to do. The problem has to lie with them, not Amway.

And anyone who questions these assumptions is insane.

Who says I'm only hitting the 3% level? Do you believe everything you read on the net?

Great. Then I take you up on your offer to post your customer receipt book.

[gtc]

information

There is no inherent value in information.

And here comes the dishonesty. You want to consider the expenses of the very few people who are spending money on tools, and you want to match it with the income of everyone, including the majority who are not spending money on tools.

That's outright dishonest.

No it is not. We have information about the distribution of income not just the averages. It is painfully obvious that very few people would earn enough profit from Amway to match the cost of the tools. Given the size of the tools business, it is clear that it wipes out much if not all of the profit of most IBOs.


As for "what ordinary Amway members are encourage to fork out", I'm telling you exactly what we encourage people to fork out. You made this claim about starting costs, I'm telling you it's not how we operate.

You have said yourself that you represent only part of the Amway business. As you well know, there is no real way to control what new starters in Amway are told to do.

[icerat]

Notice the cult like logic at work.

You mean your habit of just making stuff up to support your claims? Such as ...

If you don't succeed in Amway it has to be because you didn't follow the plan properly. How do we know they didn't follow the plan properly? Because they didn't succeed.

I used no such logic. I told you, the data comes from surveys

The possibility that Amway isn't the path to success, open to all, that it is claimed to be is never questioned.

Amway is not for everyone, never claimed it was. Again you just make stuff up.

Great. Then I take you up on your offer to post your customer receipt book.

There is no inherent value in information.

Depends on your definitions, this is an argument over semantics that's completely off topic, I'm not going to waste time on it.

No it is not. We have information about the distribution of income not just the averages.

Really? Care to share?

It is painfully obvious that very few people would earn enough profit from Amway to match the cost of the tools. Given the size of the tools business, it is clear that it wipes out much if not all of the profit of most IBOs.

I'm curious as to the mechanism for this, given most IBOs don't buy tools.

You have said yourself that you represent only part of the Amway business. As you well know, there is no real way to control what new starters in Amway are told to do.

No there is it. My issue is your blanket claims about all Amway distributors, including myself. There's plenty of idiots doing Amway doing the wrong thing, I've never disputed that. You however dispute that there's people not doing the wrong thing.

[NewtonTrino]

Notice the cult like logic at work.

If you don't succeed in Amway it has to be because you didn't follow the plan properly. How do we know they didn't follow the plan properly? Because they didn't succeed.

The possibility that Amway isn't the path to success, open to all, that it is claimed to be is never questioned.

No matter whether they attended every seminar they were told to attend, no matter how many tools they purchased, no matter whether they did everything else they were told to do. The problem has to lie with them, not Amway.

And anyone who questions these assumptions is insane.


You have it exactly right. I also want to point out that this is the exact same attitude and almost the exact same wording you will get out of the groups that Icerat claims have no influence on his business. Same stuff, different day.

Also look at his replies (even to the post I'm replying too). There is absolutely no way that amway or it's affiliates could ever be wrong. Welcome to the land of the business cult people. Spin spin spin and then spin some more before laughing all the way to the bank. Well at least the upline are laughing (but not with Icerat, at him).

[icerat]

truly unbelievable. Do you guys live in any kind of real world? Do you read what I write at all? Are you consciously and dishonestly ignoring what I write or do you actually not even see it??

I've been critical of Amway and it's affiliates often. It's on this thread, it's on my blog. Yet you simply pretend something so easily confirmable doesn't even exist.

Yet you accuse me of being part of some brainwashed cult?

Simply amazing.

[NewtonTrino]

truly unbelievable. Do you guys live in any kind of real world? Do you read what I write at all? Are you consciously and dishonestly ignoring what I write or do you actually not even see it??

I've been critical of Amway and it's affiliates often. It's on this thread, it's on my blog. Yet you simply pretend something so easily confirmable doesn't even exist.

Yet you accuse me of being part of some brainwashed cult?

Simply amazing.

Yes we read what you write. You are delusional if you think that you have performed any kind of legit criticism. In fact you use this technique to try and give yourself some sort of legitimacy. I'm sorry but calling Dexter Yager a scammer and then comparing how great your upline is (who use EXACTLY the same techniques) is mad!

Everyone else in amway is doing it wrong except your precious Network21 group who can do no wrong. Do you realize how crazy this sounds?

[gtc]

Is Amway still selling the magnabloc (http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/magnabloc.htm) magnetic therapy items? They seem to have been renamed Quadrabloc (http://www.quadrabloc.com/).

[icerat]

Everyone else in amway is doing it wrong except your precious Network21 group who can do no wrong. Do you realize how crazy this sounds?

QED - I never said that either.

Is Amway still selling the magnabloc (http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/magnabloc.htm) magnetic therapy items? They seem to have been renamed Quadrabloc (http://www.quadrabloc.com/).

No. Interesting product that. I never quite decided what to make of it. It seems to have some pretty solid theoretical and clinical science behind it (it was developed at Vanderbilt University) but the research seems to have been all but ignored in the medical community, and the lead scientist (Robert Holcomb) seems to be pretty eccentric to say the least (http://www.rickross.com/reference/amway/amway75.html)

I suggest you do what the ratbag guy doesn't bother to do and actually read the research (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=magnabloc+&as_sdt=2001&as_ylo=&as_vis=0). Quite interesting, if incomplete.

[gtc]

I suggest you do what the ratbag guy doesn't bother to do and actually read the research (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=magnabloc+&as_sdt=2001&as_ylo=&as_vis=0). Quite interesting, if incomplete.

You are wrong. He links to the BMJ, formerly the British Medical Journal:

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. If there is any healing effect of magnets, it is apparently small since published research, both theoretical and experimental, is weighted heavily against any therapeutic benefit. Patients should be advised that magnet therapy has no proved benefits. If they insist on using a magnetic device they could be advised to buy the cheapest—this will at least alleviate the pain in their wallet.

[icerat]

He didn't read the Vanderbilt research about the actual magnabloc technology, which is different to the standard "magnetic therapy" products. Rather than magnetic strength per se, the Vanderbilt research indicates that it's the magnetic gradient that matters and in the right place it appears to block ion channels. The BMJ article didn't even consider that.

As I said, it's interesting but incomplete. The problem I have with the magnabloc product is that if their theories and research is correct, they need very very careful placement to have an effect. I saw one blinded study using magnabloc, that did not do this, and not surprisingly, showed no effect. The point being that a commercial product is unlikely to product effects outside placebo even if it works - since more often than not normal users will be unlikely to place them precisely enough.

[BPScooter]

so *when* a product/effect/theorem *does* work, and such, where does it matter whether or not it's "commercial?" I can see it now---Newton's© Gravit-apple-- Drop it! It falls!

Basic point from me is that fundamental scientific breakthrough-type stuff tends to gather itself around the investigators/authors in that field.

[icerat]

Well, these days it's a little more complicated than that. Commercialisation of findings *does* restrict others, particularly to access of funding. Who wants to fund a project that cannot be commercialised because someone else already holds the patents? I don't think it blocks stuff for ever, but it certainly slows things down. When it's an area that's also full of obvious scams and controversy it's even more incentive to put your time and money in to researching something else.

Nevertheless, there is substantial continued research in the field. (http://scholar.google.se/scholar?hl=en&q=magnetic+fields+action+potentials&as_sdt=2001&as_ylo=2008&as_vis=0)

[NewtonTrino]

Whether magnetic therapy works or not kind of doesn't matter does it? I know their soap works but I still think the whole thing is a scam.

[icerat]

With regards purported MLMs, it does matter. If you have a scam product and your'e deceiving people about it's worth, then it's a scam no matter whether the business model is good or not.

Unfortunately, due to the low cost of entry not just for MLM participants, but also for companies, MLM can be a model of choice to promote a scam product - and there's a fair share of that going on. :(

[maximara]

With regards purported MLMs, it does matter. If you have a scam product and your'e deceiving people about it's worth, then it's a scam no matter whether the business model is good or not.

Unfortunately, due to the low cost of entry not just for MLM participants, but also for companies, MLM can be a model of choice to promote a scam product - and there's a fair share of that going on. :(

Considering there are people who claim that the entire MLM model is flawed and nothing more than a legal pyramid scheme even if a legitimate product or service is involved there is no difference.

The failure rate of over 99% is well documented and even the DSA says that the median annual income for those in direct sales (including MLMs) is $2,400 which is down from the average of about $5,000 in 1998 both of which are way below the income of a part-time (20 hours) minimum wage earner of the time ($5,356 in 1998 and $7,540 today)

The moment you realize that MLMs increases the number of middle men then you realize that there is no way for every one to make money. At best MLM work like wholesale clubs where you pay a fee to get the discount of the products and that is the way most people actually use the legitimate ones.


References

Carroll, Robert Todd (2003). The Skeptic's Dictionary: A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 235–36. ISBN 0471272426.

Coenen, Tracy (2009). Expert Fraud Investigation: A Step-by-Step Guide. Wiley. pp. 168. ISBN 0470387963.

Cruz, Joan Paola; Camilo Olaya (2008) "A System Dynamics Model for Studying the Structure of Network Marketing Organizations" (peer reviewed paper that refers uses Taylor as references)

Ogunjobi, Timi (2008). SCAMS - and how to protect yourself from them. Tee Publishing. pp. 13-19.

Peterecca, Laura (Sept 14, 2009). "What kind of business do you want to start?". USAToday (Gannett Company): pp. 4B.

Ryan (Editor), Leo; Wojciech, Gasparski (Editor); Georges, Enderle (Editor) (2000). Business Students Focus on Ethics (Praxiology): The international Annual of Practical Philosophy and Methodology Volume 8. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. pp. 75. ISBN 0765800373.

Taylor, Jon M. (2002). "Comparing Recruiting MLM’s with No-product Pyramid Schemes, and with Gambling". Consumers Awareness Institute.

[NewtonTrino]

All you have to do is follow the system and you will succeed. Well if success means getting sucked into a business cult and enriching the cult leaders.

I challenge ANY MLM'r to come onto this board and give us your tax return numbers for the last year.

<chirp chirp>

Is that crickets I hear?

[icerat]

The failure rate of over 99% is well documented

No it's not.

and even the DSA says that the median annual income for those in direct sales (including MLMs) is $2,400 which is down from the average of about $5,000 in 1998 both of which are way below the income of a part-time (20 hours) minimum wage earner of the time ($5,356 in 1998 and $7,540 today)

On what basis do you (incorrectly) believe the average MLMer puts in 20hrs/wk?

The moment you realize that MLMs increases the number of middle men then you realize that there is no way for every one to make money.

The FTC investigated Amway for several years in the 1970s and the court found this simply wasn't the case, with the number of "middlemen" generally less than 3 or 4 - comparable to traditional distribution. Some MLMs have "fixed" numbers of levels where payout is made, but it rarely (ever?) exceeds what is commonly found in the traditional distribution, and some of those I wholly agree are not competitive in the market and may be scams.

At best MLM work like wholesale clubs where you pay a fee to get the discount of the products and that is the way most people actually use the legitimate ones.

Interesting that you acknowledge this occurs, but for some reason believe they should be making money like someone working 20hrs/wk? :confused:

References

Was that list supposed to be amusing? It was.

[icerat]

I challenge ANY MLM'r to come onto this board and give us your tax return numbers for the last year.

<chirp chirp>

Is that crickets I hear?

I challenge any NBA player to come on to this board and give us your tax return numbers for the last year.

<chirp chirp>

Is that crickets I hear?

Clearly there's no money in pro-basketball! :cool:

[Skeptic]

I challenge any NBA player to come on to this board and give us your tax return numbers for the last year.

<chirp chirp>

Is that crickets I hear?

Clearly there's no money in pro-basketball! :cool:

Not exactly. We know how much money there is in pro basketball. We know what the minimum salary is, what the payroll is. We also know how much money there is in MLMs. We know the number of those involved and the amount of sales from MLM corporation reports.

This is why we know that the average NBA player makes about $100,000 a month or so, while the average MLMer makes about $100 -- before expenses.

The problem is all the pro-MLM guys tell us they are the exception -- that they are making money in this "wonderful opportunity". That is why we ask for tax returns.

How much profit did you make, on average, per month in your MLM business, after expenses?

How many hours did you put in, on average, per month in your MLM business?

What does that make your average salary?

[icerat]

We also know how much money there is in MLMs. We know the number of those involved and the amount of sales from MLM corporation reports.

Care to share this info? No MLM I know of even *knows* how many people are actively involved trying to build an income. It can at best only be guestimated from surveys.

This is why we know that the average NBA player makes about $100,000 a month or so, while the average MLMer makes about $100 -- before expenses.

Even the companies don't know this info, but you do? Amazing. Or let me guess, you, for no reason at all and contrary to all reports facts, let alone plain old logic and common sense, arbitrarily define anyone who registers with a company as an "MLMer" even if they do so purely to get distributor pricing or do so with intent but then never take action to earn an income.

Yeah, I get it. It's a scam because you don't make money for doing nothing. Frankly from my perspective only people who don't have much integrity and were actively wanting some "get rich quick" scam (and were disappointed) could think along those lines.

The problem is all the pro-MLM guys tell us they are the exception -- that they are making money in this "wonderful opportunity". That is why we ask for tax returns.

mmm, but court documents, check photographs for millions, affidavit's etc don't count. Just whether some anonymous guy on the net is willing to post his private tax returns for the world to see.

How much profit did you make, on average, per month in your MLM business, after expenses?

more than zero

How many hours did you put in, on average, per month in your MLM business?

zero

What does that make your average salary?

infinite apparently.

Not that we get a salary. It's not a job, it's a business. Get a clue.

But ok,

I challenge any McDonalds' Franchisee to come on to this board and give us your tax return numbers for the last year.

<chirp chirp>

Is that crickets I hear?

Clearly there's no money in McDonalds!

[NewtonTrino]

Given that we have MLM'ers on here and there are an order of magnitude more of them than there are McDonalds owners I don't think you have much of a point.

Also this information is readily available if you are going to buy a mcdonalds franchise.

[icerat]

1. I'd suggest the number of MLMers who put as much time and effort into their businesses as McDonald's owners is orders of magnitude LESS than the number of McDonald's owners. I'd also suggest the number of MLMers who invest as much money into their business as McDonald's owners is zero.

2. Financial disclosure information is also readily available if you are going to buy an existing MLM business.

[NewtonTrino]

1. I'd suggest the number of MLMers who put as much time and effort into their businesses as McDonald's owners is orders of magnitude LESS than the number of McDonald's owners. I'd also suggest the number of MLMers who invest as much money into their business as McDonald's owners is zero.

I doubt your numbers but on an average basis of course this is going to be true. Most people simply don't have the financial resources to buy a mcdonald's franchise. That's one of the main pitches of MLM, that it's cheap to get into. On the flip side I GUARANTEE that there are MANY MANY MORE MLMer's who have put more time into their crappy MLM business than there are McDonald's owners who have put time into their business per dollar returned. MLM is a giant sucking sound of cash flowing out of their wallets into their uplines wallets.


2. Financial disclosure information is also readily available if you are going to buy an existing MLM business.

Yes, but if you want to start being a distributor there is nobody that will tell you what they are making. MLMer's simply lie about their income on a consistent and ongoing basis.

So Icerat, we've been arguing this crap for well over a year. How much money did you make in the last year from scamway? I simply can't believe your audacity in coming in here to defend a business that you don't make any kind of significant money from. What a joke.

[Skeptic]

You got to love the way MLMers speak:

"It's a great opportunity! It's a wonderful business! Keep doing it and you'll be rich!"

"Wow. Say, how much did you make last month in the MLM?"

"Er... that's private... more than zero, I can assure you... let's speak about something else..."

[NewtonTrino]

You got to love the way MLMers speak:

"It's a great opportunity! It's a wonderful business! Keep doing it and you'll be rich!"

"Wow. Say, how much did you make last month in the MLM?"

"Er... that's private... more than zero, I can assure you... let's speak about something else..."

MLM's tend to fall into a couple of categories. Suckers who lose money on a consistent basis or those sitting at the top profiting from the scam by selling tapes, books, conferences etc. Both groups have little reason to show their income. In the money losing case it doesn't look good. In the kingpins case it looks bad because it would be obvious that they earn the majority of their income from selling motivational crap. Either way they aren't going to reveal it.

Of course people involved in real businesses are often asked to give financial statements when someone is going to be investing (and for lots of other reasons as well like getting credit lined up). Keep in mind that time is an investment, not just money. Why would I invest my valuable time in this crap if I can't even get a financial statement from the person asking me to invest?

[icerat]

On the flip side I GUARANTEE that there are MANY MANY MORE MLMer's who have put more time into their crappy MLM business than there are McDonald's owners who have put time into their business per dollar returned.

Got some figures to back that up? No, didn't think so.

Yes, but if you want to start being a distributor there is nobody that will tell you what they are making. MLMer's simply lie about their income on a consistent and ongoing basis.

If I'm showing someone the business and they ask what I'm making, I tell them. Of course, what difference does that make - you're quite happy to claim, with no evidence at all, that millions of MLMers around the world lie all the time about it.

Any evidence to back that up? No, didn't think so.

So Icerat, we've been arguing this crap for well over a year. How much money did you make in the last year from scamway? I simply can't believe your audacity in coming in here to defend a business that you don't make any kind of significant money from. What a joke.

Right, so anyone can attack something if they've got no personal experience with it, but to support it you have to be actively and deeply involved and making money for it.

But of course.

So someone like Jon Taylor can say what he likes and you'll accept it as gospel, but respected business academics like Professor Dominique Xardel or Professor Charles King - they've nothing to contribute, no credibility, they're not doing it.

How convenient for you.

There's hundreds of thousands, probably millions, making money from network marketing around the world. You choose to ignore that. One more datapoint would make little difference either to that reality or your choice to ignore it.

[maximara]

No it's not.

Sorry icerat but unlike you I provided actual references to back up my claim. Peer reviewed papers and publications from reputable publishing houses. Simple claiming something does not make it true. Randi himself criticized this mentality in the Nova/Horizon episode "Secrets of the Psychics".

On what basis do you (incorrectly) believe the average MLMer puts in 20hrs/wk?

If they put in more than the return is lower than the minimum wage of the US (which was my point).

Was that list supposed to be amusing? It was.

Translation: I have nothing to counter this and will ignore it and try to do a misdirection. It is not going to work.

[maximara]

Got some figures to back that up? No, didn't think so.

Actually there is proof--it was in these references:

Balandin, Sergey; Moltchanev, Dmitri; Koucheryavy, Yevgeni (2009) "Fault-Tolerant Architecture for Peer to Peer Network Management Systems" Smart Spaces and Next Generation Wired/Wireless Networking pg 249

Brown, David (November 27, 2007). "Marketing group merely ‘selling a dream’". The Times.

Carroll, Robert Todd (2003). The Skeptic's Dictionary: A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 235–36. ISBN 0471272426.

Coenen, Tracy (2009). Expert Fraud Investigation: A Step-by-Step Guide. Wiley. pp. 168. ISBN 0470387963.

Cruz, Joan Paola; Camilo Olaya (2008) "A System Dynamics Model for Studying the Structure of Network Marketing Organizations" (peer reviewed paper that refers uses Taylor as references)

Ogunjobi, Timi (2008). SCAMS - and how to protect yourself from them. Tee Publishing. pp. 13-19.

Peterecca, Laura (Sept 14, 2009). "What kind of business do you want to start?". USAToday (Gannett Company): pp. 4B.

Ryan (Editor), Leo; Wojciech, Gasparski (Editor); Georges, Enderle (Editor) (2000). Business Students Focus on Ethics (Praxiology): The international Annual of Practical Philosophy and Methodology Volume 8. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. pp. 75. ISBN 0765800373.

Taylor, Jon M. (2002). "Comparing Recruiting MLM’s with No-product Pyramid Schemes, and with Gambling". Consumers Awareness Institute.

Tony Dokoupil (August 2, 2008). "A Drink’s Purple Reign". Newsweek.

So stop wasting our time with empty claims that are not supported by peer reviewed papers and books or articles in reliable publications.

[icerat]

Sorry icerat but unlike you I provided actual references to back up my claim. Peer reviewed papers and publications from reputable publishing houses. Simple claiming something does not make it true.

Peer reviewed papers? There were none. Closest was a conference presentation than regurgitates info, without commentary, from Jon Taylors self-published rubbish, which says a lot about it's quality alas.

As best I can tell none of the rest supported your assertion at all. Heck, one of them even says "Successful salespeople can earn six-figure incomes", but you neglected to mention that part. :rolleyes:

The 99% loss claim comes from Taylor's long discredited bogus "analysis". It's rubbish and I suspect you know it.

[icerat]

Actually there is proof--it was in these references:

None of them compare MLM hours to McDonald's hours. Not one. The first one isn't even about network marketing. Why do you have to make stuff up?

So stop wasting our time with empty claims that are not supported by peer reviewed papers and books or articles in reliable publications.

Oh right, so you make "empty claims that are not supported by peer reviewed papers and books or articles in reliable publications" but it's up to me to prove your claims wrong through such references. Uhuh.

[Skeptic]

Icerat is pissed with Taylor not because it's the weakest work cited, but because it is the most forecful and the most embarrasing to MLMers. Icerat, of course, won't tell us how much he made in this "great opportunity".

None of them compare MLM hours to McDonald's hours. Not one.

But that's rather easy to do. You take the average MLM income and divide it into the average number of hours MLMers put in, and you easily find that working at an MLM earns less than working for McDonald's. MLM's average income is so low it is below most third-world countries' salaries.

[NewtonTrino]

Got some figures to back that up? No, didn't think so.

If I'm showing someone the business and they ask what I'm making, I tell them. Of course, what difference does that make - you're quite happy to claim, with no evidence at all, that millions of MLMers around the world lie all the time about it.

Any evidence to back that up? No, didn't think so.


I'm not the one claiming it's a good business. The onus is on you to prove that this is a worthwhile way to spend time. Good luck with that ;)



Right, so anyone can attack something if they've got no personal experience with it, but to support it you have to be actively and deeply involved and making money for it.


I like how you keep building this strawman with no personal experience. I have a TON of personal experience with amway in particular as you well know. Of course it "doesn't count" because I haven't worked with every single person that's ever been involved. I sold software to many many diamonds who have big organizations, I've been to many many "functions", listened to many many tapes and was directly involved with my Dad's business which is still ongoing after 30 years. The difference between us is that I consider it an unethical scam.



There's hundreds of thousands, probably millions, making money from network marketing around the world. You choose to ignore that. One more datapoint would make little difference either to that reality or your choice to ignore it.

Define "making money". Your delusional if you think millions of people are making a profit that on an hourly basis would compare to even something like working at Mickey D's. In fact most of these millions lose money. I would love for you to prove otherwise. Unfortunately you can't.

Again you are the one asserting there are millions "making money". More like millions making money for their upline and the corp (which is of course at the top of the pyramid).

[NewtonTrino]

But that's rather easy to do. You take the average MLM income and divide it into the average number of hours MLMers put in, and you easily find that working at an MLM earns less than working for McDonald's. MLM's average income is so low it is below most third-world countries' salaries.

Yes but they are still technically "making money". Right? This is standard spin tactics from Icerat, the most prolific MLM defender in the history of the internet (AFAICT anyway).

[icerat]

Icerat is pissed with Taylor not because it's the weakest work cited, but because it is the most forecful and the most embarrasing to MLMers. Icerat, of course, won't tell us how much he made in this "great opportunity".

What's embarrassing is that people with nicks like "Skeptic" fall for that piece of BS lock stock and barrel purely out of confirmation bias. Be a true Skeptic and actually analyse what he's saying and the quality of his data. I played the same game, using better source data than Taylor, and showed that the average Amway IBO gets all their products free plus extra cash! (http://www.thetruthaboutamway.com/amway-ibos-get-all-their-products-free-plus-extra-cash/)

But that's rather easy to do. You take the average MLM income and divide it into the average number of hours MLMers put in, and you easily find that working at an MLM earns less than working for McDonald's. MLM's average income is so low it is below most third-world countries' salaries.

Fine. If you use the all encompassing definition of "MLMer" to be anyone who simply signs an app, then to several decimal places the average number of hours MLMers put in would be zero.

The average income would be bigger than zero.

Average hourly income for an MLMer? Limit -> infinity.

A true "Skeptic" would not try to compare such disparate groups in the first pace. Skepticism to the model is fine, but then you should do some actual research to form an opinion and conclusion.

But I'm a little confused .... you cite Jon Taylor as an authority, yet seem to acknowledge, in contrast to him, that hours put in matter at least partly?

Don't you think also you should consider factoring in future growth, since a lot of time spent in network marketing is devoted to future sales, not current sales?

[icerat]

I like how you keep building this strawman with no personal experience.

Don't have such a big ego. I wasn't talking about you.

Again you are the one asserting there are millions "making money". More like millions making money for their upline and the corp (which is of course at the top of the pyramid).

Oh good grief. There's over 70 million people involved in direct sales in the world (which is, again, mostly MLM). Less than 1.5% of them need to be "making money" for my statement (which was a "probable", not an outright claim) to be correct.

[Skeptic]

Don't have such a big ego. I wasn't talking about you.Funny. When you talk about my lack of personal experience in MLMs, you are talking about me. When Newtrino shows how much experience he has on the issue, suddenly you "aren't talking about him".

Newtrino -- your personal experience doesn't count because it wasn't positive enough, so you weren't doing it the right way. Only positive personal experience shows what MLMs are really like. Therefore, 100% of those who know what MLMs are really like think it's a great opportunity.

Simple, isn't it?

[maximara]

Peer reviewed papers? There were none.

Flat out lie. Every one of the below are peer reviewed, Icerat:


Carl, Walter J. (2004) "The Interactional Business of Doing Business: Managing Legitimacy and Co-constructing Entrepreneurial Identities in E-Commerce Multilevel Marketing Discourse" Western Journal of Communication, Vol. 68.
Cruz, Joan Paola; Camilo Olaya (2008) "A System Dynamics Model for Studying the Structure of Network Marketing Organizations"

Ryan (Editor), Leo; Wojciech, Gasparski (Editor); Georges, Enderle (Editor) (2000). Business Students Focus on Ethics (Praxiology): The international Annual of Practical Philosophy and Methodology Volume 8. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. pp. 75 (college textbook)

Terry Sandbek, Ph.D. "Brain Typing: The Pseudoscience of Cold Reading" American Board of Sport Psychology

Woker, TA (2003) "If It Sounds Too Good to Be True It Probably Is: Pyramid Schemes and Other Related Frauds" SA Mercantile Law Journal Volume 15 Issue 2 pg 237-249

Take your lies elsewhere, icerat. I have little tolerance for them and I doubt the people who run this board will either.

[maximara]

Oh right, so you make "empty claims that are not supported by peer reviewed papers and books or articles in reliable publications" but it's up to me to prove your claims wrong through such references. Uhuh.

SO you are claiming the Western Journal of Communication, American Board of Sport Psychology, SA Mercantile Law Journal college textbooks, and papers presented at the System Dynamics conferences are not peer reviewed?!? :jaw-dropp

And if that piece of insanity wasn't enough you are also claiming The Times, USAToday, Newsweek, and Wiley are not reliable publications?!? :jaw-dropp::eek::jaw-dropp

Do you have ANY idea how insane this makes you sound?!? :eek:

Worse the System Dynamics conferences expressly spells out its peer review process: "Papers may be submitted from January 2, 2007 to March 26, 2007 and must be in sufficient detail for the referees to judge their meaning and value. Submissions must be in English and should be 5 - 30 pages in length (there is also a maximum 2 MB electronic file size). Abstracts will not be accepted. Submission of models and other supporting materials to enable replication and aid the review process is encouraged in all cases (maximum file size 2 MB in addition to the paper). [...] All works submitted will be assigned for double blind peer review. The results, with the oversight of the program chairs, will determine whether a work will be accepted, and the presentation format for the work." Other than the dates the 2009 requirements are the same.

Are you say that the System Dynamics conference magically dropped the peer review process for 2008 just so Cruz could bad mouth MLMs?!? :eye-poppi :eek:

This nonsense makes the people who think the government is sending black helicopters piloted by the Greys form Area 52 led by Elvis after them look rational.

[maximara]

Oh good grief. There's over 70 million people involved in direct sales in the world (which is, again, mostly MLM). Less than 1.5% of them need to be "making money" for my statement (which was a "probable", not an outright claim) to be correct.

As I pointed out before by this loopy logic pyramid schemes are "better" because 18% of the people involved in one of those "makes money". Come on, legality asside if pyramid schemes are a bad idea at 18% then how can MLMs at 1.5% be better? To paraphrase an old saying "The logic cannot hold"

[NewtonTrino]

Funny. When you talk about my lack of personal experience in MLMs, you are talking about me. When Newtrino shows how much experience he has on the issue, suddenly you "aren't talking about him".

Newtrino -- your personal experience doesn't count because it wasn't positive enough, so you weren't doing it the right way. Only positive personal experience shows what MLMs are really like. Therefore, 100% of those who know what MLMs are really like think it's a great opportunity.

Simple, isn't it?


The funny part is that I'm one of the few that can claim to have made money from amway. Not from selling products but by selling my product (software) into the pyramid. Because I was in bed with a number of diamond level distributors who made my software the de facto standard for their organization it was like having a monopoly business. You do what your upline tells you to and if they say to buy x program then you do it. I made money hand over first (did I mention we had a required yearly maintenance fee of $100 per business). At least I was supplying a real service to them (they could track how much money they were losing ;) Actually it was mostly used by directs and above hence all of the support in it for tracking tools sales using several different methods including a pure price break based on pin as well as a volume based approach.

Part of the reason that I have an unusually good understanding of this business is that several of my beta users had quite large businesses (tools). I got to see the numbers while debugging the program....

[icerat]

Flat out lie. Every one of the below are peer reviewed, Icerat:

It amazes me the utter lack of ethics in some people who sit and accuse others of it.

Here is the list of references you gave that I was responding to (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5576600&postcount=124) -

Carroll, Robert Todd (2003). The Skeptic's Dictionary: A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 235–36. ISBN 0471272426.

Coenen, Tracy (2009). Expert Fraud Investigation: A Step-by-Step Guide. Wiley. pp. 168. ISBN 0470387963.

Cruz, Joan Paola; Camilo Olaya (2008) "A System Dynamics Model for Studying the Structure of Network Marketing Organizations" (peer reviewed paper that refers uses Taylor as references)

Ogunjobi, Timi (2008). SCAMS - and how to protect yourself from them. Tee Publishing. pp. 13-19.

Peterecca, Laura (Sept 14, 2009). "What kind of business do you want to start?". USAToday (Gannett Company): pp. 4B.

Ryan (Editor), Leo; Wojciech, Gasparski (Editor); Georges, Enderle (Editor) (2000). Business Students Focus on Ethics (Praxiology): The international Annual of Practical Philosophy and Methodology Volume 8. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. pp. 75. ISBN 0765800373.

Taylor, Jon M. (2002). "Comparing Recruiting MLM’s with No-product Pyramid Schemes, and with Gambling". Consumers Awareness Institute.

I replied (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5590391&postcount=138) -

Peer reviewed papers? There were none. Closest was a conference presentation than regurgitates info, without commentary, from Jon Taylors self-published rubbish, which says a lot about it's quality alas.

compare that list to the list you're now giving to claim I'm a liar for saying the above list isn't peer-reviewed! The only commonality is the Cruz paper, which I did acknowledge in my response (and you edited out when quoting me!) and the Praxiology book, which I acknowledge I missed ... not surprising since it's so obscure.

The other's weren't even listed!

Carl, Walter J. (2004) "The Interactional Business of Doing Business: Managing Legitimacy and Co-constructing Entrepreneurial Identities in E-Commerce Multilevel Marketing Discourse" Western Journal of Communication, Vol. 68.
Cruz, Joan Paola; Camilo Olaya (2008) "A System Dynamics Model for Studying the Structure of Network Marketing Organizations"

Ryan (Editor), Leo; Wojciech, Gasparski (Editor); Georges, Enderle (Editor) (2000). Business Students Focus on Ethics (Praxiology): The international Annual of Practical Philosophy and Methodology Volume 8. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. pp. 75 (college textbook)

Terry Sandbek, Ph.D. "Brain Typing: The Pseudoscience of Cold Reading" American Board of Sport Psychology

Woker, TA (2003) "If It Sounds Too Good to Be True It Probably Is: Pyramid Schemes and Other Related Frauds" SA Mercantile Law Journal Volume 15 Issue 2 pg 237-249

And then YOU have the hide to say this ....

Take your lies elsewhere, icerat. I have little tolerance for them and I doubt the people who run this board will either.

Even then, NONE of the "peer-reviewed" papers you present now support the claims you made which I challenged, things like -

The failure rate of over 99% is well documented
and
The moment you realize that MLMs increases the number of middle men then you realize that there is no way for every one to make money

How about I claim everyone in MLM makes millions and then just cite a peer-reviewed JAMA paper an alzheimers? Makes as much sense ... well, except JAMA actually has an impact factor. Does anything you cited?

[icerat]

Do you have ANY idea how insane this makes you sound?!? :eek:

Any idea how dishonest it makes you when you make claims about things I've said that don't remotely reflect what I was talking about, and make other claims, and then claim they're supported by papers that don't say what you're claiming?

Are you say that the System Dynamics conference magically dropped the peer review process for 2008 just so Cruz could bad mouth MLMs?!? :eye-poppi :eek:

I think you and I may have had words on the Cruz paper on wikipedia. It does not provide any evidence at all to support your claims - it simply briefly cites Taylor's non peer-reviewed, long discredited claims. Citing a paper that cites crap does not turn the crap into gold - particular when the paper was presented at a conference about system dynamics and you can pretty much guarantee the reviews had next to no expertise in network marketing.

[icerat]

Ryan (Editor), Leo; Wojciech, Gasparski (Editor); Georges, Enderle (Editor) (2000). Business Students Focus on Ethics (Praxiology): The international Annual of Practical Philosophy and Methodology Volume 8. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. pp. 75 (college textbook)

I just read this paper (http://books.google.com/books?id=TE0JJl-DTJcC&pg=PA304&dq=Business+Students+Focus+on+Ethics+(Praxiology):&cd=1#v=onepage&q=MLM&f=false) -

It's a commentary on MLM in China. It's in fact quite complementary about companies like Amway and nowhere does it offer evidence support your claims.

Terry Sandbek, Ph.D. "Brain Typing: The Pseudoscience of Cold Reading" American Board of Sport Psychology

This article (http://www.americanboardofsportpsychology.org/Portals/24/BrainTypingSANDBEK.doc), which is not an academic paper, is not about MLM and merely mentions it and some anti-MLM website claims in passing when discussing the author of a book. nowhere does it offer evidence supporting your claims

Woker, TA (2003) "If It Sounds Too Good to Be True It Probably Is: Pyramid Schemes and Other Related Frauds" SA Mercantile Law Journal Volume 15 Issue 2 pg 237-249

Just read this, it nowhere does it offer evidence supporting your claims. Indeed it even says -

Multi-level marketing, also known as "network marketing", is a form of direct selling in which independent distributors sell products on a "party plan" basis, or over the telephone. Distributors usually generate an income from their own sales as well as from the sales of those whom they recruit. This is a legitimate way of selling products and there a number of successful businesses that operate in this way

Take your lies elsewhere, icerat. I have little tolerance for them and I doubt the people who run this board will either.

Pray tell, what tolerance do they have for you? :cool:

[Kevin R Brown]

Icerat: You were comparing owning a McDonalds franchise with 'owning' an Amway 'business' (in reality, a theoretical business - one predicated on your ability to get people into a downline). Let's think about the differences in the distribution channels here:

A McDonalds restaurant, assuming you set it up in an area that is well frequented and with low competition, has a huge demand (anyone who is hungry) with a very narrow distribution channel (a hungry motorist, especially one in a hurry, can only have their needs fulfilled by a fast food chain restaurant like McDonalds - they can't go just anywhere to get cheap and rapidly served food).

This means that the owner of a McDonalds is, essentially, guaranteed to make money. He/she doesn't have to do anything special at all; just keep the business running and people will come to you to have their needs fulfilled.

Amway sells cosmetic products and total quackery. The demand for these products is extremely low when compared to fast food (everyone, at some point in the day, gets hungry; comparatively few people need to put on make-up every day), and the distribution channel is huge - if you live in a city, it's probably never more than a 10 minute drive to a local business that sells comparable products for lower prices that you don't have to wait to be shipped to you. Moreover, as a direct seller, you're at a huge disadvantage to the brick & mortar store operator because you're immediately putting any potential customer on the defensive - while the McDonalds operator has people literally walking into his establishment with open wallets, already prepared to buy a Big Mac, the Amway agent needs to convince people to buy the make-up, vitamins, detergent, etc.

There is no parity here - Amway, MLM scheme or not, is not as viable a business practice as jumping in on an established fast food franchise.

[Skeptic]

It's more than that. The MLM business structure means that, by design, the quality and appeal of the product do not matter. 99% will lose money no matter how good the product is.

McDonald's franchise are contractually guaranteed a certain area where McDonald's will not open another restaurant; and McDonald's will only sell a franchise if it thinks there's a fair chance for it to make money in terms of potential clientele. If McDonald's thinks there's enough supply in a certain area, it will not sell anyone a franchise.

If tomorrow it is discovered that McDonald's hamburgers give their clients eternal life, demand will skyrocket and so will the number of franchises that will be opened. But even if McDonald's then opens, say, 100 times as many franchise as it already has, it will stop at some point -- at the point where the franchise earner can make money by having enough customers. Perhaps in such a case the potential clientele would be 100 times what it is today -- perhaps it would be the population of the entire planet -- but it would still be finite, and McDonald's would not open more than the number of franchises that are needed to deal with it.

MLMs don't care. They live on everybody recruiting their own competition without the slightest regard to actual demand for the product. So even if MLMs were selling a product that everybody on the planet wanted (in reality, not in MLM BS propaganda about how this is a "product everybody wants") -- if MLMs were selling an elixir that gave eternal life and happiness for a buck -- 99% of MLMers would still lose money, since the whole point of the MLM is to recruit a downline.

In such a case, recruitment would be easy, and -- let us say -- half the planet would join and become distributors. But each would then nly have one potential customer except for themselves, on average. Who would make money? They few on the top of the pyramid who joined early. Who would lose money? Everybody else, who now have nobody left to recruit or to sell to.

MLMs are guaranteed, by design, to go blissfully past the point of market saturation and leave 99% of the distributors with nobody to sell to, since by design, it is a tool for the 1% at the top to make money from those in the "donwline" of the "great opportunity". Nobody knows or cares what the saturation point is. It's all about recruiting "downline" without limit, and the hell with how much money they can make, as long as they pay me.

And don't tell me the lie about how the upline "doesn't make money unless the downline makes money". In reality the upline makes money by forcing the downline to buy the MLMs' products "for themselves" without any regard to demand or possibility for retail sales, the product's alleged superior quality being merely a cover for the true nature of the moving-money-from-bottom-to-top of the pyramid.

The product's quality might determine the size of the pyramid; but not the proportion of winners to losers within it.

It takes talent to create a business model where 99% of those involved in its sale are guaranteed to lose money regardless of the product's quality. A traditional business run by a strange cult where all members must burn a $1000 every night as a sacrifice to the gods would probably fail, but it is conceivable that some businesses would still make it despite this, if demand is high enough and the product good enough. In an MLM, that won't help.

That's because MLMs are not a business. They're a cult. You can only make money by having a downline below you losing money. Begging friends and family into losing money to benefit you is called, you guessed it, "building the business". Somehow beating the odds and having thousands of people losing money so you can make it is called "being a success".

What a scam.

[Kevin R Brown]

Well said; I was only trying to point out that, even if we gave Amway the maximum benefit of the doubt and assumed it was being used as a 'direct sales' (I've always hated that term; it's 'door to door sales', or canvassing, and it's never been a successful practice) vehicle rather than an MLM pyramid (a model which Mr. Dunning so elegantly eviscerated in his podcast), it still doesn't have any advantage or even comparable value to setting-up a fast food restaurant.

Yourself and Mr. Dunning are quite right, of course: the problem inherent in pyramid schemes is that they would require an infinite customer base in order to work - and frankly, economics would be a rather moot topic if everyone had access to an infinite number of customers.

EDIT: To expand on this with an example:

Let's say I own a car dealership in the downtown hub of my city. We'll say that the weekly total peak demand (so, the demand the city has when everyone is most eager to buy a new vehicle) for my cars is represented by a value of 100 (the numbers here are arbitrarily picked; the values themselves aren't particularly relevant), and we'll also throw in a caveat that 35 points of my demand value can only be tapped into through good salesmanship (the maximum demand is still fixed - being a good salesman just means that you have access to more of that demand than the rest of my employees that are competing with you, it can't somehow magically increase the city's demand for cars).

Let's also say I adopt an MLM 'network' scheme for my employees - every person they recruit for my car lot is put into a downline for themselves, and they get residual income from the sales of those directly below them. Each sale fulfills the city's demand weekly demand by a value of 10.


I hope the problem is immediately obvious to our objector. Your peak demand is fixed, so the total number of cars your could ever possibly sell is also fixed (in my example, fixed at about 10 per week, for the best salesmen - the rest of the employees only have access to 3/4s of the demand); the person at the top of any downline will rake in a lot of cash because they make money off of every sale, including their own, but those every one level down are much, much worse off because competition very quickly crowds out their ability to make sales (good salesmen will initially do much better because they have special access to a certain portion of the demand, but even they will crowd each other out quickly enough). Eventually, even people at the top of their own downlines will start getting crowded-out as new downlines are established (ever wonder why many of the high level positions in Amway and other MLM schemes are well protected by sales volume requirements?), and pretty quickly the only person making big money is myself, the dealership owner, who has a pile of free labor selling his merchandise for him.

[maximara]

Skeptic and Kevin R Brown are correct as the list of peer reviewed that cite either FitzPatrick or Taylor are legion and here are some more:

Koehn, Daryl (2001) "Ethical Issues Connected with Multi-Level Marketing Schemes" Journal of Business Ethics 29:153-160.

Wong, Michelle. A. (2002) "China's Direct Marketing Ban: A Case Study of China's Response to Capital-Based Social Networks" Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal

Even abstracts are critical: "The wake of the recession has witnessed a boom in direct selling schemes also known as pyramid selling, multi-level marketing or network marketing." Sarker, Rinita (1996) "Pyramid Selling" Journal of Financial Crime 3:3 Pg 266 - 268.

Highly respected publishers like Wiley have also had books slamming MLMs as have Juta Academic in works like Higgs, Philip and Jane Smith (2007) Rethinking Our World

Even those that don't hold that all MLMs are pyramid schemes have said there are series problems with them:

DeJUTE, ANTHONY M. ROBERT D. MYERS† DONALD K. WEDDING (2008) "Wheeler-Lea Versus Pyramidal Sales" American Business Law Journal Volume 10 Issue 3, Pages 207 - 220

And the list of peer reviewed articles and articles in reliable publications questioning MLMs and their methodology goes on but yet like homeopathy which has even more evidence that it doesn't work they are allowed to run amok.

[Bluto]

Having just sat through my umpteenth (and absolutely LAST) goddam Amway meeting (with the requisite high-energy, ultra-positive, goodlooking, 30-something jock giving the de-rigeur pep-talk and rags-to-riches story), I felt the need to comment.

I had already done the whole MLM venture (complete with the normal bubble-bursting and crest-falling once reality set in) back in the '70s as an inexperienced teenager, but, with an adamant, demanding sister who somehow at the tender age of 60-something, just now has seen the light of "direct marketing", I did attend so as to keep peace in the family for the moment.

After this most recent (and virtually identical to my experience 30+years ago) brush with MLMery, I'm left with the same question I had way back when. That is, just what is it that the "Independant Business Owner" brings to the party?

I mean, with a REAL business, the business owner usually provides either goods or services or a combination of the two. With Amway, what is it that the IBO provides? Hell, you can get the products any freaking where, there's no real service being provided. So what value is the IBO adding to the mix for which he should get remunerated?

It seems to me all the MLMers do is try to get in line ahead of somebody else so they can put their hand out. Is this REALLY a sound business practice?

Uh un...

[icerat]

Icerat: You were comparing owning a McDonalds franchise with 'owning' an Amway 'business' (in reality, a theoretical business - one predicated on your ability to get people into a downline). Let's think about the differences in the distribution channels here:

It's predicated on your ability to get people to use the products, not building a downline.

A McDonalds restaurant, assuming you set it up in an area that is well frequented and with low competition, has a huge demand (anyone who is hungry) with a very narrow distribution channel (a hungry motorist, especially one in a hurry, can only have their needs fulfilled by a fast food chain restaurant like McDonalds - they can't go just anywhere to get cheap and rapidly served food).

McDonald's has no competitors? Really?

This means that the owner of a McDonalds is, essentially, guaranteed to make money. He/she doesn't have to do anything special at all; just keep the business running and people will come to you to have their needs fulfilled.

Then why does McDonald's spend millions on marketing?

Amway sells cosmetic products and total quackery.

While there's been the occasional one off in the past, I'm not aware of any "total quackery" products in the hundreds available from Amway today (with the possible exception of one in the current US market)

The demand for these products is extremely low when compared to fast food (everyone, at some point in the day, gets hungry;

So? Our competitors are in the same market space, which isn't fast food.

comparatively few people need to put on make-up every day), and the distribution channel is huge - if you live in a city, it's probably never more than a 10 minute drive to a local business that sells comparable products for lower prices that you don't have to wait to be shipped to you.

And this is where you've got things wrong. If you were correct, then I'd agree with you. Our two biggest brands are Artistry and Nutrilite. Artistry is significantly *cheaper* than the competition, and Nutrilite massively differentiated and cheaper than the closest competition.

Moreover, as a direct seller, you're at a huge disadvantage to the brick & mortar store operator because you're immediately putting any potential customer on the defensive

Huh? Last night I was with a friend and was hungry, I had a chocolate protein bar in my pocket, I pulled it out and begin to eat it and offered her some. She asked what it was and said it sounded good, where could she buy them. I told her she could buy them from me. She asked me to get some.

Real defensive customer that.

- while the McDonalds operator has people literally walking into his establishment with open wallets, already prepared to buy a Big Mac, the Amway agent needs to convince people to buy the make-up, vitamins, detergent, etc.

What you're describing is how NOT to succeed in sales of consumables.

There is no parity here - Amway, MLM scheme or not, is not as viable a business practice as jumping in on an established fast food franchise.

* $8.2 billion in sales
* global leader in it's primary brand, sales 3 times the nearest competitor
* Top 5 globally in it's second brand
* <a href="http://www.amwaywiki.com/Awards_and_Recognitions">wins consumer awards around the world</a>

Claiming something is "not viable" when 50+ years of history already shows your wrong is, well, a bit odd.

[icerat]

I mean, with a REAL business, the business owner usually provides either goods or services or a combination of the two. With Amway, what is it that the IBO provides? Hell, you can get the products any freaking where, there's no real service being provided. So what value is the IBO adding to the mix for which he should get remunerated?

What you are describing seems to be, by definition, an IBO that is NOT doing the "B" part - operating a business. The job of the IBO is a mix of the services of marketing (that's why it's called network marketing) and customer service, with these days an additional (limited) role in distribution.

And you cannot get the products "any freaking where". In Europe for example the only place you can purchase Amway's brands other than via an IBO is from the flagship store in London. In the US only off the website, and that volume is credited to an active IBO.

From a corporate perspective the IBO is an incredibly cost effective marketing channel - there is little in the way of marketing expenses until AFTER a sale is made. How is that not "value"?

[icerat]

Well said; I was only trying to point out that, even if we gave Amway the maximum benefit of the doubt and assumed it was being used as a 'direct sales' (I've always hated that term; it's 'door to door sales', or canvassing, and it's never been a successful practice) vehicle rather than an MLM pyramid (a model which Mr. Dunning so elegantly eviscerated in his podcast), it still doesn't have any advantage or even comparable value to setting-up a fast food restaurant.

Kevin, we are in 100% agreement that MLM/NWM would not be a sensible model for the fast food industry.

Let's say I own a car dealership in the downtown hub of my city.

Not sure that car sales is particularly suited to MLM either. Indeed I think not - consumables with decent margins are the go. Nevertheless let's look at your example.

We'll say that the weekly total peak demand (so, the demand the city has when everyone is most eager to buy a new vehicle) for my cars is represented by a value of 100 (the numbers here are arbitrarily picked; the values themselves aren't particularly relevant), and we'll also throw in a caveat that 35 points of my demand value can only be tapped into through good salesmanship (the maximum demand is still fixed - being a good salesman just means that you have access to more of that demand than the rest of my employees that are competing with you, it can't somehow magically increase the city's demand for cars).

Your assumption of "maximum demand is still fixed" is incorrect. That's the role of marketing - to increase demand. Furthermore, there's a great deal of fluidity within the market, so you want to increase demand for cars you sell. Even if there's static overall demand you can make money by increasing demand for your brand (and decreasing that for the competitors).

This happens all the time across all industries.

I hope the problem is immediately obvious to our objector. Your peak demand is fixed, so the total number of cars your could ever possibly sell is also fixed

I would suggest if you look at the history of the motor car industry, that demand has not been fixed at the same rate at all.

(in my example, fixed at about 10 per week, for the best salesmen - the rest of the employees only have access to 3/4s of the demand); the person at the top of any downline will rake in a lot of cash because they make money off of every sale, including their own, but those every one level down are much, much worse off because competition very quickly crowds out their ability to make sales

This is only true if there's a very small market. If the market size far exceeds the ability of one person to service it, then it's of theoretical interest only.

(good salesmen will initially do much better because they have special access to a certain portion of the demand, but even they will crowd each other out quickly enough). Eventually, even people at the top of their own downlines will start getting crowded-out as new downlines are established (ever wonder why many of the high level positions in Amway and other MLM schemes are well protected by sales volume requirements?)

I'm not sure what you mean by this? "high level positions in Amway" are not "protected" at all. They are defined by sales volume obtained. Don't get the sales volume, the "position" is gone.

, and pretty quickly the only person making big money is myself, the dealership owner, who has a pile of free labor selling his merchandise for him.

I think your argument is one purely concerned with the issue of potential market saturation. Market saturation and demand is of concern in ALL industries, not just ones that use multilevel marketing. If demand for your products decreases or becomes saturated, and you wish to expand your business, then you need to either (a) increase demand or (b) move in to different markets. Dosn't matter whether your marketing through traditional advertising or through word of mouth and MLM. I think the problem is your looking at "recruiting" as the goal of an MLM business rather than MLM compensation and recruiting as simply a marketing strategy, and a flexible one at that.

[icerat]

Skeptic and Kevin R Brown are correct as the list of peer reviewed that cite either FitzPatrick or Taylor are legion and here are some more:

icerat says - "maximara believes MLM to be a scam"

See!!! Icerat thinks MLM is a scam! He cited maximara!

I was challenging the points you were making

All you seem to be interested in doing is showing that Taylor and FitzPatrick have been mentioned in a few books and papers.

Whoopeedoodahh.

Koehn, Daryl (2001) "Ethical Issues Connected with Multi-Level Marketing Schemes" Journal of Business Ethics 29:153-160.

This article is not critical of MLM per se, it points out particular weaknesses of the model that can lead to unethical operations. While the paper makes a number of unsubstantiated (and unreferenced or poorly referenced) claims, I pretty much agree with the thrust of the authors comments.

Wong, Michelle. A. (2002) "China's Direct Marketing Ban: A Case Study of China's Response to Capital-Based Social Networks" Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal

This article explicitly mentions MLM companies like Amway, Avon, Mary Kay, and Tupperware as being legitimate. I'm starting to think you've never actually read many of the articles you are citing?

Even abstracts are critical: "The wake of the recession has witnessed a boom in direct selling schemes also known as pyramid selling, multi-level marketing or network marketing." Sarker, Rinita (1996) "Pyramid Selling" Journal of Financial Crime 3:3 Pg 266 - 268.

Which part of that was "critical"? I've been unable to get a copy of this paper as yet, but based on past experience it probably doesn't support you.

Highly respected publishers like Wiley have also had books slamming MLMs as have Juta Academic in works like Higgs, Philip and Jane Smith (2007) Rethinking Our World

Wiley also (http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0471703192.html) has (http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0471716766.html) many (http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0471773476.html) books very supportive of MLM (http://www.amazon.com/Amway-Forever-Amazing-Business-Phenomenon/dp/0470488212/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265639247&sr=1-1), including some with some silly claims (http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-047153692X.html). What's your point?

Even those that don't hold that all MLMs are pyramid schemes have said there are series problems with them:

Umm, even I say there are serious problems with some MLMs. Again, what's your point?

And the list of peer reviewed articles and articles in reliable publications questioning MLMs and their methodology goes on but yet like homeopathy which has even more evidence that it doesn't work they are allowed to run amok.

oh good grief. 75 years of history, hundreds of billions in sales shows MLMs can and does work. Here's a list of thousands of people (http://www.amwaywiki.com/List_of_Amway_Diamonds), just from one company, who have been extraordinarly successful through MLM. The active denial of reality you undertake is purely astounding.

[Skeptic]

With Amway, what is it that the IBO provides?

A fool to buy the crap the upline tells them so as to feed the higher-ups in the pyramid.

[Skeptic]

All you seem to be interested in doing is showing that Taylor and FitzPatrick have been mentioned in a few books and papers.

Once confronted with the peer-reviewed articles critical of MLMs he claimed did not exist, these peer-reviewed articles magically became "a few books and papers, whooopeeduhdah".

[Skeptic]

What you are describing seems to be, by definition, an IBO that is NOT doing the "B" part - operating a business.

Yet another one of the 99% bad-apple IBOs that are giving the honest 1% such a bad name.

IBOs don't own a business. They just run a pyramid scheme trying to get people below them.

[icerat]

Once confronted with the peer-reviewed articles critical of MLMs he claimed did not exist, these peer-reviewed articles magically became "a few books and papers, whooopeeduhdah".

Again, more evidence of the amazing hypocrisay of people being blatantly unethical when accusing others of the same. What, are you going for the "takes one to know one" defence??

I never once said there were no peer-reviewed articles critical of MLMs. You are simply making that up.

If you've no intention of being honest, please go elsewhere.

[Skeptic]

I never once said there were no peer-reviewed articles critical of MLMs. You are simply making that up.

No, you just dismiss and belittle every such article someone posts as somehow "not counting". Since clearly you will do that to all and every peer-reviewed article that is critical of your precious MLM scam, your de facto attitude is, in fact, that there are no peer-reviewed articles critical of MLM that "count" in any way.

If you've no intention of being honest, please go elsewhere.Hehe. Look, kids: an MLMer lecturing others about honesty. That's a good 'un.

[NewtonTrino]

oh good grief. 75 years of history, hundreds of billions in sales shows MLMs can and does work. Here's a list of thousands of people (http://www.amwaywiki.com/List_of_Amway_Diamonds), just from one company, who have been extraordinarly successful through MLM. The active denial of reality you undertake is purely astounding.

You still aren't understanding the main point. It doesn't matter if a diamond makes a profit, they aren't successful if they have to have thousands of people losing money for them to make money. It's called a pyramid scam for a reason. Nobody said it's impossible to make money from amway, just that's it's unethical. Also most of the money made from shoving tools down their throats anyway (which I know you deny, we disagree).

[Kevin R Brown]

Your assumption of "maximum demand is still fixed" is incorrect. That's the role of marketing - to increase demand. Furthermore, there's a great deal of fluidity within the market, so you want to increase demand for cars you sell. Even if there's static overall demand you can make money by increasing demand for your brand (and decreasing that for the competitors).

This happens all the time across all industries.

This is just flatly wrong. There is always a fixed limit on demand; advertising and salesmanship gives you greater access to this demand - it cannot magically create new customers out of nothing.

Now, granted, demand is a fluid dynamic because people are fairly transient, but there is still always a limited pool of customers in any region at any one particular time.


You don't appear to be willing to listen to peer reviewed literature, however, so I doubt that I'll be able to convince you of the common nature of your sacred cow. Have fun; don't say we didn't try to warn you.

[maximara]

No, you just dismiss and belittle every such article someone posts as somehow "not counting". Since clearly you will do that to all and every peer-reviewed article that is critical of your precious MLM scam, your de facto attitude is, in fact, that there are no peer-reviewed articles critical of MLM that "count" in any way.

We had this kind of nonsense on the Wikipedia article on Multi-level marketing with an editor named Insider201283. I produced reliable source after reliable source that Insider201283 either claimed didn't exist or he engaged in 'this pull hat over eyes, stick fingers in ears, and go la la la very loud' nonsense as well.

At least icerat didn't present Kiyosaki as a reliable source which had to be the most unbelievable thing in the whole talk page archive.

[NewtonTrino]

We had this kind of nonsense on the Wikipedia article on Multi-level marketing with an editor named Insider201283. I produced reliable source after reliable source that Insider201283 either claimed didn't exist or he engaged in 'this pull hat over eyes, stick fingers in ears, and go la la la very loud' nonsense as well.

At least icerat didn't present Kiyosaki as a reliable source which had to be the most unbelievable thing in the whole talk page archive.

I don't know if it's the same one but Insider is another nick that Icerat uses. Given the fact that he also runs the biggest pro amway website it's likely that you were dealing with the same person.

[maximara]

I don't know if it's the same one but Insider is another nick that Icerat uses. Given the fact that he also runs the biggest pro amway website it's likely that you were dealing with the same person.

There were charges by other editors about Insider201283 having conflict on interest (there is a youtube channel under that exact same user name promoting Amway and Quixtar videos that I was unaware of at the time) but all he had on his page was that he was an "Australian living in Europe" so there is no way to really tell if he and Icerat were one and the same.

[NewtonTrino]

He's already admitted his name on this forum. He'll confirm he's the same person I
sure.

[Almo]

Part of the reason that I have an unusually good understanding of this business is that several of my beta users had quite large businesses (tools). I got to see the numbers while debugging the program....

Hahah! :)

By Amway's own numbers cited in their TV ad, they helped 3 million people earn $6 billion in a year!

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=116252

Wait. That's $2000 annually by their own admission. Not too good, really.

[maximara]

Hahah! :)

By Amway's own numbers cited in their TV ad, they helped 3 million people earn $6 billion in a year!

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=116252

Wait. That's $2000 annually by their own admission. Not too good, really.

That is reasonably close to what numbers the other reliable sources I found gave either for specific MLMs or MLMs in general:

US$5,000 average annual income max for 90% of membership--(2000)Business Students Focus on Ethics (Praxiology): The international Annual of Practical Philosophy and Methodology Volume 8.

median annual income of $2,400 in all of direct sales--(2009)DSA cited in USAToday

Also according to two separate sources who claim to be MLM legal experts (Jeff Babener, MLM Lawyer and Rod Cook B.s., M.A., M.B.A) the 70% rule MLM supporters like to throw around was reduced in FTC v. JewelWay (1997) to 50% and this new rule was reaffirmed in FTC v. Futurenet (1998). Jeff Babener and Rod Cook go on to say that this period the FTC started moving to the position that to be considered a customer of a MLM you cannot belong to the program. Cook's exact words on the matter are "Retail Sales does not include sales made by a participant in a multi-level marketing program to other participants, recruits, or the participant’s own account."

If people Babener and Cook are being accurate that would mean that personal consumption no longer counts which given MLMs are supposed to be business opportunities not wholesale clubs makes sense.

[maximara]

oh good grief. 75 years of history, hundreds of billions in sales shows MLMs can and does work. Here's a list of thousands of people (http://www.amwaywiki.com/List_of_Amway_Diamonds), just from one company, who have been extraordinarly successful through MLM. The active denial of reality you undertake is purely astounding.

A amwaywiki article is the best you can come up with?!? :jaw-dropp

I should point out that even publications like the Western Journal of Communication, Journal of Small Business Management, and International Journal of Service Industry Management can't agree on how long MLMs have existed (one puts it no more than 30 years ago) so the "75 years of history" claims is BS never mind that Homeopathy has been around since 1796 and despite being shown not to work as early as 1842 people still believe it works.

[Skeptic]

Wait. That's $2000 annually by their own admission. Not too good, really.

And that's sales volume, not profit.

[icerat]

This is just flatly wrong. There is always a fixed limit on demand; advertising and salesmanship gives you greater access to this demand - it cannot magically create new customers out of nothing.

Sorry Kevin, but that is flat out wrong. That's what's marketing is for - to stimulate demand for your product.

Now, granted, demand is a fluid dynamic because people are fairly transient, but there is still always a limited pool of customers in any region at any one particular time.

Sure, as there is for all businesses, and if you which to expand in that region then you create increased demand or move in to other market segments.

You don't appear to be willing to listen to peer reviewed literature, however, so I doubt that I'll be able to convince you of the common nature of your sacred cow. Have fun; don't say we didn't try to warn you.

Huh? Have you fallen for Skeptic's and Maximara's BS? A claim was made (99% lose money or some such) which they said was well documented in peer reviewed literature. I stated that was wrong, there was no peer reviewed literature supporting the claim. They proceeded to list various documents, some peer-reviewed and some not. None of the peer-reviewed literature supported the claim, and I'm not aware of any that does.

Look at the source documents yourself, I did.

[icerat]

We had this kind of nonsense on the Wikipedia article on Multi-level marketing with an editor named Insider201283. I produced reliable source after reliable source that Insider201283 either claimed didn't exist or he engaged in 'this pull hat over eyes, stick fingers in ears, and go la la la very loud' nonsense as well.

No you didn't, you kept quoting Taylor and Fitzpatrick, and when taken to WP:RS it was agreed by third parties they were NOT reliable sources. I simply haven't had the time to spend debating with you WP and help get those articles into respectable encyclopedic shape.

At least icerat didn't present Kiyosaki as a reliable source which had to be the most unbelievable thing in the whole talk page archive.

Kiyosaki's "business school" book is self-published (like Taylor & Fitzpatrick's work) and thus not considered a reliable source.

[icerat]

A amwaywiki article is the best you can come up with?!? :jaw-dropp

Are you seriously now claiming that Amway (the original source for the list on AmwayWiki) is faking all their achievement recognition levels? Seriously?

I should point out that even publications like the Western Journal of Communication, Journal of Small Business Management, and International Journal of Service Industry Management can't agree on how long MLMs have existed (one puts it no more than 30 years ago) so the "75 years of history" claims is BS never mind that Homeopathy has been around since 1796 and despite being shown not to work as early as 1842 people still believe it works.

The fact those journals are so wrong on that issue speaks volumes as to the reliability of those journals on this topic. Or are you now claiming that Amway didn't begin using MLM until the 79s or 80s? All that previous history has been faked there too?? :eek:

Some serious conspiracy going on here ... Amway has even managed to create a fake investigation into their operations, just to try and trick people into believing they've been operating longer than 30 years! They've even hacked google and newspaper archives and inserted fake news articles and advertising into old newspapers!!! :eye-poppi

Or ... perhaps ... just maybe ... those journals just aren't reliable sources on the topic ...

Anyway, I was in errror - at least 65 years, not 75 years. Nutrilite began in 1934 but introduced a multilevel compensation plan in 1945 when they contracted with Mytinger & Casselberry for distribution. M&C introduced the first known multilevel compensation format, there may have been earlier ones. (see for example Herbig, P. & Yelkurm, R. (1997). A Review of the Multilevel Marketing Phenomenon. Journal of Marketing Channels, 6(1), 17-33)

[icerat]

If people Babener and Cook are being accurate that would mean that personal consumption no longer counts which given MLMs are supposed to be business opportunities not wholesale clubs makes sense.

The FTC has since explicitly clarified that personal consumption is considered a retail sale, if purchased through legitimate demand. (sources and discussion on this topic available here (http://www.thetruthaboutamway.com/amwayquixtar-myth-its-a-pyramid-if-most-products-are-bought-by-ibos/))

That doesn't mean it's necessarily sensible to focus just on internal consumption (I don't think it is), but if done legitimately it's not illegal.

[icerat]

And that's sales volume, not profit.

No it's not, it's $2400 net income - median - and 43% of the sample spent less than 4hrs/wk on the business (http://www.dsa.org/research/industry-statistics/index.cfm?fa=07numbers#HOURS).

Hmmm ... that works out about $11.53/hr for 4hrs/wk. So much for McDonald's being a better option ..... :cool:

[maximara]

No it's not, it's $2400 net income - median - and 43% of the sample spent less than 4hrs/wk on the business (http://www.dsa.org/research/industry-statistics/index.cfm?fa=07numbers#HOURS).

Hmmm ... that works out about $11.53/hr for 4hrs/wk. So much for McDonald's being a better option ..... :cool:

Sorry but the "Direct Selling by the Numbers - Calendar Year 2007" article only tells you the sales made not profit. If you don't know if the income is net or gross it doesn't tell you anything useful. Making $2,500 gross is very different from making $2,500 net and yet that key piece of information is missing. :eek:

In fact if you look at MLMs that key piece of information is always missing.

Unless you have proof that the income is net not gross, Icerat, you are like the MLM industry in general are just blowing smoke.

"Multi-Level Marketing: A form of Pyramid Scheme, not necessarily fraudulent..." (2005) Encyclopedia of white-collar & corporate crime, Volume 2 pg 880 by SAGE Publications one of the largest publisher of journals in the world (520 of them).

The more you protest the more I will keep finding and presenting these publications.

[icerat]

Sorry but the "Direct Selling by the Numbers - Calendar Year 2007" article only tells you the sales made not profit. If you don't know if the income is net or gross it doesn't tell you anything useful. Making $2,500 gross is very different from making $2,500 net and yet that key piece of information is missing. :eek:

The $2400 figure comes from various news reports and the DSA blog (http://www.directselling411.com/blog/real-stories-real-success/), based I believe on the 2008 National Sales Force Survey (http://www.dsa.org/forms/store/ProductFormPublic/search?action=1&Product_productNumber=08NSFSNP). I've emailed the DSA for clarification, but normally when one says income in this context it's net income. It's most certainly not sales volume, which is what I was challenging.

Unless you have proof that the income is net not gross, Icerat, you are like the MLM industry in general are just blowing smoke.

Yet, surprise surprise, you have no problem at all with someone claiming income in this context is the same thing as sales volume. :cool:

[icerat]

Ok, my apologies, after further searching the $2400 is indeed gross income (http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/businessopprule/522418-12055.pdf) - but that's still not remotely the same as sales volume.

With regards profit, the question remaining is to how much expenses there are in less than 4hr works per week. I'd note we don't know the expenses involved in getting to work at McDonald's either .... and they can't claim them as tax deductions :)

[NewtonTrino]

He's already admitted his name on this forum. He'll confirm he's the same person I
sure.

Well apparently he's ignoring this so I think your safe to assume it's the same guy unless he explicitly denies it here.

Basically Icerat is the most prolific MLM defender in history. This is actually somewhat impressive to me actually (in a scary way ;)

[icerat]

It's actually a ban-able offence on wikipedia to "out" someone, even on another website, however yes, insider201283 is me. I started my pro-amway activism on an anti-amway website as "insider", the wiki account followed that, as did others where I joined primarily as an MLM advocate. I stopped using "insider" as too many people assumed it meant I was an Amway employee and started using "ibofightback".

I use "icerat" on various sites which ostensibly have nothing to do with MLM, including this one, and which I join for reasons other than MLM. Sadly the need to fight ridiculous myths sprang up on this site too :(

I'd suggest there's plenty of more prolific "MLM defenders" than I, Len Clements, Rod Cook, and Joe Rubino are three that come to mind, all active online and having published books. Then you have professional, independent, academics like Prof Charles King and Prof Dominque Xardel, and business historians like Wilbur Cross and Jim Robinson, all of whom have written several pro-MLM books, as well as journalists like Richard Poe, who has also written several pro-MLM books and numerous articles - to name just a few.

I'd suggest anyone who has written a few books on the topic is somewhat more "prolific" a defender than I am!

[maximara]

Ok, my apologies, after further searching the $2400 is indeed gross income (http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/businessopprule/522418-12055.pdf) - but that's still not remotely the same as sales volume.

With regards profit, the question remaining is to how much expenses there are in less than 4hr works per week. I'd note we don't know the expenses involved in getting to work at McDonald's either .... and they can't claim them as tax deductions :)

This is a really silly comparison. Taxes are taken out of a McDonald's paycheck and other than standard vehicle maintenance what other expenses are involved?

[NewtonTrino]

It's actually a ban-able offence on wikipedia to "out" someone, even on another website, however yes, insider201283 is me. I started my pro-amway activism on an anti-amway website as "insider", the wiki account followed that, as did others where I joined primarily as an MLM advocate. I stopped using "insider" as too many people assumed it meant I was an Amway employee and started using "ibofightback".


I certainly wouldn't have said anything if you hadn't confirmed it in earlier threads.


I use "icerat" on various sites which ostensibly have nothing to do with MLM, including this one, and which I join for reasons other than MLM. Sadly the need to fight ridiculous myths sprang up on this site too :(


Which ridiculous myths?


I'd suggest there's plenty of more prolific "MLM defenders" than I, Len Clements, Rod Cook, and Joe Rubino are three that come to mind, all active online and having published books. Then you have professional, independent, academics like Prof Charles King and Prof Dominque Xardel, and business historians like Wilbur Cross and Jim Robinson, all of whom have written several pro-MLM books, as well as journalists like Richard Poe, who has also written several pro-MLM books and numerous articles - to name just a few.

I'd suggest anyone who has written a few books on the topic is somewhat more "prolific" a defender than I am!

I misspoke. Most prolific AMWAY defender.

[icerat]

This is a really silly comparison. Taxes are taken out of a McDonald's paycheck and other than standard vehicle maintenance what other expenses are involved?

I doubt all McDonald's workers walk to work. Even if you're driving and not taking public transport there are parking and fuel expenses etc.

My point is that some people yell "expenses!!!" when talking about MLM income, but ignore expenses with other forms of income. Heck, if you want to *own* a McDonald's I believe you have to work free in an existing McDonalds for a year, plus of course the 6 or 7 figure financing to purchase.

Either way, even with expenses, 4hrs a week at MLM would appear to be a significantly better option for many people than a job at McDonald's.

[NewtonTrino]

I doubt all McDonald's workers walk to work. Even if you're driving and not taking public transport there are parking and fuel expenses etc.

My point is that some people yell "expenses!!!" when talking about MLM income, but ignore expenses with other forms of income. Heck, if you want to *own* a McDonald's I believe you have to work free in an existing McDonalds for a year, plus of course the 6 or 7 figure financing to purchase.

Either way, even with expenses, 4hrs a week at MLM would appear to be a significantly better option for many people than a job at McDonald's.

I think it's funny how we are comparing this to McDonalds and your MLM "would appear to be significantly better". <chortle> It's in the same ballpark anyway ;)

Please don't compare it to a real job that someone who is skilled might be able to do though. It gets slaughtered badly ;)

[icerat]

I think it's funny how we are comparing this to McDonalds and your MLM "would appear to be significantly better". <chortle> It's in the same ballpark anyway ;)

More straw men and red herrings. We weren't even talking about "my MLM".

Please don't compare it to a real job that someone who is skilled might be able to do though. It gets slaughtered badly ;)

I'm not the one who brings up the "better off at McDonald's" argument.

I'm no fan of MonaVie's product or compensation plan, and as you know I think "hourly rate" is a misleading statistic for evaluating building any business, but their income disclosure statement (http://media.monavie.com/pdf/corporate/income_disclosure_statement.pdf) is quite interesting - even at the relatively modest "Bronze Executive" level, the "hourly rate" exceeds $50/hr. Take it to "Black Diamond Executive" and you're well over $1000/hr.

[Kevin R Brown]

Sorry Kevin, but that is flat out wrong. That's what's marketing is for - to stimulate demand for your product.

...So, wait: you believe that marketing magically creates new customers - that is, materializes new human beings - right out of the void?


How... interesting?

[maximara]

I doubt all McDonald's workers walk to work. Even if you're driving and not taking public transport there are parking and fuel expenses etc.

Unless the McDonald's is in a unusually place parking is free so that is hardly a "standard" expense. As for fuel some MLMs have you going from place to place as of their methodology (DS-max for example) so you use more fuel than if you go to a fixed location.

[Skeptic]

"Hey YOU! Want to earn as much as a minimum-wage part-time worker? Join our MLM!"

[maximara]

...So, wait: you believe that marketing magically creates new customers - that is, materializes new human beings - right out of the void?


How... interesting?

If you think that is interesting you should really read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Multi-level_marketing/Archive_2 as the comments by some of the MLM supporters must be read to be believed.

Also as pointed out there the Journal of the American Board of Sport Psychology (which the Sandbek's article originally appeared in) is "a peer reviewed journal devoted to disseminating scientific and popular research-based articles in an efficient and timely manner." So again, contrary to what Icerat claimed Sandbek's paper was academic.

Also the one question no MLM supported wanted to touch is why do scholarly review boards of business, anthropology, law, and psychology publications all feel that Taylor, Fitzpatrick, and even Vandruff are reliable to use as source material.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_1 was even more insane.

[icerat]

...So, wait: you believe that marketing magically creates new customers - that is, materializes new human beings - right out of the void?


How... interesting?

creating new customers = materializing new human beings??!?!?!?!?

Kevin, for your sake I'm going to hope you're just trolling ..... :covereyes

[icerat]

Also as pointed out there the Journal of the American Board of Sport Psychology (which the Sandbek's article originally appeared in) is "a peer reviewed journal devoted to disseminating scientific and popular research-based articles in an efficient and timely manner." So again, contrary to what Icerat claimed Sandbek's paper was academic.

I never claimed Sandbek's paper was not "academic", you're again just making stuff up, as usual.

[maximara]

I never claimed Sandbek's paper was not "academic",


YES YOU DID. In http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5594674&postcount=152 you stated "This article (http://www.americanboardofsportpsychology.org/Portals/24/BrainTypingSANDBEK.doc), which is not an academic paper..."

"This article" refers to Sandbek's "Brain Typing: The Pseudoscience of Cold Reading" article! You even italicized the claim. Worse if you really are Insider201283 then this fact was explained to you July 10 ,2009 as demonstrated in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Multi-level_marketing/Archive_2

[QUOTE=icerat;5602722]
you're again just making stuff up, as usual.

No it is you who is making up things as well as lying and I can PROVE it; in fact I just did just as I did with Cruz on wikipedia. You lose (again).

[icerat]

I never claimed Sandbek's paper was not "academic",


YES YOU DID. In http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5594674&postcount=152 you stated "This article (http://www.americanboardofsportpsychology.org/Portals/24/BrainTypingSANDBEK.doc), which is not an academic paper..."

Yes, my apologies, you are correct, I did say that. I should have checked first, I was confusing with the Cruz paper, which is "academic".

I stand by my assertion though - the Sandbek article is not an academic paper, which is clear to anybody who cares to read it. As the "editor's note" at the beginning of the document states, it is "first in a series of articles on critical thinking in Sport Psychology". It does not appear to have been published anywhere but as a word document on a website, certainly not in any peer-reviewed journals. Even in respected journals, similar types of articles are not "academic papers"

More to the point - even if it had been published in JAMA it does not support your claim for academic references supporting a "99% failure rate". As much as you keep trying to distract, that point remains. A paper in an unrelated field mentioning the non-reliable opinion of the likes of Taylor or Fitzpatick does not change it from being non-reliable opinion.

Show me an academic paper that presents evidence for a 99% failure rate.

You can't do it, they don't exist. Constant screeching I'm a liar for saying so doesn't change the fact this is true.

[maximara]

Yes, my apologies, you are correct, I did say that. I should have checked first, I was confusing with the Cruz paper, which is "academic".

The Cruz paper was demonstrated to be peer reviewed and therefor academic as well both here and at wikipedia.



I stand by my assertion though - the Sandbek article is not an academic paper...

Again Journal of the American Board of Sport Psychology is "a peer reviewed journal devoted to disseminating scientific and popular research-based articles in an efficient and timely manner" so your delusions don't matter.

Talk:Multi-level marketing/Archive 2 goes over those articles so there is no need to rehash them here.

Furthermore the following clearly denote MLMs as nothing more than legalized pyramid schemes:

Carroll, Robert Todd (2003). The Skeptic's Dictionary: A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 235–36. ISBN 0471272426. (this is the BOOK not the web sites)

Coenen, Tracy (2009). Expert Fraud Investigation: A Step-by-Step Guide. Wiley. pp. 168. ISBN 0470387963.

Salinger (Editor), Lawrence M. (2005). Encyclopedia of White-Collar & Corporate Crime. Volume 2. Sage Publishing. pp. 880. ISBN 0761930043.

Face it the realible sources and peer reviewed publications are against you. This is reality, deal with it.

[icerat]

The Cruz paper was demonstrated to be peer reviewed and therefor academic as well both here and at wikipedia.

Which is pretty much what I just said. It's still poor quality, as evidenced by clear errors which even you have acknowledged

Again Journal of the American Board of Sport Psychology is "a peer reviewed journal devoted to disseminating scientific and popular research-based articles in an efficient and timely manner" so your delusions don't matter.

The article does not appear to have been published in the journal. Even then you seem to be unaware that journals also publish non-peer reviewed articles and commentary.

Face it the realible sources and peer reviewed publications are against you. This is reality, deal with it.

Let's say I accept your claims about these books/articles (which for most of them, I don't). Are you saying a handful of articles trump not only a multitude of other peer-reviewed and otherwise reliable sources, but also the actual legal system(s) which get to define this stuff?

Talk about cherry-picking! :rolleyes:

Do I really have to start listing the literally hundreds of reliable sources referring to legitimate MLMs as a legitimate business model? Really?

[icerat]

But funny how you completely ignored what the issue under dispute was about, so let's try again. Stop dodging and -

show me an academic paper that presents evidence for your claim of a 99% failure rate.

[NewtonTrino]

Do I really have to start listing the literally hundreds of reliable sources referring to legitimate MLMs as a legitimate business model? Really?

This is a logical fallacy. Everyone believes in Jesus as well, does that make christianity true?

Bottom line is that some MLM's are legal even though they are pyramid schemes. Legality doesn't and shouldn't convey any confidence in a business model. For anyone who believes in liberty there are plenty of things which are and will be legal that aren't a good idea.

[icerat]

This is a logical fallacy. Everyone believes in Jesus as well, does that make christianity true?

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!

You're a piece of work NewtonTrino. Maximara is the one who thinks that because SOME people say something that makes it true, but not a peep out of you. I point out that MANY people say something else, without any actual claim attached, and you leap on me claiming a logical fallacy.

Bottom line is that some MLM's are legal even though they are pyramid schemes.

Bottom line is that is a contradiction.

United States: FTC explicity states "pyramid schemes are illegal" (http://www.google.com/search?q=site:ftc.gov+%22pyramid+schemes+are+illeg al%22)

Canada; Royal Canadian Mounted Police state "pyramid schemes are illegal" (http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/ns/prog_services/financial_crime-infractions_commerciales/types-eng.htm)

Australia: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission states "pyramid schemes are illegal" (http://www.scamwatch.gov.au/content/index.phtml/tag/PyramidSchemes)

Switzerland: Swiss government says "pyramid schemes are illegal" (http://www.dfae.admin.ch/eda/en/home/reps/asia/vsgp/embsin/econs/comm.encoded-Show%3D1&print%3D1.html)

European Union: EU says "operating or promoting a pyramid schemes is banned" (http://europa.eu/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.getfile=gf&doc=MEMO/03/135%7C0%7CRAPID&lg=EN&type=PDF)

Any particular country you'd like me to check?

Yet Newton Trino, who leaps on a supposed "appeal to popularity" fallacy, would have us instead wrap our heads around this little scenario -

- all pyramid schemes are illegal (all A are B)
- some pyramid schemes are not illegal (some A are not B)

:cool:

[NewtonTrino]

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!

You're a piece of work NewtonTrino. Maximara is the one who thinks that because SOME people say something that makes it true, but not a peep out of you. I point out that MANY people say something else, without any actual claim attached, and you leap on me claiming a logical fallacy.


Those aren't even remotely comparable situations


Bottom line is that is a contradiction.

United States: FTC explicity states "pyramid schemes are illegal" (http://www.google.com/search?q=site:ftc.gov+%22pyramid+schemes+are+illeg al%22)

Canada; Royal Canadian Mounted Police state "pyramid schemes are illegal" (http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/ns/prog_services/financial_crime-infractions_commerciales/types-eng.htm)

Australia: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission states "pyramid schemes are illegal" (http://www.scamwatch.gov.au/content/index.phtml/tag/PyramidSchemes)

Switzerland: Swiss government says "pyramid schemes are illegal" (http://www.dfae.admin.ch/eda/en/home/reps/asia/vsgp/embsin/econs/comm.encoded-Show%3D1&print%3D1.html)

European Union: EU says "operating or promoting a pyramid schemes is banned" (http://europa.eu/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.getfile=gf&doc=MEMO/03/135%7C0%7CRAPID&lg=EN&type=PDF)

Any particular country you'd like me to check?

Yet Newton Trino, who leaps on a supposed "appeal to popularity" fallacy, would have us instead wrap our heads around this little scenario -

- all pyramid schemes are illegal (all A are B)
- some pyramid schemes are not illegal (some A are not B)

:cool:

I never said all pyramid schemes are illegal. I've said that I don't think they should be illegal because I believe in liberty.

I've also said amway is clearly legal and that it's still a pyramid scheme. I'm not letting "the government" of any country define pyramid scheme using law. What definition the government uses for legal purposes simply has no bearing on reality.

Just to be absolutely clear there is no relationship between something being legal and it being a good idea. Just as there is no clear relationship between something being illegal and it being a bad idea.

So amway is a pyramid scheme AND it's legal. There is no contradiction there at all.

[maximara]

Just to be absolutely clear there is no relationship between something being legal and it being a good idea. Just as there is no clear relationship between something being illegal and it being a bad idea.

So amway is a pyramid scheme AND it's legal. There is no contradiction there at all.

Right. Slavery was once legal but I would think most people would say that slavery is a bad thing.

Conversely unless you have been under a rock I think everyone knows the mess Prohibition made in the US.

[maximara]

Yet Newton Trino, who leaps on a supposed "appeal to popularity" fallacy, would have us instead wrap our heads around this little scenario -

- all pyramid schemes are illegal (all A are B)
- some pyramid schemes are not illegal (some A are not B)

This assumes the first point is true which it is not. All the following call all MLMs pyramid schemes regardless of their legality. Deal with it:


Carroll, Robert Todd (2003). The Skeptic's Dictionary: A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions. Wiley. pp. 235. ISBN 0471272426.

Coenen, Tracy (2009). Expert Fraud Investigation: A Step-by-Step Guide. Wiley. pp. 168. ISBN 0470387963.

Ogunjobi, Timi (2008). SCAMS - and how to protect yourself from them. Tee Publishing. pp. 13-19.

Salinger (Editor), Lawrence M. (2005). Encyclopedia of White-Collar & Corporate Crime. 2. Sage Publishing. pp. 880. ISBN 0761930043.

[icerat]

I never said all pyramid schemes are illegal. I've said that I don't think they should be illegal because I believe in liberty.

No, you don't. That's the point. Pretty much every government in the world says all pyramid schemes are illegal, you say they're not.

So amway is a pyramid scheme AND it's legal. There is no contradiction there at all.

Clearly there is.

This assumes the first point is true which it is not. All the following call all MLMs pyramid schemes regardless of their legality. Deal with it:

Which just goes to show they're not reliable sources. Or are you claiming all the OFFICIAL sources I gave above are wrong?

We remain with the following facts -

** multiple incontrovertible official sources state all pyramid schemes are illegal
** maximara and newton trino and some other sources says some pyramid schemes are not illegal
(says maximara and newton trino)

Hmmm .... decisions, decisions, who to believe when deciding on matters of law? The governments and official bodies who decide and enforce them, or a couple of folk on the 'net and a handful of minor references ....
:cool:

[maximara]

No, you don't. That's the point. Pretty much every government in the world says all pyramid schemes are illegal, you say they're not.

Given that the laws in some localities had to be changed so that MLMs didn't fall under the old pyramid schemes statues that would be an example of legalizing a pyramid scheme because under the old laws the MLM was a pyramid scheme.

[icerat]

Given that the laws in some localities had to be changed so that MLMs didn't fall under the old pyramid schemes statues that would be an example of legalizing a pyramid scheme because under the old laws the MLM was a pyramid scheme.

so what your saying is your sources are just outdated, even though they were all published decades after FTC vs Amway .... :cool:

[icerat]

oh, and still waiting ....

show me an academic paper that presents evidence for your claim of a 99% failure rate.

come on now, don't be shy. You went on a multiple post rant calling me a liar because I said these references don't exist, yet STILL you fail to produce them!

Why is that .....

[NewtonTrino]

No, you don't. That's the point. Pretty much every government in the world says all pyramid schemes are illegal, you say they're not.



Clearly there is.



Which just goes to show they're not reliable sources. Or are you claiming all the OFFICIAL sources I gave above are wrong?

We remain with the following facts -

** multiple incontrovertible official sources state all pyramid schemes are illegal
** maximara and newton trino and some other sources says some pyramid schemes are not illegal
(says maximara and newton trino)

Hmmm .... decisions, decisions, who to believe when deciding on matters of law? The governments and official bodies who decide and enforce them, or a couple of folk on the 'net and a handful of minor references ....
:cool:

I'm not even going to bother responding to this drivel. Seriously this is your argument?

[NewtonTrino]

oh, and still waiting ....

show me an academic paper that presents evidence for your claim of a 99% failure rate.

come on now, don't be shy. You went on a multiple post rant calling me a liar because I said these references don't exist, yet STILL you fail to produce them!

Why is that .....

Come back when you've made more than a minimum wage mcdonalds worker.

Then you can be the proof that it works! Of course you'll also have to prove that everyone below you isn't losing money hand over first.

Success != building a network of fools and stealing their money one tape at a time.

[icerat]

still waiting ....

show me an academic paper that presents evidence for the claim of a 99% failure rate.

[NewtonTrino]

Awesome, I guess not having this paper validates MLM.

Or maybe the burden of proof lies elsewhere?

[icerat]

I guess that means you can't back up your claims then :cool:

[maximara]

Again Journal of the American Board of Sport Psychology is "a peer reviewed journal devoted to disseminating scientific and popular research-based articles in an efficient and timely manner" so your delusions don't matter.

The article does not appear to have been published in the journal.

More unresearched drivel from icerat. Go to The Journal of the American Board of Sport Psychology: Public Section (http://www.americanboardofsportpsychology.org/JournalofABSP/JABSPNewsInfoLibrary/tabid/585/Default.aspx).

"RATINGS:

* for the researcher and practitioner (more technical/scientific)PEER-REVIEWED

** for coaches and athletes (research-based but less technical/more applied)

[...]

ARTICLES ETC. (see Library below for Download)

POSITION PAPER #1 on BRAIN TYPING

1. [*, **] Pseudoscience of Brain Typing by Terry Sandbek, Ph.D.HIGHLY RECOMMENDED article on Critical Thinking in Sport Psychology
POSITION PAPER #1 on BRAIN TYPING [*, **] Pseudoscience of Brain Typing by Terry Sandbek, Ph.D.HIGHLY RECOMMENDED article on Critical Thinking in Sport Psychology"

Clearly part of the online Journal and clearly marked as peer reviewed.

Also if Icerat is Insider201283 then as this list of "Potential references re Network Marketing" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Insider201283/Direct_Selling_-_Network_Marketing_-_MLM_Scholarly_Resources) shows he doesn't handle the truth very well as it still lists Robert Kiyosaki not once but twice even though that source was so raked over the coals that all was left was ash.

As pointed out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Multi-level_marketing/Archive_2 Kiyosaki has been shown to be a totally untrustworthy source as he has been shown to give advice that is not only bad but according to John T Reed down right illegal according to John T Reed down right illegal (http://www.johntreed.com/Kiyosaki.html).

When some presents a man who admits to using his cat as a business partner to get out of contracts as a possible reliable source :jaw-dropp you have to wonder just where in the heavens and Earth they left their common sense and their integrity.

[maximara]

I guess that means you can't back up your claims then :cool:

Actually if icerat is Insider201283 as he claimed it is him who couldn't prove that the many peer reviewed papers that used Taylor, Fitzpatrick, and even Vandruff as reference were wrong. :eye-poppi

In fact if you go over Insider201283's arguments to keeping Taylor, Fitzpatrick, and Vandruff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Multi-level_marketing/Archive_2) out of the MLM article you see what can only be described as desperation. :D

Also if icerat is Insider201283 then he is a full blown hypocrite in that there he practically demanded the editors accept a Wiley publication that supports MLM but here happily ignore two Wiley publications (one who predates the Dr. Joe Rubino book presented) that flat out state the MLMs are nothing more than legalized pyramid schemes. A claim I might add backed up by a publication by no less than SAGE. :jaw-dropp

I would like to ask where are the peer reviewed publications that directly refute the papers that use Taylor, Fitzpatrick, and Vandruff ? I would say they likely don't exist for if they did they would have been presented in wikipedia talk page. :D

[icerat]

More unresearched drivel from icerat.

Oh well ... it's an "online journal" then, with zero impact and a reaallll professional, academic like home page:rolleyes:

Of course, STILL IRRELEVANT

When some presents a man who admits to using his cat as a business partner to get out of contracts as a possible reliable source :jaw-dropp you have to wonder just where in the heavens and Earth they left their common sense and their integrity.

And you continue to outright lie. Where have I pushed for Kiyosaki to be used as a Wikipedia source? A sandbox article on my user page does nothing of the sort. Some articles I list purely so I can try and check *their* sources to see if there's any good ones.

Still, pretty amazing that you think Kioysaki's opinion should be dismissed because .... of someone else's opinion!!! :rolleyes:

FitzPatrick, Taylor et.al from PyramidSchemeAlert were posted on WP:RS for discussion and rejected as reliable sources by independent third parties.

Yet you want them to be considered anyway, somewho making me the villain, and conveniently ignoring the fact FitzPatrick has been shown to outright lie (http://www.thetruthaboutamway.com/myth-70-retail-sales-rule/) and was practically laughed out of court as an "expert" by a California judge (http://www.thetruthaboutamway.com/pokorny-and-blenn-vs-quixtar-etal-update-arbitration-denied/) and Taylor is blatantly dishonest in his use of statistics (http://www.thetruthaboutamway.com/amway-success-what-are-your-odds/)

So I ask AGAIN -

show me an academic paper that presents evidence for your claim of a 99% failure rate.

[NewtonTrino]

I actually think the failure rate is a solid 100%. I guess it depends on how you define success. Even if you manage to build a large enough pyramid underneath you to remain profitable you aren't any more successful than Bernie Madoff IMHO.

[maximara]

I actually think the failure rate is a solid 100%. I guess it depends on how you define success. Even if you manage to build a large enough pyramid underneath you to remain profitable you aren't any more successful than Bernie Madoff IMHO.

The Bernie Madoff case is prime example of how the agencies designed to protect people failed. The SEC seems to have been out to lunch for near a decade despite being given indications that something was wrong.

The one good thing is the case had embarrassed the SEC enough to look into some other situations more closely. The bad thing is there may be many more of these thngs out there ready to blow up in everyone's face.

[icerat]

Still waiting maximara .... now come on ... you ranted and practically screamed in my face I was a horrible liar for claiming they didn't exist ... but I'm still waiting ....

show me an academic paper that presents evidence for your claim of a 99% failure rate.
:cool:

[Fnord]

Icerat, have you made any money through sales of Amway products that would not have otherwise occurred were it not for this thread?

If so, then what percentage of those earnings have you turned over to JREF as due compensation for the use of their website to advertise your products?

If not, then why waste any more of your time?

[icerat]

If not, then why waste any more of your time?

Why are you on "wasting" time on this site Fnord? Are you suggesting people should only spend time on JREF forums if they have a profit motive?

Frankly I think that's a pretty said view of the world ....:(

[icerat]

Come to think of it, why didn't you address similar questions to Newton Trino and Maximara?

[Fnord]

Why are you on "wasting" time on this site Fnord? Are you suggesting people should only spend time on JREF forums if they have a profit motive?

Frankly I think that's a pretty said view of the world ....:(

Sales Tactic #3: When you can't refute the question, attack the questioner.

Come to think of it, why didn't you address similar questions to Newton Trino and Maximara?

Sales Tactic #7: When all else fails, re-direct the questions elsewhere.

[NewtonTrino]

I come here because I look to goof off.

Anyway isn't this entire thread merely a semantic game? We mostly agree on the facts, we just come to different conclusions. Of course the skeptical side isn't listening to amway brainwashing propaganda garbage and so are able to come to the correct decision.

[maximara]

Still waiting maximara .... now come on ... you ranted and practically screamed in my face I was a horrible liar for claiming they didn't exist ... but I'm still waiting ....

show me an academic paper that presents evidence for your claim of a 99% failure rate.
:cool:

The articles from Western Journal of Communication, American Board of Sport Psychology, SA Mercantile Law Journal, Journal of Consumer Marketing, and for System Dynamics conferences have been presented.

The problem is the minute you see Taylor, Fitzpatrick, and or Vandruf it is hat over the eyes, fingers in the ear, and go la la la time.

We are still waiting for the peer review articles that refute them.

[maximara]

I'm not even going to bother responding to this drivel. Seriously this is your argument?

If Icerat is Insider201283 this nonsense should come as no surprise. When confronted with the fact that papers like Cruz were peer reviewed Insider201283's response was basically ad hominem towards Cruz.

Insider201283's list of potential references was a total joke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Multi-level_marketing/Archive_2). Of the twelve presented only three were really useful as the rest were either self published, only tangentially related to the topic, or out of divisions about with little to nothing was know about their quality given.

When presented with proof that Random House and Three Rivers Press/Crown Publishing Group did do vanity books Insider201283 basically ignored the issue.

[maximara]

Come to think of it, why didn't you address similar questions to Newton Trino and Maximara?

Perhaps it is because he and I are not spewing stuff better suited to Humpy Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass.

[icerat]

The articles from Western Journal of Communication, American Board of Sport Psychology, SA Mercantile Law Journal, Journal of Consumer Marketing, and for System Dynamics conferences have been presented.

Not a single one of them presents evidence to support your claim

We are still waiting for the peer review articles that refute them.

There's a teapot in orbit around jupiter. Please provide me with peer reviewed articles refuting the claim

[icerat]

Sales Tactic #3: When you can't refute the question, attack the questioner.

How does one "refute" a question? Frankly I didn't realise you were serious with them. It seems you were, which is pretty damn bizarre.

So, no I've made no money from my presence on JREF. Idiotic question.

Why do I "waste my time"? Same reason everyone else is here - debating and discussing myths and misbeliefs. This particularly thread you'll note was correct to continue discussion on a podcast on MLM that had numerous inaccuracies in it.

Sales Tactic #7: When all else fails, re-direct the questions elsewhere.

What on earth are you babbling on about? You're on a forum were hundreds of people a day discuss multiple sides of an issue, primarily debunking myths. I do the same and I must have a profit motive?

Do you, maximara, and newton trino work for Proctor & Gamble? Is that why you're here spreading myths about the competition? :eek:

[NewtonTrino]

We spread truths so that people can avoid getting scammed. It's really that simple.

[icerat]

opinions are not always truths

[Skeptic]

True, true. But in the opinion that MLMs are a scam, they are.

[icerat]

in your opinion :cool:

[NewtonTrino]

You would admit that *some* amway groups have scammed IBO's in the past though right? Not to agree with that would really take some sophistry.

[icerat]

You would admit that *some* amway groups have scammed IBO's in the past though right? Not to agree with that would really take some sophistry.

I wrote a whole post a long time ago Amway is not a scam but you can still be scammed (http://www.thetruthaboutamway.com/amway-is-not-a-scam-but-you-can-still-be-scammed/)

[maximara]

The articles from Western Journal of Communication, American Board of Sport Psychology, SA Mercantile Law Journal, Journal of Consumer Marketing, and for System Dynamics conferences have been presented.

The problem is the minute you see Taylor, Fitzpatrick, and or Vandruf it is hat over the eyes, fingers in the ear, and go la la la time.

We are still waiting for the peer review articles that refute them.

Not a single one of them presents evidence to support your claim

It is really sad when people are so delusional they can't even read.

"The vast majority of MLM’s are recruiting MLM’s, in which participants must recruit aggressively to profit. Based on available data from the companies themselves, the loss rate for recruiting MLM’s is approximately 99.9%; i.e., 99.9% of participants lose money after subtracting all expenses, including purchases from the company." That is a direct quote from Cruz of the 2008 System Dynamics conference.

The Sandbek American Board of Sport Psychology article goes on for several paragraphs concluding "By its very nature, MLM is completely devoid of any scientific foundations."

The rest of Icerats claims is more of the same. I have seen Creationists more rational than this.

[maximara]

True, true. But in the opinion that MLMs are a scam, they are.

More to the point unlike the drivel Icerat has given us they are peer reviewed articles

[maximara]

And you continue to outright lie.

No I don't but you do if you are indeed Insider201283.

Where have I pushed for Kiyosaki to be used as a Wikipedia source?

"Having said that, I see now you're referring to the second Kiyosaki book, which is coauthored by Donald Trump. Do I really need to provide references for Trump as an expert on "business"? Though published by Kiyosaki's press, it clearly goes beyond "vanity publishing" and I don't think anyone seriously believes Trump and Kiyosaki couldn't have got another publisher if they wanted" --Insider201283 (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

FitzPatrick, Taylor et.al from PyramidSchemeAlert were posted on WP:RS for discussion and rejected as reliable sources by independent third parties.

Actually Arthur Rubin, TheEditor22, and myself were in agreement that FitzPatrick and Taylor were usable

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Multi-level_marketing/Archive_2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_1#When_does_a_section_become_long_enough_t hat_we_can_move_it_someplace_else.3F. The TheEditor22 say the same thing I did and it had been shown in the past Insider201283 had COI issues with Will_Beback (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Will_Beback) and Orange Mike made posts about it. Will Beback's 22:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Insider201283/Archive_2) comments was a total smack down of Insider201283's previous edits on specific MLMs but was part of the kind of nonsense we were seeing on the talk page.

The fact the references were not removed after that shows that the consensus was that Taylor, Fitzpatrick, at all were considered reliable.

The proof is all there.

[icerat]

No I don't but you do if you are indeed Insider201283.

As is the norm, I was referring to our conversation on this forum. I don't even remember that comment you cited from another website a long time ago! It appears I was talking more about Trump than Kiyosaki anyway.

Actually Arthur Rubin, TheEditor22, and myself were in agreement that FitzPatrick and Taylor were usable

So what (assuming it's true, I can't be bothered checking)? Lot's of people have opinions. PSA was posted on WP:RS Noticeboard and rejected.

The fact the references were not removed after that shows that the consensus was that Taylor, Fitzpatrick, at all were considered reliable.

No it shows I couldn't be bothered spending the time debating you about it. One day I might.

The proof is all there.

Indeed it is.

[NewtonTrino]

I really don't understand all the back and forth here. I see the burden of proof on those who claim it's a good business. If it's so great how come you can't come up with a few successful people to come and talk about it with us? A few directs and above who are willing to discuss the details of their business would suffice. What possible reason would these people have for not being honest about their experiences?

[maximara]

I really don't understand all the back and forth here. I see the burden of proof on those who claim it's a good business. If it's so great how come you can't come up with a few successful people to come and talk about it with us? A few directs and above who are willing to discuss the details of their business would suffice. What possible reason would these people have for not being honest about their experiences?

More to the point is why do so many peer reviewed articles use FitzPatrick and Taylor while despite repeated requests to Insider201283 no similar articles in support of Len Clements or other MLM supporters could be presented. That issues was never countered.

The fact is that Insider201283 had gotten read the riot act by Will Beback regarding MLM companies:

"You have identified that you are in a business relationship with the corporation Alticor/Amway/Quixtar, and that you are the proprietor of a large website devoted to defending them. That establishes your COI."
-Will Beback · † · 23:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The whining on how the people who oversee Wikipedia "seem to lack the knowledge of how Multi-level Marketing or Network Marketing works and thus often, almost instinctively, believe the same, false, myths these "critics" promote." failed to get the point that was raised later on the Multi-level marketing talk page--it is not understanding that counts but what could be shown by reliable source material. The critics were being used by peer reviewed material while counters to the claims of those critics in similar material was not produced.

[icerat]

More to the point is why do so many peer reviewed articles use FitzPatrick and Taylor while despite repeated requests to Insider201283 no similar articles in support of Len Clements or other MLM supporters could be presented. That issues was never countered.

So many? There's hardly any that quote FitzPatrick and Taylor! I can give *more* that quote Len Clements - but guess what, Clement's website shouldn't be used as a WP source either!

The fact is that Insider201283 had gotten read the riot act by Will Beback regarding MLM companies:

You seem to have missed the fact the Will Beback and I ended up in WP arbitration and the arbitrator essentially sided with me. Will and I have had no real issues since.

The critics were being used by peer reviewed material while counters to the claims of those critics in similar material was not produced.

I haven't spent much time or effort on the MLM article. Last I looked at it (last year I think) it required rewriting from the ground up. I'm avoiding it because I know from past experience that thanks to people like yourself, who cherrypick data and refuse to consider alternatives to their own obstinate beliefs, that it will likely also end up in arbitration or elsewhere to get rewritten in an encyclopediac, NPOV manner. It's an exhausting and time consuming exercise and frankly I'm not currently motivated to do it.

[icerat]

I really don't understand all the back and forth here. I see the burden of proof on those who claim it's a good business. If it's so great how come you can't come up with a few successful people to come and talk about it with us?

This thread was a direct result of a podcast that had many falsehoods on it. I addresses those claims. I would not invite someone else to this discussion because I believe it would be a waste of their time. Heck, I think it's a waste of my time, so why would I invite someone els?

A few directs and above who are willing to discuss the details of their business would suffice. What possible reason would these people have for not being honest about their experiences?

Why don't you got to AmwayTalk and ask? We've even had a Crown posting there. There's been at least 2 Diamonds I know of, and numerous silvers and above.

They don't spend that much time there, they know it's not particularly productive use of their time. Neither is me spending time here, but I didn't join the JREF forums (or JREF for that matter) to discuss MLM.

[NewtonTrino]

This thread was a direct result of a podcast that had many falsehoods on it. I addresses those claims. I would not invite someone else to this discussion because I believe it would be a waste of their time. Heck, I think it's a waste of my time, so why would I invite someone els?


Good point.


Why don't you got to AmwayTalk and ask? We've even had a Crown posting there. There's been at least 2 Diamonds I know of, and numerous silvers and above.

They don't spend that much time there, they know it's not particularly productive use of their time. Neither is me spending time here, but I didn't join the JREF forums (or JREF for that matter) to discuss MLM.

It's not all about me. I have offline access to diamonds, directs etc. It would be to convince all of the skeptics here.

Of course there is no way a diamond is going to be open about their business. Their downline might find out where the money comes from...

[icerat]

Of course there is no way a diamond is going to be open about their business. Their downline might find out where the money comes from...

I've posted this before, but here it is again. In the "system" I operate with, in North America in 2007, here's the average "system" incomes (Tools, Events and Speaker Fees) -

Diamond and above <$23,000/yr
Emerald <$7000/yr

This is from an authoritative source. Now I'm not in anyway claiming all systems have similar numbers, I know they don't (or at least didn't) and it's an average, so some are much higher but just as clearly when you compare to the average Diamond income from Amway (>$150,000/yr) it's not exactly the system" where "the money comes from" is it?

[NewtonTrino]

I've posted this before, but here it is again. In the "system" I operate with, in North America in 2007, here's the average "system" incomes (Tools, Events and Speaker Fees) -

Diamond and above <$23,000/yr
Emerald <$7000/yr

This is from an authoritative source. Now I'm not in anyway claiming all systems have similar numbers, I know they don't (or at least didn't) and it's an average, so some are much higher but just as clearly when you compare to the average Diamond income from Amway (>$150,000/yr) it's not exactly the system" where "the money comes from" is it?

It's fine that you believe this "authoritative" source but I don't. For me to believe this I would need to see a statistically valid sample of independently verifiable incomes.

Why is it so hard to believe that you are being lied to about where the money goes?

[icerat]

It's fine that you believe this "authoritative" source but I don't. For me to believe this I would need to see a statistically valid sample of independently verifiable incomes.

Why is it so hard to believe that you are being lied to about where the money goes?

(1) Because this information comes from a good friend who is not an IBO but has access to the data
(2) Because this information is consistent with statistics on "tool sales" within these size businesses with the organisation
(3) Because this information is consistent with statistics on "tool sales" within my own Amway business
(4) Because this information is consistent with information received from friends who have reached those levels, and whom I knew *before* they or I became IBOs
(5) Because this information is consistent with tool rebate information I have received from yet another source
(6) Because this information is consistent with a spreadsheet of tool rebate payments I acquired from yet another source

There is no inconsistency in the information obtained from a variety of different first hand sources, many of whom don't know each other.

And what do we know about "the system" you were connected to, compared to the one I work with -

(1) sells tools at higher prices (or did)
(2) sells more tools to IBOs, thus higher tool income per "pin"
(3) has fewer expenses, thus more overall profit
(4) shares the profit amongst fewer people, thus more per person profit

What I honestly don't get is how someone as obviously intelligent as you can be so damn obstinate and refuse to even consider that perhaps , just maybe, no grand conspiracy is needed, perhaps an organisation you have ZERO experience with actually does operate differently to the one you have experience with.