I would like to set the animosity aside and ask what you think Amway (the corporation) might do to keep the networks running ethically. Is it even possible while still allowing IBOs to keep the "independent" bit?
First of all is actually giving a damn. Amway didn't particularly until one group was having some success, and attracting others to join them, building with a method that Amway's own lawyers said was at risk of being judged a pyramid. Throw in a series of lawsuits and ethical field leaders complaining about the widespread internet "negative" generated by only a relatively small part of Amway, and they finally decided something needed to be done.
This required a significant change of culture, as right from 1959 it's been based around offering people "independence". By definition, more corporate oversight means less independence. Of no small concern is that it can also put "independent contractor" status at risk (Prof Nicole Biggart's book
Charismatic Capitalism talks about the history behind this)
With Amway this all coincided with a change of management, with Doug DeVos taking over from Dick DeVos.
Herbalife is going through much the same type of growing pains thanks to Ackman's activism. I disagree with his essential thesis, but he
has forced improvements.
I'm asking because the Amway you experience and describe, while not my cup of tea, has informed participants acting ethically. So is it possible to remove the tainted parts and keep the rest? What would Amway have to do?
Amway took a very large step by effectively kicking out nearly a third of their North American business. When Rich DeVos tried to take similar action back in the 1980s it almost killed the company, as the "bad eggs" controlled a very large part of the company. A couple of the major distributor groups effectively blackmailed the corporation, getting their members to withhold all ordering for a couple of months. DeVos had little choice but to back down. Today North America, and these organisations, were a relatively small portion of Amway's global business, so they company could afford to take the hit, and did so. They also linked the very substantial non-contractual bonuses and incentives to changes in behaviour under a program called Accreditation+. You could continue your "independent" ways if you wished, but you'd no longer be eligible for bonuses worth millions.
It has improved things
dramatically, but like changing the culture in any organisation it really takes a generational change, so you still have "old style" stuff going on and you'll always have people trying the "quick fix", but far far less than before.
Since implementation of accreditation+ there has been a dramatic decrease in "horror stories" and complaints on the 'net. Still happen occasionally of course, but
new reports are really not very common at all today. Indeed all the ones I've tracked the last few years seem to come from just one organisation.
The implication being that anyone who doesn't experience that isn't treating it as a business. No true Scotsman fallacy.
Not implied and doesn't follow, not least because there are plenty of examples of the "true Scotsman"
Products (Roughly 600/month - 200 in sales) 400x12 = 4800
This comes back to what we were talking about before -
products bought for personal use are not a business expense. If you feel they are, and you're buying to reach some kind of implied "quota" then you're potentially operating a pyramid scheme.
If you are claiming products purchased for personal use as an expense on your tax declarations, you are breaking the law. Technically they are handled in accounting as a
credit.
In our system we teach that to succeed in building a network you need to find at least 25 products you would use personally
because you want them. If you can't find 25 you think are good value and would promote to others, then you should look for another business opportunity.
