Amway TV ad

[icerat]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Care to actually point some out?

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

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

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

 

[firecoins]

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

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

 

[Bob Klase]

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

Yes, clearly that's never happened to me.

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

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

Care to actually point some out?

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

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

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

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

 

[icerat]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[icerat]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Almo]

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

Not relevant. Cite homeopathy as an example.

Linda

Bob's response to a poor analogy:

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

icerat defends placebo:

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

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

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

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

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

 

[fls]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You need to get out more.

There is an example here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am not persuaded that the results will be useful.

Linda

 

[icerat]

icerat defends placebo

So do you believe "placebo effect" means "no effect"? If so I think you need to do a little remedial reading.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear oh dear.

 

[Bob Klase]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[icerat]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You need to get out more.

There is an example here.

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

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

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

www.nutrilite.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One potential solution - nutrient supplementation, something even the AMA started suggesting back in 2002

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am not persuaded that the results will be useful.

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

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

Oh dear.

 

[icerat]

Check with a few businesses.

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

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

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

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

Oh, there you go doing it explictly! Cashiers!

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

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

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

Got any data to back that up?

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

Got any data to back that up?

 

[Bob Klase]

Check with a few businesses.

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

I suggest you find a more credible source.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Got any data to back that up?

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

Got any data to back that up?

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

 

[icerat]

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

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

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

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

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

I've barely said anything about my business.

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

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

 

[icerat]

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

 

[Bob Klase]

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

What you actually did say was:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've barely said anything about my business.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[icerat]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[NewtonTrino]

Icerat,

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

 

[icerat]

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

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

 

[Psiload]

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

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

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

 

[fls]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wish that were true.

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

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

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

www.nutrilite.com

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

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

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

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

Evidence.

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

Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

Same as above.

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

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

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

Research also shows otherwise.

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

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

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

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

I agree.

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

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

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

I agree.

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

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

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

You will need to provide evidence.

One potential solution - nutrient supplementation, something even the AMA started suggesting back in 2002

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will address the rest later.

Linda