Amway TV ad

[icerat]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[icerat]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not sure of your point here?

Research also shows otherwise.

evidence?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Ferguson]

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

Actually? In excess of 95%?

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

 

[icerat]

Actually? In excess of 95%?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[icerat]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Almo]

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

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

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

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

 

[fls]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not sure of your point here?

I think that looking at where people are willing to place their resources (i.e. what kinds of products they buy) indicates that people are interested in providing economic incentives for improving the nutritional quality of their food, which could be applied to modern farming practices.

evidence?

You already made reference to increased mineral content and beta-carotene.

No, I mustn't have explained well - that is in fact part of the problem.

Then I must ask that you tell me what kind of information you are referring to that shows that healthy food is much higher in calories than unhealthy food for equivalent nutrient benefits. Because otherwise that makes no sense and seems to contradict everything that nutritionists recommend.

I disagree that it's "easy" - if it was, why do so few people do so?

This is a whole topic in its own right. But promoting the idea that taking a quick fix pill is a sufficient substitute is part of the problem.

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

Regardless of its significance, it still does not support the use of Nutrilite products. It specifically supports the use of generic, store-brand, cheap multi-vitamins, rather than expensive branded vitamins or of fortifying specific foods with specific nutrients. It does not support using any of the products offered by Nutrilite and other supplement companies.

I disagree with the latter assertion, though agree their are weaknesses.

But that's the problem right there. Saying that shows that you are obviously unfamiliar with the significance of using evidence-based recommendations and that you are unfamiliar with what is meant by scientific evidence. And this reflects the information that is fed to you and other consumers by the producers of these products.

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

You are the one who just pointed to an opinion piece recommending the use of generic, cheap multivitamins or fortified foods as somehow supporting the use of a vast array of expensive, branded, inadequately tested and regulated dietary supplements.

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

A balanced diet provides an adequate source of nutrients. Some people in the US do not eat a diet that provides an adequate source of nutrients. There is no evidence that "supplementing" an adequate diet provides additional benefit. If you eat a diet that does not provide an adequate source of nutrients, there is evidence that adding some vitamins and minerals to your intake can provide you with an adequate source of nutrients - that is, you are attempting to supply essential nutrients that would otherwise be missing by "substituting" a dietary source with a pharmaceutical source. The research showing that benefit is based on specific vitamin preparations. If you are making a claim that your dried cherries are equivalent to a vitamin C pill (with respect to using the results from vitamin C studies as evidence for the use of your dried cherry pills), all your supplements represent are very expensive substitutes, less regulated as to quality and consistency, for generic, cheap, already available, regulated as to quality and consistency, vitamin pills.

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

Ah, so now it's food instead of a drug. Surely we can take into account the pleasure of enjoying a variety of tastes and textures, as well as the social benefits of preparing and consuming food in groups into consideration when mulling over the idea of converting our eating experience to that of taking pills?

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

What do you think dietary recommendations are based on?

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

So now you are providing people with incredibly expensive food?

Funnily enough, Cheerios recently got an FDA warning because they were making claims they might help reduce cholestorel.

No they didn't. They got a warning for suggesting that it may treat hypercholesterolemia.

The high fibre version I believe. The FDA said this made it a drug claim. Even if General Mills went and did a clinical study proving Cheerios lowered cholestorel, I believe this still wouldn't change the FDA position, Cheerios would just become a controlled pharmaceutical.

Because it would be making a pharmaceutical claim. It is okay for Cheerios to say that it reduces the risk of heart disease by lowering cholesterol, which is not a claim about treating hypercholesterolemia.

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

Are you serious? If a decent study was published showing that Cheerios treated hypercholesterolemia, the only restriction would be that Cheerios does not use it to make a claim. The information can still be widely disseminated to Cheerios advantage. There is a reason that St. Johns Wort and Echinacea are big sellers among the herbals, even though they do not make claims to treat disease. That is because studies showing that they do treat disease have been widely publicized and are acting to their advantage.

Linda

 

[fls]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's not having a deleterious effect. I'm saying that you haven't demonstrated that by packaging it in that form you have added any value to the product. You have either created a very expensive vitamin pill or a very expensive piece of food. Either way, it's a waste of resources for no added value.

Linda

 

[fls]

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

'Perceived health status' correlates with actual health outcomes like mortality and morbidity. If people felt healthy regardless of whether or not they were deathly ill, or whether or not they were in chronic pain, or whether or not they were able to function with activities of daily living, or whether or not they were plagued with frequent cold sores, wouldn't feeling healthy be meaningless? Isn't it actually more important to feel healthy because you are healthy than it is feel healthy regardless of whether or not you are actually healthy?

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

However, studies don't show that nutrient status can be improved by using "expensive and poorly regulated as to quality and consistency" supplements vs. plain old vitamin pills.

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

Oh dear.

I think it's worthwhile looking at anything that may lead to improved health outcomes. You have yet to provide any evidence that following the path of "making vitamins or food much more expensive" is likely to be fruitful compared to "promoting a balanced diet with the judicious use of vitamin and mineral pills or fortified foods plus regular physical activity". I like to make good use of my resources.

Linda

 

[Fireshadow]

Having read this thread and having some (admittedly limited) experience with Quixtar, I'm going to throw my 2 cents in. I do not like Quixtar for the following reasons:

Cost to benefit ratio is not great enough for people like me to succeed. In order to succeed in Quixtar, you have to have the resources to lay out the initial investment in product and time required for effective marketing of the products. This, coupled with the strong encouragement to purchase and use a product for which you can get an equivalent for half (or less) of the cost at a retail location, serves to be a detriment to people who are looking to the business as a way to get out of their wage-slave rut.

Any claims that recruiting people is a net cost against you is bunk. This is because, as was outlined in the demonstration given to me, you make money based on what you sell, and what your down-line sells. If you sell something to your downline, you get the commission for that sale. If that downline then sells the same product, you get a percentage of their commission for that sale, and so on down the line. If it's not sold further, no net loss to you. Thus, the more people you have in your line, the more money you make. Very simple, and directly contradictory to the claim that it costs to have people under you (outside of the initial costs involved in demonstrations/recruitment).

Also, on the same theme as my first point--if you are a minimum wage earner, or even just living paycheck to paycheck, the time involved in getting the business up and running is not necessarily an investment most people will be willing or able to make. The sheer scope of getting off the ground is overwhelming in many instances.

But the biggest red flag to me (and this may have simply been my experience due to my particular upline) was that during the pitch, despite the fact that the person who actually drove our involvement with the business was my wife, he directed all questions at me. I don't know if it's inherent in the business structure, but the impression that I got the entire time I was talking with him, and with what I read afterward, was that the business is sexist. The treatment received by our direct upline (the person who recruited us) after we left the business, contributed to that impression. I may be wrong, and this is solely my experience, but the whole thing reminded me of indoctrination in any number of churches/cults/what-have-you.

 

[Furcifer]

I may be wrong, and this is solely my experience, but the whole thing reminded me of indoctrination in any number of churches/cults/what-have-you.

This deserves a thread of its own. What was it like being indoctrinated into a cult and which cult? (or was it a church?) How did you become involved in a cult in the first place? I've never talked with anybody in a "cult", although some of the Mormon kids going door to door have a look in their eyes that scream "cultist". I have met several Amway salesmen, but they never seemed "cultish", just enthuisiastic and overly optimistic. Of course they aren't the "higher-ups" you have experience with. I can't say I've ever been in the presence of a cult leader so I don't have any reference to draw from. Perhaps you could expand further on your dealings with cult leaders and your indoctrination process so we can get a better idea.

 

[Fireshadow]

This deserves a thread of its own. What was it like being indoctrinated into a cult and which cult? (or was it a church?) How did you become involved in a cult in the first place? I've never talked with anybody in a "cult", although some of the Mormon kids going door to door have a look in their eyes that scream "cultist". I have met several Amway salesmen, but they never seemed "cultish", just enthuisiastic and overly optimistic. Of course they aren't the "higher-ups" you have experience with. I can't say I've ever been in the presence of a cult leader so I don't have any reference to draw from. Perhaps you could expand further on your dealings with cult leaders and your indoctrination process so we can get a better idea.

I can't really talk about those. They'll hunt me down if I spill any of the secrets. Besides, I was blinded by the sheer charisma of the cult leaders. I'm better now, though.

 

[Ferguson]

I would seconds Fireshadow's "cult-like" assessment, not to paint with too broad a brush, but my Quixtar-roommate was constantly trying to convince me to join, when I would have a friend or girlfriend over, seldom would Quixtar go unmentioned by him, and he was always dressing up in suits and sunglasses to go to "business meeting."
This entire time I had a first-hand view of his lack of sales (the boxes of energy drinks and supplements which sat in our dorm), he had to pay a yearly membership fee, while him and his girlfriend were always listening to "propaganda" tapes, and telling me how in 2-5 years they'd own their own home.
At the time I worked for the university as a Security Guard, and was paid $9/hr for playing around on my laptop overnight "guarding" various university buildings and equipment, it was a fun job because of the "assignments," (i.e. a group of us would be assigned to protect ESPN or MTVU crews/personnel, or to "escort" the football team from point A to point B) despite all of that I complained about my job at length to him (as is human-nature, I think), while he would always push Quixtar on me, despite me receiving $200-300 paychecks every two weeks, while he seemed to be paying for the privilege of being a Quixtar IBO or APO or whatever they're called (I forget).

I wouldn't go as far as to say it IS a cult, but I think "cult-like" is an accurate description. His proselytizing about the future rewards for spending money now, and constant big-shot-meetings just reeked of Scientology-style indoctrination to me.

That said, I'm not saying Quixtar/Amway is more evil than any other "get rich" plan you see on late night TV (and there are dozens if not hundreds), I'm just pointing out that it seems to be cut from the same cloth of promising big to the "sheep" so the "cult-leaders" can rake in profit.

(ETA: Disclaimer: I've never been in a cult. My "cult" knowledge is based on TV, news, and liveleaks of Scientology info.)

 

[Furcifer]

Yeah, I had a feeling "cult like" may be a little overboard. Just about anyone in a club or group can get a little crazy about it. Same thing goes for hobbyists IMHO.

From what I've seen of Amway its a little from column A and a little from column B. Same thing goes with Mary Kay. And I wouldn't just pin this on MLM alone, franchises in general operate in the same "Welcome to the family, now you're one of us" kind of way.

I'm not so sure about Amway, but Mary Kay operates, from what I understand as an MLM. And an MLM is just a fancy legal name for a pyramid scheme. But they make no outrageous claims and seem to fullfill their end of the bargain if you do what you're supposed to. I don't see any harm in it. Like anything if you approach it in the right way you can make a few bucks. (If you do the math I think those pink caddy's are making 100K a year and get about 3K a month in pension when they retire)

To be honest I'd be more concerned if a friend approached me with the idea of opening a restaurant than selling Amway. I think there's more to lose and a better chance of failure doing that than Amway. In either case I'd just give them the facts and throw them a few bucks when I could and hope for the best.

 

[Ferguson]

Yeah, I had a feeling "cult like" may be a little overboard. Just about anyone in a club or group can get a little crazy about it. Same thing goes for hobbyists IMHO.

From what I've seen of Amway its a little from column A and a little from column B. Same thing goes with Mary Kay. And I wouldn't just pin this on MLM alone, franchises in general operate in the same "Welcome to the family, now you're one of us" kind of way.

Yes, I guess it depends on how much "cult" you consider needed to be "cult-like."

Have you seen the Dateline NBC show on Quixtar? (I hadn't until I searched for Quixtar info today)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-215989802739458876

 

[Eddie Dane]

To be honest I'd be more concerned if a friend approached me with the idea of opening a restaurant than selling Amway. I think there's more to lose and a better chance of failure doing that than Amway. In either case I'd just give them the facts and throw them a few bucks when I could and hope for the best.

To be fair. Lots of businesses fail and Amway seems to provide a " just add water" of-the-shelve business.

If a lot of them suck at it, you can't really blame Amway for that.

I've seen a lot of salesmen getting a job, trying to bluff their way to the top and then failing abysmally. You don't have to be in a MLM construction for that either.

And since unsuccessful recruits don't cost the organization money, but actually bring in some cash, it is only natural that they get as many recruits as possible.

So, what is Amways core business in the end? Making money of the recruits or making money of the products sold?

 

[icerat]

Cost to benefit ratio is not great enough for people like me to succeed. In order to succeed in Quixtar, you have to have the resources to lay out the initial investment in product and time required for effective marketing of the products.

I'd suggest you haven't understood the benefits. Still, it's not for everyone.

This, coupled with the strong encouragement to purchase and use a product for which you can get an equivalent for half (or less) of the cost at a retail location, serves to be a detriment to people who are looking to the business as a way to get out of their wage-slave rut.

This is an invalid argument. While from almost any supplier there are always products you'll be able to find cheaper elsewhere, the primary Amway brands cannot be bought from other sources and the nearest equivalents are generally more expensive, not cheaper. Furthermore, if you feel products are not good value, then I encourage you NOT to buy them. Buying them just gives incentive to Amway to manufacture crappy products. Use and promote the good ones. I'm confident that any person who makes an honest appraisal will find a large selection of quality products at a great price.

Any claims that recruiting people is a net cost against you is bunk.

Of course, which is why I never said it was a net cost.

This is because, as was outlined in the demonstration given to me, you make money based on what you sell, and what your down-line sells. If you sell something to your downline, you get the commission for that sale. If that downline then sells the same product, you get a percentage of their commission for that sale, and so on down the line.

No, this is not true. You get only one "commission", which is simply the difference between your volume discount and their volume discount. Indeed, if you're both in the same bracket you get nothing.

If it's not sold further, no net loss to you. Thus, the more people you have in your line, the more money you make.

You've apparently misunderstood the compensation plan. You make more money because more people will hopefully generate more sales volume, creating greater volume discounts. If it's all in "one line" you make nothing as there's no (or little) differential. That would be like a warehouse selling all their goods to one retailer at the same price they purchase from the manufacturer. What you need is multiple retailers buying in smaller volumes at a higher price. This is the same as the Amway model.

Very simple, and directly contradictory to the claim that it costs to have people under you (outside of the initial costs involved in demonstrations/recruitment).

The confusion here is between a line item cost and a bottom-line result

Also, on the same theme as my first point--if you are a minimum wage earner, or even just living paycheck to paycheck, the time involved in getting the business up and running is not necessarily an investment most people will be willing or able to make. The sheer scope of getting off the ground is overwhelming in many instances.

Absolutely, which is why minimum wage earners and other folk in desperate financial trouble are not the target market. Especially not when the products are not targetted to this group. Unfortunately of course, many new ABOs will, contrary to all advice, approach people they feel they have influence over, and are not "scared" of, which tends to be the kind of folk you describe. Needless to say, it doesn't work very well.

But the biggest red flag to me (and this may have simply been my experience due to my particular upline) was that during the pitch, despite the fact that the person who actually drove our involvement with the business was my wife, he directed all questions at me. I don't know if it's inherent in the business structure, but the impression that I got the entire time I was talking with him, and with what I read afterward, was that the business is sexist.

Actually, if you read various histories of Amway you'll find the exact opposite is true. Amway had board members had female distributor representatives on the distributor board 50 years ago. That was unusual. It certainly sounds like the person talking you was sexist though! And I'm aware of some groups that are quite religious and promote the whole "wive's be submissive to your husbands" kind of rubbish. As independent businesses it's been difficult for Amway to control that kind of behaviour (heck the FTC fined them just for telling distributors what price they should sell at). They've now put in place an accreditation system which explicitly states that the Amway business should not be used as a platform to promote specific religious or political viewpoints. That rules always been there, but with no real way to enforce. Now it's linked to accreditation, and non-accredited groups or leaders are ineligible for many of the larger, discretionary bonuses and rewards. It still happens alas.

The treatment received by our direct upline (the person who recruited us) after we left the business, contributed to that impression. I may be wrong, and this is solely my experience, but the whole thing reminded me of indoctrination in any number of churches/cults/what-have-you.

There's no question that some groups, particularly in the past, have operated their businesses like their own personal fiefdoms, including stuff that could be construed as cult-like. Fortunately that's increasingly becoming history. Still, it's a natural result of the networking model that organisations will develop reflecting the belief systems of the leaders. If you're a right-wing evangelical christian, your social network is likely to be similar people, so folk from your social network who join with your business will have similar beliefs, and so on.

 

[icerat]

And an MLM is just a fancy legal name for a pyramid scheme.

Sorry, but I just need to correct this. Legitimate MLMs and pyramid schemes are not at all alike. Pyramid schemes are illegal virtually everywhere, and that's because they're an unsustainable model. Income is derived by recruiting people, not by sale of some legitimate products.

Confusion comes about because many pyramid schemes call themselves MLM to hide their true nature. Take a recent example, YTB travel. It called itself MLM, with the income potential ostensibly from selling travel and recruiting others who could do the same. In reality they were charging nearly $500 to join, and $49.95/mth for a website to promote travel. That in itself is of concern, but not too bad - the problem occurs when you earn part of that $500 for recruiting someone. You're now explicitly being compensated for the act of recruiting rather than the act of selling travel. What's more, something like 90% of YTBs revenues was from the joining and monthly fees, rather than travel.

In other words, the way to make money was to recruit people and it didn't matter if anyone bought any travel or not.

By contrast, in Amway, you can recruit a million people. If nobody buys anything, you'll not make a cent. What's more, you can recruit nobody, and just sell products and make a decent income.

Mary Kay, and Mary Kay reps, make their money through wholesale and retail product sales. Same with Amway. Same with Herbalife. Same with any legit MLM.

Unfortunately there's so many pyramid scams that call themselves MLM, trying to hide under that umbrella of legitimacy, that many folk now equate them and believe legitimate MLMs operate the way pyramid schemes operate. They don't.

 

[icerat]

However, studies don't show that nutrient status can be improved by using "expensive and poorly regulated as to quality and consistency" supplements vs. plain old vitamin pills.

This kind of response amazes me.

If I understand correctly, you're claiming that food is better than synthetic vitamin pills, but food put in a pill shape is no better than synthetic vitamin pills.

What particular mystical power does a pill shape posess to have this effect?

 

[fls]

This kind of response amazes me.

If I understand correctly, you're claiming that food is better than synthetic vitamin pills, but food put in a pill shape is no better than synthetic vitamin pills.

What particular mystical power does a pill shape posess to have this effect?

I will try again.

I am claiming that an adequate intake of essential nutrients promotes health, starting with a balanced diet plus judicious use of vitamin and mineral pills or fortified foods taking into account various barriers to obtaining an adequate intake of essential nutrients. I am saying that while food in a pill form may technically fall under those recommendations, no additional value is given to that food by placing it in that form. It simply becomes more expensive. And if you want to consider it a vitamin pill, in addition to or instead of food, no additional value as a source of a particular vitamin is given by having that vitamin in a form that is less subject to quality control and is more expensive. It is not useful to expend resources for no additional benefit.

Linda