Amway TV ad

[icerat]

I am saying that while food in a pill form may technically fall under those recommendations, no additional value is given to that food by placing it in that form.

I disagree. For a start it can be easier to get higher levels due to concentration. It's also far more reliable, with a focus on maintaing nutrient content that does not occur in traditional food processing.

It simply becomes more expensive.

Not necessarily true either. Nutrilite's Double X for example is far cheaper than obtaining equivalent nutrition from food, and this isn't even accounting for the opportunity cost. Tracking down and preparing nutritious food generally takes a lot of time.

And if you want to consider it a vitamin pill, in addition to or instead of food, no additional value as a source of a particular vitamin is given by having that vitamin in a form that is less subject to quality control and is more expensive. It is not useful to expend resources for no additional benefit.

Might be the case if true, but you've made some important false assumptions. With decent brands there is far far MORE quality control than there is with normal food processing. Unlike food production, plants are specifically selected for nutrient content. Unlike food production, plants are specifically bred for nutrient content. Unlike food production, the plants are harvested at the time best suited for maximal nutrient content. Unlike food production, the plants are processed and packaged for maximal nutrient content.

And it's monitored every step of the way, from seed to final serving.

Now, maybe the food you buy is subject to greater quality control, but I'd suggest that's incredibly rare.

 

[Almo]

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

Sorry, but I just need to correct this. Legitimate MLMs and pyramid schemes are not at all alike.

And I need to correct this. Yes they are.

 

[fls]

I disagree. For a start it can be easier to get higher levels due to concentration. It's also far more reliable, with a focus on maintaing nutrient content that does not occur in traditional food processing.

Concentration simply removes water. Whether one fulfills one's daily water requirements through food or through food plus water is irrelevant. Dietary recommendations take into consideration the nutrient content found in food after it has been prepared.

You keep switching back and forth between supplements as food and supplements as vitamin pills. Unless you are suggesting that supplements can serve to fulfill your protein, carbohydrate, fat and energy requirements, what is the point of referring to it as food?

Not necessarily true either. Nutrilite's Double X for example is far cheaper than obtaining equivalent nutrition from food, and this isn't even accounting for the opportunity cost. Tracking down and preparing nutritious food generally takes a lot of time.

As far as I can tell, Double X is a vitamin preparation. This means that it cannot give you the equivalent nutrition from food as it cannot supply your protein, carbohydrate, fat and energy requirements. If you are using food to supply those requirements, then you are also obtaining that "equivalent nutrition" for free. If that nutrition is not quite equivalent, then a cheap, generic multivitamin can be added. Expensive branded multivitamins are not necessary.

And your statement that tracking down and preparing nutritious foods takes a lot of time is ridiculous. I haven't had a kitchen for weeks - all I have to use is a microwave - and I can provide a balanced, nutritious meal for 6 people with 5-10 minutes of preparation using foods from my local grocery store or from other local sources. I suspect that this is easier than if I was trying to access an Amway supplier to fulfill all my family's nutritional needs.

Might be the case if true, but you've made some important false assumptions. With decent brands there is far far MORE quality control than there is with normal food processing.

Now you are back to talking about food. Which Nutrilite products are sufficient to supply your protein, carbohydrate, fat and energy requirements?

Unlike food production, plants are specifically selected for nutrient content. Unlike food production, plants are specifically bred for nutrient content. Unlike food production, the plants are harvested at the time best suited for maximal nutrient content. Unlike food production, the plants are processed and packaged for maximal nutrient content.

Which plants are a complete supply for your protein, carbohydrate, fat and energy requirements?

And it's monitored every step of the way, from seed to final serving.

Now, maybe the food you buy is subject to greater quality control, but I'd suggest that's incredibly rare.

I doubt the food I buy is subject to greater quality control. But is it necessary? That is, what value does that give me for my money?

Linda

 

[icerat]

Concentration simply removes water. Whether one fulfills one's daily water requirements through food or through food plus water is irrelevant. Dietary recommendations take into consideration the nutrient content found in food after it has been prepared.

No, the concentration process can also remove fiber, and/or sugars.

You keep switching back and forth between supplements as food and supplements as vitamin pills.

I thought we were in agreement that food has vitamins in it? If you put plant concentrate in a pill, optimised for nutrition, perhaps fortified with synthetics (much like many food products) and market it's vitamin content, do you or do you not consider it a vitamin pill?

Unless you are suggesting that supplements can serve to fulfill your protein, carbohydrate, fat and energy requirements, what is the point of referring to it as food?

Since when was food only macronutrients?

As far as I can tell, Double X is a vitamin preparation. This means that it cannot give you the equivalent nutrition from food as it cannot supply your protein, carbohydrate, fat and energy requirements.

Double X is a mixture of organic plant concentrates (the number varies depending on market) fortified with vitamin and mineral isolates. Fibre, water, and most sugars have been removed. It's a micronutrient supplement, not macronutrient.

And your statement that tracking down and preparing nutritious foods takes a lot of time is ridiculous.

Please, educate the world. Most aren't doing it.

I suspect that this is easier than if I was trying to access an Amway supplier to fulfill all my family's nutritional needs.

Oh yeah, website ordering delivered to the door is tough stuff.

Now you are back to talking about food. Which Nutrilite products are sufficient to supply your protein, carbohydrate, fat and energy requirements?

Now you're back to pretending food is nothing but macronutrients

I doubt the food I buy is subject to greater quality control. But is it necessary? That is, what value does that give me for my money?

Security. There is wide variation in the nutrient content of most food stuffs, and there are increasing numbers of people deficient or depleted in one or more nutrients. For the price of a cup of coffee I think it's worth it. You obviously don't, and are much more disciplined in your food sourcing and preparation than most people are, including myself. Good for you! That doesn't mean there's not a legitimate market or legitimate need for our products.

 

[Furcifer]

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

See I don't know so I'd never bother with them myself.

Still like Icerat said earlier, the opportunity exists for any recruit to move his way up the pyramid. People are entitled to make their own mistakes and take chances. If your they type of person inclined to the "get rich quick" scheme your going to find one. Take a look at the number of people who entered into the "America's Best Invention" or whatever it was called. There are thousands of people spending tons of time and money trying to come up with the next "Pet Rock" or "Trivial Pursuit". Same glazed look in their eyes, the same blind faith in an idea that has a very high probablity of making them go broke before they get rich.

Anyways, my point is it isn't a cult, just a silly way to try and get rich quick. Of all the "schemes" this is probably the most harmless. At least it's under public scrutiny and monitored by the authorities. I think it might be a disservice to dismiss it as a scam and a cult. I seriously believe putting off people to Amway and the like will only drive them to worse things. I mean if a guy is going to spend 15 years trying to get rich selling Amway can you imagine what would happen if he wandered into a casino and won a few hands of black jack?

 

[Furcifer]

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

That's why I said "legal". It's a legal pyramid scheme. It should be called that openly, then it wouldn't lend itself so easily to those who would make it into something else. I think they should also be required to let people know how the profits are actually made. Just say "99 out of 100 people will buy $800 worth of stuff, sell enough to break even, give away the rest as Christmas gifts and never make a dime" Something like that.

 

[fls]

No, the concentration process can also remove fiber, and/or sugars.

Okay, so it gives you less of what you need rather than more?

I thought we were in agreement that food has vitamins in it? If you put plant concentrate in a pill, optimised for nutrition, perhaps fortified with synthetics (much like many food products) and market it's vitamin content, do you or do you not consider it a vitamin pill?

If its main function is to provide a reasonably consistent quantity of a vitamin/vitamins, why not?

Since when was food only macronutrients?

I'm pointing out that food contains macro-nutrients and micro-nutrients, whereas your argument depended upon considering only the micro-nutrient components.

Double X is a mixture of organic plant concentrates (the number varies depending on market) fortified with vitamin and mineral isolates. Fibre, water, and most sugars have been removed. It's a micro-nutrient supplement, not macronutrient.

That was my impression. So the price is irrelevant since it is a far from adequate substitute for food.

Please, educate the world. Most aren't doing it.

It doesn't help that you and others in the supplement industry are spreading misinformation about how it is hard and difficult.

Oh yeah, website ordering delivered to the door is tough stuff.

The "difficult" part is that the delivered materials would be inadequate to supply my family's nutritional needs.

Now you're back to pretending food is nothing but macro-nutrients

I specifically mentioned both macro-nutrients and micro-nutrients, while you made reference only to micro-nutrients. Fulfilling macro-nutrient needs can also fulfill micro-nutrient needs, however fulfilling only micro-nutrient needs leads you with a pretty sizable deficit.

Security. There is wide variation in the nutrient content of most food stuffs, and there are increasing numbers of people deficient or depleted in one or more nutrients. For the price of a cup of coffee I think it's worth it.

But I can already buy that same security for much, much less by taking cheap, generic multivitamins. Why would I waste my money when I don't have to? I have other stuff I'd like to buy.

You obviously don't, and are much more disciplined in your food sourcing and preparation than most people are, including myself. Good for you! That doesn't mean there's not a legitimate market or legitimate need for our products.

You have shown that there can be a legitimate need for multivitamins. You haven't shown that there is a legitimate need for more expensive multivitamins, nor for the sort of widespread use that justifies a multi-billion dollar industry.

Linda

 

[icerat]

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

No money is made through recruiting. It's all from products sold.

 

[icerat]

That's why I said "legal". It's a legal pyramid scheme.

The problem is that's impossible. "pyramid schemes" are by definition illegal. You can't have an legal illegal scheme

It should be called that openly, then it wouldn't lend itself so easily to those who would make it into something else.

You seem to be using the term to mean something else than it's normal definition. Could you explain what you mean?

I think they should also be required to let people know how the profits are actually made. Just say "99 out of 100 people will buy $800 worth of stuff, sell enough to break even, give away the rest as Christmas gifts and never make a dime" Something like that.

It depends on the country, but they are legally required to provide various statistics and have done so for decades.

 

[icerat]

Okay, so it gives you less of what you need rather than more?

Do you seriously believe folk in the western world are getting to few calories? Amongst the macronutrients, fibre perhaps, but there's no research at all to suggest a lack of protein or carbohydrate. There is research to suggest a lack of micronutrients.

I'm pointing out that food contains macro-nutrients and micro-nutrients, whereas your argument depended upon considering only the micro-nutrient components.

Because macro-nutrient depletion or deficiency is almost non-existent.

I specifically mentioned both macro-nutrients and micro-nutrients, while you made reference only to micro-nutrients. Fulfilling macro-nutrient needs can also fulfill micro-nutrient needs, however fulfilling only micro-nutrient needs leads you with a pretty sizable deficit.

Please, stop with the red herrings. I don't believe for a moment you think folk are deficient in macronutrients, and I've never claimed they are. If you disagree whether anyone is micronutrient deficient, fine, disagree, but stop with the distractions.

But I can already buy that same security for much, much less by taking cheap, generic multivitamins. Why would I waste my money when I don't have to? I have other stuff I'd like to buy.

You're contradicting yourself. You say food is the better source, but now you're saying synthetic vitamins are adequate. Which is it? Is food a better source of micronutrients or synthetics?

You have shown that there can be a legitimate need for multivitamins. You haven't shown that there is a legitimate need for more expensive multivitamins, nor for the sort of widespread use that justifies a multi-billion dollar industry.

Personally I think most multi-vitamins are a waste of money. The ones that aren't cost more because they're based around food. At present you're claiming both that food is a better source of micronutrition and that synthetic multi-vitamins are as good a source of micronutrition as food. You can't have it both ways.

 

[fls]

Do you seriously believe folk in the western world are getting to few calories? Amongst the macronutrients, fibre perhaps, but there's no research at all to suggest a lack of protein or carbohydrate. There is research to suggest a lack of micronutrients.

No, I'm saying that concentration leaves the amount of micro-nutrients unchanged, but removes small amounts of macro-nutrients, fibre and water, which doesn't really make it much different from just eating the cherries.

Please, stop with the red herrings. I don't believe for a moment you think folk are deficient in macronutrients, and I've never claimed they are. If you disagree whether anyone is micronutrient deficient, fine, disagree, but stop with the distractions.

I'm not claiming that people are deficient in macro-nutrients. I'm stating that it is necessary for people to eat food in order to satisfy macro-nutrient requirements. Since food also contains micro-nutrients, then eating food (something that we have to do anyway, an expense we have to bear regardless) already provides us with a way to satisfy our micro-nutrient requirements. If that food does not satisfy our micro-nutrient requirements, then the addition of specific vitamin and mineral pills or of a multivitamin pill is useful.

When you talk about your dried cherry pills, you are referring to them as a source of micro-nutrients, since you have agreed that as a source of macro-nutrients, their effect is negligible. However, you said, "Nutrilite's Double X for example is far cheaper than obtaining equivalent nutrition from food". Since we are now agreed that you were not talking about macro-nutrients, what you meant is that it is cheaper for you to eat food which satisfies your macro-nutrient requirements, but does not satisfy your micro-nutrient requirements, with the added expense of taking Double X in order to satisfy your micro-nutrient requirements, than it is to eat food which satisfies both your macro-nutrient and micro-nutrient requirements. Putting aside the issue of whether or not that is true, I am pointing out that if you have chosen to take pills in order to satisfy your micro-nutrient requirements, it is much cheaper to take inexpensive, generic vitamins.

If you are taking expense into consideration, the use of much more expensive vitamin pills doesn't make sense, and you have yet to provide any justification for this.

You're contradicting yourself. You say food is the better source, but now you're saying synthetic vitamins are adequate. Which is it? Is food a better source of micronutrients or synthetics?

It's not a matter of food vs. vitamins. It's a matter of, if you are eating food that does not satisfy some of your micro-nutrient requirements and you choose to satisfy those requirements with vitamin or mineral pills, why would I choose to spend a lot of money when I could spend less money to get the same thing.

Personally I think most multi-vitamins are a waste of money. The ones that aren't cost more because they're based around food. At present you're claiming both that food is a better source of micronutrition and that synthetic multi-vitamins are as good a source of micronutrition as food. You can't have it both ways.

Food has nothing to do with this discussion, as you have already admitted that your multi-vitamins do not serve as food, but as a source of vitamins and minerals. I'm saying that cheap, generic vitamins are as good a source of vitamins and minerals as your expensive vitamins.

Linda

 

[Furcifer]

The problem is that's impossible. "pyramid schemes" are by definition illegal. You can't have an legal illegal scheme
You seem to be using the term to mean something else than it's normal definition. Could you explain what you mean?
It depends on the country, but they are legally required to provide various statistics and have done so for decades.

Who are you kidding? It's a pyramid scheme, plain and simple. There's nothing that says a pyramid scheme has to be illegal, just that it operates in this manner. I'm not a big fan of Wiki, but even Wiki has MLM as a basic Pyramid Scheme.

It's this kind of BS you're pulling here that gets people into trouble. It's a freakin pyramid scheme, legal or not it operates in the exact same manner with the exact same result. Trust me, I'm using this by "normal" definition. Normal people, when they hear how it works go "Oh, it's a pyramid scheme"

You'd be better off arguing that many things operate as "pyramid schemes", just not as openly or as obvious. That's how you're going to convince people

As for the stats, yes they keep them and are public domain etc. (somewhere), but they (the recruiters) aren't forthcoming about them. With this type of business model it should be required information. I'm all about disclosure, even the lottery should say "You have a 1 in 26 million chance of winning, you're more likely to get hit by a car and die on the way to the lotto shop than you are of actually winning; Good Luck!"

 

[Almo]

Who are you kidding? It's a pyramid scheme, plain and simple.

He's kidding himself, and anyone else he can get to join the scheme. Look at the argument with fls about the ultility of food of all things. There's clearly some obfuscation going on somewhere if this argument can even begin to take place.

I applaud Linda for making clear arguments time and time again in this thread. If anything, this thread serves to show what happens when people buy into the whole Amway thing.

BTW, I stand by my OP and the silliness of the numbers touted in the Amway ad.

 

[icerat]

Who are you kidding? It's a pyramid scheme, plain and simple. There's nothing that says a pyramid scheme has to be illegal, just that it operates in this manner. I'm not a big fan of Wiki, but even Wiki has MLM as a basic Pyramid Scheme.

What does the Wikipedia article say in the first few sentences?

Pyramid schemes are illegal in many countries, including the United States,[1] the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Canada, Romania,[2] Colombia,[3] Malaysia, Norway, Bulgaria, Australia,[4] New Zealand,[5] Japan,[6] Italy,[7] Nepal[citation needed], Philippines,[8] South Africa[9] Sri Lanka,[10] Thailand,[11] Iran[citation needed], the People's Republic of China,[12], Mexico and The Netherlands [13].

FTC, 1998 -

both pyramid and Ponzi schemes are illegal
...
Some people confuse pyramid and Ponzi schemes with legitimate multilevel marketing. Multilevel marketing programs are known as MLM's,(4) and unlike pyramid or Ponzi schemes, MLM's have a real product to sell.

SEC

The fraudsters behind a pyramid scheme may go to great lengths to make the program look like a legitimate multi-level marketing program.

Australian Government Scamwatch site -

Pyramid schemes are illegal
...
In contrast, people in legitimate multi-level marketing earn money by selling genuine products to consumers, not from the recruiting process.

You're in Canada?

Canadian Competition Bureau

Schemes of pyramid selling are illegal

It's this kind of BS you're pulling here that gets people into trouble.

Uhh .... BS ... like actually knowing what I'm talking about. You are wrong. Pyramid schemes are illegal.

 

[PbFoot]

Okay, so Amway is a is a pyramid scheme, just every so slightly modified such that it skirts the letter of the law.

It's like taking a pint of piss and carbonating it. That will not make it into champagne.

-PbFoot

 

[icerat]

Okay, so Amway is a is a pyramid scheme, just every so slightly modified such that it skirts the letter of the law.

No, it's not even close to a pyramid scheme. Let's look at the Canadian example -

Section 55.1 of the Act defines a “scheme of pyramid selling” as an MLM plan with one or more of the following features:

•requires a payment for the right to receive compensation for recruiting others into the MLM plan (compensation for recruitment);
•requires purchases as a condition of participation (purchase requirement), other than a specified amount of product at the seller’s cost for the purpose of facilitating sales;
•includes inventory loading; or
•lacks a buy-back guarantee on reasonable commercial terms or participants are not informed about the guarantee.

Four features, Amway has NONE of them and isn't "close" or "skirting" ANY of them.

You either don't know what a pyramid scheme is, or you don't know how Amway operates.

 

[Furcifer]

Uhh .... BS ... like actually knowing what I'm talking about. You are wrong. Pyramid schemes are illegal.

Nice strawman. I never said pyramid schemes are legal.

Amway, Avon,Tupperware, May Kay are all legal pyramid schemes because they actually provide a product. I never said they were illegal, so there's no use quoting the law in that regard. I'm not trying to press charges against them for operating outside the law. Mmmmmkay?

What's the big deal anyways? Why all this effort to try and convince people Amway isn't what it actually is? I don't get it.

 

[Derwoods]

What percentage of Amway's profits are from "tools" and classes?

Are there any numbers on how much of Amway's profit comes from selling to people who are not amway business owners? Meaning only profits resulting from endusers outside the network.

 

[icerat]

Nice strawman. I never said pyramid schemes are legal.

Really? What does this mean then ....

There's nothing that says a pyramid scheme has to be illegal

My mistake. How could I possibly interpretate that as saying pyramid schemes can be legal.

[Amway, Avon,Tupperware, May Kay are all legal pyramid schemes because they actually provide a product.

pyramid schemes are by definition illegal (see above) You're now claiming these companies are legal illegal schemes.

I never said they were illegal, so there's no use quoting the law in that regard. I'm not trying to press charges against them for operating outside the law. Mmmmmkay?

If you call them pyramid schemes you're calling them illegal. That's what "pyramid scheme" means.

What's the big deal anyways? Why all this effort to try and convince people Amway isn't what it actually is? I don't get it.

Because it and the other companies mentioned are NOT what you say they are, and when you say it is a pyramid scheme, then you're saying they're illegal businesses operating on an unsustainable model based around earning money through recruiting people and getting paid when they join.

 

[icerat]

What percentage of Amway's profits are from "tools" and classes?

About zero. Probably a loss actually, since many are free.

Are there any numbers on how much of Amway's profit comes from selling to people who are not amway business owners? Meaning only profits resulting from endusers outside the network.

You've asked two separate (and leading) questions there. Just by signing an application doesn't make you a "business owner", even though Amway may use the term. A large percentage of folk who join, or remain in the network, do so because they are then able to get better prices. If you desire to purchase any more than a handful of products are year, then you are better off being a in the network even though you have zero intention of building a business. These folk may be considered "inside the network" but are not "participants in the scheme".

Canadian law (linked to above), addresses this issue explicitly -

A participant in an MLM plan is an individual who actively engages in the activities necessary to realize the benefits of the MLM plan.

According to some statistics revealed in a contract dispute lawsuit in California, less than 13% of folk who register in the network ever do even the minimum necessary to generate a profit. However, 50% of those who register to try it out continue to order products, so 74% of the folk ordering products are members of the network, but not "participants in the scheme", ie participating in the business opportunity itself. Shaklee, another networking company, reported to the FTC that 85% of their network members joined primarily to get the products at the distributor pricing, so this is similar. What percentage of volume comes from these types of members and what from active participants, I don't know. How many sales come from distributor sales to folk who are not members is impossible to determine as distributors are not required to report this to Amway unless the customer wants to order directly off the Amway site itself. In the US these type of customers account for about 5% of Amway website sales volume. I have around 20-30 regular customers, none of whom are registered with Amway in this manner, so if I was in the US (I'm not) they wouldn't be included in that statistic.