Amway TV ad

[Foolmewunz]

Oh god IR, really, you've never been in a stadium and went "There's 50 rows with 30 seats per section, there's 1,2,3...18 sections on the lower bowl and 1,2,3...24 on the upper, that's..let's see...63 000. There's at least 10 sections of 1,2,3...20 rows with 1,2,3,4...30 seats on the main floor, that's another 6000. That's what...69 0000! "Holy crap, there's got to be at least 69 000 people here, i never realized this place was so big"

Takes about 2 minutes, depending on if you read the seat numbers and rows when you walked down the aisle (A1-30,B1-30...YY1-30,XX1-30) or if you have to count them in your section and extrapolate.

I do this all the time. Well almost all the time, it was pretty useless at the Detroit Lions games in the old Silver Dome. It was always empty and people were scattered all of the place. It's usually only worth while at full venues to bother to do a head count.

Just to extend this blot of derail. The original claim was that the person said he'd counted the empty seats. Anyone old enough to know the line, "And now we know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall"? That's how you count house quickly. Count the "holes" or empty seats and deduct from the capacity. It's easy.

 

[Foolmewunz]

That's not counting, that's estimating. What if every tenth seat had someone's bag on it instead of a person? You're out by 7000 people.

NOT IF YOU ONLY COUNT THE SEATS WITH THE BAGS (OR THE SEATS WITH NO BAG AND NO PERSON). Count the empties and deduct from the capacity. Re-read the original exchange on the subject and cease with this pedantry please.

 

[Foolmewunz]

It's a silly trivial, irrelevant argument. If it makes it happy - you were right, I was wrong, there were 70,000 there.

It's not a silly or trivial or irrelevant argument. It's an indication that you will not give up a point in an argument, no matter how minor, and therefore very educational (to the crowd NT and I mention that we're addressing).

You're ignoring your original exchange. He said he counted the empty seats and that ain't hard. (I managed a movie theatre in Montreal many years ago. You stick your head in the back door, using the light from the screen you just count the empty seats in about a minute and the estimate later proves against the ticket count within about 3 to 5%.)

 

[Foolmewunz]

New angle.... China

So, I figured I'd do some checking last night.

Know how Amway runs its China business? Faux Retail.

Yes, they've opened retail outlets because their pyramid model was banned in China. Banned.

So they opened retail outlets, and the Chinese bureaucracy is happy and looking the other way. Why? Because China is happy to see home consumption and someplace for their young business school grads to find any kind of a job.

It is "faux retail", though, because the retail outlets ONLY SELL TO TO AMWAY IBOs! If a pedestrian walks in and tries to buy something they are requested to provide the name of their IBO or they are assigned one!

 

[NewtonTrino]

I think arguing about the main product line is kind of waste of time. I think it's hard to argue that the products aren't expensive and probably overpriced. However the IBO has the option of selling with a smaller retail market if they so desire. You still have to sell a helluva lot of soap to make any money doing this. Anyway my main point is that the tools business and cult like control of the distributors is the real problem here. The fact that it's damn hard to make any money at is secondary.

Just for the record I think most of the products are crap. There is the occasional thing that I think has a unique twist to it but for the most part the fragrances they pick and the feel of most of the products is off to me.

 

[corplinx]

So, I figured I'd do some checking last night.

Know how Amway runs its China business? Faux Retail.

Yes, they've opened retail outlets because their pyramid model was banned in China. Banned.

So they opened retail outlets, and the Chinese bureaucracy is happy and looking the other way. Why? Because China is happy to see home consumption and someplace for their young business school grads to find any kind of a job.

It is "faux retail", though, because the retail outlets ONLY SELL TO TO AMWAY IBOs! If a pedestrian walks in and tries to buy something they are requested to provide the name of their IBO or they are assigned one!

Wow. That takes brass... well, I probably can't finish that under current moderation.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Wow. That takes brass... well, I probably can't finish that under current moderation.

Here's a fairly good article. They're serving Kool Aid by the tanker truck.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/...no-not-publish-yet-taking-the-direct-approach

 

[icerat]

Is is a good product? Yes, it is a quality product that most people would be happy with, and last them a very long time (assuming the non stick is on par with the rest. I'm leaning towards this set being higher quality non-stick stainless to legitimize the price. non stick is usually aluminum, due mostly to the colour of the non stick coating and adhesion) Still, as a "deal" the 22-piece set is easily 2x the price it should be. Me?, I'd expect to pay no more than $400 for a similar set of similar quality.

Just before I joined Amway I bought a quality cookware set. Cost me more than the Amway set costs. The iCook has some interesting technology for waterless cooking as well as heat distribution - and yes, you can put them in the oven. I don't know enough about it to comment. Never bought the iCook, never sold one.

Which is great, but they simply aren't in high enough concentrations to do anything, especially in a product that is designed to be applied the scrapped from the face with a shape metal blade.

Amway puts a lot of R&D into their products, so I doubt they don't do anything. You also haven't addressed the usage you get, as commented upon in the link I posted.

You could make an arguement that the Amway is an ultra-premium, but really, the stuff they are putting in is in such low concetrations it doesn't matter.

Been a while since I looked at it, but I found dozens of shave gels that were more expensive than Tolsom, and that was before they dropped the Tolsom price.

All I know is I didn't buy it, then I tried it, and it makes a difference for me. Amway has other options that are cheaper up front so it's not just some "buy Amway" fetish making me get the Tolsom.

Thank god, I was wondering. I swear the quantity lists as 1, because I looked when i saw the price. You must know where to look. Well decent deal if I want to buy a 1 year supply of tooth brushes.

Amway tends to target families more than singles.

No, a similar product. You realy want me to dig up the info to compare the two products just to show you once again the constituent ingredients are the same. I suspect from what you've said and what I've seen I will find once again Amway is adding some natural extract in minute quantities.

Yup, dig it up. I guarantee there not the same. The natural extracts are not in "minute quantities" and are only included if they've been clinically shown to be beneficial.

Look up the 70% rule.

What about it? It was one of a number of things the judge cited that showed Amway didn't have the problems of pyramid schemes.

Arrogant to do some research and have found similar products at better prices?

No, arrogant to assume that your opinions (and much of your "research" is opinion) are the only valid ones and that others who like the products are somehow brainwashed or something.

Ok, fine. At the current level the products don't warrant the risk from what I've seen.

So, we've looked at how many products? Only one of which is in the two main brands we actually focus on.

I'm not convinced Amway has any intention of doing this, but if they do more power too them. Until then I'll warn people and steer clear.

Feel free to tell them to steer clear of the slimeballs. I do.

 

[icerat]

Yes, they've opened retail outlets because their pyramid model was banned in China. Banned.

This is false. Direct selling was banned. Everything. Want to knock on the door to sell a magazine subscription? Banned.

They then went about relicensing companies they thought were legit. Amway was the second company to receive a licence I think, after Avon.

So they opened retail outlets, and the Chinese bureaucracy is happy and looking the other way. Why? Because China is happy to see home consumption and someplace for their young business school grads to find any kind of a job.

There have been similar stores throughout SE Asia for years. You can find them in India, Australia and NZ as well, and a couple of weeks ago one opened in the middle of London. The essential business model hasn't changed, and the "government is looking the other way" is an excuse of the anti-amway mob to try to rationalise why Amway is still running when they think it's a scam.

It is "faux retail", though, because the retail outlets ONLY SELL TO TO AMWAY IBOs! If a pedestrian walks in and tries to buy something they are requested to provide the name of their IBO or they are assigned one!

Other network marketing companies have been doing this for years, it's nothing particularly new.

But feel free to add China to the long, long, long list of governments that are part of the great global Amway conspiracy

 

[icerat]

I never said N21 pushes religion. What I'm saying is that N21 *is* a religion. Well more of a cult but they're basically the same thing.

Yeah yeah, says the person who has zero experience with the company and every time he asks for specific data and gets it suddenly goes mute because it doesn't fit his world view.

Of course anybody reading your monotonous defensive posts is getting a lesson in this stuff which is why I continue to participate.

And your repetitive, robotic, discredited attacks are oh so not monotonous? Please. Come up with something new at least.

 

[icerat]

but just for a change of pace, here's superman sucking back some Amway products in Amway Arena ...


(click for full picture)
C'arn the Magic! Clearly it's the XS Energy that keeps them going

 

[fls]

You misunderstood "added value" - I was speaking there from the business owner perspective, not the consumer perspective. The added value for a consumer absolutely comes in terms of health, but seriously I don't want to get into that debate on this thread. Just learned today about another new study on Double X, this time by Australia's CSIRO. I'm not sure what aspect they're looking at, but I did find this powerpoint by a CSIRO researcher on neutrogenomics that included a thank you to Amway in the acknowledgements, so it may be down that path. I'll be sure to let you know In the meantime, Google Scholar has 62 references to "Nutrition" and "Access Business Group", the division which has handled research for Amway the past decade. I'm sure you'll find something interesting there.

Right. This is "the story" - "look we have all this research, look we have super-plants". That the research is wholly inadequate to demonstrate any benefit beyond that which would be enjoyed by taking a 3 cent multi-vitamin pill, and that the research is wholly inadequate to discover harm, is not part of "the story" (for obvious reasons).

I must say, you're very good at assumptions. On what basis do you (falsely) state that the Nutrilite product have non-standardized amounts of vitamins and minerals?

The ingredient list indicates that Double X contains amounts of some essential vitamins and minerals that are far in excess of the standardized amounts needed for good health, including some whose inclusion in supplement preparations are not recommended in order to avoid harm as safe upper limits have not been determined.

Nutrilite is one of the few brands that has had *every* product tested by consumerlabs come out as having accurate labels.

Yet here a you, for no apparent reason, stating as fact it's non-standardized. Do you think it's a good idea to make up false statements about others and post them on the internet? just sayin ....

http://www.healthline.com/natstandardcontent/nutrilite-double-x
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recommended_Dietary_Allowance#Vitamins_and_minerals

Linda

 

[icerat]

Right. This is "the story" - "look we have all this research, look we have super-plants". That the research is wholly inadequate to demonstrate any benefit beyond that which would be enjoyed by taking a 3 cent multi-vitamin pill, and that the research is wholly inadequate to discover harm, is not part of "the story" (for obvious reasons).

Oh, my mistake. Because YOU haven't read the research, that means it hasn't been done

Frankly I'm not interested in this debate because it simply takes too much time. We're already in agreement it could do with more peer-reviewed published studies. We agree. Where we agree is you think studies that are not published in journals (at least that we can find) do not count at all, whereas I think if they're good quality studies done by quality institutions then they count as evidence. Not as good evidence, but it's still evidence.

You disagree, I accept that.

This thread is not the place for a more generic discussion about things like RDAs, but if I had the time and chose to prioritise it (I don't) we could certainly have that battle elsewhere.

Just started reading an interesting book, "The China Study", which I think you might find interesting too ....

 

[fls]

Oh, my mistake. Because YOU haven't read the research, that means it hasn't been done

Not at all. I looked at the research you have presented in this thread and I have also looked for research on various component parts. The problem is that the conclusions that can be drawn from this research are much different from the conclusions you would like to draw. If some cells in a culture show a difference, then one can conclude something about cells in a culture, but not anything about heart disease in Mary Smith. If one can show a difference in a blood test in a highly selected group of people compared to placebo, then one can conclude something about a blood test in a highly select group of people, but not anything about heart disease in a non-selected individual, and certainly not anything about whether that difference takes 231 cents vs. 3 cents.

The problem is that you have shown that you don't know how to read and interpret research in order to draw valid conclusions. This makes your opinion essentially useless.

Frankly I'm not interested in this debate because it simply takes too much time. We're already in agreement it could do with more peer-reviewed published studies. We agree. Where we agree is you think studies that are not published in journals (at least that we can find) do not count at all, whereas I think if they're good quality studies done by quality institutions then they count as evidence. Not as good evidence, but it's still evidence.

It is only part of the problem that these studies are not published and peer-reviewed. That they are not published already speaks to their quality - your excuses for not publishing have been shown to be vacuous. But even putting that issue aside and pretending that these studies are well-performed and reported still doesn't get you off the hook. The studies themselves do not support the kinds of claims that are being made. A study comparing a supplement to placebo cannot be used to claim that that supplement is better than a generic multi-vitamin. Studies that don't look at clinical or health outcomes cannot be used to draw conclusions about health outcomes.

You disagree, I accept that.

Some things are simply wrong. If you tell me that it is the brain that pumps blood throughout the body, we are not in disagreement. You are simply wrong.

This thread is not the place for a more generic discussion about things like RDAs, but if I had the time and chose to prioritise it (I don't) we could certainly have that battle elsewhere.

You have already demonstrated that you do not have the skills and knowledge to adequately evaluate research. I fail to see how a discussion about RDA's with you could be fruitful. It seems like it would simply be an exercise in correcting misinterpretation and misinformation.

Linda

 

[icerat]

Not at all. I looked at the research you have presented in this thread and I have also looked for research on various component parts. The problem is that the conclusions that can be drawn from this research are much different from the conclusions you would like to draw.

Science is about taking the best evidence and drawing conclusions, even if tentative.

If some cells in a culture show a difference, then one can conclude something about cells in a culture, but not anything about heart disease in Mary Smith. If one can show a difference in a blood test in a highly selected group of people compared to placebo, then one can conclude something about a blood test in a highly select group of people, but not anything about heart disease in a non-selected individual, and certainly not anything about whether that difference takes 231 cents vs. 3 cents.

Who said it did? You often have this tendency to mix up science decisions and business decisions. Science says little about price. Business, and economics, says charge the highest price you can. When the marketplace considers you have little competition, you can drive the margin wherever you please. The market decides whether it's valued sensibly or not.

The problem is that you have shown that you don't know how to read and interpret research in order to draw valid conclusions. This makes your opinion essentially useless.

And you've shown that unless a study supports your perspective you won't accept it unless it is absolute gold standard.

It is only part of the problem that these studies are not published and peer-reviewed. That they are not published already speaks to their quality

It says no such thing.

your excuses for not publishing have been shown to be vacuous. But even putting that issue aside and pretending that these studies are well-performed and reported still doesn't get you off the hook. The studies themselves do not support the kinds of claims that are being made.

What claims? I don't recall I've made any. Please, what "kind of claims are being made"?

A study comparing a supplement to placebo cannot be used to claim that that supplement is better than a generic multi-vitamin.

Who ever said it did?

Studies that don't look at clinical or health outcomes cannot be used to draw conclusions about health outcomes.

By your standard of "conculsion", I entirely agree. Never said it did.

Some things are simply wrong. If you tell me that it is the brain that pumps blood throughout the body, we are not in disagreement. You are simply wrong.

And you claim plants are better sources of nutrition than supplements. Except if they're the same shape as vitamin supplements, in which case the isolated vitamin supplements are better!

Yet you continue to provide no support at all for your apparent belief that the form a plant is presented it makes such a huge difference.

You have already demonstrated that you do not have the skills and knowledge to adequately evaluate research.

Oh good grief, we've discussed one study which I stated I haven't even read for a long time. Talk about making conclusions from limited evidence! You however have clearly demonstrated your inability, nay, refusal, to synthesise research and draw tentative conclusions - an important part of progressing science.

I fail to see how a discussion about RDA's with you could be fruitful. It seems like it would simply be an exercise in correcting misinterpretation and misinformation.

Hey, I'd just LOVE to see your research linking all the various RDA's to health outcomes. Should be interesting

But seriously, not on this thread.

Really, with regards nutrition we essentially just come down to differences of philosophy. I'm willing to make a "best guess" in regards to what I think is best for my health based on whatever research is available. You're not willing to unless the science is of the highest quality and absolutely conclusive. That's fine, it's a philosophical position that's perfectly acceptable. So is mine.

 

[Foolmewunz]

This is false. Direct selling was banned. Everything. Want to knock on the door to sell a magazine subscription? Banned.

They then went about relicensing companies they thought were legit. Amway was the second company to receive a licence I think, after Avon.



There have been similar stores throughout SE Asia for years. You can find them in India, Australia and NZ as well, and a couple of weeks ago one opened in the middle of London. The essential business model hasn't changed, and the "government is looking the other way" is an excuse of the anti-amway mob to try to rationalise why Amway is still running when they think it's a scam.



Other network marketing companies have been doing this for years, it's nothing particularly new.

But feel free to add China to the long, long, long list of governments that are part of the great global Amway conspiracy

Didn't read the article, did you?

 

[Almo]

Frankly I'm not interested in this debate because it simply takes too much time.

Given the time you devote to this thread, I'm inclined not to believe you on this one. More and more, it seems like you're paid to defend Amway here. If not, you're really getting a bum deal.

 

[Skeptic]

Amway pays him? No, not likely. Amway is not in the habit of paying people to work for it when it can get them to work for free. It just calls them "Independent business owners" and -- presto! -- they put in dozens of hours a week selling Amway's stuff without pay!

And then they wonder that Amway makes money. OF COURSE it makes money. It has a huge pool of suckers -- I mean, "independent business owners" -- who both work for it for free selling its stuff AND are its best (practically its ONLY) customers, feeling forced to buy tons and tons of Amway's products without any regard as to how much they need them, or whether a comparable brand is on the market for one third the price. (Does anyone really think anybody except brainwashed Amway reps buys those $60 knives, $130 frying pans, or $50 vitamin pills?)

These workers are an employer's dream. It would be very hard not to make money when you've got that sort of brainwashed suckers working for you -- for free, to boot! As for the employees, however -- I mean the "independent business owners" -- it's a sucker's bet. But then again, they are brainwashed suckers.

To say that working for Amway is a good idea because Amway makes money is like saying gambling your money away at the roulette table is a good investment because the casino makes money.

Once again: suckers! I'm sorry to repeat that word that often describing the "ambots", but honestly, what other word fits?

 

[fls]

Science is about taking the best evidence and drawing conclusions, even if tentative.

Exactly. And if our evidence shows that using preliminary results is unreliable - that it identifies very few relationships that are shown to be valid with additional testing - then that evidence should also be taken into account when trying to draw conclusions. If you are just as likely to experience harm as you are benefit, and you are much more likely to experience not much of anything, with the use of a particular supplement, why would the best conclusion be "I should spend lots of money on this supplement"?

Who said it did?

You did. You said that Double X was better than multi-vitamins and you justified this by referring to the way in which it was produced and monitored. Regardless of the specific amount, the excess price partly reflects excess production costs.

You often have this tendency to mix up science decisions and business decisions. Science says little about price. Business, and economics, says charge the highest price you can. When the marketplace considers you have little competition, you can drive the margin wherever you please. The market decides whether it's valued sensibly or not.

I understand the difference between the price of a product and the cost to produce a product. This is relevant to one of my areas of production - fibre arts. However, your description is not of two products that have equivalent production costs. And like I said earlier, you have simply captured a population who will pay extra for a story they find believable. That the story is false seems to be of little relevance to you, but it is arguable that this is "sensible".

What claims? I don't recall I've made any. Please, what "kind of claims are being made"?

Your most recent claim was this:

"The added value for a consumer absolutely comes in terms of health"

Who ever said it did?

"The Amway Daily Multivitamin is *cheaper* for twice as much! (and IMO clearly better)."

"Yup, cheaper than the costco product of worse quality."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4759169#post4759169

You haven't presented any comparisons of these products to generic multivitamins. When asked for evidence that Double X is beneficial, you made reference to a study comparing it to placebo.

By your standard of "conculsion", I entirely agree. Never said it did.

Then why did you state that the added value was in terms of health when you have no studies looking at differences in terms of health?

And you claim plants are better sources of nutrition than supplements. Except if they're the same shape as vitamin supplements, in which case the isolated vitamin supplements are better!

My claim is that normal amounts of plants is better than miniscule amounts of plants, and that 3 cent vitamin pills are equivalent to 231 cent vitamin pills.

Yet you continue to provide no support at all for your apparent belief that the form a plant is presented it makes such a huge difference.

Because I have never made that claim.

Oh good grief, we've discussed one study which I stated I haven't even read for a long time. Talk about making conclusions from limited evidence!

You have made reference to several research studies and to a body of research that I also can access. You have stated what conclusions you have drawn from this research. It is based on more than the one study we discussed in detail, although even that conversation was very revealing.

You however have clearly demonstrated your inability, nay, refusal, to synthesise research and draw tentative conclusions - an important part of progressing science.

There is a difference between the progress of science and making recommendations to people in order to maximize health and the justifying of a high price by misleading people as to the value of those tentative conclusions.

Really, with regards nutrition we essentially just come down to differences of philosophy. I'm willing to make a "best guess" in regards to what I think is best for my health based on whatever research is available. You're not willing to unless the science is of the highest quality and absolutely conclusive. That's fine, it's a philosophical position that's perfectly acceptable. So is mine.

It is your prerogative to make a "best guess" in a way that is more likely to be wrong than right. What I am complaining about is the marketing of your choice to others as though it is a sensible thing to do. And of the substantial negative effects of this marketing, which I have mentioned previously (e.g. waste of billions of dollars of resources, mis-education of the public as to what constitutes evidence for a relationship, encouragement of pill-popping as a solution, etc.)

Linda

 

[NewtonTrino]

Actually in Icerats case we aren't so sure he isn't getting paid. Or least least making this defense into a business of some sort.

Anyway Icerat I can criticize N21 simply on the numbers you've provided for us about them. Not to mention the fact that you are a product of their brainwashing. That alone shows how much like all the other groups they are. Certainly they are not benign, certainly they make millions from tools and certainly their business model is still crap.