Amway TV ad

[cyborg]

cyborg, human nature does not obey mathematical formulae. LOL

Yes - it does.

 

[Tex2]

Not the ones you suggested. LOL Your own formula proves you wrong. LOL

 

[cyborg]

I don't believe I offered any formulae - I simply provided the series of powers of two as an exemplar of exponential growth. So I don't know exactly how "my own formla" proves me wrong on anything. Perhaps you would be willing to point out what is wrong? Or is this information that can only be conveyed by using copper wires for voice and not data?

 

[Tex2]

If your 2^x formula was right, all of us would have been sponsored many times over, as Amway has been around a half century.

Also, 20 years ago, those who were 18 or less years old weren't even old enough to be IBO candidates.

So not only has Amway never saturated, it never will, because there are plenty of dunces like YOU out there who don't have a clue....but may wake up some day (I'll be the one NOT holding my breath for that event!).

You would have done much better with the phone call, as the obvious facts you ignored are now available for all to see. LOL

 

[icerat]

I don't believe I offered any formulae - I simply provided the series of powers of two as an exemplar of exponential growth. So I don't know exactly how "my own formla" proves me wrong on anything. Perhaps you would be willing to point out what is wrong? Or is this information that can only be conveyed by using copper wires for voice and not data?

Your formula wasn't wrong per se, it just has nothing to do with how Amway or legitimate MLMs work. What's wrong is your understanding of the business model.

 

[Tex2]

Since he attempted to apply the formula to Amway, it was wrong. Stop trying to twist meaning, you do that far too much with the tool scam.

 

[Tex2]

Be sure to visit my new thread regarding Bill Clinton and network marketing. I think his "system" involves late night pizza and blue dresses. LOL

Also, he takes "getting naked" (being honest, even though the LCKs lie through their teeth) with your upline quite literally! LOL

http://texsquixtarblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/are-we-making-difference.html

 

[cyborg]

Your formula wasn't wrong per se, it just has nothing to do with how Amway or legitimate MLMs work.

Abstract: MLMs work on the basis of recruiting a downline who then recruits downlines etc... each of whom pays back up again. To increase the amount of revenue venturing up the stream either you have more downlines or you have more volume. Exponential growth is unavoidable in the former case unless the expectation is that one's downlines will not recruit more downline's etc...

What's wrong is your understanding of the business model.

No I don't think so.

 

[Tex2]

cyborg, you need to stay in the abstract, because when you start talking practical facts, you are hopelessly lost.

Ad hominem and off-topic. Remember, it is attack the argument and not the aruger...posts must also be on topic/address the OP.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[cyborg]

If your 2^x formula was right, all of us would have been sponsored many times over, as Amway has been around a half century.

No, because not everyone gets involved in Amway.

The point of the "formula" (and I hesitate to call it that because it is not a formula, is a short expansion of a series) is that is one person recruits two into the system then the two new recruits will at least require two recruits in order to equal the number of downlines their upline had. This is a mathematical certainty.

This makes it inherently problematic to argue that MLMs are sustainable on the basis of selling the idea that new recruits can attain the high number of downlines as old recruits.

In other words there is no way one could honestly continually sell the idea to new recruits that they could one day have a large base of downlines beneath them because eventually everyone would have to be in the scheme.

That would be dishonest - no?

 

[Tex2]

Your theoretical example would be dishonest.

The reality is Amway hasn't saturated after 50 YEARS! There are only a couple hundred thousand IBOs in the U.S., probably less that do much at all, with a population of over 300 MILLION! So, if you sponsor someone, should you tell them they "only" have 299,999,999 others to sponsor?

Now, what does your theoretical example have to do with reality?

I suggest we create the theoretical problem you suggest, then figure out what to do.

I already addressed this and other issues above, which you chose to ignore.

 

[cyborg]

Your theoretical example would be dishonest.

Again: it is not a theoretical example.

The reality is Amway hasn't saturated after 50 YEARS!

Again: one would not - and could not - expect the entire population of the US to be in Amway. Irregardless of any other reason some people just won't be interested.

So, if you sponsor someone, should you tell them they "only" have 299,999,999 others to sponsor?

Er no.

 

[Tex2]

Of course it's a theoretical example, as it has no basis in fact. Amway has been around for a half century and your example bears NO resemblence to reality. BTW, irregardless is not a word.

 

[cyborg]

Of course it's a theoretical example, as it has no basis in fact.

No it's not a theoretical example as it's not theoretical. It simply is.

Amway has been around for a half century and your example bears NO resemblence to reality.

Again: I did not say otherwise. You have completely missed the point.

Say there are 100 IBOs in the US. If each of those has 1000 people then there is no way that those at the lowest levels in all the IBOs could recruit enough people to equal the current level of those at the top because there wouldn't be enough people to go around.

Now if you're saying there's a couple of hundred thousand of them then this likelihood seems much lower - or there are particularly flat heirarchies or just lots of very small ones. Either way I don't really see how one can point to the multi-level part as some sort of benefit.

BTW, irregardless is not a word.

Yes it is.

 

[Bob Klase]

BTW, irregardless is not a word.

Merriam-Webster Online says about 'irregardless':

The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however.

And so many other dictionaries disagree with you:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irregardless
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=93149&dict=CALD
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/irregardless
http://www.onelook.com/?w=irregardless&ls=a

 

[Tex2]

It also simply is not applicable to Amway.

I didn't miss any point. I am contrasting theory and reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless

 

[Tex2]

Bob,

According to your first reference, "Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead." I amend my statement: It's not a proper word. But thanks for finally adding to the discussion.

All of the other references you listed said essentially the same thing.

 

[cyborg]

I didn't miss any point. I am contrasting theory and reality.

Simple question: if I were to join Amway tomorrow would I or would I not want to have a large number of downlines?

 

[Tex2]

Even though YOU have not answered numerous simple questions from me, I will answer yours.

Answer: Maybe you would, maybe you wouldn't.

 

[cyborg]

Even though YOU have not answered numerous simple questions from me, I will answer yours.

I have not been asked numerous simple questions.

Answer: Maybe you would, maybe you wouldn't.

So:

Why would I?

Why wouldn't I?