Amway TV ad

[Tex2]

I forgot you don't read other people's posts. If you had, you'd have noticed that the NEXT THREE POSTS after the one you loved were all negative. Try not to get too much reality on you...I know it doesn't agree with you. >>>> Just because the followup posts were negative doesn't mean they had much to say about him being wrong. Try not to get too much reality on you...I know it doesn't agree with you. LOL

Along those lines, who cares what your current re-write of history is regarding your ‘nappy-headed-ho’ comment is? >>>> You can't even prove I used that term, let alone the context of it. LOL

It keeps changing, and every time it does, you end up changing it AGAIN. First, it was to make ‘all your black friends’ laugh. When asked if ‘all your black friends’ were as imaginary as your Amway ‘group’ – you replied that as part of cutting edge social commentary, you – a 50+ year old white failed Amway salesman from Texas – would go out with ‘all your black friends’ and call them racial slurs in public just to see people’s reactions. >>>> See, you STILL don't understand why I said those things, and that was YEARS ago. LOL

Well, that got called out – again – and months afterwards your story has morphed into “I did it to call attention to how people are stuck on labels.” Right. >>>> Really? Where did I say that? LOL

Don’t let the fact that you whipped out ‘Jew-Boy’ – with another fabricated ‘justification’ – to show just how socially conscious you really are. >>>> Which one was this? Can't you source ANYTHING you claim against me? LOL

Now – back to what Tex doesn’t know (besides that products have to be SOLD to someone other than yourself to make a profit): >>>> Which has been proven FALSE on several occasions. LOL

contrary to your ‘severed head’ attempt at dodging the question …which the judge even EXPLICITLY said that there was no ‘severed head’ as you like to pretend UK Amway Judgement (re: para. 50)… >>>> The paragraph you refer to says, "50. Nor has this case been (as it might have been) about the volume of BSM produced by Amway or by the organisations (like Britt and Network 21) formed by its senior IBOs and profitably peddled to a captive audience of nonachieving IBOs. Mr Cunningham QC did not open the case in that way and it is not the case which Mr Chivers QC has had to meet at trial." In other words, the prosecution was incompetent, as the judge was obviously sympathetic to the tool scam issue, but couldn't delve too far into the matter because the prosecution was so intent to shut down Amway on other grounds they neglected this major issue, and a judge can't add to the charges the prosecution brings to them. In fact, I've talked with Eric Scheibeler, who would have brought out the tool scam issue in detail at the trial, but he was invited to the trial at the last second and could not attend. It is noteworthy that:

1. Amway shut down the tool scam as part of the initial response,
2. The lawsuit was also originally brought against N21 and BWW, but these organizations were dropped and properly put under the Amway "umbrella."
3. When Jimbo "dumbass" Dornan wrote a letter blaming Amway for all of the problems, Amway slammed him, so he withdrew the letter and issued another one.
4. The judge made permanent the requirement for the tool scam to remain shut down.

What was the UK complaint against the ‘tools’ ? >>>> It matters little what the original complaint was, it matters what the final resolution was. The final resolution is the UK tool scam is dead. LOL

You’ve had over a year to get someone to read that to you. >>>> I read and commented on that paragraph a long time ago. LOL

Insider, whose word you seem to take for gospel now, has even painstakingly explained it to you. >>>> I don't take his word for gospel, I agree with him when he has the facts and against him when he doesn't. He didn't explain anything, he did his usual twist/distort exercise, similar to what you do. LOL

This is a pretty important blind spot you need to get over, once we cure you of that nasty habit of trying to rewrite history. >>>> It's not at all a blind spot of mine, just yours. LOL

Also, I don't need to rewrite history, you do! LOL

Your family being one that comes to mind....>>>>

Your mind is already damaged! LOL

 

[NewtonTrino]

Why do you continue to insist on creating completely incoherent posts? This is getting ridiculous.

 

[Tex2]

Why do you continue to insist on creating completely incoherent posts? This is getting ridiculous.

Why do you continue to insist on creating completely incoherent posts? This is getting ridiculous. LOL

P.S., I thought you were ignoring them! LOL

 

[NewtonTrino]

I don't have you on ignore yet, I just don't read them.

Did I mention I got a bonus check today from work? I'll tell you what mine is if you tell me what your last bonus check looked like

 

[Tex2]

I don't have you on ignore yet, I just don't read them. >>>> Then how do you know whether they are incoherent? LOL

Did I mention I got a bonus check today from work? >>>> No, you didn't.

I'll tell you what mine is if you tell me what your last bonus check looked like >>>>

Obviously you don't read for comprehension, I already addressed this above. LOL

 

[NewtonTrino]

I told you I'm not reading the incoherent stuff you call posts. So post again instead of wasting time.

 

[Tex2]

I told you I'm not reading the incoherent stuff you call posts. So post again instead of wasting time.

I told you I'm not reposting my brilliant posts you call incoherent stuff. So read again instead of wasting my time. LOL

 

[NewtonTrino]

So how much was your last bonus check Tex?

 

[Tex2]

So how much was your last bonus check Tex?

You really haven't been reading, have you? LOL

 

[NewtonTrino]

No, I told you I don't read the incoherent stuff. It's a very simple answer why the reticence?

 

[Tex2]

No, I told you I don't read the incoherent stuff. It's a very simple answer why the reticence?

No, I told you I don't repeat myself. It was a very simple answer, why the reticence to read it? LOL

 

[Vermonter]

The schoolyard antics, while amusing, only serve to show anyone who reads this thread how insane these arguements are. Come on, parroting back words?

 

[Tricky]

This thread has been generating too many reports. I am switching it to moderated status. Expect a delay before your post appear here. If your posts are uncivil or violate any of the forum rules, they won't appear at all. If you all play nice, we may take it off moderated status. Okay?

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

 

[NewtonTrino]

Thank you, I think this will somewhat improve the thread.

Secondly I think we are going in circles. Tex has a theory that the tools business is causing the "regular" business to not be as profitable. I think the theory is that because you are forcing tools down peoples throat they waste time and money on that.

However, I'm not sure how that implies that the "regular" business is actually a profitable or useful enterprise. So my challenge to Tex is to show us the business plan without the tools. Show us how much money we will make at the different pin levels (in PROFIT including expenses!) and how much work it is to maintain that.

Now I'm sure he won't supply this information because he can't (having not had that level of success). However I think this is a perfectly fair way to approach this. After all he's the one saying that this is a great business (same goes for Icerat).

 

[Almo]

Right, so there's this ad on TV for Amway/Quixtar.

They said how they helped over 3 million people run their own business, with revenue over $6 billion.

Wait... isn't that income of $2000 per person? Maybe they mean current revenue is $6 billion and 3 million people have previously been involved. That could mean 2 million have quit, but 1 million are still in. Wait... isn't that still only $6000 per person?

Either loads of people have quit, or the people on average don't really make much money. Both ways make it sound like not such a good deal.

Ok, Tricky hit the reset button. Under moderated status, I'd like to see a reply to the OP. Icerat tried a long time ago, but I can't say I was satisfied with the answer.

I can't see how to make these numbers work without making Amway look bad. I can only imagine that the people who made the ad are counting on the audience not really thinking about what it says.

 

[Tex2]

I am replying to these posts here: http://texsquixtarblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/amway-approved-blog-words.html

 

[Porkchopjim]

I can't see how to make these numbers work without making Amway look bad. I can only imagine that the people who made the ad are counting on the audience not really thinking about what it says.

They're mixing numbers to their advantage:

Amway has roughly 3M people signed up as 'business owners' at any given time. As Icerat says, about 2/3 of those don't do anything except sign up. So that's about 1M either buying or buying and selling products.

Amway's revenue used to be about $8B – that's Amway's sales both through IBOs and some portion of revenue that I never got a full understanding of...they manufacture for others, or sell by means other than through IBOs (and this was before Amway stores, too...but that's not important). $6B through IBOs is close enough.

So : “Amway is a solid and successful company” = $6B revenue.
“Lots of folks think it's a good idea" = 3M business owners.

Your math is correct: 3M 'business owners' buying $2K a year each of Amway products = $6B for Amway. Nothing in there says anything about how much the 'business owner' actually makes...


'Serious' IBOs buy about $4-$5K of Amway products each year. That's because in order to get your 'rebate' check, you have to buy roughly $300 per month. Also, you need to 'set the example' for your recruits so they'll buy $300 per month also...which adds to your 'volume' and is how profit is generated for sales to 'business owners' below you.

Take 1M IBOs 'doing' something...have them buy $4-$5K (at a minimum) each year...magic math: you're looking at $5B. Close enough to account for Amway's total business, as advertised!

Do not, for a minute, think that these “Amway Ads” are to educate the general public about “Amway” and the 'business opportunity.' They are purely damage control: IBOs leave by the millions each year. Uplines pull their IBOs – who are above and beyond the largest customers and consumers of Amway products – to other sketchy MLM deals all the time.

Amway is trying to do retention of the customers (IBOs) it has now. The UK scared the junk out of Amway. If they had lost that market and got kicked out, it wouldn't be more than seconds before someone started to REALLY look at them here. That can not happen.

So – the numbers do NOT show Amway to be that great of a business...but the target audience – IBOs – already think it's a winner, and as you've seen, numbers don't mean that much to them. It's to make them feel good and stick around.

 

[NewtonTrino]

I think one of the takeaways from these low numbers it that the vast majority of product is just the self use of the distributor force. Unfortunately this has the effect of turning amway into a straight up pyramid scheme. Add in the "tools" business and you end up with another pyramid inside the "legit" one. Add in the cult tactics and brainwashing and well.... you get the picture.

 

[Rasmus]

"If you do the work the money will follow" is the mantra.

>>>> Yes, it is the mantra with most businesses, except most businesses don't have a tool scam. LOL

No, that is not how businesses work like. Yes, you do have to do the work, but that doesn't guarantee you that the money will follow. Far from it, in fact.

Businesses - all of them - depend on many other factors than just your ability or willingness to work for their success. Even if you stretch that by quite a bit, even insane or outright impossible amounts of work will not guarantee success.

 

[Almo]

I am replying to these posts here: http://texsquixtarblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/amway-approved-blog-words.html

If you're going to sidestep this forum's moderation by answering outside it, I'm not going to respond to any further posts from you. It's not against the rules for you to do so, but I find it underhanded.