Amway TV ad

[Porkchopjim]

For all the things that call themselves MLM, we're in agreement - but then virtually by definition they're not MLMs, they're illegal pyramids.

Interesting.

Seeing as Amway Business Owners become that way after being shown the magic circles and given one of three choices:

1. Become an Amway Business Owner.
2. Just buy products.
3. Don't do anything....

...Icerat insists that those that choose to do #1 but only end up doing #2 are legitimate demand customers - who for some odd reason - don't maintain that demand once they stop being Amway business owners yet SURELY have some way to continue to buy Amway products at the same rate they consumed when they were business owners. However, they never do, because if they did - Amway's traditional markets (see US) would have grown and not stagnated over many years.

That's artificial demand. That's not a display of a true market outside the pyramid when the overwhelming majority of Amway products are bought and consumed by Amway business owners for the sole reason of artificially inflating their businesses. If it were for true demand, that would not go away. It does when the ABO quits.

Contrary to Icerat's 'referenced' Team vs. Quixtar complaint that he has abused to declare that it shows 80% of products are true market demand...the lawsuit explicitly says 3.4% of the products are bought and consumed by non-business owners.

That's lying to try to make Amway look better.

Newton is right. Someone can't seem to tell the difference anymore (see religious zealot).

 

[icerat]

More dishonest from PCJ.

...Icerat insists that those that choose to do #1 but only end up doing #2 are legitimate demand customers - who for some odd reason - don't maintain that demand once they stop being Amway business owners yet SURELY have some way to continue to buy Amway products at the same rate they consumed when they were business owners. However, they never do, because if they did - Amway's traditional markets (see US) would have grown and not stagnated over many years.

I've provided statistics and sources on this before, but of course they're ignored. 25% of people who do not renew their membership continue to buy products. Given 50% of the 70% of people who do not renew their membership in the first year never bought a product in the first place, this means a very large percentage of people who actually try the products continue to do so.

Furthermore, the while members may have the right to operate an Amway business, that doesn't mean they are. Buying products for yourself at distributor price does not make you a business owner. Indeed, as the Canadian Competition Bureau puts it -

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

I've been through this before on this thread, so I know it will get ignored AGAIN, but nevertheless ....

For products to be getting purchased by Amway members due to illegitimate demand, at a bare minimum there must be some financial incentive for purchase ... ie they'll "make money" if they buy the products. Yet only 12.9% of IBOs earn bonuses from group volume and >70% of IBOs who have renewed once renew again and purchase products .. with no economic incentive to purchase. Furthermore, they have an economic incentive (cheaper prices) to remain as members if they like the products, even if they have no interest in building the business.

So -
1. The majority of registered members who purchase products have no economic incentive to do so.
2. People who like the products have an economic incentive to remain as registered members
3. A large percentage of people who have purchased the products as members continue to purchase the products if they are no longer members.

PCJ is stating outright falsehoods. I've provided sources to back up all of this data earlier.

That's artificial demand. That's not a display of a true market outside the pyramid when the overwhelming majority of Amway products are bought and consumed by Amway business owners for the sole reason of artificially inflating their businesses. If it were for true demand, that would not go away. It does when the ABO quits.

No it doesn't. Most active ABOs who quit building the business continue to buy products. You are wrong.

Contrary to Icerat's 'referenced' Team vs. Quixtar complaint that he has abused to declare that it shows 80% of products are true market demand...the lawsuit explicitly says 3.4% of the products are bought and consumed by non-business owners.

It says no such thing. It says 3.4% of products were bought through the website by registered customers. It says nothing of products bought by customers from active IBOs, and it says nothing about products bought by registered members who never or are no longer operating a business.

Edited by Cuddles: 

Edited for moderated thread.

 

[NewtonTrino]

So you agree that only 3.4% of products are sold to end customers directly through the website then?

I have to say I find that I'm not surprised by that at all.

The rest of the numbers seem like you are twisting pretty heavily. So ex-IBO's who aren't ex-IBO's because they still renew mostly by products but don't count as IBO's but as customers? I don't buy it for a second.

As for the JOB stuff, this is pretty universal within all amway groups. If you want to deny it fine, but up above you claimed that "Amway's founders have explictly come out against the anti-job type of culture that some groups promote". I'm sure some groups probably downplay this moronic thinking but to say that it's only limited to a few groups is just a lie. The anti job attitude is completely pervasive within amway. It's one of the essential elements of promoting the scam.

 

[icerat]

So you agree that only 3.4% of products are sold to end customers directly through the website then?

Umm ... no. People registered as IBOs purchasing for personal use are end customers. The 3.4% refers to non-IBO registered end customers.

I have to say I find that I'm not surprised by that at all.

Who would be? Clearly if you want to buy more than a handful of products, it makes economic sense to register as an IBO. At least it did at the time of the stat. Amway has actually put in some incentives to try to have non-active IBOs revert to being customers.

The rest of the numbers seem like you are twisting pretty heavily. So ex-IBO's who aren't ex-IBO's because they still renew mostly by products but don't count as IBO's but as customers? I don't buy it for a second.

What's being twisted is you and PCJ continuing to claim that people who have zero economic incentive to purchase products are somehow not legitimate consumers of the product.

What's being twisted is you and PCJ continuing to claim that people who sign an agreement that gives them the right to market Amway products are miraculously "in business" despite doing nothing at all that could be considered as "in business" and not being considered by any government authority to be "in business"

As for the JOB stuff, this is pretty universal within all amway groups.

How do you know? You've admitted your experience of Amway is limited to one part.

If you want to deny it fine, but up above you claimed that "Amway's founders have explictly come out against the anti-job type of culture that some groups promote". I'm sure some groups probably downplay this moronic thinking but to say that it's only limited to a few groups is just a lie.

You have zero evidence to support that claim, and have admitted to not even having any personal knowledge to be able to support that claim.

The anti job attitude is completely pervasive within amway. It's one of the essential elements of promoting the scam.

Ok. So it's "essential", yet we know the largest and most successful single organization in Amway doesn't do it. How does that work exactly, it being "essential" and all?

 

[Porkchopjim]

More dishonest from PCJ.

I've provided statistics and sources on this before, but of course they're ignored. 25% of people who do not renew their membership continue to buy products...

Cry dishonest and ignore the part where I say those IBOs who leave the business suddenly don't consume nearly the SAME VOLUME as they did when they 'owned' the business?

That ex-IBOs buy products isn't in dispute. That they no longer feel the NEED to buy 100-300PV worth a MONTH is what you ignore.

Furthermore, the while members may have the right to operate an Amway business, that doesn't mean they are. Buying products for yourself at distributor price does not make you a business owner. Indeed, as the Canadian Competition Bureau puts it -

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

I've been through this before on this thread, so I know it will get ignored AGAIN, but nevertheless ....

To participate in the benefits of the Amway plan, all you need to do is to order 100PV worth of products a month to get a rebate check from them.

THAT is benefiting from the plan.

So -
1. The majority of registered members who purchase products have no economic incentive to do so.

Wait. Which one is true? The one above, or the one below?

I know - just have it both ways!

2. People who like the products have an economic incentive to remain as registered members

That excuse went out 30 years ago with FTC v. Amway. Now that Amway can't fix prices, the incentive for a single registered member only appears at 100PV - about $300 of Amway products each month...and then it's a 3% rebate on business volume.

You can get Amway products cheaper than that on the web from IBOs who can't dump the stuff fast enough to make their 'PV' goals.

3. A large percentage of people who have purchased the products as members continue to purchase the products if they are no longer members.

And the volume of those orders is miniscule compared to when they thought they would be retired on the beach in 3-5 years after suckering enough of their friends/family/strangers in bookstores to do the same thing.

It says no such thing. It says 3.4% of products were bought through the website by registered customers.

Here's the quote:

“In fact, a 2006 report prepared by Quixtar states that only 3.4% of its total volume comes from those who do not participate in Quixtar's compensation plan.”

That's significantly different from what you're PRETENDING it says.

PCJ is stating outright falsehoods. I've provided sources to back up all of this data earlier.

You've abused the sources and have not accurately represented them. In fact, you've misrepresented them.

Once again you're caught lying in order to try to make Amway look good. It's almost like a cult or something.

 

[NewtonTrino]

Ok. So it's "essential", yet we know the largest and most successful single organization in Amway doesn't do it. How does that work exactly, it being "essential" and all?

So just to be ABSOLUTELY clear here you are saying that I won't find a single tape/book or CD distributed by this group that disparages working a job for a living?

 

[icerat]

That ex-IBOs buy products isn't in dispute.

Oh yes it is. My apologies if I misunderstood your viewpoint, however a number of others in this discussion have claimed there is little or no legitimate demand, and I haven't noticed you disputing that.

That they no longer feel the NEED to buy 100-300PV worth a MONTH is what you ignore.

100-300PV that active IBOs purchase is not just personal use, it includes customer volume. If they're not actively building the business, then the latter could and would clearly disappear so that personal volume would drop.

If they're purchasing stuff purely to make some arbitrary "quota", then it's illegitimate demand, I'm not disputing that and never have. Indeed, as you well know I've said as much on many occasions and decried the practice. What I'm disputing is that there's no or little legitimate demand for the products.

To participate in the benefits of the Amway plan, all you need to do is to order 100PV worth of products a month to get a rebate check from them.

What? Now you agree with Tex? Buying stuff and getting a discount is making money?

It's not making money, it's getting stuff cheaper because you bought more stuff. Same principle applies virtually everywhere. Discounting does not suddenly create illegitimate demand, which is the issue here.

Wait. Which one is true? The one above, or the one below?

A potential 3% discount if you purchase certain volumes is not a significant economic incentive to purchase stuff you don't want.

A guaranteed 20-30% discount on stuff you want is a significant economic incentive to be a member.

I know - just have it both ways!

Yup, both are true.

That excuse went out 30 years ago with FTC v. Amway. Now that Amway can't fix prices, the incentive for a single registered member only appears at 100PV - about $300 of Amway products each month...and then it's a 3% rebate on business volume.

Huh? 20-30% distributor discount pricing "went out 30 years ago"??

You can get Amway products cheaper than that on the web from IBOs who can't dump the stuff fast enough to make their 'PV' goals.

Some Amway products you can, with uncertain availability, uncertain security, and no satisfaction guarantees. Still, I'm sure some people buy stuff that way - and guess what, it would just go as an IBO purchase.

And the volume of those orders is miniscule compared to when they thought they would be retired on the beach in 3-5 years after suckering enough of their friends/family/strangers in bookstores to do the same thing.

Any evidence to support that claim or are you just guessing?

Here's the quote:

“In fact, a 2006 report prepared by Quixtar states that only 3.4% of its total volume comes from those who do not participate in Quixtar's compensation plan.”

And here's the context - that interpretation is from the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Quixtar brought by some IBOs who were kicked out for unethical behaviour - indeed, partly for the very behaviour you are decrying of pushing illegitimate demand. A lawsuit they lost. Quixtar disputed that particular claim, because the *facts* are as I stated them. The figure itself comes from Quixtar statistics provided in the lawsuit on registered customer data. It does not include volume I outlined earlier, or, for another example, the products you admit is available via Ebay.

You've abused the sources and have not accurately represented them. In fact, you've misrepresented them.

No, you have misrepresented them. You've quoted an interpretation of a statistic by a party, Orrin Woodward, with an obvious bias. Do you just automatically accept all allegations made in lawsuits? If I sue you and say your a sociopath, does that automatically make it true?

Once again you're caught lying in order to try to make Amway look good. It's almost like a cult or something.

Au contraire, what it does once again you're caught misrepresenting something and accepting things as true purely because it confirms what you want to believe when there's obvious and very good reasons to treat it with caution. Indeed, in the Forbes article on Orrin Woodward[/quote], in reference to the figure it says -

Amway says the 3.4% represents only a "fraction" of its retail sales.

You of course prefer the version by the guy kicked out of Amway for doing the very thing both you and I agree is wrong.

 

[Porkchopjim]

Oh yes it is. My apologies if I misunderstood your viewpoint, however a number of others in this discussion have claimed there is little or no legitimate demand, and I haven't noticed you disputing that.

That's because I DON'T dispute that fact – thanks for putting it that way! There is INDEED little to no legitimate demand for Amway products.

100-300PV that active IBOs purchase is not just personal use, it includes customer volume. If they're not actively building the business, then the latter could and would clearly disappear so that personal volume would drop.

It includes what little customer volume there is. Latest example of success: 5 customers? Only 20 more and you might have yourself a legitimate Amway business as defined and agreed by the FTC in 1979.

“Actively building the business” = overconsuming Awmay products in this context.

Customer demand – if there were any – and true personal consumption demand would show Amway growth as those IBOs drop out – which by your own figures – tons do.

Amway doesn't grow like that. It stays flat. True customer demand as you describe it would create growth. Replacing high-consuming IBOs with other high-consuming IBOs would keep it flat. Which it is.

What I'm disputing is that there's no or little legitimate demand for the products.

Good luck. You've been disputing that for years unsuccessfully and without any help from Amway's own numbers. Perhaps that secret data is on one of those 'training tapes'?

What? Now you agree with Tex? Buying stuff and getting a discount is making money?

Didn't say that. You know it.

What I DO say is that only an Amway Business Owner has the contracted right to get a 3%+ rebate on purchases.

I'm pretty sure that the Amway Business Rules spell that out specifically.

Huh? 20-30% distributor discount pricing "went out 30 years ago"??

You honestly expect anyone here to accept that a single IBO could self-consume over $20K of Amway products per month – which is how much you need PER MONTH to get your 20-30% discount all by your onsies.

In case you forgot: it's the MISREPRESENTATION of the Amway business that the FTC finds unseemly. You should refrain from doing that - along with your claims that it's "not hard to make $150."

Any evidence to support that claim or are you just guessing?

Just the references YOU listed.

And here's the context - that interpretation is from the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Quixtar brought by some IBOs who were kicked out for unethical behaviour - indeed, partly for the very behaviour you are decrying of pushing illegitimate demand.

That's not an 'interpretation' – it's a direct quote.

Any chance you have a copy of that special report that you seem to understand so well? Seeing as you are making the assertion that the citing of the report saying 3.4% to non-participants is in error? No?

You had no problem using that lawsuit as an authoritative source previously. But I'd expect that because you are wired to lie to make Amway look good.

You don't seem to like any other interpretations when you are found abusing them – so don't double standard us now.

It's only 3.4% of legitimate demand. Deal with it, as you say!

Do you just automatically accept all allegations made in lawsuits? If I sue you and say your a sociopath, does that automatically make it true?

Once again – that particular lawsuit seems to suit you just fine when you can cherry pick (and abuse) portions of it.

The volume, and stagnation, of Amway sales in NA more supports the replacement of IBOs who are hyperconsuming products in order to build 'volume' versus your model of genuine demand that is constantly bringing in both new high-volume business owners and their customer's demands.

What's being twisted is you and PCJ continuing to claim that people who sign an agreement that gives them the right to market Amway products are miraculously "in business" despite doing nothing at all that could be considered as "in business" and not being considered by any government authority to be "in business"

I'm only claiming what Amway claims when they say 3M business owners!

If it's good enough for the commercial, it should be good enough for you.

Or – did Amway take that 'out of context'?

Did you just accuse them of lying to make themselves look good?

 

[NewtonTrino]

It's only 3.4% of legitimate demand. Deal with it, as you say!

And of those how many are just friends and family being pressured to buy?

 

[icerat]

That's because I DON'T dispute that fact – thanks for putting it that way! There is INDEED little to no legitimate demand for Amway products.

Yet I just provided a whole bunch of statistics that prove you wrong.

It includes what little customer volume there is. Latest example of success: 5 customers? Only 20 more and you might have yourself a legitimate Amway business as defined and agreed by the FTC in 1979.

There was no such definition or agreement. Again you're just making stuff up. Apart from which that's 5 retail customers, it says nothing of wholesale customers.

“Actively building the business” = overconsuming Awmay products in this context.

Self-consuming Amway products is not a business at all. The business is in finding retail and wholesale customers for Amway products.

Customer demand – if there were any – and true personal consumption demand would show Amway growth as those IBOs drop out – which by your own figures – tons do.

By that logic, any time a company has a drop in sales it means there's no demand for their products? Ridiculous. Demand for Amway products drops for the same large variety of reasons it does in other companies, ranging changes in the competition to customers and/or reps moving or dying, to them finding some other product they like more etc etc etc. Research done in the US several years ago by Amway found the main reason retail customers stopped buying Amway products was because their rep disappeared.

There is legitimate demand for Amway products, it's not up for opinion, it's a fact.

Amway doesn't grow like that. It stays flat. True customer demand as you describe it would create growth. Replacing high-consuming IBOs with other high-consuming IBOs would keep it flat. Which it is.

What a load of hogwash. Demand doesn't work like that. Every business has customer churn of some variety or another. You also seem to be talking just about Amway US? Just like any other company in any market, it goes through cycles of ups and downs. Why do you think Amway, or an Amway IBOs business, should be any different?

Good luck. You've been disputing that for years unsuccessfully and without any help from Amway's own numbers. Perhaps that secret data is on one of those 'training tapes'?

Nothing secret about it. There's a market for Amway products. To claim otherwise simply indicates a willful disregard of reality.

What I DO say is that only an Amway Business Owner has the contracted right to get a 3%+ rebate on purchases.

Not true, I've given rebates and discounts to customers lots of times.

I'm pretty sure that the Amway Business Rules spell that out specifically.

To the complete contrary. Indeed Amway got fined by the FTC for pressuring distributors to fix prices .... 30 years ago.

You honestly expect anyone here to accept that a single IBO could self-consume over $20K of Amway products per month – which is how much you need PER MONTH to get your 20-30% discount all by your onsies.

Your logic is getting twisted up in your underwear or something. Your assuming the only reason people buy products is due to monetary incentives - not because they want the product - and therefore declaring that volume discounts are there incentive to self consumes.

You're own skepticism here shows the reality - it's an incentive to develop wholesale and retail customers to increase volume ... because no one could honestly accept that a single IBO could self-consume over $20K of Amway products per month - which is what one would need to believe to believe volume discounts are incentive to self consume.

In case you forgot: it's the MISREPRESENTATION of the Amway business that the FTC finds unseemly. You should refrain from doing that - along with your claims that it's "not hard to make $150."

I stand by what I said. It's not hard to make $150 with Amway, and if the FTC wanted to take me to court I'm sure I'd have no problems proving the case.

That's not an 'interpretation' – it's a direct quote.

A direct quote of a lawyer representing a plaintiff making accusations against Amway - in a case they lost!! Yeah, that's unbiased

Any chance you have a copy of that special report that you seem to understand so well? Seeing as you are making the assertion that the citing of the report saying 3.4% to non-participants is in error? No?

Yes I have a copy.

You had no problem using that lawsuit as an authoritative source previously. But I'd expect that because you are wired to lie to make Amway look good.

No, because I'm taking the information from tables of data that have been acknowledged as factual by Amway. You however are quoting a lawyer for the plaintiff's claims about what the data means, an interpretation that has been explictly dismissed as wrong by Amway.

The volume, and stagnation, of Amway sales in NA more supports the replacement of IBOs who are hyperconsuming products in order to build 'volume' versus your model of genuine demand that is constantly bringing in both new high-volume business owners and their customer's demands.

Again you just make stuff up. I have no "model of genuine demand that is constantly bringing in both new high-volume business owners and their customer's demands".

Demand for Amway products is mediated by all the same kind of things as other companies products, including fads, price, marketing, general economy etc etc etc.

I'm only claiming what Amway claims when they say 3M business owners!

If it's good enough for the commercial, it should be good enough for you.

Or – did Amway take that 'out of context'?

Did you just accuse them of lying to make themselves look good?

Call it lying if you want, to me it's a case of hyperbolic marketing using a dumb definition of "business owner" - and in my opinion it doesn't make them "look good" at all, I tender this very thread as evidence!

The reality is that neither you nor Amway (nor I) gets to decide whether someone is a "business owner". You don't become a business owner simply by signing a bit of paper and then paying a renewal fee.

 

[NewtonTrino]

Icerat, you can claim there is legit product demand outside the pyramid but you haven't shown that to be the cast in any way that an objective observer can understand. In fact it seems quite clear that most of those that buy these products are involved as an IBO.

 

[icerat]

Icerat, you can claim there is legit product demand outside the pyramid but you haven't shown that to be the cast in any way that an objective observer can understand. In fact it seems quite clear that most of those that buy these products are involved as an IBO.

I'll put it simply -

(1) the vast majority of the products are bought by end users with no economic incentive to purchase them other than the price and perceived value of the product.

The only argument given against that would have us believe

(a) that people who make no money at all from marketing Amway products are buying them as result of becoming and Amway rep, despite not considering them of good value, rather than the far simpler and more logical explanation that they became, or maintained, Amway membership so they would get products they like at distributor pricing.

and furthermore,

(b) that products that have received numerous independent consumer awards and independent positive reviews around the world have no legitimate demand

(c) that these award winning products that are *cheaper* or of comparable price to similiar competitors in the marketplace have no legitimate demand

(d) that independent judiciary in multiple countries over multiple decades have somehow been convinced they have legitimate demand when they do not.

What more needs to be said?

 

[Porkchopjim]

Yet I just provided a whole bunch of statistics that prove you wrong.

Must have missed that part. Must have been like that statistics that show buying useless CDs and seminars makes people more successful?

All you've done is try to prove that self-consumption to make PV goals is a valid purchase. You have not proven that the vast majority of Amway products are bought by someone who is not a participant in the compensation plan. Contrary to your invented Amway rules, all I have to do is buy 100PV of products in one month to get a rebate from Amway. That is not profit, but that certainly is benefiting from the plan, isn't it? Of course not.

There was no such definition or agreement. Again you're just making stuff up. Apart from which that's 5 retail customers, it says nothing of wholesale customers.

Once again, of course not! The ruling said nothing about the 70% rule, the buy-back rule, and the 25 retail customers required to get money from downline purchases.

Amway has since tossed that out the window to an easier level for IBOs to lie about: 50PV, $100 or 10 customers.

Self-consuming Amway products is not a business at all. The business is in finding retail and wholesale customers for Amway products.

Here we go again. The bottom guy gets hosed – and Icerat is fine with that. All you have to do is not be the last guy in the chain, and as soon as you get one other sucker to join your group: BAM! You're a bona-fide wholesaler!

By that logic, any time a company has a drop in sales it means there's no demand for their products? Ridiculous.

It's ridiculous because you're using Insider logic. With all the legitimate demand that you claim is out there – with IBOs only buying what they truly want and the MAJORITY of them continuing to buy what they want when they stop being business owners – and hundreds of thousands of new IBOs signing up each year...all that GENUINE demand would be reflected in growth.

Instead – it's a minority of Amway business owners buying their own products, getting burned out, and replaced.

There is legitimate demand for Amway products, it's not up for opinion, it's a fact.

The legitimate demand is minute compared to the self-consumption to reach PV goals.

How much was your 5 customers worth for PV last month?

Just as you like anecdotal evidence: IBOs who were religious 100PV-300PV 'producers' (i.e. - 100PV-300PV consumers) who no longer are business owners but still order Amway products now consume – the genuine demand – about 15-35PV a month.

Why do you think Amway, or an Amway IBOs business, should be any different?

Because buying your own products isn't a real business.

And TEAM wasn't 'kicked out' because they bought their own products.

There's a market for Amway products. To claim otherwise simply indicates a willful disregard of reality.

The level of TRUE demand is only slightly higher than the level of demand that exists for the idiotic 'training systems' you crow about: inside the pyramid only.

Not true, I've given rebates and discounts to customers lots of times.

Read what I wrote again and stop wasting everyone's time pretending I stutter. So, your customers have an enforceable contract with you that they have paid a fee to you for in order to qualify for discounts on tiered levels of purchases?

To the complete contrary. Indeed Amway got fined by the FTC for pressuring distributors to fix prices .... 30 years ago.

You've gone Tex and started answering things that weren't even talked about. This one and the one before it. Perhaps you wouldn't 'misunderstand' so much if you weren't so much of a zealot.

So, you're saying that the Amway Business Plan DOES NOT explicitly spell out that you will receive a 3% bonus on your business volume if you reach a level of 100PV in one month if you are a business owner. Because THAT's what I said.

To the complete contrary, you claim.

I'm glad that your flock turns to you for authoritative rulings on all things Amway. Spells the death of that awful cult a lot sooner than I could bring about on my own.

Your assuming the only reason people buy products is due to monetary incentives - not because they want the product - and therefore declaring that volume discounts are there incentive to self consumes.

Volume discounts are NOT the incentive to self consume.

Artificially inflating business volume to fill in the little Amway circles is the incentive to self-consume.

And THAT's taught by your stupid systems – which brainwashes IBOs into thinking that 'volume = profit' when the equation is a little more complicated than that.

The first proof an IBO gets if he can't sell anything for a retail profit that the 'business' works is his $9 check Amway sends him for buying $300 worth of products.

because no one could honestly accept that a single IBO could self-consume over $20K of Amway products per month - which is what one would need to believe to believe volume discounts are incentive to self consume.

Whereas you seem to be able to honestly accept that IBOs can consume – by legitimate demand - $300 to $900 worth of Amway products a month.

I stand by what I said. It's not hard to make $150 with Amway, and if the FTC wanted to take me to court I'm sure I'd have no problems proving the case.

Doesn't matter – you've already declared that the FTC prohibits talk of profit.

You however are quoting a lawyer for the plaintiff's claims about what the data means, an interpretation that has been explictly dismissed as wrong by Amway.

Whip out that bad boy! Let's have a look at it! Or – we should just take your word for it.

Again you just make stuff up. I have no "model of genuine demand that is constantly bringing in both new high-volume business owners and their customer's demands".

First you claim it as all kinds of 'legitimate demand' and now you dismiss it?

Demand for Amway products is mediated by all the same kind of things as other companies products, including fads, price, marketing, general economy etc etc etc.

And that's why IBOs are stuck buying and consuming the VAST majority of them.

The reality is that neither you nor Amway (nor I) gets to decide whether someone is a "business owner". You don't become a business owner simply by signing a bit of paper and then paying a renewal fee.

I'm pretty sure Amway gets to define what an “Amway Business Owner” is.

Besides, seeing as you are the largest proponent of 'define your own success' – suddenly you seem to be putting limitations on that all over the place. Say one thing and do another – Amway 101.

(1) the vast majority of the products are bought by end users with no economic incentive to purchase them other than the price and perceived value of the product.

100% false. All your reasons are advertising (i.e. - lying / hyperbole).

 

[NewtonTrino]

I'll put it simply -

(1) the vast majority of the products are bought by end users with no economic incentive to purchase them other than the price and perceived value of the product.

Proof? Where are all of these customers? This is a very bold statement. To me this means at least 80% of product is going outside to the pyramid to non-IBO's. You can't be claiming that IBO's don't have more incentive than price and perceived value, after all they sell the product which is an implicit bias.

Also just to be clear you are claiming that your group doesn't slam people working jobs right? This means none of the "training" materials in your system disparage jobs right? I notice you ignored this question above.

 

[Porkchopjim]

(a) that people who make no money at all from marketing Amway products are buying them as result of becoming and Amway rep, despite not considering them of good value, rather than the far simpler and more logical explanation that they became, or maintained, Amway membership so they would get products they like at distributor pricing.

As you've already stated in your case, it's not hard for customers to get products at reduced and even distributor pricing. So that's out.

(b) that products that have received numerous independent consumer awards and independent positive reviews around the world have no legitimate demand

While that makes good advertising, it doesn't prove one way or the other that there is demonstrated demand for those products.

(c) that these award winning products that are *cheaper* or of comparable price to similiar competitors in the marketplace have no legitimate demand

Not competitors that are similar enough. True comparisons of actual comparable products show Amway to be more expensive – even at 'distributor pricing'. While Icerat will defend his magic vitamins (with secret plant powers included) to the death – real comparable products can be gotten much cheaper.

(d) that independent judiciary in multiple countries over multiple decades have somehow been convinced they have legitimate demand when they do not.

The Corn Po' defense is a powerful one: all these people become distributors in order to just buy products because they like them. When you look at Amway's dismal performance as an MLM business – that is, for those who participate in the plan, not Amway itself that makes a buttload of money selling products to IBOs trying to consume their way to financial freedom – it's sure looks like a plausible explanation. It also helps that you pretend to have stringent requirements to ensure outside demand.

Looking at it overall, it sure does just look like a harmless little vitamin and soap company that doesn't amount to two spits in the overall ocean.

But then you get a look at the 'rags to riches life on the beach is yours for the taking if you just work hard enough' propaganda that Amway sticks out there...well... there sure does seem to be more said about that.

 

[icerat]

Proof? Where are all of these customers? This is a very bold statement.

I have given the supporting statistical evidence for this many many times.

To me this means at least 80% of product is going outside to the pyramid to non-IBO's.

No, because "IBO" includes people who are not "participants in the scheme", ie have a monetary incentive.

In the US, only 12.9% of registered IBOs are earning volume bonuses outside their own personal purchases. (source: Team vs Quixtar)

You can't be claiming that IBO's don't have more incentive than price and perceived value, after all they sell the product which is an implicit bias.

No they don't. The UK statistics said in 2006, 9% of IBOs were selling to retail customers (source: BERR vs Amway UK, judgement), the US statistics said in 2005 only 12.9% of IBOs are selling to wholesale customers (ie other IBOs). (source: Team vs Quixtar)

The vast majority of IBOs are not selling anything, nor trying to. They have no economic incentive to purchase the products outside intrinsic value

Also just to be clear you are claiming that your group doesn't slam people working jobs right? This means none of the "training" materials in your system disparage jobs right? I notice you ignored this question above.

I didn't ignore it at all, I answered explictly. I haven't listed to every piece of training material in the N21 system, but of the hundreds I have listened to over the years, and who knows how many seminars I've been too, in multiple countries, I've never heard disparagement of people working jobs.

 

[icerat]

As you've already stated in your case, it's not hard for customers to get products at reduced and even distributor pricing. So that's out.

Believe it or not, not everything is on ebay, not everybody buys from ebay, and price isn't everything. I hope one day you'll stop being dishonest in your claims about what I say, which was never that "it's not hard for customers to get products at reduced ... pricing."

Not to mention your shear hypocrisy and circular logic of implying that people who register for distributor pricing because they want the products are evidence that there's no legitimate demand for the products since as they get distributor pricing that means they can profit through resale or volume rebats so it's not legitimate demand.

While that makes good advertising, it doesn't prove one way or the other that there is demonstrated demand for those products.

Significant numbers of independent judges recommending Amway products as good value isn't evidence there might be legitimate demand for the products. Uhhuh. The recommendations of respected experts is one of the things that drives consumer demand. You running out of straws to desperately clutch to yet?

Not competitors that are similar enough. True comparisons of actual comparable products show Amway to be more expensive – even at 'distributor pricing'. While Icerat will defend his magic vitamins (with secret plant powers included) to the death – real comparable products can be gotten much cheaper.

I've already given numerous price comparisons on this thread. No need to prove you wrong again.

The Corn Po' defense is a powerful one: all these people become distributors in order to just buy products because they like them. When you look at Amway's dismal performance as an MLM business – that is, for those who participate in the plan,

What dismal performance? The evidence suggests the great majority of people who actively pursue the business plan for the necessary time earn decent incomes. There's nothing dismal about it.

Unless of course you want to twist the statistics by continuing your hypocrisy that the same group of people who join to get distributor pricing - which you think somehow provide evidence there's little demand - should also be considered as actively building the business and evidence of low success! Talk about spin!

Looking at it overall, it sure does just look like a harmless little vitamin and soap company that doesn't amount to two spits in the overall ocean.

Do you have anything at all but straw men?

But let's review some facts about Amway again -

1. #2 largest direct selling company in the world with US$8.2billion in sales
2. Deloitte Touche Global Power in Retailing
3. One of the largest private companies in the world
4. #1 Health & Beauty Internet Retailer
5. #1 best selling Nutritional brand in the world
6. #4 best selling prestige cosmetics brand in the world
7. Readers' Digest Most Trusted Brand (Nutritional Supplements) 2005,2006,2007,2008,2009
8. Readers' Digest Most Trusted Brand (Water Treatment Systems)
9. ConsumberLabs - Nutritional supplements, Most Satisfied Consumers 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009
10. etc etc etc etc

Not two spits in the ocean.

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for civility - moderated thread

(to other readers: PCJ is one of a number of dedicated anti-amway critics).

 

[Tex2]

Once again, of course not! The ruling said nothing about the 70% rule, the buy-back rule, and the 25 retail customers required to get money from downline purchases. ---- It has never been 25 customers, it was 25 sales.

Amway has since tossed that out the window to an easier level for IBOs to lie about: 50PV, $100 or 10 customers. ---- Haven't you kept up with the recent rule changes? The $100 criteria has been dropped.

ibofb has this fantasy that IBOs qualify as customers, especially if they make no effort to retail and/or sponsor others. He's WRONG, because by Amway rules an IBO CAN'T qualify as a customer/retail purchase.

 

[Skeptic]

Imagine if one discovered 96% of those who eat at McDonalds' actually own a McDonalds' restaurant themselves. Not much of a recommendation, is it? Either of the hamburgers or the chances of making money selling them?

 

[icerat]

ibofb has this fantasy that IBOs qualify as customers, especially if they make no effort to retail and/or sponsor others. He's WRONG, because by Amway rules an IBO CAN'T qualify as a customer/retail purchase.

I have no such fantasy. IBOs do not qualify as "customers" for the purpose of Amway's retail customer rules, which is what you are referring to here.

Imagine if one discovered 96% of those who eat at McDonalds' actually own a McDonalds' restaurant themselves. Not much of a recommendation, is it? Either of the hamburgers or the chances of making money selling them?

What is the relevance of this comment to the thread in discussion? Do you actually believe that simply signing a piece of paper that gives you the right to market Amway products means you own and operate a fully fledged business?

Please, take that definition to your local tax authorities and see how it goes over. I guarantee you that if you won't even be able to deduct the cost of the ink to sign as a business expense.

You don't own a business until you actually take action to develop a business. This isn't rocket science, and I think it's unlikely you're simply too stupid to understand it - so why are do you continue to pursue this clearly illegitimate line of thinking? For what purpose?