Amway TV ad

[Bob Klase]

And there's no surprise that there's a cult-like attitude... sensible people don't fall for this sort of scam.

Unfortunately sensible people do fall for all sorts of scams, including this one.

 

[PeterB]

I said:

Originally Posted by PeterB
If Amway has sales of only 6 billion, Icerat, how many big pins can be turning over billions individually? Or are you lying about that too? I must add it to the collection of arithmetical myths that true believers spout without thinking.

and Icerat replied:

$7.1 billion now. How many could be turning over billions individually? No idea, ask a better mathematician than me. Hmm, then again, not that hard - the theoretical limit, ignoring the intricacies of international and foster sponsorship, would be 6.1 billion plus 1.

Reality is of course nothing like that, but my guess is your understanding of the model is so poor you don't even comprehend my answer.

See what I mean about scambots and arithmetic? If Amway has a total world-wide sales turnover of $7.1 billion (even though the company itself offers a figure less than that), then the maximum number of participants turning over "billions" (note the plural) is three.

You can see some of my thoughts about MLM arithmetic at http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/ausscience0802.htm

 

[icerat]

OK. Since there are "many", can you name five of them? Please include the name of the award, which product won it, when, and provide supporting hyperlinks to non-Amway sites.

Thank you.

http://www.rdasiatrustedbrands.com

Multiple awards over multiple years in multiple countries for eSpring and Nutrilite products. There's more than 5 there alone.

The award is "Most Trusted Brand Asia"

http://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/news/ng.asp?id=50330-nutrilite-comes-out

Nutrilite regularly tops this survey for Consumer Satisfaction.

http://www.consumerreports.org (subscription needed)

tested washing powders a couple of years ago, SA8 scored 99 out of 100, next best was 87 if I recall correctly

I'm not going to google in polish, cause I can't read it, but here's the Amway link for eSpring - "Product of the Year" -

http://www.espring.com/English-EU/polishAward_popup.html

Artistry has won packaging awards, can't find a link right now.

 

[icerat]

The problem I have is not the "business" model or the selling of products, but the way in which they tell their new "members" that anyone who doesn't support them wants them to fail and is jealous of their "success". It trys to alienate the new members from their family and friends if those family and friends don't support them. This support usually means buying stuff or at least not telling them it's stupid.

I have a problem with this as well. While I know it happens, nobody I know personally operates their Amway business like this.

My two encounters with friends who did this took this route. You could see the rift that Amway was trying to create between people who "support" and people who didn't.

I find that method and behavior despicable.

So do I

It's evident here by icerat brandishing that non-supportive claim here.

huh?

It's how they do it. You aren't supporting me therefore you need to be removed from my life in order for me to succeed.

Disgusting.

Who is this "they" exactly? All 4 million or so Amway business owners in 90 odd countries and territories? You seriously can lump them all into "they"?

As it happens, "removing" yourself from people unsupportive and especially antagonistic towards your goals isn't exactly bad advice, doesn't matter whether you're talking about Amway or anything else.

 

[icerat]

See what I mean about scambots and arithmetic? If Amway has a total world-wide sales turnover of $7.1 billion (even though the company itself offers a figure less than that)

Yup, such the expert.

Alticor's Global Sales top 7 billion

, then the maximum number of participants turning over "billions" (note the plural) is three.

And didn't I say your understanding is so poor you wouldn't understand the answer?

A simplified example. How many folk can have revenues of $100 for $300 worth of goods?

Business A sells $300 of goods to Business B
Business B sells $299 of goods to Business C, $1 somewhere else
Business C sells $298 of goods to Business D, $1 somewhere else
...
Business XYY sells $100 of goods to Business XYZ, $1 somewhere else

$300 worth of goods, 201 businesses with turnover of $100 or more.

Indeed, there's no particular reason why there has to be $1 sold somewhere else. Ignoring taxes, expenses and such, you could theoretically have an infinite number of businesses with revenues of $300.

Company A sells $300 of goods to Company B who sells $300 of goods to Company C etc etc etc

No company makes any profit, but there you go.

Fact remains, how many folk have revenues of $1 billion out of all of Amway's sales is difficult to judge, even more so when the revenues can be judged to have occurred for two different businesses.

Told you you wouldn't understand, such is your poor comprehension of the business model. Not that this is that hard to understand, happens in traditional business as well. Believe me, both Coca-Cola and Wal-Mart count the same can of coke when they report revenue data.

PS but you're right, I did make an error - I was talking about over a billion, not "billions" as I wrote. My mistake.

 

[icerat]

You can see some of my thoughts about MLM arithmetic at http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/ausscience0802.htm

And my thoughts on that is that it's nice arithmetic, pathetic statistics.

How homogenous is the group under discussion? Is the income even remotely normally distributed? What's the distribution curve of hours worked like? Is iteven remotely normally distributed?

Ask yourself those questions and you might understand that your nice arithmetic is meaningless to verging on dishonesty.

Of course, lumping in MLM with pyramid schemes and the old furphy of "geometric progression", as you do in that article, goes to show your complete lack of understanding of MLM. That issue applies to pyramid schemes, which is why they are rightly illegal, but not to legitimate MLMs. In the Amway model for example, the number of "levels" is not significantly different to traditional product distribution. You seem to have completely missed the fact there's an inbuilt limiter on the MLM part of the compensation plan, much the same one that applies in traditional business - past a certain level of volume purchasing, there is no further discount.

What's more there is no more a necessity to "recruit" in MLM than there is in any business wanting to increase sales. The exact same principlies of market saturation apply, and it has nothing to do with recruiting, it has to do with whether there's a market for your products or not.

You seem to have gone to the Jon Taylor/Robert FitzPatrick school of MLM, where you assume, falsely, that MLMs operate the same way as illegal pyramids, and then write authoritive sounding articles railing against the evils of MLMs, when in fact they're the evils of pyramids you're talking about. As a retired Australian scientist myself I'm ashamed that article was published where it was.

That kind of poor thinking backed by false assumptions, by otherwise intelligent, rational people, is one of the reasons why I'm on this board.

 

[PeterB]

Yup, such the expert.

Alticor's Global Sales top 7 billion



And didn't I say your understanding is so poor you wouldn't understand the answer?

A simplified example. How many folk can have revenues of $100 for $300 worth of goods?

Business A sells $300 of goods to Business B
Business B sells $299 of goods to Business C, $1 somewhere else
Business C sells $298 of goods to Business D, $1 somewhere else
...
Business XYY sells $100 of goods to Business XYZ, $1 somewhere else

$300 worth of goods, 201 businesses with turnover of $100 or more.

Indeed, there's no particular reason why there has to be $1 sold somewhere else. Ignoring taxes, expenses and such, you could theoretically have an infinite number of businesses with revenues of $300.

Company A sells $300 of goods to Company B who sells $300 of goods to Company C etc etc etc

No company makes any profit, but there you go.

Fact remains, how many folk have revenues of $1 billion out of all of Amway's sales is difficult to judge, even more so when the revenues can be judged to have occurred for two different businesses.

Told you you wouldn't understand, such is your poor comprehension of the business model. Not that this is that hard to understand, happens in traditional business as well. Believe me, both Coca-Cola and Wal-Mart count the same can of coke when they report revenue data.

PS but you're right, I did make an error - I was talking about over a billion, not "billions" as I wrote. My mistake.

So you admit that all sales are made in a round-robin fashion between participants in the scheme and no sales are made outside. Thanks for that.

 

[PeterB]

I said:

You can see some of my thoughts about MLM arithmetic at http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/commen...cience0802.htm

and Icerat replied:

And my thoughts on that is that it's nice arithmetic, pathetic statistics.

How homogenous is the group under discussion? Is the income even remotely normally distributed? What's the distribution curve of hours worked like? Is iteven remotely normally distributed?

Ask yourself those questions and you might understand that your nice arithmetic is meaningless to verging on dishonesty.

The group is not homogeneous - it is very highly skewed, with a very small number of people getting the vast majority of the income. Just look at the figures for the UK - 32,910 losers, 90 winners. I would suspect the skew of hours worked would go in the opposite direction, After all, don't Diamonds spend their time strolling the beaches of the world while collecting residual income?

I notice that you didn't have anything to say about how pathetic the total MLM business looks when compared to a single real retailer.

 

[NewtonTrino]

Scam alert!

Heed us who have seen this close up and avoid the brainwashing. Run run away!

 

[icerat]

So you admit that all sales are made in a round-robin fashion between participants in the scheme and no sales are made outside. Thanks for that.

ROFL! Well that was a pretty pathetic (and wrong) excuse of a rebuttal, Peter. You can't just admit you were wrong?

“When men are most sure and arrogant they are commonly most mistaken, giving views to passion without that proper deliberation which alone can secure them from the grossest absurdities” - David Hume

 

[icerat]

I would suspect the skew of hours worked would go in the opposite direction, After all, don't Diamonds spend their time strolling the beaches of the world while collecting residual income?

Seems you don't understand the concept of building an asset Peter. It's cumulative work that matters, not some "hourly rate". Even so, if you take an hourly rate approach it will be heavily skewed in the same direction as the income, perhaps with a minor tailing off at the high end.

I notice that you didn't have anything to say about how pathetic the total MLM business looks when compared to a single real retailer.

Oh, you mean where you create straw men and argue against them?

Anyone who has ever been shown the plan will have been told how multi-level marketing is about to replace conventional retail trade

I've not only been shown "the plan", I show "the plan", and I was never told that nor make that claim myself. I doubt MLM will ever replace conventional retail trade overall. Mind you in some countries and product areas it goes close. Amway ranks second in personal care products in Korea, outselling companies like Proctor & Gamble and Unilever. Globally, Nutrilite is by far the #1 best selling nutritional brand. Similarly, Artistry Cosmetics is ranked in the top 5 best selling prestige brands in the world, #1 in Germany and Japan. (source: Euromonitor)

 

[krelnik]

FALSE. Amway's products have won many independent consumer awards around the world.

OK. Since there are "many", can you name five of them? Please include the name of the award, which product won it, when, and provide supporting hyperlinks to non-Amway sites.

http://www.rdasiatrustedbrands.com

Multiple awards over multiple years in multiple countries for eSpring and Nutrilite products. There's more than 5 there alone.

The award is "Most Trusted Brand Asia"

That's not an "independent consumer award" at all, that's a SURVEY of what brands people trust. Very different thing.

http://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/news/ng.asp?id=50330-nutrilite-comes-out

Nutrilite regularly tops this survey for Consumer Satisfaction.

Again, NOT an award but a survey of people to see what products they were satisfied with.

http://www.consumerreports.org (subscription needed)

tested washing powders a couple of years ago, SA8 scored 99 out of 100, next best was 87 if I recall correctly

OK, now you're getting silly. You're quoting the score in a consumer reports product comparison? Did they make it their product choice? "A couple of years ago"? Could you be a little more vague?

I'm not going to google in polish, cause I can't read it, but here's the Amway link for eSpring - "Product of the Year" -

http://www.espring.com/English-EU/polishAward_popup.html

And of course, even though I specifically asked you not to, you couldn't resist linking to an Amway site. I will admit that that one does seem like a legit award, however, I am somewhat suspicious of the awarding organization for some reason.

Google "World Foundation of Health, Heart and Mind": only an handful of hits, and every single one of them is about this exact award. I smell a rat. You'd think a "non-profit organization established in 1996" would be mentioned once or twice on the web outside of marketing materials for a product they gave an award to.

Artistry has won packaging awards, can't find a link right now.

Come on! A packaging award? That's like me asking you if your doctor is board certified, and you telling me he won "Best Dressed" at his prom.

The original idea that you were disputing was that Amway's products are mediocre at best, and nothing you couldn't get much more easily and cheaply at a corner store. We're looking for real independent proof that the products are better and worth all this extra distribution effort. And all you can come up with are "consumer satisfaction" surveys. The one award that actually looks like an award, appears to have been given by a some sort of bogus organization.

FAIL.

 

[icerat]

That's not an "independent consumer award" at all, that's a SURVEY of what brands people trust. Very different thing.

Oh good grief. The site even says "award winners". What kind of "awards" do you think there are for products? Think the UN has a "best toothpaste" committee or something?

Again, NOT an award but a survey of people to see what products they were satisfied with.

And this is a good or bad thing? Is it a positive or negative for Amway products? "award" is just a matter of semantics. Isn't the point whether the products are actually any good or not? Whether they're more marketable than the competition or not?

OK, now you're getting silly. You're quoting the score in a consumer reports product comparison? Did they make it their product choice? "A couple of years ago"? Could you be a little more vague?

I could have directed you to a site with the info and article, but it's a site by Amway supporters, so I'm sure it would be disparaged.

And of course, even though I specifically asked you not to, you couldn't resist linking to an Amway site. I will admit that that one does seem like a legit award, however, I am somewhat suspicious of the awarding organization for some reason.

Oh good grief, it was presented by the former speaker of parliament and a vice-chair of a parlimentary committe, in the Royal Palace! And it's suspicious?

You guys really have to get your blinkers off.

You'd think a "non-profit organization established in 1996" would be mentioned once or twice on the web outside of marketing materials for a product they gave an award to.

Did you google the name in polish on polish google?

Come on! A packaging award? That's like me asking you if your doctor is board certified, and you telling me he won "Best Dressed" at his prom.

Are you claiming packaging is irrelevant in consumer choice of products?

The original idea that you were disputing was that Amway's products are mediocre at best, and nothing you couldn't get much more easily and cheaply at a corner store. We're looking for real independent proof that the products are better and worth all this extra distribution effort.

What extra distribution effort? Visit website, order, delivered home.

I'm pretty stunned you don't consider the opinions of consumers to be at all important in judging whether products are better than the competition or not.

Though from past experience in these kind of discussions I'm 100% certain that if a consumer survey ranked an Amway product poorly, that would of course be perfectly acceptable evidence for you.

And all you can come up with are "consumer satisfaction" surveys. The one award that actually looks like an award, appears to have been given by a some sort of bogus organization.

Talk about cognitive bias and extreme ethnocentricity. An award is presented in the Royal Palace by Members of Parliament in Poland but because you can't find much information about it in english, it must be bogus.

Try googling this instead - Światową Fundację Zdrowie-Rozum-Serce

 

[Father Dagon]

Long ago I found out that to the true believers, AMWAY is more like a religious cult then a business.

Of course it is. Cults and dictators always preaches mind over matter. The fact that most businesses are run by hard-nosed penny-pinchers who makes sound and conservative decisions after down to earth-observations is like garlic to these vampires.

Whatever the owners of grocery stores are thinking about, it's not heroism, it's how they are going to "steal" customers from the competition by selling twinkies 50 cents cheaper.

 

[icerat]

I should probably just leave you folk to argue with yourself. There's little more than constant straw men and ad hominems. You've decided you know what you know and to hell with any evidence to the contrary.

Where we have strong emotions, we're liable to fool ourselves - Carl Sagan

 

[krelnik]

Oh good grief. The site even says "award winners". What kind of "awards" do you think there are for products? Think the UN has a "best toothpaste" committee or something?

Organizations like J.D. Power & Associates give out awards. Magazines that cover particular product fields give out awards, for instance Motor Trend Car of the Year. Even in my field, computer software, there are a number of awards that are given out by independent organizations that judge the quality of products for consumers.

You said "many independent consumer awards", that's what I thought you meant. Independent meaning independently judged by experts in the field. If you meant surveys, why didn't you say "survey"? (On second thought, don't answer that).

And this is a good or bad thing? Is it a positive or negative for Amway products? "award" is just a matter of semantics. Isn't the point whether the products are actually any good or not? Whether they're more marketable than the competition or not?

Are you claiming packaging is irrelevant in consumer choice of products?

What extra distribution effort? Visit website, order, delivered home.

I'm pretty stunned you don't consider the opinions of consumers to be at all important in judging whether products are better than the competition or not.

None of that is on-topic to what you and I are discussing: that Amway products are good, in fact award-winning. Please don't try to move the goalposts or change the topic.

Did you google the name in polish on polish google?

Try googling this instead - Światową Fundację Zdrowie-Rozum-Serce

OK, with that tip I was able to find some references to the award on some government and news sites in Poland, and even verify that the people in the photo seem real.

So, for that I will grant you the score of 1 out of 5.

I'll grant you a second one for that Consumer Reports review if they made the product their "pick" (or whatever CR calls that) in the article, and you can provide some details.

You still owe us three more "independent consumer awards". Surely with the hundreds of products that Amway sells, this should be a walk in the park!

 

[icerat]

You said "many independent consumer awards", that's what I thought you meant. Independent meaning independently judged by experts in the field. If you meant surveys, why didn't you say "survey"? (On second thought, don't answer that).

Reader's Digest calls them Awards, so I called them awards. Independent I meant as in independent from Amway, I never said "experts in the field".

None of that is on-topic to what you and I are discussing: that Amway products are good, in fact award-winning. Please don't try to move the goalposts or change the topic.

Which comes back to what I said, you apparently don't believe consumers opinions of products are a valid judge of whether the products are any good or not. That's the difference here. No moved goal posts or changed topics, just a different perspective.

I believe that when judging the potential of a business consumer opinions of the products are one of the most important factors. You apparently were looking for something else.

I'll grant you a second one for that Consumer Reports review if they made the product their "pick" (or whatever CR calls that) in the article, and you can provide some details.

No they didn't make it their pick. They got both the price and availability wrong and included that as part of their judgement. Either way, it still topped the testing for cleaning power.

You still owe us three more "independent consumer awards". Surely with the hundreds of products that Amway sells, this should be a walk in the park!

You've arbitrarily decided that awards judged by consumer opinion don't count. I believe consumer opinion is important. As such we're at an impass.

 

[krelnik]

You've arbitrarily decided that awards judged by consumer opinion don't count. I believe consumer opinion is important. As such we're at an impass.

No, you said one thing ("independent consumer awards") and then extended it mid-discussion to include other things ("consumer satisfaction surveys").

We see this technique alot here, it's referred to as "moving the goalposts". In other words, when someone realizes they can't win the argument as formulated, they try to change the argument to something they can win. It is a standard technique used by people who do not have the benefit of the truth on their side.

Back to the (unmoved) goalposts of our conversation: if Consumer Reports didn't make it their pick, that doesn't count as an award, no matter what the raw score was. So you got 1 out of 5 requested awards.

You failed to meet my very simple request: 5 independent consumer awards over an unstated time period for any of Amway's hundreds of products.

Hence I stand by my contention that Amway products are NOT award winning and therefore not extraordinary.

 

[icerat]

So I'm guilty of poor phrasing. What is the topic of interest? Whether I'm guilty of poor phrasing, or whether Amway products are any good or not?

The question as to whether what you consider an "award" is the same as what Reader's Digest considers an "award" is neither her nor there. The "goalpost" is establishing whether Amway products are any good or not.

As such, it's not I that are moving the goalposts, it is you. You're apparently have no interest in establishing the quality of the products or otherwise, merely in the semantics of what I said.

To any reasonable person, the results of independent consumer surveys by reliable companies speak to the quality (or otherwise) of a product or products.

 

[balrog666]

So I'm guilty of poor phrasing. What is the topic of interest? Whether I'm guilty of poor phrasing, or whether Amway products are any good or not?

The question as to whether what you consider an "award" is the same as what Reader's Digest considers an "award" is neither her nor there. The "goalpost" is establishing whether Amway products are any good or not.

As such, it's not I that are moving the goalposts, it is you. You're apparently have no interest in establishing the quality of the products or otherwise, merely in the semantics of what I said.

To any reasonable person, the results of independent consumer surveys by reliable companies speak to the quality (or otherwise) of a product or products.

Is Reader's Digest your ultimate touchstone on consumer information?