Amway TV ad

[icerat]

Unfortunately for you, with the internet, finding out the lousy, indeed pathetic, income you can expect in Amway is no longer a secret kept in the bosom of the higher-ups. Everybody can find it out easily. According to Amway's own statistics, it's about $2000 gross income ("revenues") a year on average -- about $150 a month. According to this web page, based on Amway's own data, in 1996, the average "active" Amway rep made a whopping $88 gross income a month.

Again, you outright LIE - this time through deliberate omission. The above shows you read the page, but you CONVENIENTLY IGNORE the definition of "active" - just being a shopper and buying enough to get a discount includes you in that statistic. Even then, you ignore the fact it's bonus income, not revenue, not including any retail sales profit - and not to mention the fact those statistics DO NOT even address the questions you asked!

You're just plain dishonest. You need to change your handle from "Skeptic" to "Uncontrollable Liar".

True skeptics actually care about data and what it means, not what aspects of it they can choose to ignore in order to twist it for their perverse use.

Again, if I could magically organize 100,000 panhandlers and get, say, 5% of their yearly income, I would probably still be making far more than the Amway "Diamond" who has 100,000 people in the organization.

Again, you're a liar. The average qualifying Diamond, as per statistics revealed in TEAM vs Quixtar Inc, has less than 6,000 people in their organization, not "100,000". The also get significantly less of those folks income than 5%. More figures just plucked out of your a**.

You're a liar. You just can't help yourself can you?

"Pathetic" doesn't begin to describe this "opportunity". Panhandling is a positive road to riches compared to it.

Pathetic doesn't begin to describe the depths of dishonesty you're stooping too.

 

[icerat]

In that case, you won't do much to convince the skeptical.

If someone with a legitimate interest in learning had asked, I'd answer. Skeptic has zero interest in that. He knows what he knows and damned if he'll let a little thing like reality get in his way.

 

[Foolmewunz]

If someone with a legitimate interest in learning had asked, I'd answer. Skeptic has zero interest in that. He knows what he knows and damned if he'll let a little thing like reality get in his way.

You need to take a few breaths.

That exchange originated with Newton Trino, your other bestest friend in this thread. I'm sure you see spots in front of your eyes when you read posts disagreeing with The Word, but you should at least spread your love around to those who actually deserve it.

 

[Skeptic]

Again, you outright LIE - this time through deliberate omission. The above shows you read the page, but you CONVENIENTLY IGNORE the definition of "active" - just being a shopper and buying enough to get a discount includes you in that statistic.

Oh how shameful! I actually call someone who buys stuff from amway and is a member of it "active". I should just have redefined "active" or "Amway member" in a way that only counts those who make the big bucks, I guess. But since that would exclude the other 99.99%...

Even then, you ignore the fact it's bonus income, not revenue, not including any retail sales profit

What "retail sales profit"? Nobody except other people in the "pyramid" but Amway's stuff. As you yourself admit.

But heck, have it your way.

Amway -- the corporation -- "moved" $6 billion of products -- $2000 per distributor -- last year. On average someting like $150 a month. Let us assume, in a completely unrealistic manner, that all of it were sold for 100% profit in retail. That would magically make it into a $150 profit a month. Heck, let's just pretend the $88 per month in the previous web page is all profit -- plain bonus money from Amway, a gift -- and simply ADD it to the (imaginary) retail profit.

Using these totally imaginary figures, which are ridiculously pro-Amway as they include no expenses, no losses, no sign-up or start-up kit fees, no money spent on gas, amway getaways, etc., etc., etc. -- and that even adds two sums instead of taking their average, and so on -- would still mean the incredibly-unrealistically-optimistic estimate of the average (Active) Amway distributor profit per month is about... 200 bucks. That's $7 a day.

As I said, panhandling pays better in real life than the Amway scheme pays under incredibly lenient, star-crossedly optimistic, and no-expenses-taken-into-account analysis.

Whadda deal!

Again, you're a liar. The average qualifying Diamond, as per statistics revealed in TEAM vs Quixtar Inc, has less than 6,000 people in their organization, not "100,000".

Well, I used the fact that less that 0.001% of the people in Amway ever make diamond, which means there is about 1 diamond per 100,000 Amwayians (is that a word?). True, not all of them are in his org.

But again -- FINE! HAVE IT YOUR WAY!. It's "less than 6000 people". OK -- let's say 5,000 people. You are at the head of a 5,000 people business salesmen and you make a lousy $100,000 a year? How much does the average 5000-strong company CEO make a year? 20 times as much? 100 times?

 

[icerat]

Oh how shameful! I actually call someone who buys stuff from amway and is a member of it "active". I should just have redefined "active" or "Amway member" in a way that only counts those who make the big bucks, I guess. But since that would exclude the other 99.99%...

Come off it, stop being so pathetic. Are you seriously claiming that someone who joins Amway just to buy products, AS STATISTICS CLEARLY SHOW MANY DO - that they should be making money?

It would appear you're claiming Amway is a scam because only people who work hard make money!

What "retail sales profit"? Nobody except other people in the "pyramid" but Amway's stuff. As you yourself admit.

Again, you LIE. I said the exact opposite.

Amway -- the corporation -- "moved" $6 billion of products -- $2000 per distributor -- last year.

No, last year it was $8.2billion.

On average someting like $150 a month.

Seriously, are you so ignorant of statistics that you don't even know that average is a meaningless, even misleading, statisitic when used with a heavily skewed distribution?

Personally I don't think you are that ignorant. I just think you're continuing to be dishonest.

Let us assume, in a completely unrealistic manner, that all of it were sold for 100% profit in retail.

At least you're admiting the numbers your pulling out of your a** are unrealistic!

.... cut of blah blah blah when you try to pretend that your BS, dishonest statistics are actually generous ....

But again -- FINE! HAVE IT YOUR WAY!. It's "less than 6000 people". OK -- let's say 5,000 people. You are at the head of a 5,000 people business salesmen and you make a lousy $100,000 a year?

Oh, why not pull more BS statistics out of your a**? How much room is there up there? You clearly have read the thisbiznow.com site, you quoted it before, but now you conveniently ignore the average income given for Diamonds on that site (an actual somewhat homogenous group, so perhaps valid) back in 2005 was around $150,000. Since then bonuses have effectively been doubled.

And of course, you dishonestly claim that all of the 5,000 people are "salesmen" when you KNOW that most of them do no selling, or recruiting, at all and are purely customers, if that!

How much does the average 5000-strong company CEO make a year? 20 times as much? 100 times?

Who cares? It's your made up rubbish. The average Diamond has around 32 folk that can even vaguely be equated to full-time staff (platinums) ... and virtually all of them are part-timers! Then there might be a couple of hundred other part-timers getting started.

And you want to equate a few part-timers with an organisation of 5000 full-time employees?

You're dishonest.

 

[icerat]

You need to take a few breaths.

That exchange originated with Newton Trino, your other bestest friend in this thread. I'm sure you see spots in front of your eyes when you read posts disagreeing with The Word, but you should at least spread your love around to those who actually deserve it.

Sorry, my mistake - you're correct, it was Newton Trino, whom I've dealt with before and is as dishonest as Skeptic.

I see "spots in front of my eyes" when I read posts that outright lie and disagree with known facts. Nothing to do with any BS "Word". It amazes me how with some topics supposed rationalists throw rationality out the door and start ignoring known facts and data and even referring to them dismissingly as some kind of article of "faith" simply because they apparently disagree with them.

"faith" is needed in order to believe that every person who signs an Amway app and pays a few bucks works hard to develop a business and an income

"faith" is needed in order to believe that nobody would legitimately buy products that have won consumer awards around the world, and that you haven't even tried yourself

"faith" is needed in order to believe that a company that operates in 80+ countries, through governments of all politicial hues, has won awards from everything from the UN to the US Chamber of Commerce, had books of praise written about it by noted business academics, and is celebrating it's 50th anniversary, "faith" is needed to believe it's an illegitimate scam

"faith" is most definitely needed in order to continue to completely ignore hard facts and statistics that are contrary to your "belief"

And I'm the one operating on "faith"? What kind of twisted thinking is that? When virtually all the evidence is contrary to your belief, and yet you continue to believe it and in doing so blatantly lie and ignore the facts ... seriously ... who needs the "faith"?

I suggest your comments on "faith in the word" may be best directed to others on this thread.

 

[Skeptic]

Seriously, are you so ignorant of statistics that you don't even know that average is a meaningless, even misleading, statisitic when used with a heavily skewed distribution?

A "heavily skewed distribution" + (virtually) nobody buying stuff fom outside the organization = a pyramid scheme, which is what Amway is (yes yes yes -- it is a LEGAL pyramid scheme. So what? It is legal to throw your money out the window, too.) The distribution is "heavily skewed" because nobody except for a tiny minority at the top of the scheme is making any money.

It doesn't matter how you slice the bologna. Whether you concentrate on the fact that the average income is pathetic, or on the fact that only 0.01% or so make any significant money, or on the fact that the vast majority of Amway's customers are also Amway distributors, the data points in the same direction: that for everybody except the very few at the top of the pyramid, Amway is a losing proposition where you're losing money, or making so little panhandling would be a better use of one's time.

It's a pyramid scheme. You're just annoyed that I posted the embarrasing numbers that prove conclusively how much of a sucker's bet Amway is, after you said you won't do it because people are so rude to you. In the past, that might have worked. Now, with the internet, it doesn't.

 

[Skeptic]

"faith" is needed in order to believe that a company that operates in 80+ countries, through governments of all politicial hues, has won awards from everything from the UN to the US Chamber of Commerce, had books of praise written about it by noted business academics, and is celebrating it's 50th anniversary, "faith" is needed to believe it's an illegitimate scam

I don't need faith for that. It's income data and business model prove it. As for "UN awards" and "books of praise written by noted academics", the less said about that, the better. The USSR won quite a share of both of those in its day, too...

And I'm the one operating on "faith"?

Well, you're the one claiming a scheme with an average yearly income -- not even profit, but income before expenses -- that doesn't match what a none-too-bright panhandler makes, and with only 0.01% or so of those at the top of the scheme making any money, is a "great opportunity".

I'd say you need faith for that.

 

[Skeptic]

At least you're admiting the numbers your pulling out of your a** are unrealistic!

They are. I deliberately made them totally unrealistic IN AMYWAY'S FAVOR.

If I were realistic -- including the stuff in the basement the average amway guy doesn't and cannot sell, the expenses of the "tools" and seminars and buying that little bit of "Extra" detergent or cosmetics "for yourself" to make sure you keep at your current salemanship level, and above all the fact these already-pathetic numbers are REVENUES and not PROFITS -- that is, before expenses -- things would look even worse.

It would then show the real situation, to wit, that the average income in Amyway, after expenses, is actually negative, for all except the very few at the very top. Amway is a pyramid scheme which funnels the money 99.9% of the suckers make in their regular day jobs into the hands of the 0.01% or so in the top of the pyramid.

 

[icerat]

Well, you're the one claiming a scheme with an average yearly income -- not even profit, but income before expenses -- that doesn't match what a none-too-bright panhandler makes, and with only 0.01% or so of those at the top of the scheme making any money, is a "great opportunity".

I'd say you need faith for that.

And you're the one claiming that people who do MUCH LESS WORK than the average pan-handler should are being scammed because they don't make money!

On one hand you're complaining it's a pyramid scheme, on the other hand you're complaining it doesn't work like one!

The cognitive dissonance would kill you if you actually understood the ridiculousness of your position. The sad thing is I think you may actually believe some of the crap you're sprouting.

 

[icerat]

They are. I deliberately made them totally unrealistic IN AMYWAY'S FAVOR.

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

Is that your usual "trick"? Pick half a dozen statistics "in favour" of an argument, and hope nobody notices that your sample selection isn't relevant to the question being asked, and instead is conveniently heavily weighted in the direction of giving the answer you want to prove .... then go "see, what a nice guy I am ... I'm picking data in your favour!"

Good one. Ha ha.

 

[icerat]

The USSR won quite a share of both of those in its day, too...

Name them. United Nations Awards to the Soviet Union and books by folk of the caliber of say Professor Dominique Xardel, former head of ESSEC and European editor of Harvard Business Review, who states in his book "The Direct Selling Revolution: Understanding the Growth of the Amway Corporation" -

Amway practices Direct Selling at its best

and

Amway is the leading business of its kind in the world

as well as

Amway is not a pyramid structure

Xardel researched Amway for two years, interviewing managers and distributors and attending meetings in 13 countries.

Or how about the UK Times 100 business studies guide -

Amway is a global enterprise. It must comply with the laws of the many different countries in which it operates. Its business ethics provide a framework to guide the behaviour of the company and its stakeholders. As part of its business values, it protects its consumers through the quality of the products and by offering guarantees of satisfaction. It promotes and supports ethical selling behaviour amongst the ABOs through its codes of conduct.

So please, I eagerly await your UN awards and Business educators connected to ESSEC and Harvard praising the Soviet Union ....

 

[blutoski]

So does Amway membership in most countries. In the US there's discounts with hundreds (thousands?) of partner stores. They're primarily for the convenience of members, though, not for generating profit.

You mean I get a discount on, say, detergent, with one of Amway's competitors?

Or do you mean I get a discount on non-competing suppliers?

And is it a discount related to membership, or a discount related to employment. Most companies attract offers for their employees - it's a way to obtain free advertising to a local market with a good demographic. eg: my employer has discounts to about 500 suppliers, but not one is a competitor.

ETA: I did have a look at the site. It does look like an employee discount network. My employer uses the same back-end website for Dell, for example (although we seem to get a better discount for some reason... perhaps it's because we're Canadian?)

In any case, my employer doesn't make me pay to obtain the discounts, because these companies are not charging the company to offer these discounts. The company is getting the offers for free, but charging the employees for it anyway? I think that's an example of why people think Amway does not treat its employees fairly.

 

[Foolmewunz]

IceRat,

The Times 100? I guess you think that's a list of the top 100 companies or something similar? (Or maybe you're hoping someone else would think so.)

I think if you look a little closer you'll find that the studies are written by the corporations. I'm sure it looked all impressive and stuff, "Oooh, The Times!", but it's a bunch of study guides written for students and anything written about business models, ethics, stakeholders, etc... just comes from the pen of someone at Amway. It's not a journalistic article.

 

[icerat]

You mean I get a discount on, say, detergent, with one of Amway's competitors?

Or do you mean I get a discount on non-competing suppliers?

Varies from store to store, but many of them have products that are competitors both with eachother and Amway.

And is it a discount related to membership, or a discount related to employment. Most companies attract offers for their employees - it's a way to obtain free advertising to a local market with a good demographic. eg: my employer has discounts to about 500 suppliers, but not one is a competitor.

I've no idea what deals Amway has for their employees.

 

[blutoski]

Varies from store to store, but many of them have products that are competitors both with eachother and Amway.

I've no idea what deals Amway has for their employees.

(sorry for the repeat)

I did have a look at the site. It does look like an employee discount network. My employer uses the same back-end website for Dell, for example (although we seem to get a better discount for some reason... perhaps it's because we're Canadian?)

In any case, my employer doesn't make me pay to obtain the discounts, because these companies are not charging the company to offer these discounts. The company is getting the offers for free, but charging the employees for it anyway? I think that's an example of why people think Amway does not treat its employees fairly.

 

[icerat]

IceRat,

The Times 100? I guess you think that's a list of the top 100 companies or something similar? (Or maybe you're hoping someone else would think so.)

Thought didn't even enter my mind. As it happens, though, Amway is listed by Forbes as one of the largest private companies in the US (note, 2007 data) and by Deloitte as one of the world's top retailers.

I think if you look a little closer you'll find that the studies are written by the corporations. I'm sure it looked all impressive and stuff, "Oooh, The Times!", but it's a bunch of study guides written for students and anything written about business models, ethics, stakeholders, etc... just comes from the pen of someone at Amway. It's not a journalistic article.

Someone still has to choose which companies to include. The premise that Amway is some fraudulent scam business requires the belief that The Times, Forbes, Deloitte, UN, UNICEF, US Chamber, various Presidents of the US and other countries, numerous courts, governments around the world of all political hues, independent product review companies like Consumerlabs and Consumer Reports, thousands of "partner companies", numerous authorss, top athletes and celebrities who endorse and/or use the products, including teams like AC Milan, and on and on and on ....

.... all of them have somehow been hoodwinked for 50 years into believing Amway is something other than this huge fraud.

I've read claims (also apparently false according to the company) that one of the owners is a 33rd degree FreeMason, but seriously ... for all of these people and governments and organisation to have been so hoodwinked, for so long ... whereas Skeptic here knows "THE TRUTH" .... it smacks of a global conspiracy of Illimunati scale!

Somewhere along the line a rational person has to question whether folk people like Skeptic's MANY assumptions are perhaps somehow flawed?

 

[icerat]

(sorry for the repeat)

I did have a look at the site. It does look like an employee discount network. My employer uses the same back-end website for Dell, for example (although we seem to get a better discount for some reason... perhaps it's because we're Canadian?)

In any case, my employer doesn't make me pay to obtain the discounts, because these companies are not charging the company to offer these discounts. The company is getting the offers for free, but charging the employees for it anyway? I think that's an example of why people think Amway does not treat its employees fairly.

Ok, we're getting a little confused here. There's been no discussion at all about Amway employees. We've been talking about people who are members of the Amway network, either for shopping, to market the network and make some money, or a mix of both. The closest analogies might be something like CostCo or Sam's Club mixed with affiliate marketing for those who want to make the effort. In some countries there's a yearly membership fee (typically no more than $40 or so), in some countries it's free, in some places it's a combination depending on various criteria.

 

[icerat]

PS I'd note that your employee may not make you pay for it with $$$, but I'm pretty certain you have to turn up to work to qualify for it! There's no such requirement with Amway.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Thought didn't even enter my mind. As it happens, though, Amway is listed by Forbes as one of the largest private companies in the US (note, 2007 data) and by Deloitte as one of the world's top retailers.



Someone still has to choose which companies to include. The premise that Amway is some fraudulent scam business requires the belief that The Times, Forbes, Deloitte, UN, UNICEF, US Chamber, various Presidents of the US and other countries, numerous courts, governments around the world of all political hues, independent product review companies like Consumerlabs and Consumer Reports, thousands of "partner companies", numerous authorss, top athletes and celebrities who endorse and/or use the products, including teams like AC Milan, and on and on and on ....

.... all of them have somehow been hoodwinked for 50 years into believing Amway is something other than this huge fraud.

I've read claims (also apparently false according to the company) that one of the owners is a 33rd degree FreeMason, but seriously ... for all of these people and governments and organisation to have been so hoodwinked, for so long ... whereas Skeptic here knows "THE TRUTH" .... it smacks of a global conspiracy of Illimunati scale!

Somewhere along the line a rational person has to question whether folk people like Skeptic's MANY assumptions are perhaps somehow flawed?

You need to cut this foolishness out. Forbes and Deloite? That's just statistics. Did you read the Times 100 studies, they're written for school kids (I know they seem to think it's uni level, but they're pathetic studies, frankly).

More important, though..... Enron was highly thought of, too. I think you could find as many articles that were positive about AIG over twenty years as were neative. And lots of famous people invested in and touted Bernie M. You're proving nothing with this innocence by association gambit.