Why should it not, if this kind of thing is above-board?
Because he's saying he'd be willing to scam people, as long as he was "at the top"
Yea, right before the section we are discussing. No where does he talk about word of mouth or retail being the thousands of year old model. In fact the previous 5 paragraphs all discuss it. It's clear that's what he is referring to.
Not to me. Anyway, flawed either way.
Well the first control would not be opening 4 computer stores at each corner of an intersection.
So the decision that you won't open a store is the "control"? How is that different to MLM? If I show you a business selling water filters, and you think there's too many people selling water filters in the area already, can't you just decide not to start the business? I fail to see a difference?
The next would be selling a good product that speaks for itself not a dubious product that merely disguises a pyramid scam.
No product "speaks for itself", but obviously to have a business you need an authentic product.
The MLM model can work long term for a set group of people, the point where the market is over saturated is where regular models cut back.
Market saturation is a
goal for all businesses. It rarely occurs. If a business approaches saturation for it's product, then it looks for new products or new markets. Again, I fail to see the difference?
MLM just keeps getting people to buy in unaware or unconcerned that they are doomed to fail.
That's contradictory. First of all, market saturation is about
demand for the product. If there's a market to sell the product to, then it's possible to make money. You appear to the common fallacy of believing that the goal of multilevel marketing companies is to recruit people. It is not. Recruitment, just like "recruiting" staff in any industry, is a
strategy to increase sales. Not the goal.
Still, if you want to talk about demand for the
business opportunity, then if the market is saturated then there
is nobody else to "buy in" unless it's an existing customer who wishes to be come a distributor. In that situation (and again, saturation is a goal of all businesses, not something to be avoided!) if they discover it too difficult they can usually get a refund. If this happens extensively then obviously the company will know there is an issue, and like any other company, either change or it will fail to thrive.
I'll quote again from the
FTC decision that was the first major investigation in to the multilevel marketing approach -
I believe the reason for their failure was more accurately described by a marketing expert who testified about this subject (Patty, Tr. 3109): 'I think generally speaking when a saleman tells you that a market is saturated, he has become discouraged for some reason, usually he is simply not making the sale effort that is required.' [110]
Some questions for you -
Why do you think VanDruff, who admits to having zero expertise in the area, is more authoritative on this topic than
an FTC commission that spent
several years researching the model and interviewing hundreds of experts and other witnesses?
What in the FTC decision do you believe is wrong?
Why do you think VanDruff, an engineer, is more authoritative on this topic than say
Professor Dominique Xardel, a well regarded professional with experience in both academia and business, who spent several years researching the industry and published a book about it -
The Direct Selling Revolution.
What in Professor Xardel's work do you believe is wrong?
