MLM Math

Just divide seven Billion (Earths population) by three (Generally how many chumps you'll need under you before you can start 'earning' money.) and each sum there after by three until you get down to three or less. Count how many times you've divided, there's your number of possible 'levels' in any MLM.
7,000,000,000 / 3 = 2,333,333,333.3334
2,333,333,333.3334 / 3 = 777,777,777.7778
777,777,777.7778 / 3 = 259,259,259.2592593
And so on seventeen more times and then you'll hit 2 and some small change.
 
Last edited:
Just divide seven Billion (Earths population) by three (Generally how many chumps you'll need under you before you can start 'earning' money.) and each sum there after by three until you get down to three or less. Count how many times you've divided, there's your number of possible 'levels' in any MLM.
7,000,000,000 / 3 = 2,333,333,333.3334
2,333,333,333.3334 / 3 = 777,777,777.7778
777,777,777.7778 / 3 = 259,259,259.2592593
And so on seventeen more times and then you'll hit 2 and some small change.

Mike,

(1) you don't need any "chumps" "under you" to earn money in a legitimate MLM. The first time I joined Amway I never sponsored anyone (didn't try) and made a handy extra income simply retailing products.

(2) the fact that there are MLMs that have existed for nearly 80 years and have levels that go thousands deep in sponsorship should be a slight hint that perhaps there's a flaw in your assumptions about how MLMs work.
 
Taylor's work remained non-peer-reviewed and unpublished. Peer reviewers rarely check sourcing, particularly when concerned with a field they no little about. Bad work being cited simply makes for more bad work. It doesn't suddenly make it good work.

Taylor's analysis fails even elementary statistics.

Instead of babbling your same old rants, how about you show where I'm wrong and Taylor is right? Do you believe it's OK to use "average" when working with data such as this?

Yet in the decade or so since it has come not one peer reviewed paper has been produced refuting Taylor's statistics regarding distributors (if there was one you would be citing it and not your own blog page). Never mind your claims have their own flaws:

"First, when calculating statistics like “mean” or “average”, a measure of central tendency, you need to consider differences between groups included in your sample."

As demonstrated by life expectancy this is NOT always true in statistics--the number given is always regarding the whole population (which gives people a mistaken idea how long people lived in the past ie Average life span was 35 years old meant that few if any lived to 36). Labor statistics are much the same . Atomic weight is another statistic where you do NOT "consider differences between groups included in your sample" when the sample is one element.

"The statistical error of choosing a subset of a total data set in order to enhance the statistical significance of one's claim is known as making an "informed choice" and also "cooking" the data"" - (Ehrlich, Robert (2002) Nine Crazy Ideas in Science: A Few Might Even be True
Princeton University Press, Page 84)

"In his book on research dishonesty [1830 Charles Babbage] he defined several terms to describe research misconduct, including one that is still very much in use: "cooking the data." To cook the data is to select only those data that fit one's hypothesis and and to discard those that do not. Selection data solely because they support one's hypothesis is misconduct, now called "falsification" of data." -Whitbeck, C. (1998) Ethics in engineering practice and research Cambridge University Press pg 198)


More over regarding the Economic Crime Summit Conference the 2007 requirements "Considering the event tracks, NW3C invites you to send an outline of a proposed presentation. Your submission will be reviewed for the following:

Originality.
Timeliness and interest.
Educational value.
Attendee feedback from previous shows.

If selected, you will be contacted in April 2007. All sessions require a copy of the reference materials (PowerPoint presentation and/or handouts) used during the presentation be provided by August 31, 2007?

Unless Icerat has proof the 2002 and 2004 Economic Crime Summit Conferences were different there was a review process for Taylor's paper. Also in his 2006 update Taylor calls his 2002 paper a white papers which the Oxford dictionary define as "a government or other authoritative report giving information or proposals on an issue."

Cooked data and questionable claim regarding its not reviewed status and no peer reviewed paper refuting it. The MLM Emperor has no clothes
 
Last edited:
You would think in the 10 years or so since Taylor first did his paper someone would have done a peer reviewed rebuttal of it if as Icerat claims its statistics were garbage. Yet no one has done such a paper despite Taylor's paper being use in peer reviewed work after peer reviewed work.
 
Last edited:
Yet in the decade or so since it has come not one peer reviewed paper has been produced refuting Taylor's statistics regarding distributors (if there was one you would be citing it and not your own blog page).

The statistics aren't available. Real researchers don't just make them up like Taylor does.

As demonstrated by life expectancy this is NOT always true in statistics--the number given is always regarding the whole population (which gives people a mistaken idea how long people lived in the past ie Average life span was 35 years old meant that few if any lived to 36). Labor statistics are much the same . Atomic weight is another statistic where you do NOT "consider differences between groups included in your sample" when the sample is one element.

Just like with MLM, you don't know what you're talking about.

Also in his 2006 update Taylor calls his 2002 paper a white papers which the Oxford dictionary define as "a government or other authoritative report giving information or proposals on an issue."

I'm going to write a paper that declares big foot real, and then publish it online and call it a "white paper". That'll make it authorative!!!!

bth_smiley-laugh-dog.gif
 
The statistics aren't available. Real researchers don't just make them up like Taylor does.

If the statistics aren't available then how can you say Taylor is wrong? The door swings both ways. Besides Cruz' paper is NOT just based on Taylor but his own statistics and models. Never mind Fitzpatrick produced much the same results with his study:

"99% of all distributors in these companies earned on average less than $13 a week in commission income. (In 10 of the 11 companies, the commissions were less than $10 a week.) This isn’t even enough money to cover the minimum purchases they’re required to make in order to “qualify” for commissions." (Ie they are LOSING money)

Even a off the cuff calculation shows the MLM model has problems note the math itself was even touch...all that thread got was the usual MLM smoke and mirror treatment.
 
If the statistics aren't available then how can you say Taylor is wrong?

Seriously? I can say anything I want and you'll accept it as true even if I have nothing to back it up?

The door swings both ways. Besides Cruz' paper is NOT just based on Taylor but his own statistics and models.

The Cruz paper doesn't present any statistics, it briefly mentions Taylor's claims in the intro. That's it.

Never mind Fitzpatrick produced much the same results with his study:

FitzPatrick does exactly the same dishonest things as Taylor, not to mention dishonest stuff like your quote -

This isn’t even enough money to cover the minimum purchases they’re required to make in order to “qualify” for commissions." (Ie they are LOSING money)

(1) Many MLMs, including Amway, have NO required minimum purchases.
(2) Products being purchased for personal use are NOT business expenses. Suggesting they are is promoting tax fraud.

Even a off the cuff calculation shows the MLM model has problems note the math itself was even touch...all that thread got was the usual MLM smoke and mirror treatment.

The smoke and mirrors is on the part of Bunkum, Taylor, FitzPatrick, and yourself. They make the following false assumptions -

False assumption (1) MLM requires personal purchases. This is false. Some MLMs have no required purchases. Others have required monthly volume but this can be acquired through customer sales. Very few, if any - I've been unable to find one, require personal purchases.
False assumption (2) There are no profit generating retail sales. Any customers or members who are not attempting to make money but still purchasing products are providing profit for the network. This is conveniently ignored.
False assumption (3)everyone is trying to earn an income. I am one example - I have been an MLM member and simply purchasing products for many years. Do you have any idea how ridiculous it is for people like you to tell me that I and people like me don't exist? It's not like we're a secret. The FTC acknowledges the reality. Independent analysis such as that done for the Pokorny class action settlement show the reality. You, Bunkum, Taylor, FitzPatrick et.al all just simply ignore reality because your so bizarrely invested in your weird beliefs.

Maximara, if you want I can do a bogus analysis and (falsely) claim that everyone who joins MLM makes $2000 worth of retail profit a month if you like. See, MLM works! I can even call it a white paper! :rolleyes:

It's easy to "prove" whatever you want if you're happy just to make up stuff and ignore other stuff.
 
Last edited:
(1) Many MLMs, including Amway, have NO required minimum purchases.
(2) Products being purchased for personal use are NOT business expenses. Suggesting they are is promoting tax fraud.

And yet Amway coughed up $150 Million back in 2010 to settle a lawsuit they were doing exactly this kind of nonsense.


The smoke and mirrors is on the part of Bunkum, Taylor, FitzPatrick, and yourself. They make the following false assumptions -

False assumption (1) MLM requires personal purchases. This is false. Some MLMs have no required purchases. Others have required monthly volume but this can be acquired through customer sales. Very few, if any - I've been unable to find one, require personal purchases.

They skirt around this one with high pressure tactics as documented in the Feb 10, 2011 USAToday article "Multilevel marketing or 'pyramid?' Sales people find it hard to earn much"


False assumption (2) There are no profit generating retail sales. Any customers or members who are not attempting to make money but still purchasing products are providing profit for the network. This is conveniently ignored.

Another dodge as MLMs tend to increase the middle men while wholesale clubs are far better position to provide value.

False assumption (3)everyone is trying to earn an income. I am one example - I have been an MLM member and simply purchasing products for many years. Do you have any idea how ridiculous it is for people like you to tell me that I and people like me don't exist? It's not like we're a secret. The FTC acknowledges the reality. Independent analysis such as that done for the Pokorny class action settlement show the reality. You, Bunkum, Taylor, FitzPatrick et.al all just simply ignore reality because your so bizarrely invested in your weird beliefs.

Another dodge documented by the above USAToday article:

""Active" Amway distributors earn an average of just $115 a month, according to Amway's latest disclosure statement. Just a quarter of 1% (0.26%) make more than $40,000 a year, which Amway attributes to the fact many work part time. Active distributors, which describes about 60% of Amways's 600,000 North American distributors, get at least one bonus check, attempt to make one sale or attend one meeting a year.

"You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone making over $1.50 an hour," Whitsell says of multilevel marketing. "The primary product is opportunity. The strongest, most powerful motivational force today is false hope.""

It the old "We don't do that sort of thing" (nuge nuge wink wink) dodge.
 
And yet Amway coughed up $150 Million back in 2010 to settle a lawsuit they were doing exactly this kind of nonsense.

No it didn't. Even ignoring the fact that it was specified that the settlement could not be used as evidence of any wrong doing, the case didn't even say what you claim. Indeed the exact opposite, with the independent consultant calculating very few people had expenses of even $100. Similarly, internal data made public in the TEAM vs Quixtar lawsuit revealed that most distributors do not purchase monthly, with an average spend of less thab $100 a month. I'm with Amway and have placed one order in the last 4 months.

Again you're making claims that are simply not supported by facts.

They skirt around this one with high pressure tactics as documented in the Feb 10, 2011 USAToday

Again, an independent assessment for the settlement administrators found that very few people purchased these products that there was apparently so much pressure to buy. (Note also, it wasn't from Amway). Don't you find it odd that in 2011 the two "examples" the journalists came up with were from people who were distributors well over a decade ago?

Another dodge as MLMs tend to increase the middle men while wholesale clubs are far better position to provide value.

The FTC more than 35 years ago, so you've had plenty of time to catch up on the news, found that the number of "middle men" with the Amway structure was very similiar to traditional retailing.

Again you're just blindly spouting your opinions and ignoring facts.

Another dodge documented by the above USAToday article:

What's the dodge? That supports what I'm saying! 40% of distributors don't even "work" so hard as even to "attempt to make one sale" or "attend one meeting". In a year!

Or even get a bonus on your own shopping. I earned a bonus on products I purchased from Amway US last year. I haven't even been in the US since 2001, let alone tried to sell products or sponsor someone. I'm in those "active" statistics.

You seriously believe I should be making money?

The way MLM critics like you argue, it seems your disappointed it's not some "get rich quick" scheme and actually requires work.

"You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone making over $1.50 an hour," Whitsell says of multilevel marketing. "The primary product is opportunity. The strongest, most powerful motivational force today is false hope.""

We already dealt with that bogus piece of nonsense. You apparently seem to believe if you repeat something often enough it becomes true.
 
You could, but you'd be in violation of your contract.



A question for you, superfreddy. Let's say I create the best bluetooth stereo headset in the world. (I've been looking for one). The sound, comfort levels, and features are amazing and once you'd tried it you'd never use anything else.

I put it on ebay. It costs more than many of the other bluetooth stereo headsets on ebay.

How many people do you think would buy it?

Your example is limited to a very niche product. So, I throw 2 questions back at you:

1) MLM is the only (or best way) to market niche products?
2) Are AMWAY products so specialized that they can be considered "niche"?
 
Your example is limited to a very niche product. So, I throw 2 questions back at you:

1) MLM is the only (or best way) to market niche products?

I never even remotely implied that. Sales & Marketing is not as simple and straightfoward as you apparently believe.

2) Are AMWAY products so specialized that they can be considered "niche"?

MLM products don't have to be niche. Amway started with soap. This is what the FTC commissioner had to say in his findings back in 1979 -

In less than 20 years, the respondents have built a substantial manufacturing company and an efficient distribution system, which has brought new products into the market, notably into the highly oligopolistic soap and detergents market. Consumers are benefited by this new source of supply, and have responded by remarkable brand loyalty to Amway products.

In my opinion MLM is well-suited to products that fit the following two criteria -

(1) the products have benefits or features that are more effectively (and cheaply ) described in person rather than through mass marketing
(2) the products have enough profit margin that independent reps can generate an income that will attract them cf. other opportunities.
 
The way MLM critics like you argue, it seems your disappointed it's not some "get rich quick" scheme and actually requires work.

Here is where I have my biggest problem with MLM. I know that it's not a get rich quick scheme. You know that. Everyone here knows that. But every MLM sells itself as a ticket to riches. Maybe not overtly, but the promise of extra income is what brings people in to "the opportunity." And there are far too many people who fall for the spiel and end up losing out.

If MLMs told you up front that you had very little chance to make money and that it would take a ton of work, very few would ever sign up to be an IBO.

The second big problem I have is that MLMs prey on the close family and friend relationships that people have. I have personally witnessed this and have heard a lot of stories from friends about families torn apart. The latest concerned Advocare, which has just started taking off in my area.

The last area of concern is the products themselves. There is nothing that you won't find an equivalent for in your local stores. But the worst part of them is that they are so overpriced. Double X vitamins cost $82.45 for a months supply. I can get a multivitamin with everything I need (and I use the word "need" loosely since most people don't "need" a multivitamin) for $20 at GNC and much less at my local grocery store. The claims made for the product are pure woo -organic, made with real food, blah blah blah -nothing but fluff to puff up the price.
 
Here is where I have my biggest problem with MLM. I know that it's not a get rich quick scheme. You know that. Everyone here knows that. But every MLM sells itself as a ticket to riches. Maybe not overtly, but the promise of extra income is what brings people in to "the opportunity." And there are far too many people who fall for the spiel and end up losing out.

Is there though? Look at the Amway statistics. 46% of IBOs earn a bonus. How many have expenses? That's harder to tell. Wouldn't it be nice if you could ask them, or get an independent consultant to find it?

As it happens, that happened for the Pokorny Class Action settlement. An independent consultant was hired to look at the books of all the companies dedicated to selling training materials, seminars etc etc to IBOs (BSM - Business Support Materials).

After looking at Amway's and the BSM companies data, the consultant estimated that only between 16% and 23% of all IBOs over a 10 year period spent more than $100 total.

These people were eligible for money from the cash settlement if they made a loss.

97% of them were successfully contacted.

How many requested the cash? "between 3.7% and 5.3%" of those eligible. In other words, less than about 1% made a loss.

If MLMs told you up front that you had very little chance to make money and that it would take a ton of work, very few would ever sign up to be an IBO.

Umm, they do. (Not that "chance" has much to do with it). The income disclosure statements make it very clear that few people make significant money. Amway's typical plan talks about taking 5 years to reach "Diamond", putting in at least 5000 hours - most of it on top of your existing job.

That's a "ton of work" in anybody's book

The second big problem I have is that MLMs prey on the close family and friend relationships that people have. I have personally witnessed this and have heard a lot of stories from friends about families torn apart. The latest concerned Advocare, which has just started taking off in my area.

That has nothing to do with MLM per se. Avon, before it became an MLM, certainly encouraged people to sell to friends and family. I've owned several businesses (not MLM) and I can assure you I let me friends and family know what I was selling, and indeed I did provide products and services to many of them.

If you're doing "sales" properly, you're not "preying" on anyone. You're providing a product or service to people who want. ´"guilting" people in to buying your stuff is stupid no matter what industry you're in.

The last area of concern is the products themselves. There is nothing that you won't find an equivalent for in your local stores.

There's probably hundreds of thousands of products marketed through MLM, I doubt this assertion is correct.

But the worst part of them is that they are so overpriced. Double X vitamins cost $82.45 for a months supply. I can get a multivitamin with everything I need (and I use the word "need" loosely since most people don't "need" a multivitamin) for $20 at GNC and much less at my local grocery store. The claims made for the product are pure woo -organic, made with real food, blah blah blah -nothing but fluff to puff up the price.

The idea that fruit & vegetables are better for you than isolated vitamins (particularly synthetics) is woo?

Good grief :rolleyes: you might want to have a think about that.

Of course, you've also done the typical "critic" thing and gone and picked the most "exclusive" product you could find (I've been unable to find any competitor to Double X). You conveniently ignored Nutrilite Daily, which is still better than GNC (contains real plant extracts) and is only $15.55 for a 3 month supply.

Personally I find that kind of action - picking the most expensive product to compare rather than the most comparable one - to verge on dishonest. Why would you do that?
 
Last edited:
(much snipped)
The idea that fruit & vegetables are better for you than isolated vitamins (particularly synthetics) is woo?

Good grief :rolleyes: you might want to have a think about that.

Finally, a claim we can sink our skeptical teeth into. Yes, I think that fruit and vegetable extracts have not been demonstrated to be "better for you" than equivalent isolated vitamins, particularly synthetics. In fact, other than in vitamin deficiency conditions, it's hard to demonstrate the need or benefits of taking any vitamin at all (maybe too strong, there is some evidence for folate in pregnancy and for fish oils generally).

How was this claim tested? Convince me that plant extracts are "better."
 
Finally, a claim we can sink our skeptical teeth into. Yes, I think that fruit and vegetable extracts have not been demonstrated to be "better for you" than equivalent isolated vitamins, particularly synthetics. In fact, other than in vitamin deficiency conditions, it's hard to demonstrate the need or benefits of taking any vitamin at all (maybe too strong, there is some evidence for folate in pregnancy and for fish oils generally).

How was this claim tested? Convince me that plant extracts are "better."

How about you try this. Take a GNC vitamin. Live on it and steak and nothing else for as long as you can. Protein and fat (throw in some sugar for carbs) and the GNC vitamins. Should be all you need, right?
 
Icerat is putting up a strawman again. He wants to claim that we cannot compare double x because stores like WalMart doesn't carry it. The fact is that many stores carry comparable multi vitamins at a fraction of the cost of double x. He then goes onto say that people can simply use a cheaper version of multi vitamin from Amway.

But ask this question: Which vitamins are promoted by the "uplines"? Do they tell IBO's to use double x or the nutrilite daily?

Funny how these IBO's, once they realize that Amway will not deliver them untold wealth, suddenly lose interest in these vitamins altogether.

BTW, a former contact of mine confirmed that Amway employees can purchase double x for about $12, instead of the $52 charged to IBO's and the $82 they charge customers (if any).
 
The smoke and mirrors is on the part of Bunkum, Taylor, FitzPatrick, and yourself. They make the following false assumptions -

False assumption (1) MLM requires personal purchases. This is false. Some MLMs have no required purchases. Others have required monthly volume but this can be acquired through customer sales. Very few, if any - I've been unable to find one, require personal purchases.
False assumption (2) There are no profit generating retail sales. Any customers or members who are not attempting to make money but still purchasing products are providing profit for the network. This is conveniently ignored.
False assumption (3)everyone is trying to earn an income. I am one example - I have been an MLM member and simply purchasing products for many years. Do you have any idea how ridiculous it is for people like you to tell me that I and people like me don't exist? It's not like we're a secret. The FTC acknowledges the reality. Independent analysis such as that done for the Pokorny class action settlement show the reality. You, Bunkum, Taylor, FitzPatrick et.al all just simply ignore reality because your so bizarrely invested in your weird beliefs.

These are not false assumptions. They are reality.

While the MLM companies may not have purchase requirements, you have these "training companies" such as Network 21 in Amway, that teaches defacto requirements. i.e. If you don't purchase your 100 points, why would your downline do so?

Retails sales. MLMer's might talk retail sales but the fact is that MLM is so inefficient. Person to person, one at a time. The only sales are primarily the distributors themselves and sympathetic family and friends.

How silly of us to assume that people who sign up as distributors or "independent business owners" are not doing so to make a profit. Why do most presentations show sports cars and other luxuries as part of the pitch?

MLM companies conveniently separate themselves from their representatives legally so they can avoid liability for outrageous product or income claims.
But at the same time, it is the MLM company themselves with the ability to discipline the offenders.

Another icerat strawman.
 
How about you try this. Take a GNC vitamin. Live on it and steak and nothing else for as long as you can. Protein and fat (throw in some sugar for carbs) and the GNC vitamins. Should be all you need, right?

And until I do? Will you drop the claim or just adhere to unproven, common wisdom by way of old wives tales? I get that a salesman should believe in their product, but why stop with vegetable extracts when there are magnetic bracelets to sell instead?

If extracts aren't better than plain old multi-vitamins purchased from GNC, or, for that matter, just eating an occasional squash, the case for higher-priced MLM (and other boutique) products falls apart.

Or maybe it doesn't matter if they work or not. As long as people can be convinced they do, they'll sell. This is how woo operates in the free market. Ethics doesn't have to be part of the cost/profit equation at all.
 
And until I do? Will you drop the claim or just adhere to unproven, common wisdom by way of old wives tales?

Oh good grief. The science behind fruit & vegetables being better than standard vitamin supplements is overwhelming. Let's take one simple example, apples and vitamin C -

Apples, and especially apple peels, have been found to have a potent antioxidant activity and can greatly inhibit the growth of liver cancer and colon cancer cells [31,32]. The total antioxidant activity of apples with the peel was approximately 83 μmol vitamin C equivalents, which means that the antioxidant activity of 100 g apples (about one serving of apple) is equivalent to about 1500 mg of vitamin C. However, the amount of vitamin C in 100 g of apples is only about 5.7 mg [32]. Vitamin C is a powerful antioxidant, but this research shows that nearly all of the antioxidant activity from apples comes from a variety of other compounds. Vitamin C in apples contributed less than 0.4% of total antioxidant activity.

Tell me, how many of these "other compounds" does your GNC vitamins have?
 
Oh good grief. The science behind fruit & vegetables being better than standard vitamin supplements is overwhelming. Let's take one simple example, apples and vitamin C -

Tell me, how many of these "other compounds" does your GNC vitamins have?

Hopefully, none. I can't evaluate your quote without a cite. My guess is that it doesn't compare human health on the basis of "this group took X" and "this group did not," followed by, "here's what happened." Or maybe it does, who knows? It's just a bare quote.

Here's a cite for you, from science blogs talking about antioxidants and claims made for green tea: http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk...antioxidants-and-are-they-good-for-us-part-1/

Many experiments have looked at antioxidants’ effects on our cells – both antioxidants found in our bodies, and other ‘natural’ ones like phytochemicals and flavonoids found in plants.

And it’s generally true that such studies have found that antioxidants can indeed protect cells and the molecules inside them from free radical damage.

But there’s a big problem – cells in the lab don’t always behave like cells in the body, and just looking at them on their own reveals very little about how the body behaves as a whole. To understand the bigger picture, you need to look at whole living organisms.

Again, there’s evidence that antioxidants can affect ageing and health in simple organisms like nematode worms, although even here the picture is rather murky. And yet again, it’s difficult to say that the results of these experiments hold true in humans, who are vastly more complex.

And for multivitamins in general, here's a study (with some 160,000 women) that found no protective effect of multivitamins for cancer, heart disease or death. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-02/jaaj-mun020509.php

So the challenge would be to show that A) multivitamins are worth taking outside of diagnosed deficiency and B) that vegetable extracts specifically offer something even more.
 

Back
Top Bottom