Amway
JCoe711218
Jon Coe
susan...@my-dejanews.com
jcoe7...@aol.com (JCoe711218) wrote:
> Anyone knowm where I can get hold of Amway products?
>
> Jon Coe
>
Yes, I'm a distributor, what products do you need?
What part of Cambs are you in?
email me direct on dere...@virgin.net
--
Sue
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Nick Wagg
>
> jcoe7...@aol.com (JCoe711218) wrote (Jon Coe):
> > Anyone knowm where I can get hold of Amway products?
>
> What part of Cambs are you in?
> email me direct on dere...@virgin.net
Ah yes, Amway, the original Get Rich Slow scheme, unless you are near
the top of the pyramid, that is. Not that "pyramid" would be an
appropriate term, oh no.
--
Nick Wagg <>< (mailto:ni...@lsl.co.uk) Laser-Scan Ltd,
Software Project Manager Science Park, Milton Rd,
Tel: +44(0)1223 420414 (ext 213) Cambridge, CB4 0FY, UK.
Fax: +44(0)1223 420044 http://www.laser-scan.com/
Opinions expressed are attributable to me, not my employer.
JCoe711218
from amway products. I merely want to use cleaning materials which are not
tested on animals and which actually work. I leave the getting rich to
software producers and Amway dealers.
Jon Coe
Nick Wagg
I agree that their Zoom is pretty good and I like the idea that they
sell most of their stuff in identical containers and that it is
usually concentrated and you have to dilute it yourself. Quite
environment friendly from that POV.
I just object to their sales policies and the fact that they are
flogging vitamins and claiming all sorts of benefits which one is
no longer allowed to claim by law. I know because I have been to
a couple of their evenings where these claims were made. All very
reminiscent of timeshare selling.
As for software producers getting rich, this may be true of Bill
Gates and for some individuals in the industry but the rest of us
merely make a comfortable but by no means luxurious living.
susan...@my-dejanews.com
Nick Wagg <ni...@lsl.co.uk> wrote:
> susan...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > jcoe7...@aol.com (JCoe711218) wrote (Jon Coe):
> > > Anyone knowm where I can get hold of Amway products?
> >
> > Yes, I'm a distributor, what products do you need?
> > What part of Cambs are you in?
> > email me direct on dere...@virgin.net
>
> Ah yes, Amway, the original Get Rich Slow scheme,
Wrong - simply a way of generating additonal income over your 'normal' job.
unless you are near
> the top of the pyramid, that is.
Wrong again. Every one starts at zero on the 1st of every month
Not that "pyramid" would be an
> appropriate term, oh no.
Wrong again - its acutally direct selling (i.e product direct to the customer
from the manufacturer. If you don't know the difference the closest comparison
is that of franchising.
> --
> Nick Wagg <>< (mailto:ni...@lsl.co.uk) Laser-Scan Ltd,
> Software Project Manager Science Park, Milton Rd,
> Tel: +44(0)1223 420414 (ext 213) Cambridge, CB4 0FY, UK.
> Fax: +44(0)1223 420044 http://www.laser-scan.com/
> Opinions expressed are attributable to me, not my employer.
>
--
Sue Jeggo
http://homepages.which.net/~phil.wadey/cambs.htm
susan...@my-dejanews.com
Nick Wagg <ni...@lsl.co.uk> wrote:
> JCoe711218 wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for your opinion. I have no desire to get rich either slowly or
> > quickly from amway products. I merely want to use cleaning materials
> > which are not tested on animals and which actually work. I leave the
> > getting rich to software producers and Amway dealers.
>
> I agree that their Zoom is pretty good and I like the idea that they
> sell most of their stuff in identical containers and that it is
> usually concentrated and you have to dilute it yourself. Quite
> environment friendly from that POV.
>
> I just object to their sales policies and the fact that they are
> flogging vitamins and claiming all sorts of benefits which one is
> no longer allowed to claim by law. I know because I have been to
> a couple of their evenings where these claims were made.
In the unlikely event that that is a true reflection I would be grateful to
recieve the FACTS i.e times, dates, venues, names etc which I will pass to HQ
All very
> reminiscent of timeshare selling.
Wrong again. You forget Amway is a proven concept, established worldwide.
>
> As for software producers getting rich, this may be true of Bill
> Gates and for some individuals in the industry but the rest of us
> merely make a comfortable but by no means luxurious living.
Which is exactly what the Amway opportunity offers to it distributors. The
opportunity to earn additional income (at whatever level you wish to, when
you wnat to) and the income pays for the luxuries you cant afford through
'working' for someone else.
> --
> Nick Wagg <>< (mailto:ni...@lsl.co.uk) Laser-Scan Ltd,
> Software Project Manager Science Park, Milton Rd,
> Tel: +44(0)1223 420414 (ext 213) Cambridge, CB4 0FY, UK.
> Fax: +44(0)1223 420044 http://www.laser-scan.com/
> Opinions expressed are attributable to me, not my employer.
>
Happy Christmas & New Year
Sue Jeggo
Steve Hunt
> In article <367E12...@lsl.co.uk>, Nick Wagg <ni...@lsl.co.uk> wrote:
>> unless you are near
>> the top of the pyramid, that is.
>
> Wrong again. Every one starts at zero on the 1st of every month
Oh, that's strange. The Amway UK website says
Yes, Amway UK distributors are self
employed people who earn their income
through profit on the goods they sell. In
addition they can earn a bonus paid directly
from Amway, based on the volume of sales
generated by their own distributor network.
Sounds an awful lot like a pyramid scam to me.
-- Steve
David Damerell
>All very
>> reminiscent of timeshare selling.
>Wrong again. You forget Amway is a proven concept, established worldwide.
The concept being proven is that you can extract money from stupid people
by having them act as underpaid sales staff and guilt-trip their
friends. Not a new fact, and not really a reason to get in on the bottom
of the pyramid scheme.
--
David/Kirsty Damerell, dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk. All Hail Discordia!
| | And then they came and took me out, The men of doom and malice: | |
|---|Destroyed my life, removed my sense, Gave me the poisoned chalice.|---|
| | | My betrayal's life to me... Elder Sign: Treachery | | |
Dom
>Wrong again - its acutally direct selling (i.e product direct to the customer
>from the manufacturer. If you don't know the difference the closest comparison
>is that of franchising.
If the Amway geezer I met had shown *any* interest whatsoever in actually
selling the products rather than spending his entire time trying to sign
me up (mostly through a painfully slow exposition of a geometric progression
that would've bored me to tears when I was ten), then your statement might
have a scrap of credibility. But he didn't, and it doesn't.
Nick Wagg
>
> In article <367F67...@lsl.co.uk>,
> Nick Wagg <ni...@lsl.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > I just object to their sales policies and the fact that they are
> > flogging vitamins and claiming all sorts of benefits which one is
> > no longer allowed to claim by law. I know because I have been to
> > a couple of their evenings where these claims were made.
>
> In the unlikely event that that is a true reflection I would be
> grateful to recieve the FACTS i.e times, dates, venues, names etc
About 18 months ago in Cardiff. I don't remember the names of the
married couple who were hosting the session.
> > All very reminiscent of timeshare selling.
>
> Wrong again. You forget Amway is a proven concept, established
> worldwide.
Timeshares are a proven concept worldwide too. What does that prove?
> > As for software producers getting rich, this may be true of Bill
> > Gates and for some individuals in the industry but the rest of us
> > merely make a comfortable but by no means luxurious living.
>
> Which is exactly what the Amway opportunity offers to it distributors.
> The opportunity to earn additional income (at whatever level you wish
> to, when you wnat to) and the income pays for the luxuries you cant
> afford through 'working' for someone else.
Every one of the half dozen or so former Amway distributors whom I
know quite well is disillusioned with the company. They were all led
to believe that they would make quite substantial sums of money. The
only Amway distributor of my acquaintance who is quite happy is (or
was - this was 16-17 years ago) one of the top distributors in Europe,
based in Holland - Bob somebody - an American. He reckoned he no
longer had to work and he certainly lived in luxury compared with my
standard of living.
> Happy Christmas & New Year
> Sue Jeggo
Thank you, Sue, and the same to you.
Nick Wagg
>
> In article <367E12...@lsl.co.uk>,
> Nick Wagg <ni...@lsl.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Ah yes, Amway, the original Get Rich Slow scheme,
>
> Wrong - simply a way of generating additonal income over your 'normal'
> job.
>
>
> Wrong again. Every one starts at zero on the 1st of every month
I don't think you have been reading the small print.
> Not that "pyramid" would be an appropriate term, oh no.
>
> Wrong again - its acutally direct selling (i.e product direct to the
> customer from the manufacturer. If you don't know the difference the
> closest comparison is that of franchising.
Except that a portion of each distributor's profits go to the person
who has recruited them, and a portion of that distributor's profits
goes to the person who has recruited them, and a portion of that....
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson
susan...@my-dejanews.com writes:
> Wrong again. You forget Amway is a proven concept, established worldwide.
So is religion[1], but lots of smart people don't give that any credence -
other than as a major source of human misery - either.
I had to laugh at the news story that some yank priest in Wales was in
trouble for telling a congregation of kids that there's no Father Xmas; the
priest defended itself thus: "Xmas is about Christ and God not Father Xmas;
you have to separate fantasy from reality at times like this" thus proving
itself incapable of that very separation... and with that thought:
Have a Cool Yule Dudes!
- Huge
[1] "proven" in the sense of "tried and tested" rather than convincingly,
scientifically proved to be true.
susan...@my-dejanews.com
Steve Hunt <ste...@persimmon.co.uk> wrote:
> susan...@my-dejanews.com writes:
> > In article <367E12...@lsl.co.uk>, Nick Wagg <ni...@lsl.co.uk> wrote:
> >> unless you are near
> >> the top of the pyramid, that is.
> >
> > Wrong again. Every one starts at zero on the 1st of every month
>
>
> Yes, Amway UK distributors are self
> employed people who earn their income
> through profit on the goods they sell. In
> addition they can earn a bonus paid directly
> from Amway, based on the volume of sales
> generated by their own distributor network.
>
> Sounds an awful lot like a pyramid scam to me.
> -- Steve
It will if you don't understand the difference and judge on opinions not
facts. To safeguard everyone against the 'pyramid' concept we all start at 0
each month - regardless of the previouslevel. Simply, the more you do the
more you earn.
--
Sue
susan...@my-dejanews.com
dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
>
> by having them act as underpaid sales staff and guilt-trip their
> friends. Not a new fact, and not really a reason to get in on the bottom
> of the pyramid scheme.
> --
> David/Kirsty Damerell,
Wrong again folks. No one is 'underpaid sales staff'. Distributors earn how
much they want. And as for guilt trip friends, I have actually kept all my
friends and made new friends and aquaintences from the Amway business. There
is absolutley no need to 'guilt trip' as you call it. That says alot for the
quality of friends does it not? No one gets in a the bottom anyway - we all
start at the same place.
Dan Sheppard
But most of market capitalism is a pyramid scam.
Merry Christmas, I'm off to no-computer land.
Dan.
--
susan...@my-dejanews.com
d...@i-cubed.co.uk (Dom) wrote:
> In article <75qih5$6rv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, susan...@my-dejanews.com
wrote:
> >from the manufacturer. If you don't know the difference the closest
comparison
> >is that of franchising.
>
presumably you mean an independant Distributor
I met had shown *any* interest whatsoever in actually
> selling the products rather than spending his entire time trying to sign
> me up (mostly through a painfully slow exposition of a geometric progression
> that would've bored me to tears when I was ten), then your statement might
> have a scrap of credibility. But he didn't, and it doesn't.
You've obviously no understanding of the concept then, have you.
>
--
Sue
susan...@my-dejanews.com
> > Nick Wagg <ni...@lsl.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > I just object to their sales policies and the fact that they are
> > > flogging vitamins and claiming all sorts of benefits which one is
> > > no longer allowed to claim by law. I know because I have been to
> > > a couple of their evenings where these claims were made.
> >
> > In the unlikely event that that is a true reflection I would be
> > grateful to recieve the FACTS i.e times, dates, venues, names etc
> > which I will pass to HQ.
>
> About 18 months ago in Cardiff. I don't remember the names of the
> married couple who were hosting the session.
>
> > > All very reminiscent of timeshare selling.
> >
> > Wrong again. You forget Amway is a proven concept, established
> > worldwide.
>
> Timeshares are a proven concept worldwide too. What does that prove?
>
> > > As for software producers getting rich, this may be true of Bill
> > > Gates and for some individuals in the industry but the rest of us
> > > merely make a comfortable but by no means luxurious living.
> >
> > Which is exactly what the Amway opportunity offers to it distributors.
> > The opportunity to earn additional income (at whatever level you wish
> > to, when you wnat to) and the income pays for the luxuries you cant
> > afford through 'working' for someone else.
>
> Every one of the half dozen or so former Amway distributors whom I
> know quite well is disillusioned with the company. They were all led
> to believe that they would make quite substantial sums of money. The
> only Amway distributor of my acquaintance who is quite happy is (or
> was - this was 16-17 years ago) one of the top distributors in Europe,
> based in Holland - Bob somebody - an American. He reckoned he no
> longer had to work and he certainly lived in luxury compared with my
> standard of living.
Well then - suprise, I does actually work - though I agree with you your
friend has probably got much higher than the average distributor. BUT ask
your self this: are you resigned to working a 'normal' jog for the rest of
your life? How much control do you have over your annual income? Who decides
your annual pay rise(s)?
> > Happy Christmas & New Year
> > Sue Jeggo
>
>
> --
susan...@my-dejanews.com
> > Nick Wagg <ni...@lsl.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Ah yes, Amway, the original Get Rich Slow scheme,
> >
> > Wrong - simply a way of generating additonal income over your 'normal'
> > job.
> >
> >
> > Wrong again. Every one starts at zero on the 1st of every month
>
>
> > Not that "pyramid" would be an appropriate term, oh no.
> >
> > customer from the manufacturer. If you don't know the difference the
> > closest comparison is that of franchising.
>
> who has recruited them, and a portion of that distributor's profits
> goes to the person who has recruited them, and a portion of that....
No. The profit remains with the distributor. It does not go to the person who
recruited them. I've never given any of my profit to anyone.
> --
--
Sue
Dom
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson <h...@cygnus.co.ukx> wrote:
>Subject: Re: Amway (the new religion)
Quite apposite. The Amway su^H^H rep I met quite
clearly used the business as a mental prop in the
same way that many people use religion as a prop.
The whole thing was quite reminiscent of a cult.
Patrick Gosling
<susan...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>No. The profit remains with the distributor. It does not go to the person who
>recruited them. I've never given any of my profit to anyone.
No, but the "bonus" you receive is dependent on the number of people you
persuade to join below you. This fact, and the little additional
fact that Amway is not a charity, cause me to realise that while you
may not have "given" any of your profit to anyone, a good deal of the
overall markup involved in Amway's business has disappeared in the
direction of the upper echelons of the pyramid rather than into your
pocket.
However, as Dan pointed out, this isn't too dissimilar from the way that
most retail business works, one way or another.
The difference is that Sainsburies don't invite me round for supper and
then give me a guilt trip for not buying their goods, and they don't
have a quasi-religious aura about the whole business. They just get on
and sell me stuff, when I choose to ask them to.
They also don't need to place covert adverts in cam.misc (I personally
have deep suspicions about people who suddenly pop up out of nowhere
and post a request for Amway products).
If you really want to think seriously about Amway or the like, I'd
recommend making a quick estimate of how valuable your time is. This
may be derived from a number of sources, such as how much you get paid,
and how much you're prepared to pay someone to save you half an hour or
an hour of your time.
Now look at how much time you have to spend Amway-ing your way to a little
extra pocket money, and weep.
-patrick.
Mike Hobbs
like this but I feel its worth putting in an unbiased
view. I am no longer a distributor so I have no interest in
making it sound good to anyone, but I was a distributor
for about 4 years. And, as I know people will ask, the reason
I am not now is that I am too preoccupied with another
activity to be able to spend the time necessary to make it
work.
Now for the meat...
1. Amway is NOT pyramid selling. Pyramid selling was made
illegal in 1973. Its direct selling, its not only legal,
its more ethical than corporate business because you help
others achieve rather than compete with them to climb the
ladder.
Amway have campaigned for years to eliminate the cowboys
who are in effect running marginally legal pyramid schemes
and have the backing of many members of parliament.
Amway have a VERY good pedigree and support from numerous
organisations involved with environmental issues, etc.
2. Network marketing is NOT about conning your friends into
joining so that you can make money out of them. You have
to understand who is doing who the favour. Only people who
want to do some hard work and help others to achieve should
become distributors. If people are not interested then thats
their choice (but many make the choice based on ignorance
and prejudice rather than true facts or experience).
3. Clearly it is necessary to sell product, but that side of
things is relatively easy (although one does need to
ensure that a quality service is supplied). The difficult
bit for most people is recruitment and thus this is where
most effort is required. If well-motivated people are
found then they will sell product anyway so the thrust is
to find well-motivated people. To those who are only
accustomed to conventional retailing this may seem like
focussing on the wrong thing. However, if you were building
up ANY business you would need to recruit well-motivated
people and then they will in turn bring in the sales.
4. The key to success in any business is the motivation of the
people in it. Many are motivated by the fact that they HAVE
to work to pay the rent or mortgage, and eat. More motivation
is required to run your own business, especially when its
primarily a people business. Thats why there is a fantastic
motivational training programme for distributors. Books,
tapes, meetings, conventions, upline support, etc. These
are worth becoming a distributor even if you never did
anything else with the business. The principle is to make
good people and the good people build the business. I know
people who have got jobs (in conventional business) mainly
on the basis of the attitude and character that they
built up through their Amway distributor training. Even if
you never do anything else its worth going to an Amway
convention to taste the atmosphere and meet lovely positive
people who want to progress by helping others to do so.
5. There will always be those who don't want to believe that
the business is ethical, and will tell everyone that it
doen't work, and generally bad-mouth it. 99% do this based
on ignorance of the facts (in much the same way that people
do over religion too). The advice I give is not to listen
to these negative people, but speak to the people who had
done it and made it work. Its one of the first rulles of
good business - take advice from those who have succeeded,
not those who never tried, or who failed.
I think that'll do. Now watch the negative people tear it apart.
--
Mike Hobbs
Dom
>In article <75qs92$866$2...@shiny.i-cubed.co.uk>,
> d...@i-cubed.co.uk (Dom) wrote:
>> In article <75qih5$6rv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, susan...@my-dejanews.com
>wrote:
customer
>> >from the manufacturer. If you don't know the difference the closest
>comparison
>> >is that of franchising.
>>
>presumably you mean an independant Distributor
You can call him Amway's Official Ambassador To Mars for all I care.
>I met had shown *any* interest whatsoever in actually
>> selling the products rather than spending his entire time trying to sign
>> me up (mostly through a painfully slow exposition of a geometric progression
>> that would've bored me to tears when I was ten), then your statement might
>> have a scrap of credibility. But he didn't, and it doesn't.
>
>You've obviously no understanding of the concept then, have you.
So if it isn't a pyramid, then why did Amway's Official Ambassador To
Mars spend the whole time trying to demonstrate that once all your
recruitees' recruitees' reccruitees started kicking back *your* percentage,
you'd be making loads of money? Why did he never attempt to actually
sell any of these wonderful products?
Steve Hunt
> 1. Amway is NOT pyramid selling.>
So it's not a pyramid.
> The difficult
> bit for most people is recruitment
So it IS a pyramid. Make your mind up.
-- Steve
Steve Hunt
> However, if you were building
> up ANY business you would need to recruit well-motivated
> people and then they will in turn bring in the sales.
You make it sound as you were actually *employing* people in your
"business". AIUI this is not how it works. Amway distributors
convince other people into becoming Amway distributors in their own
right and then receive a "bonus" based on how many such people they
"recruit" (even indirectly) and how far down the chain they are and
how much they sell. If that's not a pyramid scam then it certainly
seems to have some of the characteristics.
-- Steve
Paul Oldham
(Mike Hobbs) growled:
> 1. Amway is NOT pyramid selling. [big snip]
>
> I think that'll do. Now watch the negative people tear it apart.
I won't quote all of the above as it's rather long and most people have good
enough threading to find your original in total.
I see nothing there to tear apart. I'm sure what you're saying is true.
However it's missing the point as to why people dislike Amway.
I think the problem most people have with Amway is that, unlike most
businesses, the primary concern appears to be to recruit more people into
Amway. From personal experience I've *never* had anyone try to sell me
product, I have had several people try to sell me the organisation.
It seems to me from what I've seen of people who do it that the way Amway
works is that, as product sales takes second place to recruiting others,
most sales that are made are the easy ones, to friends and family. Hence
most people at the bottom of the heap reap small rewards from an easy sell.
Presumably those few people who have the skill to recruit others benefit
from those sales and make the real money.
It's a business model that works, that much is clear or else it wouldn't
continue. My problem with it is that its effects on the Amway distributor's
social life are not so positive. This is not the US. In this country cold
calling to your friends and acquaintances is not the way to retain them.
I've twice now had to be rude to people I previously regarded as friends to
stop them pushing Amway down my throat. I'm sure you'll tell me that that is
their failure, not a failure of Amway, but that's not the point. The point
is that this *is* how many people experience Amway. It doesn't endear the
company to people.
I would contrast it with other home selling businesses where the focus is on
selling. Examples which spring to mind are Avon and Tupperware. Both appear
to sell reasonable products which people want to buy, and the contrast with
Amway is that I've had many contacts with people selling both products and
the emphasis is the product, sold in an un-pushy way, which is a model that
works well in this country. The brochure does mention you can sell this
stuff too, but no one's ever tried to sign me up to it.
--
Paul Oldham, Milton villager and cam.* FAQ maintainer
cam.* FAQ is at http://www.the-hug.demon.co.uk/paul/camfaq.html
susan...@my-dejanews.com
susan...@my-dejanews.com
> up ANY business you would need to recruit well-motivated
> people and then they will in turn bring in the sales.
>
>
> Mike Hobbs
>
>
Well said, Mike.
And before anyone asks - no, Mike and I are not known to each other.
susan...@my-dejanews.com
jp...@eng.cam.ac.uk (Patrick Gosling) wrote:
> In article <75r8nk$phg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> <susan...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> >No. The profit remains with the distributor. It does not go to the person who
> >recruited them. I've never given any of my profit to anyone.
>
> No, but the "bonus" you receive is dependent on the number of people you
> persuade to join below you.
No. Depends how many positive minded people are willing to put in some effort
and create additional income for themselves.
This fact, and the little additional
> fact that Amway is not a charity, cause me to realise that while you
> may not have "given" any of your profit to anyone, a good deal of the
> overall markup involved in Amway's business has disappeared in the
> direction of the upper echelons of the pyramid rather than into your
> pocket.
>
> However, as Dan pointed out, this isn't too dissimilar from the way that
> most retail business works, one way or another.
>
> The difference is that Sainsburies don't invite me round for supper and
> then give me a guilt trip for not buying their goods, and they don't
> have a quasi-religious aura about the whole business. They just get on
> and sell me stuff, when I choose to ask them to.
>
> They also don't need to place covert adverts in cam.misc (I personally
> have deep suspicions about people who suddenly pop up out of nowhere
> and post a request for Amway products).
>
Talk about sceptics!
> If you really want to think seriously about Amway or the like, I'd
> recommend making a quick estimate of how valuable your time is.
Certainly to valuable to me to be spent all week working for someone else, -
at the end of the day look at your boss. He will drive a bigger and better
car than you. He will have a bigger house. He will have more (and better)
holidays. He will earn more. Probably his wife does not need to work.
This
> may be derived from a number of sources, such as how much you get paid,
> and how much you're prepared to pay someone to save you half an hour or
> an hour of your time.
>
> Now look at how much time you have to spend Amway-ing your way to a little
> extra pocket money, and weep.
>
> -patrick.
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
susan...@my-dejanews.com
d...@i-cubed.co.uk (Dom) wrote:
> In article <75r87r$p3r$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, susan...@my-dejanews.com
wrote:
> > d...@i-cubed.co.uk (Dom) wrote:
> >> In article <75qih5$6rv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, susan...@my-dejanews.com
> >wrote:
> >> >Wrong again - its acutally direct selling (i.e product direct to the
> customer
> >> >from the manufacturer. If you don't know the difference the closest
> >comparison
> >> >is that of franchising.
> >>
> >> If the Amway geezer
> >presumably you mean an independant Distributor
>
> You can call him Amway's Official Ambassador To Mars for all I care.
>
> >I met had shown *any* interest whatsoever in actually
> >> selling the products rather than spending his entire time trying to sign
> >> me up (mostly through a painfully slow exposition of a geometric
progression
> >> that would've bored me to tears when I was ten), then your statement might
> >> have a scrap of credibility. But he didn't, and it doesn't.
> >
> >You've obviously no understanding of the concept then, have you.
>
> So if it isn't a pyramid, then why did Amway's Official Ambassador To
> Mars spend the whole time trying to demonstrate that once all your
> recruitees' recruitees' reccruitees started kicking back *your* percentage,
> you'd be making loads of money? Why did he never attempt to actually
> sell any of these wonderful products?
>
If you were paying attention you would have realized you were being shown how
the concept of network market works. It is obviously too advanced for you.
--
Sue
susan...@my-dejanews.com
Steve Hunt <ste...@persimmon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > bit for most people is recruitment
>
No. It is networking.
> -- Steve
susan...@my-dejanews.com
> > up ANY business you would need to recruit well-motivated
> > people and then they will in turn bring in the sales.
>
> "business". AIUI this is not how it works. Amway distributors
> convince other people into becoming Amway distributors in their own
> right and then receive a "bonus" based on how many such people they
> "recruit" (even indirectly) and how far down the chain they are and
> how much they sell. If that's not a pyramid scam then it certainly
> seems to have some of the characteristics.
Dear oh dear. No. Any bonus is related only to monthly sales. NOT to the
number of people in a network. each person earns their own bonus. You are all
conditioned into spending 50 years at work.
susan...@my-dejanews.com
pa...@the-hug.demon.co.uk wrote:
> In article <ant23184...@xn064.xemplar.co.uk>, mho...@xemplar.co.uk
> (Mike Hobbs) growled:
>
> >
> > I think that'll do. Now watch the negative people tear it apart.
>
> enough threading to find your original in total.
>
> I see nothing there to tear apart. I'm sure what you're saying is true.
> However it's missing the point as to why people dislike Amway.
>
> I think the problem most people have with Amway is that, unlike most
> businesses, the primary concern appears to be to recruit more people into
> Amway. From personal experience I've *never* had anyone try to sell me
> product, I have had several people try to sell me the organisation.
>
> It seems to me from what I've seen of people who do it that the way Amway
> works is that, as product sales takes second place to recruiting others,
> most sales that are made are the easy ones, to friends and family. Hence
> most people at the bottom of the heap reap small rewards from an easy sell.
> Presumably those few people who have the skill to recruit others benefit
> from those sales and make the real money.
>
> It's a business model that works, that much is clear or else it wouldn't
> continue. My problem with it is that its effects on the Amway distributor's
> social life are not so positive. This is not the US. In this country cold
> calling to your friends and acquaintances is not the way to retain them.
> I've twice now had to be rude to people I previously regarded as friends to
> stop them pushing Amway down my throat. I'm sure you'll tell me that that is
> their failure, not a failure of Amway, but that's not the point. The point
> is that this *is* how many people experience Amway. It doesn't endear the
> company to people.
There is no reason why anyone should loose friends. As I said in an earlier
post I have increased the friends I have. Though I accept you point Paul,
that sometines the excitement of the business can be misinterpreted by those
not in the know.
> I would contrast it with other home selling businesses where the focus is on
> selling. Examples which spring to mind are Avon and Tupperware. Both appear
> to sell reasonable products which people want to buy, and the contrast with
> Amway is that I've had many contacts with people selling both products and
> the emphasis is the product, sold in an un-pushy way, which is a model that
> works well in this country. The brochure does mention you can sell this
> stuff too, but no one's ever tried to sign me up to it.
Both those businesses are, as far as I know, just retail. So the income to the
distributor will probably be worked out differently.
>
> -- --
Sue Jeggo
Brian Watson
<75r8nk$phg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> Except that a portion of each distributor's profits go to the person
>> who has recruited them, and a portion of that distributor's profits
>> goes to the person who has recruited them, and a portion of that....
>
>No. The profit remains with the distributor. It does not go to the person
who
>recruited them. I've never given any of my profit to anyone.
I've stayed out of this slanging match because part of my income is derived
from selling goods on commission directly for companies and I wouldn't want
to muddy the debate with facts which might not apply in the case of Amway.
But somewhere this does not add up.
A few years ago I was given the full "What is your dream? What do you
*really* want from life? Everybody has ... ... Amway can do this for you."
spiel (very focussed, very American) by an Amway distributor and his wife
some years ago and it seemed to me that no-one would go to that amount of
trouble to persuade me to start selling in the same sales territory as
themselves unless they were getting something out of it.
As I understand it, Amway do not have "allocated territories" as such, but
the fact that we were living in the same village meant that inevitably I
would have approached some of his customers. Therefore, if I joined up and
then got a sale to one of his customers it would be to his detriment unless
he was on a commission on my sales.
Now, if we accept what has been said about no "pyramids" of distributors,
sub-distributors, sub-sub-distributors (substitute whatever grander titles
might be applied to denote seniority) as such, what is the incentive to
introduce new distributors who will be selling into the same area as the
introducer?
--
Brian
Brian Watson
<75rpe9$833$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <75rdjk$qp8$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
> jp...@eng.cam.ac.uk (Patrick Gosling) wrote:
>> In article <75r8nk$phg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>> <susan...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
person who
>> >recruited them. I've never given any of my profit to anyone.
>>
>> persuade to join below you.
>
>No. Depends how many positive minded people are willing to put in some
effort
>and create additional income for themselves.
That sounds like it's straight out of the textbook.
It seems to me that it suits you to be an Amway distributor, but that there
is a huge antipathy here to the whole concept of the Amway means of selling.
Don't you feel that putting effort into offering the range *you* obviously
believe in might be better, and more profitably, directed elsewhere?
--
Brian
Brian Watson
<75rq6u$8o8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> It's a business model that works, that much is clear or else it wouldn't
>> continue. My problem with it is that its effects on the Amway
distributor's
>> social life are not so positive. This is not the US. In this country cold
>> calling to your friends and acquaintances is not the way to retain them.
>> I've twice now had to be rude to people I previously regarded as friends
to
>> stop them pushing Amway down my throat. I'm sure you'll tell me that that
is
>> their failure, not a failure of Amway, but that's not the point. The
point
>> is that this *is* how many people experience Amway. It doesn't endear the
>> company to people.
>
>There is no reason why anyone should lose friends. As I said in an earlier
>post I have increased the friends I have. Though I accept your point Paul,
>that sometimes the excitement of the business can be misinterpreted by
those
>not in the know.
What is that if not pseudo-"in-group" jargon?
I am a very successful salesman (among other things) but what you are
saying, and how you are expressing it in this example, is not the way people
get on selling in this country because culturally it is generally
inappropriate.
In other words, you will not persuade a sufficient number of people with
that kind of selling to make a living.
It *will* work on enough people the first time round, but the same patter
doesn't work on the same person twice and that, coupled with the large pack
sizes (in terms of numbers of applications per pack) of Amway products,
means that the repeat business will steadily diminish. Sorry about that, but
it's true.
Amway relies on generating enough new distributors to sell around their
circle of friends once or twice for its continued success.
>
>> I would contrast it with other home selling businesses where the focus is
on
>> selling. Examples which spring to mind are Avon and Tupperware. Both
appear
>> to sell reasonable products which people want to buy, and the contrast
with
>> Amway is that I've had many contacts with people selling both products
and
>> the emphasis is the product, sold in an un-pushy way, which is a model
that
>> works well in this country. The brochure does mention you can sell this
>> stuff too, but no one's ever tried to sign me up to it.
Avon, I am almost certain, *do* grant working territories to their agents.
Not so with Amway.
>Both those businesses are, as far as I know, just retail. So the income to
the
>distributor will probably be worked out differently.
Essentially the same (most of the business comes from the end user, and
commission is paid on sales). The Amway difference is the incentivising
(God, now I'm doing it) to recruit and the disproportionate pack sizes.
--
Brian
Brian Watson
>1. Amway is NOT pyramid selling. Pyramid selling was made
> illegal in 1973. Its direct selling, its not only legal,
> its more ethical than corporate business because you help
> others achieve rather than compete with them to climb the
> ladder.
Absolute nonsense. There is no reason why corporate (I assume you mean the
way most companies are structured) businesses should not help those involved
in their business achieve. Indeed it is in their interests to do so.
> Amway have campaigned for years to eliminate the cowboys
> who are in effect running marginally legal pyramid schemes
Yes probably, as it makes sense to seek to eliminate close competitors who
sail even closer to the wind than Amway.
> and have the backing of many members of parliament.
Care to name them?
> Amway have a VERY good pedigree and support from numerous
> organisations involved with environmental issues, etc.
Agreed. Many of their products are very good from an environmental point of
view.
>2. Network marketing is NOT about conning your friends into
> joining so that you can make money out of them.
No, I agree with the way you probably see it, that it is about *persuading*
your friends into joining so that you can make money out of them. The thing
is, you do not seem to realise that many people find this an abuse of
friendship.
> You have
> to understand who is doing who the favour.
And therein lies one of the main problems people have with it. The
perception is different.
> Only people who
> want to do some hard work and help others to achieve should
> become distributors. If people are not interested then thats
> their choice (but many make the choice based on ignorance
> and prejudice rather than true facts or experience).
The "abuse of friendship" point is significant.
>3. Clearly it is necessary to sell product, but that side of
> things is relatively easy (although one does need to
> ensure that a quality service is supplied). The difficult
> bit for most people is recruitment
...because of the abuse of friendship which is often involved. Sorry to keep
on about it..<g>. Go and recruit someone, fine, but don't pretend friendship
has anything to do with it.
> and thus this is where
> most effort is required.
I would say insincerity rather than effort.
> If well-motivated people are
> found then they will sell product anyway so the thrust is
> to find well-motivated people.
In practice, it seems the distributors will try to recruit anyone. Selling
the distributorship is just like selling any other item; present the lot to
everyone and see what sticks.
> To those who are only
> accustomed to conventional retailing
Retailing is selling from trade premises. Amway is not retailing.
> this may seem like
> focussing on the wrong thing.
No. It is focussing on "a" wrong thing, in that it is irresponsible selling.
Fine in the short term, but not a recipe for long-term success.
> However, if you were building
> up ANY business you would need to recruit well-motivated
> people and then they will in turn bring in the sales.
Agreed. But Amway incentivises its agents to encourage recruiting any kind
of incompetent too.
>4. The key to success in any business is the motivation of the
> people in it.
That's certainly *not* all of it. The rest is largely covered by
"responsible selling and proper business practises".
The fact that Amway ebbs and flows here in the UK to the extent that it does
confirms that its business practices do not have in-built continuity of
success proportional to the efforts of its agents.
> <snip> there is a fantastic
> motivational training programme for distributors.
This is going to be a short, fast, burn. Amway need to get as much as they
can as fast as they can from their sales people because the bubble doesn't
last.
> I know
> people who have got jobs (in conventional business) mainly
> on the basis of the attitude and character that they
> built up through their Amway distributor training.
If it was so good they wouldn't leave.
> Even if
> you never do anything else its worth going to an Amway
> convention to taste the atmosphere and meet lovely positive
> people who want to progress by helping others to do so.
Be great to get the same sad losers in the same hall a year later too.
>5. There will always be those who don't want to believe that
> the business is ethical, and will tell everyone that it
> doen't work, and generally bad-mouth it.
You betcha.
> 99% do this based
> on ignorance of the facts (in much the same way that people
> do over religion too).
There are close parallels.
> The advice I give is not to listen
> to these negative people, but speak to the people who had
> done it and made it work.
And those who haven't, of course. Wouldn't wish to lose the balance, would
we?
> Its one of the first rulles of
> good business - take advice from those who have succeeded,
> not those who never tried, or who failed.
I wouldn't argue with that, but to ignore the experience of the failures is
to be seeing an incomplete picture.
>
>I think that'll do. Now watch the negative people tear it apart.
Wrong premise; I am not a negative person. I am as objective as a person can
be with knowledge of my subject (selling). And the Amway concept is,
metaphorically, built on sand.
--
Brian
susan...@my-dejanews.com
"Brian Watson" <br...@spheroid.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> susan...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> <75r8nk$phg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >In article <368102...@lsl.co.uk>,
> > Nick Wagg <ni...@lsl.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> Except that a portion of each distributor's profits go to the person
> >> who has recruited them, and a portion of that distributor's profits
> >> goes to the person who has recruited them, and a portion of that....
> >
> who
> >recruited them. I've never given any of my profit to anyone.
>
> from selling goods on commission directly for companies and I wouldn't want
> to muddy the debate with facts which might not apply in the case of Amway.
> But somewhere this does not add up.
>
> A few years ago I was given the full "What is your dream? What do you
> *really* want from life? Everybody has ... ... Amway can do this for you."
> spiel (very focussed, very American) by an Amway distributor and his wife
> some years ago and it seemed to me that no-one would go to that amount of
> trouble to persuade me to start selling in the same sales territory as
> themselves unless they were getting something out of it.
>
> As I understand it, Amway do not have "allocated territories" as such, but
> the fact that we were living in the same village meant that inevitably I
> would have approached some of his customers. Therefore, if I joined up and
> then got a sale to one of his customers it would be to his detriment unless
> he was on a commission on my sales.
>
> Now, if we accept what has been said about no "pyramids" of distributors,
> sub-distributors, sub-sub-distributors (substitute whatever grander titles
> might be applied to denote seniority) as such, what is the incentive to
> introduce new distributors who will be selling into the same area as the
> introducer?
> Because it is a business opportunity which does not discriminate. It is open
to everyone - race, background, religion or whatever. It does not matter how
many people in one village are independant distributors because there are
enough customers for all of us. How many villages do you know where all the
residents are AMway customers? so, the potential is enourmous. ANd human
nature tellos us that not everyone accepts the invitation to become
independant, or even to be a customer. On a wider scale, some independant
distributors in this country have Amway businesses overseas, and vice versa.
Its global.
> Brian
>
--
Sue
susan...@my-dejanews.com
> >In article <75rdjk$qp8$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
> > jp...@eng.cam.ac.uk (Patrick Gosling) wrote:
> >> In article <75r8nk$phg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> >> <susan...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> person who
> >> >recruited them. I've never given any of my profit to anyone.
> >>
> >> persuade to join below you.
> >
> >No. Depends how many positive minded people are willing to put in some
> effort
> >and create additional income for themselves.
>
> That sounds like it's straight out of the textbook.
No,
> It seems to me that it suits you to be an Amway distributor,
Yep, extra pocket money, my products at cost, flexibility, and friends.
but that there
> is a huge antipathy here to the whole concept of the Amway means of selling.
Yes, but they all (probably) have jobs that I would not approve of, but
that does not necessarily mean they are wrong. I would respect any individuals
choice.
> Don't you feel that putting effort into offering the range *you* obviously
> believe in might be better, and more profitably, directed elsewhere?
If I'd known this thread was going to be this involved I would probably not
have been responding. I shall be delivering products bewteen xmas & new year.
> --
susan...@my-dejanews.com
> >In article <memo.199812...@paul.demon.co.uk>,
> > pa...@the-hug.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
> >> It's a business model that works, that much is clear or else it wouldn't
> >> continue. My problem with it is that its effects on the Amway
> distributor's
> >> social life are not so positive. This is not the US. In this country cold
> >> calling to your friends and acquaintances is not the way to retain them.
> >> I've twice now had to be rude to people I previously regarded as friends
> to
> >> stop them pushing Amway down my throat. I'm sure you'll tell me that that
> is
> >> their failure, not a failure of Amway, but that's not the point. The
> point
> >> is that this *is* how many people experience Amway. It doesn't endear the
> >> company to people.
> >
> >There is no reason why anyone should lose friends. As I said in an earlier
> >post I have increased the friends I have. Though I accept your point Paul,
> >that sometimes the excitement of the business can be misinterpreted by
> those
> >not in the know.
>
> What is that if not pseudo-"in-group" jargon?
Its a response to your comment.
> I am a very successful salesman (among other things) but what you are
> saying, and how you are expressing it in this example, is not the way people
> get on selling in this country because culturally it is generally
> inappropriate.
Congratulations on your success(es).
People dont like the Euro - but it'll come in time.
> In other words, you will not persuade a sufficient number of people with
> that kind of selling to make a living.
Exaclty. The business is NOT for everyone. Its availablt to everyone though.
and some who do not want to be independant distributors often become
customers.
>
> It *will* work on enough people the first time round, but the same patter
> doesn't work on the same person twice and that, coupled with the large pack
> sizes (in terms of numbers of applications per pack) of Amway products,
> means that the repeat business will steadily diminish. Sorry about that, but
> it's true.
ALl businesses rely on repeat business.
> Amway relies on generating enough new distributors to sell around their
> circle of friends once or twice for its continued success.
> >
> >> I would contrast it with other home selling businesses where the focus is
> on
> >> selling. Examples which spring to mind are Avon and Tupperware. Both
> appear
> >> to sell reasonable products which people want to buy, and the contrast
> with
> >> Amway is that I've had many contacts with people selling both products
> and
> >> the emphasis is the product, sold in an un-pushy way, which is a model
> that
> >> works well in this country. The brochure does mention you can sell this
> >> stuff too, but no one's ever tried to sign me up to it.
>
> Avon, I am almost certain, *do* grant working territories to their agents.
> Not so with Amway.
>
> >Both those businesses are, as far as I know, just retail. So the income to
> the
> >distributor will probably be worked out differently.
>
> Essentially the same (most of the business comes from the end user, and
> commission is paid on sales). The Amway difference is the incentivising
> (God, now I'm doing it) to recruit and the disproportionate pack sizes.
>
> --
> Brian
>
>
--
Sue Jeggo
Nick Wagg
>
> In article <368101...@lsl.co.uk>,
> Nick Wagg <ni...@lsl.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Every one of the half dozen or so former Amway distributors whom I
> > know quite well is disillusioned with the company. They were all led
> > to believe that they would make quite substantial sums of money. The
> > only Amway distributor of my acquaintance who is quite happy is (or
> > was - this was 16-17 years ago) one of the top distributors in Europe,
> > based in Holland - Bob somebody - an American. He reckoned he no
> > longer had to work and he certainly lived in luxury compared with my
> > standard of living.
>
> Well then - suprise, I does actually work - though I agree with you
> your friend has probably got much higher than the average distributor.
> BUT ask your self this: are you resigned to working a 'normal' jog for
> the rest of your life? How much control do you have over your annual
> income? Who decides your annual pay rise(s)?
Rubbish! This acquaintance was at the top of the pyramid. All the rest
were at the bottom. He got in at the beginning of European operations.
Those who joined later on did not stand a chance, as the rest of those
of my friends who were bitten by Amway will testify.
I am not resigned to the "normal jog" (what a quaint phrase) for the
rest of my life. I quite enjoy what I am doing although I am looking
forward in some ways to retiring in 20 or so years' time. As for
control over my income, I have as much as any of my Amway friends did.
In the software business I have the option of becoming self-employed
but I choose not to do so, at least at the moment. Have you analysed
what your hourly returns from your Amway dealings amount to, when you
have taken into account ALL the time you spend, and the petrol,
dropping off the supplies to those lower down the pyramid than
yourself, and the opportunity cost of the storage space...
Have yourself an Amway little Christmas.
--
Nick Wagg <>< (mailto:ni...@lsl.co.uk) Laser-Scan Ltd,
Software Project Manager Science Park, Milton Rd,
Tel: +44(0)1223 420414 (ext 213) Cambridge, CB4 0FY, UK.
Fax: +44(0)1223 420044 http://www.laser-scan.com/
Opinions expressed are attributable to me, not my employer.
Richard Stimson
<75r47d$a71$1...@shiny.i-cubed.co.uk>...
> The whole thing was quite reminiscent of a cult.
>
Roland Perry
dejanews.com writes
>Any bonus is related only to monthly sales. NOT to the
>number of people in a network. each person earns their own bonus.
Just for the avoidance of doubt, is the bonus related to your *own*
sales, or to the sales of all the people in your network/who you have
recruited, or whatever...
--
Roland Perry
Al Grant
> It does not matter how
> many people in one village are independant distributors because there are
> enough customers for all of us.
Well that's the solution to the rural economic crisis then. Just get
everyone to be Amway distributors! I think there's an element
of "critical mass" missing here.
My experience with Amway: when I was freelancing I had a
meeting with someone (who I had met once before briefly at
an engineering event) who said he wanted to set up a project.
After failing to interest me in his electronic design he asked
if I would be interested in distributing household toiletries.
The sad thing was that if his promotional material for his project
had been as good as his Amway material, I might have worked
with him.
David Damerell
>d...@i-cubed.co.uk (Dom) wrote:
>>So if it isn't a pyramid, then why did Amway's Official Ambassador To
>>Mars spend the whole time trying to demonstrate that once all your
>>recruitees' recruitees' reccruitees started kicking back *your* percentage,
>>you'd be making loads of money? Why did he never attempt to actually
>>sell any of these wonderful products?
>If you were paying attention you would have realized you were being shown how
>the concept of network market works. It is obviously too advanced for you.
Obviously. The possibility that you are dumb enough to buy into a pyramid
scheme (or possibly crooked enough to get other people to buy into it) and
we are not has not even crossed our minds.
Hypothetically speaking, perhaps _someone_ on cam.misc besides Your Mighty
Intellect will understand it - why not provide an explanation of how it
does work?
--
David/Kirsty Damerell. dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
"We have always been quite clear that Win95 and Win98 are not the systems to
use if you are in a hostile security environment." "We absolutely do recognize
that the Internet is a hostile environment." Paul Leach <pau...@microsoft.com>
David Damerell
>jp...@eng.cam.ac.uk (Patrick Gosling) wrote:
>>No, but the "bonus" you receive is dependent on the number of people you
>>persuade to join below you.
>No. Depends how many positive minded people are willing to put in some effort
>and create additional income for themselves.
So your bonus _does_ in fact depend on how many people you have in some
way caused to begin selling Amway products?
And if that bonus were not paid to you, it could be paid to them?
And your profits are reduced by the need to pay bonuses to the people
above you?
[Maybe not directly, but the money has to come from somewhere; the price you
pay for products reflects this.]
This is a pyramid scheme.
>>If you really want to think seriously about Amway or the like, I'd
>>recommend making a quick estimate of how valuable your time is.
>Certainly to valuable to me to be spent all week working for someone else, -
>at the end of the day look at your boss. He will drive a bigger and better
>car than you. He will have a bigger house. He will have more (and better)
>holidays. He will earn more. Probably his wife does not need to work.
<diana>Perhaps my boss is a woman.</diana> Perhaps I work in academia,
where we all get paid peanuts; but at least it's relatively honest.
David Damerell
>dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
>>The concept being proven is that you can extract money from stupid people
>>by having them act as underpaid sales staff and guilt-trip their
>>friends. Not a new fact, and not really a reason to get in on the bottom
>>of the pyramid scheme.
>Wrong again folks. No one is 'underpaid sales staff'. Distributors earn how
>much they want.
Yess, and their earnings per hour are lousy compared with practically any
commission-based sales job no matter how many hours they work. What was
your point, here?
>And as for guilt trip friends, I have actually kept all my
>friends and made new friends and aquaintences from the Amway business. There
>is absolutley no need to 'guilt trip' as you call it.
Hmmmm. Obviously the (limited) number of friends of my family who became
Amway types all did it voluntarily. Er, p'raps not.
>That says alot for the quality of friends does it not?
What, that they can be exploited and not necessarily get angry? Wonderful.
>No one gets in a the bottom anyway - we all start at the same place.
... but some bonuses are larger than others...
David Damerell
>Well then - suprise, I does actually work - though I agree with you your
>friend has probably got much higher than the average distributor. BUT ask
>your self this: are you resigned to working a 'normal' jog for the rest of
>your life? How much control do you have over your annual income? Who decides
>your annual pay rise(s)?
Incidentally, why not give up on reproducing the standard spiel for
potential new suckers? It's pretty obvious, and I doubt many cam.miscers
will fall for it.
[And this 'control over income' thing is a red herring, anyway. Any
hourly-wage employee with reasonable freedom to do overtime has more
control over their income than me; but I'm not off to wallop junk on a
dock just yet...]
susan...@my-dejanews.com
Nick Wagg <ni...@lsl.co.uk> wrote:
> susan...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <368101...@lsl.co.uk>,
> > Nick Wagg <ni...@lsl.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > Every one of the half dozen or so former Amway distributors whom I
> > > know quite well is disillusioned with the company. They were all led
> > > to believe that they would make quite substantial sums of money. The
> > > only Amway distributor of my acquaintance who is quite happy is (or
> > > was - this was 16-17 years ago) one of the top distributors in Europe,
> > > based in Holland - Bob somebody - an American. He reckoned he no
> > > longer had to work and he certainly lived in luxury compared with my
> > > standard of living.
> >
> > your friend has probably got much higher than the average distributor.
> > BUT ask your self this: are you resigned to working a 'normal' jog for
> > the rest of your life? How much control do you have over your annual
> > income? Who decides your annual pay rise(s)?
>
No he wasn't its not a pyramid, what you mean is he had built a strong
network.
All the restwere at the bottom.
No. Just at different levels (which they choose)
He got in at the beginning of European operations.
> Those who joined later on did not stand a chance, as the rest of those
> of my friends who were bitten by Amway will testify.
>
> I am not resigned to the "normal jog" (what a quaint phrase)
My mistake that was a typing error and should have read normal job.
for the
> rest of my life. I quite enjoy what I am doing although I am looking
> forward in some ways to retiring in 20 or so years' time. As for
> control over my income,
No. Your boss does.
I have as much as any of my Amway friends did.
>
> In the software business I have the option of becoming self-employed
> but I choose not to do so, at least at the moment. Have you analysed
> what your hourly returns from your Amway dealings amount to, when you
> have taken into account ALL the time you spend, and the petrol,
> dropping off the supplies to those lower down the pyramid than
> yourself, and the opportunity cost of the storage space...
Well if you want to apply that thinking, what about all the time you spend at
work, for example 40 hours week x 48 weeks 1,920 hours a year. x your working
life say 50 years = 96,000 hours. Take into account your daily travelling cost
to work, and ifyou,ve got a company car you will be taxed on that 'perk'.
We don't deliver products to people lower down the 'pyramid' - there are local
weekly collection points for all distributors. We do not hold stock either, so
there is no lay out in storage space or money tied up in capital.
> Have yourself an Amway little Christmas.
Certainly will - you too.
>
> -- .
David Damerell
>Steve Hunt <ste...@persimmon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Mike Hobbs <mho...@xemplar.co.uk> writes:
>>>bit for most people is recruitment
>No. It is networking.
This reminds me of the approach taken to selling Japanese animation for
children's television in the USA. Ill-informed journalists have made the
term 'anime' synonymous with sex and violence [1]; so instead of defending
'anime', the term is redefined by the people selling good Japanimation;
only the tentacle porn is 'anime', and what they have is something quite
different.
This is the same; rather than defend your pyramid scheme, you redefine
'pyramid scheme' and call what you have 'networking'. Doesn't work;
pyramid schemes are bad even if you choose to call them 'elephant
toenails'.
[1] Just like over here, except in the UK we have the single largest
distributor (commonly known as Mangle Video) actively encouraging this
POV.
susan...@my-dejanews.com
RElated to the volume of sales - allocated to indivduals within the network.
For example: if my sales are £100 and I sold it all to a downline distributor
I would not get anything because the downline distributor did the work and
would make the income from profit on retail sales. Upside down pyramid eh?
Mike Hobbs
> In article <75rpop$8ff$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, susanjeggo@my-
> dejanews.com writes
> >Any bonus is related only to monthly sales. NOT to the
> >number of people in a network. each person earns their own bonus.
>
> Just for the avoidance of doubt, is the bonus related to your *own*
> sales, or to the sales of all the people in your network/who you have
> recruited, or whatever...
This should answer the question, and address other issues raised
in the thread...
The bonus is related to the total amount of business generated in
the distributor's network. The same as it would be if you were
running a wholesale distribution business supplying to retail
stores. You see, whilst people criticize network marketing they
happily accept the same thing in other businesses without realising
it. It would do people good to listen to a tape by Ron Ball
comparing corporate business with network marketing. Its a real
eye-opener showing that whilst many of the features of each are
similar, the ethics are totally different. Corporate business is
generally based on cut-throat competition whilst in MLM everyone
is motivated to help others to achieve rather than compete.
And to get back on track, there are two forms of profit to a
distributor. Firstly a profit element in the retail sale, then a
bonus related to total volume of business. One can increase
profit by increasing retail sales but the scope for increase is
limited, so the obvious way to increase sales is to get more
sales people. Some in turn will recruit more sales people and
thus the retail sales grow. The important distinction between this
and pyramid selling is that the profits are ALL related to retail
of product. No product sales, no profit. The reason pyramid scams
are illegal is that they have tried to make the profit purely
from recruitment. Amway distributors do not make anything out of
the recruitment itself, only on the products sold.
In fact, recruiting new distributors usually costs you something
in time, effort, running around, etc. However, if the new
distributor does his/her bit and makes it work then the spent
time and effort can be regarded as investment. And none of this
is any different from running a conventional business.
Another good thing about Amway is that you cannot buy yourself
to a bonus level. If your business volume drops you can drop
right back to square one. This risk is minimised by careful
structuring of the network (called 'width and depth'). Such
careful planning is exactly the same as you would need to do in
any business.
--
Mike
JCoe711218
stuff because I know its good and its not tested on animals. Go and use Tescos
stuff you lot and support animal torture if you want but I am just trying to
clean the filth out of my kitchen
Jon Coe
Andrew Haley
: In article <ant23184...@xn064.xemplar.co.uk>, mho...@xemplar.co.uk
: (Mike Hobbs) growled:
: > 1. Amway is NOT pyramid selling. [big snip]
: >
: > I think that'll do. Now watch the negative people tear it apart.
: I won't quote all of the above as it's rather long and most people have good
: enough threading to find your original in total.
: I see nothing there to tear apart. I'm sure what you're saying is true.
: However it's missing the point as to why people dislike Amway.
: I think the problem most people have with Amway is that, unlike most
: businesses, the primary concern appears to be to recruit more people into
: Amway.
In some cases the problem is more personal than that, which makes it
worse. I knew some good people, a couple with kids and a decent but
not stellar income, who were assimilated by Amway. They became
obsessed with Amway and lost many of their friends because of that
obsession. It was impossible even to have a quiet drink with them
without the subject of Amway coming up. The few friends they kept had
to buy Amway products. It was like losing someone to the Moonies.
They're out of it now, thank goodness.
Andrew.
Andrew Haley
AOILers are justly famed, wrote:
: I cant believe I have started such a hoo ha. I merely wanted to get
: some amway stuff because I know its good and its not tested on
: animals.
So why mess with a company running a pyramid scheme? Use Ecover
products, available in Daily Bread and most supermarkets.
: Go and use Tescos stuff you lot and support animal torture
: if you want but I am just trying to clean the filth out of my
: kitchen
Yeah, right. We're supporters of animal torture because we don't use
Amway.
Andrew.
susan...@my-dejanews.com
Al Grant <ag...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> susan...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > It does not matter how
> > many people in one village are independant distributors because there are
> > enough customers for all of us.
> Well that's the solution to the rural economic crisis then. Just get
> everyone to be Amway distributors! I think there's an element
> of "critical mass" missing here.
>
That illustration was to emphasize the point - Not everyone will be an
independant distributor.
> My experience with Amway: when I was freelancing I had a
> meeting with someone (who I had met once before briefly at
> an engineering event) who said he wanted to set up a project.
> After failing to interest me in his electronic design he asked
> if I would be interested in distributing household toiletries.
> The sad thing was that if his promotional material for his project
> had been as good as his Amway material, I might have worked
> with him.
Every household uses toiletries. Would the product you promoted be a low cost
item which would (or could) be purchased, used, and repeat purchased in every
household (in theory).
>
Happy Christmas
susan...@my-dejanews.com
dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
> <susan...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> >d...@i-cubed.co.uk (Dom) wrote:
> >>So if it isn't a pyramid, then why did Amway's Official Ambassador To
> >>Mars spend the whole time trying to demonstrate that once all your
> >>recruitees' recruitees' reccruitees started kicking back *your* percentage,
> >>you'd be making loads of money? Why did he never attempt to actually
> >>sell any of these wonderful products?
> >If you were paying attention you would have realized you were being shown how
> >the concept of network market works. It is obviously too advanced for you.
>
> Obviously. The possibility that you are dumb enough to buy into a pyramid
> scheme (or possibly crooked enough to get other people to buy into it) and
> we are not has not even crossed our minds.
Wrong again. Its networking not pyramid. If you'd paid attention to earlier
postings you would know that pyramid was outlawed.
> Hypothetically speaking, perhaps _someone_ on cam.misc besides Your Mighty
> Intellect will understand it - why not provide an explanation of how it
> does work?
Too involved to go into full detail - networking consumable products direct
to the customer without overheads of shops/staff etc. Income derived from
volume of sales per month and paid on pre determined levels.
Happpy Christmas
--
susan...@my-dejanews.com
dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
> <susan...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> >jp...@eng.cam.ac.uk (Patrick Gosling) wrote:
> >>No, but the "bonus" you receive is dependent on the number of people you
> >>persuade to join below you.
> >No. Depends how many positive minded people are willing to put in some effort
> >and create additional income for themselves.
>
> So your bonus _does_ in fact depend on how many people you have in some
> way caused to begin selling Amway products?
>
> And if that bonus were not paid to you, it could be paid to them?
Yes. At certain levels the bonus is paid direct to individual distributors.
>
> And your profits are reduced by the need to pay bonuses to the people
> above you?
No. because they generate their bonus from the total group volume.
> [Maybe not directly, but the money has to come from somewhere; the price you
> pay for products reflects this.]
All businesses are in business to make money.
> This is a pyramid scheme.
No. Its networking.
>
> >>If you really want to think seriously about Amway or the like, I'd
> >>recommend making a quick estimate of how valuable your time is.
> >Certainly to valuable to me to be spent all week working for someone else, -
> >at the end of the day look at your boss. He will drive a bigger and better
> >car than you. He will have a bigger house. He will have more (and better)
> >holidays. He will earn more. Probably his wife does not need to work.
>
> <diana>Perhaps my boss is a woman.</diana> Perhaps I work in academia,
> where we all get paid peanuts; but at least it's relatively honest.
Well if you're happy with that, then theres no problem is there.
> --
> David/Kirsty Damerell.
happy christmas
susan...@my-dejanews.com
dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
> <susan...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> >dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
> >>The concept being proven is that you can extract money from stupid people
> >>by having them act as underpaid sales staff and guilt-trip their
> >>friends. Not a new fact, and not really a reason to get in on the bottom
> >>of the pyramid scheme.
> >Wrong again folks. No one is 'underpaid sales staff'. Distributors earn how
> >much they want.
>
> Yess, and their earnings per hour are lousy compared with practically any
> commission-based sales job no matter how many hours they work. What was
> your point, here?
To clariy your misunderstanding.
> >And as for guilt trip friends, I have actually kept all my
> >friends and made new friends and aquaintences from the Amway business. There
> >is absolutley no need to 'guilt trip' as you call it.
>
> Hmmmm. Obviously the (limited) number of friends of my family who became
> Amway types all did it voluntarily. Er, p'raps not.
It only works if you volunteer.
> >That says alot for the quality of friends does it not?
>
> What, that they can be exploited and not necessarily get angry? Wonderful.
>
> >No one gets in a the bottom anyway - we all start at the same place.
>
> ... but some bonuses are larger than others...
> --
Because of the flexibility some distributors work harder than others, and
quite rightly are rewarded with higher income. However, the advantage is that
there is no ceiling i.e. you can decide how hard you want to work & what you
want to achieve.
>
--
susan...@my-dejanews.com
dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
> <susan...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> >Well then - suprise, I does actually work - though I agree with you your
> >friend has probably got much higher than the average distributor. BUT ask
> >your self this: are you resigned to working a 'normal' jog for the rest of
> >your life? How much control do you have over your annual income? Who decides
> >your annual pay rise(s)?
>
> potential new suckers? It's pretty obvious, and I doubt many cam.miscers
> will fall for it.
I certainly do not want any cam.miscers to 'fall for it'.
>
> [And this 'control over income' thing is a red herring, anyway. Any
> hourly-wage employee with reasonable freedom to do overtime has more
> control over their income than me; but I'm not off to wallop junk on a
> dock just yet...]
Overtime (&jobs) are only available when those in charge decide so.
David Damerell
Couldn't we just test things on AOLers? There's a lot of them, they're not
noticeably intelligent lifeforms, and it would clean up Usenet.
--
David/Kirsty Damerell. dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~damerell/ w.sp.lic.#pi<largestprime>.2106
|___| "Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc." Confessed Mercrediphile. |___|
| | | Or, in Klingon: "nucharghqangbogh chaH DISopchu' 'e' wItIv." | | |
George Hawes
>>
>If you were paying attention you would have realized you were being shown how
>the concept of network market works. It is obviously too advanced for you.
For fuck's sake, Sue, I do hope a brain is on your christmas
pressie wish-list.
G.
c.st...@lancaster.ac.uk
> Perhaps I work in academia,
> where we all get paid peanuts; but at least it's relatively honest.
If you do work in academia, pop round to your next door neighbours forthwith
and ask whoever answers the door to remove your blinkers.
Chris
--
A language is a dialect that has an army and a navy. (Max Weinreich)
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson
susan...@my-dejanews.com writes:
> In article <ant23184...@xn064.xemplar.co.uk>,
> Mike Hobbs <mho...@xemplar.co.uk> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > I think that'll do. Now watch the negative people tear it apart.
> Well said, Mike.
> And before anyone asks - no, Mike and I are not known to each other.
Yes you are; you read his newsnet postings and he reads yours.
More doublethink?
- Huge
so...@hotmail.com
> >Some AOLer (jcoe7...@aol.com), displaying the logic for which
> >AOILers are justly famed, wrote:
> >>Go and use Tescos stuff you lot and support animal torture
> >>if you want but I am just trying to clean the filth out of my
> >>kitchen
> >Yeah, right. We're supporters of animal torture because we don't use
> >Amway.
>
> Couldn't we just test things on AOLers? There's a lot of them, they're not
> noticeably intelligent lifeforms, and it would clean up Usenet.
this is hilarious! :-D
George Hawes
>Wrong again. Its networking not pyramid. If you'd paid attention to earlier
>postings you would know that pyramid was outlawed.
Have you actually READ the rules as to what is outlawed?? It
certainly doesn't apply to all pyramid schemes. Have YOU read
the other articles in this thread; e.g. the reference to other
organisations sailing even closer to the law than your happy
bunch?? (Sorry for no attribution; it wasn't mine!)
G.
George Hawes
>Overtime (&jobs) are only available when those in charge decide so.
That is equally applicable to your little scam - sorry,
legitimate way of making friends and an income . . The bosses
COULD pull the plug any time . .
G.
George Hawes
> Corporate business is
>generally based on cut-throat competition whilst in MLM everyone
>is motivated to help others to achieve rather than compete.
<fx: exploding credibilty>
G.
Brian Watson
>In article <yEqhjRA1...@cambridge.freeserve.co.uk>, Roland Perry
><URL:mailto:rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Just for the avoidance of doubt, is the bonus related to your *own*
>> sales, or to the sales of all the people in your network/who you have
>> recruited, or whatever...
>
>This should answer the question, and address other issues raised
>in the thread...
>
>The bonus is related to the total amount of business generated in
>the distributor's network. The same as it would be if you were
>running a wholesale distribution business supplying to retail
>stores.
Wrong. The difference is that there is a very clear price increment between
the tiers in "conventional" business and the margins are not shaved ever
thinner by recruiting sales people to the point of saturating a market.
>It would do people good to listen to a tape by Ron Ball
>comparing corporate business with network marketing. Its a real
>eye-opener showing that whilst many of the features of each are
>similar, the ethics are totally different.
So true. And this is what so many the potential customers do not like. The
ethics of what you call networking encourage the abuse of friendships for
the sake of making sales and selling an expectation of success to new sales
people which is not achievable because of the over-trading within districts.
> Corporate business is
>generally based on cut-throat competition whilst in MLM everyone
>is motivated to help others to achieve rather than compete.
Neither part of this is true.
>And to get back on track, there are two forms of profit to a
>distributor. Firstly a profit element in the retail sale, then a
>bonus related to total volume of business. One can increase
>profit by increasing retail sales but the scope for increase is
>limited,
my point
> so the obvious way to increase sales is to get more
>sales people.
Nonsense; a market size is a market size. Putting more sales people into a
territory does not create more business it just lessens the percentage each
can get from that business.
> Some in turn will recruit more sales people and
>thus the retail sales grow.
Crap. See above.
> The important distinction between this
>and pyramid selling is that the profits are ALL related to retail
>of product. No product sales, no profit. The reason pyramid scams
>are illegal is that they have tried to make the profit purely
>from recruitment.
No, the reason pyramid schemes are illegal is because some of their
practices are in breach of the law. Making profit in a business purely from
recruitment is not illegal.
I have never claimed Amway is illegal, but I *do* believe it is dishonest in
the way it presents itself and the rewards that can be achieved, and
therefore that it is "immoral" as I believe most people would understand
that term.
> Amway distributors do not make anything out of
>the recruitment itself, only on the products sold.
>
>In fact, recruiting new distributors usually costs you something
>in time, effort, running around, etc. However, if the new
>distributor does his/her bit and makes it work then the spent
>time and effort can be regarded as investment. And none of this
>is any different from running a conventional business.
It is *very* different to running a conventional business, which is why you
have to use the description to distinguish between them.
Care to say what you are doing now, Mike, having stopped doing Amway?
--
Brian
Brian Watson
<75t0cl$7a6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <914452190.4494.1...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> "Brian Watson" <br...@spheroid.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Now, if we accept what has been said about no "pyramids" of distributors,
>> sub-distributors, sub-sub-distributors (substitute whatever grander
titles
>> might be applied to denote seniority) as such, what is the incentive to
>> introduce new distributors who will be selling into the same area as the
>> introducer?
>
>Because it is a business opportunity which does not discriminate.
> It is open
>to everyone - race, background, religion or whatever.
Ah, so do it make a statement about non-discrimination? I can think of many
better ways.
>It does not matter how
>many people in one village are independent distributors because there are
>enough customers for all of us.
Wrong. In any given area there will obviously be a population comprising
people across the spectrum between willing repeat customers to "no way,
Amway" people.
> How many villages do you know where all the
>residents are AMway customers? so, the potential is enormous.
No, false logic. To assume that because a large number of people have *not*
bought means that they *will* buy is plain silly.
Absence of previous sales does not equal potential. It ignores the fact
that, for any product range from milk to moon buggies, those who do *not*
want the products overwhelmingly outnumbers those who *do*. I suppose Coca
Cola is about as successful as a product gets, but split the market in a
village between a number of outlets and it becomes a marginal product.
>ANd human
>nature tellos us that not everyone accepts the invitation to become
>independent, or even to be a customer.
Quite. You said it.
--
Brian
Brian Watson
<75t11l$7sf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <914457742.7374.2...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> "Brian Watson" <br...@spheroid.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> It *will* work on enough people the first time round, but the same patter
>> doesn't work on the same person twice and that, coupled with the large
pack
>> sizes (in terms of numbers of applications per pack) of Amway products,
>> means that the repeat business will steadily diminish. Sorry about that,
but
>> it's true.
>ALl businesses rely on repeat business.
Precisely why Amway has this huge growth/collapse/growth/collapse cycle.
--
Brian
Roland Perry
<mho...@xemplar.co.uk> writes
>One can increase
>profit by increasing retail sales but the scope for increase is
>sales people. Some in turn will recruit more sales people and
>thus the retail sales grow. The important distinction between this
>and pyramid selling is that the profits are ALL related to retail
>of product. No product sales, no profit.
Ah, I see what you are getting at. In "classic" pyramid selling you
would get your commission/profit on what you sold to the agents 'below'
you (ie what they *bought*). Whereas with Amway you only get
commission/profit on what they *sell* [to the public].
--
Roland Perry
Brian Watson
>Couldn't we just test things on AOLers? There's a lot of them, they're not
>noticeably intelligent lifeforms, and it would clean up Usenet.
At last; commonsense re-entering this thread!
I'm not laughing.
;-)
--
Brian
xin...@hotmail.com
They would love to sell you their products.
BUT...
Check out the following website before you decide to buy any
Amway products. It is a consumer report.
http://www.skyenet.net/~jackie/cons.ht
--MX
In article <19981220105036...@ng38.aol.com>,
jcoe7...@aol.com (JCoe711218) wrote:
> Anyone knowm where I can get hold of Amway products?
>
> Jon Coe
xin...@hotmail.com
marketing, i.e., the method adopted by companies like Amway, read
the article on the following website. Most of your questions
concerning Amway can get answered.
http://www.vandruff.com/mlm.html
--MX
In article <368101...@lsl.co.uk>,
> Every one of the half dozen or so former Amway distributors whom I
> know quite well is disillusioned with the company. They were all led
> to believe that they would make quite substantial sums of money. The
xin...@hotmail.com
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson <h...@cygnus.co.ukx> wrote:
>
> susan...@my-dejanews.com writes:
> > Wrong again. You forget Amway is a proven concept, established worldwide.
>
> So is religion[1], but lots of smart people don't give that any credence -
> other than as a major source of human misery - either.
You are absolutely right when you say that it is a major source of
human misery.
I was formerly an Amway distributor, and I got a smart downline in
Shanghai shortly after Amway opened in China. She was at that time an
insurance agent and was eloquent and chrismatic. In about one year, she
got roughly 3000 people in her group. Later, the situation was clear that
the business was not as it promised to be. By the end of her second year into
the business, all her group evaporated.
The result of this whole thing was:
(1) A total loss of RMB 6 million (RMB6,000,000). (Each downline had
to buy a starter kit for RMB700, some additional products worthy of hundreds
of RMB, books, tapes, meetings to which admission fees could range from RMB10
to RMB200 or more.) They would never buy such high-priced products if it were
not for the business.
(2) Long-term family discords, loss of jobs (Quite a few people were
misguided to the point that they gave up their jobs for the Amway business.),
distress, loss of friends, neighbors, traffic accidents (One guy lost three
fingers in an accident that happened on his way to an Amway meeting.)
(If you want to know the upheaval caused by a so-called diamond in
China, simply multiply the above loss by a number that ranges from 10 to 20.)
When these people finally quit the business, they felt as if they had
just woken up from a terrible nightmare. But it took them a while before they
could resume their normal life.
--MX
Brian Watson
> Well, you can get Amway products from any Amway distributor.
>They would love to sell you their products.
>
> BUT...
>
> Check out the following website before you decide to buy any
>Amway products. It is a consumer report.
>
>http://www.skyenet.net/~jackie/cons.ht
It doesn't work.
Care to check it and repost?
--
Brian
Brian Watson
>In article <pt90fyrk...@masala.cygnus.co.uk>,
> Hugo 'NOx' Tyson <h...@cygnus.co.ukx> wrote:
>>
>>
> I was formerly an Amway distributor, and I got a smart downline in
>Shanghai shortly after Amway opened in China. She was at that time an
>got roughly 3000 people in her group. Later, the situation was clear that
>the business was not as it promised to be. By the end of her second year
into
>the business, all her group evaporated.
Confirming my points about diminishing returns.
> The result of this whole thing was:
>
> (1) A total loss of RMB 6 million (RMB6,000,000). (Each downline had
>to buy a starter kit for RMB700, some additional products worthy of
hundreds
>of RMB, books, tapes, meetings to which admission fees could range from
RMB10
>to RMB200 or more.) They would never buy such high-priced products if it
were
>not for the business.
Don't understand this, largely because I don't know what the conversion rate
into pounds was then. However, this looks like a classic case of
ill-informed people pouring way too much cash into an extremely speculative
market. Amway's concept may be flawed, but it takes idiots with money to
burn to perpetuate it.
> (2) Long-term family discords, loss of jobs (Quite a few people were
>misguided to the point that they gave up their jobs for the Amway
business.),
>distress, loss of friends, neighbors, traffic accidents (One guy lost three
>fingers in an accident that happened on his way to an Amway meeting.)
That last point is nothing to do with Amway. The rest is just the sort of
poor judgement which firms like Amway prey on via their "motivational"
hypefests. When it all goes belly up and expensive, "you weren't committed
enough."
> (If you want to know the upheaval caused by a so-called diamond in
>China, simply multiply the above loss by a number that ranges from 10 to
20.)
Sorry, don't understand this at all.
> When these people finally quit the business, they felt as if they had
>just woken up from a terrible nightmare. But it took them a while before
they
>could resume their normal life.
Surprise, surprise.
--
Brian
Brian Watson
> If you really want to know what is wrong with multi-level
>marketing, i.e., the method adopted by companies like Amway, read
>the article on the following website. Most of your questions
>concerning Amway can get answered.
>
>http://www.vandruff.com/mlm.html
>
--
Brian
xin...@hotmail.com
"Brian Watson" <br...@spheroid.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> (1) A total loss of RMB 6 million (RMB6,000,000). (Each downline had
> >to buy a starter kit for RMB700, some additional products worthy of
> hundreds
> >of RMB, books, tapes, meetings to which admission fees could range from
> RMB10
> >to RMB200 or more.) They would never buy such high-priced products if it
> were
> >not for the business.
>
> >China, simply multiply the above loss by a number that ranges from 10 to
> 20.)
> Sorry, don't understand this at all.
For instance, a former journalist from Beijing who started his Amway
business in Australia went back to China after Amway opened business there.
He was a loquacious speaker, and, in less than one year, his group in China
boasted nearly 100,000 downlines, each of whom had spent thousands of yuan
(RMB). However, only a handful of people in the group made any money, and 999
people out of 1000 eventually quit due to exorbitant expense that they could
no longer afford.
The total financial loss, not to mention the accompanying psychological
suffering, of this whole group can easily reach RMB200,000,000.
China is experiencing rapid political and economic metamorphosis, and new
things may gather momentum of an avalanche overnight, but more often than not,
they also disintegrate overnight.
In the case of Amway, it was like a strong shock wave that spead
across the whole country in just a few years. After the majority of the
people had had a taste of it, the business started dwindling. Compared to
China, Amway experienced the same process in the US, only at a much slower
pace. One of my American uplines, who is a young, active and positively
charged man, has been working on his Amway business doggedly in his spare
time for several years, but his group has only grown, from dozens of people 4
or 5 years ago, to the point that only he himself remains in his group, and
he is still working on it fruitlessly and turns deaf to all voices except
tapes and voice mails from his upline diomand or higher pins with whom he has
never had a personal conversation.
I read that in the 1997/98 financial year, Amway's turnover decreased
about a billion dollars, despite its opening in many new countries. I figure
the reason for this is that the potential preys (credulous people who would
try Amway) have been run out worldwide, because Amway has literally spread to
all of the continents on the world.
--MX
> Brian
Brian Watson
>In article <914595205.1460.0...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> "Brian Watson" <br...@spheroid.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> > (If you want to know the upheaval caused by a so-called diamond in
>> >China, simply multiply the above loss by a number that ranges from 10 to
>> 20.)
>
>> Sorry, don't understand this at all.
> In the case of Amway, it was like a strong shock wave that spread
>across the whole country in just a few years. After the majority of the
>people had had a taste of it, the business started dwindling. Compared to
>China, Amway experienced the same process in the US, only at a much slower
>pace. One of my American uplines, who is a young, active and positively
>charged man, has been working on his Amway business doggedly in his spare
>time for several years, but his group has only grown, from dozens of people
4
>or 5 years ago, to the point that only he himself remains in his group, and
>he is still working on it fruitlessly and turns deaf to all voices except
>tapes and voice mails from his upline diamond or higher pins with whom he
has
>never had a personal conversation.
Got it (I think). A "diamond" is a network leader, or whatever Amway's
jargon would call him/her.
>
> I read that in the 1997/98 financial year, Amway's turnover decreased
>about a billion dollars, despite its opening in many new countries. I
figure
>the reason for this is that the potential preys (credulous people who would
>try Amway) have been run out world-wide, because Amway has literally spread
to
>all of the continents on the world.
Again, my point entirely.
It trades on recruiting mugs to expand fast in an area and stuff the
consequences when the network collapses.
--
Brian
xin...@hotmail.com
"Brian Watson" <br...@spheroid.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> xin...@hotmail.com wrote in message <75v5uc$so9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> > Well, you can get Amway products from any Amway distributor.
> >They would love to sell you their products.
> >
> > BUT...
> >
> > Check out the following website before you decide to buy any
> >Amway products. It is a consumer report.
> >
(Wrong URL deleted)...
> It doesn't work.
>
> Care to check it and repost?
Sorry for having missed the "m" at the end. Now try
http://www.skyenet.net/~jackie/cons.htm
>
> --
xin...@hotmail.com
a...@cygnus.remove.co.uk (Andrew Haley) wrote:
> Paul Oldham (pa...@the-hug.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> : In article <ant23184...@xn064.xemplar.co.uk>, mho...@xemplar.co.uk
> : (Mike Hobbs) growled:
>
> : > 1. Amway is NOT pyramid selling. [big snip]
A pyramid is an organization such that people at higher levels make
more money. So is Amway.
The only difference from other pyramids is that the Amway company, by
playing the part of a middleman, collects the money from people in a group,
puts a huge part in its own pocket and redistributes the rest to the group
members, more given to those at higher levels and less or none to the lower
levels.
Those at the higher levels get more money not because they themselves sell
more, but because they have more people under them. This is exactly a pyramid.
In other words, money goes a straight way in other pyramids, while
money goes a roundabout way in the Amway world. No real difference.
--MX
Paul Oldham
br...@spheroid.demon.co.uk (Brian Watson) growled:
And there's a lot of more Amway specific stuff at one of the links
http://www.teleport.com/~schwartz/ which I'm just ploughing my way through.
It's fascinating stuff.
--
Paul Oldham, Milton villager and cam.* FAQ maintainer
cam.* FAQ is at http://www.the-hug.demon.co.uk/paul/camfaq.html
Adrian Kent
>In article <914595562.1567.0...@news.demon.co.uk>,
>br...@spheroid.demon.co.uk (Brian Watson) growled:
>> xin...@hotmail.com wrote in message <75v6vq$th4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> > If you really want to know what is wrong with multi-level
>> >marketing, i.e., the method adopted by companies like Amway, read
>> >the article on the following website. Most of your questions
>> >concerning Amway can get answered.
>> >http://www.vandruff.com/mlm.html
>http://www.teleport.com/~schwartz/ which I'm just ploughing my way through.
>It's fascinating stuff.
>--
>Paul Oldham, Milton villager and cam.* FAQ maintainer
Thank you both for contributing these sites. Fascinating indeed,
and an instructive demonstration of the power of the web in
making it harder for the powerful to suppress awkward facts.
I do hope our local Amway contributors -- who I strongly suspect are
decent people involved in something they do not fully understand --
and anyone thinking of purchasing the products will read and reflect.
Adrian Kent
--
*****************************************************************************
** DAMTP, University of Cambridge, tel +44 1223 330851 **
** Silver St, Cambridge CB3 9EW, UK fax +44 1223 337918 [NB - public] **
** web http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/apak/ **
** **
** Perils of modern manhood department: "A sharp instrument is the most **
** popular British murder weapon, with threequarters of women using one **
** to kill their partners." (The Guardian, October 1998) **
*****************************************************************************
Bagel
xin...@hotmail.com wrote in message
<762ipm$cef$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <75tac3$3j4$1...@korai.cygnus.co.uk>,
> a...@cygnus.remove.co.uk (Andrew Haley) wrote:
>> Paul Oldham (pa...@the-hug.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>> : In article <ant23184...@xn064.xemplar.co.uk>,
mho...@xemplar.co.uk
>> : (Mike Hobbs) growled:
>>
>> : > 1. Amway is NOT pyramid selling. [big snip]
>
>
> A pyramid is an organization such that people at higher levels
make
>more money.
>So is Amway.
You better look up the FTC regulations because their definition
of a pyramid differs to yours.
"Why is pyramiding prohibited? Because plans that pay commissions
for recruiting new distributors inevitably collapse when no new
distributors can be recruited. And when a plan collapses, most
people -- except perhaps those at the very top of the pyramid --
lose their money."
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/invest/mlm.htm
> The only difference from other pyramids is that the Amway
company, by
>playing the part of a middleman, collects the money from people
in a group,
>puts a huge part in its own pocket and redistributes the rest to
the group
>members, more given to those at higher levels and less or none
to the lower
>levels.
Sounds like conventional business to me.
All the workers on the ground floor earn a basic wage while the
corporate owner
earns a huge packet.
> Those at the higher levels get more money not because they
themselves sell
>more, but because they have more people under them.
And that doesn't require work???
Bagel
Roland Perry wrote in message
<+fvS1gAj...@cambridge.freeserve.co.uk>...
No
They receive bonuses for all volume to their group whether it's
retail or personal use.
Roland Perry
>The important distinction between this and pyramid selling is that the
>profits are ALL related to retail of product. No product sales, no
>profit.
or...
>No
>They receive bonuses for all volume to their group whether it's
>retail or personal use.
With this amount of disinformation around [both can't be right] it's no
wonder most folks dismiss the system as classic pyramid selling, whether
it is or not, simply because it's too hard to tell whether it is or not.
--
Roland Perry
Ian Stevens
<jcoe7...@aol.com> writes
>I cant believe I have started such a hoo ha. I merely wanted to get some amway
>stuff because I know its good and its not tested on animals. Go and use Tescos
>stuff you lot and support animal torture if you want but I am just trying to
>clean the filth out of my kitchen
>
I recently received a leaflet through the letterbox from some pressure
group. It outlined which companies did & didn't use animals in this way.
I seem to remember that Tesco (and Sainsbury's) came out quite well.
--
Ian Stevens, Cambridge, UK
Email: ia...@stevcam.demon.co.uk
David Damerell
>dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
>><susan...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>>So your bonus _does_ in fact depend on how many people you have in some
>>way caused to begin selling Amway products?
>>And if that bonus were not paid to you, it could be paid to them?
>Yes. At certain levels the bonus is paid direct to individual distributors.
So you are in fact above the people you have caused to join.
>>And your profits are reduced by the need to pay bonuses to the people
>>above you?
>No. because they generate their bonus from the total group volume.
Not a useful answer. Keep it simple. If bonusses were not paid to people
above you in the pyramid, more of the money available from your work could
be paid to you. True, yes?
>>[Maybe not directly, but the money has to come from somewhere; the price you
>>pay for products reflects this.]
>All businesses are in business to make money.
Simultaneously untrue, obvious, and completely unrelated to the point at
hand.
[Can something be untrue and obvious? I suspect this is; everyone 'knows'
that all businesses are there to make money, and it's only on second
thoughts that one thinks of things like hobbyist operations that try not
to lose money as fast as the related day jobs can generate it.]
>>This is a pyramid scheme.
>No. Its networking.
This argument is bogus; you are saying that because certain completely
unproductive pyramid schemes are illegal, what you have (which is legal)
cannot be a pyramid scheme. Perhaps you would like to produce the odd
definition of 'pyramid scheme' you have - by more normal definitions,
Amway qualifies.
>>>at the end of the day look at your boss. He will drive a bigger and better
>>>car than you. He will have a bigger house. He will have more (and better)
>>>holidays. He will earn more. Probably his wife does not need to work.
>><diana>Perhaps my boss is a woman.</diana> Perhaps I work in academia,
>>where we all get paid peanuts; but at least it's relatively honest.
>Well if you're happy with that, then theres no problem is there.
FYI, when I say 'peanuts', I mean peanuts compared with the corporate
computer professionals that compose a large portion of the people you're
giving your sales pitch to. I suspect I do a good bit better than anyone
on or near the bottom of the Amway pyramid (where most people will
necessarily be; frex, in a hypothetical situation where anyone who
recruits at all recruits 2 more people, _half_ the suckers are on the very
bottom of the pyramid no matter how many people there are in it.)
--
David/Kirsty Damerell. dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~damerell/ w.sp.lic.#pi<largestprime>.2106
|___| "Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc." Consenting Mercrediphile.|___|
| | | Or, in Klingon: "nucharghqangbogh chaH DISopchu' 'e' wItIv." | | |
David Damerell
>>xin...@hotmail.com wrote in message <75v5uc$so9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Don't waste your time. It's a consumer report which might or might not be
real; Amway products do quite well in some categories and not so well in
others. Big deal.
David Damerell
>dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
>><susan...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>>>>The concept being proven is that you can extract money from stupid people
>>>>by having them act as underpaid sales staff and guilt-trip their
>>>>friends. Not a new fact, and not really a reason to get in on the bottom
>>>>of the pyramid scheme.
>>>Wrong again folks. No one is 'underpaid sales staff'. Distributors earn how
>>>much they want.
>>Yess, and their earnings per hour are lousy compared with practically any
>>commission-based sales job no matter how many hours they work. What was
>>your point, here?
>To clariy your misunderstanding.
My alleged misunderstanding was that people at the bottom of the pyramid
are underpaid sales staff. You have pointed out that they can work as many
hours for a lousy reward as they please. I'm afraid you have done nothing
to correct my 'misunderstanding'.
>>>is absolutley no need to 'guilt trip' as you call it.
>>Hmmmm. Obviously the (limited) number of friends of my family who became
>>Amway types all did it voluntarily. Er, p'raps not.
>It only works if you volunteer.
Read what you're following up to; it helps when replying. We're talking
about the need to guilt trip.
>>>No one gets in a the bottom anyway - we all start at the same place.
>>... but some bonuses are larger than others...
>Because of the flexibility some distributors work harder than others, and
>quite rightly are rewarded with higher income.
In the case of bonusses, they are being rewarded for hard work in
recruiting people - making something of a joke of the 'no-one gets in at
the bottom' above.
>However, the advantage is that
>there is no ceiling i.e. you can decide how hard you want to work & what you
>want to achieve.
Deciding how many hours to work as underpaid sales staff is not my idea of
having no ceiling.
David Damerell
>dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
>>Incidentally, why not give up on reproducing the standard spiel for
>>potential new suckers? It's pretty obvious, and I doubt many cam.miscers
>>will fall for it.
>I certainly do not want any cam.miscers to 'fall for it'.
Then why are you reproducing what is obviously a standard sales pitch?
>>[And this 'control over income' thing is a red herring, anyway. Any
>>hourly-wage employee with reasonable freedom to do overtime has more
>>control over their income than me; but I'm not off to wallop junk on a
>>dock just yet...]
>Overtime (&jobs) are only available when those in charge decide so.
You're missing the point (as usual); the point is that control over income
is not necessarily a good thing if the income you get control over is low
as a result. The hypothetical docker above has _more_ control over her
income than I do, but I still don't want her job. An Amway distributor has
an incredible amount of control - but only up to a certain point, when
you're selling cleaning products all day - unless you want to play the
recruitment game, in which case you run into the basic fallacy with all
pyramid schemes; not everyone can be a successful recruiter.
David Damerell
>>generally based on cut-throat competition whilst in MLM everyone
>>is motivated to help others to achieve rather than compete.
>Neither part of this is true.
To expand on this bald statement before Mike does; in a corporate,
everyone is nominally on the same side. Internal politics can get nasty,
but one of the things that contributes to the success of a normal business
is keeping the time wasted on internal politics to a minimum; for
instance, by making it impossible for two sales staff to pursue the same
customer.
In a typical MLM scheme, the bosses at the top don't care if their sales
staff compete with each other to sell products or to recruit new suckers,
because the time of their sales staff costs them nothing.
David Damerell
>>make more money.
>>So is Amway.
>You better look up the FTC regulations because their definition
>of a pyramid differs to yours.
Quite why someone apparently posting from New Zealand is quoting US law to
residents of a newsgroup for inhabitants of the UK is unclear; please
explain, or quit it?
David Damerell
> The total financial loss, not to mention the accompanying psychological
>suffering, of this whole group can easily reach RMB200,000,000.
How much is an RMB?
Diana Galletly
<c.st...@lancaster.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <w1s*PA...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
> dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
>
>> Perhaps I work in academia,
>> where we all get paid peanuts; but at least it's relatively honest.
>
>and ask whoever answers the door to remove your blinkers.
About which bit ? That academics get paid peanuts, or that academia is
relatively honest ? (even if I thought of the most dishonest academic
I know, I think they're more honest than a pyramid scheme ....)
--
+ Diana Galletly <dag...@eng.cam.ac.uk> <gall...@mat.ensmp.fr> +
+ WWW: http://earthquake.eng.cam.ac.uk/~galletly +
Patrick Gosling
<susan...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>In article <75rdjk$qp8$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
> jp...@eng.cam.ac.uk (Patrick Gosling) wrote:
>> In article <75r8nk$phg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>> <susan...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>> >No. The profit remains with the distributor. It does not go to the person who
>> >recruited them. I've never given any of my profit to anyone.
>>
>> No, but the "bonus" you receive is dependent on the number of people you
>> persuade to join below you.
>
>No. Depends how many positive minded people are willing to put in some effort
>and create additional income for themselves.
Are you genuinely trying to claim that there is no relationship between
the number of people you get to join, and your bonus? Because if so, I
think there's some trading standards people who would very much like to
see a copy of this thread.
Note that the phrase "the bonus you receive is dependent on X" is semantically
equivalent to "there is a relationship between X and your bonus".
-patrick.
Patrick Gosling
<susan...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>In article <75rdjk$qp8$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
> jp...@eng.cam.ac.uk (Patrick Gosling) wrote:
>> recommend making a quick estimate of how valuable your time is.
>
>Certainly to valuable to me to be spent all week working for someone else, -
>at the end of the day look at your boss. He will drive a bigger and better
>car than you. He will have a bigger house. He will have more (and better)
>holidays. He will earn more. Probably his wife does not need to work.
Congratulations - you've managed to actually make me seriously angry, rather
than just feel the need to counter your bullshitting propaganda.
I think it may be partly the fact that you appear to think I'm stupid enough
to fall for the mindless patter you get told to churn out by your (paid for,
I think?) Amway "guide to building a downline".
Perhaps it's the fact that you appear to assume that I'm a blind fool who
thinks there's nothing more to my life than the size of my car and house,
and who gets all jealous of my boss.
Or perhaps it's the unbelievable sexism of your last sentence and the way
it so poignantly highlights the sexism of the entire paragraph.
Anyway, were I to wish to increase my salary, I need do very little more
than hand in my notice, and contact one of a number of people who've asked
me if I'm happy where I am. The fact that I haven't may give you some
useful clues about what *I* regard as important in my life, but I suspect
that the clue train doesn't stop at your station.
Suffice it to say that I have actually thought longer and harder about what
it is that rewards *me* than you ever will during one of your Amway get
togethers.
Oh, and it's far more likely that my wife will make it unnecessary for me
to have to work than the reverse. That doesn't necessarily mean that I'll
particularly want to take advantage of that opportunity (person finds their
job enjoyable, shock, horror).
Now kindly get your patronising sales pitch the fuck out of this newsgroup.
-patrick.
Patrick Gosling
<susan...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>If I'd known this thread was going to be this involved I would probably not
>have been responding. I shall be delivering products bewteen xmas & new year.
Amway - wishing you a really *relaxing* new year's break...
-patrick.