>Amway's products are too expensive
Very key central part. It's the ten dollar bottle of shampoo! 'Oh,
it's so rich, you only need to use a pea-sized portion in the palm of
your hand.' Yeah, yeah, but all the same, how many people are going
to buy a ten dollar bottle of shampoo? And it's probably more than
ten dollars by now!
-Doug
--- In mlmsurvivorsclub@
<mickwenlock@
>
>
> This is a wonderful attempt at the "false analogy". It ranks up
> alongside the "well every business is organized like a pyramid".
>
> "other sources of income" is a great concept and one that many of us
> try to accomplish so that we are not at the mercy of one thing. But
> that is not what the tools thing actually is.
>
> If you ran a car dealership and had all the salesmen and employees
pay
> you a fee to work there and agree that they would have to buy an
auto
> (or spare parts) up to a certain level per month in order to
qualify -
> that would make them close to an MLM. If, at the same time you were
to
> realize that persuading those same people to give you money for
> "material" and paying to come to meetings "to help them become
better
> at what they do" and exacting a huge profit out of that. Well then
the
> analogy would probably be correct.
>
> To my mind the "tools" income was a way for a few to shear the flock
> of the many. And in an astounding piece of stupidity they really
seem
> to admit it.
>
> 1) They claim that Amway's products are too expensive to make a
decent
> profit retailing them
>
> 2) They claim that they have said so on many occasions
>
> 3) Therefore they KNEW that it was impossible for any IBO to build a
> business and make a reasonable part time income. Yet they recruited
> thousands upon thousands based on that exact thing.
>
> These are exploitive, lying people. Even in their public utterances
it
> is obvious if you can parse out what they are really saying.
>
> mick
> --- In mlmsurvivorsclub@
> <cantonoh2003@
>
> >
> > An analogy they used was a car dealership.
> >
> >
> > Say you wanted to sell new cars and started a business doing so
creating
> > income.
> >
> >
> > As people wanted to trade-in their cars to buy a new one, you
found
> > yourself additionally in the used-car sales business, now with a
second
> > income.
> >
> >
> > Next, people came in with their car wanting service so you start a
> > service business—income number three.
> >
> >
> > The service business needs parts so you start a parts
> > businesss—income number four.
> >
> >
> > Certainly, there is nothing wrong with these other sources of
income. If
> > you made more income in your service business than in selling new
cars
> > (your original business) is there anything morally wrong with
that? Is
> > your primary business selling new cars or are you just in the car
> > business with multiple businesses interlinked? Finally, what if
someone
> > was considering starting a new car sales business and you were to
share
> > your knowledge of it with them? Should you not share the other
> > interlinked businesses in the discussion even though they may
never get
> > to that point?
> >
> > Open disclosure on this topic is a large battle between the
field
> > leadership and the Corporation. I believe the Amway/Quixtar
reputation
> > suffers less when this knowledge is hidden.
> >
> >
> > They can then discredit the IBO leadership rather than allow the
public
> > to learn the truth of how little profit margin remains in the
> > Amway/Quixtar products after the DeVos and VanAndel families take
their
> > cut. However, as the Company takes over the BSM business with
their new
> > contracts, this will be a moot point, as they will have the power
to
> > regulate pricing and profits on BSMs as well……"
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment