> I certainly appreciate your drive
> to gather information. I have posted
> before, my criteria for judging MLMs.
> In my book, they are bad if they
> satisfy any of the following: (I will
> explain why if you are interested)
Actually, Chip, I'd be interested in hearing your reasons. Here are
some thoughts I have on your list:
> 1. Require you to buy product to
> be a distributor.
Yes, if they *require* self-consumption in order to be a distributor,
then I agree with you. However, in A/Q, for example, no one was
required to buy anything. You were strongly encouraged to
self-consume products and berated if you did not, but purchases were
not required.
Similarly, no one was required to purchase the
educational/
understand (at least in my group) that virtually no one succeeded
without the tools and trying to build the business without them was
tantamount to "reinventing the wheel."
So I'm not sure your first listed item is strict enough.
> 2. Require any "training" for the job.
Lots of jobs require specific training. HOWEVER, most jobs do not
require ongoing, continuous, virtually day-to-day training. Even my
wife (a doctor) participates in ongoing medical education, some of it
at her own expense. However, there is no one over her shoulder
telling her she'll fail if she doesn't do it (other than a certain
basic amount required for re-licensing)
expenses are covered by her job. In fact, she's in California right
now attending a seminar, entirely paid for by her employer (airfare,
lodging, seminar fees, etc.).
Her company knows the value of this training, so they cover much of it.
Contrast that with an MLM that coerces participants to purchase their
own training, much of it saying nothing more than "Don't Quit." We
were involved for 5 years, and very few of the audio tapes that were
sold as the "basic" training for IBOs actually taught anything about
building a successful business. Most of it was emotional,
rags-to-riches stories, meant to inspire loyalty and belief.
So I would, again, qualify the listed item.
> 3. Require you to "qualify" at some level
> (in recruitment OR sales) in order to get
> commissions.
Here, I may have to disagree with you, but it may be a small matter of
semantics.
I believe that anyone involved in an MLM should have a minimum sales
requirement, consisting of non-participant customers, in order to
recruit. I don't think anyone should be allowed to bring in new
people unless they have the business acumen necessary to teach new
recruits how to become profitable. And the only way to become
profitable is by selling products. If you can't do that, you have no
business recruiting.
So I do believe that an IBO should be able to profit from retail
sales, and if those sales are sufficient to qualify for bonuses, I
think those should apply, too. But I don't think anyone participating
in the business as a rep (salesperson, IBO, distributor, whatever)
should be able to participate in the multi-level aspect of the
business without the prerequisite sales skills.
Of course, all of this is assuming the MLM is legit and that there's
some sort of demand for whatever the product line is.
Am I pretty close to your take on this?
PW
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