The corporate sales history is presented, and a worldwide corp. that is doing in upwards of seven billion in sales worldwide is obviously doing something right.
And doing it for nearly a hundred years, too.
General Motors, that is.....
Moderator: wserra
The corporate sales history is presented, and a worldwide corp. that is doing in upwards of seven billion in sales worldwide is obviously doing something right.
ha, no you are trying to compare apples and oranges. It was YOUR idea to begin with and now you're criticizing me for defending against it? Yes, I agree you can't compare a real business with a scam.GoldandSilverEagles wrote:I'm fixing to show you that you don't know as much about the business as you portray.
You present much speculation/misinformation.
Imalawman wrote: Depends on the situation. Let's go back to my example. I was given the line that is taught in the training meetings in quixtar (yes, I have been to several of them). The line was, "looking for people to join me in my web-based business". Then, he wants me to go into business with him and to join a system. We will be tied together in the business and it does require a particular outlay of cash. So my question was, "show your business statements". I did NOT ask for his private records of his own personal finances.
So I happen to work in a larger firm. But when I was recruited by some smaller firms I would have expected to see some financial statements indicating how successful the business was. Larger firms just pay the associates enough not to care - at first.
The answer - if were being asked by a unknown law student in whom I was not interested to see my personal records, then no, I would not. However, if I were recruiting that person, then they might ask for my firm's business records and I think we'd probably show him some simple statements showing the underlying profitability.
I understand your POV, but you are attempting to compare "apples" with "orange. The business of an Amway IBO cannot be accurately measured in the same way a law practice is measured because the IBO does not build their business in the same manner a traditional business such as law firm does. To keep this short and sweet, prospects rarely ask for business records or statements. The corporate sales history is presented, and a worldwide corp. that is doing in upwards of seven billion in sales worldwide is obviously doing something right.
IBO's also show a taste of the "Diamond lifestyle" in addition to income projections. That's really all that is necessary from that stand point. It's not a difficult analysis, and there is no need to make it so.
Amway has always had great, overpriced products. The only way anyone could actually afford to use the products was to become a distributor. Quixtar is just the internet version.Imalawman wrote:The truth is, quixstar promises things that aren't true - it is not a continuing well of money for ever and ever. Just 2 years ago a few double diamonds quit because the money dried up. Its a scam, it will always be a scam. There's no real product - the product is a sort of front for the real business of getting people to use the products themselves while they get people to use the products themselves. At the end of the day, you're really selling a system - and that is a pyramid scheme - IMNSHO.
ASITStands wrote: Amway has always had great, overpriced products.
The only way anyone could actually afford to use the products was to become a distributor.
Yes and no. Yes, Quixtar was owned by the DeVos and VanAndel families. I say "was" because Quixtar is now "Amway Global" per their site. Quixtar was designated for the families North American business, whereas Amway was and is still a worldwide business.Quixtar is just the internet version.
People do business with whom they like, and once i properly, (and professionally,) presented the cost effectiveness and the quality of the products, I never had problems finding customers.I joined Amway three times because I was excited about the business opportunity, but after I discovered my friends and family either already had a distributor of choice, or they considered the products too expensive compared to commercial alternatives, I quit.
That must have been prior 2009. From 1999 to early 2009, in North America, it wasn't Amway, it was Quixtar. I'm assuming you saw the business presented in North America?I was offered an opportunity to join Quixtar but it just smacked of the same, old products. Frankly, I was always turned off by the practicing of not telling prospects, "It's Amway!"
"The product is a sort of front for the real business of getting people to use the products ..."Just like Proctor and Gamble uses advertising to get people to use their products. BTW....word of mouth advertising is cheaper and Amway has used it for years.
And, prospecting by not telling the "marks" the name of the company is dishonesty, in my opinion, and the part that makes this look like a scam.
No problem, if you're on shopping.com, or one of the other pay-for-review consumer sites.GoldandSilverEagles wrote:Third, and most important, brand-X won't pay me to use/recommend their products!
Care to show me the people who do that and make over two grand a month part time, month after month?Arthur Rubin wrote:No problem, if you're on shopping.com, or one of the other pay-for-review consumer sites.GoldandSilverEagles wrote:Third, and most important, brand-X won't pay me to use/recommend their products!
In terms of commercial usage of a product, I agree. Employees who don't pay for the product generally don't respect it and waste it like water.cdj1122 wrote:Some thoughts and an experience about/with "Concentration".
.
About thirty years ago a customer came into my shop and tried to interest me in a concentrated hand cleaner that he claimed to be many times better than the large cans of "Go-JO" that I usually purchased from a local distributor.
.
To prove his case he left a small bottle of his product with me to try as he was certain that it would impress me both with its cleaning power as well as ultimately its lower cost per useage.
.
I read the instructions and followed them using the small drop of cleaner as directed and found it was an excellent hand cleaner. I explained its usage to my employees, four young mechanics who washed their hands several times a working day.
.
I watched the usage and when the bottle ran out set it aside. The customer returned in a few days and asked how it worked. I said it worked really well and noticed that as I said that he was opening an order pad. I then told him I did not want any because quite simply his product was too expensive to use in the shop setting.
.
Then he began to explain how many drops there were in a bottle and how many handwashing that would be. I pointed out to him that the employess were not all that sparing with the juice and that every time they used it they were using a weeks worth of product. I did not have the time nor inclination to accompany each of them to the washroom all day to monitor the process.
.
I found that the "Go-Jo" did the job acceptably well, and the gob of muck that they used provided the emotional fulfillment they seemed to require at a much lower cost. And far less agravation.
.
Sure concentration had its advantages but not in the part of the real world where we operated.
Actually, it has to do with our early coinage history. The Spanish Milled Dollar, or silver "piece of eight" (reales), was produced in heavy quantities due to the many silver mines in Central and South America. A lot of these coins found their way up to British North America, and became a vital part of the local currency (due, in part, to the British providing nowhere near enough coin of the realm to our ancestors). This coin was also referred to as the "peso". The symbol for "peso" was usually a capital P overlaid with a capital S; and in time the loop on the P was dropped. When the new United States set standards for its early coinage, the silver dollar was required to be of the same weight and fineness as the SMD; and the S over P symbol grew to stand for the new dollar coin as well.GoldandSilverEagles wrote:
I have not researched this but the story I heard was that the original symbol for a US (gold/silver based) dollar was a capital "S" laid in top of a Capital "U", signifying a "US dollar". Then I heard the lower part of the "U" got erased leaving only two vertical lines in the symbol. I had heard that identified dollars that were gold/silver based. I heard the bankers dropped one of the two vertical lines when the dollar was no longer backed by gold/silver.
I've not researched this online. Who knows ?????