Hello There, Guest!

  •  Previous
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • ...
  • 9
  • Next 
  •  
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The problem with critics
#31
Name one business where, when you start, you're making money and there's not people in the supply chain "above" you making more.
 Reply
#32
ibofightback Wrote:Name one business where, when you start, you're making money and there's not people in the supply chain "above" you making more.


Well, there's that, and when someone asks how many "people do you have under you"...what the heck would THAT tell you?

People just don't "get" it.

Let alone the fact that the ONLY way to make more money than someone else in this business is to provide more value to more people willing to exchange more dollars for the value than someone else.

Period.
 Reply
#33
Personally I consider a lot of the misunderstandings "our" fault.

The standard Amway plan approved for decades looks like it's all about recruiting people, not moving product. The way Amway wants us to explain the business makes it look like it's all about getting people "under you".

We may have been better off if the FTC hadn't "approved" it and a better, more understandable "plan" had been developed.
 Reply
#34
ibofightback Wrote:Personally I consider a lot of the misunderstandings "our" fault.

The standard Amway plan approved for decades looks like it's all about recruiting people, not moving product. The way Amway wants us to explain the business makes it look like it's all about getting people "under you".

We may have been better off if the FTC hadn't "approved" it and a better, more understandable "plan" had been developed.


Maybe, but people fail to understand you have effectively "recruited" whether it's 100 IBOs or 100 customers.

The mechanics are no different, just the prospect's reasons to be involved.

Note that it's the PROSPECT'S reasons to be involved.

There is no effective difference between acquiring IBOs or customers; each has its upside and down, and in *most* examples, the end result is identical; it's not any customer nor any IBO for which we get paid.

An "active" IBO buys product, and we are compensated for making that connection and a percentage of the resulting product movement.

An "active" customer buys product, and we are compensated for making that connection and a percentage of the resulting product movement.

What either does with Amway is entirely up to them, and that includes the decision to participate in the first place.

All benefits/features for an IBO are extensions of the acquisition, but not guaranteed by it.

So, calling it "recruiting" or not doesn't change that acquiring folks in your network means nothing in and of itself.
 Reply
#35
oh,I entirely agree - but it doesn't matter what I think. We should be explaining the business in a way that makes it seem normal and obvious and just like a business, instead of explaining the business like it's a pyramid scheme.

The classic 6-4-2 Amway approved plan triggers all the "pyramid scheme" types of thoughts, and it's not really the prospects fault.
 Reply
#36
ibofightback Wrote:We should be explaining the business in a way that makes it seem normal and obvious and just like a business, instead of explaining the business like it's a pyramid scheme.


Okay, this is good.

What would you suggest?

What would an unapproved plan completely sensible (and not something that stirs the "pyramid" thought) for the average person you approach look like?

Amway only requires we provide a single "pamphlet" and say "Amway" when we show the plan, and neither says anything about "pyramids."

So, we could use any sensible example of the plan that doesn't "look" like the current 6-4-2 plan; what might an example be?
 Reply
#37
ibofightback Wrote:- but it doesn't matter what I think.


It DOES matter what "we" think.

Any person who ultimately "gets" it will think about it correctly, too, and if they didn't from the onset, it is THEIR "openness" to changing their perspective that matters; not how you show it.

Barring deliberate misleading, do you think someone unwilling to see it another way will, or that someone willing to see it another way won't, in most cases despite how you show the concept?

I want to hear your example of "the" plan as it "should" be...but, I have spent enough time here and in the field to know the FIRST requirement is that you have someone before you willing to challenge their own perspectives.

There is ALWAYS room for our individual improvement, but we have to CHOOSE to move in that direction; don't forget that applies as much to ourselves as it does our prospects.
 Reply
#38
ok, now you're being a little pedantic. Yes of course it matters what we think, and yes of course you have to have a worthwhile prospect. The point is, why on earth would you explain a business in such a way as to knowingly make it seem weird, possibly illegal, and difficult to grasp?
 Reply
#39
Wearyeyed Wrote:There is no effective difference between acquiring IBOs or customers; each has its upside and down, and in *most* examples, the end result is identical; it's not any customer nor any IBO for which we get paid.

An "active" IBO buys product, and we are compensated for making that connection and a percentage of the resulting product movement.

An "active" customer buys product, and we are compensated for making that connection and a percentage of the resulting product movement.

What either does with Amway is entirely up to them, and that includes the decision to participate in the first place.

All benefits/features for an IBO are extensions of the acquisition, but not guaranteed by it.

So, calling it "recruiting" or not doesn't change that acquiring folks in your network means nothing in and of itself.


Confusedcratch: I don't think this was the original intention. In fact, since you used to have 25 customers before you were given the PRIVILEGE of sponsoring, I really see where things have gotten confused over the years.

It just feels very SELF oriented. (Get in my network and consume and build, or don't build. Whatever you want to do. I get paid either way.)

I understand where you are coming from. I'm just saying that I can understand the criticism of this model/strategy/philosphy. And now I can see why the "depth-building" model has become so popular. It's really based on this mindset.... :hmm:
 Reply
#40
ibofightback Wrote:ok, now you're being a little pedantic. Yes of course it matters what we think, and yes of course you have to have a worthwhile prospect. The point is, why on earth would you explain a business in such a way as to knowingly make it seem weird, possibly illegal, and difficult to grasp?


No, please don't misunderstand me.

GIVEN that it matters what we think, and GIVEN that we need "open" prospects before anything else matters, what variation of the theme do you think would not "seem" weird, illegal, or difficult to grasp for the average person?

It's clear when someone "gets it", they get it.

It's clear if their not "open", they won't be open.

But, there is left those that supposedly would "get it" and think about it accurately but don't because of the way the plan is presented (specifically the 6-4-2 model).

Said another way, you are suggesting that when you have an accurately thinking, open-minded prospect there is still something better than showing the 6-4-2 plan.

What is it?

Many people here want to know.
 Reply
  •  Previous
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • ...
  • 9
  • Next 
  •  

 
Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)