Hello There, Guest!

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • ...
  • 18
  • Next 
  •  
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Amway Global Accreditation: transformation or a sad joke?
#1
Amway Global Accreditation: transformation or a sad joke?

My apologies for the slam to any "innocent bystanders" with InterNET, but I feel it needed to be said.
 Reply
#2
You are right, it had to be said. Before the business transformation in the UK, we were fed with speeches from speakers which were sometimes laden with political and religious views. I wondered then if the purpose of the functions was to teach me how to build my business effectively or influence my political and religious thinking.

I remembered back then Dexter Yager making a negative remark about Jesse Jackson who is a well known Democrat.

Thankfully this nonesense has been stopped in the Uk.
 Reply
#3
Amen to that
'The only way I can succeed in business is to proactively do something for 'MY BUSINESS' every day'
I look to the Future - for the Future is where I'm going to spend the rest of my Life
 Reply
#4
Aobe Wrote:Thankfully this nonesense has been stopped in the Uk.


Thankfully yes. Not so thankfully it also took out folk who were doing no such thing.
 Reply
#5
Quote:
ibofightback Wrote:
Aobe Wrote:Thankfully this nonesense has been stopped in the Uk.

Thankfully yes. Not so thankfully it also took out folk who were doing no such thing.


This may be true ibofb but when you consider that some of the leaders who ran the 'systems' were profiteering to the extent that their Amway business was a second income - something had to change.
The system owners & leaders [not all ] but some had bigger agendas than an Amway Business and this causes confusion among rank & file ABOs as to what they are in.
You cannot loose sight of the core business.
'The only way I can succeed in business is to proactively do something for 'MY BUSINESS' every day'
I look to the Future - for the Future is where I'm going to spend the rest of my Life
 Reply
#6
Sure, but what about the leaders that hadn't lost site of the core business? They've been damaged and maligned because of what others were doing
 Reply
#7
RW1 Wrote:that some of the leaders who ran the 'systems' were profiteering to the extent that their Amway business was a second income - something had to change.
The system owners & leaders [not all ] but some had bigger agendas than an Amway Business and this causes confusion among rank & file ABOs as to what they are in.
You cannot loose sight of the core business.


First of all, it is not just the LEADERS of the systems who are the problems here.

Amway is a secondary income to most US AMO Diamonds.

Brig Hart/Kenny Stewart/Childers/Gooch- court documents claimed that up to 90 percent of their income came from the system.

Woodward claimed that TEAM Diamonds made 4-5 times more from they system than they did from Amway. In other words, up to 84 percent of their income came from the system.

Network 21 Diamonds in the US make 2-3 times more from the system than they do from Amway (from a statement made by a N21 Diamond to Chuck Lia). This means that even in N21, Diamonds make 67-75 percent of their income from non-Amway sources.

When you look on the internet, the big turn off is not whether Diamonds made a political statement from stage. Amway's black eyes come from the obscene amound of money Diamonds make from selling materials ABOUT the business versus the actual money they make FROM the business.

To Woodward's credit, he seems to have come full circle on this. TEAM was just as guilty as anyone regarding the system money.

But TEAM rules now prohibit members from making more money on tools than they do from their primary business MonaVie.

If Amway did the same, maybe people would see take the "transformation" more seriously.
 Reply
#8
MichMan Wrote:Network 21 Diamonds in the US make 2-3 times more from the system than they do from Amway (from a statement made by a N21 Diamond to Chuck Lia). This means that even in N21, Diamonds make 67-75 percent of their income from non-Amway sources.


The statement was incorrect, and like many statements on this matter was a claim about somebody else. The court doucments you cite were all claims made about other diamonds. The (non-qualifying) N21 diamond quoted by Chuck Lia was making the claim about, if I recall correctly, not Diamonds, but Founders Executive Diamonds. He doesn't know how much they make. An N21 insider has told me, and I've reported this, but you ignore this too, that very very very few N21 diamonds and above make more from system income than Amway income.

Why is it when folk like you cite all the statistics, you ignore such evidence to the contrary? Another example - court statments by the biggest IDA Australia pin where he says his system:amway income was 50:50. As the biggest pin his speaking income would have been bigger than most, so his system income a bigger proportion.

But this kind of hard evidence is just conveniently ignored. Why is that Michman? Why do you only report some anecdotal evidence, and accusations, but ignore other anecodatal evidence and court affidavits to the contrary?

Quote:When you look on the internet, the big turn off is not whether Diamonds made a political statement from stage. Amway's black eyes come from the obscene amound of money Diamonds make from selling materials ABOUT the business versus the actual money they make FROM the business.

Rubbish. The internet claims about this have undoubtedly caused damage, and second, third, fourth hand reports of this are a problem, particularly with prospects, but I've hardly seen anyone say they quit because of it.
 Reply
#9
ibofightback Wrote:
Quote:When you look on the internet, the big turn off is not whether Diamonds made a political statement from stage. Amway's black eyes come from the obscene amound of money Diamonds make from selling materials ABOUT the business versus the actual money they make FROM the business.

Rubbish. The internet claims about this have undoubtedly caused damage, and second, third, fourth hand reports of this are a problem, particularly with prospects, but I've hardly seen anyone say they quit because of it.


You've not seen anyone quit because do to the tool money scandal?

If that is your claim, it is one of the most ignorant assertions I ever heard you make.
 Reply
#10
MichMan Wrote:You've not seen anyone quit because do to the tool money scandal?

If that is your claim, it is one of the most ignorant assertions I ever heard you make.


I've seen people not join because of it, and I've seen new IBOs quit not because of it, but because of what they read about it - which is a big difference.

About a third of the emails on Larsen's amquix site are from folk who experienced nothing but didn't join or quit because of what they read on the 'net.

Funny how you ignored my questions about you ignoring contrary evidence.
 Reply
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • ...
  • 18
  • Next 
  •  

 
Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)