Hello There, Guest!

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • ...
  • 19
  • Next 
  •  
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Disastrous Forbes Article on Woodward/Network Marketing
#1
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/forbes/2008/0811/050.html">http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/for ... 1/050.html</a><!-- m -->

:this:

*Ouch*

We get quite a beating in this one, right off the bat from the "pyramid SCHEME" in the title. THe article has all the cliche buzzwords: recruiting, "at the top".

And most pointedly, it calls out the tools business as being a "pyramid on top of the pyramid".
 Reply
#2
I think it's fairly soft as far as mainstream articles. Very badly written with the usual ignorance, but could have been worse. I'll post a comment there sooner or later.

There's a thread on this already by the way - Head's Up
 Reply
#3
Unless you have the link provided to you, it can actually take a bit of time to find it, unless you already know it's there and do a key word search.

The vast vast vast majority of Americans (and Canadians) will never see it or care.

The Corp's advertising and brand focus will have far more influence. I posted on this article over at
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://speakingofamway.com/blog/2008/07/24/amway-and-transformation-a-tale-of-two-articles/#comments">http://speakingofamway.com/blog/2008/07 ... /#comments</a><!-- m -->
 Reply
#4
My comment on the article -

Ms Lambert and Mr Kneale,

It's a shame that "business" journalists such as yourself appear to have so little regard for facts and law when it comes to Multi-level Marketing (MLM). Mr McCormick is correct, MLMs are not pyramids. This is well established in law, and has been for nearly 30 years. Pyramids are illegal in the United States and most of the world. In your poorly written and unfortunately ignorant article, you have accused millions of American's of running illegal businesses. Is this what you intended? Do you believe that the FTC, the SEC, and various courts over the years, as recently as last year with regards Quixtar, are all wrong and you are right?

I suspect that what has happened is that you've chosen to get your education about MLM from the handful of well-known and prolific anti-amway, anti-mlm zealots, a number of whom have of course weighed in here.

It's yet another indictment on the previously respected profession of journalism that few writers today bother to properly research that about which they right, or if they do, dismiss it for the rantings of a few self-described, self-promoting, so-called internet "experts".

I suggest that before you next inadvertently slander millions that you consult with folk such as Professor Charles King of the University of Illiniois, who has studied and taught on Multi-level Marketing for nearly two decades, or Professor Dominique Xardel, of the famed French Business School ESSEC - Prof. Xardel, a former head of ESSEC and a former Editor-in-Chief of the European Harvard Business Review has written a number of books on Multi-level Marketing, and in particular Amway.

Of course, in today's internet driven world, actually reading the research of experts is nowhere near a simple as a quick google is it? Why learn from those who know what they are talking about, when the opinion of any quack will do?

Regards,
IBOFB
 Reply
#5
Great reply IBOFB! :hello:

- Ros
 Reply
#6
Ditto!!

Well put. :clapping:
 Reply
#7
Excellent bit of writing!!! Brilliant in it's succinctness, on-point, and some fresh points which were new to me at least... the French business school research. SL was hilarious in his attempt to yet again share your ID... only tends to make you the most credible commentator on the thread. In the end, it will be the increase in North American sales this year which will put the critics down for good... growth comes not just from fresh sales but from a host of new distributors who make their choice for this business model after discerningly sifting through both the truthful and misleading data.

That suggests that everyone here should be building to the point of financial independence, which will vary for each person, but at least demonstrate the reasonableness of a sufficient net cash flow from the Amway business to make it the business model of choice for average individuals.
 Reply
#8
It occurred to me that 10 years ago, reporting like this which included sloppy statements or unfounded business assumptions would have gone unchallenged except through 'letters to the editor', assuming your's got published. Not anymore.

The difference? the Internet. And a new set of stakeholders -- positive business owners -- who aren't going to 'take it' anymore from the anti-business misanthropes who heretofore dominated the conversation for so long.
 Reply
#9
First of all he didn't slander anyone, and when you figured out that you used the wrong term, you wouldn't be able to prove libel in a million years either, so let's keep the legal terms in the pocket and use them when relevant.

Now I will agree that just by reading that piece it is pretty clear where that guy stands on the issue and how he feels about MLM's. But is every article in every magazine and newspaper supposed to be just a fact finding mission and there is no such thing as an opinion piece? As a matter of fact the author is quite right in what he states. This business is referred to in crass terms as a pyramid. Whether you like it or not, whether it is a true legal definition or not, many refer to Amway and other MLMs in such a fashion.

Of course out of the entire article that seems to be the only thing that was focused on. So I assume that you agree with everything that was said about the tools?
The Truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off.
 Reply
#10
Actually slander when used in normal, non-legal settings, can include written statements. I was not meaning it as a strictly legal term.

The point is that Forbes is supposed to be a serious business magazine. As such the completely unprofessional tone of the article is disgraceful. They should be educating their readers about such things, not reinforcing falsehoods and misconceptions.

As for tools, what's to say? The journalists didn't report correctly on Team's profit sharing plan. Unless it's changed dramatically, rank and file Team folk do not participate in the pay plan and cannot onsell the BSM to others, so the "1%" lose claim is ridiculous. The "FTC didn't define retail" statement is also silly. "retail" is well defined in law, the FTC would only need to have defined it if they were going to use it as something different. It's the anti-mlm zealots who've been trying to convince the world "retail" means something other than a sale to an end user.
 Reply
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • ...
  • 19
  • Next 
  •  

 
Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)