Hello There, Guest!

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why people critize systems
#31
Deb Wrote:I think the Corp was unable to enforce much until there was a more *cooperative* group within the IBOAI?? For possibly the first time in decades, the group is NOT composed solely of members of a few dominant AMOs; and there are more people representing income from product revenue as opposed to tool revenue?

Deb


ibofightback Wrote:I suspect you're correct. If I had the time I'd see if I could dredge up info on board members by year and match to LOA/LOS.


There was one LOA (not LOS) that was getting too big, and doing things the Corp (and other LOS/LOAs) didn't think was in everyone's best interest (to put it mildly). The First Circle Initiative, which was presented to the IBOAI Board, by a Board member, in January or February 2006, was met with much resistence, as one (former) board member purposely missed the point--which was getting our products to be retailable (products people want, at prices they are willing to pay) so that a brand new person could make money quickly. In other words, making the First Circle work, with the truth that if the first circle doesn't work, then, eventually, the house of cards will come tumbling down.

This former board member (and former IBO) crafted an email to all the board members shooting down the other board (and still current IBO) member's initiative. He pointed out all the problems that we all already knew--product pricing.

Duh. :doh: That's why it's called an "initiative." So that we can start to intitiate change. :glare:

So this (former) LOA started to attact other LOAs by basically acting like the pricing was what it was (and I guess couldn't be changed????) so this initiative was impossible, and also by playing on that bizarre fear that we'd all become retailing fools and stop sponsoring people, and we'd all be perceived as "lowly" salespeople. Rolleyes

All, IMO, was just a bunch of distractions from the real reasons they were opposed.

After about a year of some major craziness going on in the higher ranks, and this (former) LOA growing by merging with other LOAs in to one BIG one, that's when the Corp took the plunge and basically said, this is how it's going to be:

*Name Change with a MAJOR ad campaign--announced in June 2007
*Zero tolerance for things such as lack of proper business structure--Platinums notified in July 2007
*Retailable Products--starting with Simply Nutrilite and Artistry Essentials released in Sept 2007
*Retail focus--bringing in Steve Leiberman and Sandy Spielmaker starting in Sept 2007
*Bonuses tied to Accreditation--as of Sept 2007

Those who weren't interested in these improvements...they left. Those that were interested, they stayed.

And now the Corp has added money with the Fast Track program, to entice the Platinums and above to actually help their new IBOs to retail, because I guess having a long-term view and seeing building a house of cards ain't a good thing, isn't reason enough. :hmm:
 Reply
#32
Nicely worded, Bridgett :good:

But the power plays on the ADA go WAYYYYYYY back before that. Way WAY back. This is purely my opinion based on conversations with my Grandfather and Mother - but Grampa was the President of the Board of Directors for 12 years. He stepped down in '72. I believe he left the position because he was tired of fighting with certain Kingpins who were constantly skirting the Rules. Or flagrantly ignoring them - because by then, the Kingpins would have had plenty of their minions on the Board along with them. The ADA made and enforced the Rules.

The Postma Memo and Rich's stand against the Kingpins occurred in '83. Obvious the ADA was out of control by then.....

So your "new Kingpin-now exIBO" Wink was used to the "old ways of doing business". I suspect he tried what had been done successfully by the old-school Kingpins - only THIS time, we had new people in power at the Corp and enough Leaders in the IBOAI who weren't part of his "system" that finally took a stand. A stand that made me giddy with delight I must add Big Grin And I have to add: on my tour of the IBOAI Headquarters, I couldn't help but notice a TON of 3" thick 3-ring binders that obviously held the "evidence" against that certain group of booted individuals. It was more than clear to me that the decision to terminate wasn't spur-of-the-moment.

And I offer this sort of info, not because I'm "negative" - but because the smart IBO who is trying to build their business needs to understand that yes, Amway DOES have a stigma thanks to a small group of greedy folks. The smart IBO acknowledges the sins of the past and explains how they will run their business with integrity and transparency....because the moment they start to sound like "Ambots" (sorry - it's just such a great word....LOL!) - their downline is going to turn tail and RUN.

Deb

PS: Lest folks think that I feel that all the AMO abuses are done - that's NOT the case. There are still pockets of resistance - IBOs who are still acting/speaking like it's 1989. A specific case: a young man is being sucked dry financially by his AMO - plus his upline told him he should stop taking his medication for his clinical depression (all he needs is Double X???) :rant: :banghead: :nono: His parents are beside themselves - watching him spiral into debt and despair....
 Reply
#33
Thanks Bridgett, I didn't know some of those details. Interesting stuff.
 Reply
#34
Deb, what specifics do you know about the accredidation process? The only thing that is available online is a list of very vague criteria.

Do you think that the accredidation process really deals with the system abuse?
 Reply
#35
MichMan Wrote:Deb, what specifics do you know about the accredidation process? The only thing that is available online is a list of very vague criteria.

Do you think that the accredidation process really deals with the system abuse?


I don't know the specifics since I can't access Quixtar's website - but highly knowledgeable sources like Insider and Jody V (and probably Bridgett, but I've just "met" her) have given me a rough idea. I like what I hear - like that bonuses are tied to it, giving it "teeth" and making IBOs ask their upline why THEY aren't follow that program?.

I think that Accreditation, WHEN FOLLOWED CORRECTLY, can reduce abuse by a significant amount. The object of the program is to offer transparency: making sure a new recruit knows the BSMs are optional/there are no guarantees of success/yes, it's Amway....stuff like that. Assuming the new recruit is told those things, THEN if they purchase more tools and spend money on functions than they earn - their net loss is their choice. The problem is this: the Leader of an Accredited AMO can follow the Rules, but someone way downline can still be spouting "old school" garbage. Hence the situation with the young man I mentioned - I KNOW his "Leader" was alerted to that situation - yet it continues. It's within the WWDB group, and either they ARE Accredited, or are working on it.

And there will always be "motivational junkies". People who get high on the high that is prevalent at Functions. Pumping thousands of dollars into the systems with not much to show for it. I don't know how you can stop those folks?

I know there were a lot of Tool Mongers who hate Accreditation. For one thing, they had been telling their downline for years that they were "not a part of Amway".....I'm not sure how they explained THAT turn of events....LOL!! I'm sure they didn't send out a message that said "Hi! For years I've been lying to you....." Tongue

Deb
 Reply
#36
Deb Wrote:I know there were a lot of Tool Mongers who hate Accreditation. For one thing, they had been telling their downline for years that they were "not a part of Amway".....I'm not sure how they explained THAT turn of events....LOL!! I'm sure they didn't send out a message that said "Hi! For years I've been lying to you....." Tongue


Nope, they sent out messages, and a lawsuit, saying that by changing the name the corp had made them look like liars.

Those who chose to be blind cannot see themselves in a mirror.
 Reply
#37
ibofightback Wrote:Nope, they sent out messages, and a lawsuit, saying that by changing the name the corp had made them look like liars.

Those who chose to be blind cannot see themselves in a mirror.


ROFLMAO!!! Look like liars???? "If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck...... it must be a duck!" :grin:

Deb
 Reply

 
Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)