Hello There, Guest!

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Business Week Article on Amway
#1
Amway: Shining Up a Tarnished Name
 Reply
#2
Here is the picture from the article.

[Image: 0731_mz_amway.jpg]

I am wondering if Amway supplied the ibo for BW to interview, or if they found her on their own.

Either way, the picture looks like it came out of a 1959 catalog... (except for the products).

And no criticism of her.
 Reply
#3
Yawwwwn... :beee: :bye:
 Reply
#4
MichMan Wrote:Here is the picture from the article.

[Image: 0731_mz_amway.jpg]

I am wondering if Amway supplied the ibo for BW to interview, or if they found her on their own.

Either way, the picture looks like it came out of a 1959 catalog... (except for the products).

And no criticism of her.


I note that in her own comment on the article she seems to be "prospecting" - is that OK in the States ?
 Reply
#5
MichMan Wrote:I am wondering if Amway supplied the ibo for BW to interview, or if they found her on their own.


If I recall correctly, the secret letter left for me under a dark tree at midnight the last new moon said they found her on their own.
 Reply
#6
Yeah, I agree with rdknyvr. Yawwwwn! As I'm reading it, again, it's biased with negative words throughout to give the reader the idea that this is a bad idea.

Quote:That gave the company, dogged by accusations of being a pyramid scheme, a fresh identity.
Dogged by whom? The media? The FTC? It makes it sound like Amway's trying to hide something.
Quote:independent distributors who can shell out hundreds of dollars for fees, sales kits, and products they hope to resell.
I like the use of fees and hope in the same sentence. In a way the author is saying that most people could never start their own business.
Quote:They get their own sales revenue and a bonus for the sales of people they recruit.
THIS could be rephrased. It is correct the way it is written, but I think it could be rephrased. Again, having the words bonus and recruit in the same sentence allows people to draw a connection between the two. It's quite obvious that they want to do that because the next few sentences include this:
Quote:The result, says former high-level distributor Eric Scheibeler, an outspoken critic, is that many people lose money, drop out, and get replaced by a fresh crop of "unknowing consumers—most all of whom will also invest at a loss." While Dornan says the model is legal and offers "the most compelling" opportunity in the direct-selling industry, it continues to draw controversy.
So you take what the company says, and pit it against a critic who knows how it all works. Not only that, but you give the critic the first say. What this does is it drives a wedge of distrust between the reader and whatever is being talked about.

Quote:North American sales are stagnant at $1 billion, but the privately held company doesn't disclose further financial results.
Doesn't or wouldn't. The phrasing sounds like the author never talked to Quixtar/Amway Global. Another negative, stagnant. We've all talked about that here, so we can move on to the next one. This one I got a kick out of.
Quote:It claims to have the world's best-selling nutritional supplements
"It claims?" Does anyone else but me have an issue with that?

Quote:Many of Amway's several hundred thousand North American sellers—the company won't give specifics—don't care what it's called as long as they make money.
Now here they use the won't statement, BUT they should've left it out. Why? Simply because the statement creates distrust in the reader. After all the negative connotations (even a quote from Landor Associates about brand struggles), this comment just drives the point home that Amway Global shouldn't be trusted.

The only portion that MIGHT be thought of as positive. However, it's a double edge sword because they mention the legal battle that Quixtar is locked into right now.
Quote:In a nod to such issues, the company has set up an accreditation program for big sellers, to help root out those who lure recruits by promising unrealistic returns. Amway terminated contracts with 15 distributors last year for allegedly pushing more training materials than products.

The last portion of the article talks about that new gal shown in the picture, Cathy Cross. Tells how much she spent her first year on marketing materials and products, $700, which apparently was just less than her bonuses. BUSINESSweek FAILED to mention that NO business in the United States EVER makes a profit the first year. If she received more over $700 in bonuses, that means she's selling. Which means she's making retail. They didn't even mention that fact. Therefore SHE MADE MONEY! Try going to a bank, ask for a loan to start your business and tell them you'll make money your first year. They'll laugh at you!

Why did they pick Cathy Cross and not Ryder Erickson (under Theron Nelson, kicked his job in 1 year with 6 months income in the bank), or the Yagers, or these Koreans hitting Diamond in 2 years? Because she spent $700 and they can say she barely broke even. I have a feeling, too, that anyone who's been in the business longer than two years would say no to the journalist because they know the editors are going to spin it the wrong way.

It almost feels as if a few journalists from different magazines after seeing the ads, got together and decided to write biased pieces against Quixtar/Amway Global. I feel a bit bad for Cathy Cross. It feels like they used her to make a point when the truth is she made money. Though, since she's posted a comment on the article, it sounds like she found the article to be okay.
 Reply
#7
They also apparently included her product purchases as a business expense.
 Reply
#8
ibofightback Wrote:They also apparently included her product purchases as a business expense.

WHAT?! Who... You know, if I knew that a large percentage of the American populous was going to read the article, I'd be writing a letter right now. I know there won't be, so I'm going to ignore the lack of professionalism shown in this article.

1. They never talked to the corporation
2. They never talked to someone who succeeded in building their own business (they could've sourced Bill Gates for all I care)
3. They spent very little time actually researching

Yet, this is exactly what happens when you try to do something that's not status quo. People are going to reject what you are doing. Some people just seem to have more influence or positions of power. But when someone with position tries to dumb down what you're doing, it's usually pretty obvious.
 Reply
#9
Actually they apparently requested an interview but it couldn't be co-ordinated. Beth Dornan supplied written comments.

But here's something to ponder - where do you think a lot of journalist's today turn to for a lot of their research, particularly initially?
 Reply
#10
JoeBrueske,

Great comments in your post where you quoted from the article. :thumbsup:
 Reply

 
Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)