Hello There, Guest!

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
$12 billion in 2012
#21
Bridgett Wrote:The other is used to keep the prospect/new IBO in the dark, and the focus is to benefit the Upline, now.


I honestly do NOT understand the whole thing, and I don't pass judgement in turn.

Maybe if that was something worth studying, I would, but it's not what we're taught nor what I believe makes sense, so I won't.

My knee-jerk reaction?

If it is a strategy that can work for "the upline," and it doesn't deny downline the opportunity to build a business themselves, then it can work for any downline, for they are all potential "uplines" themselves. As you say, it just might not be the "best" strategy.

But, I freely admit I don't have my brain wrapped around this one, and this is not the forum to do it in.

Please don't take offense; understanding your example is just not a priority, but do you really feel this example is so prevalent it deserved face-time on this thread?
 Reply
#22
Wearyeyed Wrote:
Bridgett Wrote:The other is used to keep the prospect/new IBO in the dark, and the focus is to benefit the Upline, now.


I honestly do NOT understand the whole thing,

{{cut}}

Please don't take offense; understanding your example is just not a priority, but do you really feel this example is so prevalent it deserved face-time on this thread?


I disagreed with you when you said you didn't have the CAPACITY to understand, when you said,

Quote:I don't have the brain capacity to understand the whole thing

in an earlier comment. That's why I added additional information, not realizing that you didn't CARE to understand.

I am totally fine with you not being interested in understanding. You just came at me, asking for an example,

Quote:What "most unprofitable way to build an Amway business" in the name of building a network arguably producing at least $2M annually in product sales (likely considerably more) and practiced often enough to warrant space here are you referring to?

and so I gave you one.

{{shrugs}}
 Reply
#23
ibofightback Wrote:(3) A further 20% who join don't renew after their first year. These are guy who actually placed an order, but didn't renew. Why? Was it the renewal fee? Something else? Here's a thought - how about you can maintain your IBOship (and any downline) and IBO pricing after your first year for free. But if you want to sponsor, or have the personalised websites etc, then you pay the renewal fee. Or just get rid of the renewal fee. As far as I'm concerned, with entirely electronic communications possible there's little economic justification for the membership fee as it stands, in any of the markets where it still exists.

.


At one time Amway offered 2 levels of renewal: "with" literature (snail-mail stuff) and without ($20 less). But keeping the renewal fee low is important to the "little guy" who does 100 PV per month - at some point, a prudent person has to ask "are my bonuses more than my renewal fee?". And if you have several of those 100PV/month folks, they can really be helpful to YOUR business. You WANT them around :-)
 Reply
#24
Bridgett Wrote:Stacking IBOs like pancakes is a strategy to break pins.

One is used to educate the prospect/new IBO on the Comp Plan so that they can make educated decisions on how to best use their time to make the most money they can.

The other is used to keep the prospect/new IBO in the dark, and the focus is to benefit the Upline, now.


Are you sure you're not a "critic"??? :grin: The folks that promoted stacking used to make me insane - talk about abuse of a downline :rant: :rant: :rant:

And going back to IBOFB's question about a perfect plan - this is why an IBO needs to LISTEN If a prospect has had an encounter with an ex-IBO from the "Exodus" a few years ago - the prospect is going to need assuring that they will be helped to build a PROFITABLE business - NOT one that feeds money "up the chute". It's why a good IBO needs to be aware of the past in order to move forward - there are people like Eric Scheibeler saying they got to Emerald - and wondered where the money was? I don't know Eric, but my first thought was "how stacked were you?"
 Reply
#25
Deb Wrote:
Bridgett Wrote:Stacking IBOs like pancakes is a strategy to break pins.

One is used to educate the prospect/new IBO on the Comp Plan so that they can make educated decisions on how to best use their time to make the most money they can.

The other is used to keep the prospect/new IBO in the dark, and the focus is to benefit the Upline, now.


Are you sure you're not a "critic"??? :grin: The folks that promoted stacking used to make me insane - talk about abuse of a downline :rant: :rant: :rant:

And going back to IBOFB's question about a perfect plan - this is why an IBO needs to LISTEN If a prospect has had an encounter with an ex-IBO from the "Exodus" a few years ago - the prospect is going to need assuring that they will be helped to build a PROFITABLE business - NOT one that feeds money "up the chute". It's why a good IBO needs to be aware of the past in order to move forward - there are people like Eric Scheibeler saying they got to Emerald - and wondered where the money was? I don't know Eric, but my first thought was "how stacked were you?"


Maybe my lack of negative opinion comes from my college-days when "being stacked" just wasn't a bad thing... Confusedhock:
 Reply
#26
I suspect Eric's problem was he probably qualified with international legs. You can be a local platinum and have 2 or 3 international legs and you won't be making that much money. Do the math on one local qualified leg and 2500 side volume, plus two international legs, and you can be a very poor qualifying Founders Emerald. I note he qualified in the hey day of Amway's international expansion. I did ask him about this several times, he never replied to any of my messages.

He often promoted the fact his business was in many countries, which to the uninitiated makes it sounds like it should be a huge, profitable business, when in fact the reverse may be true, especially with regards profitability.
 Reply
#27
There are probably situations where building a team in a single leg makes sense. Maybe you've tapped into a community of people (a family, or club for example), and you don't want them in competition with one another. They know a lot of the same people.

Being one-legged could help develop the confidence and motivation to go find some side volume. I'm pretty sure I remember Diamond Brad DeHaven say that he was at one time a 7500 pin, with one leg. It was a frustration for him, but he also said it gave him a place to be active in his business and learn the necessary skills.

My support team toyed with the "stacking" concept for a little while. They scrapped it because of the profitability issues that Bridgett mentioned. I believe they had their hearts in the right place. I don't believe anyone was deliberately trying to keep anyone in the dark, or make any one IBO profitable at the expense of another. The goal was to start a second and third leg and become profitable as soon as possible. It had to do with a system of training, but it didn't work. Luckily we were over it well before the TEAM fiasco happened and "stacking" was in the news on the corporate blogs.
 Reply
#28
"Stacking" or tap-rooting as taught by BWW has the following premise and rationale:

- Psychologically, a new person is as excited if not more, by having "people under htem" than they are by profit.
- The IBO must be explained too that profit is going to be less until they get their 2nd & 3rd legs going.
- If an IBO is 'not ready' to build a big team, or just wants to chill, then it's fine. If they ever decide to build a big business, then they just have to add some side legs to build off the existing anchor leg.
- It is not mandatory, and people being sponsored in depth must be introduced to their sponsor.
- Prevents charity, because the upline's only putting in in work in one leg.

Potential challenges seen:

- Some guys get "boss" syndrome and start trying to train "their people".
- No incentive to actually be profitable, as right now BWW, is still very much pin-oriented i.e. there is much glory in being x pin within x months and being clapped for. More glory than actually being profitable. THat's why stories like ExEagles happen.
- Can be cumbersome talking multiple people in between to train/sponsor newer people in depth.


Also our eagle pins changed. Eagle must have one leg of 6 layers of people in the education system (as one of the qualifcations). For Ultimate Eagle there were like only 3 in the entire system with the old qualification, but now many Q12s are ultimate eagle. I think a requalifying Q12 should be the focus of the business, and should have more direct contact with the corporation. I'd even invite random Q12s occasionally to sit in on an IBOAI meeting.
 Reply
#29
The only positive for the new IBO I see in super's entire post is:

Psychologically, a new person is as excited if not more, by having "people under them" than they are by profit.

And even that, I don't think is positive.

The new IBO is being trained to focus on the wrong #$%^ing thing.

This is a BUSINESS, not a popularity contest.

"Stacking" benefits the Upline.

Period.
 Reply
#30
Bridgett Wrote:"Stacking" benefits the Upline. Period.


I am not knowledgeable about the subject, hence the question, but if "stacking" is such a powerful strategy for a particular person "upline," what prevents the new guy from being one of those "upline" that "stacks" for profitability them self?
 Reply

 
Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)