In article <cvkohler-1802951029500@blv-pm0-ip21.halcyon.com-, cvkoh@halcyon.com (CVK) says:

-In article <3i0v6m$@server.iadfw.net-, Nunnally <nunna@iadfw.net- wrote:

- This seems to show that those "selling" "products" are -actually much more - interested in "selling" the "distributorships". After all, how -does one sell these - educational items by in "Career Opportunities"? is structured such that to earn the greatest income you need to sponsor and train people to work the business as well. The combined percentage accumulated from downline sales is what generates the huge profits that some people make in this industry.

In my opinion an should have a product that returns value for the money that is paid. businesses that are set up without a product of value or selling products which could be found elsewhere (retail outlets) for less money are selling the business opportunity only, the dream of great wealth, and many people are attracted to these companies too.

I personally feel that is a viable form of business and one that a person can earn a good living at, if they treat it as a business and work. Work at marketing the product and when people are attracted to the business opportunity share it with them. has gotten a bad reputation because the business aspects have been pushed at people and the idea that anyone not interested in your particular was a loser and you should not waste your time with people that are going to drag you down. This is not what is about, yet, this is how it is percieved and unjustly because some people have presented incorrectly.

All the best, jim clements@xmission Nikken Independent Distributor

In article <3i0v6m$@server.iadfw.net-, Nunnally <nunna@iadfw.net- wrote: -- I sell educational books and software which especially appeal to -- parents. I have started in a local specialty -- magazine geared toward parents. I have an ad in the classifieds -- under "Career Opportunties".

This seems to show that those "selling" "products" are actually much more interested in "selling" the "distributorships". After all, how does one sell these educational items by in "Career Opportunities"?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ cvkoh@halcyon.com | Virtualoso Marketizing

In article <3i5lii$@news.xmission.com-, cleme@xmission.com (Jim

Clements) wrote: -- is structured such that to earn the greatest income you need to -- sponsor and train people to work the business as well. The combined -- percentage accumulated from downline sales is what generates the huge -- profits that some people make in this industry.

Another, perhaps more accurate, way to phrase this is that the only way to make any worthwhile amount of money is to recruit others. Even then, it's a long, far cry before one can even begin to seriously consider "huge profits".

-- In my opinion an should have a product that returns value for the -- money that is paid. businesses that are set up without a product of -- value or selling products which could be found elsewhere (retail outlets) -- for less money are selling the business opportunity only, the dream of -- great wealth, and many people are attracted to these companies too.

Yes. But, even with product "value" the mere structure of dilutes that value by boosting costs to pay other, nonessential people and still poses a weak business proposition to the distributors.

-- I personally feel that is a viable form of business and one that -- a person can earn a good living at, if they treat it as a business and -- work.

"Viable" could be the questionable term here. It's just what one has to do and how much one realistically stands to gain from it that's the issue.

-- Work at marketing the product and when people are attracted to -- the business opportunity share it with them.

As acknowledged, though, one shouldn't just work to sell the product if one wishes to make any substantial money at all. And, folks aren't too likely to volunteer to sign up (especially with someone making little). Besides, just *where* does one sell enough product alone to earn anything signficant? Door to door? Flea markets?

-- has gotten a bad -- reputation because the business aspects have been pushed at people and -- the idea that anyone not interested in your particular was a loser -- and you should not waste your time with people that are going to drag -- you down. This is not what is about, yet, this is how it is -- percieved and unjustly because some people have presented incorrectly.

Actually, it seems that "bad name" comes much more from the fact that the overwhelming majority of those who have tried it haven't made any real money (although they've surely spent it), didn't like what it turned out to truly require of them (though this must have been different than how it looked on the way in) and eventually decided it just wasn't worth doing at all.

The specifics and reasons for all of those have amounted to the "bad name".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ cvkoh@halcyon.com | Virtualoso Marketizing

CVK (cvkoh@halcyon.com) wrote: : Yes. But, even with product "value" the mere structure of dilutes that : value by boosting costs to pay other, nonessential people and still poses a : weak business proposition to the distributors.

As is true for virtually any business today. The guy who makes Nike shoes doesn't go door-to-door. He moves them through a long distribution chain to the end consumer, and each of those "other, nonessential people" boosts the costs.

You may claim that the upline is "nonessential" in . In some cases I'd agree with you, to some extent. But the person selling the product wouldn't be in the business, wouldn't be selling the product, if s/he hadn't been introduced to the program AND trained and supported along the way. In that capacity, the upline is every bit as essential as the shoe manufacturer's distribution chain -- or the manufacturer's rep who landed the account for the manufacturer, which is an almost identical parallel for an sponsor.

: As acknowledged, though, one shouldn't just work to sell the product if : one wishes to make any substantial money at all.

Right. And the shoe manufacturer knows he won't make much if he spends all his time hawking shoes door-to-door, either. That's JUST NOT AN EFFICIENT WAY TO DO BUSINESS. The shoe manufacturer knows there's a higher-leverage way for him to move his product, so he uses it. Similarly, the distributor knows there's a higher-leverage way for HIM to move his product, so he uses it too. Why is that so evil?

Gary

In article <3ibgba$@tadpole.fc.hp.com-, f@sde.hp.com wrote: -- CVK (cvkoh@halcyon.com) wrote: -- : Yes. But, even with product "value" the mere structure of dilutes that -- : value by boosting costs to pay other, nonessential people and still poses a -- : weak business proposition to the distributors. -- -- As is true for virtually any business today. The guy who makes Nike shoes -- doesn't go door-to-door. He moves them through a long distribution chain -- to the end consumer, and each of those "other, nonessential people" boosts -- the costs.

However, the "long chain" isn't anywhere near as long as "downlines". In fact, conventional retailing ends at locations where *much* product is sold to *many* people on a daily basis.

In , all of these many in the "distribution chain" *are* those buying people, all pretty much just selling to eachother, with the guys at the "bottom" needing to get guys "below" them so they can get at least some of the money changing hands.

In poker, there's a saying: if you sit down to a game and don't see a sucker at the table, get up and leave -- because that means *you're* the sucker.

-- You may claim that the upline is "nonessential" in . In some cases -- I'd agree with you, to some extent.

Then stop right there. Before you go on to try to mitigate and mince terms, you'd first need to explain just where/how/why you'd "agree" and then the difference where/how/why you don't.

-- But the person selling the product -- wouldn't be in the business, wouldn't be selling the product, if s/he hadn't -- been introduced to the program AND trained and supported along the way.

"Trained and supported" is a pretty vague term, especially in where it's usually just a matter of "showing a plan". The "person selling the product" is the one "training and supporting" the new recruits who are *buying* the product.

-- In that capacity, the upline is every bit as essential as the shoe -- manufacturer's distribution chain -- or the manufacturer's rep who -- landed the account for the manufacturer, which is an almost identical -- parallel for an sponsor.

No, the idea is to get a lot more customers and real sales per "rep" in conventional business. In the idea is reversed: get a lot more reps than customers so the "reps" have to *be* the customers.

-- : As acknowledged, though, one shouldn't just work to sell the product if -- : one wishes to make any substantial money at all. -- -- Right. And the shoe manufacturer knows he won't make much if he spends -- all his time hawking shoes door-to-door, either. That's JUST NOT AN -- EFFICIENT WAY TO DO BUSINESS.

No, it's not. But, then, manufacturers are paid to *make* the product. MLMers aren't making anything. So, where do MLMers actually find customers to sell product to? yet more MLMers.

-- The shoe manufacturer knows there's a -- higher-leverage way for him to move his product, so he uses it.

And that way is to get his products into places that are genuinely about selling them to retail public customers, and lots of them -- like stores.

-- Similarly, -- the distributor knows there's a higher-leverage way for HIM to move -- his product, so he uses it too. Why is that so evil?

I certainly haven't said anything is "evil" -- why, have you been hearing this from others?

The distributor just doesn't have a "store" to concentrate on actually selling products to many customers. And you still haven't even indicated just how, otherwise, they might manage to do this.

That is, other than signing up other "distributors" to *be* the customers which, of course, is what is actually all about.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ cvkoh@halcyon.com | Virtualoso Marketizing

CVK (cvkoh@halcyon.com) wrote: : However, the "long chain" isn't anywhere near as long as "downlines".

How do you know that? The "long chain" in MLMs can be as short as 3 or 4 people. In some it's longer, but SO WHAT?

Case in point: In the company we worked with for the past 3 years, the "long chain" accounted for 45% of the wholesale price of the product. (However, since this was mostly a "wholesale buyer's club" kind of , the "wholesale" price was essentially the effective "retail" price.) Most companies pay out a lower percentage than this -- 30% is more typical. And guess what most conventional companies spend for ? The figures I saw said it was about 40% of retail.

The "long chain" you're so upset about is just taking the budget! Do you rail at Procter&Gamble for their TV & radio ads, too? If not, then why do you keep harping about an " budget"?

: In fact, conventional retailing ends at locations where *much* product is : sold to *many* people on a daily basis.

Yes, you're right. So? That's conventional retailing. uses a *different paradigm*, just like franchising uses a different paradigm from mom&pop shops. Different does NOT mean wrong, or bad, or illegal, or unethical, or immoral -- it just means DIFFERENT.

If you are willing to accept the possibility that maybe a different paradigm has merit, then this argument should be resolved quickly. If you refuse to accept that a different paradigm is allowable, and insist on measuring MLMs by retail-paradigm standards, then you will probably continue to argue that MLMs are somehow bad.

: -- You may claim that the upline is "nonessential" in . In some cases : -- I'd agree with you, to some extent. : Then stop right there. Before you go on to try to mitigate and mince : terms, you'd first need to explain just where/how/why you'd "agree" and : then the difference where/how/why you don't.

When an upline person acts the way YOU appear to believe they ALL do -- i.e. "show the plan" and never see the person again -- then that person is pretty nonessential. (Though if the new recruit goes out and creates tons of business, and wouldn't have if the useless upline hadn't enrolled them, then that useless upline HAS had an impact on the company business. Even if they did it very badly, they were not completely nonessential.)

However, that is NOT the way all sponsors work. It is certainly not the way most SUCCESSFUL sponsors work. How much personal experience do *you* have in this field, Chris? I have several years of successful experience. I have seen literally thousands of people work their business. And I know that a large percentage of people who have ANY success at all in DO spend a lot of time with their people, training and supporting them.

: "Trained and supported" is a pretty vague term, especially in where : it's usually just a matter of "showing a plan".

YOU stop right there. Any successful person does more than "showing the plan." (Sure, some will do that little, or less. I can't help it if some worthless sponsor shows the plan and never does anything again, any more than I can help it if an employee punches a clock and then sits around on the job. Less so, since I can't fire the bad sponsor. But their lack of success will repay them for this lack of effort.)

Here's a specific, non-vague example of what WE personally did for our people, as part of "training and supporting": - Personalized one-on-one training, goal-setting, and planning sessions. - Group training sessions (how-to-do-it stuff) in our home and in other locations. We traveled to 8 states (at our expense) to give these trainings to our people (AND to people not in our downline). - "On-the-job training" with our people: getting on the phone with them to show them how to invite people to a presentation; going with them to presentations to do it FOR them at first, and then to offer coaching and suggestions for improvement when they took the reins themselves. - Frequent phone contact for remote people. - Developed & distributed many sales & training aids. - Sent out a monthly newsletter to keep the group informed & excited. - Held public presentations for our people to bring guests to. - Offered car-pool rides to take our people to important classes and meetings. - Worked at booths (at fairs, flea markets, etc) to help our people sell products. (Yes, we really DID actually sell to people.)

And there's more, but that's just off the top of my head. If you keep calling that "just a matter of 'showing the plan'," then you will only demonstrate that your misconception is intentional. Ignorance is forgiveable. Deliberate misrepresentation is not.

: -- Right. And the shoe manufacturer knows he won't make much if he spends : -- all his time hawking shoes door-to-door, either. That's JUST NOT AN : -- EFFICIENT WAY TO DO BUSINESS. : No, it's not. But, then, manufacturers are paid to *make* the product.

OK, then let's look at the manufacturer's rep. He doesn't make anything. All he does is find customers. Do you damn him with the same accusations you fling at MLMers? What if the mfg. rep finds other mfg. reps for the company? What if it's an insurance salesman who recruits other insurance salesmen? (And yes, I personally know "real" insurance agents who do this.) What if those insurance salesmen even (*gasp*) buy some of their *own insurance*?? Horrors!!

: MLMers aren't making anything. So, where do MLMers actually find customers : to sell product to? yet more MLMers.

Yes, other MLMers also buy some of the product, just like the insurance agents above. But in *most* MLMs you'll also find the distributors selling their products to NON-distributors as well.

: -- The shoe manufacturer knows there's a : -- higher-leverage way for him to move his product, so he uses it. : And that way is to get his products into places that are genuinely about : selling them to retail public customers, and lots of them -- like stores.

Great, that works for him. THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S THE ONLY LEGITIMATE WAY! As I said above, "different" isn't "bad" -- it's just DIFFERENT. Pickup trucks are different than cars, but both can carry you & your stuff.

: I certainly haven't said anything is "evil" -- why, have you been hearing : this from others?

No, I hear it only from your attitude. You pursue and castigate MLMers like you truly believed it was an evil, bad, wrong thing to do. At least that's how *I* perceive your position. Forgive me if I'm mistaken.

Gary