The following was a comment entry from Colette, who took quite a bit of her time to write about her experiences with Alticor in the UK. Unless specificly stated otherwise, I'm neither endorsing nor disputing her statements. Instead, I was impressed that she took the time to write down her experience, and didn't want her effort to languish down inside a huge thread, but believed it deserved more exposure and it's own comment thread.

(Firstly, some background info on me - I was educated in Mechanical Engineering (one of three girls out of 100 course attendees) and subsequently went on to do three years' research into business process modelling (mostly in Engineering processes, but the concepts could be applied to any process of activity, including politics, education, religion, etc, etc).

I then did seven years in "sales" for an Apple Authorised Reseller and Service Provider - I learned (not very well) what traditional sales methods are about, and also what sits better with me - rather than manipulate people into buying what one wants to sell them, instead find out their requirements, see if one can meet those requirements (if not, being honest about that and pointing the client in a more suitable direction) and then let the client make up their own mind in their time frame if they wish to proceed - maybe this is too wishywashy an approach, but it's how I like to be "sold" to!.

I always knew I did not want to be a traditional "employee" for the rest of my life - having someone tell me what I am worth, dictating when I can take my holidays, when I must start work, when I must finish work, the ethics by which that work should be carried out - all these things rankled, and I felt drawn towards a career as a "management consultant" (but NOT the sort that charges you to tell you the time; instead, one who enquires as to your circumstances, re-structures that information into more digestible format and gain originators' agreement of content of format so that they (the originators) can make informed decisions themselves about what to change and what to keep about their circumstances). Sorry, that was rather a long sentence - my English language may be good, but I can ramble with the best of them :-) .

Anyway, as part of my sales job, I represented the company at weekly local business network meetings for seven years, and eventually was chosen to host the meetings for the standard period of 6 months. I also (because of my huge fear of public speaking) joined a local (men's!) speakers club, precisely to dispel that fear and improve my skills.)

I was approached...(no, it never happened that way for me - I had had a crisis of self-confidence after losing my research post (I was told to go and get more experience of life before coming back to the process modelling, which is why I ended up in sales..!), and, being temporarily unemployed, responded to an advert in the local shop window, which was looking for people who wanted part-time or full-time income from a business....

...apparently, I was the ONLY person who rang the number given!

The guy who showed me the Amway business plan came across as very pushy and desperate, which naturally made me resist signing up. However, I'm extremely curious, so agreed to go to a meeting, which happened to be a big seminar rally some three hours' drive away. What happened there was astonishing - like one person posted earlier, there were about 2000 people all inanely grinning and being incredibly nice - it made me very suspicious, because it seemed so false- they did not know me, so why were they all being so nice? (When I was younger, my nickname was "smiler", because..... But I had long since learned that most people walk down the street with their head down and a miserable face - to meet SO many smiling faces in one place was a shock to the system!)

When the first speaker came onto the stage, everyone else stood up and clapped and cheered - I thought - I don't know who this person is, or why I should react to them in such an efferverscent way, so I stubbornly (and embarrassedly, because people kept looking at me as if I was an alien) remained seated with my arms folded.

However, by the end of their talk, I did conclude that they had made some good points, and clapped when they left the stage.

I still would not stand up for any of the speakers, but for each of them I felt warmer towards them after they had spoken.

Now, I have read quite a bit about "brainwashing" and Amway being a cult, and that these meetings fire people up artificially, and, not being as resistant to such things as Tim so impressively is, maybe I was being brainwashed. But then again, maybe my mind has sufficient perspicacity to judge the true worth of a situation, and I did not deem myself brainwashed when I clapped the speakers after they had spoken - I simply felt they had said some interesting things, in an interesting fashion, and I politely was respecting that.

I'm a bit of a strange one, because I went to every single meeting for 6 months, while I was trying to decide if this business really was what it claimed to be and whether I wanted to be involved. I never researched it with other bodies, because I had no money to buy the Dunn & Bradstreet report (they are a business credit reference agency). I agree I could have contacted the DSA (Direct Selling Association), but again, I was worried that information would have cost me money I didn't have - I didn't disagree with the principle of paying for such information, just that I was too focussed on my lack of money to consider doing it.

I looked long and hard at various angles, trying to find the "catch" that my insides were warning me must be there somewhere - why else were they so keen to recruit me, if it was not to profit from my being involved?

Eventually, my fears abated long enough for me to actually sign up and get sponsored, but (whether this is down to the way the business is conducted/communicated or down to my then inability to get organised and actually choose a goal I could believe in) my belief in myself and my belief in this business remained low, in spite of attending meetings (and even "doing" a bit of business activity, like having some home meetings, making a list, inviting people, sweating with fear, showing the plan, (forgetting to follow up, or should that be - too afraid to hear the "no" response and therefore subconsciously avoiding any reference to follow up??)).

However, I have to say, my belief in the concepts behind this business has risen, the more I have seen and the more I have listened and read. I've been to about 500 Open meetings (where the business plan is shown in a hotel) and about 25 Weekend Seminars and 12 Free Enterprise Weekends (those weekend seminars held abroad where many countries get together).

This probably qualifies me as "mad" !

Especially as you will ask - what success have I had? And what a pertinent question that is - it is a constant anxious complaint/warning from my father, and now from my brother-in-law (one an ex-civil servant, the other a government economist!)

The actual answer is - very little! I have definitely made a loss to date, financially. (However, people from all walks of life comment positively on my good attitude, and I attribute a lot of that to the exposure I have had from some amazing and impressive individuals within the Network 21 organisation).

And yet, whereas it would be expected for me to be unhappy about this state of affairs (the financial loss), and my judgement quite rightly questioned, I actually feel this is fair!

You see, I KNOW the exact amount of WORK I have put into this business, and I would have been fired hundreds of times over if I had been an employee. The fact that I keep pursuing my idea of my future success is maybe what others would question - I always rationalise, that, WHEN I have put in the work I am told I need to do, if the results then DON'T happen, I will indeed lose heart. (More of that, later). However, until that point, I have learned too much to "dis" myself if I am not being fair.

(Besides which, if these meetings are considered to be the equivalent of an Amway "degree", then why would I expect to graduate in profit? Does any student??)

Maybe my brainwashing has been "successful", but I think I have enough (small) intellect to rationalise what has been happening to me, and these are some points I would like to raise:

Firstly, I saw my sponsor "blossom" as a person, the more books he read and the more tapes he listened to. He stopped being so pushy, began to appear (and I genuinely believe became so inside, not just a front) more caring and more relaxed and more articulate and more confident.

Whether or not this particular type of business has merits in any other facet, I think it truly has the capacity to improve (in all the senses) the way a person views themselves IF they actually try the AMO (Amway Motivational Organisation)'s tools. And I mean, try, over a period of at least 6 months, with intent. Sure, the first time I heard a tape, I was not impressed, because the accent was strange, and I did not identify with the passion or information contained therein. But things that appear bad may not necessarily be so - it just takes some insight into the background aspects to put the information into context.

(And it is context that seems to be the most important ingredient which is either present or missing from many of the postings.
Sure, I cannot claim to know it all, because I haven't done it all, but I do know that I do know quite a lot, because I have studied it from the inside for a long while.)

So, if nothing else happens, it is very likely that people will gain more confidence in (and almost inevitably more ability in) their personal skills, as a result of being INVOLVED with this business (as opposed to listening to two tapes, attending one or two meetings, and deciding it is not for them - it is unlikely much, if any, benefit will be gained by that individual from such a small exposure).

Secondly, I tend to agree with many of the negative things said about how people who are already distributors deal with the people they are trying to recruit - I've seen it done, I've had it done to me, and sadly I've done it a couple of times to others - i.e. been less than upfront about the name of the business, or what can be realistically expected, etc etc. (from my point of view, it was because I was embarrassed about the perceived collective view of Amway, and I didn't know how to handle the almost inevitable criticism - perhaps because I was not entirely convinced myself, eh?).

My insides have always baulked at this aspect of the business: instinctively I realised what some people, including you, Tim, have so eloquently said: any business which is not forthright, open and honest is not moral/ethical, and therefore not worth having, or being involved with, no matter how many supposed "benefits" it purports to give.

All I can say on this score is: in the UK we have different systems to the US, and I have been involved long enough to have seen how these support systems have migrated, from International Support Systems (I.S.S.), to (something I've forgotten) to Network 21 (N21). I've also sat in on the home meeting of another support system entirely (a guy I was prospecting and inviting told me he had already been approached by a good friend of his, to which I replied he should join his friend rather than me, because that is what I would want others to do with friends of mine they might prospect...he kindly invited me to his meeting, and, because I am always curious, I went, pretending to be a prospect, although afterwards I did 'fess up and did my best to promote his friend's business to the other prospects there, as the honourable thing to do).

I've also been approached to join, and therefore investigated, several other multi-level marketing businesses, and I actually joined one (Forever Living Products, thinking that I could run the two concurrently, and those prospects that didn't like one might like the other instead! I've since learned that a divided focus is worse than no focus at all - people don't know which one you stand for, and therefore choose neither!)

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that I've seen several versions of the training (I also had access, through my separated husband, to a Jody Victor tape, who is downline from Dexter Yeager - the tape would terrify a novice with its hardline attitude - however, with the much exposure I have had since, I understand a lot more of the subtleties stated on the tape, even though those issues come across in a very strong way, I get why they are there) and I can readily see how so many people can be put off/disillusioned by such hard-nosed attitudes as obviously do exist out there. I too would have nothing to do with an organisation that mixes religion with business, or tries to force me /coerce me into certain behaviours through the fear card.

To my mind that is not business, it is a cult. I also think it is totally wrong to play people with the "you're stupid if you don't do this business" card - as you have so well stated, Tim, we should all be FREE to make up our minds. Sadly, because this is a business of "business owners" as opposed to "business employees", the people who get involved should be restrained as to what they can do and say, ethically as well as legally, but policing it is not so easy - they can't be fired!

However, in the UK, we are strongly urged as Amway distributors by the Network 21 support system to follow the rules, to abide by all the legal requirements, to promote the business honestly and ethically and encourage all those who are interested in the business to do the same.

I suppose I began to change my attitude to the business at the time when I was getting very irritated with the speakers for "talking the good talk" when so many indicators said otherwise, and finally one Diamond in the UK, who is a practicing psychologist by chosen profession (although he retired from his job, he continues to treat troubled children, because he feels it is a worthwhile endeavour), stood up on stage (just at the time when Network 21 formed an UK arm to merge with the existing UK training system) and admitted we are all being brainwashed! Finally, I said to myself, someone who is prepared to admit the truth of it.

Taken out of context, that one statement may be enough to make many fence-sitters vanish. And understandably so.

My take on it is this: every day the papers and news are promoting all the misery and pain we inflict on each other - while it is not sensible to ignore this (we can all make a difference, as long as we know what we are making a difference to!), it has damaging effects on our hope for the future.

And hope is such a powerful thing. Yet so inexorably eroded by the minutiae of daily bad news. If we have something which equally frequently reminds us of all the heroic feats and inspiring activities of which we are all capable, is it so awful to provide that stimulus in a package which we call continual self-development? I think not. (Provided, of course, that we continually examine the actuality of the content, and the context, for blurring of intent towards less honourable goals, such as the control of the populace (I'm in favour of anarchy, I just haven't figured out how society will be able to function that way! :-) ).

One person in a posting above complained about the PV allocation - again, I can't claim to be absolutely expert, but, from what I do know, and from my years of dealing with suppliers and customers in a hardware sales business, it seems reasonable to expect that all businesses have a coreline of products or services which provide the biggest profit margins (usually those over which we have the most control, i.e. if we make the product in-house, or if WE provide the service, the price we charge has more negotiable room than if we buy in the product or service to sell on).

Therefore, my understanding of her complaint, about claimed PV versus actual PV, is that products MADE by the Amway Corporation will have higher PV levels associated with them, than third-party products which Amway have negotiated PV deals with the manufacturers. (Don't forget, Amway pay distributors based on the volume of PV sold - if we sell only products from manufacturer X, then Amway has very little margin with which to pay us our bonuses, so consequently Amway will attach much smaller PV levels to the products made by X. Does that make sense?)

Coming back to the issue of transparency with respect to earnings claims, again, I agree, very little if any evidence is shown to support these claims from the bigger pins. (However, as I pointed out to my mum, when she cautioned that she thought all the Diamonds in the Profiles book, with their photos of swish clothes, diamond rings, big houses and fast cars, were simply actors pretending to be rich! - I love that one, because, having observed many of said Diamonds over a significant period of time, I realise that if they WERE renting everything to pretend, they would have to spend so much money on these frequent rentals that they would have to be earning Diamond income just to pull off such a scam!)

I aim to be one [successful distributor] who ALWAYS shows bank statements upon request.

[And, yes, sadly, I completely realise that this posting makes me look naiive and unachieving, and many people will think I simply have not got what goes on. Part of me rationalises that my lack of effort with a business that has this much potential is because some part of me is scared as to whether it is real (yet - how pathetic - just go do it, Colette, and then you'll know) but perhaps more scared of NOT transmitting behaviours and attitudes that I have heard about or experienced, so that MY business starts off and ends up being respected as an honourable one, where never does someone accuse me of misrepresenting anything or hiding figures or bullying someone to do something which their internal metric refutes. Also, I DO have a huge amount of stuff to organise, and, being a hopeless perfectionist, I want to get it right... how much of my life have I wasted so far with projecting how I WILL do things? in my defence, though, I have experienced two redundancies and two intense relationship break-ups (one my marriage) and a death in the family, all in the last few years, and the emotions from such experiences are only just now subsiding to the point where I can function again).

Surely, as with ANY endeavour, there are right ways and wrong ways to conduct ourselves, and it may not be the endeavour so much as the people who practice it that cause concern. We can all commit to being as open and honest about this business, warts and all, because I believe it has enough redeeming features IF DONE PROPERLY to overcome those, quite hefty, negatives out there.

I truly do feel for all those who have suffered at the hands of hard Amway "nuts" - it is not my modus operandi, and at least one of my friends tells me I'll never succeed at this business because I am too "nice"! However, when I finally succeed at organising my mess (you would not believe how much an excessive hoarder can acquire of life mementoes!), I believe that this is a business that CAN be operated with integrity and goodness, without hurting anyone.

Which leads me to your original point, Tim, of the ethicality (is there such a word? please forgive me, it's past 2:30am on an already tired head...) of a multi-level marketing business i.e. is it inevitable that there will always be casualties?

I have to say honestly, if the business is conducted with the ethics I've seen in our UK leadership, then NO is the answer. Obviously, some of the stories I've heard, from Amway old in the UK or even today in the USA, scare me, with how different a protrayal the same business can have, when handled by different people with different training systems and guiding morals.

What we are being taught is how to START the business in such a fashion that the initial costs (£28 to register, for which there is a monthly (occasionally bi-monthly) magazine of events and product info, a huge merchandising guide that covers the contents, application and demonstration of ALL of Amway's own product lines (oh yes, that reminds me, someone above commented bitterly about the lack of evidence for the 1,000,000's of products... from what I've seen of our European website, not only are all the 1000's of Amway's own lines listed, but that 1,000,000 includes all reference to the third-party products which, when bought through the Amway website, attract a points value which amounts to cashback, depending on the volume purchased - a system similar to most petrol stations and shopping centres worldwide, no?), anyway, also included in the registration price is the legal ability to resell Amway's products (which Amway pay all of the research, development, manufacture and packaging for) and any third-party products (which Amway negotiate margin deals with the third-party suppliers, plus all trade agreements worldwide, all governmental regulatory issues, etc), plus the use of Amway's website (which they pay to have designed and hosted and e-commerced), with which we can buy products for our own use, to resell to others, and through which we can check our virtual office to see our business statistics. (Please correct me if I'm wrong on any of these issues)

That seems like quite a good deal!

It also costs £18.50 to continue membership of the distributor network for every subsequent year of operation.

Hey, look at that - I got beautifully side-tracked - I was saying, we are being taught to START a business in such a way as to have it self-financing almost immediately - it is a sad fact that the vast majority of Amway distributors DO NOT DO THIS, and therefore they cannot teach their downline, which means many many people are left with the impression that huge costs for training and products and meetings will leave them hugely out of pocket. It is an issue that we in the UK are trying hard to address.

Obviously, if a fledgeling (spelling?) business can be made self-financing, it can be duplicated and then everyone succeeds (and, just as importantly, no-one loses).

One aspect that, rightly, concerned you, Tim, was this business of the lowest points of the "pyramid" being left stuck with no potential for growth and thus income, should the market saturate.
I agree that this is unethical as a concept.

Again, I could be completely wrong, but a) I've seen too much to think I am wrong, b) when I've done it, I'll be glad to confirm if this comes right in reality:

My understanding is that this strange business concept is all about empowering people to create assets, i.e. business that provides passive income streams - income that you work for (once) and continue to receive, even when the work for it has stopped.

It's not an original concept - actors, painters and musicians have been doing it for centuries - part of the problem with this has been that some of the individuals who have created such passive income flows have not spent the money wisely, or, indeed, have overspent, and therefore need to continue to work (or, in some cases, struggle, publicly!) to recapture, or re-create such income. Then people may judge such means of generating income as inherently insecure.

Another aspect which presents problems with passive income streams from art (music, acting, painting, etc), is that the individual with the talent is not always in control of all the aspects of the money-making deals (in fact, rarely so), such that "other" organisations end up taking what is viewed as too large a cut.
Natural to be careful of that.

In this business, the essential intent is to set up a large and continuously purchasing group of consumers, whose purchases generate passive income streams for those who have created the possibility for those purchases to occur (this seems a fair compensation, providing that all parties benefit)

I.e. if I buy £100 per month every month for the rest of my life, the company whose products I am purchasing will not be very busy, and will probably go out of business. But if I point many consumers in the direction of that manufacturer, and EACH client gets a satisfactory outcome (cheaper products, or a small rebate), the manufacturer will have much bigger volumes to manufacture, which, through economies of scale and through centralised distribution and localised marketing, will mean money is available to rebate to me in direct proportion to the amount of volume of sales I facilitate to happen.

The benefit of the multi-level marketing system is that everyone is their own boss, and the downside of the multi-level marketing system is that everyone is their own boss! How to organise this complex set-up such that fairness is on offer (it should prevail, but often doesn't, simply due to the individuals involved, or due to the ethics woven into a particular training system) has been the continuous headache since this industry has launched.

I agree that many of the complaints listed above in the postings do happen - if you were to set up a business where everyone could make as much money as they wanted to work for, how would YOU ensure the rules were fair and the ethos respectfully conducted, without constraining the earning ceiling or the individual's right to express their personality?

I'm sorry to preach, I'm sure you knew that anyway, it's just that often this understanding gets lost amongst the emotions of running a business of this nature, where one has to suddenly learn how to market by word-of-mouth, sell confidently, manage paperwork and juggle business finances etc.
It's happened to me too, where I get so concerned with the skills I should have to run this business successfully, that I can forget why it is structured the way it is.

I used to think, as many many people seem to, that in order for me to succeed I will have to "take advantage" of the goodwill of my friends and family and, eventually, strangers that I coerce into buying from me. It's only when one particularly enlightened colleague of mine explained that, when done properly, if everyone benefits at their own level, I get to benefit at a higher level also. i.e. we have to help others to gain a benefit from the transaction to have any hope at all of this becoming a long-term income provider (and without the long-term, the passive income cannot exist, which is why it is so important to treat people properly, and with respect, clarity of information, and appropriate distance).

It astonished me to find out that, NO MATTER WHEN people join this business, EACH individual can decide to make the business a success for them, simply by pointing MORE people towards the manufacturer. This explains how someone can be "IN" this business and make no money for a long time, while someone new, who joins a long time later and a lot lower in the "pyramid" can actually make a lot more money than the first person.

It would make good research to look more closely at Rich De Vos and Jay Van Andel (the two friends who set up the Amway Corporation) to find out what they intended to achieve with this business structure, and how it actually works.

I totally agree that just meeting "big mouths" at functions does nothing to inspire confidence in the structure of the business, and yet THEY are not the business - they are just (good or notsogood) practitioners of it, and, as we know, people come in all shapes and sizes, and the best ones are not always those that shout the loudest!

What I'm trying to say (badly, probably) is that it IS possible for each participant in the system to get a deal that benefits them, and that those who get "most" out of it have just HELPED more individuals to benefit, instead of having TAKEN from the most individuals.

It makes sense that, if a person just wants to buy the products retail because they like them, or they feel the products are good value for money, those people should be free to do so, without being pressurised into "doing more".

Equally, if a person wants to generate a SMALL income stream (which is not really passive, as they have to service clients etc), they can do so, (by servicing a few WILLING clients or by buying the products wholesale and helping a few other people to do the same), they should be helped to do just that, and not ridiculed for not wanting to be a millionaire!

In the past, I have seen exactly the criticisms mentioned in earlier postings happen - people are told there is no other way to get rich, people are goaded into wanting "more", people are frightened into staying by being labelled a "loser" if they quit.

I don't agree with any of these tactics, and think that maybe while my mind has been trying to rationalise if it's possible to do this business without behaving so, I have simply stood still.

Sure, I've acquired a fantastic "degree" at the Amway University, and I know probably more than any other non-achiever!! (Not something to be proud of, but, well, at least I can talk with confidence about the concepts, even though the actualities are missing.)

Still, one thing I've learned is that the answer to "how much have you made?" is complex. (I also suspect it is dodged, because of the "if you knew the actual amount, you would be disheartened" view that most fake-it-til-you-make-ers hold.)

However, if they were to answer (which I shall be doing myself shortly): "I've made £x to date as initial payments, with a potential £y to come, which is a variable, because we don't know when £y will commence, or how big it will grow, or how long I'll receive it for", plus bank statements to confirm the £x, that would be more reassuring, wouldn't it?

Obviously, the initial income is easily calculated - it's the profit made by the transactions done that month - the equivalent to an employee's salary. What every employee will not intuitively understand, though (and every investor will), is that there is a return on investment that is the real income - the long-term, repeated income which is the passive earnings generated by assets - Robert Kiyosaki has gone a long way to educate people about this, through his many books, such as Rich Dad Poor Dad, and CashFlow Quadrant, as well as a mind-blowing board game CashFlow 101.

When these concepts are understood, the whole purpose of setting up a multi-level marketing business is much better understood, and then it comes down to how we introduce, communicate, train and support people who are looking for something more, even if they don't entirely know what form that "more" takes.

In the UK, with Network 21 we are taught often that we are looking for "lookers", and to love and support people who don't want much, but to work with those who want to work themselves. This seems fair to me, does it seem fair to you, or am I missing something?

Obviously those who want to build significant passive incomes are hepled and encouraged every step of the way, and, maybe because one never knows who is nurturing a private desire to take that next step, some of the training may seem too gung ho and full on for those who just want small outcomes. Again, I can't comment about how things are done in US - I am sure there are those whose actions are questionable, and they spoil it for many, by putting people off the genuine research of the better organisations, but equally, I am sure that SOME of the people developing an Amway business are doing so with the right concern for those below them, and the right ethics and morals. In my observations, such people have been too busy helping others to bother trawling websites looking for gripers to show an alternative viewpoint to.

Anyway, back to the point (it is now 3:33am (ooer, tricky number? nope, don't believe all that rubbish!)) - if we want to have a business that is run ethically and honestly, while I completely agree that the training and support system, and the people supposedly helping you, need to demonstrate good ethics and advice and transparency, we are all capable of deciding that WE will operate our businesses well, and that all those who follow us will therefore benefit (I agree, easier said than done if the support system is gung ho and too hard-nosed, but then, perhaps because I know it best, I recommend researching the components of the Network 21 system worldwide - to date (and I HAVE attended lots of their meetings after all!!) I have been very impressed with nearly all of what they do, and, perhaps more importantly, with their concern to keep careful check on the process so that it evolves and grows with new ideas and new information and viewpoints.)

One last point, Tim (and maybe you don't read this blog anymore, in which case I'll try to email you directly, as your capacity for clear unbiased thinking interests me greatly), is about statistics.

I've long had a healthy suspicion of statistics (partly because I don't really understand them, and partly because I don't trust those who are using them to have been thorough enough with the data compiling or the data enquiry!) - from those statistics I can remember, (and I unfortunately can only quote qualitatively, not quantitatively), the vast majority (and I believe we are talking around 70% here?) of people who sign up to become an Amway distributor DO NOTHING - buy not one product, go to not one meeting, sign up not one downline.

However, (and, again, apologies, I could be mistaken here) these people are still included in the figures of who "makes" it in Amway - obviously, if 70% do nothing, the result achieved by the remaining 30% will seem paltry when averaged out. Again, these figures could be quite different, but the concept remains - people who do nothing are being lumped with people who do do something, and consequently it looks like the chances of any new person are incredibly remote.

Another factor with people and statistics - statistics take no account for character! With a pack of cards - fair enough, we know in advance what the contents are, and we can then make statistical predictions on future cards based on past performance and what we have to work with (which is fixed).

But people - what a different bag! We all have talents and abilities and passions, some latent, some developed, some so well hidden we didn't even know we had the inkling of a potential!

So when people quote statistics about who, and how many, and by how much, people can "make" it in this odd multi-level marketing business, we forget that any one individual can be stirred to action by the combination of encouragement, training, tools, vehicle and purpose, and that, like popcorn in a heating bucket, we never know who will pop and when...

As one of my colleagues remarked, if all people got out of this business was greater peace, happiness and people skills, that would indeed be worth it. The fact that anyone can develop, and some CHOOSE to develop, the skills needed to create and sustain a passive income from a people-based asset, is so hard to categorise using statistics.

I've just re-read this and found an obvious flaw, but too tired to deal with. I hope this viewpoint has been of interest - I'm sure I'll find out the hard way if it's not liked!

Looking forward to your response, Tim.

Best wishes everyone

(and remember to judge for yourself, based on your own experiences and to take others' experiences in context (if that is possible - I agree, often more information is needed to gain a suitable sense of context) - anyway, not everyone has a bad experience, even those at the "bottom"! :-) In fact, being at the bottom provides a sort of reassurance that, if I understand correctly these issues now, I cannot be accused of only believing them due to my success (and, implicitly, others' failure), which is what would happen if I wrote this posting as a Diamond! ).

P.S. (Sorry to make this even longer! I got carried away....)

About your calculations, Tim - I’m so sorry if this sounds picky, but I just wanted to clarify if I had understood correctly - you say there are around 1,000,000 active Quixtar IBO’s at any one given time, and you go on to say what (generous) proportion slip away (around half) every year. I was wondering - if we are examining the proportion of Quixtar millionaires to existing Quixtar IBOs, of what use is the information on how many have dropped out? Is the figure of 4000 Microsoft millionaires taken from Microsoft’s lifetime of total employees, or just those that work there at the time that the millionaires were created?

I’m sorry if this is a dumb question (you wouldn’t believe I took degree-level maths, I know), but I was just getting confused as to what the parameters were for the calculations.

I.e. are we trying to establish what potential a new Quixtar IBO has of becoming a millionaire? (or are we trying to establish which method of becoming a millionaire has a better chance of success?)

In the first case of which, how is that potential affected by those that are in Amway for a week, a month or even a year before they quit (one presumes that when one becomes a millionaire through Quixtar, one doesn’t then quit Quixtar)? I would have thought it makes a more useful comparison to see how many of those still in Amway have become millionaires....?

I had heard that there were around 3 million Amway IBOs worldwide (maybe more now) and that around 70% of those registered did nothing at all, which would make around 900,000 active IBOs worldwide (who, between them, appear to generate around $6 billion annually, which would mean each active IBO generates an average of around $6600 annually in turnover).

If (I know, big if) we assume that Quixtar produces a very close second to Microsoft in terms of millionaires generated, then divide 900,000 active IBOs into 4000 millionaires, to get an 0.44% ratio of Amway active IBO to Amway actual millionaire.

You don’t mention what percentage of Microsoft employees go on to become millionaires, so I had a quick scan on Google - it suggests Microsoft has a worldwide employee size of around 71,500, which would make it a 17.9% ratio to become a millionaire with Microsoft.

Obviously, that looks very good by comparison with Quixtar, except that Microsoft millionaires were created by stock options during 1986 to 1996, and that now they have cancelled stock options and offer employees shares instead, which suggests the number of future Microsoft millionaires will be lower (although it depends on what the Microsoft share price will vary by).

On the other hand, from what I understand, becoming a millionaire in Quixtar is not limited by external factors, and therefore the low proportion of millionaires either reflects how hard it is to achieve, or how few people actually wish to work to that level.

Additionally, is the definition for millionaire taken from total asset wealth, or income per year, or total income? I would have thought that many wealthy people, whether through Quixtar, Microsoft or any other business, would invest that wealth in assets that lead to them being millionaires, which means that perhaps many Quixtar IBOs who are reasonably wealthy but have not earned $1million as income from Amway, nevertheless go on to invest that income into assets that turn them into millionaires. Maybe?

Again, not a criticism, just an ignorant question, because I never studied these subjects (just the sciences and engineering and modelling and, later, psychology) - the 6% of the US family populace that you quote as being millionaires - are all of them self-generated millionaires, or do some of those inherit their wealth?

(Do you see why I don’t like statistics? - unless I fully understand the premises upon which they are based, I get easily confused as to what is being proposed!)

Anyway, in my particularly layperson summary, I surmise that it seems historically (36x) fewer people became millionaires directly through Quixtar than they did through Microsoft, although those that will become millionaires in future through Microsoft have less control over this happening than those in Quixtar. Is that a fair summary?

Thanks for your patience!