If you resorted to name-calling, you've already lost

 One of the refrains in network marketing is "how to deal with haterz". 

Usually one laments over "why do you hate my dreams". Here is one example of this ranting moan:

These companies are gold mines. Yeah, I said it. Have I personally made thousands from one? Nope. Could I? Dang right I could. If I truly set my mind to it and wanted to be dedicated to it, I could be filthy rich before the age of 35 from one of these Multi Level Marketing (MLM) companies.

Translation: "I could be filthy rich because they say so. Why do you hate me for wanting that?"

In other words, she can't see the difference between hating MLM vs. hating her dreams. To her, they are one and the same. 

The article was at least polite in that it calls for "don't be so mean to people who have a dream!" There's nothing wrong with asking that, but I am NOT going to be polite to people who (samples from /r/antiMLM):

• randomly promote nutritional supplements to a PREGNANT woman
• post before/after photos of fixing a sports bra placement and claimed weight loss success
• using a product for 2 months, but showed 4 years of photos as "hair journey"
• spam Facebook Marketplace with recruitment ads
• pretending to be a medical school news outlet for recruitment

And various other cringeworthy, tone-deaf, random-dart, deceptive marketing practices. 

And let's face it... How much of MLM marketing would be left if you filter out all the cringe stuff?  

I'd wager... not too much left. 

If you are a MLMer who doesn't do that, great!  Good for you! But you are a MINORITY... an unicorn, even! 

So blame your UNSCRUPULOUS competitors for CREATING this "haterz" environment, ever since the 1950's, long before MLM came along! 

Frankly, if you have to label who criticize your "industry" as "haterz"... You've already lost the argument. 

Because the 'best' defense, coming out of your mouth (or fingers) is an ad hominem, not a logical argument. If you cannot defend your position with fact or logic, you've lost. 

Tsk, tsk. 

Herbalife's first post-FTC disclosure still uses funny math to manipulate impressions

Herbalife settled with the FTC in 2016 in exchange for FTC not calling the company a pyramid scheme outright. The settlement included a long series of accommodations and required disclosures, and the first of which was just published, and it included some interesting statistics.  The document is called "Statement of Average Gross Compensation" for 2016, and here's a link to it from myHerbalife.com

It's parsing the numbers that make things interesting and reveals what's between the lines (and behind the numbers).

Note the following tidbits:

"In 2016... 86% of US Distributors (466926) did not receive earnings from Herbalife"

If you do some math, that says 14% of distributors, or about 76000, did receive earnings in 2016.

"In a typical month from June to September 2017, about 45000 US distributors order products for resale from Herbalife and about 40000 of them earned money from their sales and the sales of those they sponsored."

This disclosure statement contrasts HEAVILY with what the president of Herbalife, Des Walsh, said during the November 2 3rd quarter earnings call, where he said

"Today, we've got about 470000 preferred members. We've got about roughly 215000 distributors." (source)

How did Herbalife go from 215000 distributors in June to September 2017 (3rd quarter) to "45000 distributors (who) ordered products" between June and September? If it were only 10-20% variance, we'd say oops, and let them fudge. But we're talking about a 478% variance (45000 vs 215000). 170000 distributors went missing between the President's statement and FTC-required disclosure.

Clearly, the two are using some VERY VERY different definition of "distributor"

Which really makes you wonder... What ELSE is Herbalife not telling us?

MLM Basics: Why MLM (almost) never have a price advantage

Ever notice that the products in MLM cost way more than equivalent products elsewhere?

doTerra essential oil... Intro kit is $27 for 15 mL of oil.

However, Amazon sells 10X the oil for slightly lower price, from a different vendor

Remember, 15 mL vs 160 mL of oil. doTerra is more than 10X more expensive. 

You can guess the doTerra reps will start yapping about how their stuff is Certified Therapeutic Grade Pure and nobody else compares. Actually, it's a term invented by doTerra themselves, and they certify themselves, it doesn't mean anything!

How about juices, you say?

DADA Loop: Data / Analysis / Decision / Action and the MLM mind

How do you make decisions?  It's usually a 4 step process:

1. Gather Data

2. Analyze Data

3. Decide on Action

4. Perform the action

This is pretty obvious to most people. Military call it the OODA loop, civilians called it DADA loop (data, analysis, decision, action), but it's the same thing.

So how can this loop go wrong?  EVERY one of the four steps can go wrong.

• One can gather the WRONG data (victim of deception or bad data gathering)
• One can fail to analyze data objectively (by ignoring good data)
• One can fail to decide on any action (stalled loop)
• One can fail to perform the action correctly.

Let's see how MLMer reacts to these steps.

MLM Basics: The eBay Test

"Jason McRiffle" brought up an interesting test in a BehindMLM comment for the "legitimacy" of an MLM, and it's more useful than it first seems. He dubbed it "the eBay test".

If an MLMer wants you to join "for the product", the way to check whether it's viable or not... is to take the product name and size, and go search on eBay for the same item.

If you can buy it cheaper on eBay including shipping than what you are supposed to sell it for, then it's clearly NOT profitable to join at all as you can't retail it at any profit.

Let's randomly pick one product from each of the top 3 MLM companies by revenue: Amway, Avon, and Herbalife.

Amway Nutrilite Double X Refill "retail price" is $88 on Amway's website

Same refill is easily found on eBay for $50-$60, and if you want to bid, even less

That's not a surprise, is it?

The Difference Between Skeptical People and Toxic Negative People

When one searches on the internet (through Google, Bing, or any other search engine), one often comes across MLM minded articles, and so many of them are touting "no negativity". In fact, heaps of articles are online about how to deal with negativity. Some may even quote 'studies' that claimed successful people avoid negative people. Some of the articles are actually relatively accurate, but many of them are just outrageously wrong.

One website used this definition:

Negative people are friends, family, strangers, associates, or prospects that talk badly, or in a non-positive way about your dreams, goals and how you plan on accomplishing them.

Why would people be positive about your dreams, goals, or potential accomplishments? Your friends and family will probably support you just because they know you. But why should ANYONE ELSE care? It would be up to you to convince them.

The same author went on to describe techniques on how to overcome the resistance of the prospect... Though prospect here means a potential recruit into the organization, not a prospect for a sale. But that's not the problem.

Another author claimed that negativity comes from lazy people who can't profit easily from MLM and create a rant blog about it, then went on to use "pyramid // pyramid scheme" obfuscation to deflect the criticism. It was a classic diversionary tactic.

Both suffer from a fundamental problem of lumping in all criticism, including skepticism, as "negativity".

And if you can't tell legitimate questions from insults, you can never improve your situation.

How to spot truth in sea of lies, rumors and myths

Spotted this in the Lifehacker archives (originally published 2012) but it's still relevant

The internet is full of crap. For every piece of reputable information you'll find countless rumors, misinformation, and downright falsehoods. Separating truth from fiction is equal parts a mental battle and diligent research. Here's how to make sure you never get duped.

As long as words are hitting the page, news and facts are filtered through someone. Sometimes this is a ludicrous rumor that somehow morphs into a fact, or even just a small tip that doesn't work at all. Filtering out the junk from the facts is hard, but it's not impossible.

http://lifehacker.com/5950871/how-to-spot-truth-in-the-sea-of-lies-rumors-and-myths-on-the-internet

MLM Basics: Why do so many MLM noobs don't understand "referral sales" is illegal?

It seems an MLM noob is very fond of her comp plan, which she described as

... I can find 3 people who also want sustainable <item> my order is then FREE

She doesn't realize that this is ILLEGAL. Yes, I said it. It is ILLEGAL.

This is called "referral sales", and it can be described as

1. Seller offer to prospective buyer a consideration (discount / rebate / commission, etc.) 
2. for a sale (or lease) of item from seller to buyer
3. the buyer must provide sellers list of potential customers
4. the consideration (see 1) is contingent on seller be able to make additional sales/lease to one or more of the potential customers (see 3)

And all four elements are in the quote found earlier. Let's check it again, with the elements highlighted.

... I can find 3 people (3) who also want sustainable <item>(4) my order (2) is then FREE (1)

And yes, this is ILLEGAL. In all 50 states of the US, and in all European countries, and Australia, and so on and so forth.

And you'd be surprised how many companies engage in this ILLEGAL behavior, and its affiliates are completely unaware they are being defrauded.

Critical Analysis of a R+F consultants denial that R+F is a pyramid scheme

Recently my news feed came across an R+F consultant (that's Rodan and Fields, an MLM cosmetics brand) denying that R+F is a pyramid scheme. Does her denial make sense?

She started out by casting a wide net, basically stating "I hear that from time to time... (some people) believe RF is a scheme... (but) RF isn't like that"

Then she immediately went into defensive dilemma, which means "if you say it to my face, I will assume that 1) you don't know me and I don't know you, or 2) you don't know what you're talking about"

But does the author know what she's talking about?

She never explained what a pyramid scheme is, or how R+F is not like that. She simply claimed that R+F is a legitimate company. But that's interesting are the two factors she cited in her denial.

We are different: really?

According to the author, "If you’re looking at a company’s payroll by levels of income, it’s probably going to resemble a pyramid. The owner is at the top and earns the highest salary, everyone else trickles down.  Right out of the gate, we are different."

Basically, the author is saying that R+F is NOT like a traditional company where the owner is NOT earning the highest salary, isn't it?

Unfortunately, it seems the author is merely half-right. Because R+F is run by Chairman Amnon Rodan (Dr. Katie Rodan's husband) and President/CEO Diane Dietz. Drs. Rodan and Fields own most of R+F. They pocket most of the profit, just not a direct salary.

R+F press release says they achived 626.9 million revenue in 2015, and maybe a billion in 2016. You can be sure all the top execs took home MILLIONS in salaries or other compensations.

It's definitely NOT as different as the author implied.

DSA's latest attempt to destroy direct selling: Moolenaar Amendment

Direct Selling Association is supposed to be promoting direct selling. Instead, for the past several decades, DSA has been trying to destroy direct selling by killing legislation that would have promoted retail, and promoting legislation that discouraged retail. This is actually not a surprise as DSA is really a lobbying group by the largest MLM companies like Amway, Avon, Herbalife, and so on.

In July 2017, DSA launched its latest attempt to destroy direct selling by trying to attach a rider to the current budget appropriations bill for FY18, known as the Moolenaar Amendment. It claimed that there is no Federal law that defined a pyramid scheme, and this bill would define one. The problem is, this is at best, a half-truth.

The US courts and FTC already have an existing definition of a pyramid scheme: The Koscot Test.  MLM attorney Jeff Babener called it "a twenty-year standard", back in 2001. So by now, it's a 36-year-old standard.  DSA, in its "selective blindness", pretended this standard does not exist so it can substitute a LOOSER definition instead.

DSA's previous attempt to pass a bill, deceptively titled "Anti-Pyramid Promotional Scheme Act of 2016", never made it out of committee. This time, by attaching the failed legislation to the appropriations bill, DSA hope it will sail through until various consumer organizations called them out.

But what is wrong with this piece of legislation, vs. the existing standard?

While on the surface the bill sounds rather clear, it contains several interesting bits of language designed to erode the definition over all.

But first, let us go back to the Koscot Test, and how it stood for 36 years (and counting).

MLM Basics: Why is MLM so... addicting?

Many people who are NOT in MLM wonder WHY MLM seems to be so addicting to its participants, and even as members lose money month after month. After all, an "entrepreneur" is supposed to be making money, right?

MLMSkeptic has studied the issues, and it is clear that the participants are not merely valuing the economic benefits from MLM (for there is minimal evidence of such enrichment except for a few near the top), but actually SOCIAL and MENTAL benefits that came with the MLM participation. It is the social and mental benefits, not the financial, that keeps the members in despite their minimal economic gains.

Those social and mental benefits can be divided roughly into three types:

• Sense of belonging (family and group dynamic)
• Sense of being something greater than oneself
• Sense of accomplishment  (recognition)

Let's discuss each one.

Sense of belonging (family and group dynamic)

Many of the articles that tout the benefits of MLM emphasize the camaraderie of the group and team. There are even articles that tout "come for the opportunity; stay for the relationship".

One such leader asked the question:

Have Your “Why” Established. This is very important. This is your major driving force, your reason WHY you decided to make a move and become a network marketer. It could be family, financial freedom or even time freedom.  

It's not an accident that the author talk about family being a driving force, but have you ever wondered which family did he mean?

He probably doesn't mean YOUR family. Not your wife/husband/partner, not your father/mother, not your children.

He probably means your SALES/NETWORK family: your upline, your downlines, your lateral marketing folks.

But doublespeak is a standard tactic in unethical network marketing.

So how do you know if your specific network marketing is ethical or not? You don't.

There were plenty of examples where families have been torn apart because half of the partnership saw and recognized the hidden dangers, but the other half was already in too deep to see the forest for the trees. It will take a huge jolt for someone to recognize the threat to one's family from cultish-MLMs and some just sank deeper and deeper.

One example was when a wife, who's in MLM was talking with her MLM female friends, and the topic drifted to the husband, who was not in MLM.  One of the so-called female friends suddenly suggested that the husband is such a loser for not joining the MLM and the wife should leave that loser of a husband. Clearly, the husband is what's holding the wife back from true success. Wife was shocked into silence. WHICH does she value more... her family (husband and children)... or her personal success for a few dollars? And what sort of people are around her that would suggest NOT placing her family first?

MLM Basics: Numbers Needed To Profit

One of the hardest things to analyze in a MLM is "How Much Money Will I Make".

The stupid ones recite the slogan: "As much as you want!"

The weasel ones add a disclaimer, "As much as you want (don't blame us if you fail)"

The realistic ones don't feed you BS, "Your success is dependent on your ability to sell, your ability to form a sales team, your effort and willingness to dedicate yourself and a whole lot of luck."

But none of them will be able to quote you a number, except what *they* have personally earned, or what someone in their team earned. And that doesn't say whether they do this every pay period, or where did this money come from: "personal volume" (retail sales by oneself), or commission from "group volume" (i.e. team total sales volume)

Amway is one of the few companies that even calculates what average member earn via retail.

The average monthly Gross Income for "active" IBOs was USD $183 (in the US) / CAD $206 (in Canada) in 2014. 
53% of IBOs in the US (and 49% of IBOs in Canada) were considered "active" (in 2014)
source: Achieve Magazine, published by Amway, August 2014 issue, from AchieveMagazine website

Amway calculate "gross income" from retail sales, minus the cost of the goods sold, which basically means they ASSUMED that product purchased by the IBO (independent business owner, i.e. participant) will be sold at MSRP and thus profit can be calculated. While they did not include any commissions (most MLMs report ONLY commissions), it also (and quite understandably) did not attempt to estimate business expenses, such as time and effort to attend meetings, demonstrations, seminars and events, and so on.

Bad Argument: Flip the Burden of Proof

One of the most often tactics used by bad arguers is refuse to prove anything, even when you prompt them "where's the proof?"  Instead, they claim it is YOUR responsibility to give THEM proof that they're right.

Hilarious, right? Yet that's exactly what happened here.

K.S. : So provide evidence to prove him (Dave Ramsey) wrong. Where is it?

C.M. : Thousands of millionaires

K.S. : Citing please, or is that you just spitballing?

C.M. : Use Google, it's easy. do not be lazy.

K.S. : Sorry, telling people to "Google It" is not a valid answer to "citings please". You claimed it, so it is your job to provide evidence to support what YOU wrote. So it is YOU being lazy. Try again.

Scam Tactics: Whip Up Fear, Provide "Solution", Take Your Money under false pretense

A lot of so-called "entrepreneurs" (read: MLM noobs) are so fond of repeating marketing speech they don't ever stop and wonder WHY are they doing what they're doing, and whether it makes any sense. One of which is the "mystery tease", where there's practically NO public info about the company, or the promoter is trying to keep things VERY VERY vague. You pretty much have to join, get the info, then consider canceling in order to get ANY information on the company.

When questioned why does the company operate this way, the rep, either stammer "so don't join" or retorts with insults such as "you're obviously not an entrepreneur".  The implication for both is "if you want to know about the company before you join, you're obviously NOT ready to join."

Isn't that just faith, i.e. "I am willing to join without knowing what I am joining"?  Does that even make sense? 

But this just reminded me of the infamous diamond scams during the late 1970's in the US. 

The scam is simple... The sellers claim to be sourcing diamonds and are offering them as investment instruments to folks who are afraid of the stock market fluctuations. The concept is simple: "everybody loves diamonds", "it only appreciates because supply is strictly controlled by a monopoly", "all diamonds are sealed with certificate guaranteeing their quality", and so on. And all of these statements are even... true. 

Sufficiently convinced, the buyer sent off a check for thousands, and in a week or so, he gets diamonds... sealed in plastic with the certificate guaranteeing their quality... Except for the caveat: the quality is only guaranteed if the plastic is NOT broken. I.e. any attempt to have it appraised means it's no longer guaranteed. And many customers did break the seal only to find the diamonds are inferior or even worthless quality. It was bad enough that New York's Attorney General has to establish a "Diamond Task Force" just to process the hundreds of complaints of fraud.

This is related to the modern "shrink-wrap contract", i.e. "if you break the seal, you accept the licensing terms", usually for software. And it's in a legal gray area. 

But these diamond hawksters also book hotel or resort ballrooms and hold "diamond investment seminars" where they prey upon fear of the audience ("at this inflation, your stocks and bonds are not keeping up"), and esp. seniors ("if you don't have some easily liquidated assets like diamonds, your kids can seize your cash assets and ship you off to a nursing home")

Doesn't that just reminds you of the modern equivalent? 

MLM Basics: Is there such thing as "good MLM"?

The MLM Skeptic has been asked repeatedly, "is _____ a good MLM?"

The short answer is: I don't know.

The longer answer is: I don't know. I can't do your due diligence for you, as I am not you.

But perhaps here's a more philosophical question... Is there such as thing as a "good MLM"?

Almost every MLM claimed they are good, and some may go as far as point out a few "bad apples" that had been stopped by government action, but they won't name a running company, unless the company's so egregious nobody is surprised they got shut down, such as Monavie head outright stated that Zeek Rewards is a ponzi scheme.

But first, we have to answer the question...

"What is a 'good mlm'?"

Good for the participant, good for the society, or good for the owner(s)?

I am going to assume that by asking this question, the asker is looking for the right company to participate in, and therefore, 'good mlm' means a company that justly compensates the participant for the effort put in. The other two factors (good for owner, good for society) are not really relevant for the participant, but they'd be nice to have.

But what exactly means "justly compensates participant for the effort put in?" While it may be "obvious" to everyone that one wants to be paid the maximum amount for doing minimal work, the real world is exactly the opposite... companies want you to do the maximum work for the minimum pay. The actual amount of work and pay is somewhere in between... at least, that's what's supposed to happen in a real job. Nobody want to be paid peanuts for hard labor, and no company will pay 1M a year for doing something that can be done in a few minutes with minimum skills.

The next question we have to answer: in MLM, are you rewarded for your own efforts?

But you're only PARTIALLY rewarded for your own efforts. Depending on how many levels of downlines you've developed (and how well they sell), you may make practically nothing based on your own efforts (your PV, personal volume is bare minimum), and you live mostly on the commission based on your group volume (GV) generated by your downlines.

In other words, the longer you spend in the business, the more you're rewarded for OTHER PEOPLE'S EFFORTS, as you build up your team. In fact, many MLM participants only knows how to recruit downlines. They can't sell the products they are supposed to be selling, and just buy the products themselves for self-consumption just enough to qualify for commission based on group volume.

And that's assuming you are in a real MLM selling real products

Keep in mind those "real product" MLMs can be illegal too. Just look at FHTM and Vemma.

MLM Basics: Six Factors to Consider When Evaluating an Income Opportunity

There are always new income opportunities launched daily. Many of them are downright... WTF? How can any one put money into something like that? While others do look pretty legitimate.

However, it seems nobody bothered to compile a list of things you should know BEFORE you even consider an income opportunity, i.e. basic financial competence... or even basic critical thinking competence.

So here a list of six factors for you think about before you even go to any seminars or such:


One or two examples are noise, not proof

Everybody puts their best face forward, but the emphasis is always on being the "authentic self". If you are poor, you won't come across as a millionaire for long. Same thing with income opportunities. The talkers will usually parade their top earners, but how many of them are there, and do they have an income disclosure statement? How many people actually made decent amount of money?

Most MLMs participants (90% or more) make minimal money. Average sales (not profit) as per DSA for 2014 is about $2000 per year per participant. If a few people made six or seven figures, then the vast majority made practically nothing. And since you're starting, you'll make practically nothing for a few years. Is it worth the time to "try it out" for a few years? Can you afford to?


There are no "secrets" nowadays

In the age of Internet there are no 'secret' ways to make money. ANYTHING can be researched. Something you have no data on, you can Google. If even Google can't find much on it, you either have a language barrier (the "opportunity" started as something in a different country, like China), or it's so new there is nothing on it (who? what? WTF?). NEITHER of which you should touch, no matter how much it had been talked up.

Most likely, the opportunity involves selling something you don't understand, but think you do... Amber, Bitcoin, other cryptocurrency, and so on. As you have no information to judge, you will tend to rely on the PR copy, and that's when you run into problems, as PR copies do not have to be the truth or the whole truth.

MLM Basics: Just What is Deductible in MLM, and what is NOT?

One of the "advantages" of opening your own business, MLM proponents touted, was that you can deduct a lot expenses as cost of doing business. But can you really?

In terms related to MLM, can you deduct the trips (tickets, hotels, travel expenses, etc.) to attend meetings all over the country?

Under rules in the Federal Tax Code, Section 162 provides that a taxpayer who is carrying on a trade or business may deduct ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in connection with the operation of the business.  The taxpayer has the burden of proving entitlement to a business expense deduction. The deductibility of their MLM expenses depended on whether their activity was engaged in for profit.

To determine whether an activity is engaged in for profit, Section 183 provides a list of factors for the court to consider: (1) The manner in which the taxpayer carried on the activity; (2) the expertise of the taxpayer or his advisers; (3) the time and effort expended by the taxpayer in carrying on the activity; (4) the expectation that the assets used in the activity may appreciate in value; (5) the success of the taxpayer in carrying on other similar or dissimilar activities; (6) the taxpayer's history of income or losses with respect to the activity; (7) the amount of occasional profits, if any, which are earned; (8) the financial status of the taxpayer; and (9) elements of personal pleasure or recreation.

This brings us to the case of the Olletts in 2004. They joined Amway in 1996. They kept their day jobs and made about $100K in 1999 and 2000 respectively, and claimed Amway expenses of $17500 in 1999 and $23000 in 2000, both year with losses (-1450 in 1999 and -3235 in 2000). IRS denied their deductions and it went into tax court, where they were ruled against (i.e. deductions are disallowed) in 2004. Do you know why? The hints are listed above, but let's be specific...

Scam Tactics: How Do Scammers Identify What You Need?

How does a conman pick up on what does the victim needs, and thus, tailor the scam to fit?  There are five different techniques. If you are aware of these techniques, then you can watch out for when they are used on you.  Let MLMSkeptic explain the five techniques.

The techniques are:

1) Pre-screening

2) Probing questions

3) The tease

4) The Please

5) Trial Close / Seize


Pre-Screening

Your identity is known on the internet. Somebody out there has a profile on you, more than one if you have used multiple names and/or multiple identities. Credit agencies definitely have one on you (and there are several of them). If you're a professional you have professional profiles somewhere. And those can be accessed. That's just your public profile.

Then there's your "hidden profile". Your behavior online is part of your profile. If you give out your name and email address at capture pages that goes into a profile somewhere, and shady businesses will share that info (even if they promise never to do so) with other shady businesses and that's a part of your profile.

If you ever applied for a loan you will get solicitations for loan offers for MONTHS. They shared your info. And they're legit. Imagine what the ILLEGITIMATE scammers and conman will do...

If you ever asked for more info on suspicious "make money fast" type schemes, or clicked on teaser videos that says "sign up for my ____ for more info" and entered your email for "more info", your name is now on a "sucker list" to be marketed with more **** in a similar genre, because you have shown a preference for such topics. 

Scammers (and legitimate salespeople) pay $$$ to buy leads that may be interested in such things, and the lead list is pre-screened for people who are at least interested to whatever s/he's trying to sell. As the joke goes, you don't sell ice to Eskimos or sand to Arabs. By pre-screening the prospects, conversion is much easier.

The prospect generally doesn't see this step, as it's done long before the scammer meets the prospect. To counter this, simply don't be surprised when you got invited / solicited for sales pitch which seems to be exactly what you want. People already "know" you.

Probing Questions

Probing questions are pretty easy... Ask them what *do* they want. Due to pre-screening, you already have a decent idea on WHAT they want. However, there can be a little distance between what they say they want, vs. what they will settle for now. And asking questions will clarify that. 

If the presentation is pretty much a monologue, then the salesperson will be asking rhetorical questions, like "Are you looking for financial security in an insecure world?" "Are you looking toward better health?" then answer them him- or herself, "the answer is ________!"    And scammer will watch the reactions and see if s/he needs to change the speech. 

The salesperson will almost always frame the question so the answer is "yes". By answering things in the affirmative, prospect will have influenced him- or herself to answer "yes" later. 

The prospect should remain neutral for this part, not only to deny the presenter any clues on how to proceed, but to remain neutral mentally rather than "psyched up", in order to evaluate facts rather than emotions.

The Tease

The tease require a bit of mystery, and a commitment from the prospect to find out more. A "capture page" where the prospect watch a video and enter their info is such a tease if there's no details. The idea is to pique your interest, without telling you much. 

Tease works on relatively naive people who are not used to the various sales techniques, but not on veterans. Veterans will simply demand the information they need to make the decision, and will not waste time waiting for your "big reveal". 

The prospect should again, remain neutral when confronted with the tease. You are after facts, not teases with no solid info.

MLM Myth: How Mary Kay Ash incorporated the Bumblebee Myth into company culture

A bit of link surfing on bad arguments brought me to an unexpected link... the Bumble Bee Myth, and its link to Mary Kay Ash of Mary Kay Cosmetics.

Diamond Bumblebee
pin award (photo credit:
Mary Kay Website)

Mary Kay Ash was quoted saying "Aerodynamically, the bumble bee shouldn't be able to fly, but the bumble bee doesn't know it so it goes on flying any way." She told the story in 1970 Seminar, where she started presenting the top sellers with the diamond bumblebee pin. (see right)

The problem is there had been NO physicist, scientists, or aerodynamicist that ever claimed bumble bee shouldn't be able to fly. Folklorists and historians have been trying to track down this myth for decades. It's obviously bull****, since we see bees fly every day.

People have "heard" of this myth, as it was variously attributed to various "leaders" (who repeat the bull****), various scientists (never authenticated), and celebrities / politicians (such as Mitt Romney).  Nobody can find the actual claim, paper, quote, or whatever. The closest historians can get was a single sentence in an old etymologist book Le Vol des Insectes (1934) by Antoine Magnan, where he claimed an assistant told him insect flight is impossible given law of air resistance. Bumble bee was NOT mentioned.

Mary Kay Ash
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In other words, this is another myth, perpetuated by MLM. It is not real.

But it is necessary to create a cult of personality, where myth is built up around the leader of the cult through heroization / idolization of the leader, often by enforcing a dress code and perpetuating ideological myths.

And the bumblebee myth is one of them. It is positive thinking mumbo-jumbo, about how you should IGNORE other people's advice, by citing a myth of something nobody ever said.

There is no denying that Mary Kay Cosmetics is a personality cult that enforces a dress code. You didn't know that? NO PANTS in Mary Kay. Founder hated pants. Everybody must wear skirts. That's right, skirts only. NEVER wear pants to any Mary Kay function, or you're forever be ostracized as troublemaker. In fact, it's #2 of "14 Nevers" on a MK Checklist. Oh, there's even "get a new hairstyle". Really.

Control types of clothing and hairstyle is #4 on "Behavior Control", one of four pillars of cult mind control.

And misquoting statements and/or using them out of context from non-cult sources? #5b of Information Control, another pillar of cult mind control.

MLM Basics: Is Multi-Level Marketing a Shared Delusion?

In a blogpost back in 2014, author Robert Fitzpatrick, who operates the website PyramidSchemeAlert postulated that Multi-level Marketing, i.e. MLM is really a delusion that redefined various terms to create a myth around itself that cloaked its true nature (as a part of his "Myths of MLM" series). It is an interesting viewpoint, and I can see how he came to that conclusion. The premise can be narrowed down to five separate yet related delusions that MLM participants perpetuate. Fitzpatrick claimed that by accepting the myth jargon, the participants gave the MLM myth power over themselves.

The MLM Myth has five major components, according to Fitzpatrick:

1) MLM is described as "direct selling", but few if any participants actually make retail sales or profits from such.

2) MLM is described as "income opportunity" even though most MLM participants lose money.

3) MLM is described as a "business" even though there is no fair exchange of value... Majority of people lose money.

4) MLM is described as "legal" even though it's merely "have not been proven to be illegal", i.e. presumed innocent

5) MLM is described as "network", "relationship", "personal" even though it disrupts the social norm.

Let us examine each part and see if Mr. Fitzpatrick is right.

Is MLM really Direct Selling? 

From my personal experience, most people in MLM had learned to emphasize the "multi-level" part of MLM rather than the "marketing" part. I have read comments of hundreds of people on BehindMLM and many commenters believe one cannot succeed in MLM without recruiting, and the emphasis should be on recruiting and retaining downlines, rather than product sales. Not that BehindMLM attracts the "typical" MLMer, of course.

It is also interesting that the MLM industry association is called Direct Selling Association, even though the organization actually predated MLM by about 20-30 years. DSA started its life as "Agent Credit Association" in 1910, and its members are companies that employed door-to-door sales, and Avon, then known as California Perfume Company, was a founding member. It wasn't until 1968 that it adopted its current name, Direct Selling Association.  Most people accept that MLM was popularized with California Vitamin Company, later Nutrilite, in the 1930's, which eventually became an Amway brand, founded in 1950's. Thus, MLM came AFTER direct selling, but took over the name direct selling.

For what it's worth, Avon was direct sales up to 2005, when it went multi-level. Didn't seem to help its bottom line though.

There is no doubt that MLM is supposed to have a direct sales component, but in reality, this is rarely put into practice. When the companies themselves count purchases BY the distributors as "sales" for calculating commission, instead of actual retail sales by the associates, there really is little if any incentive to retail. Even Direct Selling Association want to formalize "self-consumption" as a RIGHT of MLM distributors, i.e. they have the RIGHT to NOT retail what they buy, and still have that counted for commission. A couple states even put that into law thanks to lobbying by DSA.

Indeed, in the past decade or two DSA has fought every attempt by various groups to require the companies to document how much retail was actually performed by the industry. Any stats they compile are based on estimates by the companies themselves based on sales to distributors.

In 2013/2014 Herbalife was accused by none other than Bill Ackman to be a huge pyramid scheme. You'd think that Herbalife would simply produce some numbers proving they were retailing their products, and if they didn't, they have a WHOLE YEAR to gather that data, but no, instead, it spent money on hiring lobbyists instead, and hire survey teams, but NO ACTUAL RETAIL FIGURES. And DSA said nothing, because DSA is not a regulatory body... DSA is a lobbying organization for the companies.

Think about it. The Direct SELLING association does NOT want its members to prove they are actually SELLING stuff, through their distributors, to the public. And claims it is a RIGHT for distributors to NOT SELL their stock.

Verdict: MLM is now mostly NOT direct selling, even though it was meant to be.

Is MLM really an income opportunity? 

Proponents of MLM claimed this is a way to earn supplemental income, part-time income, side job, with potential transition to full-time if you find yourself attracted to it.

The REAL pros in the business knows that to make serious income in MLM you need to dedicate two to five YEARS to build your organization and during which you will achieve MINIMAL income.

Thus one can be answered pretty definitively: NO, not for a vast majority of the people involved.

From DSA's own statistics for 2014:

• 18.2 million people involved in direct selling
• Estimated product sold 34.47 billion dollars

That's average SALES of... $1894 dollars per person PER YEAR. And that's just revenue, not profit. We haven't taken into account any of the expenses involved either. Even if the person was able to achieve 50% profit, (i.e. $947) AFTER counting expenses (highly unlikely), and spent only two hours a week on this... That's only that's $9.10 per hour, not much above Federal minimum wage of $7.50 an hour.

Furthermore, Herbalife, in their own defense, claimed that 73% of their own distributors DID NOT JOIN FOR INCOME. This is one of their own slides released as rebuttal of Bill Ackman's claim that Herbalife is a pyramid scheme.

Herbalife, in 2013, claimed that 73% of distributors did NOT join for income as primary reason

Thus, MLM can be an income opportunity... for a tiny minority of people who made it to the top. The rest of you are likely to lose money or earn minimum wage, or not even that, as you get no benefits or even income security, unlike a minimum wage job.

Verdict: MLM in general is not income opportunity (with small exceptions)