Evil MLM: Revisionist History, Juice Plus Edition

Remember in the book 1984 by George Orwell, the government rewrites history when the policies change? "We've always been at war with Eastasia"? Turns out, MLM participants does that every day.

Just the other day, someone posted this to reddit's /antimlm subreddit

I have nothing to say about Bear Grylls. I do have something to say about the revisionist history though.

Notice where it says "juice plus has been tested and trialed for the past 40 years"?

That's impossible. Juice Plus didn't exist until 1993. This is from their own homepage:

All Juice Plus+ products share a common nutritional philosophy that traces back to our beginnings in 1993

Before 1993, Juice Plus sold water filters, air purifiers, and smoke alarms under the name "National Safety Associates" as an MLM. They swapped companies names in 1993 and changed focus entirely. It's a brand new company, but they kept the leadership, so they can kinda keep claiming they were founded almost 50 years ago (in 1970 under a different name).

I am NOT going to get into the bogosity of "juice plus cure my cancer" stories on Youtube. I'll just refer you to the article written by a real retired MD

Why should you trust your upline if s/he is making money off of you whether you fail or succeed?

From when you're but a wee little toddler, you've probably been taught some (or all of the following):

• Don't take candy from creepy people
• Don't take health advice from tobacco company
• Don't take money advice from loan company
• Don't take ethical advice from the Devil

So why do so many MLMers take business and money advice from their upline?

Think about it, In each of the scenarios above, it's basically inmates running the prison, or fox guarding the henhouse... There's an ETHICAL conflict in the scenario.

But, but you say, my upline *wants* me to succeed because if I succeed, s/he earns more, and so do I! How can this be an ethical conflict?

But that's because you fail to see the situation from your upline's perspective, but rather, from the MLM myth it perpetuates about itself.

Let's see it from your upline's perspective....

MLM Veteran on answering MLM income question: Be evasive

Recently Ray Higdon, a self-professed high flyer in MLM and inspiration coach, posted on his blog "How to Answer 'How much Money Have you Made in Network Marketing". His answer is evasive and shocking, as it basically sidestepped the answer.

Here is a screenshot of Ray Higdon's blog, and copy of his text:

How To Answer “How Much Have You Made In Network Marketing?” 

This is a question that you most likely get when people feel like you’re maybe not as postured as you could be. Right? That maybe you’re not as confident as you could be, and people like to ding you with this question. “Well how much money have you made in network marketing?” 

Obviously, those of you who haven’t made any money in network marketing, you’re, “What do I say?” Right? My suggestion for this circumstance would be you can rely on your upline. You can rely on even trainers. You can use a little bit of my story, if you’d like. 

But my suggestion on answering that is to say: 

“Hey, you know what? I’m just getting started, but the people that I’m working with and getting trained by have made millions of dollars in network marketing. They’re showing me exactly what to do, so I’m fired up about it. I’m just getting started, but I’m excited that I’m learning from people who’ve proven it over the last X number of years. They’re helping me follow the exact footprints, exact steps that they took to make money, so I’m fired up about it.” 

That’s how I would answer it. By painting where you’re going. It’s very powerful.

Yep, you read it right: self-professed MLM coach telling everybody to NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION. Be evasive, blah blah about "getting training" instead.

Right, and my teacher was "Rich Dad", Bill Gates, and Buckminster Fuller.  Or I can rattle all the rich and famous people I'd like to emulate.

What a bunch of crock.

Eric Worre is wrong about Dave Ramsey: or, why MLM advocates only knows truthiness, not truth

If you are in the US, you probably heard of Dave Ramsey, who had been giving financial advice for decades as a radio call-in show (i.e. he goes live on air and lets normal people call him and he gives answers immediately) since 1992. He does not fully endorse multilevel marketing, but instead, advocates caution and realistic outlook, something that is inherently anti-faith, but based on evidence and reality. 

On August 10th, 2016, at about the 7:48 point, a "Sarah from Cincinnati Ohio" called in and asked about joining "It Works!" MLM.  Ramsey urged caution and be absolutely aware what she wants to do going in. His message was "... You will be in the recruiting business. There is nothing really inherently bad or evil about it, Your real job is training salespeople, in a high turnover environment, because most of them don't make it... I have friends that makes 7 figures in that business... But for every one of those, I know a thousand (chuckles) that didn't last 90 days, with six boxes of makeup in the garage they are still paying off on credit card... Is this really your calling if you had lost everything and starting from scratch? ... You ought to really thinking about what you're getting into. But if you want to give it a run, I will support you on it... " 

The MLM sphere went nuts as they reacted with venom. So-called MLM 'leaders' started posting videos 'Dave Ramsey is Wrong'. Here's a typical reaction from Eric Worre of networkmarketingpro.com:

Dave (Ramsey) went on to pour cold water all over the hopes and dreams of this young woman, and pigeon holed the Network Marketing profession into his very limited understanding of what it is all about.

So what exactly is Eric Worre mad about? He claims that Ramsey made multiple mistakes. 

• Risk is minimal in MLM, w/ the buyback policies in place
• It's not recruiting, it''s expanding your network
• Failure? So what? 90% of traditional businesses fail
• Bothering friends? They''re doing it wrong

Mr. Worre's final message is: basically "why don''t you just be honest and admit you hate network marketing? Innuendo doesn't suit you". 

Go look in a mirror, Mr. Worre. Innuendo does not suit you either. 

Let's examine the factors at play... who''s really wrong or right? But with a skeptical attitude and fact-checking. 

Just how risky is MLM?

Eric Worre claims that Dave Ramsey exaggerated the risk involved in MLM, and most people don''t have "6 boxes of makeup sitting in the garage getting paid off on credit card".  He claims that with the 90% buyback policy in place in most major MLMs (esp. DSA members), financial exposure is minimal.

The problem with Mr. Worre's statement is there are NO stats available from the MLMs that such policies have been utilized. Yes, DSA members do have at least a 90% buyback policy for at least six months, i.e. if you want to return all the stuff you haven''t sold within 6 months, you get 90% back. Some even go as far as a year. However, there are various caveats not discussed. 

Is there any stats available on how often such policies had been invoked? How many hoops do people have to jump through to get such returns processed? 

Nope. Nada. Zero. Zilch. Nothing. 

In fact, it's been documented in Mary Kay that any attempts to quit an return inventory would trigger an "intervention" from your upline and other people in your group (because she would be notified as any returns means her commission from your purchases will be clawed back) who will want to meet with you then shame and guilt you into staying in past the refund deadline, or to delay you in order to ensure you will get as minimal refund as possible. 

Mary Kay sales directors and recruiters are notorious for using misinformation or unethical tactics to stop consultants from returning inventory. This includes lying about the program or otherwise delaying the consultant’s return so that less product can be returned under the “last 12 months” rule. -- PinkTruth.com

It's hard to imagine the same does not happen in other MLMs as well. 

There are other tricks that can be done as well, like refresh products at less than 12 month cycles. That way when you try to return product it had already been phased out and thus cannot be returned. 

Sure there's a policy on the books, but a policy that's never used / enforced is no policy at all. 

Mr. Worre's hypothetical "white elephant" MLM only exists in his imagination. 

MLM, Religion, and Feminism: synergy, or triple threat?

I was reading this article on Vox about multilevel marketing by Kate Shellnutt when I had an epiphany: MLM's rise to prominence matches rise of feminism to mainstream, and it is connected to religion.

Consider this... What do Christianity and Islam say about women working? Their view is that women should stay home and mind the house.

All three texts—the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Qur’an—invariably stipulate women’s religious duty of submission to men. In this view, women are deemed subordinate to men, with their legitimate roles invariably exhausted inside the home.  (huffingtonpost 11/07/2014)

Consider this... Did you know that Mormons are into generosity and sharing? Did you know that Utah, home of the Mormons, is home to many of the largest MLM companies in the world? NuSkin, doTerra, USANA, and dozens / hundreds of smaller companies...In fact, five of the top 50 MLMs in the world are based in Utah.

This is no accident. According to Dr. Jon M. Taylor, a Mormon, and a former MLM participant, now MLM investigator, MLM is designed to emulate / co-opt the Mormon style of sharing / proselytizing.

When you combine all these points, the conclusion is simple: MLM is designed to

1) appeal to women who wish to earn income (and thus be less subservient to men)

2) allow women to stay home and do their more traditional homemaker roles (so men can't object to it too much, as it's "only part time")

3) appeal to women who wishes to socialize and share (which is why there's gajillion "party plan" MLMs selling everything from plastic containers to sex toys)

4) appeal to Mormon's style of "sharing" their faith and co-opt it

5) appeal to people of faith, who are more inclined to believe in something before effects can be demonstrated

Indeed, MLMs nowadays seem to be specifically designed for suburban moms who want a 2nd income, and they have faith (backed by desire, and religion) to dump all their effort, despite losses, into doing something they believe they love.

And they are out proselytising the virtues of MLM... based on these exact points.

Mythbusting: The Trump University is based on (some) bogus research

Trump University was in the news a lot, and it seems it may be the only thing that really got Trump riled up, as it's something he can't deny or denigrate... since it's his own. So instead, he denigrated everybody else... including the judge, which lead to furious denunciation by Republican leadership, who are put between the rock and the hard place of "supporting" their presumptive nominee WHILE wondering WTF happened that lead to this guy winning. The furor was so loud even Trump himself furiously backpedaled, claiming his comments were "misconstrued".

But we know EXACTLY what you mean, Mr. Trump.

In digging through some info about the Trump University, I came across its sales playbook dug up by Politico a while back. And it has some interesting information in it. Basically, they don't talk to the media, they don't let the lecturers over promise (any such incidents are reported to main office), and they will use psychological pressure to push you into buying their more expensive courses...

Including a bogus urban myth, such as "most persuasive words... from Yale University"

On page 99 of the document, you can find this:

Trump University Playbook, as posted by Politico.com, see URL on top

The important part says:

The most persuasive words in the English language according to a study by the Psychology Department of Yale University are:  You, New, Money, Easy, Discovery, Free, Results, Health, Save, Proven, Guarantee, and Love

Except there was no such study. This is an urban legend.

Bad Argument: MLM Strawman Arguments Labelled as Mythbusting

A lot of so-called MLM "coaches" write articles to drum up business and recruit downlines, and they have to deal with, what they perceive as "undue criticism" of MLM. However, what they often ended up doing is defeat strawman arguments.

Recently I came across a certain article titled "6 Biggest Myths about MLM -- A Must Read" by Nathan Sloan posted on Network Marketing HQ dot co dot uk.  (Interesting, the URL says 7, so he seem to have lost one in the edit), and it served as a prime example of how MLMers argue... broad insinuations, strawman, this guy used them all.

His myth #1: Pyramid structures are bad

Pyramid SCHEMES are bad. Pyramid structure or pyramid-shaped organizations are not necessarily bad. If a MLMer, even a noob, can't explain the difference between a pyramid structure and a pyramid SCHEME, s/he is uneducated in the MLM fundamentals and his/her upline should be ashamed.

However, instead of explaining this fundamental difference, Mr. Sloan instead pointed out that pyramid structures surrounds us. Basically, he failed to identify the real problem, and instead, went to equivocation fallacy instead. Indeed, this is a common "MLM defense" tactic, present a strawman equivocation with "safe" structures.

Verdict: strawman myth

Solution: Mr. Sloan should concentrate on differentiating pyramid SCHEME vs. pyramid organization. Pyramid scheme is fraud. Pyramid organization is just a shape.

His myth #2: MLM is a Scam

Is MLM a scam? Sloan's explanation is that pyramid schemes are illegal, MLM is not. However, instead of explaining the difference between MLM and pyramid scheme, he simply quoted an OUTDATED definition he copied from "Ultimate Guide to Network Marketing" without attribution. And yes, I have this book on my bookshelf. That's how I recognized it. It was published more than 10 years ago (2005).

For the record, MLM in its current form was created in 1979 when Amway settled with American Federal Trade Commission to institute several reforms (today known as the "Amway Safeguard Rules") in order to keep on operating. The short of it is, the difference between MLM and pyramid scheme is MLM NEVER pays on recruitment (but there are ways to disguise the payment). This is what Sloan failed to address.

However, Sloan then went on to knock down another strawman. He claimed that any one who said MLM is a scam are lying to cover up their laziness and failure. This is in clear contrast of several pyramid schemes that presented themselves as MLM that were shut down. FHTM (shut down 2013) and Vemma (shut down 2015) are just some recent examples. By ignoring a prime example where a scam MLM did operate, Sloan is guilty of lying by omission AND a strawman, not to mention victim-blaming.

Verdict: strawman fallacy, lying by omission (or ignorance), plagiarism, unsupported argument (did not explain difference between pyramid scheme and MLM)

Solution: Sloan should acknowledge that many MLMs are done fraudulently, and attempt to explain the real LEGAL differences why MLM is not a pyramid scheme. Simply quoting a definition is not defense without explaining how that applies to your defense.

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 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.