Bloomberg Business Week has today published an article about the direct selling industry that appears to be little more than a propaganda piece straight from the pen of MLM critic Robert FitzPatrick. It astounds me that supposed journalists do so little research on these self-declared “experts” and even less on the claims they’re making. So I’m going to do their job for them and write a series of articles on some well known MLM (and Amway) critics, who they are, and how their claims stand up to the facts. My current list -
General MLM Critics
Robert FitzPatrick (Pyramid Scheme Alert)
Jon M. Taylor (Consumer Awareness Institute)
Dr Stephen Barrett (MLMWatch)
Bob Carroll (The Skeptics Dictionary)
Rick Ross (The Ross Institute)
Tracy Coenen (Sequence Inc)
Steven Hassan (Freedom of Mind Institute)
Dean Van Druff (What’s wrong with multi-level marketing?)
Peter Bowditch (ratbags)
More Amway-specific Critics
Russell Glasser (The Perils of Amway)
Scott Larsen (Amquix)
Steve Nakamura (JoeCool, various blogs)
David Touretzky ( Amway/Alticor/Quixtar Sucks!)
David Brear (various blogs)
Shyam Sundar (Corporate Frauds Watch, India)
If there’s others you’d like me to address, please drop me a note in the comments below!
New post on Steve Nakamura aka JoeCool – Who is Amway critic Joecool? And does he owe me $50000?
When you read stuff on the internet, it’s difficult to know what’s true and what’s not – generally all one can do is assess an authors credibility by what they say and how accurate it is. Everyone makes mistakes occasionally, but if people are making major errors of fact in their posts … well, it damages their credibility. If those errors are about what their entire post and/or blog is about, it damages the credibility of everything they post. Amway critics regularly try to damage the credibility of this site by attacking me (with often wildly inaccurate claims) rather than what I say and the information I present. It doesn’t matter, this site isn’t about me, I don’t care what you think about me - judge the credibility of what I write. Is it generally accurate? Do I backed it up by sources when I can? Judge what I write, not me. When someone resorts to ad hominem what it really does is reveal how little logical and factual basis the attacker has to try to discredit the other person – if you can’t attack the argument, attack the person. Continue reading
Well known anti-Amway zealot Scott Larsen has finally posted his comments on the BERR vs Amway UK Judgement. What’s interesting is that he says -
I find it curious that despite the “positive” judgment, I cannot find a full copy of it on the Amway Blog and other pro-Amway sites..
Apparently neither AmwayWiki , where the judgement was posted last Friday, nor this site, the Truth About Amway, where there have been at least 18 pages of commentary (note: on old forums, since removed) since the judgement was handed down, including links to the AmwayWiki copy, nor Chuck’s Speaking of Amway blog, where he also highlighted the AmwayWiki post, are considered “pro-Amway”.
While I do attempt to keep a reasonable balance on this site, I am a little concerned I apparently don’t rate as even a little pro-Amway ….
Post a comment below or Discuss this post on Amway Talk
As you probably know, Amway , Britt WorldWide , and Network 21 are currently involved in a dispute with the Department of Trade and Industry in the United Kingdom (see other posts on the situation here)
In order to gain more understanding of the issues, I’ve been studying the United Kingdom law about what they give the unfortunate name of “pyramid selling”. The relevant legislation is Statutory Instrument 1997 No. 3. Now, like most legislation, it’s not written in such a way as to make it easy for untrained folk to understand, however a “plain english” warning that is included in the legislation is quite straightforward. You’ll find this warning on the Amway Europe and Amway UK & Ireland websites as well as Amway literature and the literature and websites of virtually every MLM company with operations in the UK. It says -
1. It is illegal for a promoter or a participant in a trading scheme to persuade anyone to make a payment by promising benefits from getting others to join a scheme. Continue reading
Is it dishonesty or just ignorance? If you search around the posts of critics of Amway and Quixtar on the internet, something you’ll see regularly is reference to something like “The 70% Retail Sales Rule”.
Here for example, on Pyramid Scheme Alert, the claim is made -
A 70% retail requirement level has been applied in various agreements between state Attorneys General offices and multi-level marketing companies charged with violating pyramid scheme statutes.
At least 70% of product must be sold at retail to consumers who are not also Amway distributors.