Misschien is het mijn perceptie maar ik denk dat dat komt omdat je nog niet veel MLM'ers bent tegengekomen en dat diegenen die je bent tegengekomen niet al te veel ophef maken over waar ze mee bezig zijn.
Natuurlijk is het niks om je voor te schamen maar al zou dat wel zo zijn...wie ben ik om te oordelen?
| LET OP: Dit topic is meer dan drie jaar geleden geplaatst. De informatie is mogelijk verouderd. |
[ archief ] MLM positief
Re: MLM positief
Ben je niet wat overdreven cynisch, Jor.....?Niet materialistisch? Word het verdeeld onder de armen? De linker en rechter wel te verstaan.
(Je hebt tenminste een lekker korte naam..., net zoiets als "Jan" of "SBI"....)
Je weet denk ik wel wat Mr. T. bedoelt, toch??
SBI
Re: MLM positief
Heb even me aangenaam verpoosd met wat "gezond verstand" literatuur......
Nou..., vooruit...., even om te "pesten" dan....:
For example, I made the claim, imbedded within a much larger more poignant issue, that a high failure rate among participants does not inherently make a profession dishonest, and that the majority of people who attempt to be successful doctors, lawyers, actors, politicians, or baseball players also fail, yet no one claims these occupations are scams.
Rather than address the main issue being debated, she responded with her favorite comeback: “Unsubstantiated anecdotal claims. Where’s your evidence?” Countless times Ruth has used this clever “Prove it” response to avoid having to provide a response. Even in cases like this, when asking someone to show evidence that most who attempt to become pro baseball players fail at it makes her look astoundingly foolish and desperate.
And what do you suppose she did after I went through the tedious, time wasting process of digging up the data to prove my claim about doctors and lawyers?
That’s right – she completely ignored my response and dropped the point.
To appreciate the silliness of Ruth’s penchant for requiring proof, here are some other statements she demanded “verifiable evidence” of: “You get out of it what you put into it” (how would one even begin to “verify” this?); “so many people (on the Survivor message board) complain and moan” (she demanded a total count of people involved, and the number who were complaining); and “There are goods and bads in any business” (she actually asked for “facts” to back up that claim!).
One pro-MLM poster claimed he made over $100,000 last year at age 30, and Ruth responded by demanding to see his tax return and a copy of his birth certificate! According to the forum’s co-dictator “PW,” only “documentation can serve as evidence.” Yet, when it comes to virtually all of their anti-MLM data, personal testimony and hear-say are entirely acceptable. But then, he openly admits, without the slightest reservation; “There is a double standard with regard to pro-MLMers… argumentation in favor of MLM are not permitted here.”
Every positive portrayal of MLM is arrogantly assumed to be a “trolling” attempt to gather prospects……..
These are the kinds of silly games one plays when dealing with MLM “survivors.” They never admit they’re wrong, no matter how obviously they’ve been busted, and their attempts to avoid appearing so often times becomes ridiculous.
For an industry that’s been around for over half-a-century, composed of over 2,000 companies and with well over ten million participants in the United States alone, you would think there would be more.
Especially considering how many “victims” have been so ruthlessly abused by us, at least according to the Anti-MLM Zealots.
But the fact is, there are really only four.
Robert FitzPatrick, Ruth Carter, and Jon Taylor have all written books on the subject, and I’ve included Dean Van Druff in this list only because, thanks to the internet, the one little anti-MLM article he wrote fifteen years ago has probably been read by more people than the other three subjects combined.
There arguments against MLM, although sometimes well dressed, stand up poorly to scrutiny, and virtually across the board are focused on the same two or three companies (the easiest targets).
Readers of this column have asked why various other anti-MLM types have not been mentioned in this series.
First, the four I have featured have, to varying degrees, caused some damage to the standing and credibility of this form of business. The others I’m asked about have not.
They are little known outside of MLM circles – and I’d like to keep it that way. No sense giving them more attention than they are already not getting.
Not that their case is any stronger. In fact, that’s the better reason why I’ve ignored them – for the most part they just parrot Fitzpatrick, Carter, Taylor and Van Druff. It’s always the same, tired, arguments, over and over.
Is it fair to blame the high failure rate on the MLM concept or model?
Well, what if ten people were given free memberships to a gym which even included a personal trainer?
--Five went once or twice, saw no immediate results and quit.
--Two went several times but never followed the advice of their trainer and used all the equipment wrong, then quit.
--Two others never even showed up once.
--Only one went on a regular basis, followed the prescribed work out regimen, and after a year gained the body and vitality they desired.
Then an anti-gym zealot comes along (also 4??? Econometrist..., Maarschalk..., mlmangel... en Waltertje?? Jij bent "te klein, Joopje!
) and claims that 90% of all those that signed up for the gym membership and trainer failed to receive any significant benefits.
Although technically true, its not the whole story. Anti-MLM zealots are not telling the whole story.
(A classic example of this is the "Payout Distribution Study" attempted by Jon Taylor. When he requested payout data from 60 MLM companies he required "even those who only bought a starter kit whether or not they have done anything with it... be included in these statistics, including those who have not sold anything or quit, even after one day.")
My point is, why would Taylor want to include those who didn’t go to the gym in a study about the benefits of going to the gym?
Eat your heart out..., boys...
(Heb je goed op gelet.., Waltertje??
for the most part they just parrot Fitzpatrick, Carter, Taylor and Van Druff. It’s always the same, tired, arguments, over and over)
Fijne avond verder..., So be it (gevonden op prikpaginaforum
www.marketwaveinc.com/articles/zealots01.asp )
Nou..., vooruit...., even om te "pesten" dan....:
For example, I made the claim, imbedded within a much larger more poignant issue, that a high failure rate among participants does not inherently make a profession dishonest, and that the majority of people who attempt to be successful doctors, lawyers, actors, politicians, or baseball players also fail, yet no one claims these occupations are scams.
Rather than address the main issue being debated, she responded with her favorite comeback: “Unsubstantiated anecdotal claims. Where’s your evidence?” Countless times Ruth has used this clever “Prove it” response to avoid having to provide a response. Even in cases like this, when asking someone to show evidence that most who attempt to become pro baseball players fail at it makes her look astoundingly foolish and desperate.
And what do you suppose she did after I went through the tedious, time wasting process of digging up the data to prove my claim about doctors and lawyers?
That’s right – she completely ignored my response and dropped the point.
To appreciate the silliness of Ruth’s penchant for requiring proof, here are some other statements she demanded “verifiable evidence” of: “You get out of it what you put into it” (how would one even begin to “verify” this?); “so many people (on the Survivor message board) complain and moan” (she demanded a total count of people involved, and the number who were complaining); and “There are goods and bads in any business” (she actually asked for “facts” to back up that claim!).
One pro-MLM poster claimed he made over $100,000 last year at age 30, and Ruth responded by demanding to see his tax return and a copy of his birth certificate! According to the forum’s co-dictator “PW,” only “documentation can serve as evidence.” Yet, when it comes to virtually all of their anti-MLM data, personal testimony and hear-say are entirely acceptable. But then, he openly admits, without the slightest reservation; “There is a double standard with regard to pro-MLMers… argumentation in favor of MLM are not permitted here.”
Every positive portrayal of MLM is arrogantly assumed to be a “trolling” attempt to gather prospects……..
These are the kinds of silly games one plays when dealing with MLM “survivors.” They never admit they’re wrong, no matter how obviously they’ve been busted, and their attempts to avoid appearing so often times becomes ridiculous.
Anti-MLM Zealots are rare.Noot van SBI.
Herkenbaar voor het “Higherlevel” forum, wat wordt gerund door Nils de Witte. Gerelateerd aan Zibb.nl
Men wordt letterlijk verzocht om kritische commentaren te geven op mlm…, maar positieve posting worden verwijderd!!
For an industry that’s been around for over half-a-century, composed of over 2,000 companies and with well over ten million participants in the United States alone, you would think there would be more.
Especially considering how many “victims” have been so ruthlessly abused by us, at least according to the Anti-MLM Zealots.
But the fact is, there are really only four.
Robert FitzPatrick, Ruth Carter, and Jon Taylor have all written books on the subject, and I’ve included Dean Van Druff in this list only because, thanks to the internet, the one little anti-MLM article he wrote fifteen years ago has probably been read by more people than the other three subjects combined.
There arguments against MLM, although sometimes well dressed, stand up poorly to scrutiny, and virtually across the board are focused on the same two or three companies (the easiest targets).
Readers of this column have asked why various other anti-MLM types have not been mentioned in this series.
First, the four I have featured have, to varying degrees, caused some damage to the standing and credibility of this form of business. The others I’m asked about have not.
They are little known outside of MLM circles – and I’d like to keep it that way. No sense giving them more attention than they are already not getting.
Not that their case is any stronger. In fact, that’s the better reason why I’ve ignored them – for the most part they just parrot Fitzpatrick, Carter, Taylor and Van Druff. It’s always the same, tired, arguments, over and over.
Is it fair to blame the high failure rate on the MLM concept or model?
Well, what if ten people were given free memberships to a gym which even included a personal trainer?
--Five went once or twice, saw no immediate results and quit.
--Two went several times but never followed the advice of their trainer and used all the equipment wrong, then quit.
--Two others never even showed up once.
--Only one went on a regular basis, followed the prescribed work out regimen, and after a year gained the body and vitality they desired.
Then an anti-gym zealot comes along (also 4??? Econometrist..., Maarschalk..., mlmangel... en Waltertje?? Jij bent "te klein, Joopje!
) and claims that 90% of all those that signed up for the gym membership and trainer failed to receive any significant benefits. Although technically true, its not the whole story. Anti-MLM zealots are not telling the whole story.
(A classic example of this is the "Payout Distribution Study" attempted by Jon Taylor. When he requested payout data from 60 MLM companies he required "even those who only bought a starter kit whether or not they have done anything with it... be included in these statistics, including those who have not sold anything or quit, even after one day.")
My point is, why would Taylor want to include those who didn’t go to the gym in a study about the benefits of going to the gym?
Eat your heart out..., boys...
(Heb je goed op gelet.., Waltertje??
for the most part they just parrot Fitzpatrick, Carter, Taylor and Van Druff. It’s always the same, tired, arguments, over and over)
Fijne avond verder..., So be it (gevonden op prikpaginaforum
www.marketwaveinc.com/articles/zealots01.asp )
Re: MLM positief
Wanneer komt nu eens de erkenning van mensen zoals E en M dat mlm een "business", een bedrijf, kan zijn???
Nine Businesses You Can Start For Under $5,000
http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/200 ... slide.html
Sales For Direct-Retail Companies
Direct selling is serious business ($30 billion in the U.S.), and the country's 14 million independent agents can make good money. Big names that will pay you to go door-to-door (but not for your gas) include health care companies like Mary Kay, Avon and Amway; house-wares companies like Home Interiors & Gifts and Carico; and financial services companies like Primerica Financial Services. A Primerica representative needs $199 to get started, while it only costs $10 to sign up as an Avon representative, though you'll have to pay for catalogs and product samples. At Mary Kay, a starter kit costs about $100, plus shipping and tax, and includes product samples, brochures, catalog and trays and mirrors. Consultants bag 50% of every sale.
Van dezelfde site waar de scammer mee kwam....
So be it
Nine Businesses You Can Start For Under $5,000
http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/200 ... slide.html
Sales For Direct-Retail Companies
Direct selling is serious business ($30 billion in the U.S.), and the country's 14 million independent agents can make good money. Big names that will pay you to go door-to-door (but not for your gas) include health care companies like Mary Kay, Avon and Amway; house-wares companies like Home Interiors & Gifts and Carico; and financial services companies like Primerica Financial Services. A Primerica representative needs $199 to get started, while it only costs $10 to sign up as an Avon representative, though you'll have to pay for catalogs and product samples. At Mary Kay, a starter kit costs about $100, plus shipping and tax, and includes product samples, brochures, catalog and trays and mirrors. Consultants bag 50% of every sale.
Van dezelfde site waar de scammer mee kwam....
So be it
-
Econometrist
- Berichten: 809
- Lid geworden op: 09 jan 2005 04:03
Re: MLM positief
Nou wat let je? Huphup, aan het werk!! Het staat in Forbes, dus het zal wel, want daar zijn ze niet gek. Toch?Wanneer komt nu eens de erkenning van mensen zoals E en M dat mlm een "business", een bedrijf, kan zijn???
Eén ding begrijpen ze wel heel goed, het soort werk dat het is waar je het mee verdient; van deur tot deur hobbelen met je zeepjes (not for your gas). Zo hoor je het ook nog eens van een gezaghebbende instantie. Wat er onder 'good money' wordt verstaan ligt uiteraard aan hoe een goede verkoper je bent. En juist daar ligt bij al die wannabees het probleem. Als ze over verkoopvaardigheden beschikken, dan waren ze al wel verkoper geweest. Maar als je er 15 uur per dag instopt is er ook voor de lutsers die op dit manke paard wedden wel een mooie 100 euro per dag te verdienen. Veel plezier!!!
En je kan het beginnen voor onder de $5000. Blij met deze erkenning?
Re: MLM positief
Dacht wel dat je weer zou uitwijken..., lafaard....
Wél een "business" of niet??
Jouw gebluf tegen de uitspraken van mensen van betekenis....?
Makkelijke keuze...
SBI
Wél een "business" of niet??
Jouw gebluf tegen de uitspraken van mensen van betekenis....?
Makkelijke keuze...
SBI
-
mrtelecom
Re: MLM positief
E heeft nog steeds niet door dat je geen goede verkoper hoeft te zijn, enkel iemand die gewoon dood ordinair mond-tot-mond reklame maakt maar daar voor de verandering voor betaald wordt, dus Jan, tot ie dat door heeft kun je wachten op die erkenning. Dat krijg je met die zogenaamde experts.
Re: MLM positief
Dat is waar, Kees....
SBI
SBI
Re: MLM positief
daar kan ik me niet in vinden Piet, Als je op die manier te werk gaat is het kringetje al vlug veel te klein. Er zal echt iets van een verkoper in je moeten zitten om succesvol te zijn in mlm. Let op, In de meeste mensen zit dat wel alleen bij sommige werkt het niet.Geplaatst op 04 Okt 2007 08:19 door mrtelecom
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E heeft nog steeds niet door dat je geen goede verkoper hoeft te zijn, enkel iemand die gewoon dood ordinair mond-tot-mond reklame maakt
Jor.
ps. Persoonlijk gaat het me niet slecht af.
Re: MLM positief
Luister nou eens Truus.....,
Wat is nou makkelijker, wanneer je wat LEF hebt tenminste, dan om te vragen:
"Zou je dit eens willen uittesten voor me Mien????
Ik ben benieuwd wat je er van vindt??"
Zijn we soms aan het proberen om 100 klanten te realiseren dan??
Heb JIJ daar tijd voor?? IK niet........
So be it
Wat is nou makkelijker, wanneer je wat LEF hebt tenminste, dan om te vragen:
"Zou je dit eens willen uittesten voor me Mien????
Ik ben benieuwd wat je er van vindt??"
Zijn we soms aan het proberen om 100 klanten te realiseren dan??
Heb JIJ daar tijd voor?? IK niet........
So be it
Re: MLM positief
En nu heb jij het over "een kringetje"....., maar dáár komt juist het "lef" bij kijken...
En ik HÉB mensen zien opbloeien wanneer ze buiten hun "comfortabele zone" durven te stappen!!!
SBI
En ik HÉB mensen zien opbloeien wanneer ze buiten hun "comfortabele zone" durven te stappen!!!
SBI
Re: MLM positief
En Dat is dus precies mijn punt. Dus zal je moeten proberen om het verkoperstalent in jezelf aan te boren.En ik HÉB mensen zien opbloeien wanneer ze buiten hun "comfortabele zone" durven te stappen!!!
SBI
Re: MLM positief
OK.
Ik dacht dat je bedoelde dat niet iedereen het kon "leren".... (De uitz dáár gelaten!)
SBI
Ik dacht dat je bedoelde dat niet iedereen het kon "leren".... (De uitz dáár gelaten!)
SBI
Re: MLM positief
Ik zette het misschien iets onduidelijk neer maar dat was/is mijn punt. Gewoon de schroom opzij en ervoor gaan. Kom je er vanzelf achter welke goede verkoper in je schuilt.
Jor.
Jor.
Re: MLM positief
En wanneer we accepteren dat een redelijke hoeveelheid mensen er op een gegeven moment niet voor open staan..... is er niks aan de hand.
De grootste handicap die ikzelf vroeger had, was dat ik mij persóónlijk afgewezen voelde.
(Zoiets als E zich nu voelt.
)
SBI
De grootste handicap die ikzelf vroeger had, was dat ik mij persóónlijk afgewezen voelde.
(Zoiets als E zich nu voelt.
)SBI
-
mrtelecom
Re: MLM positief
En daarom is mlm juist zo effectief. iedereen heeft zijn eigen kringetje en als je al die kringetje samenvoegt kun je een heel groot klantenbestand opbouwen ZONDER te verkopen.
Pas als je dat begrijpt kunnen we verder praten. Ooit gehoord van "six degrees of seperation"? Heeft op zich niks met MLM te maken maar is wel heel erg van toepassing.
Pas als je dat begrijpt kunnen we verder praten. Ooit gehoord van "six degrees of seperation"? Heeft op zich niks met MLM te maken maar is wel heel erg van toepassing.
-
Walter van V
- Berichten: 1995
- Lid geworden op: 31 jul 2006 09:38
Re: MLM positief
leg mij dan eens de zin daarvan uit....ZONDER te verkopen.
Ik heb nu mijn kringetje namelijk al, daadwerkelijk zonder te verkopen, maar laat ik daar nu ook helemaal geen behoefte aan hebben daar mijn familie en vrienden en huidige klanten mee lastig te gaan vallen..
Fijn, dus eigenlijk ben ik al mlm-er!! ik heb mijn kringetje,..zonder te verkopen!!
let wel, volgens die aloude al lang bekende regle van six degrees etc is per saldo iederaan al mlm-er, of ie nu wil of niet.. tenminste, zoals mr telecom ertegenaan kijkt en dit gebruikt in de redenatie.
Re: MLM positief
Later..., als je groot bent, Waltertje..., krijg je óók behoeftes!! Stil maar.....laat ik daar nu ook helemaal geen behoefte aan hebben
En begrijpen kun je het toch niet, knul....
Later..., als je groot bent, zie je óók het verschil tussen een "verkoper" en iemand die af en toe wat verkoopt...! OK?
So be it
Re: MLM positief
Huidige klanten???en huidige klanten!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jij BENT een "verkoper".....!:evil:
Iemand die mensen er in naait...., zonder een goede garantie!!!
Jij scamed de mensen er in om "klant" bij jou te worden...., met het enige doel om ze geld uit hun zak te kloppen, toch..., Walter??
Of is dat niet zo???
KUN JE DAT OOK BEWIJZEN, JONGEN?????
So be it
(No hard feelings, hè?
)